Bone As a Technological Raw Material at the Gran Dolina Site (Sierra De Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)

Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

News and Views Bone as a technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)

Jordi Rosell a,*, Ruth Blasco a, Gerard Campeny a, J. Carlos Díez b, Rodrigo Alonso Alcalde c, Leticia Menéndez a, Juan Luis Arsuaga d,e, José M. Bermúdez de Castro f, Eudald Carbonell a,g a Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Campus Catalunya, Avinguda de Catalunya, 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spain b Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþI. Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Misael Bañuelos s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain c Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþI. Universidad de Burgos - Museo de la Evolución Humana, Paseo de la Sierra de Atapuerca s/n, 09002 Burgos, Spain d Departamento de Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain e Centro de Investigación (UCM-ISCIII) de Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos, C/Sinesio Delgado, 4 (Pabellón 14), 28029 Madrid, Spain f Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre Evolución Humana (CENIEH), Avenida de la Paz 28, 09004 Burgos, Spain g Visiting professor, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing (IVPP), Beijing, China

article info use of aquatic resources, use of pigments, and symbolic art (see McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood et al., 2001; inter alia). Article history: However, not all bone tools are related to modern human Received 25 May 2009 behaviour. From a technological point of view, bone tools Accepted 8 February 2011 include: 1) intentionally polished bones, 2) bones knapped by direct percussion (retouched edges or flaked), and 3) unmodified Keywords: bones used for a particular purpose. Yet, only intentionally polished Bone tools bones are considered modern human behaviour because polishing Middle Pleistocene involves an important step in the making and handling techniques of bone artefacts. The technique of polishing bone tools originated in Africa during the Middle Stone Age (MSA) and their use was more widespread in the LSA and the Upper Palaeolithic. In contrast, the presence of polished implements during earlier time periods is largely attributed to friction and abrasion resulting Introduction from use rather than to intentional modification or transformation (Villa and d’Errico, 2001). Swartkrans is a well-known lower Pleis- Ever since Dart (1957) proposed the existence of the Osteo- tocene (previously Plio/Pleistocene) case of bones and horncores dontokeratic industry, the use of bone tools in Pre-Upper Palae- with smoothed distal ends that is thought to result from digging out olithic/Later Stone Age (LSA) periods has been a controversial termite mounds by early hominins (Backwell and d’Errico, 2001). In subject. With the aim of providing data on this subject, modified this case, no clear intentionality is seen in the modification of these bones from level TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site (MIS 9, Sierra de elements. The case of the Middle Palaeolithic site of Salzgitter Le- Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) are presented here. benstedt (MIS 3) in Germany is more complex (Gaudzinski,1999). In In the 1970s, many researchers accepted the existence of this site, several proboscidean ribs with polished distal ends were human-modified bones in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic recovered. Some bones present clear signs of previous preparation (Wolberg, 1970; Leakey, 1971; Ghosh, 1974). Nevertheless, the by direct percussion, but the polishing is unintentional and is studies of Binford (1981) and Brain (1981) led to a revision of many probably due to subsequent use. Nevertheless, in the MSA sites of objects previously interpreted as artefacts made from animal Blombos Cave and Klasies River Mouth (South Africa), some pointed material, including modified bones in the Middle Palaeolithic site of bones are interpreted as projectiles. These show the presence of Cueva Morin, Spain (Binford, 1983; Freeman, 1983). Studies of bone techniques such as scraping in early periods (McBrearty and Brooks, tools have become important for understanding the technological 2000). Therefore, the use of polishing as a technique seems to be and cultural development of human groups in the past. Thus, bone limited to anatomically modern humans. technology should be included as one piece of the “modern human The second type of modified bones, those shaped by direct behavioural repertoire,” in addition to microlithic technology, blade percussion, is more ancient and such bones are relatively frequent production, increased geographic range, specialised hunting, the in archaeological contexts. In the last few decades, new Lower Palaeolithic sites with shaped bone tools have been located in * Corresponding author. Europe. Some examples are Castel di Guido (Radmilli and Boschian, E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Rosell).

1996), Fontana Ranuccio (Biddittu and Celletti, 2001), or Polledrara (Rodríguez Álvarez, 2004; Menéndez, 2009). All the stages of the Lithic (Anzidei, 2001) in Italy, Bilzingsleben in Germany (Mania and Operational Sequence are represented at the site. Flakes, denticulates, Mania, 2005), or Vertesszöllös in Hungary (Dobosi, 2001), inter and side-scrapers are the most common objects. alia. At these sites, the artefacts are frequently made on probosci- Regarding the faunal remains, Cervus elaphus and Equus ferus dean bones. Generally, they are large tools attributed to Techno- are the most abundant ungulates. Stephanorhinus cf. hemitoechus, logical Mode 2 or Acheulean technology. Several researchers Bison sp., Dama dama clactoniana, Megaloceros giganteus?, Hemi- consider that the use of bones in these sites is due to the lack of tragus bonali, and Sus scrofa are also documented. The faunal appropriate lithic raw material in the surrounding area (Anzidei, assemblage is characterised by adult animals, skeletal elements 2001; Dobosi, 2001; Gaudzinski et al., 2005). with high nutritional value, cutmarks related to large muscle mass The third type of bone tools is unmodified bones. As previously removal, and low impact of carnivores. All these elements suggest suggested, it is possible to include bones modified by use (e.g., bone that anthropic access to animals is mainly primary and immediate. hammers) in this category. Generally, these are long bones, whole This implies that the TD10-1 hominins mainly obtained the or fragmented, used to hit or to press lithic elements in order to carcasses through hunting activities (see Supplementary Online make flakes or to configure the edges of stone flakes. The interac- Material [SOM] 1). Nevertheless, several carnivore remains are tion between these elements with other harder materials recovered in the analysed sample from TD10-1: Ursus arctos, Canis frequently produces characteristic marks in the shaft of bones, lupus, Vulpes vulpes, Panthera leo fossilis, and Lynx sp. Some of these similar to percussion pits (Pickering and Egeland, 2006; inter alia). predators were processed by hominins (a lion and a fox) while Pits are often closely associated with clustered striae, from slippage others were introduced naturally into the cave probably while of stone against bone during impact events. However, when these scavenging the remains abandoned by human groups (Rosell and marks are isolated, they can be similar to chopmarks. These tend to Blasco, 2009; Blasco et al., 2010). be short and deep with an oblique section. Therefore, chopmarks are the result of blows, using a blade-cutting instrument that Data presentation generates short and deep cuts, which are generally isolated and without internal microstriations (Armand and Delagnes, 1998; Three used bones have been recovered inthe analysed sample from Malerba and Giacobini, 1998; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007). TD10-1(excavationseason2000e2001): two modified bones (ATA’01 Although bone hammers are mentioned in the Lower Palaeolithic N13/14 and ATA’00 J19/19) and one bone hammer (ATA’01 M12/70). of Boxgrove, England (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999), their use is generally related to the Middle Palaeolithic or Mode 3 contexts, ATA’01 N13/14 such as the Middle Pleistocene French sites of Orgnac 3 (MIS 8; Moncel et al., 2005), Biache-Saint-Vaast (MIS 7; Auguste, 1992), and This bone is a fragment of the midshaft (lateral and palmar Lazaret Cave (MIS 6; Valensi, 1996). By the Upper Pleistocene, these surface) of a large bovid metatarsal (53 46 25 mm; Fig. 2; see elements become more frequent. Examples of this are the sites of also supplementary video in SOM 2). This piece, with a trapezoidal Peña Miel, Abric Romaní, Prado Vargas Cave, and Axlor in Spain morphology, presents an important exostosis on the palmar face. (Barandiarán, 1987; Aïmene, 1998; Navazo et al., 2005; Mozota, On the opposite end, a series of overlapping planes and continuous 2009), Riparo Tagliente and Riparo di Fumane in Italy (Malerba retouches can be observed. These modifications yield a more or less and Giacobini, 1998), or Combe Grenal, Artenac, and La Quina in straight dihedral side. On the medullary surface of the same edge, France (Chase, 1990, Armand and Delagnes, 1998; Verna and several scars anterior to the cortical surface configuration can be d’Errico, 2011), inter alia. observed. The aim of these removals appears to be to thin the edge These three types of tools also have behavioural implications. for its subsequent configuration. In general, this bone is configured While retouched bones or unmodified used bones show the same by an overlapping, invasive retouch as a lateral side-scraper. types or morphologies from lithic tools, polished bones allow the fashioning of new morphologies (new tools) related to an ATA’00 J19/19 increasingly diverse range of activities, including such things as fishing, sewing, etc. This is the midshaft of a long bone of a large-sized animal (similar to a large bovid; 98 39 12 mm; Fig. 2; see also Level TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site supplementary video in SOM 3). This object presents a triangular morphology, with a series of unifacial retouches developed along Gran Dolina is a large cavity (circa 18 m high) located in the the left edge. The angle of these removals is planar or semiplanar, Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), filled with lower and continuous, and deep whilst on the distal segment. They are Middle Pleistocene sediments. Eleven stratigraphic units are marginal and continuous, probably due to the reshapening. In this identified at this site, enumerated from base to top between sense, it seems to represent a lateral side-scraper. TD1 and TD11 (Fig. 1). Level TD10 is the most recent deposit at the site with archaeo-palaeontological remains. Its sediments ATA’01 M12/70 are composed of sands with gravel and limestone clasts (Parés and Pérez-González, 1999). TD10 is divided into four litho- This bone corresponds to a long bone shaft of a medium-sized stratigraphic units: TD10-1 (including TD10-sup), TD10-2, TD10- animal (similar to Cervus elaphus)thatwasbrokenwhilefresh 3, and TD10-4 at the base. A variety of dating methods (U/Th, (47 14 9mm;Fig. 3). This fragment shows a concentration of ESR, TL, IRSL) have been applied at the site and indicate that oblique, short, and deep incisions on the cortical surface. Several of TD10-1 is located in MIS 9 (Berger et al., 2008). these marks have an irregular delineation that contrasts with the With more than 20,000 artefacts, the lithic industry is abundant in criteria commonly used to identify cutmarks (Binford,1981; Potts and this archaeological assemblage, and all the raw materials used in this Shipman, 1981; Shipman and Rose, 1983; Bromage and Boyde, 1984). level (two types of chert, quartzite, quartz, sandstone and limestone) At level TD10-1, cutmarks are mainly associated with butchery acti- arefoundwithina5kmradiusofthesite(García-Antón et al., 2002). vities (generally long, regular, and straight incisions). At a microscopic From a technologicalpointof view, TD10-1 isclassified as a transitional level, an oblique section can be observed on the ATA’01 M12/70 bone. moment between Mode 2 or Acheulean and Mode 3 or Mousterian The marks on this bone are similar to those identified during J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 127

Fig. 1. Location of Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos) on the Iberian Peninsula and stratigraphic profile of the Gran Dolina site. retouching activities and described by several researchers (Malerba a bone hammer at TD10-1 suggests that these elements started to and Giacobini, 1998; Patou-Mathis, 2002; Mozota, 2009; inter alia) be common in Europe from MIS 9 onwards and particularly during and by our own experimental processes (see SOM 4). the entire Middle Palaeolithic. Therefore, the TD10-1 bone hammer may represent one of the earliest pieces of evidence in this Discussion and conclusions continent. The morphology of bone hammers is currently a matter of Level TD10-1 of Gran Dolina presents clear used but unmodified debate (Patou-Mathis, 2002; Mozota, 2007, 2009; inter alia). The and modified bones. The unmodified element is a bone hammer shaft fragments of long bones belonging to large and medium-sized similar to those recovered at several Middle Palaeolithic sites animals (>100 kg) are the most commonly used elements in the (Barandiarán, 1987; Chase, 1990; Auguste, 1992; Valensi, 1996; European Middle Palaeolithic. These objects do not require Aïmene, 1998; Armand and Delagnes, 1998; Malerba and a standardised production because they are often fragments Giacobini, 1998; Moncel et al., 2005; Navazo et al., 2005; Mozota, resulting from anthropogenic breakage during marrow extraction 2009). According to Bordes (1968), soft hammers are used to (Mozota, 2007,2009). produce several lithic artefacts that characterise the advanced The availability of fresh bones (vs. dry bones) as hammers has Acheulean or earliest Mousterian assemblages. The presence of been confirmed from 16 experimental series (see SOM 4). The 128 J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131

Fig. 2. Bone tools from TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site: ATA’00 J19/19 (top) and ATA’01 N13/14 (lower).

greater weight (or density) of fresh bone facilitates retouching bone hammers generate percussion pits and loss of cortical tissue of activities on lithic objects, mainly planar retouch. The use of fresh the bone. Retouching is a factor that also inﬂuences the shape and bone hammers generates clustered and overlapping incisions of length of marks. In addition, quartzite makes more and deeper variable depth on well-deﬁned areas of the bone. In contrast, dry marks than those generated by chert knapping. J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 129

Fig. 3. Bone hammer (ATA’01 M12/70) from TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site under stereoscopic (a) and environmental scanning electron microscope (b).

The comparison between the marks identified on experimental Unfortunately, the bones show evidence of slight water erosion, bone hammers and those observed on the ATA’01 M12/70 bone and microscopic use-wear analysis cannot be performed. fragment confirms that this object was used when fresh. The lack of The modified bones of TD10-1 are made on long bone shafts of a well-defined active area shows that it was used for a short period large bovids or similar-sized animals. This contrasts with the use of of time. Percussion marks of ATA’01 M12/70 resemble those animals (mainly Proboscidea) at other European middle Pleistocene documented in experiments on quartzite of the Lower Cretaceous sites (Gaudzinski, 1999, Anzidei, 2001; Dobosi, 2001; Gaudzinski detritic facies near the Sierra de Atapuerca. et al., 2005). However, the use of bones at these localities is asso- The collection of modified bones from TD10-1 is currently ciated with a lack of adequate lithic raw materials in the immediate composed of only two pieces. These elements are clearly manu- environment to make mainly large format tools (handaxes or factured using direct percussion, as are all the artefacts of the cleavers). In contrast, lithic raw material at TD10-1 is abundant in Middle Palaeolithic and earlier. Direct percussion involves the the Sierra de Atapuerca, suggesting a different interpretation for presence of active objects (hammers) and passive objects (knapped the use of bone. or retouched objects). From this perspective, the same technique is Denticulates and side-scrapers are the most abundant retouched used for stones and bones (Villa and d’Errico, 2001). Studies of lithic tools at TD10-1. In this sense, the same morphotypes are percussion marks on lithic artefacts are abundant (Mora and de la observed in the lithic industry and worked bones. This phenomenon Torre, 2005), and they are more numerous than those made on can be explained only by the conception of bone as an alternative soft hammers, such as horn, bone, or wood (Olsen, 1989). In raw material. However, bone tools are scarce at TD10-1. It is general, percussion activities are related to accessing marrow. important to remember that the TD10-1 archaeological assemblage Because of this, distinguishing between food refuse and tool is the result of a succession of multiple human occupations manufacture is not always straightforward (Blumenschine, 1988). (a palimpsest) (Rosell and Blasco, 2009). From this perspective, it is One important criterion is the recognition on the bones of the possible that bone tools are related to sporadic events, in which repetitive processes involved in stone knapping, which clearly expeditious activities are carried out. In this sense, these artefacts differ from other processes such as intentional breakage related to cannot be considered as a generality in this sedimentary deposit. The marrow removal, carnivore damage, trampling, or sediment pres- abundance of lithic raw material in the environment could be the sure (not observed on these bones; Haynes, 1983; Selvaggio, main cause for the low use of knapped bones. 1988a,b; Giusberti and Peretto, 1991; Blasco et al., 2008; inter In summary, Gran Dolina represents a referential site for the alia; see SOM 5). In general, these activities do not generate bifacial, hominins of the Sierra de Atapuerca during MIS 9 times. At this site, planar, continuous, and overlapping retouch. The objective of a high quantity of lithic remains is observed as a consequence of configuring these supports is the direct use of the piece. multiple occupational events. However, bone is occasionally 130 J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 exploited to make artefacts, both directly (bone hammer) and Brain, C.K., 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave previously configured (side-scrapers). In this sense, the bones Taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bromage, T.G., Boyde, A., 1984. Microscopic criteria for the determination of belonging to animals obtained by human groups represent another directionality cutmarks on bone. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol 65, 359e366. potential raw material that is sporadically exploited by hominins. Chase, P.G., 1990. Tool-making tools and Middle Paleolithic behaviour. Curr. e The primary technique to configure these artefacts is direct Anthropol. 31, 443 447. Dart, R., 1957. The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus. percussion. In contrast, bone polishing is unknown at TD10-1, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria. suggesting this technique is limited to use by anatomically modern d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in the humans and represents one component of the emergence of southern African Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 142e163. Dobosi, V. T., 2001. Ex Proboscideis-Proboscidean remains as raw material at four modern human behaviour. Palaeolithic sites, Hungary. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M. R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International Congress. e Acknowledgements Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 429 431. Freeman, L.G., 1983. More on the mousterian: flaked bone from Cueva Morín (Santander, Spain). Curr. Anthropol. 24, 366e372. We want to thank the excavation team of the Sierra de Ata- García-Antón, M.D., Morant, N., Mallol, C., 2002. L’approvisionnement en matières puerca sites, especially our colleagues of TD10. Special thanks to premières lithiques au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen dans la Sierra de Ata- puerca, Burgos (Espagne). L’Anthropologie 106, 41e55. Marcos Terradillos for the valuable help in the experimental Gaudzinski, S., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from the open-air site Salzgit- knapping, Felipe Cuartero for your comments, and Carlos Lorenzo ter-Lebenstedt (Germany). J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 125e141. for the video production of Supplementary Online Material 2 and 3. Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E., Anzidei, A.P., Álvarez-Fernández, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Cinq-Mars, J., Dobosi, V.T., Hannus, A., Johnson, E., Münzel, S.C., Scheer, A., Special thanks to Alexandra Canet and Rolf Quam for revising the Villa, P., 2005. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life. English in the manuscript. This research was supported by Minis- Quatern. Int. 126e128, 179e194. terio de Educación y Ciencia Spanish Government Grants CGL2009- Ghosh, A. K., 1974. Osteodontokeratic industry from India. Premier Colloque Inter- national sur l’Industrie de l’Os dans la Préhistoire., Colloque sur l’Industrie en Os 12703-C03-01, CGL2009-12703-C03-02, CGL2009-12703-C03-03, 1, Abadaye de Semanque, pp. 151e155. and CGL2009-7896, and by Generalitat de Catalunya Grant 2009 Giusberti, G., Peretto, C., 1991. Évidences de la fracturation intentionnelle d’osse- SGR 188. Ruth Blasco is beneficiary of a FI Grant from Generalitat de ments animaux avec moelle dans le gisement de "La Pineta" de Isernia (Molise), fi fi Italie. L’Anthropologie 95 (4), 765e778. Catalunya and nanced by European Social Found. The eld exca- Haynes, G., 1983. Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limb vation work was supported by Junta de Castilla y León and Fun- bones in modern surface assemblages. Am. Antiq. 48, 102e114. dación Atapuerca. Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C.W., Milo, R.G., Yates, R., 2001. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and Appendix. Supplementary data language. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631e678. Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge. In: Excavations in Beds I and II. 1960e1963, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Supplementary data related to this article can be found online at Malerba, G., Giacobini, G., 1998. Les retouchoirs sur éclats diaphysaires du Paléo- doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.001. lithique moyen et supérieur de trois sites de l’Italie nord orientale (Grotte de San Bernardino, Abri de Fumane et Abri Tagliente). Atti XIII Congresso U.I.S.P.P. 6(I), Forlí, pp. 167e171. References Mania, D., Mania, U., 2005. The natural and sociocultural environment of Homo erectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In: Gamble, C., Porr, M. (Eds.), The Aïmene, M., 1998. Les différents aspects de l’activité anthropique du niveau E de Hominin Individual in Context: Archaeological investigations of Lower and l’Abric Romaní (Barcelone, Espagne). In: Brugal, J.P., Meignen, L., Patou- Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, locales and artifacts. Routledge, London, pp. Mathis, M. (Eds.), Économie Préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance 98e114. au Paléolithique, vol. XVIIIe. Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of d’Histoire d’Antibes, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 193e203. the origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e563. Anzidei, A.P., 2001. Tools from elephant bones at La Polledrara di Cecanibbio and Menéndez, L., 2009. La transición del Modo 2 al Modo 3 vista a través de la industria Rebibbia -Casal de’ Pazzi. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. lítica de Gran Dolina TD10 (Atapuerca, Burgos) y Orgnac 3 (Ardéche, Francia). (Eds.), The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First International Congress. Desarrollo tecnológico y posibles implicaciones ocupacionales de los conjuntos. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 415e418. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona. Armand, D., Delagnes, A., 1998. Les retouchoirs en os d’Artenac (couche 6c): Moncel, M.H., Moigne, A.M., Combier, J., 2005. Pre-Neandertal behaviour during perspectives archéozoologiques, taphonomiques et expérimentales. In: isotopic stage 9 and the beginning of stage 8. New data concerning fauna and Brugal, J.P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Économie Préhistorique: les lithics in the different occupation levels of Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, South-East comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique, vol. XVIIIe. Rencontres Inter- France): occupation types. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1283 e1301. nationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 205e214. Mora, R., de la Torre, I., 2005. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): Auguste, P., 1992. Etude archézoologique des grands mammifères du site pléisto- implications for early human activities. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 24, 179e192. cène moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais, France): apports bio- Mozota, M., 2007. Los retocadores óseos del Paleolítico Medio: Una exper- stratigraphiques et palethnographiques. L’Anthropologie 96, 49e70. imentación para la obtención de soportes. In: Sanz, M.L.R., Urquijo, J.E.G., BaenaJ Backwell, L.R., d’Errico, F., 2001. Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkrans early (Eds.), Arqueología Experimental en la Península Ibérica. Investigación, didác- hominids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98 (4), 1358e1363. tica y patrimonio. Asociación Española de Arqueología Experimental, Barandiarán, I., 1987. Manipulación y uso de restos óseos. In: Utrilla, P. (Ed.), La Santander, pp. 225e233. Cueva de Peña Miel, Nieva de Cameros, La Rioja, vol. 154. Excavaciones Mozota, M., 2009. El utillaje óseo musteriense del nivel “D” de Axlor (Dima, Viz- Arqueológicas en España, pp. 87e101. caya): análisis de la cadena operativa. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66, 27e46. Berger, G.W., Pérez-González, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Navazo, M., Díez, C., Torres, T., Colina, A., Ortíz, J.E., 2005. La cueva de Prado Vargas. Castro, J.M., Ku, T.-L., 2008. Luminescence chronology of cave sediments at the Un yacimiento del Paleolítico Medio en el sur de la Cordillera Cantábrica. Museo Atapuerca paleoanthropological site. Spain. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 300e311. de Altamira. Monografías 20, 151e166. Biddittu, I., Celletti, P., 2001. Plio-Pleistocene proboscidea and Lower Palaeolithic Olsen, S.L., 1989. On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archaeological bone industry of Southern Latium (Italy). In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., antler. J. Archaeol. Sci. 16 (2), 125e135. Palombo, M. R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants. Proceedings of the First Inter- Parés, J.M., Pérez-González, A., 1999. Magnetochronology and stratigraphy at Gran national Congress. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, pp. 91e96. Dolina section, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 37, 325e342. Binford, L.R.,1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York. Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), 2002. Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie osseuse Pré- Binford, L.R., 1983. Reply to Freeman. Curr. Anthropol. 24, 372e376. historique. Cahier X: Retouchoirs, Compresseurs, Percuteurs. Os à impressions Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Fernández Peris, J., Cáceres, I., Vergès, J.M., 2008. A new element et à éraillures. Société Préhistorique Francaise, Paris. of trampling: an experimental application on the Level XII faunal record of Pickering, T.R., Egeland, C.P., 2006. Experimental patterns of hammerstone Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1605e1618. percussion damage on bones: implications for inferences of carcass processing Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Carbonell, E., 2010. The by humans. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 459e469. hunted hunter: the capture of a lion (Panthera leo fossilis) at the Gran Dolina Potts, R., Shipman, P., 1981. Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai site, Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 2051e2060. Gorge, Tanzania. Nature 291, 577e580. Blumenschine, R.J.,1988. An experimental model of the timingof hominid and carnivore Radmilli, A.M., Boschian, G., 1996. Gli Scavi a Castel di Guido. Il Piu Antico Giaci- influence on archaeological bone assemblages. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 483e502. mento di Cacciatori del Paleolitico Inferiore nell’Agro Romano. Istituto Italiano Bordes, F., 1968. The Old Stone Age. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze. J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 131

Roberts, M., Parﬁtt, S., 1999. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Shipman, P., Rose, J., 1983. Early hominid hunting, butchering and carcass pro- Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London. cessing behaviors: approches to the fossil record. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2, Rodríguez Álvarez, X.P., 2004. Technical Systems of Lithic production in the Lower and 57e98. Middle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Technological variability between Valensi, P., 1996. Taphonomie des grands mammifères et palethnologie à la Grotte north-eastern sites and Sierra de Atapuerca sites. BAR Int. Series 1323, 175e184. du Lazaret (Nice, France). Anthropozoologica 23, 13e28. Rosell, J., Blasco, R., 2009. Home sharing: carnivores in anthropogenic assemblages Verna, C., d’Errico, F., 2011. The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as of the Middle Pleistocene. J. Taphonomy 7 (4), 305e324. a tool. J. Hum. Evol. 60, 145e157. Selvaggio, M.M., 1998a. Evidence for a three-stage sequence of hominid and Villa, P., d’Errico, F., 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic carnivore involvement with long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge. of Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 69e112. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 191e202. Wolberg, D.L., 1970. The hypothesized osteodontokeratic culture of the Austral- Selvaggio, M.M., 1998b. Concerning the three stage model of carcass processing at opithecinae: a look at the evidence and the opinions. Curr. Anthropol. 11 (1), FLK Zinjanthropus: a reply to Capaldo. J. Hum. Evol. 35, 319e321. 23e37.