A Study of Palaeolithic Artefacts from Selected Sites on Deposits Mapped as Clay-with-Flints of Southern England: With particular reference to handaxe manufacture 9781841715810, 9781407320021

Table of contents :
153-.pdf
Pages from 9781841715810.t
Pages from 9781841715810.t-2
Pages from 9781841715810.t-3
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: A Study Of Handaxe Reduction Sequences And Derivation Of A Methodology For Analysis Of The Wood Hill Palaeolithic Assemblage
Chapter 3: The Palaeolithic Stone Artefact Assemblage From Wood Hill, Kingsdown, Kent: Tools
Chapter 4: The Palaeolithic Stone Artefact Assemblage From Wood Hill, Kingsdown, Kent: Debitage
Chapter 5: Experiments In Handaxe Morphological Variability
Chapter 6: Investigation Of The Palaeolithic Site At Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm, Alton, Hampshire
Chapter 7: The Condition Of Palaeolithic Artefacts: Observations and Experiments
Chapter 8: Discussion and Summary
Appendix I: The 1995 Harding Debitage – Selected Attributes
Appendix II: Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic Assemblage - Selected Attributes
References

Citation preview

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

BAR  360  2004   WINTON   A STUDY OF PALAEOLITHIC ARTEFACTS FROM SELECTED SITES

A Study of Palaeolithic Artefacts from Selected Sites on Deposits Mapped as Clay-with-Flints of Southern England With particular reference to handaxe manufacture

Vicky Winton

BAR British Series 360 B A R

2004

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 360 A Study of Palaeolithic Artefacts from Selected Sites on Deposits Mapped as Clay-with-Flints of Southern England © V Winton and the Publisher 2004 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715810 paperback ISBN 9781407320021 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715810 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2004. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To my supervisors, Dr Julie Scott-Jackson and Professor Derek Roe With heartfelt thanks

ii

Contents List of Figures

v

List of Tables

x

Acknowledgements

xi

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Chronological Context

1

1.2 Cultural Context

3

1.3 Deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints

4

1.4 Aims of the Book

6

1.5 Two Case-study Sites

6

1.6 Structure of the Book

6

Chapter 2

A Study of Handaxe Reduction Sequences and Derivation of a Methodology for Analysis of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic Assemblage

2.1 Definition of a Reduction Sequence

7

2.2 A Critical Review of Selected Previous Research

9

2.3 Aims of a New Study

11

2.4 Debitage Recording Methodology

11

2.5 Results: Reduction Sequence Analysis

16

2.6 Discussion

27

2.7 Outline of Revisions to the Debitage Recording Methodology

28

Chapter 3

The Palaeolithic Stone Tools from Wood Hill, Kingsdown, Kent

3.1 Background

33

3.2 Overview of the Tools

36

3.3 The Handaxes

37

3.4 Bifacial Handaxe Fragments

41

3.5 Flake Tools

44

3.6 Discussion

49

3.7 Conclusions

58

Chapter 4

The Palaeolithic Flake Debitage and Cores From Wood Hill, Kingsdown, Kent

4.1 The Problem of Recording Accuracy

59

4.2 The Re-recording Of Quantitative Data

60

4.3 The Re-recording of Qualitative Data

62

4.4 Summary of the Recording Accuracy Tests

70

iii

4.5 Overview of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic Debitage

71

4.6 Cores

77

4.7 Flakes

80

4.8 Discussion

83

4.9 Conclusions

87

Chapter 5

Experiments in Handaxe Morphological Variability

5.1 Unexpected Results from Experimentation with Handaxes

89

5.2 An Investigation of Acheulian Knapping Skill Development

99

5.3 Discussion

111

5.4 Conclusion

113

Chapter 6

Investigation of the Palaeolithic Site at Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm, Alton, Hampshire

6.1 Overview

114

6.2 Aims for Continuation Of The Project

124

6.3 Design and Execution Of Field-Survey, 2000-2001

125

6.4 Results Of Dickett’s Field Surveys Of 2000-2001

126

6.5 Discussion

134

6.6 Conclusions

137

Chapter 7

The Condition of Palaeolithic Artefacts: Observations and Experiments

7.1 Theoretical basis of the Investigation

139

7.2 Review of Previous Research into Artefact Condition

141

7.3 Observations of Artefacts from Wood Hill and Dickett’s Field

144

7.4 Experimental Replication Programme: Aims and Methods

149

7.5 Results

150

7.6 Discussion

151

7.7 Conclusion

153

Chapter 8

Discussion and Summary

8.1 Synthesis of the Gathered Evidence

155

8.2 Archaeological Theory

158

8.3 New Observations and Methodological Advances

161

8.4 Summary

163

Appendix I

The Harding Debitage

165

Appendix II

The Wood Hill Assemblage

168

References Appendix III

182 Video Presentation

iv

available to download from www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

List of Figures Figure 1.1

The distribution of the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints in southern England

5

Figure 2.1:

The basic characteristics of flakes detached from a core by hard hammer percussion

8

Figure 2.2:

The refitted sequence of flakes detached during the reduction of ‘Marjorie’s core’ from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Maastricht-Belvédère

11

Figure 2.3:

Production of a flake scar with an intact bulb of percussion

12

Figure 2.4:

Dorsal flake scar orientation types

12

Figure 2.5:

An example of a primary flake scar with no negative bulb of percussion

13

Figure 2.6:

Diagram to illustrate relict core edge types

13

Figure 2.7:

Diagram showing the ventral surfaces of flakes with bulbar scars of orientation types 1, 2 and 3 respectively

14

Figure 2.8:

The platform types recorded

14

Figure 2.9:

Illustration of flakes and the cores from which they have been detached showing the categories of distal termination type recorded in this analysis

15

Figure 2.10: Illustration of the main dimensions measured on two different flakes

15

Figure 2.11: Both faces of the Harding 1995 Handaxe

16

Figure 2.12: The percentage frequency of broken flakes in different size grades in the Harding 1995 Debitage

17

Figure 2.13: Percentage frequency of debitage with and without cortex cover across size grades

18

Figure 2.14: A view of the 1995 Harding debitage refit, showing the arrangement of reduction units 1, 2 and 3

20

Figure 2.15: A profile view of the handaxe ‘rough-out’ from the Harding 1995 debitage refit

20

Figure 2.16: The refitted sequence of the Harding 1995 debitage

21

Figure 2.17: Dimensions of the 1995 Harding debitage refit

22

Figure 2.18: The distribution of mean flake length measurements (complete artefacts only) across Groups and Reduction units

22

Figure 2.19: The distribution of mean maximum dimensions of complete and fragmentary flakes across Reduction units and Groups

23

Figure 2.20: Distribution of mean lengths of incomplete flake debitage across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively

23

Figure 2.21: Distribution of mean widths across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C (includes flakes with whole width dimensions only)

23

Figure 2.22: The mean weight of all debitage products across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction units A, B, C respectively

24

Figure 2.23: Distribution of mean percentage cortex cover on the dorsal surface of debitage (broken and whole flakes included) across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively

24

v

Figure 2.24: Distribution of the mean number of dorsal flake scars on flake debitage (including both broken and whole flakes) across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively

25

Figure 2.25: Percentage frequency of flake scar orientation types across Reduction Units A, B and C

25

Figure 2.26: Percentage frequency of distal types across Reduction Units

26

Figure 2.27: Percentage frequency of platform types across Reduction Units

26

Figure 2.28: Flake 115 from the Harding 1995 debitage and a large finishing flake illustrated by Newcomer (1971)

27

Figure 2.29: The Recording Methodology applied to each artefact in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage

31

Figure 3.1:

The location of Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic site in relation to the distribution of deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints in southern England and local topography

32

Distribution of the trenches excavated by DAG (2-22) and Scott-Jackson (93 and 94) at the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic site

33

Figure 3.3:

Pointed, plano-convex handaxe WHK93 F 38

38

Figure 3.4:

Wood Hill handaxe WHK 84-40-BF 7

39

Figure 3.5:

Handaxe WHK 84-40-BF 1

41

Figure 3.6:

Handaxe fragment WHK 84-40-BF 2

41

Figure 3.7:

Handaxe fragment WHK 84-40-BF 3

43

Figure 3.8:

Handaxe Fragment WHK 84-40-BF 4

43

Figure 3.9:

Handaxe fragment WHK 84-40-BF 6

43

Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.10: The two flaked faces of the small bifacial fragment WHK 84-40-16 shown at 51% of its original size

44

Figure 3.11: Flake tool WHK 85-62-1. The position of the scraper edge shown on the right is indicated by a black line on the left

44

Figure 3.12: Flake tool WHK 84-45-4 with acute retouch along the left edge

44

Figure 3.13: Artefact WHK 84-44-20 with possible usewear damage on right edge

45

Figure 3.14: From left to right the ventral surface, right edge profile and dorsal surface of an apparent near unifacial handaxe, artefact WHK 85-60-26

46

Figure 3.15: Flake tool WHK 84-40-3

47

Figure 3.16: Artefact WHK 84-40-17

47

Figure 3.17: Two faces (dorsal and ventral) of artefact WHK 84-40-42

47

Figure 3.18: Five of the flake tools from the Wood Hill Palaeoithic site

48

Figure 3.19: Artefact WHK 84-40-131

49

Figure 3.20: Diagram illustrating the effects of handaxe morphology upon the sequence of flaking during handaxe manufacture

52

vi

Figure 3.21: Comparison of the edges of a modern pointed, plano-convex handaxe replica used for chopping red deer antler (left and centre) and the right edge of the pointed, plano-convex handaxe from Wood Hill, F 38 (right)

53

Figure 3.22: A replica of the largest complete handaxe from Wood Hill, BF 7. The central image shows the tool prior to use in red deer antler and the main image shows the tool after use

54

Figure 3.23: Two of the flake tools from Wolvercote (After Roe, 1981: 122) which are compared to artefact WHK 84-40-1

55

Figure 3.24: A handaxe from Limpsfield (above) and the complete pointed, plano-convex handaxe from Wood Hill, F38

56

Figure 3.25: Two faces of a small handaxe from Hoxne (Pitt Rivers Museum Collection)

57

Figure 4.1:

Results of comparison of highly interpretative attributes for V1 and V2 data

63

Figure 4.2:

Comparison of raw material and condition characteristics for V1 and V2 data

65

Figure 4.3:

Results of comparison of technological characteristics for V1 and V2 data

65

Figure 4.4:

Breakage data comparisons between V1 and V2 data

68

Figure 4.5:

Blind test of ability to estimate volumes of soft hammer struck flake fragments

69

Figure 4.6:

Blind test of ability to estimate volumes of soft hammer struck flake fragments

70

Figure 4.7:

Chart showing frequency of different break types per flake comparing artefacts that were excavated and recovered from the surface respectively

73

Chart showing the plot of depth of burial against the maximum dimension of artefacts excavated at Wood Hill

73

Spatial distribution of flakes excavated in a number of the trenches at Wood Hill, showing different groupings of maximum dimension

74

Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9:

Figure 4.10: Chart showing size distribution of flakes in Wood Hill assemblages excavated by DAG

74

Figure 4.11: Chart showing size distribution of experimentally produced assemblages of flakes (after Wenban-Smith, 2000:226) and of Wood Hill excavated finds

75

Figure 4.12: Chart comparing the cortex cover distribution of the 1995 Harding experimental handaxe reduction sequence debitage and that of the Wood Hill assemblage

75

Figure 4.13: Chart showing the percentage frequency of platform types recorded in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage as a whole, the Wood Hill excavated flakes only and the Harding 1995 experimental handaxe reduction sequence debitage

76

Figure 4.14: Chart showing the types of distal termination on flakes in the Wood Hill assemblage; the Harding 1995 experimental handaxe debitage; and the surface finds of the Wood Hill assemblage only

76

Figure 4.15: Chart showing the number of dorsal scar counts in the Wood Hill assemblage compared to entire experimental handaxe reduction sequence of the Harding 1995 debitage

77

Figure 4.16: Chart showing the percentage frequency of dorsal orientation type in the Wood Hill assemblage and the Harding 1995 handaxe reduction sequence debitage

77

vii

Figure 4.17: A large core, WHK 85-63-1, from which an extremely large flake with a plunging distal termination was struck

77

Figure 4.18: The two faces of artefact WHK 84-40-BF 5

78

Figure 4.19: Two small cores with preferentially large flake scars (marked by arrows) struck from a flaking face. On the left is WHK 84-40-254 and on the right is WHK 84-40-41

79

Figure 4.20: Four cores from the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage

80

Figure 4.21: Examples of handaxe trimming flakes from the Lower Palaeolithic site of Wood Hill

80

Figure 4.22: Examples of extremely large flakes in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage

81

Figure 4.23: Flakes in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage which present some features consistent with having been purposefully pre-shaped on a core prior to detachment

81

Figure 4.24: Dorsal Edge Flakes from Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage

82

Figure 4.25: Comparisons between a large flake (WHK 84-40-50) and core from which large flake was struck (WHK 85-63-1) from the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage and a large flake and core from which large flakes were struck produced by Phil Harding during experimental replication of pointed, plano-convex handaxes

83

Figure 4.26: A flake in the Wolvercote assemblage with similarities to the dorsal edge flakes identified in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage

86

Figure 5.1:

The plan-form view of handaxes used in the roe deer butchery experiment

92

Figure 5.2:

Different types of grip for different shapes of handaxe

94

Figure 5.3:

Grip exerted on a ficron handaxe

95

Figure 5.4:

Illustration of the ‘arc-shaped stroke’ which can be applied when using ovate handaxes

96

Figure 5.5:

Maximum length of handaxes made by skilled and novice knappers plotted against their maximum thickness

103

A and B above were made by novice knappers, C was made by skilled knapper one and D is a large ficron made by a skilled knapper two

104

Figure 5.7:

Profile views of handaxes made by novice knappers (E and F) and skilled knappers (G and H)

106

Figure 5.8:

A key to classify features relating to knapping skill on handaxes

107

Figure 5.9:

A selection of handaxes produced during the 5 month long study of individual knapping skill Development

108

Figure 5.6:

Figure 5.10: Chart showing that handaxes became progressively well-thinned during the course of the 5 month knapping skill development study

109

Figure 5.11: Chart showing that the time taken to make handaxes varied greatly and did not steadily decrease during the course of the 5 month knapping skill development study

109

Figure 6.1: Figure 6.2:

Map showing the location of Dickett’s Field in relation to the distribution of the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints of southern England

114

A selection of the handaxe trimming flakes identified within the Willis Old Collection artefacts from Dickett’s Field

118

viii

Figure 6.3:

Scrapers identified amongst the flakes in the Willis Old Collection assemblage from Dickett’s Field

118

Artefact 3219 in the Willis Old Collection from Dickett’s Field – described as a bout coupé Handaxe

119

Figure 6.5:

Six of the handaxes in the Willis Old Collection from Dickett’s Field

120

Figure 6.6:

Seven handaxes on display in the Curtis Museum, Alton, Hampshire

120

Figure 6.7:

Four of the cores identified within the Willis Old Collection from the Dickett’s Field site

121

Figure 6.8:

Miscellaneous bifacial fragments identified within the Willis Old Collection from the Dickett’s Field site

122

Position of Palaeolithic artefacts found on the surface of Dickett’s Field during the period of the PADMAC Unit’s excavation in 2000

124

Figure 6.4:

Figure 6.9:

Figure 6.10: Location of the Palaeolithic artefacts on the surface of Dickett’s Field which were recovered during the fieldwalking surveys of 2000 and 2001 127 Figure 6.11: Two handaxe trimming flakes from Dickett’s Field found during recent field-walking at the site

128

Figure 6.12: Cores, handaxes, bifacial fragments and handaxe trimming flakes found during recent fieldwalking at Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm, Hampshire

129

Figure 6.13: A Recurrent Levallois blade core recovered from Dickett’s Field during field-walking

130

Figure 6.14: Two examples of cores which seem to have been flaked with distinct and separate platform and flaking face areas reminiscent of Levallois technique

130

Figure 6.15: A small core found during recent field-walking at Dickett’s Field

131

Figure 6.16: Two strikingly similar, small cordate handaxes recovered from Dickett’s Field during recent Field-walking

131

Figure 6.17: Three bifacially flaked fragments recovered from the surface of Dickett’s Field during recent field-walking

132

Figure 6.18: Two thin, bifacially flaked fragments found during recent field-walking at Dickett’s Field

133

Figure 6.19: A small, triangular biface found on the surface of Dickett’s Field during recent field-walking

133

Figure 7.1:

The nine unit landsurface model (after Conacher and Dalrymple, 1977).

140

Figure 7.2:

Conjoining artefacts shown at 50 % of their original size from the Late Upper Palaeolithic site of Sproughton, Suffolk (Colour version on Page 154).

140

Figure 7.3:

White Patina Type a

145

Figure 7.4:

White patina type b

146

Figure 7.5:

Blue Patina

146

Figure 7.6:

Artefacts with a thin ochreous patina and a deep ochreous patina (Colour version on Page 154).

147

Figure 7.7:

A (life size) view of the surface of artefact DFY 0131 showing a basic yellow patina overlain by white coloured striations with dark surrounds (Colour version on Page 154).

148

ix

Figure 7.8:

Differential depths of patina on artefacts from Dickett’s Field

148

Figure 7.9:

The Development of white patina type b on flint from the Wood Hill area after two 24 hour immersions in 2 molar NaOH.

151

Figure 7.10: Chalk landscape and artefact patination model

152

Figure 8.1:

159

The model of archaeological inference suggested by Schiffer (1976)

List of Tables Table 1.1:

Chronology of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods (after Wessex Archaeology, 1993)

2

Table 4.1:

Results of repeatability tests 1 and 2 for V1 and V2 data sets

60

Table 4.2:

Repeatability test 3 comparing the overall shape of V1 and V2 data

61

Table 4.3:

Items recovered from the Wood Hill Palaeolithic site and frequency of different raw material types from which the flakes were made

72

The dimensions of artefact WHK 84-40-50 and a large flake experimentally produced by Phil Harding during the production of flakes as blanks for pointed, plano-convex handaxes

84

Main morphological properties of the ovate, pointed, plano-convex and ficron handaxes used in this experiment

93

Table 6.1:

Surface finds recovered from the surface of Dickett’s Field from 1998-summer 2000

123

Table 7.1:

Summary of the experiments undertaken in this pilot study of flint weathering types

150

Table 4.4: Table 5.1:

x

Acknowledgements This Book is largely based upon research conducted during my doctoral studies at the University of Oxford (St Cross College) and as a member of the PADMAC Unit at the Pitt Rivers Museum. I wish to thank to my supervisors Professor Derek Roe and Dr Julie Scott-Jackson for fulfilling every possible need that a student could require - and more besides. I am grateful to Dr John Mitchell who introduced me to the work of Julie Scott-Jackson. John also gave me the experimentally produced handaxe and debitage discussed in Chapter 2 and introduced me to Mr Phil Harding, to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for his generous support of my work, especially through the application of his knapping skills. The stone tool-making skills of Dr Nick Barton have also contributed significantly to this research, as has his specialist advice. Other knappers whose input was gratefully received are Mr Martin Green and Mr Geoff Halliwell, who must be thanked for his enormous contribution to my study of the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic assemblage; facilitating access to the assemblage, arranging site visits and providing valuable insights. Martin Green also allowed the deer butchery experiment discussed in Chapter 6 to be conducted in a barn on his property, for which I am very grateful. The butchery of a roe deer was also greatly aided by Mr Michael Small to whom I am very thankful. Many thanks are due to the farmer of Dickett’s Field, Mr David Newman, for permission to conduct field-surveys at the site. For access to the Willis Old Collection artefacts from Dickett’s Field, I would like to thank Mrs Kay Ainsworth at the Hampshire County Museum Services, Chilcomb House, Winchester. I am grateful to Hampshire County Museum Services for permission to reproduce the images of the Willis Old Collection from Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm in chapter 6. Access to the collection from Warren Road Pit, Wilmington was arranged through the Dartford Museum Curator, Mr Chris Baker, to whom I am grateful. Professor Derek Roe and the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, allowed access to the latter’s artefacts from Wolvercote, Hoxne and Limpsfield, which is greatly appreciated and I am grateful to the Pitt Rivers Museum for permission to reproduce the images of these artefacts as seen in chapters 3 and 4. I would also like to thank Dr Roger Jacobi, in particular, for his specialist counsel. Thanks are due to the Pitt Rivers Museum Administration staff and Mr Haas Ezzet who has helped solve many computing problems. A great deal of technical support has been provided by Mr John Orr, who familiarised me with the basic functions of Arcview software and Garmin GPS, Mr Tom Scholes who tirelessly provided advice on Windows software and trigonometry, Mr Ben Leighton for help with video formats and Dr Tyler Bell who lent me his GPS in October 2000. Mr Chris Doherty supervised the accelerated weathering tests discussed in Chapter 7 and allowed free access to microscopes, including use of the Scanning Electron Microscope. I am very grateful to Chris for all his help. Particular academic inspiration and advice has been provided by Dr Ed Rhodes, Dr Marcos Llobera, Dr Sarah Milliken, Dr Francis Wenban-Smith, Dr Anne Haour, Dr Fumiko Ohinata, Dr Lorraine Wild, Dr Arthur MacGregor, Professor Barry Cunliffe, Professor Clive Gamble, Dr Ray Inskeep†, Dr Jacques Pelegrin, Dr Dimitri DeLoecker, Dr Nathan Schlanger, Mr Dietrich Stout and Dr Marta Holder. I remember thankfully the contribution of Dr Bill Waldren† who taught me about the archaeological applications of digital video recording. This research was based at the PADMAC Unit, Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre, Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, funded by the CSA fund for Palaeolithic Archaeology and The Meyerstein Fund (Institute of Archaeology, Oxford University). I am extremely honoured and thankful to have received such generous support. My colleagues at the PADMAC Unit, Dr Julie Scott-Jackson, Dr Helen Walkington, Ms Alice Thomas and Dr William Scott-Jackson, deserve special thanks for their support, humour and significant academic critique. Any errors or omissions are my responsibility alone. Finally, thanks to all my good friends, in particular Hannah, Tom, Nessie and Gracie, Malcolm, Ruben, Steve, Frank ‘Ladybird’ Bailey, all the other hashers and the staff and regulars of the Rose and Crown Public House, North Parade, Oxford. Most especially, thank you to my family.

†

Deceased

xi

xii

Dr. Julie Scott-Jackson. The PADMAC Unit seeks to understand the ways in which the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints formed, and the nature of the processes which have acted upon these complex sediments over geological time. Dr. Scott-Jackson’s own doctoral thesis (1996) focussed upon a previously observed but not understood relationship between certain occurrences of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts and the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints. Scott-Jackson’s (2000; 1996) investigations at the Palaeolithic site of Wood Hill, Kingsdown, near Deal in east Kent, enabled her to model the sedimentological processes involved in Palaeolithic site formation within deposits mapped as Clay-withflints. This model provides the first premise upon which the research presented here is based: that Palaeolithic sites preserved in this context are to be considered in situ (that is, undisturbed and in place, though see discussion of the term ‘in situ’ below).

Chapter 1: Introduction. This publication is largely based upon a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Oxford in October 2002. In order to preserve the technical detail and to report faithfully the trajectory of the research undertaken, I avoided the temptation to make anything more than the essential alterations during the preparation of this text. The exploratory nature of what follows in this, the first dedicated modern study of Palaeolithic assemblages from sites on deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints, means that there is plenty of food for thought. Excitingly, many of the themes touched upon now require further investigation and development. To this end, work is currently underway at The PADMAC Unit (Unit for the study of Palaeolithic Artefacts and associated Deposits Mapped As Clay-with-flints, University of Oxford) interrelated with geological, pedological, sedimentological and landscape archaeology studies.

In this Introduction, relevant aspects of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in southern England and northwest Europe are briefly considered by way of background, and the significance of the research is explained. The specific aims of the book are then stated and an outline of its structure given.

Recent research suggests that the earliest human occupation of the British Isles stretches back to before 500,000 years ago (Wymer, 2001; Andrews et. al. (eds.), 1999; Roberts and Parfitt (eds.), 1999: 307; Ashton et. al. (eds.) 1992: 174) whilst anatomically modern humans do not appear to have arrived in Europe before approximately 50-40,000 years ago (Klein, 1999: 514; Gamble, 1999: 287; Wymer, 1999: 2). During the intervening period, of perhaps half a million years, referred to as the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (though the Lower Palaeolithic period begins much before this in other geographical areas), archaic species of human were at least sporadically present in southern England. Few actual hominid fossils have survived, but there are plenty of other enduring traces of human presence. This book presents the results of an investigation of stone artefacts from southern England which date to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, with particular reference to assemblages from 2 sites at high levels in the landscape.

1.1

Chronological Context.

On human evolutionary time-scales, the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods of southern England are relatively recent. Human ancestors (hominids) diverged from the other great ape lineages between 10 and 5 million years ago (Klein, 1999: 142; Foley, 1997: 71; Bilsborough, 1992: 66). A recent genetic study suggests a date of between 4.6 and 6.2 million years ago for the split between chimpanzee and human ancestors (Chen and Li, 2001) whilst dramatic new hominid fossil finds from Chad in Africa indicate that the hominid lineage stretches back to between 6 and 7 million years ago (Brunet et. al., 2002). If one takes the entire stretch of human ancestry as 6-7 million years and the earliest occupation of southern England as approximately 600,000 years (Wymer, 2001; Roberts et. al., 1995: 165), then the time elapsed since people first set foot in Britain represents the last 10 % of human existence. Similarly, the stone artefacts which mark the earliest occupation of southern England occur at approximately 80 % along the time-line between the first known use of stone tools between 2.6 and 2.5 million years ago (Semaw, 2000) and the present day. It is therefore understood in this book that although different from us in many ways (e.g. demographically and technologically), the earliest people in Britain were genetically and culturally similar to modern humans. Significant cultural and genetic variation is known to exist both between and within modern human societies - the differences between modern people and archaic humans of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic are here considered to be at the extremes of this range of variability but are not so great as to defy analysis in human terms. Undoubtedly, it is the extensive range of human social and cultural flexibility as much as physical adaptability that has

In both cases, the sites are preserved within deposits that appear on British Geological Survey maps as ‘Clay-withflints’. These deposits are of particular significance since they provide a context for the preservation of Palaeolithic archaeological remains in parts of the landscape where they might otherwise have been lost to downhill erosion. It is necessary to stress that although the deposits are mapped as ‘Clay-with-flints’, they are in fact an extremely heterogeneous group. Used on its own, the term ‘Clay-with-flints’ does not adequately describe the character of the deposits to which it has been applied since these may also include silty, sandy and even gravely facies. Here, the term ‘deposits mapped as Claywith-flints’ specifically refers to in situ deposits of varied composition that are located on the hill-tops and plateaux in the Chalk downlands of southern England – crucially, it does not include any hill-side or low-level deposits of Clay and flints which are in secondary context. The study of lithic artefacts reported here was conducted as part of a multidisciplinary, long-term research project undertaken by The PADMAC Unit founded and led by 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Holocene and Pleistocene Subdivisions

British Quaternary Stages

HOLOCENE

Climate

Possible Oxygen Isotope Stages

Possible date in years BP

FLANDRIAN

Warm

1

Present 12, 000

DEVENSIAN

Mainly Cold

2-4

40, 000

5a-d

110, 000

Warm

5e

130, 000

Cold

6

Warm Cold Warm

7 8 9

303, 000 339, 000

Cold

10

352, 000

HOXNIAN

Warm

11

423, 000

ANGLIAN

Cold

12

478, 000

UPPER IPSWICHIAN

WOLSTONIAN COMPLEX

MIDDLE

CROMERIAN COMPLEX

Warm

Sites and Events

Period and Palaeolithic Divisions

Development postMESOLITHIC glacial environments TO MODERN Maximum of ice sheet UPPER 18 - 20, 000 BP reached North Norfolk and South Wales No certain Occupation MIDDLE of Britain Pontnewydd: Sparse occupation of Britain

13

525, 000

Hoxne Many Lower Palaeolithic Sites Swanscombe skull site Major glaciation of Britain

LOWER

High Lodge and other Bytham River sites, Boxgrove, Westbury Sub-Mendip

Table 1.1 Chronology of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods (after Wessex Archaeology, 1993) (Mitchell et. al., 1973). The names of these phases (Cromerian, Anglian, Hoxnian, Wolstonian, Ipswichian, Devensian and Flandrian) are still used today, sometimes in conjunction with OIS numbers, where glacials are always denoted by even numbers and interglacials are identified by odd numbers. However, the OIS data has shown that 13 marked glacials and interglacials occurred during the last 500, 000 years. Any confusion caused by the mismatch between the names for British Pleistocene sequence and the OIS succession is further compounded by the fact that the continental European Pleistocene sequence is known by various other names. Table 1.1 below provides a framework for the chronology of the Palaeolithic period in Britain. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain are currently thought to extend from sometime during or before OIS 13 until OIS 3.

allowed people to populate such a diverse range of environments across the earth over geological time. The British Palaeolithic occurred during the Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, which appears to have started 1.8 – 1.9 million years ago and continued until 10,000 years ago (Lowe and Walker, 1997: 1-3). During the Pleistocene, the climate of Britain oscillated between extremes of Glacial (cold) and Interglacial (temperate) conditions. Long sequences of marine sediments that were laid down throughout the Pleistocene period in certain parts of the world, have provided a record of global climatic change. The marine sediments are composed of plankton skeletons (foraminifera) which contain characteristic ratios of oxygen isotopes (18O:16O). The amount of the earth’s water which is locked up in glacial ice, controls the amount of 18O which is available in the oceans and hence the ratio of 18O:16O within the skeletons of foraminifera (op. cit.:149-154). Information derived from deep sea cores has been used to construct Oxygen Isotope Stages (OIS) which can be related to oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods. A pre-existing model of glacial-interglacial cycles was based on the interpretation of terrestrial sediments and identified only 7 named climatic phases in the British sequence since approximately 500,000 years ago

During the last 750,000 years the climate of northwestern Europe has been characterised by long periods (c.100,000 years) of cold interspersed with shorter periods (c.1015,000 years) of warmer conditions (for more information see the Q.R.A. website). During the height of glacial periods humans must have been absent from the Britain since there would have been no animals to hunt and no plant resources to gather. However, some large

2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION for the removal of a single flake or a series of flakes or blades from a designated flaking surface, via a carefully prepared striking platform. This strategy differs from Clactonian style knapping in which there is no preferential flaking surface and the core is exploited opportunistically.

herbivores were certainly adapted to cooler conditions and it is likely that humans would have been able to subsist in their presence during part of the glacial cycles. For instance, Woolly mammoth, Woolly rhinoceros, Reindeer, Musk ox and horse are known to have been amongst cold stage fauna and these creatures would have provided a means of subsistence. In Interglacial periods, the British fauna (and flora) was more diverse including a greater diversity in species of cervids and bovids (Wymer, 1999: 21), which in turn would perhaps have allowed an easier living for contemporary human populations. Cycles in climatic conditions clearly would have played a role in controlling when archaic humans were present or absent from Britain.

In the past, Clactonian assemblages were viewed as the most simplistic technology and therefore representative of the earliest inhabitants of Britain. The more sophisticated handaxe tools of the Acheulian were thought to have been invented at a later date (beginning as thick, crude forms and evolving towards more refined, slender morphologies), whilst Levallois technique and the Mousterian culture was taken to represent a further level of sophistication. This evolutionary interpretation of the relation between different Palaeolithic cultures was supported by the stratigraphical associations of artefacts in northwest Kent at the famous sites of Swanscombe (Barnfield Pit, Rickson’s Pit), Northfleet (Baker’s Hole) and the Ebbsfleet channel. Here, Clactonian artefacts were found in the oldest deposits, a succession of Acheulian, handaxe bearing gravels lay above and the youngest deposits contained artefacts manufactured by Levallois technique (Roe, 1981: 67-83). However, Roe (op.cit.:191) was able to expand in various ways upon the basic sequence provided by these sites in northwest Kent, including the suggestion that Levallois technique, was certainly known to the Acheulian people of the site of Caddington in Bedfordshire, albeit it in a ‘reduced’ form.

Fluctuating sea-levels during the Pleistocene period meant that, at times, Britain was joined to mainland Europe which allowed the movement of flora, fauna and archaic humans into and out of this region. However, there were also times when sea-levels in the straits of Dover (and also the southern North sea basin and English Channel) rose to isolate Britain (Gibbard, 1995). Changes in sea levels appear to have had a significant impact upon the archaeological record of Britatin. For instance, approximately 130,000 years ago, during a temperate phase (OIS 5e), it is generally agreed that Britain was separated from mainland Europe and accordingly, no evidence of human occupation is known from this period (Wymer, 1999: 33). White (2000) has recently suggested that a particular style of stone tool (twisted ovate handaxes) may even represent the regional tradition of a population in Britain who were isolated from the continent by high sea-levels on an earlier occasion, during the period 425,000 - 360,000 years ago (OIS 11). These examples suggest that patterns of early human occupation in Britain were likely to have been greatly influenced by environmental factors.

More recent discoveries have shown that highly refined handaxes are in fact found amongst the earliest assemblages known in Britain, for instance, at Boxgrove, west Sussex and Frimstone Pit, Feltwell, Norfolk (Roberts and Parfitt (eds.), 1999; Wymer, 2001) which both predate the Anglian Glaciation of approximately 400, 000 years BP (OIS 12 ). Wynn (1985) suggests that the manufacture of such refined handaxes required a level of intelligence which is typical of modern humans and hence that archaic humans had a modern intelligence. Moreover, finely worked flake tools from the site of High Lodge, Mildenhall in Suffolk which were originally thought to have been Mousterian on typological grounds (Coulson, 1990: 12-181; Roe, 1981: 238) have more recently been shown also to date to sometime before the Anglian glaciation (Ashton et. al. (eds.), 1992). It has also been argued that no cultural differentiation exists between the Acheulian and the Clactonian, but rather that they are facies of the same, contemporaneous, knapping traditions (Conway et. al. (eds.), 1996: 217-218).

1.2 Cultural Context. Cultural factors may also have played a significant role in patterning the early archaeological record in Britain, particularly with regard to the type of artefacts made. In the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods, three ‘cultures’ or ‘techno-complexes’, based upon types of stone artefact assemblage, are recognised. These are known as the Acheulian, the Clactonian and the Mousterian. The Acheulian is characterised by the presence of large cutting tools called handaxes and cleavers, which were usually made by removing flakes from two surfaces of a cobble, nodule or large flake, to create sharp but robust edges at the junction between the two shaped faces. Clactonian assemblages contain flakes of stone and the cores from which they were struck, but no handaxes (though see comments below). The Mousterian is a more diverse and complicated entity which sometimes contains handaxes, but more frequently includes flakes and cores made by ‘Levallois’ technique and other forms of prepared core flaking. In the Levallois technique a number of flakes are detached in preparation

It is possible, therefore, that diversity in Lower and Middle Palaeolithic tool types found in Britain may relate to the effects of human agency in different environments and situations rather than evolutionary changes over time. In terms of biological evolution, Rightmire (2001) suggests that all the archaic human species that have been identified in Europe during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic except for the classic Neanderthals who lived 3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

between 130,000 years BP and 30,000 years BP, (Barton, 1997: 79-80), should be grouped together with the African archaic humans from the sites of Broken Hill (Zambia), Elandsfontein (South Africa) and Bodo (Ethiopia). In Rightmire’s (2001) view, this species should be known by the name of Homo heidelbergensis and might well have been the ancestor of both anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals. Similarly, Roebroeks (2001) suggests that the archaic humans who originally peopled northern Europe at around 500,000 years BP remained in this region and gradually developed into the Neanderthals. Clearly, both the archaeological and palaeontological records in northern Europe provide evidence that during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene (and specifically between 500, 000 and 40, 000 years BP) northern Europe was inhabited by a population of intelligent and culturally adaptable archaic humans.

Scott-Jackson, 2000: 7-26). The Tertiary deposits are of heterogeneous composition and may include clays, pebbles, sands and flints, whilst the residue of weathered Chalk appears to supply a small amount of insoluble residue including flints. As a later addition, windblown fine sands and silts derived from Pleistocene Glacial and Periglacial plains have also been deposited upon the DmaC-w-f and incorporated within them (Catt, 1977, 1986). Scott-Jackson (1996, 2000) proposes that the differential weathering of the Chalk, which is liable to create basin-like solution features lined (and in some cases in-filled) by DmaC-w-f has greatly contributed to the potential of these deposits to entrap and protect from downhill erosion Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites at (perhaps surprisingly) the relatively highest levels within the landscape of southern English Downlands. Palaeolithic artefacts have been found on the surface of relatively high areas on the DmaC-w-f across the downlands of southern England, in Kent (Halliwell and Parfitt, 2002; 1993; Scott-Jackson, 2000; Gaunt et al., 1977; Tester, 1952), Wiltshire (Lacaille, 1971; Kendall, 1916) Hampshire (Scott-Jackson and Winton, 2001; Willis, 1947; Ellaway et al., 1934; Crawford et al., 1922), Sussex (Woodcock, 1981; Todd, 1935, 1934) and Surrey (Harp, 2002; Walls and Cotton, 1980; Pemberton, 1971; Carpenter, 1960; 1956). The now famous sites of Worthington Smith in Bedfordshire (Caddington, Round Green, Gaddesden Row, Whipsnade, Slip End, Mixieshill and Ramridge End) were also located on DmaC-w-f (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 30-47; White, 1997; Roe, 1981: 187-188, 191-198; Smith, 1916; 1894). A gazetteer of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic find spots collated by Scott-Jackson and maintained at the PADMAC Unit (University of Oxford) contains information on approximately 1,000 find spots associated with DmaC-wf in southern England. Thus, there many occurrences of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f and the potential of this type of site clearly warrants further investigation.

An alternative point of view is offered by Mithen (1996). He suggests that the evidence for human cognitive capacity prior to the Upper Palaeolithic, is best interpreted as the product of a non-modern, ‘modular mind’. Rather than the free-flow of information between different domains of intelligence (general intelligence, language, social intelligence, technical intelligence and natural history intelligence) experienced by modern humans, archaic humans (including Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthal) were incapable of combining fully ideas from different areas of thought. Mithen (op.cit.: 221-222) suggests that the development of language, from a purely social tool to a medium carrying non-social information, played a key role in the emergence of cognitive fluidity. In Mithen’s view (op.cit.: 240) not even the last of the Neanderthals, with their sophisticated tools, can be thought of as modern, with full cognitive fluidity. Viewed in this light, artefact assemblages from the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in southern England should only provide insights into the technical domain of intelligence and not a means of assessing cultural adaptation (social intelligence).

Palaeolithic sites preserved on the DmaC-w-f provide two main opportunities. In the first place, the site of Wood Hill in east Kent, excavated by Dover Archaeological Group (hereafter referred to as DAG) in the 1980s, and Scott-Jackson in 1993/4 (Scott-Jackson, 2000) has demonstrated that Palaeolithic tools and waste flakes from their manufacture can be found together in in situ contexts in these deposits. The term in situ requires further definition however, since though it means preserved in place, artefacts are inevitably subject to at least some post-depositional effects during and after burial, such as slight deformation due to sediment load or movement induced by worm activity (Satchell, 1967: 264, fig. 3). In this book, the term in situ is used to mean ‘preserved in position of deposition, except for localised displacements due to post-depositional effects’. In comparison with secondary context Palaeolithic sites which abound in the valley terraces of southern England, where artefacts swept from the landscape by solifluction

This book aims to show that aspects of cultural adaptation in European archaic humans (including social intelligence and group dynamics) can be investigated using the evidence of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic stone artefacts. In addition, the book is devoted to the specific question of how best to understand Palaeolithic artefacts preserved within deposits mapped as Clay-withflints, developing themes which were only briefly touched on by Scott-Jackson (1996; 2000).

1.3 Deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints. The deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints (hereafter denoted as DmaC-w-f) of southern England are located upon the highest Chalk plateaux and hill-tops (see Figure 1.1). They are thought to be derived from the weathering products of the Chalk and a layer of Tertiary aged deposits which over lie it (Loveday 1962; Catt, 1986; 4

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1 The distribution across southern England of the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints (DmaC-w-f) marked in black with outline of Upper Chalk also shown (after Catt, 1986). procurement and that the archaic humans probably made their camps in the forested Downland above the plain (Roberts and Parfitt (eds.), 1999: 425). No clear evidence for the use of fire was found during the Boxgrove excavations (Pitts and Roberts, 1997: 275-276), whilst burnt flint was found amongst the Palaeolithic assemblage from the DmaC-w-f site of Wood Hill in east Kent (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 149-151) which, while it is only circumstantial evidence, might suggest that the Wood Hill site does indeed represent a camp (with a camp fire) on the Downlands above the lowland hunting grounds. The study of Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f should be capable of providing new insights into the lifestyle of archaic humans in Britain between 500, 000 and 40, 000 years BP.

or fluvial activity have been deposited together away from their original place of discard (Hosfield, 2001),Palaeolithic sites within the DmaC-w-f are preserved in place. Indeed, at the site of Wood Hill, Kent, two whole flakes excavated in close proximity were found to refit back together, demonstrating that they were detached during a single knapping sequence and that they certainly had not been moved much after deposition (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 136). The fact that tools and waste from their manufacture are found together at sites preserved on DmaC-w-f provides an opportunity to study how stone tools were made, from the selection of raw material through to the discard of used tools. Also, since the DmaC-w-f themselves contain flint and also tend to be located near outcrops of the Upper Chalk which contains good quality, nodular flint, Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f may well have been a focus for knapping activity. Moreover, where good quality raw material was used assemblages are likely to yield examples of desired forms of stone tool and knapping sequences that were not highly constrained by raw material shortage or poor quality.

However, there are some problems associated with the study of Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f. In particular, many Palaeolithic sites are now at threat from erosion caused by modern agricultural practices. Although ploughing has revealed the existence of a considerable number of buried Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f (ScottJackson, 2000; Halliwell and Parfitt, 1993; Willis, 1947) the disturbance of artefacts from their burial position leads to methodological problems, since it is no longer possible to assess the context or in situ spatial distribution of artefacts, topics which are the mainstay of many archaeological investigations. The development of new methodological frameworks for understanding partially plough-damaged Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f is therefore necessary.

The second major opportunity offered by Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f, is the potential for such sites to contribute to our understanding of landscape utilisation during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain. For instance, it has been suggested that the lowland, coastal plain, Lower Palaeolithic site of Boxgrove, in West Sussex was primarily an area of meat

5

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.4 Aims of the book.

Tyldesley (1985; 1987) who distinguished both Acheulian and Mousterian elements within the assemblage. Initial investigations at the site by the PADMAC Unit in 1998, confirmed that Palaeolithic artefacts were still to be found on the surface of this field (see Scott-Jackson and Winton, 2001). The Dickett’s Field site was therefore chosen as the subject of a finds mapping project (1999-2001), to investigate the spatial characteristics of a Palaeolithic surface scatter on DmaCw-f and specifically to show whether Acheulian and Mousterian artefacts came from a generalised scatter across the surveyed area, or whether discrete scatters could be determined. A second objective of the fieldwork was to add to the assemblage of surface-finds from Dickett’s Field.

The specific aims of the research presented here are therefore:1) To investigate cultural and technological adaptation in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Britain through detailed analysis of stone artefact assemblages from selected sites on DmaC-w-f. 2) To devise appropriate methods of analysing Palaeolithic artefacts found in situ and as surface scatters on DmaC-w-f. It is beyond the remit of this book to tackle the major issues of absolute dating of sites on DmaC-w-f or to explain the complex site formation processes which have lead to the preservation of Palaeolithic sites at high-levels in the landscape. However, the PADMAC Unit (University of Oxford) regard these as essential elements of their overall research agenda.

1.6 The Structure of the Book. Each chapter contains a review of relevant literature, any required explanation of methodological approaches taken, the specific aims of the chapter, the results of the research, a focussed discussion and a statement of the conclusions, including suggestions for future research. The following chapter begins with a review of approaches to the study of stone artefacts produced as a result of handaxe-making, and then presents a study of an experimentally produced handaxe and associated waste products from its manufacture. This, in turn, forms the basis for the methodology of artefact recording which was applied to the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage from Kent. Analyses of the Wood Hill assemblage are presented in Chapter Three (which focuses on the analysis of the Tools) and Chapter Four (which looks at the waste products from the manufacture of tools). In Chapter Five, the themes of handaxe functional efficiency and knapping skill development, which developed from the study of the Wood Hill assemblage, are investigated with interesting results regarding handaxe morphological variability. Chapter Six presents the results of investigations (including field-survey) at the site of Dickett’s Field in Hampshire. In Chapter Seven, observations and experiments to investigate the ways in which flint artefacts weather are discussed, with particular reference to how such information may be of use in understanding Palaeolithic sites and surface scatters on DmaC-w-f. The discussion and conclusions chapter (Chapter Eight) comprises a final synthesis of the evidence presented, a review of the research in relation to archaeological theory and provides a final assessment of the methodological advances made during the course of this research, including suggestions for intended future research.

1.5 Two Case-Study Sites. Two case-study sites (Wood Hill, Kingsdown, east Kent, TR 371480) and Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm, Alton, Hampshire, SU 725438) were selected in order to test the three stated aims of this research. Wood Hill was chosen as the first case-study since it is, as we have seen, an example of an in situ Palaeolithic site on DmaC-w-f from which an array of tools and waste products have been recovered from both surface and excavated contexts (Halliwell and Parfitt, 2002; 1993; Scott-Jackson, 2000). A crucial theme in the analysis of the Palaeolithic artefacts from Wood Hill is the integration of analyses of both excavated and surface-finds. As the find locations of artefacts collected from the surface of Wood Hill had not been systematically recorded by DAG, the spatial characteristics of the surface finds and excavated examples could not be compared. Further field-walking at the site would not add greatly to the spatial data for surface-finds since only a relatively small area of DmaCw-f is now under cultivation (most of the hill having been turned to pasture). Moreover, Halliwell (1999, pers. com.) reports that relatively few artefacts are now to be found in the ploughed area at Wood Hill compared with the early years of field-survey at the site. In order to investigate methods of field survey and spatial distribution patterns of Palaeolithic surface scatters, a second case-study site was selected. The site of Dickett’s Field, near Alton in Hampshire was discovered by amateur archaeologist and watchmaker, G.W. Willis F.S.A, his colleagues J.R. Ellaway, H. Rainbow and the esteemed, senior figure (and pioneer of aerial photography) O.G.S. Crawford. They collected Palaeolithic artefacts from the surface of the site between the early 1920s until the 1950s (Scott-Jackson and Winton, 2001; Willis, 1947; Ellaway and Willis, 1934; Crawford et. al., 1922). The artefacts collected from the then called ‘Holybourne’ site have subsequently been studied by Roe (1967; 1968a; 1981), Shackley (1975) and

6

different sites across the landscape and linking together different aspects of human life across space and time. However, if the context of the sites allowed detailed reconstruction, at each site one would be able to deduce that the entire chaîne opératoire was not represented, since at the rough-out locality there would be no finished tools to refit to the initial shaping flakes and at the second locality there would be no initial shaping flakes to refit to the waste flakes and tools, whilst at the third locality only used tools or cores and perhaps a few refitting waste flakes would remain.

Chapter 2: A Study Of Handaxe Reduction Sequences And Derivation Of A Methodology For Analysis Of The Wood Hill Palaeolithic Assemblage. Since both handaxes and debitage from their manufacture (including handaxe trimming flakes) are known from the case study site of Wood Hill in Kent, a study of handaxe reduction sequences was undertaken as an essential preliminary stage in the investigation of this Palaeolithic site. The focus of this chapter, therefore, is to build a corpus of data with which to compare the archaeological assemblage of knapping debris from Wood Hill and thereby elucidate the strategies employed during tool manufacture at the site. Thus, this chapter consists of a critical review of selected literature pertaining to handaxe reduction sequences, a project to record, refit and analyse an experimentally produced handaxe reduction sequence and the outline of a methodology for recording the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage.

A reduction sequence therefore refers to the part of the chaîne opératoire in which a unit of raw material is broken down into a tool, or tools, and waste products. Although in instances of exceptional preservation it may be possible to study the use of Palaeolithic stone tools via use-wear damage and polish analyses, more often than not, reduction sequences constitute the major part of what can be understood of early Palaeolithic chaînes opératoires. The study of handaxe debitage produced experimentally by Phil Harding during a knapping session in 1995 which is presented here, provides an analogy for Acheulian handaxe-making reduction sequences.

2.1 Definition of a reduction sequence The concept of chaînes opératoires is particularly useful with regard to the interpretation of Palaeolithic knapping debris and tools. The aim of the approach in lithic technology studies is to understand the role of each artefact in the entire technological process from the selection of raw materials through the cycle of tool-use to the eventual discard of artefacts with reference to the social context in which this occurs. As such, it provides an invaluable framework for understanding lithic assemblages which goes beyond the rather static interpretations that arise from purely typological analyses. Highly readable accounts of the application chaînes opératoires studies in Palaeolithic archaeology are provided by Barton (1994: 116) Schlanger (1994) and Inizan et. al., (1992: 12). Crucially, in studies of chaînes opératoires, it is not only the used tools which are of interest, but also the waste flakes which were produced as a result of tool manufacture. Each artefact within an assemblage is the result of human action and as such is a potential source of information on the behaviour of ancient people. All possible strands of information that can be deduced from stone artefacts are drawn together in order to elucidate the chaînes opératoires. Archaeological sites usually yield evidence for numerous chaînes opératoires, or parts of chaînes opératoires, which may be reconstructed to a lesser or greater degree depending upon the quality of site preservation and area of excavation. It is also true that many sites were only one location used during the enactment of certain chaînes opératoires: for instance, it is quite common for nodules of flint to be roughed-out at one location, and transported to a second location to be knapped into tools. Tools might be used and discarded at this second location, or carried on to a third locality and used again before final discard at this site. In such an instance, one could envisage a single chaîne opératoire spanning three

The Harding 1995 handaxe was made from a nodule of Chalk flint. Suitable raw materials for the manufacture of stone tools with cutting edges include all those which exhibit a conchoidal or even partially conchoidal fracture type. These are often cherts and volcanic glasses though certain quartzites, basalts and even limestones may also be used. In northwest Europe, flint is an abundant form of chert (an easily knapped stone type) which derives ultimately from solid rock formations such as the Upper Chalk, but which may also occur naturally in derived situations such as gravels. Whole nodules of flint freshly eroded from the Upper Chalk were sometimes exploited as a source of raw material for the manufacture of stone tools during the Pleistocene (e.g. Baker’s Hole, Swanscombe, Kent and Boxgrove, West Sussex). In other cases, nodules derived from gravels appear to have been the utilised source of raw material (e.g. Fordwich, Kent). At Wood Hill, the suggested source of raw material utilised by Palaeolithic knappers is relatively large nodules eroded (though not necessarily freshly) from the local hillsides of Upper Chalk (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 133). Nodules can be of different shapes and sizes but in order to produce controlled, conchoidal fractures it is necessary to strike an edge bearing an angle of less than 90 degrees. Many nodules have naturally fractured surfaces or projections which offer a platform set at an angle of less than 90 degrees from which flakes can immediately be struck. However, the internal composition and structure of stone units used for knapping is often heterogeneous and flawed by cracks – a high degree of inconsistency can seriously affect the progress of a reduction sequence. Thus, the first stage to be completed successfully in any tool-making reduction sequence is the selection of suitable raw material – that is,

7

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

that the junction between the striking platform area currently exploited (i.e. the area hit by the hammerstone to effect flake removals) and the surface from which flakes are being detached would become progressively obtuse and unflakeable as an accumulative effect of the fact that flakes tend to be thicker towards the end which received the blow. In this case it would be necessary either to rejuvenate the striking platform area by detaching a flake from this surface to recreate an angle of less than ninety degrees or to find another striking platform on the core. Thus, reduction sequences necessarily involve changes in the form of flakes detached and changes in the organisation of knapping strategies necessary to detach the required flakes. The pattern of flake scars and morphology of flakes can often provide information about knapping techniques and strategies applied.

raw material exhibiting conchoidal fracture and presenting opportunities to access this property and manipulate it in the manufacture of the desired endproduct. The features of flakes and their relation to the nodule from which they have been struck are shown in Figure 2.1 below. Note how previous removals scar the surface of the flake which is detached next. In the example shown, the flake which is detached seems to be the fifth flake to have been struck in the reduction of this core (previous removals are represented by the flake scars to the left of the removal demonstrated). One can envisage that the first flake struck during this reduction sequence had an entirely cortical dorsal surface (i.e. bearing only the natural, outer ‘skin’ of the stone with no artificial flake scars), whilst the dorsal surface of the flake shown bears the scars of two previously detached flakes and cortex. At this point, a significant part of the core has been decorticated (i.e. the outer skin of the nodule has been removed by knapping). It is perfectly possible that the next flake will bear no cortex at all and from this an archaeologist might conclude that the cortex-free flake was struck from a more latterly stage in the reduction sequence than the entirely cortical flake. If the reduction sequence were to continue, the core would become smaller and therefore the flakes removed from the core would eventually become smaller too. It is also possible

In the making of a handaxe from the progressive shaping of a flint nodule, one would generally expect flakes to become thinner with less retention of dorsal cortex and a greater number of flake scars. There may also be more subtle changes in the quantitative and qualitative attributes of flakes belonging to successive parts of the reduction sequence. Previous research has provided some insights into the nature of change which occurs in artefact morphology over the course of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic knapping sequences.

Figure 2.1: The basic characteristics of flakes detached from a core by hard hammer percussion (after Schick and Toth, 1993). The features marked here as fissures are referred to as ‘hackles’ in the text below.

8

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

2.2 A Critical Review Of Selected Previous Research

Schick (Schick, 1986) contributes further information on the size distribution of artefacts produced during knapping sequences, drawing particular attention to the amount of very small debitage (less than 1 mm in diameter) produced as a by-product of both Oldowan, Acheulian and Levallois style reduction sequences (op. cit.: 22). Cores/core tools, choppers, scrapers, polyhedrons, discoids, handaxes, picks, Mousterian flake tools and Levallois cores were produced during 107 knapping experiments and the resultant debitage analysed. Although not concerned with the distribution of flake attributes over the course of the reduction sequences, Schick’s data reveal interesting consistencies in the size of debitage produced in the 107 knapping experiments, regardless of tool or core type produced.

Worthington G. Smith (1894) was a pioneer in the refitting of handaxe knapping debitage and understood that the void left inside a refitted nodule of flint from the site of Caddington in Bedfordshire corresponded to the handaxe tool taken away from the site by Palaeolithic man. However, it was not until much later that archaeologists began to attempt the quantification of knapping reduction sequences and to seek to understand the thought processes behind them. In 1971, Newcomer published a paper on the manufacture of bifaces (specifically, Acheulian type handaxes). He demonstrated that approximately fifty blows were required to reduce a nodule to a handaxe and that the reduction sequence can be understood as comprising three phases. In the initial 'roughing out' phase, 10-20 thick flakes with varying amounts of cortex on the dorsal surface are detached with a hard hammer applied to plain (or cortical) striking platforms. In the second phase, large and medium soft hammers are used to remove flakes which thin and shape the biface. In order to achieve this, second phase flakes often travel at least halfway across the surface of the rough-out, and remove any bumps and cortex remaining on the surface (Newcomer, 1971: 88). This is accomplished in 10-20 further blows and produces thin flakes with feathered edges, and poorly marked undulations on the ventral surface. The final stage of finishing the handaxe, also with a soft hammer, takes between 15 and 30 blows to achieve and is described as:

Cumulative frequency data on the size of debitage items from the production of flake scrapers, bifacial choppers and bifaces, demonstrate that high proportions of small debitage are characteristic of these types of reduction sequence and that the three curves follow a similar profile indicating once more the basic similarity in the size distribution of debitage from different reduction sequences (Schick, 1986: 29). Experiments conducted by Wenban-Smith show a similar pattern of debitage size distribution (Wenban-Smith, 2000: 226) for Clactonian, Mousterian, Levalloisian and Acheulian reduction sequences, in which flakes 1-2 cm in diameter account for more than 50% of the debitage in all cases. Bradley and Sampson (1986: 29-45) used experimental replication of Acheulian handaxe-making and Levallois core-knapping as the basis for an interpretation of the Lower Paleolithic artefact lithic assemblages from the Caddington sites which were originally documented by Worthington Smith (Smith, 1894). Their experiments involved 5 handaxe-making and 5 Levallois coreknapping reduction sequences. The 5 handaxe reduction sequences produced a total of 278 flakes in excess of 2 cm in length or breadth (Bradley and Sampson, 1986: 32). The flakes detached during the experimental knapping were sorted into sequentially arranged batches of 10% each of the whole reduction sequence. Flake types (non-descript; Levallois flakes; Levallois core trimming flakes; bifacial thinning flakes) and butt types (plain; dihedral; polyhedral; facetted) across the 10% units of each reduction sequence were counted. The trend in flake type across reduction sequences shows that nondescript flakes were most common in the first tenth of the reduction sequence, that Levallois type flakes were not represented in large enough numbers to comment upon, that Levallois trimming type flakes began with a low frequency rising to 14% by the fourth division of the reduction unit, and that bifacial trimming type flakes are absent in the first tenth of the reduction sequence but rise to 12% by the fourth division and 22% in the last. With regard to butt type (platform type), which reflects the method of platform preparation, there was little change in the type of butts noted on flakes throughout the handaxe reduction sequences, except towards the end of knapping

‘the driving off [of] small thin flakes which usually go no further than halfway across the surface of the handaxe, where possible following ridges left by previous removals' (op.cit.: 90). The platforms of flakes removed by soft-hammer percussion might be 'punctiform, linear or shattered' (op.cit.: 88-9). Facetted platforms might also occur (where extra care has been taken to prepare striking platforms for optimum accuracy of flake removals). Newcomer showed that the 3 reduction phases can be identified quantitatively by plotting the weight of removals against the position of the removals in the reduction sequence. The initial phase is characterised by very large, heavy flakes, whilst the finishing flakes are characteristically lighter. In total, in Newcomer’s experiment, the removals from the manufacture of a single handaxe produced 51 substantial flakes and 4,618 other items of debitage which did not go through a 1 mm mesh sieve (i.e. those not numbered as they were struck from the core during the knapping process - presumably because they were not purposefully removed but came off as a by-product of other removals). Interestingly, at Wood Hill, very small debitage, doubtless from comparable knapping procedures, was recovered in the 1993 trench (Scott-Jackson, 2000).

9

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

However, they do not show how these characteristics vary throughout the reduction sequence. For example, it is not possible to determine from the data presented from Wenban-Smith’s experiments whether there is a steady increase in the number of flake scars on the dorsal surface of flakes as the reduction sequence proceeds, or whether flakes become progressively shorter, or progressively thinner. Whilst it is possible to compare archaeological material against the data relating to Wenban-Smith’s knapping experiments (Ashton et. al. (eds.), 1998: 226227) and to suggest whether or not the archaeological assemblage comprises all stages of biface reduction, it is difficult to go beyond this statement and interrogate the progress of the knapping strategies and the process of knapping. Interestingly, Ashton (op. cit.: 230) remarks that Wenban-Smith started to employ his soft-hammer between a quarter and a third of the way through the knapping sequences, whilst the group of archaeological artefacts appear not to include a stage of hard hammer knapping and include only soft-hammer struck flakes. One of Ashton’s (op. cit.: 231) conclusions on the subject of experimental biface manufacture at Barnham is that there is ‘great scope for investigating differences in biface knapping technique’.

where a slight increase towards greater platform modification was noted (op. cit.: 39). Although this analysis goes some way towards demonstrating the ways in which flake morphology varies throughout handaxe debitage sequences, the experiments conducted did not include soft-hammer percussion, which potentially produces flakes of very different sizes and shapes from those yielded by hard-hammer percussion. Moreover, the flake types studied do not exhaustively characterise the flakes produced during the experiment. The fact that Levallois trimming flakes are found in handaxe-making assemblages show that these flake types are not ‘Levallois’ trimming flakes at all. Measures of flake characteristics, rather than the classifications used by Bradley and Sampson (op. cit.: 35), would be of greater use as a comparative data set. For instance, counts of dorsal flake scars and estimates of the coverage of cortex on the dorsal surface of flakes would describe all flakes, including those classed by Bradley and Sampson as type 1 i.e. not Levallois, Levallois trimming, or biface trimming. In order to understand the suitability of the locally available raw material resources for handaxe manufacture at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Barnham in Suffolk, Wenban-Smith conducted a series of knapping experiments (Ashton et. al. (eds.), 1998: 237-244). He employed the use of both a hard hammer (quartzite pebble) and a soft hammer (red deer antler). A total of 18 suitably sized and shaped nodules were selected from the excavated surface of cobble layers but from these, only 8 successful bifaces were produced. Internal frostfracturing was the reason for failure in the other 10 cases. The fact that not all handaxe-making reduction sequences end in the production of a handaxe is a noteworthy point when considering assemblages of Palaeolithic knapping waste. In addition, it is important to recognise that frostfracturing may have a major influence on the course of a reduction sequence. Flaked fragments which bear frostfractured surfaces could have played key roles in the trajectory of reduction sequences.

Studying not handaxe debitage, but that of a Middle Palaeolithic recurrent Levallois core from the site of Maastricht-Belvédère in the Netherlands, Schlanger (1996) gives a good example of how refitting can provide an insight into technological adaptations. The knapping debris he refitted in his analysis of ‘Marjorie’s core’ from the 250,000 year old site, showed that 8 preferentially large flakes were successively prepared (by careful flaking to create a suitable shape on the core) and detached (via facetted butts). Interestingly, as the core diminished in overall size the preferentially large, ‘Levallois’ flakes that were struck from it did not decrease in size accordingly (op. cit.: 243). Schlanger (op. cit.: 242, see Figure 2.2 below) illustrates the sequence of refitted removals in a Harris matrix, which shows the order in which flakes were struck where this could be established for certain, or the relative position within the reduction sequence in instances where it was not possible to determine the actual order of removals. For example, as Figure 2.2 shows, it could not be determined which of flakes 16 and 17 was struck first, though clearly they were both detached before flake 18. Schlanger subdivided the Marjorie’s core refitted reduction sequence into 7 phases, which comprise coreshaping flakes and the subsequent Levallois flakes (though the last sequence of core-shaping flakes led to the abandonment of the core rather than the striking of a Levallois flake).

The flake characteristics of debitage from WenbanSmith’s biface-making experiments at Barnham were used as comparative material in the analysis of the artefacts excavated there (Ashton et. al. (eds.), 1998: 230231). The debitage from four of Wenban-Smith’s reduction sequences, including three successful and one semi-successful knapping experiment, were analysed. The resultant data describe the total frequencies of debitage characteristics such as the amount of cortex cover on the dorsal surface of flakes and the type of platform (or ‘butt’) on flakes in the assemblage.

10

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Figure 2.2: The refitted sequence of flakes detached during the reduction of ‘Marjorie’s core’ from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Maastricht-Belvédère, illustrated as a Harris matrix (after Schlanger, 1996). The boxes with shadows indicate the Levallois flakes.

been identified amongst the Wood Hill Palaeolithic artefacts (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 136-138) and more might be expected during the course of my research.

One way in which it might be possible to investigate differences in biface knapping technique (for which Ashton suggests there is ‘great scope’, see above) is to apply Schlanger’s (1996) style of refitting analysis to handaxe-making reduction sequences. Newcomer (1971) has suggested that there are generally three stages in the manufacture of handaxes (see above) but it is likely that the different types of raw material (i.e. different starting points) and various distinct forms of handaxe (i.e. different end products) might create assemblages of debitage with specifically different characteristics. The practical study of analysis and refitting of handaxemaking debitage presented here represents the first of what is hoped to be many such projects whose aim is to characterise differences in biface knapping technique and thereby contribute to our understanding of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic technological adaptation.

The experimentally replicated handaxe and debitage used in this study were made from nodular Chalk flint in 1995 by expert knapper Phil Harding. The handaxe was made during a flint-knapping demonstration at The Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre. Dr John Mitchell, then a research student at the Centre, collected all the debitage and kept the resultant handaxe. The Harding 1995 debitage was made available to me in my first term of doctoral research. In the first instance, the characteristics of the debitage were recorded. The debitage was then refitted to reveal the sequence in which flakes were struck. Finally, the debitage characteristics were evaluated in relation to the sequential position of removals. I did not see the handaxe itself for the first time until after the debitage had been recorded. This was so that my analysis of the associated debitage was not influenced by prior knowledge of the form of the handaxe from which it had been struck. Thus, the analysis and refitting experiment simulates an archaeological situation in which debitage is studied in the absence of the tool form produced during the knapping sequence. However, once the handaxe debitage had been refitted, I was able to talk to the knapper himself about his knapping techniques and discuss with him my understanding of the reduction sequence. The refitting and analysis conducted with the Harding 1995 handaxe debitage is therefore an evaluation of the information that can be gained from debitage analysis as much as it is a study of how debitage characteristics vary over the course of a reduction sequence.

2.3 Aims Of A New Study. In order to combine a study of the changing nature of debitage characteristics across a whole handaxe-making reduction sequence with personal skill development in recording and refitting debitage, I decided to analyse the whole debitage from an experimentally produced handaxe. Refitting the debitage back together would show the order in which flakes had been struck during the knapping sequence. Data collected on the attributes of debitage could then be related to the position of each artefact within the reduction sequence. The analysis and refitting of an experimentally produced handaxe and its debitage would build upon the experimental work described above (Ashton et al. (eds.), 1998; WenbanSmith, 2000; Bradley and Sampson, 1986; Schick, 1986; Newcomer, 1971) by concentrating on the ways in which attributes of debitage (e.g. dimensions, platform type, distal type, dorsal flake scar pattern) vary in relation to the position of flakes within the overall reduction sequence. The resultant database would provide a good control with which to compare assemblages of Palaeolithic flaked stone artefacts. The importance of the exercise as a means to develop personal skills in artefact recording, refitting and analyses was also great, particularly since refits between artefacts had previously

2.4 Debitage Recording Methodology. The methodology for recording debitage items is described below. The Harding debitage data are given in Appendix I.

11

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

The Harding 1995 debitage was a good opportunity to test this, since the experimental context of the assemblage assured that none of the flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion resulted from deliberate secondary flaking for use. In an attempt to avoid inclusion of scars relating to minor damage which may have occurred since 1995, only flake scars with a surface area > 5 % that of the whole dorsal surface were counted. Analysis of intact negative bulbs of percussion might also provide useful information with regard to the progress of the reduction sequence. In the example shown, flake 1 has been struck from a different platform to flake 2 which demonstrates that at least two striking platforms had been exploited on the core when flake 2 was detached. 5) Orientation of flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion records were based on Ashton and McNabb's (in Conway et. al. (eds.), 1996: 243) method (see Figure 2.4 below).

1) Each item was marked with a unique identification number. 2) Areas of the original outside surface of the nodule i.e. the cortex cover or natural cover remaining on the flake were recorded as an estimated percentage of the dorsal surface of the particular flake being considered, in order to show the degree of modification which had occurred on the nodule throughout the reduction sequence. For example, a flake having a cortex cover value of 100%, was struck from a previously unmodified part of the nodule. Following on from this it might be expected that cortex would be entirely absent on a finished handaxe, although this is not necessarily the case and indeed many handaxes have quite deliberately left cortical butts. It is possible to use the percentage of cortex cover as a technological marker and a point of comparison between assemblages to determine particular methods of reducing a nodule. 3) An additional measure of nodule modification was provided by the total number of primary flake scars on the dorsal surface of a flake. These were recorded as the minimum number of negative flake scars (i.e. the impressions of previous flake detachments, which scar the dorsal surface of artefacts) which were estimated to be greater in area than 5% of dorsal surface. This size threshold of count-worthy flake scars was set because many flakes have damaged edges which are not a reflection of the flake detachments in the original reduction sequence designed by the flint-knapper. Small edge damage scars (often less than 5% of the dorsal surface area) and purposeful, tool-shaping, retouch scars (which may be larger than 5% of the dorsal surface area and are clearly distinguished because they are associated with identifiable series of retouch scars) are classed as secondary. An artefact with many primary dorsal flake scars is certainly from a highly modified part of the nodule. Primary flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion were also counted separately, to investigate whether the position of intact bulbs of percussion on the dorsal surface of flakes could provide information about the dimensions of the nodule from which the flake had been detached: higher frequencies of intact negative bulbs of percussion could suggest the core was relatively small.

Nodule

1

Flake scar with intact negative bulb of percussion.

Flake 1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1. Flakes removed from proximal end only. 2. Flakes removed from proximal and left only, or proximal and right only. 3. Flakes removed from proximal, left and right. 4. Flakes removed from proximal, distal and right only, or proximal distal and left only. 5. Flakes removed from either left only, or right only. 6. Flakes removed from distal. 7. Flakes removed from proximal and distal. 8. Flakes removed from right and left. 9. Flakes removed from proximal, right, left and distal. 10. Dorsal wholly cortical or natural. 11. Flakes removed right, left and distal. 12. Flakes removed from distal and right only, or distal and left only.

Impact 1 Impact 2

2

Flake 2

Figure 2.4: Dorsal flake scar orientation types (After Conway et. al. (eds.), 1996: 243, figure 1).

Figure 2.3: Production of a flake scar with an intact bulb of percussion.

12

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

thought to produce a more pronounced and rounded bulb of percussion than does the use of a soft-hammer.

The orientation of flake scars can be ascertained from the ripple patterns on the negative scar surface (these are the mirror image, so to speak, of features on the ventral surface of the flakes detached) which are concentric about the point of percussion. 6) Primary flake scars without a negative bulb of percussion were counted separately for each artefact. These are flake scars on which the negative bulb of percussion has been erased by subsequent flake removals or the negative bulb never overlapped the margins of the flake before it was detached from the nodule. Figure 2.5 demonstrates how this information might be used for interpreting the nature of the nodule from which a flake with dorsal flake scars showing no bulb of percussion has been struck.

Impact 1

1 2 3

1

2

1 1

2

3

3

2

3

Flake scar without a negative bulb of percussion.

Nodule

1 2

Impact 2

4 Flake 1

Flake 2

2

1 1

2

5

6

1. Parallel flaking on the dorsal. Two or more flake scars indicating parallel removals from a single or adjacent platforms. 2. Simple alternate flaking on the dorsal. A sequence of flake scars showing that one or more removals formed the platform for one or more further removals. 3. Complex alternate flaking on the dorsal. Similar to 2, but showing evidence of at least one more turn of the core. 4. Parallel flaking on the butt. Similar to 1, but the flake scars indicate removals from the same platform as the actual flake, that flake being the last removal in that sequence. 5. Simple alternate flaking on the butt. Similar to 2, but the sequence is positioned on the butt, with the actual flake forming the last removal in the sequence. 6. Complex alternate flaking on the butt. Similar to 3, but the sequence is positioned on the butt, with the actual flake forming the last removal in the sequence.

Figure 2.5: An example of a primary flake scar with no negative bulb of percussion. Here, only the distal part of flake 1 is represented in negative on the dorsal surface of flake 2 and no trace of the negative bulb of percussion of flake 1, which would indicate the proximity of its striking platform. 7) Orientations of flake scars without intact negative bulbs of percussion are as shown in Figure 2.4. 8) The recording of Relict Core edges follows the methodology which was designed by Ashton and McNabb (in Conway et al. (eds.), 1996: 243) for use on core and flake technology of artefacts from Swanscombe. It seemed that relict core edges could exist in handaxe debitage, since the handaxe rough-out in a sense plays the part of a core from which flakes are struck. Figure 2.6 shows the 6 types of flake scar pattern (of flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion) which comprise the relict core edge typology. Type one to three refer to previous 'episodes' of flake removals and are therefore 'passive' relict core edges. Type four to six refer to 'active' core episodes in which the flake itself forms part of a sequence of removals. 9) Bulb roundness was measured on a relative scale of 0-3, where 0 means that the bulb is missing, 1 equates to a bulb that is present but flattened, 2 means that it is rounded and 3 means that it is very well rounded. The roundness of a bulb relates to the percussion that detaches the flake from the nodule. Hard-hammer percussion is

Figure 2.6: Diagram to illustrate relict core edge types 1 to 6 (after Conway et al. (eds.), 1996: 243, figure 2). The numbered arrows represent flake scars in which the number relates to the order in which flakes were struck and the direction of the arrow represents the direction of flake scars.

13

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

hard hammer percussion often have larger platforms than those removed with a soft hammer.

10) Positive cones of percussion, hackles, ripples and inclusions in the raw material were noted: the presence (indicated by 1) or absence (indicated by 0), of a distinct cone. A distinct cone of percussion with a marked point of impact on the platform can indicate the use of a hard hammer, since the force of the blow tends to be very focussed with a hard hammer. The presence of hackles relates to the percussion which detached the flake. The presence of ripples was recorded with the aim of determining any particular patterning of this attribute in relation to other features (e.g. platform type or distal type). The presence of inclusions in the raw material was also recorded: this was designed to note to any heterogeneous inclusions in the raw material which may have affected the morphology of the artefact. Any particular observation on this topic could then be expanded upon in the interpretation. 11) Bulbar scar dimension recording was a worthwhile experiment during this early stage of the research. It was accomplished by measuring the length and the width of the bulbar flake scar. A value of 0, indicates that there was no bulbar flake scar. As with bulb roundness, the presence of a bulbar flake scar may be related to percussion. A large, transverse scar could be indicative of soft hammer percussion (Dumont, pers. comm.) 12) Bulbar scar orientation was recorded as shown in Figure 2.7 below. The bulbar scar orientation was recorded in order to investigate possible patterns of association with other features (e.g. platform or distal type) - for instance, a pattern related to the percussion type i.e. soft hammer versus hard hammer. This was recorded as 1 (left oblique); 2 (right oblique); or 3 (straight).

1

2

1: Plain - one flake scar

3: Polyhedral – many flake scars

5: Cortical

7: Linear – a thin edge

2: Dihedral two flake scars

4: Facetted – many whole flake scars

6: Punctiform - a small point

8: Mixed – any mixture of types

0: No platform; 9: Indeterminate platform type

Figure 2.8: The platform types recorded. Note that the difference between polyhedral and facetted platforms is that the flake scars across the latter have intact negative bulbs of percussion and relate to deliberate platform preparation on the part of the knapper. Platforms of type 8 (Mixed) are essentially platforms of indeterminate type but instances in which the combination of different platform types could be identified and recorded. The platform that is both cortical and plain would be recorded as 8 (1 and 5).

3

Figure 2.7: Diagram showing the ventral surfaces of flakes with bulbar scars of orientation types 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

15) Flaking angle is the measurable angle between the ventral surface and the platform and relates to the angle on that part of the edge of the nodule which was used as a platform to detach the piece. This angle was recorded as a quantification of the relationship between the stage of the reduction of the nodule and the angle of the platforms on the nodule/nascent biface. 16) The Distal termination types recorded are illustrated in Figure 2.9. There is a relationship between knapping technique and the type of distal termination, though the latter is also subject to variation depending upon raw material properties.

13) Platform type was recorded in the categories illustrated in Figure 2.8. The platform type provides information on the techniques of detaching flakes which were applied by the flint-knapper. Facetted platforms suggest the careful preparation of striking platforms, whilst plain platforms may imply that flakes were struck with little preparation (although the morphology of the surface from which the intended flake is to be struck may be already so well defined as to obviate the need for careful platform preparation). 14) Platform dimensions were recorded as the maximum width and maximum thickness of the platform. These measurements were taken to investigate the relation between the position of flakes in the reduction sequence and the size of their striking platforms. Flakes struck by

17) Length was measured (in mm) parallel to the direction of the blow which detached the flake from the nodule/nascent handaxe; hence, it was not necessarily the largest dimension. Incomplete flakes were also

14

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

measured, although the fact that they were broken was noted so that they could not be confused with whole artefacts in the final analysis of these data. See Figure 2.10.

B A

Length 1: Feathered – thinned

2: Hinged – rounded

A 3: Stepped – abrupt

B

Width

4: Plunging – over-reaching

0: No distal; 5: Indeterminate; 6 Mixed Figure 2.9: Illustration of flakes (shown in profile viewed and shaded a light grey) and the cores from which they have been detached (shown in dark grey below the flakes) showing the categories of distal termination type recorded in this analysis.

A

B

Max. Dimension

18) Width was measured (in mm) as the maximum dimension of the artefact at right angles to the line along which the length had been measured. See Figure 2.10. 19) Thickness was measured (in mm), as the maximum distance between ventral and dorsal surface, perpendicular to the plane of the width measurement. See Figure 2.10. 20) Maximum dimension was recorded (in mm) as the longest dimension of the piece regardless of orientation. It was taken as a general measure of size. See Figure 2.10. 21) Weight was recorded (in grams) and provided a general indicator of size. 22) Artefact Groupings were based on Newcomer's (1971) three stages of handaxe reduction. Initially, there were four groups (initial flakes; shaping and thinning flakes; finishing flakes; and flakes of indeterminate position within the group). Subsequently, the fourth group was subdivided into 4 (1/2) and 4 (2/3) and 4, in order to distinguish artefacts which could not be confidently attributed to groups 1 to 3 and yet which appeared to have more features of either the initial or shaping phase (i.e. group 4 [1/2]) and those with apparent features of the later stages of handaxe reduction (group 4 [2/3]). However, it was necessary to maintain group 4, since some pieces (broken items in particular) could not be assigned to any other group.

A

B

Thickness

A

B

Figure 2.10: Illustration of the main dimensions measured on two different flakes (A and B). Note that Length is always measured as the longest distance between proximal and distal margins along the axis of orientation of the hammer blow which detached the flake from the core. In the case of ‘A’ the maximum dimension coincides with the width, whilst on flake ‘B’ the maximum dimension is the same as the length. 23) An overall discursive interpretation of each item in the Harding debitage, allowed any further observations to be noted.

15

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Figure 2.11: Both faces of the Harding 1995 Handaxe. The debitage comprises complete flakes, flake fragments (proximal, mesial, distal and lateral) and irregular ‘chunks’ whose morphology is partially governed by the form of internal fracture planes (frost-cracks) within the raw material. There is a great variation in the size of debitage, from a large chunk weighing 1063.8 g through to the very tiniest dust fraction.

2.5 Results: Reduction Sequence Analysis. 2.5.1 General Description Of The Harding 1995 Handaxe And Debitage. The handaxe is a large, ovate type, as can be seen in the plan views of the two faces shown in Figure 2.11 above. It has a maximum length of 155 mm, a maximum breadth of 105 mm and maximum thickness of 30 mm. A sharp cutting edge extends around the whole circumference of the tool except for 2 small areas of rectangular shape (approximately 20 mm long and 10 mm wide) which present faces perpendicular to the edge and disrupt the acute angle of the cutting edge. In retrospect, the eye of experience suggests that neither of these perpendicular faces on the edge would have been impossible to eradicate but that Harding must have elected to leave these projections. Overall, the edges are of a somewhat irregular, jagged form in both plan and profile and have not been very carefully trimmed. All the major stages of reduction are represented in the debitage, from earliest shaping with hard-hammer percussion, through to the detachment of shallow soft-hammer flakes. However, the lack of attention to detail in the final finishing of the edges suggests that one might expect some underrepresentation of this type of flake in the associated debitage assemblage.

The combination of great variation in size and the presence of many flake fragments as well as complete flakes and ‘chunks’ presents a problem to analysis since it is clearly not possible, nor indeed would it be worthwhile to analyse each individual item of flint detached during a reduction sequence at the same level of detail. Most studies of lithic artefacts suggest that a lower size limit of 20 mm diameter can usefully be imposed upon assemblages to sort the larger debitage to be used for analyses from the small fraction (Schick, 1986:13; Ashton et al. (eds.), 1998: 199). In the first place, dividing the assemblage into two groups of < 20 mm diameter and > 20 mm diameter is problematic since in a single reduction sequence there may be 200 or more items > 20 mm and many more which are below this threshold. Ideally, sieving should not be used because flakes have axes of different lengths so that sieving would not sort artefacts reliably by the longest axis of each artefact. Moreover, sieving could damage the debitage. It is therefore necessary to sort through the debitage by hand and select the items with a maximum dimension >

16

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Due to the large number of individual items within the smaller fraction (including some flakes which were in fact > 20 mm in diameter) it was necessary to take a sample. The whole of the smaller fraction weighed 204.6 grams. This was split into two to provide samples weighing 102.3 grams each. Particular care was taken to ensure that all sizes of artefacts were proportionally represented in both halves of the sample. One half was then divided again by the same method to give two quarters weighing around 51.15 grams.

20 mm. This was the first stage of analysis of the Harding 1995 debitage, during which 190 flakes > 20 mm in diameter were selected for recording. The selection of debitage > 20 mm was made by picking out all the items which seemed to be of the right size from the container and measuring them to make sure that they were indeed > 20 mm. However, a number of items > 20 mm were found within the smaller fraction during the preparation for a second phase of analysis, which was conducted after the recording and refitting in order to gain an overview of how the smallest fraction compared to the fraction > 20 mm. This demonstrated that the initial sorting method had been inadequate. Indeed, within the main debitage, 3 of the 190 items subsequently proved to be one or two millimetres < 20 mm.

One quarter was then selected as the sample for analysis and divided three-ways according to size. Each item > or equal to 15 mm was sorted into the ‘intermediate’ size group, along with the debitage < 25 mm in diameter from the main debitage. Pieces with maximum dimensions exceeding 3mm but < 15 mm formed the ‘small fraction’; and those whose maximum dimension is less than 3mm were discarded from further analysis. The latter two categories were in fact sorted by sieve since it seemed the only reasonable way to deal with the great number of individual pieces involved. Thus, three size grades of material can be compared: these are debitage > 20 mm, debitage of approximately 20 mm (15 mm to 25 mm) and small debitage of < 15 mm but > 3 mm in diameter.

A second and more profound problem of sorting the debitage, is whether a size boundary of 20 mm diameter makes a meaningful division between the debitage to be used and omitted in analysis. Since many flakes in an assemblage may be broken, is it really useful only to consider the individual fragments > 20 mm in diameter? Perhaps not, since this would mean that some important features of the debitage were underrepresented or not present at all in the sample > 20 mm in diameter. For example, fragment 204 in the refitted reduction sequence of the Harding 1995 handaxe debitage is < 20 mm in diameter, since it is the small, proximal part of a softhammer struck flake. A strict imposition of the < 20 mm rule could mean that the proximal parts of soft-hammer struck flakes (which quite often break at the time of detachment) were severely underrepresented, producing a distortion in the data on platform types. Callow (Callow and Cornford (eds.), 1986: 200) remarks that artefacts < 20 mm were not included in the first round of analyses of artefacts from the Middle Palaeolithic site of La Cotte de St. Brelade, but that during the course of investigations it became increasingly clear that the fraction of artefacts < 20mm in diameter would yield important information about on-site knapping activities. This supports the suggestion that not only are artefacts of approximately 20 mm in diameter difficult to deal with, but they are also potentially of great interest in understanding the overall character of knapping sequences.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3mm to 15 mm > 15 mm to 25 mm

% broken flakes

On recognising that there had been a difficulty with the sorting and analysis of the Harding 1995 debitage, particularly the debitage in proximity to the size boundary between the large and small fractions, I decided that, in addition to the designed second phase of analysis to compare the smaller and larger fractions, I would test whether there was any significant difference between the character of these two size groups and an intermediate size group of circa 20 mm. I was interested to see how the size grades compared in terms of cortex cover and frequency of dorsal flake scars, since these two criteria were found to vary in relation to the reduction sequence in the main analysis and therefore seemed to provide technologically significant information.

> 25 mm

% whole flakes

Figure 2.12: The percentage frequency of broken and whole flakes in different size grades in the Harding 1995 Debitage. In the first place, it is interesting to note that there is no great difference in the frequency of broken flakes across the size grades, as can be seen in Figure 2.12 above. There does appear to be a consistent trend in the frequency of occurrence of flakes with or without cortex cover, as illustrated in Figure 2.13. The smallest size grade has a lower frequency of debitage with cortex at 10 %, whereas 27.5 % of the intermediate size group has cortex and 44% of the large size grade has at least some

17

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

dorsal flake scars which means that there is more potential for using the number of dorsal flake scars for interpreting reduction sequences. The intermediate status of the debitage >15 mm to 25 mm with regard to the number of dorsal flake scars and cortex cover suggests that the size of these flakes and flake fragments differentiates them slightly from the character of the largest size grade.

trace of cortex. That smaller flakes are less likely to have any cortex on their dorsal surfaces is to be expected since decortication is primarily conducted in the early stage of reduction when large flakes are detached (rather than small flakes) Also, since only the outermost part of the nodule bears cortex, then the majority of flakes struck from the inside of the nodule will not bear cortex; thus, one would not expect the greater number of small flakes to have the same proportion of cortical flakes as the smaller number of large flakes. The smallest size grade has fewer items of debitage with cortex cover and therefore has far less potential for interpretation of reduction sequence information. This provides support for the appropriateness of including only larger debitage in the full analysis. It is interesting to note that 80 % of the very largest debitage (> 80 mm) bears cortex. This demonstrates that the potential of larger artefacts to have at least some cortex cover is greater than it is for smaller artefacts (which have less dorsal surface area).

Size appears to have an influence on the overall pattern of debitage characteristics. The intermediate size fraction does have a slightly different signature of dorsal flake scar frequencies and cortex cover from the larger size fraction (the main assemblage studied below) and the difference between the large size fraction and the smallest debitage studied is quite pronounced. With regard to the problem of how to define the lower size limit of material to be included within main data recording and analyses, a semi-quantitative, semiqualitative methodology of sorting is proposed. In experimental circumstances (where the entire debitage is preserved including the dust fraction) all items > 20 mm must be selected. This cannot be done reliably by picking individual pieces out of a container full of debitage. Rather the debitage needs to be laid out so that the outline of each piece can be clearly shown to exceed the bounds of a square with edges 20 mm long. This is the only way to be sure that the artefacts have not been damaged during sieveing and that all the pieces > 20 mm have been selected. Items < 20 mm should then be searched for any proximal fragments, since these are the only fragments which can provide important additional information which is not represented within the assemblage > 20 mm. That the debitage > 3mm < 15 mm was shown to have quite different properties to the main debitage is of interest and perhaps suggests that this material has its own potential for certain types of information (perhaps the quality of the raw material, or the style of platform preparation which might account for some of the flake removals in this size range). However, the purposefully knapped component of the reduction sequence is likely to have its strongest signals in the larger material (that > 20 mm), not least because this is the size grade whose features are most plainly visible. Broken and whole fragments are to be included within the larger fraction selected for analysis, in order to limit as far as is possible the bias towards overrepresentation of features found on the more robust categories of debitage.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3mm to > 15 mm All > 25 > 80 mm 15 mm to 25 mm mm only

% with some cortex

% without cortex

Figure 2.13: The percentage frequency of debitage with and without cortex cover across size grades. The distribution of number of dorsal flake scars in the large size grade shows that 56% of debitage have 3 or more flake scars compared with 33% of the smallest size grade. The intermediate size grade has an intermediate frequency of debitage with 3 or more flake scars (48%). The smallest size grade has approximately equal representation of flakes with 1, 2 and 3 or more flake scars, whilst the largest size grade has far more debitage with 3 or more flake scars than with either 2 or 1 flake scars. Unlike the smallest size grade, many of the flakes in the largest size grade have substantially more than 3

Although there was undoubtedly some difficulty with the application of a quantitative lower size boundary for the assemblage analysed, improvements to the method of initial size sorting have been suggested accordingly. The results discussed below are thought to be representative of the debitage struck during the Harding 1995 handaxe reduction sequence, since all the major qualitative phases of reduction (from roughing out to soft-hammer flaking) are represented within the assemblage studied and refitted.

18

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

biface was completely roughed out before the other face, or whether the nodule was highly mobile during the early stages of reduction, with flakes being struck from both faces and reduction progressing equally on either side of the nodule. The arrangement of the striking platforms of the last removals in reduction sequences 2 and 3 suggested that sequence 2 preceded 3. In fact, it is likely that sequences 2 and 3 did indeed progress separately and in that order, without removals being struck interchangeably from both faces of the nodule.

2.5.2 Refitting The Harding 1995 Handaxe Debitage. The refitting exercise involved finding as many conjoins as possible from within the whole assemblage. Schick's (1986:13) previously noted comment that very few artefacts with maximum dimensions less than 20 mm were ever refitted, seemed to hold true. Refits in the Harding 1995 handaxe debitage were either between fragments of broken flakes, or between flakes which had been sequentially detached. A third type of refit is between flakes and the retouch modifications that have shaped them into tools (Czeisla, 1987:15), such as burin spalls, but these were not relevant to the refitting of the Harding 1995 debitage. In order to find refits between broken fragments of flakes, the fragments were arranged in proximal, mesial and distal groups which made it easier to find matching pieces. The pattern of inclusions within the raw material which mark the surfaces of flakes with light grey mottles were of great assistance in finding sequential refits between flakes.

In May 1999, I visited Mr. Phil Harding to discuss the reduction of the refitted handaxe reduction sequence. Harding concurred with the overall reduction sequence suggested and was able to verify that his normal method of knapping an ovate biface was to rough-out one face first and then the other, rather than reducing both faces of the rough-out at the same time. Harding then knapped a second handaxe (which in fact broke during manufacture) in order to demonstrate to me his method of roughing out one side of the biface before starting to shape the other side. One wonders whether or not all modern flint knappers work in this way or whether all handaxes made from nodules of flint in the Palaeolithic were made by such a reduction strategy. Whittaker (1994: 206) states that, when making a biface, he also works on one face at a time.

After the Harding 1995 debitage had been refitted, the nodule was dismantled piece by piece, to reveal the logical sequence of flake removals which is shown in Figure 2.16 below. Unlike the example given by Schlanger (1996) of the refitting debitage from a Middle Palaeolithic recurrent Levallois core (see above), the Harding 1995 reduction sequence was not punctuated by the striking of Levallois flakes which neatly drew to a close individual phases of knapping. Rather, in the case of the Harding 1995 refitted debitage, individual sequences of knapping were identified as those comprising largely overlapping flake scars struck from closely adjacent platforms. Where flakes did not overlap to a large degree and the platforms for the removals were not closely adjacent, a junction between individual knapping sequences was acknowledged which was thought to represent a change in focus of the knapping strategy as it developed throughout the handaxe-making reduction sequence. A number ‘sequences’ thus identified contained just one refitted flake, though in some of these cases the complete sequence, should it have been possible to conjoin it in full, might have contained several removals from this part of the nascent handaxe.

Harding demonstrated during our discussion, that the reduction of the refitted nodule could be seen as comprising four main units. The first unit of removals corresponds to what has been identified as reduction sequence 1 (see Figure 2.16), where up to six removals were struck from the nodule at the beginning of the reduction. This sequence ended in the nodule breaking into two pieces due to an internal flaw in the raw material. The implication of this was that Harding had to re-assess whereabouts in the nodule he visualised the handaxe. Apparently, visualising where the handaxe lies within the block of raw material is the essential first step in the manufacture of Lower Palaeolithic style bifaces (Harding pers. comm.). This involves consideration of the minimum thickness of the raw material (which will constrain the maximum thickness of the handaxe, see Figure 2.15 below) and the maximum width and length of the raw material (which will provide the maximum limits for plan-form dimensions of the handaxe, see Figure 2.17). When Harding started to knap the nodule, he was unaware of the internal flaw which caused the nodule to split at the end of reduction sequence 1 and which significantly affected the dimensions of the nodule and hence the potential position of a handaxe within the nodule.

Where no mutually overlapping flake scars existed between individual reduction sequences it was not possible to be certain of the order in which flakes had been detached. For example, reduction sequences 2 and 3 (Figure 2.16 below) had been struck from opposite faces of the biface and therefore did not scar one another (see Figure 2.14 below). The platforms of flakes detached in sequence 2 are shown at the top of the nodule and those of 3 at the base of the nodule. It was possible that the flakes in sequences 2 and 3 had been detached interchangeably and not as two discrete sequences at all. It was critical to the comprehensive understanding of the entire handaxe reduction sequence and the knapping strategy employed, to know whether one face of the

The second unit of removals identified by Harding corresponds to reduction sequence 2 (see Figure 2.16 below). He explained that one of the main principles of biface manufacture is the smoothing out of erratic natural convexities and hollows in surface of the raw material. This principle is clearly at work in reduction sequence 2,

19

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

comprised the flakes removed by soft hammer. In Harding’s three previous units of removals, all the flakes had been detached using a hard hammer and reflect the roughing out stage of the manufacture. The roughout from which Harding’s 1995 handaxe was made is shown in Figure 2.15 below. Harding remarked that although in this case an ovate biface was produced, this need not have been the case. The roughing out stage provided a disc of raw material which exploited the dimensions presented by the original nodule and from this starting point, the thinning phase could have proceeded to create a pointed or a cleaver form.

where the platforms of flakes 038, 037, 015, 062, 047, and 072-101 are situated approximately 130 mm away from the platforms of flakes 019-007 and 016, though both platform areas are exploited with the single aim of smoothing out convexities about a central concavity (indicated as the minimum thickness of the nodule in Figure 2.17).

2

1

3

2

3 100 mm Figure 2.14: A view of the 1995 Harding debitage refit, showing the arrangement of reduction units 1, 2 and 3. The third unit of removals identified by Harding was a unit of flakes corresponding to reduction sequence 3 (see Figure 2.16). The second removal in this sequence is artefact 018, which he remarked was an exceptionally 'good' flake because it removed a huge amount of the unwanted convexity on this face of the nodule. He also noted that the importance of this artefact, in terms of the role it played in the formation of one side of a biface, would not be recognised in the absence of refitting: without seeing the piece in refitted context the artefact would be interpreted as a large, cortical flake removed by hard-hammer percussion, possibly a product of core reduction rather than biface manufacture. It is also interesting to note that some of the flakes identified by Harding as having been removed by hard hammer are relatively thin with slightly curving profiles (e.g. 035, 058 and 039). This demonstrates that the hard hammer can be applied to remove accurate shaping flakes, even though Newcomer (1971) suggests that such shaping is to be achieved with a soft hammer in the post-rough out knapping phase (i.e. stage 2 and 3). This supports the claim that there are no real boundaries between initial flaking, shaping and thinning in handaxe reduction sequences (Austin, 1994).

Figure 2.15: The handaxe ‘rough-out’ from the Harding 1995 debitage refit with Phil’s hands for scale. The changing nature of debitage characteristics across the Harding refitted reduction sequence is illustrated and discussed below. Reduction units A, B and C (see Figure 2.16 below) correspond to Newcomer's (1971) three stages of biface manufacture: roughing out; shaping and thinning; and finishing. The whole refitted reduction sequence comprises 74 separate removals, of which only 28 were complete rather than reconstituted from refitting proximal, mesial, distal or lateral parts. In total, 100 fragments were refitted. Since the refitted flakes are arranged in order of their detachment, the reduction units ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ comprise a third of the whole refitted reduction sequence each (74 removals divided by three), to the nearest division between separate sequences: reduction unit ‘A’ contains all fragments (37 items, 27 removals) in sequences 1, 2 and 3; reduction unit ‘B’ comprises sequences 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,. 11, 12, 13 (29 items, 24 removals); and reduction unit ‘C’ contains sequences 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (31 items, 23 removals).

The final unit of removals identified by Harding

20

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Figure 2.16: The refitted sequence of the Harding 1995 debitage in which the final oval represents the finished handaxe. Reduction units ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ (see below) comprise the artefacts within the 3 bordered units respectively. Individual sequences are identified by the numbers in shaded boxes.

21

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

These lines mark the long axes of the nodule

This line marks the maximum width of the nodule after reduction sequence 1.

This line marks the minimum thickness of the nodule.

100 mm Figure 2.17: Dimensions of the 1995 Harding debitage refit. refitted sequence, represented by reduction units ‘A’ to ‘B’ a different pattern emerged: one in which flakes removed in the final stage (reduction unit ‘C’) are, on average, longer than those produced in the middle of the sequence. This is not predicted by Newcomer’s model (Newcomer, ibid.). However, the standard deviations for the length data for units ‘B’ and ‘C’ are 19.0 and 32.0 respectively because reduction unit ‘C’ includes one very long artefact (flake identification number 115).

During the recording of the debitage > 20 mm, each artefact was assigned to a particular group. As previously noted, the groups reflect my interpretation of which debitage belongs to each of Newcomer’s phases of handaxe reduction (Newcomer, 1971). Group 1 is equivalent to Newcomer’s roughing out phase, group 2 represents the middle ‘shaping and thinning’ phase and group 3 comprises the flakes thought to belong to the final finishing stage. A fourth group was set up to accommodate items of indeterminate character with regard to their position in the reduction sequence. Debitage assigned to group 4 is not included in the following analyses since this could not be easily compared to reduction units A, B and C. Unless otherwise stated, all analyses below include both broken and whole debitage, since the fragmentary debitage is as much a part of the assemblage as the flakes which are complete. Unless otherwise stated, only flakes (and not irregular chunks) are included in the analyses, to allow comparison with archaeological assemblages in which only items recognisable as flakes and flake fragments (and not irregular fragments) would be recorded and analysed.

Lengths of complete flakes (mm) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2.5.3 Debitage Dimensions.

1 Length and Maximum Dimension.

Groups

The Group 3 data for complete flake lengths (Figure 2.18) and maximum dimension (Figure 2.19 below) are in accordance with Newcomer’s (1971: 90) suggestion that finishing flakes tend to be shorter than thinning and shaping flakes, since I consistently assigned the smallest flakes to group 3 (i.e., I interpreted small flakes as belonging to the last phase of knapping). However, in the

2

3 Reduction Units

Figure 2.18 The distribution of mean flake length measurements (complete artefacts only) across Groups and Reduction units (Reduction units A, B, C are compared with Groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively).

22

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Width and thickness.

Maximum Dimension (mm) 80

Width of complete flakes (mm)

70 60

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

50 40 30 20 10

1

0 1

2

Groups

Reduction Units

Figure 2.21 Distribution of mean widths across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C (includes flakes with whole width dimensions only).

The width of flakes shows a more consistent pattern of decrease in magnitude across reduction units (i.e. the whole refitted reduction sequence) than does length, though there is less differentiation between units ‘B’ and ‘C’ than there is between ‘A’ and ‘B’ (see Figure 2.21 above). The distribution of thickness (and also weight) shows a similar trend with less differentiation between reduction units ‘B’ and ‘C’ than between ‘A’ and ‘B’.

The distribution pattern of mean maximum dimension values across Reduction Units (see Figure 2.19) show that the longest axis of flakes and flake fragments does not vary much between Reduction Units ‘B’ and ‘C’. Interestingly, I have noted that the mean lengths across reduction units ‘A’ and ‘B’ of broken fragments (see Figure 2.20 below) are approximately the same, but rise in unit ‘C’, suggesting that in the last phase of reduction, flakes tend to break into slightly longer fragments, than in the earlier phases.

Platform dimensions.

The mean platform width values for Reduction units ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ were 26 mm, 24 mm, and 17 mm respectively (though there were only two measurements in unit ‘C’). Platform thickness also decreased during the course of the refitted reduction sequence from an average of 16 mm in reduction unit ‘A’ to 5 mm in unit ‘B’ and 4 mm in unit ‘C’ (though again, there were only two values in unit ‘C’, which means that the average may be uncharacteristic of the final stage of knapping). Decreasing platform width and thickness is a less pronounced feature of the group data, and indeed, the mean platform width actually increases from 14 mm to 19 mm in groups two and three.

Length of broken flakes 50 40 30 20 10 0 2

3

Groups Reduction Units

3

Fi gure 2.19 The distribution of mean maximum dimensions of complete and fragmentary flakes across Reduction units and Groups (Reduction units A, B, C are compared with Groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively).

1

2

3 Bulbar scar dimensions.

Groups Reduction Units

In reduction units ‘A’ and ‘B’, the bulbar scar area (i.e. bulbar scar length multiplied by bulbar scar width) decreases from 296 mm2 to 119 mm2, but there are too few bulbar scars in refitted reduction unit ‘C’ to know whether the trend is progressive across the whole reduction sequence. The group data also show a marked decrease in bulbar scar area between groups one and two

Figure 2.20 Distribution of mean lengths of incomplete flake debitage across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively.

23

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

(mean values of 261 mm2 and 33 mm2 respectively), but group three has a mean value of 43 mm2. These preliminary findings are somewhat ambiguous, since there were so few bulbar scar measurement values in reduction unit ‘C’. Further experimental work may suggest whether or not bulbar scar dimension is a useful measurement to make in an assessment of knapping reduction sequences.

reduction units ‘B’ and ‘C’ (including and entirely composed of soft-hammer struck flakes respectively) are both below 20 g. 2.5.4 Debitage Qualitative Attributes. Cortex Cover.

The estimates for percentage cortex cover of the dorsal surface area of the Harding 1995 debitage (broken and whole and including the large chunks) is shown in Figure 2.23 below.

Weight.

The weight of all debitage products (in this case including the large, irregular chunk detached at the end of reduction unit 1) is shown in Figure 2.22. Both Group and Reduction Unit data exhibit a great decline in size between the first phase of knapping (‘A’ and ‘1’) and the middle phase (‘B’ and ‘2’).

Percentage of Cortex Cover: Mean values 70 60

Weight (g)

50

120

40

100

30

80

20

60

10

40

0 1

20

Groups

0 1 Groups

2

2

3 Reduction Units

3 Figure 2.23: Distribution of mean percentage cortex cover on the dorsal surface of debitage (broken and whole flakes included) across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively.

Reduction Units

Figure 2.22: The mean weight of all debitage products across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction units A, B, C respectively.

These data for Reduction Units show a consistent pattern of decline in cortex cover on flakes throughout the refitted reduction sequence. Cortex cover was clearly a strong determinant in the interpretation of knapping stage and assignment of groups, since Group ‘1’ has a mean value of over 60 % whilst Group ‘2’ has a mean of 10% cortex cover. In fact, in the refitted sequence the mean value of cortex cover for the first phase of the Harding 1995 handaxe reduction sequence is 41% whilst the mean for the second phase of knapping (Reduction Unit ‘B’) is 27 %. The mean value for cortex cover in Reduction Unit ‘C’ is 0.97 %. It is important to note that the cortex remaining on the flakes in the final stage of the Harding 1995 reduction sequence is because, in this particular knapping sequence, the finished handaxe retains cortex. In reduction sequences where handaxes have been made from similarly large nodules of flint and the finished tool

As is the case for maximum dimension, there is little difference between Reduction Units ‘B’ and ‘C’. The pattern for the smallest mean value to occur in Group ‘3’ is observed in the data for weight, as it is in maximum dimension, length and width, conclusively showing that the Group containing the smallest flakes is Group ‘3’. The experiments Wenban-Smith (in Ashton et al. (eds.), 1998: 230) conducted as part of the analysis of artefacts from East Farm, Barnham demonstrated that 95% of softhammer flakes were less than 20 g in weight. This fact was used to distinguish groups in the archaeological material to the extent that thinning flakes produced by soft-hammer percussion during biface manufacture were distinguished as those showing signs of soft-hammer percussion and weighing less than 20 g. The evidence from the Harding 1995 handaxe reduction sequence supports this view to a degree, since the mean values for

24

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

detached from a platform opposed to the platform of the flake, are noticeably more frequent among the final removals, as are types 4, and 3.

does not retain cortex, one would expect the last flake removals to be without cortex. Cortex cover is therefore an important criterion to measure because, unlike length, maximum dimension, width and weight, there is a clear difference between the middle and final stages of handaxe reduction (Reduction Units ‘B’ and ‘C’). Number of Dorsal flake scars.

Unit A n=28 8 6

Mean Number of Dorsal flake scars 5

6

1 4

5

3 2

4 3 2

Unit B n=24

1 8

0

11

12 1

7

1

2 Groups

3

6 5

Reduction Units

4

2

Figure 2.24: Distribution of the mean number of dorsal flake scars on flake debitage (including both broken and whole flakes) across Groups 1, 2, 3 and Reduction Units A, B, C respectively.

Unit C n=31

The clearest pattern of distribution across reduction units is exhibited by the number of dorsal flake scars (see Figure 2.24 above). The steady increase in the average number of dorsal flake scars across Reduction Units is not reflected in the Group data, which instead shows a great difference between Groups ‘1’ and ‘2’ but less distinction between Groups ‘2’ and ‘3’. It therefore seems that flakes with a great deal of cortex combined with few flake scars were most likely to be assigned to Group ‘1’.

9

12 1

8

7

2 4 3

Dorsal scar orientation.

Figure: 2.25: Percentage frequency of flake scar orientation types across Reduction Units A, B and C.

Since the great majority of + flake scar orientations were of type 1, the data for + and – scars (see section 2.3.1 above) were combined to provide the overall data illustrated in Figure 2.25. Unidirectional flake scar orientations in line with the orientation of the flake (type 1) are prominent across the refitted reduction sequence, whilst unidirectional scar orientations involving removals struck from the distal end of the flake are found in reduction unit ‘A’ (7 %) and infrequently in ‘B’ (4%) but not at all in ‘C’. Type ‘7’, in which flakes have also been

Distal termination type. The types of distal termination across Reduction Units is shown in Figure 2.26 below. The refitted reduction sequence demonstrates an increasing trend toward feathered or type 1 distal terminations and a decrease in the observed frequency of hinged distals (type 2 terminations).

25

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

Unit A n=21

Unit A n=32 6

9

5

8

1 3

1

5 4

2

Unit B n=16

Unit B n=18 1

5

2

6 9

3

1

8 7

2

6

4

5

Unit C n=16

Unit C n=25

1 2

6

9 3

5 3

2

4

8

1

7

5

Figure: 2.27: Percentage frequency of platform types across Reduction Units.

Figure 2.26: Percentage frequency of distal types across Reduction Units. Platform type.

Cortical platforms (type 5) show a similar pattern of decreasing relative frequency across the refitted reduction sequence, but are nonetheless present in the final phase of reduction (Unit ‘C’). Facetted platforms are proportionally most common in Reduction Unit ‘C’, which is to be expected of carefully prepared finishing flakes. The middle phase of reduction (Unit ‘B’) has approximately 20 % polyhedral platforms. All platform types are represented in Unit ‘B’ and all but punctiform

The most significant trend in the distribution of platform types (Figure 2.27) is that plain platforms, which contribute approximately half the platform type attributes in the first part of the refitted reduction sequence (Reduction Unit ‘A’) only constitute 6.3 % of the platform types in the final part of the sequence (Unit ‘C’).

26

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

(type 6) in Unit ‘C’. The highest frequencies of indeterminate platforms occurs in Unit ‘C’ and Group ‘3’. However, platform types are not closely diagnostic of reduction stage.

(finishing), Newcomer (1971:90) states that if the handaxe is not already thin enough a long flake, thinner than but superficially resembling a Levallois flake (in dorsal scar pattern and facetted platform), may be struck. An example of such a flake is given and this is reproduced in Figure 2.28 below, along side flake 115 from the Harding debitage. Flake 115 from the Harding debitage seems to be exactly the sort of finishing stage thinning flake that Newcomer described. He also noted that such flakes are unusual, and generally the trend in finishing is towards shorter and thinner flakes than before. If the length of flake number 115 is removed from the calculation of mean length for unit ‘C’, the mean value drops to 34.3 (standard deviation of 8.2) which concurs with Newcomer’s model. The second point of interest regarding this late stage thinning flake is that it seems most unlikely that a flake of such morphology and dimensions would be struck in the finishing stage of shaping an extremely pointed handaxe (such as a ‘ficron’). Austin (1994: 123) found little or no differentiation between knapping stages in her study of refitted knapping waste from the manufacture of ovate shaped handaxes at Boxgrove. It could be suggested that the knapping waste from making ovate handaxes is less likely to show differentiation between thinning and finishing stages because the ovate morphology allows very long, thin flakes to be struck. One would not expect therefore, that the knapping waste relating to the finishing of an extremely pointed handaxe to include very long flakes, since the pronounced curvature of surfaces and narrowing width of very pointed handaxes would prohibit the detachment of such removals.

Bulbar scar orientation, bulb roundness, hackles, ripples, raw material inclusions, rings on the cone of percussion. I did not find these data useful, since these features were either ubiquitous in the assemblage or revealed no significant patterning. The ripples did vary noticeably in size and frequency across the assemblage (i.e. large waves on the ventral surface of large flakes apparently detached by hard hammer percussion and frequent small ripples on the ventral surface of thin flakes apparently detached by soft hammer percussion), but to date, no effective way of recording this variation has been established. 2.5.5 Lithic analysis skill development.

The analysis and refitting of the Harding 1995 debitage allowed me to standardize artefact recording and develop an understanding of how items of knapped stone debitage can be refitted together. It was interesting to find that at the outset I was only able to recognise simple refits between proximal and mesial or distal parts, or whole flakes which fitted together across the entire surface of their dorsal and ventral faces. As time progressed, and largely through recognising repeated patterns in the uniquely shaped natural inclusions within the raw material which matched fragments back together, I began to find more complicated refits in which only part of one flake refitted to the surface of another and the striking platforms for these two flakes were positioned and orientated very differently. Although I had always been aware that knapping occurs in three dimensions, it was really only through refitting the Harding 1995 debitage that I came to understand the dynamic variation possible in the orientation of refitting flakes.

2.6 Discussion. Overall, these data certainly demonstrate a decrease in the size of flakes detached throughout the reduction sequence, since width, maximum dimension and weight show a pattern of great decrease between the first and second phases of knapping (units ‘A’ and ‘B’) and slight decrease in mean values between ‘B’ and ‘C’.

Figure 2.28: Flake 115 from the Harding 1995 debitage and a large finishing flake illustrated by Newcomer (1971). Note that both flakes are long and relatively thin and have facetted platforms and a centrepetal pattern of dorsal flake scars.

In the distribution of mean values for unbroken lengths (see Figure 2.18 above) there is actually an increase in the mean length in unit ‘C’ (finishing) relative to ‘B’ (thinning and shaping), but this is because Harding detached a very large thinning flake towards the end of the handaxe reduction sequence (item 115). Two points are of particular interest here, the first being that when describing the third stage of handaxe manufacture

The value of counting the number of primary flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion has yet to be ascertained. In many ways, this count is likely to be redundant to the recording of relict core edges, a feature which categorise flake scar patterns incorporating intact negative bulbs of percussion. Interestingly, little evidence

27

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

the information this system could provide is in any case, redundant to data for relict core edges.

of relict core edges was recognised in the biface debitage, perhaps because when the knapping progresses to a stage when alternate flaking along an edge is employed, the soft hammer is in use. The platforms are then generally far too thin to allow the identification of relict core edges on the platform (though it can certainly be seen on the platform of the large finishing flake numbered 115).

Flaking Angle. De Loecker’s (1998, pers com.) method of measuring flaking angle was adopted for the analysis of the Wood Hill assemblage. In this technique a card with angles cut into it is used to give standardised flaking angle measurements. The angles are presented to the edge of the platform and the best fit is taken as the flaking angle class. It is important to make the angle measurement on each side of the bulb so that the average best fit angle is obtained.

As my original method of measuring flaking angle had proven inadequate, I was not confident that the measurements could be standardised and therefore few measurements were taken. However, I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss this problem with Dr. Dimitri De Loecker, who suggested an alternative method which is discussed in part 2.9 below.

Percussion Type.

Although, the flake scar orientation categories cover all possible logical combinations of flake scar patterns, it was sometimes difficult to decide whether to class a flake removal as struck from the right as opposed, say, to the distal or proximal, since removals can be struck from any direction and the categories are at ninety degree intervals. An alternative recording system based on gauging the variance in degrees of flake scar orientations from the orientation of the flake itself was tested, but found to be too complicated to record and analyse data. The flake scar orientation recording method is certainly a simplification of the real situation, but it does at present seem the best method of producing data. It is particularly useful because although it describes flake scar orientations, it does not give an a priori interpretation. This is a versatile system, which could usefully be applied to any type of reduction sequence (e.g. flake core knapping, handaxe-making, blade core reduction) to provide a description of the flake scar orientations.

In the revised methodology, I decided to note whether I thought the artefact had been struck by hard hammer or soft hammer, or whether the percussion type was indeterminate. Hard hammer percussion tends to produce pronounced bulbs and cones of percussion and low frequency ventral ripples, whilst soft-hammer percussion can lead to diffuse bulbs, indistinct points of percussion and sometimes a lip on the ventral edge of the striking platform. Cortex Position. In addition to estimating the amount of cortex cover on the dorsal surface of flakes, I decided also to record the position of the cortex in the way described by Hutcheson and Callow (Callow and Cornford (eds.), 1986: 234). In this methodology, the dorsal surface of flakes are divided into six parts (proximal right, proximal left, mesial right, mesial left, distal right, distal left) and cortex within these areas is recorded on a presence or absence basis (Callow and Conford (eds.), 1986: 234). As an example of how cortex position can be used to investigate the evidence for handedness in assemblages of debitage see Bradley and Sampson (1986: 41 – 42).

2.7 Outline of Revisions To The Debitage Recording Methodology The revisions to the debitage recording methodology, following this preliminary exercise and having the analysis of the Wood Hill artefacts in view, include several methodological improvements and the addition of classifications for the weathering and condition of Palaeolithic debitage. The full list of data recorded for the Wood Hill assemblage is given in Figure 2.29 at the end of this Chapter. The recording of attributes which were incorporated into the methodology to be applied to the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage without any modification were: Length, width, thickness, maximum dimension, weight, platform length and platform thickness, platform type, distal type, cortex cover and relict core edge. It was decided that the distinction between flake scars with intact bulbs of percussion and those without should be dropped from flake scar counts and scar orientation recording, since having two sets of data for flake scar counts and orientations made the manipulation of these data immensely complicated and

Recording Damage. Several improvements were made to the method of recording of debitage breakage used in the recording of the Harding debitage. These were undertaken in order to assess more clearly the degree to which measured dimensions are representative of the original ‘whole’ artefact (which may have broken during knapping or at some point afterwards). It was also envisaged that breakage data would allow categorisation of flake scar counts and orientation data, such that the data for complete or nearly complete flakes could be considered separately from very broken artefacts whose data are representative of just part of the ‘whole’ artefact. To this end, length, width and thickness measurements were accompanied by an estimate of damage given as a percentage. For example, a perfectly symmetrical break

28

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

transversely across the middle of a flake would produce a proximal fragment whose length could be measured and the accurate damage estimate accompanying such a measurement would be 50%, i.e. the length measured is 50% of the total length of the artefact.

Condition. The condition of artefacts was recorded as the colour of flint and cortex (Munsell chart values), the degree of surface sheen (recorded as either matt, sheen, or lustrous), staining (recorded as absent, present or pronounced) and patination (absent, slight or deep) based on the methodology suggested by Ashton (Ashton et al. (eds.), 1998: 288). The extent of ‘flint rot’1 was also noted (as absent, present only on ridges between flake scars, or extensive, being found on both flake ridges and low parts of the surface).

The types and frequencies of breakage within an assemblage of Palaeolithic artefacts may provide key information on knapping breakage and post-depositional effects. This information would be of particular relevance to an assemblage partly disturbed by agricultural practices (e.g. ploughing). The patination of break surfaces in the Wood Hill assemblage was recorded as unpatinated (UP), or the same patina as the original flaked surfaces (P1) or a different patina to the main body of the artefact (P2). The position (proximal, distal, right or left lateral, or widely distributed on the edges), type (knapping fracture, post-depositional edge damage) and estimated amount of material lost due to the break (as a percentage volume of the estimated whole, original artefact) were also recorded for each of the three patina break types for each artefact (though not all three patina break types were found on every artefact). The total estimated volume lost from each artefact was also stated. This was the sum of the ‘volume lost’ estimates for each of the breaks recorded.

Other Details Recorded. Each artefact in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage was given a unique identifying number. A record of any additional notes and an overall interpretation of each item was made. In addition, I recorded the type of each artefact (e.g. flake or core), whether the artefact was fragmentary (i.e. more than 10% broken), and if so what type of fragment (e.g. proximal, distal, right lateral). Amongst the artefacts from the surface, I also noted whether there was anything that suggested the item might not be part of the Lower Palaeolithic assemblage. This would potentially enable the identification of significant factors which were not obvious during the recording process and therefore would otherwise be lost to the analysis, unless some attempt were made to high-light differences, however vague the definition of these might seem at the time of recording. Such data formed an exploratory dataset, rather than contributing to the ‘hard’ data of measurements and attribute classifications.

Break types such as compression breaks (including ‘languette’ type breaks) and intentional breaks of the sort noted in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic assemblages (see Barton, 1992: 130-132) would be noted in the additional notes. The categorisation of break types were not anticipated to contribute a major analytical component to the study as is the case for assemblages from later periods where methods of blade and flake tool preparation are key parts of the chaîne opératoire.

Handaxes.

Retouch or Usewear.

There were few handaxe and handaxe fragments amongst the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage and a great deal of debitage. Therefore, the most appropriate method of recording and analysis of the handaxes, given the aim of investigating technological adaptation at the site, was to consider:

Purposeful retouch of flakes to create shaped tools and usewear damage from using flakes as tools were not present in the Harding 1995 handaxe debitage, though clearly were to be expected in the Palaeolithic assemblage from the Wood Hill site. Although, technically speaking, purposeful retouch and usewear damage demonstrate that a flake is not waste or debitage, but a tool, the debitage characteristics of these artefacts are still relevant data and should be included in the debitage data. A short description of the type and position of retouch or usewear on the artefacts, in this instance from Wood Hill, was recorded where it existed. The tools identified amongst the assemblage are described in Chapter 3.


morphological features relating to the knapping techniques used to make the handaxes
morphological features relating to the possible uses of the handaxes It was necessary to note the effects of post-depositional damage, since this can strongly influence both the 1

‘Flint rot’ comprises areas of ‘chalky’ texture found to be present on many of the artefacts in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage. See Chapter 7 for more information about the origins of ‘flint rot’.

29

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

quantity and quality of observations possible. Where possible, comparable examples from other British Lower Palaeolithic assemblages were studied to assist the discussion of the Wood Hill handaxes (see Chapter 3). Figure 2.29 below summarises the recording methodology derived from the refitting and analyses of the Harding 1995 debitage discussed in this chapter. This recording methodology was applied to the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage and in the following Chapter, the first part of the main analysis of the Wood Hill assemblage is presented.

30

CHAPTER 2

HANDAXE REDUCTION SEQUENCES

1] Identification Number 2] Presence of Non-Palaeolithic features? (yes/no) 3] Type of artefact (Biface / Flake / Flake Tool / Core / Core Tool / Irregular knapping waste / Natural / Indeterminate) 4] Is the artefact fragmentary? (yes/no –criteria for yes is > 10% estimated volume lost due to breakage) 5] What type of Fragment? (Proximal/ Mesial / Right lateral / left lateral/Distal) 6] Length, Width, Thickness and Maximum Dimension (in mm as described above in part 2.4) 7] Weight (in grams) 8] Flaking Angle (1: 129o;9: unmeasurable) 9] Platform Width (maximum distance across the platform in mm between lateral edges) 10] Platform Thickness (maximum distance across the platform in mm between dorsal and ventral faces) 11] Estimated percentage by which length / width/ thickness are reduced by damage respectively. 12] General colour of flint (Munsell colour chart value) 13] General colour of cortex (Munsell colour chart value) 14] Raw Material Type (Nodular Flint/Bull Head flint/Other/Indeterminate Flint) 15] Surface Sheen (1: Matt/2: Sheen/3: Gloss) 16] Staining (0: Unstained/1: Moderately Stained/2: Well Stained) 17] Patination (0: Unpatinated/ 1: Moderately Patinated/ 2: Deeply Patinated) 18] Extent of Flint Rot (0: None/ 1: On scar ridges only/ 2: On low parts of surface as well as flake scar ridges) 19] Total estimated percentage volume lost due to breakage (The sum of estimates of volume lost due to individual breaks recorded) 20] Type of break 1, 2 or 3 (Transverse, Edge damage, Thermal) 21] Patination of break 1, 2, or 3 (P1: patinated as original flaked surfaces, P2: different patina to original flaked surfaces, UP: unpatinated) 22] Position of break 1, 2, or 3 (Distal, Proximal, Left lateral, Right lateral) 23] Estimated percentage of artefact volume lost due to break 1, 2 or 3 OR in case of cores, estimated percentage of artefact surface area affected by break 1, 2, or 3. 24] Platform type, Distal type, Dorsal flake scar count; Dorsal flake scar orientation, Relict core edge and cortex cover; all recorded as shown above in Part 2.4 25] Cortex Position (absence or presence in six equally sized parts of dorsal surface of flakes: Left Proximal, Right Proximal, Left and Right Mesial, Left and Right Distal) 26] Retouch Type and Position 27] Usewear Type and Position 28] Additional Notes 29] Overall Interpretation

Figure 2.29: The Recording Methodology applied to each artefact in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage.

31

Chapter 3: The Palaeolithic Stone Artefact Assemblage From Wood Hill, Kingsdown, Kent: Tools.

Wood Hill

Figure 3.1: The location of Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic site (TR 371480) in relation to the distribution of deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints in southern England (above, after Scott-Jackson and Winton, 2001) and local topography (below- Wood Hill encircled). After Ordnance Survey Pathfinder map 1232 (1979) in which grid squares are 1 kilometre by 1 kilometre. 1, the Wood Hill assemblage was chosen for study because it provides the best known example of a recently field-walked and excavated Palaeolithic site on the DmaC-w-f of southern England. Since the Wood Hill assemblage comprises artefacts from surface and excavated contexts within the DmaC-w-f, it provides a

This chapter provides and introduction to the Palaeolithic site of Wood Hill, near Kingsdown in Kent and focuses on the analysis and interpretation of the Palaeolithic stone tools from this site. The analysis of the flakes and other by-products of stone tool manufacture are discussed in the following chapter. As previously detailed in Chapter

32

CHAPTER 3

WOOD HILL: TOOLS

unique opportunity to compare the character and quality of evidence available from both surface and excavated finds. Conjoining artefacts had been previously identified amongst the artefacts (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 136; Halliwell and Parfitt, 1993: 82) thereby demonstrating a high degree of integrity for at least some part of the site and the potential of the assemblage for reconstructing chaînes opératoires. The Wood Hill assemblage therefore provides an opportunity to evaluate the evidence from a partially ploughed out Palaeolithic site on a hill-top capped by DmaC-w-f, as a source of information on Middle Pleistocene technological and cultural adaptation and landscape and material resource use. It is also allows a test of the most applicable methods for understanding such sites, of which this chapter presents the first analyses.

majority of artefacts were recovered from the highest part of the same field (at 65 metres O.D.) in an area approximately 45 metres by 20 metres, where the ploughsoil overlies DmaC-w-f. In 1984 and 1985 DAG excavated 17 trenches and 1m² test pits of varying depths (between approximately 30cm and 90 cm below the base of the top-soil) across an area approximately 40 metres by 30 metres. The distribution of these trenches is shown in Figure 3.2 below, as are the positions of 2 later excavations conducted by ScottJackson (see below for further details). Fourteen of the trenches yielded a total of 236 Lower Palaeolithic artefacts (DAG 1984-1985 unpublished site archive). The other 3 trenches did not contain artefacts. In all the excavations, a top-soil of 25-30 cm was observed to overlie very distinctive, though compositionally diverse DmaC-w-f. Halliwell and Parfitt (1993: 84) write that the artefacts excavated by DAG during 1984 and 1985:

Part 3.1 of this chapter provides a review of previous research at Wood Hill and an explanation of how the analysis of the Palaeolithic tools fits into the current research structure, with particular reference to issues raised by previous research at the site. An overview, typological classification and discussion of the tools recovered from the site are given in parts 3.2 to 3.7.

‘were entirely contained within the first 50cms of the clay below the base of the plough-soil; they were all heavily patinated and are clearly related to the surface finds.’

3.1 Background.

The similarity between all the certainly Lower Palaeolithic excavated artefacts and the surface material in terms of patination and technology, and the relative rarity of Lower Palaeolithic finds in this area (compared to the frequent presence of flintknapping debris from later periods) led DAG to interpret the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage as the result of a single period of occupation (Halliwell pers com.). The vertical dispersion of artefacts within the top 50 cm of the deposits excavated by DAG, is considered by DAG members Halliwell and Parfitt (1993) to have been caused by soil movements since deposition, particularly during the extreme climatic conditions of the Pleistocene.

The Palaeolithic site of Wood Hill, Kingsdown, east Kent (TR 371 480) has been the subject of archaeological investigation since the early 1980’s when Lower Palaeolithic artefacts were first identified by members of DAG (Halliwell and Parfitt, 1993). The Lower Palaeolithic artefacts were recognised as such on the grounds of typology and technology since the assemblage included handaxes, handaxe trimming flakes and very large roughing out flakes, and through the depth and quality of patination. These features distinguished the Palaeolithic artefacts from younger ones (Mesolithic through to Bronze age) which are comparatively common in the region. DAG has continued to field-walk the site on an occasional basis since the early 1980’s. The total number of items in the Lower Palaeolithic assemblage from Wood Hill currently stands at over 600, of which just less than half were excavated and the rest were collected from the surface during field-walking. Most of the surface finds are only labelled with the identity of the field in which they were found, which precludes a detailed spatial analysis of the distribution of these artefacts1. All that can be usefully said is that the great

In 1993, Wood Hill was selected by doctoral research student Julie Scott-Jackson as a case-study of Lower Palaeolithic site formation and preservation on the DmaC-w-f of Southern England (Scott-Jackson, 1996). Scott-Jackson’s review of the literature pertaining to the Lower Palaeolithic archaeology of southern England demonstrated a strong association between DmaC-w-f and the occurrence of Lower Palaeolithic artefacts at high levels within the landscape (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 27-66). That very ancient sites could be preserved on hill-tops counters the general expectation that over long periods of time, gravity will move everything from hill-top to valley bottom. How could it be that such old artefacts survive at high-levels in the landscape? Surely, any Palaeolithic archaeology that survives upon the hills in modern times, must have suffered a great deal of disturbance during the course of the Ice age? Scott-Jackson’s doctoral research

1

Artefacts recovered by DAG bear identification codes that relate to their find locations. The surface finds were collected from the same 2 fields, whose plough soil contexts are denoted as ‘WHK 84-40’ and ‘WHK 84/5-60’. I suffixed individual identity numbers to these codes whilst recording each of the surface finds. Artefacts recovered from the sub-soil in each trench excavated by DAG were given a context code relating to the relevant sedimentological unit (e.g. all artefacts from trench 10 were coded ‘WHK 84-46’) and an individual identity number. Scott-Jackson’s artefacts are coded WH 93/94 and

each has a separate Finds number. Bifacial artefacts were additionally labelled as ‘BF’ (e.g. ‘WHK 84-40-BF2’).

33

CHAPTER 3

WOOD HILL: TOOLS

94 12

11

10

3

8 7 9

93 13

19

18 21

17 20

15 16 14 22

2

10 metres North

Figure 3.2: Distribution of the trenches excavated by DAG (2-22) and Scott-Jackson (93 and 94) at the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic site. The corner of the wood is highlighted by a dashed circle and this point is located at TR 37063 47987 for reference. This map is based upon Digimap Landline Data. thermoluminescence dating to be undertaken (op.cit: 149151).

aimed to explain the sedimentological and geomorphological basis for the often observed, but not understood, co-occurrence of DmaC-w-f and very ancient artefact assemblages at elevated altitudes.

Of particular importance to Scott-Jackson’s evaluation of the site formation processes at Wood Hill were the results obtained from fabric analyses (based on a-axis orientation and angle of inclination data obtained from natural pebble inclusions and artefacts within the deposits) and particle size analyses of the deposits (op.cit.:153-171). The fabric analyses carried out on sediments excavated in the 1993 trench suggested that the development of a solution feature (a basin-like depression in the surface of the Chalk caused by the dissolution of Calcium Carbonate by percolating groundwater) had created a catchment with sloping sides in which Lower Palaeolithic artefacts had been laid down. In time, the artefacts had become covered over and preserved in place by sediments that had moved in from the sides of the solution feature. The

The ensuing investigation at Wood Hill included an auger survey, geophysical resistivity survey (Scott-Jackson, 2000: 119-129) and excavation of one trench 3 metres long, 1 metre wide and a maximum depth of 1.25 metres below the base of the plough-soil (op. cit.:76-84) and one auger pit 0.4 metres long, 0.4 metres wide and a maximum depth of 0.65 metres below the base of the ploughsoil (op. cit.: 138-9). Amongst the artefacts recovered during the 1993/94 excavations at the site were a handaxe and two separate cases of artefact conjoins. Burnt flint was recovered from both DAG excavations and Scott-Jackson’s 1993 trench which allowed

34

CHAPTER 3

WOOD HILL: TOOLS

in trench 11. The former was dated to 380,000 years BP +/- 26,000 years and the latter to 200,000 years BP +/33,000 years (Hall and Tite, 1996).

consistent pattern in particle size data throughout the 1993 excavation showed that the deposits had not been cryoturbated, since distinct horizons, continuous across the excavation, were recorded (op.cit.: 98–111). The results of the resistivity survey confirmed the existence of other solution features in the surface of the chalk below the DmaC-w-f in the areas outside the limits of ScottJackson’s 1993/94 excavations.

That the older dates were associated with artefacts found at a higher level in the deposits (i.e. between 1 cm and 32 cm below the base of the topsoil in trench 10) than artefacts bearing younger dates (between 38 cm and 50 cm in trench 11) was explained by the development of a solution feature. The solution feature had not been present, or had not been occupied during the Lower Palaeolithic occupation relating to the earlier TL date. The younger of the two dates (represented by the artefacts in trench 11) was therefore associated with an occupation at the base of the solution hollow and at a low level in the local ground surface relative to the sediments outside the solution hollow (i.e. sediments containing the artefacts in trench 10). The differential topography caused by a solution feature on the top of Wood Hill, therefore renders it perfectly possible for the younger of two occupation levels to occur at a lower level than an older one, within the DmaC-w-f.

Scott-Jackson (op. cit.: 26) was able to conclude from her investigations that Lower Palaeolithic artefacts preserved within DmaC-w-f need not have been subject to the gross gravitational forces or periglacial activities which have operated upon the landscape as a whole. Though impressive depths of soliflucted sediments certainly have been deposited in the valleys of southern England during the last 2 million years, and ice-wedge casts and cryoturbation structures abound in the low-level fluvial deposits which have endured since the Ice Age, the unique characteristics of the DmaC-w-f, which still overlie the highest levels of the Upper Chalk today, mean that they have undergone only ‘restricted change’ (ibid.).

By extrapolation, Scott-Jackson proposed that the handaxe excavated at a low level in the 1993 trench was also associated with the younger date of 200,000 years BP +/- 33,000 years, because it was found at approximately the same depth as the burnt flint sample which yielded the date, and within similar deposits (solution hollow infill). The older date of 380,000 years BP +/- 26,000 years obtained from burnt flint in DAG trench 10 was correlated with the artefacts excavated at a high level in square A of the 1993 trench, since both were found in similar deposits (the back wall of the solution hollow) at a similar depth. The artefacts excavated from levels directly above the handaxe in squares B and C of the 1993 trench were not thought to correlate with either of the two dates obtained from TL dating, but instead belonged to a third, separate Lower Palaeolithic occupation event. Sediments in square C were extremely rich in silt and sand fractions (op. cit.: 104) which proved, in part, to have been windblown (op. cit.: 118-119). It was therefore suggested that the solution hollow had acted as a trap for windblown material, soil creep and waterlain brickearths, and that these deposits covered and preserved the Wood Hill Palaeolithic artefacts. The occurrence of dorsal-ventral refits among artefacts within the upper levels of the deposits in square C of the 1993 trench was further evidence that the artefacts had not been moved into position, but had been preserved in situ.

The data obtained during the investigations of 1993 and 1994 verified that the artefacts excavated by DAG at Wood Hill years before, were indeed of Lower Palaeolithic age and that the site was of assured integrity. Scott-Jackson’s interpretation of the data, however, did not support the hypothesis that the artefacts represented a single assemblage, as had previously been suggested by DAG. Scott-Jackson (2000:153-171) interpreted the coherent pattern observed in the fabric analyses and particle size data as evidence that the handaxe excavated at a low level in the 1993 trench appeared to belong to a Palaeolithic occupation event separate from that represented by artefacts excavated at a higher level in the same trench, and in the adjacent DAG trenches. Scott-Jackson’s analyses suggested that the handaxe, excavated 61 cm below the base of the topsoil, had been covered by an input of material devoid of artefacts in spits 6-9 (identified by a different trend in orientation data and particle size change) above which more artefacts had been deposited at a later date and preserved in situ in spits 1-5. Scott-Jackson (op. cit.: 164) suggested that the artefacts found at a high level in square A of the 1993 trench were of a different age from those found at a high level in square C, since the latter were related to a later landsurface which had developed after the deposition of artefacts in square A (see Figure 76 in op. cit.: 156-7).

To recapitulate: Scott-Jackson’s interpretation of site formation at Wood Hill identified at least three possible phases of occupation within the artefacts and sediments excavated in the 1993 trench and recognisable in nearby DAG trenches. In the first instance, a group of archaic humans deposited artefacts approximately 380, 000 years ago (i.e. the artefacts in trench 10 and square A of the 1993 trench). These artefacts became sealed into sediments which later formed the back wall of a solution

The thermoluminescence or ‘TL’ dating (op. cit.: 149 – 153) of burnt flints which had been recovered during excavations by DAG in 1984/5, supported ScottJackson’s multi-occupation interpretation of the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic assemblage. Two dates were obtained from separate burnt flints, one excavated from a high level (6 cm below base of topsoil) in trench 10 and the other from a low level (48 cm below base of topsoil) 35

CHAPTER 3

WOOD HILL: TOOLS

experimental tests in the making and use of handaxes, and observations, tests and modelling of flint weathering types respectively). The wider implications of the investigations of the Wood Hill assemblage made in this thesis are considered in Chapter 8.

feature. Subsequently, the solution feature deepened, forming a hollow in the ground surface in which artefacts were discarded some 200,000 years ago, by a second group of Lower Palaeolithic peoples (i.e. the artefacts in trench 11 and the handaxe in the 1993 trench). The orientation data indicates that the sides of the solution hollow were afterwards subject to soil creep, resulting in the slow movement of sediments into the solution hollow which covered and preserved in place the artefacts dating to around 200,000 years ago. Over a long period of time, material derived from windblown silts and sands and waterlain brickearths was incorporated into the deposits completing the filling of the solution hollow. When the hollow had filled in, a third group of people deposited artefacts at the site (artefacts in squares B and C of the 1993 trench).

The next part of the chapter (3.2) provides an overview and typological classification of the Lower Palaeolithic tools in the Wood Hill assemblage, including standard descriptive measurements and classifications for each of the handaxes (see Chapter 2; Roe, 1964; and Wymer, 1968:45-68), handaxe fragments and flake tools.

3.2 Overview of the Tools. The Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic tools are discussed below in three typological categories: handaxes, handaxe fragments and flake tools. In total, three bifacially flaked handaxes, five bifacial handaxe fragments, and an assortment of flake tools were identified. Traces of possible usewear damage or retouch were noted on a further 98 items recorded in the Wood Hill database which is equal to 16 % of the assemblage. These possible instances of retouch or usewear are not considered further since in these cases the suggestion of purposeful modification of artefacts was only tentative and may be due to natural damage.

The results of previous research at Wood Hill, as outlined above, govern the form of artefact analyses undertaken in this thesis. On the basis of much field-walking experience and dispersed excavations across the hill top area, Halliwell (2002, pers. comm.) of DAG suggests, that the Lower Palaeolithic artefacts of Wood Hill form a coherent assemblage, likely to be representative of a single phase of occupation. In contrast, Scott-Jackson (1996, 2000) has provided sedimentological and dating evidence for the existence of separate phases of Lower Palaeolithic occupation at Wood Hill. The occurrence of individual solution features across the hill-top area (ScottJackson, 2000: 124-129) means that each one may have formed a catchment with a separate depositional history and somewhat different stratigraphy. It is therefore impossible to use the depth of burial, for instance, as a means to isolate from within the excavated Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic assemblage as a whole, artefacts which were certainly manufactured and deposited during the same phase of Lower Palaeolithic occupation. Nevertheless, the assemblage does contain both Lower Palaeolithic tools and debitage in an in situ context and apparently associated artefacts in secondary (plough-soil) context. It is probable that at least some of these tools and debitage relate to the same phase or phases of Lower Palaeolithic occupation. As such, the Wood Hill assemblage is an important source of information about Middle Pleistocene cultural and technological adaptation and landscape and material resource use.

The position of the trenches excavated at the site are shown in Figure 3.2 above. Artefacts ‘WH93 F38’, ‘621’, ‘45-4’ and ‘44-20’ were excavated in trenches ‘93’, ‘20’, ‘9’ and ‘8’ respectively. This distribution cannot be reliably interpreted as evidence for the organisation of activity areas across the site because so little of the total area over which artefacts are found has been excavated. In part 3.3, each of the handaxes are individually described whilst the handaxe fragments are considered in part 3.4. The observations of the handaxes and handaxe fragments are considered under the sub-headings of ‘Post-depositional Damage’, ‘Shape Description’, ‘Raw Material’ and ‘Flaking Technique’. The complete pointed, plano-convex handaxe has a flat face known as the ‘ventral’ surface and a convex face called the ‘dorsal’ face. To facilitate description of the other handaxes, the two flaked faces have been (arbitrarily) labelled as faces I and II in the Figures which accompany the text. In the accompanying Figures which illustrate the handaxes, the main flake scars are labelled with numbers which identify them but do not correspond to the sequential order of flake detachments. The flake tools are discussed in terms of ‘post-depositional damage’, ‘shape descriptions and flaking techniques’, ‘raw material type’ and ‘use’. All artefact descriptions are accompanied by basic data:-

In the light of the potentially very complex site formation history of the Lower Palaeolithic occurrence at Wood Hill, the analysis of the tools forms the first phase of the investigation of the assemblage as a source of information on technology and material resource use. Observations of each type of tool in the assemblage provides clues as to the techniques employed in their manufacture and the context in which the tools were made and used at the site. This chapter presents my observations of the tools in the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic assemblage, and develops several themes which are tested further in Chapters 4, 5 and 7 (which discuss the Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic debitage,

length (‘L’ given in mm) width (‘Wi’ given in mm)

36

CHAPTER 3

WOOD HILL: TOOLS

Post-depositional Damage: F 38 was struck by a mattock during excavation and a small chip of flint was detached in the butt part of the dorsal face. The handaxe is otherwise in very good condition with no apparent post-depositional breakage.

thickness (‘T’ given in mm) weight (‘We’ given in grams) raw material type (‘RM’ here given as ‘F’ for flint (where the type of flint is indeterminate and might perhaps be Bullhead flint, beach cobble flint or nodular flint), ‘NF’ for nodular flint and ‘BF’ for beach cobble flint)

Shape Description: The pointed, plano-convex handaxe WH93 F 38 is a relatively small tool with a flat ‘plano’ ventral surface and a domed ‘convex’ dorsal face. The maximum breadth is positioned towards the butt end and there is a pronounced point at the opposite end of the tool. Though the ventral face in the tip area is utterly flat, towards the butt end the ventral face curves towards the dorsal face, as there is a twist in the right edge of the tool. The dorsal face of the tip area is bisected longitudinally by a ridge formed by the intersection of flake scars struck from opposite edges of the dorsal face which meet at approximately the mid-breadth point.

Colour of the flint (‘Co’ given as a Munsell Colour Chart value) Degree of post-depositional damage (‘PdD’ calculated as sum of estimated volume of artefact lost due to differentially patinated (P2) and unpatinated (UP) scars) In the Figures below, particular features are denoted by the following markings:-

Raw Material: There is no cortex remaining on the excavated pointed, plano-convex handaxe F38, which means that it is not possible to suggest its source from a visual examination. In colour, the patinated surface of F 38 is noticeably greyer than much of the assemblage with a Munsell colour value of 10Y8/1 (light greenish grey) compared with a value of 2.5Y8/1 (white) which is the patina colour of the majority of the assemblage. The area affected by mattock damage on the dorsal face reveals that the unpatinated raw material is also much greyer (Munsell colour value 5PB7/1, light bluish grey) than that from which much of the assemblage is made which is typically very dark (Munsell colour value 2.5Y2.5/1, black). The flint from which F 38 was made appears to be of good quality (i.e. free from natural internal fractures) though there are many heterogeneous inclusions.

Concretion Direction of flake scars Post-depositional fracture surfaces ‘Flint Rot’ / patina leached zone Cortex Natural inclusion in the raw material Ancient (patinated) damage surfaces Numerous small damage scars on edge Thermal break surface Heavily abraded and battered surface Position of broken area (not visible in Image) indicated by this symbol 3.3 The Handaxes 3.3.1 Pointed, Plano-convex Handaxe Excavated At Wood Hill, WH93 F 38. L: 125mm Wi: 66mm T: 32mm We: 200.5g RM: F Co: 10Y8/1 PdD: 2%

Flaking Technique: All the flake scars remaining on F 38 are likely to have been struck by a soft-hammer since they are shallow and as a result, have many ripples. The pattern of truncation of flake removals shows that the dorsal surface was shaped out first (flake scars 9, 13, 23, 12, 10, 11). Then the large flake which forms much of the ventral face (flake scar 58) was struck. Subsequently the knapper removed the last flakes on the ventral surface of the point end, represented as flake scars 41, 43, 44, 42, 46, 45, 49, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 48, 54. This resulted in a straight edge and a very flat ventral face relative to the convex, dorsal surface at the tip. The last sequence of flaking during the manufacture of F 38 is represented by the flake scars on the right edge of the dorsal surface (including 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38) which truncated adjacent flake scars on the ventral surface. Subsequently, very fine flakes ( 80 % repeatable in this test. There were 9 occasions when V1 and V2 data for flaking angle did not concur. In 4 of these instances, one or other of the V1 and V2 records stated that the flaking angle could not be measured. In the other 5 cases of discrepancy the different flaking angle classes recorded for V1 and V2 were adjacent e.g. V1 recorded class 5 and V2 recorded class 6 (See page 29 for a description of the flaking angle measurement method). It seems quite reasonable that this small number of artefacts with V1 and V2 discrepancies for flaking angle, could represent genuinely marginal cases where the flaking angle (which is always subject to some variation) is partly of one class and partly of another. There were no instances in which the discrepancy between flaking angles was 2 or more classes. The errors in recording flaking angle, as revealed by this test of repeatability do not, therefore, greatly affect data analysis and interpretations of the assemblage.

In retrospect, the sextant system of recording cortex position, which was used throughout the collection of data from the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage, has been shown (via the re-recording exercise) not provide the anticipated advantages of precision and accuracy. Thus, in future, a more general scheme, such as recording cortex position as different trend types (e.g. whether cortex is primarily on the distal part, proximal part, mesial part, left lateral or right lateral) should be used in preference to the sextant system.

V2 cortex cover (measured as an estimated percentage of surface area) records exactly matched the V1 records in

67

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

4.3.4 Breakage Data.

100 90 80

=Percentage of V1 and V2 records which do not agree.

70 60 50 40

=Percentage of V1 and V2 records which agree.

30 20 10 0 length damage

width damage

Break descriptions

Total volume lost

Figure 4.4 Breakage data comparisons between V1 and V2 data. relative indicator of the severity of damage on an artefact. Whether the damage is due to ancient knapping breaks or snaps or recent plough damage is determined by reference to the patination of breaks. It should therefore be apparent from the records, which artefacts are broken and which are almost complete. This information allows the assemblage to be sorted into unbroken items (good for metrical analyses as well as qualitative analyses) and broken items (whose qualitative information may at least be of use even if no quantitative data can be obtained). In addition to this, the main types of break should be easily identified. For instance, the surface finds should and indeed do, have a high proportion of recent unpatinated breaks compared with the excavated finds (whose only recent damage appears to have occurred during excavation). As a general rule, however, the breakage data recording was such that it precluded analysis at this stage.

The frequency of absolute agreement between V1 and V2 length and width damage estimates, shown in Figure 4.4 above, was in the order of 60%. This alone does not attest to a high degree of repeatability or accuracy. However, the mean discrepancy between V1 and V2 for length damage was 4.80 and for width damage it was 3.38. The levels of consistency in classification are therefore acceptable. However, there were some outlying values, the most extreme being a disparity of 50 % in which V1 stated that the length was complete and V2 stated that the measured length was approximately 50% of what would have once existed. A recording error (random error) is clearly the reason for this data discrepancy. Nevertheless, the length and width damage values recorded in V1 adequately qualify the length and width measurements taken. Break descriptions included the type of break, the patination of the break, the position of the break on the artefact and the estimated volume lost as a result of that break. The degree of repeatability between V1 and V2 data for each artefact’s individual break descriptions is shown in the third column of Figure 4.4 above. The volume estimates were judged to be compatible if the two readings (V1 and V2) were within 5 % of each other. In approximately 60 % of cases V1 and V2 breakage data were in agreement (i.e. 110 agreeing records among 180 break records since 3 breaks could be described for each artefact). However, the only information which can easily be extracted from the records of breakage data for independent testing is the estimate of total volume of damage due to breakage. This figure gives a good

The total volume lost (whose V1 and V2 discrepancies are shown as the fourth column in Figure 4.4 above) was estimated as the volume of an artefact as a percentage of the estimated original, whole artefact. The V1 and V2 estimates of total volume lost were of the same value in > 40% of cases although the mean average discrepancy between the V1 and V2 values was relatively low at 6.9%. Nevertheless, a further test for estimations of total volume lost was undertaken and is described below.

68

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

Soft Hammer struck flake fragments 100

Estimated % volume of piece as part of estimated whole

90 80 70

Estimated % volume of piece when refitted

60 50 40

% of mass of refitted whole

30 20 10 0

Figure 4.5 Blind test of ability to estimate volumes of soft hammer struck flake fragments – Fragments from left to right were items 52D, 52P, 59M, 59P, 61P, 61D, 64D, 64P, 65M, 65P/L, 67M, 67P, 68D, 68P, 69L, 69L1, 73D, 73M, 80D, 80P, 86M, 87D, 87P.

Mass was used as a relative measure of actual volume, which is scientifically valid because the density of the flint is sufficiently constant. Fragments were weighed and their mass is expressed in the charts below as a percentage of the mass of the refitted whole. In the first test, I estimated the volume of each flake fragment relative to the estimated volume of the whole artefact. This tested the reliability of blind estimations of volume.

4.3.5 A Blind Test Of Flake Fragment Volume Estimation Reliability. During the blind test I was presented with a number of flake fragments from an assemblage of handaxe manufacture debitage. The flakes had fractured during knapping and the blind test was an assessment of my ability to estimate percentage volume lost due to knapping breaks and not post-depositional breaks such as plough damage.

Secondly, I refitted the pieces and then estimated the percentage volume of each piece as a part of the refitted whole (which I could now see). This tested whether I had been able to estimate percentage volumes of fragments in the context of their refitted, whole state. In fact, on refitting the parts, it was clear that in some cases, a significant part (> 10 %) of the flake was still missing (i.e. fragments 65, 67, 69, 73, 86, 87 and 33).Blind estimates of percentage volumes were not recorded for fragments 16L1; 33P; 61D; 64P; and 87D because I remembered the refitting part, from having conducted the test on the other half of the flake first.

The flake fragments had been labelled with numbers relating to their position in the reduction sequence when they were detached during a flint-knapping demonstration by Phil Harding some years previously. Thus, the refitting parts of flakes which had broken during knapping were labelled with the same number. With each flake fragment numbered, it was a relatively easy task for an non-lithic specialist assistant to sort the flakes into the refitting parts of broken flakes (i.e. flake fragments bearing the same number). Each refitting fragment was placed in a separate finds bag. In total 34 fragments were found representing 17 flakes. The flake fragments included examples struck by both hard hammer and soft hammer percussion. This was important since it seemed likely that thick, hard hammer struck flakes might break differently from thin, soft hammer struck flakes. The results of the blind test are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6.

Figure 4.5 above, shows the estimates and actual volumes for soft hammer flake fragments as percentages of the whole flake volume or estimated volume. The estimates for volume made in the context of viewing the whole refitted flake are relatively accurate with a mean average discrepancy from the actual volumes of just 5.8%. In contrast, the estimates of volume without refitting were

69

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

mean of 18.7% and lateral fragments had a mean of 13.2%. This suggests that lateral fragments were the easiest type of fragment from which to estimate volumes. This is to be expected as a lateral fragment gives a long section of the artefact, which provides critical information on flake thickness, length and type of distal termination. Proximal fragments, on the other hand, were on average the most difficult type of fragment from which to try and extrapolate volume estimates, and this is no doubt because large flakes can be struck from small striking platforms (i.e. small proximal ends) but tend not to have small mesial or distal fragments.

on average 20.6% from the actual volume. Therefore, I was shown to be generally good at estimating volumes (as the estimates from refitted flakes show), but estimates of volume based on estimates of the whole flake (i.e. blind estimates) were relatively less accurate. The same pattern is observed for hard hammer flakes with a mean average discrepancy between estimated volumes based on seeing the fragments refitted and the actual volumes of 4.2%, but a mean discrepancy of 26.9 % between the actual volume and the volume as estimated from guessing the dimensions of the whole artefact of which the fragment is a part. The mean average discrepancy between actual volume and estimated volume of unrefitted fragments was slightly lower for soft hammer flakes suggesting that greater consistency in estimating volumes for soft hammer struck flakes existed. This is perhaps because they tend to be flatter and more predictably shaped.

Overall, it is clear that of the degree of damage on artefacts is not accurately expressed by estimations of volume. However, the experimental examples used in the blind test were knapping breaks which tend to be more significant than the edge damage often described in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage data. I am confident that most significant breaks will have been recorded as such, even if, in actual terms, the amount of the flake which a fragment represents may be up to 20 % more, or less, than the figure stated. This methodology not only clarifies total volume lost due to breaks, but also the position of the breaks, patina on the break surface, type of break surface and amount of material lost due to that particular break. Even though the amounts of material

The possibility that the type of fragment might have a significant influence on the accuracy of volume estimates needs further investigation. Having calculated the mean discrepancies between actual volumes and volumes estimated without refitting, including both hard and soft hammer struck pieces, for different types of fragment, it was shown that the distals had a mean of 16.2 %, proximals had a mean of 25.4%, mesial fragments had a

Hard hammer flakes 100 90

Estimated % volume of piece as part of estimated whole

80

Percentage

70 60

Estimated % volume of piece when refitted

50 40 30 20

% of mass of refitted whole

10 0

Figure 4.6 Blind test of ability to estimate volumes of soft hammer struck flake fragments (From left to right, the data displayed relates to items 16L, 16L1, 20L, 20L1,33D, 33P, 34D, 34M).

70

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

certainly linked to ‘accuracy’ and a blind test conducted in estimating percentage volumes from artefact fragments suggested that, although I was able to estimate reliably the percentage volumes of artefact fragments when I saw them fitted back together, estimating the volumes from the fragments alone proved less effective. Proximal fragments were most difficult to use in extrapolating volumes for the whole artefact and lateral fragments seemed to cause the fewest difficulties. Estimations of the volume of artefact lost due to breakage are therefore only suitable as relative indicators of the degree to which artefacts are broken artefacts and do not warrant intensive investigation.

lost might not be an accurate reflection in absolute terms, the record of volume lost due to each break is very likely to reflect which breaks are relatively more or less significant upon individual artefacts.

4.4 Summary of repeatability test results. The repeatability tests show that maximum dimension is the most reliable type of quantitative data and that platform width is the least. The error margins for all the measurements made (maximum dimension, length, width, thickness, platform thickness) are small enough to not affect the resultant data greatly, though platform thickness is a more reliable (and therefore useful) indicator of platform size than the width measurement. It is interesting to note that platform width data are not very reliable, but there does not seem to be an obvious way of improving the method of recording this attribute.

Overall, I have found the majority of data to be repeatable and reliable. It is fortunate that the methodology devised (see Chapter 2) incorporated a number of attributes whose data overlapped. This has allowed the more reliable data to be used in preference to less reliable attributes. For example, the data recorded under the attribute ‘total volume lost’ can be selected in preference to the less reliable classification of ‘is the artefact fragmentary?’ Likewise, Platform thickness measurements can be used in preference to those of platform width, as a basic measure of platform size.

Data represented in Figure 4.1 show that the loose definition of criteria for the qualitative assessment of whether an artefact is Palaeolithic in age or not, renders this attribute not altogether reliable (see Chapter 7 for information on the ways in which Palaeolithic artefacts can be told apart from younger artefacts in the Wood Hill assemblage).

The results derived from the tests discussed above, have provided a solid platform of understanding from which to re-launch the analysis of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage that follows.

A high proportion of V1 and V2 records were at variance as to whether or not particular artefacts were fragmentary, and as to the type of fragment represented. A more reliable indicator of breakage, therefore, is the ‘total volume lost’ and ‘break position’ data.

4.5 Overview of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic Debitage.

The raw material data shown in Figure 4.2 is reasonably repeatable with most errors being of a type which would not affect interpretations. Most of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage is made on nodular chalk flint, and the few pieces with characteristic green cortex and orange rind have been identified as Bull head flint. The other condition data in Figure 4.2 will not feature prominently in further analyses in this thesis because, although they were repeatable and reliable, the information they provided has been superseded by the data presented in Chapter 7.

The description and analysis of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage now continues with an overview of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic debitage assemblage, where the data collected during the study the 1995 Harding debitage (see Chapter 2) provides a comparative example of knapping waste characteristics. This is followed by a description of distinctive items of knapping waste. These analyses are then discussed in terms of the knapping techniques they represent and links with the Wood Hill Palaeolithic tools discussed in the previous chapter. Flakes were the dominant category of debitage in both excavated and surface finds (see Table 4.3 below). Cores were found in small numbers, so whilst the presence of unequivocal handaxe trimming flakes demonstrates that handaxe manufacture is represented, flakes struck by hard hammer percussion are less distinctive, and may have been detached during the early and middle stages of handaxe manufacture or during the reduction of cores rather than during handaxe manufacture.

The technological characteristics data presented in Figure 4.3 are reliable, with the discrepancies which do exist being caused by the small proportion of artefacts which present genuinely ambiguous or marginal features. The breakage data discrepancies shown in Figure 4.4 suggest low levels of repeatability but a review of the actual numerical discrepancies demonstrate that the estimates of the degree of damage on artefacts was in fact very repeatable. In this case, ‘repeatability’ is not

71

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

Flakes ONLY Trenches: DAG 2 DAG 3 DAG 7 DAG 8 DAG 9 DAG 10 DAG 11 DAG 12 DAG 13 DAG 14 DAG 15 DAG 19 DAG 20 DAG 21 S-J 1993 S-J 1994 Excavated Totals: Surface Totals:

Totals: Fl 1 32 24 23 33 41 6 33 21 5 6 7 14 0 54 4 305 287

1 27 18 8 25 15 3 18 18 3 2 1 14 0 30 4 187 242

Ha T Co Nat Fr 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 15 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 17

0 4 4 15 7 24 3 14 2 2 4 6 0 0 17 0 102 19

NF 0 15 9 7 15 11 2 11 15 2 1 1 7 1 16 4 117 162

BH C-W-F 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Flint 1 9 11 1 11 5 1 7 4 1 0 0 6 0 20 0 77 82

Table 4.3: Items recovered from the Wood Hill Palaeolithic site and frequency of different raw material types from which the flakes were made (Fl = flakes; Ha T = handaxe trimming flakes; Co = cores; Nat Fr = Naturally fractured fragment; NF = nodular chalk flint; BH = Bullhead flint; C-W-F = flint out of the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints; ? = indeterminate). deposition (e.g. knapping breaks), P2 breaks resulted from post-depositional damage (mainly from freeze-thaw fractures) and UP scars were produced by recent damage (mostly plough-damage). The chart in Figure 4.7 below, plots the frequency of break type, divided by number of flakes in the sample (each flake could have more than one break). The taller columns in the chart therefore represent a higher frequency of the break type. All the UP damage recorded on excavated finds seemed to have occurred during excavation of the artefacts from the tenacious clayey deposits. The surface finds show a very high degree of degree of unpatinated damage, however, as a result of inclusion in the active plough-soil. The proportions of values for unexcavated P1 and P2 types of damage represent the modern day condition of the artefact assemblage which is below the reach of the plough at Wood Hill. The P1 and P2 breakage types are underrepresented in the surface finds presumably because the modern (UP) damage has removed previous breakage scars. P1 scars (the original knapping breaks) are particularly underrepresented amongst the surface finds, relative to the excavated finds. However, this could also be due to the fact that thick and robust flakes, rather than fragile trimming flakes (which are prone to knapping breaks) predominate in the assemblage recovered via field-walking.

4.5.1 Raw Material. Most of the assemblage is made from nodular chalk flint, rather than the locally available Bullhead flint that derives from the deposits of Tertiary age which, in part, gave rise to the DmaC-w-f, or other nodules of flint derived from the DmaC-w-f. This adds credence to the suggestion that the great majority of the assemblage belongs to a single industry, although several different phases of occupation may have utilised the same local source of flint. It is interesting to note that patinated thermal fractures are not only found on artefacts but also unmodified flint at the site, suggesting that a weathered source of raw material, such as flint exposed on an eroding hillside or cliff talus may have been the source of the raw material selected for use, rather than flint fresh (and unweathered) from the Chalk. 4.5.2 Patterns Of Breakage And Condition. No distinct groups of different condition types were identified within the Wood Hill Palaeolithic debitage assemblage in terms of overall condition and weathering, though some variability was noted. With regard to breakage, P1 type breaks were those that appeared to represent damage which occurred at the time of

72

CHAPTER 4

WOOD HILL: DEBITAGE

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 UP

P1

excavated

P2

surface

Figure 4.7 Chart showing frequency of different break types per flake comparing artefacts that were excavated and recovered from the surface respectively. burial are insignificant (0.08 and 0.06 respectively). Figure 4.9 below shows the spatial distribution of artefacts of different maximum dimension groupings within the area that was most intensively excavated. The map shows that artefacts appear to cluster in lateral distribution, but that they are not sorted by size.

4.5.3 Flake Size Distribution. A comparison between the sizes of flakes which were excavated with those recovered from the surface during field-walking shows a great similarity in values for maximum dimension, thickness and weight. However, the minimum and mean values show that larger (and therefore more visible) artefacts were more frequently recovered than smaller ones during field-walking.

Figure 4.10 (below) shows the percentage frequency of different sizes of flakes. A low representation among surface finds of flakes < 4cm long is clearly evident. Among excavated finds, it is interesting to note that artefacts between 1cm and 2cm in maximum dimension were less common than those between 2 and 3 cm in maximum dimension. If the size distribution of the excavated sample from Wood Hill is compared with modern experimental data (see Figure 4.11 below), the form of the Wood Hill assemblage appears to be atypical of all Lower Palaeolithic knapping techniques. However, it seems likely that flake size distribution data is distorted by collection bias and that in many cases smaller artefacts were not collected during the earlier excavations. Sieving conducted during Scott-Jackson’s 1993 trench recovered 587 of the smallest mechanically struck flakes ( 20 mm diameter, but later found that my original sorting method required refinement in order to separate out every item in excess of 20 mm. As a result, the Harding 1995 debitage data may under-represent the smaller fraction of debitage, even if not drastically. The later part of the refitted reduction sequence also shows a slight distortion of the knapping debris, since fewer of the fine thinning and finishing flakes could be refitted – many had shattered into tiny fragments when struck from the surface of the tool. Nevertheless, those that were refitted certainly share characteristics with other late phase flakes and fewer of the features of early stage knapping debris.

8.3 New Observations and Methodological Advances. The methodological approaches undertaken for this thesis are now examined in chapter order:• • • • • •

Chapter 2 – Analysis and Refitting of Handaxe Debitage Chapter 3 – Analysis of the Palaeolithic Tools from Wood Hill, Kent Chapter 4 – Analysis of the Palaeolithic Debitage from Wood Hill, Kent Chapter 5 – Experimental Approaches to Handaxe Morphological Variability Chapter 6 – Field-walking at Dickett’s Field Chapter 7 – Accelerated Weathering Tests on Flint

A programme for future work would therefore, include the analysis and refitting of other experimentally produced handaxe reduction sequences with a particular emphasis on investigating the problem of the lower size ranges of debitage. It is necessary to conduct an experiment in which the debris from each hammer blow is collected to allow the entire nodule to be refitted. From this it would be possible to investigate whether it is worth recording and analysing flakes < 20 mm diameter. Naturally, the size range of flake debitage, relevant to the understanding of microlithic technology or, say, the resharpening of scrapers, may be very different to what is useful in order to gain an understanding of handaxemaking or Levallois core reduction. Currently, it seems likely that flakes and fragments > 20 mm provide more useful technological information about knapping handaxes than does the smaller material. However, it is quite possible that fragmentary pieces < 20 mm may provide significant information about the assemblage of artefacts > 20 mm. An example is small proximal fragments: though they may be less than 20 mm, they may provide all the information about the platform preparation technique used to detach a flake significantly > 20 mm in diameter.

8.3.1 Analysis and Refitting of Handaxe debitage (Chapter 2). The analysis and refitting of an experimentally produced set of debitage from handaxe manufacture (the ‘Harding 1995 debitage’) fulfilled 3 basic requirements. In the first place, a control data set was produced against which genuine Palaeolithic artefact assemblages could be compared. Secondly, I was also able to explore the analytical potential of various attributes in the manner of a pilot study, in preparation for the main analysis of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage. For example, in the recording of the Harding 1995 debitage I treated flake scars with intact negative bulbs of percussion separately from those without. This system proved to be too unwieldy during analysis and was furthermore found to be redundant to the recording of relict core edges. As a result, I altered the method of recording flake scars for the main analysis of the Wood Hill assemblage and thereby avoided problems in the main dataset3. The third

It is desirable and indeed actually necessary to conduct numerous parallel experiments to increase our database of complete reduction sequences. Many of these projects

3

The basic metrical data collected from the Harding 1995 debitage was not subject to complications of this sort and as

such was considered adequate as control dataset with which to compare archaeological assemblages.

161

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION

would be ideal as undergraduate teaching and research initiation studies, such that the students could investigate aspects of the technology that interest them, gain skills in recording and analysis and at the same time contribute much needed data for future research. Other Lower and Middle Palaeolithic knapping technologies also need to be investigated in this way. Different raw material types, different levels of skill in the knapper, different techniques (e.g. making pointed, plano-convex handaxes by debitage or façonnage). This data could be compiled as a framework of reduction sequence examples for comparison with archaeological assemblages. As modern technology advances, it may soon be possible for computers to fit data from archaeological assemblages with their closest known experimental parallel or suggest where significant differences exist between assemblages and the experimental sets. It is not envisaged that such analyses would ever take precedence over the interpretation of the human observer, but they would certainly provide a useful analytical tool.

cortex will be noted as tending to be located on the proximal, mesial, distal, left lateral or right lateral parts of the dorsal surface. The most significant discrepancies were found to be in the recording of breakage. I decided therefore that the ‘total volume lost’ gave a reasonable indication of the relative amount of artefact damage but more detailed analyses of the breakage data were considered untenable. In future, no change will be made to the recording of platform type and distal type since the discrepancies in these data seemed to reflect the proportion of genuinely ambiguous cases. The interpretation and notes for each artefact are therefore crucial since they allow the analyst to record instances of ambiguity.

8.3.2 Analysis of the Wood Hill assemblage (Chapters 3 and 4).

8.3.3 Experimental approaches morphological variability (Chapter 5).

Despite the lack of detailed data for the context of the artefacts from across the whole site, the analyses of the Wood Hill Palaeolithic artefacts proved successful as it was possible to identify features within the assemblage (i.e. flakes, cores, unifacial handaxe on a flake, and experimental knapping) which strongly suggest the manufacture of handaxes by a process of debitage (shaping from a flake) rather than façonnage (shaping from a nodule). This was surprising as I had expected to find evidence of handaxe manufacture comparable to the façonnage technique, as exemplified by the Harding 1995 reduction sequence. Comparisons with flake tools and core types from Wolvercote, Red Barns and Wilmington strengthen the case for the dominance, or perhaps exclusive presence, of the pointed, plano-convex handaxe industry in the Wood Hill Palaeolithic assemblage. The large amount of data collected from the Wood Hill assemblage as a result of this research will be useful to future comparative investigations of lithic assemblages from sites on DmaC-w-f. In future however, the excavation of wide areas of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites on DmaC-w-f is advocated, since the plan-view spatial data is likely to provide insights into the archaeology of sites which can not be deduced or derived by any other means of investigation.

The butchery of a roe deer using various shapes and sizes of handaxe suggested that, on the one hand, tool morphology governed the type of task that could be achieved efficiently and, on the other, that different tool shapes could be used in different ways to complete the same jobs. For example, the ficron handaxe used in the experiment was found to be a relatively poor de-fleshing tool but was excellent for skin piercing. In butchery, the ovate handaxes were best used with an arc-shaped stroke whilst a straight cutting motion made most efficient use of a straight-edged pointed handaxe. Poorly made tools with irregular edges and surfaces were not as useful as evenly shaped, thin handaxes made by skilled knappers.

The re-recording exercise allowed for a reassessment of the Wood Hill data and for the identification of any anomalies. Wherever a new recording technique is developed therefore, I strongly advocate a re-recording test to check the reliability of the results. to

Handaxe

Knapping skill therefore seemed to be related to both handaxe function and handaxe morphological variability. As an offshoot from this observation, a study of handaxes made by novice knappers showed that they shared characteristic features such as small size, relative thickness, irregular edges and surfaces. Further experiments showed that learner knappers are liable to produce tools which are not of the desired morphology, since low knapping skill prevents the material realisation of the mental goal. A great deal of variability in handaxe morphology appears therefore to relate to variable levels of knapping skill.

In order to establish that the data collected from the Wood Hill assemblage was standardized, I re-recorded a 10 % sample in advance of conducting the main analyses. The main measurements of length, width, thickness and maximum dimension were found to be closely similar in the 10 % sample and the original set of data. Cortex cover and the dorsal flake scar count were also highly repeatable data. The recording of cortex position was found to be problematic, however, as the data produced was detailed but not sufficiently accurate. In future,

The results of these experimental investigations are compelling and certainly indicate new directions for investigation with implications for explaining aspects of Palaeolithic assemblage variability in terms of human population dynamics and indeed human individuals. For example, at a site where all the tools are large and well made, it could be suggested that only competent adults were present. At other sites, less well made handaxes (perhaps coupled with a diversity of handaxe 162

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION

artefacts collected during the programme relate to this period.

morphologies) may indicate the presence of young, poorly skilled knappers. There are however, many questions to which no answers exist - did the poorly skilled knappers select their own raw material or was it provisioned by more experienced knappers? Can actual teaching episodes be identified? The key to knapping skill level presented in Chapter 5 allows questions such as these to be investigated further. Undoubtedly, more experiments in the use of handaxes of different morphologies are required to confirm the hypotheses I have postulated on the bases of experiments reported here. The use of digital video recording is strongly advised as it provides a means of cheap, versatile, high quality recording of experiments which aid greatly in identifying important but subtle attributes of tool use behaviour.

recent

fieldwalking

Wide area excavation at Dickett’s Field is now required to investigate whether the surface scatters tally with only partially ploughed out Palaeolithic floors or not and to find out whether different phases of Palaeolithic occupation can be identified at the site. 8.3.5 Accelerated weathering tests on flint (Chapter 7). Observation of artefacts from Wood Hill suggested the existence of two extreme forms of white patination. The first is the patina characteristic of the Lower Palaeolithic artefacts excavated from within the DmaC-w-f. This patina, labelled white patina type a, has a surface veneer of silky lustre and below this a layer of friable, white flint residue (several millimetres thick in some cases). White patina type b does not have a pronounced lustrous surface veneer and often, inclusions within the flint have a grey colour, where they would appear in bluish tones if the patina were of type a. White patina type b was replicated experimentally by immersion of flint within 2 molar NaOH. It is suggested that the white patina type a (which could not be replicated in the laboratory during the time available for experimental work) results from a much slower process of patination and one that involves the precipitation of silica at the surface of artefacts, producing the relatively deep (perhaps 0.5 mm) of thick surface veneer.

8.3.4 Field-walking at Dickett’s Field, Yarnham’s Farm, Hants. (Chapter 6). The 2000-2001 field-walking programme at Dickett’s Field located a distinct scatter of Palaeolithic artefacts in the middle of the field and a second, less strongly defined scatter to the north west of this. Both scatters occur on the highest points on this plateau. In future, I would like to investigate whether it is invariably the highest area in any field on the DmaC-w-f where most Lower and Middle Palaeolihtic artefacts are to be found. If so, the quickest way to survey the potential of new areas would be to concentrate on the topographically highest part of any given field, rather than concentrating on the hollows (even though depressions may well hold Palaeolithic artefacts in place below the depth of ploughing).

One important challenge remains - in Chapter 7, I suggested that it might be possible to relate with confidence, artefact patination types to the soil and topographic (‘landsurface’) unit from which they derive. Although a relationship between the landsurface unit artefact patina types appears to exist, it is clearly not simplistic. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that useful principles will arise that will help us to characterise surface scatters and to provide information about artefacts excavated in situ in dmC-w-f of southern England.

The field-walking strategy adopted for this research was found to be cheap, reliable, and easy to operate. Solo fieldwork can be rather slow by comparison with projects which employ a number of people. This is not a serious concern for long term investigations such as the one conducted in Dickett’s Field. Rather, it is preferable to have reduced collector biases in the data (by reducing the number of individual collectors) and to have avoided the enormous amount of post-fieldwork washing, sorting and archiving which would have resulted from the use of a team of collectors with lower artefact recognition skills than myself, given the fact that the survey area is densely strewn with flint.

8.4 Summary. This research has demonstrated the great potential of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from the sites on the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints and has developed and tested various new methodologies. Hitherto undocumented aspects of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic individual behaviour and group dynamics, have been revealed by this research, particularly with regard to the deployment of stone tool technology and the use of the landscape as a whole. The continued development and application of the these methodological approaches to research on Palaeolithic assemblages from sites on the deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints, should certainly contribute greatly to our understanding of the manufacture and use of stone tools, the people who made

Previous concerns that a largely unpatinated (or glossy patinated) bout coupé from the site (Willis Old Collection 3219, Yarnham’s farm artefacts, Chilcomb House) might not be a genuine Palaeolithic artefact but a rough-out or tool from a later period on the grounds of its condition, seem less likely now that a second small, typically Mousterian handaxe, one complete small cordate, a second near complete small cordate and a recurrent Levallois blade core have been recovered from the site. The Dickett’s Field assemblage may be mixed, but it now seems certain that there was at least one Mousterian phase of occupation at the site and I believe that all the 163

CHAPTER 8

DISCUSSION

them and the processes which have affected them since their deposition.

164

Appendix I: The 1995 Harding Debitage – Selected Attributes. The following table shows only the data relating to artefacts that were refitted (see Chapter 2 for more details). Key to the table: L = Length, Wi = Width, Th = Thickness, MD = Maximum Dimension, We = Weight. Platform = Platform Type 0=no platform, 1=plain, 2=dihedral, 3=polyhedral, 4=facetted, 5=cortical, 6=punctiform, 7=linear, 8=mixed, 9=indeterminate. Distal = Distal Type 0=no distal end, 1=feather, 2=hinge, 3=step, 4=plunging, 5=Indeterminate, 6=mixed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 30 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

0 0 0 0 34 43 0 15 31 18 0 20 16 115 51 63 137 43 19 21 13 20 10 63 64 98 55 94 61 39 21 31

124 34 35 29 34 42 27 21 40 27 18 18 43 122 101 75 81 71 41 14 20 20 24 88 87 105 59 73 57 35 75 30

99 12 13 15 13 14 12 4 8 12 13 8 11 19 12 39 37 26 15 12 6 6 9 38 15 38 30 35 14 16 10 8

132 55 51 43 53 54 47 42 38 35 36 20 43 144 101 91 137 71 49 21 21 22 30 93 93 106 91 108 79 49 21 39

1063.8 16.1 24.2 14.6 15.1 20.8 12.3 2.6 4.5 9 6.5 2.2 3.8 185.2 36.4 134.5 421.2 70.4 8.7 2.5 1.4 2 1.7 159.6 69.5 308.9 93.9 287.7 36.6 17.5 15.3 5.9

165

0 0 0 0 8 (5+1+2) 5 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 5 8 (3 + 4) 1 1 1 5 6 0 1

0 5 5 0 2 2 2 1 2 5 0 0 0 2 2 5 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1

Cortex Cover %

Distal Type

Platform Type

We (g)

MD (mm)

Th (mm)

Wi(mm)

L (mm)

Identification number

Cortex cover % = Estimated percentage of dorsal surface covered by cortex.

40 100 100 45 90 75 100 85 45 100 0 40 20 20 40 50 100 100 30 100 100 0 30 30 40 50 45 85 0 100 100 70

43 45 47 48 51 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 70 71 72 74 76 77 79 80 85 88 89 93 94 95 98 99 100 101 102 103 109 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

25 25 60 25 31 24 15 20 73 69 81 29 28 66 56 60 82 41 74 44 53 26 40 54 56 39 61 18 36 53 46 39 20 20 34 27 49 46 57 49 35 34 53 44 60

15 3 19 7 12 2 7 6 8 15 29 11 6 30 11 19 12 11 9 8 21 13 9 8 13 5 8 5 7 11 8 15 8 4 9 5 11 8 12 7 4 8 9 7 8

50 33 65 40 32 24 24 22 74 82 82 45 34 103 65 68 82 76 77 48 53 58 45 54 61 43 62 26 36 69 57 52 29 22 73 29 107 63 71 73 38 52 66 69 73

9.5 1.9 51.2 5.1 6.1 1.2 1.8 1.6 32.3 87.6 135 5.6 3.8 124.8 22.7 63.3 44.4 20.5 22.5 10 33.8 9.4 9.2 6.2 26 7.2 15.8 1.4 3.8 27 14.3 21.8 3 1.4 21.8 1.4 61.7 15.4 38.2 24.6 3.6 8.7 27.1 12.5 22.4

166

5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 (5 + 2) 1 0 8 (2 + 5) 1 0 9 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 8 (5 + 3) 3 4 4 9 0 0 4 3 0 4 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 9

6 (1 + 2) 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 5 1 2 6 (2 + 3) 5 1 0 2 2 5 2 5 6 (4 + 1) 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1

Cortex Cover %

Distal Type

Platform Type

We (g)

Th (mm)

Wi(mm)

L (mm) 28 26 51 40 23 20 21 16 45 75 58 45 27 103 50 63 56 76 44 33 43 44 41 22 49 38 39 25 20 58 57 50 29 22 71 13 104 63 71 72 32 35 65 69 73

MD (mm)

THE 1995 HARDING

Identificatio n number

APPENDIX I DEBITAGE

0 15 0 20 0 100 40 0 100 0 2 0 0 5 20 10 0 10 10 30 30 0 25 0 33 10 5 0 0 20 15 30 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0

124 126 127 128 130 134 135 139 141 142 144 145 146 148 149 150 151 152 155 157 160 161 163 164 170 171 174 178 180 190

28 32 29 14 18 31 34 30 26 35 30 35 26 13 31 24 19 29 44 19 24 18 35 23 27 25 22 22 27 19

7 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 5 6 5 8 6 4 4 3 5 7 8 4 5 3 5 6 4 3 3 4 5 4

31 39 31 32 37 34 34 48 40 35 41 50 36 37 45 42 42 55 44 21 59 29 38 30 32 25 22 25 27 38

4.8 3.8 2.6 1.9 1.6 2 1.3 4.7 3.2 4.3 5.3 7.4 3.8 1.6 3.1 3.5 2.2 5.4 7.7 1 4.6 1.3 5.1 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.3 2.3 1.6

167

0 0 0 0 0 8 (7 + 4) 9 9 9 3 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 9 9 7 0 0 3 0 0 7 3 0 1 9

0 1 0 1 6 (1 + 2) 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 6 (1 + 3) 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 6 (1 + 3) 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

Cortex Cover %

Distal Type

Platform Type

We (g)

Th (mm)

Wi(mm)

L (mm) 31 37 15 32 37 28 20 38 38 21 41 29 36 26 45 38 42 54 28 15 58 29 37 27 23 22 13 20 25 38

MD (mm)

THE 1995 HARDING

Identificatio n number

APPENDIX I DEBITAGE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0

Appendix II: Wood Hill Lower Palaeolithic Assemblage - Selected Attributes. In the following table, all records shaded grey are individually discussed in the thesis. Key to the table: Type: BF = Biface; CO = Core; FL = Flake; FL TO = Flake Tool; CO TO = Core Tool; IR = Irregular knapping waste; N = Natural, ? = Indeterminate. Total % lost = Total estimated percentage volume of artefact lost due to damage. L = Length; Wi = Width; Th = Thickness, MD = Maximum Dimension; We = Weight. Handaxes only: L1=Length from butt end to maximum width (breadth) (see Roe, 1964: 259-260). T1=Thickness at one-fifth the length from the tip end (see Roe, 1964: 258). B1=Breadth (width) at one-fifth the length from the tip end (see ibid.). B2=Breadth (width) at one-fifth the length from the butt end (see ibid.). Total % cortex cover = Total estimated percentage of the artefact surface area covered by cortex. Wymer Type = See scheme of handaxe types in Wymer 1968: 58-60. Flakes only: Fragment = Type of Fragment (P=proximal; M=Mesial, D=Distal, R=Right, L=Left). D cortex cover % = Estimated percentage of dorsal surface covered by cortex. Platform = Platform Type 0=no platform, 1=plain, 2=dihedral, 3=polyhedral, 4=facetted, 5=cortical, 6=punctiform, 7=linear, 8=mixed, 9=indeterminate.

FL FL FL FL

65 35

D P

23 141 14 32

27 59 25 20

168

6 118 4 5

29 141 25 38

Total % of cortex cover

Ff Gkie JV1f ? ? ? ? -

0 10