The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin: A regional model of hominid behaviour during the Middle Pleistocene 9781841710235, 9781407319186

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Preface
Definitions and Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Problems and Potential of the English Rivers Data
Chapter 3: Spatial Modelling and GIS
Chapter 4: Spatial Model of an Industrial Landscape
Chapter 5: Chronological Framework
Chapter 6: Artefact Abrasion and Gravel Erosion
Chapter 7: A Long-Term Hominid Model
Chapter 8: Conclusions
Bibliography
Appendices

Citation preview

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

BAR  286  1999   HOSFIELD  

The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin A regional model of hominid behaviour during the Middle Pleistocene

THE PALAEOLITHIC OF THE HAMPSHIRE BASIN

Robert Hosfield

BAR British Series 286 B A R

1999

The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin A regional model of hominid behaviour during the Middle Pleistocene

Robert Hosfield

I;

'

'·

·i

::'.?.•

....~,·..

.

BAR British Series 286 1999

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 286 The Palaeolithic of the Hampshire Basin © R Hosfield and the Publisher 1999 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 9781841710235 paperback ISBN 9781407319186 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710235 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 1999. 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

Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Preface Definitions and Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Aims of Research 1.1.1 Research Themes 1.2 British Palaeolithic Research 1.2.1 Typological Sequences 1.2.2 Site-Based Studies 1.2.3 Regional Landscape Studies 1.2.4 A Regional Perspective

iii vii ix xi 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5

Chapter 2: Problems and Potential of the English Rivers D~ 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Derived Palimpsests 7 2.2.1 Off-Site Archaeology 7 2.2.2 East African Palimpsests 9 2.3 Regional Models of Hominid Behaviour 10 2.3.1 Searching for Living Floors 10 2.3.2 Hominids Across the Landscape 10 2.3.3 Ethnographic Models 12 2.3.4 Models in the Middle 13 2.4 The Structure of British Palaeolithic Data 14 2.4.1 85,000 Year Temporal Units 14 2.4.2 British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Data 15 2.4.3 SRPP and TERPS 16 2.4.4 Modelling a Palimpsest Landscape 16 2.4.5 Interpreting a Palimpsest Landscape 18 2.5 Archaeology and the Geology of the Solent River Basin 19 2.5.1 Introduction 19 2.5.2 The Hampshire Basin 20 2.5.3 The Solent River 20 2.5.4 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Archaeology 22 2.6 Conclusion 25 Chapter 3: Spatial Modelling and GIS 3.1 What is GIS? 3.1.1 GIS Structure and Organisation 3.1.2 GIS and Predictive Modelling 3.1.3 History of Predictive Modelling in Archaeology 3.1.4 Procedures of Spatial Modelling 3.2 Modelling the British Palaeolithic 3.2.1 Nature of Spatial Modelling 3.2.2 Processes of Archaeological Discovery 3.2.3 Recording Model Variables 3.3 Quantifying the Collectors 3.3.1 Ernest Westlake: An 'Extraordinary' Naturalist 3.3.2 The Westlake Findspots 3.3.3 An Antiquarian Territory? 3.3.4 Regional Fieldwork Traditions 3.4 Modelling the Industrial Change 3.4.1 The Impact of Mechanisation 3.4.2 Changing Collection Opportunities

27 27 27 27 29 31 31 31 32 35 36 36 38 39 44 48 48 49

3.4.3 Summary 3.4.4 Dating the Changeover: the Aggregates Industry 3.4.5 Dating the Changeover: Infrastructure Construction 3.4.6 Dating the Changeover: Urbanisation 3.4.7 Modifying the Cartographic Variables 3.5 Conclusions

49

Chapter 4: Spatial Model of an Industrial Landscape 4.1 Building the Spatial Model 4.2 The Spatial Model 4.2.1 Model Variables 4.2.2 Data Representation 4.3 Analysis 4.3.1 Results 4.4 CRM Applications 4.4.1 Land Parcels with Archaeology 4.4.2 Land Parcels without Archaeology 4.4.3 Summary 4.5 Hominid Archaeology Applications 4.6 Conclusions to the Spatial Model 4.6.1 Pros and Cons of the Spatial Model

57 57 57 57 58 58 58 60 60 65 73 74 75 77

50 52 53 54 55

Chapter 5: Chronological Framework 79 5.1 Chronological Frameworks 79 5.1.1 A Global Chronology: Deep-Sea Cores 79 5.1.2 The Formation of River Terrace Sequences 79 5.1.3 Allen & Gibbard's Solent River Model 85 5.2 Study Areas 90 5.3 Bournemouth-Southampton Study Area 90 5.3.1 Introduction 90 5.3.2. Chronological Evidence 90 5.3.3 Depositional Sequences at Lepe and Pennington 92 5.3.4 Chronological Solutions 93 5.3.5 The Southward Migration Model: Problems 94 5.3.6 The Lepe Interglacial & Bridgland's Levallois Stage 96 5.3.7 Hypothetical Models and Criticisms 97 5.4 Wareham-Dorchester Study Area 98 5.4.1 Introduction 98 5.4.2 Chronological Evidence 98 5.4.3 Palaeoliths as Chronological Markers: Problems 99 5.4.4 A Middle Pleistocene Diversion? 99 5.4.5 Hypothetical Models and Criticisms 100 5.5 Salisbury Study Area 103 5.5.1 Introduction 103 5.5.2 Chronological Evidence 103 5.5.3 Discussion 104 5.5.4 Chronological Models 106 5.5.5 Problems and Conclusions 107 5.6 Southampton and the Test Valley Study Area 107 5.6.1 Introduction 107 5.6.2 Chronological Evidence 107 5.6.3 Discussion 108 5.6.4 OIS-8: A Levallois Stage? 109 5.6.5 Problems and Conclusions 109 5.7 Regional Chronology and Comparisons 109 Chapter 6: Artefact Abrasion and Gravel Erosion 6.1 Introduction

111 111

6.2 Artefact Abrasion 6.2.1 Introduction 6.2.2 Reviewing Artefact Abrasion Studies 6.3 Tumbling Mill Experiments: after Shackley 6.3.1 Aims 6.3.2 Results 6.3.3 Applications 6.4 Control Data 6.4.1 Control Data Specifications 6.4.2 Afon Y stwyth Experimental Control Data 6.4.3 Great Pan Farm Pit, Shide 6.4.4 Bleak Down, Godshill 6.4.5 Application of the Artefact Abrasion Data 6.5 Chalk and Sand: River Valley Evolution 6.5.1 Introduction 6.5.2 Archaeological Implications 6.5.3 Pluvial Dumps 6.5.4 Multiple Pluvial Dumps 6.5.5 River Confluence Sites 6.5.6 Summary and A Cautionary Tale 6.6 Modelling Artefact Erosion and Reworking 6.6.1 Introduction 6.6.2 Principles of Erosion and Reworking 6.6.3 Methodology 6.6.4 Limitations and Assumptions 6.6.5 Units of Analysis 6.7 Case Study: The Moreton Pits 6.7.1 Modelling Procedure 6.7.2 Summary 6.8 Conclusions Chapter 7: A Long-Term Hominid Model 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Goals 7.1.2 Methodology 7 .2 Biface Discard: Problems and Meanings 7.2.1 Biface Use 7 .2.2 Accumulation of Bifaces 7.2.3 Bifaces in the Landscape 7.3 Continental Trends in Hominid Demography 7.3.1 Modelling Assumptions 7.3.2 Results 7.3.3 Interpretation 7.3.4 High & Low Latitude Comparison 7.4 Regional Archaeological Structure 7.4.1 Introduction 7.4.2 Methodology 7.4.3 Results 7.4.4 Interpretation 7.4.5 Spatio-Temporal Structure 7.4.6 Interpretation 7 .5 Regional Raw Material Sources & Biface Form 7.5.1 Introduction 7.5.2 The Hampshire Basin Region 7.5.3 Data 7.5.4 Results 7.5.5 Interpretation 7.6 Sub-Regional Patterns 7.6.1 Introduction 7.6.2 Methodology 7.6.3 Stour Valley 7.6.4 Avon Valley

111 111 112 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 117 118 120 122 122 122 123 126 127 131 132 132 132 133 136 136 137 137 138 139

7.6.5 Test Valley 7.6.6 Itchen Valley 7.6.7 Summary 7. 7 Conclusions

166 167 169 170

Chapter 8: Conclusion

173

Bibliography

175

Appendices Appendix A Sampled Artefact Abrasion Data Appendix B Nine Archaeological Sites Appendix C Site Distribution Data Appendix D Artefact Display Criteria AppendixE Spatial Model Variables Appendix F CD Documentation

185 185 185 193 193 199 199 200 200 202 202 217 217

Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

141 141 141 141 145 145 145 146 148 148 149 150 151 153 153 153 154 155 157 158 159 159 160 160 160 160 161 161 161 162 164

ii

3.23: Navies employed by Messrs Robert.T. Relf & Son on the Meon Valley line 53 3.24: Drawing of the construction of Southampton docks, 1932 54

List of Figures 2.1: Modelled distribution of activities within the home range 2.2: Modelled patterning of artefacts within the home range 2.3: Isaac's food sharing model 2.4: Four rival interpretations of stone artefact and animal bone concentrations in ancient sediments 2.5: Sample Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project map sheet 2.6: Formation and interpretation of landscape data 2.7: Hampshire Basin study region, southern England 2.8: Pre-Quaternary geology of the Hampshire Basin 2.9: Location map of the ancestral Solent River drainage basin 2.10: The Solent River at the end of the Middle Pleistocene 2.11: Hooley's course of the Solent River during the Miocene 2.12: Distribution of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic findspots across the Hampshire Basin 2.13: Distribution of river gravel deposits and selected Palaeolithic findspots in the Hampshire Basin 3.1: Schematic representation of data themes and the 'overlay' structure 3.2: Relationship between the variables influencing Palaeolithic research 3.3: Schematic representation of the processes of Palaeolithic material discovery 3.4: Representation of vector polygon data within a raster environment 3.5: Representation of vector point data within a raster environment 3.6: Ernest Westlake (1855-1922) 3.7: Periods of fieldwork covered by E.Westlake's 17 notebooks 3.8: Distribution ofE.Westlake's geological and archaeological sites and the SRPP Palaeolithic findspots 3.9: % differential values for classification-3 (a) 3.10: % differential values for classification-3 (b) 3.11: 'Collection territory' template 3.12: Plot of antiquarian traditions for the Hampshire Basin 3.13: Manual excavation at the Caddington clay pits, Hertfordshire / Bedfordshire border 3.14: Mr.G. Carter sieving gravel 3.15: Cannoncourt Farm pit, Furze Platt, 1931 3.16: Lent Rise gravel pit, Burnham, c.1935 3.17: Highlands Farm pit, Rotherfield Peppard 3.18: Steam excavator in use during construction of Bournemouth station, 1884 3.19: Steam excavator in use during construction of the Alton to Basingstoke light railway, 1898-1899 3.20: Mechanical diggers used in the construction of the Winchester by-pass, c.1943 3.21: Manual excavation of a station platform by navies, 1918 3.22: Manual excavation of a station platform by navies, 1918 (b)

8

4.1: Logistic regression model (p(opps)) for the Hampshire Basin 4.2: Prediction category (i 1) histogram for land parcels with recorded archaeology (Hampshire Basin) 4.3: Potential for Palaeolithic material in findspot locations across the Hampshire Basin 4.4: Potential for Palaeolithic material in findspot locations within the Lower Avon Valley 4.5: Prediction category (i 1) histogram for land parcels with recorded archaeology (Lower Avon Valley) 4.6: Adjusted potential for Palaeolithic material in findspot locations across the Hampshire Basin 4.7: Adjusted potential for Palaeolithic material in findspot locations within the Lower Avon Valley 4.8: Spatial errors of data plotting 4.9: Potential for spatial errors in adjacent raster cells 4.10: Distribution of 'blank' land parcels across the Hampshire Basin 4.11: Potential for Palaeolithic material in 'blank' locations (p(opps) > .5) across the Hampshire Basin 4.12: Potential for Palaeolithic material in 'blank' locations (p(opps) > .5) within the Lower Avon Valley 4.13: Prediction category (i 1) histogram for 'blank' locations (p(opps) > .5) across the Hampshire Basin 4.14: Potential for Palaeolithic material in unmasked 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) across the Hampshire Basin 4.15: Prediction category (i 1) histogram for unmasked 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) across the Hampshire Basin 4.16: Prediction category (i 1) histogram for masked 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) across the Hampshire Basin 4.17: Potential for Palaeolithic material in masked 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) across the Hampshire B~n 4.18: Potential for Palaeolithic material in masked 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) within the Lower Avon Valley 4.19: Palaeolithic findspot buffer for the Hampshire Basin 4.20: Middle Pleistocene deposit buffer for the Hampshire Basin 4.21: Weighted Middle Pleistocene deposits for the Hampshire Basin 4.22: Middle Pleistocene river confluence buffer for the Hampshire Basin 4.23: Bedrock boundary buffer for the Hampshire Basin 4.24: External data prediction category (i 1) histogram (Hampshire Basin) 4.25: Potential for Palaeolithic material in 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) within the Lower Avon Valley (external data) 4.26: Potential for Palaeolithic material in 'blank' locations (p(opps) < .5) across the Hampshire Basin (external data) 4.27: Hampshire Basin prediction-I 4.28: Hampshire Basin prediction-2

8

10 11 17 18 20 20 20 21 21 23 24

27 32 33 36 36 37 38 43 43 44 45 48 50 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 53 53

iii

59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 64 65 66 67 67

68

68

68

@

70 70 70 71 72 72 72

73

74 75 76

4.29: Hampshire Basin prediction-3 5.1: Pleistocene climatic cycles in deep-sea core V28238 5.2: Climatic fluctuation model of the formation of aggradational terraces 5.3: Schematic model of fluvial terrace formation 5.4: Idealised transverse section through the terrace sequence in the Lower Thames valley 5.5: Alternative schematic models of fluvial terrace formation 5.6: Gravel deposits of the Bournemouth-Southampton area 5.7: Findspot and artefact densities for the Old Milton and Tom's Down Gravels 5.8: Generalised long profiles for the fluvial aggradations of the Frame and Solent Rivers 5.9: Selected terrace gravel correlations for generalised long profiles of the fluvial aggradations of the Frame and Solent Rivers 5 .10: The river Frame and Solent River at the end of the middle Pleistocene 5.11: Confluence of the river Avon and tributaries in the Salisbury environs 5.12: Oxygen isotope stage sequence as inserted into Bournemouth and Lower Avon terrace models 5 .13: Distribution of Palaeolithic findspots on Milford Hill, Salisbury 5 .14: Predicted conditions for archaeological discovery in Southampton and the Test valley 5.15: Postulated oxygen isotope stages 13/12 deposits 5.16: Postulated oxygen isotope stages 11/10 deposits 5.17: Postulated oxygen isotope stages 9/8 deposits 5.18: Postulated oxygen isotope stages 7/6 deposits 5.19: Postulated oxygen isotope stages 5/2 deposits 6.1: Biface abrasion versus experiment running time 6.2: Flint biface after 50 hours experimental abrasion 6.3: Flint biface after 50 hours experimental abrasion 6.4: Biface weight versus experiment running time 6.5: Histogram of abrasion values (µm) for the Afon Y stwyth and Great Pan Farm biface samples 6.6: Distribution of implement types and abrasion states in Poole's Higher Terrace, Bleak Down 6.7: Transverse section (east to west) of the Bleak Down deposits 6.8: Histogram of abrasion values (µm) for the Afon Y stwyth, Great Pan Farm and Bleak Down biface samples 6.9: Biface abrasion versus transported distances 6.10: Pre-Quaternary geology in the Wood Green and Dunbridge environs 6.11: Distribution of terrace gravel deposits in the vicinity of Wood Green 6.12: Distribution of terrace gravel deposits in the vicinity of Ibsley and Ringwood 6.13: Histogram of biface transportation distances for Wood Green 6.14: Histogram of biface transportation distances for Dun bridge 6.15: Findspots with 100+ bifaces and the preQuaternary geology of the Hampshire Basin

6.16: Histogram of biface transportation distances for Belbin's Pit 6.17: Histogram of biface transportation distances for six sampled sites 6.18: Reconstruction of the Pleistocene drainage palaeogeography during the deposition of the Taddiford Farm, Stanswood Bay and Milford-on-Sea Gravels 6.19: Location of the Warsash gravel workings and Hill Head cliff deposits 6.20: Reconstruction of the Pleistocene drainage palaeogeography during the deposition of the Old Milton Gravel 6.21: Erosion and redeposition of floodplain gravels during rejuvenation of a river channel 6.22: Terrace gravel sequences for the Upper Solent and Test and Itchen 6.23: Terrace gravel sequence for the Middle Solent 6.24: Gravel deposits per depositional event for the Upper Solent River system 6.25: Standard error (spatial and temporal) for 'locating' upstream material 6.26: Location of the Moreton gravel workings, Dorset 6.27: Pre-Quaternary bedrock in the R.Frome drainage basin 6.28: Discard catchment for the Moreton pits assemblage 6.29: Histogram of 1km distance bands travelled by sampled Moreton bifaces 6.30: Distribution of bifaces in the R.Frome drainage basin

77

80 81 82 82 94 95 98 101

102 102 103 106 107 109 110 110 110 110 110

7 .1: Modem river drainage basins in the Hampshire Basin 7 .2: Histogram of contour values for the Hampshire Basin 7 .3: 1km river floodplain analytical units for the river Frame, Hampshire Basin 7.4: Spatial scales for analysis of middle Pleistocene hominids 7 .5: Distribution of flint resources in Great Britain 7.6: Bifaces per km 2 for the Hampshire Basin drainage groups, and high latitude predicted totals 7.7: Biface discard rates for East Africa and Europe 7.8: Six Hampshire Basin drainage groups 7.9: Biface density data (by individual drainage basins) 7.10: Biface density data (by drainage basin groups) 7.11: Biface density per land parcel (p(opps) > .5), by drainage basin groups 7 .12: Histogram of transported distances for the Middle & Lower Solent biface sample 7.13: Artefact distributions by OIS cycle 7.14: Artefact distribution by drainage basin groups 7.15: Ovate biface % (of total biface sample) and Tertiary bedrock% by individual drainage basins 7 .16: River basin discard zones of ovate and pointed biface forms 7 .17: Distribution of discarded bifaces in the Stour valley by oxygen isotope stage 7 .18: Histogram of transported distances for the Stour basin biface sample 7.19: Changing biface distributions by oxygen isotope stage cycles (Stour drainage basin)

114 115 115 115 118 120 120

120 121 124 124 125 126 126 127

iv

127 128

129 130

131 132 133 133 134 136 137 138 139 139 140

141 142 143 144 147 149 153 154 155 155 156 156 158 158 160 160 163 163 164

7 .20: Distribution of discarded bifaces in the Avon valley by oxygen isotope stage 7 .21: Histogram of transported distances for the Avon drainage basin biface sample 7 .22: Changing biface distributions by oxygen isotope stage cycles (Avon drainage basin) 7 .23: Distribution of discarded bifaces in the Test valley by oxygen isotope stage 7 .24: Changing biface distributions by oxygen isotope stage cycles (Test drainage basin) 7.25: Distribution of discarded bifaces in the Itchen valley by oxygen isotope stage 7 .26: Changing biface distributions by oxygen isotope stage cycles (Itchen drainage basin) 7.27: Histogram of average DEM values by distance band for three river basins

E.12: Cliff variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.13: Geoll variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.14: Geol4 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.15: Geol5 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.16: Geol6 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.17: Geol7 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.18: Geol8 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.19: Geol9 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.20: Geoll0 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.21: Geoll 1 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.22: Geo112 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.23: Geo113 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.24: Geo114 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.25: Geo116 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.26: Geol26 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.27: Geol27 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells)

165 166 166 167 168 168 169 170

B.l: Worthington.G.Smith's visits to the Cottages site, Caddington between 1889 and 1895, grouped by month 195 B.2: Plan of Milton Street (Craylands Lane) pit, Swanscombe, Kent 195 B.3: Section of Pleistocene deposits, Milford Street (Craylands Lane) pit, Swanscombe 196 C.l: C.2: C.3: C.4: C.5: C.6: C.7: C.8:

% % % % % % % %

differential differential differential differential differential differential differential differential

values for classification-I values for classification-2 values for classification-3 values for classification-4 values for classification- I values for classification-2 values for classification-3 values for classification-4

(a) (a) (a) (a) (b) (b) (b) (b)

D.1: Biface forms by sampled findspots before and after inclusion of museum display data D.2: Range of abrasion states represented in the museum display and storage samples E.1: Dependent variable (Palaeolithic findspots): distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.2: Antiq variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram E.3: Urb40 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.4: Urb80 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.5: Urbunx variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.6: Grv35 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.7: Grv80 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.8: Grvunx variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.9: Cutl0 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.10: Cut80 variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells) E.11: Slope variable: distribution (Hampshire Basin) and histogram (no. of cells)

199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200

201 202

203 204 205 205 206 206 207 207 208 208 209

V

209 210 210 211 211 212 212 213 213 214 214 215 215 216 216 217

vi

4.11: Ordinal and probability scales for the 'blank' land parcel prediction 72 4.12: Prediction categories for three Hampshire Basin interpretations 73

List of Tables 2.1: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts in the Hampshire Basin 3.1: Palaeolithic findspots documented in E.Westlake's seventeen field notebooks 3.2: Westlake palaeoliths listed by locality and specimen number 3.3: Revised list of Palaeolithic findspots documented by Ernest Westlake 3.4: Palaeolithic findspots documented by Westlake 3.5: The nine Palaeolithic findspots identified by E.Westlake 3.6: Distance band classifications for the site distribution analysis 3.7: Observed and expected numbers of geological sites per distance band 3.8: Observed and expected numbers of archaeological findspots (complete sample) per distance band 3.9: Observed and expected numbers of findspots per distance band 3.10: Distance band classifications (adjusted) for site distribution analysis 3.11: Observed and expected numbers of archaeological findspots (SRPP) per distance band 3.12: 'Collection territory' template distance bands and weighting values 3.13: List of antiquarians referenced in the Hampshire Field Club's List of Members 3.14: List of antiquarians referenced in the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine's List of Members 3.15: List of antiquarians referenced in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society's List of Members 3.16: Classification table for findspots according to the antiquarian traditions variable 3.17: Characteristics of the nine gravel extraction sites 3.18: Artefact collection data for the nine gravel extraction sites 3.19: Discovery dates for palaeoliths collected through urban development activities 4.1: Documentation of the spatial model variables 4.2: Parameter estimates for the logistic regression model 4.3: Logistic regression formula for the spatial model of Palaeolithic research conditions (p(opps)) 4.4: Classification table for the logistic regression model 4.5: Reclassification of research conditions (p(opps) into prediction categories for future archaeology (land parcels with recorded findspots) 4.6: Reclassification of findspot artefact totals for predicting future archaeology 4.7: Land parcel classification (findspot distribution data) 4.8: Land parcel classification (observed: expected findspots per geological unit) 4.9: Land parcel classification (river confluence data) 4.10: Land parcel classification (Chalk-Tertiary bedrock boundary data)

23

5.1: Zeuner's (1958) thalassostatic and climatic terrace systems 83 5.2: Evolution of the River Thames downstream from London 83 5.3: Percentage lithological composition of gravel members in the Wareham-Dorchester area 86 5.4: Percentage lithological composition of gravel members in the Wareham-Dorchester area (continued) 86 5.5: Percentage lithological composition of gravel members in the Bournemouth-Southampton area 87 5.6: Percentage lithological composition of gravel members in the Bournemouth-Southampton area (continued) 88 5.7: Partial sequence of events in the Pleistocene drainage evolution of the Bournemouth-Southampton area 92 5.8: Postulated correlations of terrace gravel sequences and oxygen isotope stages for the BournemouthSouthampton area 93 5.9: Oxygen isotope ranges for the Lepe and Pennington depositional sequences 96 5 .10: OIS-chronological sequence of terrace gravel deposition for the Solent River 97 5 .11: OIS-chronological sequence of terrace gravel deposition for the Solent River: pre-stage 10 97 5.12: Postulated OIS-chronological sequence of terrace gravels for the rivers Frame and Piddle 101 5.13: Approximate correlation of river terraces in the Bournemouth area as named or numbered in different publications 104 5.14: Correlation between selected gravels of Allen ( 1991) and selected Bournemouth terraces 104 5.15: Insertion of oxygen isotope stages into river terrace sequences for the Bournemouth area 105

38 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 44 46

46

47 47 49

6.1: Correlation between observed ridge widths and commonly used verbal descriptions 6.2: Tumbling mill experiment specifications 6.3: Abrasion, biface form, and movement data for the Afon Y stwyth sample 6.4: Abrasion (µm) measurements for the freshly knapped biface sample 6.5: Seven rates ofridge width abrasion development 6.6: Data combinations for ridge width abrasion rates 6.7: Abrasion and biface form data for the Great Pan Farm pit sample 6.8: Abrasion and biface form data for the Bleak Down pits sample 6.9: Recorded and postulated abrasion values for the Afon Y stwyth sub-sample 6.10: Classified terrace deposits by river systems 6.11: Abrasion data for the Dunbridge biface sample 6.12: Abrasion data for the Wood Green biface sample 6.13: 14 findspots producing 100+ bifaces 6.14: Gravel deposit data by depositional event for the Upper Solent River system 6.15: Postulated terrace deposit origins for derived Moreton material

50 54 57 58 59 59

60 61

70 71 71 71 vii

112 114 116 116 117 117 118 120 121 123 125 125 126 134 134

6.16: Guidelines for the vertical reworking of lithic materials 6.17:Postulated terrace deposit origins for derived Moreton material (b) 6.18: Biface totals by gravel deposit adjusted for predicted conditions of discovery 6.19: Vertical origins of the West Knighton lithics 7.1: Hampshire Basin river valley drainage areas (km 2) 7 .2 Predicted biface totals per home range area 7.3: Adjusted drainage basin biface totals (best & worst case estimates) 7.4: Ecological and evolutionary causes for population fluctuation 7.5: Worst-case adjusted demographic data 7.6: Biface accumulation data (Kilombe, East Africa) 7.7: Biface accumulation data (Olorgesailie, East Africa) 7.8: Artefact distribution data for 16 drainage basins 7.9: x2 data for individual drainage basin distributions 7.10: x2 data for drainage basin group distributions 7.11: Conglomerate drainage system groups 7.12: Partial chronology for middle Pleistocene oxygen isotope stages 7.13: x2 data for artefact distributions by OIS cycles 7 .14: x2 data for artefact distributions by drainage basins

135 135 137 138 141 146 149 151 151 152 152 154 154 154 155 157 159 159

A.1: Abrasion data for 628 sampled bifaces by Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project findspot 185 A.2: Summary statistics for the Hill Head, Barton Cliff, and Priory Bay biface samples 193 B.l: Artefacts recovered from the Dunbridge gravel pit 194 B.2: Typology of the Cottages site assemblage 195 B.3: Summary data for selected unit IV primary-context sites at Maastricht-Belvedere 198 D .1: Sources of 628 sampled bifaces from the Hampshire Basin D.2: Source of sampled bifaces for six findspots D.3: Proportions of biface forms from multiple sources D.4: Abrasion data and source of sampled bifaces for six findspots

200 200 201 202

viii

Preface This book represents the predominantly unrevised text of my PhD thesis (Hosfield 1998), written in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton, England. With the benefit of one year's experience and hindsight I am naturally aware of some of work's limitations and shortcomings, yet would like it to stand in its (largely) original form. This reflects in no small part the exploratory nature of the research, and I hope that the reader will appreciate the strengths of the research while finding the motivation for further research in its weaknesses. The original research was funded by the British Academy (now the Arts and Humanities Research Board). Thanks are also due to Southampton University's School of Research and Graduate Studies (SRGS) whose financial support enabled the author to attend the CAA98 conference in Barcelona and present aspects of this research to a new and critical audience. The research would also have been impractical without the assistance and co-operation of English Heritage who granted the author permission to work with the Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project data (all errors and inaccuracies herein are of course my own), The Trust for Wessex Archaeology who supplied the digital data generated by the project, and the Ordnance Survey who granted use of Crown copyright cartographic data. Due to the financial implications of colour printing, all the figures within the text are black and white. Those figures which were originally intended as full colour illustrations are included in that format (as .gif image files) on the accompanying cd (see appendix F for comprehensive notes), and my thanks to BAR for generously agreeing to this mode of publication. A complete list of acknowledgements is included in the PhD thesis, but I would like to restate my particular thanks to my parents for all their support and encouragement. Tim Sly and Dr. David Wheatley assisted with many of the technical problems (both pre- and post-submission), while Professor Frank Hodson made a very generous loan of his Westlake papers to the author. A general thanks to all those who answered my questions, but in particular to Phil Harding and Dr. David Bridgland. And finally to Professor Clive Gamble, for all of his advice, encouragement and support during a long haul.

ix

Definitions and Abbreviations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

[BF] Buddens Farm Gravel. [BH] Black Hill Gravel. [Br] Bransgore Gravel. [BR] Burton Rough Gravel. [CRM] Cultural Resource Management. [DEM] Digital Elevation Model. [EH] East Holme Gravel. [FH] Ford Heath Gravel. [GH] Green Hill Gravel. [GIS] Geographic Information Systems. [HC] High Cliff Gravel. [HF] Hyde Farm Gravel. [HHH] Higher Hyde Heath Gravel. [HR] Holmsey Ridge Gravel. [KL] Knighton Lodge Gravel. [L] Lepe Gravel. [LHN] Local Hominid Network. [LOM] Lower Okote Member. [MoS] Milford-on-Sea Gravel. [MP] Mount Pleasant Gravel. [NEC] North End Copse Gravel. [OIS] Oxygen Isotope Stage. [OM] Old Milton Gravel. [OR3] Older River Gravel 3. [P] Pennington Gravel. [p(opps)] Spatial model probability predictions, measuring the opportunities for Palaeolithic fieldwork across the modem industrial landscape. [S] Stoborough Gravel. [SB] Stanswood Bay Gravel. [SH] Stokeford Heath Gravel. [So] Southboume Gravel. [SP] Setley Plain Gravel. [SRPP] Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project. [T] Tiptoe Gravel. [TD] Tom's Down Gravel. [TERPS] The English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey. [TF] Taddiford Farm Gravel. [TH] Tonerspuddle Heath Gravel. [W] Worgret Gravel. [WK] West Knighton Gravel.

xi

derived archaeological contexts and fragmentary geological sediments which characterize the British data require two further stages of data modelling. Existing studies of lithic assemblage formation and artefact transportation under fluvial conditions were developed and expanded (Harding et al. 1987; Isaac 1989; Schick 1986, 1993; Shackley 1974, 1975; chapter 6). A chronological framework was developed for the Hampshire Basin study region (southern Britain; chapter 5), following the recent work of Allen (1991), Allen and Gibbard (1993), and Bridgland (1994, 1995, 1996).

Chapter 1: Introduction 1. 1 Aims of Research "So much of the evidence for the palaeolithic occupation of this country was obtained in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that ... the author must be something of a bibliophile and a re-evaluator of hitherto unconsidered trifles." (Callow 1981, p. 239-240)

1.2 British Palaeolithic Research

Callow's comments encapsulate the difficulties faced when investigating the full range of available lithic data from the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. The research reported in this thesis investigates the potential of geographic information systems (GIS) techniques to reduce those difficulties and support analysis and interpretation of all the available archaeological evidence.

The need for British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic studies to incorporate the full range of available data is best demonstrated by a brief review of the research undertaken to date.

1 .1 .1 Research Themes

Research into the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic has been traditionally characterised by two trends:

The research themes are twofold:

1.

1.2.1 Typological Sequences

Spatial Modelling of the Industrial Landscape

The application of spatial modelling techniques to a nonsystematic regional archaeological record is demonstrated. The research seeks to quantify the distributions of lithic material through available evidence regarding the history of stone tool collections made over the period 1850-1998 (chapters 3-4). In doing so the research potential of the data collated by the Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project (SRPP) and The English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey (TERPS) is highlighted (chapter 2).

2.

The majority of the recorded lithic evidence has been ignored in favour of primary context and minimally disturbed site assemblages (e.g. Ashton et al. 1994; Green 1981, 1984b; Roberts 1986, 1990; Roberts et al. 1994, 1997; Sampson 1978; Singer et al. 1993; Smith 1894). Attention has also focused upon derived assemblages with prominent typological sequences to which chronological significance was attributed (e.g. Ashton et al. 1992; Burkitt et al. 1939; Conway et al. 1996; Shackley 1973; Wenban-Smith 1992).

These restricted concerns reflected a range of factors. The absence of absolute dating techniques during the pre-1950's period meant that chronology was dependent upon typological artefact sequences (Renfrew and Bahn 1991, p. 104-106). Sites yielding stratified sequences of geological deposits and palaeoliths, as at Swanscombe (Conway et al. 1996), were therefore preferred subjects for research compared to isolated surface biface finds or individual terrace gravel deposits (Roe 1981, p. 9). The haphazard and unsystematic collection of Britain's Lower and Middle Palaeolithic record (Roe 1981, p. 18-33; Roebroeks 1996) generated data of varying quality, particularly with respect to the selective recovery of preferred artefact forms. The derived nature of the majority of lithics meant they were often far removed from the places of their use or discard by hominids, while environmental evidence (e.g. animal bone) was rarely present.

The results of the spatial modelling program are applied to the arena of cultural resource management (CRM). This application addresses the current and ever-increasing threat to Britain's Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeological record from the aggregates and construction industries (MARS 1998, p. 9). Quantitative assessments are proposed for the future potential of recorded and unrecorded elements of the archaeological landscape (chapter 4). Long-Term Modelling of Hominid Behaviour It is proposed that the British data is suited to analysis at

evolutionary time-scales (e.g. glacial-interglacial cycles). Patterning in stone tool discard signatures is examined with respect to the presence or absence of repetitive behaviours at a range of spatial and temporal scales (following Foley 1981a, 1981b; Schofield 1991a, 1991b; Stem 1993, 1994; chapter 2). The impact of those behaviours upon hominid colonisation capabilities and demographic trends is considered (chapter 7).

During the period 1850-1930 extensive fieldwork was undertaken across southern Britain. Tens of thousands of palaeoliths were recovered from river gravel exposures and other deposits by hundreds of amateur antiquarians and gravel pit employees. Documentation of the collections was inevitably piecemeal, although valuable studies were produced (e.g. Read 1885; Smith 1894; Smith 1911). These were typically concerned with individual sites or deposits,

The quantification of the available lithic evidence through the spatial model enables a form of off-site, artefact density investigation to be undertaken (Schofield 1991b). It also allows the European and African archaeological records to be contrasted with respect to demographic patterning. The 1

Chapter 1: Introduction although Evans (1897) produced the first 'national' synthesis of the evidence recorded up to that point.

almost exclusively of Levalloisian artefacts, Acheulian industries employing the Levallois technique in varying degrees, and industries in which the usage of the technique is associated with the occurrence of typically Mousterian artefacts. The uneven distribution of Levalloisian artefact findspots in Britain suggested local usage of the technique, which Roe (ibid. p. 214) concluded was possibly dependent upon the presence of sufficient raw materials in suitable quantities.

Roe's (1968b) seminal work collated the majority of the evidence recorded and documented over nearly 200 years of Palaeolithic research since Frere (1800). The forerunner of the ongoing English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey, Roe's Gazetteer formed the first comprehensive record of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites. It was the first attempt at such a work since Evans (1897) and its importance cannot be overemphasised;

Roe (ibid. p. 233) concluded that the occupation of Britain during both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was characterised by discontinuity. He viewed this as a consequence of Britain's intermittent status as a peninsula of continental Europe during the period (reflecting the climatic cycles of the middle and upper Pleistocene). Evidence for these demographic trends existed in the restricted presence of the continental Mousterian in Middle Palaeolithic Britain. The only clear example of the Mousterian in Britain during the Middle Palaeolithic is the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition (MTA), although there is also a patchy distribution of typical Mousterian bout coupe bifaces in southern and eastern Britain. The presence of MT A material in peripheral British cave sites was viewed by Roe (ibid. p. 252) as evidence of harsh climatic conditions and the possible usage of these caves as occasional foraging sites. Roe interpreted isolated bout coupe bifaces in open situations (predominantly dated to the Devensian) as evidence of temporary movements across and within southern Britain by Mousterian groups coming from north-western continental Europe.

"without this seminal publication several further years would have been necessary for the completion of this project [the Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project]." (Wymer 1996, p. 10) Subsequently Wymer (1968, 1985) collated and presented the Palaeolithic data and typological sequences for the Thames Valley and East Anglia respectively. At the same time, Roe (1964, 1968a) established two biface groups for the Lower Palaeolithic of Britain. The pointed and ovate groups were established from the proportions of biface forms in a 38 site sample, and subsequently divided into six sub-variants. Roe (1968a) viewed these groups as evidence of separate knapping traditions which favoured different styles of biface morphology. This interpretation was to survive unchallenged until the early 1990's (White 1995, p. 1).

Despite the availability of a comprehensive database, Roe's (1981) second major contribution to British Palaeolithic studies dealt predominantly with the development of a basic typological sequence. The sequence of Clactonian, Acheulian and Levallois industries in Kent was demonstrated and extended over the British 'region' to incorporate industrial stages (e.g. an 'early' and 'late' Acheulian) which were absent in the Kent sequence. As previously the importance of this work was immediately apparent;

Roe's (ibid. p. 278) assessment of socio-economic behaviour during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was therefore very restricted. He observed that the occupation of Britain probably consisted of summer hunting visits, with winter base camps existing in western continental Europe. Unfortunately the absence of seasonality data and the lack of well preserved site evidence meant that identifying and interpreting specialised activity sites was very difficult. Little or nothing was stated with regard to group sizes, social organisation or domestic equipment.

"it is likely to remain a standard work for at least a generation, and a classic long afterwards." (Callow 1981, p. 240)

While concentrating upon the lithic industries, Roe (1981, p. 268) emphasised the shortcomings of the available evidence, principally the poor quality of past research and the simple lack of survival of whole classes of vital evidence. He concluded that this meant the economic and social life of people in early Palaeolithic Britain could only be dealt with 'mainly in generalities'.

Roe's (1981, p. 89) basic geological sequence of Palaeolithic industries in north Kent consisted of the Clactonian, followed by well-made Acheulian industries which were succeeded by industries with a striking emphasis on the use of Levallois technique. The latter initially produced large bold flakes followed by fine, elongated flake blades. The augmentation of the basic sequence was centred around an expansion of the Acheulian into earlier, middle and final (Micoquian) stages (ibid. p. 128). Roe proposed probable 'lateral' as well as 'vertical' variation in the British lithic industries. For example, the temporal overlap between the pointed and ovate traditions from the middle Acheulian (ibid. table 16), and the potential overlap and co-existence of the Clactonian and the earlier Acheulian (ibid. p. 128).

The intervening 18 years have seen a shift in the focus of British Palaeolithic research. Roe's (ibid.) typological sequences provided the basis for increasingly diverse research concerned with the dynamics of hominid behaviour, lithics, and subsistence strategies. Radioactive methods of absolute dating (Aitken 1990, chap. 5-8; Renfrew and Bahn 1991, p. 121-136) have disturbed the traditional lithic chronologies (Stringer and Gamble 1993, p. 147-148) and enabled research goals to shift foci. In doing so, a succession of workers in this field have begun to challenge Roe's ( 1981) assertion that;

Roe (ibid. p. 214) dismissed the existence of a British 'Levalloisian culture', arguing in favour of a variety of industries. These ranged between assemblages consisting

2

Chapter 1: Introduction "So be it: after all, it was made clear at the very beginning of the first chapter that the task of producing an acceptable factual account of how men lived during this period in Britain was actually impossible." (ibid. p. 268)

modem hunter-gatherers. Binford (1978) observed that the Nunamiut of Alaska only use caves in connection with hunting expeditions, either as temporary overnight shelt~rs or as specialised 'thawing-out' sites, where the frozen bodies of animals taken in traps are thawed prior to skinning. The Pontnewydd cave would have been well situated for usage as a temporary hunters shelter;

1 .2.2 Site-Based Studies

"having a clear view of the game passing through the Elwy valley, being located beneath a cliff face over which game might be driven (cf. Scott, 1980); and, also, being in close proximity to the Vale of Clwyd where there is likely to have been abundant grazing for herds of herbivores." (Green 1981, p. 192)

Alongside the shift in research foci during the last 20 !ears, site excavations and primary context data have dommated the work undertaken. This has incorporated field research at new sites including Boxgrove (Roberts 1986, 1990; Roberts et al. 1994, 1997) and Red Barns (ApSimon et al. 1977; Gamble and ApSimon 1986). There has also been extensive re-investigation both in the field and the library of a number of 'historical' sites, including High Lodge (Ashton et al. 1992), Barnham (Ashton et al. 1994), Pontnewydd Cave (Green 1981, 1984b), La Cotte de St. Brelade (Callow and Cornford 1986), Dunbridge (Bridgland and Harding 1987), Stoneham's Pit (Cook 1986), Baker's Hole (Robinson 1986; Wenban-Smith 1992), Caddington (Sampson 1978), Hoxne (Singer et al. 1993) and the Wolvercote Channel (Tyldesley 1986).

Toe site has also yielded a small sample of hominid remains (Stringer 1984). These include teeth, vertebra and mandibular fragments, of probable early Neanderthal affinities. Pontnewydd Cave therefore joins Swanscombe and Boxgrove as the only British sites to have produced middle Pleistocene hominid remains. Toe work at Pontnewydd cave illustrated both a changing approach to the available evidence and ~ incre~s~d optimism as to what could be interpreted regardmg_hommid behaviour and lifestyles. This type of research has smce been adopted and developed at a number of other British sites including Boxgrove (Roberts 1986, 1990; Roberts et al. 1994, 1997) and Barnham (Ashton et al. 1994). At Red Barns for example, the evidence indicated that Palaeolithic occupation was related to the raised beach feature which provided sources of raw material from the exposed chalk surface and the collapsed cliff. It was suggested that the opportunities for observation provided by Portsdown Hill were combined with lithic manufacture. The embedded context for flint knapping was supported by the investment in fine flaking, refinement of some of the bifaces, and the possibility that only rejects were left at this manufacturing location (Gamble and ApSimon 1986, p. 12).

Pontnewydd Cave

The systematic excavation (1978-1983) and publication of the Pontnewydd cave site (Green 1981, 1984b) reflected the trend towards a socio-economic approach. The chronological evidence was suggestive of the usage of the cave during the later part of oxygen isotope stage 7 (c.250-225,000 ~ears bp). It was proposed that the cave acted ~s a transito~y settlement site, probably as part of a huntmg strategy m which local raw materials were manipulated to produce ad hoc tool kits. A notable aspect of the work at Pontnewydd concerned the range of sources from which the site interpretation was based. These included the stone tool industries, the dimensions and structure of the cave feature, and ethnographic analogy. The potential settlement area_within the drip line of the cave covers no more than approximately 30 square metres. Ethnographic data regarding th~ living space requirements of human beings suggested that it could have accommodated no more than half a dozen individuals (Green 1981, p. 192). Unless a larger entrance chamber since destroyed by erosion had previously existed (and Green 1984a, p. 147) suggests that this is unlikely) it appeared that this site could be little else but a transit site of some type. Green (1981, p. 192) felt this interpretation was supported_by the isolation of the site from Roe's ( 1981, p. 269) Acheuhan site distributions.

Boxgrove

Toe excavations at Boxgrove, Sussex have demonstrated both middle Pleistocene hominid foraging strategies and brought the traditional lithic chronologies into questio~. The bifaces recovered from the 500,000 year old sediments demonstrated that Acheulian industries could pre-date the Clactonian traditions (Roberts 1990). Moreover the bifaces are finely made ovates, disrupting the evolutionary model of biface development from crude to fine forms (Stringer and Gamble 1993, p. 147). The weakness of that model is also demonstrated at Barnham and High Lodge (see below) and at Pontnewydd, where the 'crude' rhyolite and volcanic tuff bifaces would have traditionally have been dated as far older than the absolute date of c.200,000 years bp (ibid. p. 147148).

The conclusion is further emphasised by the limited range of tool types and activities present at the site. The key artefact types were bifaces, Levallois debitage, and scrapers. The experimental work of Jones (1980) indicated that bifaces and waste flakes could form complementary components of a butchery kit. Keeley (1980) proposed that the primary role of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic convex scrapers was probably hide processing. The functional interpretation of the lithics was in keeping with ethnographic data from Australia and Alaska regarding patterns of cave use by

The palaeoenvironment is interpreted as; "an area of open grassland with some shrub and bush vegetation. In places the surface of the soil supported small ephemeral pools and flashes. This area of grassland is seen as a corridor for herds of ungulates moving east and west

3

Chapter 1: Introduction between the sea to the south and the relict cliff and wooded downlands to the north. Within this corridor those herds were preyed upon by various carnivores, and hominids." (Roberts et al. 1997, p. 303)

Acheulian industries pre-date as well as post-date the Clactonian. Ashton and McNabb (1992, p. 167) argued that the British Lower Palaeolithic was characterised not by a fixed typological sequence, but by the recurrence of particular technologies. These included biface manufacture, the reduction of cores by single and alternate platform techniques, and the production of scrapers, denticulates, and flaked flakes (Ashton et al. 1991). Individual industries emphasise different aspects of the technologies according to the needs of the knapper and the limitations of the raw material. Industry types were therefore influenced by a range of factors including the quantity, quality and landscape position of the raw material and specific hominid requirements (Ashton et al. 1994, p. 589). Moreover;

The Boxgrove archaeology has established the site as one of the most important middle Pleistocene occurrences in the world. The extensive evidence has enabled interpretation of a range of hominid behaviours. These include the possible hunting of large animals, as suggested by the potential 'spear' damage on a horse scapula (Pitts and Roberts 1997, p. 257-263). The lithic concentrations consisting of bifaces, sharpening flakes, and retouched flakes (occurring in areas Q2/C, Q2/A, Q2/GTP17 and Ql/B) are interpreted as the signature produced by the processing of a large mammal carcass (Roberts et al. 1997, p. 353). The Q2/C area contrasts with the other butchery areas in the small number of flakes greater than 20mm. Roberts et al. (1997, p. 354) concluded that the pattern represents working and reworking of partially finished or completed tools at the butchery area.

"By looking at the site in this way it can be seen how human behaviour varies in the landscape, reflected by the flint technology, without the constraints of a purely cultural framework." (ibid. p. 589)

The Boxgrove bifaces are interpreted as exclusively for the butchery of large animals on the basis of experimental work (Roberts et al. 1997, p. 354; Pitts and Roberts 1997, p. 223231). Butchery marks were recorded on a range of fauna including horse, bear, rhinoceros, giant deer and red deer (ibid. p. 215). Analysis of rhinoceros fauna from the site also suggests hunting rather than scavenging, as the animals are prime age adults (ibid. p. 266). It is proposed that the hunting may have been undertaken with spears, recently supported by the finds from Schoningen, Germany (Thieme 1997).

Alternative Approaches to Lithics

Functional approaches have been applied to a number of long-standing archaeological problems and assumptions in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Re-interpretation of the Swanscombe and Lion Point (Clacton) sites led McNabb and Ashton (1992, p. 9) to again conclude that variation within and between 'biface' and 'non-biface' assemblages was primarily due to raw material and functional considerations. Ashton et al. (1992) examined the choppers and chopping tools of the British 'Clactonian' from a functional perspective, demonstrating through experimental work and archaeological site data that in the context of the industry, chopping tools are unlikely to have been used for marrow extraction, chopping wood or butchery (ibid. p. 27), as traditionally claimed (e.g. Wymer 1982, p. 94; 1985, p. 283; Jones 1980, p. 159). It was demonstrated that large flakes are more efficient for wood chopping and butchery, while bones can be broken up for marrow extraction using hammerstones. Finally, archaeological data indicated that Clactonian chopping tools defined on typological grounds are likely to be the waste residue of knapping processes and should therefore be interpreted as cores (Ashton et al. 1992, p. 27). Ashton et al. (1991, p. 6) have also drawn attention to the phenomena of flaked flakes, emphasising a relatively simple method for the production of tools, conversion of tools and occasional provision of further small flakes. The flaked flake technique is emphasised as a ubiquitous problem solving method in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic.

Alongside the bifaces, the recovery of antler soft hammers (containing embedded flint splinters) suggested the existence of curated artefacts. This interpretation is supported by the flaking of the antler into a modified shape, and the re-use and wearing down of the soft hammer (ibid. p. 253). The recovery of over 150 bifaces during the 1995 excavation season contributed to the current debate into biface usage and their possible function within hominid social life. The discarding of bifaces in 'mint', serviceable conditions led to the suggestion that the artefacts acquire meaning during their manufacture and use within butchery by the hominids. Once discarded on the ground the bifaces lack any meaning and so are ignored (ibid. p. 271). The bifaces (and perhaps also the soft hammers) may therefore have provided a means for extending the individual and hominid society. High Lodge and Barnham

The role of dynamic hominid-landscape interaction, and the deficiencies of the traditional typological assumptions and sequences are also demonstrated at the Lower Palaeolithic site of East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk (Ashton et al. 1994). Excavations demonstrated that the Barnham core and flake industry previously described as Clactonian (Wymer 1985), is in the same stratigraphic position and contemporary with biface manufacture (Ashton et al. 1994, p. 585). The traditional notion of a simple core and flake Clactonian being replaced by a 'more advanced' Acheulian biface industry was shown to be untenable. Work at High Lodge, Suffolk (Ashton et al. 1992) indicated (as at Boxgrove) that the

White (1995) has recently presented an alternative to Roe's (1968a) model of biface knapping traditions, suggesting that it is raw material which had the major effect on biface morphology. In this respect White (1995) is following the recent trends towards practical approaches to raw materials and resharpening strategies (e.g. Dibble and Rolland 1992; Moloney 1988; Moloney et al. 1988; Newcomer 1984; Pettitt 1992; Rolland and Dibble 1990; Straus 1980). White (1995, p. 15) proposed that a preference for a circumferential

4

Chapter 1: Introduction working edge existed, thus producing an ovate or cordate biface form where possible. While not denying the existence of Roe's (1968a) biface groups, White (1995, p. 14-15) argued that variability in the biface industries was dependent to a large extent upon the form and the source of the raw material. Biface manufacture was therefore underpinned by the notion of producing an adequate functional unit.

context of defining a regional archaeological sequence for the Wurm III. Rigaud and La ville' s strata were defined to establish a fine-scale sequence of climatic change and determine how the archaeological variation related to that pattern of changing climate. A second example of the archaeological record as historical entity is seen in the bias of site location. Stone quarrying in south-western France frequently resulted in site identification, focusing research upon cave and rock shelter sites. Similarly the excavations undertaken by archaeologists at personally discovered sites were typically at 'obvious' (large, deeply stratified) sites in the vicinity of their homes. Chance and archaeological logistics therefore determined the regional site samples generated by early research (ibid. p. 55). With the systemization of French archaeology, research centres such as Les Eyzies (National Prehistory Museum) generated apparently dense concentrations of Palaeolithic occupations in the surrounding areas. The spatial distribution is a historical pattern, produced by the logistical requirements of moving people and materials from research centre to site.

The current research has therefore demonstrated a shift away from cultural-traditions and towards raw materials and technological requirements in the interpretation of lithic technology and form. While these models are not necessarily correct, they have undoubtedly broadened the horizons of lithic analysis and begun to exploit the untapped potential of the available data.

1 .2.3 Regional Landscape Studies While the last 20 years' research has shifted far beyond the establishment of typological sequences (c.f. Roe 1981), it has remained predominantly tethered to the investigation and reinvestigation of high profile sites. In light of the new interest in hominid-landscape interaction and the dynamic aspects of lithic technology in the interpretation of site data, it is especially frustrating that so little research has addressed the regional perspective and the potential of 'off-site' data.

In light of these difficulties it is perhaps apparent why research into the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic has remained predominantly site based. The regional archaeological record is the partial product of the industrial landscape, the majority of the artefact assemblages are derived, organic materials are very rarely present, while dating the deposits occurs only (if at all) at an extremely coarse scale. Roe (1981) describes the over-riding sentiments;

Pettitt (1995) has highlighted the dangers of a site-based approach with respect to the Middle Palaeolithic database and the Mousterian debate. The majority of research questions asked in the Perigord region of France are aimed at large lithic samples from deep-stratigraphy closed sites, despite the growing number of open sites;

"It would be quite ridiculous to set out to mention in this book all the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic find-spots, because a high proportion of them, even including some which have yielded artefacts by the hundred, are sterile sources when it comes to useful information."

"it is worth considering just how representative these [closed sites] are of overall adaptive systems. We seem to be in danger of using relatively restricted data-sets to answer our ambitious questions." (ibid. p. 40)

(ibid. p. 9)

Whether developing typological sequences or investigating the dynamics of lithic technology and hominid foraging behaviour, British Palaeolithic studies have therefore focused upon a small percentage of the evidence, at the expense of the majority. A consequence of this selectivity has been the narrowing of our spatial perspective. Pettitt (1995, p. 41) has noted that the Neanderthal mind is famous only for its fifteen minutes of flint knapping. The current concern with site data ensures that s/he cannot step beyond the extent of debitage scatters into the wider landscape. Despite the work of Roe (1968b, 1981) and Wymer (1968), the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic remains a murky image, interspersed by only a handful of primary context data highlights.

Research has emphasised a widening range of contextual explanations including technological constraints, materials transport, tool reduction, resource use and the effects of subsistence strategies (e.g. Dibble 1984, 1985, 1987). Yet Middle Palaeolithic studies are attempting to answer the relevant questions from a narrow database (Pettitt 1995, p. 39-40). Pettitt (ibid. p. 40) has therefore called for the development of new methodologies enabling the management of a wider, more representative sample of Middle Palaeolithic technological materials. Rigaud and Simek (1987) have demonstrated some of the difficulties which must be overcome by Pettitt's (1995) 'new methodologies'. In discussing the European Palaeolithic record they emphasise its status as a historical entity, generated over time by the diverse interests and goals of archaeologists. This is frequently expressed as bias in site content, with differing research strategies resulting in a nonconsistent archaeological record (Rigaud and Simek 1987, p. 49). For example at Le Moustier, the assemblages recovered by Peyrony (1910-1930) and Rigaud and Laville (in 1969) from the same site are not comparable. Peyrony delimited levels to account for general sedimentary differences in the

1 .2.4 A Regional Perspective This thesis proposes that the site-orientated spatial limitations upon current research reduce the interpretative potential of the majority of existing explanatory frameworks. Only a limited view of technological and social behaviour can be reached if analysis is restricted to the site-based products and residues of hominid behaviour. Secondly, the longer temporal scales associated with the regional data

5

Chapter 1: Introduction allow the evolutionary consequences of those behaviours to be viewed at the relevant perspective. The complementary spatio-temporal scales of the two classes of data enable a fuller, more complete picture to be attained.

therefore investigates the problems and potential of the British evidence. This thesis is in many senses exploratory. It sought to develop a methodology to enable management and interpretation of a wider, representative sample of Britain's Lower and Middle Palaeolithic lithic data (after Pettitt 1995, p. 40). Inevitably the goals and directions of the thesis have altered over the last four years as the ability of the data to support different archaeological questions has been tested. It is felt however that the work offers an initial step forward in a new, and profitable, direction.

A series of developments during the last fifteen years have offered the opportunity to incorporate the 'rejected' data into the archaeological process: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Bridgland (1994, 1995, 1996) has demonstrated that the river terrace gravel deposits in which the majority of the derived artefacts occur can be linked into the global oxygen isotope climatic record through a cyclical model of terrace formation. Geographic information systems (GIS) techniques enable the regional archaeological record to be examined and quantified in terms of its bias construction as a historical entity. The work of Schick (1986, 1993), Harding et al. (1987) and Bridgland (1985) has indicated that the processes of biface transportation and modification, and derived assemblage formation can be modelled through geological and archaeological data. Completion of the Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project (SRPP) and the ongoing English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey (TERPS) provides a comprehensive database of Britain's Lower and Middle Palaeolithic evidence. The collation of documentary, cartographic and anecdotal information provides a previously unavailable starting place for analysis of site distributions and the formation processes which produced them. Developments in off-site archaeology (e.g. Foley 1981a, 1981b; Schofield 1991b) have emphasised the potential of the artefact as an analytical unit at the landscape scale. Reassessment of the East African Lower Palaeolithic record (Stem 1993, 1994) has indicated that the temporal scales associated with the British archaeological deposits are neither as unique or beyond meaningful interpretation as traditionally perceived. The current emphasis upon hominid-landscape interaction and the importance of raw material factors in the technological sphere only emphasises the need for a regional perspective and off-site data.

The regional data set inevitably still presents a number of difficulties for its interpretation. This is not however a reason for its dismissal out of hand or the abandonment of analysis at the level of regional presence and absence. It is vital to ask new questions of old data and extract as much information as possible, rather than wait for primary context home bases and special activity sites (Roe 1981, p. 282). As Gamble (1996a) has observed; "If we cannot make immediate sense of them [the data] with

a behavioural approach then possibly it is because we are asking the wrong questions and analysing them in inappropriate ways." (ibid. p. 64) To formulate the proper questions it is vital to understand the structure of the derived, secondary context data. Chapter 2

6

"The differences between site and off-site material are the results of differences in the frequencies of activities, rather than qualitative differences." (ibid. p. 11)

Chapter 2: Problems and Potential of the English Rivers Data

Foley saw the traditional archaeological site as a dense concentration of humanly modified artefacts, associated materials and landscape features. Sites simply represented one extreme on a continuum scale of discarded materials. The agent of concentration forming the site was not relevant to Foley, although he broadly identified behavioural and geomorphological site categories. In viewing the artefact as the basic independent archaeological unit Foley was following convention. However, his use of the artefact as a site-independent unit for spatial analysis represented an innovative approach which has rarely been adopted (ibid. p. 11).

2. 1 Introduction "Palaeoliths in Britain are rarely found in anything but a derived condition; with few exceptions they have been removed from and with the land surfaces on which they lay and become embedded in some natural deposit ... The great majority of palaeoliths (probably over 95 per cent) are found in gravel which has been deposited by Pleistocene rivers." (Wymer 1968, p. 19) As expressed by Wymer et al. (1993, p. 11) it is apparent that the overriding bulk of British evidence for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic is in the form of stone artefacts from secondary contexts. The deposits containing the derived artefacts provide a terminus ante quern, but the materials may be contemporary or older (perhaps considerably) than the river gravels in which they occur.

Schofield (1991a, 1991b) has also discussed usage of the artefact as an analytical unit with respect to the interpretation of surface lithic scatters, emphasising two problem areas: 1.

Given the spatial and chronological vagaries of the available data, is it possible to move beyond simple discussions of hominid presence and absence at regional scales? And if so, what questions can profitably be asked of non-site based, accumulated material evidence? Finally, is chronology significant to those questions when estimates of a terminus post quern can encompass one or more glacial-interglacial cycles?

The definition of the site. While Foley (1981a) emphasises quantitative differences between high density 'patches' and low density 'scatters', the ethnographic literature suggests that discard frequently occurs away from habitations areas (Schofield 1991b, p. 4). The site or habitation foci is therefore inappropriate to the analysis of artefact scatters (Schofield 1991a, p. 117). While this point is potentially less relevant to the Lower Palaeolithic with its apparent paucity of permanent settlements and home bases, it serves to remind that the spatial archaeological signatures are primary spatial evidence only of lithic discard, and not necessarily of tool manufacture, carcass processing and other artefactusing activities. Understanding the social meaning and use-discard contexts of bifaces (the predominant surviving class of artefact) thus becomes fundamental to interpretation of regional lithic distributions from the Lower Palaeolithic (chapter 7).

2.2 Derived Palimpsests 2.2.1 Off-Site Archaeology Spatially Continuous Variables

In the early 1980's Foley (1981a, 1981b) questioned the nature of the archaeological site, while simultaneously emphasising the formation and structure of an off-site archaeological record. Foley's approach focused upon the full range of archaeological material within a landscape, rather than a handful of localised sites. The artefacts which were distributed across the landscape were treated as a spatially continuous variable. The off-site approach was thus designed to;

2.

''utilize the spatial continuity to maximise archaeological information" (Foley 1981a, p. 2) According to Foley (1981b, p. 11), an off-site approach subsumes the information contained within a site. The site's evidence is therefore not lost within the course of a landscape orientated approach.

The description of all high density scatters as 'sites' implies that all sites performed a similar function (Schofield 1991b, p. 5). This approach generates a highly static view of a dynamic landscape. Comparison between scatters on the basis of correlated aspects of the collections is one means of interpreting variable activities through the artefact patterns (ibid. p. 6). Schofield (1991a) demonstrated this approach in the upper Meon valley survey, where the proportions of specific artefact types (e.g. primary waste, retouch, scrapers) were used to distinguish between domestic and industrial zones. The dominance of bifaces across the Lower Palaeolithic landscapes of southern Britain negates the application of this approach, but emphasises the foci of regional artefact analysis for this period: investigating the possible existence of structure in the archaeological record (e.g. repeated use of localised micro-habitats),

Quantitative Differences

Foley (1981b) also emphasised the similarities of site and off-site contexts;

7

Chapter 2: Problems and Potential opposed to distinguishing activity zones across the landscape. Modelling Human Behaviour

Foley (1981a, p. 2) identified three components linking human behaviour to the spatially continuous archaeological data: discard, accumulation, and post-depositional processes. He demonstrated through reference to subsistence activity that human behaviour occurs continuously across the landscape. Since the energy required for human survival is distributed widely and continuously across landscapes, it follows that humans will use large areas of the landscape to gather this energy. Resources are transported to focal points such as settlements only at a second stage. Human activities are thus distributed across the whole landscape rather than being solely concentrated at central places.

~

• ••••

•

• +

• ~.

•

•

•

+• •

~

•

•

+.

I•

• •

:):·;_·

•

•

•

+ ••

+

=:

I

Associated with continuous human behaviour is the discard of material items subsequent to or during use. If activity is spatially continuous then so should the material residue. The ultimate result was;

•

... ,,

.-...: - ... :,

. ... _

"an archaeological pattern of variable artefact density and distribution that conforms to the subsistence strategy and home range." (Foley 1981, p. 3)

/ / /

--"rE;;-0;:;::RY:~ CAMP

'-

/ ,-

AREA

/

PRIMARY

LITHIC ~ SOURCE e

•,

''

~ ',

'

HOME BASE~:;,•.

/

•

Q

/ /

;r,) "J !JJ_ I

·>1'-'.'·

1 Q·