See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319498958

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La

Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain)

Article in Quaternary International · September 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061

CITATIONS READS

0 8

8 authors, including:

David Álvarez-Alonso
National Distance Education University
92 PUBLICATIONS 184 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LAS PRIMERAS OCUPACIONES HUMANAS EN LA CUENCA CENTRAL ASTURIANA View project

PALEOECOLOGÍA Y POBLAMIENTO EN LA CUENCA MEDIA DEL RÍO CARES DURANTE EL PLEISTOCENO

SUPERIOR: LA CUEVA DE COIMBRE (Besnes, Peñamellera Alta) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Álvarez-Alonso on 06 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias,

Northern Spain)
Mario Mene


ndez a, *, David Alvarez-Alonso a
, María de Andre
s-Herrero b, c, Pilar Carral d,
Eduardo García-Sa
Pardo a, Jose

nchez a, Jesús F. Jorda
M. Quesada a, Julio Rojo a
a
Department of Prehistory & Archaeology, Universidad Nacional de Educacio
n a Distancia (UNED), Ciudad Universitaria, Paseo Senda del Rey 7, E-28040,
Madrid, Spain
b
Neanderthal Museum, Talstr. 300, 40822, Mettmann, Germany
c
University of Cologne, Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923, Cologne, Germany
d
Departament of Geology & Geochemistry, UAM, Campus de Cantoblanco, E-28049, Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: La Güelga cave is located at the bottom of a mountain valley in the Eastern part of Asturias (Northern
Received 22 December 2015 Spain), 186 m above sea level and 15 km far away from the coast. It currently comprises a group of caves
Received in revised form that were occupied during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods (MP and UP respectively). In recent
28 August 2017
years, we have studied the levels of La Güelga cave eD Zone-proposing a sequence for the MP/UP
Accepted 29 August 2017
transition: Mousterian-Aurignacian-Cha ^telperronian, which we review in this paper after a detailed
Available online xxx
analysis of the chronostratigraphy. We also provide new radiocarbon dates for the Mousterian, Auri-
gnacian and Cha ^telperronian levels. Finally, the geoarchaeology, taphonomy, archaeological data, and
Keywords:
Aurignacian
chronology suggest that the interstratification -initially identified on the basis of stratigraphic obser-
Cha^telperronian vations during excavation-cannot be maintained. In any case, the stratigraphy of the internal D Zone of La
Chronology Güelga cave is one of the most interesting from the Cantabrian region for analyzing the last phases of the
Geoarchaeology Mousterian and the rise of the Aurignacian in the North of the Peninsula.
Interstratification © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Mousterian

1. Introduction richness in the Paleolithic archaeological record and to the exis-

The end of the Neanderthal settling and the first human set-
tlements by anatomic modern human groups (HAM) has been the
focus, in recent decades, of one of the greatest debates in European
archaeology; and of the evolutionary process of our human species
in this continent. The southernmost regions of Europe register the
last human settlements of Neanderthal groups (Higham et al.,
2014), for this reason, the identification of when and how the
process of substitution and replacement of a species for another
took place has been one of the main challenges for researchers for
some decades (Cabrera, 1993; Maroto et al., 2005). The North of the
Iberian Peninsula (specially the Cantabrian region), due to its
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mmenendez@geo.uned.es (M. Mene
ndez), dalvarez@gijon.

transition in this region (Andre
s-Herrero, 2009; Andre
s-Herrero
uned.es (D. Alvarez-Alonso), mdeandres@neanderthal.de (M. de Andre
s-Herrero),
pilar.carral@uam.es (P. Carral), egarciasmail@gmail.com (E. García-Sa
nchez),
jjorda@geo.uned.es (J.F. Jord
a Pardo), jmquesada@geo.uned.es (J.M. Quesada),
juliorojo@juliorojo.jazztel.es (J. Rojo).
tence of Mousterian and Aurignacian evidence -dated in the 1980s
onwards within a very narrow chronological range (ca. 40 Ka)
(Bischoff et al., 1989; Cabrera and Bischoff, 1989; Cabrera, 1993,
Cabrera et al., 2005)-, has been in recent decades one of the most
interesting seats for analyzing the process of transition between the
Middle and the Upper Paleolithic (Maroto et al., 2005, 2012).
On the other hand, the identification of different evidences and
levels along the North of the Peninsula, which have been classified
as belonging to the Cha ^telperronian technocomplex -being the
most important ones Cueva Morín (level 10) or Labeko Koba (level
IX) (Maíllo-Fern
andez, 2005; Arrizabalaga and Altuna, 2000) and
more recently, Aranbaltza (Ríos-Garaizar et al., 2015)- have gener-
ated, for the last several years, an intense debate concerning the
cultural allocation, the chronological precision (radiometric) and
the chronostratigraphy of these Cantabrian transition sequences, in
the framework of the research of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic
and Arrizabalaga, 2014; Cabrera and Bernodo de Qurio
s, 1996,
2001, 2002, 2004; Camps, 2006; Maíllo-Ferna
ndez, 2007; Maroto

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
1040-6182/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
2 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14
et al., 1996). This technocomplex was conventionally related to the
Neanderthals (Hublin et al., 2012), a further reason why it repre-
sents an even more controversial and contested context; even
though, in the Cantabrian region no human remains related to any
of the aforementioned discussed levels have been recorded.
This debate has only started to be exceeded following the recent
implementation of new radiometric analyses (Higham, 2011;
Higham et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2014, 2016) and the geo-
archaeological revision of some of the archaeological sequences
which have been at the center of the debate during the last decade.
This is the point where La Güelga cave -a site with a rich
sequence from the Middle and Upper Paleolithic-has played an
important role on the debate about the transition from the Middle
to the Upper Paleolithic in the North of the Peninsula. It is due to the
existence of Mousterian levels in this site -infrajacent to the Auri-
gnacian levels-which were also sealed by remains that were
assigned to the Cha ^telperronian following the identification of
some guiding fossils highly characteristic from this period
(Cha^telperron points) (Mene
ndez et al., 2005, 2006a, b; Quesada
and Mene
ndez, 2009). These pieces have been documented not
only at other Cantabrian sites such as La Vin ~ a, where they appear in
a Mousterian context without discussion (Fortea, 1999; Santamaría


Alvarez, 2012) but also in several contexts defined as Cha ^telperro-
nian, such as Morín, Aranbaltza or Labeko Koba (Arrizabalaga,
2000, 2005; Arrizabalaga and Altuna, 2000; Arrizabalaga and
Iriarte-Chiapusso, 2006; Maíllo-Ferna
ndez, 2005, 2007, 2008;
Ríos-Garaizar, 2008, 2012; Rios-Garaizar et al., 2012); this is one of
the reasons why we have been talking more about a Mousterian
with Ch^ atelperron points -placed at the final moments of the
Middle Paleolithic-than about a Cha ^telperronian (Maroto et al.,
2005). This latter remark can be interesting for assessing the
context to which levels 1 and 2 of La Güelga could be connected.
On the other hand, this type of interstratifications between in-
dustries belonging to the Aurignacian and Cha ^telperronian tech-
nocomplexes have served during the last decades to support the
notion of a presumed cohabitation or coexistence between Nean-
derthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (Gravina et al., 2005;
Mellars et al., 2007), a reason for the debate to gain further interest.
In the case of La Güelga, even though at first -just as it is shown
in previous publications (Mene
ndez et al., 2005, 2006a, b; Quesada
and Mene
ndez, 2009)- an interstratification was identified in the
cultural sequence excavated in the Interior D-Zone (Cha ^telperro-
nian-Aurignacian-Mousterian) bringing about the debate on the
coexistence of both human species in the same space and at close
chronologies. Recent geoarchaeological research -with a detailed
and exhaustive revision of the sequence which was the subject of
the discussion-together with new datings have dismissed this side
of the issue and have finally closed the debate in what pertains to La
Güelga cave (Jord
a et al., 2013; Kehl et al., 2017; Mene
ndez et al.,
2013, 2014).
On the other hand, this revision coincides with similar ones
from sites such as Le Piage and Roc-de-Combe (Bordes, 2003) or El
Pendo (Montes and Sanguino, 2001; Montes et al., 2005), which
have rejected the proposal of interstratification for these transi-
tional technocomplexes, already put into question years ago.
In this work, we present a synthesis on the different studies and
works performed in the sequence of the D-Zone at La Güelga cave,
which serves to put closure on the existing debate around the
chronographic position of the Cha ^telperronian remains as identi-
fied in this site. In the following lines, there is a detailed exposition
of the analyzed problematics, as well as the research that our team
has developed in coordination with the Neanderthal Museum and
the University of Cologne, which have finally refuted the inter-
stratification initially posed for this site. In any case, and despite
deeming secondary the chronostratigraphic position of levels 1 and

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
2 of the Interior D-Zone, it is clear the importance of the
Mousterian-Aurignacian transitional sequence of La Güelga cave, as
one of the most interesting from the North of the Peninsula,
especially with respect to the Final Mousterian (Mene
ndez et al.,
2014).
2. The site and its archaeological context
La Güelga cave is located in close proximity to Cangas de Onís
(Asturias, Northern Spain), in the eastern part of the Asturian
Massif or central zone of the Cantabrian Cordillera that corresponds
with the Cantabrian zone of the Iberian Massif (Vera et al., 2004)
(Fig. 1). The karstic complex of La Güelga is developed within the
pre-Stephanian (Namurian) Upper Carboniferous Barcaliente for-
mation. This formation is comprised of grey and black fetid lime-
stone (micrites, microsparites and dolomicrites) (I.G.M.E, 1986). The
cave mouth is located at the base of a cliff with a strong relief, at
182 m asl and at the bottom of a blind valley in which La Güelga or
La Brava stream disappears into a subterranean karstic complex
(Fig. 2).
The entrance of La Güelga cave morphologically resembles a
large stony rock shelter in which the river incised its course. Suc-
cessive phases of incision during karst phases have left traces on
the walls of the cliff and the rock shelter, the uppermost of which is
some 13 m above the present river bed. The Upper Pleistocene
archaeological contents of the deposits in these terraces are vari-
able (Mene
ndez et al., 2006a,b). The most significant of these is
situated at 11 m above the current river level, lying on top of a
chaotic deposit of large limestone blocks detached from the
outcrop, and consisting of 2 m of sediment. At this level, there was
an ancient entrance to the cave where the stream once flowed. The
sediments that fill the cavity (Interior D-Zone) are presently con-
nected to the ones located to the outside and on top of the terrace
(Exterior D-Zone).
Around the current cave entrance, located in the lower terrace of
the system (A and C Zones), were identified Solutrean and
Magdalenian occupations (Fig. 3B); These two areas were excavated
from 1989 to 2000 (García et al., 2004; Mene
ndez and Martínez
Villa, 1992; Mene
ndez et al., 2004, 2006b).
In the 11 m terrace, the D-Zone contains archaeological levels
defined as Early Aurignacian, Cha ^telperronian and Mousterian
(Fig. 3A). Archaeological research in this area of the site began in
2000 and it was developed along 8 campaigns, until 2008; in 2012
the archaeological studies were completed with the performance of
new datings and micromorphological analyses from the D-Zone
sequence.
2.1. D-zone. Middle to upper palaeolithic transition archaeological
sequence
The D-Zone is composed by two adjacent spaces, but dissimilar
and with a different stratigraphic sequence. The first one is located
outdoors (Exterior D-Zone) and the second one (Interior D-Zone)
within a small cavity (ancient valley drain), which was completely
colmated with sediments ranging the ceiling of the cavity, at the
beginning of the fieldworks in 2000 (Fig. 4). As the research pro-
gressed, the excavation surface expanded, reaching until 6 m2, and
established a sequence of 9 archaeological levels ranging 2 m deep
with a still wider sequence pending for digging. At the top of the
sequence a thick surface layer was removed and bioturbed (Layers
S1 and S2), containing a large number of organic remains mixed
with a heterogeneous lithic assemblage and some handmade
ceramic fragments.
Under this surface layers, a not-bioturbed archaeological level is
preserved (N1). The survey in this and subsequent levels identified
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14 3

Fig. 1. La Güelga cave location (A); Excavation Areas plane (B); La Brava stream schematic profile, with the excavated area location in the fluvial terraces (C).

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
4 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 2. La Güelga cave location, in the small valley of La Brava stream.

Fig. 3. D Zone location (left); A and B Zones location (right).

some removed areas, and a possible Cha ^telperrronian-Aurignacian- 3. Methods

Mousterian interstratification was also determined (Mene
ndez
et al., 2005).
In 2005 a new excavation area was open on the same terrace,
adjacent to the Interior D-Zone, after a previous survey in 2003
which determined the existence of lithic and osseous remains: an
open air area outside the cave entrance called Exterior D-Zone. In
this new area, well preserved archaeological levels were found
under a huge gravitational landslide of limestone blocks from the
cave shelter. As we will see, D Interior Zone and D Exterior Zone
show slightly different stratigraphic sequences, for in the Exterior
Zone the sequence from the Upper Paleolithic is absent, but pre-
served in the Interior Zone; although there is a great coherence and
probably a stratigraphic correlation between the Mousterian se-
quences from both zones. Across the D Interior and the D Exterior
zones, the excavated surface is about 17 m2 (Quesada and
Mene
ndez, 2009; Jorda
et al., 2013).
The chronostratigraphic revision of La Güelga D-Zone has been
focused on the performance of comprehensive geoarchaeological,
chronometric and taphonomic analyses. The main levels have been
dated radiometrically, and geomorphological and stratigraphic
studies have been undertaken in addition with traditional archae-
ological and zooarchaeological analyses. In the same manner, we
have studied in detail and from a taphonomic perspective, both the
remains of the lithic industry and fauna from the Interior sequence,
with special attention to levels 1 and 2.
3.1. Chronology
One of the main goals of this project was to obtain a detailed
chronostratigraphy and with a high chronometric resolution. Due
to this fact, up to 15 samples from the levels of the Interior Zone
were dated, reaching a total amount of 20 datings in this sector of

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14
Fig. 4. Detail of interior and exterior zones.
the site. Because the previously published datings for the Cha ^tel-
perronian did not conform with current reliability protocols
(Quesada and Mene
ndez, 2009) -in the same way that occurred
with the first published datings for the Mousterian (Mene
ndez
et al., 2005)
4 datings in Beta and 1 dating in Groningen (GrN)
(Table 1: no 16e20)- in eleven of the new datings of AMS that were
performed since 2008 the method of ultrafiltration was applied;
although definitely it does not seem to be a determining protocol
(Fülo€p et al., 2013). These datings were mainly performed at the
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and the Cologne
laboratories, besides sending a sample from level 5 to the Beta
Analytic laboratory. As a peculiarity, it could be highlighted that six
of the datings from level 5 come from two bones that were
analyzed with and without the pretreatment of ultrafiltration at the
Oxford (ORAU) and Cologne laboratories. Thus, the datings
COL2579.1.1, COL 2579.2.1 and OxA-30809 come from the same
osseous sample, as it happens with datings COL2578.1.1,
COL2578.2.1 and OxA-30810. The two datings from level 2 were
obtained from the same osseous fragment, and each one dated at
the laboratory, but without applying the ultrafiltration protocol.
The result of these datings (Mene
ndez et al., 2009, 2014; Kehl
et al., 2017) has supposed the aging of the chronology with
respect to the first results (Mene
ndez et al., 2005), besides
obtaining a very coherent and homogeneous sequence from a
chronological point of view (Mene
ndez et al., 2009, 2014; Maroto
et al., 2012; Kehl et al., 2017).

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
5
3.2. Geoarchaeology
Geoarchaeological research at La Güelga included initial field
work in which the geological context of the site was investigated
along with a sampling of the deposits and a study of the lithos-
tratigraphy. This was followed by the laboratory analysis. Study of
the lithostratigraphic sequence and sampling of the profiles in the
D-Zone was carried out during four field seasons (2005e2008).
Laboratory work included sampling and analysis of sedimentology
(texture, insoluble residue and mineralogical analysis e XRD),
which was carried out at the laboratories of the department of
Geology of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid. The
edaphological analyses (colour, pH, total carbonates eCaCO3e,
organic matter and organic carbon) were carried out at the Soil
Testing Laboratory of the Universidad Auto
noma de Madrid.
The results of the granulometry analyses were investigated us-
ing the GRADISTAT 4.0 software (Blott and Pye, 2001), which allows
statistical analysis and the creation of triangular diagrams and
granulometry curves. The X-Ray diffraction analyses (XRD) of
fractions less than 0.063 mm, previously ground to unify grain size,
were carried out to assess the mineralogical character of the sam-
ples. All samples were analyzed following the dust method for the
identification and quantification of the predominant mineral
phases.
On the other hand, the micromorphological analysis was un-
dertaken by Martin Kehl, Ph.D. from the Institute of Geography at
6 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14

Table 1
Table with all 14C available dates from Güelga Cave.

N. Zone/Area Level Adscription Raw material Method Code/Ref. Date BP Desviation Calibrated dates 95% probab

CalPal 2007 Hulu INTCAL13

1 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr Beta-377233 33,610 220 41,730 -35,570 calBP 38,720 -37,200 calBP
2 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS COL2579.1.1 34,121 266 41,470 - 37,750 calBP 39,170 -38,090 calBP
3 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS þ ultr COL2579.2.1 34,500 763 41,820 - 37,420 cal BP 40,750 -37,070 calBP
4 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS þ ultr OxA-30809 34,750 600 41,800 - 38,000 calBP 40,590 -38,030 calBP
5 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS COL2578.1.1 34,164 273 41470- 37,790 calBP 39,250 -38,130 calBP
6 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS þ ultr COL2578.2.1 34,355 751 41,800 - 37,160 calBP 40,600 -36,840 calBP
7 D Interior 5 Aurignacian Bone AMS þ ultr OxA-30810 33,900 550 41,860 - 36,140 calBP 39,670 -36,630 calBP

8 D Interior 2 ¿Chatelperronian? Bone with marks AMS COL2014 37,429 302 42,780 -41,460 calBP 42,320 -41,400 calBP
9 D Interior 2 ¿Chatelperronian? Bone with marks AMS OxA-27958 40,300 1200 45,910 -42,070 calBP 45,890 -42,090 calBP

10 D Interior 9 Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-19244 43,700 800 49,020 -44,540 calBP 48,740 -45,300 calBP
11 D Interior 9 Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-19245 44,300 1200 50,660 -44,380 calBP Out of calibration range
12 D Exterior 4B Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-20122 47,400 2700 Out of calibration range Out of calibration range
13 D Exterior 4B Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-20123 >43,200
14 D Exterior 4B Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-20124 48,500 3500 Out of calibration range Out of calibration range
15 D Exterior 4B Mousterian Bone with marks AMS þ ultr OxA-20125 >43,600

16 D Interior cone Mousterian Bone Conven. GrN-18256 32,000 1600/1350 40,660 -32980 calBP 39,770 -32850 calBP
17 D Interior 1 ¿Chatelperronian? Bone AMS Beta-172343 32,460 440 38,680 -35,080 calBP 37,740 -35,340 calBP
18 D Interior 2 ¿Chatelperronian? Bone AMS Beta-172344 30,210 340 34,950 -33,910 calBP 34,820 -33,700 calBP
19 D Exterior 4A Mousterian Bone AMS Beta-172345 29,550 310 34,540 -33,220 calBP 34,240 -33,120 calBP
20 D Exterior 4B Mousterian Bone AMS Beta-186766 29,020 260 34,200 -32,800 calBP 33,840 -32,520 calBP

the University of Cologne, and it consisted on the retrieval of nine
blocks of sediment at the southern profile of the D Interior Zone
(Tables 1e2), taken from the central part of each of the levels
(Fig. 5), besides other two samples in the Exterior Zone (levels 3 and
4), in order to determine whether the archaeological levels of D-
Zone are in situ (Kehl et al., 2017). From each of these blocks we
obtained a thin layer, which were analyzed under the microscope
according to standard protocols to determine the composition of
the organic and inorganic elements present in the thin sections, as
well as the orientation of the elongated fragments and varying
compaction of sediments (Stoops, 2003).
The results of the archaeological studies have been presented
most comprehensively in (Jorda
et al., 2013; Kehl et al., 2017);
therefore, we will not enter further into details at this point in what
pertains the results of this work.
3.3. Archaeological data
The analysis of lithic and faunal remains from the D Zone ex-
cavations are not concluded yet; due to this reason, we will only
expose in this work the most relevant aspects related with the
chronocultural characterization of the levels, as well as the taph-
onomic evidences which contribute to the chronographic revision
of the D Interior Zone. With respect to the zooarchaeological and
taphonomic data of the remains of micromammals from the D
Interior Zone, we only present data based on the MNI (Minimum
Number of Individuals), and a preliminary analysis of the docu-
mented taphonomic alterations in the faunistic remains. With
respect to the lithic industry, it has already been preliminarly
presented in previous works, thus, there is no doubt about the
chronocultural characterization of the Aurignacian and Mousterian
levels (Mene
ndez et al., 2005, 2009).

4. Results

4.1. Chronology for the middle to the upper paleolithic transition in

La Güelga cave

Twenty 14C dates have been obtained from the D Zone of La

Fig. 5. Micromorphology samples location in D Interior Zone archaeological profile.
Güelga cave, although they are of variable quality (Fig. 6). In this
paper, we only consider the last fifteen (Table 1, no 1e15), which
were obtained on bone fragments with anthropic markings, and
eleven of them on purified collagen with ultrafiltration protocols at
three laboratories (Beta, Cologne and Oxford). The first five datings
on collagen taken before 2005 are anomalously young, suggesting
that young contaminants remained in the dated material as often
found in bones of this age (Higham, 2011).
The D Interior Zone Level 5, attributed to the Aurignacian
(Table 1, no 1e7.), contains a consistent group of seven dates (from 3
bone samples). They place this layer between 40.750 and 36.630 cal
BP (INTCAL 13). This set of data places this level in the chronological

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14
Fig. 6. D Interior Zone Archaeological profile.
range established by similar radiometric methods for the Early
Aurignacian in Northern Iberia (Cabrera et al., 2005; Wood et al.,
2014).
The radiocarbon dates from levels 1 and 2 of the D Interior Zone
are equally consistent with their alleged cultural attribution. They
have a chronological range comprised in a time lapse between
45.890 and 41.500 cal BP. These are obviously older than the
radiometric results for Level 5, despite being stratigraphically
higher in the sequence. These C14 dates are also in the same range
for other Cha ^telperronian attributed occupations in Northern Ibe-
ria, obtained by the same protocols and methods, from the Basque
site of Labeko Koba (Wood et al., 2014).
Finally, the D Zone Mousterian radiometric dates should be
considered with some caution, as they are on the edge of the cali-
bration range (Table 1, no 10e15). Looking at the uncalibrated dates,
samples taken for the D Interior Level 9 appear younger than some
from the D Exterior Unit 4 (levels 4a and 4b). However, as it is not
possible to calibrate many of these dates, more rigorous compari-
son is not possible and firm conclusions cannot be reached and it is
not possible to use the dates to confirm or refute our proposal that
the two stratigraphic units are correlated. In any case, the Mous-
terian of La Güelga cave ranges in the final stretch of the Mousterian
techno-complex, older than 45.300 cal BP.
4.2. D interior zone
Firstly, we focused on the sequence that requires the most

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
7
attention, the levels of human occupation identified at the D Inte-
rior Zone (Fig. 6). In this respect, we only make reference to the
main levels with Cha ^telperronian, Aurignacian and Mousterian
materials. For more detailed information concerning the rest of the
sequence or the levels without archaeological content see Jorda


ndez et al., 2014 and Kehl et al., 2017.
et al., 2013, Mene
4.2.1. Levels 1 and 2: with cha^telperronian points
These levels only have a useful archaeological area of 3 m2. The
presumed cultural attribution was based on a few but very diag-
nostic archaeological items, mainly two Cha ^telperronian points
(Fig. 7, no 1e3), and any kind of bone industry.
Level 1 is formed by 10e20 cm of pale brown clays with
autochthonous angular pebbles (percentile 5 cm, mean 1 cm) and
rounded cobbles originating from the outside (percentile 12 cm). It
presents a light depositional gradient towards the interior of the
cave. Level 2 its composed by 5e10 cm of light brown clays and silt
with autochthonous limestone gravel in continuation with the
overlaying level. There is no clear discontinuity from the overlaying
level which is very similar (Jorda
et al., 2013).
The thin sections obtained from levels 1 and 2 (Kehl et al., 2017)
show micromorphological characteristics -both organic and inor-
ganic materials-which do not guarantee the character in situ of
these sediments in the general stratigraphy. Therefore, not only the
materials preferably arranged according to their main axis, hori-
zontally ordered, and in parallel are not documented, but many of
the characteristics which belong to slope deposits are identified,
8 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 7. Lithic industry of Level 2 (1e3) and Level 5 (4e6).

allowing us to determine, after all, that there are no archaeological
floors in these two levels (Bertran and Texier, 1999; Kehl et al.,
2017).
With respect to faunal remains, we have around 3200 remains
(78% level 1 þ 22% level 2) in these two levels. In level 1, we
documented the presence of Bos/Bison, Cervus elaphus, Rupicapra
pyrenaica and Capreolus capreolus besides a fox's remain, but the
two best represented species are the chamois and the deer (Fig. 8);
at level 2, these two taxons represent the 80% of the remains.
In level 1, the anthropic marks are mainly circumscribed to the
deer (30% of the remains), and to three remains of bovidae, not
being present either the roe deer or the chamois, whereas fire al-
terations affect a 10% of the total remains. With respect to alter-
ations due to carnivors (digestive) they affect the 4% of the remains,
being the most interesting ones those produced due to abrasion
and polishing, which suppose a subaerial exposition and the
transportation of an important number of remains.
In level 2, the quantity of anthropic marks is high (33% of
chamois and 22% of deer) as well as carnivore evidences (around
14% of the remains), and the alterations by fire (11% of the total).
Other types of postdepositional alterations, such as those docu-
mented in level 1, are also very high (Table 2).
The effect of intense weathering suffered as a result of a long
subaerial exposure (Table 2) supports the interpretation suggested
by the micromorphological analysis.
Both levels, with slight sedimentological differences, constitute
a cultural unit, for they show some lithic refitting. The lithic
assemblage is integrated by a dozen quartzite and flintstone pieces.
Most of them can be assigned to Middle Palaeolithic technologies
and typical assemblages (scrapers, notches and denticulates). There
are some blades made of allochthonous flint; particularly, two
Cha^telperronian points (Fig. 7, no 1e3) (Mene
ndez et al., 2005;
Quesada and Mene
ndez, 2009).
Therefore, despite of the radiometric data, ranging 45.8 ky cal
BP/41.4 ky cal BP (Table 1), and the fact of the internal coherence of
the archaeological remains enclosed in these layers, the probative
nature of its position to argue the Aurignacian interstratification is
void. Level 2 is deposited above a layer of limestone blocks (Level 3),
slopped from outside the cavity and was generated by a gravita-
tional collapse of the cave shelter. Under this layer of blocks, it

et al.,
appears a sand silt level (Level 4), also of external origin (Jorda
2013; Kehl et al., 2017). Both layers (3e4) are archaeologically
sterile.
From the results of the micromorphological and taphonomical

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14 9

Fig. 8. MNI of D interior zone.

Table 2 during these phases.

Postdepositional alterations on faunal remains. Most archaeological remains are concentrated towards the top
Level 9 Level 6 Level 5 Level 2 Level 1 of these two layers, which constitute a cultural unit. Both layers
were excavated over an area of 4 m2. The archaeological assemblage
Abrasion 1,60% 6,50% 1,20% 16,90% 9,70%
Rolled 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,30% 1,30% is not very large in number, although it does appear very diagnostic
Smoothed 0,20% 0,10% 2,20% 23,70% 12,30% (Quesada and Mene
ndez, 2009). It includes a high proportion of
Trampling 0,10% 0,10% 0,00% 2,70% 3,10% scrapers, “Aurignacian” retouched blades and a blade-end scraper.
Weathering 2,70% 4,90% 3,90% 10,40% 12,20%
Blade tools are mostly made of local flints, and other less charac-
teristic artifacts are made of quartzite. The bone industry is repre-
sented by some middle and distal fragments of sagaies on antler
analyses, it seems that these two levels may have formed outside and awls on bone (Fig. 7, no 4e6). A perforated deer phalanx can be
the cave and then moved through slope processes into the interior classified as a whistle (Mene
ndez et al., 2005).
of the cave (Kehl et al., 2017). However, and despite being a derived With respect to fauna remains, we documented a total of more
context, both the chronology and the archaeological remains from than 4000 remains, from which 2700 belong to level 6 and 1600 to
levels 1 and 2 maintain a relative internal coherence in relation to level 5. In both levels, the dominant species are the deer and the
the existence of an archaeological level (after the Mousterian and chamois, with isolated pieces of horse in level 6 and of bos/bison in
previous to the Aurignacian from the D Interior Zone) probably level 5 (Fig. 8). Even though in both levels the anthropic action is
situated in the external part of the cave and redeposited at its evident, it is more significant in level 5 because it contains a 17% of
current location (D Interior Zone). deer remains (6% in level 6). The case of the chamois is the opposite,
for in level 5 there are no anthropic marks registered for this ani-
4.2.2. Levels 5 and 6: aurignacian mal's remains, but they are found in level 6 (12%). On the other
Level 5 is formed by 6e20 cm of brown clays and silt with hand, the action of the carnivores is more intense at the base of the
autochthonous pebbles (percentile 4 cm, mean 0.5 cm). A set of Aurignacian sequence, for it affects the 41% of the deer remains and
limestone blocks, which originated by the collapse of the cave the 30% of those of chamois in level 6; whereas in level 5 these
ceiling, and are filled with clays. The same clays deepen around types of marks are hardly present. This last datum is in accordance
30 cm under the blocks, forming Level 6. Level 6 consists of with a higher human activity in level 5, for the scorched bone at this
30e40 cm of a clastic level formed by autochthonous cobbles and level (17%) increases with respect to level 6 (6%).
pebbles (percentile 10 cm, mean 2 cm) with an abundant dark The calibration of seven radiocarbon dates places these levels in
brown clayey-silty matrix. The disposition of the clasts is quite the range 40.7 ky cal BP/36.6 ky cal BP (Table 1). Both the sedi-
planar and parallel to the sub-horizontal depositional surface of the mentological and the stratigraphic studies (Jorda
et al., 2013) and
studied profile (Jorda
et al., 2013). the micromorphological analyses point to a non-altered position (in
The thin sections taken for micromorphological analysis from situ) of these sediments; although they show a slight low
levels 5 and 6 show an unaltered stratigraphic position of the compaction.
sediments, with a horizontal, or sub-horizontal, and in parallel Considering the micromorphological features and the number
preferential arrangement of the elongated elements; more clear in of artifacts retrieved during the excavation, it also appears likely
level 6 than in level 5, with remains of flint and quartzite particles that during accumulation of level 5 the cave was occupied rarely
(most common), charcoal and coprolites. These two levels show a and it was not used for the preparation of fire. It can be interpreted
clear microstratification with differential degrees of compaction as as an Early Aurignacian occupation. Although scarce, the artifacts
well as traces of trampling (Kehl et al., 2017). However, it seems are very characteristic in their types, technology and raw materials
that the cave was occupied only occasionally and at a low intensity

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
10 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14
Fig. 9. Lithic industry of Level 9.
employed; also their dates are similar to other occupations from
Northern Iberia (Arrizabalaga and Altuna, 2000; Cabrera et al.,
2005; Wood et al., 2014, 2016).
Level 6 lacks archaeological remains in its lower tract, with a
higher activity produced by carnivorous, and lies over two sterile
layers: Level 7, conformed by a set of limestone blocks, originated
by ceiling collapse; and Level 8, integrated by clays with very few
anthropic remains, is limited to some pieces of Middle Palaeolithic
technology, and classified as lithic manufacture remains.
4.2.3. Level 9: mousterian
Level 9 is formed by 12e15 cm of black visible clays with
abundant organic material. Autochthonous limestone prismatic
pebbles with robust edges due to dissolution are present (percen-
tile 2 cm). The level is horizontal and includes combustion areas
marked by rubefaction and dispersed ashes (Jord
a et al., 2013).
From a micromorphological point of view, level 9 shows an obvious
compaction and elongated items that show a horizontal disposi-
tion, with evidences of being well preserved in situ layers (Kehl
et al., 2017). This layer shows an intense human occupation, with
multiple combustion areas. Most of the raw materials showed by

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
the lithic assemblage are fine-grained quartzites. The collection
includes some points and scrapers made on Levallois flakes. There
are also very frequent notches, denticulated pieces and Mousterian
knives manufactured on large flakes (Fig. 9). There is no bone in-
dustry, although the macrofaunal remains are very abundant.
As for the fauna remains, we have documented around 8000
remains, highlighting the chamois and the deer with 75% of the
total (Fig. 8). The anthropic action observed in the faunal remains is
out of doubt, for the registered anthropic marks reach the 25% of
the roe deer remains, as well as the 40% of chamois and deer.
Equally interesting is the presence of a high number of remains
with alterations produced by fire.
Two radiocarbon dates on collagen bone are in the boundary of
calibration range, with a minimum age around 45 ky cal BP
(Table 1). From an archaeological and chronostratigraphic
perspective, there is no doubt about this level being an intense
Mousterian occupation. They set the upper part of a thick stratig-
raphy, as can be observed in the slope falling into the cave inner
sections. On its surface can be recognized a number of archaeo-

ndez et al., 2009,
logical remains with similar characteristics (Mene

ndez, 2009).
2014; Quesada and Mene
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14 11

Fig. 10. D Exterior Zone archaeological profile.

Fig. 11. Lithic industry of Level 4 (D Exterior Zone).

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
12 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14
4.3. D exterior zone
As we have explained, the results of the archaeological research
carried out in the D Interior Zone, induced us in 2005 to expand the
excavation surface outward the shelter, to the east of the ancient
cave entrance. This excavation aimed to confirm the unusual cul-
tural sequence found in the interior of the cave. After several
campaigns of fieldwork, we exhumed a 1,80 m thick archaeological
sequence (Fig. 10).
4.3.1. Levels 1-3
Under a surface edaphic layer, which included many organic
remains, three levels of reddish clay stone with scarce flake as-
semblages (probably Middle Palaeolithic) and faunal remains were
observed. Most of the rich lithic assemblage is manufactured on
quartzite flakes. There are no clear stratigraphic breaks between
the three units, although the geology of strata shows that it has
been formed over a long span of time, with anthropic contributions
increasing from Level 1, almost sterile, to level 3. None of them
constitute a proper occupation layer (Jorda
et al., 2013; Quesada
and Mene
ndez, 2009).
4.3.2. Unit 4
Unit 4 is sealed above by limestone large blocks which collapsed
from the rockshelter, and is filled with remains of Level 3's reddish
sediment in its upper part and darker clays from Level 4b. These
collapsed large clasts are named as Level 4a, being Level 4b the
occupation layer sealed by them. Level 4a and Level 4b constitute a
cultural unit from an archaeological point of view. It encloses a rich
faunal assemblage, dominated by red deer and chamois remains
(Cervus elaphus 66%; Rupicapra pyrenaica 21%), as it is seen in the D
Interior Zone Mousterian unit (Mene
ndez et al., 2009).
Four human teeth exhumed in Level 4b show Neanderthal
morphology and are under paleoanthropological study. The lithic
assemblage, also very rich in numerous retouched items and
knapping debitage, shows a typically Mousterian structure: abun-
dant retouched flakes (most of them different types of Levallois
flakes); denticulates; side-scrapers and Levallois points (Fig. 11).
Most of this lithic assemblage is manufactured on local quartzites,
being a small number of retouched elements, as some singular
Levallois points and Quina-retouched side scrappers, made of
Pilon~ a flint or other kind of local raw material such radiolarita
(Mene
ndez et al., 2009, 2014).
La Güelga Research team took four samples for dating by AMS
with ultrafiltration protocol C14, all of them on bone with anthropic
markings. The results establish the D-Exterior Unit 4 towards the
limit of the radiocarbon method, where calibration is not possible
(Table 1).
From a sedimentological, stratigraphical and microstrati-
graphical perspective, there are no doubts that Level 4b is a well
preserved in situ layer, without displacement or intrusions. It was
preserved at top surface by the rockshelter's collapse, and it could
be correlated with the D Interior Zone; although stratigraphical
continuity is broken by a biotic disturbance (Quesada and
Mene
ndez, 2009).
5. Conclusions
We have talked for some years about a possible interstratifica-
tion of the Aurignacian in between the Cha ^telperronian (at the top
of the sequence) and the Mousterian (at the bottom of the
sequence) proposed after initial analysis of the chronostratigraphy
and lithic industry (Mene
ndez et al., 2005, 2006a, b; Quesada and
Mene
ndez, 2009). After a revision developed during 2012e2013,
the radiometric data, the geoarchaeology analyses and the

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
taphonomic studies have rejected this Cha ^telperronian-Aurigna-
cian-Mousterian interstratification.
These recent studies that we have developed in La Güelga cave
(D Zone) have clearly shown that the upper levels (Cha ^telperro-
nian) are in a secondary position, most likely having slid to their
current position from a location outside the cave. Therefore, the
Aurignacian level is not interstratified between the Mousterian and
the Cha^telperronian cultural units. Unlike the levels attributed to
the Ch^atelperronian, the Aurignacian and Mousterian levels are in a
primary position, hence the importance of the new datings of these
levels, because they provide very solid data to delimit the last
Mousterian phases and the beginning of the Aurignacian in the
Cantabrian Region. In this sense, the thin sections of the sediments
from the Mousterian and the Aurignacian levels at La Güelga show
several characteristics of the intact archaeological deposits,
whereas the sediments from the levels initially assigned to the
Cha^telperronian lack these characteristics and show others typical
of rework deposits. This suggests that, after the partial fall of the
ceiling documented at level 3 of the D Interior Zone (Jorda
et al.,
2013; Kehl et al., 2017), the sediments which comprise levels 1
and 2, together with some remains of the lithic industry and the
fauna, were transported to the interior of the shelter due to a
landslide; a hypothesis also supported by the taphonomic analyses
(Table 2).
The chronology (with and without ultrafiltered protocols) at all
levels is consistent with this hypothesis, for the datings indicate
younger ages for the Aurignacian levels than for the Cha ^telperro-
nian. This inversion of age is added to the fact that the stirred
sediments are situated above the surfaces of Aurignacian location,
as we have already indicated (Jorda
et al., 2013; Mene
ndez et al.,
2013, 2014; Kehl et al., 2017).
Thus, La Guelga provides dates for the Mousterian with
Cha^telperronian points around 45.8 ky cal BP to 41.4 ky cal BP;
40.7 ky cal BP to 36.6 ky cal BP for the Aurignacian and a minimum
age of 45.3 ky cal BP for the Final Mousterian (Table 1). It is also
interesting to note in the stratigraphic sequence from the D Interior
Zone, that between the Aurignacian and the Mousterian there is a
hiatus in human occupation for at least 5000 years. In this respect,
we must point out the chronology of levels 1 and 2 which indicates
the existence of human activity in this temporal framework, more
closely linked to the Mousterian presence than the Aurignacian
context. In this sense, and as the outcome of recent interpretations
of other similar contexts in the Iberian Peninsula have shown, we
could consider that we are dealing with the existence of a Final
Mousterian phase, including Ch^ atelperronian points, which makes
the La Güelga site highly interesting; despite the chronostrati-
graphic position of these levels in the sedimentary sequence of the
D Interior Zone. The new chronologies from these levels provide
strong data to support this hypothesis.
Future works should explain the unusual position of the
Cha^telperronian remains and the model of transition from the
Mousterian to the Aurignacian, from 50.000 to around 39.000 years
ago.
Acknowledgements
The archaeological research at La Güelga cave was carried out
with the financial support of the FICYT (Asturias, Spain), the pro-
jects HAR 2010-213 “Historia cultural y paleoambiental de los
últimos neandertales y los primeros Hombres Modernos en el norte
de la Península Ibe
rica”, of the MICINN, HAR 2013-41981-P:
“Ocupacio
n del territorio y actividad simbo
lica paleolítica en el
centro de la Cornisa Cant
abrica (27.000e12.000 B$P.). Los Modelos

n, Sella y Cares” and also of project C1 of the
de los Valles del Nalo
Cooperative Research Center 806 “Our Way to Europe” funded by
 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14 13

the German Research Foundation (DFG). We gratefully appreciate Higham, T., Douka, K., Wood, R., Ramsey, C.B., Brock, F., Basell, Camps, M.,
Arrizabalaga, A., Baena, J., Barroso-Ruíz, C., Bergman, C., Boitard, C., Boscato, P.,
the cooperation provided by all Institutions. We would also like to
s, M., Conard, N.J., Draily, C., Froment, A., Galva
n, N., Gambassini, P.,
Caparro
thank the organizers of the A21d session of the XVII International García-Moreno, A., Grimaldi, S., Haesaerts, P., Holt, B., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J.,
Congress of the UISPP (Burgos 2014): “Chronostratigraphic data Jelinek, A., Jorda
Pardo, J.F., Maíllo-Ferna
ndez, J.M., Marom, M., Maroto, J.,
Mene
ndez, M., Metz, L., Morin, E., Moroni, A., Negrino, F., Panagopoulou, E.,
about the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic cultural change in Western
Peresani, M., Pirson, S., Rasilla, M. de la, Riel-Salvatore, J., Ronchitelli, A.,
Europe”, in whose framework the results were presented. Santamaría, D., Semal, P., Slimak, L., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A., Pinhasi, R.,
Jacobi, R., 2014. The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal
disappearance. Nature 512 (7514), 306e309.
References Hublin, J.J., Talamo, S., Julien, M., David, F., Connet, N., Bodu, P., Vandermeersch, B.,
Richards, M.P., 2012. Radiocarbon dates from the Grotte du Renne and Saint-
Andre
s Herrero, M. de, 2009. El Chatelperroniense en la Regio
n Cant
abrica, estado Ce
saire support a Neandertal origin for the Ch^ atelperronian. Proc. Natl. Acad.
de la cuestio
n. Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 60, 35e50. Sci. 109, 18743e18748.


Andres Herrero, M. de, Arrizabalaga, A., 2014. El Paleolítico superior inicial en I.G.M.E, 1986. Mapa Geolo
gico de Espan ~ a, E. 1:50.000. 31 (15e4) Ribadesella.


Asturias. In: Alvarez-Alonso, D. (Ed.), Los grupos cazadores-recolectores pale- Segunda serie, Primera edicio
n. Instituto Geolo
gico y Minero de Espan ~ a,
olíticos del occidente canta
brico. Entemu XVIII. UNED-Asturias, pp. 133e155. Madrid.
Arrizabalaga, A., 2000. Los tecnocomplejos líticos del yacimiento arqueolo
gico de
, J.F., Mene
Jorda
ndez, M., Carral, P., Quesada, J.M., Wood, R., 2013. Geoarchaeology
Labeko Koba (Arrasate, País Vasco). In: Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J. (Eds.), Labeko and chronostratigraphy of the middle-upper palaeolithic transition at the cave
Koba (País Vasco) Hienas y humanos en los albores del Paleolítico superior, vol. of La Güelga (Cangas de Onís, Asturias, Spain). In: Pastoors, A., Auffermann, B.
52. Munibe, pp. 193e343. (Eds.), Pleistocene Foragers on the Iberian Peninsula: Their Culture and Envi-
Arrizabalaga, A., 2005. Two tales of two caves? La transicio
n Paleolítico medio/ ronment, vol. 7. Wiss. Schriften des Neanderthal Museums, pp. 85e106.
superior en el Cantabrico Oriental. In: Santonja, En M., Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, A.,

Kehl, M., Alvarez-Alonso, D., Andre
s-Herrero, M. de, Carral Gonza
lez, P., García, E.,
Machado, A. (Eds.), Geoarqueología y Conservacio
n del Patrimonio. Actas de la Jorda
Pardo, J.F., Mene
ndez, M., Quesada, J.M., Rethemeyer, J., Rojo, J.,
IVa Reunio
n de Geoarqueología, pp. 81e93. Tafelmaier, Y., Weniger, G.-C., 2017. Towards a revised stratigraphy for the
Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., 2000. Labeko koba (País Vasco): hienas y humanos en los middle to upper palaeolithic boundary at La Güelga (narciandi, Asturias, Spain)
albores del paleolítico superior. Munibe Antropol.-Arkeología, San. Sebastia
n - Soil micromorphology and new radiocarbon data. Bol. Geol. Min. 128 (3).
52. Maíllo-Fern
andez, J.M., 2005. La produccio
n laminar en el Chatelperroniense de
Arrizabalaga, A., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.J., 2006. El Castelperroniense y otros com- Cueva Morín: modalidades, intenciones y objetivos. Trab. Prehist. 62, 47e64.
plejos de transicio
n entre el Paleolítico medio y el superior en la Cornisa Can- Maíllo-Fern
andez, J.M., 2007. Le Ch^ atelperronien en Espagne: mythes et re
alite

s.

brica. Algunas reflexiones. In: Maíllo y, En.J.M., Baquedano, E. (Eds.),
ta Une approche technologique. In: Evin,  J. (Ed.), Aux conceptions d'aujourd'hui.
Misecela
nea en homenaje a Victoria Cabrera. Zona Arqueolo
gica, p. 7. Actes du Congre s du Centenaire de la Socie
te

Pre
historique Française: un sie cle
Bertran, P., Texier, J.P., 1999. Facies and microfacies of slope deposits. Catena 35, de Construction du Discours Scientifique en Pre
histoire, vol. 3. Socie
te

99e121. pre
historique française, Paris, pp. 95e103. Avignon, 21-25 septembre 2004.
Bischoff, J., Soler, N., Maroto, J., Julia, R., 1989. Abrupt mousterian/aurignacian Maíllo-Fern
andez, J.M., 2008. El Chatelperroniense en el noroeste de la península
boundary at c. 40 ka bp: accelerator dates from
L Arbreda cave (catalunya, ibe
rica. Fe
rvedes 5, 127e136.
Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 563e576. Maroto, J., Soler, N., Fullola, J.M., 1996. Cultural change between middle and upper
Blott, S.J., Pye, K., 2001. GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics package palaeolithic in catalunya. In: Carbonell, E., Vaquero, M. (Eds.), The Last Nean-
for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 26, dertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans: a Tale about the Human Di-
1237e1248. versity. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 KA BP.
Bordes, J.-G., 2003. Lithic taphonomy of the Chatelperronian/Aurignacian in- Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, pp. 219e250.
terstratifications in Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot, France). In: D
Errico, F., Maroto, J., Vaquero, M., Arrizabalaga, A.,
Baena, J., Carrio
n, E., Jorda
Pardo, J.,
Zilha~o, J. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Martino
n, M., Mene
ndez, M., Montes, R., Rosell, J., 2005. Problema
tica cro-
Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Tra- nolo
gica del final del Paleolítico Medio en el Norte Peninsular. In: Lasheras, J.A.,
balhos de Arquelogia, pp. 223e244. Montes, R. (Eds.), Actas de la Reunio
n Científica: Neandertales Canta
bricos,
Cabrera, V., Bischoff, J., 1989. Accelerator 14-C dates for early upper paleolithic Estado de la Cuestio
n, vol. 20. Monografías del Museo de Altamira, pp. 101e114.
(basal aurignacian) at el castillo cave (Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 577e584. Maroto, J., Vaquero, M., Arrizabalaga, A.,
Baena, J., Baquedano, E., Jord
, R.,
a, J., Julia
Cabrera, V., 1993. El Origen del Hombre Moderno en el Suroeste de Europa. UNED. Montes, R., Van Der Plicht, J., Rasines, P., Wood, R., 2012. Current issues in late
Cabrera, V., Bernado de Quiro
s, F. de, 1996. The originis of the upper paleolithic. A middle palaeolithic chronology: new assessments from northern Iberia. Quat.
cantabrian perspective. In: The Last Neandertals. The First Anatomically Mod- Int. 247, 15e25.
ern Humans. Cultural Change and Human Evolution: the Crisis at 40 KA. BP. Mellars, P., Gravina, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal/
Universidad Rovira i Virgili, pp. 251e265. modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. Proc. Natl.
Cabrera, V., Maíllo, J.M., Lloret, M., Bernaldo de Quiro
s, F., 2001. La transition vers le Acad. Sci. 104, 3657e3662.
Pale
olithique Supe
rieur dans la grotte du El Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagna): la Mene
ndez, M., Martinez Villa, A., 1992. Excavaciones arqueolo
gicas en la Cueva de
couche 18. L'Anthropologie 105, 505e532. La Güelga. Campan ~ as de 1989-1990. Excavaciones arqueolo
gicas en Asturias
Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quiro
s, F., Maíllo, J.M., Valladas, H., Lloret, M., 2002. El 1987-1990, pp. 75e80.
Aurin ~ aciense arcaico en El Castillo (Cantabria): descripcio
n tecnolo
gica y Mene
ndez, M., García, E., Quesada, J.M., 2004. Magdaleniense inferior y territor-
objetivos de la produccio
n. In: Bon, F., Maíllo, J.M., Ortega, D. (Eds.), Autour des ialidad en la cueva de La Güelga (Asturias). In: Bicho, N. (Ed.), Actas do IV
concepts de Protoaurignacien, d'Aurignacien initial et Ancien: unite
et varia- congresso de arqueología peninsular. O paleolítico (Faro, 14-1 9 septiembre
bilite
des comportaments techniques des premiers groupes d’hommes mo- 2004). Universidade do Algarve, pp. 63e71.
dernes dans le Sud de la France et le Nord de l'Espagne. Actes de la Table-ronde Mene
ndez, M., García, E., y Quesada, J.M., 2005. La transicio
n Paleolítico medio-
de Toulouse 2003, Espacio, Tiempo Y Forma Serie I (Prehistoria), vol. 15, Paleolítico superior en la cueva de La Güelga (Cangas de Onís, Asturias). Un
pp. 67e86. avance a su registro. In: Montes, R., Lasheras, J.A. (Eds.), Neandertales Can-
Cabrera, V., Arrizabalaga, A., Bernaldo de Quiro
s, F., Maíllo, J.M., 2004. La transicio
n
bricos. Estado de la cuestio
ta
n. Monografías no 20. Museo de Altamira,
al Paleolítico Superior y la evolucio
n de los, contextos Aurin ~ acienses (50000 e pp. 589e617.
27000BP). Kobie, Anejos 8. Diputacio
n Foral de Bizkaia, Bilbao, pp. 141e208. Mene
ndez, M., García, E., Quesada, J.M., 2006a. Excavaciones en la cueva de La
Cabrera, V., Bernaldo de Quiro
s, F., Maíllo Ferna
ndez, J.M., Lloret Martínez de la Güelga (Cangas de Onís. Asturias). In: Cabrera, V., Bernal do de Quiro
s y, F.,
Riva, M., Tejero Ca
ceres, J.M., Mor
an Luengo, N., 2005. La Unidad 18 de la Cueva Maíllo, J.M. (Eds.), En el centenario de la cueva de El Castillo. El ocaso de los
de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria): el Aurin ~ aciense de transicio
n, defi- Neandertales, Centro Asociado a la UNED de Cantabria, pp. 209e221.
nicio
n e implicaciones. Sautuola 11, 11e37. Mene
ndez, M., García, E., Quesada, J.M., 2006b. Excavaciones en la cueva de La
Camps, M., 2006. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Iberia. Turning Güelga (Narciandi, Cangas de Onís). Campan ~ as de 1999-2002. Excavaciones
Data into Information. In: Bar International Series, vol. 1517 (Oxford). Arqueol. Astur. 5, 63e75.
Fortea, J., 1999. Abrigo de La Vin ~ a. Informe y primera valoracio
n de las campan ~ as de Mene
ndez, M., Jorda
Pardo, J.F., Kehl, M., Weniger, G-Ch, Quesada, J.M., 2013.
1995 a 1998. Excavaciones Arqueolo
gicas en Asturias 1995-98, pp. 31e41. Ana
lisis micromorfolo
gico en la Cueva de La Güelga. Excavaciones Arqueolo
g-
€p, R.-H., Heinze, S., John, S., Rethemeyer, J., 2013. Ultrafiltration of bone samples
Fülo icas en Asturias 2007-2012, pp. 377e379.
is neither the problem not the solution. Radiocarbon 55, 491e500. Mene
ndez, M., Quesada, J.M., Jord
a Pardo, F.J., Carral, P., Trancho, G.J., García, E.,
García, E., Mene
ndez, M., Quesada, J.M., 2004. Güelga Cave (Narciandi, Cangas de

Alvarez-Alonso, D., Rojo, J., Wood, R., 2009. Excavaciones arqueolo
gicas en la
Onís, Asturias, Spain) and the cantabrian lower magdalenian. XIVe me Cong. Cueva de la Güelga (Cangas de Onís). EAA, pp. 209e221 (2003-2006).
UISPP (Universite
de Lie

ge. Belgique). BAR Int. Ser. 33e41. Mene


ndez, M., Weniger, G-Ch, Alvarez-Alonso, D., Andre
s-Herrero, M. de, García, E.,
Gravina, B., Mellars, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2005. Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Jorda
Pardo, J.F., Kelh, M., Rojo, J., Quesada, J.M., Schmidt, I., 2014. La Güelga
Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Ch^ atelperronian Cave. Cangas de Onís. Asturias. In: Pleistocene and Holocene Hunter-gatherers
type-site. Nature 438, 51e56. in Iberia and the Gibraltar Strait: the Current Archaeological Record. Uni-
Higham, T., 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are versidad de Burgos, Fundacio
n Atapuerca, pp. 60e64.
often older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies. Montes, R., Sanguino, J., 2001. La Cueva del Pendo, actuaciones arqueolo
gicas 1994-
Antiquity 85, 235e249. 2000. Asamblea Regional de Cantabria, Santander.

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
14 M. Men
endez et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e14

Montes, R., Sanguino, J., Martín, P., Go
mez, A.J., Morcillo, C., 2005. La secuencia

Santamaría Alvarez, D., 2012. La transicio
n del Paleolítico medio al superior en
estratigr
afica de la cueva de El Pendo (Escobedo de Camargo, Cantabria): Asturias. El Abrigo de la Vin ~ a (La Manzaneda, Oviedo) y la cueva del Sidro
n
problemas geoarqueolo
gicos de un referente cronocultural. In: Santonja, M., (Borines, Pilon ~ a). Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Oviedo.
Pe
rez-Gonza
lez, A., Machado, M. (Eds.), Geoarqueología y patrimonio en la Stoops, G., 2003. Guidelines for the Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith
Península Ibe
rica y el entorno mediterr
aneo, ADEMA, Almaza
n (Soria), Thin Sections. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
pp. 127e138. Vera, J.A., Ancochea, E., Barnolas, A., 2004. Introduccion. In: Vera, J.A. (Ed.), Geología
Quesada, J.M., Mene
ndez, M., 2009. Revisio
n cronoestratigr
afica de la Cueva de La de Espan ~ a, Sociedad Geologica de Espana. Instituto Geologico y Minero de
Güelga (Narciandi, Asturias). Del Musteriense al Paleolítico superior inicial. Espan ~ a, Madrid, pp. 1e17.
Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I, Nueva e
poca. Prehist. Arqueol. 2, 39e74. Wood, R.E., Arrizabalaga, A., Camps, M., Fallos, S., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.-J., Jones, R.,
Ríos-Garaizar, J., 2008. Nivel IX (Chatelperroniense) de Labeko Koba (Arrasate- Maroto, J., Rasilla, M. de la, Santamaría, D., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A.,
Gipuzkoa): gestio
n de la industria lítica y funcio

n del sitio. Munibe 59, 25e46. Higham, T., 2014. The chronology of the earliest upper palaeolithic in northern
Ríos-Garaizar, J., 2012. El yacimiento chatelperroniense al aire libre de Aranbaltza Iberia: new insights from L'Arbreda, Labeko Koba and La vina'. J. Hum. Evol. 69
(Barrika, Euskadi). Munibe 63, 81e92. (1), 91e109.
Rios-Garaizar, J., Arrizabalaga, A., Villaluenga, A., 2012. Haltes de chasse du Wood, R., Bernaldo de Quiro
s, F., Maíllo Ferna
ndez, J.M., Tejero, J.M., Neira, A.,
Ch^atelperronien de la Pe
ninsule Ibe

rique. L’Anthropologie 116, 532e549. Higham, T., 2016. El Castillo (Cantabria, Northern Iberia) and the Transitional
Ríos-Garaizar, J., Ortega Cordellat, I., San Emeterio Go
mez, A., Libano Silvente, I., Aurignacian: Using Radiocarbon Dating to Assess Site Taphonomy. Quaternary

s, E., Garate Maidagan, D., 2015. Aranbaltza. Yacimiento paleolítico
Iriarte-Avile International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.03.005.
al aire libre. II Campan~ a. Arkeoikuska Investig. Arqueol. 2014, 165e167.

ndez, M., et al., The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in La Güelga cave (Asturias, Northern Spain),
Please cite this article in press as: Mene
Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.08.061
View publication stats