The Lower Palaeolithic in central Europe is still little known, nevertheless, it represents a key area, inbetween the bestknown areas in the world for these periods: Western Europe and Middle East. While several reasons, both intrinsic and extrinsic, can explain this lack of evidence, the poor scientific interest in this region must be sought. Therefore, the European settlement pattern, are ultimately based on data from a very small part of Europe and does not work for Central Europe. Can we continue to defend models without considering nearly half of the European continent? Is the absence of bifaces in this region sufficient to disqualify all lithic assemblages? We will here examine the place of central and eastern Europe in European settlement models. This region occupies a paradoxical position, geographically central, but scientifically completely peripheral. Indeed, if Central Europe is well considered as a circulation area, the archaeological data in this region are rarely considered. Thus, we will first present the evolution of settlements pattern since the 1990s and the way the data from Central Europe have been considered by Western researchers. The main pattern currently defend is “the Out of Africa model”, based on two waves of peopling. The first one before 1 Ma is characterized by flake and pebble tools. The second one, from 0,7 Ma, different from the precedent by the presence of handaxes. But what are the evidence in central European for Lower Palaeolithic? Can we use the same frameworks established in Western Europe? And to what extent do they call into question Europe’s settlement pattern? Then we will examine the nature of archaeological data in Central Europe. In fact,the two phase previously describe in West Europe are absent in Central Europe. The sites before 0.5 Ma are lacking, and the handaxes are absent throughout Lower Palaeolithic. Finally, we will return to the West to try to see how the integration of the data available in Central Europe makes it possible to rethink the cultural geography of Europe during Lower Palaeolithic. It now appears clearly that the hegemonic character of European prehistory is an obstacle for the understanding of the specifical trajectories over the world during prehistory. But it seems that this historical framework is also too rigid even to deal with the European archaeological evidence.