# Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia

Marie-Hélène Moncel, Marta Arzarello, Eric Boëda, Stéphanie Bonilauri, Benoît Chevrier, Claire Gaillard, Hubert Forestier, Li Yinghua, François Sémah, Valéry Zeitoun

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Marie-Hélène Moncel, Marta Arzarello, Eric Boëda, Stéphanie Bonilauri, Benoît Chevrier, et al. "Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia. Comptes Rendus. Palevol, 2016, 10.1016/j.crpv.2015.11.007". [hal-01325860](https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01325860)

HAL Id: hal-01325860

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01325860

Submitted on 2 Jun 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Human Palaeontology and Prehistory

Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part).
Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout
Eurasia

*Assemblages d'outils bifaciaux en Eurasie (troisième partie).
Considérations sur le phénomène bifacial à travers l'Eurasie*

Marie-Hélène Moncel<sup>a,∗</sup>, Marta Arzarello<sup>b</sup>, Éric Boëda<sup>c</sup>, Stéphanie Bonilauri<sup>c</sup>, Benoît Chevrier<sup>c,f</sup>, Claire Gaillard<sup>a</sup>, Hubert Forestier<sup>a</sup>, Li Yinghua<sup>d</sup>, François Sémah<sup>a</sup>, Valéry Zeitoun<sup>e</sup>

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 1<sup>st</sup> June 2015

Accepted after revision 6 March 2016

Available online xxx

Handled by Amélie Vlaet

Keywords:

Bifacial tools

Eurasia

Hominins

Origins

Diffusion

A B S T R A C T

Eurasian bifacial series present some common features, but are chiefly characterized by wide-ranging diversity in terms of bifacial technology and blank types, whereas the heavy-duty component presents a limited number of types and categories. Heavy-duty tools are present throughout the geographical areas but the frequency of handaxes and/or cleavers is generally low, except in some regions, where they are made on flakes and/or cobbles/pebbles, on siliceous stones or other rock types. So far, it appears to be generally accepted that bifacial technology became widespread from 800 to 700 ka onwards, both for Europe and Asia, except for some earlier occurrences in the Levant and India. It would thus be reasonable to infer that bifacial technology first reached the Levant from Africa before moving toward Asia, then Europe. However, the existing data point to a much more complex reality, suggesting contemporaneous technological worlds, with or without links between them. In the state of current knowledge, and based on the methodology used for analysing lithic series, it is impossible to clearly argue in favour of either a unique phenomenon with movements of hominins or/and ideas from an African source, or to point to evidence of several onsets of bifacial technology over time on a local substratum. The palaeoanthropological background shows the difficulties involved in characterizing the few available hominin fossils and clearly relating them to bifacial technology. The current context suggests that each area should be analysed independently. Accumulative technological processes in some areas due to successive arrivals and the influence of the local substratum, and local onsets

<footnote><sup>a</sup> UMR 7194, CNRS, Department of Prehistory, National Museum of Natural History, Institut de paléontologie humaine, 1, rue René-Panhard, 75013 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, LT TekneHub Università degli Studi di Ferrara, C.so Ercole I d'Este 32, 44100 Ferrara, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> University Paris Ouest, 92000 Nanterre/La Défense, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Professeur Université de Wuhan, School of History, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, PR China</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> UMR 7207-CR2P-CNRS-MNHN-Université Paris-6, Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> University of Geneva, Laboratory Archéologie et Peuplement de l'Afrique, rue Gustave-Révilliod, 12, 1211, Genève 4, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: moncel@mnhn.fr (M.-H. Moncel).</footnote>
must be considered, as these contribute to the diversity of the strategies encountered and the varied forms of bifacial technology.

© 2016 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access

article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

RÉSUMÉ

Selon les zones géographiques et selon les séries comparées, l'Eurasie livre des séries bifaciales qui partagent des traits communs, mais, dans le temps et dans l'espace, c'est la diversité qui les caractérise. Les outils bifaciaux sont toujours présents, mais avec des fréquences réduites. Ils sont façonnés selon des stratégies variées, sur des supports et des matériaux eux-mêmes variés. Les données récentes attestent qu'ils se généralisent à partir de 800 à 700 ka à la fois en Europe et en Asie, excepté quelques témoignages plus anciens au Levant et en Inde. Il serait facile d'admettre que la technologie bifaciale a tout d'abord atteint le Levant avant l'Asie orientale et l'Europe. La réalité est plus complexe, suggérant des mondes technologiques contemporains étant ou non en relation. Les données dont nous disposons ne permettent pas à l'heure actuelle de concevoir un unique phénomène ayant abouti à la diffusion d'un Acheuléen est-africain par des mouvements de populations ou d'idées. Selon les méthodologies employées, des preuves d'émergence locale ne sont pas toujours claires selon les zones géographiques, par manque de données ou de données. Les données paléoanthropologiques confirment la difficulté de relier des hommes aux outils bifaciaux et à les nommer. La réalité est que chaque secteur doit être étudié indépendamment, certains livrant des « outils bifaciaux », d'autres des « bifaces ». Des transformations locales ou bien issues de l'influence de nouvelles idées ou de groupes humains différents sont autant de possibilités et scénarios pour expliquer la diversité des stratégies rencontrées, démontrant la plasticité de la technologie bifaciale.

© 2016 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. Cet article est publié en

Open Access sous licence CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Mots clés :

Outils bifaciaux

Eurasie

Homininés

Origines

Diffusion

# 1. Introduction

The bifacial phenomenon affected vast Eurasian areas at different times. Historically, most of the series with bifacial tools were assimilated to the Acheulean, which was initially defined at the end of the 19th century in the Somme Valley, in northern France. Gabriel de Mortillet, in 1872, and later Vayson de Pradennes in the 1920s, first described the biface, which was considered for a long time as the "fossile directeur" of this technological tradition. However, the heavy-duty component is relatively diversified, and also includes cleavers and other large massive tools (for instance "rabots"). Recent studies over the past decade in East Africa indicate that the Early Acheulean is characterized by the ability to produce large flakes, some of which are subsequently used for shaping these large tools, but also by multiple new behaviours as regards subsistence strategies and raw material procurement. Many analyses point to the necessity of using the term "Acheuleans", rather than "Acheulean" to describe the different series and indicate that the sole presence of bifaces or Large Cutting Tools (LCTs, cf Kleindienst, 1961) is insufficient for defining a lithic assemblage.

Discoveries over the past decades in different Eurasian areas indicate that bifacial technology extends from 1.5 Ma to 40 ka and covers major parts of Eurasia. European Acheuleans s.s., "Moustérien de type acheuléen" or the Central European Micoquian are no longer the only traditions with bifacial tools. They are contemporaneous with many other "traditions" involving bifacial technology, particularly in eastern Asia. In this final paper, our goal is to try

to unravel the origins and expansion of bifacial industries in Eurasia.

# 2. The palaeoanthropological background: human remains v. bifacial tools

Palaeoanthropology relies on prehistoric archaeology to mitigate the lack of available anatomical data and reconstruct the dynamics of human populations. As for prehistory, it questions the specificity of the biological entities that crafted lithic industries throughout time. The discourse proposing a linear model of prehistoric technology, encompassing the notions of modes 1, 2, 3, and 4, is too simplistic.

In palaeoanthropology, we consider that phylogenetic patterns are established according to rules of cladistics. This school of thought is based on genealogy and the observed resemblances are considered to result from three phenomena: shared primitive characters, those representing shared derived characters and those resulting from homoplasy (reversions and convergences). Unlike the classic evolutionary systematic approach and phenetics, only derived characters are used to establish phylogenetic patterns in cladistics.

It is important to explicitly define the influence of the history of science on the names of the various taxa. Historically, the first discoveries are not necessarily the most characteristic specimens of each species and in addition, interpretations generally evolve over time, with the discovery of more complete fossils and
methodological developments. Although the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows for such changes, the palaeoanthropological community currently does not respect this code (Zeitoun, 2015).

For the period of interest, from 1.5 Ma to around 100 ka in Asia, but focused on around 700–350 ka in Europe due to the large amount of data, considering the uncertainty surrounding the geological ages of the human fossils, it is not easy to establish a precise and consensual list of specimens to be taken into consideration. Moreover, it is important to recognize that, from a taxonomic point of view, this chronological interval historically corresponds to a “lumber room”, i.e. *H. erectus sensu lato*, where certain specimens were considered as archaic *H. sapiens*, and affiliated to *H. heidelbergensis*, and subsequently to *H. antecessor* in Europe. Finally, this period also raises questions about the continuity between *H. erectus sensu stricto* and *H. sapiens* in China and the existence of *H. soloensis* in Indonesia (Zeitoun et al., 2010).

From a general point of view, it is difficult to attribute an industry to a particular taxon. In terms of potential and synchronicity, it is generally possible to associate a taxon with an industry in a geographical area during a given period, but when we look more closely, the human fossils considered here are only very rarely associated with stone tools. As we will see below, in some cases, industries with bifacial pieces occur in layers underlying and overlying layers bearing human remains, but the lithic industry is different in the human fossil-bearing layer (Table 1).

## 2.1. *The European human background*

Following the classic evolutionary systematic approach, Bermudez de Castro et al., 1997 defined *H. antecessor* on the basis of bone fragments discovered at locality TD6, Gran Dolina at Atapuerca, in Spain, and considered it to be “*the last common ancestor for Neandertals and modern humans*”. More recently, an older (1.2 Ma) fragment of mandible found at Sima del Elefante, also at Atapuerca, was likewise attributed to this taxon by Carbonell et al. (2008). It should be noted that logically, the last common ancestors of *H. sapiens sapiens* and *H. sapiens neanderthalensis* are *H. sapiens*, if taxa must be monophyletic. Thus following Bermudez de Castro et al., 1997, *H. antecessor* should be equivalent to *H. sapiens*.

*H. heidelbergensis* was initially described on the basis of a robust mandible discovered in 1907 at Mauer in Germany (Schoetensack, 1908). This specimen was dated to 700 ka (Wagner et al., 2010), but no derived character had initially been described for this taxon. Following Rosas and Bermudez de Castro (1998), a recent anatomical study (Mounier et al., 2009) precisely diagnoses *H. heidelbergensis* using a list of mostly primitive characters and three Neandertal derived traits, leading to the same conclusion as Bermudez de Castro et al. (1997): “The species *H. heidelbergensis* is thus only acceptable in a restricted sense as a European chronospecies directly ancestor to Neandertals”. Due to the lack of autapomorphy for *H. heidelbergensis*, *H. heidelbergensis* can logically be put into synonymy with *H. sapiens neanderthalensis*.

Due to the affinity of the Mauer specimen with the AT-888 mandible and the SH5 skull (Mounier et al., 2009; Rosas and Bermudez de Castro, 1998), the abundant remains from Sima de Los Huesos at Atapuerca were attributed to *H. heidelbergensis*. Consequently, due to their initial description (Arsuaga et al., 1997, 2014; Bischoff et al., 1997, 2003, 2007; Parès et al., 2000) and in agreement with the dental data (Martínón-Torres et al., 2012, 2016), the specimens of Atapuerca have to be placed in the Neandertal lineage.

The fossils from Arago at Tautavel, southern France, only present rather variable Neandertal derived characters depending on the specimens (in particular the face of Arago 21 or the mandible of Arago 2) (Falguères et al., 2004, 2015; Lumley, 1976, 2015; Moigne et al., 2006). Lumley et al. (1984) attributed them to the same taxon as the Sima de Los Huesos fossils, leading Guipert et al. (2014) to consider them as *H. heidelbergensis*. Lumley (2015) attributes Arago 21 to *H. erectus tautavelensis* considered to be different from Mauer. The fossils from Sima de los Huesos and Arago are clearly associated with bifacial pieces.

In Italy, the case of the Ceprano calvarium illustrates the effects of chronological sliding on taxonomy, with an initial date of around one million years (Ascenzi et al., 1996, 2000; Clarke, 2000) and a subsequent one at 353 ± 4 ka (Nomade et al., 2011). Initially considered as a late *H. erectus* (Ascenzi et al., 1996), Manzi et al. (2001, 2010, 2011) placed it between what they call *H. erectus/ergaster* and *H. heidelbergensis* (*H. rhodesiensis*), but considering the chronology and geography of the fossil, they attribute it to *H. antecessor* (Brunner and Manzi, 2005). This originality prompted Mallegni et al. (2003) to make it the type specimen for *H. cepranensis*. Subsequent phenetical analyses showed once again the overall resemblance of this fossil to *H. heidelbergensis* (Manzi, 2004; Mounier et al., 2011), in the sense that it presents a stock of similar primitive characters with a tendency towards “neandertalisation”, but does not possess Neandertal or anatomically modern human autapomorphies. The stratigraphic position of these fossils does not seem to bind them directly to bifacial lithic artefacts.

At Castel di Guido, human remains are associated with Acheulean material (Mariani-Constantini et al., 2001). The human material from surface sampling and from excavations seems to be stratigraphically consistent (Mariani-Constantini et al., 2001; Michel et al., 2001). Several archaic features inherited from *H. erectus* distinguish these bones from those of Neandertals, but others link them to anatomically modern humans (Mallegni et al., 1983). In addition, the CdG5 parietal fragment fits onto the CdG6 temporal (Mallegni and Radmilli, 1988), which presents Neandertal derived traits according to Elyaqtine (1995).

Fontana Ranuccio yielded a first lower incisor of *Homo* sp. indet. and a dental root of uncertain attribution (around 450 ka?) (Muttoni et al., 2009; Segre and Ascenzi, 1984), as well as two additional molars with Neandertal characters according to Ascenzi and Segre (1996). However, the strict association of bifacial pieces, fauna and the human remains transported by fluvial deposits, cannot be taken for granted.

For the site of Pofi, the only available anthropological information concerns the tibia Pofi 2, found at Cava Pompi,
<caption>**Table 1**
Eurasian Human remains in their chronological and archaeological context.</caption>

<table><caption>**Tableau 1**
Restes humains etrusiens dans leur contexte chronologique et archéologique.</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Human remains</th><th>Taxonomical references</th><th>Dating</th><th>Dating references</th><th>Association with stone artefacts</th><th>Bifacial pieces</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Sima de Los Huesos (Spain)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&gt; 320 ka</td><td>Bischoff et al., 1997</td><td><strong>Strict association</strong></td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Homo heidelbergensis</td><td>Skull</td><td></td><td>&gt; 200 ka</td><td>Parès et al., 2000</td><td></td><td>Isolated piece</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Neandertal lineage</td><td>Mandible</td><td>Arsuaga et al., 1997</td><td>400 to 500 ka</td><td>Bischoff et al., 2003</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Postcranial remains</td><td>Martinon-Torres et al., 2016</td><td>600 ka</td><td>Bischoff et al., 2007</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Arago (France)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>450 ka</td><td>Yokoyama and Nguyen 1981</td><td><strong>Strict association</strong></td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Skull</td><td>Guipert et al., 2014</td><td>450 ka</td><td>De Lumley et al., 1984</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo heidelbergensis</td><td>Mandible</td><td></td><td>450 ka</td><td>Moigne et al., 2006</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neandertal lineage</td><td>Postcranial</td><td></td><td>&gt; 350 ka</td><td>Falguères et al., 2004</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ceprano (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Late Homo erectus</td><td>Skull</td><td>Ascenzi et al., 1996, Clarke, 2000</td><td>1 Ma</td><td>Ascenzi et al., 1996, 2000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>between Homo erectus, ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis</td><td></td><td>Manzi et al. 2001</td><td>&gt; 700 ka</td><td>Ascenzi and Segre, 1997</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo cepranensis</td><td></td><td>Mallegni et al., 2003</td><td>450+50–100</td><td>Muttoni et al., 2009</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Homo heidelbergensis</td><td></td><td>Manzi, 2004</td><td>430 to 385 ka</td><td>Manzi et al., 2010</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Bruner and Manzi, 2005</td><td>353 ± 4 ka</td><td>Nomade et al., 2011</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Castel di Guido (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>300 ka</td><td>Mallegni et al., 1983</td><td><strong>Strict association?</strong></td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>non Neandertal lineage</td><td>Femur, occipital</td><td>Mallegni et al., 1983</td><td>Stade 9</td><td>Mariani-Constantini et al., 2001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neandertal lineage</td><td>Temporal, parietal</td><td>Mallegni and Radmilli, 1988</td><td>442 ± 7 ka to 250–170 ka</td><td>Michel et al., 2001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fontana Ranuccio (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td>Elyaqtine, 1995</td><td>458 ± 5.7 ka</td><td>Biddittu et al. 1979</td><td>Uncertainty</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Neandertal lineage</td><td>Incisive</td><td>Segrè and Ascenzi 1984</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neandertal lineage</td><td>Molar</td><td>Ascenzi and Segrè 1996</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Pofi (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>400 ka</td><td>Biddittu et al. 1979</td><td>No strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Neandertal lineage?</td><td>Ulna</td><td></td><td>400 to 350 ka</td><td>Biddittu and Celletti, 2001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Skull vault</td><td></td><td>MIS 13 to 11</td><td>Manzi et al., 2011</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Tibia</td><td>Stringer et al., 1998</td><td>Stade 11 to 10</td><td>Nomade et al., 2011</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Venosa Notarchirico (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>359 ka+154/-97</td><td>Lefevre et al., 1994</td><td>No strict association</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sp.</td><td>Femur</td><td>Piperno, 1999</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Visogliano (Italy)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>no Neandertal lineage</td><td>Mandibula</td><td>Cattani et al., 1991</td><td>390 ka</td><td>Falguères et al., 2008</td><td>Uncertainty</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>no Neandertal lineage</td><td>Teeth</td><td>Mallegni et al., 2002</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mala Balanica (Serbia)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>&gt; 113+72/-43 ka</td><td>Roksandic et al., 2011</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>archaic Homo sp. no Neandertal lineage</td><td>Partial mandibula</td><td>Roksandic et al., 2011</td><td>525 to 397 ka</td><td>Rink et al., 2013</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Human remains</th><th>Taxonomical references</th><th>Dating</th><th>Dating references</th><th>Association with stone artefacts</th><th>Bifacial pieces</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Vertesszöllös (Hungary)</strong><br>no Neandertal lineage</td><td>Occipital</td><td>Thoma, 1966</td><td>185 ± 25 ka</td><td>Schwarcz and Latham, 1984</td><td>Strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus</strong><br>no Homo erectus no Neandertal</td><td></td><td>Wolpoff, 1977<br>Hublin, 1988</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Apidima (Greece)</strong><br>Neandertal lineage</td><td>Two skulls</td><td></td><td>400 to 105 ka</td><td>Harvati et al., 2011</td><td>No association</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>between <strong>Homo heidelbergensis</strong> and <strong>Homo neanderthalensis</strong></td><td>Skull 2</td><td>Harvati and Delson, 1999</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Petralona (Greece)</strong><br>Homo rodhesiensis</td><td>Cranium</td><td>Harvati et al., 2009</td><td></td><td></td><td>No association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo heidelbergensis</strong><br>Neandertal lineage</td><td></td><td>Stringer, 1974<br>Hublin, 1985<br>De Bonis and Melentis 1982<br>Harvati et al., 2010</td><td>650 ± 280 to 127 ± 35/198 ± 50 ka<br>250 to 150 ka<br>> 780 ka</td><td>Hennig et al., 1981<br>Grün, 1996<br>Poulianos, 1981, 2005</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bilzingsleben (Germany)</strong><br>no Neandrtal lineage</td><td>Molar, frontal, parietal, occipital</td><td>Hublin, 1988</td><td>414 ± 45 to 280 ka</td><td>Schwarcz et al., 1988</td><td>Unknown</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus cf. Homo pekinensis</strong></td><td>Mandibula</td><td>Vlcek 2000</td><td>&lt; 350 ka</td><td>Mallick and Franck 2002</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Boxgrove (Great Britain)</strong><br>archaic <strong>Homo</strong></td><td>Tibia</td><td>Stringer et al., 1998</td><td>Stade 13</td><td>Roberts et al., 1994</td><td>No strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo heidelbergensis</strong></td><td>Incisors</td><td>Stringer et al., 1998<br>Hillson et al., 2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Swanscombe (Great Britain)</strong><br>Neandertalian</td><td>Two parietal and one occipital</td><td>Stewart, 1964<br>Santa Luca, 1978<br>Hublin, 1998</td><td>MIS 12-11</td><td>Bridgland et al. 2013</td><td>Unclear</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Kocabas (Turkey)</strong><br>Homo erectus</td><td>Skull cap</td><td>Vialet et al., 2012</td><td>1.11 ± 0.11 Ma<br>510 ± 5 to 330 ± 0.13 ka<br>1.3 to 1.1 Ma</td><td>Engin et al., 1999<br>Kappelman et al., 2008<br>Lebatard et al., 2014</td><td>No association</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (Syria)</strong><br>Homo erectus</td><td>Parietal</td><td>Schmid et al., 1997</td><td>450 ka</td><td>Schmid et al., 1997</td><td>Strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ubeidiya (Palestine) layer K-30K-29</strong><br>Homo sp. indet.</td><td>Teeth and cranial fragments</td><td>Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993</td><td></td><td></td><td>No strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ubeidiya (Palestine) layer I-26a</strong><br>Homo cf ergaster</td><td>Incisor</td><td>Belmaker et al., 2002</td><td>1.2 Ma</td><td>Rink et al., 2007</td><td>Strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Palestine)</strong><br>Homo erectus</td><td>Fragment of femur</td><td>Geraads and Tchernov, 1983</td><td>900 ± 150 ka</td><td>Goren-Inbar et al., 1992</td><td>Strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Human remains</th><th>Taxonomical references</th><th>Dating</th><th>Dating references</th><th>Association with stone artefacts</th><th>Bifacial pieces</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Tabûn (Palestine) layer E</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>350 ± 30 to<br>330 ± 30 ka</td><td>Mercier et al.,<br>1995</td><td><strong>Strict association</strong></td><td><strong>Yes</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Homo sp. indet</strong></td><td rowspan="2">Fragment of<br>femur</td><td rowspan="2">McCown and<br>Keith, 1939</td><td>200 ka</td><td>Grün et al.,<br>1991</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>200 ka</td><td>Grün and<br>Stringer, 2000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Zuttiyeh (Palestine)<br>archaic Homo sapiens</strong></td><td>Frontal and<br>zygomatic bone</td><td>Hublin, 1976<br>Vandermeersch,<br>1981</td><td>Stade 8 to 6<br>250 to 200 ka</td><td>Bar-Yosef, 1988<br>Bar-Yosef and<br>Vandermeersch,<br>1993</td><td><strong>Strict association</strong></td><td><strong>Yes</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Modern human</strong></td><td></td><td>Bar-Yosef and<br>Vandermersch<br>1991<br>Zeitoun, 2001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hathnora (India)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>No strict<br>association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus narmadaensis</strong></td><td>Half calvarium</td><td>Sonakia, 1985</td><td>&lt; 162 ± 8 ka</td><td>Patnaik et al.,<br>2009</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus</strong></td><td></td><td>Lumley and<br>Sonakia, 1985</td><td>&lt; 407 ± 21 ka</td><td>Patnaik et al.,<br>2009</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo sapiens</strong></td><td></td><td>Zeitoun, 2000<br>Cameron et al.,<br>2004</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo sp. indet.</strong></td><td>Clavicula</td><td>Sankhyan,<br>1997</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Zhoukoudian Layer 10<br>(China)<br>Sinanthropus pekinensis</strong></td><td>1 calvarium</td><td>Black, 1927<br>Groves, 1989</td><td>460 ka<br>600 ka</td><td>Liu, 1983<br>Shen et al.,<br>2001</td><td>No strict<br>association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo pekinensis</strong></td><td></td><td>Tattersall and<br>Schwartz 2000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Zhoukoudian Layer 8-9<br>(China)<br>Sinanthropus pekinensis</strong></td><td>Sevral calvarium<br>teeth and<br>Postcranial<br>remains</td><td>Black, 1927<br>Groves, 1989</td><td>420 ka<br>500 ± 60 ka</td><td>Liu, 1983<br>Shen et al.,<br>2001</td><td>No strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo pekinensis pekinensis<br>Gongwangling Layer 6<br>(China)<br>Homo erectus<br>Tangshan (China)</strong></td><td>Partial cranium</td><td>Tattersall and<br>Schwartz 2000<br>Zeitoun, 2000<br>Etler, 1996</td><td>1.15 Ma<br>1.54 to 1.65 Ma<br>350 ka</td><td>Wu and Poirier,<br>1995<br>Zhu et al., 2015<br>Chen et al.,<br>1996</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus cf Zhoukoudian</strong></td><td>1 tooth, cranial<br>fragments</td><td>Liu et al 2005</td><td>620 ka<br>581 ± 93 ka</td><td>Zhu et al., 2015<br>Chen et al.,<br>1996<br>Zhu et al., 1989<br>An et al., 1990</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Xuetangliangzi Layer 3<br>(China)<br>Homo sapiens</strong></td><td>Two skull</td><td>Li and Etler,<br>1992</td><td>936 ka<br>500 ka<br>650 ka</td><td>Zhu et al., 2015<br>Chen et al.,<br>1996<br>Zhu et al., 1989<br>An et al., 1990</td><td>Strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Chenjiayao (China)<br>Homo sapiens cf Modern<br>lineage<br>Longtangdong (China)</strong></td><td>Fragment of<br>mandible</td><td>Wu and Dong,<br>1982<br>Kidder and<br>Durband, 2004<br>Wu et al., 2006</td><td>200 ka<br>195+6/-16 ka<br>270 to 150 ka<br>300 ka<br>412+6/-25</td><td>Huang et al.,<br>1981<br>Li and Mei,<br>1983<br>Chen et al.,<br>1987<br>Huang et al.,<br>1995<br>Grün et al.,<br>1998</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Homo erectus cf Zhoukoudian</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1 (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Human remains</th><th>Taxonomical references</th><th>Dating</th><th>Dating references</th><th>Association with stone artefacts</th><th>Bifacial pieces</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Dali Layer 3 (China)</strong></td><td></td><td>Zhou and Wang 1982</td><td>Stade 6 to 7</td><td>Wang, 1985</td><td>Strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens daliensis</td><td>Skull</td><td>Lumley and Sonakia, 1985</td><td>230 to 190 ka</td><td>Wu, 1991</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo erectus</td><td></td><td>Braüer and Mbua, 1992</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>archaic Homo sapiens cf Modern</td><td></td><td>Zeitoun, 2000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Xujiayao (China)</strong></td><td>Several cranial pieces, mandibula and teeth</td><td>Braüer and Mbua, 1992</td><td>125 to 104 ka</td><td>Chen et al., 1984</td><td>Strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Archaic Homo sapiens</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Jinniushan Layer 7 (China)</strong></td><td>Calvarium and postcranial</td><td>Braüer and Mbua, 1992</td><td>280 ka</td><td>Lu, 1989</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>archaic Homo sapiens</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Chaoxian (Chaohu) (China)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens</td><td>Occipital</td><td>Xu et al., 1984</td><td>200 to 160 ka</td><td>Chen et al., 1987</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens</td><td>Maxilla</td><td>Xu et al., 1986</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Maba (China)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens cf Modern</td><td>Incomplete calvarium</td><td>Zhou and Wang 1982</td><td>130 ka</td><td>Wu, 1991</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Wu, 1983</td><td>135 to 129 ka</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>archaic Homo sapiens</td><td></td><td>Braüer and Mbua, 1992</td><td>135 to 129 ka</td><td>Yuan et al., 1986</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Zhirendong Layer 2 (China)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>113 to 100 ka</td><td>Liu et al., 2010</td><td>No strict association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens sapiens</td><td>Incomplet mandibula</td><td>Liu et al., 2010</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liujiang (China)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>73 to 62 ka »</td><td>Yuan et al., 1986</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>227 to 110 ka</td><td>Shen et al., 2002</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens sapiens</td><td>Calvarium</td><td>Woo, 1959</td><td>139 to 113 ka</td><td>Shen and Michel, 2007</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>153 ka</td><td>Shen et al., 2001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tubo (China)</strong></td><td></td><td>Li et al., 1984</td><td>220 to 94 ka</td><td>Shen et al., 2001</td><td>No association</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens sapiens</td><td>Isolated teeth</td><td></td><td>139 to 85 ka</td><td>Shen and Michel, 2007</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Huanglong (China)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>93.13 to 76.6 ka</td><td>Wu et al., 2007 in Shen et al., 2013</td><td>Strict association</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Homo sapiens sapiens</td><td>Isolated teeth</td><td>Liu et al., 2010b</td><td>103.7 to 1.6 to 103.1 to 1.3</td><td>Liu et al., 2010</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Wu et al., 2006</td><td>101 to 81 ka</td><td>Shen et al., 2013</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sangiran Ngebung2 (Indonesia)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.97 to 0.73</td><td>Sémah et al., 1992</td><td>Strict association</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ngebung ensemble A</strong></td><td>Tooth</td><td></td><td>0.88 to 0.86</td><td>Falguères and Yokohama, 2001</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Homo erectus</td><td></td><td>Sémah et al., 1992</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

but it was not found in stratigraphic context. Stringer et al. (1998) are the only researchers to relate it to a Neandertal sample. At Notarchirico, a femur fragment was found in the upper alpha layer without bifacial tools (Piperno, 1999).

Some human remains were found at Visogliano (Cattani et al., 1991), where the lithic assemblage only includes two core-like proto-bifaces (Falguères et al., 2008). According to Mallegni et al. (2002), the absence of derived Neandertal characters implies that these fossils are archaic *H. sapiens*.

At Mala Balanica in Serbia (Rink et al., 2013), the absence of a retro-molar space on the mandible, a mental foramen below the P4 and a *prominentia lateralis* in a fore position, are dissimilar to the derived characters found on Mauer or

on Neandertals in general. These traits lead Roksandic et al. (2011) to consider it as an archaic *Homo* sp., but no artefact is associated with this specimen.

At Vertesszöllös in Hungary, in a layer yielding a microlithic industry and attributed to MIS 9 (Schwarcz and Latham, 1984), an adult occipital is considered not to bear Neandertal characters. Thoma (1966) and Wolpoff (1977) affiliated it to *H. erectus*. Hublin (1988) distinguished it from both Asian *H. erectus* and Neandertals.

In Greece, two human craniums were found at cave A of Apidima. The second skull was relatively more complete and was described as showing Neandertal facial characters (Harvati and Delson, 1999). However, in a more
recent study, Harvati et al. (2009) placed it between *H. neanderthalensis* and *H. heidelbergensis* (s.l.). The stone industry at this site is not directly associated with the human remains.

The stratigraphic origin of the cranium from Petralona is disputed. It was found isolated on the cave floor, but according to Poulianos (1981, 2005), the skull was uncovered in layer 11, which includes most of the stone tools. Stringer (1974) attributed it to *H. rhodesiensis*, but Hublin (1985) includes it in a regional definition of *H. heidelbergensis*. The specimen shows some archaic *H. sapiens* characters, such as those observed on the Kabwe skull (*H. sapiens rhodesiensis*), but it also presents a set of facial traits linking it to the European Neandertal lineage (De Bonis and Melentis, 1982; Harvati et al., 2010, 2011; Hennig et al., 1981).

The human remains found at Bilzingsleben (around 400 ka), in the centre of Germany (Mania et al., 1994), display no Neandertal derived characters but are comparable to their anatomical counterparts from Vertesszöllös and Petralona, according to Hublin (1988). The fragment of a mandible from a third individual presenting neither Neandertal nor anatomically modern human derived characters was described by Vlcek et al. (2000). It was said to be closer to the Chinese specimens from Zhoukoudian than to the Arago specimens. The lithic industry has not yet been described.

An isolated tibial diaphysis was found in locality Q1/B at Boxgrove (MIS 13) in Great Britain (Roberts et al., 1994). This bone may be attributed to archaic *Homo*, especially *H. heidelbergensis*, due to temporal and geographical proximity, but its robustness recalls that of Neandertals (Stringer et al., 1998). More recently, two isolated incisors presenting robust spatulate crowns were found and were provisionally attributed to *H. heidelbergensis* by Hillson et al. (2010). Nevertheless, although Acheulean artefacts are predominantly concentrated in one level of the site (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999), their strict connection with the human remains cannot be taken for granted. An occipital and two parietal bones at Swanscombe were previously considered to belong to a last common ancestor of anatomically modern humans and Neandertals (Sergi, 1953; Stewart, 1964). However, it was later considered to be a Neandertal (Santa Luca, 1978).

## 2.2. The Near East pivot

In western Turkey, an incomplete calvarium dated to more than 1.1 Ma was found at Kocabaş (Engin et al., 1999; Kappelman et al., 2008; Lebatard et al., 2014). Initially interpreted as a *H. erectus* by Vialet et al. (2012), the specimen is more precisely considered to be closer to both African fossils OH9 and Daka (Vialet et al., 2014), which are considered to be at the bottom of the *H. rhodesiensis–H. sapiens* lineage. Due to the lack of derived traits, the Kocabaş specimen could also be considered as an archaic *H. sapiens*, according to our cladistic viewpoint. No stone artefacts were described in association with this specimen.

A left human parietal bone was found in unit VII A at Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar, in Syria (Jagher et al., 1997; Le Tensorer et al., 1997, 2007; Schmid et al., 1997), with

Acheulean artefacts. The shape of the parietal bone corresponds to a rather low cranial vault and even though it is thick, these features tend to distance it from the Neandertal lineage and affiliate it more closely to *H. erectus*.

At Ubeidiya in Israel, at 1.4–1.2 Ma, bifaces were found in layers K-30 and K-29 (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993; Sagi, 2005). Several human cranial fragments and isolated teeth were initially attributed to *Homo* sp. (Tobias, 1966) and an isolated incisor found in layer I-26a was more recently attributed to *H. cf. ergaster* (Belmaker et al., 2002).

At Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (800 ka), two femur fragments were attributed to *H. erectus* (Geraads and Tchernov, 1983; Goren-Inbar et al., 1992).

A *Homo* sp. femoral fragment was found in layer E of Tabûn Cave (MIS 8) (Grün and Stringer, 2000; Grün et al., 1991; McCown and Keith, 1939; Mercier and Valladas, 2003; Mercier et al., 1995) and was associated with an Acheulo-Yabrudian lithic assemblage (Gardner and Bate, 1937).

In Galilee, the Zuttiyeh fossil (MIS 8 or 6) was originally considered to be a Neandertal (Keith, 1927), then an archaic *H. sapiens* (Hublin, 1976). A phenetic study (Sohn and Wolpoff, 1993) moved it closer to the Chinese series of Zhoukoudian. Its face distinguishes it from Neandertals, according to Hublin and Tillier (1991), but some of these characters are considered to be primitive by Stringer (1984). Finally a cladistic analysis (Zeitoun, 2001) confirmed its former presumed attribution to *H. sapiens sapiens* by Vandermeersch (1981). Its age is disputed but Bar-Yosef and Gisis (1974) indicate that it was discovered at the bottom of a Yabroudian–Acheulean layer.

## 2.3. The Indian subcontinent

At Hathnora in central India, a human half calvarium is considered to be an "evolved" *H. erectus* by Lumley and Sonakia (1985) and Sonakia (1985), and is attributed to Neandertal by Cameron et al. (2004), but a cladistic analysis places this specimen closer to *H. sapiens* than to *H. erectus*, at the base of the *H. sapiens* lineage (Zeitoun, 2000). An isolated clavicle uncovered in a horizon of the Boulder Conglomerate at Hathnora does not allow any specific attribution according to Sankhyan (1997), but the illustrations he provides do not convincingly demonstrate that the fossil bone belongs to any human taxon (Patnaik et al., 2009).

## 2.4. China

From 1.5 Ma to 90 ka, numerous human fossils exist but in most cases, they do not present any strict association with lithic artefacts (An et al., 1990; Chen et al., 1984, 1987, 1996; Etler, 1996; Grün et al., 1998; Huang et al., 1995; Li and Mei, 1983; Lu, 1989; Norton and Braun, 2010; Vialet et al., 2010; Wang, 1985; Wu and Dong, 1982; Wu et al., 1989; Xu et al., 1986; Yuan et al., 1986; Zhao et al., 2001; Zhu et al., 2015).

No bifacial pieces were uncovered at Zhoukoudian in northern China (Liu, 1983; Shen et al., 2001), but it is nonetheless necessary to expose some of the anthropological elements of this site as the definition of Chinese *H. erectus* was established on the basis of this series
(Wu, 1991). The Zhoukoudian specimens were initially described as *Sinanthropus pekinensis* by Black (1927). This taxonomic name was later changed into *H. erectus pekinensis* (cf Campbell, 1963). However, the name *H. pekinensis* was also recognized by Groves (1989) and Schwartz and Tattersall (2002). It should also be noted that a cladistic analysis reports a different phylogenetic position for the specimen belonging to the older layer and those from the more recent layers (Zeitoun, 2000). In this analysis, these specimens are considered to belong to an "archaic" *H. sapiens*.

At Gongwangling, in north-western China, a partial human fossil was uncovered in the archaeological layer 6. On account of extensive alterations due to postmortem erosion and breakage (Woo, 1966), it is difficult to determine its taxonomic affiliation, but it is generally attributed to *H. erectus* (Rightmire, 2013). A lithic industry without bifacial pieces was found at the bottom of the underlying layer 8 and a handaxe was uncovered on the surface (Wu and Poirier, 1995). Two fragmentary human crania and a tooth were found in a cave near Tangshan near Nanjing, eastern China (Wu and Poirier, 1995). The facial characters described by Liu et al. (2005) for the specimen of Nanjing n° 1 are close to those observable on the Zhoukoudian series. No tool was found with these fossils. In the site of Yunxian (Xuetangliangzi), two human skulls were found in layer 3 with lithic artefacts (Etler and Li, 1994; Vialet et al., 2010). In spite of postmortem taphonomic deformation, it is possible to observe the presence of a canine fossa and other features which relate these specimens more to early *H. sapiens* and the anatomically modern human lineage than to the Neandertal lineage (Li and Etler, 1992). According to Feng (2008), the lithic assemblage consists mainly of choppers, some picks and poor quality bifacial pieces, but only one bifacial piece comes from the layer underlying the human fossil-bearing layer, and other bifaces were uncovered on the surface.

An incomplete human mandible was found at Chenjiayao, in eastern China. The presence of a mental trigone could relate this specimen to early anatomically modern humans. Only one crude scraper and three flakes in quartz were found with this fossil (Wu and Poirier, 1995). A fragmentary and deformed cranium was found at Longtandong, in southern China (Huang et al., 1981), presenting morphological similarities to the Zhoukoudian *H. erectus* (Day, 1986; Wu and Dong, 1982). Nevertheless, some "progressive" features were also observed after comparison with the Zhoukoudian series according to Wu and Dong (1985). No lithic industry is associated with these human remains but large flakes made of rhinoceros enamel were observed by Olsen and Miller-Antonio (1992). In the province of Shaanxi, the Dali calvarium was found at the bottom of a late Middle Pleistocene (Li, 1983) layer. It is a transitional form between *H. erectus* and *H. sapiens* according to Wu (1983), but cladistic analysis affiliates it to *H. sapiens* (Zeitoun, 2000). Some human fossils were found at Xujiyao, in northern China (Wu, 1980). Recent analyses of the remains point to a complex mosaic of primitive and derived features, including traits classically identified in Eurasian Neandertals, Early and Middle Pleistocene hominins, and even Late Pleistocene anatomically

modern human from Asia (Bar-Yosef, 1988; Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1993; Kidder and Durband, 2004; Wu and Trinkaus, 2014). A dental study confirms this mosaic of primitive and derived features (Xing et al., 2015). Several thousand lithic pieces associated with bone tools were uncovered at the site, but no bifacial pieces were noted (Jia et al., 1979).

As for the last chronological range of the occurrence of bifacial pieces in China, i.e. 110 to 80 ka, this period could include many sites with anatomically modern human fosils although their dating is still disputed and no bifacial lithic artefact is strictly associated with these remains. At Jinniushan, a cranium is attributed to archaic *H. sapiens* by Braüer and Mbua (1992). At Chaoxian, human fossils are attributed to early *H. sapiens* by Xu et al. (1984) and the Maba calvarium is also considered to be an early *H. sapiens* (Wu, 1983; Zhou et al., 1982). No lithic artefacts are associated with the human remains at these three sites. Isolated teeth and a mandible fragment bearing a mental trigon were unearthed in layer n° 2 of Zhirendong Cave, in south-ern China (Liu et al., 2010). This specimen, as well as the remains of Liujiang Man discovered in Tongtianyan (Woo, 1959), are considered to be the oldest anatomically mod-ern human remains in China (Shen et al., 2002) but their strict stratigraphic context is unknown.

At Longdon Cave, *H. sapiens* remains were found in both disturbed and undisturbed cave deposits. One hundred and seventy-one stone artefacts collected from Locality 54100 and other sites in the vicinity of this cave were studied but no bifacial pieces were observed (Olsen and Miller-Antonio, 1992). In the deposits of Ganqian Cave, several isolated human teeth were uncovered and attributed to *H. sapiens* (Shen and Michel, 2007) but with no associated lithic artefacts (Li et al., 1984; Wang et al., 1999). The seven-hominin teeth from Huanglong Cave were assigned to *H. sapiens* by Liu et al. (2010). These remains are associated with a lithic industry presenting transitional features between the archaeological cultures of southern and northern China (Wu et al., 2006).

## 2.5. *The Indonesian cradle of mankind*

Two interpretations are currently applied to regional chronology in Indonesia: a long chronology and a short chronology, i.e. Sémah (2001) versus Larick et al. (2001) for the Sangiran sites, as well as for Trinil or Perning. This presents the additional difficulty of choosing the range of human fossils to take into account. Nevertheless, for these sites, in the different localities and stratigraphic levels, all the fossils are attributed to *H. erectus* (Zeitoun et al., 2010). In Indonesia, lithic pieces compatible with Acheulean tracitions were found out of stratigraphic context in southern Sumatra or at the bottom of the Kabuh Formation at Ngebung 2 in Sangiran (Semah et al., 1992). At Ngebung, a human femur was found in the Grenzbank conglomeratic layer at the base of the stratigraphy (Grimaud-Hervé et al., 1994), as well as a human right molar strictly associated with lithic artefacts in layer A. The occupation layer yielded typical cleavers with flakes, choppers, hammerstones, polyhedrons and bolas (Sémah, 2001; Sémah et al., 2003).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Anthropological phylogeny according to V. Zeitoun (2000), modified.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 1.** Phylogénie anthropologique, selon Zeitoun (2000), modifié.</caption>

## 2.6. Conclusion regarding Eurasian palaeoanthropology

By applying the logical argumentation developed by Vandermeersch (1989), based on the postulate that it is not biologically conceivable that speciation occurs in several places, except in the case of multiple convergence, the available data indicate that *H. sapiens* is not the direct descendant of *H. erectus* but its sister-group. On this basis, *H. sapiens* should also appear as a very old taxon with several regional subtaxa, in keeping with the recommendations of Bonde (1989). Based on cladistics, Zeitoun (2000) demonstrated both former hypotheses and showed that, apart from the African Knmwt 15000 specimens, the *H. erectus* clade includes the whole Trinil-Sangiran series while other so-called *H. erectus sensu largo* should be attributed to several *H. sapiens* subtaxa. This interpretation reconciles the “multiregional” and “Out of Africa” models and explains the significant polymorphism observed, particularly in Europe (Zeitoun, 2004). Our anthropological assessment highlights general synchronicity between humans and artefacts, as far as bifacial industries are concerned. For the Near East, *H. erectus* or archaic *H. sapiens* are the craftsmen of such industries while, in Europe, these artisans are archaic *H. sapiens* related to the Neandertal lineage. In Indonesia, only *H. erectus* seems to be related to bifacial industries but in China, we suggest that only “archaic *H. sapiens*” and “anatomically modern human” lineages are involved (Fig. 1).

# 3. Chronological and technological considerations

## 3.1. In Europe

In western Europe, bifacial technology appears from 1 to 0.9 Ma (La Boella, Spain, Vallverdu et al., 2014), but the scarcity of bifacial tools and partial tool shaping may indicate a local onset at that time. The French site of la

Noira (700 ka), with its diversified and elaborate bifacial tool kit, provides the most convincing evidence of arrivals so far (Moncel et al., 2013). The sporadic archaeological evidence between 800 and 500 ka raises questions as to the significance of the assemblages using this technology: do they only represent episodic arrivals of new hominin groups with this technology (as suggested by the elaborate bifaces at la Noira), an influx of new ideas or needs, or local origins (despite the lack of dates to assess that)? It also calls into question the use and definition of the term Acheulean. “Acheuleans” would be more relevant to describe the observed diversity. Bifaces and cleavers always occur in very low frequencies and these tools appear to be a marginal component of tool kits. From 500 ka onwards in Western and Southern Europe, assemblages with bifacial technology cover both southern and northern latitudes with some degree of regional standardization in keeping with site functions (bifaces v. bifacial tools). Filiations over time are not well evidenced by current data. Raw material components are very different in the North and the South, with mainly flint in the form of nodules in the North, and various rock types available as large stone blocks in the South. This may account for the presence of some tool types, such as cleavers on flakes, with no links with the Large Flake Assemblages (LFA) described in the Levant (Sharon, 2007). Traditions with bifacial technology appear to have first continuously occupied northern latitudes from 500 ka onwards.

Technological diversity would thus be due:

* to repeated waves of hominin expansion from 700 ka onwards (yielding an impression of technological stasis), then to regional histories or evolution after MIS 12, with innovations and/or stability;

* to a local onset in rare and so far poorly demonstrated cases;
* to varied activities or traditions accounting for the absence of unessential bifaces (Ashton et al., 1992; Monnier et al., 2001).

Obviously, the significance of assemblages with bifaces will be somewhat elucidated when the function of these tools, the role of activities and raw materials will be better known, since their technological and morphological variability does not seem to have chronological or geographical connotations.

## 3.2. Regarding South Asia

In South Asia (India), the early Acheulean assemblages, dated to 1.5 Ma, are similar to the African Acheulean due to the large flake component (cf. Large Flake Assemblage tradition [LFA], Sharon, 2007). However, this typical component is not systematically produced. Very often, large cutting tools are made from other types of blanks, like slabs or cobbles, especially if the latter are readily available in the local environment. Local raw materials are used in priority and are of diverse quality and shape (quartzite, basalt, silicified limestone). It is important to mention the presence of cleavers on flakes (LCTs) in most of the series, in addition to spheroids and polyhedrons. The biface ratio is low; between 1 and 2%. Bifacial technology is often crude, with few removals forming pointed and symmetrical tools.

This is also the case for the Chinese sites of Bose, South China, or elsewhere, where both bifaces and unifaces (pointed or with a transversal tip) are often made on cobbles. Ratios of bifaces or bifacial tools are low (less than 5%). Most of the series are composed of thick heavy-duty tools on pebbles and cobbles (choppers and chopping-tools, picks, spheroids). In China, the earliest evidence occurs as early as 1.5 Ma, then at around 800 ka and continues until 90 ka. This technology suggests more bifacial tools than "Acheulean" tools, as described in Europe. However, some assemblages share common features with the African technology (Hao and Kuman, 2016). Debates are still heated in recent papers, opposing researchers considering the Chinese finds as Acheulean and others attributing them to a local onset (Kuman et al., 2014; Wang and Bae, 2014; Wang et al., 2014). The Indian series would be the farthest discoveries of "Acheulean"-type artefacts from East Africa and the Levant.

It is important to bear in mind that the production of large flakes requires suitable forms of raw materials, such as outcrops or very large blocks. If these are not available, craftsmen will settle for cobbles or slabs. Conversely, if cobbles or slabs are lacking in the environment, large flakes have to be produced from outcrops. These environmental constraints induce technical habits and skills that may lead knappers to prefer specific raw materials, even when a full range of possibilities becomes available.

## 3.3. Regarding East Asia

As we have aimed to demonstrate through the selection of sites, in East Asia, several analytic aspects must be considered before any attempts at interpretation. The

first aspect concerns the representation of the bifacial tool within the different assemblages. This representation can vary from more than 80% at many sites in the Near East (Boëda et al., 2004; Jagher, 2011; Le Tensorer and Muhesen, 1995), to less than 5% in East Asia (Bodin, 2011; Hao Li and Kuman, 2016; Hou and Li, 2007; Li, 2011; Li, 2015; Li and Sun, 2013; Li et al., 2014; Norton et al., 2006; Wang and Bae, 2014; Wang et al., 2008, 2014). In an assemblage where bifaces represent the majority of the tools, it is logical to suppose that they act as blanks for different kinds of working edges and are not simply the repetition of the same tool type. The biface thus acts as a "matrix", which requires functional technical traits for its transformative (prepared area) and prehensile parts. The active edges are arranged on this matrix according to the intended function.

The East Asian examples clearly illustrate the need to take into account the assemblage as a whole. The contradictory debates regarding the famous Movius line provide a good example of this (Dennell, 2016; Gamble and Marshall, 2001; Hao Li et al., in press, Lycett and Bae, 2010; Norton et al., 2006; Wang and Bae, 2014). In the sites selected to represent East Asia between 800 and 90 ka, bifaces are extremely rare, and appear to represent specific tools, rather than multi-purpose tools.

Let us first consider the raw materials. The main common denominator for most lithic raw materials used in East Asia, regardless of petrographic determination, is the form in which they were used: the cobble. In this, Movius (1948) was correct in underlining this attribute.

Let us now consider simple knapping principles. When a block of stone is knapped, "predetermined" removals are produced, some of which correspond to intended end products, which are immediately useable or require secondary processing (for instance retouch). The sought-after criteria may require specific preparation of the block of stone to create the necessary conditions for producing these end products or may already be naturally present due to the selection of appropriate forms. Some cobbles bear the flat/convex surfaces required to produce one to three successive removals. The sites of Liangshan Longgangsi and Houfang show this pattern of predetermined removals, termed type C (Boëda, 2013; Bodin, 2011; Li et al., 2014). However, it is common to see this type of artefact classified in the indeterminate category of "core/tools".

When a tool is made, regardless of type, the technological purpose is oriented towards its functionalization, requiring the preparation of a prehensile part, a transformative part and a working edge. When shaping is the chosen technical solution, there are two possibilities: using the natural part of the block or preparation of the transformative part by flaking. As a result, when a cobble is used, the prehensile part is held naturally. Preparation mainly concerns the transformative part.

Shaping can affect one or both faces of the tool. At the site of Bose, most of the tools are unifaces. Why so many unifaces? Is this a single tool type or a continuously produced chopper? The technological analysis of these tools indicates three phases. The first entails selecting a cobble with a natural prehensile part suitable for holding and
with a flat surface that will be one of the two faces of the edge of the transformative part. The second phase shapes the transformative part made by the intersection of two surfaces, one of which is flat and natural. The final phase is the preparation of the working edge. Such construction enables the production of different kinds of tools (transformative part and working edge). Why then reduce all the worked cobbles into the simplistic concepts of choppers or chopping-tools?

At Bose, is the choice to shape cobbles imposed by the quality of the raw material? After availing of the opportunity to test this raw material ourselves, we can refute this hypothesis.

The choice of cobbles for tool production across East Asia thus appears to structure all the reduction schemes. Such behavior persists throughout the Pleistocene in both East and Southeast Asia, in some cases until the Holocene, as seen with the Hoabinhian. This behavior corresponds to a specific technical option with its own constraints and ergonomic and evolutionary consequences. The technological world of this region is thus not the same as that of the Mediterranean periphery. The forms and contours of tools and the associated techniques are different.

As a result, we are confronted with:

* a range of diversified tools around the Mediterranean during the same periods, but for which artificial categories are minimized;

* the preferential exploitation of cobbles using different methods in East Asia: unifacial, bifacial and trihedral shaping and knapping of all kinds.

While neither of these features, considered individually, is unique to East Asia, their widespread presence throughout this region and over several hundred millennia is truly specific to this area.

If we return to the concept of the convergent bifacial tool, termed bifeacial, which triggered the construction of a global culture called the Acheulean, we are correct in refuting this proposal for East Asia. In actual fact, this assertion is based on the presence of artefacts with identical contours. This single morphological criterion is not sufficient for such a cultural generalization. However, the evidence clearly shows that the bifeacial also exists in East Asia. Two hypotheses can be formulated to explain its presence. The first is the technological convergence of a single “idea”. This involves producing an entirely standardized form, through shaping. This would explain why we find this technological concept in such far-flung places and time periods. But it is important not to reduce this contour and form to a single tool type. Technological analyses demonstrate that most often these pieces represent different specific tool types. The second hypothesis is that the concept of this standardized form and contour is borrowed and transmitted from one person to another, but made according to local traditions.

Contrary to common belief, these different methods of manufacture and varied forms and contours in East Asia take into account the assimilation of a technological concept, which may subsequently be altered through borrowing. One could use the neologism “Asianification” of an

idea to reflect this phenomenon, rather than the result of the settlement of a territory by more cognitively evolved human groups.

Whether the concept of the convergent tool created by shaping was introduced by inter-community contacts or was the result of technological convergence, it is experienced differently because it becomes part of a set of practices, which are themselves different. To underline this point, we could introduce several reflections regarding the absence of cleavers in East Asia (although it is largely represented on the Indian subcontinent) and the maintenance of a degree of “technical primitiveness” throughout the history of these pieces in East Asia.

The existence of cleavers in East Asia is closely linked to a commonly held idea for the Acheulean. When we speak of bifaces and therefore of the Acheulean, it is assumed that we should inevitably also find cleavers. Some objects could possibly be considered to present the contour of a cleaver, but these are very rare and in most cases caution should be applied. In contrast, there is another type of artefact often interpreted as a cleaver based on a vague shape resemblance. This is sometimes called a "couperet" (Fig. 2). A good example comes from Zhoukoudian (locality 15 RP39029) (Li, 2011), where someone searching for cleavers would present this piece lengthwise. Yet techno-functional analysis by several of us has shown that all of the use-wear formed by shocks is found on the edge opposite a bifacially retouched back.

The “archaic” nature of the bifacial industries in East Asia is striking. How can this phenomenon be explained? There are two percussion methods for shaping; either via direct impact on the edge of the artefact (peripheral percussion) or internal contact a few millimeters from the edge (internal percussion). Hammerstones are adapted to the impact mode. It is clear that the aim, rather than the means, is important here: the technological results of the detachment of the flakes. In general, we observe a shift from internal to peripheral percussion at different times from one continent to another. For East Asia, this transition does not appear to have occurred, with rare exceptions, which require more detailed analyses. Raw materials and their morphology are immediately eliminated as causes for this evolutionary halt. One of the explanations that can be proposed among others is that the bifacial phenomenon never became dominant. However characteristic they may be, the number of bifaces discovered is minimal in comparison with other tools. We can thus assume that this tool required little technological investment (apart from its function), unlike the abundant flake tools. Indirectly, this indicates a lack of circulation of the concept, which remained confined to very specific geographic zones. The most recent extremely abundant and geographically grouped Korean data (from MIS 4-3) (Lumley et al., 2011) confirm this evolutionary “blockage”. Does this also hold true for India? Technological data are too sparse to detect changes in production methods. However, these observations seem to be similar to those in Southeast Asia.

In conclusion, it appears preferable not to use the linguistic terminology applied to the Mediterranean periphery and Africa to describe the observed occurrences in East Asia.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Couperet, Zhoukoudian (locality 15 RP39029). Traces of use are located on the edge parallel to the maximum artefact length.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Fig. 2.** Couperet, Zhoukoudian (localité RP39029). Traces d'usure sur le bord parallèle à la longueur maximum de l'artéfact.</caption>

### 3.4. Regarding West Asia

West Asia and the Arabian Peninsula are often described as vital buffer zones connecting Africa, Europe and East Asia. Recent research (Chevrier, 2012b) on a series of East African and Near Eastern sites has clearly demonstrated that the different evolutionary stages of this phenomenon are present and equivalent from one region to the next.

Bifacial technology is at present undeniably African in origin (Beyene et al., 2013; Lepre et al., 2011; Roche et al., 2003), with the invention of bifacial shaping around 1.7 Ma. The Near Eastern equivalent is found at the site of 'Ubeidiya, dated between 1.4 and 1.2 Ma (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993; Belmaker, 2006). The latter site is more recent (800 ka), but bifacial volumetric forms are highly similar, and both correspond to an evolutionary stage that can be considered as the initial, or almost initial stage (Boëda, 2005). In both cases, earlier technocomplexes occur, providing evidence of a potential purely local link.

The sites of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar and El Meirah show all of the technological evolutionary stages seen in Africa, albeit with a certain time lapse, as in Europe, but without an evolutionary rupture. Such evolutionary similarity from one continent to another with a permanent time lag supports the hypothesis of parallel evolution transmitting and developing the same bifacial technological concept. If the concept of bifaces comes from Africa, as suggested by its chronology, it is surprising to find it at 'Ubeidiya several hundred thousand years later with a similar technological level. Although there is a significant time lapse between these occurrences, the similarity in technological levels, both of which are in the first evolutionary stage, clearly supports the diffusion of a technological concept from one group to the next or a phenomenon of convergence, as in East Asia.

We can also compare the more or less contemporaneous material from El Meirah (Syria) with Isenya (Kenya) (Roche et al., 1988; Texier and Roche, 1995). Technologically, the Isenya bifaces reflect a technical level indicating peripheral percussion, while at El Meirah percussion is still internal, giving it an archaic character. This evolutionary difference is another argument in favor of evolution in each macro-region transmitting and developing the same technological concept: that of a standardized blank from the first stages of production in order to support one or more tools. Actually we should dissociate the evolution of technological stages of fabrication and the use of bifacial pieces from the history of these changes, which are both independent of their geographic location, in order to discern these two levels of observation – the details of technological change and the temporality of these changes. One is at the level of identification of change while the other concerns the chronology of changes, rhythmicity, causes, etc.

Another important point concerns the expansion, or rather the limits, of the eastern bifacial phenomenon. To the north, the phenomenon does not extend beyond Georgia and Azerbaijan. To the east, the Zagros Mountains form a border limiting expansion. Southern Iraq and most of Iran do not have true bifacial industries. The phenomenon is thus found within a limited, trapezoidal-shaped area of the Near East, including a coastal zone, a continental zone in contact with the Syrian and Jordanian steppe and the watersheds of the Tigris and Euphrates. Contrary to previous records, Central Asia as a whole and the Iranian Plateau to Pakistan, the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf have no bifaces (Davis and Ranov, 1999). It is only on the terraces of the Indus that they reappear. The Near East is thus a culture-sac for the bifacial phenomenon, in which we observe all of the technological evolutionary stages and a range of methods and styles that reflect local populations rooted in their regions.
Except for a few stratified sites such as Saffaqah (site excavated but not dated; Saudi Arabia) (Whalen, 2003; Whalen et al., 1984), we have no stratigraphic sequence that could serve as a chronological framework for the Arabian Peninsula. The general data indicate that this entire territory was occupied, from the interior desert zones to the mountainous and coastal zones (Petraglia, 2003). Nonetheless, for the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, the data collected show that most of the territory occupied in the southern part of this region is mountainous or coastal, situated along the Red Sea, the Oman Sea and the Gulf of Oman to the Strait of Ormuz (Amirkhanov, 1994; Groucott and Petraglia, 2012; Petraglia, 2003; Petraglia et al., 2009; Rose and Hilbert, 2014; Whalen, 2003; Whalen and Pease, 1991; Whalen and Schatte, 1997; Whalen et al., 2002). Such technological similarities show that the same technological concept was used there. The latest discoveries in the United Arab Emirates are of much interest because they are the easternmost bifaces known to date near the Gulf of Oman. It is obviously very tempting to cross this channel and establish contact with Iran, Pakistan, India and East Asia. However the maritime border of Iran has not yet yielded a single bife. The westernmost bifaces in Pakistan come from the Indus region, associated with typical cleavers. Cleavers, in the current state of discoveries, do not appear to be present in Oman or the UAR. Such absences are difficult to interpret. Hence, we must ask the following question. Did contemporaneous non-bifacial industries exist, and are as of yet unidentified, or were there truly empty zones without occupation during this period? As long as we cannot answer this question, it is difficult to propose a scenario for this part of the world.

In conclusion, we can only say that the standardized bifacial concept for tools is not a universal technological concept. The bifacial concept is one of a standardized tool and not of a single tool type. It includes abundant expressions of form, volume and use of its edges, allowing each human group adopting it to express it differently.

### 3.5. Regarding Southeast Asia (Mainland and archipelagos)

Currently available data for bifacial technology in Southeast Asia, bordered by the Indian and Chinese areas, go back to around 800 ka. The diversity of the assemblages indicates that this area was a technological melting pot during the Early Palaeolithic, which is highly probable given the unrivalled mosaic of fossil hominin populations, variability and bio-environmental and behavioural traits in the area (including the *H. erectus* groups who reached Java more than 1.5 Ma ago).

Eastwards of ancestral African roots, we observe that the spatial distribution of series with bifacial technology becomes unclear, especially towards East Asia (China) and Southeast Asia. The presence of handaxes, pebble tools, cleavers and large cutting tools elsewhere in the world before the Middle Pleistocene clearly deconstructs the linear “Out of Africa” diffusionist model (Norton and Braun, 2010).

Southeast Asia is above all characterized by its geographical disparity. This “angle of Asia”, as it was called

by Mus (1977), does not just represent one world but a juxtaposition of contrasted worlds (continental, peninsular and more recently insular) extending over about 4 million km². Half of Southeast Asia is covered by one of the largest archipelagos in the world (Indonesia) and by the Philippines, making any attempt to identify common denominators highly unrealistic.

Some undeniable geographical determinism must be added to cognitive factors, such as the varied quality, accessibility and density of raw materials in the environments of the different sites. It is therefore difficult to undertake large scale typological and morphological comparisons of tools without taking into account the spatial discontinuity of Palaeolithic sites, environmental changes over time, subsistence modes and the multiple solutions applied to raw material flaking.

India and maritime Southeast Asia yield more similar “bifacial evidence” to that described in Europe or Africa.

South-eastern bifacial tools are generally poorly shaped, apart from some specific large pieces (> 20 cm long), for instance from South Sumatra, made on large flint nodules, indicating well-mastered shaping. Overall, however, they are partial, cortical, thick and poorly standardized tools. The cutting edges are often irregular with cortical zones or breakages due to accidents. Partial shaping is one of the main characteristics of the bifacial tools in tropical areas. The blank (flake, block or pebble) presents little modification. Reduction sequences are short, made by hard hammers with three or four series or removals, resulting in poorly balanced tool surfaces. Cross-sections are rarely symmetrical and are often triangular or trapezoidal. Tools present cortical zones and non-invasive removals. They do not display the same investment as in Europe, despite common features such as elongation, extension and symmetry of the cutting edge.

China represents a separate world to Southeast Asia, India or Africa as far as both raw materials and tool morphology are concerned (many unifacial heavy-duty tools made on pebbles and cobbles). The Chinese lithic assemblages form a heterogeneous entity of lithic industries, very different to the Indian Acheulean tools, which emerged around 1.5 Ma. They are mostly made on pebbles, with handaxes and abundant pebble tools (unifaces, picks, choppers, chopping-tools) (Hou et al., 2000; Lumley et al., 2008; Wang and Bae, 2014; Wang et al., 2014).

We can however see some similarities between China, the early sites of the North of Thailand, such as Sao Din or the Lampang sites with large sandstone and quartzite pebble tools. The Ban Don Mun (Lampang) pebble tools are clearly typologically closer to the Lower-Middle Pleistocene Chinese assemblages on pebbles than the Indian series. Apart from the dimensional factor, these massive unifaces are also close to the Bose assemblage in South China. These pebble tool assemblages from the Southeast Asian Mainland would thus mark continuity with the Chinese world or a rupture with Maritime Southeast Asia.

The “Movius Line” model (Movius, 1944, 1948, 1949), opposing “handaxe cultures” on the western side of India to “chopper-chopping-tool cultures” on the eastern side seems to be substantiated for China and for Mainland Southeast Asia (Thailand and Cambodia). However, it
appears questionable for the Indonesian industries, owing
to their originality and variability.

Occurrences of handaxes or cleavers no longer appear to
be a relevant criterion for discussing the presence/absence
of the Acheulean in Europe or in East Africa. These two
tool types are rare or absent from all sites in East or
Southeast Asia. Other evidence seems more relevant, such
as the prevalence of abundant pebbles in a vast area of
about 12 million km² (China and continental Southeast
Asia) where shaping is predominantly unifacial on small
or large blanks.

Unifacial shaping would have been adopted in vari-
ous ways over this vast geographical area one million
years ago. This technology persisted during the Late Upper
Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene in Main-
land Southeast Asia with the Hoabinhian, interpreted as
a sort of "pebble-culture conservatism" (Forestier, 2000;
Gorman, 1972; Heekeren et al., 1967; Heider, 1958;
Higham, 2014; Marwick, 2007; Matthews, 1964; Moser,
2001; Schooongdej, 2006; Zeitoun et al., 2008).

4. Conclusion

The bifacial phenomenon can be interpreted in many
different ways depending on the researcher. The aim of this
extensive analysis was to bring together researchers using
various methodologies and terminologies, and to apply
several experiences to specific Eurasian areas. This results
in sections with personal points of view for each of the three
papers, which are parts of a broader overview. These differ-
ent degrees of analysis provide a new vision of assemblages
with bifacial technology and enhance the debate on the
origin and diffusion of this technology, as well as possible
connections between the different areas.

The earliest currently known bifaces are found in East
Africa. Africa is consequently the possible source of this
technology at that time since the earliest dates in Eurasia
are a little younger (see India at 1.5 Ma, new data in China
at 1.5 Ma and the Levant at 1.4 Ma). Our purpose was not to
debate the African data, as this is beyond the scope of these
papers. We have rather focused on Eurasia and attempted
to untangle the numerous hypotheses concerning these
industries.

While the existence of bifacially shaped tools is a
reality, should we necessarily assimilate the presence of
such tools with a cultural phenomenon of global magni-
tude? Particularly when the abundant ethnological data
show that tools can be invented in different places with
no contact between them. Such independent invention
is known as technological convergence (Leroi-Gourhan,
1973). Paradoxically, prehistorians are more inclined to use
the concept of arrows linking artefacts that are a priori sim-
ilar (Chevrier, 2012a). These "liaisons" are then interpreted
from an anthropological viewpoint as evidence of migra-
tory movements. This challenging situation implies that
the material realities that we uncover are often shrouded
in problems of perception.

The term "Acheulean" has at times been discarded for
describing the earliest assemblages with bifaces outside
Europe (from the Levant to the Far East), and replaced with
terms such as "assemblages with bifaces", "with bifacial

tools" or "pieces shaped by a partial bifacial retouch",
although series with some bifaces and cleavers on flakes
also occur in Europe. The hypothesis of a linear dis-
persal of the "Acheulean" is thus increasingly cast aside in
favour of hypotheses such as convergence, replacement or
reinvention.

A combination of shared and diversified features char-
acterizes the bifacial component in Eurasia. The diversity
of bifacial technology and blank types represents the main
trend throughout time and space whereas the heavy-duty
component exists in a limited number of types of forms
or categories. Heavy-duty tools occur in all geographical
areas but the frequency of handaxes and/or cleavers is gen-
erally low, apart from in some regions (Levant), and they
can be made on flakes and/or cobbles/pebbles, siliceous
stones or other materials, depending on the area. It seems
to be widely accepted that bifacial technology became
widespread from 800 to 700 ka, both for Europe and Asia,
with some earlier occurrences in the Levant, China and
India. It would be relatively simple to presume that bifa-
cial technology first reached the Levant from Africa, before
moving towards Asia, then Europe. However, the current
record points to a much more complex situation, suggest-
ing the presence of contemporaneous technological worlds
with or without links between them, where some bifaces
represent the addition of diverse functional areas and oth-
ers are managed as a whole volume.

4.1. *How to interpret the available data?*

Must we consider that raw material diversity (quality,
shape and size) and its careful selection could account for
the observed diversity through adaptations of basic strate-
gies?

This could explain the presence of more unifacial and
crude heavy-duty tools in some areas and the capacity or
opportunity to produce and use large flakes in others. That
could also explain the occurrence of some bifacial bone
tools and scrapers in some Italian sites (MIS 9), where sim-
ilar reduction sequences to pebbles were applied. The use
of bones for specific actions is suggested by Zutovski and
Barkai (in press).

Must we consider that the diversity of the hominins
associated with bifacial tools could explain the diverse
technological strategies and morphological results?

According to some analyses, hominin diversity could
account for the observed diversity. In the earliest Levantine
sites, we observe *H. erectus* remains, followed by archaic
*H. sapiens*, whereas in Europe, *H. heidelbergensis* precedes
the Neandertal lineage. *H. antecessor* would thus be an
archaic *H. sapiens*, the last common ancestor of *H. sapiens*
*sapiens* and *H. sapiens neandertalensis*.

Must we consider that each area records a different
history due to local influences, accessibility and possible
connections with other areas in relation to fluctuating cli-
mates and sea levels?

This would explain the fact that bifaces are absent from
some areas and that other areas reveal isolated histories
(Zwyns et al., 2014 for Mongolia; Smith, 1986 and Bar-
Yosef, 1994 for Iran; Vishnyatsky, 1999 for central Asia).
Eurasia encompasses a wide range of topographic and
climatic contexts (Bailey et al., 2011). These contexts were
modified over time due to climatic variations, leading to
sea level variations, and thus to new potential routes of
migration or isolated geographical entities.

The occupation of India is considered to have occurred
by coastal routes from the west, and could thus be con-
sidered to be within the sphere of Levantine bifacial
technology (Pappu et al., 2011). This would not have been
the case for China, which is more isolated from the rest of
Eurasia or unattained by this technology. For the Indone-
sian archipelagos, sea level variations would have enabled
successive waves of *H. erectus* to join new territories across
land bridges, resulting in *in situ* technological evolution
when isolated from the Mainland. The situation would have
been much the same in China with technology based above
all on thick heavy-duty tools on cobbles.

Must we consider that accumulative behavioural pro-
cesses influenced by local backgrounds due to slow
dispersals of populations or ideas through Europe or Asia
could explain the specific nature of Chinese heavy-duty
tools and the systematically low frequencies of bifaces and
cleavers in the European series?

For Europe, the hypothesis of direct arrivals through the Levant or Gibraltar is still under discussion. The lack of data pointing to a local origin and the lack of elaborate bifaces for the earliest evidence suggest an introduction on a local core-and-flake industry (Mode 1) substratum. Various scenarios can be proposed for Southern and Northern Europe, whereas central Europe is a case apart (see Carbonell et al., in press). Slow dispersals of hominins or “know-how” could have come from the exterior, at times, due to favorable conditions (land bridges between the British Isles and the continent, changes in the herbivore guild or climatic cycles). These factors could explain the characteristics of the European lithic series, influenced by the Levant, where some traditions would have evolved on a local substratum, regardless of their origin (local or allochthonous). New discoveries in Greece (Galadinou et al., 2013) indicate a possible route along the Mediterranean coast, linking the Levant and Europe.

For the time being, data concerning latitudinal dispersals from Asia (and China) to Europe remain sparse, in spite of the description of some shared anatomical features by certain authors (Bermudez de Castro and Martinon-Torres, 2013). However, we have to keep in mind particular biface features, for instance at Bose, where “lingulate”-type tools could be considered as a micro-regional trait.

Current data show the variability of the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia. Can we clearly infer from these data either a unique phenomenon with dispersals from an African source, or evidence of several onsets at different periods on a local substratum?

The palaeoanthropological background confirms the
difficulties involved in describing and naming the rare
hominin fossils and unequivocally relating specific taxa to
bifacial technology.

In light of the current situation, each area must be ana-
lysed independently for the time being and new sites are
required to enlarge the corpus. Apart from local onsets
or dispersals of bifacial technology from one or several
sources, many other phenomena could have occurred in

Eurasia. Accumulative technological processes in some areas with gradual external influences on a local substratum could also, among others, explain the diversity of the strategies encountered in some areas. For instance, current data on early *H. sapiens* in Asia seem to show that certain features are related to the “tropical” belt, with the widespread use of plant materials. Perhaps we could consider that early hominin adaptation to a tropical world could have led to a decrease in technological complexity or choices and the adoption of other technical skills to produce the heavy-duty stone tool component?

It is thus impossible to emit a general conclusion and propose a single model, due to the small number of sites with reliable data, the paucity of bifacial tools at most sites, the diversity of situations (types of sites, raw material availability), and the scarcity of data relating to on-site activities, especially for the Asian corpus.

Acknowledgements

These analyses were carried out as part of an "Action thématique du Muséum" (ATM), Paris, France, focusing on "Acheulean" behaviours. The English version was edited by Louise Byrne, official translator.

We would like to thank the three reviewers and Amélie
Vialet, the editor, for their relevant and constructive com-
ments, which helped us to improve the papers.

References

Amirkhanov, Kh.A., 1994. *Research on the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of Hadramaut and Mahra*. Arab. Archaeol. Epigr. 5, 217–228.

An, Z., Gao, W., Zhu, Y., Kan, X., Wang, J., Sun, J., Wei, M., 1990. Magnetostratigraphic dates of Lantian *Homo erectus*. *Acta Anthropol. Sinica* 9, 1–7.

Arsuaga, J., Martinez, I., Gracia, A., Lorenzo, C., 1997. The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. *J. Hum. Evol.* 33, 219–281.

Arsuaga, J.L., Martinez, I., Arnold, L.J., Aranburu, A., Gracia-Torréz, A., Sharp, W.D., Quam, R.M., Falguères, C., Pantoja-Pérez, A., Bischoff, J., et al., 2014. Neandertal roots: cranial and chronological evidence from Sima de los Huesos. *Science* 344 (6190), 1358–1363.

Ascenzi, A., Segre, A., 1996. Artefacts and human teeth at the Fontana Ranuccio Middle Pleistocene site (Central Italy). *L'Anthropologie* 34, 39–46.

Ascenzi, A., Segre, A., 1997. Discovery of a *Homo erectus* calvarium at Ceprano, Central Italy. *Anthropologie (Brno)* 35, 241–246.

Ascenzi, A., Biddittu, I., Cassoli, P., Segre, A., Segre-Naldini, E., 1996. A calvarium of late *Homo erectus* from Ceprano, Italy. *J. Hum. Evol.* 31, 409–423.

Ascenzi, A., Mallegni, F., Manzi, G., Segre, A.G., Segre Naldini, E., 2000. A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with *Homo erectus*, after the new reconstruction. *J. Hum Evol.* 39, 443–450.

Ashton, N.M., Cook, J., Lewis, S.G., Rose, J., 1992. High Lodge, Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking, 1962–8, and J. Cook, 1988. British Museum Press.

Bailey, G., Reynolds, S., King, G., 2011. Landscapes of human evolution: models and methods of tectonic geomorphology and the reconstruc-
tion of hominin landscapes. *J. Hum. Evol.* 60 (3), 257–280.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1988. The date of the South-West Asian neandertals. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), *L'homme de Néandertal 3. L'Anatomie. Eraul, Liège, Belgium*, pp. 31–38.

Bar-Yosef, O., 1994. The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East. *J. World Prehist.* 8, 211–265.

Bar-Yosef, O., Gisis, I., 1974. New excavation in Zuttiyyeh Cave, Wadi Amud, Israel. *Paléorient* 2, 175–180.

Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., 1993. The Lithic Assemblages of ‘Ubeidiya, a Lower Paleolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. The Institute of Archaeology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., 1993. Modern humans in the Levant. *Sci. Am.* 268, 64–70.
Belmaker, M., (Doctoral thesis) 2006. Community Structure through Time: 'Ubeidiya, a Lower Pleistocene Site as a Case Study. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Belmaker, M., Tchernov, E., Consemi, S., Bar-Yosef, J., 2002. New evidence for hominid presence in the Lower Pleistocene in the southern Levant. *J. Hum. Evol.* 43, 43–56.

Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martinez, I., Mosquera, M., 1997. A Hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: possible ancestor to Neandertals and Modern Humans. *Science* 276, 1392–1395.

Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Martinon-Torres, M., 2013. A new model for the evolution of the human Pleistocene populations of Europe. *Quatern. Int.* 295, 102–112.

Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M., Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* 110 (5), 1584–1591.

Biddittu, I., Celletti, P., 2001. Plio-Pleistocene Proboscidea and Lower Palaeolithic bone industry of southern Hernando (Italy). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, pp. 91–96.

Bischoff, J.L., Fitzpatrick, J.A., Leon, L., Arsuaga, J.L., Falguères, C., Bahain, J.J., Bullen, T., 1997. Geology and preliminary dating of the hominid-bearing sedimentary fill of the Sima de los Huesos Chamber, Cueva Mayor of the Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain. *J. Hum. Evol.* 33, 129–154.

Bischoff, J.L., Shamp, D.D., Aramburu, A., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., 2003. The Sima de los Hueso hominids date to beyond U/Th equilibrium (≥350 kyr) and perhaps to 400–500 kyr: new radiometric dates. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* 30, 275–280.

Bischoff, J.L., Williams, R.W., Rosenbauer, R., Aramburu, A., Arsuaga, J.L., García, N., Cuenca-Bescós, G., 2007. High-resolution U-series dates from the Sima de los Huesos hominids yields: implications for the evolution of the early Neanderthal lineage. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* 34, 763–770.

Black, D., 1927. On the lower molar hominid tooth from the Chou Kou tien deposit. *Paleontol. Sinica* 9, 1–28.

Bodin, E., (Doctoral dissertation), Paris 2011. Analyse technofonctionnelle des industries à pièces bifaciales aux pléistocènes Inférieur et Moyen en Chine., pp. 10.

Boëda, E., 2005. Paléo-technologie ou anthropologie des techniques? Arobase 1, 46–64 (Paleo-technology or the anthropology of techniques).

Boëda, E., 2013. Techno-logique et Technologie. Une paléo-histoire des objets lithiques tranchants. Editions @rchéoéditions.com, Préhistoire au Présent.

Boëda, E., Courty, M.A., Fedoroff, N., Griggo, C., Hedley, I.G., Muhesen, S., 2004. Le site acheuléen d'El Meirah, Syria. *BAR International Series* 1263, 165–202.

Bonde, N., 1989. *Erectus* and neanderthalensis as species or subspecies of *Homo* with a model of speciation in hominids. In: Giacobini, G. (Ed.), *Hominidae*, pp. 205–208.

Braüer, G., Mbua, E., 1992. *Homo erectus* features used in cladistics and their variability in Asian and African hominids. *J. Hum. Evol.* 2, 79–108.

Bruner, E., Manzi, G., 2005. CT-based description and phenyletic evaluation of the archaic human calvarium from Ceprano, Italy. *Anatomical Record* A. *Discov. Mol. Cell Evol. Biol.* 285A, 643–657.

Cameron, D., Patnaik, R., Sahni, A., 2004. The phylogenetic significance of the Middle Pleistocene Narmada Hominin cranium from central India. *J. Osteoarchaeol.* 14, 419–447.

Campbell, B., 1963. Quantitative taxonomy and human evolution. In: *Washburn, S.L. (Ed.),* Classification and human evolution. Aldine, Chicago, pp. 50–74.

Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Parés, J.M., Pérez-González, A., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Cuenca-Bescós, G., García, N., Granger, D.E., Huguet, R., van der Made, J., Martinón-Torres, M., Rodríguez, X.P., Rosas, A., Sala, R., Stock, G.M., Vallverdú, J., Vergés, J.M., Allué, E., Benito, A., Burjachs, F., Cáceres, I., Canals, A., Díez, J.C., Lozano, M., Mateos, A., Navazo, M., Rodríguez, J., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J.L., 2008. The first hominin of Europe. *Nature* 452, 465–469.

Carbonell, E., Barsky, D., Sala, R., Celiberti, V., 2015. Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits. *Quatern. Int.* (in press).

Cattani, L., Cremaschi, M., Ferraris, M.R., Mallegni, F., Masini, F., Scola, V., Tozzi, C., 1991. Le gisement du Pléistocène moyen de Visogliano (Trieste): restes humains, industries, environnement. *L'Anthropologie* 95, 9–36.

Chen, T., Yuan, S., Gao, S., 1984. The study of Uranium series dating of fossil bones and an absolute age sequence for the main Palaeolithic sites of North China. *Acta Anthropol. Sinica* 3, 259–268.

Chen, T.M., Yang, J., Hu, Y.-Q., 1996. The dating report for the Nanjing Man site. In: Tangshan Archaeological Team from Nanjing Municipal Museum, Archaeology Department of Peking University (Eds.), Locality of the Nanjing Man fossils. *Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing*, pp. 254–258.

Chen, T.M., Yuan, S.X., Gao, S.J., Hu, Q.Y., 1987. Uranium-series data-lists on Hexian and Chaoxian. Anhui palaeolithic- and palaeoanthropological sites. *Acta Anthropologica Sinica* 6, 249–254.

Chevrier, B., 2012a. Ni espace ni temps en Préhistoire ancienne. "Out of Africa" ou le paradigme de la flèche. *M Méppemonde*.

Chevrier, B., (Doctoral thesis), Paris 2012b. Les assemblages à pièces bifaciales au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen ancien en Afrique de l'Est et au Proche-Orient : nouvelle approche du phénomène bifacial appliquée aux problématiques de migrations, de diffusion et d'évolution locale.

Clarke, J., 2000. A corrected reconstruction and interpretation of the *Homo erectus* calvaria from Ceprano. *J. Hum. Evol.* 39, 433–442.

Davis, R.S., Ranov, V.A., 1999. Recent work on the Palaeolithic of Central Asia. *Evol. Anthropol.* 8 (5), 186–193.

Day, M., 1986. Guid of fossil Man, 4th ed. Cassel, London.

De Bonis, L., Melentis, J., 1982. *L'homme de Petralona : comparaisons avec l'Homme de Tautavel*. In: Lumley, H.de (Ed.), *L' Homo erectus et la place de l'homme de Tautavel parmi les hominidés fossiles*. 1er Congrès international de paléontologie humaine. CNRS, Nice, France, pp. 847–874.

Dennell, R., 2016. Life without the Movius Line: the structure of the East and Southeast Asian Early Palaeolithic. *Quatern. Int.* (in press).

Elyagitine, M., (Thèse de doctorat) 1995. Variabilité de l'os temporal chez *Homo sapiens*, comparaison avec *Homo erectus*. *Université des Sciences de Bordeaux I*.

Engin, B., Güven, O., Köksal, F., 1999. Electron spin resonance age determination of a travertine sample from the southwestern part of Turkey. *App. Radiat. Isotopes* 51, 689–699.

Etler, D., 1996. The fossil evidence for human evolution in Asia. *Ann. Rev. Anthropol.* 25, 275–301.

Etler, D., Li, T., 1994. New archaic human fossil discoveries in China and their bearing on hominid species definition during the Middle Pleistocene. In: Corruccini, R.S., Ciochia, R.L. (Eds.), *Integrative Paths to the Past. Paleoanthropological Advances in honor of F. Clark Howell, Englewood Cliffs*, pp. 639–675.

Falguères, C., Yokohama, Y., 2001. Datation des hominidés fossiles en Asie. In: Sémah, F., Falguères, C., Grimaud-Hervé, D., Sémah, A.-M. (Eds.), *Origine des peuplements et chronologie des cultures paléolithiques dans le Sud-Est asiatique. Semenanjung*, Paris, pp. 55–64.

Falguères, C., Yokoyama, Y., Shen, G., Bischoff, J., Ku, T.-L., De Lumley, H., 2004. New U-series dates at the Caune de l'Arago, France. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* 31, 941–952.

Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., Tozzi, C., Boschian, G., Dolo, J.-M., Boschian, G., Dolo, J.-M., Mercier, N., Valadas, H., Yokoyama, Y., 2008. ESR/U-series chronology of the Lower Palaeolithic palaeoanthropological site of Visogliano, Trieste, Italy. *Quat. Geochronol.* 3, 390–398.

Falguères, C., Shao, Q., Han, F., Bahain, J.J., Richard, M., Perrenoud, C., Moigne, A.-M., Lumley, de, H., 2015. New ESR and U-series dating at Caune de l'Arago, France: A key-site for European Middle Pleistocene. *Quat. Geochronol.* 30, 547–553.

Feng, X., 2008. Stratégie de débitage et mode de façonnage des industries du Paléolithique inférieur en Chine et en Europe entre 1 Ma et 400 000 ans. *L'Anthropologie* 112, 423–447.

Forestier, H., 2000. De quelques chaînes opératoires lithiques en Asie du Sud-Est au Pléistocène supérieur final et au début de l'Holocène. *L'Anthropologie* 104, 531–546.

Galadinou, N., Iliopoulos Cole, J., McNabb, J., 2013. East meets West: the Middle Pleistocene site of Rodafnidia, on Lesvos, Greece. *Antiquity* 336, 87.

Gamble, C., Marshall, G., 2001. The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), *A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books*, Oxford, pp. 19–27.

Gardner, E.W., Bate, D.M.A., 1937. The bone-bearing beds of Bethlehem: their fauna and industry. *Nature* 140, 431–433.

Geraads, D., Tchernov, E., 1983. Fémurs humains du Pléistocène moyen de Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (Israël). *L'Anthropologie* 87, 138–141.

Goren-Inbar, N., Belitzky, S., Goren, Y., Rabinovich, R., Saragusti, I., 1992. Gesher Benot Ya'aqov et le 'Bar': an Acheulian assemblage. *Geoarchaeology* 7, 27–40.

Gorman, C., 1972. Excavations at Spirit Cave, North Thailand: some interim interpretations. *Asian Perspect.* 13, 79–107.

Grimaud-Hervé, D., Valentin, F., Sémah, F., Sémah, A.-M., Djubiantano, T., Widianto, H., 1994. Le fémur humain Kresna 11 comparé à ceux de Trinil. *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. II* 318, 1139–1144.
Groucutt, H.S., Petraglia, M., 2012. *The Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula: deserts, dispersals and demography*. Evol. Anthropol. 21, 113–125.

Grove, C.P., 1989. A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Grün, R., 1996. A re-analysis of electron spin resonance dating results associated with the Petralona hominid. *J. Hum. Evol.* 30, 227–241.

Grün, R., Stringer, C., 2000. Tabun revisited: revised ESR chronology and new ESR and U-series analyses of dental material from Tabun C. *J. Hum. Evol.* 39, 601–612.

Grün, R., Huang, P.H., Huang, W.P., McDermott, F., Thorne, A., Stringer, C.B., Yan, G., 1998. ESR and U-series analyses of teeth from the palaeoanthropological site of Hexian, Anhui province, China. *J. Hum. Evol.* 34, 555–564.

Grün, R., Schwarcz, H.P., Stringer, C.B., 1991. ESR dating of teeth from Garrod's Tabun cave collection. *J. Hum. Evol.* 20, 231–248.

Guipert, G., De Lumley, M.-A., De Lumley, H., 2014. Restauration virtuelle d'Arago 21. *C.R. Palevol* 13, 51–59.

Hao Li, et al., 2016. What is currently (un)known about the Chinese
Acheulean, with implications for hypotheses on the earlier dispersal
of hominids. C.R. Palevol. (in press).

Harvati, K., Delson, E., 1999. Conference report: paleoanthropology of the
Mani Peninsula (Greece). *J. Hum. Evol.* 36, 343–348.

Harvati, K., Hublin, J.-J., Gunz, P., 2010. Evolution of Middle-Late Pleistocene human cranio-facial form: a 3-D approach. *J. Hum. Evol.* 59, 445–464.

Harvati, K., Panagopoulou, E., Curtis, R., 2009. The paleoanthropology of
Greece. *Evol. Anthropol.* 18, 131–143.

Harvati, K., Stringer, C., Karkanas, P., 2011. Multivariate analysis and clas-
sification of the Apidima 2 cranium from Mani, Southern Greece. *J.
Hum. Evol.* 60, 246–250.

Heekeren, Van, H.R., Knuth, E., 1967. Archaeological Excavations in Thai-
land. Volume 1. Sai Yok. Stone Age Settlements in the Kanchanaburi
Provinc. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

Heider, K.G., 1958. A pebble-tool complex in Thailand. *Asian Perspect.* 2, 64–67.

Hennig, G., Herr, W., Weber, E., Xirotiris, N., 1981. ESR-dating of the fossil
hominid cranium from Petralona cave, Greece. *Nature* 292, 533–536.

Higham, C., 2014. Early mainland in Southeast Asia. From first humans to
Angkor. River books, Bangkok.

Hillson, S., Parfitt, S., Bello, S., Roberts, M., Stringer, C., 2010. Two hominin incisor teeth from the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove, Sussex, England. *J. Hum. Evol.* 59, 493–503.

Hou, Y.M., Potts, R., Yuan, B.Y., Guo, Z.T., Deino, A., Wang, W., Clark, J.,
Xie, G.M., Huang, W.W., 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone
technology of the Bose Basin, South China. Science 287, 1622–1626.

Hou, Y.M., Li, Y.H., 2007. The Jiantanping Paleolithic locality of Yunxian. In:
Bureau of Cultural Relics of Hubei Province (Ed.), Important archae-
ological discoveries in South-North Water Diversion Project of Hubei
Province, 1. Cultural Relics Press, Beijing, pp. 84–88 (in Chinese).

Huang, P.H., Liang, R.Z., Zheng, L.Z., Quan, Y.C., Xu, Y.H., Fang, Y.S., Fang, N.S., 1995. Study on age of Hexian *Homo erectus*. *Acta Anthropol. Sin.* 14, 262–265.

Huang, W., Fang, N., Ye, Y., 1981. Observations on the *Homo erectus* skull that was found from Longtandong, Hexian. Anhui. Chin. Sci. Bull. 26, 1508-1510.

Hublin, J.-J., 1976. L'Homme de Galilée. Mémoire de DEA. Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, Paris-6.

Hublin, J.-J., 1985. Human fossils from the North African Middle Pleistocene and the origin of *Homo sapiens*. In: Delson, E. (Ed.), Ancestors: The hard Evidence. Alan, R. Liss, New York, pp. 283–288.

Hublin, J.-J., 1988. Les plus anciens représentants de la lignée prénéandertalienne. In: Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), *L'Homme de Néandertal 3 : l'Anatomie, 30. ERAUL, Liège, Belgique*, pp. 81–94.

Hublin, J.-J., 1998. Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evolution of the Neandertals. In: Akazawa, T., Aoki, K., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Neandertals and modern humans in western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 295–310.

Hublin, J.-J., Tillier, A.-M. (Eds.), 1991. Aux origines d'Homo sapiens. , pp. 291-327.

Jagher, R., 2011. Nadauiyeh Ain Askar - Acheulean variability in the Central Syrian Desert. In: Le Tensorer, J.M., Jagher, R., Otte, M. (Eds.). The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions, 126. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 209–224.

Jagher, R., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Morel, P., Muhesen, S., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Rentzel, P., Schmid, P., 1997. Découverts de restes humains dans les niveaux acheuleens de Nadauiyeh Ain Askar (El Kowm, Syrie centrale). Paléorient 23 (1), 87-93.

Jia, L., Wei, Q., Li, C., 1979. Report on the excavation of the hsiuchayao Man site in 1976. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 17, 277–293.

Kappelman, J., Alçiçek, M., Kazancı, N., Schultz, M., Özkul, M., Sen, S., 2008. *First *Homo erectus* from Turkey and implications for migrations into temperate Eurasia. Am. J. Man. Anthropol.* 135, 110–116.

Keith, A., 1927. Report on the Galilee skull. In: Turville Petre, F. (Ed.),
Researches in prehistoric Galilee, 1925-1926. Council of the British
School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, pp. 593-623.

Keleindien, M.R., 1961. Variability within the Late Acheulean assemblage in Eastern Africa, South Africa. *Archaeol. Bull.* 16, 35–52.

Kidder, J.H., Durband, A.C., 2004. A re-evaluation of the metric diversity within *Homo erectus*. *J. Hum. Evol.* 46, 297–313.

Kuman, K., Li, C., Li, H., 2014. Large cutting tools in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, Central China. *J. Hum. Evol.* 76, 129–153.

Larick, R., Ciochon, R., Zaim, Y., Sudijono, Suminto, Rizal, Y., Aziz, F., Reagan, M., Heizler, M., 2001. Early pleistocene $^{14}$Ar/$^{13}$C ages for Bapang formation hominins, central Java, Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 4866-4871.

Lebatard, A.-E., Alçiçek, M., Rochette, P., Khatib, S., Vialet, A., Boulbes, N., Bourlès, D., Demory, F., Guipert, G., Mayda, S., Titov, V., Vidal, L., De Lumley, H., 2014. Dating the *Homo erectus* bearing travertine from Kocabas. (Denizli, Turkey) at at least 1.1 Ma. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 390, 8–18.

Lepre, C.J., Roche, H., Kent, D.V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R.L., Brugal, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., Lenoble, A., Feibel, C.S., 2011. An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature 477, 82–85.

Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1973. Évolution et techniques. Milieu et techniques. Albin Michel, Paris.

Le Tensorer, J.-M., Muhesen, S., 1995. Le Paléolithique d'El Kowm (Syrie), Nadauiyeh Ain Askar, rapport 1995. Fonds national suisse de la recherche scientifique. Mission archéologique des départements de préhistoire des universités de Bâle et Damas.

Le Tensorer, J.-M., Muhesen, S., Jagher, R., Morel, Ph., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Schmid, P., 1997. Les premiers hommes du désert, Musée de l'Homme de Paris, Éditions du Syrien - Fouille syro-suisse à Nadauiyeh Ain Askar. Catalogue de l'exposition. Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris.

Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., Rentzel, Ph., Hauck, T., Ismail-Meyer, K., Pümpin, Chr., Wojtczak, D., 2007. Long-Term Site Formation Processes in the Natural Springs Nadauiyeh and Hummal in the El Kowm Oasis, Central Syria. *Geoarchaeology* 22 (6), 621–639.

Li, X., 1983. Le Paléolithique inférieur en Chine du Nord. L'Anthropologie 87, 185-199.

Li, Y.H., 2011. Étude technologique de l'industrie lithique du site de Guanyindong dans la province du Guizhou, Sud-Ouest de la Chine. Éditions @rchééditions.com, travaux universitaires.

Li, H.Y., Mei, Y., 1983. The upper age of Hexian *Homo erectus*. Chin. Sci. Bull. 28, 703.

Li, T., Etler, D.A., 1992. New Middle Pleistocene hominid crania from Yunnan in China. Nature 357, 405–407.

Li, Y.H., Sun, X.F., 2013. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Houfang Paleolithic Site at Yunxian County, Hubei Province. Jianghan Archaeol. 1, 6–15 (in Chinese with English abstract).

Li, Y.H., Wu, M.L., Peng, S.L., Zhou, S.B., 1984. Human tooth fosilsand some mammalian remains from Tubo, Liujiang. Guangxi. *Acta Anthropol. Sinica* 3, 322–329.

Li, Y.H., Sun, X.F., Bodin, E., 2014. A macroscopic technological perspective on lithic production of hominids from Early to Late Pleistocene in the Hanshui River Valley, central China. Quatern Int. 347, 148–162.

Liu, W., Wu, X., Pei, S., Wu, X., Norton, C., 2010. Huanglong Cave: a Late Pleistocene human fossil site in Hubei province, China. Quatern. Int. 211, 29–41.

Liu, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., 2005. Middle Pleistocene human cranium from Tangshan (Nanjing), Southeast China: A new reconstruction and comparisons with *Homo erectus* from Eurasia and Africa. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 127, 253.

Liu, Z.C., 1983. Remplissage de la grotte de l'Homme de Pékin. Choukoutien-Localité 1. *L'Anthropologie* 87, 163-176.

Liu, Z., 1989. Date of Jinniushan Man and his position in human evolution. *Acta Anthropol. Sinica* 8, 301–313.

Lumley, M.-A.de, 1976. Les anténéandertaliens dans le Sud. In: De Lumley, H. (Ed.), La Préhistoire française. CNRS Éditions, Paris, pp. 547–560.

Lumley, M.-A.de, Sonakia, A., 1985. Première découverte d'un *Homo erectus* sur le continent Indien, à Hathnora dans la moyenne vallée de la Narmada. *L'Anthropologie* 89, 13–61.

Lumley, H.de, Fournier, A., Park, Y., Yokoyama, Y., Demouy, A., 1984. Stratigraphie du remplissage pléistocène moyen de la Caune de l'Arago à Tautavel. *L'Anthropologie* 88, 5–18.

Lumley, de H., L.I., T.Y., 2008. Le site de l'Homme de Yunxian. Quyuanhekou, Quingqu, Yunxian, Province du Hubei. CNRS Éditions, Paris.
Lumley, de H., et al., 2011. *Les industries du Paléolithique ancien de la Corée du Sud dans leur contexte stratigraphique et paléologique, leur place parmi les cultures du Paléolithique ancien en Eurasie et en Afrique*. CNRS Éditions, Paris.

Lumley, M.-Ade, 2015. *L'homme de Tautavel. Un *Homo erectus* européen évolué. *Homo erectus tautavelensis*. L'Anthropologie 119 (3), 303-348.

Lycett, S.J., Bae, C.J., 2010. The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate. World Archaeol. 42 (4), 521-544.

Mallegni, F., Radmilli, A.-M., 1988. Human temporal bone from the Lower Paleolithic site of Castel di Guido, near Rome, Italy. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76, 175-182.

Mallegni, F., Bertoldi, F., Carnieri, E., 2002. New Middle Pleistocene human remains from northern Italy. *Homo* 52, 233-239.

Mallegni, F., Carnieri, E., Bisconti, M., Tartarelli, G., Ricci, S., 2003. *Homo cepranensis* nov. sp. and the evolution of african-European Middle Pleistocene hominids. C.R. Palevol. 2, 153-159.

Mallegni, F., Mariani-Constantini, R., Fornaciaroli, G., Longo, B., Giacobini, G., Radmilli, A., 1983. New European fossil Hominid material from an Acheulean site near Rome (Castel di Guido). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 62, 263-274.

Mania, D., Mania, U., Vlcek, E., 1994. Latest finds of skull remains of *Homo erectus* from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia). Naturwissenschaften 81, 123-127.

Manzi, G., 2004. Human evolution at the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary. Evol. Anthropol. 13, 11-24.

Manzi, G., Magri, D., Milli, S., Palombo, M., Margari, V., Celiiberti, V., Barbieri, M., Barbieri, M., Melis, M., Rubini, M., Ruffo, M., Saracino, B., Tzedakis, P., Zarattini, A., Biddittu, I., 2010. The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy). J. Hum. Evol. 59, 580-585.

Manzi, G., Magri, D., Palombo, M., 2011. Early-Middle Pleistocene environmental changes and human évolution in the Italian peninsula. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 1420-1438.

Manzi, G., Mallegni, F., Ascenzi, A., 2001. A cranium for the earliest Europeans: phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 10011-10016.

Mariani-Constantini, R., Ottini, L., Caramiello, S., Palmirotta, R., Mallegni, F., Rossi, A., Frati, L., Capasso, L., 2001. Taphonomy of the fossil hominid bones from the Acheulean site of Castel di Guido near Rome, Italy. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 211-225.

Martínón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J.-M., Gomez-Robles, A., Prado-Simon, L., Arsuaga, J.-L., 2012. Morphological description and comparison of the dental remains from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos site (Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 62, 7-58.

Martinon-Torres, M., Xing, S., Liu, W., Bermúdez de Castro, J.-M., 2016. A "source and sink" model for East Asia? Preliminary approach through the dental evidence. C.R. Palevol. (this issue).

Marwick, B., 2007. Approaches to flaked stone artefact archaeology in Thailand: a historical review. Silpakorn Univ. Internat. J. 7, 49-88.

Matthews, J.M., (Ph.D thesis dissertation) 1964. The Hoabinhian in South-east Asia and elsewore. Australian National University.

McCown, T.D., Keith, A., 1939. The Stone Age of Mt. Carmel. The Fossil Human Remains from the Levalloiso-Mousterian, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Valladas, G., Reyss, J.L., Jelinek, A., Meignen, L., Joron, J.L., 1995. TL dates of burnt flints from Jelinek's excavations at Tabun and their implications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 22, 495-510.

Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 2003. Reassessment of TL age estimates of burnt flints from the Paleolithic site of Tabun Cave, Israel. J. Hum. Evol. 45 (5), 401-409.

Michel, V., Yokoyama, Y., Boschian, G., 2001. Preliminary U-series results and dating of faunal remains from Castel di Guido, Italy. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, R. (Eds.), The world of Elephants. International Congress, Roma, pp. 548-551.

Moigne, A.-M., Palombo, M.R., Belda, V., Heriech-Briki, D., Kacimi, S., Lacombat, F., Lumley, M.-A.de, Moutoussamy, J., Rivals, F., Quilès, J., Testu, A., 2006. Les faunes de grands mammifères de la caune de l'Arago (Tautavel) dans le cadre biochronologique des faunes du Pléistocène moyen italien. L'Anthropologie 110, 788-831.

Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J.-J., Courcimault, G., Falguères, C., 2013. Early evidence of Acheulean settlement in north-western Europe - la Noira site, a 700,000 year-old occupation in the Center of France. Plos One 8 (11), e75529.

Monnier, J.-L., Hallégouet, B., Hinguant, S., 2001. In: Barrandon, J.-N., et al. (Eds.), La datation de l'habitat paléolithique inférieur de Menez-Drégan 1 (Plouhinec, Finistère, France). APDCA, CNRS, Antbes Datation, pp. 261-277.

Mortillet, de G., 1872. Classification des diverses périodes de l'âge de la pierre. In: Congrès international d'anthropologie et d'archéologie préhistoriques, 6ᵉ session, Bruxelles, C. Muquardt, Bruxelles, pp. 432-459.

Mounier, A., Marchal, F., Consemi, S., 2009. *Is *Homo heidelbergensis* a distinct species? New insight on the Mauer mandible*. J. Hum. Evol. 56, 219-246.

Mounier, A., Consemi, S., Manzi, G., 2011. The stem species of our species: a place for the archaic human cranium from Ceprano, Italy. Pub. Lib. Sci. One 6, e18821.

Movius, H.L., 1944. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and Eastern Asia. Papers Peabody Mus. 19 (3), 1-125.

Movius, H.L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic culture of Southern and Eastern Asia. Transact. Am. Philosoph. Soc. 38 (4), 329-402.

Movius, H.L., 1949. Lower palaeolithic archaeology in southern and eastern Asia. Stud. Phys. Anthropol. 1, 17-81.

Moser, J., 2001. Hoabinhian, Geographie und Chronologie eines steinzeitlichen Technocomplexes in SudoAnstasien. Unden Soft.

Mus, P., 1977. *L'angle de l'Asie. Hermann, Paris.*

Muttoni, G., Scardia, G., Kent, D.V., Swisher, C.C., Manzi, G., 2009. Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 255-268.

Nomade, S., Muttoni, G., Guillou, H., Robin, E., Scardia, G., 2011. First $^{40}$Ar/$^{39}$Ar age of the Ceprano man (Central Italy). Quat. Geochronol. 6, 453-457.

Norton, C.J., Bae, K., Harris, J.W.K., Lee, H., 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula. J. Hum. Evol. 51, 527-536.

Norton, J., Braun, D.R., 2010. Asian Paleoenthropology. From Africa to Asia and Beyong. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Olsen, J., Miller-Antonio, S., 1992. The Paleolithic in southern China. Asian Perspective. 31, 129-160.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N., 2011. Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulean Hominins in South India. Science 331, 1596-1599.

Parès, J., Perez-Gonzalez, A., Weil, A., Arsuaga, J.-L., 2000. On the age of the Hominid fossils at Sima de los Huesos, sierra de Atapuerca, spain: Paleomagnetic evidence. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 111, 451-461.

Patnaik, R., Chauhan, P., Rao, M., Blackwell, B., Skinner, A., Sahni, A., Chauhan, M., Khan, H., 2009. New geochronological, paleoclimatological, and archaeological data from the Narmada Valley hominin locality, central India. J. Hum. Evol. 56, 114-133.

Petraglia, M.D., 2003. The Lower Paleolithic of the Arabian Peninsula: occupations, adaptations, and dispersals. J. World Prehist. 17 (2), 141-179.

Petraglia, M.D., Drake, N., Alsharekh, A., 2009. Acheulean landscapes and large cutting tool assemblages in the Arabian Peninsula. In: Petragli, M.D., Rose, J.J. (Eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia. Paleoenvironments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 197-219.

Piperno, M. (Ed.), 1999. Notarchirico, un sito del Pleistocene medio antico nel bacino di Venosa. Editione Osanna, Venosa.

Poulianos, A., 1981. Pre-sapiens man in Greece. Curr. Anthropol. 22, 287-288.

Poulianos, N., 2005. The absolute dating of Petralona cave. Hellenistic speleological society. In: 14th International Congress of Speleology, Kalamos, Hellas, pp. 172-177.

Rightire, P., 2013. *Homo erectus* and Middle Pleistocene hominins: Brain size, skull form and species recognition. J. Hum. Evol. 65, 223-252.

Rink, W., Mercier, N., Mihailovic, N., Morley, M., Thompson, J., Roksandic, M., 2013. New Radiometric ages for the BH-1 Hominin from Balanica (Serbia): implications for understanding the role of the Balkans in Middle Pleistocene Human Evolution. Plos One 8, e54608.

Roberts, M., Parfitt, S., 1999. The Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at A.R.C. Eartham Quarry. Boxgrove, West Sussex, U.K. English Heritage Archaeological Report 17. English Heritage, London.

Roberts, M.B., Stringer, C.B., Parfitt, S.A., 1994. A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature 369, 311-313.

Roche, H., Brugal, J.-P., Delagnes, A., Feibel, C., Harmand, S., Kibunjia, M., Prat, S., Texier, P.-J., 2003. Les sites archéologiques plio-pléistocènes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya : bilan synthétique 1997-2001. C. R. Palevol. 2, 663-673.

Roche, H., Brugal, J.-P., Lefèvre, D., Ploux, S., Texier, P.-J., 1988. Isena : état des recherches sur un nouveau site acheuléen d'Afrique orientale. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 6, 27-55.

Roksandic, M., Mihailovic, D., Mercier, N., Dimitrijevic, V., Morley, M., Rakocevic, Z., Mihailovic, B., Guibert, P., Babb, J., 2011. A human mandible (BH-1) from the Pleistocene deposits of Mala Balanica cave (Sicevo Gorge, Nis, Serbia). J. Hum. Evol. 61, 186-196.

Rosas, A., Bermudez de Castro, J., 1998. The Mauer mandible and the evolutionary significance of *Homo heidelbergensis*. Geobios 31, 687-697.
Rose, J., Hilbert, Y.H., 2014. New prehistoric sites in the southern Rub'al-Khali desert, Oman. Antiquity Project Gallery.

Sagi, A., (Thèse M. Phil.) 2005. Magnetostatigraphy of 'Ubeidiya For-mation, Northern Dead Sea Transform. Université hébraïque de Jérusalem, Israel.

Sankhyan, A., 1997. Fossil clavicle of a Middle Pleistocene hominid from the Central Narmada Valley, India. *J. Hum. Evol.* 32, 3–16.

Santa Luca, A., 1978. A re-examination of presumed Neandertal-like fos-sils. *J. Hum. Evol.* 7, 619–636.

Schmid, P., Rentzel, Ph., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Muhesen, S., Morel, P., Le Tensorer, J.-M., Jagher, R., 1997. Découvertes de restes humains dans les niveaux acheuléens de Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (El Kowm, Syrie Cen-trale). Paléorient 23, 87–93.

Schoetensack, O., 1908. Der Unterkiefer des *Homo heilbergensis* aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg. Ein Beitrag zur Paläontologie des Menschen. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.

Schooongdej, R., 2006. Late Pleistocene activities at the Tham Lod Rockshelter in Highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, North-western Thailand. In: Bacus, E.A., Glover, I.C., Piggott, V. (Eds.), Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: Selected papers from the 10th Annual Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists. NUS Press, Singapore, pp. 22–37.

Schwarcz, H., Latham, A., 1984. Uranium-series age détermination of travertines from the site of Vertesszöllös, Hungary. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* 11, 327–336.

Schwartz, J., Tattersall, I., 2002. The Human Fossil Record, Volume One: Terminology and Craniodental Morphology of Genus *Homo* (Europe). Wiley-Liss, New York.

Segre, A., Ascenzi, M., 1984. Fontana Ranuccio: Italy's earliest Middle Pleis-tocene hominid site. Curr. Anthropol. 25, 230–233.

Sémah, F., 2001. La position stratigraphique du site de Ngebung 2 (Dôme de Sangiran, Java central, Indonésie). In: Sémah, F., Falguères, C., Grimaud-Hervé, D., Sémah, A.-M. (Eds.), Origine des peuplements et chronologie des cultures paléolithiques dans le Sud-Est asiatique. Semenanjung-Artcom, Paris, pp. 299–330.

Sémah, F., Sémah, A.-M., Djubiantono, T., Simanjuntak, H.T., 1992. Did they also make stone tools? *J. Hum. Evol.* 23, 439–446.

Sémah, F., Sémah, A.M., Simanjuntak, T., 2003. More than a million years of human occupation in insular Southeast Asia: the early archaeology of Eastern and Central Java. In: Mercader (Ed.), Man under the Canopy. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 161–190.

Sergi, S., 1953. I profanantroposi di Swanscombe e di Fontéchève. Rend. Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sc. Fis. Mat. Nat. 4, 601–608.

Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronol-ogy, and Significance. BAR International Series, 1701. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK.

Shen, G., Michel, V., 2007. Chronological position of modern *Homo sapiens* sites in China based on U-series dating. *L'Anthropologie* 111, 157–165.

Shen, G., Ku, T.L., Cheng, H., Edwards, R., Yuan, Z., Wang, Q., 2001. High-precision U-series dating of Locality 1 at Zhoukoudian, China. *J. Hum. Evol.* 41, 679–688.

Shen, G., Wang, W., Wang, Q., Zhao, J., Collerson, K., 2002. U-series dating of Liuijiang hominid site in Guanxi, southern China. *J. Hum. Evol.* 43, 817–829.

Shen, G., Wu, X., Wang, Q., Tu, H., Feng, Y.X., Zhao, J.X., 2013. Mass spectro-metric U-series dating of Huanglong Cave in Hubei Province, central China: evidence for early presence of modern humans in eastern Asia. *J. Hum. Evol.* 65 (2), 162–167.

Smith, P.E.L., 1986. Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran. American Institute of Iranian Studies, Museum University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Sohn, S., Wolpoff, M., 1993. Zuttiyeh face: a view from the East. *Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.* 91, 325–347.

Sonakia, A., 1985. *Early *Homo* from Narmada valley, India. In: Liss, A.R. (Ed.), Ancestors: the hard evidence., pp. 334–338.

Stewart, D., 1964. A neglected primitive feature of the Swanscombe skull. The Swanscombe Skull. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Papers 20, 151–160.

Stringer, C.B., 1974. A multivariate study of the Petralona skull. *J. Hum. Evol.* 3, 397–404.

Stringer, C.B., 1984. The definition of *Homo erectus* and the existence of the species in Africa and Europe. Courier Forschungs Institut Senckenberg 69, 131–143.

Stringer, C.B., Trinkaus, E., Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., Macphail, R.I., 1998. The Middle Pleistocene human tibia from Boxgrove. *J. Hum. Evol.* 34, 509–547.

Texier, P.-J., Roche, H., 1995. El impacto de la predeterminación en el desarrollo de algunas cadenas operativas Achelenses. Evolución humana en Europa y los yacimientos de la Sierra de Atapuerca, Actas, 2., pp. 403–420.

Thoma, A., 1966. L'occipital de l'Homme mindelien de Vertesszöllös. L'Anthropologie 70, 495–534.

Tobias, P., 1966. Fossil hominid remains from Ubeidiya, Israel. Nature 211, 130–133.

Vallverde, J., Saladié, P., Rosas, S., Huguet, A., Caceres, R., Mosquera, I., Garcia-Tabenerno, M., Estalrrich, A., Lozano-Fernandez, A., Pineda-Alcalá, I., Carrancho, A., Villalain, A., Bourle, J.-J., Braucher, D., Lebatard, R., Vilalta Montserrat Esteban-Nadal, A., Lluc Benna, J., Bastir, M., Lopez-Polin, M., Olle, L., Verge, A., Ros-Montoya, J.-M., Martinez-Navarro, S., Garcia, B., Martinell, A., Exposito, J., Burjachs, I., Agusti, F., Carbonell, J.E., 2014. Age and date for Early arrival of the Acheulean in Europe (Barranc de la Boella, la Canonja, Spain). Plos One 9 (7), e103634.

Vandermeersch, B., 1981. Les premiers *Homo sapiens* au Proche Orient. In: Ferembach, D. (Ed.), Les processus de l'hominisation. CNRS, Paris, pp. 97–100.

Vandermeersch, B., 1989. L'origine de l'homme moderne: le point de vue du paléoanthropologue. In: Giacobini, G. (Ed.), Hominidae. Proceedings 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, Jaca Book., pp. 415–421.

Vayson de Pradennes, A., 1920. La plus ancienne industrie de Saint-Acheul. *L'Anthropologie* 30, 441–496.

Vialet, Al., Guipert, G., Jianing, H., Xiaobo, F., Zune, L., Youping, W., Tianyuan, L., Lumley, M.-A. de, Lumley, H. de, 2010. *Homo erectus* from the Yunxian and Nankin Chinese sites: anthropological insights using 3D virtual imaging techniques. C. R. Palevol. 9 (6), 331–339.

Vialet, A., Guipert, G., Alcicek, M., 2012. *Homo erectus* found still further west: reconstruction of the Kocabas cranium (Denizli, Turkey). C. R. Palevol 1 (1), 89–95.

Vialet, A., Guipert, G., Alçiçek, M.C., Lumley, M.-A.de, 2014. La calotte crânienne de l'*Homo erectus* de Kocabaş (bassin de Denizli, Turquie). *L'Anthropologie* 118 (1), 74–107.

Vicek, E., Mania, D., Mania, U., 2000. A new find of a Middle Pleis-tocene mandible from Bizingsleben, Germany. *Naturwissenschaften* 87, 264–265.

Vishnyatsky, L.B., 1999. The Paleolithic of Central Asia. *J. World Prehist.* 13 (1), 69–122.

Wagner, G.A., Krbetschek, M., Degering, D., Bahain, J.-J., Shao, Q., Falguères, C., Voinchet, P., Dolo, J.-M., Rightmore, P., 2010. Radiometric dating of the type-site for *Homo heidelbergensis* at Mauer, Germany. PNAS 107 (46), 19726–19730.

Wang, D., 1985. Découvertes récentes de restes humains fossiles en Chine. *L'Anthropologie* 89, 135–139.

Wang, W., Bae, C.J., 2014. How old are the Bose (Baise) Basin (Guangxi, southern China) bifaces? The Australasian tekites question revisited. *J. Hum. Evol.* http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.10.013.

Wang, W., Huang, Q.S., Zhou, S.B., 1999. New found human tooth fossils in Tubo, Liuijiang Guangxi. Longgupo Prehist. Cult. 1, 104–108.

Wang, W., Mo, J.Y., Huang, Z.T., 2008. Recent discovery of handaxes associated with tekites in the Nanbanshan locality of the Damei site, Bose Basin, Guangxi, South China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 53 (6), 878–883.

Wang, W., Bae, C.J., Huang, S.M., Huang, X., Tian, F., Mo, J.Y., Huang, Z.T., Huang, C.L., Xie, S.W., Li, D.W., 2014. Middle Pleistocene bifaces from Fengshudao (Bose Basin, Guangxi, China). *J. Hum. Evol.* 69, 110–122.

Whalen, N.M., 2003. Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Huqf area of Central Oman. *J. Oman Stud.* 13, 175–182.

Whalen, N.M., Siraj-Ali, J.S., Davis, W., 1984. Excavation of Acheulean sites near Saffaqah, Saudi Arabia, 1403 AH 1983. Atla 8, 9–24.

Whalen, N.M., Pease, D.W., 1991. Archaeological Survey in Southwest Yemen, 1990. Paléorient 17, 127–131.

Whalen, N.M., Schatte, K.E., 1997. Pleistocene sites in southern Yemen. *Arab. Archaeol. Epigr.* 8, 1–10.

Whalen, N.M., Zoboroski, M., Schubert, K., 2002. The Lower Palaeolithic in southwestern Oman. *Adumatu* 5, 27–34.

Wolpoff, M., 1977. Some notes on the Vertesszöllös occipital. *Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.* 47, 357–364.

Woo, J.-K., 1966. The Skull of Lantian Man. *Curr. Anthropol.* 7, 83–86.

Woo, J., 1959. Liukiang Man-earliest representative of modern man in East Asia. *Sci. Record* 3, 165–167.

Wu, M., 1980. Human fossils discovered at Xujiyao site in 1977. *Verte-brata Palasiatica* 18, 227–238.

Wu, R., 1983. Hominid fossils from China and their bearing on human evolution. *Canadian J. Anthropol.* 3, 207–214.

Wu, R., Dong, X., 1985. *Homo erectus* in China. In: Wu, R., Olsen, J. (Eds.), Palaeoanthropology Palaeolithic archaeology in the People's Republic of China. Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 79–89.

Wu, R.K., Dong, X.R., 1982. Preliminary study of *Homo erectus* remains from Hexian, Anhui. *Acta Anthropol. Sinica* 1, 2–13.
Wu, R., Wu, X., Zhang, S., 1989. Early humankind in China. Ience Press, Beijing.

Wu, X., 1991. Contnuité évolutive des hommes fossiles chinois. In: Hublin, J.-J., Tillier, A.-M. (Eds.), Aux origines d'Homo sapiens. PUF, pp. 157-179.

Wu, X., Poirier, F., 1995. Human evolution in China. Oxford University Press.

Wu, X.-J., Trinkaus, E., 2014. The Xujiayao 14 mandibular ramus and Pleistocene *Homo mandibular* variation. C. R. Palevol. 13, 333-341.

Wu, X., Liu, W., Gao, X., Yin, G., 2006. Huanglong cave, a new Late Pleistocene hominid site in Hubei province, China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 51, 2493-2499.

Xing, S., Martinon-Torres, M., Bermudez de Castro, J.-M., Wu, X., Liu, W., 2015. Hominin teeth from the early Late Pleistocene site of Xujiayao, northern China. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 156, 224-240.

Xu, C., Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Fang, D., 1984. Human occipital bone and mammalian fossils from Chaoxian, Anhui. Acta Anthropol. Sinica 3, 202-209.

Xu, C.H., Zhang, Y.Y., Fang, D.S., 1986. Human fossil newly discovered at Chaoxian, An. Acta Anthropol. Sinica 5, 305-310.

Yuan, S., Chen, T., Gao, S., 1986. Uranium series chronological sequence of some Paleolithic sites in South China. Acta Anthropol Sinica 5, 179-190.

Zeitoun, V., 2000. Révision de l'espèce *Homo erectus* (Dubois, 1893). Utilisation des données morphométriques en cladistique, reconsidération du cas *Homo erectus*. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol, Paris 12, 1-204.

Zeitoun, V., 2001. The taxinomical position of the skull of Zuttiyeh. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. Ila 332, 521-525.

Zeitoun, V., 2004. Réconciliation des modèles « évolution régionale » et « sortie d'Afrique ». Paléoécologie/Paleoecology. In: Le Secrétariat du Congrès (Ed.), Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress. University of Liège, Belgium. BAR-S1271.P. pp. 49-58.

Zeitoun, V., 2015. Les paléoanthropologues sont-ils en meilleure position que les autres pour se permettre d'ignorer les règles ? Un bref historique. Biosystema 30, 155-172.

Zeitoun, V., Forestier, H., Nakbunlung, S., 2008. Préhistories au sud du Triangle d'Or. IRD Éditions.

Zeitoun, V., Détroit, F., Grimaud-Hervé, D., Widianto, H., 2010. Solo man in question: convergent views to split Indonesian *Homo erectus* in two categories. Quatern. Int. 223-224, 281-292.

Zhao, J.X., Hu, K., Collerson, K.D., Xu, H.K., 2001. Thermal ionization mass spectrometry U-series dating of a hominid site near Nanjing, China. Geology 29, 27-30.

Zhou, M., Li, Y., Wang, L., 1982. Chronology of the Chinese fossil hominids. [L'Homo erectus et la place de l'homme de Tautavel parmi les hominidés fossiles], In: Lumley, H.de (Ed.), 1er Congrès international de paléontologie humaine, prétirage. pp. 593-604.

Zhu, Z.-Y., Dennell, R., Huang, W.-W., Wu, Y., Rao, Z.-G., Qiu, S.-F., Xie, J.-B., Liu, L., Fu, S.-Q., Han, J.-W., Zhou, H.-Y., Ou Yang, T.-P., Li, H.-M., 2015. New dating of the *Homo erectus* cranium from Lantian (Gong-wangling), China. J. Hum. Evol. 78, 144-157.

Zutovski, K., Barkai, R., 2015. The use of elephant bones for making Acheu-lian handaxes: a fresh look at old bones. Quatern. Int. (in press).

Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S., Tabarev, A., Gunchinsuren, B., 2014. Mongolia: Paleolithic. In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology., pp. 5025-5032.