A review of the chronology of the European Middle Pleistocene hominid record

Abstract

Over the last seventy years, European hominid fossils and associated archaeological remains have been dated by reference to the classical, fourfold glacialhnterglacial subdivision of the Pleistocene. This method seemed relatively straightforward and precise especially as new discoveries were fitted into the schemes, apparently strengthening the correlations and increasing their validity. However, recent studies of deep-sea cores and terrestrial deposits, combined with new developments in relative and absolute dating, have shown that the fourfold schemes are oversimplified. This paper critically reviews some of the dating evidence from sites with hominid remains generally considered as Middle Pleistocene (ca. 700,000-128,000 BP). The hominid and archaeological remains are shown to require independent dating and a cautious approach is adopted towards the use of mammalian faunal remains as chronological indicators. The techniques and results of absolute dating are discussed with reference to present problems and future prospects. At a time of transition from an old framework to new correlations, it is inevitable that some conclusions seem tentative and others rather negative. Nevertheless, the Middle Pleistocene in Europe is more fully understood and better dated than the equivalent period in other parts of the world.Prior to the discoveries made in East Africa since 1959 (Oakley et al., 1977), most palaeoanthropologists concentrated their studies and built their phylogenies around European fossils that consequently assumed great, and perhaps undue significance in studies of human evolution. For many years, these fossils and archaeological remains were dated directly from the alternating series of lithostratigraphic stages supposedly representing cold and warm periods of the fourfold glaciaYinterglacia1 schemes designated in the Alps, northern Europe, or Britain (Table 1)) or indirectly from the biostratigraphic effects of such climatic changes. These schemes seemed to provide a relatively straightforward and secure chronological framework and continued to be used in spite of the recognition of shortcomings, such as gaps in terrestrial sequences

Middle pleistocene humans from africa

“…Like Broken Hill, the cranium from Petralona in Greece is very complete. Although there is doubt about both its original provenience within the cave and its association with the extinct fauna, this individual is also of Middle Pleistocene antiquity (Cook et al, 1982;Gr/in, 1996). Petralona and Broken Hill differ only slightly in orbit size, frontal proportions, and prominence of the torus crossing the occipital bone.…”

Population characteristics of extinct hominid endocranial volume

“…erectus 2 allows for the possibility of European H. erectus. H. erectus 1 reassigns two European and one African cranium to archaic H. sapiens 1, thereby creating the taxon archaic H. sapiens 2 (Cook et al, 1982;Howells, 1980;Jelinek, 1980;Stringer, 1981).…”

Hominins and the Early-Middle Pleistocene transition: evolution, culture and climate in Africa and Europe

“…In MIS 11, biface and non-biface assemblages occur in Britain, the latter sometimes afforded the status of a 'culture' by applying the label Clactonian, though the independent cultural status is not accepted by all researchers (see McNabb & Ashton 1995 and White 2000 for a full discussion). Mainland European non-biface assemblages are also given local names or sometimes grouped under Tayacian or Evenosian cultural labels (Cook et al 1982), although their status as independent cultural phenomena also needs to be substantiated (Villa 2001). An effective and detailed overview of the rich Middle Pleistocene archaeological record is presented by Roebroeks & van Kolfschoten (1995).…”