lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122

Contents lists avai

Journal of Human Evolution

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

Stratigraphic context and direct dating of the Neandertal mandible from Cova delGegant (Sitges, Barcelona)

J. Daura a,b,*, M. Sanz a, A.W.G. Pike b, M.E. Subirà c, J.J. Fornós d, J.M. Fullola a, R. Julià e, J. Zilhão b

aG.R.Q. Grup de Recerca del Quaternari, SERP, Dept. Prehistòria, H. Antiga i Arqueologia, Facultat de Geografia i Història. Universitat de Barcelona, C/Montalegre, 6.08001 Barcelona,SpainbUniversity of Bristol, Dept of Archaeology and Anthropology, 43 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UU, UKcUnitat d‘Antropologia Biològica, Departament de Biologia Animal, de Biologia Vegetal i d‘Ecologia, Edifici C. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola delVallès) Barcelona, SpaindDepartament de Ciències de la Terra, Universitat de les Illes Balears. Ctra. Valldemossa km 7.5, 07122 Illes Balears, Spaine Institut Ciències de la Terra “Jaume Almera, CSIC, C/Lluís Solé Sabarís s/n, Barcelona 08028, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 December 2009Accepted 22 April 2010

Keywords:Upper PleistoceneSpainIberian peninsulaOSLU-series

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: grupquaternari@hotmail.com (J. D

0047-2484/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.04.009

a b s t r a c t

Stratigraphic study of the Cova del Gegant’s sedimentary fill revealed different cycles of accumulation oftypical interior cave and delta facies. A precise chronology for these deposits, the faunal remains andstone tools contained therein was obtained by radiocarbon, UeTh and OSL. Our results indicate that theUpper Pleistocene archaeological sequence dates between 49.3 � 1.8 ka BP, the UeTh age of the overlyingflowstone, and 60.0 � 3.9 ka BP, the OSL age of the basal deposits. We have also directly dated the site’sNeandertal mandible to 52.3 � 2.3 ka by UeTh.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The Cova del Gegant (1� 460 27.3300 Ee41� 130 24.7500N) is locatednear the town of Sitges, some 40 km south of Barcelona, in theGarraf Massif of Catalonia, a low-relief mountain chain (<600 m)composed of Jurassic and Cretaceous limestone and dolomite(Fig. 1). This massif features one of the most important karsticsystems of northeast Iberia. With an area of w500 km2 (Solé, 1964;Salas, 1987), it contains several cavities with Pleistocene fills, suchas Cova del Rinoceront (Daura et al., 2005b), Cova del Coll Verda-guer and Dolines de les Alzines (Daura, 2008). The Cova del Gegantlies on the seaward edge of this massif at Punta de les Coves,<500 m from the Riera de Ribes delta. Fossilized bones (Virella,1949) and a fossil beach (Marcet, 1932) were reported from thislocality in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the site was firstexcavated in 1952 by amateurs from the Agrupació Muntanyencade Sitges (AMUNT), supervised by the palaeontologist SantiagoCasanova i Giner (Casanova, 2004e2005; Daura, 2008). Subsequent

aura).

All rights reserved.

work in various parts of the cave (Viñas, 1972; Viñas and Villalta,1975) resulted in sedimentological (Masriera, 1975), technological(Mir,1975) and palaeontological (Viñas and Villalta,1975) studies ofthe site and finds. In 1985 and 1989, an archaeological rescueoperation excavated material threatened by marine erosion(Martínez et al., 1985a,b, 1990; Mora, 1988; Martínez, 1990;Santafé-Llopis and Casanovas-Cladellas, 1993).

In 2001, a human mandible was identified in the faunalcollection from the 1952 excavations. The morphology of themandible (absence of a bony chin, posterior placement of theanatomical structures of the lateral corpus, low position of themental foramen in the lower half of the mandibular corpus), andassociations with Mousterian stone tools and a Pleistocene faunasupported a Neandertal diagnosis for this specimen (Daura et al.,2005a). A date at the end of MIS-5 or the beginning of MIS-4(60e90 ka BP) was recently suggested for this context on thebasis of the micromammal assemblage (López-García, 2008;López-García et al., 2008; Cuenca-Bescós et al., 2010). Here, wereport the results of the sedimentological and archaeologicalinvestigation of the site, initiated in 2007 by the Grup de Recercadel Quaternari to secure a better chronology for the Neandertalmandible; one of the few Pleistocene human remains fromnortheastern Iberia.

Figure 1. Location of the Cova del Gegant (Sitges, Barcelona, Spain) with regional geology.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122110

The site is currently accessible both from the water and fromabove, through a natural vertical shaft. It consists of a principalchamber (GP) and two galleries that branch off from its right side;one more interiorly (GL2) and the other closer to the sea (GL1).Towards the rear of the site, a small conduit (GL-T) leads to theadjacent Cova Llarga (Fig. 2).

Materials and methods

Prior to stratigraphic description and sample collection, allextant deposits were cleaned of fungi growth (favoured by the highenvironmental humidity), bird guano, and modern materialsintroduced during periods of strong sea swells, and then preparedfor sampling and sedimentological description. Because of theascending topography of the network, sediment preservationimproves as onemoves away from the entrance, sowe have focusedour work on the cave’s interior deposits. A series of 34 manualsediment samples were obtained, mostly from GP (28 samples),

with some from GL1 (one sample) and GL2 (one sample). Forcomparison, we also analysed samples from the Riera de Ribes deltaflow (four samples).

The samples and cores obtained were bagged, sealed,numbered, and brought back to the Earth Sciences Department ofthe Universitat de les Illes Balears, where they were opened,sectioned lengthwise, photographed and sampled at differentintervals in stratigraphic order and according to the different layersobserved. The presence of sedimentary structures, such as lami-nations, and other general observations were noted.

After air-drying for 24 hours, a total of 34 samples were colour-described (dry and humid) using the MUNSELL� soil colour chartand then analysed for grain size, mineralogy and organic matter.Organic matter lost-on-ignition (LOI) was weighed after placing thesamples in a furnace at 550 �C for three hours. The particle sizedistributionwas determined using a Beckman Coulter-LS� particlesize analyser. Cumulative curves, frequency histograms andsummary statistics were calculated.

Figure 2. Site plan of Cova del Gegant with indication of the different segments and sections analysed.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 111

Mineralogy was determined with a Siemens� D-5000 X-raydiffractometer, using randomly oriented powder from the bulksamples. Samples were pre-treated with H2O2 to remove organicmatter. Replicates were heated to between 375 and 600 �C for onehour or treated with ethylene glycol at 60 �C to differentiatebetween clay minerals. Selected samples were analysed by EDX(Bruker� X-Falsh Detector 4020) or observed by SEM (Hitachi� S-3400N). Semi-quantitative mineral analyses were based on thepeak areas obtained using EVA� version 7.0 software.

Speleothem dating was carried out by the U-Series disequilib-riummethod (Ivanovich and Harmon,1992) at the Institute of EarthSciences “Jaume Almera (Barcelona).” In cave environments, theuranium coprecipitates at the time of calcite deposition andgenerally behaves as a closed system. Nominal dates are calculateddirectly from the daughter/parent ratio 230Th/234U, assuming thatall of the measured 230Th was formed by in situ decay from the 234Uand 238U originally present. Additional 230Th could have beensupplied by clays mixed with 232Th, which is not part of the

Table 1Summary stratigraphic correlation.

Episodes Levels per area of the cave

D-S1 X-W1 X-W2

7 Ongoing marine erosion6 Iaef Iaef e

5 e e X, VII4 Ic2 Ic2 I (?), VI3b II II IX (?)3a III III IX(?)2 IV(?) IV VIII1 V Va Vb

0 e e e

Uncorrelated e e e

238Ue234U decay series. Thus, the 230Th/232Th activity ratio is anindicator of the degree of contamination.

The procedure used for chemical separation is based on thatdeveloped by Bischoff and Fitzpatrick (1991): the samplewas totallydissolved in strong mineral acids and an artificial radioisotope withknown activity is incorporated to determine the efficiency of theisotope separation. The U and Th isotopes were isolated by ion-exchange chromatography and then analysed in an alpha spec-trometer from Ortec with a silica barrier detector. The programUDATE from Rosenbauer (1991) was used for age calculation.

After a failed attempt with radiocarbon, the Neandertalmandible, which consists of three toothless fragments that fittogether, was directly dated at the University of Bristol by U-series.A small sample was extracted from the inferior side, where the cutis not detrimental to the morphology of the piece and bone thick-ness is that required for isotopic analysis.

Fossil bone is a less desirable material for U-series dating thanspeleothems because living bone contains no uranium and fossil

GP breccias Point Y GL1-Y Z-GL2

e e e e

X e e XIe e e e

e e e IIbe XVII (?) XVa XIIae XVII (?) XVb XIIbV XVIII (?) e Vb/b2, Vb3,

Vc2, Vc3, Vd/ee e XVI e

e BPII e XIII

Table 2Sediment descriptions and stratigraphy of Cova del Gegant.

Episode Units Description

6 Iaef Clay and rounded cobbles. It consists of a slope made from a mixture of clayey brown sediment (7.5YR 5/4) and cobbles of different sizes (between12 cm and 5 cm), probably brought to the cave by marine dynamics.In the D-S1 segment: rather thick layer located at an elevation of 15 cme1m below the site datum; it is the uppermost layer in the S1 test pit, whereits thicker part is clearly towards the sea; it is well separated from the underlying layer II.In X-W1 segment: a few centimetres to 1m thick in the area nearest to the lateral section of the S1 test pit; its concave base (Fig. 3) is clearly visible inthis section showing that it accumulated on top of an erosive scar; interiorly, this layer is found at a depth below datum of 57 cme77 cm, while in themost external parts of this segment it lies at 77 cme97 cm below datum.In X-W2 segment: nearly non-existent, with the exception of certain areas located in metres 10e11 along the lengthwise axis; as elsewhere in thecave, it consists of brown lutites and cobbles but, here, it also contains some layers of fine sediment preserved under a stalagmite.

5 X Medium quartz sands. Located in the X-W2 and Cemented Breccias segments at 180e250 cm below datum, it consists of yellow and pale brown(10YR 6/3) medium sands, well cemented and without apparent structure, sloping steeply at 40� towards the SE (130�). Some 1e3 cm pebblesappear between the medium sands. Shell (Donax trunculus) remains were retrieved alongside Iron Age potsherds.

XI Fine and coarse sands. In Section Z-S2, this layer consists of quartz sands and is probably the same as layers X and VII of segment X-W2. Grain sizedifferences allow discrimination of sublayers. From top to bottom, these are: XIa, superficial fine sands; XIb, sands with pebbles (2e3 cm); XIc, coarsesands; XId, coarse sands; XIe, coarse black sands; XIf, fine sands; XIg, coarse sands.

VII Sands and rounded pebbles. Medium to coarse siliclastic sands and rounded pebbles sloping 20� SE (140�) in segment X-W2, corresponding to theinnermost exposure of the ancient beach in the cave. The preserved remnants are cemented and two sublayers can clearly be identified: VIIa, lightgrey (10YR 7/1) rounded pebbles (2e3 cm), at a depth of 152 cm to 170 cm below datum; VIIb, light grey (7.5YR 7/1) coarse sand without pebbles at170 cme180 cm below datum.

4 Ic2 Clay and rounded cobbles. Slope deposit in segment X-W1, made up of a clayey brown sediment (7.5YR 5/4) with mixed-in 5e12 cm cobbles.VI Lutites with cobbles. Located in subsegment X-W2, it is similar to layer I in composition and colour (10YR 6/4), and also has certain similarities to

layers IIIb/IV, but, as it is overlain by layer VII, accumulated before the marine transgression responsible for the latter.3b II Clay with flowstone. Mostly lutitic brown (7.5YR 5/4) sediments with a near absence of coarse fraction and hosting some horizontal carbonate

flowstone.In segment D-S1: directly underlies layer I and contains shells, bioclasts and foraminifera in the >1 mm grain size fraction.In segment X-W1: ca.50 cm-thick and located at 67e107 cm below datum, it consists mostly of fine material (lutites), with a nearly non-existentcoarse fraction; flowstone material is present from top to bottom, horizontal interiorly part, slightly sloping exteriorly; none of these flowstones arearranged vertically or show recent fractures, indicating that the lowermost ones are undisturbed.In Section Z-S2: it is found at a depth of 10 cm below datum, but then slopes steeply towards the inner part of the gallery, where it lies at 140 cmbelow datum and is named IIb, corresponding to an accumulation of fine fraction material (lutites), horizontal flowstones and sediment concretions;the external part, IIa, consists of a silty matrix sediment with an abundant coarse fraction, such as boulders and subangular pebbles and also containsthin, horizontal non-crystalline carbonated crusts.

IX Lutites, pebbles and angular boulders. Overlies layer VIII in segment X-W2 at 0e120 cm below datum. Heavily cemented, it consists of angularpebbles in a lutitic matrix of the same colour (7.5YR 7/4) as layer II, but barren in fauna. Accumulation within Episode 3a instead of 3b cannot beexcluded.

3a XVa Lutites and angular pebbles. This layer is located in section Y-GL1, near this lateral gallery’s roof, under a stalagmitic flowstone that seals this part ofthe site. Found at 90e110 cm below datum, it consists of angular pebbles in a lutitic matrix, highly cemented and with faunal remains.

2 IIIa Reddish lutites with fauna and charcoal. Found in segment X-W1 under layer II in the interior part of the section. It consists essentially of reddishlutites with faunal remains and charcoal. It is probably the same as layer IIIa of the S1 test pit. It is 10e20 cm thick and is found at a depth of100e120 cm below datum. In the interior part of the section, it displays horizontal bands of paler sediment caused by a process of carbonation not asstrong as the cementation that led to the formation of the layer II flowstones. It disappears towards the south, partly because the gallery’smorphology did not allow retention of sediments, but a reddish remnant with flowstones can be seen again 20 cm away; it probably is layer IIIa aswell, although directly overlying layer IV in this area. These flowstones are horizontal, indicating that this part of the cave fill has not been disturbed.

IIIb Reddish lutites. Found in segment X-W2, further south and 8m away from the axis of GP, where the bulging cave wall creates a discontinuity beyondwhich layer IIIb underlies layer II. It also consists of light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) lutites, but contains more horizontal flowstone.

IV Reddish lutites without gravel. Located in segment X-W1 and rather thin (ca.10 cm), it is found between metres 8 and 10 of the gallery axis. Itprincipally consists of reddish lutites (7.5YR 4/4) and contains faunal remains.

VIII Lutites, pebbles and angular boulders. Located in segment X-W2, at 120e165 cm below datum, this layer, formed of a heavily cemented lutitic, pink(7.5YR 7/4) matrix with angular pebbles and cobbles (20e30% of the total sediment), is part of the unexcavated archaeological deposits that herestand above the ancient beach and layer V. The relation between this unit and layers III-IV from the rear of the cave is unknown.

XIIa/b Lutites with pebbles and angular boulders. Located in segment Z-S2, where it overlies layers Vb and, probably, X as well, layer XII consists of reddishyellow (7.5YR 6/6) lutites with pebbles and angular boulders in the external area of GL2, where it is designated as XIIa. Interiorly, it contains faunalremains, and changes in colour and a decrease on the amount of detrital material led to its designation as XIIb; it possibly relates to layer VIII of GP.

XVb Lutites with few angular pebbles. Located in segment Y-GL1, this is a small unexcavated deposit with the same characteristics as layer XVa, but withless pebbles and located at a lower elevation (165 cm below datum). It is similar in colour to layer VIII and it is probable the same as layersXIIa of GL2 and VIII of GP, but there is no continuity between them.

XVIIa/b Lutites with boulders and angular pebbles. Part of the breccia at Point Y, it consists of well cemented lutites with pebbles and dark angular caveboulders. It is darker than GL1 and similar to but paler than layer V of GP. It contains fauna and coprolites. Subunits XVIIa and XVIIb are separated bya discontinuity.

1 V Brown and black lutites with fauna, coprolites and charcoal. Found in segments X-W1, X-W2 and Z-S2, this layer consists of dark brown to black(7.5YR 3/2 and 5YR 2.5/1) lutites with faunal remains and a considerable amount of coprolites. It probably corresponds to unit I of Viñas (1972) andunit XIII of Mora (1988). With variations in hue (from pale to dark brown) and texture, defining subunits VaeVd, it is present elsewhere in the cave.In section Z-S2, a remnant of external deposits from layers Vb and Vc has been subdivided into subunits Vb2, Vb3, Vc2, Vc3.Va. It is the basal deposit of segment X-W1. Closer to the W wall, the layer is at 157 cm below datum, and elsewhere outcrops at 187e200 cm. Raredegraded bioclasts are present in the >1 mm grain size fraction.Vb. At 160e220 cm below datum, it is the basal deposit of segment X-W2, where it is thick (120 cm) and offers a wide range of coloursdfrom paler inits higher reaches to darker in the lower ones (7.5 YR 3/2; 5YR 2.5/1; 10YR 5/4)dbut with no variation in archaeological contents. At the end of theSection, 260e280 cm below datum, an unexcavated beach deposit is incrusted in layer V, which it eroded. This area is one of the richest inarchaeological remains. Its thickness and location indicate that these are the earliest deposits in Cova del Gegant; originally, they probably hada gentle inward slope.Vc. At 160e220 cm below datum, it is the basal deposit of segment Z-S2, and consists of clayey deposits preserved inside hollows in the cave wall.Vd/e. Located at the base of GP, it contains abundant faunal remains and coprolites in brown clay. It is paler (10YR 7/3) than the rest of layer V.

XVIII Lutites with boulders and angular pebbles (BPY). Paler than layer V, it consists of boulders and angular pebbles in a lutitic matrix with small amountsof faunal remains.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122112

Table 2 (continued )

Episode Units Description

0 XVI Red clay (Y-GL1). Located at the base of GL1, it consists of red clay with no archaeological remains. It possibly corresponds to Viñas and Vilalta’s(1975) layer “IV.”

Uncorrelated BPII Cemented breccias II. These breccias are located at Point Y between the gallery floor and the sea. They are strongly cemented and difficult to study.Their existence indicates that most of Cova del Gegant’s external area was once filled with sediment since eroded away.

XIII Lutites with angular pebbles. Located in segment Z-S2, this large concave-bottomed layer consists of angular gravels in a lutitic matrix with noarchaeological remains. It could be related neither to the basal layers of GP nor to the overlying reddish (7.5YR 4/3) layers.

Section locations are shown in Fig. 2 and unit correlations in Figs. 6 and 7.Descriptions are from top to bottom and north to south.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 113

bone readily acquires uranium post-depositionally in an opensystem. However, provided that this post-depositional uptake canbe accounted for, bone can be dated by the ratio of 238U to its long-lived radiogenic daughters, 234U and 230Th. We use the Dif-fusioneAdsorption (DeA) model (Millard and Hedges, 1996) toaccount for uranium uptake. The DeA model can be used to predictthe uranium history of a bone from the measured distributions(‘profiles’) of U and U-series isotopes across a bone section (Pikeet al., 2002, 2005). In cases where the uptake has been straight-forward (i.e., there has been no leaching of uranium) and underrelatively constant geochemical conditions, a reliable date can becalculated. Bones that have undergone complex cycles of uptakeand loss of uranium cannot be dated, but these regimes arereflected in the irregular shape of the distribution of uranium andU-series isotope profiles and the bone can be rejected as unsuitablefor dating.

Uranium and thorium isotopes were measured by laser ablationmulti collector ICP-MS, using the method outlined in Pike et al.(2005). Ideally, a transverse section from the periosteal to endos-teal surface of bone is required, but for reasons of conservation, anincomplete section was removed, representing the surface toapproximately 4 mm towards the centre of the bone. U-seriesisotopes were measured in a radial transect from the periostealsurface inwards, using a 120 mm laser spot, a 20 Hz repetition rateand moving the sample at 0.5 mms�1.

Results

We have constructed a new stratigraphic framework for the site,bringing together previous data (Viñas, 1972; Viñas and Villalta,1975; Mora, 1988; Martínez et al., 1990) and new observations toform a single, unified sequence. Its backbone is provided by the GPdeposits preserved between the rear of the conduit and the brecciaat point Ydthe 25.5 m long Section DeY, which is composed ofdifferent “segments,” separated by areas lacking in suitable expo-sures. Section Z-S2 corresponds to the significant depositspreserved between the rear of GL2 and its confluence with GP. Athird remnant (Section GL1-Y) corresponds to a reduced volume ofbrecciated material, cemented to the walls of the cave in itsseaward areas (Fig. 2).

Sections

Segment D-S1, at the rear end of GP, features superficial layers offine lutitic sediments and cobbles, but its subsurface fill could notbe observed except in the profiles of Mora’s (1988) S1 test pit. To thesouth of this pit, very little sediment is preserved along the westwall of GP until the confluence with GL2, except for some pocketsfilling recesses. This could have been caused either by marineerosion or by removal of the missing sediments in the course ofunauthorized excavation work carried out after 1989.

The 3.2 m long segment XeW, is a discontinuous exposurepreserved in two recesses of the east wall. The first, X-W1, is 1.1 mthick and represents the stratigraphy in the rear areas of the cavity

(Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 3). The second, X-W2, is a 2.8 m thick remnantcemented under a flowstone coming from the roof. It extends towhere waves currently break and is representative of the westernpart of the site (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 3). Correlation between the twosubsegments is made possible by the fact that basal layer V iscontinuously exposed even in the intermediate area where theoverlying deposits are missing.

The third segment of Section DeY corresponds to brecciascemented above sea level, under the shaft currently used to accessthe cave (Fig. 3). Their cementation has preserved them frommarine erosion and their characteristics are representative of whatthe sediment fill of GP once looked like in this area. Given theirthinness and sparseness, these remnants could not be cleanedwithout entailing complete loss, so the observations made here arenot conclusive. One of the remnants, located 2.3 m below the sitedatum, is made up of sands akin to those in layer X of subsegmentX-W2. The second is located w0.5 m southward and at a higherelevation. It consists of angular pebbles in a lutitic matrix and couldrelate to layer V of the XeW segment.

SectionZ-S2 is slightlycurvedandextends fromtheeasternwall ofGP through to the area of the S1 test pit at the end of the GL2 gallery.Most of this gallery’s fill has been removed by illegal excavationscarried out since 1989, when S1 was opened. The observed stratig-raphy is summarised in Tables 1 and 2 and illustrated in Fig. 4.

Section Y-GL1 (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 4) is 10 m long, and allowscorrelation between the deposits that yielded the Neandertalmandible and those elsewhere in the cave. A stalagmitic layer capsthe sequence and seals part of the fill, which is 1.4 m-thick andshows little horizontal and vertical variation. Broadly speaking,these layers contain a great number of subangular pebbles, as in theuppermost layers of GP and GL1.

The last area of Cova del Gegant where sediment remnants arepreserved is the breccia at point Y, located between the two caveentrances. During periods of strong sea swells, considerableamounts of pebbles and rounded boulders enter the cave throughthe west entrance, but this phenomenon is attenuated in theeastern one because it is smaller and located at a higher elevation.The strong cementation of the deposit explains its preservationfrommarine erosion. Two profiles were analysed (Fig. 4): the cross-section linking this breccia to GL1, and the lengthwise-sectionlinking it to the rear of GP.

Correlation

Sedimentation in Cova del Gegant is produced by two primaryagents or mechanisms. The first is the progressive erosion of thecave dome and walls, which produces subangular coarse fractionmaterials and little or no transportation. This type of filling is mostfrequent at the entrance, where it is facilitated by the fissures thatguided the formation of the cave. The second is flooding by thedelta of the nearby Riera de Ribes, which accumulated the finesediments, especially in layers IeV.

Correlation between the different sections was attempted onthe basis of the layers’ characteristics (e.g., grain size, mineral

Figure 3. X-W1 Segment (A), Cemented Breccia (B) and X-W2 Segment (C) of Cova del Gegant in relation with GP Axis and depth.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122114

Figure 4. Stratigraphic profiles in the point Y brecciadtransversal (A) and longitudinal (B) viewsdthe GL1-Y section (C) and the Z-S2 section (D) of Cova del Gegant.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 115

Figure 5. Clay mineralogy of selected sediment samples from Cova del Gegant layers (Roman numerals) and the nearby Riera de Ribes delta (Samples EXT_A). A, B, C: particle size.DeE: mineral composition and sediment characteristics.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122116

composition), stratigraphic position and elevation (Figs. 6 and 7).This correlation is tentative because discontinuities exist betweenthe different remnants and the different units feature significanthorizontal variation. This variation relates to the distance from theentrance and to the operation of slope processes, which conditionthe amount of detrital elements present in the different sectors,implying significant intra-layer variation in grain size. We

identified at least eight episodes of sedimentation, interrupted byat least one period of erosion by the sea and subsequent accumu-lation of beach deposits.

Episode 0 is represented by layer XVI. Preserved at the rear ofGL1, this is a clay deposit formed in the inner karst prior to thecave’s opening, and contains no archaeological or palaeontologicalremains.

Figure 6. Stratigraphy and correlation of the Cova del Gegant’s remnants. AeB: GP gallery. C: GL1 gallery. D: overall correlation.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 117

Episode 1 the earliest, is represented in GP as well as in mostother parts of the cave, and corresponds to layer V, including all ofits variants (Va, Vb, Vd, Ve, etc.). It overlies the rock floor of the caveand, where the latter is exposed, can also be observed as brecciated

remnants filling small cracks in the bedrock. The basal centimetresof the deposits exposed in the S1 test pit (dark brown, ochre orblack lutites with angular pebbles containing fauna, coprolites andcharcoal) probably correspond to this episode too. The cemented

Figure 7. Schematic reconstruction of the sequence of depositional and erosional events that led to the present stratigraphic configuration of the Cova del Gegant’s remnants.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122118

remnants preserved at the southern end of GP (not only where thewaves break at present but also higher along the walls) are alsolikely related to this episode. If so, the implication is that most ofthe principal chamber of the cave was once almost entirely filledwith layer V deposits. Some evidence indicates that the base ofGL2’s fill also relates to this accumulation episode, but lack of datapreclude assessment of the issue in the cases of GL1 and the brecciaat point Y, where assignment of level XVIII to this episode is onlytentative. Grain-size analysis (Fig. 5aec) shows that the finercomponents of these deposits are quite similar to each other and tothe samples taken from the delta of the Riera de Ribes stream. Weinfer that inundation by this stream contributed to the build-up ofsediments in the cave throughout Episode 1.

Episode 2 is represented by the layer IV deposits, whichconsist mostly of reddish lutites with a coarse fraction that isscarce towards the interior and increases towards the entrance.This layer, which, in GP, is exposed in S1 and in the X-W1segment, contains faunal remains and correlates with layer XIIbof GL2, as well as with layer VIII of the adjacent X-W2 segment.Layer XVb of GL1, preserved in the middle part of the GL1-Ysection, may also be associated with this second sedimentationepisode. Layers XVII at point Y and XVa of GL1 are preserved assmall concretions only. They cannot be securely assigned, butbelong either to this episode or to the subsequent one. Thisuncertainty is reflected in Fig. 6.

Table 3U-series radiometric data and derived date for speleothem layer XVa and the Neanderta

Layer Lab # 238U 232Th 234U/238U

XVa 6006 0.22 0.03 1.16 � 0.03XVa/b JD52a n/a n/a 1.262 � 0.017XVa/b JD52b n/a n/a 1.262 � 0.017

Episode 3 is represented by layers II and IIb of GP and GL2, layerXVa and part of layers IX and XVII. These layers are preserved at therear of the cave and consist of lutitic sediment and flowstones,enriched in coarse fraction towards the entrance. These depositsprobablyfilled also part of GL2 andGL1,where, at present, they formthe surface of the fill because the higher elevation of these galleriesprecluded modern sedimentation. Two different events can berecognized within this episode: 3a (oldest) and 3b (more recent).Given topographic constraints, deposits related to this latter episode(3b) could not have penetrated GL1,where the Neandertalmandiblewas found, so the deposition of themandible at the sitemust date toEpisode 3a or earlier, i.e., its minimum age is that obtained by UeThfor the flowstone capping layer XVa (Table 3).

Episode 4 is represented in layers VI and Ic2, found mainly at therear of GP and clearly of Holocene age. The sediments forming thisunit seem to have entered the rear of GP in the form of largequantities of fine lutitic material. Remnant sediments of this layerpossibly exist in GL2 as well. The presence of Bronze Age pottery inthis and nearby caves provides an approximate chronology for theaccumulation of these deposits. Because they are the richest inclays, the sediments that we relate to Episodes 3 and 4 are verysimilar in terms of grain size and mineral composition, reflectinga similar catchment.

Episode 5 corresponds to a transgressive erosion of thissequence, which emptied most of the site and concomitantly

l mandible.

230Th/234U 230Th/238U 230Th/232Th Date (2s), ka

0.37 � 0.01 e 10.48 49.4 � 1.80.495 � 0.023 >100 53.2 � 3.30.495 � 0.023 >100 53.2 � 3.3

Table 414C and OSL ages for layers V, X/XI, and XVb.a

Layer Episode Material Lab # 13C/12C ratio Archeol. dose(Gy)

Annual dose(mGy/Year)

14C age BP(1s)

Years ago(1s)

X-XI 5 Shell Beta-257583 þ0.7& e e 1420�40b e

V 1 Sediment MAD-5643.BIN e 136.99 2.46 e 55 686 � 4794XVb 2 Sediment MAD-5642.BIN e 95.53 1.59 e 60 081 � 3887

a Sediment dates were obtained by OSL at the Radiochemistry and Dating Laboratory of the Universidad Autónoma deMadrid, using the additive dosemethod and standardprocedures (Fleming, 1970; Zimmerman, 1971; Aitken, 1985; Nambi and Aitken, 1986; Arribas et al., 1990).

b 1020 � 50 cal AD using the MARINE04 curve of IntCal04 (local reservoir correction not applied).

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 119

accumulated a sand beachdlayers VII, X and XIf, which have verysimilar grain size and mineral composition, with scarce clay min-eralsdthat covered the erosive scar. The Iron Age pottery containedin these sands indicates a recent Holocene age for their accumu-lation, confirmed by the medieval date obtained by radiocarbon fora shell sample (Table 4).

Episode 6 is represented in levels Iaef, at the rear of the cave,and is the most recent sedimentation event inside Cova del Gegant.The presence of modern and medieval pottery is consistent with itsstratigraphic position.

Episode 7 corresponds to the ongoing erosive processes thatare currently gradually emptying the cave from the remainingsediment fill, probably as a result of coastal management prac-tices (e.g., the construction of marinas) adopted over the last fewdecades.

Dating

Our results indicate that the dated speleothemdthe flowstonecapping layer XVadis only slightly contaminated with 232Th (Table3). The contaminationwith detrital material is small, yielding 232Thconcentrations as low as 0.03 ppm and with a ratio230Th/232Th¼ 10.48. As a small unknown quantity of 230Th could benot directly derived from their parent, 234U, the obtained nominalage could be slightly younger. Therefore, the reported nominal ageof 49.3 � 1.9 ka BP can be used as an approximate age for theunderlying layers, i.e., those formed during Episode 3a and before.

Figure 8. U-series isotope distribution of Neandertal mandible. U concentrations are inferrindicating negligible levels of detrital contamination. The U-series isotopes show a uniform51.3 � 2.3 ka BP. The weighted average of the two measurements is 52.3 � 2.3 ka BP (all e

Age uncertainties are given as 2s errors based on 2s uncertaintiesof average 230Th/234U and 234U/238U activity ratios.

Themandiblewas found in GL1 during the first excavation of thesite and must therefore be assigned to the upper levels of thatgallery, presumably level XVa itself. Its uranium series date profileis uniform, while the U concentration gradient declines towards thecentre of the bone and is W-shaped (or at least resembles a littleover half a W-shaped profile in this incomplete bone section),which we take as indicative of diffusive uptake. This pattern ispredicted where the bone, for some reason, ceases to take upuranium to the point of equilibrium after a period of relatively rapiduranium uptake. In such cases, the closed system age averagedacross the whole sample gives the best estimate of its age.

Although the W-shape of the uranium concentration profilecannot be confirmed without a complete cross-section of the boneand we therefore cannot rule out that the uptake regime has beenmore complex than predicted here, its reliability is supported bythe stratigraphic consistency. In fact, as argued above, the Nean-dertal mandible’s deposition must have taken place, at the latest,during Episode 3a. Given the date for the speleothem that seals thedeposits accumulated during this episode, this means>49.3 ka ago.Therefore, its direct dating result of 52.3 � 2.3 ka BP (2s)doverallmean age estimate of two traverses with average dates of 53.2� 3.3and 51.3 � 3.3 ka (2s) (Fig. 8)dis consistent with the site’s overallstratigraphic configuration as constructed above.

The beach accumulated during Episode 5 was dated by radio-carbon to the 920e1120 cal AD (2s) interval on a Donax trunculus

ed from the 238U beam intensity. For all points analysed, the 230Th/232Th activity >100date profile and give a mean date of 53.2 � 3.3 ka BP. A repeat measurement gave

rrors are 2s standard deviations).

Table 5Estimated chronology and summary description of Upper Pleistocene Iberian Neandertal fossil finds.

Region Site Levels Age estimate Remains

Euskadi Arrilor AMK w45 ka 14C BP Isolated toothAxlor III (5BCD) w42 ka 14C BP

(level D)Isolated teeth from a single adultmaxilla

Lezetxiki III-IVa MIS-3 Isolated teethCantabria Castillo 20, 21, 22 w43.3 ka 14C BP

(level 20 B2)Hand phalanx, isolated tooth

Asturias Sidrón III w40.8 ka 14C BP Eight individualsw1323 remains

Aragón Los Moros deGabasa

Intermediatelevels abovelevel e.

<46.5 ka 14C BP Isolated teeth, metatarsal, footphalanx, clavicle fragment

Castilla yLeón

Valdegoba 8 MIS-5 to MIS-3 Incomplete mandible and teeth

Extremadura Los Casares XII MIS-5/4 to MIS-3 MetacarpalCatalunya Banyoles Quarried

travertinew45 (UeTh)ew66(ESR) ka BP

Mandible

Gegant XVa (?) w52 ka BP (UeTh) MandibleValencia Bolomor I-IV w121 ka BP (TL) Femoral fragment and isolated teeth

Cova Negra Unprovenanced MIS-5 to MIS-3 Skull, mandible and post-cranial materialfrom three to five mature andimmature individuals

El Salt Flowstone atV/VI interface

w37 ka 14C BP Isolated teeth

Murcia Sima de lasPalomas,upper cutting

Top w34.5 ka 14C BP Fragmentary mandible, post-cranial anddentition

Sima de lasPalomas,upper cutting

Lower 50e60 ka BP (UeTh) Articulated skeletons

Andalucia Carigüela,chambers 2-3

VI, V, IVbase MIS-5 to MIS-3 Adult parietals and immature frontal

Zafarraya D 33.4 ka BP (UeTh) Complete mandibleGibraltar Forbes’ Quarry MIS-5 to MIS-3 Incomplete adult skull

Devil’s Tower Fourth(travertine)

MIS-5 to MIS-3 Five year-old child skull

Portugal Oliveira 9 to 19 w43 ka cal BP(14C) to <60 kaBP (UeTh)

Fragmentary post-cranial material

Columbeira 7/9 interface MIS-3 Isolated toothFigueira Brava 2 w31 ka 14C BP Isolated tooth

Data from Garrod et al. (1928), Vega (1993), Quam et al. (2001), Garralda (2005e2006), Rosas et al. (2006), Grün et al. (2006), Trinkaus et al. (2007), Walker et al. (2008).The Castillo level 18 remains were not included due to ambiguity in provenience and taxonomy.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122120

shell sample from layers X to XI of Section X-W2 (Table 4). Sucha recent age is consistent with the pottery contents of overlyinglevel Ida mix of Bronze Age, medieval and modern material.

The OSL date for the base of the deposits, 60.0 � 3.9 ka fora sample from layer XVb of GL (Table 4), provides a maximum agefor the overlying sequence. This age is consistent with the overallcorrelation and with the UeTh dates for the capping speleothemand the Neandertal mandible.

Discussion and conclusions

Our results show that the age of the GL1 deposits of the Cova delGegant span 49.4 � 1.8e60.0 � 3.9 ka. These results provide anabsolute chronological constraint on previous biostratigraphic andtypological studies. The large mammal assemblage of GL1 wastaken by Viñas and Villalta (1975) and Estévez (1979) to supporta Würm I or Würm II age (approximately from the end of MIS-5 toearlyMIS-3), whileMir (1975) andMora (1988) argued for a generalMiddle Palaeolithic age on the basis of the lithics. More recently,micromammals from GL1 were used to infer an age between theend of MIS-5 and the beginning of MIS-4, i.e., in the 60e90 kainterval (López-García, 2008; López-García et al., 2008; Cuenca-Bescós et al., 2010). The deposits where the mandible was recov-ered, however, are clearly of MIS-3 age, and the mandible itself isnow directly dated to 52.3� 2.3 ka BP, in agreement with the UeTh

and OSL dates that sandwich the archaeological sequence. The twosigma range (52.2e67.8 ka BP) of the OSL date for the lowest levelsof GL1 is consistent with an MIS-4 age for the micromammalassemblage, but our dates cannot accommodate an attribution ofthis fauna to MIS-5.

Cova del Gegant’s Episodes 4e6 are Holocene. Different authors(Viñas, 1972; Viñas and Villalta, 1975; Estévez, 1979; Mora, 1988)suggested that a significant proportion of the cave’s fill was Holo-cene, with its Middle Palaeolithic artifactual and faunal compo-nents being inherited from Pleistocene age deposits dismantled bymarine erosion. Based on the preserved remnants, however, thesequence is not mixed and, in fact, prior to Episode 5, shows noevidence for marine involvement in the accumulation of thedeposits. Mixed areas do exist, however, but this mixing resultsfrom localized activity of burrowing animals and from Late Holo-cene excavation of storage pits (both of which went unnoticed byprevious researchers), and not from an overall disturbance of theentire deposit.

The Episode 5 beach, as well as similar beaches preservednearby, has previously been considered of Pleistocene age (Viñas,1972). The 14C result obtained for Cova del Gegant indicates accu-mulation in the recent Holocene, suggesting that the chronology ofthe marine deposits in this stretch of the Garraf Massif (Martinelland Villalta, 1980; Martinell and Porta, 1981) needs to be thor-oughly revised.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122 121

A summary catalogue of Iberian Neandertal remains, togetherwith their estimated chronology, is provided in Table 5. It is clearfrom this table that most of the fossils relate to MIS-3. The rarity ofMIS-5 finds can be explained by the scarcity of archaeological andfossil localities in this time interval throughout Iberia, but the lackof finds from MIS-4, an interval that is represented in severalimportant stratigraphic sequences (e.g., Castillo, Romaní,Vanguard), is puzzling. Of course, it may well be the case thatseveral of the unprovenanced or poorly provenanced fossils (e.g.,those from Carigüela, Zafarraya or the Gibraltar caves) in fact dateto the 60e70 ka BP interval. If so, the apparent MIS-4 gap wouldrelate to a sampling issue, as with MIS-5, but in this case caused byover-representation of the more recent levels, within easier reachof archaeological excavation, in available Middle Palaeolithic cavesequences.

Alternatively, the data indirectly could be signalling an expan-sion of the practice of inhumation in MIS-3 times, explaining thefrequency with which human remains occur in sites of this interval.In this view, the fragmentary nature of the fossils could reflectsystematic carnivore disturbance of what originally would havebeen complete, articulated buried individuals. The exceptionalrecovery of such articulated material from the lower levels of theSima de las Palomas upper cutting shows that this possibilityshould be seriously considered.

A third possibility is that what we are seeing is a by-product ofintensified human/carnivore competition for dwelling sites. In sucha scenario, the frequency of human remains in Iberian MIS-3 sitescould be taken to represent demographic expansion, implyingmore frequent human/carnivore encounters than in MIS-4 andresulting in an increase of the representation of humans in cavefaunas accumulated, at least in part, by carnivores. The presence ofgnawing marks on many of the human fossils in Table 5 (e.g., thetibia from Oliveira level 19) would be consistent with sucha hypothesis.

The paucity of the information precludes conclusive testing ofthese alternatives. In such a context, the secure dating of the Covadel Gegant’s mandible helps in the clarification of the chronology ofIberian Neandertal remains in that it consolidates the currentpattern of their being overwhelmingly from MIS-3.

Acknowledgements

This paper is an output of the research project Els PrimersPobladors de Garraf-Ordal, part of the Research Project El PlistocèSuperior i l’Holocè a Catalunya, supported by the SGR2009-1145Research Quality Group of the Generalitat de Catalunya and theHAR2008-00103 project of the Spanish Ministerio de Educación yCiencia. The chronological study of Cova del Gegant was supportedby 2008PBR00051 (AGAUR-Generalitat de Catalunya), Ajuntamentde Sitges, Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia (Generalitat de Cata-lunya) CGL2006-11242-C03-01-BTE and CGL2009-07392 (MICINN-FEDER). J. Daura was supported by a postdoctoral grant from theMICINN-FECYT and M. Sanz by a predoctoral grant (FI) from theComissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Innovació,Universitats i Empresa de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the FonsSocial Europeu. We are grateful to Santiago Casanova for informa-tion about earlier excavation work at the site.

References

Aitken, M.J., 1985. Thermoluminescence Dating. Academy Press, London.Arribas, J.G., Millán, A., Sibilia, E., Calderón, T., 1990. Factores que afectan a la

determinación del error asociado a la datación absoluta por TL, vol. 13. Fábricade ladrillos, Bol. Soc. Es. Min., pp. 141e147.

Bischoff, J.L., Fitzpatrick, J.A., 1991. U-series dating of impure carbonates: anisochron technique using total-sample dissolution. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta55, 543e554.

Casanova, S., 2004e2005. S. Casanova, historia del hallazgo de la mandíbula deNeanderthal de las cuevas de Sitges. Batalleria 12, 163.

Cuenca-Bescós, G., Rofes, J., López-García, J.M., Blain, H.A., Marfà, R., Galindo-Pellicena, M.A., Bennásar-Serra, M.Ll., Melero-Rubio, M., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdezde Castro, J., Carbonell, E., 2010. Biochronology of Spanish Quaternary smallvertebrate faunas. Quaternary Int. 212, 109e119.

Daura, J., 2008. Caracterització arqueològica i paleontològica dels jaciments plis-tocens del massís del Garraf-Ordal i curs baix del riu Llobregat. Ph.D. Disser-tation, Universitat de Barcelona.

Daura, J., Sanz, M., Subirà, E., Quam, R., Fullola, J., Arsuaga, J.L., 2005a. A neandertalmandible from the Cova del Gegant (Sitges, Barcelona, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 49,56e70.

Daura, J., Sanz, M., Vaquero, M., 2005b. El Pleistoceno de la Cova del Rinoceront(Castelldefels, Barcelona). In: Bicho, N. (Ed.), O Paleolítico. Actas do IV Congressode Arqueologia Peninsular (Faro, September 2004). Promontoria Monográfica,02, pp. 217e227.

Estévez, J., 1979. La fauna del Pleistoceno catalán. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat deBarcelona.

Fleming, S.J., 1970. Thermoluminescence dating: refinement of the quartz inclusionmethod. Archaeometry 12, 133e143.

Garralda, M.D., 2005e2006. Los Neandertales en la Península Ibérica. MunibeAntropologia-Arkeologia 57, 289e314.

Garrod, D.A.E., Buxton, L.H.D., Smith, G.E., Bate, D.M.A., 1928. Excavation ofa Mousterian rock-shelter at Devil’s Tower, Gibraltar. J. Royal Anthropol. Inst. 58,33e111.

Grün, R., Maroto, J., Eggins, S., Stringer, C., Robertson, S., Taylor, L., Mortimer, G.,Mcculloch, M., 2006. ESR and U-series analyses of enamel and dentine frag-ments of the Banyoles mandible. J. Hum. Evol. 50, 347e358.

Ivanovich, M., Harmon, R.S., 1992. Uranium-series Disequilibrium: Application toEarth, Marine and Environmental Sciences, second ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

López-García, J.M., 2008. Evolución de la diversidad taxonómica de los micro-mamíferos en la Península Ibérica y cambios paleoambientales durante elPleistoceno Superior. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili.

López-García, J., Blain, H.A., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Arsuaga, J.L., 2008. Chronological,environmental, and climatic precisions on the Neanderthal site of the Cova delGegant (Sitges, Barcelona, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 55, 1151e1155.

Marcet, J., 1932. Antigues platges marines fossilíferes de la costa catalana, vol. 8.Treballs del Museu de Ciències Naturals de Barcelona, pp. 1e7.

Martinell, J., Villalta, J., 1980. Els mol$luscs quaternaris de la Cova Verda. In: Petit, A.,Rovira, J. (Eds.), El jaciment arqueològic de la Cova Verda i alguns problemes delNeolític i l’edat de Bronze a Catalunya. Diputació de Barcelona, Barcelona, p. 78.Quaderns de Treball 3.

Martinell, J., Porta, J., 1981. El Tyrrheniense catalan, sintesis y nuevas aportaciones.Dept. de Paleontologia de la Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Martínez, J., 1990. Informe técnico de los restos óseos de la Cova del Gegant (Sitges,Garraf). Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia, Centre d’Informació i Doc-umentació del Patrimoni Cultural de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.Unpublished archaeological report.

Martínez, J., Miret, J., Mora, R., 1985a. Excavacions a la Cova del Gegant. Butlletí delGrup d’Estudis Sitgetans 32e33, 1e2.

Martínez, J., Miret, J., Mora, R., Muro, I., 1985b. Memoria de l’excavació d’urgència dela Cova del Gegant 1985. Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia, Centre d’Infor-mació i Documentació del Patrimoni Cultural de la Generalitat de Catalunya,Barcelona. Unpublished archaeological report.

Martínez, J., Mora, R., Roca, G., Parcerisas, J., 1990. Memoria d’excavació a la Cova delGegant 1989. Servei d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia, Centre d’Informació i Doc-umentació del Patrimoni Cultural de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.Unpublished archaeological report.

Masriera, A., 1975. Observaciones sedimentológicas sobre el depósito cuaternario dela Cova del Gegant (Sitges, Barcelona). In: Speleon V Symposium de Espeleo-logía, pp. 35e38.

Millard, A.R., Hedges, R.E.M., 1996. A diffusion-adsorption model of uranium uptakeby archaeological bone. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60, 2139e2152.

Mir, A., 1975. La industria lítica de la Cova del Gegant. Sitges (Barcelona). In: SpeleonV Espeleología, Symposium de Espeleología, pp. 39e48.

Mora, R., 1988. El paleolítico medio en Catalunya: yacimientos en cueva y al airelibre. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.

Nambi, K.S.V., Aitken, M.J., 1986. Annual dose conversion factors for TL and ESRdating. Archaeometry 28, 202e205.

Pike, A.W.G., Eggins, S., Grün, R., Hedges, R.E.M., Jacobi, R.M., 2005. U-series datingof the late Pleistocene fauna fromWood Quarry (Steetley), Notinghamshire, UK.J. Quatern. Sci. 20, 59e65.

Pike, A.W.G., Hedges, R.E.M., Van Calsteren, P., 2002. U-series dating of bone usingthe diffusion-adsorption model. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66, 4273e4286.

Quam, R., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Díez, J.C., Carretero, J.M., García, N.,Ortega, A.I., 2001. Human remains from Valdegoba cave (Huérmeces, Burgos,Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 41, 385e435.

Rosas, A., Martínez-Maza, C., Bastir, M., García-Tabernero, A., Lalueza-Fox, C.,Huguet, R., Ortiz, J.E., Julià, R., Soler, V., Torres, T., Martínez, E., Cañaveras, J.C.,Sánchez-Moral, S., Cuezva, S., Lario, J., Santamari, D., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J.,2006. Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neanderthal samplefrom El Sidrón, Asturias, Spain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 19266e19271.

J. Daura et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2010) 109e122122

Rosenbauer, R.J., 1991. UDATE1: a computer program for the calculation of uraniumseries isotopic ages. Comput. Geosci. 17, 45e75.

Salas, R., 1987. El Malm i el Cretaci inferior entre el massís del Garraf i la serrad’Espadà. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.

Santafé-Llopis, J.V., Casanovas-Cladellas, M.L., 1993. Dicherorhinus hemitoechus(Falconer, 1868) (Mammalia, Perissodactyla) del yacimiento pleistocénico de laCueva del Gegant (Garraf, Barcelona). Empúries 48e50, 310e322.

Solé, Ll, 1964. Geología de los alrededores de Barcelona. In: Publicaciones de laDirección General de Enseñanza Media. Colección “la Nueva Geografía”, número379. Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Madrid, pp. 67e72.

Trinkaus, E., Maki, J., Zilhão, J., 2007. Middle Paleolithic human remains from theGruta da Oliveira (Torres Novas), Portugal. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 134, 263e273.

Vega, L.G., 1993. El tránsito del Paleolítico Medio al Paleolítico Superior en el sur dela Península Ibérica. In: Cabrera, V. (Ed.), El Origen del Hombre Moderno en el

Suroeste de Europa. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, pp.147e170.

Viñas, R., 1972. Observaciones sobre los depósitos cuaternarios de la Cova delGegant. Sitges (Barcelona). Speleon 19, 115e126.

Viñas, R., Villalta, J., 1975. El depósito cuaternario de la Cova del Gegant. In: SpeleonV Symposium de Espeleología, pp. 19e33.

Virella, A., 1949. Vilanova i la Geltrú. Imatges de la ciutat i de la comarca. Vilanova ila Geltrú, Joan Rius Vila.

Walker, M.J., Gibert, J., López, M.V., Lombardi, A.V., Pérez-Pérez, D.A., Zapata, J.,Ortega, J., Higham, T., Pike, A., Schwenninger, J.-L., Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E., 2008.Late Neandertals in Southeastern Iberia: Sima de las Palomas del Cabezo Gordo,Murcia, Spain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 20631e20636.

Zimmerman, D.W., 1971. Thermoluminescence dating using fine grain from pottery.Archaeometry 13, 29e52.