Marie-Hélène Moncel

Italo Biddittu

Giorgio Manzi

Barbara Saracino

Alison Pereira

Sébastien Nomade

Christine Hertler

Pierre Voinchet

Jean-Jacques Bahain

Emergence of regional cultural traditions during the Lower Palaeolithic: the case of Frosinone-Ceprano basin (Central Italy) at the MIS 11-10 transition

Keywords: Italy, Ceprano basin, Acheulean, Marine Isotopic Stages 11-10, bifaces, regionalization

ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

From the hominin evolution perspective, the period ranging between 450 and 350 ka, corresponding to the interglacial/glacial cycle constituted by Marine Isotopic Stages (MIS) 11 and 10, stands out in Western Europe as a crucial period. This time threshold, associated in Europe to the Lower Palaeolithic (and the Acheulean culture) and to the transition towards the Middle Palaeolithic, is still under-investigated and only few studies discussing the reasons and modes of the appearance and transmission of Middle Palaeolithic innovations in Western Europe have been published despite the importance of this period to understand the human settlement of the continent (Moncel et al., 2020a).

The Acheulean culture is commonly linked to the ability to produce bifaces. Other behaviours are punctually evidenced such as the management of the raw material territory, the production of large flakes for the LCTs and some innovations such as the independency of the stone shape for the debitage (i.e [START_REF] Moncel | The Early Acheulian in north-western Europe[END_REF]Moncel et al., , 2020b)). Western European archaeological assemblages show that the MIS 11 interglacial was a threshold period associated with early evidence of regionalization of cultural traditions after the intense MIS 12 glacial period, considered as a major climatic crisis for hominins and fauna in this area [START_REF] Iovita | High handaxe symmetry at the beginning of the European Acheulian: the data from la Noira (France) in context[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF]. After this glacial phase, we observe an increase in the number of well-preserved occupation levels and the appearance of new subsistence behaviours (hunting organization, specialization on one or some species of large mammals, seasonal occupations depending on the location of the site and land use patterns) and technical innovations (appearance of core technologies, increase in light-duty tools, fire domestication) in Western Mediterranean and more especially in Italy [START_REF] Villa | The Acheulean and Early Middle Paleolithic in Latium (Italy): Stability and Innovation[END_REF], Pereira et al., 2017, 2018). These behavioural changes and innovations suggest, by their nature and diversity, an increase in cognitive capacities of the hominins illustrated by new skills and social interactions with site networks. Furthermore, the beginnings of the control of fire could have contributed to the development of behavioural abilities and to the extension and organization of territories. However, the reasons underlying these behavioural changes, pushing back the roots of the Neanderthal world, have yet to be identified. (1) Was this behavioural evolution rooted in previous traditions? (2) Was it due to the arrival(s) of new populations or to the on-site evolution of Neanderthals from Homo heidelbergensis or another Middle Pleistocene hominin ancestor? (3) Was there a population increase conducive to early regional networks of sites and the diffusion of innovations? (4) Was it due to local environmental adaptation to climatic changes? (Moncel et al., 2018).

The last hypothesis is supported by the available climatic and environmental reconstructions. Indeed, MIS 12 is known as one of the most arid glacial periods of the Quaternary [START_REF] Shackleton | Oxygen isotopes, ice volume and sea level[END_REF][START_REF] Tzedakis | Comparison of changes in vegetation in northeast Greece with records of climate variability on orbital and suborbital frequencies over the last 450 000 years[END_REF][START_REF] Masson-Delmotte | EPICA Dome C record of glacial and interglacial intensities[END_REF][START_REF] Rohling | Sea-level and deep-sea-temperature variability over the past 5.3 million years[END_REF]. In contrast, the subsequent MIS 11 interglacial was exceptionally long (more than 20 ka, whereas typical interglacial duration is ~13 ka, [START_REF] Tzedakis | Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?[END_REF]. Such a long-lasting interglacial period after a harsh glacial stage could have been favourable to the development of vegetation propitious to animal and human settlement in Western Europe. European vegetation, as it drives the biomass availability for large herbivores, affects the mobility of animal and human groups and it is therefore crucial for this point of view.

In order to better understand the impact of the MIS 11-10 period on human settlements in Central Italy, we have studied lithic assemblages recovered from sites located in the Frosinone-Ceprano (Pofi) basin (Latin Valley, Latium, Central Italy). This area is renowned for the discovery in 1994 of a fragmented human calvarium, firstly erroneously attributed to Homo erectus and now relied to Homo heidelbergensis [START_REF] Ascenzi | A calvarium of late Homo erectus from Ceprano, Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Ascenzi | A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with Homo erectus, after the new reconstruction[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy[END_REF]2010;[START_REF] Manzi | On the trail of the genus Homo between archaic and derived morphologies[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF][START_REF] Vincenzo | Digital reconstruction of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy) and implications for its interpretation[END_REF]. Initially considered as dated around 900-800 ka, this human fossil was recently re-dated by a multidisciplinary approach, including magnetostratigraphic and 40 Ar/ 39 Ar analyses (e.g., [START_REF] Nomade | First 40Ar/39Ar age of the Ceprano man (central Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Biddittu | Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and archaeology of Middle Pleistocene localities near Ceprano, Campogrande area, Italy[END_REF]. The refined chronology indicates that humans probably lived in Central Italy during the cold period of marine isotope stage (MIS) 12 and the subsequent warm period of MIS 11. Despite its archaic morphological features and lack of Neanderthal traits, the Ceprano calvarium is therefore contemporaneous with derived hominins such as the ancestors of Neanderthals [START_REF] Manzi | The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF].

Decades of surveys in the Frosinone-Ceprano basin have yielded lithic industries in numerous localities dispersed in a relatively small area. The series are limited in number but sufficient to compare the technological processes between localities and to discuss possible connections between sites. The geochronological and palaeo-environmental framework available for Central Italy permits then to discuss the hypothesis of networks of sites and investigate a possible early cyclic process of regionalization during prehistoric times, much earlier than those highlighted for late Neanderthals during MIS 4-3 (i.e., [START_REF] Burke | Paleoethology as a tool for the development of archaeological models of land-use: the Crimean Middle Palaeolithic[END_REF]Deaujard and Moncel, 2010;[START_REF] Faivre | Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic technocomplexes (MIS 5-3) in the northeastern Aquitaine Basin: Advances and challenges[END_REF].

Several issues motivate the analysis of the Frosinone-Ceprano lithic series:

-What are the modalities of biface production and core technologies during the MIS 11/10 timescale in the basin? -Are there common technological features and differences in biface production evidenced in all the studied localities? -Do these technological features provide evidences of traditions and/or regionalization in the Italian peninsula and more generally in Southern Europe during the MIS 11/10 timescale? -If common technological strategies exist, can we assume that the localities are part of a network of nearby sites in a small area?

-How can we explain the differences in technological strategies and toolkits (presence or not of Large Cutting Tools-LCTs)? Could they be due to the location or functions of the sites, or eventually to the diversity of traditions inside the basin (palimpsest of networks)?

The archaeological data

General archaeological and geological context

The archaeological sites investigated in our study are located in the Latin Valley (Latium, Central Apennines), on the Tyrrhenian side of the Apennines chain (Fig. 1). This valley is geographically enclosed between mountains to the northeast (Simbruini-Ernici mounts) and southwest (Lepini-Ausoni-Aurunci carbonatic mounts), and volcanic complexes to the west (Colli Albani) and southeast (Roccamonfina) [START_REF] Marra | Large mafic eruptions at the Alban Hills Volcanic District (Central Italy): chronostratigraphy, petrography and eruptive behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Rouchon | Temporal evolution of the Roccamonfina volcanic complex (Pleistocene), Central Italy)[END_REF]. The tectonic depression of the Latin Valley consists of several extensional basins formed because of the evolution of the Late Pliocene-Middle Pleistocene Apennines normal fault system [START_REF] Carrara | Stratigrafia plio-quaternaria In: Carrara, C (Ed), Lazio Meridionale, Sintesi delle ricerche geologiche multidisciplinari ENEA[END_REF][START_REF] Boari | Transition from Ultrapotassic Kamafugitic to Sub-alkaline Magmas: Sr, Nd, and Pb Isotope, Trace Element and 40Ar-39Ar Age Data from the Middle Latin Valley Volcanic Field, Roman Magmatic Province, Central Italy[END_REF]. The Frosinone-Ceprano basin, in which all the archaeological sites investigated in this study (Campogrande, Colle Avarone, Selvotta, Isoletta, Lademagne and Masseria Castellone) are located, represent along with the Anagni basin the main sedimentary basins of the valley. Due to the intense volcanic activity occurred during the Middle Pleistocene along the Tyrrhenian marge, volcanic effluents (tephra layers or free volcanic minerals) were regularly deposited in the sedimentary sequences recorded in these basins, including archaeological ones. The main volcanic sources of these effluents are mainly located along the Tyrrhenian marge (Colli Albani, Roccamonfina, Sabatini and Vico volcanic districts), but include also the local Middle Latin valley volcanic field complex (MLVVF), sometimes called Ernici/Volsci cones, located in the heart of the Latin Valley [START_REF] Civetta | Serie potassica ed alta in potassio dei Monti Ernici (Lazio Meridionale): considerazioni petrologiche e geochimiche[END_REF][START_REF] Karner | 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of Roman volcanic province tephra in the Tiber River Valley: age calibration of Middle Pleistocene sea-levels changes[END_REF][START_REF] Giannetti | Origin of the calderas and evolution of the Roccamonfina volcano (Roman region, Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Rouchon | Temporal evolution of the Roccamonfina volcanic complex (Pleistocene), Central Italy)[END_REF]Marra et al., 2009, Pereira et al., submitted). This complex consists of about twenty monogenetic cones, the most active of which being the Pofi and Ceccano edifices [START_REF] Basilone | Datazione K-Ar dell'attività vulcanica dei Mt Ernici (Latina)[END_REF][START_REF] Civetta | Serie potassica ed alta in potassio dei Monti Ernici (Lazio Meridionale): considerazioni petrologiche e geochimiche[END_REF], see Fig. 1). All these volcanic edifices were very active during MIS 11 and MIS 10, causing direct impacts on the various environments bearing the Frosinone-Ceprano basin human occupations. All the archaeological sites presented in this contribution are coeval with this local volcanic activity from a narrow time range of about 50 ka (c.a. 410-350 ka), spanning from the MIS 11 optimum to the MIS 10 glacial onset (see Fig. 2, [START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF].

From a climatic point of view, the MIS 11-MIS 10 period was, in Central Italy and more largely in the Mediterranean basin, suitable to the development and subsistence of hominin populations. Indeed, the MIS 11 was one of the warmest and longest (20-30 kyrs) Quaternary interglacials [START_REF] Karner | 40Ar/39Ar dating of Glacial Termination V and duration of the Stage 11 highstand. In: Earth's Climate and Orbital Eccentricity: The Marine Isotope Stage 11 Question[END_REF] and the MIS 10 Glacial stage was characterized in the Mediterranean basin by mild/temperate conditions followed at the end by a brief period more drought. Several palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental records of the Mediterranean area (e.g. sea surface temperature records, [START_REF] Girone | Calcareous plankton response to orbital and millennial scale climate changes across the Middle Pleistocene in the western Mediterranean[END_REF]Lake Ohrid and Tenaghi Philippon pollen diagrams, Tzedakis et al., 2006[START_REF] Sadori | Pollen-based paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic change at Lake Ohrid (south-eastern Europe) during the past 500 ka[END_REF][START_REF] Wagner | Mediterranean winter rainfall in phase with African monsoons during the past 1.36 million years[END_REF] suggest indeed rather favourable climatic conditions during MIS 10 with no significant reduction of the arboreal taxa. In the neighbour Boiano basin (Molise), pollen's assemblage studies led by Orain et al., (2013) have demonstrated the persistence of high edaphic humidity during the MIS 11-10 period. In this study the authors suggested that these specific conditions may have privileged the existence of refuge area for arboreal taxa and thus could have provided subsistence resources and had a significant effect on the demography of human populations (Orain et al., 2013, Moncel and[START_REF] Moncel | Editorial European Acheuleans The Acheulean in Europe : origins, evolution and dispersal[END_REF]. It is also worth noticing that palynological analyses of the sedimentary unit stratigraphically located just below the layer where was found the Ceprano calvarium in the Campogrande archaeological area have been recently provided [START_REF] Margari | The MIS 13 interglacial at Ceprano, Italy, in the context of Middle Pleistocene vegetation changes in southern Europe[END_REF]. These two sedimentary layers are separated by an erosional surface attributed by the authors to the glacial stage MIS 12. The pollen assemblage of this layer is dominated by the arboreal species Corylus, Carpinus betulus, deciduous Quercus and Abies. These analyses have allowed the authors to identify two forested phases. Based on biostratigraphical and sedimentological data this sequence has been attributed to the MIS 13 interglacial and by analogy the authors encouraged a MIS 11 age for the archaeological levels of Campogrande. All these climatic specific conditions of the Mediterranean basin may also have contributed to the good preservation of archaeological sites in Central Italy during this period. This time range is also coeval to a significant renewal of the faunal groups takes. The post-MIS 10 period corresponds to the transition between the Galerian and Aurelian Large Mammal's periods (Milli andPalombo, 2005, Marra et al., 2018). It should be noticed that the most part of the paleontological assemblages of the sites investigated in this study are all attributed to the final Galerian.

Campogrande, Colle Avarone and Selvotta localities

The stratigraphic sequence of the Frosinone-Ceprano basin comprises an extensive lacustrine formation, called the Lirino lake sequence, mainly recorded in the South-eastern part of the basin [START_REF] Devoto | Lacustrine Pleistocene in the lower Liri Valley (southern Latium)[END_REF][START_REF] Carrara | Stratigrafia plio-quaternaria In: Carrara, C (Ed), Lazio Meridionale, Sintesi delle ricerche geologiche multidisciplinari ENEA[END_REF][START_REF] Centamore | Kinematic evolution of the Volsci Range: a new overview[END_REF]. This lacustrine formation is oriented NW-SE (from Ceprano to Cassino-Pignataro Interamna) and reached its maximum extension (35 km) during the Middle Pleistocene.

The deposits are characterized by a total maximum thickness of about 100 m and were divided into two main geological units, LR1 at the base and LR2 at the top [START_REF] Devoto | Lacustrine Pleistocene in the lower Liri Valley (southern Latium)[END_REF][START_REF] Carrara | Stratigrafia plio-quaternaria In: Carrara, C (Ed), Lazio Meridionale, Sintesi delle ricerche geologiche multidisciplinari ENEA[END_REF][START_REF] Centamore | Kinematic evolution of the Volsci Range: a new overview[END_REF][START_REF] Centamore | Note illustrative della Carta geologica d'Italia alla scala[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy)[END_REF]. Most of the Lirino formation is made up of fluvio-lacustrine and volcanic derived deposits. The final phase of the Lirino basin infilling (top of LR2), associated to lacustrine facies, was dated by [START_REF] Nomade | First 40Ar/39Ar age of the Ceprano man (central Italy)[END_REF] to about 353 ± 4 ka (2 analytical uncertainties). This final phase of the Lirino sequence (LR2) was identified in the sequences of the investigated sites.

Similar stratigraphic contexts have been evidenced by I. Biddittu in 1974 on the Campogrande, Colle Avarone and Selvotta outcrops that are mainly constituted by gravels, sands and sandy-clays.

Quaternary deposits present a thickness of about twenty meters in these three localities (between 125 and 102 m a.s.l.) and lay in unconformity above Messinian fluvio-lacustrine deposits [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF]. Regarding the function of the sites where fauna and artefacts are found are generally at a comparable altitude and in levels of sand and small gravels, which suggest the presence of vast territories close to fluvial and peri-lacustrine formations. These areas seem to have been explored by hominins periodically, particularly along rivers. These hominines would thus have carried out different types of activities related to the exploitation of plant and animal resources. The Campogrande archaeological area (120-115 m a.s.l) is located 3 km SE of the city of Ceprano (see Fig. 1). Palaeontological and archaeological remains were found in twelve localities of this area, named from CG 1 to CG 12 (CG for Campogrande), some of which containing more than one archaeological level. CG 1 corresponds to the pioneering site, where the Ceprano calvarium was found [START_REF] Ascenzi | A calvarium of late Homo erectus from Ceprano, Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Ascenzi | A re-appraisal of Ceprano calvaria affinities with Homo erectus, after the new reconstruction[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | The new chronology of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | On the trail of the genus Homo between archaic and derived morphologies[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF][START_REF] Vincenzo | Digital reconstruction of the Ceprano calvarium (Italy) and implications for its interpretation[END_REF]. Two excavations were carried out at CG9 between 2001and 2006[START_REF] Biddittu | Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and archaeology of Middle Pleistocene localities near Ceprano, Campogrande area, Italy[END_REF]. They started from a surface located about 3 m deep with respect to the ancient excavating level associated to a paleo-channel constituted by gravels and sands. In this excavating area were found fauna fossils and Acheulean pieces. All the materials studied in this contribution were yielded from both these excavation campaigns and previous surveys. This level attests to the presence of waterways that have drained paleo-surfaces that contained both the remains of faunas and the lithic artefact.

According to these new excavations data and previous ones, it appears that the all archaeological levels identified at Campogrande are restricted into the end of the Lirino paleo-lacustrine sequence, in the northern part of this paleolake [START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF].

The geological layers at Campogrande are rich in volcanic material originating from neighbouring volcanoes and in 2011, Nomade et al. obtained an 40 Ar/ 39 Ar age of 353 ± 4 ka (2 analytical uncertainties) for a clayey geological layer rich in K-feldspars, stratigraphically located above the palaeo-anthropological horizon. This chronological constraint thus providing a terminus ante quem age to the human fossil (see Fig. 1,2). Among the twelve Campogrande archaeological localities, two have delivered an abundant archaeological assemblage: CG 9 and CG 10 [START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF]. Most of the archaeological material recovered at CG 9 and CG 10 is on display at the Pietro Fedele Museum at Pofi (Frosinone province, Latium) [START_REF] Biddittu | Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and archaeology of Middle Pleistocene localities near Ceprano, Campogrande area, Italy[END_REF]. The simplified stratigraphic log of Campogrande sequence, with the positions of the CG 9 and CG 10 archaeological levels, is shown in Fig. 2 (modified from [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF]. At CG 9, only one significant archaeological level was found in the upper part of the section (CG 9 upper), whereas at CG 10, three different human occupations levels were identified (CG 10 lower, CG 10 intermediate and CG 10 upper). Between 2001 and 2006, fieldwork investigations were conducted at CG 9, resulting in the enrichment of the upper CG 9 archaeological corpus [START_REF] Margari | The MIS 13 interglacial at Ceprano, Italy, in the context of Middle Pleistocene vegetation changes in southern Europe[END_REF]. Acheulean industries are recovered in level CG 9 upper, CG 10 intermediate and CG 10 upper. Few lithic tools were found in intermediate CG 10 and lower CG 10 is only associated with core-and-flake industries. These archaeological horizons (excepted lower CG 10) are stratigraphically located above the layer dated in [START_REF] Nomade | First 40Ar/39Ar age of the Ceprano man (central Italy)[END_REF] suggesting a maximum age of 353 ± 4 ka (2σ analytical uncertainties) for the archaeo-surfaces.

Colle Avarone (41° 32' 10.44"N 3° 28' 38.22"E) Concerning both Colle Avarone and Selvotta it is worth noticing that findings made over the years came for most of them, from archaeological excavations, while others were collected in a small agricultural plot where the archaeological surface constituted by sands and gravels layer was clearly evidenced. Colle Avarone archaeological site (about 120 m a.s.l.), very close to the Campogrande localities, is located in the lower valley of the Sacco River, a few kilometres upstream of the confluence with the Liri River [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF], see Fig. 1). The locality was discovered in 1973 by Italo Biddittu in a quarry ("pozzolana cava") which no longer exists.

A small excavating area conducted in a sedimentary level constituted by sands and gravels have been opened in 1975 by I. Biddittu. This level was identified on a small gravel pit exploited at that time at the base of a section of about 4 m high in front of an older quarry (Colle Avarone in the original definition was perhaps Colle Cavarone for the presence of quarries). From this small essay came out a bone "dagger" made from an elephant rib whose length was determined by an intentional fracture facilitated by a notch performed transversely in the bone. This essay is about 15 m from the point where the recent sampling was done on the levels alongside the road.

One main archaeological level, containing Acheulean and bone industries, was identified [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF]. From a sedimentological and geological point of view, the archaeological remains were discovered into fluvio-lacustrine deposits rich in gravels and K-rich volcanic minerals (leucites and potassium feldspars) corresponding to the final infilling of the Lirino paleolake basin. A simplified stratigraphic log of Colle Avarone is presented in Fig. 2 and further stratigraphic information can be found in [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF]Biddittu andSegre, 1984. The archaeological level found below a paleosol, is mainly constituted by gravels and altered leucites. Biface tools, usually symmetric, are dominant in the lithic assemblage (Biddittu and Segre, 1984). The palaeontological assemblage mainly comprises Middle Pleistocene large mammal species (or taxa) (Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Sus scrofa, Equus caballus, Bos primigenius, Cervus elaphus), avifauna (Stercorarius longicaudatus, Anser brachyrhycus) and turtles (Testudo sp.). The birds and the occurrence of Cuon sp. remains suggest, according to Biddittu and Segre (1984), a cold environment during the human occupation level.

Selvotta ((41° 32' 10.44"N 3° 28' 38.22"E) Selvotta locality is directly adjoined to the section of Colle Avarone (about 120 m a.s.l., [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF], see Fig. 1). So far, no scientific publication has been devoted to this archaeological locality.

Only one Acheulean archaeological level has been brought to light and the most part of the lithic tools were surface collected. Both lithic and bone tools were recovered at this site. Italo Biddittu proposed a geological correlation between the archaeological level of Selvotta and the archaeological level of Colle Avarone (CA and the archaeological levels CG 9 and CG 10 upper from the Campogrande localities (see Fig. 2). All these levels are characteristic fluvio-lacustrine deposits, with gravels and volcanic minerals, of the Lirino paleo-lake that occurred during the MIS 11/MIS 10 transition period [START_REF] Nomade | First 40Ar/39Ar age of the Ceprano man (central Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Biddittu | Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and archaeology of Middle Pleistocene localities near Ceprano, Campogrande area, Italy[END_REF]. 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating on single K-feldspar crystals extracted from Selvotta and Colle Avarone sandstones are currently in progress to confirm or infirm the stratigraphic attributions and correlations. Isoletta (41°31'44.86''N,13°34'0.16''E) The Isoletta archaeological site (~105 m a.s.l., [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF][START_REF] Biddittu | Guida del Museo Preistorico di Pofi I[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF], discovered in the 1970s, is located at the confluence between the Sacco and Liri rivers only a few kilometres SE of Ceprano city. A large excavating area was conducted in 1998 and 1999 and was focused on the Acheulean level (Isoletta L4) and the inferior sedimentary levels only. The stratigraphic description of the site was established during this excavation following the high-speed train railway construction, which that helped exposed a 30-m-thick section [START_REF] Biddittu | Guida del Museo Preistorico di Pofi I[END_REF]. The sequence, which is no longer accessible, is mainly composed of alluvial deposits including sands, gravels and volcanic material related to the final lacustrine phase of the Lirino basin infilling (see Fig. 2). Two archaeological levels were evidenced in the Isoletta sequence but only the uppermost level presents Acheulean industries (Level 4, labelled GA6Z in Pereira et al., 2018[START_REF] Biddittu | Guida del Museo Preistorico di Pofi I[END_REF]). Palaeontological remains found in level 4 are associated with the Galerian large mammal assemblage [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF][START_REF] Milli | The high-resolution sequence stratigraphy and the mammal fossil record: A test in the Middle-Upper Pleistocene deposits of the Roman Basin (Latium, Italy)[END_REF].

Isoletta, Lademagne and Masseria Castellone localities

Rare mode 1 artefacts and remains of mammals, birds, amphibians and fish were found in the lowest archaeological level [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF]. A tibia of elephant was found in this level, it was intentionally fractured by the hominids. The lower part of the sequence is more lacustrine, very rich in silt, and has delivered abundant molluscs and vegetation debris.

Lademagne (41°31'16.68''N, 13°35'0.72''E)

The Lademagne site, discovered in 1965 (105 m a.s.l.), was found in a very active tectonic area in the North-West part of the Lirino lake sedimentary basin. It is only located 5 km west of Isoletta near the city of San Giovanni Incarico [START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF], see Fig. 1). Most of the Lademagne sequence is made up of clays, sands, silts, gravels and reworked volcanic deposits corresponding to an alluvial terrace. Gastropods found in level 3 (Planorbis sp., Valvata cristata, Pisidium sp.) indicate a lacustrine habitat [START_REF] Comerci | Tectonic evidence in the Palaeolithic site of Lademagne (San Giovanni Incarico -FR, Southern Latium, Italy) 6th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archaeoseismology 19-24 April 2015, Pescina, Fucino Basin, Italy INQUA Focus Group on Paleoseismology and Active Tectonics Daujeard C, Moncel M-H[END_REF]. At Lademagne, two archaeological layers separated by 5 m of thickness of sediments were identified with very similar archaeological and palaeontological assemblages [START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF]. They are comprised in gravels and sands sedimentary levels [START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF]. Unlike at Isoletta, Acheulean and bone tools were found in both levels. The Lademagne palaeontological assemblage is associated with the Galerian Large Mammal Age [START_REF] Milli | The high-resolution sequence stratigraphy and the mammal fossil record: A test in the Middle-Upper Pleistocene deposits of the Roman Basin (Latium, Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF] and the upper level assemblage includes Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Hippopothamus sp., Dicerorhinus sp., Dama clactoniana, Equus ferus, Cervus elaphus, Castor sp. and some remains of Bos sp., Equus sp. and Ursus sp. [START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF].

Masseria Castellone locality (41°31'12.69''N, 13°35'28.87''E) Masseria Castellone is located at 400 m from the Lademagne archaeological site (see Fig. 1) and only a river ditch separates the two sites. The lithic tools (only a few bifaces in limestone) were discovered in a geological horizon similar to the "Lademagne upper" archaeological layer, rich in sands and gravels (Fig. 2) and found at the same altitude (i.e., 105 m a.s.l.). It could suggest that they belong to the same sedimentary unit and are therefore of the same age. So far, no data have been published on this archaeological horizon.

From a general point of view, the overall areas where fauna and artefacts were found in the studied zone are generally at a comparable altitude and in levels of sand and small gravels, which suggest the presence of vast territories close to fluvial and peri-lacustrine formations during a period of intense volcanic activity between 410 and 340 ka according to all available 40 Ar/ 39 Ar constraints. These areas seem to have been explored by hominins periodically, particularly along rivers. These hominines would thus have carried out different types of activities related to the exploitation of plant and animal resources. Traces of human activity on faunal remains are mainly represented by the presence of frequent bone artefacts that are for some of them not straightforward. Bone tools were recognized both in the upper level (Selvotta, Colle Avarone, Campogrande 9A, Isoletta L4, Lademagne Upper level) and in the lower level (Isoletta ESR1, Lademagne Lower Level). The faunal remains are characterized by alteration surfaces due to exposure and in rare cases fluctuation especially in the smallest fragments (common aspect also observed in in situ levels with slow water circulation). The presence of artefacts on bone is a characteristic of all the Acheulean sites of southern Lazio from Fontana Ranuccio to Pontecorvo-Aquino

Material and method

Material

The aforementioned geochronological multi-method study ( 40 Ar/ 39 Ar on single grains, ESR on bleached quartz and ESR/U-series) at Isoletta and Lademagne [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF][START_REF] Antoine | The earliest record of Acheulean human occupation in North-West Europe[END_REF] and the stratigraphic correlations proposed considering the geological similarities between the deposits (facies, altitude of the levels, proximity) to link these two localities with the other studied sites in the Frosinone-Ceprano basin constrained the age of the Acheulean archaeological levels of these localities between 410 and 370 ka, i.e. as contemporaneous of the period ranging from MIS 11 interglacial optimum to the MIS 10 glacial onset.

Two groups of localities with artefacts can be distinguished: (1) the localities on which were evidenced flakes, cores and pebble-tools (for instance Campogrande CG 10 lower, or Isoletta lower) (Fig. 3), and (2) the localities demonstrating a core technology and some Large Cutting Tools (LCTs) including bifaces (Campogrande 10 intermediate, Campogrande 10 upper, Campogrande 9 intermediate and upper, Colle Avarone, Selvotta, Isoletta L4, Lademagne lower and upper and Masseria Castellone) (Table 1).

Regarding the series for which no bifaces were found, the heavy-duty component is composed of pebble-tools or chopper-cores, convergent or not, on thick limestone, quartz and quartzite pebbles/cobbles. Flakes may come from biface production or flaking. Cores are on thick and large quadrangular limestone pebbles, but also on small flint pebbles/nodules. The debitage is not intensive. These cores bear a few short, deep and hinged removal scars, on orthogonal or multiple surfaces adapted to the shape of the blank. There are also some unifacial or bifacial cores with asymmetrical flaking surfaces.

Eleven lithic series containing LCTs were also studied. Part of them corresponds to incomplete archaeological series recovered from excavations and from surface collecting and therefore submitted to taphonomic processes (as is usual for open-air Palaeolithic sites), but these series were nonetheless located quite precisely in the same stratigraphic sequence and considered relevant for a comparative study of reduction processes [START_REF] Biddittu | Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and archaeology of Middle Pleistocene localities near Ceprano, Campogrande area, Italy[END_REF]. The cutting edges of the artefacts do not show any signs of damage due to high-level disturbances. When the pieces are partially covered by breccia or when the scars are smoothed by chemical processes, the technological study provided was only partial (Table 1). The artefacts in flint are better preserved than the ones in limestone. The cutting edges are usually fresh suggesting that the lithic tools were not much transported. The alteration on limestone tools seems post-depositional and in situ. Small tools, for which flint was preferably used, are rare because the drainage of running water tends to disperse small objects. The larger bifaces remain more concentrated.

Method

In this work, we studied (according to [START_REF] Kleindienst | Variability within the late Acheulian assemblage in Eastern Africa[END_REF][START_REF] Leakey | Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in Bed I and Bed II, 1960-1963[END_REF][START_REF] Boëda | Identification de chaînes opératoires lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen[END_REF][START_REF] Geneste | Systèmes techniques de production lithique : variations technoéconomiques dans les processus de réalisation des outillages paléolithiques[END_REF][START_REF] Texier | The impact of predetermination on the development of some Acheulean chaînes opératoires In[END_REF][START_REF] Roche | From Simple Flaking to Shaping: Stone-knapping Evolution among Early Hominids[END_REF][START_REF] Goren-Inbar | Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard[END_REF][START_REF] Mcpherron | What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production[END_REF][START_REF] Key | Looking at handaxes from another angle: Assessing the ergonomic and functional importance of edge form in Acheulean bifaces[END_REF][START_REF] Lycett | Factors affecting Acheulean handaxe variation: Experimental insights, microevolutionary processes, and macroevolutionary outcomes[END_REF][START_REF] Mcnabb | From side to side: Symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic[END_REF]; Torre de la and Mora, 2018):

(1) The mode of debitage on cores by analysing the organization and management of the blank and the technological characteristics of the end-products (including types of retouch) ;

(2) The different modalities of biface production at the final shaping phase for the LCTs: we focused our work on studying the geometry and identification of the blank and determining when possible, the number, size and organization of the removals as well as the number of series of the removals, extension and organization of shaping on both faces, secondary retouch and location, shape of cutting edges, type of tip management.

We applied classical statistical methods including box-plots to compare the tool sizes between the investigated localities. To estimate the internal variability between lithic assemblages, we used the Multiple Correspondence Analysis with the SYSTAT software based on a list of quantitative and qualitative parameters. A list of relevant parameters was selected (length, width and thickness in mm, raw materials, extension of removals on each face, number of series of removals, retouch on the edges, tip shaping and bilateral and bifacial symmetry). All the tables and graphs represent 80% of the variability of the data with two components.

Results: technological analyses of the lithic component for each locality

Campogrande (CG) 9 intermediate (or B)

In this series three bifaces were identified (see Table 1). These tools in flint and limestone may possibly be on flakes (with the platform residue as a proximal back) (Fig. 4). Shaping covers a large part of one surface and the periphery, with more removals on the extremity.

Campogrande (CG) 9 upper (or A)

This series consists of one bifacial and thick core and 11 limestone bifaces characterised by varied lengths (80 to 180 mm long) (see Table . 1

):

Two bifaces are short completely or partially worked, with a symmetrical cross-section, made by series of large and short removals. The tip of one of them is curved. The blank may be a flake. Three tools are plano-convex bifaces shaped on half of the piece, sometimes with a back (on a flake?), with a pointed or round tip and retouch on the two cutting edges.

Then six tools are plano-convex bifacial tools. The flatter surface is shaped by large removals which thin the whole face, while the opposite convex face is managed by series of removals limited to the upper half and the periphery of the tool.

Campogrande (CG) 10 intermediate (or B).

Apart from some cores on small flint nodules (less than 50 mm long) for the production of a few small flakes, this series is composed of a heavy-duty and a light-duty component.

The light-duty component consists of a micro-biface on a limestone pebble, a micro convergent pebble-tool and a point on a micro-flint nodule (30 to 50 mm long). They are minimally shaped by a few unifacial and bifacial removals, which do not really modify the form of the blank.

The heavy-duty tools are composed of a "rabot", a thick scraper on a limestone split pebble, and three limestone bifaces. One of these bifaces is minimally shaped with a thick base. Shaping covers the whole volume with numerous and abrupt removals. The cutting edges are sinuous with no final retouch. Another one is an asymmetrical elongated biface in limestone, with shaping covering most of the surfaces and with final retouch on the edges. Finally, the last one that is in limestone is symmetric and made on a half-pebble. Shaping is not very invasive.

Campogrande (CG) 10 upper (or A)

A dozen pieces are cores and/or chopper-cores (Fig. 5). They are made on small oval and quadrangular pebbles (in flint and limestone) of poor-quality (50 mm long) (50-100 mm). The debitage systematically follows the natural morphology of the blank. It is orthogonal or unifacial unipolar (on the largest face or on the core edge). The number of removals is limited and the products are irregular and frequently hinged. We did not evidence any preliminary preparation of the core. The platforms are usually cortical or use previous removals.

The series totals 22 heavy-duty tools on limestone. Flint nodules are too small to make heavy-duty tools. Three categories of heavy-duty tools are described:

-The first one corresponds to a thick pointed scraper (rabot-type) made by deep and large removals on a small part of the periphery of a broken limestone pebble.

-The second category is composed of five elongated plano-convex bifaces on badly preserved limestone (Fig. 6). The mean length of these bifaces is around 200 mm, making them among the longest of the series. Some cortical residues suggest that the blank could be a flat and elongated cobble. The bifacial volume is globally managed by one series of invasive removals on both faces. Some removals are hinged. The shaping is alternate or done face by face when visible. The sinuous edges are not rectified by retouch. The base of the tool is shaped by convergent removals (forming a thin cutting edge), or left unworked (back or natural round cortical base). The tip is always thin, and the shaping of the tip by small removals is part of general shaping. The maximum thickness of the tool is on the proximal or the middle part of the biface.

-The third category is constituted by sixteen partial bifacial tools in limestone. This category is more diversified than the previous ones, and includes short and elongated pieces (from 110 to 210 mm).

The blank is a flake for most of the tools (Fig. 7,8) and the shaping mainly concerns the upper part of the tool, covering the entire surface or only the periphery. The flatter face is either covered by large removals or short removals. The opposite surface indicates series of semi-abrupt frequently hinged removals, rarely rectified by final series of short removals and retouch. In some cases, only one edge is worked, and the tip and cutting edge are opposite a back or a cortical side. The cutting edges are consequently sinuous. The pointed or round tip is made by small or large removals related to the shaping process of the lateral cutting edge(s). The base is always cortical, with or without a back. The cross-section is plano-convex. One piece shows a longitudinal "coup de tranchet" while another piece shows some transversal removals on the transversal tip (due to use or resharpening?).

Most of the tools are asymmetrical bifacial tools on limestone for which the blank appears to play a major role, with minimal shaping on flakes and more invasive shaping on elongated pebbles. All the tools are made by a single series of removals with no final retouch, producing sinuous edges. The main feature is the presence of a back on some pieces, for elongated bifacial pointed tools and backed bifacial tools.

Colle Avarone

This locality yielded 11 cores in flint and limestone (see Table . 1) made on small nodules or pebbles.

The cores are bifacial centripetal, orthogonal, unipolar or unifacial or bifacial chopper-cores with abrupt removals. There is no preparation of the core. One core is attributed to the Levallois core technology by the organization of the removals (see Moncel et al., 2020).

Regarding the LCTs, Colle Avarone yielded the largest series (n = 87). These tools in limestone, excepting one on flint, were more or less well-preserved.

One LCT was partial and irregular on a flake, made by some removals on the edges and the apical extremity. Its tip is pointed.

Three short bifaces were evidenced. Their bases are thick and large and their cross-section are symmetrical. Shaping covers the total volume with series of large and short frequently hinged removals. Final retouch is punctual on cutting edges more or less sinuous. . The tip is round or quadrangular and the base is shaped by abrupt removals.

Nine elongated asymmetrical (plano-convex) and totally shaped biface (n = 9) were found. Shaping manages the general volume with large removals on both faces, shorter removals on the base and the round tip. Cortical patches are preserved on the thick base. On the tip, removals are frequently transversal. For one piece, the tip is nose-shaped. Final retouch often finishes working the periphery of the tool and does not modify the sinusoidal edges. The thickest part of the tool is in the middle of the elongated bifaces.

Seven elongated symmetrical totally shaped bifaces (Fig. 9, 10) are made by large invasive removals that shape the global volume, without final retouch, except for one tool on a flake. The edges are sinusoidal. The round or pointed tip is made by transverse removals except for one tool with a "coup de tranchet".

Five short bifaces with a thick and cortical base are triangular tools made by total shaping on a flake by invasive and short removals on one face, shorter on the opposite flat face with final retouch near the tip. The cross-section is plano-convex or symmetrical.

Seven partial bifacial tools on flat and elongated pebbles conductive to minimal management, a plano-convex cross-section and sinuous edges with hinged removals. Two types of management were observed: (1) on the upper part and covering the surfaces, (2) peripheral on part of both sides.

The thin tip is mainly pointed with series of short removals. Cortical patches are invasive, on the base and sometimes with a cortical back (pebble side). The maximum thickness is on the middle or proximal part.

Sixteen partial bifacial tools on a flake including 14 in limestone and 2 in flint. In the same way as for pebbles, shaping is peripheral or covers the upper part. The cross-section depends on the shape of the flake where the flat surface is more or less covered by flat removals. Removals on the convex surface are hinged. The base is thick, sometimes with a back. The edges are sinuous. The tip is pointed or round and formed by short removals and some retouch. The two flint tools show a similar shaping with many small removals on the tip on the longest tool, one edge is retouched, associating a bifacial point and a lateral scraper.

Eighteen partial elongated bifaces on possible pebble-blocks show an independent shaping on both edges and the tip, made by alternate, peripheral or partial deep removals, without final retouch. The thin tip is sometimes shaped by more removals (transversal or lateral). The cross-section is asymmetrical, sometimes twisted, with a back or a trihedral section.

Twenty-nine partial elongated and triangular bifaces on a flake on limestone and one flint (Fig. 8,9)

show a minimal shaping with short removals located on the upper half of the flake with frequent shaping of the thin tip, retouched or not, and both edges. Invasive removals cover one face more than the other one. The cross-section is asymmetrical with a proximal thick and cortical back or a shaped thick base. The edges are rectilinear or sinusoidal. In some cases, final retouch covers one whole edge, creating what looks like a lateral scraper. The work is thinner on the tip of the single flint biface.

Ten elongated bifaces with total shaping in limestone, asymmetrical (n = 7) or symmetrical in crosssection (n = 3) are shaped by series of short and invasive removals. The edges are sinuous or rectilinear. The cross-section is asymmetrical and some of the bifaces are backed. The tip is round or pointed, sometimes curved. The middle part of the tool is the thickest.

Eight bifacial pieces with a transversal cutting edge are on limestone except for one on flint. They are on flakes shaped by peripheral and short removals, which are more invasive on one face. The transversal apical edge is made by transversal and lateral removals without final retouch. One tool shows a "coup de tranchet". The base is thick, sometimes with a back (the preserved cortical butt of the flake). The cross-section is asymmetrical.

If we summarize the series (Fig. 10), we can observe three main categories of tools. One is composed of elongated tools with a cortical back or created by removals, often on flakes, a plano-convex crosssection, made by large and flat removals on one face and semi-abrupt removals on the opposite face.

The second category is composed of triangular, elongated or short, partial tools with invasive removals and retouch despite sinusoidal edges. Finally, the last category is made of crudely shaped tools.

Selvotta

The series is composed of 38 limestone and quartzite tools, and two flint tools. The heavy-duty tools are composed of one "rabot" and a thick scraper on a half limestone pebble. A backed biface on a flake looks like a bifacial scraper. LCTs can be divided into three main groups. Two trihedral pieces are on limestone and totally shaped by deep and invasive alternate removals with a thick base and a thin tip. The cutting edges are sinuous with no final retouch. The cross-section is symmetrical or asymmetrical. Fifteen plano-convex with total management of the tool including two in flint (Fig. 11) are elongated bifaces (150-200 mm long), mostly worked by large then shorter removals, then retouched on the edges. The tip is pointed or round. The cross-section is plano-convex with a thicker base. Sixteen plano-convex bifaces in limestone and quartzite show a management of the two cutting edges and the tip and peripheral and partial shaping of large flakes (cutting edges and tip) (Fig. 11, 12).

To summarize, most of the assemblage is composed of plano-convex bifaces with partial management of the two cutting edges and the tip, or total management of the volume. For the tools with a whole management, they are shaped by series of invasive and short face by face removals and the cutting edges are sometimes rectified by final and partial retouch on the convex face. They are elongated, triangular or oval. The tip is mainly pointed and thin and is prepared by small removals or retouch. The thickest part of the tool is the middle part. The two flint tools can be categorized as whole bifacial tools. They are oval or pointed, elongated, plano-convex, and completely shaped with general management of the bifacial volume. For the partial tools, when the blank is still visible, half pebbles, flat pebbles or large flakes are shaped by peripheral removals. The tool base is often left unworked. The tip is pointed worked by small removals or retouch and its management is an extension of cutting edge shaping.

Isoletta L4 (GA6Z)

The 13 bifaces are in limestone. They are elongated, although partially or totally shaped in different ways, by deep and large removals and rarely by final retouch (Fig. 13). The maximum thickness of the tool is on the proximal half or in the tool centre.

Five technological groups can be distinguished based on asymmetrical or symmetrical cross-sections.

Four tools are made by large removals covering a part of the piece with no final retouch. The tip is pointed and narrowed by deep removals. The cutting edges are sinusoidal. The maximum thickness is at the base of the tool. Five tools are made by large and short removals on the whole volume with rare final retouches. The tip is narrowed by removals and the base is also worked and thinned. The maximum thickness is at the centre of the tool. One asymmetrical tool is made by large removals on the upper part With a tip thinned and round. Two tool made on a flat pebble are partial with large removals on the two cutting edges and the tip. Finally, a large flake is partially shaped and some final retouch.

Lademagne lower

The series is composed of a dozen cores (polyhedral cores on large blocks with no preparation and unifacial cores), some chopper-cores and choppers on limestone and flint. The presence of a flake that can be described as a Levallois flake is noteworthy (Fig. 14). There are also 14 bifacial pieces, 2 with a transversal cutting edge, 5 with partial management and eight with general bifacial management. The tools are on poor-quality limestone, except for one on flint (Fig. 15,16). The two tools with a transversal cutting edge are on limestone and are completely bifacial and symmetrical with invasive removals The partial bifacial tools are mainly on flakes and plano-convex with sinuous edges. Removals cover either the upper part, or the periphery of the flake. The tip is thin and curved while the base is thick and generally left unworked or only slightly worked. Bifaces with general bifacial management are the predominant category. All these tools are in limestone, except for one in flint. They are elongated or short, made by several series of removals covering the whole surfaces.

The cross-section is plano-convex for the thin tip and sometimes symmetrical for the thick base. Final retouch is sometimes visible on the whole periphery while the edges remain sinuous. The shorter bifaces show a round or transversal cutting edge while the longer ones have a carefully worked pointed tip. The shaping mode seems to be alternate despite a plano-convex cross-section. The flint biface is the most worked tool of the series and final retouch rectifies the edges.

Lademagne upper

Debitage activity is on limestone cores on pebbles. Core technology is unifacial, orthogonal or on multiple surfaces. Large flakes are the main blanks used for bifacial technology when determinable.

We can mention one déjeté flake 15 cm long with limited unifacial shaping of the two convergent edges.

Apart from one flint tool, the bifaces are in limestone of varying quality (accidents occurred during the production for three pieces). These hinged scars are due to the bad quality of some limestone but also to technical reasons (too flat face of the tool and bad angles of the cutting edges).

Two groups can be distinguished. There thirteen partial bifacial tools , mainly on flakes or broken or flat pebbles, with preserved cortical backs (Fig. 17), which could account for the curved aspect of the longitudinal section of the tool. The tip is managed by some bifacial removals. One or both edges of the tools are shaped by short removals producing a plano-convex cross-section without final retouch.

Edge angles vary between 75 and 85°.A lateral or proximal back is preserved (butt of the flake?), and the tools look like backed bifacial scrapers. Twelve elongated or short bifaces show a general management of the volume and a final retouch. The cross-section is symmetrical (alternate shaping) or plano-convex (face by face shaping) (Fig. 17). The angles of the cutting edges are inferior to those of the previous group, between 51 and 72°. The shaping mode could be linked to the type of blank (flake or pebble). The base is sometimes unworked, with a back (part of a flake?) or is part of the overall bifacial management. The thickest part of the tools is the central area. The tip is pointed or round, made by general tool management removals, by one large transverse removal or small retouch.

Masseria Castellone

The series is composed of six tools, few more or less elongated in limestone, and of varied dimensions. They are worked by large and deep and/or short alternate removals limited to the upper part of the blank and almost all show a symmetrical cross-section. Although only part of the tool is shaped, we observe general management of the bifacial volume. These tools are one asymmetrical bifacial "dejeté" scraper, one elongated and symmetrical tool (limande-type), one symmetrical tool on a flake with a proximal back, one curved and symmetrical tool shaped on the whole periphery by short removals with a proximal back (Fig. 18), one asymmetrical partial tool on a flat pebble, and finally one symmetrical triangular and partial tool.

Discussion

Before discussing the tools themselves, it seems essential to give some general information concerning what we know so far about the origin and nature of raw material used. A constant characteristic of the various sites is that the stone tools recovered are made on medium-sized and small limestone gravels. Pebbles are mainly smaller than the mean size of the bifaces. Raw materials used to elaborate the bifaces were probably collected in adjacent sites to those of the frequentation, even if no specific selection is evidenced currently. The presence of some types of flakes demonstrates the probability of the use of the flaking on anvil despite the lack of large pebbles necessary for this technique. Tests carried using pebbles collected in the bed of current active rivers in the area has shown that only a very limited number of limestone pebbles have the necessary compactness and quality require to be used. The field observations also suggest that the bifaces were made in other unknown neighbouring areas. However, all the raw materials used are products of the erosion of the Cretaceous formations derived from the mountains that surround the Sacco and Liri valleys.

Common features and differences between the lithic series in the localities of the Ceprano basin

Acheulean culture in the Frosinone area is more frequent than the Middle Paleolithic that is represented by sporadic objects except for some rare sites. The lithic series of the Ceprano-Frosinone basin are mainly manufactured on fine-grained, generally of poor-quality limestone that are sporadically associated with better quality flint, quartzite and quartz. Some bifaces are shaped on large flakes obtained from cobbles and were rarely abandoned at the localities, excepted in the upper archaeological level of Lademagne. Raw material types differ for core technology and shaping.

Limestone is the preferred one for the LCTs and heavy-duty component whereas flint and quartz are mainly used for flaking, although a few LCTs are made on flint and quartzite in the Campogrande and Lademagne localities. This is probably due to the size of the available nodules and pebbles, as flint is generally available as small nodules.

Core technologies demonstrate common technological rules between the investigated localities.

Small cores on flint nodules are present, excepted at Lademagne where large-sized limestone cores are also found. The cores are never prepared and are always related to the form of the blank. The debitage affects one or two faces (unifacial, bifacial or orthogonal) with unipolar removals. Some round pebbles produced "slices". Cores are never exhausted and the debitage is minimal. The Levallois core technology is absent, except at Lademagne lower and Colle Avarone where one "Levallois-type" flake is evidenced.

Heavy-duty tools are the main component of the collected lithic series. Three types are common to the series but in different proportions:

(1) Elongated tools, named bifaces, characterized by complete bifacial shaping of the tool volume and thin tips. When the cross-section is symmetrical, the single series of removals is never rectified by final retouch. The edges of these tools are sinuous. When the cross-section is asymmetrical the removals are numerous and a final retouch sometimes rectifies the edges. Series differ between the localities by the presence/absence of final retouch.

(2) Partial tools, named bifacial tools. They are made by successive removals on the upper part of the tool, of the cutting edges and of the tip. Cross-sections are mainly asymmetric with a preserved back.

(3) Heavy "scrapers", "rabots" on pebbles and pebble-tools.

The shaping mode is not linked to the type of raw material. The bifaces on flint share common technological features with the tools on other kinds of stones. However, the mode and intensity of shaping are consistent with the raw material and the shape of the original pebble. The partial bifacial tools are mainly made on (easily identifiable) flakes, considered as pre-forms, which do not require extensive management. These categories are not stages in the shaping process but represent clear distinct tool types with specific purposes (whole volume management, manufacture of the cutting edges and the tip) and sizes, even if all the tools show an asymmetric cross-section. Some partial bifacial tools indicate that resharpening would have been possible since a limited area of the upper part of the tool is shaped by additional series, which can be reworked independently. Conversely, most of the bifaces with total volume manufacture cannot be resharpened without modifying the whole volume and reducing the size of the tool. The whole bifaces are symmetrical in form and elongated while the partial bifacial tools are shorter, not generally elongated and frequently asymmetrical in form and cross-section. Bifaces are the longest pieces (around 200 mm) (Fig. 19).

Although asymmetrical tools with retouch on one side evoke bifacial scrapers rather than bifaces, the technological study does not indicate strong overall tool reduction. It is important to mention that each tool category frequently displays the same size and size variation for each locality. This suggests a mental model or template for making these tools and the flexibility to adapt the model to the blank (pebble or flake).

Table 2 demonstrates that some technological features of the LCTs may partially distinguish the series. Internal variability affects above all the shaping mode of the tip and retouch on the edges, and episodically the presence of a "coup de tranchet", twisted bifaces and backed tools. Elongated tools are the most common type of tool, as opposed to the short tools and large flakes that are often used for shaping. However, the number of tools differs between localities and the quantity can affect the technological record and picture. We performed a Multiple Correspondence Analysis with a set of variables characterizing technological features (extension removals along faces A and B, series of removals, final retouches, tip shaping, presence or absence of cross-sectional and/or lateral symmetry). Our analysis shows two groups of sites. One group forms a major cluster and one group isolates the sites CG9 upper, Isoletta 4 and Masseria Castellone, which are visible in table 2 and fig.

20. These three original series differ by less careful shaping of the tip and edges and more asymmetrical tools. Number and extension of removals on both faces distinguishes the two groups along dimension 2 (Fig. 20), which calls into question differences in reduction sequence phases by locality (mobility of tools between sites or longer reduction sequences in some sites as a result of longer occupations or specific activities). The size of the gravel pebbles is almost always less than the biface size, suggesting that the bifaces were partially made in other areas than those frequented.

The Ceprano basin: an original case in Italy?

On a broader scale, it is essential to compare the networks of sites studied here with other Italian Acheulean sites from the same period. Hereafter, the term "Acheulean groups" corresponds to hominin groups able to perform biface production. However, the fact that some localities do not yield bifaces and/or LCTs does not mean that hominins occupying these sites were not capable to produce these kinds of tools. It may mainly depend on the "function" of the site. The quantity of artefacts collected at Campogrande, Isoletta and Lademagne is higher than in the other studied localities such as Colle Avarone or Selvotta (~ 600 m from Ceprano) [START_REF] Biddittu | Giacimento pleistocenico ad amigdale acheuleane nel territorio di Ceprano, Frosinone[END_REF]. Despite the variable number of artefacts found in these sites, we demonstrate that the technological and morphological features highlighted share common strategies and specific features that may suggest regional trends of traditions persisting for about 50 ka (from MIS 11 interglacial toward the MIS 10 glacial inception). For instance, the bifacial tools and bifaces discovered in the Ceprano basin are generally longer than in other Italian sites studied so far. It could be explained by the dimension and quality of the available raw materials but also by the types of activities or regional routines of the knappers of the area.

If we integrate our records at a broader scale, the Acheulean layer "m" of the Torre in Pietra (MIS 10) archaeological site, located 26 km northwest of Rome, is characterized by bifaces similar to the Ceprano basin ones, characterized with a high proportion of asymmetric tools [START_REF] Villa | The Acheulean and Early Middle Paleolithic in Latium (Italy): Stability and Innovation[END_REF]. At Guado San Nicola, located in Molise [START_REF] Peretto | The Middle Pleistocene site of Guado San Nicola (Monteroduni, Central Italy) on the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition[END_REF] and also dated to the MIS 10 glacial onset [START_REF] Pereira | 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and ESR-U/Th dates for Guado San Nicola, Middle Pleistocene key site at the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition in Italy[END_REF], bifaces represent a total of 3-4% of the series and are mainly made in flint and rarely in silicified limestone, on slabs and some flakes. The raw material does not seem to influence the shaping mode and produces asymmetric pieces. We furthermore observe careful shaping of the tips, including final retouch and limited technical investment. Finally, at Castel di Guido [START_REF] Boschian | In the elephant, everything is good: Carcass use and re-use at Castel di Guido (Italy)[END_REF], close to Torre in Pietra, bifacial tools on elephant bones and on pebbles (various stones) indicate common shaping strategies at this site, regardless of raw materials. Moreover, most of the LCTs are partial bifacial tools characterized mainly by management of the bifacial tip and a lateral bifacial scraper.

As mentioned above, the core technology of our series is similar to what is observed at Torre in Pietra (layer m), dated to the MIS 10/MIS 9 transition [START_REF] Villa | The Acheulean and Early Middle Paleolithic in Latium (Italy): Stability and Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Soriano | Early Levallois and the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic in central Italy[END_REF], but also to the younger butchery site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (near Rome) (MIS 9, 325 ± 6 ka, [START_REF] Pereira | New 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and ESR/U-series data for La Polledrara di Cecanibbio archaeological site (Lazio, Italy)[END_REF]. These assemblages without bifaces and on small flint nodules do not show clear technological changes for more than 100 ka in Latium (i.e. between MIS 11 and MIS 9). The Levalloislike flake found in the lower archaeological of Lademagne (older than 405 ka, [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF] and Colle Avarone could indicate the occasional use of this technology, as also highlighted at the site of Guado San Nicola (Molise) during the MIS 11/10 transition [START_REF] Peretto | The Middle Pleistocene site of Guado San Nicola (Monteroduni, Central Italy) on the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and ESR-U/Th dates for Guado San Nicola, Middle Pleistocene key site at the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition in Italy[END_REF]Moncel et al., 2016Moncel et al., , 2020)), and in the Acheulean site of Rosaneto in Calabria (Biddittu et al., 1984). The presence of this kind of technology supports the hypothesis of a long transition phase between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and the coexistence of these two entities in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa during this period for long period [START_REF] Akhilesh | Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around 385-172 ka reframes out of Africa models[END_REF][START_REF] Deino | Chronology of the Acheulean to Middle Stone Age transition in eastern Africa[END_REF].

Evidence of regional networks of sites from MIS 11 onwards in Europe?

The small number of known sites in Western Europe anterior to the MIS 12 glacial period suggests either the bad preservation of the sites or a low population density perhaps reflecting the isolation of small and mobile hominin groups before 450 ka. The first hypothesis raises the question of the good preservation of the sites after this arid glacial stage in Central Italy and more generally in Western Europe. Some studies suggest a good preservation of the sites as well as an increase of the population densities in Mediterranean due to the suitable climatic conditions of the MIS 11 interglacial, that is one of the warmest and longest (20-30 kyrs) Quaternary interglacials (Karner andMarra, 2003, Moncel et al., 2018a).

We here propose to explore some hypotheses on social behaviours. The hominins groups probably adapted their behaviours to local constraints, which may explain both the diversity and common features of toolkit morphology and modes of shaping for this period. Consequently, they were able to maintain social networks and to permanently occupy some areas. This hypothesis might also explain the lack of clear regional traditions, either among a metapopulation or disconnected groups [START_REF] White | Lower Palaeolithic Core Technology and the origins of the Levallois Method in North-Western Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Premo | Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominins[END_REF][START_REF] Premo | Modeling effects of local extinctions on culture change and diversity in the Paleolithic[END_REF][START_REF] White | The Emergence, Diversity and Significance of Mode 3 (Prepared Core) technologies[END_REF][START_REF] Schreve | Editorial: The early Acheulean occupation of western Europe: chronology, environment and subsistence behaviour In[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | The Early Acheulian in north-western Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | Editorial European Acheuleans The Acheulean in Europe : origins, evolution and dispersal[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | From 800 to 500 ka in Europe The oldest evidence of Acheuleans in their technological, chronological and geographical framework[END_REF].

Hominins only occupied marginal areas under favourable environments, especially in the northwest of the continent. Latitudinal climatic gradients are consistent with the persistence of occupations in the south during periods of climatic deterioration (Moncel et al., 2016). These climatic oscillations regularly compelled hominins to retreat and expand or led to their disappearance despite evidence of occupations at the MIS 16 in the North-West of Europe under cold conditions or during a cooler period into the glacial event (see e.g. [START_REF] Antoine | The earliest record of Acheulean human occupation in North-West Europe[END_REF]. Even in the Italian peninsula, periodic contractions and expansions of hominin groups during rapid climatic variations were clearly shown during MIS 13 and MIS 12 at Valle Giumentina in Abruzzo, for example [START_REF] Degeai | Chemical weathering of paleosols associated to Lower Palaeolithic settlements at Valle Giumentina (Abruzzes, Italy)[END_REF].

A large-scale expansion of Acheulean assemblages over Western Europe is discernible after the glacial period known as MIS 12, and various regional traditions appeared and evolved in both the north and south of Europe [START_REF] Ashton | New evidence for complex climate change in MIS 11 from Hoxne, Suffolk, UK[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | The Early Acheulian in north-western Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Ashton | The British Middle Palaeolithic[END_REF]. The long interglacial MIS 11 followed by a short and relatively mild glacial period MIS 10, especially weakly marked in Southern Europe, seems to have been a crucial period. This period already records some evidence of behavioural changes towards the early Middle Palaeolithic, such as for instance, indications of sporadic, more complex and standardized core technologies, organized hunting or changes in land use patterns [START_REF] Conard | Excavations at Schöningen and paradigm shifts in human evolution[END_REF][START_REF] Moigne | Bone retouchers from Lower Palaeolithic sites: Terra Amata, Orgnac 3, Cagny-l'Epinette and Cueva del Angel[END_REF]Moncel et al., 2016). Early fire control [START_REF] Roebroeks | On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe[END_REF] could have contributed to new hominin abilities to expand their territories and modify their behaviour accordingly. After 500 ka, lithic assemblages are characterized once again by diverse technological behaviours, with or without bifacial tools, but it is possible to identify regional trends due to the higher quantity of lithic assemblages. We observe the standardization of technological processes in biface production, despite the persistence of the diversity of large toolkits. The diversity of biface thickness and shaping intensity are either due to raw material constraints, site location or traditions. The diversity in the cross-sections of plano-convex or symmetrical bifaces depends on the shaping mode and the intensity and location of retouch (unifacial retouch for a scraper on one edge), and also points to varied toolkit purposes and functions, in the same way as for the early Acheulean [START_REF] Iovita | High handaxe symmetry at the beginning of the European Acheulian: the data from la Noira (France) in context[END_REF].

The morphological results for LCTs differ between geographical areas suggesting regional trends in or between regions. For instance, in the UK, ovate bifaces dominate in some sites (Hoxne), while pointed bifaces are more numerous in other sites (Swanscombe) [START_REF] Ashton | The environmental contexts of early human occupation of northwest Europe: The British Lower Palaeolithic record[END_REF]Moncel et al., 2015). This suggests the arrival of new population(s) or the diffusion of new traditions, during periods of low sea levels and/or local evolutions. Pointed bifaces also exist in France at the same time (i.e Saint-Pierre-les-Elbeuf) [START_REF] Cliquet | La séquence loessique de Saint-Pierre-lès-Elbeuf (Normandie, France): nouvelles données archéologiques, géochronologiques et paléontologiques[END_REF][START_REF] Tuffreau | Land-use and site function in Acheulean complexes of the Somme Valley[END_REF][START_REF] Limondin-Lozouet | Oldest evidence of Acheulean occupation in the Upper Seine valley (France) from an MIS 11 tufa at La Celle[END_REF][START_REF]Northwest European MIS 11 malacological successions: a framework for the timing of Acheulean settlements[END_REF].

After the MIS 12, core technologies become more complex in Western Europe, with intense development of debitage and production control, including the first traces of Levallois technology in Italy, for example [START_REF] Peretto | The Middle Pleistocene site of Guado San Nicola (Monteroduni, Central Italy) on the Lower/Middle Palaeolithic transition[END_REF]. Land use management indicates the fragmentation of reduction processes, an increase in the circulation of long-distance lithic raw materials, despite the persistent use of predominantly local raw materials [START_REF] Moncel | Towards the Middle Palaeolithic in Western Europe: the case of Orgnac 3 (southeastern France)[END_REF]Herisson et al., 2016;[START_REF] Ravon | Originalité et développement du Paléolithique inférieur à l'extrémité occidentale de l[END_REF]. Some sites in the Mediterranean region from this time period (i.e. MIS 11-10) yielded assemblages suggesting the widespread diffusion of behaviours over a short period of time beginning during MIS 11, and above all, specificities in each area related to raw materials (Gran Dolina TD 10, Spain (Atapuerca, García-Medrano et al., 2015). For example, the sites of Terra Amata (South of France, de [START_REF] Lumley | Terra Amata Nice Alpes-Maritimes, France Tome I[END_REF] and Menez Dregan (West of France, Ravon, 2017) demonstrate a high quantity of pebbles on beach sites, with micro-regional traditions strongly impacted by the local environment (marine formations) [START_REF] Ravon | Originalité et développement du Paléolithique inférieur à l'extrémité occidentale de l[END_REF]. Equally, large flakes are used more in Southern Europe than in the northwest, possibly due to an adaptation to raw material availability (flint nodules in the north v.

coarse-grained pebbles and blocks in the south).

Of course, changes in climate cycles (after MIS 12 and during the warm and long MIS 11 interglacial), in demography, and in the density of occupations could have influenced these behavioural changes.

They could have encouraged the emergence of regional traditions, a wider system of mobility in the landscape, demographic expansion and genetic exchanges (growth and regular adaptation without demographic discontinuities), as well as new skills amplified by more or less rapid processes of population dynamics and cultural change [START_REF] Guilfoyle | Socializing stone artifact assemblages: Regionalization and raw material availability in northern Queensland Australian[END_REF][START_REF] Winton | An investigation of knapping-skill development in the manufacture of Palaeolithic handaxes[END_REF][START_REF] Bocquet-Appel | Technological responses of Neanderthals to macroclimatic variations (240,000-40,000 BP)[END_REF][START_REF] Chazan | Assessing the Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition[END_REF][START_REF] Dennell R W, Martinón-Torres | Hominin variability, climatic instability and population demography in Middle Pleistocene Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Jagher | Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar -Acheulian variability in the Central Syrian Desert In[END_REF][START_REF] Richter | (Ed), Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | Early-Middle Pleistocene environmental changes and human evolution in the Italian peninsula[END_REF][START_REF] Kleinen | The climate and vegetation of Marine Isotope Stage 11 -Model results and proxy-based reconstructions at global and regional scale[END_REF][START_REF] Grove | Population density, mobility, and cultural transmission[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | Editorial European Acheuleans The Acheulean in Europe : origins, evolution and dispersal[END_REF]Moncel et al., 2016;[START_REF] Henry | The effect of terrain on Neanderthal ecology in the Levant[END_REF][START_REF] Vaesen | Complexity and technological evolution: What everybody knows?[END_REF][START_REF] Carrión | Background to Neanderthal presence in Western Mediterranean Europe[END_REF]. The extension of reliable areas for hominin occupations and better adaptation to diverse environments could explain a phenomenon of "product copying" rather than "process copying", as described by d' Errico et al. (2017) for the Middle Stone Age in South Africa. This would explain the origin of distinct regional traditions due to the flexible behaviour of hominin groups with common toolkits but varied manufacturing processes depending on raw materials.

In this general frame, the Frosinone-Ceprano basin localities offer the opportunity to observe technological trends and variability from a regional perspective and to describe lithic series within a narrow time frame over a small territory. Of course, we cannot certify that the occupations were contemporaneous and took place at the same time. However, we are working on the "long" time and the time windows of the ages of the sites is relatively short enough to question and compare the occupations in a delimited territory. Despite limited variations, the common behaviours identified in biface production processes and in the morphological results between the localities raise a new question. How can we explain the high morphological homogeneity (with some types of frequent homogeneous sizes) of assemblages from this basin and their low technological variability? The expertise used for making the LCTs suggests the existence of a common mental template and the flexibility of expert knappers, regardless of the number of pieces and the raw materials (some flint is shaped in the same way as limestone). This could indicate a sort of "network" of sites with strong relationships over time between mobile groups occupying a small region in a short window of time, sharing a micro-regional tradition, possibly with sub-divisions of a metapopulation covering large areas. Studies of late Neanderthal populations suggest low effective population size and demographic isolation and some evidence tends to indicate a similar structure for the earlier period [START_REF] Ríos | skeletal Anomalies in the Neandertal Family of el sidrón (spain) support A Role of Inbreeding in Neandertal extinction[END_REF]. Socio-demographic processes could also affect cognition by the diffusion of new behaviours in a limited area which could maintain stable behaviours, where efficient, leading to the isolation of regional populations [START_REF] Hamilton | The complex structure of huntergatherer social networks[END_REF][START_REF] Shipton | Inferring aspects of Acheulean sociality and cognition from lithic technology[END_REF][START_REF] Hill | Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure[END_REF][START_REF] Malinsky-Buller | One size does not fit all: Group size and the late middle Pleistocene prehistoric archive[END_REF]. Slight differences in technology and morphology could be due to variable parameters such as activities, the duration of occupation or site location, but also to individual preferences or the adaptation of expert knappers to the available blanks. We can mention for instance some relevant features of bifaces that, unlike core technologies, distinguish localities: occasional presence of tools with a transverse edge (cleaver-like), intensity of tip-shaping on bifaces, presence of final retouch on bifaces, ratio of short LCTs that are not due to reduction during the shaping process, use of a "coup de tranchet", presence of twisted bifaces and backed bifaces.

LCTs in the Ceprano basin localities are often made on poorly preserved local limestone and are often covered by patches of breccia, rendering the identification of detailed land-use patterns over territories difficult (residential camps or occasional habitats). Moreover, most of the limestone and flint pebbles can be found in situ. The topography of the basin could provide an idea of a potential territory with the efficient management of space in an area rich in available blocks, pebbles, flint nodules and large game. Moreover, in some localities (Isoletta, Campogrande), retouched fragments of large mammal bones show the exploitation of elephants and other large herbivore carcasses and bone fragments and this trend is not an isolated case in Latium (Fontana Ranuccio, Torre in Pietra, La Polledrara di Cecanibbio and Castel di Guido) (Piperno and Biddutti, 1978;[START_REF] Biddittu | Anagni, a K-Ar dated Lower and Middle Pleistocene site, Central Italy : preliminary report[END_REF][START_REF] Ascenzi | Discovery of a Homo erectus calvarium at Ceprano, Central Italy[END_REF]Radmilli and Boschain, 1996;[START_REF] Segre | Nouvelles recherches dans le bassin Plio-Pléistocène d'Anagni (Latium mérdional, Italie)[END_REF][START_REF] Muttoni | Pleistocene Magnetochronology of Early Hominin Sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Anzidei | Ongoing research at the late Middle Pleistocene site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (central Italy), with emphasis on human-elephant relationships[END_REF][START_REF] Saccà | Taphonomy of Palaeloxodon antiquus at Castel di Guido (Rome, Italy): proboscidean carcass exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic[END_REF][START_REF] Boschian | In the elephant, everything is good: Carcass use and re-use at Castel di Guido (Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Santucci | Palaeoloxodon exploitation at the Middle Pleistocene site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (Rome, Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Villa | The Acheulean and Early Middle Paleolithic in Latium (Italy): Stability and Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | New 40 Ar/ 39 Ar and ESR/U-series data for La Polledrara di Cecanibbio archaeological site (Lazio, Italy)[END_REF]. Habitat quality and resources (availability of large fragments of bones) could explain the density of occupations and networks of sites with similar activities, with hominins circulating between localities depending on seasonal resources.

The type of mobility and occupations based on current models of mobility (foraging radius and logistical radius, hierarchical sites) cannot be confidently identified in our corpus (e.g., [START_REF] Binford | Willow smoke and dogs' tails -hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation[END_REF][START_REF] Binford | The archaeology of place[END_REF]Kühn, 1992). When data are available, most of the sites of this period are butchery sites and at the same time record domestic activities, along rivers, lakeshores, and stone outcrops, with or without a hierarchical structure of occupations (aggregation-dispersal mechanism) and are dependent on local ecological conditions and seasonal variations (as demonstrated at the Acheulean site GBY in Israel, by Herlinger and Goren-Inbar, 2019). Each series of our corpus with LCTs could portray several occupations at favourable spots or one main occupation, and the hypothesis of catchment in some cases must be considered for the smallest series. Our series contain few flakes issued from shaping processes and no evidence of in situ biface production. However, that does not mean that bifaces were only mobile tools transported from site to site and introduced to the sites in a finished state. Due to the lack of extensive excavations at our localities, it is not possible to observe activity areas. However, it is important to mention that some LCTs occasionally show crushing marks on their edges, indicating use, and a more or less large quantity of these tools was abandoned. Perhaps these tools were easily reproducible owing to the widespread availability of large formations of pebbles. [START_REF] Binford | Willow smoke and dogs' tails -hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation[END_REF] suggested that environments offering homogenously distributed resources would have been exploited by frequent residential mobility, while those supplying heterogeneous resources would be best exploited by low residential mobility and by logistic displacement for specific resources. [START_REF] Mithen | Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene: hominid group size, social learning and industrial variability[END_REF] and Bocquet-Appel and Tuffreau (2009) suggested a possible higher mobility of small groups during interglacial periods. [START_REF] Grove | Hunter-gatherer movement patterns: causes and constraints[END_REF] demonstrates that habitat quality is the best predictor of the distance travelled by hunter-gatherers between camps. Likewise, large groups move often, rather than far (idea of costly strategy and high-mobility when necessary).

We are not capable of identifying group size or social units, or the duration of occupations on the basis of the size of our lithic series, which may possibly result from recurrent passages and palimpsests [START_REF] Powell | Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Bocquet-Appel | Neanderthal demographic estimates[END_REF][START_REF] Collard | Population size as an explanation for patterns in the Paleolithic archaeological record: more caution is needed[END_REF][START_REF] Derex | Experimental evidence for the influence of group size on cultural complexity[END_REF][START_REF] Vaesen | Population size does not explain past changes in cultural complexity[END_REF]Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2019). Nor do we have any idea of the original surface area of the occupations. If we admit that the smallest series, if relevant, evidenced short-term camps or ephemeral passages, while the largest ones indicate large camps or palimpsests of regular short-term occupations, the technology used everywhere indicates expert knappers and the smaller lithic series are neither more homogeneous nor heterogeneous than the larger ones. The quantity of bifaces tends to demonstrate how hominins managed their toolkits in the landscape and between occupations. Our series attest that LCTs were regularly abandoned while still usable.

Conclusion

The different localities of the Frosinone-Ceprano basin with lithic artefacts are located in a smallsized area. Radio-isotopic constraints as well as geological and archaeological information indicate the contemporaneity or penecontemporaneity of these localities and related series allow for comparisons of the technological behaviours of hominins during the MIS 11-10 time period in this region. Core technologies were simple and similar for all localities. Bifaces and bifacial tools were managed in the same way with minor differences between localities. Tools are generally large in size (ranging in length from 50 to 260 mm). Common trends in toolkits could indicate networks of connected sites along fluvial systems in the basin and record the use of locally available raw materials.

Future analyses of bone assemblages will help to understand which types of sites existed and which subsistence activities were performed and how this network worked in relation to the exploitation of carcasses of elephants and other large herbivores. This could explain why core technologies show minimal flaking aimed at rapidly producing flakes in sporadic occupations. A heavy-duty component is present at some sites, and this cannot be explained by stone availability. The quantity of flakes indicating an in situ shaping process is often small and it is consequently difficult to investigate the status of these large tools. They could be mobile pieces transported between sites or expedient tools prepared for the activities performed on the site.

Current genetic data and anthropological analyses show that Neanderthal features emerged in the European population between 600 and 400 ka, and various hominins may have co-existed at that time [START_REF] Hublin | The origin of Neandertals[END_REF][START_REF] Stringer | The Status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908)[END_REF]. Our analysis supports the hypothesis of early evidence of regional traditions at the end of this transitional morphological period with an increase in the number of sites, which cannot solely be attributed to better preservation as a result of tectonic and climatic factors. This regionalization is not only discernible for the predecessors of Neanderthal populations, but also for the archaic hominin of Ceprano. This process of regionalization is not restricted to the Italian Peninsula but is a broader process that is also apparent in the Northwest and South of Europe [START_REF] Ashton | New evidence for complex climate change in MIS 11 from Hoxne, Suffolk, UK[END_REF][START_REF] Rightmire | Homo in the Middle Pleistocene: hypodigms, variation, and species recognition[END_REF][START_REF] Scott | The Early Middle Palaeolithic: The European Context[END_REF][START_REF] Ashton | The environmental contexts of early human occupation of northwest Europe: The British Lower Palaeolithic record[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | The Emergence of Neanderthal Technical Behavior: New Evidence from Orgnac 3 (Level 1, MIS 8), Southeastern France[END_REF][START_REF] Moncel | Towards the Middle Palaeolithic in Western Europe: the case of Orgnac 3 (southeastern France)[END_REF]Moncel et al., , 2018;;[START_REF] Fontana | Widespread diffusion of technical innovations around 300,000 years ago in Europe as a reflection of anthropological and social transformations? New comparative data from the western Mediterranean sites of Orgnac (France) and Cave dall'Olio (Italy)[END_REF][START_REF] Blain | Climate and environments during Marine Isotope Stage 11 in the central Iberian Peninsula: the herpetofaunal assemblage from the Acheulean site of Áridos-1, Madrid[END_REF][START_REF] Blain | The continental record of Marine Isotope Stage 11 (Middle Pleistocene) on the Iberian Peninsula characterized by herpetofaunal assemblages[END_REF][START_REF] Brenet | Les techno-complexes au début du Paléolithique moyen en Aquitaine septentrionale[END_REF]Wisniewski, 2014;Garcia-Medrano et al., 2015;[START_REF] Ashton | The British Middle Palaeolithic[END_REF]. Fontana Ranuccio, Colle Marino, Cava Pompi, Campogrande (CG), Selvotta (Sel), Colle Avarone (CA), Isoletta, Lademagne, Masseria Castellone and Pignataro Interamna (modified from [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF]. The main volcanic centres are also shown (triangles). b) Location of the archaeological sites investigated in the study.

Figure captions

Figure 2. Simplified lithostratigraphic columns of the studied sites indicating the sampling position and stratigraphic correlations between the archaeological levels. Campogrande (composite log from [START_REF] Manzi | A cranium for the earliest Europeans: Phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Manzi | Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis[END_REF], Isoletta [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF], and Lademagne (modified from [START_REF] Biddittu | Nuove ricerche nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Lademagne, S Giovanni Incarico (Frosinone)[END_REF][START_REF] Comerci | Tectonic evidence in the Palaeolithic site of Lademagne (San Giovanni Incarico -FR, Southern Latium, Italy) 6th International INQUA Meeting on Paleoseismology, Active Tectonics and Archaeoseismology 19-24 April 2015, Pescina, Fucino Basin, Italy INQUA Focus Group on Paleoseismology and Active Tectonics Daujeard C, Moncel M-H[END_REF] logs are from previous studies (see [START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF] for more details). Figure 5 Campogrande 10 upper: n°1: unifacial core on a limestone pebble, n°2: chopper core on a small flint pebble, n°3: chopper or chopper core on limestone pebble, n°4: pointed pebble tool on a small flint pebble Figure 6. Campogrande 10 upper: asymmetrical elongated biface on milestone with a general shaping. The middle part of the tool is the thickest part. Removals cover the surfaces and edges are sinuous. This piece is an example of the chemical superficial alteration that makes it difficult to read the shaping process. The organization of the removals is however visible.

  Campogrande localities _ CG 9 (CG9A = 41°31′48.6′′ 13°28′ 54.1′′ and CG9B = 41°31′49.9′′ 13°28′ 54.0′′) and CG 10 (CG10A = 41°31′32.2′′ 13°28′ 54.5′′, CG10B = 41°31′31.1′′ 13°28′ 53.3′′ and CG10C = 41°31′29.7′′ 13°28′ 57.1′′)

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure1: a) Reference map of the Latina Valley with the location of the archaeological sites of Fontana Ranuccio, Colle Marino, Cava Pompi, Campogrande (CG), Selvotta (Sel), Colle Avarone (CA), Isoletta, Lademagne, Masseria Castellone and Pignataro Interamna (modified from[START_REF] Pereira | Geochronological evidences of a MIS 11 to MIS 10 age for several pivotal Acheulian sites from the Frosinone province (Latium, Italy): Archaeological implications[END_REF]. The main volcanic centres are also shown (triangles). b) Location of the archaeological sites investigated in the study.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Campogrande (CG) 10 lower. Core on a flint nodule with small bifacial removals on a part of the periphery.

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Campogrande 9 intermediate. Biface on a limestone flake.

Figure 7 .

 7 Figure 7. Campogrande 10 upper: partial bifacial tools on limestone flake. The upper part of the tool is shaped by small removals, including the tip. The base is left unworked.

Figure 8 .

 8 Figure8. Campogrande 10 upper: partial bifacial tool on a limestone flake. Some breccia on one face makes it difficult the reading of the removals.

Figure 9 .

 9 Figure 9. Colle Avarone: n°1: elongated and totally shaped bifaces on limestone, n°2: partial triangular bifacial tool on a limestone flake, n°3: partial triangular bifacial tool on a flint flake Figure 10. Colle Avarone: one or two series of removals on examples of pointed bifaces and tools with a transversal cutting edge.

Figure 11 .

 11 Figure 11. Selvotta: n°1: partial bifacial tool on a limestone flake, n°2: plano-convex bifaces on limestone.

Figure 12 .

 12 Figure 12. Selvotta: n°1, 4: elongated and plano-convex biface on limestone, n°2: partial bifacial tool on a limestone cortical flake, n°3: biface on flint.

Figure 13 .

 13 Figure13. Isoletta 4: n°1: elongated bifaces on limestone, n°2: partial bifacial tool on a limestone flake, n°3: lateral side of a backed biface with partial shaping.

Figure 14 .

 14 Figure 14. Lademagne lower: Levallois or Levallois-like flake

Figure 20 .

 20 Figure20. Correspondence analysis of the assemblages (colored dots) and a set of factor states characterizing technological features (non-colored dots), in particular the presence or absence of cross-sectional or lateral symmetry (black dots) and the number of removals (grey dots).

Acknowledgements

The analyses of the lithic series were financially supported by funding from the National Museum of Natural History (Paris, France) (Action Transversale du Museum, "Acheulean in volcanic areas in Italy"). Surveys were performed by I. Biddittu et al. The excavations and paleoenvironmental analyses at Campogrande were performed within the framework of the project "The Ceprano calvarium and its environment", with financial backing from various grants attributed to one of us (G.M.), by the Sapienza University of Rome. This work has been presented at the USIPP congress 2018 Paris in the session "MIS 13-11: a major transformation in the European Lower Palaeolithic" organized by James Cole and Rob Hosfield. The text has been edited by Louise Byrne, English native speaker and official translator. We would like to thank the two reviewers and the editor for their comments, which helped us to deeply enhance the manuscript.