lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131

Contents lists avai

Journal of Human Evolution

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, Spainb Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþI. Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Misael Bañuelos s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spainc Laboratorio de Prehistoria, IþDþI. Universidad de Burgos - Museo de la Evolución Humana, Paseo de la Sierra de Atapuerca s/n, 09002 Burgos, SpaindDepartamento de Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, SpaineCentro de Investigación (UCM-ISCIII) de Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos, C/Sinesio Delgado, 4 (Pabellón 14), 28029 Madrid, SpainfCentro Nacional de Investigación sobre Evolución Humana (CENIEH), Avenida de la Paz 28, 09004 Burgos, SpaingVisiting professor, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing (IVPP), Beijing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 May 2009Accepted 8 February 2011

Keywords:Bone toolsMiddle Pleistocene

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: jordi.rosell@urv.cat (J. Rosell).

0047-2484/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.001

use of aquatic resources, use of pigments, and symbolic art (seeMcBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Henshilwood et al., 2001; inter alia).

of bone artefacts. The technique of polishing bone tools originatedin Africa during the Middle Stone Age (MSA) and their use was

Introduction

Ever since Dart (1957) proposed the existence of the Osteo-dontokeratic industry, the use of bone tools in Pre-Upper Palae-olithic/Later Stone Age (LSA) periods has been a controversialsubject. With the aim of providing data on this subject, modifiedbones from level TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site (MIS 9, Sierra deAtapuerca, Burgos, Spain) are presented here.

In the 1970s, many researchers accepted the existence ofhuman-modified bones in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic(Wolberg, 1970; Leakey, 1971; Ghosh, 1974). Nevertheless, thestudies of Binford (1981) and Brain (1981) led to a revision of manyobjects previously interpreted as artefacts made from animalmaterial, includingmodified bones in theMiddle Palaeolithic site ofCueva Morin, Spain (Binford, 1983; Freeman, 1983). Studies of bonetools have become important for understanding the technologicaland cultural development of human groups in the past. Thus, bonetechnology should be included as one piece of the “modern humanbehavioural repertoire,” in addition tomicrolithic technology, bladeproduction, increased geographic range, specialised hunting, the

All rights reserved.

However, not all bone tools are related to modern humanbehaviour. From a technological point of view, bone toolsinclude: 1) intentionally polished bones, 2) bones knapped bydirect percussion (retouched edges or flaked), and 3) unmodifiedbones used for a particular purpose. Yet, only intentionally polishedbones are considered modern human behaviour because polishinginvolves an important step in the making and handling techniques

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 resultingfrom use rather than to intentional modification or transformation(Villa and d’Errico, 2001). Swartkrans is a well-known lower Pleis-tocene (previously Plio/Pleistocene) case of bones and horncoreswith smoothed distal ends that is thought to result fromdigging outtermitemounds by early hominins (Backwell and d’Errico, 2001). Inthis case, no clear intentionality is seen in the modification of theseelements. The case of the Middle Palaeolithic site of Salzgitter Le-benstedt (MIS 3) in Germany ismore complex (Gaudzinski,1999). Inthis site, several proboscidean ribs with polished distal ends wererecovered. Some bones present clear signs of previous preparationby direct percussion, but the polishing is unintentional and isprobably due to subsequent use. Nevertheless, in the MSA sites ofBlombos Cave and Klasies RiverMouth (South Africa), some pointedbones are interpreted as projectiles. These show the presence oftechniques such as scraping in early periods (McBrearty and Brooks,2000). Therefore, the use of polishing as a technique seems to belimited to anatomically modern humans.

The second type of modified bones, those shaped by directpercussion, is more ancient and such bones are relatively frequentin archaeological contexts. In the last few decades, new LowerPalaeolithic sites with shaped bone tools have been located inEurope. Some examples are Castel di Guido (Radmilli and Boschian,

J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131126

1996), Fontana Ranuccio (Biddittu and Celletti, 2001), or Polledrara(Anzidei, 2001) in Italy, Bilzingsleben in Germany (Mania andMania, 2005), or Vertesszöllös in Hungary (Dobosi, 2001), interalia. At these sites, the artefacts are frequently made on probosci-dean bones. Generally, they are large tools attributed to Techno-logical Mode 2 or Acheulean technology. Several researchersconsider that the use of bones in these sites is due to the lack ofappropriate lithic raw material in the surrounding area (Anzidei,2001; Dobosi, 2001; Gaudzinski et al., 2005).

The third type of bone tools is unmodified bones. As previouslysuggested, it is possible to include bones modified by use (e.g., bonehammers) in this category. Generally, these are long bones, wholeor fragmented, used to hit or to press lithic elements in order tomake flakes or to configure the edges of stone flakes. The interac-tion between these elements with other harder materialsfrequently produces characteristic marks in the shaft of bones,similar to percussion pits (Pickering and Egeland, 2006; inter alia).Pits are often closely associated with clustered striae, from slippageof stone against bone during impact events. However, when thesemarks are isolated, they can be similar to chopmarks. These tend tobe short and deep with an oblique section. Therefore, chopmarksare the result of blows, using a blade-cutting instrument thatgenerates short and deep cuts, which are generally isolated andwithout internal microstriations (Armand and Delagnes, 1998;Malerba and Giacobini, 1998; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007).Although bone hammers are mentioned in the Lower Palaeolithicof Boxgrove, England (Roberts and Parfitt, 1999), their use isgenerally related to the Middle Palaeolithic or Mode 3 contexts,such as the Middle Pleistocene French sites of Orgnac 3 (MIS 8;Moncel et al., 2005), Biache-Saint-Vaast (MIS 7; Auguste, 1992), andLazaret Cave (MIS 6; Valensi, 1996). By the Upper Pleistocene, theseelements become more frequent. Examples of this are the sites ofPeña Miel, Abric Romaní, Prado Vargas Cave, and Axlor in Spain(Barandiarán, 1987; Aïmene, 1998; Navazo et al., 2005; Mozota,2009), Riparo Tagliente and Riparo di Fumane in Italy (Malerbaand Giacobini, 1998), or Combe Grenal, Artenac, and La Quina inFrance (Chase, 1990, Armand and Delagnes, 1998; Verna andd’Errico, 2011), inter alia.

These three types of tools also have behavioural implications.While retouched bones or unmodified used bones show the sametypes or morphologies from lithic tools, polished bones allow thefashioning of new morphologies (new tools) related to anincreasingly diverse range of activities, including such things asfishing, sewing, etc.

Level TD10-1 of the Gran Dolina site

Gran Dolina is a large cavity (circa 18 m high) located in theSierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), filled with lower andMiddle Pleistocene sediments. Eleven stratigraphic units areidentified at this site, enumerated from base to top betweenTD1 and TD11 (Fig. 1). Level TD10 is the most recent deposit atthe site with archaeo-palaeontological remains. Its sedimentsare composed of sands with gravel and limestone clasts (Parésand Pérez-González, 1999). TD10 is divided into four litho-stratigraphic units: TD10-1 (including TD10-sup), TD10-2, TD10-3, and TD10-4 at the base. A variety of dating methods (U/Th,ESR, TL, IRSL) have been applied at the site and indicate thatTD10-1 is located in MIS 9 (Berger et al., 2008).

Withmore than 20,000 artefacts, the lithic industry is abundant inthis archaeological assemblage, and all the rawmaterials used in thislevel (two types of chert, quartzite, quartz, sandstone and limestone)are found within a 5 km radius of the site (García-Antón et al., 2002).Fromatechnologicalpointof view,TD10-1 isclassifiedasa transitionalmoment between Mode 2 or Acheulean and Mode 3 or Mousterian

(RodríguezÁlvarez, 2004;Menéndez, 2009).All the stagesof theLithicOperational Sequence are represented at the site. Flakes, denticulates,and side-scrapers are the most common objects.

Regarding the faunal remains, Cervus elaphus and Equus ferusare the most abundant ungulates. Stephanorhinus cf. hemitoechus,Bison sp., Dama dama clactoniana, Megaloceros giganteus?, Hemi-tragus bonali, and Sus scrofa are also documented. The faunalassemblage is characterised by adult animals, skeletal elementswith high nutritional value, cutmarks related to large muscle massremoval, and low impact of carnivores. All these elements suggestthat anthropic access to animals is mainly primary and immediate.This implies that the TD10-1 hominins mainly obtained thecarcasses through hunting activities (see Supplementary OnlineMaterial [SOM] 1). Nevertheless, several carnivore remains arerecovered in the analysed sample from TD10-1: Ursus arctos, Canislupus, Vulpes vulpes, Panthera leo fossilis, and Lynx sp. Some of thesepredators were processed by hominins (a lion and a fox) whileothers were introduced naturally into the cave probably whilescavenging the remains abandoned by human groups (Rosell andBlasco, 2009; Blasco et al., 2010).

Data presentation

Threeusedboneshavebeenrecovered intheanalysedsample fromTD10-1 (excavation season 2000e2001): twomodified bones (ATA’01N13/14 and ATA’00 J19/19) and one bone hammer (ATA’01 M12/70).

ATA’01 N13/14

This bone is a fragment of the midshaft (lateral and palmarsurface) of a large bovid metatarsal (53 � 46 � 25 mm; Fig. 2; seealso supplementary video in SOM 2). This piece, with a trapezoidalmorphology, presents an important exostosis on the palmar face.On the opposite end, a series of overlapping planes and continuousretouches can be observed. These modifications yield a more or lessstraight dihedral side. On the medullary surface of the same edge,several scars anterior to the cortical surface configuration can beobserved. The aim of these removals appears to be to thin the edgefor its subsequent configuration. In general, this bone is configuredby an overlapping, invasive retouch as a lateral side-scraper.

ATA’00 J19/19

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 alsosupplementary video in SOM 3). This object presents a triangularmorphology, with a series of unifacial retouches developed alongthe left edge. The angle of these removals is planar or semiplanar,continuous, and deep whilst on the distal segment. They aremarginal and continuous, probably due to the reshapening. In thissense, it seems to represent a lateral side-scraper.

ATA’01 M12/70

This bone corresponds to a long bone shaft of a medium-sizedanimal (similar to Cervus elaphus) that was broken while fresh(47 � 14 � 9 mm; Fig. 3). This fragment shows a concentration ofoblique, short, and deep incisions on the cortical surface. Several ofthese marks have an irregular delineation that contrasts with thecriteria commonly used to identify cutmarks (Binford,1981; Potts andShipman, 1981; Shipman and Rose, 1983; Bromage and Boyde, 1984).At level TD10-1, cutmarks are mainly associated with butchery acti-vities (generally long, regular, and straight incisions). At amicroscopiclevel, an oblique section can be observed on the ATA’01M12/70 bone.The marks on this bone are similar to those identified during

Fig. 1. Location of Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos) on the Iberian Peninsula and stratigraphic profile of the Gran Dolina site.

J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 127

retouching activities and described by several researchers (Malerbaand Giacobini, 1998; Patou-Mathis, 2002; Mozota, 2009; inter alia)and by our own experimental processes (see SOM 4).

Discussion and conclusions

Level TD10-1 of Gran Dolina presents clear used but unmodifiedand modified bones. The unmodified element is a bone hammersimilar to those recovered at several Middle Palaeolithic sites(Barandiarán, 1987; Chase, 1990; Auguste, 1992; Valensi, 1996;Aïmene, 1998; Armand and Delagnes, 1998; Malerba andGiacobini, 1998; Moncel et al., 2005; Navazo et al., 2005; Mozota,2009). According to Bordes (1968), soft hammers are used toproduce several lithic artefacts that characterise the advancedAcheulean or earliest Mousterian assemblages. The presence of

a bone hammer at TD10-1 suggests that these elements started tobe common in Europe from MIS 9 onwards and particularly duringthe entire Middle Palaeolithic. Therefore, the TD10-1 bone hammermay represent one of the earliest pieces of evidence in thiscontinent.

The morphology of bone hammers is currently a matter ofdebate (Patou-Mathis, 2002; Mozota, 2007, 2009; inter alia). Theshaft fragments of long bones belonging to large andmedium-sizedanimals (>100 kg) are the most commonly used elements in theEuropean Middle Palaeolithic. These objects do not requirea standardised production because they are often fragmentsresulting from anthropogenic breakage during marrow extraction(Mozota, 2007,2009).

The availability of fresh bones (vs. dry bones) as hammers hasbeen confirmed from 16 experimental series (see SOM 4). The

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

J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131128

greater weight (or density) of fresh bone facilitates retouchingactivities on lithic objects, mainly planar retouch. The use of freshbone hammers generates clustered and overlapping incisions ofvariable depth on well-defined areas of the bone. In contrast, dry

bone hammers generate percussion pits and loss of cortical tissue ofthe bone. Retouching is a factor that also influences the shape andlength of marks. In addition, quartzite makes more and deepermarks than those generated by chert knapping.

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).

J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131 129

The comparison between the marks identified on experimentalbone hammers and those observed on the ATA’01 M12/70 bonefragment confirms that this object was used when fresh. The lack ofa well-defined active area shows that it was used for a short periodof time. Percussion marks of ATA’01 M12/70 resemble thosedocumented in experiments on quartzite of the Lower Cretaceousdetritic facies near the Sierra de Atapuerca.

The collection of modified bones from TD10-1 is currentlycomposed of only two pieces. These elements are clearly manu-factured using direct percussion, as are all the artefacts of theMiddle Palaeolithic and earlier. Direct percussion involves thepresence of active objects (hammers) and passive objects (knappedor retouched objects). From this perspective, the same technique isused for stones and bones (Villa and d’Errico, 2001). Studies ofpercussion marks on lithic artefacts are abundant (Mora and de laTorre, 2005), and they are more numerous than those made onsoft hammers, such as horn, bone, or wood (Olsen, 1989). Ingeneral, percussion activities are related to accessing marrow.Because of this, distinguishing between food refuse and toolmanufacture is not always straightforward (Blumenschine, 1988).One important criterion is the recognition on the bones of therepetitive processes involved in stone knapping, which clearlydiffer from other processes such as intentional breakage related tomarrow removal, carnivore damage, trampling, or sediment pres-sure (not observed on these bones; Haynes, 1983; Selvaggio,1988a,b; Giusberti and Peretto, 1991; Blasco et al., 2008; interalia; see SOM 5). In general, these activities do not generate bifacial,planar, continuous, and overlapping retouch. The objective ofconfiguring these supports is the direct use of the piece.

Unfortunately, the bones show evidence of slight water erosion,and microscopic use-wear analysis cannot be performed.

The modified bones of TD10-1 are made on long bone shafts oflarge bovids or similar-sized animals. This contrasts with the use ofanimals (mainly Proboscidea) at other Europeanmiddle Pleistocenesites (Gaudzinski, 1999, Anzidei, 2001; Dobosi, 2001; Gaudzinskiet al., 2005). However, the use of bones at these localities is asso-ciated with a lack of adequate lithic rawmaterials in the immediateenvironment to make mainly large format tools (handaxes orcleavers). In contrast, lithic raw material at TD10-1 is abundant inthe Sierra de Atapuerca, suggesting a different interpretation forthe use of bone.

Denticulates and side-scrapers are themost abundant retouchedlithic tools at TD10-1. In this sense, the same morphotypes areobserved in the lithic industry andworkedbones. This phenomenoncan be explained only by the conception of bone as an alternativeraw material. However, bone tools are scarce at TD10-1. It isimportant to remember that the TD10-1 archaeological assemblageis the result of a succession of multiple human occupations(a palimpsest) (Rosell and Blasco, 2009). From this perspective, it ispossible that bone tools are related to sporadic events, in whichexpeditious activities are carried out. In this sense, these artefactscannotbe considered asagenerality in this sedimentarydeposit. Theabundance of lithic raw material in the environment could be themain cause for the low use of knapped bones.

In summary, Gran Dolina represents a referential site for thehominins of the Sierra de Atapuerca duringMIS 9 times. At this site,a high quantity of lithic remains is observed as a consequence ofmultiple occupational events. However, bone is occasionally

J. Rosell et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 125e131130

exploited to make artefacts, both directly (bone hammer) andpreviously configured (side-scrapers). In this sense, the bonesbelonging to animals obtained by human groups represent anotherpotential raw material that is sporadically exploited by hominins.The primary technique to configure these artefacts is directpercussion. In contrast, bone polishing is unknown at TD10-1,suggesting this technique is limited to use by anatomically modernhumans and represents one component of the emergence ofmodern human behaviour.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the excavation team of the Sierra de Ata-puerca sites, especially our colleagues of TD10. Special thanks toMarcos Terradillos for the valuable help in the experimentalknapping, Felipe Cuartero for your comments, and Carlos Lorenzofor the video production of Supplementary Online Material 2 and 3.Special thanks to Alexandra Canet and Rolf Quam for revising theEnglish in the manuscript. This research was supported by Minis-terio de Educación y Ciencia Spanish Government Grants CGL2009-12703-C03-01, CGL2009-12703-C03-02, CGL2009-12703-C03-03,and CGL2009-7896, and by Generalitat de Catalunya Grant 2009SGR 188. Ruth Blasco is beneficiary of a FI Grant fromGeneralitat deCatalunya and financed by European Social Found. The field exca-vation work was supported by Junta de Castilla y León and Fun-dación Atapuerca.

Appendix. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found online atdoi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.001.

References

Aïmene, M., 1998. Les différents aspects de l’activité anthropique du niveau E del’Abric Romaní (Barcelone, Espagne). In: Brugal, J.P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Économie Préhistorique: les comportements de subsistanceau Paléolithique, vol. XVIIIe. Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie etd’Histoire d’Antibes, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 193e203.

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

Armand, D., Delagnes, A., 1998. Les retouchoirs en os d’Artenac (couche 6c):perspectives archéozoologiques, taphonomiques et expérimentales. In:Brugal, J.P., Meignen, L., Patou-Mathis, M. (Eds.), Économie Préhistorique: lescomportements de subsistance au Paléolithique, vol. XVIIIe. Rencontres Inter-nationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, Sophia Antipolis, pp. 205e214.

Auguste, P., 1992. Etude archézoologique des grands mammifères du site pléisto-cène moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais, France): apports bio-stratigraphiques et palethnographiques. L’Anthropologie 96, 49e70.

Backwell, L.R., d’Errico, F., 2001. Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkrans earlyhominids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98 (4), 1358e1363.

Barandiarán, I., 1987. Manipulación y uso de restos óseos. In: Utrilla, P. (Ed.), LaCueva de Peña Miel, Nieva de Cameros, La Rioja, vol. 154. ExcavacionesArqueológicas en España, pp. 87e101.

Berger, G.W., Pérez-González, A., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J.L., Bermúdez deCastro, J.M., Ku, T.-L., 2008. Luminescence chronology of cave sediments at theAtapuerca paleoanthropological site. Spain. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 300e311.

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

Binford, L.R.,1981. Bones: AncientMenandModernMyths. Academic Press, NewYork.Binford, L.R., 1983. Reply to Freeman. Curr. Anthropol. 24, 372e376.Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Fernández Peris, J., Cáceres, I., Vergès, J.M., 2008. A new element

of trampling: an experimental application on the Level XII faunal record ofBolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1605e1618.

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

Blumenschine,R.J.,1988.Anexperimentalmodelof the timingofhominidandcarnivoreinfluence on archaeological bone assemblages. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 483e502.

Bordes, F., 1968. The Old Stone Age. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

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

Bromage, T.G., Boyde, A., 1984. Microscopic criteria for the determination ofdirectionality cutmarks on bone. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol 65, 359e366.

Chase, P.G., 1990. Tool-making tools and Middle Paleolithic behaviour. Curr.Anthropol. 31, 443e447.

Dart, R., 1957. The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus.Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in thesouthern African Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 142e163.

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

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

García-Antón, M.D., Morant, N., Mallol, C., 2002. L’approvisionnement en matièrespremières lithiques au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen dans la Sierra de Ata-puerca, Burgos (Espagne). L’Anthropologie 106, 41e55.

Gaudzinski, S., 1999. Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from the open-air site Salzgit-ter-Lebenstedt (Germany). J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 125e141.

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.,Villa, P., 2005. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life.Quatern. Int. 126e128, 179e194.

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 Os1, Abadaye de Semanque, pp. 151e155.

Giusberti, G., Peretto, C., 1991. Évidences de la fracturation intentionnelle d’osse-ments animaux avec moelle dans le gisement de "La Pineta" de Isernia (Molise),Italie. L’Anthropologie 95 (4), 765e778.

Haynes, G., 1983. Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limbbones in modern surface assemblages. Am. Antiq. 48, 102e114.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C.W., Milo, R.G., Yates, R., 2001. An earlybone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa:implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism andlanguage. 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.

Malerba, G., Giacobini, G., 1998. Les retouchoirs sur éclats diaphysaires du Paléo-lithique moyen et supérieur de trois sites de l’Italie nord orientale (Grotte deSan Bernardino, Abri de Fumane et Abri Tagliente). Atti XIII Congresso U.I.S.P.P.6(I), Forlí, pp. 167e171.

Mania, D., Mania, U., 2005. The natural and sociocultural environment of Homoerectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In: Gamble, C., Porr, M. (Eds.), TheHominin Individual in Context: Archaeological investigations of Lower andMiddle Palaeolithic Landscapes, locales and artifacts. Routledge, London, pp.98e114.

McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation ofthe origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453e563.

Menéndez, L., 2009. La transición del Modo 2 al Modo 3 vista a través de la industrialítica de Gran Dolina TD10 (Atapuerca, Burgos) y Orgnac 3 (Ardéche, Francia).Desarrollo tecnológico y posibles implicaciones ocupacionales de los conjuntos.Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.

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

Mora, R., de la Torre, I., 2005. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania):implications for early human activities. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 24, 179e192.

Mozota, M., 2007. Los retocadores óseos del Paleolítico Medio: Una exper-imentación para la obtención de soportes. In: Sanz, M.L.R., Urquijo, J.E.G., BaenaJ(Eds.), Arqueología Experimental en la Península Ibérica. Investigación, didác-tica y patrimonio. Asociación Española de Arqueología Experimental,Santander, pp. 225e233.

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

Navazo, M., Díez, C., Torres, T., Colina, A., Ortíz, J.E., 2005. La cueva de Prado Vargas.Un yacimiento del Paleolítico Medio en el sur de la Cordillera Cantábrica. Museode Altamira. Monografías 20, 151e166.

Olsen, S.L., 1989. On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archaeologicalantler. J. Archaeol. Sci. 16 (2), 125e135.

Parés, J.M., Pérez-González, A., 1999. Magnetochronology and stratigraphy at GranDolina section, Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 37, 325e342.

Patou-Mathis, M. (Ed.), 2002. Fiches Typologiques de l’Industrie osseuse Pré-historique. Cahier X: Retouchoirs, Compresseurs, Percuteurs. Os à impressionset à éraillures. Société Préhistorique Francaise, Paris.

Pickering, T.R., Egeland, C.P., 2006. Experimental patterns of hammerstonepercussion damage on bones: implications for inferences of carcass processingby humans. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 459e469.

Potts, R., Shipman, P., 1981. Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from OlduvaiGorge, Tanzania. Nature 291, 577e580.

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

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,Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London.

RodríguezÁlvarez, X.P., 2004. Technical Systemsof Lithic production in the Lower andMiddle Pleistocene of the Iberian Peninsula. Technological variability betweennorth-eastern sites and Sierra de Atapuerca sites. BAR Int. Series 1323, 175e184.

Rosell, J., Blasco, R., 2009. Home sharing: carnivores in anthropogenic assemblagesof the Middle Pleistocene. J. Taphonomy 7 (4), 305e324.

Selvaggio, M.M., 1998a. Evidence for a three-stage sequence of hominid andcarnivore involvement with long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge.J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 191e202.

Selvaggio, M.M., 1998b. Concerning the three stage model of carcass processing atFLK Zinjanthropus: a reply to Capaldo. J. Hum. Evol. 35, 319e321.

Shipman, P., Rose, J., 1983. Early hominid hunting, butchering and carcass pro-cessing behaviors: approches to the fossil record. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2,57e98.

Valensi, P., 1996. Taphonomie des grands mammifères et palethnologie à la Grottedu Lazaret (Nice, France). Anthropozoologica 23, 13e28.

Verna, C., d’Errico, F., 2011. The earliest evidence for the use of human bone asa tool. J. Hum. Evol. 60, 145e157.

Villa, P., d’Errico, F., 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithicof Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 69e112.

Wolberg, D.L., 1970. The hypothesized osteodontokeratic culture of the Austral-opithecinae: a look at the evidence and the opinions. Curr. Anthropol. 11 (1),23e37.