In southern Italy, the number of Acheulean sites in a secure stratigraphic context is small and sites with control over the age of the deposit and of the artefacts are even less. The open-air sites... Show moreIn southern Italy, the number of Acheulean sites in a secure stratigraphic context is small and sites with control over the age of the deposit and of the artefacts are even less. The open-air sites of Cala d’Arconte, Capo Grosso and Cala Bianca, located along the Italian south-west coastline, represent, in this context, an important source of information for the Lower Paleolithic. These sites were discovered and preliminarily studied in 1967–70 by A. Palma di Cesnola and P. Gambassini of the University of Siena, who ascribed them to the Acheulean due to the recovery of several handaxes associated with flaking reduction systems part of which attributed to the Levallois technology. A small number of the handaxes was recovered in its stratigraphic position while Levallois artefacts were collected exclusively on surface, leaving the question about the relations between these two groups unsolved. Here, the sites of Cala d’Arconte, Capo Grosso and Cala Bianca and their lithic collections are reinvestigated by re-evaluating the stratigraphy at each locality and by analyzing the techno-typology of the available artefacts. During a test trench carried out at Cala Bianca, several Levallois artefacts were discovered in situ in the uppermost part of the sequence in a layer located above a tephra recently attributed to the X-6 marker of the Monticchio series dated to 108.33 ± 1.08 ka. We suggest that these in situ Levallois artefacts belong to a Mousterian layer that must be considered as the most plausible origin for the Levallois assemblage previously collected out of context at this site. In turn, we also suggest that the Levallois and biface components collected from the surface at Cala Bianca and Capo Grosso derive from distinct occupations in time. Show less
Corbey, R.H.A.; Jagich, A; Vaesen, K.; Collard, M. 2016
The goal of this paper is to provoke debate about the nature of an iconic artifact: the Acheulean handaxe. Specifically, we want to initiate a conversation about whether or not they are cultural... Show moreThe goal of this paper is to provoke debate about the nature of an iconic artifact: the Acheulean handaxe. Specifically, we want to initiate a conversation about whether or not they are cultural objects. The vast majority of archeologists assume that the behaviors involved in the production of handaxes were acquired by social learning and that handaxes are therefore cultural. We argue that this assumption is not warranted on the basis of the available evidence and that an alternative hypothesis should be given serious consideration. This alternative hypothesis is that the form of Acheulean handaxes was at least partly under genetic control. Show less
