A Study of Lower Palaeolithic Stone Artefacts from Selected Sites in the Upper and Middle Thames Valley: with Particular Reference to the R.J. MacRae Collection 9781841712147, 9781407319551

Citation preview

BAR  319  2001   LEE   A STUDY OF LOWER PALAEOLITHIC STONE ARTEFACTS

A Study of Lower Palaeolithic Stone Artefacts from Selected Sites in the Upper and Middle Thames Valley, with Particular Reference to the R. J. MacRae Collection Hyeong Woo Lee

BAR British Series 319 B A R

2001

A Study of Lower Palaeolithic Stone Artefacts from Selected Sites in the Upper and Middle Thames Valley, with Particular Reference to the R. J. MacRae Collection

Hyeong Woo Lee

BAR British Series 319 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 319 A Study of Lower Palaeolithic Stone Artefacts from Selected Sites in the Upper and Middle Thames Valley, with Particular Reference to the R.J. MacRae Collection © H W Lee and the Publisher 2001 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 9781841712147 paperback ISBN 9781407319551 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712147 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 2001. 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

Acknowledgements

Throughout the preparation of this thesis, I have benefited from the help of many kind people. I am absolutely certain that, without these generous people, this thesis would not have been finished. First of all, I wish to thank my grandmother (Hwan Hi Shin) and grandfather (Young Soo Lee) who already passed away about 20 years ago. I would also like to thank my mother and father, Hae Soon Kim and Chang Keun Lee. They enabled me to carry out my academic work in Korea and Britain, and have always set me a good example during my childhood. They always want to give all they have and they always pray for me. I think I am lucky because I have been loved and so loyally supported by the people I most respect and love! When I entered university, I met and was influenced by many teachers and friends. Especially Prof. Young­ Hoon Hwang and Dr. Bok Soon Shin gave me a good academic foundation and encouraged me to work on the Lower Palaeolithic. I sometimes think that, without them, I could not find such a meaningful world within my study of humans in ancient times. At Cambridge, Prof. Paul Mellars always gave excellent support to my work. He understood my aims, and kept my motivation strongly during the entire M. Phil course. During the preparation and writing of this thesis, Prof. Derek Roe, my supervisor, helped enormously. He gave me working facilities at the Donald-Baden Powell Quaternary Research Centre, in Oxford University. He has directed my efforts with useful and precise instructions. And also he has greatly improved my poor English for this thesis. I am particularly grateful for his patience and understanding over the past four years. In Oxford a large number of people helped me in one way or another in my work. I wish to thank all the members of our research centre: R. J. MacRae, Dr. R. Inskeep, Dr. D. Britton, Dr. Pamela Wace, Dr. Kate Scott, Dr. Susan Keates, Dr. Ruth Charles, Dr. Sarah Milliken, Dr. Bill Waldren, Dr. Julie Scott-Jackson, Christine Buckingham, Dr. Marcos Llobera, Dr. John Mitchell, Vicky Winton and Marta Camps. Also, I would like to thank the staffs of the Pitt-Rivers Museum, the British Museum and Reading Museum, who generously gave me permission to work with all the beautiful artefacts. Especially, Dr. Jill Cook and Dr. Nick Ashton from the British Museum and Leslie Cram from Reading Museum gave me much help during my research there. I would like to thank Prof. Clive Gamble for his careful reading of and comment on my paper. I am also most grateful to Dr. David Davison for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the B.A.R. series. Above all, I want to offer my warmest thanks to Mr. R. J. MacRae. When I was in my first year at Oxford, I met him at the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre where Prof. Derek Roe introduced me to him. My first impression of him was 'enthusiasm'. His enthusiasm toward to Palaeolithic archaeology is there, wherever he is and on every occasion. In spite of his age (he is now 84), he remembered every single detail of where and when he found each of his beloved implements. I believe people never forget the times when they were really happy, and perhaps that is why he has never forgotten even tiny bits of information. Later I had field trips with him and discussed his collection, on very many occasions. He has given this wonderful resource of information, including the artefacts themselves to be permanently stored at the Pitt Rivers Museum. He told me that every time he found a new artefact, he would jump with excitement like a young schoolboy. His enthusiasm has never faltered from the time, even before World War II when he first become aware of the Palaeolithic. I am very lucky to have seen his artefacts, which are the main part of his life, and it is a real privilege to have been allowed to study them.

Abstract

This paper is a study of archaeological sites of Lower Palaeolithic age mainly in the Upper Thames Valley and also in a part of the Middle Thames Valley, with particular reference to material collected by Mr. R. J. MacRae over the past 25 years, which has not previously been properly studied or catalogued. In the paper, I have made a detailed comparative study of the five most prolific archaeological sites: Highlands Farm, Berinsfield, Iffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, seeking particularly to gain information about human behaviour for the peoples who intermittently inhabited the Upper and Middle Thames region during the Middle Pleistocene. All five assemblages which I have studied, are from derived contexts, so there are some limitations to the chances of obtaining really detailed information. For this reason, I have applied a variety of methods for analysing the lithic variations: morphological typological, functional and metrical analysis. As indicated above, I have particularly concentrated on the large and important collection of Mr. R. J. MacRae; however, other artefacts, of closely comparable types, needed to be considered to help provide a clear view of Palaeolithic human behaviour. The opportunity was also taken to examine artefacts which are not from the MacRae collection but belong to the five main assemblages, for example material from the collections of Reading Museum. The sites chosen for purposes of comparison include Bamfield Pit, Swanscombe, Barnham, and Clacton-on-Sea. Particular items in this paper include: the significance of the lithic tool traditions usually referred to as Early, Middle and Late Acheulian and Clactonian; how we should interpret significant patterns of artefact manufacture and use; and the whole question of the procurement and economic use of lithic raw materials in my research area. I have particularly studied lithic styles and technology, recurrent morphological patterns within the stone tool assemblages, and the effect of the different distances between the occupation sites and the lithic raw material sources.

111

List of Content Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... List of Contents .................................................................................................................................. List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................

.ii .iii .iv vi viii

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................

1

Chapter 1: The Methods ofLithic Tool Interpretations, Typological and Metrical Analysis 1-1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-2: Models ....................................................................................................................................... 1-3: Finding an Appropriate Model. .......................................................................................................... 1-4: Another Model. ..........................................................................................................................

3 3 5 8

Chapter 2: The Geology of the Upper and Middle Thames Valley 2-1: General overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-2: The Northern Drift Group .............................................................................................................. 2-3: The Hanborough Gravel Formation ................................................................................................... 2-4: The Wolvercote Gravel Formation ...................................................................................................... 2-5: The Summertown-Radley Formation ................................................................................................. 2-5-1: The Stanton Harcourt Channel Deposit ..................................................................................... 2-5-2: The Stanton Harcourt Gravel and Eynsham Gravel.. ...................................................................... 2-5-3: The Flood Plain Terrace Formation ......................................................................................... 2-6: The Ancient Channel Deposit ............................................................................................................

15 17 17 18 18 19 19 21 21

Chapter 3: Patination and Weathering 3-1: General Explanation ...................................................................................................................... 3-2: Patination .................................................................................................................................... 3-2-1: The Importance of Patination ..................................................................................................... 3-2-2: Some Interesting Flint Colours, GBR and GDBR ............................................................................ 3-2-3: The Difference of Patination, Local and Imported Flint ..................................................................... 3-2-4: Patination and Artefact Types .................................................................................................. 3-3: Physical Weathering Process (Abrasion) .................................................................................................

26 26 26 33 35 35 36

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds 4-1: General Explanation ...................................................................................................................... 4-2: Human Innate and Acquired Ability .................................................................................................... 4-3: What is General and What is Specific? ............................................................................................... 4-4: The Palaeolithic Case-Studies ...........................................................................................................

40 .41 .42 .48

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area 5-1: General Explanation ...................................................................................................................... 5-2: The Importance of Flint and the Location of Flint Sources in the Region .......................................................... 5-3: Economy of Raw Material .............................................................................................................. 5-4: Lithic Variation Of the Five Sites ......................................................................................................... 5-5: The Examination of Tool Reworking (Reduction) Strategy .......................................................................... 5-6: More Evidence .............................................................................................................................. 5-7: Flake Tools and Economy of Raw Material. ............................................................................................

53 53 54 57 60 65 66

Chapter 6: Berinsfield 6-1: General Explanation ...................................................................................................................... 6-2: Levalloisian .................................................................................................................................. 6-3: Micoquian style ........................................................................................................................ 6-4: Debitages (Simple Flakes) ................................................................................................................ 6-5: Tools with an Oblique Edge ............................................................................................................. 6-6: Flake Tools ................................................................................................................................ 6-7: Ovate Handaxes ............................................................................................................................. 6-8: Pointed Handaxes ........................................................................................................................ 6-9: Other Flint Handaxes ...................................................................................................................... 6-10: Misc. Core and Flake Tools ............................................................................................................ 6-11: Quartzite Tools ...........................................................................................................................

70 71 72 72 74 77 79 79 80 81 82

IV

6-12: Summary ................................................................................................................................

84

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt 7-1: Stanton Harcourt Channel and Gravelly Guy .......................................................................................... 7-2: Flake Debitages ........................................................................................................................... 7-3: Flake Tools ............................................................................................................................... 7-4: Choppers and Chopping Tools (Flint and Quartzite) .................................................................................. 7-5: Pointed Handaxes (Flint) .................................................................................................................. 7-6: Ovate Handaxes (Flint) .................................................................................................................. 7-7: Lingulate Handaxes ..................................................................................................................... 7-8: Ficron Handaxes ........................................................................................................................... 7-9: Cleavers .................................................................................................................................. 7-10: Handaxes (Quartzite) ................................................................................................................... 7-11: Summary ............................................................................................................................

85 87 88 89 91 94 94 96 96 97 102

Chapter 8: Iffley 8-1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 8-2: Flake Tools and Debi tag es (Simple Flakes) ....................................................................................... 8-3: Chopper and Chopping Tools (Flint and Quartzite) .................................................................................. 8-4: Handaxes (Flint) ......................................................................................................................... 8-5: Misc. Core Tools including Pointed Forms (Flint) ................................................................................. 8-6: Core Tools (Quartzite) .................................................................................................................. 8-6: Summary ...................................................................................................................................

104 104 110 110 111 112 112

Chapter 9: Wolvercote 9-1: The Lithic Industry of Wolvercote ..................................................................................................... 9-2: The Raw material. ....................................................................................................................... 9-3: Debitages (Simple Flakes) ............................................................................................................... 9-4: Flake Tools (Flint) ....................................................................................................................... 9-5: Flake Tools (Quartzite) ................................................................................................................ 9-6: Flint Core Tools .......................................................................................................................... 9-7: Core Tools (Quartzite) ................................................................................................................. 9-9: Hammerstones .......................................................................................................................... 9-9: Concluding Comments .................................................................................................................

113 113 116 116 119 119 121 122 123

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm 10-1: The Artefacts of Highlands Farm .................................................................................................. 10-2: Flake Debitages (Simple Flakes) .................................................................................................. 10-3: Handaxe Trimming Flakes ............................................................................................................ 10-4: Core Debitages (Simple Cores) .................................................................................................... 10-5: Flake Tools ............................................................................................................................. 10-6: Chopping Tools ........................................................................................................................... 10-7: Pyramidal Core Tools .................................................................................................................. 10-8: Handaxes (Pointed and Ovate) ........................................................................................................ 10-9: Summary ..................................................................................................................................

124 124 125 126 127 132 134 137 140

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... Notes for the Appendix ....................................................................................................................... Numbers of Artefacts in Each Typological Class .......................................................................................... Appendix .....................................................................................................................................

141 144 149 151 153

V

List of Tables Table 1-1: The initial classification ............................................................................................................. Table 1-2: The major classification .......................................................................................................... Table 1-3: The colour chart ..................................................................................................................... Table 2-1: Simplified British Quaternary Stages ........................................................................................... Table 2-2: A brief description of 5 main archaeological sits ...........................................................................

9 9-10 11 16 23-25

Table 3-1: The percentages on the three colour groups .................................................................................... Table 3-2: The distribution of patination colours throughout the sites .................................................................. Table 3-3: The distribution of patination colour from selected flint tools ............................................................... Table 3-4: The distribution of patination degree from selected flint tools ................................................................ Table 3-5: The results of chi-square ........................................................................................................... Table 3-6: The X2 distribution from M. Fletcher & G. Lock ............................................................................... Table 3-7: The Oxygen Isotope Stages of the artefact bearing deposits .................................................................. Table 3-8: The percentages of patination colour distribution at Swanscombe and Barnham .......................................... Table 3-9: The comparison between Highlands Farm and Berinsfield: GBR and GDBR colours according to artefact type ........................................................................... Table 3-10: The division of imported (including near site) and local flint tools ....................................................... Table 3-11: Distribution of degree of patination for certain tool types, Highlands Farm ............................................... Table 3-12: The weathering degrees throughout the sites ................................................................................... Table 3-13: The distributions of weathering degrees at Barnham and Barnfield, Swanscombe ...................................... Table 3-14: Weathering degree at Highlands Farm ...........................................................................................

34 .35 35 36 37 38

Table 4-1: A car verdict for the best car of this year ......................................................................................... Table 4-2: Factual consumer choice .......................................................................................................... Table 4-3: Exploiting rock patterns throughout different conditions .................................................................... Table 4-4: The completeness of the flint flake tools .........................................................................................

.43 .43 .49 50

Table 5-1: The Percentage of core tools oflocal and imported material and the distance from the sources ......................... Table 5-2: The correlation tables. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.. .......................................................... Table 5-3: The number of choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools ......................................................... Table 5-4: The Mean Values of the core tools and the Distance from the Sources ...................................................... Table 5-5: The explanation of working edge difference .................................................................................... Table 5-6: A comparison between simple zigzag edges and complicated straight edges ............................................... Table 5-7: Completeness points fort the different raw materials (mean values) ......................................................... Table 5-8: Two separated assumptions ........................................................................................................ Table 5-9: The mean value of retouch frequency scores for imported and local core and flake tools ..............................

58 58 60 60 65 65 66 66 68

Table 6-1: Total number of artefacts types .................................................................................................. Table 6-2: The measurement of the six Levalloisian artefacts ............................................................................ Table 6-3: The evidence of waste material. ................................................................................................. Table 6-4: The relation of the distance from the flint source and the percentages of cortex remaining on the dorsal surface ..................................................................

70 71 73

Table Table Table Table Table

7-1: The total numbers of types, referring Appendix ............................................................................. 7-2: A table for the specific patination colour and degree in Stanton Harcourt ............................................... 7-3: The category of BIL and Bl/B2 .................................................................................................. 7-4: The number of artefacts throughout various categories ..................................................................... 7-5: The distribution of working edge forms (percentages) .....................................................................

27 27 29 29 29 29 31 32

78 86 87 99 101 102

Table 8-1: The comparison of surviving cortex and completeness between Iffley and Wolvercote .............................. Table 8-2: The completeness differences between local flake and imported flake tools, and local core tools and imported core tools .................................................................................. Table 8-3: The number of flaking on the flake tools .....................................................................................

105 109

Table 9-1: Metrical differences between the simple debitages and handaxe trimming flakes ...................................... Table 9-2: Shape diagram for ovate handaxes from Highlands Farm and Wolvercote .............................................

115 120

Table 10-1: The mean dimensions for the sizes ........................................................................................... Table 10-2: Patination colour: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared ......................................................

124 126

VI

105

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

10-3: Patination degree: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared ....................................................... 10-4: Weathering degree: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared ................................................... 10-5: Quantities of core debitages at the various sites ............................................................................. 10-6: A general comparison of flake tools, handaxes and Clactonian core tools ............................................. 10-7: The degree of flake tool completeness ....................................................................................... 10-8: Comparative study using the difference of status and rock quality: flake and core tools from Iffley and Wolvercote .......................................................................... 10-9: The examine the entities of Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages ...................................................... 10-10: The working edge variation of chopping tools ............................................................................ 10-11: The weathering patterns of the pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Farm ....................................... 10-12: The patination degree of pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Farm .............................................

Vll

126 126 126 130 130 130 132 133 140 140

List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1-1: Diagram for handaxe types, after J. Wymer. ..................................................................................... 1-2: Diagram for artefact types, after F. Bordes 1961.. ............................................................................. 1-3: Diagram for artefacts type, mostly handaxes and cleavers, after D. Roel0 ................................................ 1-4: Summary ofhandaxe shape preference, after D. Roe .......................................................................... 1-5: G. Isaac's type classification ....................................................................................................... 1-6: The depth ofvisualisation .......................................................................................................... 1-7: The measurements ................................................................................................................. 1-8: The lithic classification ............................................................................................................

3 .4 .4 5 5 7 10 13

Figure 2-1: The distribution of River Terrace Deposits in the Upper Thames and the part of the Middle Thames, after D. Bridgland ....................................................................... Figure 2-2: Major Upper Thames Terrace Deposits with deep sea core stages, after D. Roe .......................................

15 16

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

3-1: The cumulative chart for patination degree and colour ..................................................................... 3-2: The box plot diagrams ........................................................................................................... 3-3: The comparison of the colour distribution .................................................................................... 3-4: The distributions of weathering degrees at Barnham and Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe .................................. 3-5: The weathering pattern of three different lithic types .......................................................................

27 31 32 37 39

Figure Figure Figure Figure

4-1: Differences between animal and human behaviours ......................................................................... 4-2: Human behaviour within a given environment: the combination of general and particular points .................... 4-3: Pressure flaker forms, after J. Whittaker ........................................................................................ 4-4: The flakes made by different flaking methods, after J. Whittaker ...........................................................

.41 .47 51 51

Figure 5-1: The distribution in South England of Earlier (Lower and Middle) Palaeolithic find-spots with the Clay-with-Flints Band and River Terrace Deposits Band ..................................................................... 55 Figure 5-2 A map of the selected Lower Palaeolithic sites from the Upper Thames and the part of the Middle Thames region ............................................................... 56 Figure 5-3: Increasing complexity of stone tool assemblage during the Pleistocene, after G. Isaac ................................ 57 Figure 5-4: Comparison of the length SD values from imported and local tools ........................................................ 61 Figure 5-5: Comparison of the length SD values from far source and near source site ................................................ 62 Figure 5-6: Comparison oflength SD values between local flint at non-source and source site ..................................... 62 Figure 5-7: Standard deviations from imported material tools from non-source sites .................................................. 62 Figure 5-8: Standard deviations from local material tools from non-source sites ...................................................... 62 Figure 5-9: Standard deviations from local material tools from source sites ........................................................... 62 Figure 5-10: Different utilisation oflithic resources as distance from source to site increases ....................................... 64 Figure 5-11: Two prediction diagrams for SD values of lengths and breadths, with imported rocks and local rocks .............. 64 Figure 5-12: A comparison between simple zigzag edges and complicated straight edges ........................................... 66 Figure 5-13: Edge angles and shapes .......................................................................................................... 66 Figure 5-14: Two flakes from experimental flaking ......................................................................................... 67 Figure 5-15: Two major different types ofretouch on flakes (diagrammatic) ........................................................... 67 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

6-1: Two handaxes from Berinsfield ................................................................................................. 6-2: Flakes from Berinsfield .......................................................................................................... 6-3: No. 320 from Berinsfield ......................................................................................................... 6-4: Two oblique edge featured bifaces from Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote .............................................. 6-5: Cortex coverage: artefact numbers 225 at Berinsfield and 23 at Stanton Harcourt ....................................... 6-6: Nos. 137 at Berinsfield and 411 at Iffley ...................................................................................... 6-7: No. 133 at Berinsfield, picture l(left) and 2 (right) .......................................................................... 6-8: No. 217 at Berinsfield ............................................................................................................. 6-9: Ovate handaxes from Berinsfield, Nos. 111 (left) and 165 (right) .......................................................... 6-10: A pointed handaxe from Berinsfield, No. 140 ............................................................................... 6-11: A lingulate handaxe from Berinsfield, No. 141.. ............................................................................ 6-12: A quartzite pointed handaxe, No. 231 from Berinsfield .....................................................................

71 73 74 75 76 76 77 77 79 80 81 82

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7-1: The very large ficron flint from Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt ................................................... 7-2: No. 63 from Stanton Harcourt .................................................................................................. 7-3: No. AS from Channel site, Stanton Harcourt ............................................................................... 7-4: A poor quality flint chopping tool, No. 23 from Stanton Harcourt ...................................................... 7-5: A (possibly) unfinished handaxe from Stanton Harcourt ..................................................................

85 89 89 90 92

vm

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7-6: No. 93-5 from Stanton Harcourt .............................................................................................. 7-7: Nos. 11 and 9 from Stanton Harcourt ........................................................................................ 7-8: No. 46 from Stanton Harcourt ................................................................................................ 7-9: Two different side views of a lingulate handaxe from Stanton Harcourt (No. 1)...................................... 7-10: Four different plano-convexity tendencies on the basis of cross sections ................................................ 7-11: A (broken) ficron handaxe from Stanton Harcourt, No. 93-6 ............................................................ 7-12: A cleaver from Stanton Harcourt, No. 720 ................................................................................. 7-13: No. 94 from Stanton Harcourt ............................................................................................... 7-14: Stanton Harcourt, Shape diagram for flint core tools ..................................................................... 7-15: Stanton Harcourt, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools ............................................................... 7-16: Berinsfield, Shape diagram for flint core tools ............................................................................ 7-17: Berinsfield, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools ...................................................................... 7-18: Wolvercote, Shape diagram for flint core tools ........................................................................... 7-19: Wolvercote, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools .....................................................................

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

8-1: Two handaxes from Iffley, Nos. 18 and 24 .................................................................................. 8-2: No. 413 from Iffley ............................................................................................................. 8-3: Nos. 414 and 386 from Iffley .................................................................................................. 8-4: The difference of the weathering pattern, Nos. 402 and 401-1.. ......................................................... 8-5: Weathered items from Iffley, Nos. 394, 391 and 393 ....................................................................... 8-6: Nos. 417 and 357 from Iffley .................................................................................................. 8-7: No. 415 from Iffley ............................................................................................................. 8-8: No. 1 from Iffley ................................................................................................................. 8-9: No. 29 from Iffley ...............................................................................................................

105 106 107 107 108 108 109 111 112

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

9-1: A quartzite handaxe and a flint plano-convex pointed handaxe from Wolvercote .................................... 9-2: Poor quality flint from Wolvercote ............................................................................................ 9-3: Natural materials (imported), No. 616 and 624 ............................................................................. 9-4: Handaxe trimming flakes, No. 631 and 632, from Wolvercote ........................................................... 9-5: The comparison between the imported and local flake tools, No. 39 and No. 554 ................................... 9-6: The bifacial retouch on artefact No. 680 .................................................................................... 9-7: A steep edged flake tool, No. 630 ........................................................................................... 9-8: Quartzite flake tools, No 521 and 520 ........................................................................................ 9-9: Quartzite pointed handaxes at Wolvercote (from J. Tyldesley 1988) ................................................... 9-10: Two hammer stones, Nos. 507 and 505 .................................................................................... 9-11: Hammer stones from J. Whittaker (1994: 88) .............................................................................

113 114 115 115 117 118 118 119 121 122 122

10-1: Five artefacts from the same gravel deposit at Highlands Farm, after J. Wymer. ................................... 10-2: No. 950 from Highlands Farm ............................................................................................... 10-3: Chopping tools made by simple direct percussion: variation of tool forms according to raw material.. ........ 10-4: Nos. 1163 and 1111 (chopping tools) ....................................................................................... 10-5: Chopper cores, a Clactonian site at Grays Thurrock, Lower Thames, after J. Wymer ............................... 10-6: Pyramidal core tools, Swanscombe Lower Loam (No. 1433), Swanscombe Lower Gravel (No. 334) and Stanton Harcourt (No. 93) ............................................... Figure 10-7: Artefacts numbers 460 and 820 ............................................................................................. Figure 10-8: Three ovate handaxes from Highlands Farm, Nos. 518, No.12 and No. 5 ............................................. Figure 10-9: Distribution ofpatination colours in pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Farm ..............................

124 128 133 133 134

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

IX

93 93 94 95 95 96 96 97 98 98 98 98 99 99

136 136 139 140

Introduction For the last four years, I have studied the aiiefacts from several Lower Palaeolithic sites mainly in the Upper Thames Valley and a part of the Middle Thaines Valley. The majority of artefacts I have studied belong to the R. J. MacRae collection. These have not previously been properly analysed. I have worked on these artefacts and am in course of carrying out a comparative study of them, especially those from five major sites; Berinsfield, Stanton Harcourt, Wolvercote, Iffiey and Highlands Farm. Such information should be useful, especially since it shows regional characteristic features after applying several appropriate theories and methods; objective fraineworks under an ecological approach, a comparative typological study and a metrical analysis. While I cannot say exactly why these paiiicular artefact types were made, I can analyse why some characteristic features are so remarkably different and similar. So the conclusions of my research will be based on my accumulated knowledge but also on some speculation. There are ten main chapters in this paper. The first chapter is 'the methods of lithic tool interpretations, typological and metrical analysis'. Without doubt, this paper is based on the artefacts themselves. Therefore, finding definitions of these artefacts is essential in order to understand these lithic variations. Without this, searching for the tool-makers' behaviour which is supposed to be a main goal, can be a misleading process. On the basis of them, I have reviewed various authors' points of views, and I am trying to find appropriate answers for them. The second chapter is 'the geology of the Upper and Middle Thaines Valley'. The chapter will discuss the regional stratigraphy and the succession of deposits, and the Palaeoenvironmental evidence during the formation of the deposits. The relative dating evidence of each deposit is also discussed on the basis of publications. Most geological data come from the available literature, which is a primary source to understand the context of archaeological data and to further evaluate the data more clearly. In addition, I can try to conelate the relative local dating evidence with a broader view of the British Pleistocene. All five assemblages, which I have studied, are from derived contexts, so there are some limitations to the chances of obtaining much better information. However· there is an exception: the Stanton Harcourt Channel Site has been excavated. Therefore I can expect refined infonnation from that. The third chapter is 'patination and weathering'. In terms of the artefacts themselves, one of the most visible variations is patination and weathering. We can classify all the tools according to morphological, typological and metrical criteria. In addition to them, the tools from my research sites have visibly distinctive patination and weathering patterns, so they can also be classified according to the patination and weathering pattern. I think these variations give useful

information about past lithic industries. In Chapter 3, I am trying to explain why these patination and weathering patterns are not consistent but varied, and I ain going to suggest what we can leain about these vai·iations. Chapter 4 is 'theoretic backgrounds'. My aim in this chapter is to introduce ce1iain archaeological theories, which provide an opportunity to better understand the Lower Palaeolithic's pattern of events in the region. To explain the regional process of change and interpret archaeological data within cunently available sources, I need to find the most convincing theory ainong an abundance of approaches and perhaps to modify certain aspects of it. The results should reduce the wide gap between approaches and practical realisation through actual data that I have found. I believe this will be very important in enabling me to interpret the adaptation pattern, even though the approach cannot cover the whole range of possibilities in the time available. Chapter 5 is 'lithic variation relating with distance to resource area'. The artefacts found are the result of complex human behaviour, and reflect the nature of their makers' adaptation to the local environmental circumstances. Therefore the local environment and the local lithic variations cannot be separated from each other in reconstructing human behaviour in this region. Even though the general human adaptation pattern can be discerned to some extent, the nature of this general pattern is variable, depending on what kind of context people belonged to. On the basis of that, this chapter attempts to explain how people optimised their behaviour in the different contexts of their settlements, especially the distance from the source area of the stone they used for tool-making. My particular interest for finding this information out is the economic procurement system for lithic raw material, much of which is of non-local origin. In order to gain a better understanding of this, I would like to follow up several aspects which enable us to recognise the significance of the distance between sites and flint sources: the condition of lithic cortex, the degree of patination, various abrasion patterns, the patterns of use-wear, close examination of tool resharpening strategies, the functional aspects of the sites and some statistical tests such as chi-square test and conelation test, etc. Chapter 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are chapters for each of the 5 main archaeological sites which I researched. Five main assembles have been described in detail: Berinsfield (Chapter 6), Stanton Harcourt (Chapter 7), Iffiey (Chapter 8), Wolvercote (Chapter 9) and Highlands Farm (Chapter 10). I have made a typological classification of almost all the material from these sites in the MacRae collection and elsewhere in the collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum and Reading Museum. The proportions of flint, quartzite and other

Hyeong Woo Lee

material used to make the implements are particularly studied. From the information, a pattern of variation between the sites has emerged.

To better understand the material culture of my research field, it is important to take note of certain other lithic data beyond the sites with which I am concerned. By making a comparative study with other British Palaeolithic industries, I have gained a clearer view and become aware of new aspects of lithic variation. Especially, certain well excavated rich site assemblages such as Clacton-on-Sea, Swanscombe and Barnham which are located in British Museum, enabled me to reach my conclusions. These comparative results are presented in the relevant places in Chapters 6-10, and are also refened to in the final part, conclusions, in which I summarise the outcome of all my lithic analyses and discuss how to explain the lithic variation, bearing in mind the points of view which emerged from my discussions in Chapters 1-5.

This paper is therefore much concerned with the collections of artefacts found in these locations: Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield, Iffiey, Wolvercote and Highlands Farm. Most of the material comes from R.J. MacRae's collection, except for that from Wolvercote and Iffley. I really appreciate his enthusiastic work and feel very happy to deal with these artefacts. I am also most grateful to him for working with me closely during this opening stage of my researches and for all his kindness and guidance.

2

Chapter

1: The Methods

of Lithic

Typological

and Metrical

Tool

Interpretations,

Analysis

1-1: Introduction Bifaces tend to have standardised forms, which lend themselves to the application of various kinds of metrical analysis. In the case of chopper and chopping tools, the only plausible measurements are length, breadth and thickness, because they do not show any recurrent pattern. Flake tools in the Clactonian and Acheulian also do not show any clear sign of regular patterns, so detailed measurements are difficult to apply. Unlike these latter types, bifaces can be usefully summarised, in terms of their characteristic features, by a system of letters. Such an approach provides an objective view of lithic variation. While single measurements may be useful, combinations of them have the potential to yield much more information. Measurements and combinations of measurements can accurately present the essential character of these tools, and metrical analysis is one of most plausible methods of understanding artefacts.

1-2: Models J. J. Wymer's (1968) classification of handaxes into certain types designated by letters was based on such a visual morphological concept. He suggests some major type variations in his table (reproduced here, see Figure 1-1).

LOWER PALAEOUTI-HC ARCHAEOLOGY !)

()

E

i~ &it

!ht

&~

F

,i ~~

(j

G

H

J

K

M

k

·············~·

N

···•+I~

i; ~1

t4 ~~

J

1)(f)Q ®I &)t@01~~

1.5, then the biface is classed as elongated.

@ID

~)1\

f:i,\\J

t1H

N

"

Figure 1-1: Diagram for handaxe types

I: length defined as the maximum dimension (parallel to the long axis of symmetry of the piece). m: breadth means the maximum dimension measured perpendicular to the long axis of symmetry of the piece. e: maximum thickness of the artefact. a: the distance from the butt to the point of maximum breadth. o: the breadth at 3/4 of the distance along the vertical axis from the butt. n: the breadth at the mid-point of the length

1/a: the location of the maximum breadth. n/m: the roundness of the edges o/m: the pointness of the tools. 1/m: the degree of elongation. When the ratio is bigger than

©~

@0

Unlike the method of Wymer, F. Bordes measured bifaces with a more objective approach (F. Bordes 1961). The basic concept of his method is the same as Wymer's, namely to examine the similarity and dissimilarity of the artefact morphology between each different assemblage. But he thought that a more general and more objective method was necessary. The shape of the original artefacts themselves was not designed for the sake of classification. Therefore finding more an objective morphological method, and excluding subjectivity, was necessary to establish a clear relationship between the sample and its parent populations. His measuring definitions are:

From these basic measurements, he devised ratios such as 1/a, n/m and m/e and used them to represent the shape and appearance of the biface. In such ways, ratios relevant to the various characteristic features of the biface are generated:

~ri) ffJJ!JA

H

10 common types were assigned letters from D to N on both the vertical and horizontal axis of a grid. So, if an actual implement looks exactly like an ideal example of one of the ten shapes, it can be named simply by the appropriate given letter. If the artefact shape is visually intermediate between two of the types, it can be described by a combination of the two letters. For example, Wymer explained that cordates are J, ovates are K. True ovates are not common, but there are large numbers of cordate handaxes that nearly approach this shape and can be classed as type JK (J. Wymer 1968).

i~ ~i

,l Wymer I %8

O.Wymer

1968: 60).

m/e: the degree of flatness. When the ratio is bigger than

2.35, then the biface is classed as flat. By using the differences of the location of the maximum breadth (1/a), Bordes divided his diagram into four arbitrary different bands, to which he gave morphological titles, and addition of the information on thickness added further classes, as shown in Figure 1-2.

Hyeong Woo Lee

Zone I: triangular lanceolate Zone II: sub-triangular lanceolate Zone III: cordiform amygdaloids Zone IV: discoid, ovate, limande fusiform Flat biface Thick biface

1·7·· l!l

1·7

H,1-· e,

1·6•

,.i;,.. htgh -

1••

otr

1-4:·· 1-3(

1·2 .. Maximum breadth 1·2'-; ----1·1 . central 1-1~

;Cr~

1•_1 ~

1·0

r··t"Ch:H:iV·Efftypes"_}

1·0

9r

B L

-9 ..

.:

.:

4

4

3

3

2 3 4

1

5 6

~

7

$

!}

a,

1-5,-·

broodth 1·4 • L 1•31---

1-2I ..... hl.gh values

~

1'7,· 1·6!-·

1-5

1-41·Maximum 1·3r

I:!, e,

middle values of

::l

1-0 [..

{1

{"Ovatetypes")

•7··

::

Max:mum breadth low~

!ow values of

-t'

l"Point•d types")

-4-

·3 ..

J 2 ' ___ J____ :___l .-2'--'--'---'--L....L--'B 1 0 3 4 ·5 ·6 · 7 -8 9 1-0 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 •8 ·9 1•0 L

la) Framework for the tripartite

handa:o:i shape diagrams Handa-xe ::.hapes

'' •• • • • • • I• • ••••• e ••• a a .•~•. r •,1•,• -

...

y

l

....

-

t··

L Figure 1-2: Diagram for artefact types (F. Bordes 1961).

t It

la

♦

••

Ii •

J ,,

(b) Distribution of h;mdaxe outline shapes on the tripartite

In addition, another ratio, 1/m is applied to distinguish their degree of elongation. In the case of Zone IV, the tool types are classified by the degree of elongation. His method enables observers to visualise the type of the artefacts, and it can also be used to compare to the similarity or dissimilarity of the morphology of the artefacts on the diagram. Such a diagram is very useful in showing the range of types within a site, but it not so easy to understand if we try to compare assemblages from several different sites. Using Bordes' system, each tool can be given a name for the purpose of classification based on to morphological appearance, so an individual artefact is readily understandable. But for intersite comparisons, this method has a certain limitation.

,♦

diagrams

Figure 1-3: Diagram for artefacts type, mostly handaxes and cleavers (D. Roe 1981:156).

On the basis of these measurements, and various ratios involving pairs of them, he addressed three main issues; the size, refinement and shape of handaxes. To study size, he used weight and length. In the case of the artefacts' refinement, he used Th/B and Tl/L (for pointed types) and Th/B by itself (for ovate types). To show aspects of shape, he used ratios as follows: B/L: to show the range of broadness or narrowness of general outline shape in the group. For example, lower values for BIL indicate narrower handaxes. Bl/B2: to show the range of pointedness or bluntness of tip in the group, for example, lower values for Bl/B2 indicate handaxes with more pointed tips. Ll/L: to show the range of general shapes in the handaxe group: for example, lower values indicate generally triangular shapes, central values ovate shapes and higher values cleaver shapes.

D. Roe (1968, 1981 and 1994) also introduced a method of metrical analysis. His approach is quite similar in many points to the conventional Bordes one. But amongst other differences of detail, he measured the width rather differently. Bordes measured the maximum width and width at 3/4 of distance from the butt, while Roe measured width at 1/5 of the distance from the butt and 4/5 of the distance from the bottom, as well as maximum width. And as well as maximum thickness, he also measured thickness at 1/5 of the length from the tip. In addition to the results he obtained for the individual measurements and the various ratios, he generated what he called 'tripartite shape diagrams (Figure 1-3). The measurements ofD. Roe are;

According to A. Debenath and H. Dibble (1994), the major difference between these two approaches is, however, the presentation of biface variability within an assemblage. Bordes chose to use the measurement as criteria for classification into several types, (which were then presented as type counts), while Roe developed a tripartite graphical means of showing biface variability, separating cleaver forms from ovate and pointed ones and presenting overall variability within these three classes (A. Debenath and H. Dibble 1994: 132). Bordes used his method to understand each artefact and give a type name under metrical criteria, which would secure the archaeologist's visual impression and suggest categorical criteria for further objective classification. On the other hand, Roe's method was able not only to classify individual artefacts, but also to reveal any shape preference within each site and make it easier to compare inter-sites assemblages.

Wt: weight L: length B: breadth T: thickness Bl: breadth at 4/5 of the distance from the handaxe butt B2: breadth at 1/5 of the distance from the handaxe butt Ll: the distance from the butt end to the point along the implement's long axis at which the position of maximum breadth occurs Tl: thickness at the distance from the tip equal to 1/5 of the length (pointed types only)

4

Chapter I: The Methods of Lithic Tool Interpretations, Typological and Metrical Analysis

He did this by generating diagrams, which show handaxe shapes. He combined BIL, B 1B2 and L llL. The biface are divided into three categories according to values of LllL. The ranges are >0.550, 0.351-0.550 and .,---------------,

13•~------------~

"

" " ·:1

11

"'1 •1

:l :l

:{ •!

•'

..

__________

,,__ \

•.,,..------,--...------Highlands Farm

,.,,--------r-------, "' ",.,

" 11 10

..-

...,

Stanton Harcourt

Iffley

,..,-.--------------,

"'

The box Plot diagrams Colour range (Y axis): I to 13

,{

:1

The extreme cases are plotted beyond the vertical lines.

:l

In some cases, the upper vertical line, which is for showing maximum value is overlapped by the outline of the box.

•{

:J

''-------..,,.--------'

•~1c-------,.--------'

Swanscombe

'A'olvercote

Figure 3-2: The box plot diagrams 6.

Summertown-Radley Terrace

Oxygen Isotope Stage

Eynsham Gravel

Stage 5e

Stanton Harcourt Gravel

Stage 6

Stanton Harcourt Channel

Stage 7

Table 3-7: The Oxygen Isotope Stages of the artefact bearing deposits.

Before leaving the exploration of what can be learned from patination, some well excavated sites should be mentioned for comparative purposes. The first is Bamfield Pit at Swanscombe. Most of the relevant artefacts from this site are stored in Franks House, British Museum. I am here

concerned with artefacts from two stages of deposition, the Lower Gravel and the Lower Loam. At Bamfield Pit, at least some of the archaeological material can be regarded as being in an undisturbed context.

6 This box plot diagrams are made by SPSS program.

31

Hyeong Woo Lee

Only a few sites can offer stratified sequences of deposits containing undisturbed sets of artefacts; the two used for study here are Swanscombe and Barnham 7. To study patination, a total of 174 flint tools were selected (randomly) from the Swanscombe collections. They are divided into two groups, 122 from of the Lower Gravel and 52 from of the Lower Loam. All the studied material is at Franks House or was at the time of study, since it will shortly be moved. The majority of the artefacts came from the excavations of J. Waechter, carried out during 1968-1972. The Barnham artefacts analysed in the paper are also in the collections of the British Museum. In order to get the best possible contextual information, including geological factors, recently excavated materials from Barnham were selected from various collections. In total, 91 were included in this study

Colour

LG

LL

Barnham

1: White

0%

0%

11%

2: P. Yellow

1%

2%

3%

3: Yellow

0%

4%

48%

4: D. Yellow

0%

2%

22%

5: P. Gray

11%

6%

1%

6: Gray

24%

31%

2%

7: D. Gray

22%

33%

2%

8: P. Brown

11%

0%

0%

9: Brown

8%

8%

4%

10: D. Brown

10%

4%

2%

11: GBR

3%

2%

1%

12; GDBR

4%

2%

2%

13: Black

7%

8%

0%

the Lower Gravel and the Lower Loam at Swanscombe. More importantly, colours other than yellow (pale yellow, yellow and dark yellow) are not significantly represented at all. As the figure shows (Figure 3-3), after colour code 4 the percentage values drop sharply and remain low. From this figure, the colour distribution of Barnham is more bunched than any other assemblages, although all of them are perfectly similar in pattern. In other words, the patination colour of Barnham is so consistent that it gives an idea of single and short-term habitation following the single deposition. However the case of Swanscombe does not give such an impression.

Colour Code Figure 3-3: The comparison of the colour distribution.

As I explained above, the patination colours roughly reflect their environmental condition, so the in-situ assemblages should have a roughly consistent colour pattern. However, these two sites do not show 100 % same consistent colour pattern. In order to solve this problem, an in-depth study must be done, considering both the raw material and the deposits themselves.

Table 3-8: The percentages of patination colour distribution at Swanscombe andBarnham.

The table above (Table 3-8) shows that at Swanscombe, the colour types are very widely distributed in both deposits. Theoretically, since they are carefully excavated and known to be in a primary context, we would expect them to have much the same colour pattern. However, no colour code exceeds 35% of the total number. In the Lower Gravel, the biggest colour proportion is gray (code 6), its percentage being only 24%. Clearly, no particular colour of patination is dominant in the Lower Gravel deposit at Swanscombe. The case of the Lower Loam also gives a very similar result: the biggest percentage for any single colour is 33%, dark gray ( code 7). This is certainly not enough to say that the dark gray colour is strongly dominant in the Lower Loam. In consequence, the whole theory I have put forward looks to be open to question.

It seems clear that the sources of tool-making flint were nearby the sites at both Swanscombe and Barnham. According to N. Ashton and J. McNabb (1996: 205), at Swanscombe the tools were made from chalk flint, much of which may have been collected from a secondary source such as fluvial gravels. At Barnham there was a similar situation, and one source was a so-called 'lag deposit' formed during an earlier stage of the channel's infilling. This deposit largely consisted of flint cobbles (N. Ashton, et al. 1994: 585), which are claimed to be the major source. So, although at both sites the chalk was not far away, both actual flint sources were secondary ones. Commonly, such surface flints have been weathered by natural causes, and for that reason some of them could already have been patinated to various degrees, perhaps quite heavily. Patination often accelerates when the flints are broken and the protective cortex partly removed. But the cobble forms are mainly still covered with cortex, so patination of the cobble flints would not have been the same as is the case with flaked artefacts which usually have not much cortex left. Because all these flints had been weathered and transported by water, a small degree of patination could already have happened before lmapping. In Table 3-8 and Figure 3-3, the presence of variable colouring is probably is due to this reason. In the case of the Lower Gravel, Swanscombe, the colour codes

On the other hand, the Barnham assemblage yields a different pattern from that of Swanscombe. As seen in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-3, the most dominant colour is yellow, which reaches 48%, a strong contrast with the situation in

7 Only flint tools are listed in the Table 3-8. Those of quartzite, chert and unknown material are excluded, as are natural pieces. All the flint was imported, probably from near the site, but no material that actually occurs at the site was used.

32

Chapter 3: Patination and Weathering

with minor values, less than 20%, are numbers 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. And the major colour classes, with values of 22% or higher, are colour codes 6 and 7. In the same way, the Lower Loam, Swanscombe have nine colours with minor values (codes 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) and two more strongly represented colours ( code 6 and 7). At Barnham, the low value colours are nine (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13), with two dominant colours (codes 3 and 4).

in the region. More importantly, these GBR and GDBR are basically different from originally (naturally) banded flint. The junction between the different colours is not clearly divided in the case of GBR and GDBR flint. The GBR and GDBR colour classes seem to show not only these different colours, but also some sort of quality difference. The two colours gradually merge, and distinctive intermediate areas can be seen. In addition, the chemical weathering seems to start not from the outer surface but from the internal core. Theoretically, patination must begin on the outer surface, due to the contact with acid water. But with GBR and GDBR the colour change seems to travel in a completely opposite direction. Flints of such colour are often found in nature 8 and were certainly used for knapping, for example, at Swanscombe, Barnham and Clacton-on-Sea. Because they are often found in nature, the colouring was evidently present before knapping took place. Therefore such GBR and GDBR colours are not the results of post-depositional patination, and they should really be treated as close to the black colour which is classified into un-patinated.

From that, we understand that 100 % colour consistency could not be expected because of usage of secondary source. However it is not still solved why does Swanscombe conflict with the theory put forward here, while Barnham is in rather more accord with it? If we look at these figures in more detail, all the minor colours at Barnham have lower values than do the samples from the two deposits in Swanscombe. That means Barnham shows a lower percentage of minor colours, and accordingly higher percentages for the more important ones confirming the observed situation that at Barnham tool patination is much more concentrated into a few important colours. In theory, the overall patterning of colours should be similar at Barnham and Swanscombe, even though some variation is to be expected. However, the distribution of the colours does not correspond to that. The flint source evidence first considered helps us to understand how the variation amongst the minor colours could happen, but it does not tell us why at these two sites the major and minor colour distribution patterns are completely different.

The reason why the GBR and GDBR colours are important, is that at Highlands Farm flints of these colours were used not for every kind of tool, but only for the crude Clactonian-style and Early Acheulian tools. Table 3-9 shows the types of tools which have the patination colours GBR and GDBR. Most of them are Misc. core and flake tools, simple choppers, chopping tools, pyramidal core tools and crudely made handaxes. There are no proper Mid-Acheulian handaxes, such as fully symmetrical pointed handaxes or ovate handaxes. The reason for this patterning is not at all clear. But at least the evidence suggests that culturally and technologically distinct tools were actually being made at different times, because the patination is consistently different. Chronological distinctions that match the typological differences seem to be indicated also by the degree of weathering. Usually the ovate handaxes are in very fresh or even mint condition, while the proto handaxes are heavily weathered at Highlands Farm. All these points combine to suggest that these culturally and technologically different artefacts were indeed made at different periods, even if they do not tell us when those periods occurred ( or even in which chronological order).

The answer to this can perhaps be found in the geological record. The Lower Gravel at Swanscombe contains three sub-divisions; the Basal Gravel, the main body of the Lower Gravel and the Midden Level. And the Lower Loam also shows multi-layers: the main body of the Lower Loam and the discontinuous Surface Layer (B. Conway 1996). However, at Barnham the deposits were formed entirely differently. The archaeological deposit is not multi-layered, but it is a single layer spread of sediment (N. Ashton, et al. 1994). This suggests that the duration of human activity in Barnham and Swanscombe is different in time scale. Barnham was occupied in a single episode, while the depositions of the Swanscombe Lower Gravel and the Lower Loam took place under several different climatic conditions. While Barnham has only one climatic episode, the deposits of Swanscombe have more than that, and this is why the colour pattern of the artefacts is different.

3-2-2:

Some

Interesting

Flint

For this reason, the occurrence of GBR and GDBR might relate to the specific time when the tools were made. As Table 3-9 shows, Highlands Farm and Berinsfield do not yield any finely made handaxes with the colour GBR and GDBR 9 except one item at Berinsfield. With these kinds of flint, normally poor shaped tools were made, and more sophisticated tools such as bifaces were not made of them at either site. More significantly, all the tool types of this colour at Berinsfield can also be found at Highlands Farm. The tools made of GBR and GDBR colour flint are: type codes 1, 8, 13, 14, 15, 25, 29, 30 and 45. All these types are found at Highlands Farm as well.

Colours,

GER and GDBR At Berinsfield, the most interesting patination colour present is GBR and GDBR: this kind of patination is absent at Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote (the Appendix shows 0% in each case), and only a very few instances of it occur at Berinsfield and Iffley. However these types of colour are very common at Highlands Farm. This type of patination has quite a different quality from others: the GBR and GDBR classes are made up of the colours gray and brown and gray and dark brown. But the gray and brown of Highlands Farm are not only colours which are absent or rare at other places

8 I also nated this feature in some flints I found at Blenheim Place, Oxfordshire.I found them by chanceat a picnic area; they had probably been brought in from elsewherewith construction material. 9 There is just one exceptionat Berinsfield(artefactNo. 145).Although it is classifiedas a pointed handaxe,morphologicallyit is not quite similarto other pointed handaxesat this site. 33

Hyeong Woo Lee

Thus, it could be said that all the GBR and GDBR tools are exactly same types of tool and were made by closely similar technology. In addition, they may well have been made at the same time, because their patination colour seems to be reflecting specific environmental conditions. As explained above, the colour of GBR and GDBR are not the result of post-depositional but pre-depositional processes. However, it is very difficult to say whether they were produced before the Mid-Acheulian or afterward, since RawM. Flint Flint Flint Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Unknown M. Flint Flint Quartzite Quartzite Unknown M. Flint Flint Flint Flint Quartzite Quartzite Unknown M. Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Flint Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite Unknown M. Flint Quartzite Unknown M. Unclassified (natual)

typological chronology has been regarded as very doubtful in recent Palaeolithic studies, and in any case we are not sure that there is a clear typological succession in the Lower Palaeolithic in Britain. We cannot suppose that all the artefacts of Berinsfield and Highlands Farm were made in a single brief time span, but within the whole period they represent, the GBR and GDBR colour tools might well have been made during one and the same brief period.

GBR and GDBR colour flint Flake Debitages Trimming Flake Others Flake Debitages Trimming Flake Others Core Debitages Others Core Debitages Others Scrapers Others Pointed Forms Levalloisian Scrapers Others Choppers & Chopping Tools Pyramidal Core Tools Cleavers Bifacially W. Tools Crude Handaxes (Mostly Pointed) Pointed Handaxes (Mid-Acheulian ) Ovate, Cordate Handaxes Lingulate Handaxes Ficron Handaxes Others (Inc. Misc. tools) Broken Handaxes (types unknown) Pointed Forms Choppers & Chopping Tools Pyramidal Core Tools Cleavers Bifacially W. Tools Crude Handaxes (Mostly Pointed) Pointed Handaxes (Mid-Acheulian ) Ovate, Cordate Handaxes Lingulate Handaxes Ficron Handaxes Others (Inc. Misc. tools) Broken Handaxes (types unknown) Pointed Forms A tool is not clear whether a flake or core A tool is not clear whether a flake or core A tool is not clear whether a flake or core

Type Code

High.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

9

2

none none none none none none

none none none none none none

8 3

Berins.

1

none none none

none none none none

36 24 2

1 2 1

none none none none

none none none none none none none none none

27 14 11 none

29 none

1

1

none none none

none none

38 2 3 none none none none none none none none none none none none none

3 1 none none none none none none none none none none none none none none

12

1

none none none

none none none

Table 3-9: The comparison between Highlands Farm and Eerinsfield: GER and GOER colours according to artefact type.

34

Chapter 3: Patination and Weathering

3-2-3:

The Difference Local

of Patination,

and Imported

the tools at this site. Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt yielded only extremely small numbers of tools made from the local flint (5% and 4% respectively), so the quantity is never significant in statistical terms. Iffley has more local flint tools than any of the other sites, and even has a larger number of tools made from local materials than imported ones.

Flint

Another point of interest can be seen in the Iffley artefact assemblage. At Iflley (see Table 3-10), just over half of all the tools are made of local flint (52%). Unlike Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt (see Table 3-10), a significantly large use of local flint materials can be seen in the manufacture of

Imported

Local

Total

Imported%

Barnham

91

Berinsfield

180

Local

0

91

100%

0%

9

189

95%

5%

Clacton

83

0

83

100%

0%

Highlands

393

0

393

100%

0%

lffley

64

69

133

48%

52%

S.H.

92

4

96

96%

4%

Swan.

174

0

174

100%

0%

Wolvercote

128

38

166

77%

23%

%

Table 3-10: The division of imported (including near site) and local flint tools.

In terms of patination colour, local flint tools cannot be treated the same as imported ones. Usually, flint tools that are classified into imported and what I have called 'near site', are flaked from nodules or cobbles, and are highly likely to be of good quality because the tool-makers could carefully select them. Therefore they would not have been already weathered or heavily patinated when they made use of them, and all the major patination processes they show will have occurred after the tools were discarded. However, the local flints are quite different from that. All the local flint materials were already frost-cracked and heavily weathered before knapping took place. In fact, all the total flint materials which are found locally in the region are small and deeply patinated. For this reason, the local flint materials should be considered separately from imported and so-called 'near site' flint materials, in any study of their colour

Clactonian affinity tools such as choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools are usually slightly patinated (84%), and crude handaxes are also most commonly slightly patinated (92%). However, ovate handaxes are divided into deeply patinated (53%) and slightly patinated (43%). It is clear that patination differs between non-ovate handaxes and ovate handaxes. We cannot on the basis of that predict that Clactonian and Early Acheulian tools were made at the same time, because the patination process does not reflect on the absolute chronology. However, it seems rather clear that the non-ovate handaxes have a single deposition history, while the ovate handaxes have more than one deposition process. But it is still unknown which of these two types of tools was made and discarded first, and which was made last. What we can deduce is that the ovate handaxe assemblage in this region is a separate entity from the rest, and that this site was certainly visited more than once.

Amongst the artefacts made of imported flint, artefact number Iflley 24 is unique in terms of the patination degree, colour, size and type. Except for number 24, most of the Iflley artefacts of imported flint belong to the colour group B (75%) which consists of gray, dark gray, pale brown and brown. At Highlands Farm, patination colours A and B occur in almost equal numbers, with 81 group A and 84 group B. But the number in group C is nearly three times larger than that in either A or B (228 cases).

Type Type code

Chop. & Pyra. 20 and 21

Crude Handaxe 24

Ovate Handaxe 26

VD

0,

0%

0,

0%

0,

0%

D

6,

11%

1, 3%

16,

53%

s u

46,

84%

36,

92%

13, 43%

5%

2,

5%

1, 3%

3,

Table 3-11: Distribution of degree of patination for certain tool types, Highlands Farm.

3-2-4:

Patination

and Artefact

Types

The tools that fall into type codes 20, 21 and 24 cannot be divided in terms of the degree of patination (see Appendix and Table 3-9). However, the patination colour can offer a clue. As explained before, representation of the colours GBR and GDBR is quite unique at Highlands Farm where 218 out of 393 artefacts have these two types of colour. The interesting point is these GBR and GDBR flints are for making choppers, chopping tools and other crude tools, not for manufacture of ovate handaxes. The colours of

Table 3-11 shows how the degree of patination varies for certain types 10 at Highlands Farm. As can be seen, there are no very deeply patinated tools. But deeply patinated, slightly patinated and unpatinated show a clear pattern.

lO The type codes come from Appendix. 35

Hyeong Woo Lee

the ovate handaxes are usually yellow, dark yellow, pale gray and gray: 17 out of 20 artefacts are one of these colours. The Appendix shows that only one ovate handaxe falls into the GBR and GDBR colour group, and even this (artefact number 8 from Reading Museum) is not a typical ovate handaxe in the strict sense, because the working edge is not straight but zigzag. Clearly, two factors are important: degree of patination and specific colour. On both criteria, the artefacts of type codes 20, 21 and 24 are the same. We can reasonably conclude that at Highlands Farm the artefacts of Clactonian type and Early Acheulian type were made at the same time, while the ovate handaxes seem likely to have been made at a different time, whether before or after the other material. This assumption is also supported by analysing the Clactonian tools made with local material (see Chapter 7). If we follow this, I may suggest that the Clactonian assemblage in Highlands Farm does not give any strong impression of chronological independence from the Acheulian (Early Acheulian) assemblage.

Barnham Berinsfield Clacton Highlands lffley Swan. S.H. Wolvercote

Physical

Weathering

Less fresh

Weathe red

Total

74 21 28 65 8 86 3 66

9 136 43 254 37 74 66 53

8 23 12 73 19 14 20 9

91 180 83 392 64 174 89 128

Table 3-12: The weathering degrees throughout the sites.

As Table 3-12 shows, there is no site where only one degree of abrasion is found. All sites yield all three levels of weathering, although clear preferences certainly exist in some sites. In fact, it is the physical side of the weathering process which gives us the classification 'fresh', 'less fresh' and 'weathered'. Since the cause of the process is obviously highly variable, we would not expect physical and chemical weathering to be exactly correlated for each artefact. The chemical weathering is caused by penetrating acid water, while the physical weathering is due to physical abrasion involving water, soil and rocks. Therefore these two kinds of weathering are not closely related to each other. We saw in the section on patination that the process can reflect the particular period when the tool was discarded. But what about the physical weathering? Does the physical weathering also after evidence for deposition at a particular period, although these two kinds of weathering are not strictly related to each other?

To summarise this study of patination, it offers its own kind of evidence to support the archaeological interpretation. It cannot be used to determine chronological sequence, but it casts some light on post-deposition processes in specific contexts. And the degree and nature of the patination will vary, depending on the prevailing climatic conditions. It should be possible for variation in patination to be explained, and it may assist interpretation. The patination process and age of the artefacts are not strictly related to each other: a mint fresh one is not necessarily younger than a heavily weathered one, and vice-versa.

3-3:

Fresh

In order to answer the question, we need sites which are undisturbed and are single deposits. Since none of the sites in Upper Thames Valley offer such features, other archaeological sites are needed. Barnham and Bamfield Pit, Swanscombe satisfy these requirements. A total of 174 artefacts from the Lower Gravel and the Lower Loam were studied. 122 came from Lower Gravel and 52 from the Lower Loam. 91 artefacts from Barnham were selected for the analysis. Only the Barnham site is really undisturbed and consists of a single spread of deposit; a single geological episode (S. Lewis 1998: 77-78)

Process

(Abrasion) Undoubtedly, all the artefacts in the region have been deposited during more than one cycle of glaciation and they were deposited in derived contexts. Thus all of them must have become 'rolled' in some degree. None of the tools is in mint fresh condition and their degree of weathering is quite varied throughout the sites. More importantly, the variations of weathering degrees are significantly different even in the same site.

By contrast, the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam at Swanscombe do not share these conditions. As explained earlier, the deposits of the Lower Gravel and the Lower Loam contain several sub-divisions and some of the artefacts could certainly be derived from earlier deposits. According to B. Conway (1996: 125-129), the Lower Loam includes both the Lower Loam Id and the weathered surface of the Lower Loam le. Within the Lower Loam Id, there are interruptions at several levels by phases of channel cutting and infilling (N. Ashton and J. McNabb 1996: 205). And the upper part of the Lower Loam, the weathered layer, is supposed to be a surface level. More importantly for explaining the different weathering features, these two depositions had occurred basically in different environmental conditions; the Lower Loam Id in rather

In this section of the paper, I will discuss the importance of abrasion on the artefacts. I use the term 'weathering' for physical weathering. In the case of chemical weathering, such as patination, I have used more specific terms such as patination process or patination colour.

The weathering degree can be divided into three groups; weathered, less fresh and fresh. The result is given for all the sites, in Table 3-12. 11

11 All the values are for good quality flint made tools. If the sites are far from the source, there are local and imported flint tools, but only imported flint tools have been used, to ensure equality of comparison. Not only tools, but also debitages are included, because there is no reason to separate tools and debitages when we are analysing the weathering patterns. At some sites, one or

two artefacts have been omitted because of lack of weathering information. There are also a few missing data, but only a few items (2 for Stanton Harcourt and 1 for Highlands Farm), which does not affect the result. 36

Chapter 3: Patination and Weathering

temperate conditions, while the weathered Lower Loam le was formed in a cold phase.

even though it does not show a single pattern, it still has a characteristic pattern. In the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam, the weathering pattern is not evenly distributed. That is, the patterns are clustered in 'fresh' and 'less fresh' groups. I suppose the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam are still a single deposit in a general sense, even though there is an interrupting episode. For this reason, the weathering patterns are clustered, and not evenly distributed through the three weathering groups.

It is possible that analysing the weathering degrees might support this geological interpretation. If the physical weathering degree does indeed correspond to a specific set of environmental circumstances, then all the Barnham tools should have the same weathering degree because all the tools are contemporary. On the other hand, the tools in the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam of Swanscombe cannot be homogeneous because there are interrupting episodes. The results of the analysis are shown below (see Table 3-13 and Figure 3-4). %

Barnham

L. G. Swan.

L.L. Swan.

Fresh

81%

45%

60% 31%

Less fresh

10%

48%

Weathered

9%

7%

10%

Total

100%

100%

100%

Before analysing my sites, I have to make sure why each entire artefact type is not consistent in one single weathering pattern. In theory, artefacts made in a single period of time should have a single weathering pattern. But the tools from these sites never show such consistency. This question can be explained from the results of other sites with geological support. In the case of Barnfield, Swanscombe, the presence of a !mapping floor and refitting evidence in the Lower Loam is good evidence for in-situ context (N. Ashton and J. McNabb 1996: 205). However, the weathering pattern is not consistent. Of 52 cases, fresh items are 31, less fresh 16 and weathered 5. Even though I can manage to find a strong dominant pattern, fresh ( 60%), it fails to show pure consistence of the weathering pattern. The excavation evidence showed that several levels of channel cutting and infilling had occurred within the Lower Loam (B. Conway 1996). Moreover, some rocks were derived from earlier deposits. This could account for the differing weathering degrees. For these reasons, all the artefacts cannot have the same consistent weathering pattern, and some small difference in weathering degrees cannot be avoided.

Table 3-13: The distributions of weathering degrees at Bamham and Barnfield, Swanscombe.

100%90%80%70%-

The sites in the Upper Thames Valley can be assessed in the light of this information. Since most archaeological assemblages in the region did not come from proper archaeological excavations, the duration of human occupation can not be sure, and it is very difficult to say whether the sites were revisited or not. Typological study cannot offer any useful evidence about that. Because certain artefact types, such as Acheulian handaxes, are found over a long period of time, the alteration of the type can only be observed within a continuous and really long-term sequence. On the other hand, the process of abrasion happens during a relatively short time period compared to that needed for typological change. Different abrasion patterns are related not to the lithic types but the nature of deposition.

60%50%40%30%20%10%-

0%

Bamham

L. G. Swan.

L.L. Swan.

Using only a typological approach, the number of occupations at one site is impossible to understand, unless there is also detailed geological evidence. That is why study of the weathering patterns may be useful. Full recovery of the occupation history is of course virtually impossible from studying the weathering patterns, but the weathering may still help us to reach a better understanding, in situations where the geological data are inadequate.

Figure 3-4: The distributions of weathering degrees at Bamham and Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe.

Unlike Swanscombe, Barnham's pattern shows a strong domination by 'fresh' artefacts, the percentage exceeding 80%. No other deposits reach such a figure. From this, we can confidently say that the physical weathering is likely to have a single cause. Geological data also confirmed that the assemblage at Barnham is all contemporary because the surviving artefacts occur within the same part of the geological sequence (S. Lewis 1998: 77-78). In the case of Swanscombe, the weathering pattern is not homogeneous, so it is largely divided into two groups: 'fresh' and 'less fresh'. This suggests that the assemblages did not strictly come from single climatic episode. In the case of Swanscombe,

When I examined the artefacts at Highlands Farm, I notified there are significant different weathering variations throughout the different types 12. This implies that their 12 J. Wymer (1968: 198) said that the Late Middle Acheulian artefacts are generally sharp, while the others are generally in rolled condition. My detailed research reveals that the weathering patterns of Clactonian and Early Acheulian are not much different from each other, while the weathering

37

Hyeong Woo Lee

deposition circumstances were different from each other, and accordingly that the separated tool groups represent different time periods. To examine this assumption, I classified the core tools of Highlands Farm according to the typological groups which are present in the Thames Valley; Clactonian, Early Acheulian, Middle Acheulian and Late Acheulian. In fact, the flake tools, debitages and other core tools such as Misc. core tools should also be attributable to one or other of these categories, but determining where such artefacts belong is very difficult to judge on the basis of their typology, which does not much vary. For this reason only selected core tools were used 13_

Type Typology

Chop. & Pyramidal C. Clactonian

Crude Point H. Early Acheulian 2, 5%

situation like that of the artefacts of Barnham, most of them or all of them should have fresh condition. As seen in Figure 3-4, most Barnham tools fall into the 'fresh' section. Since we already know the artefacts from Highlands Farm were derived (see Chapter 2), it is not necessary to raise any questions further. All I want to know is whether these three different types are chronologically separated or not. If the weathering patterns observed on this material do indeed reflect specific periods of specific environmental conditions, various interpretations of the archaeological record become possible. Recently we have come to realise that typological distinction does not imply chronological distinction 14·

Ovate H.

As presented in Table 3-14, the first impression is that each types' weathering patterns (Clactonian, Early Acheulian and Late Acheulian) are distributed into two major groups. In the case of Clactonian and Early Acheulian, the major patterns are both 'weathered' and 'less fresh'. On the other hand, Late Acheulian has a different pattern, the major groups being 'less fresh' and 'fresh'. This means that none of three types shows completely random distributions, all of them are showing some clustering patterns such as the case of Swanscombe.

Late Acheulian 18, 60%

Fresh

5,

9%

Less Fresh

32,

58%

20,

51%

10,

33%

Weathered

18,

33%

17,

44%

2,

7%

Table 3-14: Weathering degree at Highlands Farm.

As the Table shows (Table 3-14), there were in fact no specimens attributable to the Middle Acheulian, but for the other groups there were specimens in each category of condition. There was no very strong preference for one pattern of weathering for any of the types.

There is a rather clear distinction between Clactonian and Early Acheulian, and Late Acheulian. When considering the minor pattern in each group, a certain tendency is discerned. The minor patterns in the Clactonian and Early Acheulian groups are both 'fresh'. In the Clactonian section, the occupation of the 'fresh' is only 9 %. And in the case of the Early Acheulian it gets smaller, with only 5 % 'fresh' artefacts. Thus the 'fresh' condition is very rare in the Clactonian and Early Acheulian artefacts. In contrast, the 'fresh' tools are quite abundant in the Late Acheulian group, and the 'fresh' group is in fact the main pattern for this group. The weathering difference between the Clactonian and Early Acheulian is too small to be of significance, but the weathering pattern of the Late Acheulian group is distinct from the other two groups. The picture below (Figure 3-5) explains the weathering patterns of three type tools. The Clactonian and Early Acheulian weathering patterns are quite similar to each other, while the Late Acheulian is very different. In the picture, the Early Acheulian section is fully covered by the Clactonian section, while the Late Acheulian section is separated from the others.

With introducing weathering degree, chronological order could be enlightened. If the Clactonian assemblage was chronologically independent, the tools might have different pattern from Early and Late Acheulian assemblages. However, they are actually spread across all three sections: 'weathered', 'less fresh' and 'fresh'. The cases of the Early Acheulian and Late Acheulian also show that the weathering degree is not concentrated into one categories. However, I can see that the Clactonian and Early Acheulian tools are concentrated in the 'weathered' and 'less fresh' sections, while the Late Acheulian tools are concentrated in the 'less fresh' and 'fresh' sections (Table 3-14). From Table 3-14, non-ovate handaxes and ovate handaxes have a strong distinction, while the two assemblages which are chopping tools and crude pointed handaxes, do not show any strong distinction. That is to say, chronologically, Clactonian core tools are not separated from Acheulian tools, especially Early Acheulian handaxes. Moreover, the analysis of patination degree (see previous section) also supports this point of view. In Table 3-11, the degree ofpatination differs between non-ovate and ovate handaxes not between Clactonian and Acheulian handaxes (Early Acheulian handaxes). Before the further analysis, I ought to recapitulate the geological circumstance of Highlands Farm. Because all the surviving artefacts were derived, weathering process was inevitable. If the Highlands Farm artefacts had been in a

pattern of the evolved Acheulian is not consistent, since it has strong components of both fresh and worn material. 13 I also used only flint specimens, and quartzite and unknown materials were omitted.

14 The main reason I used the word 'distinction' is, that the traditional chronological sequence of typological stages is not valid any more, at least in Britain, on the basis of the evidence of Boxgrove and other sites (M. Roberts 1997). 38

Chapter 3: Patination and Weathering

llii!(la(;:iooian II A. CJLot@

Figure 3-5: The weathering pattern of three different lithic types (Highlands Farm).

Although all the types of tools were derived and mixed in a single gravel deposit, the artefacts' initial depositional contexts are likely to have been different. This suggests that the Late Acheulian artefacts were made and discarded during a different period from the others. And the Clactonian and Early Acheulian could be made in the same period of time on the basis of weathering pattern analysis.

features such as patination and weathering degree could give more information. In spite of this supporting evidence, I have to admit the analysis of weathering process could not give a conclusive answer about the lithic chronology. Firstly the weathering variation cannot tell the absolute chronology, secondly, the attributes are too small to explain complex climatic conditions in the past. The attributes which I applied are only 'fresh', 'less fresh' and 'weathered'. The composition of these three is not good enough to suggest any high level answer. However, at sites which do not have sufficient geological data, such as my research sites, the weathering pattern may be an only or major method to determine the chronology. The weathering and patination variations from my work are not strongly based on the 'positivism' idea, which can test a raised hypothesis into true or false. Rather, the weathering analyses is understood as a means of 'probabilistic evaluation' (K. Dark 1995). Therefore, I cannot strongly suggest 'the truth', but I can try to get closer to 'the truth'.

From the evidence of the well-excavated sites, notably Swanscombe, I learned that the weathering process could be varied even in a single deposit. But I also learned that artefacts deposited in single layer have a more consistent weathering pattern. Therefore a site's assemblage, which has consistent weathering pattern even without 100% consistency, can be regarded as highly likely to have been deposited in a single climatic phase. Therefore I suppose all artefacts at Highlands Farm could not be deposited in a single period of time, because Late Acheulian and non-Late Acheulian tools have very different weathering patterns. In fact, I cannot show whether the Clactonian and Early Acheulian tools are chronologically separated by analysing the weathering pattern. In comparison with typological research alone, the combination of typology and other

39

Chapter

4-1:

General

4: Theoretical

Explanation

Variation, in almost any form, is one of the most vital sources of information in our attempts to reconstruct the human past. Measurable variation takes many different forms. Human behaviour is more complex than that of any other species (Figure 4-1); humans have a definite capacity to express their various intentions. Humans can modify their given environmental circumstances in any direction that is likely to benefit them. Archaeological evidence may often offer proof of this concept. In terms of the Palaeolithic data, human artefacts tend to become more specialised and more efficient over a long-term sequence. By studying a long succession of human artefacts, we can hope to define 'change'. Non-human animal species often cannot significantly modify their behaviour. All their responses to environmental situations operate within severe limitations. Of course human responses also have their limitations, but one can often see these being overcome during any long-term sequence. As the next figure shows (Figure 4-1), other animals such as horses have a serious limitation of their behaviour. They can certainly find subsistence and cope with surrounding environments, within the limits of their given physical ability, but more importantly, they cannot artificially improve their adaptation ability, even over a long period of time. Their tactics for procuring food and surviving in a hostile environment cannot be dramatically improved simply through the process of biological evolution. But for humans, it is different. The initial stage could be same as for the horses, but throughout time, they can cope with several obstacles in an efficient manner (Figure 4-1 ). The major point is, human behaviour can make significant progress as time passes, even without biological alteration. According to R. Klein (1989: 210), in Africa, Acheulian artefacts have been found not only at Homo erectus sites but

Backgrounds

also Homo sapiens sites. He said: 'There is general agreement that early H. sapiens made essentially the same kinds of tools as did preceding H. erectus.'

The main causes for the progress cannot be same as with other species. For example, the weather is routinely hot during summer, leading to inadequate water supply. Any species dependent on its own, physical resources has the single option of finding adequate water resources elsewhere, and this pattern will not change over time. However, for humans things are different. The shortage of water supply can be solved by a different strategy. Their vulnerable physical qualities can be strengthened by devices such as communication, information transmitting and powerful navigation (in the sense of choosing a course of action) to solve the problem (Figure 4-1). These resources are basically different from mere physical resources. The latter are innate, but the former are not innate but postnatal. Since they are acquired, they have potential power to be changed. In other words, human behaviour does not have to remain consistent within natural limits, and cannot be as simple as animals' behaviour. This acquired human behaviour has developed in positive ways in terms of adaptation efficiency. For example, in order to solve the water problem, humans can travel on the basis of infonnation given by high level communication. And this precious information is passed from one to others because they have advanced methods for transmitting it, such as language. Of course, other animals have their own means of communication and even education, but they are different from those of humans. Animals' communication and education are 'fossilised (static)' forms. They cannot recreate or modify them in response to dramatically changing circumstances. Humans' communication and education are very much more flexible for such recreation and modification. And humans always tend to increase their behavioural flexibility (S. Mithen 1996).

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

How t(ll cope witt tt.~m?

ihulmil1 llwv~w (fmrim &pD&n&J

#,um\ffl tf®hwlrlow

lnmte mJr

.ftllta!re AM AqtdrM

(~

f!W'W@ffllJ

Figure 4-1: Differences between animal and human behaviours.

4-2:

Human

Innate

behaviour has progressed dynamically with less biological modification. After the emergence of the genus Homo, human behaviour has moved forward without substantial genetic changes.

and Acquired

Ability

On the basis of the archaeological evidence, these acquired behaviours can be clearly documented even in the Lower Palaeolithic period. Humanly made stone artefacts offer the best evidence, by virtue of their high survival rate. Acheulian handaxes have a strong regularity and were made according to an inherited knapping tradition. In order to make and maintain the same style of artefacts so effectively, acquired information must have been transmitted ~oi_n human to human, whether visually or verbally. This 1s significantly different from the building of nests by birds.

From about 4 million years ago to now, numerous other animals have existed alongside humans. But their behaviour could not be dramatically changed at all. Human behaviour has certainly been changed by ordinary processes of biological evolution, but far more has their behaviour been altered from time to time without the involvement of biological evolution. It is still uncertain how closely biological evolution and human behaviour such as lithic production are correlated. But the fact remains that human

41

Hyeong Woo Lee

The birds' nest-building styles are consistent in the sense of repetitive, but the making artefacts by humans is not merely consistent but full of purposeful progress. Quite new typological regularities are introduced at particular times, such as the Mousterian toolkits. Since making artefacts is not an innate behaviour, but an acquired behaviour, there is an inherent scope to modify its pattern as required. Strikingly, the durations of particular tool-making styles (as behavioural regularities) can be seen to reduce as time passes, while their number tends to increase. The duration of the prevailing Acheulian type of toolkit is rather more than 1.5 million years. According to S. Mithen (1996: 26), handaxes first appeared in Africa around 1.4 million years ago and persisted for a long period of time, e.g. they were found 500,000 years ago at Boxgrove, England. But the succeeding technological pattern, called Mousterian, lasted from about 100,000 to 35,000 (D. Lambert 1987: 144). That is to say, the period of technological persistence decreased. Also, the regularity of tool types increased. In the Acheulian tradition, such strong regularity is only found amongst the core tools. But the Mousterian tradition expanded such regularity also to flake tools, notably to Levalloisian flake tools. In terms of technological complexity, an Acheulian handaxe could be made with about 65 blows, while items of the Mousterian tool kit often needed about 111 blows (D. Lambert 1987: 144).

hard hammer flaking techniques. The supposedly old fashioned flaking method, hard hammer flaking, is never lost or abandoned, but rather reused with the addition of a new technique, soft hammering. On the basis of these phenomena, the essential question is: 'what kinds of forces determine the making of a selection, and can these selections be recognised by us?' As explained above, humans have the potential to deal with much larger bodies of information than animals, from their innate and acquired ability (Figure 4-1 ). Therefore the reaction to arrival in a specific environment will not be simple as other animals' reaction. Apart from that, the humans' reaction is varied not only under given specific circumstance but also throughout time, on the basis of improvement in the innate and accumulated acquired information. So the reaction is rather more creative than fossilised, or rather more dynamic than static. This makes it unwise to assume that only one single motive affects any particular human reaction. Rather, human reaction (human selection of behaviour, in other words) cannot be simply generalised without detailed consideration of the specific circumstances in both time and space. Again, human behavioural intention is powered by both innate and acquired information, and we have seen that human reaction will never be as simple as that of other animals, which mostly only have innate information. Only if we understand the specific time and space, might we confidently discern a specific cause, or a primary cause, that leads to a specific human reaction.

All this is evidence of the progressive nature of human adaptation to changing circumstances. Humans have a capacity to cope with changing, or different, environments. Throughout time, human behaviour has been diverse. Since humans basically possess both the innate and acquired power to adapt, even the very initial stage humans have had a unique adaptation strategy. Even early Palaeolithic people could travel to find their resources and had a certain level of organisation abilities for that.

4-3:

What is General

and What is

Specific?

This thesis includes a consideration of the economic aspects of the lithic resource procurement in the Upper Thames Valley (see Chapter 5): and I conclude that the humans transported the resources for future use, and managed their resources in a certain way. The most important point is that their strategy concerning lithic resources varied even over a short period of time. Comparable animal behaviour would lack such adaptability, no matter what type of situation was in front of them. But humans in even that stage (the Lower Palaeolithic period), had the capacity to perform whatever different activities were required to produce a better result: one might say that they have an ability to navigate around any particular adverse external circumstance. Because they have better forms of capability (innate and acquired ability), they can overcome very difficult situations by selecting appropriate options.

However, was human behaviour exactly the same everywhere and every time, within each category of reaction to environmental change? Since given human circumstances cannot possibly be the same everywhere and every time, human reactions (behaviour) will be varied, because of the presence of such varied ability. Circumstances will be dynamically changed with time and space differences. Different conditions of vegetation, climate, food resources, raw material resources, etc., will all profoundly affect human behaviour, and no doubt hidden factors of one sort or another also affected it. But their behaviour could never be purely random: reactions to any set of circumstances are still determined by their actual innate abilities and acquired accumulated experiences, so that at each different stage of history, some limitations will always exist. For example, transportation systems are different, if we compare now and 100 years ago. In terms of the technology, current transportation is more efficient and more choices are available. Therefore the limitation of efficiency has decreased, and variability has increased, between 100 years ago and now. Similarly, the Lower Palaeolithic people could not easily travel a 400km distance, as Upper Palaeolithic people did. In order to understand how 'limitation' affects human behaviour, both the general concept and specific concept

I have argued that, unlike other animals, humans can 'navigate' to reach a better result within their capacity (see Figure 4-1 ). Navigation in this sense means the process of selecting options. If the navigation is good, a more powerful selection process can be carried on. The crucial example from the point of view of this research is that appropriate tool flaking technology can be selected in the Lower Palaeolithic. The tool-makers have an ability to choose a proper flaking method from amongst the range of soft and 42

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

must be understood simultaneously. To start with the general concept first, a following example may help to understand about that. If someone is going to travel from Oxford to London in 1999, the possible means of transportation are more widely varied and advanced than they were in 1899. In order to understand a specific behaviour at the specific time and place, the general concept offers the first help towards interpretation. The fact, 'modem technology has contributed to most industries including vehicle manufacture', is a relevant general concept in this example. This general concept allows one to move towards finer points of interpretation: since the traveller in 1899 used less advanced transportation in terms of technology, the estimate of time required to reach the destination would be longer in 1899 than it is in 1999. Clearly any such general concept implies major variations in practical aspects of behaviour when applied across wide limits of time and space, but if we have good information relevant to a shorter period in a more constrained area, our chances of understanding human behaviour are greatly enhanced. The benefit of the general concept remains essential to understand the specific event. Even if we do not know everything about the transportation systems of 100 years ago, mobility strategy at that time could be reasonably well reconstructed. The general concept, 'modern technology has contributed to most industries including vehicle manufacture' allows a useful comparison of 100 years ago and current circumstances.

best, because the car A offer 100% satisfaction for all these factors except security and economy (see Table 4-1 ). If it is true, every person who wants to buy a car, must choose car A, because the total points scored by car A are the highest among the four cars. But in practice, not everyone will buy car A; some people might buy car B, C or D instead (Table 4-2). Car Verdict

A

B

C

D

performance

100%

20%

20%

40%

refinement

100%

40%

20%

40%

equipment

100%

20%

20%

20%

safety

100%

80%

60%

20%

economy

80%

20%

100%

20%

security

20%

100%

40%

20%

Table 4-1: A car verdict for the best car of this year

Consumer Choice

A

B

C

D

Overall sales

85%

5%

5%

5%

Dangerous City

30%

65%

5%

0%

Poor City

35%

15%

50%

0%

Bigger City

85%

5%

5%

5%

Table 4-2: Factual consumer choice

As regards the Lower Palaeolithic, one vital matter at the level of general concept is the presence of the Acheulian industry. Acheulian handaxes were made over an extremely long period of time and used over a very wide area. The presence of Acheulian tools accordingly directly reflects key points in their makers' acquired and accumulated experience. No matter when they were made and where they were made, the handaxes mark the high point of technological achievement for the toolkits within this space and time. If this is correct, they may define for us the general technological limitation for all the toolmakers of this stage. Their acquired information never allows them to proceed 'beyond' that in terms of tool technology. If they wished, they could make tools at a level inferior to that, but they could not surpass it. From the presence of the Acheulian tools, we can imagine a more general behavioural category: 'the tool-makers who made the Acheulian type of tools, had a certain degree of adaptation, and it was their limitation for managing their environment'. Within this general category, human behaviour will be varied according to the different specific circumstances: climate, subsistence resources, lithic resources and so forth. In consequence, the human reaction (behaviour) will still seem highly variable to the archaeologist who has only the surviving material to study, but the general concept of limitation will still apply.

Why might that be so? For people who are living in a dangerous place, security is the most important thing. The car B could be most appropriate. If the purchaser's income is rather low, car C evidently has some attraction. Thus a 'specific environmental condition' is affecting the selection of a car to purchase. If the given condition is a budgetconstrained situation, in a less prosperous city, purchasers tend to buy a practical and economical car. Although the total points scored by cars B and C are much lower than those for A, some people will certainly buy these cars. If we only know the general concept, and not the specific circumstances, we might only be able to understand the consuming pattern of the 'bigger city' and 'overall sales'. But with more information we would understand the selling car in the 'dangerous city' and 'poor city'. An even more serious problem is, we could never confidently predict the consuming pattern in other cities. If we want to know the consumer pattern in another city, which is very similar to the 'poor city', the prediction will fail if all we know is overall sales and the 'bigger city'. The category of the 'economy' of a car is sometimes a minor factor in the case of the 'bigger city' and 'dangerous city', but it could be a seriously major factor in the case of the 'poor city'. This whole example reminds us that human behaviour is very much contextual, not solely controlled by general rules. To understand the contextual roots of human behaviour, various specific concepts must be added to the general ones. With the cars, the general concept is useful in revealing the consuming pattern in the long run, because all kinds of categories are fully mixed together. This also applies to the 'bigger city', where various consumer groups are fully mixed together. The 'bigger city' has various residential areas; poor area, rich area, larger family area and all sorts of other areas. Therefore some people like performance, other people prefer economy, and other people like safety. In that case, the high scored car, A, will be the best selling car. The 'bigger city'

Since at this stage I am dealing with general concepts rather than solely with Palaeolithic archaeology, I do not regard it as inappropriate to choose as a related example 'buying a car'. We can make a situation like this. Every car magazine has an opinion to offer about the recommended best car. The car magazines test cars with several predetermined attributes which are important to reach a verdict on the value. Usually the attributes are; performance, refinement, equipment, safety, economy and security. On the basis of these factors, we might imagine car A is voted the

43

Hyeong Woo Lee

consuming pattern thus is quite close to the 'overall sales'.

added to the human behavioural repertoire, including trading and reliable social networks. Without themselves physically accessing the source area, people could still transport the raw material. But the Lower Palaeolithic people who made the Acheulian tools lacked this ability, which was outside their own behavioural repertoire. This is the limitation. Later, the long distances between finds of rock and their source area give a clue to trading, and the whole pattern of the exploitation of resources may suggest the trading mechanism.

If we return from cars to the Palaeolithic tools, the definition of the Acheulian industry is the general concept. If the definition is fully understood, it can be very widely applied. Within 1.6 million years ago to 200,000 years ago, and from Africa to Europe and large part of Asia, the same definition of Acheulian industry can be widely used without any serious problems. A broad view of typology and technology enables us to perceive various aspects of human behaviour in this long and broad time and space. Therefore the definition of Acheulian is vital to our understanding in this long and broad time and space. Strange as the comment might seem, the presence of the Acheulian biface is quite comparable with the definition of the 'bigger city'. The human behavioural repertoire that includes making Acheulian bifaces has been broadly studied. If we find an Acheulian handaxe assemblage, we can therefore broadly assume a body of human behaviour appropriate to the following definition of the Acheulian culture. The definition is, 'Since at least 1.6 million years ago, Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis occupied much of Africa, Europe and Asia. They produced a distinctive pointed form of core tool. This artefact was bifacially worked by alternate flaking technique, which included direct percussion by hard and soft hammer. By about 200,000 years ago, new evolved technology replaces the Acheulian type. ' From this definition, we can begin to outline human behaviour, proceeding to infer greater detail through the artefacts and other archaeological data. We note that there are certain limitations on artefact manufacture: for example, the tool-makers cannot use indirect percussion and they cannot produce micro-blades. Doubtless their foraging distance was more limited than that of Upper Palaeolithic people. Also they rather concentrated on the core tools, not the flake tools. This is our general concept of the humans who made Acheulian handaxes, and it naturally changes for later stages of the long-term sequence (Figure 4-2). Such a general concept is only applicable within the given category, the Lower Palaeolithic Period, for example. Within each category, human behaviour has a different degree of limitation. And the general concepts and categories are themselves variable (see Step 1 in Figure 4-2).

P. Bahn (1983: 168-186) compared two different stages, the Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic, in Cantabria. He pointed out the change in the exploitation pattern from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic period and quoted related researches (Freeman 1973, Barker 1975 and Straus 1977). In terms of large herbivores, the Middle Palaeolithic exploitation was based on several forms of herbivores. No single species strongly dominated the others, so the exploitation pattern was generalised. On the other hand, the Upper Palaeolithic pattern is usually highly concentrated on two or even one species, showing that the economic pattern was now not generalised but specialised. This tendency is also found with the plant and other resources. We may infer that the Upper Palaeolithic people had a good social network. Since one economic group was specialised on one or two types of resource, they had to import other unspecialised materials. In other words, their social network was so confident that they could devote their own energy to exploiting the same one or two specific resources. On the other hand, the Middle Palaeolithic people did not have such a reliable network. It follows that resource exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic will be more generalised still, certainly more than in any other period of time. The factor of trading is not something we can hope or expect to study as an aid to understanding the human behaviour of the Lower Palaeolithic. In consequence, the distance of travelling in the course of resource exploitation is very much shorter than during later stages. Of course, the Lower Palaeolithic people were capable on occasion of travelling for a long distance, but they did not do so on a regular basis. For the same reason, we should not expect to fmd evidence for strong social mechanisms in the Lower Palaeolithic. In contrast to the case of the Upper Palaeolithic, the distances involved in economic activity should be considered without allowing for the presence of a strong social network.

Another good example of 'general concept' is travel distance. In terms of the distance people would travel to reach a source of raw material, the transporting distance during the Lower Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic is remarkably different. 10 to 50 km travelling from a camp site to a lithic resource area seems likely to be maximum distance in the Lower Palaeolithic. J. Feblot-Augustins (1993) cited various authors (Isaac 1977; Gowlett 1980; Bond 1948) about the Lower Palaeolithic mobility and concluded that the distance of the transporting raw materials rarely exceeded 60km. The Upper Palaeolithic people however sometimes transported lithic raw materials over more than 500km distance. We can not compare both of them in the same manner, because the main factors are not the same. In the Lower Palaeolithic, transporting raw materials had to be done by individual physical effort. If people wanted a flint rock, they had to go the resource area. The main factor in transporting rock was the limit imposed on the individual's physical strength. Things were different in the Upper Palaeolithic. In that period, more factors were

Human ability to anticipate is also different from these two separate periods. We can discern the depth of the anticipation by the subsistence activity. For the Lower Palaeolithic people, subsistence activity depended on general foraging, hunting, gathering and (or) scavenging. On the other hand, the Upper Palaeolithic people have the additional benefit of specialised seasonal resource exploitation. In terms of the depth of the anticipation, these two subsistence systems are remarkably different each other. In order to perform any seasonal activity, a strong planning depth is required. For example, I. Davidson (1983) addressed the evidence of seasonal activities in Levante, Spain. The Upper Palaeolithic people tried to maximise the exploitation of their inland and marine resources, so regular annual migration took place. Also C. Gamble (1986: 212216) discussed the seasonal activity of the Magdalenian people in Germany, who hunted the herds of reindeer on a 44

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

regular basis. In order fully to exploit the reindeer resources, they migrated seasonally. From such evidence, the different degree of planning depth is clear. If humans did not have well organised intelligence, reliable prediction of the proper migrating sequence was impossible. But it would not be true to say that only the Upper Palaeolithic people had such ability. Apparently the Lower Palaeolithic people should also have possessed it. Evidence of planning depth can certainly be found also from some of their artefacts: T. Wynn (1979) claimed that the later Acheulian people had the organisational abilities of 'operational intelligence'. The tool-makers who made the Acheulian handaxes clearly had an ability to pre-determined their desired shape, since a simple trial-and-error method could not regularly yield such a symmetrical designed form: rather, a planning intelligence is required. And the transporting abilities of the Lower Palaeolithic people indicate a capacity for planning strategy, even if on a fairly small scale. Humans were innately capable of transporting materials. Even in the very initial stage of the Lower Palaeolithic period, people transported their lithic resources: for example, some of the Oldowan people of Olduvai Gorge exploited raw material sources up to about 10km from the camp site. If we compare them with chimpanzees, this transporting distance is remarkably further than anything done by the latter. The maximum transporting distance of chimpanzees is only about 500m (W. Noble and I. Davidson 1996: 166). But the real point is that the planning depth of the Lower Palaeolithic period was nowhere near so advanced as that of the Upper Palaeolithic period. Although the early hominids had the physical ability to travel substantial distance, they rarely did so, while their successors did so regularly.

Palaeolithic period, the actual distance travelled would not have been always the same in every specific context, for reasons of local geography and topography. Back to car sales: in a poor area, the consumer tried to buy an economical car (the car C), even though the general best sales car was the car A. In the same way, the presence of Acheulian handaxes is vital to us at the level of the general concept, but actual human behaviour in the Lower Palaeolithic depends on the specific context. The general travel distance of the Lower Palaeolithic we reckon to be less than 100km, but actual travelling distance in any local area will depend on various factors, climatic conditions, resource priority, topography and others. For example, in a snow covered area it would be more difficult to locate the lithic resources. And a braided river system could provide a formidable obstacle to travel. The resource priority would also have affected the travel distance: iflithic resources were desperately needed, the people would have invested their efforts at any cost, in that case perhaps travelling further than the general limitation. We should note that the specific contexts will vary within the single general category, but the specific contexts cannot be altered simply because the long-term chronology has changed. For example, the actual travelling distance to the source areas remains the same throughout, even when the general category is changed. And quite specific climatic conditions are encountered during both the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic periods. The specific contexts are thus interchangeable within a single general category, but they are not interchangeable between the general categories. As seen in Figure 4-2, Step 1, the general categories are not the same as each other, while in Step 2, specific contexts are virtually the same. The point is that the humans, with their gradual accumulation of acquired information, act differently under each different general category and each same specific context in the chronological sequence, and they also act differently under each same general category and different specific context within the single long term period.

These two examples, travelling distance and planning depth, show that Lower Palaeolithic planning strategy was not good enough to permit inter-site organisation, seasonal activity, specialised economic activity and long distance transporting. This is what I mean by the 'limitation' of the Lower Palaeolithic people, and it suggests for us what we can regard as the general criteria of Lower Palaeolithic human behaviour. Their accumulated acquired information was much more limited than that of their successors in later stages and accordingly their behaviour could not be as complex as the later stage people. Although they had a strong intention to adapt to their given environments, the general limitation (general criteria) did not allow to them to achieve better forms of inter-site organisation, seasonal activity, specialised economic activity and long distance transporting. This general concept covers all the people who made and used the Lower Palaeolithic artefacts, including those who manufactured Acheulian handaxes. The general criteria provide our guide to understanding overall human behaviour and can apply to all the archaeological sites which have Acheulian bifaces. It is equivalent to the 'bigger city' and 'overall sales' in the example of the car sales. In a wide area and long term sequence, especially when only certain types of evidence survive for the archaeologist to use, the definition of the general category is particularly important for understanding human behaviour.

J. Wymer (1988) proposed an interpretation of artefact distribution throughout different climatic conditions in the British Palaeolithic assemblages, from the Anglian glaciation to the Wolstonian glaciation. He pointed out that the Acheulian handaxes are found usually in cold climatic conditions, while the Clactonian assemblages are found in the mild conditions. In a broad chronological sense, all of them fall into the Lower Palaeolithic period, so we are seeing different climatic conditions producing different typological patterns during a single general period. Depending on the specific context, human behaviour would naturally vary within the single general category. For example, N. Toth (1985: 107-109) explained lithic variation in the Lower Palaeolithic in Africa, using the sites of the Oldowan and Koobi Fora research areas. At Olduvai, the most easily available lithic materials are larger quartz and quartzite, while at Koobi For the commonest is basalt lava. He claimed that the difference of the raw materials produced different artefact types: for example, sub-spheroids and spheroids are plentiful at Oldowan, but there is a lack of them at Koobi Fora. In Britain, M. White and P. Pettitt argued that the handaxe shapes were judged by the shape and size of flint nodules (M. White 1995 and M. White and P.

But in a specific context, this general concept will not be able to tell us all we wish to know about more specific human behaviour. Although we can refer to a maximum distance of travelling for the raw material in the Lower 45

Hyeong Woo Lee

Pettitt 1995: 32).

to consider their purchase's economical value, perhaps from the point of view of resale. Thus all factors which invoke human behaviour are interrelated. One dominant factor will always exist, but it will be closely related to the specific conditions. When people are travelling, efficiency and value for the cost are the major concerns. When people are buying antiques, cultural entertainment may be most important. Dominant factors exist, but none of them has 100% causal value. The main factors affecting human intentional behaviour could be culture, function and economy (see Step 3 in Figure 4-2). And these same factors affect lithic variation. The making artefacts is also a part of human behaviour, the surviving lithic tools being the only evidence we have for it. And what factor is dominant depends on all the circumstances relating to the activity in question. The important point is that these various human intentional behaviours, in a basic and general sense, are not much different throughout the different periods of time. So the relationship can again be shown as '='.

In the present state of research, it is still hard for us to know how much of this variation is due to functional reasons, raw material difference, or other factors. However, the important matter is that tool-makers who were certainly contemporary did produce significantly different artefact types. Different kinds of evidence all show that human behaviour falls into both general and specific categories (Figure 4-2). In addition to these, human behaviour is a product of deliberate intentional actions. The upper part of the figure (Step 1) how a human being behaves under general and specific circumstances. On the top, it shows that people manipulate innate and acquired information. Such people can be divided chronologically at a very broad level, and I have selected three such divisions: the Lower Palaeolithic, the Upper Palaeolithic and the Modem Period (late 20th century). This division does not only depend on the passing of time, but also implies that people operate according to basically different general criteria. For example, the Lower Palaeolithic people could not use an aeroplane, because of their technological limitation at that period of time. More relevantly, the Lower Palaeolithic people could not exploit their resources as efficiently as the Upper Palaeolithic people. Their 'general' behaviour in this sense could not be at the same level, because the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic peoples had different levels of accumulated information, even though their physical abilities were almost similar. In consequence, their behaviour patterns were basically different. For this reason the symbol '-t:-'is used.

As a whole, these three steps, with others generally related to them, generate human behaviour. For example, buying a piece of antique china is good example. If I note an antique dish in my friend's flat, its presence would be an outcome of these three steps, and I could accordingly seek to understand the reasons why my friend bought an antique dish. As regards the general criteria, my friend is living in the 20 C, and in the 20 C, people are educated, to understand and be inspired by the term 'antique' by various means or media. Several TV channels offer antique shows, and school teachers teach ancient history. Because my friend is living in the 20 C, he is accustomed to the term 'antique'. If he had lived in the lOC, he would have had far less chance to buy a ceramic dish for pure antique value. Because the term 'antique' in the 10 C was not the same as in the 20 C's, my friend could not have bought such a dish or would have bought one for a completely different reason. This shows how his actual behaviour is constrained by the general category, in this case by the 20 C view of the term 'antique'. His behaviour is also affected by specific conditions (Step 2). If he is economically poor, he could not buy the dish. As regards economy, this is the same throughout any period of time. Also, since most modern people are aware of the term 'antique', another reason to buy the dish is a further aspect of the specific surrounding situation, what we might call the cultural environment. Lastly, human intention is also involved in the decision to buy the dish. If he is a very artistic person, he perhaps bought the dish purely for its beauty, while if he is a very practical person, he might have bought it as an investment. Or he might have bought it after considering both of these factors. Clearly, the presence of the antique dish in my friend's flat is the result of three different kinds of process.

In Step 2 of Figure 4-2, various characteristic features of specific environmental conditions are illustrated. Quite independently of the 'general' behaviour status, these various specific conditions existed. More importantly, the existence of such specific conditions operates equally for all as a factor affecting behaviour, even though the 'general' category may have altered with the passage from one chronological level to the next. So the relationship in this case is expressed as'='· The final step, Step 3 of Figure 4-2, shows human intentional behaviour. To choose a present-day example, any traveller planning to journey from Oxford to London in 1999 is most likely to choose a car or train as a means of transport. But a small number of travellers are going to choose some other means, such as a boat. From Oxford Canal to Putney Bridge, a boat owner can actually make the journey, whatever the travelling cost and time is. If95% of the people choose the train or car and 5% of the people choose the boat, clearly, functional and economical aspects are deeply involved. But if we were only to consider the functional and economical aspects, the choice of the other 5% of people could not be explained, though this does not make the functional aspect less important. If we choose a rather different example, the case of buying antiques, probably this behaviour may be seen mainly as what we might call a cultural matter. But this behaviour also involves economic and functional factors. People with lower incomes can probably not afford expensive antique ornaments, and will be deterred by the price. Even wealthy consumers are likely

What I really want to say here is that the evidence for human behaviour (that is to say, the archaeological record) cannot be understood without also understanding these three steps. One cannot take an excessively optimistic point of view about gaining a very complete understanding of human behaviour when one only has small fragments of archaeological data. But I am trying to say that I can reach more closely the truth of human behaviour through understanding these three steps. To reach an ultimately true answer to the question why my friend bought the dish is not 46

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

simple. In the same way, exactly why Lower Palaeolithic people should select a certain raw material and make certain types of tools, is not a simple matter to understand. But one

certain thing is that these three same steps influenced the decision to make a certain type of tool, and we need to get as near as we can to understanding the actual reasons.

Human Information: Innate + Acquired ( ac cumul.ateqi

Step 1

I I ~'I'h;,-_L_=_~_P_ah._~_o_li:hi_· c_~l-••E::rr: "'" Tl~Jl~'I'h;,--la-u,_2_o_c:_AD ___ ~ Producing General C ate gory: ■

... •• u

, ....

P~,ofildc

Step2 Various

Various

Various

cir cum stances:

cir cum stances:

cir cum stances:

ac cessibility to raw materials,

E]

climatic

ac cessibili ty to raw materials,

conditions, etc

E]

climatic

materials,

conditions, etc

I

accessibility to raw climatic

conditions, etc

I

I

Step3

Hum an

Hum an

intenti mal

behaviours: economical, cul.tur al, functi onal, etc

"---Re-~t_s_____,J0

Hum an

intenti mal

behaviours:

E]

economical, cul.tur al, functi onal,

intenti mal

behaviours:

E]

etc

economical, cul.tur al, functi onal, etc

~I_Re-~t_s-----"101"--_Re-~t_s-----"

Figure 4-2: Human behaviour within a given environment: the combination of general and particular points.

47

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

4-4:

The Palaeolithic

Case-

In terms of the general circumstances, the capability of accessing raw materials is generally different between the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic people. Even though these two people had same intentions (Step 3 in Figure 4-2), the general circumstances did not allow exactly the same choice of behaviours. As regards the flake tools of Acheulian type, unlike the core tools, they normally do not show strong morphological regularity. Since strong regularity of the flake tools lay outside the repertoire of Lower Palaeolithic people, we can not expect their flake tools to show this feature, no matter how abundant the rock source was: the tendency of the flake tools to regularity is simply not correlated with the rock availability. Even though they really wanted to act in an economical manner, their management of the flake tools was limited, because they lacked the necessary technological expertise concerning flake tools. Thus one general constraint in the Lower Palaeolithic period is a technical limitation on flake tool making. This constraint applies to all archaeological sites and assemblages in the Lower Palaeolithic period (Step 1 in Figure 4-2). However it is different when we consider the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic assemblages. N. Rolland and H. Dibble (1990) have studied the variance of the flake tool types in various parts of France. Variable blank sizes affect the flake tool types. When the raw materials are small, most flake tools tend to be notches and denticulates. On the other hand, when the nodules are larger, the artefacts are mostly racloirs. In the Middle Palaeolithic period, the tool-makers had a greater amount of accumulated and acquired information, and this feature is reflected by comparing flake tool technology with that of the preceding period. Since there are more improved standardised flake tools in the Middle Palaeolithic period, the people at that period show their ability to thinl( economically even in their flake tools. Although both the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic peoples had some degree of economical concept, their actual behaviour is basically different, according to the lithic evidence.

Studies In Palaeolithic tools, evidence for human behaviour is preserved. As with current human behaviour, various factors are involved in the making, using and discarding pattern of early stone tools. Against the given environmental background, people reacted within their limitations. And depending on the activity, the dominant factor would vary. The whole sequence of behaviour involving the lithic artefacts comprises 'selecting and transporting raw material, making, using, discarding and reusing the tools. In the whole sequence, various factors would be involved as with current human behaviour. Therefore, lithic artefacts themselves offer evidence not only for the functional factor but also other factors, such as cultural and economic. The human intentional behaviour is basically the same regardless of the time and space, but will be differently expressed according to the general and specific category of humans at that time.

If they lived in a resource-rich area, some purely economic considerations might be less significant and others of a cultural nature might replace them. In the modern example given above, the person having enough time and money, would not consider the matter of travelling to London in the same way as the person having not enough time and money. The rich person could travel by a boat at leisure and considerable cost, while the poor person could choose a cheaper and faster transportation. This does not mean that these two people have basically different intentions, but rather that their personal economic conditions, affected their behaviour. This is why the specific categories (Step 2 in Figure 4-2) are shown by affecting the intentional behaviours (Step 3 in Figure 4-2).

Similarly, in the Lower Palaeolithic, human intentions were affected by the specific circumstances. The characters of broadly contemporary lithic assemblages in the sites having poor and rich resources are clearly different. W. Roebroeks, J. Kolen and E. Rensink (1988), in their study of the Middle Palaeolithic site, Maastricht-Belvedere in Holland, concluded that retouched artefacts were more often found at the sites where no rock sources were immediately available, while the unretouched items were more typically found at sites close to the rock sources. This is a good example of different behaviour ( as revealed by the artefacts) of the same people in different circumstances (Step 3 in Figure 4-2). These human intentions not only reflect the specific circumstances (Step 2 in Figure 4-2), but also the general circumstances (Step 1 in Figure 4-2). The whole transportation system is different between the 20C and 19C, so choosing the means of the transportation would also be different. Even a person having rich resources of time and money in 19C, would not have the same range of choice of behaviour as the 20C person.

The preceding paragraphs have been concerned with understanding human intention in the Lower Palaeolithic on the broadest scale, and the cultural, functional, technological and economical factors that are included in it. If we return to the actual archaeological evidence in the Upper Thames Valley, many bifacially worked core tools, mainly pointed handaxes, were made of quartzite instead of flint. The sites having these quartzite tools are Berinsfield, Iffiey, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote. All these sites are far from the chalk flint source area. At these sites, the only locally available rock sources are a little derived and frost cracked poor-quality flint, and quartzite in the form of pebbles. This evidence allows us to say something about economical behaviour. The cost of transporting good quality chalk flint would be much higher than that of exploiting the local rocks. The clear and solid evidence for such economically influenced behaviour is the frequent usage of the poor quality source such as the quartzite cobbles.

48

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

The Sites near Source Barnham Clacton-on Sea Swanscombe Highlands Farm

Flint 91 items, 100% 83 items, 100% 174 items, 100% 393 items, 97.8%

Quartzite 0 0 0 7 items, 1.8%

Others 0 0 0 2 items, 0.5%

Total 91 items 83items 174 items 402 items

The Sites off Source Berinsfield lffley Stanton Harcourt Wolvercote

Imported (flint) 180 items, 76.3% 64 items, 43.2% 93 items, 72.7% 128 items, 53.8%

Local (F., Q.& Others) 55 items 23.3% 80 items, 54.1% 32 items, 25% 106 items, 44.5%

Others 1 item 0.4% 4 items, 2.7% 3 items, 2.3% 4 items, 1.7%

Total 236 items 148 items 128 items 238 items

Table 4-3: Exploiting rock patterns throughout different conditions.

The table above is in two parts; the first part is for the sites located within close proximity of a good flint source, and the second one is for the sites located far from such a source area (Table 4-3). The figures on the tables include all classes of tools and debitage (waste simple flakes and cores). The tables clearly show the human adaptation to local geological circumstances. The sites ofBamham, Clacton-onSea, Swanscombe and Highlands Farm are not far from sources of good quality flint. Accordingly, they did not use the local poor quality rock such as quartzite: as seen in the table above, except for the case of Highlands Farm, the quartzite and other rocks were not used at all for making artefacts. Even Highlands Farm yields only a tiny number of non-flint tools (only 1.8% of total). It is very different with the sites located far from flint sources, namely Berinsfield, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote, where use of quartzite is frequent. The flint figure on the table is divided into two parts. Since local poor quality flints are available, imported flint and local flint must be considered separately. The first figure on the flint section is imported flint and the next one is local flint. For the sites in the second part of the table, some further information is given. The local poor quality flint cannot be regarded in the same light as the imported flint, and is better classed with the local quartzite and other rocks. In the secondary sorting, accordingly, the artefact counts are simply divided into imported materials and local materials. The percentages are variable, with Berinsfield showing the highest percentage of reliance on imported material (76.3%) and Iffley the lowest (43.2%); even allowing for such variation, there is clearly a strong dependence at all these on local materials, but still quite a high figure for imported flint. From a purely economic angle, importing flint needs time and labour; in other words, the energy cost of importing flint is very high. The people in the region must have thought economically, and if so, we can expect to find that they treated the imported materials differently from the local materials.

trimming debitage should be considered. There are 97 simple flakes of imported flint found throughout the 4 'nonsource' sites; Berinsfield, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote, and a total of 207 waste flakes of local rocks from the 8 'non-source' and 'source' sites; Barnham, Berinsfield, Clacton-on-Sea, Iffley, Highlands Farm, Swanscombe, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote. The mean value of the weight of these imported debitage flakes is 48.02g and the standard deviation is 61.3. On the other hand, the mean value of the local debitage items is 68.4g and the standard deviation is 100.73. it appears that the imported debitage items are much smaller than local ones. Since the standard deviation is a measure of the average amount of deviation from the mean (A. Bryman & D. Cramer 1997), a bigger standard deviation value means that the actual values tend to be more different from the mean value, and there in fact are more extreme cases; in the case of these local debitages, most of the extreme cases are items bigger than the mean value, not smaller than it. We might conclude that the imported debitage reflects economic thinking, but that this is not the case with the local material, which is also why there are many extremely heavy debitage items. The toolmakers were evidently very much conscious about the economic value of the imported materials.

We may reasonably suppose that the people were concerned with the production of actual implements rather than simple waste flakes and cores. On the other hand, the local rock types would not be treated in the same way as the high-cost imported material. There are two kinds of debitage, simple waste and handaxe trimming flakes. The handaxe trimming flakes are the results of the final trimming retouches, so their size and weight do not offer useful evidence from this point of view. Therefore only the non-

In the case of the core wastes, their economic behaviour is even more obvious. 52 were present, complete enough to weigh. Of these 52 examples, those made from imported rock are only 4, while the rest of them are made from local materials. The two sites, Iffley and Wolvercote that are located farthest from the source area, do not have any core debitages at all. The mean weight value of the imported core debitages is 182.5g while for the local ones it is 296g. In terms of both number and weight, the imported core

These conclusions do not reveal everything about the makers' economic strategies. One reason for the smaller size of the 'imported' debitage is probably that whole nodules were not transported, as opposed to careful use of the byproducts or finished products. Also, the tool-makers would surely have tried to make more careful use of any nodules which they had carried for a long way. But whatever the details, the theory of economic behaviour still holds good. No matter in what form they transported their materials, whether as whole nodules, by-products or finished products, we can be sure that economic consideration will have determined the strategy.

49

Hyeong Woo Lee

debitages are both scarce and of small size. The tool-makers did not want to waste the expensive resources, and that is no doubt the main reason why core debitages are so scarce at sites in the Upper Thames Valley.

eventually the tool would be discarded, though possibly some discarded tools might in due course be re-used or reworked for some reason. We can hardly expect to account for this whole behavioural sequence by involving one single dominant factor of the kind discussed above, especially if we view it too rigidly.

So far we have concentrated on the significance of the economic factor. However, not only the economic factor but also other factors are of importance when we consider the quartzite bifaces. When considering their cutting edge, the pattern of the working edge is not the same as that of the flint bifaces from the same sites. In a total of 27 quartzite handaxes, almost half of them have zigzag edges, while most of the flint bifaces have straight edges. In addition, the degree of the sharpness is different, the quartzite bifaces usually having much blunter edges. And the number of blows used to make a biface is also different between flint and quartzite: the quartzite bifaces were less extensively flaked than the flint bifaces. Overall, typologically, they are quite similar, but as tools technically they seem unlikely to have had exactly the same function. A study of the quartzite bifaces in detail does indeed reveal that these two types of tools, quartzite and flint bifaces, in this region, are not precisely similar and do not have the same function. A quartzite biface cannot perform all the same tasks, which a flint biface can do, irrespective of whether they appear typologically similar. This can best be interpreted as a cultural phenomenon. The form of the Acheulian handaxes is culturally constrained: throughout the Lower Palaeolithic in England, almost all tool-makers made handaxes to a common pattern. Indeed, it is really only after the emergence of the Acheulian type of tools, that we can begin to see the concept of a standardised tool form appearing. The fact that they made a standardised form, is a reflection of the fact that they were following a clear mental image of what they wanted to make. Without such imagination, a regular standardised form cannot be produced. We might also conclude that the range of the toolmakers' morphological imagination was very limited. If they had been able to imagine many different forms of tools, they should have made such other forms recurrently, but they did not do so and this can be seen as a cultural constraint. Probably their norm was simply that 'the artefact should have a shape which is a symmetrical form, made by use of soft and hard hammer, and the end part must be pointed or oval'. The tool-makers never tried to pass beyond that limitation, and they did not have the ability to go further. It is accordingly a cultural constraint that accounts for the nature of quartzite bifaces in the Upper Thames region, even if it is economic factors that led to the use of quartzite in the first place.

For example, artefact number 63 from Stanton Harcourt is a transverse scraper made of imported flint. It is 6.6cm in length, 8.7cm in breadth and 2.65cm in thickness. The degree of the completeness (see page 27) gives a reading of 500, which means that the artefact is relatively well retouched and shaped. If the 'economic factor' were always dominant, then all kinds of artefacts at the sites located far from the source area should be made very well: the 'valuable' imported flake tools should be made with particular care. It would follow that the degree of the completeness should be much higher at these sites than at those located close to the raw material the source area.

Source Area

Total No.

MeanV.

Swanscombe

73

354.79

Barnham

7

228.57

Clacton-on-Sea

21

390.48

Highlands

105

380.95

Off Source Area

Total No.

MeanV.

Berinsfield

28

417.86

lffley

15

393.33

S.H.

7

414.29

Wolvercote

22

422.73

Table 4-4: The completeness of the flint flake tools 1.

Table 4-4 reflects the degree of completeness. If the figure given is high, the artefact is well made. If the economic factor were the only important factor in human behaviour, the completeness should be significantly different between the source area and off source area sites. But the table shows that the results do not fully match this assumption. The sites from the flint source areas yield only slightly lower values than the off source area sites, and it would be hard to conclude that the economic factor was the only one operating. The range of value for measurement of the completeness is 200 to 1000. Within the range, a variation of less than 100 means little or nothing. So, according to the table, the flake tools are not significantly different between the source area sites and off source area sites. Even though we could appreciate the significant importance of economic behaviour on the basis of the quartzite core tools, we cannot identify it so clearly when we consider the flake tools. In the case of the latter, a more significant factor might be the nature of the technology used by the makers of the flake tools.

From the evidence of the quartzite handaxes, we can see the examples of the operation of both 'cultural' and 'economical' behaviour by the human population. Does that mean that lithic artefacts reflect only human cultural and economic behaviour? The answer is probably 'no'. Artefacts are likely to be the outcome of many aspects of human behaviour, but the problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to recognise the evidence for some forms of behaviour. That does not mean that all the various patterns and influences did not apply. In order to make a tool, people needed to fmd an appropriate piece ofrock and, if the source was far from the camp site, they had to allocate time and energy to achieve this. After finding the raw material, the desired form would be shaped for using, and used, and

1 In the table, all the flint flake tools calculated from off source sites are the imported flint made items (see Appendix).

50

Chapter 4: Theoretic Backgrounds

If the Lower Palaeolithic people in the Upper Thames Valley had known of pressure flaking, the application of their 'economic concept' might have been substantially different. However the fact is 'they did not have this capability'. Although they doubtless wanted to make the best economical use of their rock, they did not have the behavioural capacity to realise the potential of the very small pieces of flint rock by using such a sophisticated flaking style. That is the main reason why their flake tools do not have the strong regularity and do not show higher levels of economic behaviour. If they had had a broader range technological expertise, the flake tools between the source area and non source area sites might have shown greater differences in some aspects. This does not mean that an important level of economical behaviour did not exist in the Upper Thames region in the Lower Palaeolithic period, but simply that economical behaviour is not very clearly expressed in the nature of the flake tools because the people had too low a level of technology to behave as economically as their successors would do.

It is perhaps instructive to consider for a moment some aspects of later prehistoric tool manufacture, admittedly for more sophisticated tool types. A projectile point, for example, is often shaped with pressure flaking, and for pressure flake removals it may be necessary to prepare sophisticated striking platforms. And every part of the process must be done in the correct order. One significant difference from the Lower Palaeolithic flaking method is the requirement of a specialised 'flaker' (Figure 4-3): according to J. Whittaker (1994: 127-133), a special tool is needed for pressure flaking. He studied examples of tools used by various prehistoric native Americans for pressure flaking. Certain kinds of tool and pressure flaking methods were ideal for utilising small pieces of stone to make tools including projectile points, simply because such fine detailed retouch was possible.

.I)

F

I

2 ~m

I,;

._,

Q

I ill

Unlike the flake tools, the core tools are capable of showing quite clear evidence of this economic behaviour. The presence of the reshaping strategy is the one of them. For example, artefacts number 157 and 305 from Berinsfield are clearly reused core tools. They were originally handaxes, fragments of which were reused. That kind of strategy could be a response to the local shortage of good quality flint, and marks a significant step forward in economic behaviour. On the other hand, the Highlands Farm artefacts show no traces of reshaping at all. Berinsfield is located far from the flint source but Highlands Farm is placed right on the source area. What we call 'economic behaviour' happens only when the action it represents is necessary and when the people have the necessary ability. At Berinsfield the economic problem was the lack of a nearby flint source, and the tool-makers did have to take the necessary action (reshaping). They had both hard and soft hammer techniques, and these were good enough to reshape broken handaxes into new tools. The absence of the tool reshaping strategy in Highlands Farm is not because they did not have the technological ability to support such economic behaviour, but because the need for the economic behaviour simply did not exist.

a

b

From J. Wllfltaker (1994)

Figure 4-3: Pressure flaker forms from

J. Whittaker

(1994).

All these processes - adopting pressure flaking and making a proper flaking tool - were certainly beyond the Lower Palaeolithic tool-maker in the Upper Thames region. The picture below (Figure 4-4) shows three tools made by different flaking methods. The left side tool is flake tool made with non-pressure flaking, while the right side two tools are made with pressure flaking. Although they are all quite similar in size, the degree of the refinement is very much contrasting. {"'1ffl

J. Whittaker

To summarise, all humanly made artefacts are the results of deliberate and varied human behaviour. This human behaviour is activated by many kinds of human intentions. In terms of the results of the behaviour, these human intentions can be filtered into the general and specific categories (see Figure 4-2). The general category, which is determined by broad time and space limitations, is useful for predicting a universal behavioural pattern which is valid within broad limits of time and space. On the other hand, the specific categories depend on many different kinds of circumstances, which are not affected by time and space limitations, but are strictly contextual. Thus the specific categories are more relevant when we wish to study more complex human behaviour. Since human intentions are affected by both these categories, general and specific, human behaviour can never be regarded as homogeneous. As C. Gamble said (1995: 24):

(1994)

Figure 4-4: The flakes made by different flaking methods, from Whittaker (1994).

J.

' ...... they (hominids) were differentiated by the perception of the affordances in their

51

Hyeong Woo Lee

environments which stemmed from the negotiation of society through either complex or complicated systems2 .'

In order better to understand human behaviour, both the general and specific categories have to be examined in as much detail as is possible and the coded information extracted from whatever archaeological evidence is available. In this chapter, I have discussed this from the general standpoint and have given some examples taken from the sites I have studied in the Upper Thames Valley and the other British sites I have chosen for purposes of comparison.

2 The ideas presented in this chapter have occurred to me at least in part as a result of readingC. Gamble"sinterestingarticle.'Lithicsand SocialEvolution', in: Lithicsin Context(1995).

52

Chapter

5: Lithic

Variation

Distance

5-1:

General

and Its Relationship

to Resource

Explanation

Needless to say, all the stone artefacts have their own characteristic features, although each tool's features can be shared with others on a small scale and larger scale. The similarities and dissimilarities with other artefacts vary, depending on what sort of aspects we consider. The first step is to discern what the artefacts mean within a given set of archaeological circumstances. The aim of this chapter is to identify at general level aspects of human behaviour relevant to the specific time and space in which the tools from the study area were made. It might help us to understand their nature, if we are aware how humans coped with the constrained circumstances at that time and place. We might hope to find behavioural strategies reflected in the nature of the artefacts, because the artefacts are the result of practical human responses to the challenging circumstances of contemporary life. Since such phenomena are often coded, plain typological classification can often do no more than describe past human behaviour, as opposed to explaining it. It is certainly fair to describe the behaviour of the Lower Palaeolithic people as 'constrained' in a general sense: as we saw in the previous chapter, they did have a general limitation, because their accumulated acquired information was limited (see Chapter 4). But human behaviour cannot be strictly all the same for all Lower Palaeolithic people, since the particular contexts are different. Therefore, if we seek to understand more, the reason for making artefacts in any specific context must be studied in detail: important specific factors may apply to any given temporal and geological context. Even though different groups of people have broadly the same degree of adaptation to their physical environment, their responses and the resulting archaeological evidence should be different, depending on the particular local circumstances affecting them, and the actual difference in such things as: food resources, climate, geological conditions, social complexity, communications, etc. Palaeolithic lithic assemblages will also be different in some senses. Even though two archaeological sites may represent exactly the same Acheulian tradition, such things as the proportion of core tools to flake tools, and overall tool size, may vary, particularly in relation to the distance of any site from its raw material sources. The effect of distance from the lithic source will always be important (J. Ericson 1984). For example, a longer distance from the source would require a more economical altitude to tool manufacture, than one would find amongst people living closer to it, both groups being at the same level of society.

Economical behaviour can be regarded as one of the most important aspects of human intentional behaviour (R.

with

Area.

Torrence 1989a), and any human group's economical concept will be reflected in the nature of its artefacts. In order to understand such local dynamics, detailed lithic analysis is required; lithic metrical analysis and statistical analysis are necessary properly to compare sets of lithic data. These processes simply make visual impressions of the artefacts convert into quantified data 1, so that it becomes possible objectively to test hypotheses arising from consideration of various local dynamics, against the actual quantified data.

5-2:

The Importance

the

Location

of Flint the

of Flint

and

Sources

in

Region

Among the many types of rock present in the Upper Thames Valley, the kinds which are good enough to make the various kinds of implements are limited, because not all rocks can satisfy the four requirements below (K. Schick & N. Toth 1993: 122-123): i) hardness and consolidation, ii) fine grain quality, iii) isotropic quality, iv) unweathered by chemical alteration. Given these requirements, flint is in all represents an excellent rock. Flint is classified as a sedimentary rock and is actually composed of tiny particles of quartz grain, in other words, silica. With such a high level of silica and having an isotropic quality, it has a predictable conchoidal fracture and can be easily worked to make effective artefacts. That kind of rock is called C.C.S. (crypto crystalline siliceous rock). Flints can be found in pebble form on the surface or as nodules in the chalk bed. In the Upper Thames region, flints are very scarce, and occur in a weathered and frost-cracked state. According to MacRae, they are almost useless for making tools, because long before the Acheulian came to the region, such flint was already decayed and frost-cracked (R. J. MacRae 1988: 2-3). This is in contrast to the region of the Middle Thames Valley, which has abundant flint nodules in good condition and chalk beds. When flint is not available in the Upper Thames Valley, other rocks, notably quartzite, were sometimes used 1 Not only by simple measurement such as length and breadth. Some combinations of the basic measurements make it possible to understand the degree of refinement and shape. For example, dividing thickness by breadth shows flatness and dividing breadth by length shows the range of broadness or narrowness of general outline shape (D. Roe 1968; A. Debenath & H. Dibble 1994).

Hyeong Woo Lee

for tool manufacture. Good fresh flints are usually available in the chalk beds, or at least in the Upper Chalk. This chalk is not present in the Upper Thames Valley, but is widespread in the Middle and Lower Thames Valley, especially further east from the Goring Gap and the Chilterns Hills (J. Wymer 1968). Where the river flows through chalk country, the tool-makers could have picked up fresh nodules at the river sides. Although some of the flint on the surface would have been heavily frost-cracked, underground chalk beds would have kept its condition intact even at that time. The area of the Chiltern Hills, where Highlands Farm is located, has good quality flint, and the proportion of flint is remarkably abundant by comparison with the Upper Thames region. The overall site locations are illustrated in Figure 5-2. According to this map, the site closest to the Chilterns is that of Berinsfield, the next site is Iflley and the two furthest sites are Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote. In the case of Highlands Farm, this is located actually on the Chilterns. When considering the distance to a flint source, Highlands Farm Pit is certainly the nearest site amongst those which I am studying. However, because the range of transporting raw material in the earliest periods of Palaeolithic time is within 5-50 Km (J. Wymer 1993-94: 8), all the sites listed above can be counted as within reach of a flint source.

5-3:

Economy

of Raw Material

uplands, the banks of river or stream channels, chalk cliffs and river terrace deposits which contain flints in the form of pebbles and cobbles. This distribution confirms that access to suitable lithic raw material played a major role in past human activities. Therefore understanding 'distance' and 'exploitation of resources' is significantly important in the sense of C. Vita-Finzi and E. Higgs (1970). From this point of view, the relationship between actual Palaeolithic find spots and the nearest rock resources is worth detailed investigation. According to D. Roe (1996: 4), British Palaeolithic find-spots are closely related to the chalk uplands of southern England. Since the chalk surface often contains clay-with-flints, it is clear that Palaeolithic people in Britain were highly dependent on flint sources of one kind or another. The case studies in this thesis are Iflley, Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield, Wolvercote and Highlands Farm. All of them yield typical Lower Palaeolithic artefacts and their combined range includes Clactonian choppers, chopping tools, cores and flakes, and Acheulian handaxes and flake tools. The overall site locations are illustrated at Figure 5-2. The probable main flint source is the Chilterns area which contains available flint on the surface and in situ in the chalk. Even though a certain amount of flint can be found at each site, mainly derived from the Northern Drift, it is all poor in quality and the pieces of too small size generally for making stone tools. Among the five sites, only Highlands Farm is on the Chilterns close to abundant sources of flint, and the furthest site from the source is Stanton Harcourt. According to a lithological analysis of the sites in the study area, the terrace deposits which are related to the archaeological data do contain certain amounts of flint. In the case of the Wolvercote Terrace, such flint is of reasonable quality, and appears to have come from outwash from Chalky Boulder Clay of the Midlands (D. Briggs et al. 1985). However, it is very doubtful whether the nodule sizes were big enough to make tools. The Stanton Harcourt Channel also contains some flint, but it is in the form of derived fragments of poor quality and condition, mostly unusable for tool manufacture, brought in from the west part of England. Such flint as there is in the Summertown-Radley Terrace deposit has come from either upstream of the Evenlode or has been derived from older local deposits, principally from the Wolvercote Terrace Gravel (D. Briggs et al. 1985).

Before considering the actual lithic tools and their raw materials, the significance of them must be understood. Lithic tools and the sources of the material from which they are made are fundamentally important in understanding human behaviour. In researching them, we really can hope to obtain an accurate reflection of certain aspects of past human behaviour. Consequently one might even go so far as to say that they are always major factors in understanding and reconstructing human culture, and they are even more important at sites where other materials are not preserved. As regards the nature and extent of human activity in Palaeolithic times in Britain, lack of available flint can be one of the major restraining economic factors. According to D. Roe (1976: 36):

However, the quantity of these local flints is not significant and most of the pieces are in poor condition and of little use, after reworking in the gravel. For this reason, local flint at four of the sites studied in this thesis, Berinsfield, Iflley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote does not offer much suitable raw material for the manufacture of tools. In fact, there is some evidence of usage of such local flint material; however, the fmished products made with it have poor shape and overall, the usage of local flint is very much limited (it will be discussed in the later chapters). Since the majority flint of tools found at these sites is made from good quality flint, the most plausible raw material source remains the Chilterns (Figure 5-2).

'In general, Oxford lies toward the north-western edge of the main distribution of lower Palaeolithic sites in Britain.... the density of sites is much less than in the Middle Thames.' Why is the density of sites much smaller here than the Middle Thames region? The lack of available flint sources is clearly a vital factor. As we can see (Figure 5-1), the distribution of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic find-spots is closely related to the main flint-bearing areas: clay-with-flints, chalk

54

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

Figure 5-1: The distribution in South England of Earlier (Lower and Middle) Palaeolithic find-spots with the Clay-with-Flints Band and River Terrace Deposits Band. Dots are find-spots. shaded area within a heavy outline are Clay-with-Flints Band. and area outlined with a dotted line indicate the River Terrace Deposits Band (Modified from D. Roe 1996).

55

Hyeong Woo Lee

Shaded part: possible and nearest quality flint source area for entire Upper Thames sites and Highlands Farm

Figure 5-2 A map of the selected Lower Palaeolithic sites from the Upper Thames and the part of the Middle Thames region. The main study sites are named and circled on the map.

The procurement of lithic resources for tool-making is clearly affected by the distribution of good raw material resources. For more efficient and economical utilisation of raw materials, the tool-makers are likely to have travelled to the nearest resource area. However, it may not be the case that only economic factors influenced the strategy for obtaining raw materials. If other factors may also have been significant in the society, we should not make the error of explaining lithic variation and other characteristic lithic features solely by economic factors. That is to say, the cost of procuring raw material and the distance are not always equivalent (S. Kuhn 1991). Cultural tradition, exchange systems, planning strategy and social systems should also be considered (R. Jeske 1989), to avoid over-simplification, However, Lower Palaeolithic society does not show a high level of social complexity.

In fact, the norm of complexity is composed of many interrelated parts. Price and James refer to (D. Price and B. James 1985: 8): 'The general definition of cultural complexity that focuses on increases in social size, scale and organisation and in particular distinguishes several aspects of the phenomenon of complexity.'

If the social complexity is low, an economic use of lithic resources is possibly the single major factor in determining human behaviour. If the social complexity is high, it is unlikely that only one or two factors will determine the whole picture of human behaviour. Three aspects of social complexity are considered here; resource availability, subsistence equipment and demographic pattern. If the resource base is diverse, stable and reliable, the residential 56

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

area of the human group may not be only restricted to a location near the lithic resource area. In fact, however, many Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites in Britain are located near lithic sources, since their social complexity was relatively low and they were not able to manage a high level of resource control other than by direct means.

least during the milder parts of the glacial periods, e.g. at the beginning and the end of them. At all five sites (Berinsfield, Highlands Farm, Wolvercote, Stanton Harcourt and Iffley) the same lithic tradition is found, namely the Acheulian industry. If Wymer is correct, all five sites should therefore have been occupied under similar environmental conditions, with a cold open environment, and that would imply that climatic conditions were not having any significant effect on tool variations at these sites because the same environment, or a similar one, prevailed. Accordingly, economising against the distance to the rock source again emerges as one of the main factors explaining the variations.

In terms of subsistence equipment, stone tools show a level of complexity. According to Figure 5-3, the Lower Palaeolithic assemblages contained tools of less standardised shape, when compared to the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic assemblages (G. Isaac 1986: 362-365). A study of the diversity of tool types at sites in the research area shows that the assemblages do not have many varied types or specialised types. This evidence reflects the degree of their social complexity. Accordingly, the Lower Palaeolithic sites in my own research area show a very low level of social complexity.

I:

The last factor is distance itself. Distance can only be considered here as a straight line from the site to source. There is no way that we can attempt to reconstruct the original journeys and their routes, but it is worth making two points. Firstly, there has been no dramatic topographical change in this region since the Middle Pleistocene. Secondly, the Thames River system had become the main river system of this area after the Anglian glaciation. It is believed that the most powerful glaciation since the human occupation in Britain is the Anglian glaciation (C. Ballantyne and C. Harris 1994), and this glaciation is the only one which directly affected the southern part of England. All four of the sites which are located far from the lithic source, were formed after the Anglian glaciation, and therefore they would presumably have shared approximately the same geographical and topographical conditions in travelling to and from the lithic source. Berinsfield would have been nearest, but a substantial journey to obtain flint would still have been required.

Oldowan

U: Acheulian

III: Mousterian IV: Upper Palaeolithic

Figure 5-3: Increasing complexity of stone tool assemblage during the Pleistocene (reproduced from G. Isaac 1986). On the figure. the tendency of horizontal spreading is reflecting the lithic type diversity, and the tendency of vertical height is showing how specialised and complex the tools are. So, more horizontal spreading means more types of tools, and a higher peak means more specialised and complicated lithic technology.

5-4:

Lithic

Variation

of the

Five

Sites This study is based on my five sites in the Middle and Upper Thames River and reference is made for purposes of comparison to three other sites 2 in other parts of Britain. Table 5-1 shows the number of flint and non-flint artefacts and the distance of each site from the sources. If the people were principally influenced by considerations of economy, their behaviour is likely to have been different between the sites from a raw material source area and the sites from what we call a non-source area. In consequence, the ratio between the artefacts made oflocal and non-local materials will vary, depending on the distance from the source area.

Throughout the Pleistocene period in Britain, people were present only intermittently (D. Roe 1994). Following C. Gamble (1986), when the climatic conditions were extremely harsh, early humans clearly found it very difficult to cope with them, especially in northern Europe. This implies that their general environmental adaptation was not very successful, and population growth and related social organisation were not strong enough in such conditions. If this were so, any constraint on the lithic raw material would directly affect the human population's adaptation abilities. This general hypothesis can also be examined on the basis of a study of the lithic artefacts; especially the ratio of flint and non-flint artefacts at each different site.

All the artefacts shown the table are core tools, because the flake tools are not clearly representing the overall picture oftransportation 3 . The flake tools can be produced in greater number and variety from a given number of nodules, while only a very limited number of core tools are produced from the same quantity of flint. For example, if the raw materials

In the British Quaternary sequence, there were during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene various major glacial periods (Anglian, the Wolstonian Complex and Devensian) and at least three major interglacial periods (Pre-Anglian, Hoxnian, Ipswichian and other(s) not yet named within the Wolstonian Complex). J. Wymer (1988) has suggested that non-handaxe industries tend to be associated with interglacial periods. On the other hand, industries with Acheulian handaxes prevailed during glacial periods, or at

2 The data of Swanscombe, Clacton-on Sea and Barnham are from the collection at Franks House, British Museum in London. Like others, I have examined some of them by random sampling. Therefore the artefacts considered here are not the whole of the assemblage. 3 This matter will be explained further in the final part of the chapter.

57

Hyeong Woo Lee

At the near source sites such as Swanscombe, Clactonon-Sea, Barnham and Highlands Farm, the dominance of local material is very strong. On the other hand, the far from source sites, Berinsfield, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote are different. The tendency of local material usage (poor quality flint and quartzite) is decreased while the tendency of imported material usage (quality flint) is increased. In general, depending on where the sites are located, the usage of local and imported materials is varied. From here, I want to try to understand any strength and direction of the relationship between the distance and usage ( selecting) of raw materials.

are in the form of pebbles, usually one core tool is knapped per one pebble. But the flake tools are not like that. In addition, it must be stressed that not every artefact in the samples studied came from systematic excavations; indeed, very few did. It is less likely that all the flake tools present at the site would have been discovered or preserved, unless the collectors were fully aware of flake tools and were watching for them. For these reasons, only core tools are included in this table. The artefacts are simply divided into two classes; core tools made from local materials and core tools made from imported materials. As we have seen, some sites located far from the actual source area do have their own flints. These local flints are still classed as local material, even though they are flint: the pieces of local flint are quite distinctive from imported flint in the Upper Thames Valley, they are all frost cracked and have suffered the effect of cryoturbation action.

By applying Pearson's r formula, degrees of correlation can be determined. (Table 5-2) 6 . The value of r is -0.891 and r of quartzite tools is +0.891 7. And r 2 is 79.4% each 8. This computed r shows that the relationship between the distance and ratio of flint, and the distance and ratio of quartzite considered are significantly strong. According to Cohen and Holliday ' r 0.19 and below is very weak; 0.20 to 0.39 is weak; 0.40 to 0.69 is modest; 0.70 to 0.89 is strong; and 0.90 to 1 is very strong'. Although it is a relative indication not a defmite indication (L. Cohen & M. Holliday 1982 quoted in A. Bryman & D. Cramer 1997), it certainly suggests the tendency of relationships.

As seen Table 5-1, the selecting of raw material between the sites located near flint source area and the sites located far from source area is different. Usually, the near source sites tended to use good quality flint 4 which is locally available, and hardly used the local poor quality material such as quartzite. For example, it was reported that almost all artefacts from Clacton-on-Sea were made of flint and poor quality quartzite artefacts were hardly found (R. Singer et al. 1973). On the contrary, the far from source sites tend to use good quality flint which is not locally found, but they also made more use of the local poor quality flint and quartzite sources. Distance 5 (Km) Swanscombe 0 Clacton-on-Sea 0 Barnham 0 Highlands Farm 0 Berinsfield 21.6 lffley 28.75 Wolvercote 38 Stanton 40.6 Harcourt

Local Core tools

Imported Core tools

![ill 49 (F)

0 0 0 0 75 (F) 23 (F) 44 (F) 70 (F)

~

203 (F), 3 (Q) 6 (F), 30 (Q) 16 (F), 9 (Q) 12 (F), 15 (Q) 3 (F), 21 (Q)

Distance

Local

1 -0.891

-0.891

Pearson Correlation

Distance

Sig. (2-tailed)

Distance Local

0.003

N

Distance

8

8

Local

8

8

Distance

Distance 1

Non-Local 0.891

Non-Local

+0.891

Local

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1 0.003

Distance

1 0.003

Non-Local

0.003

Distance

8

8

Non-Local

8

8

Table 5-2: The correlation tables. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), (for explanation, see text).

Table 5-1: The Percentage of core tools oflocal and imported material and the distance from the sources, (F) is flint, (Q) is quartzite and underlined parts are good quality and primary rocks.

4 In fact, the first impression of the different selecting of materials at different distances from a source, is the visual impression of the materials themselves. All the tools from the near source sites have similar good quality flints, although the kinds of flints are varied in some sites. And there is no quality difference at all, all of them are ideal to shape tools. For example, at Clacton-on-Sea, 5 different kinds of flint were used for making artefacts: dark, bullhead, matt brown, pale and bi-zoned (R. Singer et al. 1973). I examined these materials at British Museum, all of them are clearly of good quality. However, the tools from non-source sites show clearly that different quality flints were used: not only different kinds, but also different quality. Some of them are locally available frost cracked poor, while some of them are locally un-available good quality flints. And more, quartzite and other poor quality materials (they are proved as local by my field research) were used for making tools. 5 The distance is measured from the Chilterns in case of the five research sites. At the other three sites, various types of flint were available in the immediate vicinity -as many as five different kinds at Clacton-on-Sea (R. Singer et al 1973). However, the five Upper Thames sites considered show only one type of imported flint, thus a single source, the Chilterns, is indicated. 58

Essentially, these figures provide a quantification of what we might well expect to find. As distance from lithic source increases, the percentage of imported core tools decreases, whilst the percentage of local tools increases. This indicates that the lithic variation on each site shows that the tool-makers economised their lithic resources; budgeting 6 If the value of r is near to -1, it means a strong negative relationship. On the other hand, if the value of r is near to + 1, it means a strong positive relationship. If the value is close to 0, the relationship is weak. The range of r is -1 to +l. 7 If variables are normally distributed, then it is appropriate to use Pearson's r, otherwise it is better to use Kendall's tau-b or Spearman. In this case, Spearman is applied. And the significant level is 0.05. 8 To compare more precisely the relationship between two or more values of r, the coefficient of determination (r 2) is used. For example, we can understand + 0.4 is stronger than -0.2. In that case, r 2 (the square of r

multiplied by 100) reveals the relationship from one value of r to the others values of r.

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

time and effort for utilising raw material. When the distance from the source is far, imported material is used less frequently and alternative local material is required for the tool maker's tasks. Quartzite and local flint materials are the alternative choices to make a tool.

raw material availability. If good quality raw materials are abundant, the tool-makers could make either Clactonian, or Acheulian core tools. But if the materials are absent or difficult to access, the majority of the implements were more likely to take the form of Acheulian core tools. There are two separate and mutually exclusive assumptions;

Of the five research sites in the Middle and Upper Thames region, only Highlands Farm, which is placed very near to the flint source, yields a very large amount of Clactonian artefacts 9. Traditionally, the Clactonian type of tools had been regarded by many as chronologically earlier than the Acheulian type of tools (C. Renfrew and P. Bahn 1991: 277). The excavation of Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe showed the Clactonian and Acheulian artefacts in stratigraphic order; in the bottom layers (Lower Gravels and Lower Loam) Clactonian tools were found and in the upper layers, Acheulian tools were found (D. Roe 1981 pp 67-80). However, this chronological assumption is now seriously debated on the basis of new archaeological data from such sites as Boxgrove and High Lodge, and there is a new perception of the Clactonian and Acheulian types of tools. According to N. Ashton (1988) and M. Roberts, C. Stringer and S. Parfitt (1994), 'We have recently seen that at Boxgrove and High Lodge, the artefacts seem surprisingly evolved to be found in such old deposits and quite out of line with the expectations of typology' (N. Ashton 1988, M. Roberts, C. Stringer and S. Parfitt 1994: 311-3).

I. The Clactonian and Acheulian chronologically separated.

assemblages

are

2. They are contemporary, and the same people made these two assemblages. If we follow the first assumption, the tool-makers had different pre-conceptions, those of the Clactonian people being inferior to those of the Acheulian people. Thus the scope for foraging activity would also be different between the two. The Clactonian people would be more constrained by barriers of a geological nature, because their lithic production system was not as efficient as that of the Acheulian people. Choppers and chopping tools are basically difficult to resharpen and need bigger blanks to make a tool. The only merit of them is that they are much easier to make. That is the main reason that most Clactonian assemblages are located at near raw material source area.

If we follow the second assumption, the tool-makers had the same pre-conceptions. The difference between them is not a chronological matter but economical or functional. Economically, the Clactonian tools can not be resharpened and are therefore wasteful, while the Acheulian tools can be resharpened and therefore represent a more sparing use of the raw material units.

Therefore it is not always necessary that these two types be chronologically separated: the Clactonian perhaps appears old and primitive and the Acheulian advanced and later, but the tool design strategy could be varied, depending on different circumstances in broadly the same period. The same tool-makers could have produced either Clactonian tool types or Acheulian ones, in appropriate specific circumstances. A relevant consideration might well be the distance from the lithic source, in which case these two types could both be included within a single lithic tradition, the Acheulian industry.

Of these two assumptions, it seems to me that the second one is more appropriate, at least in Britain. Firstly then, current archaeological data shows that some Acheulian assemblages were earlier or contemporary with the Clactonian assemblages. Secondly, many Acheulian assemblages also include some artefacts of Clactonian style as well. In the case of the Upper Thames sites, typical chopper and chopping tools were found (see Table 5-3). Although the number of such pieces found is small, it gives a strong impression of the presence of a Clactonian affmity in the Acheulian assemblages. Therefore the Acheulian people could make the Clactonian-style of artefacts and the two traditions are contemporary. In addition to this, the selection of raw materials in the Upper Thames region for the Clactonian core tools is very interesting. At Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt, the flint chopper and chopping tools were not made from good quality imported flints. The flint used for them is local flint rock (basically local poor quality pebble forms), while most flint core tools are made from imported flint nodules. This means that the tool-makers selected the poor quality local rocks, such as local pebble flint and local quartzite for making the Clactonian artefacts, while the good quality imported flints were used for the Acheulian core tools. For these several reasons, the Clactonian and Acheulian tools in the region are contemporary, and they represent a selecting behaviour by their makers, based on considerations of an economic nature.

The major Clactonian sites in Britain, Clacton-on-Sea, Swanscombe (Lower Gravels), Barnham and High Lodge, are all located very close to a flint source in the form of chalk nodules and/or river cobbles. Technologically, the Clactonian tools were made by a simple and wasteful flaking method. The tool technology applied was a so-called trialand-error method (T. Wynn 1979: 377). Since the tool maker did not have any pre-conception of the shape (while able to form such a preconception, they did not actually need to do so, with so much material ready to hand), the soft-hammer flaking method for final finishing was never applied. It was sharp edges, not symmetrical shapes, that mainly interested the tool-makers. For such tools to perform well, good quality flint should be easily available, otherwise this wasteful method was not appropriate. It certainly seems to be case that occurrences of the Clactonian type of tools are highly correlated with locally flint-rich areas. That being so, it could be argued that the variation of the Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages is simply due to the

For maximum economy of the resource, the tool-makers deliberately preferred to make the Acheulian type of tools in

9 Morphologically, the Clactoniantools share many featureswith the chopper and choppingtool complexof the Old World Q.Wymer1968). 59

Hyeong Woo Lee

the flint-poor sites. On the other hand, any site which did not have that kind of resource pressure, would allow a wide range of choices. The regional resource variation shows us

that the variation of type of raw material and the variation of lithic type are linked in an interesting way that relates directly to important aspects of human behaviour.

The sites are

Flint

Flint

Quartzite

Quartzite

located far from

Choppers &

Pyramidal Core

Choppers &

Pyramidal Core

the source area

Chopping Tools

Tools

Chopping Tools

Tools

Berinsfield

1 (local)

0

11 (local)

2 (local)

lffley

0

0

1 (local)

0

Stanton Harcourt

2 (local)

0

9 (local)

1 (local)

Wolvercote

0

0

2 (local)

0

Table 5-3: The number of choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools.

Imported

km

L (imported)

L. SD

B. SD

Total N

3.16

B (imported) 7.25

Berins.

21.6

11.48

lffley

28.75

10

1.39

40

3.66

6.46

1.38

Wol.

38

12

12.06

4.3

7

1.87

34

S.H.

40.6

12.85

4

7.82

1.82

54

Local

km

L (local)

L. SD

B (local)

B.SD

Total N

Berins.

0

10.83

3

8.71

2.77

36

lffley

0

7.87

1.84

5.46

1.23

24

Wol.

0

8.68

3.87

6.42

2.92

25

S.H.

0

10.47

2.33

7.96

1.68

24

Local

km

L (local)

L. SD

B (local)

B.SD

Total N

Clacton.

0

7.3

2.23

7.54

1.6

49

High.

0

9.24

2.73

7.3

1.93

199

Swan.

0

7.575

2.47

6.53

1.48

14

Table 5-4: The Mean Values of the core tools and the Distance from the Sources. Note: Imported tools were made of 100% flint while local tools were made of local flint and quartzite. These figures relate to the core tools of all kinds (excluding those too damaged to measure). L= length, B= breadth. SD= standard deviation and Km= distance from source in kilometres.

5-5:

The Examination

Reworking

(Reduction)

apparent on the overall length of retouched edges, rather than platform size, because the platform size is not affected by retouching (H. Dibble 1992). Also, ethnographic information is available about the tool recycling intensity. D. Bamforth (1986) explained that the shortage of raw materials affects to the maintenance of tools.

of Tool

Strategy

Within the utilisation of primary material, tool resharpening strategy tends to be one of the major responses for economising resources against distance in the case of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages. In the study of lithic technology for various Middle Palaeolithic industries, the distribution of lithic raw materials played an important role in economising their sources (S. Kuhn 1991). In detail, it is proved that raw material constraints are highly related to artefact reduction intensity (N. Rolland and H. Dibble 1990). And also increasing distance is associated with decreasing tool size due to the resharpening of the tools themselves. In order to maintain an acute edge angle, resharpening is necessary (W. Roebroeks et al 1988: 20). This is particularly

If that kind of strategy also occurred in the Early Palaeolithic, and is to be seen at the five research sites, then we would expect that the length of the imported tools would tend to decrease significantly for sites that are further from the flint source, while imported tool breath would tend to be remain fairly steady or decrease slightly, but less than length does. On the other hand, there was no need to economise with the local flint, so such kind of feature cannot be expected with tools of local rock.

The researched samples are all core tools, since they are more likely than the flake tools to yield this particular kind 60

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

of evidence for economy in use of raw materials. Since the number of core tools available for me to study at Barnham was very small, I have not included that site. Table 5-4, is divided into different sections, for imported and local raw material. In the case of the sites in the Upper Thames region, the tool-makers were using either imported good quality flint materials or poor quality flint and quartzite materials. These sites are Berinsfield, Iflley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, and for them the results are divided into two parts. On the other hand, the other sites used only local flints because they are located very close to source area. These sites are; Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe. Accordingly, the whole table consists of three sections.

Berinsfield, 1.ffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, should not show any significant statistical difference when compared with the tools from the sites, Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe. If all these expectations are satisfied, the general importance of economic use of stone, and the presence of a tool reworking strategy would be confirmed. If we consider the above list, point No. 1 can first be verified. In the cases of the imported core tools from Berinsfield, Iflley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, the length values of SD are 3.16, 3.66, 4.30 and 4.00, while the corresponding values for the local core tools are 3.00, 1.84, 3.87 and 2.33. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-4 shows this clearly: the values for the local core tools are never bigger than those for the imported tools. This suggests that the tool reworking was occurring in the case of the imported raw materials and not in the case of the local raw materials, and that the toolmakers in the Upper Thames Valley were adopting an economic approach to the imported raw materials not the local materials.

So far as the reduction or reworking of tools is concerned, we would not expect to encounter it at all the archaeological sites. If the sites are located at or near the source area, the tool reworking strategy would not be required, because the available source materials are plenty enough. Accordingly, only the sites placed far from the source area are likely to show the tool reworking strategy, and here we would look for it at Berinsfield, Iflley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt. Again, not all the artefacts at the sites would be involved in the tool reworking strategy, -not the tools made of local rocks, but only those made of imported materials. At Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe we would not expect any evidence for tool reworking at all, and if we find it, the hypothesis can be regarded as invalid. Statistically, use of the standard deviation will suggest how widely each assemblage is distributed. If the value is relatively large, it means the degree of dispersion is also large, in other words, the tool size is widely varied.

5

4 3

2

0

On the basis of the points first made, some expectations relating to the figures in the table can be listed: I. Within the sites, Berinsfield, 1.ffley,Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, the tools made of imported materials should have a bigger standard deviation for the lengths than the tools made of local rocks (the case of the breadth is not so relevant for studying tool reworking, and no clear patterning would be likely).

Berins.

Iffley

Wol.

S.H.

Figure 5-4: Comparison of the length SD values from imported and local tools.

2. The tools made of imported rocks at Berinsfield, 1.ffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt should have a bigger standard deviation for their lengths than the sites Clactonon-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe (again, the case of breadth need not be considered).

Secondly, No. 2 assumption can be also verified. The length SD figures for Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe are 2.23, 2.73 and 2.47. Compared to the imported core tools in the sites from the Upper Thames Valley, all the values are smaller. As Figure 5-5 shows, even the biggest value from a source site (2. 73 at Highlands Farm) is smaller than the smallest one from a non-source site (3.16 at Berinsfield). In the case of No. 3, the two sets of values do not have distinctively different patterns (see the Figure 5-6). Neither set relates to material that would be treated economically, nor can any sign of tool reworking be found, which is as we would expect. In some cases, the assemblage made of local rocks at non-source sites has a bigger SD value, but this is not consistently so, as the figure below (Figure 5-6) shows.

3. The tools made of local rocks at non-source areas and local rocks at source areas, should not show any significant statistical difference with regard to their lengths. 4. At Berinsfield, 1.ffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, the degree of dispersion between the lengths and breadths is likely to be significantly different. 5. In terms of the degree of dispersion between the lengths and breadths, the tools made of imported rocks and local rocks at Berinsfield, 1.ffley,Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt should not show any significant statistical difference. 6. In terms of the degree of dispersion between the lengths and breadths, the tools made of imported rocks at

61

Hyeong Woo Lee

4

~ ~ SD 0

Figure 5-5: Comparison of the length SD values from far source sites (first 4 sites on the left side) and near source sites (rest 3 sites on the figure). Figure 5-7: Standard deviations from imported material tools from nonsource sites. 4.5 4

5

4.5

3.5

4

3

~ ~

2.5 2

1.5 1

S.H.

0.5

~local,

Figure 5-8: Standard deviations from local material tools from non-source sites.

source

0

Berins. Clacton.

lttley High.

Wol.

Swan.

S.H. sites)

5

Figure 5-6: Comparison oflength SD values between local flint at nonsource and source site.

4.5 4

Points 4, 5 and 6 relate to aspects of tool morphology and are very similar to the idea put forward by H. Dibble (1992). Studying flake tools, he claimed that tool reduction would affect mainly the lengths of the tools and not the platform sizes. In the case of my Lower Palaeolithic samples, the equivalent point is that the lengths of tools are likely to be substantially altered (reduced), while the breadth measurements would not change much. In consequence, the standard deviation of the lengths would be bigger than the standard deviation of the breadths. The next three figures (Figures 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9) give a visual impression of this. The first shows the standard deviations from imported tools from non-source sites, the next one is for the local tools from non-source sites, and the last one is for the local tools from source sites. As seen in the figures, the first figure has bigger difference between the standard deviations of lengths and breadths than others. Therefore, the presence of tool reduction is indeed suggested: reworking was not affecting every artefact, but selected tools, especially those made from imported flint.

Swan.

Figure 5-9: Standard deviations from local material tools from source sites.

Thus, the six different expectations appear to be fully satisfied, and some conclusions can be generated. First of all, we may conclude that a tool reduction strategy was in use at the Lower Palaeolithic sites of the Upper Thames valley. But not all artefacts were resharpened. The tool-makers resharpened (reworked) only the economically valuable materials, the imported good quality flints. If the toolmakers had regularly tried to resharpen all their implements, even those of poor quality local materials, we would not be able to identify their particular attitude to economy. In fact, it seems that tool-makers living in a non-source area, such the Upper Thames region, economised only what they saw as valuable rocks. This casts some light on their capability to plan economical behaviour. In order to understand such economical behaviour, a

62

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

study of regression can be used. I have argued that, if tool reworking was happening at these sites, especially the artefacts' lengths would be affected and their breadths would be not much changed. The principal assumption is that the utilisation of the resources would be affected by the distances of the site from the flint source. If there are three sites which have different distance from the source, the raw materials from the longest distance should be more heavily utilised (see Figure 5-10). Ifso, it follows that more artefacts from site C (furthest from source) would lose their original shape. However, at site A (nearest to the source), more artefacts would be likely to keep their initial shape. If the artefacts from site A did not often lose their shapes, the lengths would not be seriously varied. Thus the standard deviation will be smaller than for site B or C. In the case of the breadth, this is not much affected by tool reduction. Thus the breadth standard deviation would not show any big difference between sites, and in consequence, the gap between the SD of the lengths and breadths would be increased, because the length SD is increasing while the breadth SD is stable.

length SD and breadth SD is not significant at all (see Figure 5-11, second diagram). This suggests that the local tools were hardly ever reworked. In the hypothesis of the reduction strategy, it will be remembered that the imported tool length was expected to be more reduced than the imported tool breadth, and that does indeed seem to be the case at the Lower Palaeolithic sites in this region. On the contrary, tool reworking cannot be verified in the case of local tools in the Upper Thames sites. Therefore, the analysis tells us that there is indeed a significant size reduction as distance increases, on the basis of the collected data. To summarise, the results presented here seem to indicate some signs of tool reduction on the flint Acheulian handaxes at these selected Lower and Middle Thames Valley sites, and it appears that the need to economise with raw material also results in the resharpening of tools, reducing their sizes. Generally speaking, people are usually looking for so-called 'low cost material'. In an economic sense, which is purely related to geological factors, the imported material is 'expensive' material. I suppose the reason why they brought this material is another level of economic thinking. The imported material is 'expensive' in terms of geographical distance, but this material is 'not expensive' in terms of repairing and recycling (R. Torrence 1989 b ). The quality for shaping is unbeatably excellent; therefore the tool-makers brought them and reworked if they needed to do so. Some further relevant evidence is given in the remainder of the chapter

Statistical analysis can test this supposition. Comparison of the two scatter diagrams shown in Figure 511 reveals some significant relationships. Analysis of regression can express the character of such relationships. The simple equation of regression is y= a + bx. 'a' is the intercept which is the point at which the line cuts the vertical axis, 'b' is the slope which is referred to as the regression coefficient (A. Bryman and D. Gramer 1997). The x is the value of each distance and y means the value of the each calculated standard deviation. When 'b' is a high value, the slope is consequently steep. Otherwise, the slope is not steep. First of all, I separate two sets of tools from the Upper Thames sites; imported and local core tools. My hypothesis is that the tool reworking process was happened on the imported core tools not the local core tools. The results of regression analysis IO of the imported core tools from Berinsfield, Iffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt and all tools from Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe is: the case of the standard deviation of the length is y= 2.45 + 0.041 7x and the breadth is y= 1.6 +0.0017x. When predicting the data, the character of data shows that the variation of the length size increased as the distance of the site from the source also increased. In contrast, the variation of the breadth size remained more or less stable. The figure below shows this (see the Figure 5-11, first diagram). The length SD is getting bigger throughout the increasing distance, while the breadth SD becomes even slightly smaller. In consequence, the gap between the length and breadth SD is getting wider. However, the results of regression analysis of the local core tools from Berinsfield, Iffley, Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt, and all tools from Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe is far different from the former case. In this case, the standard deviation of the length is y= 2. 46 + 0.0095x and the breadth is y= 1.727 +0.0118x. Unlike the case of the imported core tools, the difference between the 1O The statistical software package SPSS has been used for these analyses. This software allows one to generate regression information about two variables· relationship.

63

Hyeong Woo Lee

:·. a

Sitt:-C

(J: ...... ..

.:

..

.

Far from Source Arca

Source Area

Length SU is bigger than site A and C. But the breadth SD is not much ditforent. The gap between the SD oflength and breadth is e,,en more increased.

Length SD is smaller than site C, but bigger than site A. The breadth SD is not mut·h dillcrcnt. The gap between the SD oflength and breadth is slightly increased.

Length Sil Is smal.ler than site U and C. But the breadth SD is not much different. The gap between the SD of length and breadth is not significant.

Note: Dotted lines on the pictures indicate previous forms of the implement before reworking.

Figure 5-10: Different utilisation of lithic resources as distance from source to site increases.

4.5 4

3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5

0.5 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Predicted Diagram with Imported Tools (Std. Deviations) 4

3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5

0.5 0 M

LO

t---

(")

O')

N

N "'

,-...

CJ)

N

N

(") (")

,-... (")

CJ) (")

Figure 5-11: Two prediction diagrams for SD values oflengths and breadths, with imported rocks (first) and local rocks (second).

64

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

5-6:

example of the different pattern of rock utilisation in the Upper Thames Valley. Normally, imported materials were more heavily utilised, and this implies that the local materials were rather less utilised. The evidence relating to that is of three different kinds; working edge length, working edge type and completeness. Firstly, the working edges of imported flint core tools are longer than the local material core tools. According to Table 5-5, the mean value of the working edge is highest for the imported core tools, 58.27%. The local core tools never reach that point: of them, flints and quartzite only have 46.70% and 47.44% respectively. This means that the tool-makers preferred to utilise imported materials, not local rocks. Artefact number 22 from Stanton Harcourt is a segmental chopping tool measuring 11.1 x 5.4 x 3.9 cm. It was made of local poor quality flint. Its edge length percentage is only 43%, which means only very limited flaking was done to make the tool. However, the other (imported) core tools have much higher length percentages.

More Evidence

Artefact number 320 at Berinsfield (see Chapter 6) has the following dimensions: length 12.9cm, breadth 7.9cm and thickness 3.45cm. It is made of imported flint and the degree of the completeness scores 700 points, which means a well made artefact. Its retouch is well prepared and its overall form is symmetrical. However, on the ventral surface, there is a hollow due to a flaw on the flint. This flaw could have been seen before flaking began. If the tool-makers had worked this piece of flint in a resource rich area such as Highlands Farm, it could have been discarded. But Berinsfield is located far from the source area, so for reasons of economy it was used to make this artefact. In fact, it is possible to think why the tool-makers didn't discard it when they picked it up at the source area and choose a better piece to carry back to Berinsfield. To answer this question, we must consider how the flint material was transported 11. I suppose that some was in the form of nodules, so the toolmakers could not always fmd the internal flaw which is only realised when the nodule is broken by knapping.

In terms of the working edge types, imported core tools have rather straight edges in the vertical view, while the local core tools have usually zigzag edges. In fact, the zigzag edges are very easy to make, compared to straight edges. The technique is also very simple, as plain direct percussion is good enough to make zigzag edges. Straight edges need a more complicated technique and take more time to complete. The tool-makers therefore devoted more time and trouble to the imported core tools as opposed to the local tools.

Artefact number 20 at Stanton Harcourt is of imported flint and has these dimensions: length 7.9cm, breadth 5.1cm and thickness 2.2cm. Like Berinsfield 320, it was completed in spite of the presence of a flaw. The completeness score is 600 points, so it is a rather well made tool. And the working edge is made by an invasive kind of retouch, typical of Acheulian handaxe flaking methods. Also it has symmetrical shape. In spite of the flaw on the surface, the tool-makers tried to use it for reasons of economy. Generally, when there are rich resources of good quality material, all kinds of the artefact types are made of flint. Thus at Highlands Farm, regardless of the type, handaxes and chopping tools were made of the same quality flint. However, at a site located far from that area, the usage pattern of the resources is varied, and very much depends on the artefact types. In the Upper Thames region generally, unstandardised core tools such as choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools were made of locally available rocks. On the other hand, the handaxes were if possible made of good imported flint. Taking the example of Stanton Harcourt, there are a total of 12 crudely made core tools such as choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools. 10 of these 12 are local quartzite and 2 of them are flint, but the flints are not imported but local materials. Thus none of them was made of imported flint at all. No. 93 is a pyramidal core tool, and the dimensions are 4.5 x 6.85 x 6.95 cm. It is a poorly made core tool. This type of artefact is closely comparable with the artefacts numbers 333 and 334 from the Lower Gravel at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. All three are typologically pyramidal core tools, and all of them have zigzag working edges: even the flaking technique is closely similar. However the tool from Stanton Harcourt was made of quartzite, while the Swanscombe tools were made of good flint. I conclude that the tool-makers at Stanton Harcourt were deliberately selective in the matter of raw material, for reasons of economy of their imported flint.

Upper Thames Region 12 Imported core tools (flints) Local core tools (flints)

Mean V. of edge 13

N.

58.27%

131

46.70%

36

Local core tools (quartzite)

47.44%

70

Table 5-5:The explanation of working edge difference.

Upper Thames Region 14 Imported core tools (flints) Local core tools (flints) Local core tools (quartzite)

Zigzag

Straight

Others

6.00% (9) 68.97% (20) 52.24% (35)

88.67% (133) 27.59% (8) 40.30% (27)

5.33% (8) 3.45 (1) 7.46% (5)

Table 5-6:A comparison between simple zigzag edges and complicated straight edges.

12 The values are all for core tools only. Some unknown data, only a few items,are omitted. 13 The formula for that is retouchedworkingedge length/whole length*l00. Detailedexplanationis in Chapter 1. 14 The totals of artefacts in Tables 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 are slightlyvaried.Most tools fully satisfied these three attributes; edge length, edge shape and completeness.However,some (only a few) tools could not be fullymeasured becauseof variousdifficulties(seeAppendix).

In this same matter of economy, there 1s one further 11 This is explainedin the chapter 'Berinsfield'in more detail. 65

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

Morphologically it looks like a handaxe trimming flake. But it also has regular retouch on dorsal and ventral sides. Probably, since good flint was rare, it was made into a tool instead of being discarded. It is worth considering the assumptions on which the recognition of flake tools are based

100% 90% 80%

70% 60% 50%

40% 30%

Retouch, no

20%

A

B

a debitage

a tool

(waste)

10% 0%

Imported core tools

Local core tools

Local core tools

(flints)

(flints)

(quartzite)

Retouch, yes

a tool

a tool

Table 5-8: Two separated assumptions. Figure 5-12: A comparison between simple zigzag edges and complicated straight edges.

Upper Thames Region 15 Imported core tools (flints)

Mean V.

N.

764.67

135

Local core tools (flints)

425.00

32

Local core tools (quartzite)

394.03

67

If following the assumption A (Table 5-8), only the edgeretouched flake is a genuine tool. Traditionally the definition of a flake tool followed this concept. On the other hand, it is now realised that an unretouched flake may also be a good candidate for classification as a tool. According to K. Schick and N. Toth (1993) and N. Toth (1985), experimental work has shown that unretouched flakes also have the capability to carry out various activities; hide slitting, heavy-duty butchery, light-duty butchery, light-duty woodworking and even hide scraping. To test whether non-retouched flakes could indeed perform such tasks, I struck several flakes from flint nodules. Various forms of flakes were made for these experimental purpose.

Table 5-7: Completeness points fort the different raw materials (mean values).

Table 5-6 shows the percentages of the three different edge types; zigzag, straight and others. Within the zigzag and straight edges, significantly large numbers of imported core tools have straight working edges (88.67%), while local tools (flints and quartzite) have far lower percentages of straight working edges (27.59% and 40.30% each). This is also shown by Figure 5-12 (see above), and the difference is very striking between the imported (flints) and local (flints and quartzite).

For a job such as wood-working, the non-retouched flakes proved very effective. My experimentally made flakes had various forms. In terms of the edge angle, some of them had paper-thin sharp edges, so they were too sharp, in some senses. Others had steep edges having a high angle. In terms of the edge shape viewed in plan, some of them are were straight, and others slightly convex or concave. Some of them were of very irregular shape (see Figure 5-13). Because all the flakes were produced by direct percussion, the shape and edge angle were very difficult to predict, and the result was a very random set of edge shapes and angles.

Lastly, the completeness also shows a difference in favour of the imported flint materials. Completeness is worked out by a combination of 'No. of flaking' and 'retouch' (see Chapter 1). The minimum points are 200 and maximum points are 1000.

Edge Angles

As can clearly be seen in Table 5-7, the completeness of the imported core tools has easily the highest points. The cases of the local flints and quartzite are both far lower. All these kinds of evidence combine to show that we can indeed deduce from the raw material preference pattern that the toolmakers were concerned with economy of their best raw material.

Sharp

5-7: Flake

Tools

and Economy

Dull

Edge Shape.,;;

Irregular

Regular

Figure 5-13: Edge angles and shapes. Note: The figures on the left represent diagrammatically the edge angles of the flakes, and the figures on the right represent the edge shapes in plan view.

of

Raw Material

However, in some cases, too sharp flakes very quickly lost their sharpness, because they were so brittle. A too sharp, non-retouched edge is very useful in penetrating wood, but it loses its sharpness as soon as heavy duty work is attempted. J. Whittaker also mentioned this (1994: 20):

Artefact number Wolvercote 680 is a flake tool, measuring 5.9cm length, 3.7cm breadth and 0.9cm thickness. 15 Core tools only, some unknown and missing data are omitted.

66

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

various activities, an edge sometimes lost its sharpness or even became partly broken. In the latter case, retouch on the edge could often quite easily restore lost sharpness and shape. If an edge is very seriously damaged, it is very hard to recover, but in many cases, restoring the sharpness and shape could be achieved by retouch. This involves time and labour, but technically it may be possible to achieve. For more efficient flake tool working edges, therefore, retouch is more or less essential. Certainly, non-retouched flakes may be suitable for performing various tasks, but the retouched items have the additional advantages I have indicated.

'Retouching an edge often makes it somewhat duller but usually thicker and stronger as well.'

So it is not very suitable for any heavy-duty activity, while a steep-edge flake is quite useful for heavy-duty tasks in working wood. The point is, I could not in the primary knapping produce the kind of edge I really wanted, so much as a random selection. If I wanted to make a steep edge angle, I had to strike many blanks until the desired edge came. This meant that lots of raw material was wasted before a suitable flake was produced. In the case of the edge shape in the plan view, the edges of my flakes were on many occasions so irregular that proper working with them was impossible, although the edges themselves were perfectly sharp. My experiments quickly revealed that irregularity of the edge is a real obstacle to functional effectiveness. The ideal edge shape on the plan view should be convex, concave or straight. An irregular edge such as No. 2 on Figure 5-14 is not very good for cutting, scraping and hiding, even if the actual sharpness of the edge is perfect. Sometimes, a more or less straight edge such as No. 1 on Figure 5-14 might be made, but I found this difficult to achieve deliberately. In summary, producing the desired edge angle and shape without using retouch is not easy in the case of striking flakes from a nodule or core by simple direct percussion.

In terms of the retouch, there are two kinds. One involves blows struck first in a downward direction (Figure 5-15, first picture). It is a common type, used to make the edge stronger or for modification of the edge shape. It is struck at very high angle. On the other hand, there is also retouch struck inwards from the edge (Figure 5-15, second picture). In order to remove relatively large size protuberances, which are not suitable for the edge, blows must be struck in an inward direction. It is quite similar to what is called invasive retouch on core tools. This is usually employed for careful shaping and re-modification of the edge shape. For example, artefact number 287 at Berinsfield, which is a side scraper, shows the second feature above. It was first retouched in an inward direction to prepare the edge. After that, several downward retouches were applied. No. 287 thus has both of downward and inward retouch, but No. 345 is a case in which only inward retouch was applied. The right side edge, in the dorsal view, was made by inward retouch. Although no downward retouch is present, the edge is very straight and has an even edge angle. Probably the inward retouch was applied precisely to create a straight edge shape.

Figure 5-14: Two flakes from experimental flaking.

Downward As explained above, the unretouched flakes 16 can perform various activities, but there are several disadvantages, mainly concerned with producing or maintaining the desired shape and angle of edge. In order to solve these problems, the simplest thing is to retouch the edge. In the case of the too sharp edge, it is brittle because the edge is paper-thin. When retouched, the edge gets stronger. Even more important is the fact that retouch can modify the edge angle, and any irregularities in the plan view can easily be modified by retouch. A flake that looks like No. 2 (Figure 5-14) can be shaped to resemble No.I by applying retouch. Many edge shapes could quite easily be altered to what I really wanted. In addition, I could also restore the edge sharpness and shape by retouch. After

Inward

blow

blow

Figure 5-15: Two major different types of retouch on flakes (diagrammatic).

16 In the relation with 'a unretouched flake', it can be called 'a flaked flake' in other words (N. Ashton etal. 1991: 1). They said, 'aBakedDakeis a Dakethathas hadoneormoresmaller Dakesremoved fromanyof its edges'. They consider it as a core for producing flakes, or a actual tool (1991: 6). I prefer to view it as an actual tool (see text).

67

Viewed in this way, the reason for retouching becomes clearer. The retouch activity gives several benefits;

Hyeong Woo Lee

I. Achieving edge. 2. Modifying 3. Restoring 4. Restoring

the desirable edge sharpness by modifying the the desirable edge shape. lost edge sharpness (through tool reduction). lost edge shape (through tool reduction).

The next question is, do edges always require to be retouched? I believe that the answer is 'no'. When edge retouch can achieve the desirable edge sharpness (benefit No. 1), this certainly relates to economy of raw material. If the lithic resources are abundant, edge retouch is not seriously necessary because there is no pressure on supplies. If the resources are rich, the tool-makers might not be inclined to bother with retouch: instead, they were more likely to keep knapping until a suitable edge is produced. But if the resources are poor, it would make sense to adapt by retouch whatever flake was obtained, rather than to waste it and continue lmapping in hope of something better. In terms of the benefit No. 2, straight edges are not always produced without the help of retouch. If the resources are rich, the lmapping can be carried on until the desirable edge shape is forthcoming. But if the resources are poor, the flakes having irregular edges could not be easily discarded. Rather, these flakes should be modified to become proper flakes having straight or slightly curved edges, and for such edges retouch is highly necessary. The cases of benefit No. 3 and 4 are also explained by economical considerations. When edges lose their sharpness during use, retouch can be applied to restore it. In that sense, retouching the edge is an ideal way of saving the resources without making other flakes. Also, a broken edge caused by use can be re-modified. If the resource is rich, this remodification is not very necessary. Instead of that, the toolmakers easily strike another flake. The retouching activity to which I have referred can be called a tool reduction (reworking) strategy. Since tool reduction of core tools can clearly be seen, there is no reason to deny the presence of flake tool reduction. In order to recycle used flake tools at sites that are remote from the source, resharpening and reshaping is obviously the best and perhaps the only option. Like the core tool reworking, the flake tools were also reworked for economic reasons.

obtaining and use of flakes during the Middle Palaeolithic period. The balance of evidence seems to indicate that the retouch patterns are indeed different according to distance from the sources. This consideration can also be applied to the Lower Palaeolithic assemblages. In the Upper Thames region, a total of 104 flake tools were studied. In the tests, some artefacts were excluded, namely broadly broken simple flakes and flake tools and quartzite flake tools. With the broken flakes and flake tools, it was very difficult to see the characteristic features, so they were omitted. Since this was a study relating to flint flake tools, and because the fracture and retouch patterns are different between quartzite and flint, tools of quartzite and other (unknown) material were also excluded. And any possible waste flakes are also omitted, although some of them could have been used as actual tools. In the test, 104 flake tools in total were studied; imported flake tools (73 items) and local flake tools (31 items). If economic considerations were controlling the making of flake tools, the retouch pattern should be different between imported and local flake tools. The frequency of retouch was measured, and a score recorded for each piece: a score of 100 is the lowest for retouch, meaning that retouch is almost absent. The score for 500 is maximum retouch. The result is shown below (Table 5-9). As seen in the table below, the difference of the amount of retouch was significant. We have already established that economical behaviour was affecting the core tools. The flake tools are also correlated with economy of raw material. The figures were 171 points (imported) and 132 points (local), a clear difference although not as big as for core tools. The mean value for 132 imported core tools is 407, while the value for 19 local core tools is only 211. There is a 196 score difference from the core tools, but only a difference of 39 between the imported and local flake tools. Imported

N.

Local

N.

Core tools

407 points

132

211 points

19

Flake tools

171 points

73

132 points

31

Table 5-9: The mean value of retouch frequency scores for imported and local core and flake tools.

For these reasons, the activity of retouching is closely related to economy of lithic raw material. When sites are located far from the source area, the tendency to use retouch is likely to be more common. At the Middle Palaeolithic site Ottigny/Ceroux Mousty in Belgium, a strong relationship has been noted between the distance from the known phtanite source, and the intensity of use and degree of reduction, by W. Roebroeks et al. It was reported that (Geneste 1985, quoted in W. Roebroeks et al. 1988: 22):

However, this does not mean that the intensity of use and degree of reduction claimed for the Belgian Middle Palaeolithic assemblage (W. Roebroeks et al. 1988) is wrong. Considerations of economy are an integral part of human intentional behaviour, no matter in which period. Thus, the Lower Palaeolithic people will doubtless have had the same economical intention as the Middle Palaeolithic people did. The problem is related to difference of the general category (see Chapter 4). We saw that the general category of a human society constrains its behaviour. The general category in the Middle Palaeolithic period certainly includes more refined utilisation of the flakes and flake tools, while in the Lower Palaeolithic period there is a lack of the general capacity to deal in a complex manner with the flakes and flake tools. It is not therefore surprising that only core tools such as Acheulian handaxes offer really clear evidence for economical behaviour. Similarly, in the general category which applies to the Lower Palaeolithic period, there is no

'Retouched items were generally discarded at much larger distances from the source than nonretouched items.'

And they argue that tool technology is much affected by considerations of raw material economy. It is clear that economical behaviour applies to the

68

Chapter 5: Lithic Variation and Its Relationship with Distance to Resource Area.

could have re-sharpened and re-modified tool edges more efficiently. But that kind of technology did not exist amongst the Lower Palaeolithic people. For these reasons, only the core tools display significant variation, when correlated with the economical concept. Although the people were influenced by the need to economise, their general cultural tradition and technology did not include such economical behaviour in respect of the flake tools. Therefore, in terms of the flake tools, especially in the variation of their retouch, it seems likely that cultural and technological considerations are more involved than those of economy.

strong regularity of the flake tools, compared to those of the Middle Palaeolithic flake tools. Culturally, the Lower Palaeolithic people had a strong core tool tradition rather than a flake tool tradition. During a long time and over a wide area, what we call culturally the 'Acheulian complex' prevailed. In this time and period, there is a consistent and recurrent pattern. The force that maintained this recurrent pattern can be explained by the term 'tradition'. Technically also, the Acheulian tool-makers did not have proper trimming technology for the flake tools. For example, if they could have used pressure flaking, they

69

Chapter

6-1:

General

6: Berinsfield

Explanation

At Berinsfield, I have analysed in total 236 Lower Palaeolithic flint and quartzite tools and flakes (see Appendix). The find-spot includes various gravel pits around Berinsfield, near Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire. According to R. J. MacRae (1982: 1), the principal pits are Queensford and Mount Farm. There is a possibility that some or all of the artefacts could have been derived from earlier deposits. The bulk of the assemblage at the site can certainly be regarded as of Middle Acheulian affinity (R. J. MacRae 1982: 6 and D. Roe 1986: 14). Unlike the tools from Gravelly Guy, deep patination is not consistently present.

In terms of the distribution of lithic types, a wide range of artefact types is present at Berinsfield. Not only the types, but also the raw material usage shows that non-flint materials were readily used as an alternative source. Table 61) is designed to show basic artefacts status; tool type, usage of rock sources and the basic classification as a flake tool or core tool. Code numbers, 1 to 48, designate different artefact types: 2 for instance, type code 25 means a pointed handaxe made as a core tool of flint. In Berinsfield, 31 type categories are represented, out of 47 artefact classes plus section number 48, which is natural material. Thus Berinsfield has the widest typological coverage of the 8 archaeological sites considered. Some sites show a very restricted typology: Barnham has only 8 artefact classes and Clacton-on-Sea also has 8.

Of 236 listed artefacts, many forms of core tools including handaxes are analysed. 111 items in total are core tools, mostly made of flint (81 pieces). Quartzite made core tools are also found. 11 out of 30 quartzite core tools are choppers and chopping tools, while some Acheulian type of tools are also examined (see Figure 6-1 1).

1 In this thesis,I have used a computer scannerinstead of actualdrawing.My colleague, Dr. W H. Waldren at the Donald Baden-PowellQuaternary ResearchCentre,first used a scannerin this wayto store informationabout his artefacts and Holocene mammalian remains from archaeologicalsites on Majorca.At that time, about 3 years ago, I was much impressedby the brand new technology,so I started to use it, with his guidance.There are several good advantages:first of all,it givesa more accurateimagethan hand-drawing. The accuracy of hand-drawing is liable to vary according to individual techniques, but the scanner remains consistent. Secondly,the potential for imagetransporting,storing and editingis very useful.For example,I can easily transport my scanned handaxeimagesto a word processor program by using simple'copy' and 'paste' commands.

However,there are some drawbacks.Even though the scannergivesdetailed image accuracy,the actual proportions or size may be slightly distorted. Because the scanner is designed to scan objects with close contact to the scanner surface, 3D objects like handaxes are slightly distorted. In my experience, the handaxes' length is accurate while the breadth is slightly distorted, probablybecausethe scanner lens moves vertically,so if the tool is placedin an upright position,the distortionis affectingnot length but breadth. Recentlya so-called3D scanner has been introduced,but it does not have the full 3D capacitythat I want. Secondly,storing and transporting images does have some difficulties,mainly due to the computer capacity.Generally,the picture files require more space than any other files because the images are large,so if a computerhard disk is small,it may not be possibleto store all the imageswanted. And if the amount of space required for files is too big, the operating program will get slower and this in itself may sometimes cause technicalproblemsfor the computer. Although there are some problems of this kind, on balance I have found the use of a scanner still useful.A scanned imagehas slight distortion, but all camerapictures also have distortion (remember,the cameralenses are optical, so distortion must occur), and hand-drawingtoo cannot guarantee 100% accuracy.Even though I said there is a distortion on scanned images,it is so small as not to be immediatelyvisible,and the scanner remains very useful, even comparedto cameraand hand-drawing.Secondlyit is true that the image sizes are too big, but the very latest computers have larger hard disk capacity and new means of storage solution, such as a 'CD recorder' (a CD burner) and 'Zip Drive' , which are availablenow, and the up-dated computer CPU is fast enough to cope with bigger files. Therefore, scanning is getting always more realisticas a means of image processing,and hopefully,more up-dated technologywill be able to provide better and better imageprocessingsolutions as time passes.

Site Barnham Berinsfield Clacton-on-Sea Highlands lffley Stanton Harcourt Swanscombe Wolvercote

Total number of artefact types present out of 48 8

31 8

23 23 27 12 23

Table 6-1:Total number of artefacts types.

The same tendency to diversity can be also seen in the study of patination colour. Within the range of 13 different colours, Berinsfield represents a wide range of colour variation. The variation of colour is discussed in Chapter 3. This various evidence, though circumstantial, lends support to the belief that the Berinsfield assemblage represents more than one episode of human activity.

2

See chapter 1 for detailsof this.

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

Berins. 144

Figure 6-1: Two handaxes from Berinsfield: Left, a flint tool, right, a quartzite tool.

6-2:

much smaller, 13.29 g. These 6 tools are much less varied in the size and weight compared to the other 22 artefacts. The figures clearly show that the 6 Levalloisian tools are homogeneous in their size and weight. Examining other British material suggests strongly to me that Levalloisian flake tools have a more regularised design concept.

Levalloisian

Berinsfield has also yielded a typologically different feature: Levalloisian flake tools. In total, six are reported (see Appendix), all of them are flake tools: no Levalloisian cores have been found. There are many similarities amongst these pieces, in terms of size and weight. The minimum of the length, breadth and thickness is 7cm, 4.45cm and 0.7, and the maximum of the length, breath and thickness is 8.8cm, 6.15cm and 1.45cm. The range of the weight is 30g to 70g. This is a very narrow range of variation. Number

Length (cm)

Breath (cm)

Thickness (cm)

Weight (g)

339 340 343 344 336 341

8.15 7 8.8 7.35 7.6 8.4

4.45 5.3 3.5 4.95 6.15 5.4

1.3 1.2 0.7 1.3 1.45 1.3

55 50 30 55 60 70

In the Levalloisian flake tools, not only the size and weight, but, also the number of major flake scars is standardised. Against that, the other (non-Levalloisian) flake tools were very randomly made. Unlike the other flake tools, the Levalloisian flake tools were created by a completely different concept. The other flake tools were probably made without any serious consideration of the shape and there is no fixed manufacture sequence, while the Levalloisian flake tools were made by a pre-concept manner, following a certain procedure. Therefore, the Levalloisian flake tools are basically a different kind of tool from the ordinary flake tools which were found at the site. The characteristic features of the Levalloisian tools are well expressed by F. Bordes. In the book of M.-L. Inizan, H. Roche and J. Tixier (1992: 48), the defmition by F. Bordes (1961) is quoted:

'Flake of a form predetermined by special preparation of the core before removal of the flake.'

Table 6-2: The measurement of the six Levalloisian artefacts.

In Berinsfield, a total of 27 flint flake tools are analysed, excluding the Levalloisian flake tools. Of these, some flake tools are broken, so measurements are not very useful. Excluding broken tools and missing data, 22 artefacts were measured. The standard deviation of these 27 items is: length 2.25 cm, breadth 1.23 cm and thickness 0.65 cm. On the other hand, the standard deviation of the 6 Levalloisian tools is; length 0.68 cm, breadth 0.91 cm and thickness 0.26 cm. In the case of the weight, the standard deviation is 51.48 g in the total assemblage, but the 6 Levalloisian is again

Since the tools already had been predetermined, the shapes of the final products would be likely to show regularity. As regards the chronology of the Levalloisian flake tools, it could be considered that all the flake tools were made and used in a single period time. Although they are not 71

Hyeong Woo Lee

excavated artefacts, there is some circumstantial evidence to support this. When we examine the weathering and patination degree and patination colour, the degrees and tendencies are very similar to each other, suggesting that the period of manufacture is not different. These features all reflect the specific environmental conditions when the tool was deposited, so if they show similar degrees, they might have been made at roughly the same period of time.

with such regularity. These however are very regular and have very similar plano-convex shapes. For that reason, they may well belong not to the typical Acheulian complex, but rather to the post-Acheulian tradition. In the Upper Thames region, plano-convex artefacts are of course well known at the Wolvercote site (see Chapter 9). Indeed the composition of the Berinsfield and Wolvercote assemblages is very different; Wolvercote yields a far higher proposition of the plano-convex artefacts. However, the presence of a few such tools, with the Levalloisian tools, at Berinsfield suggests that the locality of Berinsfield was occupied on a number of occasions from the early Palaeolithic to possibly Middle Palaeolithic times.

Firstly, the weathering degree is mainly concentrated into a single grade. For purpose of classification, I divide the weathering degree into three groups; fresh, less fresh and weathered. In the case of the 6 Levalloisian, 5 items are in 'less fresh' condition. Secondly, the patination degree gives a very similar result. There are four variations; unpatinated, slightly patinated, deeply patinated and very deeply patinated. 4 out of 6 items are in the same degree, slightly patinated. Thirdly, patination colour is also concentrated on one colour, 5 out of 6 have a pale colour (yellow or gray). From this point of view, it seems likely that the environmental condition relating to the Levalloisian flake tools was not much varied, and accordingly the Levalloisian flake tools in Berinsfield could all be made in a single period of time.

6-4:

Micoquian

(Simple

Flakes)

At Berinsfield, comparatively large numbers of artefact types have been recovered. This includes many different kinds of flakes. First of all, the presence of handaxe trimming flakes can be noted. The total number of these is 32, and the mean value of the thickness is 1.04 cm. This is very much thinner than ordinary debitage, which average approximately 1.7cm. At the same time, the weight is correspondingly lighter than the other simple flakes. At Berinsfield, the mean weight of the handaxe trimming flakes is about 30g, and for simple flakes, it is 66g. These trimming flakes are quite a common feature in this place: their total number exceeds that at any other site in the Upper Thames region, even including Highlands Farm.

Typologically, one would expect the Levalloisian tools to occur after the Acheulian complex. If this theory is correct, the duration of the habitation at Berinsfield could be much longer than any other sites in the Upper Thames Valley such as Iffley. Fortunately, other evidences support this assumption, include the distribution of the patination colour, weathering degrees and the presence of another unique lithic type, Micoquian artefacts.

6-3:

Debitages

This strongly suggests that at least some handaxes were made at the site, or at least trimmed there, although it is not certain whether that applies to all of them, we do not know whether un-worked nodules were imported or whether tools were brought to the site ready made or partly made from time to time. Basically, the flint material which is the source for core tools and flake tools, can reach the site in these ways:

style

As well as the Levalloisian tools, a Micoquian type of tool has been found in Berinsfield. The artefact number 318, which is classified as an elongated pointed handaxe, is very similar to Micoquian tools from La Micoque (H. MullerKarpe 1966: Tafel 108-109). The dimensions are: length 15.2cm, breadth 7.5cm and thickness 3cm; it is dark brown in colour and is heavily retouched. If we rely on lithic typology, it should be a very late or post-Acheulian type. In addition, there are some examples of plano-convex artefacts at Berinsfield. Artefact number 113 for example, shows a typical plano-convex cross section. It is partly broken, so the exact measurements cannot be recorded, but the cross section very clearly represents the 'slipper style' (J. Tyldesley 1986: 93), and the size of the artefact was certainly large.

I. Flint material is present at the actual camp-site, and is utilised to make artefacts. 2. Flint is brought from the source area in the form of nodules. 3. Flint is worked at the source area, and brought to the site as blanks for manufacture of tools (struck.flakes, etc). 4. Flint is worked at the source area, and brought to the site in the form of finished tools. However, it need not be the case that only one of these procedures is in use to account for the accumulation of artefacts at any particular site, and it needs to be considered which of the procedures were in use at Berinsfield. The handaxe trimming flakes provide vital evidence to enable us to answer this question. Because of the clear presence of imported raw materials, answer number 1 can be confidently discarded. Examination of the quality of the flint used at Berinsfield shows that the local flint, such as it was, was hardly used: of the total flint artefacts, 190, the number made of the local flint are only 8. Also, the artefacts made

Within the flake tools, artefacts number 143 and 322 are of interest. Both of them are classified as pointed forms on the basis of their morphological features. The lengths are 10.35 and 9.5, the breadths are 5.6 and 4.9 and the thickness measurements are 3.3 and 2.6. The weights are 180 and 125. Although they are flake tools, they have plano-convex cross sections and strong regularity of the shape. Usually, the flake tools in the Acheulian tradition never show the pointed style

72

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

from the local flint do not include any proper handaxes at all. It is clear that the occupants of the sites brought flint

materials from other places, presumably on the Chilterns Hills.

Figure 6-2: Flakes from Berinsfield 3.

The Flake Status

Nodule

Rough-out

Finished

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Few or none Few or none

No No No No

1

Trimming flakes (Secondary flaking)

2

Small simple flakes (secondary & primary flaking)

3

Blanks (primary flaking)

4

Waste Cores

Table 6-3: The evidence of waste material.

73

Hyeong Woo Lee

For each of the other three possibilities numbers 2, 3 and 4, the nature of the flakes present should differ. This is shown in an ideal and simplified form in the table above. If all the flints were brought as the nodules, all kinds of flakes must be found: handaxe trimming flakes, small simple flakes, blanks and even waste cores. If all the flints were brought as finished tools, no form of manufacturing flakes of any kind would be expected. For the process of completing the tools from the roughed-out forms, the situation would be rather more complicated. The small and handaxe trimming flakes would be present. In the case of the bigger flakes and core debitage, some would probably be produced, but the amount would be lower than the case of imported nodules. Since the handaxe trimming flakes and small simple flakes are the last stage of the artefact production, they would naturally occur, while blanks and waste cores would be much fewer, because all unwanted fragments would have been left behind at the source area after the initial working had been done.

Within these three different possibilities, number 3, which is 'transported as the roughed-out form', seem most appropriate for Berinsfield on the basis of the data. In fact, it would be difficult to say that 100% of all the flints were transported in this way, because the site is thought not to be a single habitation but a multiple habitation spot, and the utilisation of the raw materials (including tool reworking) may have varied over time. It has also to be remembered that we are studying a collection of material gathered casually over several years, not a properly excavated and demonstrably complete assemblage.

6-5: Tools

with

an Oblique

Edge

The presence of the 'oblique edge' attribute appears to be one of the major characteristic local features for handaxes not only at Berinsfield but also at most sites in the Upper Thames region. The artefacts with oblique edge can sometimes be regarded as broken tools. However the oblique edge is often deliberately manufactured. The main features to note are that this oblique edge is only found on the bottom part ofhandaxe and that its purpose is to provide a blunt area on the circumference of the handaxe, not a sharp edge (Figure 6-3). S. Cranshaw also examined the oblique edges from Furze Platt and Baker's Farm (1983). She referred to this feature as 'symmetrical grips on butt' (1983: 99-101), She regarded this edge as being intended to provide a specially prepared grip or holding area for the tool.

At Berinsfield, there is a significant number of handaxe trimming flakes: a total of 30 were found. A good example is No. 265, the dimensions of which are 4.3cm length, 3.25 breadth and 0.45cm thickness. It is very thin and the outline is slightly curved. It is a clear product of soft hammer flaking. Without doubt, all such pieces were the results of secondary flaking. The cortex was almost all removed and, in its place, several flake scars were left on the dorsal surface. In addition to the trimming flakes, an equally significant number of other items of debitage were found. The total number is 38. They probably include the results of both primary and secondary flaking. The artefacts number 128, 125, 130, 131, 136 and 138 are classed as large debitage, their weights being up 100g to 400g. Four of these are shown in figure 6-2. But that kind of size is very rare at Berinsfield. Of these 38, the pieces which are over 100g are only 8, and they are not likely to be real blanks which were intended to be for conversion into tools. Their surfaces retain little cortex. All this evidence suggests that the flint was not often transported to Berinsfield in the form of nodules, though there is some suggestion (see page 148) that a few handaxes may have been made directly from imported nodules at the site. The ratio of the waste cores to simple flakes is 3 : 68, i.e. the flake debitage (simple flakes) is strongly dominant here. Because the percentage of the core debitages is so low, it is clear that the flints were not brought as nodule forms at all, and the size-range of the waste cores is relatively small compared to those from Highlands Farm, which is located actually on the flint source area. The waste cores' weight at Highlands Farm has a mean value of 373g, while the mean value at Berinsfield is only 198g. I draw the conclusion that the tool-makers brought in much of their flint in the form of roughed-out artefacts to save their energy, and finished the tools at the camp site. If they had transported all the flints as nodules, the ratio of cores and flakes would have been similar to that of Highlands Farm. In fact, the two ratios are very different; 4.4%: 95.6% at Berinsfield and 37.8%: 62.2% at Highlands Farm. In summary, the low percentage of waste cores and the small size of the waste cores, suggest that most of the material was brought not as nodules but as roughed-out forms.

Figure 6-3: No. 320 from Berinsfield.

If that kind of feature had been made accidentally, it

would surely be found in different places on the artefact

74

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

mainly occurs.

edges in a very random manner, and the edge would in some cases be very sharp without retouches. In reality, however, the oblique edges are present only on the bottom and side parts, and never on the tip part at all. Morphologically, they are shaped very high and steep, made by first one or two blows with some retouches, and in practical terms, quite useful to hold, because the edge is blunt and steep. It seems that when a hand-hold was desired, but not enough cortex was present on the butt, the tool-maker intentionally manufactured such edges. So, it is a functionally determined technique.

As can be seen in the pictures, the oblique blows are concentrated on the parts of the butt, suggesting that their purpose was to provide some kind of grip, as Cranshaw suggested. Actually, most core tools, especially pointed handaxes, have the sense of an area designed to grip; it sometimes consists of cortex, sometimes blunt retouch, and sometimes the specially made oblique edges. The artefacts without oblique edges commonly have cortex or blunted edges at the side of the butt part. There are therefore three possibilities for the artefacts' grip areas, regardless of the artefact type:

At Stanton Harcourt, good examples may be seen in artefacts number 3, 10, 12, 15, 35, 39, and 93-5, and at Berinsfield, number 140, 141, 145 and 320 (see Figure 6-3). Wolvercote and Iffley also provide examples: at Wolvercote, Nos. 6, 11, 17, 61 and 48, and at Iffley numbers 1, 4, 23 and 24. Two examples are shown in Figure 6-4. When we consider the region as a whole, it can be seen that the technique is not applied to all kinds of artefact, but only to a certain type of tools. It is usually found on core tools, and especially on rather pointed handaxes. Therefore this technique is often found within Mid-Acheulian assemblages. Five Acheulian sites; Berinsfield, Highlands Farm, Stanton Harcourt, Iffley and Wolvercote were researched for these oblique edges. Within these sites, the only one where it is absent is Highlands Farm. The interesting point is that Highlands Farm did not yield a typical Mid-Acheulian assemblage: there are three assemblages there, following the traditional typological point of view, Clactonian, earlyAcheulian and evolved Acheulian. The reason for the absence of the oblique edge feature at Highlands Farm is simply the absence of the Mid-Acheulian with its typical pointed handaxe types, since that is where the technique

I. Cortex 2. Blunt retouches 3. Oblique edges Of these, a reserved area of cortex is the most common. Most core tools are wholly or partly covered with cortex at the butt end. Unlike the oblique edges, this feature is found not only on the pointed handaxes but also on other types of tools including choppers, chopping tools, crude pointed handaxes and even ovate handaxes (Figure 6-5). For example, artefact number Stanton Harcourt 2, 11, 23, 30, 47 66, and 719 show cortex cover: they are a chopping tool (No. 23), a crude pointed handaxe (No. 30), pointed handaxes (Nos. 2, 11, 66 & 719) and an evolved handaxe (No. 47). Intentional cortex remnants on the butt for the artefact grip have thus been found on all kinds of core tool types. In fact, flake tools are also sometimes covered with cortex, but it is not as a common feature as it is with core tools (Figure 6-5 shows some example).

Figure 6-4: Two oblique edge featured bifaces, from Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote (see encircled lines, the scale bars are 5 cm).

75

Hyeong Woo Lee

Figure 6-5: Cortex coverage: artefact numbers 225 (left) at Berinsfield and 23 (right) at Stanton Harcourt (scale is in centimetres).

Figure 6-6: No. 137 at Berinsfield (scale is in centimetres).

The second option is the blunted edge (Figure 6-6). Artefacts numbers 116, 119, 120, 133 and 137 at Berinsfield show blunted working edges. Instead of one or two major blows, numerous retouches were applied to a basal area. These retouches helped to get rid of sharpness of the ridges. The most interesting point is, this method was not only applied to core tool but also to flake tools. Generally speaking, cortex patches and oblique edges are more often found on core tools, but the blunted edges are mainly found on the flake tools. For example, artefact number Berinsfield 137 (see Figure 6-6) is a double side scraper with 10.5 cm length, 5.7cm breadth and 2.7cm thickness. In the figure, the same tool is pictured from two different directions. The left side was made by invasive flaking which resulted in a sharp

low angle working edge. On the other hand, the right side has a very steep high angle edge, which resulted from abrupt retouches. This artefact is not in very fresh condition, like most of them in the region, so no scientific use-wear analysis is possible to reveal its exact purpose. However, it is very clear that tool-makers deliberately made such tools, because of the regular retouches. However, since the edges are weathered, the retouch pattern looks like naturally caused damage. In spite of that, there is a reason to see it as humanly made. If it was 'rolled' by the natural causes, it would have lost sharpness on both sides. In Figure 6-6, the right side edge is practically very useful to hold. When cortex for the grip is

76

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

not present, the tool-makers could apply abrupt retouches to make a grip. While it is not possible to get much further with the specimens in my own sample, I believe that further research would be well worthwhile on this aspect of technology and tool use, given a large group of artefacts in fresh condition.

Berins. 217

One more additional point to note is that the blunted edge for a grip is always placed on the butt in the case of a handaxe, while the cases of flake tools show it positioned rather more randomly. Sometimes the blunted edge is placed on the proximal end while it is also often found on the other sides. This is in line with the main (though negative) characteristic feature of flake tools during Acheulian tradition. As we have seen, the flake tools do not have strong standardised and symmetrical forms, so we would not expect the place of the grip to be standardised, as it seems to be in the case of the handaxes.

Figure 6-8: No. 217 at Berinsfield.

All this evidence concerning blunting retouch from sites in the Upper Thames region, including Berinsfield, reminds us that every abrupt retouch is not necessarily designed to create a working edge. Rather, they can be attributed to the making of an area to hold or grip. According to L. Keeley (1980), the micro-wear results show that flake tools were mainly used for plant and meat cutting, even when they have no retouch. Un-retouched flake tools can be effectively used for such tasks: in other words, the presence of retouch need not be evidence of a working edge at all. Why did these toolmakers use retouch at all? There are other reasons than the creation of a working edge, especially in the case of the abrupt retouch. The most likely answer is probably the making of places to hold the tools.

Figure 6-7: No. 133 at Berinsfield, picture l(left) and 2 (right).

The deliberate use of blunting retouch is present on a large scale. Relatively large numbers of tools show such a pattern. Berinsfield No. 133 (Figure 6-7) is classified as a pointed form of handaxe (length 9.2 x breadth 5.8 x thickness 2.4 ). The left side of the picture (especially area No. 1) is highlighted with white circle. As seen, this part is blunted in an intentional manner, while the right side of the picture (especially area No. 2) shows the very different result of the clear invasive retouches. The former area is for holding, the latter for use.

6-6: All the specimens so far discussed in this section are made of flint. However some quartzite tools have grips designed not only using the cortex cover but also abrupt retouches. In Berinsfield, artefact number 217 (Figure 6-8) is a pointed form, made of quartzite, which measures 14.35 cm length, 9.5 cm breadth and 5.3 cm thickness. The left and right angles, measured at 4/5 of the distance from the handaxe butt, are respectively 66 and 52 degrees. They are regarded as perfect working edges. The point is, these working edges are not very much retouched, while the butt side is rather fully retouched, in an abrupt manner. Even though the butt end is fully retouched, the angle is too steep (78-92 degree) to be a proper working edge, so this is an area designed as a grip.

Flake

Tools

At Berinsfield, a total of 59 flake tools were found: 51 flake tools are of flint and the other 8 artefacts were made of quartzite (see Appendix). Following the Acheulian typological tradition for flake tools, no strong design regularities are found. Most of them are of irregular shape, which make them very difficult to apply metrical concepts to defme the class. Therefore in-depth metrical analysis such as was done for the core tools was not undertaken. The types of these flake tools are simply named following the functional and morphological impression. They are: scraper, double scraper, transverse scraper, end scraper, pointed form, Misc. flake tools, etc. Most of the flake tools fall into the scraper category. In total, 29 scrapers were found, this number being the largest proportion of all the flake tool types. Of the 29 77

Hyeong Woo Lee

to obtain, as regards time and energy. So a camp-site which is located further from the flint source area, such as Berinsfield, shows a completely different pattern of flint usage from one close to the source, like Highlands Farm.

scrapers, 25 are flint tools, while 4 are quartzite tools. In terms of size, some broken tools cannot provide a measurement. The broken flake tools of flint are 6 pieces. Thus the total measurable flint flake tools are 45 items. The mean values for them are: length 7.14 cm, breadth 4.78 cm and thickness 1.57 cm. Fortunately, all the quartzite flake tools avoided serious damage, so all the items, a total of 8, can be measured. The mean values for the quartzite flake tools are: length 8.33cm, breadth 6.46cm and thickness 2.32cm.

In the case of Iffley, which is also located rather far from the flint source area, a similar situation can be recognised. There are in total 40 flake tools. A first sorting which is for the purpose of excluding improper tools such as broken items and those made from other rocks, was carried out and two artefacts were omitted: one was a quartzite tool and the other was a broken flint tool. A second sorting was performed to determine whether these flints are imported ones or local ones. In the case of the Highlands Farm, all of them came from close to the site, because the site is actually located in the source area. Here, a second sorting was absolutely not necessary. In the case of the Berinsfield, there were no flake tools of local flint, so again no second sorting was necessary.

Within the flake tools, the number of working edges and the shapes are widely varied. Usually, the number of edges is single, but in some cases there are two or more working edges. The artefacts number 186, 236, 137, 139, 339, 340 and 343 have two working edges and 336 and 341 have three working edges. The shapes are even more varied. Each flake tool's edges are named on the basis of the dorsal view: convex, convergent, straight, hollow, pointed and round. The distinction between the round and convex are judged by the degree of roundness. Because they are simply named by the visual impression, the difference has not been accurately measured. Among the scrapers, straight, convex and rounded shapes are dominant.

Unlike the case of Highlands Farm and Berinsfield, a second sorting was needed for Iffley. Of 38 pieces from the first sorting, there were a large number of local flint flake tools: a total of 23. The remaining 15 imported flake tools were analysed. The result showed an average 15.33% of cortex left on the dorsal surface. The next site to compute was Stanton Harcourt. Here, there were 7 flake tools, including 3 quartzite flake tools. Out of the flint flake tools, all of them were imported flint flake tools, so a second sorting was not needed. This is a small sample by comparison with the others, but the result gave a mean value of 15.71% for remaining cortex. The last site is Wolvercote. Here, in total, 43 pieces are flake tools. Of them 10 are made of quartzite and 1 was a broken tool. So the result of this first sorting showed 32 tools remaining. Since 9 were made from local material, the applicable tools are 23 in number. The mean value for 'Cortex Re. 1' is 10.44%. Here is the table of the results.

Examination of the flint flake tools shows that all of them were imported from some other area. The quality of the flint is better than that of the local flints, which have many frost cracks. This strikingly contrasts with the case of Iffley and Wolvercote. In Wolvercote the percentage of imported flake flint tools is about 66. 7% and the case of Iffley is even worse, the percentage being not more than 41 %. Generally speaking, core tools which are made of imported flints have a certain regularity, but the flake tools do not show strong regularity, no matter what is the type of flint, imported or local. In terms of the cortex remaining, there are two observation, called 'Cortex Re. 1' and 'Cortex Re. 2', meaning respectively the percentage of remaining outer cortex on the dorsal surface and ventral surface ( see Appendix). If the percentage figure is low, not much cortex is left on that particular surface. Since the cortex of the ventral surface is automatically removed when the flakes were initially struck, measuring 'Cortex Re. 2' is not necessary. So measuring cortex here is only for 'Cortex Re. 1'. From the total of 33 Berinsfield flint artefacts, 28 flint flake tools were studied, i.e. excluding 5 broken artefacts. 16 of these 28 tools are completely cortex free, suggesting that the original block of flint had been thoroughly used. Only 3 tools have more than 59% of cortex coverage, only three cases; tool numbers 163, 164 and 352. The average for the total of 28 tools is only 15.54%. This result is well worth comparing with the case of Highlands Farm. At Highlands Farm, a total of 110 flake tools were found. Of 110 cases, 107 pieces were complete enough to study for cortex distribution. The mean value for these 107 tools' Cortex Re. 1. is 33.55%. This is very much higher than the value at Berinsfield. It is suggest that the utilisation of flint at Berinsfield, especially in the case of the flake tools, was much more intense than at Highlands Farm. This observation is relevant to the study of economic behaviour. The flint materials at Berinsfield are much more expensive

N.

Cortex Re. 1 Distance(km)

Highlands F.

107

33.55%

0km

Berinsfield

28

15.54%

21.6km

lffley

15

15.33%

28.75km

Wolvercote

23

10.44%

38km

S.H.

7

15.71%

40.6km

Table 6-4: The relation of the distance from the flint source and the percentages of cortex remaining on the dorsal surface 4 •

The table (Table 6-4) shows that, when the distance is increased, the percentage of the cortex coverage is decreased, except in the case of Stanton Harcourt, though even here the percentage is still much lower than the one of Highlands Farm. In the case of Stanton Harcourt, the number of tools is very small in comparison with other sites. For this reason, the figure 15.71 % could be less significant. More important, no camp site that is a substantial distance from the source area, approaches the proportion of remaining cortex which Highlands Farm has. In consequence, the figures support the assertion that the distance from the flint source predictably 4

78

Note: Only imported or 'near site' flint tools are analysed.

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

affects the different patterns of lithic utilisation. The management of budget in the matters of time and energy, is certainly significant in the case of the Upper Thames Valley. Next is the consideration of completeness. As explained in Chapter 1, the combination of 'N. flaking' and 'Retouch' generates 'completeness'. The range of completeness is from a minimum 200 points to a maximum 1000 points. If the point score is 200, it means the tool is only very simply shaped. And if the points reach 1000, the tool is extremely well made. A comparative study of the flake tools and core tools reveals a significant pattern difference. The result for 37 core tools 5 from Berinsfield is an average of 764 points, while the average value for 28 flake tools from Berinsfield is only about 418 points. From this evidence, the flake tools were not very well made compared to the core tools. In summary, like most of flake tools in the Acheulian tradition, the flake tools have been made in a very simple manner and do not show any strong regularity.

Figure 6-9: Ovate handaxes from Berinsfield, Nos. 111 (left) and 165 (right).

Even though the number of typical ovate handaxes is so small, the presence of the ovate handaxe type at Berinsfield can not be denied. In terms of the characteristic feature, the completeness of the 7 items is on average 771 points, so they can confidently be identified as well made handaxes with soft hammer flaking. Artefacts numbers 111 and 165 are very similar to the ovate handaxes in the Upper Loam at Swanscombe, since advanced technology such as the twisted working edge is found. In the case of number 165, the handaxe is partly broken, so the technological details are not completely clear.

The degree of weathering is widely varied within this single site. A total of 41 flake tools, including all flint and quartzite tools, were researched. The range of weathering degrees is from 'fresh', via 'less weathered' to 'weathered'. 'Fresh' here does not imply a mint fresh condition. Since the determination of the degree is done visually, the term of 'fresh' is merely relative to the terms 'less fresh' and 'weathered'. The results for Berinsfield show the ratio of fresh: less fresh: weathered is 20%: 63%: 17%. Although the ratio is not evenly distributed, three different weathering patterns clearly exist at the site.

6-7:

Ovate

These typical ovate tools at Berinsfield are similar not only in their general shape, but also in that they are all well made and their sizes vary little. The longest one is No. 144, which is 11.4cm and the shortest one is 165 which is 8.1cm: the standard deviation for the 7 unbroken pieces is only 1.77cm. The weathering degree is also similar, all of them are classified as 'less fresh'. And they were all made of imported flint. In consequence, we might wish to claim that they are contemporary, but this may not be so. The patination colour and degree is not consistent: artefact number 111 is dark yellow, and 144 and 165 are yellow, while 116's colour is close to black. The patination degree is also different: 111 and 144 are slightly patinated, while 165 is deeply patinated and 116 is unpatinated. Since the patination process suggests different post deposition conditions, they could have been discarded at different times. That would be an important point if, even though they look similar to each other, they were made at different times. So the cultural phenomena which drove the production of ovates were not much changed over time. And the Berinsfield tool-makers, especially the ovate tool-makers probably revisited the place.

Handaxes

There are a total of 10 ovate and cordate handaxes. Three of them are in broken condition. Amongst the seven unbroken tools, regularity is not consistent: in particular, artefact number 301 is thicker than all the others. When it is compared with number 111, it cannot be believed that they are typologically homogeneous. Classifiable as typical ovate handaxes are: numbers 111, 116, 144 and 165. The rest, numbers 296, 301 and 306, are quite different in terms of their cross section and working edges. Generally speaking, the working edges of the typical ovate handaxes are straight, whether or not they possess the curved shape which can be called the twisted form. And the ovate handaxes usually do not show zigzag shaped working edges on the side view. Such zigzag style edges are very commonly found in the chopping tools, choppers and sometimes proto-Acheulian pointed handaxes. But number 301 has a zigzag working edge: therefore, it cannot be regarded as a proper ovate handaxe.

6-8:

Pointed

Handaxes

18 pointed handaxes in total were found. Five of them are seriously broken but the rest of them are not very much damaged. Omitting the broken tools, the mean values of length, breadth and thickness are: 14.15cm, 8.16cm and 3.87cm. Since the corresponding mean values for all the

5 There are certainly more core tools, but the 37 items are the result of the first and secondary sorting, so that broken tools, other material tools, local flint tools and some other items irrelevant to measure were excluded.

79

Hyeong Woo Lee

the flint. It has an internal flaw on the butt part so it could have been very difficult to complete. This may reflect on the matter of transportation. If the tool-makers had brought No. 317 as a fmished product, it is highly likely they would have discarded it because of internal flaw. But if they had been transporting nodules, they might not have been able to detect such an internal flaw. Therefore it seems likely that at least number 317 was made at the camp site at Berinsfield. Several tools have internal flaws. Number 297 also shows a flaw on the butt area. Any internal flaw is likely to disrupt the flaking quality of the flint, making it very difficult to achieve a desired shape. This evidence suggests that at least some artefacts were made at the site.

pointed handaxes of the Upper Thames Valley are length 13.52cm, breadth 7.62 and thickness 3.66, the pointed handaxes at Berinsfield can be said to be of average size. Amongst them there are only two examples of proto pointed handaxes, which might perhaps be regarded as proper Early Acheulian pointed handaxes. There are number 182 and 183, which are in more or less broken condition, but there is in fact a clear sign of soft flaking scars on each of them, which are common in the Mid Acheulian tradition, and number 183 was probably re-modified after ancient breakage. They do not really have the features of proper Early Acheulian tools. In consequence, all the pointed handaxes seem likely to belong to the Mid Acheulian tradition. In terms of the 'completeness' of these Mid-Acheulian bifaces, the average score for the 13 undamaged tools is 823. So they are well made. Working edges are also well prepared, of 13 pointed handaxes, none had zigzag edges. The source of the tools is flint, and in all cases it is imported flint. No pointed tool was made of any other material. Generally speaking, the sizes, flaking technique and the shapes are very much homogeneous. However, the patination process is not consistent: patination degrees are very widely varied, with approximately equal quantities of un-patinated, slightly patinated and deeply patinated tools. Out of the 13 tools, the deeply patinated tools are 4 pieces, the slightly patinated tools are 6 and the unpatinated items are 3. This might reflect the fact that all the tools were not made at the exactly same period of time, although the tool technology is consistent. Artefact number 140 gives an ideal example of the Mid Acheulian tradition (see Figure 6-10). The length, breadth and thickness are 15.7cm, 8.5cm and 4.8cm. This well-made symmetrically designed handaxe is finished with soft hammer percussion. At the butt end, cortex is almost entirely removed. Instead of that, an oblique edge has been prepared. Artefact number 142 shows the retouch preference. On the butt, several invasive flaking made a steep shape for grip, but the tip part shows intensive secondary retouches to make the actual working edge. The distinction between working edge and non-working edge is defined by the presence or absence of secondary retouches. And the cross section is unique. In fact it is not a typical plano-convex one, but an intentional flat ventral side is present. Artefact number 294 is likely to have been the biggest pointed handaxe from Berinsfield. The tip end is slightly broken, but it is still 18cm long. According to the metrical data, the longest handaxe (including not only the pointed handaxes but also all kind handaxes at the site) in Berinsfield is number 298, a ficron handaxe 19.35cm long. But if the broken 294 were in perfect condition, it could be the biggest one. Number 294 has a clear straight working edge. Artefact number 297 has interesting features. Unlike the others, the butt has a sharp working edge and the left side on the dorsal surface is covered with cortex, with no working edge at all. And the ventral side is relatively flat, made with deep invasive flaking. Artefact number 317 has a different shape of working edge on the left and right. The left side has a relatively sharp edge on the dorsal surface, while the right side has a steep edge with abrupt retouches. The size is rather small; 11.4cm length, 6.8cm breadth and 3.3cm thickness. The tip part is well fmished, while the butt part seems incompletely flaked. The main reason is the quality of

Figure 6-10: A pointed handaxe from Berinsfield, No. 140.

6-9:

Other

Flint

Handaxes

The artefact number 141 is a lingulate handaxe (Figure 6-11). The dimensions are: length 15.89cm, breadth 8.9cm and thickness 3.7cm. This pale yellow colour handaxe is quite unique in style. Although the tip part is very slightly broken, it is a generally well made artefact. Invasive and abrupt retouches are well applied, so the score for completeness reaches the highest possible points, 1000. This handaxe type is very rare throughout the Upper Thames region, the sites which yield them being only Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote, plus Berinsfield, where only this

80

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

measured 11.8cm length, 5.6cm breadth and 3.7cm thickness. And the weight is also very variable, from 500g to 220g. In terms of the outline of working edges, number 298 has a more in-curving shape than any of the others. Throughout the Upper Thames region, ficron handaxes are only found at Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt. Combining the measurements as ratios gives more information about the style and size variation. Firstly, the values for BIL are 0.434, 0.692 and 0.475 in the numeric order of No. 298, 319 and 326, showing that number 319 is much broader than any others. In order to know the tendency of the pointedness, the ratio Bl/B2 is used. The results are 0.373, 0.362 and 0.59. Since the lower value is more pointed, number 319 is more pointed than others. Artefact number 319 does indeed have a thick broad butt and a more pointed shaped tip. Number 326 has one quite distinctive feature when compared to the rest of them: it is short and weathered. When considering the actual Bl and B2 values, number 298 and 319 show large differences between them including that their tip parts are remarkably narrow. But No. 326 has not much difference between B 1 and B2, showing that the tip is not very narrow by the standards of the rest.

one was found. It has different patination colour on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. The ventral side colour is slightly darker than that of the dorsal one. This is presumably because the tool had been exposed on the surface for a long time. Except for the right hand side on the dorsal face, the handaxe is fully knapped. The tool-makers deliberately left cortex here for the grip. Usually the retouches are concentrated on the tip part in the cases of the pointed handaxes, but this lingulate handaxe does not show any strong retouch concentration.

6-10:

Misc.

Core and Flake

Tools

Obviously the main reason why they called such, is the absence of strong regularity. But this does not mean that they were not made properly as artefacts. The values for completeness support this. For example, artefact numbers 115 and 120 are well made artefacts, with the completeness in each case scoring 900 points. Since the highest point score is 1000, 900 points means they were certainly well made tools. Of course, some artefacts have lower scores. But the main point is that these pieces can be used as perfect tools, even though they do not have a strong regularity of form. In terms of the working edges, some Misc. core tools have straight working edges, which are very common in well made handaxes, and also they were made with not only abrupt flaking but also invasive flaking. Therefore tool technology itself does not reveal any strong division between typical bifaces and Misc. core tools. In addition, there are a few examples of Misc. core tools that were made with soft hammer technique. Normally, soft-hammer technique is a sign of Mid Acheulian workmanship. Since most Berinsfield handaxes are Mid-Acheulian and soft hammering can also be seen on some of the Misc. core tools, they could belong to the category of the Mid-Acheulian. If so, the tool-makers who knapped the Misc. core tools, probably were also fully capable of making refmed bifaces. Even though they had the ability to do that, they still made such Misc. core tools.

Figure 6-11: A lingulate handaxe from Berinsfield, No. 141.

Number 302 is a pointed form. It has symmetrical form and looks like a pointed handaxe, but the size is so small that it is difficult to say a typical pointed handaxe. That is why it is classified instead as 'pointed form'. The weight is only 95g, strikingly different from the typical pointed handaxes, which average 423g. Although number 302 is broadly similar to the other pointed handaxes, there are some others, numbers 310, 314 and 315 which look more like Misc. core tools, since no well made pointed forms are included. While most of the pointed handaxes were made of imported flints, the pointed forms were sometimes made of local flints. Numbers 314 and 315 are local poor-quality flint tools. As regards the patination degree, number 302 is very deeply patinated and this is one of only two deeply patinated tools from the site. Visually, the patination colour and degree of this item is very similar to that of the tools at Stanton Harcourt.

It is not easy to say exactly why these Misc. core tools do not have symmetrical regular forms, but there are several possibilities. First of all, the problem of flint raw materials can be pointed out. The artefact number 304 was not made of good quality imported flint, but of local poor quality flint. It looks as if the rock was simply unsuitable for making a more regular shaped tool. At Berinsfield, three of the twenty Misc. core tools are made of these local flints. No flaking technique could deliver a very well shaped tool, in these

There are 6 ficron handaxes from Berinsfield. Three of them are seriously broken, so proper measurement cannot be performed. Although they are all ficron handaxes, their shapes and sizes are not homogeneous. The biggest one is number 298: it measures 19.35cm length, 8.4cm breadth and 5.65cm thickness. The smallest one is number 326, which 81

Hyeong Woo Lee

cases. However the poor quality of rocks is not a good explanation in all cases: the seventeen other tools are made from good imported flint.

quartzite tool assemblage are core tools. Of the quartzite core tools, some of them are choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools, 13 in total for these types. However, bifaces are also found, including 8 'bifacially worked core tools', and 13 handaxes.

The second possibility is tool reduction strategy, i.e. the reworking of existing tools after they had ceased to be effective. The artefacts number 157 and 305 are good examples. Both of them are knapped with soft hammering technique, and they are made from imported flint. It is notable that there are numerous retouches on the surfaces, but still the shape is irregular. Artefact number 157 has an irregular shape, but appears to be a reworked fragment of a biface butt. The bottom part is covered with cortex and has relatively a very wide breadth. The length is 6.2cm but the breadth is actually greater than that, 7.45cm. We should recall that Berinsfield is located far from the flint source area. The nearest source area, the Chilterns, is more than 30km away. It is to be expected that any good quality flint would have been treated very well, and, if so, tools made from the imported flint would be likely to be reused by adopting the tool reduction strategy. Artefact number 305 suggests a similar story. On the ventral surface, an accidental breakage scar is found. It looks at first like a natural break, but it is clear that there is very intentional retouch on the accidental scar surface. This accidental ( or intentional) flaking has revealed a big hinge fracture pattern on the scar surface, several retouches (possibly including soft hammering) are present. Whether the scar pattern was made by an accidental break, or was deliberately done to get rid of a worn out working edge, this valuable flint was subsequently reused for the purpose of resharpening the edges. In the course of this flaking, the original symmetrical design was inevitably lost.

The presence of quartzite bifaces is a very interesting feature in the Upper Thames region. In fact, the quartzite is a very different raw material from which to make tools of a regular shape. Especially, any design involving a symmetrical form needs lots of extra care. In spite of that, the tool-makers at the site of Berinsfield successfully made such artefacts. Morphologically, some of them are quite similar to the pointed handaxes made of flint.

Artefact number 133 is classified as a 'pointed form'. It is a flake tool, having 9.2cm length, 5.8cm breadth and 2.4cm thickness. Normally, the flake tools within the Acheulian assemblage do not have a regular form. However this one has a certain degree of regularity, a well made symmetrical design and a high degree of completeness. The average degree of the completeness of the flake tools at Berinsfield is about 418 points, but number 133 scores 700. Unlike the other flake tools, it is a very well made artefact. Morphologically, it is quite like a typical pointed handaxe. The main reason why such an unusual form is present is probably the shortage of good quality raw material. The basic intention was probably the making of a biface, but the lack of good flint material might lead to utilising whatever was available. Probably this tool is the result of resharpening from a bigger core tool. Artefact number 132 has perfect regularity and symmetrical design, with 8.1cm length, 5.2cm breadth and 2.15cm thickness. It is very difficult to say whether it is a core tool or flake tool. It is could also be the result of tool reduction strategy because of lack of good quality flint.

6-11:

Quartzite

Figure 6-12: A quartzite pointed handaxe, No. 231 from Berinsfield.

Artefact number 231 is an ideal biface. It has 12.5cm length, 6.7cm breadth and 4.5cm thickness (Figure 6-12). It is a classic handaxe, not merely in appearance but also in technology. If an artefact is knapped from a pebble which already has some aspect of the intended final product's shape, such as length and narrowness, it would be easily modify it into a handaxe of like shape. Thus a biface-like tool could be made quite accidentally. However, No. 231 was started not from such a pebble but from a very unhelpfully shaped piece of rock. In order to shape a biface with such a rock, mere chance and luck cannot be relied upon, so clearly the tool-makers deliberately tried to shape an Acheulian handaxe. In fact it has symmetrical form and a straight working edge. In addition, a small part of cortex is left at the butt end to form a grip. Metrical analysis supports the visual impression. In the Appendix, many type code 24

Tools

The total number of quartzite artefacts is 46. The details are: simple flake debitages, 6, flake tools, 8, core tools, 30 and miscellaneous, 2. Therefore, the main components of the

82

Chapter 6: Berinsfield

a total 20 of core tools was available for study. The mean value for the maximum angle is 75.25 degrees, while the minimum angle is 51.9 degrees. These results suggest that flint handaxes are somewhat sharper than the quartzite handaxes. Generally speaking, flint handaxes are more likely to possess an advanced form of shape, and straight and sharp working edges. The difference is caused not only by the shape of the working edges but also the angles of the edges. Both of these features suggest that flint handaxes are rather more advanced. However a problem is raised by the actual percentages, since the percentages relating to the measurements of shape and angle show that flint and quartzite tools are not much different from each other, even though the quartzite tools are always likely to be inferior in the shape and angle of the edges. This suggests that the toolmaker who utilised the quartzite probably had a similar level of ability to the tool-maker who made the flint handaxes. And not only the morphological features, but also the functional attributes are rather similar, although not exactly the same. If the quartzite tool-maker had had a flint to work, he could have made better edge shapes and better edge angles. But Berinsfield does not have proper flint on the site, and so the Acheulian handaxe makers adopted the quartzite material as a secondary source. And they made tools from it which are quite similar morphologically and functionally to their flint counterparts.

and 25 (Early and Middle Acheulian pointed handaxes made of flint) are listed. Ll/L defines the range of shapes, whether it is a pointed, ovate or cleaver shape. Some of them cannot be measured, so the number of artefacts studied is 103 and the average value of Ll/L is 0.338. If the pointed quartzite tools that looks so like Acheulian bifaces are close to that value, it helps us to classify them typologically as pointed handaxes. In the whole research area, the total of quartzite tools classified to type code 36 and 37 (early and Middle Acheulian pointed handaxe made of quartzite) is 20. The mean value for Ll/L is 0.326. And in the case ofBerinsfield it is 0.304. In fact, the range of the L1/L values is relatively very wide. For example, for all flint handaxes in Berinsfield the Ll/L values start at 0.160 and the top value is 0.573. Therefore the values, 0.338, 0.326 and 0.304 can be regarded as close in that sense. According the system of D. Roe (1968), using the results ofLl/L, if the value is equal to or smaller than 0.350, the handaxe will be classified as a pointed type. Since most of the Ll/L values fall below 0.35, they can be named pointed handaxes, and the pieces classified as quartzite pointed handaxes are indeed metrically the same as 'the flint pointed handaxes'. This comparison is limited to the pointed handaxes because there are no other forms of bifaces such as ovate or ficron handaxes made of quartzite, at Berinsfield. Following up the result of this analysis, we should next ask why the tool-makers tried to make a handaxe from such poor quality rock, quartzite, and even more, why they made not merely a simple flake tool, but a well-designed symmetrical tool such as this pointed handaxe. The main reason appears to be the lack of a flint source in the place. Berinsfield is located far from the assumed flint source area. As an alternative raw material, they tried to use the local quartzite. But do the quartzite handaxes have the same function as the flint handaxes?

From such evidence, the usage of quartzite material becomes quite clearly defmed and easy to understand. Quartzite is not a primary source but a secondary source for making 'refined tools'. When considering the types of the flint tools at Berinsfield, this seems quite clear. At Berinsfield, the number of flint-made chopper, chopping tool and pyramidal core tools, which are made for the sake of their simple and thick zigzag edges, is only one. However, even this one was made of a poor quality local flint, not of imported flint. It seems that the high quality flint at Berinsfield was never allocated for the choppers and chopping tools. This situation is not only found at Berinsfield, but is very much a general pattern in the Upper Thames Valley. At the four sites in the Upper Thames valley, there is only a single example of the use of good imported flint for a chopper, chopping tool or pyramidal core tool. So we can confidently say that the tool-makers preferred to use the good flint for the artefacts which have better edges and the sharper-edged tools such as the handaxes. In terms of the working edges, the tool-makers had clear predetermined ideas about what rock to use, and in order to obtain straighter and sharper edges, they tried to find a source of good flint. If it was not available, they chose the quartzite as a secondary source. Since tools with a zigzag working edge can be made from either quartzite or flint without any problems, the tool-makers did not have to use the precious high quality flint for these. Instead of that, locally available flint or quartzite was selected to make such tools.

It seems likely that the function of the edges will be related to the actual shape of the edges. To answer this question, the working edges and the angles must therefore be analysed. From the Appendix, type codes 24 and 25 are selected. The selected tools are all flint core tools. Of 111 artefacts in total, core tools which have only straight working edges number 87, core tools which have only zigzag working edges are 19 and core tools which have straight edges on the one side and zigzag edges on the other side are 5. This shows that the core tools having straight working edges are dominant. In the case of the quartzite tools, the selected type codes are 36 and 37. Out of 20 artefacts, 11 tools have straight working edges, 5 have zigzag working edges, 2 have straight and zigzag working edges.

Some difference in percentages can be recognised. Flint handaxes are more likely to have straight working edges, but the difference is not particularly significant. From this point of view, we cannot conclude that flint handaxes and quartzite handaxes have exactly same function, but at least the quartzite tools seem to compare quite closely. Further evidence concerning function can be found by studying the angle of the working edges. 106 flint core tools were selected to analyse. Of these 106, the mean value for the maximum edge angle is 71.1 degrees and minimum edge angle is 46. 8 degrees. In the case of the quartzite core tools,

Finally in this section, we have to consider whether the Clactonian-like core tools and the Acheulian core tools from the site are contemporary or not. At Berinsfield, there are several quartzite choppers, chopping tools and pyramidal core tools: in total, 11 choppers and chopping tools, and 2 pyramidal core tools were found. Artefact number 229 can be regarded as a typical chopping tool. It was made from a

83

Hyeong Woo Lee

pebble by means of simple direct percussion. Secondary retouch is hardly present and a typical zigzag working edge survives. Also artefact number 225 has almost the same characteristic features as number 229. It is clear that 'typical Clactonian' core tools co-existed with 'typical Mid Acheulian' core tools at the site. In fact, it is very difficult to determine whether these two types of tools are chronologically separated or not. Although various authors have recently claimed that the Clactonian industry generally cannot be an independent entity in the British Lower Palaeolithic (N. Ashton et al.1994 and M. Ohel 1982), it is difficult to know what may be the situation at a site, like Berinsfield which is not a proper excavated site, so it cannot be said with any confidence what artefacts really belong together. In spite of that, a suggestion can be made based on the weathering of the artefacts. Within the total of 13 Clactonian-type tools, 2 of them are 'less fresh' and the rest are classified as 'weathered'. Thus about 85% of them have the same weathering pattern, 'weathered', and this may mean they underwent the same post-depositional process. This percentage can be compared to the rest of the quartzite core tools at the site. Seventeen 'non-Clactonian type' tool were examined; handaxes, cleavers and Misc. core tools, etc. They also showed two weathering patterns which were the same as for the tools of Clactonian type. Of 17 tools, 3 of them are 'less fresh' and the rest are 'weathered'. So about 82.4% of them have a single weathering pattern, 'weathered'. It can be said that Clactonian and non-Clactonian have the same pattern and a closely similar percentage. This would encourage us to think that, these two types could be contemporary, although the evidence is entirely circumstantial and I would not wish to draw any firm conclusion from it.

6-12:

Summary

Because of the presence of so many Mid-Acheulian handaxes, Berinsfield might be simply regarded as a single Mid-Acheulian site. However, the presence of Levalloisian and also of Micoquian types of tools suggests a rather more complicated chronological situation ( see page 163-166). As regard the transportation of lithic resources, the rarity of simple cores (waste cores) in comparison with simple flakes (waste flakes) suggests that much of the flint may have been brought in the form of finished tools and rough-outs (see page 168-170). The examination of oblique edges on tools gave me a chance to consider a different functional aspect, namely provision of 'a grip for holding'. I have suggested three different possibilities for a grip: cortex, blunt retouch and oblique edge. Especially the location of these features on the tools made me convinced of their purpose (see page 170-177). Human economical behaviour is reflected by various factors: amounts of remaining cortex (see page 179181), the tool reduction possibility (see page 190) and the presence of quartzite handaxes (see page 193-195). In terms of the tools of Clactonian type, some evidence concerning the supposed cultural and chronological independence of the Clactonian from the Acheulian has been discussed. For example, study of the weathering degree suggests that the Clactonian tools were probably made at the same period when the Acheulian tools were made. This was also supported by the examination of pyramidal core tools (see Chapter 7).

84

Chapter

7 -1: Stanton

Harcourt

and Gravelly

7: Stanton

Channel Guy

A few lithic artefacts have been excavated from the Channel deposits. Unlike other archaeological find-spots in this region, the Stanton Harcourt channel deposit has been systematically excavated. Since this area does not show any good quality flint from which to make implements, the flint must have been transported in the form of nodules or finished tools. Even though a careful watch was kept, no flint debitage was found. For this reason, it seems more likely that the tools were transported in the form of finished products. During excavation, a total of 27 artefacts 1 was recovered (see Appendix). Most of them are believed to be derived, although they not have been moved far (C. Buckingham et al. 1996: 397).

Harcourt

The tool size is generally large. One ficron type handaxe in the Gravelly Guy collection is exceptionally large: 26.9 cm length, 12.7 cm width and 5.4 cm thickness (Figure 7-1). In terms of the size, no other handaxe from my research collections surpasses or even approaches this length. It is believed to be the third biggest handaxe in Britain (R. J. MacRae 1987). The flint used to make this handaxe must certainly have been brought from another area, because the locally available flint does not occur in large enough units to make such a giant tool (see Chapter 2). The implement's size is particularly surprising, if either flint nodules or fmished handaxes had to be carried to the site from a long distance away.

Apart from this excavated site, there is another archaeological find-spot of the same or similar age in the same region; Gravelly Guy, which is quite near to the excavated Stanton Harcourt Channel site (R. J. MacRae 1990). The artefacts were mainly collected by R. J. MacRae, with whose fine collection this thesis is concerned. In the case of Gravelly Guy, it is difficult to say that the artefacts are directly connected with those of the Stanton Harcourt Channel deposit even though Gravelly Guy is located only about 1.5 km from the Channel site. According to MacRae's observations, the artefacts at Gravelly Guy came from the bottom of the Stanton Harcourt Gravel, which was formed just after the Stanton Harcourt Channel, though many of them were picked up loose in the Pit or recovered from the gravel sorting plant. The artefacts from Iffley and Berinsfield can also be attributed to the base of gravel the same as the Stanton Harcourt Gravel. Thus all of them are highly likely to share a quite similar chronological situation. In all cases it is possible that the artefacts belong to the beginning of the cold phrase represented by the Stanton Harcourt Gravel, but it is also possible that they were gathered up into the base of the gravel from an underlying and therefore earlier position. Gravelly Guy is located at Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire. At Gravelly Guy (also known as Smith's Pit), more than 80 artefacts were found by R. J. MacRae, including flint and quartzite tools (C. Buckingham et al 1996). The nearby Linch Hill Pit also yielded a few artefacts (R. J. MacRae 1990). The major type is a pointed handaxe. From the MacRae collection, I have analysed 97 artefacts in total (see Appendix), including 26 flint pointed handaxes and 7 quartzite pointed handaxes. Generally, the core tools can be said to belong to the Mid-Acheulian tradition in Britain (R. J. MacRae 1990).

1 This figure is based on the excavation result which has been done by 1999.

Figure 7-1: The very large ficron flint handaxe (No. 66) from Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt.

Hyeong Woo Lee

In total, 126 artefacts were analysed from the Stanton Harcourt Channel deposit and at the Pits named 'Gravelly Guy' and 'Linch Hill': 27 excavated artefacts from the Stanton Harcourt Channel and 99 artefacts from the MacRae collections from the other two Stanton Harcourt sites. Most of the artefacts are stored at the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre (Pitt-Rivers Museum), Oxford except 2 items, which are at the British Museum.

the fact that the artefacts at Stanton Harcourt were all made and discarded during the same brief period of time. From the evidence of the artefact types and colour, the occupation period of Stanton Harcourt is unlikely to be as long as that of Berinsfield. The lithic types which belong to the colour group A at Stanton Harcourt are various. Table 7-2 shows how many examples there are of each, both for colour group A and for the whole assemblage. The table (see Table 7-2) represents clearly that group A colour tools are not restricted to certain types. On the contrary, colour A is found in all artefact types that are present at the site. In the third column, called 'S.H.a', all the Stanton Harcourt flint artefacts are listed. And on the fourth column, called 'S.H.{3', all the Stanton Harcourt flint artefacts with colour group A are listed. The group A colours are not merely present in every tool class, but they also account in each case for a high percentage of the specimens (on average, 83%).

There are many features amongst this assemblage which are similar to Berinsfield. First of all, the main artefact types are the Acheulian types of tools, and various raw materials were used: local flint, imported flint and local quartzite etc. There are 29 different types of tools and in Table 7-1, it can be seen how this compares with the other sites studied in this thesis (see Appendix for more details). Although the number of the types is slightly less than at Berinsfield, Stanton Harcourt still has the second largest total of types amongst the researched sites, and it is clear that a wide variety of lithic tools was in use. In the Appendix, type codes are divided according to lithic morphological shapes, usage of a flake or core and the raw materials. It can be seen not only that the lithic types are many but also that the use of raw material is not restricted to single type of rock for a particular tool type. The main emphasis is on Mid Acheulian types 2, but a small number of Late Acheulian types are also found.

The total numbers of types

N.

Barnham

8 30 8

Berinsfield Clacton-on-Sea Highlands lffley Stanton Harcourt

In terms of the patination degree, the results are similar. Just as colour is heavily dominated by one colour group, so the degree of patination is also dominated by one class in the range. There are four divisions in the patination degree for flint tools, called VD, D, S and U. At Stanton Harcourt, the number of VD (very much patinated) tools is 69, D (deeply patinated) is 16, S (slightly patinated) is 3, U (un-patinated) is 3 and others is 24 . The large majority of artefacts are therefore heavily patinated, VD or D (85 tools out of 93, which is 91.4%). In other words, as with the patination colours, so the patination degrees are also not evenly distributed. Again, it is not that a certain specific type of tool has a high degree of patination, but that all types of tools show a preference for the same high degree of patination. In Table 7-2, the sixth column called S.H.a is for the patination degrees of all the artefacts from Stanton Harcourt, and the seventh column, S.H.x, is specimens classified as for the VD and D. It is very clear how widely across the range of tool types heavy patination is distributed.

22 22 26

Swanscombe

11

Wolvercote

22

Since it has already been argued that patination colour and degree reflect specific environmental conditions, we may conclude that these various types were made not at different periods, but rather during a single period of time. The lithic types present also suggest that most artefacts from Stanton Harcourt belong to the same period of time. Unlike Berinsfield, there are no signs of post-Acheulian tool types such as Micoquian tools at Stanton Harcourt. This evidence also supports the view that Stanton Harcourt was occupied over a rather shorter period than Berinsfield and that all the tools could be contemporary.

Table 7-1: The total numbers of types, referring Appendix.

In spite of these similarities, there are certain differences between Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt. At Berinsfield, there is an evidence for post-Acheulian tool types such as Micoquian handaxes and Levalloisian flake tools. But at Stanton Harcourt 3, such kinds of artefacts were not found. None of the artefacts from Stanton Harcourt lie properly outside the Middle Acheulian range. In terms of the patination colour, a difference between Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt can be also seen. Berinsfield lithic colours are rather evenly distributed, but Stanton Harcourt tool colours are mainly restricted to colour group A. About 82.5% of them fall within colour group A. This may reflect

2 The terms 'Mid' and 'Late' Acheulian should not be taken to imply chronological succession. As already indicated, most Acheulian core tools from the site are not excavated items, although a few were. Therefore, the terms, 'Mid' and 'Late' refer to their morphological characteristic features on the basis of traditional typology, not to their place in a stratigraphical succession (see also in Chapter 10). 3 Here, Stanton Harcourt means Stanton Harcourt Channel Deposit and Linch Hill and Gravelly Guy. Unless it is started otherwise, the site name Stanton Harcourt' can be taken as including these two sites.

4 Before counting the patination degrees, I sorted the flint tools into two categories; local flint and imported flint. All the calculated items are imported flint tools. Further information about the use of local and imported flint was given in Chapter 6.

86

Hyeong Woo Lee

Flint tool only (imported)

Type Code

S.H.a Total

S.H.[3 Group A

%

S.H.a Total

S.H.x, VD&D

%

F Flake Debitages (waste)

1

8

6

75%

8

7

88%

F Trimming Flake

2

4

4

100%

4

4

100%

F Core Debitages (waste)

8

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

F Scrapers

13

4

3

75%

4

3

75%

F Others

14

3

2

67%

3

2

67%

F Pointed Forms

15

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

F Cleavers

22

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

Crude Handaxes (Mostly Pointed)

24

2

2

100%

2

2

100%

F Pointed Handaxes (Mid-Acheulian)

25

28

23

82%

28

26

93%

F Ovate, Cordate Handaxes

26

12

10

83%

12

10

83%

F Lingulate Handaxes

27

6

4

67%

6

6

100%

F Ficron Handaxes

28

3

3

100%

3

3

100%

F Others (Inc. Misc. tools)

29

9

6

67%

9

9

100%

F Broken Handaxes (types unknown)

30

9

9

100%

9

8

89%

45

2

2

100%

2

2

100%

N?T

Flint

Table 7-2: A table for the specific patination colour and degree in Stanton Harcourt, see text for further explanation (included in the table all the flint tools from Stanton Harcourt).

7-2:

Flake

Debitages

5

No. 61 is classified as a simple flake, and is not from the Channel excavation but from the MacRae Gravelly Guy collection. Although the situation of the finding is different, the patination colour and degree are almost same as the excavated ones. No. 61 is slightly bigger than the others: the dimensions are 7.15cm, 6.55cm and 2.15cm and the weight is 125g. Within the MacRae collection from Gravelly Guy, one handaxe trimming flake was also found. The artefact number 57 shows the typical trimming flake features of thin curvy shape and soft-hammer flaking scars. It is damaged, so exact measurement is not possible. These two different flakes both have almost the same characteristic features: lithic technology and patination processes are the same, so they can be regarded as likely to have been made at the same time.

At Stanton Harcourt, a total of 14 flake debitages (simple flakes) were found. From the excavation at the Channel site 8 flake debitages (simple flakes) are reported. Of these, 3 ar~ handaxe trimming flakes. At Gravelly Guy, 6 flake debitages in all were found: 4 flint flake debitages, 1 handaxe trimming flake and 1 quartzite flake debitage. Artefact number A3 measures 7.9cm length, 5.25cm breadth and 2.1cm thickness. The weight is around 60g and it is a very deeply patinated yellow colour simple flake. It is not a primary flake, because only a little cortex is left on the dorsal surface. And the detachment of cortex has not resulted from simple direct percussion. Rather it was removed with a lot of retouches and possibly a soft-hammer flaking method. Therefore this debitage could be not be waste from an initial stage of knapping. Of all the flakes found in the excavation, this debitage is the biggest one. The artefact number A18 is also similar to A3. The cortex has been completely removed and soft flaking scars are found. Although the size is smaller than No. A3 (4.3cm length, 3.45cm breadth and 1.45cm thickness), it is also not a primary flake. The artefact number A26 is classified as a handaxe trimming flake. The size is; 4.35cm, 2.95cm and 0.75cm in length, breadth and thickness order. On the dorsal surface, typical soft hammering knapping scars are present, while the curved shape seen on the ventral surface is also possibly due to the soft flaking.

At Gravelly Guy, flakes are not only made from flint but also of quartzite. There are 8 quartzite flake debitages. The average size is; 9.8cm length, 7.65cm breadth and 3.11cm thickness. Usually, the size is bigger than the flint ones. This evidence may indicate that the tool-makers were using the quartzite as a secondary source, after exhausting their supply of flint. In contrast to flint waste flakes, flint core waste is very rare at Stanton Harcourt, where only 2 such items are reported. The artefact number 27 has dimensions of 9.9cm, 7.1cm and 2.1cm. The main reason of the rarity of the core waste is due to the lack of the good quality flint. Since the place could offer no such good resources, the imported flints had to be carefully and economically treated. The absence of the core waste is not because Gravelly Guy is not an excavated site. Even the excavated collection from the Channel site does not show many core wastes: only 1 core is reported, and even that is a flake which has been used as a

5 The term, 'debitage· is here used for the definition against the flake tools which have regular retouches and plausible working edge prepared. In my text. the word debitage is not used as a collective term for a whole mass of debris from artefact manufacture. Indeed. this kind of debitage could be used for a tool. It is discussed in Chapter 5.

87

Hyeong Woo Lee

core. No. A 6, Unlike No. 27, it is a quite small piece, 6.8cm in length. The interesting point is that a form of Levalloisian technique seems to be involved on this piece. C. Buckingham, D. Roe and K. Scott said (1996: 409):

does not show 'strong' standardisation of form in the flake tools. Thus the irregular shape of Lower Palaeolithic flake tools is a general feature and cannot simply be attributed here to the lack of raw material. The important point is that the tool-makers at Stanton Harcourt tried to use this poor status flint instead of discarding it. If the flint quality was good enough, they tried to use it for making tools. In fact, some of the flake tools are made from material not in such poor condition. For example, the artefact number 58 from Gravelly Guy is not from an initial flake. Morphologically, it has rather a regular shape, and can perhaps be classed as a side scraper. It looks at first like a double side scraper, having two parallel edges. But the left edge (in the dorsal surface view) is a deliberately made steep edge, so it could be functionally different from the right one, and the tool may be a side scraper and not a double side scraper. When the flake tools were made from good condition flint, tools like number 58 were possible. But the flint in good condition 6 and of good quality was not in sufficient supply at Stanton Harcourt, so even skilled tool-makers could not always achieve what were probably the more desirable shapes.

' ...designed to allow the extraction of a single, thin, elongated flake from what had been the original flake's bulbar surface.' It is believed that the core was made by a person who was at least aware of Levalloisian technology. The rarity of the core waste is because of the flint resource problem, not because of inadequacy in collection or excavation. It is notable that the other sites studied, which are located far from the source area, have the same feature. Iflley and Wolvercote do not yield any core waste at all and Berinsfield has only a very limited quantity, 3 artefacts. Therefore the almost complete absence of core waste in the Upper Thames region is a valid general situation, which is explained by the fact that the economic side of contemporary human behaviour never allowed expensive imported materials to be wasted in the form of core debitage.

7-3:

Flake

The types and numbers of the Stanton Harcourt flint flake tools are: 4 scrapers, 1 pointed shaped tool and 2 other very irregular shaped forms. And the quartzite tools are: 1 scraper and 2 very irregular shaped forms. The 5 scrapers have various forms: 3 side scrapers, 1 convergent scraper and 1 transverse scraper. And the 4 other pieces are 3 Misc. flake tools and 1 notch. The definition of a side scraper is a flake tool having one retouched lateral edge. For further detail, the scrapers can be subdivided in terms of the edge shape on the plan view. Even the simple class 'side scrapers' has different edge shapes. For example, artefact number 54 is a side scraper with a straight edge and number A28 is a side scraper with a convex edge. For a definition of what constitutes a transverse scraper and an end scraper, I have followed the concept of A. Debenath and H. Dibble (1994). Transverse scrapers and end scrapers do not have a lateral edge but a distal edge. So, a flake tool having one or more distal edge( s) must be a transverse scraper or an end scraper, and the distinction between the two scrapers is the length of the edge. If the distal edge is the longest edge on the piece, it is a transverse scraper. If not, it is an end scraper. Following these definitions, there is one transverse scraper in the site. The artefact is number 63, and its dimensions are 6.6cm x 8.7cm x 2.65cm: note that breadth exceeds length. No.63 is a really well made flake tool. As shown in Figure 7-2, regular retouches are concentrated on the edge.

Tools

The total number of flake tools is 10. At Gravelly Guy, 5 flake tools were found: 3 are flint made and the other 2 are of quartzite. The mean values of these 3 flint tools' dimensions are: 7.1cm length, 6.22cm breadth and 2.33cm thickness. And the mean values for the quartzite tools are 10.73cm length, 8.9cm breadth and 2.65cm thickness. The average weight is 95g for flint and 325g for quartzite. At the excavated site, 5 flake tools are reported: 4 flint flake tools and 1 quartzite flake tool. The mean values of these 4 flint items' dimensions are 9.84cm x 7.38cm x 2.85cm, and the quartzite flake is 8.7cm x 6.1cm x 2.55cm. Of these artefacts, only number A9 can regarded as having a regular shape. The rest do not have standardised shapes. The artefact number A9 measures 11.95cm x 7.1cm x 3.25cm. On the dorsal surface view, it has a rather symmetrical shape, but in fact it is not a well made artefact. The 'completeness' score (see Appendix and Chapter 1) is only 300. Since the maximum score is 1000, a figure of 300 is far below the average. However, in the case of A9, there is a specific reason for that: the butt part has a deep concavity covered with cortex, which could not be altered or removed by flaking to improve the tool. In fact, it has a perfect working edge on the left side in the dorsal view. If flint had been in abundant supply, this flake could have been left unused as an item of debitage. But the rarity of the flint did not allow it to be simply discarded, and the same economical attitude can be traced in the other flake tools. The artefact number A5 measures 11.6cm length, 8.9cm breadth and 3.8cm thickness, and its score for completeness is only 300 points (see Figure 7-3). This flake also came from the initial flaking of a nodule, and even worse, an internal flaw is present. In spite of the disadvantage, it has a nice in-curving sharp working edge, made by an invasive flaking method. According to traditional typology, the Lower Palaeolithic

A convergent scraper is an artefact having two lateral edges which conjoin at the distal point. The overall shape is a gentle rather than a strong curve. Therefore the outline of the edges in the plan view are rather convex or round. There is only one example at the site, the artefact number A19. It is 8.4cm, 6.6cm and 2.25cm.

6 This refers to the actualphysicalstate of the flint at the time of knapping, not the originalqualityof the flint when it was formed.

88

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

edges. Secondly, the tool may also have other forms of working edge. In some cases, the other form of working edge is placed opposite or adjacent to the hollow edge. Again, where the hollow edge has a very steep and blunted edge and is made with a simple blow, it may not have been intended as a proper working edge, but could rather have had a holding purpose. It would not be appropriate to define such a piece as a notch. The artefact number A5 (Figure 7-3) can be regarded as a notch. On the edge opposite to the hollow edge, there is a long slightly concave area of the edge, but this could not be a proper working edge, because it has an internal flaw in the middle and no sign of retouches. On the other hand, the hollow edge has not been blunted by retouch, and has a relatively sharp edge. For this reason, it could be defmed as a notch.

7 -4: Choppers Figure 7-2: No. 63 from Stanton Harcourt. see the retouched edge which is the inside of circled area.

Tools

{Flint

and Chopping and Quartzite)

There are 2 flint chopping tools and 12 quartzite chopping tools from Stanton Harcourt. The chopping tools made of flint are Nos. 22 and 23. The size of No. 22 is 11.1cm length, 5.4cm breadth and 3.9cm thickness, and No. 23 is 10.2cm length, 7.5cm breadth and 4cm thickness. Although they are classed as chopping tools, they are very different from the Clactonian style of chopping tool. A typical chopping tool is a core tool having thick zigzag working on the tip part and usually cortex remaining on the butt part, and it is normally made from a pebble or cobble. Following this definition, Nos. 22 and 23 can be regarded as chopping tools, because they have such edges and cortex and are made from pebbles. But they also possess some features which do not occur on typical chopping tools. Usually typical chopping tools are made with alternate flaking and have little sign of retouch scars. But these two artefacts have retouch scars and low angle working edges. No. 22 shows numerous retouches on the edge and even, deep, invasive scars are also found. No. 22's material is not imported good quality flint, but material of poor quality, and No 23 is also not made from imported material; they are both basically small flint pebbles (see Figure 7-4). There are two main reasons to say they are not imported flint. Firstly, these two are pebble forms. All the good quality imported flint materials have nodule forms not pebbles, and all the locally available (even now) flint materials are pebble forms at the site. Secondly these two flint materials have extremely poor quality, unlike the imported nodule forms. Basically they have different forms from the imported flint and are frost-cracked, so they are highly unlikely to be real imported flint. Even if the toolmakers had wished to make some other form, such as a symmetrical biface, they could not have done so with these poor quality flint pebbles. For this reason, the presence of these two flint chopping tools does not mean that typical chopping tools are a real part of the Stanton Harcourt assemblage. It is more likely that the shortage of good flint led to the making of such artefacts. Therefore these two

Figure 7-3: No. AS from Channel site, Stanton Harcourt (The notch is on the right hand edge, towards the top.).

Amongst the flake tools, notches are hard to define precisely, as regards the characteristic features of their forms. The definition of a notch is a flake tool made by a single blow or several blows, which have created a concave working edge. However, practically, the actual shapes of such concavities are widely varied. Their degree of concavity, the presence of retouch, and its length and depth, are not consistent. Many cases cannot be regarded as deliberately made. Firstly, it is hard to be sure that hollow edges made with a simple single blow are proper working

89

Hyeong Woo Lee

chopping tools were casually made by people who really had the ability to make more than simple chopping tools.

properly made pyramidal core tools. For instance, Stanton Harcourt (1 item) and Berinsfield (2 items) yield only a few pyramidal core tools, and all of them are not made of imported flint, but made of locally available quartzite (Appendix). Similarly, the choppers and chopping tools were also made of locally available rocks such as local quartzite and local flint, not imported flint. If we consider the Clactonian as an independent tradition from the Acheulian, it is strange why the off-source sites such as Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield, Iffley and Wolvercote never show even one single chopper, chopping tool or pyramidal core tool made of imported material. The primary lithic source is imported flint, and the primary tool type is the handaxe at the off-source sites. Therefore secondary lithic sources, local rotten flint and quartzite were used for the secondary types, the chopping tools and pyramidal core tools. Following J. McNabb and N. Ashton (1992), the presence of Clactonian types at the sites does not mean the presence of independent Clactonian tradition. To summarise, there are two points. One is that the chopping tools at Stanton Harcourt are not a sign of the presence of an independent Clactonian Industry. The second is the effects of economical utilisation of the lithic resource.

Figure 7-4: A poor quality flint chopping tool, No. 23 from Stanton Harcourt.

Examination of the quartzite chopping tools at the site reveals that they were made with a simple alternate flaking method. The 117 chopping tools' completeness is very low: that is to say, retouches are very rare or absent. And overall, these tools were very simply made. The mean completeness value of the 11 chopping tool is 309 points. For the 45 flint handaxes at the site, the mean value for completeness is 824 points. Compared to them, therefore, the chopping tools gave very low scores. This is because the quartzite is locally easily available, so the tool-makers did not always devote much effort to local quartzite, even though they had the capability to make better quality tools. This idea is supported by the quartzite handaxes. The mean value of the 11 quartzite handaxes' completeness is 554 points. Compared to the quartzite chopping tools, this is a relatively high score, although it is lower than that of the flint handaxes.

Another piece of supporting evidence in this connection is the absence of pyramidal core tools. At Stanton Harcourt, no proper pyramidal core tools were reported except for just a single case. However, Clacton-on-Sea has a lot of pyramidal core tools (see Appendix). Of 83 artefacts studied there, the number of pyramidal core tools is 14. Pyramidal core tools are a normal occurrence within typical Clactonian assemblages. Not only Clacton-on-Sea, but also all the typical Clactonian sites yield them: Barnham, Highlands Farm, and the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam in Swanscombe. However Stanton Harcourt does not show any pyramidal core tools. If we consider that the Clactonian tradition was independent from the Acheulian tradition, we would not expect Stanton Harcourt, which has MidAcheulian affinity, to yield pyramidal core tools, which are typical Clactonian tools. For example, Mid-Acheulian sites such as Berinsfield, Wolvercote and Iffley do not have a single flint pyramidal core tool between them. Therefore, the absence of a significant number of pyramidal core tools may be taken to imply the absence of a typical Clactonian assemblage, even though there are some chopping tools at the site. In fact, chopping tools are just a natural by-product of adopting a simple flaking method, so the presence of chopping tools is possible within the Acheulian complex or even later that. It does not in itself imply the presence of an independent Clactonian industry.

Artefact No.92 has the following dimensions: 13.4cm length, 12cm breadth and 7.7cm thickness and the weight is 1,510g. Like the other quartzite chopping tools, it was made from a pebble. But the completeness score is very poor, 200 points. Not only No. 92, but also most of the other quartzite chopping tools, were poorly made. The amount of flaking on the piece is very limited, only 5 blows were used to shape the tool and there are no retouches at all. Artefact No. 90 has 9.1cm length, 8.1cm breadth and 6.7cm thickness, and the weight is 695g. It is the same as No. 92, in that the completeness score is only 200, reflecting the fact that only simple flaking was carried out. Only 5 main scars and no retouches are found. Number 91 has 10.05cm length, 8.1cm breadth and 80.2cm thickness, and the weight is 670g; the completeness scored 300 points. Apart from these, most other chopping tools at the site have similar features. Following the definition of a chopping tool given above, most of them are categorically chopping tools. However there is an exceptional case, No. 89. It has 8.2cm length, 11.4cm breadth and 4.9cm thickness. Normally, chopping

A second possible interpretation, however, concerns the lithic resources at Stanton Harcourt. There are 12 quartzite chopping tools and 1 quartzite pyramidal core tool and this reflects the lack of good local material such as flint. If the choppers and chopping tools were the main assemblage in the site, the tool-makers would have been making them from imported flint as well. But in reality, most of the good flint was allocated for the handaxes, not for chopping tools. As the Appendix shows, most pyramidal core tools are found at the flint-rich sites, Barnham, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe, while non-flint source sites do not have

7 In fact, total number is 12, but one artefact, No. 85, yielded no data.

90

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

tools do not have retouches, but this one has several retouches on the edge. Thus the completeness scored 500 points. At the Stanton Harcourt excavation site, one chopping tool was also found. Its size is 9.9cm length, 7.1cm breadth and 2.95cm thickness. It is also made from a quartzite pebble. Like the other chopping tools in the MacRae un-excavated collections, it is also poorly made: the completeness scored only 300 points.

7-5:

Pointed

Handaxes

biface (quoted from F. Bordes). Generally speaking, a thick biface is not a typical form of the Mid Acheulian. So, if a tool of type code 24 is thick, it can be regarded as not a typical biface of type code 25. Following the definition of J. Wymer (1968), we may examine No. 30, called here a crude pointed handaxe. Its dimensions are L 13.8cm, B 8.6cm and T 5.4cm. Its thickness is thus more than a quarter of its length, so we can be satisfied with the defmition. When applying the test suggested by A. Debenath and H. Dibble, the value ofB/T is 1.593. So this also qualifies the tool for the thick biface category. In this case, clearly the classification reached by visual impression and that resulting from metrical analysis coincides with it. But can we conclude that there is a presence of Early Acheulian Industry at Stanton Harcourt? I think it is not possible to say that. The main reason for that is the presence on this implement of careful retouches, the shape of the working edge and the probability that this is an unfinished handaxe. Examination of the edge shows that it does not have a zigzag shape in the side view. And good invasive retouch scars are found on the piece (see Figure 75). More importantly, I believe it to be a not fully completed artefact. On the ventral side, part of the implement was hardly finished at all. Even with the proto pointed handaxes at Highlands Farm, not much cortex is left, the dorsal face being on average only 11% covered by cortex. No. 30 has almost 70% cortex remaining. No. 30 seems not to be a fully finished artefact. In summary, all the handaxes at Stanton Harcourt have a Mid-Acheulian affinity, and those pointed handaxes which belong to type code 24 are of MidAcheulian type.

(Flint)

As detailed in the Appendix, type code 25 shows that a total of 28 flint pointed handaxes were found. However, in addition, 2 more pointed handaxes exist, classed under type code 24, as 'crude pointed handaxes'. In fact, the tools of type code 25 are all of Mid-Acheulian affinity. But the situation of type code 24 is slightly different. Type code 24 is literally for the crudely made pointed handaxe, which according to classic typology would be regarded as the Early Acheulian type of handaxe. This means that type codes 24 and 25 are distinguished only by the visual impression, not by any metrical analysis or definition of type.

If the tools from type code 24 are really Early Acheulian type handaxes, they should be considered separately. But if the tools which fall into type code 24 are not clearly Early Acheulian, they should be included in the type code 25. Nos. 30 and 45 are examples: unlike typical Early Acheulian pointed handaxes, they were made with invasive technique, for this reason they cannot really be typical Early Acheulian handaxes.

But this does not mean that all the pointed handaxes from code 24 are of Mid-Acheulian type. For example, the tools of code 24 at Highlands Farm are believed not to belong to the Mid-Acheulian category. Unlike the case of Stanton Harcourt, crude thick-butted bifaces are found in significantly large numbers, and their cutting edges are mostly zigzag edges in the side view (No. 30 at Stanton Harcourt has a straight edge). The dating evidence would in fact support the view that they are Early Acheulian, or at least in a British sense.

Since the division of type code 24 and 25 is on the basis of visual impression and traditional typology, the tools of code 24 will sometimes be of Early Acheulian type and sometimes not. Especially when poorly made, any MidAcheulian tools such as Nos. 30 and 45 could be easily regarded as Early Acheulian tools. For this reason, it will sometimes be appropriate for artefacts belonging to type code 24 to be treated with the tools from code 25, which certainly consists of Mid Acheulian handaxes. So any tools which correspond well to the definition of Mid-Acheulian, can be included.

Artefact number 35 has the dimensions 15.05cm length, 8.50cm breadth and 4.35cm thickness. Like most of the Stanton Harcourt artefacts, it is very much patinated and shows yellow colour. It has an additional feature, iron stain. Normally, artefacts at this site do not show stain, but this is a perfect example of it. It does not retain much cortex; the dorsal side is completely without cortex and the ventral side has just 5% left. Instead of that, a very steep edge made by a single blow is present. Probably this has the purpose of a grip. Artefact number 15 has rather a unique feature in terms of the grip, since it has both cortex and an oblique edge on either side. It measured 14.2cm x 8.9cm x 5.1cm, and the dorsal side is well flaked with a soft-hammer. No.93-5 is 15.2cm x 7.4cm x 3.95cm. It has a symmetrical form, but the right side in the dorsal view is not utilised. As Figure 7-6, part of the butt is covered with cortex, but the adjoining part is flaked. Several flaking scars are found on the butt, which is very steep. In order to get rid of the sharpness, numerous battering scars are present (see the box in Figure 7-6). All these features would be to create a grip for the handaxe. As

The traditional definition of an Early Acheulian handaxe is 'crudely made with a thick butt'. Following J. Wymer (1968: 48), such tools are: 'Thick in section (i.e. their thickness is always more than a quarter of their length), and have wavy, irregular cutting edges.' A. Debenath and H. Dibble (1994) also used a similar definition. Unlike Wymer, they did not impose any chronological order, but rather emphasised the morphology. Both defmitions are similar, in that they rely on a measurement of thickness. A. Debenath and H. Dibble (1994: 132) said that, if the flatness ratio (which is the value ofB/T), is less than 2.35, the implement is classed as a thick

91

Hyeong Woo Lee

seen in the figure, the edge on the butt does not retain any sharpness.

thickness. On the dorsal surface, an internal flaw is found. In spite of that, it has been completed as a tool. The edge angle is between 50 to 75 degrees, so it would have been perfect for performing cutting tasks. If the lithic raw materials had been abundant, such flawed flint would have been discarded. But the site is poor in flint, so such material had to be used. The artefacts number 9 and 11 are also pointed handaxes. No. 9 has 16.1cm length, 7.6cm breadth and 4.1cm thickness and No. 11 measured 15.7cm length, 9.3cm breadth and 3.9cm thickness (see Figure 7-7). They are slightly broken on the tip part, but the breakage is minor so it does not affect our understanding of the type. Typologically they are same, and the patination colour and degree are also quite similar in each case. In many senses they are significantly similar. But the technology of their manufacture is different. No. 9 is shaped with very deep invasive flaking, the invasive scars penetrating beyond the mid-line of the surface. However, No. 11 was not made by such invasive flaking. Instead of that, abrupt flaking was applied. Thus, the flaking scars do not reach to the middle part of the surface, much of which is still covered with cortex. Although the type is the same, the method of manufacture is quite different.

Artefact number 3 has 11.7cm length, 7 .1cm breadth and 4cm thickness. There is no reason to call it anything other than a pointed handaxe. But there is an unusual feature. Usually the butt part of a handaxe has no proper working edge. But in this case, the working edge is extended to include almost half of the butt part. And the other half has an oblique edge. Since the butt part has a working edge, the maximum thickness is not located at the butt. Instead of that, it is moved almost to the-mid point. Artefact number A4 measured 17.4cm length, 8.8cm breadth and 4.8cm thickness and it is from the Channel excavation site, while most of those referred to above are from the non-excavated collection. But typologically and morphologically, it is identically the same as those from the non-excavated collection. Not only the shape, but also the patination is the same, dark yellow in colour and very deeply patinated. That kind of chemical weathering feature is quite common in the non-excavated collection. No. 20 has 7.9cm length, 5.1cm breadth and 2.2cm

Figure 7-5: A (possibly) unfinished handaxe from Stanton Harcourt, No. 30, side A and B.

92

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

Figure 7-6: No. 93-5 from Stanton Harcourt.

Figure 7-7: Nos. 11 and 9 from Stanton Harcourt.

93

Hyeong Woo Lee

7-6:

Ovate

Handaxes

{Flint)

There are in total 12 ovate and cordate handaxes at Stanton Harcourt sites ( see Appendix). 10 of them are from the MacRae collection and the rest from the Channel excavation. Although they can be all described as ovate or cordate handaxes, not all of them have typical forms. Ovate handaxes are tools which have convex sides and their overall shape is round or oval. The cordate handaxes are 'heart shaped' flat bifaces having convex sides. Following this definition, 12 ovate and cordate handaxes were examined. However, the metrical category classifications proved to be slightly different from these visual ones. According to Bordes (quoted by A. Debenath and H. Dibble 1994:132), if the ratio of BIT is bigger than 2.35, then the biface is flat. Since ovate and cordate handaxes are by definition flat, all of them should theoretically fall into this category. For a typical cordate handaxe, the elongation index (LIB) should be less than 1.5. According to Roe (1968), for an ovate type, a middle value for Ll/L shows that the point of maximum breadth falls in the middle part of the artefacts' length. In the metrical sense, if the tool gives these figures, it will be a typical cordate or ovate handaxe.

Figure 7-8: No. 46 from Stanton Harcourt.

In terms of flatness, the Stanton Harcourt artefacts, which have more than 2.35 as a value for B/T, are numbers 5, 14, 40, 44 and 46. Thus only about half of them are metrically in the category ovate or cordate handaxe. Of these 5 tools, one had already been classed (visually) as an ovate handaxe and the other as four as cordate handaxes. By applying Roe's and Bordes' methods, these 5 artefacts can be measured to see whether they are typical ovates and cordates. There was only 1 ovate handaxe, No. 44 to test: if the value for Ll/L is between 0.351 to 0.55, it can be regarded as a typical ovate handaxe. The result for No. 44 was 0.441, so it can be treated as an ovate handaxe visually and metrically as well. For the 4 tools classed as cordates, they should have less than 1.5 for LIB, to be typical cordate handaxes. The results for these 4 artefacts (No. 5, 14, 40 and 46) were respectively 1.34, 1.43, 1.48 and 1.08, all less than 1.5, so they can be treated as typical cordate handaxes. From these processes, artefacts numbers 44, 5, 14, 40 and 46 are verified as a typical ovate and four typical cordate handaxes in terms of both visual and metrical classification (see Figure 7-8 for No. 46).

From these data, the presence of ovate and cordate handaxes is confirmed. In fact the number of these types is small (ovate 1, cordate 4), but it is difficult to deny the presence of the type itself. In a typological sense, the presence of the Late Acheulian industry is verified. In terms of size, most of them are small: the average weight of the 5 typical cordate and ovate bifaces is 283g. For comparative purposes, for the pointed handaxes (total 27), it is 352g. Therefore the ovate and cordates at Stanton Harcourt are relatively smaller than other core tools such as pointed handaxes.

94

7-7:

Lingulate

Handaxes

There are in total 6 lingulate handaxes from Stanton Harcourt. In comparison to the other sites studied, the number of them is relatively high. At Berinsfield and Wolvercote, only 1 lingulate handaxe is found at each. And other sites such as Highlands Farm and Iflley, do not have any lingulate handaxes at all. Artefact number 1 has 18.75cm length, 11.3cm breadth and 5.6cm thickness. Unlike the ovate handaxes, the tip part is not pointed but has a convex shape: the word lingulate means 'tongue-like'. This does not mean that it is similar to the convex edge which an ovate handaxe has, because the lingulate biface has a more elongated form than a typical ovate biface. And usually the lingulate biface has a thicker butt than any other ovate biface. No. 67 measured 18cm x 10.25cm x 4.95cm. It is very well flaked, with little cortex left; the dorsal surface is completely knapped, with no cortex left at all, and the remnant cortex on the ventral surface is only a small amount, about 20% of the ventral area. Mainly the implement was shaped by soft hammering, since many flat scars are found. No. 1 has a very sharp edge on the tip and side, but the butt is partly covered with cortex (Figure 7-9). It is a well made tool: the completeness score is 1000, which is the maximum score, so it is an excellent tool in terms of the number of refined retouch flake scars. Most core tools are more refined on the dorsal side than the ventral side. That is, trimming retouches or any secondary flaking are concentrated on the dorsal surface. But No. 1's ventral side is also really well flaked, showing invasive soft-hammer flaking like that found on the dorsal side. Because the ventral side is also well shaped, the working edge is particularly sharp. The minimum working edge angle is 25 degrees. Usually a core tool's edge angle is higher: the average is 43.5 degrees from 53 core tools in the Stanton Harcourt sites. Compared with

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

that, the No. l's edge angle is significantly sharp. Artefact number 65 has 17.3cm length, 9.4cm breadth and 4.7cm thickness. This also has a very sharp convex working edge. When considering the working edge, it is rather more similar to the edge of typical ovate handaxes as a sharp and convex working edge, but the overall shape is still that of an elongated lingulate handaxe with a rather thick butt. Another feature, commonly found with ovate handaxes, is the presence of tranchet scars. Although not so clear or large as would be the case with an ovate, tranchet scars can be seen on both the dorsal and ventral sides.

handaxe is rather different, it is not of fully piano-convex style, but approaches a Plano-convex cross section (type III). In fact artefacts having horizontal cross section III are very rare at Stanton Harcourt, and the cross section IV is not found at all. At Stanton Harcourt, there are only 4 piano convex artefacts. In order to qualify as type III or IV, the ventral face must be very fully worked. The technique applied to this surface must be not abrupt flaking but invasive flaking: this is essential to create a shape of type III or IV. No 65 is a perfect lingulate handaxe, but its horizontal cross section is type II.

In terms of the piano-convex style, No. 1 is a tendency towards piano-convexity. Usually the horizontal cross sections of most bifaces have lenticular shapes, though tending to be more convex on the upper half and less convex on the lower half (see type I in Figure 7-10). But this

Although four examples of type III are found at Stanton Harcourt, the typical fully piano-convex type (IV) is not found. Type IV has only been found at Wolvercote and Berinsfield, amongst the sites studied.

Figure 7-9: Two different side views of a lingulate handaxe from Stanton Harcourt (No. 1).

111

11

8 Figure 7-10: Four different piano-convexity tendencies on the basis of cross sections.

95

IV

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

7-8:

Ficron

Handaxes

7-9:

There are only 3 ficron handaxes at Stanton Harcourt. In fact, the ficron handaxes are not a common type in the Upper Thames region. The other place to yield the ficron handaxe is Berinsfield. As we saw earlier, No. 66 at Stanton Harcourt measures 26.7cm length, 12.7cm breadth and 5.4cm thickness (Figure 7-1 ). It is a quite large core tool by British standards, and indeed it is easily the largest artefact in the whole collection. Like many tools at the site, it has yellow patination on the surface. By definition, a ficron handaxe is a symmetrical pointed style core tool having lightly in-curving edges in the plan view, on the each side. According to Roe (1981 and 1994), sites such as Furze Platt show good examples of this type.

Cleavers

Throughout the Upper and Middle Thames region, cleavers are very rare. Especially, well made flint cleavers are not very common in this region. At Berinsfield, two cleavers are reported, and Iffiey and Stanton Harcourt each yield one cleaver. However Highlands Farm has a total of eleven cleavers, though they are poorly made and cannot be very closely compared with the cleavers from other sites. Artefact number 720 measured 16.2cm length, 10.4cm breadth and 4.7cm thickness (Figure 7-12). Its completeness point score is 1000, so it is a really well made cleaver. The flaking method is invasive soft hammering, and the tip part is flaked using the so-called tranchet technique. Unlike a crudely made cleaver, the working edge angle is 40 to 60 degrees, and the edge is straight in the horizontal cross section view. Tranchet blows are found on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. The butt part is covered with cortex. The right and left sides in the plan view are different. The left side has a working edge made with invasive blows, the edge angle being around 60 degrees and the edge being perfectly straight in the plan view. On the other hand, the right side is very steep and made with abrupt retouches, its angle being around 100 degrees. Thus the side edges are very different in character. Because deep invasive flaking was applied on the ventral side, the overall cross section view is quite close to the typical piano-convex style. In Figure 7-12 below (the ventral view of No. 720), some of the invasive and tranchet flaking can clearly be seen.

The artefact number 93-4 is substantially broken; the whole of the tip part is missing. But it can be surely determined as a ficron handaxe, since it clearly has concave edges in the plan view. No. 93-6 is even more damaged, with the tip part being seriously broken (Figure 7-11). Thus the exact length can not be calculated. The interesting feature is the butt part. Unlike the others, there is a clear working edge. The edge angle of the butt is about 40 degrees, so the sharpness is certainly good enough to be an actual working edge. In some cases, the butt sides of handaxes are flaked, but mostly they are not designed for any actual working purpose. For example, the lingulate handaxe No. 93-4 has several deep invasive flaking scars on the butt side, but the edge angle is between 80-90 degrees, certainly different from number 93-6, and the flaking was probably to remove irregularities, not to make a proper edge.

Figure 7-11: A (broken) ficron handaxe from Stanton Harcourt, No. 93-6. Figure 7-12: A cleaver from Stanton Harcourt, No. 720.

96

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

7-10:

Handaxes

(Quartzite)

In total, 9 quartzite handaxes were found. Some of them are crudely made, while some of them are symmetrical and well made. Typologically, most quartzite handaxes are of pointed style, and only 1 of the 9 from Stanton Harcourt has ovate affmity. Artefact number 71 measures 12cm x 7.7cm x 4.5cm. Although it is made of poor quality quartzite material, it is a symmetrical pointed form; the working edge is straight in the side view and the edge angle is relatively sharp, ranging from 50 to 75 degrees. It is similar to flint pointed handaxes. In terms of the cortex, it is also very similar to the typical flint pointed handaxe pattern. Usually, flint pointed handaxes' cortex is removed on the middle and tip part, while the cortex on the butt part is generally left. Similarly, the cortex of No. 71 is left only at the butt. On the basis of this information, we may conclude that the Stanton Harcourt tool-makers tried to make a typical pointed handaxe not only with good quality flint but also with poor quality local quartzite. This was doubtless because no good quality flint was available at that time.

Figure 7-13: No. 94 from Stanton Harcourt.

No. 69 has 12.5cm length, 7.2cm breadth and 4.6cm thickness. It has also features similar to No. 71: a well made straight working edge and a symmetrical form. In fact, the working edge of a quartzite pointed handaxe cannot be exactly similar to that of a flint one. Because of the raw material difference, quartzite edges cannot be razor sharp like flint edges. Although the quartzite and flint core tools may have precisely the same edge angle measured in degrees, the flint one will still be sharper than the quartzite one. In spite of that, the tool-makers tried to make a morphologically similar shape. In order to shape No. 69, lots of retouches were involved. Like all the other quartzite core tools, it is made from a pebble not a nodule. No. 70 is rather smaller than these two handaxes, it measured 9.2cm x 5.9cm x 3. 7cm. Although it is small in size, it is perfectly bifacially worked. In some cases, the quartzite handaxes are not fully bifacial. No. 72 measured 13.3cm x 7.6cm x 4.4cm. The dorsal surface was fully flaked but the ventral surface was not much worked - only the butt part was retouched. In spite of that, it still has a pointed form.

When analysing the quartzite core tools, especially the bifaces, I have been impressed by the morphological similarity with flint bifaces. Although some of the quartzite tools are less well made than their flint counterparts, still most of them have significant similarity with the flint ones. Firstly, this morphological similarity can be recognised visually, but a mere visual impression is not good enough for explaining what it records, because it is so abstract a point of view. For this reason, I apply metrical analyses, especially the method 8 of D. Roe (1968 and 1981). By using his system, I am trying to explain how much the quartzite handaxes and flint handaxes are morphologically similar. My main purpose of using this method is not verifying the artefact type, as defined by metrical analysis, but exploring the relationship between the local and imported tools. Since the main purpose of this method is the examination and explanation of shape, not function, we should not suppose that similarity in shape means that the function is automatically same. At Stanton Harcourt, relatively large numbers of quartzite handaxes were found. As explained above, at sites which are located far from a good quality flint source, the tool-makers were quite keen on using any locally available source. In the case of Stanton Harcourt, local quartzite was used, together with local poor quality flint and occasionally other rocks such as chert. For the manufacture of handaxes the local flint occurred in pieces that were too small to mak~ proper handaxes, so local quartzite and imported flints were employed. This situation is very common in the Upper Thames Valley, where there is no proper flint of local occurrence. Therefore, not only Stanton Harcourt, but also other sites in Upper Thames Valley have this same feature, as we have already seen.

No. 94 has 13cm length, 8.65cm breadth and 5.7cm thickness (Figure 7-13). Visually it does not look like a pointed handaxe, rather it is an ovate. Unlike quartzite handaxes in the site, its cortex has been completely removed. on both dorsal and ventral surfaces. The average cortex coverage on the dorsal surface of Stanton Harcourt quartzite core tools is 41 % and the figure for the ventral surface is 40%. Compared with that, No. 94 is very significant. Its completeness point score is 900, so it is an extremely well made handaxe, and the minimum edge angle is 45 degree. Invasive retouch scars are also found on the piece. Application of such technology to flint would have been much easier and the result would have been a finer handaxe. But the shortage of flint raw material was such that the toolmakers were probably forced to use the poorer quality local raw materials.

8 The details of his method are explained on Chapter 1.

97

Hyeong Woo Lee

1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 7-14: Stanton Harcourt, Shape diagram for flint core tools. 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 7-15: Stanton Harcourt, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools. 1.7

1.6 1.5 1.4

1.3 1.2

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5 0.4

0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 7-16: Berinsfield, Shape diagram for flint core tools. 1.7

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.25

0.5

0.75

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

0

Figure 7-17: Berinsfield, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools.

98

0.25

0.5

0.75

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

1.7 1.6 1.5

1.4 1.3

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 7-18: Wolvercote, Shape diagram for flint core tools. 1.7 1.6 1.5

1.4 1.3

1.2 1.1

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 7-19: Wolvercote, Shape diagram for Quartzite core tools.

Category

B/L

B1/B2

A

Oto 0.2

Oto 0.34

B

more than 0.2 to 0.4

more than 0.34 to 0.68

C

more than 0.4 to 0.6

more than 0.68 to 1.02

D

more than 0.6 to 0.8

more than 1.02 to 1.36

E

more than 0.8 to 1

more than 1.36 to 1.7

Table 7-3: The category ofB/L aud Bl/B2.

First of all, I divided the tools into two broad classes; imported source implements and local source implements. In the case of the imported ones, good quality flints were mainly used, indeed almost 100% of the imported items were made of good quality flint. On the other hand, the local sources are rather more varied; poor quality flint, quartzite and other rocks such as chert. For the present purpose, the poor quality flints can be omitted because the size is too small to make a handaxe (with one single exception at Wolvercote ), and the other rock types (except quartzite) were hardly used in the region. Some of them may be represented at Stanton Harcourt, but it is difficult to see whether they are genuine local materials. Throughout several field researches, I easily found a large quantity of quartzites in the gravels at Stanton Harcourt, and also geological survey by N. Preston (1988) has confirmed the presence of these rocks in the region, especially at Smith's Pit, Stanton Harcourt. He said the quartzites occurred in beds in the form of discoidal and blade pebble shapes, and these shapes are in fact ideal to make into artefacts. However the other rocks are difficult to confirm: for example, a couple of chert implements are reported at Stanton Harcourt, but personally I have not found similar quality chert in the region. Therefore, for the metrical

analyses of handaxes, the only local material that need concern us is quartzite. In order to verify the shape similarity, I used the socalled 'tripartite shape diagram' which D. Roe devised. The sites studied are Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield and Wolvercote. Ideally, Iflley should be added, but the unbroken (measurable) quartzite and flint handaxes there are too few in number, so Iflley was omitted. The artefacts studied are mainly all kinds of handaxes and cleavers, since these shape diagrams were not intended for choppers, chopping tools and other Misc. core tools. The resulting sample from Stanton Harcourt was 57 in number, with two parts, flint and quartzite tools: the number of flint tools is 48 and quartzite is 9. In the case of Berinsfield, the sample totalled 29, 21 flint and 8 quartzite. Wolvercote yielded 33 applicable core tools, most of them are of imported flint, (28 items) and a few items of quartzite (5 items). Following the D. Roe method, I calculated the range of shapes, using LI divided by L 9. On the basis of the resulting

9 For the definition of L 1 and L, see Chapter 1.

99

Hyeong Woo Lee

values, three sections are created. The higher values ( equal to or more than 0.55) are cleaver shapes on the left hand section of the diagram, the middle values ( equal to or less than 0.55, but more than 0.35) go into the ovate (centre) section and the lower values ( equal to or less than 0.35) are the pointed group on the right hand section. Afterward, the tendency of broadness and pointedness are added. The broadness is calculated by breadth divided by length (BIL) and pointedness is calculated by B 1 divided by B2.

quartzite tools are listed. In the second column (BIL) of Section b, all the flint items are distributed in categories C, D and E. In the case of quartzite (Section e in Table 7-4), all the tools are concentrated in categories C and D. If we then look at the B 1/B2 values, in the case of the flint tools, 5 items fall into category B, 10 items are category C and 1 item is category D. Thus, most tools are belonging to category B and C. What about the quartzite ovate tools? Out of 6 items, 3 of them are category C, and another three are category D. Clearly, the distribution pattern of values of B 1/B2 are very much consistent for the flint and quartzite tools, and the same can be said for BIL. In other words, the overall shapes of the flint and quartzite tools at Stanton Harcourt are very similar.

According to the values for these three different features of the artefact shapes, the shapes of tools are distributed in the three separate diagrams, as seen in figures Figures 7-14 to 7-19. In each diagram, the X axis is for the values of BIL and Y axis is for the values ofB1/B2.

The situation with the pointed types of handaxe (lower values of LllL) is very similar. In Section c, the values of flint BIL are highly concentrated in categories C and D: 13 out of 31 in C, and 17 in D. In the case of quartzite tools (Table 7-4, Sectionj), all 3 items fall into category D. The story of B 1/B2 is the same, all the flint tools are distributed in categories B and C and also all the quartzite tools are located category B and C. Again, it is confirmed that the distribution pattern of the quartzite tools lies within the distribution pattern of the flint tools. In other words, the variation of the quartzite tools is very similar to that of use flint tools, and the range of quartzite tool shapes lies within the range of flint tool shapes.

From these diagrams, mainly two important points emerge. The first point is that the shapes between the flint and quartzite tools are very similar, and the second point is that the shapes for each rock type are very similar to each other. In order to quantify this, I categorised the values of the BIL and Bl/B2 (see Table 7-3). According to D Roe (1968), there is a limitation of the values of the BIL and B 1/B2. In the case of the BIL, all the artefacts are not more than value 1.00, and all of them are not more than 1.7 value for B 1/B2. Therefore the ranges of the B/L and B 1/B2 are: from O to 1 in BIL and from O to 1.8 in B 1/B2. Each range is divided into 5 categories. The categories are listed below.

In the case of the other sites, Berinsfield and Wolvercote, the pictures are very similar to that of Stanton Harcourt. At Berinsfield, Table 7-4 Sections g and j, which concern the higher values of L llL, do not have enough data, so only Sections h and k, and Sections i and l can usefully be compared. In Sections h and k, the flint BIL values are distributed in the categories C (2 items) and D (8 items), while the quartzite BIL values are found in categories C, D and E. Except for a single quartzite tool, the distribution pattern is the same as it is for flint. When we examine the tools with the lower values of LllL (Sections i and l), the flint B/L values are only found in categories C and D, and those for, the quartzite BIL are also found only in the categories C and D.

On the diagrams above, the distribution of the flint tools' shape is similar to quartzite tools'. This similarity becomes more precise when we attribute them to the categories. The number of artefacts in each category are listed below (Table 7-4). First of all, the case of Stanton Harcourt will be examined. All the sites have basically 6 tables (Sections a, b, c, d, e and f in Table 7-4), the determining factors being the material, LllL, BIL and Bl/B2. Sections: a, band care for flint tools and Sections d, e and fare for quartzite tools. And then, Sections a, b and c are defined by the result of the value LllL; higher values are Section a, middle values are Section b and lower values are Section c. This is repeated in the case of quartzite tools, which are Sections d, e and f After this processing, six separate sections of Table 7-4 are produced.

At Wolvercote, there are no tools with higher values of LllL, either flint or quartzite. Thus comparison is only possible for Table 7-2 Sections n and q, and o and r. In Sections o and r (the lower values of Ll/L), a total of 24 flint tools and 4 quartzite handaxes are listed. In the case of BIL, 13 of 23 flint tools fall into category C, 9 of them are in category D and 1 item is in category E. As was the case at Stanton Harcourt and Berinsfield, the quartzite tools are found within range of those of flint: of the 4 items, 3 of them are in category D and 1 is in category E. The comparison of Bl/B2 values gives a similar result: 21 flint items are in category B and 2 items are in category C. The quartzite tools all fall within one category, category B which was the principle category for the flint tools.

In each section, we are then concerned with the values of BIL and B 1/B2. The second column of each section is for BIL and the third column is for B 1/B2. Each value of the BIL and B 1/B2 is categorised. 5 different categories are available in each case (see Table 7-3). At Stanton Harcourt, too few tools fall in the left hand ('cleaver types') section of the shape diagrams for us to be able to make any comparison of flint versus quartzite, but for other two sections, 'ovate types' and 'pointed types', there is sufficient material. Thus Sections b and e ( ovate handaxes ), and c and f (pointed handaxes) are compared. In Table 7-4, Sections b and e, which refer to the middle values ofLllL, 16 flint tools and 6

100

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

a. S.H.F.

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

b. S.H.F.

N. of BIL

A

0

0

A

0

N. of81!82

0

C. S.H.F. A

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

5

B

0

27

C

0

1

C

5

10

C

13

4

D

1

0

D

9

1

D

17

0

E

0

0

E

2

0

E

1

0

d.S.H.Q. A

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

0

0

fS.H.Q. A

N. of BIL

0

e.S.H.Q. A

N. of BIL

0

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

3

B

0

2

C

0

0

C

3

3

C

0

1

D

0

0

D

3

0

D

3

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

g. Berins.F.

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

h. Berins.F.

N. of BIL

i. Berins.F.

N. of BIL

A

0

0

A

0

0

A

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

5

B

0

9

C

0

1

C

2

5

C

8

1

D

1

0

D

8

0

D

2

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

j. Berins.Q.

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

k. Berins.Q.

N. of BIL

I. Berins.Q.

N. of BIL

A

0

0

A

0

0

A

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

4

C

0

0

C

1

2

C

2

0

D

1

0

D

1

1

D

2

0

E

0

1

E

1

0

E

0

0

m.Wot.F.

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

n. Wot.F.

N. of BIL

0. Wot.F.

N. of BIL

A

0

0

A

0

0

A

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

4

B

0

21

C

0

0

C

3

1

C

13

2

D

0

0

D

2

0

D

9

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

E

1

0

p.Wot.Q. A

N. of BIL

N. of81!82

q. Wot.Q.

N. of BIL

0

A

0

0

r.Wot.Q. A

N. of BIL

0

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

0

B

0

4

C

0

0

C

0

1

C

0

0

D

0

0

D

1

0

D

3

0

E

0

0

E

0

0

E

1

0

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

N. of81!82

Table 7-4: The number of artefacts throughout various categories, F= flint, Q= quartzite. For explanation and discussion, see text.

At these three archaeological sites, Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield and Wolvercote, we can therefore see that the shapes of the flint core tools (mainly handaxes) are very similar to those of the quartzite core tools ( again, mainly handaxes ). Although quartzite is a more difficult rock for biface manufacture, the tool-makers who lived in this area remote from the source of flint tried to make handaxes by alternatively using the rocks such as quartzite which were

locally available in the Upper Thames Valley. Not only did they make handaxes with quartzite but also they tried to make them with shapes very similar to those which their typical flint handaxes had. And a more important point is that the quartzite tools also have strong manufacturing regularity, just as the flint handaxes do. When examining all the distribution patterns, we find

101

Hyeong Woo Lee

that the values in the tables are not evenly distributed at all. Most values are concentrated within certain individual categories. Even though there are 5 possible categories, not even one table shows an even distribution pattern across them all. No matter what kind of rock is used and no matter what site, the distribution pattern, in other words, the range of lithic shapes, is not widely varied. That is to say, regular and repeated shapes were produced not only with flint but also with quartzite. This clearly shows us that the toolmakers tried to make the quartzite handaxes with the same manufacturing mechanism of the typical flint handaxes. In summary, the tool-makers in the Upper Thames Valley made quartzite handaxes corresponding to the same lithic tradition which controls the manufacture of the ordinary flint Acheulian handaxes.

In the case of Berinsfield, the preference for straight working edge in flint handaxes is again much higher than in quartzite handaxes, 97.24 % for the former and only 60% for the latter. The situation at Iffley is slightly different from the two previous sites, but it remains broadly similar. Unlike the other flint handaxe samples, Iffley flint handaxes have only 77.78% straight edges, and there are no straight edges at all amongst the quartzite tools. The case of Wolvercote is quite different from other sites: all the flint tools here have straight edges and so also do all of quartzite ones.

Flint handaxes are clearly more consistent in their working edge form. Most of them have straight edges and the variation of the edge forms is not wide. As Table 7-5 shows, the variation of the edges is not great in flint handaxes, the so-called 'intermediate' and 'etc' types of edge being very rare. They are most frequent at Stanton Harcourt, but even here the percentage (2.08%) is extremely low. Against that, the variation of quartzite edge forms is much greater than in the case of flint. At Stanton Harcourt, 22.22% the edges are classed as intermediate, and 33.33% are intermediate at Iffley. Therefore flint handaxes have a more consistent form of edge and the variation is not big. This may well be reflecting the usage of the lithic tools. Originally the tool-makers clearly tried to make a straight working edge, as is confirmed by numerous typical flint handaxes from various places and the ideal edge for most tasks is likely to be a straight working edge. When they ran short of imported flint, as an alternative they used local material such as quartzite for making handaxes. They had considerable success in achieving the shape which the typical flint handaxes have, but they were not quite so easily able to imitate what was presumably the ideal edge for whatever tasks the handaxes were intended to perform.

The next question is why the tool-makers tried to make quartzite handaxes in such a way. Examination of the working edges on flint and quartzite handaxes suggests that the quartzite handaxes do not have the same kind of working edge. From selected handaxes, I classified the edge shape. Since the edge shapes are reflecting the actual working performance, they may help us to determine the usage of the implements. There are four different patterns: straight, zigzag, intermediate and unknown edge. A straight edge is usually made with fine trimming retouches after the initial flaking; a zigzag edge is generally made by hard hammer blows. 'intermediate edge' means an edge form which cannot be classed as either straight or zigzag because it has both characteristic features. Lastly, some edges have rather different and variable edge forms, which cannot be classified in any of the preceding categories. The table below (Table 75) lists the occurrence of these different edge forms for the sites from the Upper Thames Valley. Flint

S.H.

Berins.

lffley

Wol.

Straight

97.92%

95.24%

77.78%

100%

Zigzag

0%

4.76%

22.22%

0%

Intermediate

0%

0%

0%

0%

Etc.

2.08%

0%

0%

0%

Total N.

48

21

9

28

Quartzite

S.H.

Berins.

lffley

Wol.

Straight

66.67%

60%

0%

100%

Zigzag

11.11%

40%

66.67%

0%

Intermediate

22.22%

0%

33.33%

0%

Etc.

0%

0%

0%

0%

Total N.

9

5

3

5

We may reasonably conclude that the manufacture of quartzite handaxes was affected by both functional and cultural considerations. Functionally, the working edge is not fully comparable to that of a typical flint biface, but it is also difficult to reject the functional factor, because some of them do have perfect straight working edges. On the other hand, the tool-makers tried to imitate the typical flint handaxes when using quartzite. They might well have realised that such rocks could not make tools exactly the same as the flint handaxes, but in spite of that, they made the attempt, no doubt because of their lithic tradition. As I argued in Chapter 4, human behaviour is so complex that we cannot understand it as a single phenomenon. Depending on general criteria which relate to a long-term period and specific criteria arriving from specific environmental conditions, human behaviour, especially human reaction, might vary considerably. Therefore I am not trying to find a single factor to explain lithic variation; rather I am trying to find as many factors as possible to understand the behaviour which caused the tools to be made as they were. In this particular case, my answer is that both cultural and functional factors are important, if we are seeking to explain the range of variation amongst these handaxes.

Table 7-5: The distribution of working edge forms (percentages).

As seen in Table 7-5, there is consistency between the flint and quartzite handaxe sections. In the case of the flint table, the flint handaxes listed are all made from imported flint material. The main reason to omit the local flint is that the local flint is relatively poor for handaxe manufacture, was hardy ever used for it, and would not give typical edges. In any cases, the real purpose here is to compare tools of imported flint with those made from local rocks. At Stanton Harcourt, the figures show that most flint handaxes have straight working edges (97.92%), while for quartzite handaxes only 66.67% of tools have straight working edges.

102

Chapter 7: Stanton Harcourt

7-11:

examined whether the Clactonian type tools such as choppers and chopping tools are really independent from the Acheulian assemblage (see page 209-213). Metrical analysis of the flint handaxes and quartzite handaxes showed that they are almost identical to each other morphologically (see page 230-236); however, the functional similarity of these two types cannot be proved (see page 238). Also, various lithic types were studied for purposes of a formal comparison with the other selected sites from the Upper Thames Valley and Middle Thames Valley.

Summary

In the course of this chapter, various points of view have emerged. Firstly, the duration of occupation of the site can be roughly measured by the typological aspect and analysis of the patination variation (see page 200-203). The scarcity of waste cores (simple cores) in comparison with waste flakes (simple flakes), we can probably explain as a good quality flint resource problem (see page 205). And I also

103

Chapter

8-1:

Introduction

8: Iffley

8-2:

Flake

Tools

{Simple Among the five sites, Iflley was the first to be discovered, the site being Comish's Pit, on the southern edge of Oxford. The artefacts were collected between 1900-1920s, The artefacts found there have been collected within the lower level of the Summertown-Radley Formation (W. Arkell 1947). Since there are two kinds of faunal remains in the gravel, more than one climatic phrase was probably involved (see more in Chapter 2). In total, I have analysed 145 flint and non-flint artefacts, the latter mainly of quartzite. The assemblage shows a Mid-Acheulian affmity (D. Roe 1986: 11). The artefacts are not believed to be an in-situ component of the gravel, but to be derived from some earlier deposit (J. Wymer 1968: 92). A striking feature of the tools is their small size, the average length of all the Iflley flint handaxes being only 8.52 cm (37 items). This is by some way the smallest size, compared with the averages of the other sites studied here: Berinsfield is 11.17 cm (76 items), Highlands Farm 9.24 cm (199 items), Stanton Harcourt 12.13 cm (81 items) and Wolvercote 10.53 cm (61 items) 1. Unlike the tools from Gravelly Guy, deep patination is not much present on the Iflley artefacts, with a few exceptions 2 .

Figure 8-1: Two handaxes from Iffley, No. 18 (left) and No. 24 (right).

1 All kinds of core tools are included in this calculation; with only broken tools excluded. 2 One of the Iffley handaxes, the largest one, is very like the Gravelly Guy specimens and deep patination is presented on it (On the right in Figure 8-1).

and Debitages Flakes)

There are in total 87 flake tools and debitages. The division between a flake tool and a debitage ( a simple flake) depends on the presence of retouches, the location of the edges and edge angles. If on these criteria the artefact is a tool, it will be described as a 'flake tool', otherwise, it will be a debitage ( a simple flake). For a detailed description of these items, see the Appendix. Since this division of flake tools and simple flakes is a matter of visual impression, rather than objective functional evidence, some of them may well be wrongly classified. In any case, an unretouched flake can be a real tool as experimental work and microwear studies have shown, though it could not be called a 'shaped tool', a term that some authors use. I do not regard the somewhat provisional nature of the classification as a matter of significance. In total, 47 simple flakes are listed, all except one made of flint. Of these 46 flint flakes, 19 items were made of imported material, while 27 were made local material. In fact, the local flints, by reason of their poor quality, are rather more difficult to utilise, so nicely made thin flakes cannot be expected. W. Andrefsky ( 1994) also argued that poor quality raw materials generate informal tool design, while with high quality raw materials one can expect formal tool design. The better quality imported flint could be controlled more easily, so thin flakes were rather more easily produced. Overall, the thickness of the flakes is varied, the debitages made of the imported flints being mostly thinner than the debi tag es made of the local flint. The mean value of the imported flint debitages 3 is about 1.35cm. On the other hand, the mean thickness value for the local flint debitages 4 is about 1.7 5cm. These data reflect the difficulty of working the local flints. This was a good reason why it was worth making the effort to import flint, and another reason was the size of the units in which these rocks occurred. Usually the local pieces of flint were too small to make the desired artefact. Therefore, making artefacts with imported rocks was highly necessary. There are in all 40 flake tools at Iflley. Most of them were made of flint: only a single flake tool was made of quartzite. Of the 39 flint flake tools, one is seriously damaged, but the rest of them are in relatively good condition. As with the waste flakes, the flake tools were also made of either local or imported flint. In total, 15 items were made of imported flint (one is too damaged to assess), while 23 items were made of local flint. Usually the imported

3 The number of debitages on which is based is 16, 3 of them having been excluded for the reason of data missing. 4 There were 27 of these, on which the mean value is based.

Chapter 8: J.ffley

items are more heavily retouched than the local items. As we have seen in earlier chapters since the imported flint materials were more expensive, the tool-makers were likely to pay more attention to them both in manufacture and subsequent resharpening. The evidence for that is the amount of cortex present and the score for completeness. The argument is simply this: 'if the surviving cortex is less, and the completeness is greater for the imported flint flake tools than for the local flint flake tools, then we can say that the people are behaving economically with regard to the lithic resources'.

As regards remaining cortex, the basic situation is that less remammg cortex means more utilisation. However, experimental work has shown that in some cases a very small number of blows can remove most of the cortex. Generally, tools with less cortex are highly likely to be more utilised tools, but this need not always be so. For this reason, the intensity of the utilisation must be considered together with the degree of the completeness. If the two factors, less remaining cortex and a high level of completeness, both occur, then we can confidently say that the tool ( and hence the unit of raw material) has been well utilised. In Table 8-1, the relevant figures are given for Iffley and also for Wolvercote as a comparison.

In order to verify this point, flake tools and core tools are separately considered. Table 8-1 sets out the details of them.

Iffiey flake tools (flint tools only)

I Imported I Local

No. in sample

cortex remaining (dorsal)

15

25.60%

23

64.70%

No. in sample

cortex remaining (dorsal)

completeness flaking retouching 153.3, 117.4,

completeness combined

240

393

221.7

339

Iffiey core tools (flint tools only) completeness flaking retouching

I

Imported

12

17.50%

325,

I

Local

15

41.67%

226.7,

316.7 213.3

completeness combined 641.7 440

Wolvercote flake tools (flint tools only) No. in sample

cortex remaining (dorsal)

completeness flaking retouching

I

Imported

22

26.70%

172.7,

I

Local

8

62.50%

150,

completeness combined

250

422.7

112.5

262.5

Wolvercote core tools (flint tools only) No. in sample

cortex remaining (dorsal)

completeness flaking retouching

completeness combined

I

Imported

34

21.70%

344.1,

385.3

729.4

I

Local

9

53.75%

211.1,

188.9

400

Table 8-1: The comparison of surviving cortex and completeness between Iffley and Wolvercote.

Completeness

imported-local

Completeness

imported-local

lffley flake

54

Wolvercote Flake

160.2

lffley core

201.7

Wolvercote Core

329.4

Table 8-2: The completeness differences between local flake and imported flake tools, and local core tools and imported core tools.

105

Chapter 8: J.ffley

Iffley 413

cultural traditions ( as I argued in Chapter 4 ). In particular, there is not much sign of an intense utilisation of flake tools in the Lower Palaeolithic period. The reason for this could be either a lack of proper technology for their design and manufacture, or cultural tradition, or both.

..

When we tum our attention to the core tools, the difference in the degree of utilisation of local and imported rock is very clear. The completeness difference between the Iffley imported flake tools and local flake tools is 54 points, but the completeness difference between the Iffley imported core tools and local core tools is 201. 7 points. Wolvercote gives a similar result, the flake tool difference being 160.2 points, while that for the core tools is much bigger, 329.4 points. From this evidence, the core tools show much more clearly the human economical approach. Certainly, the flake tools were also affected by the economical behaviour, but the trend is not nearly so strong (see Table 8-2).

O'

....

Ill

tD tD

't:I

Another feature of the flake tools is the absence of regularity. Because of that, it is sometimes difficult to verify whether an edge is intended as a working edge or not. If the edge of a flake tool is not straight, retouch is poor and the overall shape is not refined, it is really impossible to know whether it is a genuine working edge. A good example of this is a steep edge. Artefact number 410 is classified as a Misc. flake tool, measuring 5.6cm length, 3.45cm breadth and 1cm thickness. On the left side, a working edge has been prepared, but on the right side in the dorsal view, a very steep edge is found. Such kind of artefacts, in which one side is a relatively well-shaped edge and the other side is a high steep edge, are often found at this site. Although the overall artefact shape is not homogeneous, the placing of the two different edges is remarkably consistent, from piece to piece. Another example is illustrated in Figure 8-2. Artefact number 413, which has the same feature: its left side could be a low angle working edge, while the right side is a very steep angle edge.

Figure 8-2: No. 413 from Iffley.

As the table shows, imported flake tools have far less remaining cortex (25.6%) than the local flake tools (64.7%). Generally speaking, imported flakes are more heavily utilised. Since, as mentioned above, it is possible for only a few blows to detach the cortex, the degree of completeness needs also to be considered. The completeness is measured by the numbers of blows and intensity of retouches, and a higher point score for completeness means a large number of flaking blows and substantial retouching of the edges. The figures for completeness in the table confirm that in the case of the Iffley flake tools the absence of cortex is not due to only a few large flake removals, but to quite large numbers of blows. The overall score for the imported flake tools is 393, while for the local tools it is 339. That is to say, the imported flake tools did indeed have more utilisation.

As seen in Figure 8-2, the angle of the left edge is around 35 to 45 degrees, but that of the right edge is more than 80 degrees. The purpose could be regarded as a holding grip: when I hold this artefact, grasping the steep edge makes the tool seem easy to use. Since the part opposite to the steep edge is a sharp edge, the sharp edge can be applied in use with the tool held firmly.

In the case of Wolvercote, the difference between the local and imported tools is also significant, not only for remaining cortex but also for completeness. In the case of the cortex remaining, the figure for imported flint flake tools is 26. 7%, while for the local flint flake tools it is 62.5%. This suggests that the intensity of the imported items' utilisation is much higher than that of the local ones. Also, the completeness of the core tools supports this theory. The completeness score for the imported flake tools is 422.7, while for the local flint tools it is 262.5.

As a grip for holding, alternatively cortex could be used. Deliberately left cortex makes a very good hand-hold. Artefact number 414 is a side scraper5, the dimensions of which are 4cm length, 3.2cm breadth and 1cm breadth. As Figure 8-3 (left side, marked as A) shows, the left edge angle is between 25 and 35 degrees. On the other hand, the right edge (B) is covered with cortex. When we consider the position of this cortex covered edge, we find that it is again precisely opposite to the working edge, exactly like the position of the position of the steep edge in the tools discussed above (compare Figure 8-2 and 8-3). Artefact number 411 has the same features, the left side in the dorsal view being a relatively sharp working edge, while the opposite side is covered with cortex. And number 3 86 ( see

From these points of view, the intensity of the economical behaviour is certainly visible in the case of the flake tools, but not as clearly as it is in the case of the core tools. As the table above shows, in the right hand column, the completeness difference between the local and imported flake tools is not as big as it is with the core tools. Since during the Lower Palaeolithic there is less expenditure of technological effort on flake tools than on core tools, it is not surprising that the strength of the evidence for economic behaviour is not exactly same between the flake and core tools. Compared to the Middle or Upper Palaeolithic people, the Lower Palaeolithic people were generally inferior (or less developed) in terms of tool technology and other

5 Alternatively,it could be classifiedto be 'a backed knife', followed by Bordes' classification. 106

Chapter 8: J.ffley

also Figure 8-3) again has a steep edge, this time on the left side in the figure below. Made by several intentional retouches, this makes a strong and ideal holding grip, and the opposite side has a nice working edge.

have 'weathered' conditions. For example, the artefacts number 402 and 401-1 (Figure 8-4) are both flake tools made of local flint, but the weathering degrees are different. No. 402 on the left side of the figure is seriously weathered, while 401-1 (the right side) is still in quite fresh condition. This difference shows clearly in Figure 8-4. On this evidence, they could have been made and discarded during different chronological periods.

Such features are found not only in the flake tools of Ifiley but also in those from all the sites in the Upper Thames region. Both a naturally or deliberately made steep edge, and cortex, seem regularly to be used to create a good artefact grip.

Between the local and imported flint tools, the main difference in the weathering is the complete absence of the 'fresh' items within the local tools. What really 'fresh' tools there are, are all made from imported flint. I believe however that the main reason for that is not the postdepositional but the pre-depositional history of the rocks. The imported rocks had not suffered any cryoturbation or thermal fracture, while the local rocks had certainly suffered from these processes.

In terms of weathering condition at Iffley, there is no one persistent weathering pattern. The pattern is quite varied, no matter which type of flint is involved: both imported and local tools have variable weathering patterns. Among 15 imported flint flake tools, 3 of them are fresh, 12 of them are less fresh and none of them is seriously weathered. And out of 23 local flint flake tools, no fresh items at all are reported. 15 of them are in 'less fresh' condition and the remaining 8

Figure 8-3: Nos. 414 (left) and 386 (right) from Iffley.

Figure 8-4: The difference of the weathering pattern, Nos. 402 (left) and 401-1 (right); see text.

107

Hyeong Woo Lee

Figure 8-5: Weathered items from Iffley, Nos. 394, 391 and 393 (from left to right).

As Figure 8-5 shows, many local rocks had already been weathered by cryoturbation or had been subjected to thermal fracture before initial flaking: in other words, the weathering process of the local rocks had already occurred before the tools were made. After the making and discarding of the tools, a second weathering process, post-depositional weathering, took place. The possible reason why the toolmakers used such material is that they were already naturally prepared tool blanks. As Figure 8-5 shows, in each case one side is very flat, and could easily be used as a striking platform. Because of this, only a few retouch blows were needed on this naturally prepared surface for the piece of flint to become an ideal flake tool. Normally, the blanks for flake tools had to be produced by knapping, but these were produced by natural forces: natural thermal fracture produced the blanks and the tool-makers used them to make

flake tools. Artefacts number 357 and 417 are good examples of this. No. 417 (Figure 8-6, left) is a side scraper, measuring 7.4cm length, 4.2cm breadth and 1.5cm thickness. On the tool, no trace can be found of a point of percussion for the flake itself, because it was created by a thermal fracture, which in this case produced a perfect flake to be made into a tool. The only necessary task was to make the working edge by retouches. In Figure 8-6 below, the highlighted part is the area that was retouched. The edge angle is 65-70 degrees. Artefact number 357 (Figure 8-6, right) is also a flake tool, with the dimensions 8.65cm length, 4.85cm breadth and 1.5cm thickness. It also was turned into a perfect flake tool by retouch on the edge of the naturally flaked surface, in the marked area.

Figure 8-6: Nos. 417 (left) and 357 (right) from Iffley.

108

Chapter 8: J.ffley

Mean value (number of

Size of sample

status

7

near site (local)

major flaking scars) Barnham

4.14

Clacton.

5.35

20

near site (local)

Highlands F.

6.39

107

near site (local)

Swanscombe

4.47

74

near site (local)

Stanton H.

7.29

7

all imported

Berinsfield

7.16

45

all imported

lffley

6.4

15

imported

lffley

4.3

23

local

Wolvercote

7.59

22

imported

Wolvercote

6.75

8

local

Table 8-3: The number of flaking on the flake tools.

The circumstances just described involve only thermal fracture. In addition to that, cryoturbation is another cause of the creation of ready-made blanl(s for tools. With thermal fracture, it is possible to see whether such tools are flakes or cores, but the cryoturbation action leaves the flints in a condition where one cannot tell whether they are flake or core items, and as a result they cannot easily be assigned to the flake tool or core tool categories. But in the aspect of the creation of a surface that is ideal for further flaking, they are not different from the thermal fracture items. One side is always a good flat surface, which makes an ideal striking platform for the retouch blows.

flint, while on the other hand, at Iffley and W olvercote, some of them were made of local and others of imported flint. The figures for the numbers of the flake scars show that the Iffley flake tools are more poorly or at least more simply made than any other flake tools. Even among the imported flint flake tools, the mean value of the flake scars is only 6.4, while the other sites have higher figures: Stanton Harcourt is 7.29, Berinsfield is 7.16 and Wolvercote is 7.59. For the flake tools made oflocal flint, the picture is the same. The sites which have tools made of locally available flint are Bamham, Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm, Swanscombe, Iffley and W olvercote. Of these, Iffley and Barnham have the lowest values for the numbers of flake scars: at Ifiley, the figure is 4.3 and at Bamham it is 4.14. The real reason is that the tool-makers at Ifiley made their flake tools with minimum effort.

Since many local tools are made from just such pieces of rock especially at Ifiley, the flake terminations, presence of ripples, bulbs of percussion and clear fracture patterns are not often found. In fact, since the striking platforms which the tool-makers used, are made by natural processes rather than by !mapping, the fracture patterns are never the same as those of the freshly struck flake tools which were made from imported flints. By contrast, of the 15 imported flake tools, in most cases the type of fracture pattern can be clearly identified. Only in one case is this not so. 2 of them are hinge fractures, 10 of them are normal fractures, one is a step fracture and another one is a plunging fracture. However, most of the local flake tools have indefinable fracture patterns, because they were made by the application of only a few retouches to a pre-existing natural surface. Of 23 local flake tools, only 7 of them possess a recognisable fracture pattern, and the rest of them show no pattern at all.

Examples of this are provided by Nos. 415 and 416, both of which have only one major flaking scar. The size of No. 415 (Figure 8-7) is 7.8cm length, 3.8cm breadth and 1.7cm thickness and No. 416 is 5.3cm length, 3.4cm breadth and 1.6cm thickness. With minimal retouch of the edge, they were turned into side scrapers.

Iffley 415

As a general comment on the flake tools at Ifiley, one of the interesting features is 'minimising the manufacturing effort'. Many of them were made by simple and less timeconsuming methods. Many of them show little concern with overall shape, the only important matter being the edge. We have noted several times already that lack of regularity is the general feature of flake tools in the Lower Palaeolithic, but in the case of the Iffley it is especially so. The table above (Table 8-3) indicates the variation in the number of major flaking scars on the artefacts at all the sites I have studied. Usually, more flake scars means more refined tools. The sites that are remote from the source area fall generally into two classes. Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt show no evidence for the making of flake tools from local

Figure 8-7: No. 415 from Iffley.

109

Hyeong Woo Lee

8-3:

Chopper (Flint

and Chopping

The dominant handaxe type is the pointed handaxe. Of the 12 flint handaxes, pointed handaxes total six, including one broken example. The most distinctive pointed handaxe is number 24: its size is 18.7cm length, 9.7cm breadth and 4.3cm thickness, which makes it easily the biggest handaxe at Iffley (Figure 8-1). The length average of the 11 other handaxes ( excluding the one broken one from the total of 12) is 9.23cm, so a handaxe whose length measures 18.7cm is very distinctive. No. 24 has not only this size difference but also a patination difference from the others. Most of the Iffley artefacts, whether of the local or imported materials, show gray or brown colours, but No. 24 shows yellow patination, the only core tool of this colour. This fine and large pointed handaxe is a well-made tool in all aspects. First of all, it has a perfect symmetrical shape. And then the edge being very sharp, the minimum edge angle is only 45 degrees. As regards remnant cortex, almost all cortex is removed; the dorsal (front) surface is completely cortex-free, and the ventral (back) surface has no more than 20% cortex remaining. And the completeness score is 900 points, which indicates that No. 24 is a perfectly well made tool. On the right side of the butt in the front view, an oblique edge has been prepared, a feature which is commonly found at every site in the Upper Thames Valley (see discussion on Chapter 6).

Tools

and Quartzite)

Choppers and chopping tools at Iflley are extremely rare. None made of flint are reported, and there is only one of quartzite (a chopper). This is artefact number 27, a quartzite chopper measuring 12.6cm length, 9.2cm breadth and 5.7cm thickness. It is made from a quartzite pebble by direct hardhammer percussion, and the edge is zigzag in the side view. It is so simply made that the completeness points are only 300. Much cortex is left: on the front surface, only 30 % of the cortex has been removed, while the back surface remains fully cortex-covered. In the Upper Thames Valley, another site where choppers and chopping tools are very rare is Wolvercote, but at Stanton Harcourt and Berinsfield they occur in relatively large numbers. At Wolvercote, as at Iffley, no flint choppers or chopping tools were found, and there are just three made from quartzite. Stanton Harcourt and Berinsfield both have flint-made chopper and chopping tools, and they outnumber those of quartzite (see Appendix).

8-4:

Handaxes

Artefact number 18 (see Figure 8-1 on the left) is another typical pointed handaxe, having 12cm length, 7.2cm breadth and 2.6cm thickness. Compared to No. 24, No. 18 (see Figure 8-1 on the right) is small and the patination colour is different (brown). Although its size is relatively small, it has a very high degree of refinement. It is also perfectly symmetrical in shape and the completeness score is 900 points. In exactly the same place, on the right butt in the dorsal view, where No. 24 has an oblique edge, No.18 has cortex. As I have suggested for other tools in the region, an oblique edge or a patch of cortex in that position are for the handaxe grip. In practice, it is ideal when one holds a handaxe in use: when there is cortex or an oblique edge, my palm is never hurt.

(Flint)

In terms of the core tools at Iffley, most of them are handaxes. Typologically, most of them (see the Appendix for details) are of Middle Acheulian type, although some crude handaxes and some late ovate types are reported. In the Appendix, three ovate handaxes are described. However they cannot all be regarded as true ovates. The main features of typological ovate handaxes are that they lack of pointedness and instead have oval shapes, and are usually flat. For these three, some of the features are atypical for ovate handaxes. Artefact number 34 is a slightly broken core tool, and has been classified as an ovate handaxe. The size is 9.8cm length, 7.2cm breadth and 3cm thickness. Normally, ovate handaxes have a straight working edge in the side view, but this one has rather a zigzag edge. Also, its completeness is relatively poor, scoring only 400 points, which indicates lack of detailed finishing. Artefact number 456 has similar features; its dimensions are 5.4cm x 5.3cm x 2.9cm. The working edge is not a well made straight one, but a poorly made zigzag edge. The completeness score is more or less the same as No. 34, 500 points. Of the three tools in this category, number 17 is slightly different and closer to the typical ovate handaxe, it is perhaps due to the usage of better quality flint rock. The size is 9.1cm length, 6.2cm breadth and 2.9cm breadth. The refinement, edge shape and edge angle are all different from the previous two items. The edge in the side view is well made with a sharp straight edge: although it is heavily worn, the sharpness of the edge is still recognisable. The minimum edge angle is 35 degrees while for the other two implements it was 50 degrees. The completeness score for No. 17 is 800 points, much higher than the scores for other two. For these reasons, only No. 17 can be regarded as a typical ovate handaxe at Iffley.

Artefact number 28 is a pointed handaxe, measuring 10.3cm length, 6.6cm breadth and 4cm thickness. Although it is classified as a pointed handaxe, its character is different from Nos. 24 and 18. Unlike them, No. 28 is not a well made symmetrical form. Because the right side is slightly broken, it is difficult to determine the shape in that area, but in spite of that, it is possible to say that the degree of refinement is rather low. Among all the Iffley handaxes, the smallest handaxe is No. 4, the size of which is 5.8cm length, 4cm breadth and 2.5cm thickness. It is too small to call it a typical pointed handaxe, although otherwise it satisfies_ all the necessary criteria. It is a perfectly made symmetncal biface and shows refined trimming scars. Although it is small, the working edge is straight in the side view. Except for its size, it is a perfectly well made pointed handaxe. Artefact number 1 (Figure 8-8) is also a pointed handaxe. The size is 10.25cm length, 5.6cm breadth and 3.25cm thickness. Its most striking features include the presence of tranchet fmish on the tip part and an oblique edge on the butt part. The tranchet blow is shown in Figure 8-8 (see Area A). The interesting point is, the tranchet blow is usually the 'final' blow. However, in the case of No. 1, it was not the

110

Chapter 8: J.ffley

last blow, since several retouch scars cut into the tranchet scars (see Area B). This retouch could have taken place immediately. But it could also be later resharpening, and if so would be part of too reworking strategy.

Iffley 1

There are 9 of these pointed forms at Iffley. Most of them (7 items) were made of local flint, the other two being of imported flint. The main reason for their lack of symmetry and regularity of form is that they were all made of poor quality flint even the imported ones. Since the local flints are very difficult to control, it would have been hard to achieve accurately the shape that the tool-makers wanted to make. And the local flints are usually so small that large core tools cannot be expected. The length mean value for the seven pointed forms of local flint is 7.42cm only. I suppose this small size is entirely due to the size limitation of the local flint materials.

,,.,- Tranchet finish

Originally Tranchet inish area, but retouched afterward

Of the Misc. core tools, No. 29 (Figure 8-9) is the biggest example at Iffley, measuring 14.4cm x 6.2cm x 4cm. It was made of imported flint and the patination colour is pale gray, indicating that the patination process had not gone very far. In general, if the patination colour is yellow or white, the patination is deeply developed. On the other hand, if the colour is gray or black, the patination is only slight. Since No. 29's patination colour is pale gray, it is not a deeply patinated artefact. While the local flint's poor quality accounts for the irregular shapes of most of the Misc. core tools, this does not explain why No. 29, which is made from imported flint, should also lack regularity. Usually there are three possible reasons for morphological irregularity in the sites that are remote from the source; internal flaws, poor quality and size, or tool reduction and other damages. When tool reduction is performed, naturally the original shape will be lost. Usually the artefact length is more heavily affected than the breadth (see Chapter 5), and the original shape of the tool is altered. Other damages such as accidental breakage may also obviously affect the original shape. For such reasons, many core tools are reduced to a state where they can only be classed as Misc. core tools. In the case of internal flaws, clearly the internal flaws would not be visible at the very initial stage of selection of material and the start of knapping. Normally the flaws are found in the middle of flaking. If the raw materials are abundant, unsuccessful products could simply be discarded unfinished. However, if the raw materials are scarce, tools of less than perfect shape would still have to be kept. Internal flaws discovered during flaking would certainly lead to imperfect shape in the finished tool. Since Iffley is located far from the lithic source area, imported flints having internal flaws would have been too valuable to discard, but the shape of tools made from them might well not be what the tool-makers expected. Artefact number 29 is perhaps an example of that. As Figure 8-9 shows, there is an internal flaw on the bottom part of No. 29, without which this artefact could have had a regularised form. In reality, the flaw prevented further flaking.

Figure 8-8: No. 1 from Iffley.

8-5:

Misc. Pointed

Core Tools Forms

including {Flint)

There are in all 14 Misc. flint core tools in the collection from Iffley. 5 of them are substantially broken and the rest are either slightly broken or in unbroken condition. The local and imported materials are evenly distributed. 7 of them were made of local flint, and the other 7 of imported flint. In addition to the Misc. core tools, some so-called pointed forms are also included here. In the typological sense, some core tools at Iffley look like pointed handaxes, but they lack symmetry and standardised form and are poorly made. And even more, the working edges do not look like those of the handaxes. For purpose of classification, they are listed as 'type 29' in the Appendix. However, since they deviate from the typical forms, they can best be described as Misc. core tools.

Artefact No. 15 is an example of the effect of poor quality material. The size is 8.7cm length, 5.85cm breadth and 3.8cm thickness. It is made oflocal flint. Since the local flints have poor quality, it is difficult to make refined forms. As regards cortex coverage, 60 % of cortex still remains on the dorsal surface, which means that only a limited part of the piece of flint was utilised. Since the overall shape is not that of a typical handaxe, the artefact cannot be classified as a typical pointed handaxe, though the maker might well have

111

Hyeong Woo Lee

began with the intention of making one.

without any need to prepare it further. No. 21 is a pointed handaxe made of quartzite, measuring 9.8cm x 6.45cm x 3.8cm and made from a pebble. The overall shape is quite close to that of a typical pointed handaxe. However, it is doubtful whether the function of this quartzite handaxe is exactly same as that of the flint handaxes. The main reason for that is the working edge: usually, typical flint handaxes have straight edges in the side view, but this quartzite handaxe has a crudely made zigzag edge. In addition, the maximum edge angle is 95 degrees, which is certainly more than for typical flint handaxes. By contrast, we may note the edge angles of the typical flint pointed handaxes from the Upper Thames sites; Iffley, Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield and W olvercote. A sample of 62 pointed handaxes 6 from these sites (combined) was measured, and the mean value, for the maximum edge angle was 67.3 degrees. This suggests that the edge angle of 95 degrees is too big for this quartzite handaxe to have the same function as the flint pointed handaxes. Considered individually, the maximum edge angles of flint pointed handaxes exceed 85 degrees in only a single case, and most are very much lower. Therefore an edge angle of 95 degrees can be regarded as a significantly high edge angle, and the function can hardly be the same as that of the tools with lower angled edges. From this point of view, the maker of the quartzite handaxe evidently copied the shape of the other pointed handaxes, but the implement was not intended to have the same function.

8-7:

In this chapter, I have considered various aspect of lithic variation. As regards the flake tools, the different patterns of lithic utilisation between the local and imported rocks are studied from the several points of view. The examination of the cortex coverage (see page 242-243) and the degrees of completeness (see page 243-245) reveal that a strong element of economical behaviour led to different uses of the local and imported rock. In certain core tools also, this economical point of view is represented, for example a piece of imported rock which had internal flaws was still used to make a tool (see page 257-258). However, not only economical behaviour but also cultural behaviour can be found. As regard the quartzite handaxes, the actual working edges are different from the typical flint handaxes. In spite of that, the shapes of these two kinds of handaxes were closely similar, and it seems likely that a culturally transmitted design tradition is responsible for that.

Figure 8-9: No. 29 from Iffley.

8-6:

Core Tools

Summary

(Quartzite)

Compared to flint core tools, quartzite-made artefacts are relatively few in number at Iffley. In total, nine of them were found. One of these is seriously broken, but the others are complete. The types are: one chopper, one pointed handaxe, one cordate handaxe, one ovate handaxe, one seriously broken handaxe (type unlmown) and four pointed core tool forms. Artefact number 27 is a chopper having dimensions of 12.6cm x 9.2cm x 5.1cm. In fact, it is a very simply made chopper. The number of major flake scars is only 5 and retouch is almost absent. Since so little flaking was involved, the working edge is poorly prepared, and the edge shape is zigzag. The material for the tool is of pebble form and one side had been affected by cryoturbation, and as a result was flat. It seems very likely that this piece of raw material was deliberately selected by the tool-makers, since the flat surface offered a good platform for the removal of flakes,

6 This figureis the result of excludingmissingdata. 112

Chapter

9-1:

The Lithic

Industry

9: Wolvercote

of

Wolvercote This site is regarded as one of most important archaeological sites in the whole Upper Thames Valley, for its finely made pointed handaxes (J. Wymer 1968: 87). According to D. Roe, in total, more than 200 artefacts have been found, including some in private collections (D. Roe 1981: 118). In this paper, I have analysed 191 artefacts in total. This archaeological site is believed to be one of the most significant and richest sites in the area (J. Wymer 1993-94: 41 ). The strata in which the artefacts have been found are in most cases the calcareous gravel containing bones, and sandy gravel, which belong to the Wolvercote Channel deposit. Even though some artefacts have been found in the Wolvercote Gravel, most of them are believed to have come originally from the Channel deposit. The dominant type of tool is the pointed handaxe and many of the tools are in very fresh condition. Therefore the distance they have been moved is unlikely to be great, either by fluvial action or periglacial action.

Figure 9-1: A quartzite handaxe (left) and a flint piano-convex pointed handaxe (right) from Wolvercote (scale is in centimetres).

At Wolvercote, the most distinctive artefacts are planoconvex pointed handaxes (see Figure 9-1, right). Mostly, they were made of imported flint, in addition, the size of them is relatively big. In all British sites, only a few planoconvex handaxes are known. Wolvercote however has many good plano-convex handaxes and they occur as a group, unlike the other places. In fact, Berinsfield has a few planoconvex style tools, but they cannot be treated as typical plano-convex handaxes in terms of the quantity and technology. As regards the technological and morphological aspects, these plano-convex handaxes are quite similar to the Micoquian style handaxes in Continental sites (D. Roe 1981: 123-126).

9-2:

The Raw material

Study of the Wolvercote artefacts quickly shows that the locally available raw material was of very poor quality. The local flint is more or less the same as that which was available at Stanton Harcourt (see Chapter 7): it is rotten and frost-cracked and very difficult to work in a predictable manner. J. Wymer reports (1993-4: 51) that, like the Hanborough Gravels, the Wolvercote Gravels did not contain much flint, and of the flint that was present, the size of the units in which it occurred was too small to make the refined large handaxes which are such a feature of the Wolvercote assemblage. Figure 9-2 shows a typical piece of the poor local flint, with a large thermal fracture: some of this was used for the manufacture of artefacts. Good quality flint was simply not present locally and all of it that was used for lmapping by the inhabitants of the site was quite certainly imported . Figure 9-1 shows one of the fme large Wolvercote handaxes, made from imported flint, and beside it, a small handaxe made from one of the quartzite pebbles which could be obtained locally, as was the case at all the other Upper Thames Valley sites. D. Bridgland (1994: 62) also makes the point about the need for good flint to be imported, probably from the Chilterns.

Hyeong Woo Lee

which can be added 4 'pointed forms' 1. And the remaining 6 are Misc. core tools (54.55%). Therefore, there are significantly more cases of non-symmetrical tools within the group of Wolvercote core tools made from local rocks. In order to obtain a straight working edge, soft-hammer flaking is highly necessary. But when the lithic quality is poor, soft flaking is very hard to apply. For instance, when flaking on poor quality quartzite, soft hammer flaking is never successful, and in the same way, poor quality flint is also very hard to work successfully by soft hammering. In consequence, a straight working edge is hard to obtain. At Wolvercote, three types of edges are present: straight edge, zigzag edge and other (un-classifiable) edge. In the case of 34 imported core tools, 29 items have straight working edges, 2 zigzag edges and 3 have 'other' edges. So the percentage for the straight edge is 85.29%. The local core tools have only 1 straight edge and the other 10 items have zigzag edges. Expressed as a percentage, only 9.09% of the local core tools have straight edges. In comparison with the imported core tools, this is a big difference, and it demonstrates that the local flint material was never an ideal source for making refined artefacts, of which straight working edges are an essential feature.

Figure 9-2:Poor quality flint from Wolvercote.

In total, 45 unbroken flint core tools from Wolvercote are listed in the Appendix. In fact, there were more core tools, but some of them are too seriously broken to measure. Of the 45 unbroken core tools, 34 are made of good quality flint, which must be imported flint, and the remaining 11 items are poor quality local flint tools. The difference shows clearly in the analysis of size, weight, typological regularity, working edge and refinement. Firstly, the size is quite distinctive between the local and imported pieces, entirely due to the quality of flint. Since the local flint is rotten, the original size of the units was small, and after the manufacturing process, the final products are relatively much smaller than the tools made of imported flint. The average length of the 34 imported core tools is 12.06cm, but the average length of the 11 local core tools is only 6.27cm. Similarly, the average weight of the imported tools is 274.94g, while the tools' weight averages only 70.91g. Technologically, the local flint cannot be flaked in a predictable way, so it is not possible to keep the shape regularity. During the whole Lower Palaeolithic period, the core tools show strong regularity as a range ofbifacial types, whether the general shape is pointed or ovate. But when the raw material has poor quality, such regularity is hard to achieve.

There is one more factor which shows clearly the inferiority of the local flint, namely the degree of refmement. When the flint is of good quality for flaking, not only abrupt retouches but also invasive retouches can be easily applied, while from poor quality flint that cannot be worked in this way. That is, a refmed final product cannot be expected. In order to measure the degree of refinement, the so called 'completeness' score can be used, as explained in Chapter I. The completeness is a combination of the number of major flake removals and fine retouches, and a higher number of points means a more refined tool. The average completeness score of the 34 imported core tools at Wolvercote is 764.71 points, but for the 11 local core tools it is only 372. 73 points. This variety of evidence combines to enable us to say that the local flint source was not good enough to make large, refined and symmetrical handaxes at all. For this reason, the tool-makers naturally had to travel to find a better source of raw material. Even though the procurement from a distant source was costly in many senses, they certainly needed to make the journey and the presence of fine large handaxes at Wolvercote shows that they did in fact do so. Although they made some use of the local material, for more refmed items they were prepared to invest their energy and time in exploiting a better non-local source.

In the Appendix, the core tools from Wolvercote are classified by type. Generally speaking, all the core tools can be divided into two groups; symmetrical forms and nonsymmetrical forms. The symmetrical forms include pointed, ovate, lingulate, elongate and ficron handaxes, all typologically classifiable as core tools. The non-symmetrical forms fall into the one class of Misc. core tools, and they are difficult to classify further in a typological sense. Of the 34 imported flint tools, 26 core tools are pointed handaxes, 4 ovate handaxes, 1 lingulate handaxe and 6 Misc. core tools. Only four of the imported flint items can be regarded as nonsymmetrical artefacts. As a percentage, 17.65% of the imported flint core tools are Misc. core tools. In case of the local flint, the relative number of Misc. core tools is much increased. The number of pointed handaxes is only one, to

There is some good evidence relating to their mode of procurement of imported flint. Nos. 616 and 624 are not classified as artefacts: they are simply natural nodules. However, they give information about the method of transportation. It is always very difficult to verify how the flint was imported, whether in the form of nodules, roughouts or finished products. Because of the presence of handaxe trimming flakes at Wolvercote, the rough out or nodule form of transport is more plausible, and Nos. 616 and 1 As indicated elsewherein this thesis. the pointed form is not same as the pointed handaxes,either technologicallyor morphologically.A pointed form is inferiorto a pointed handaxein both these ways. 114

Chapter 9: Wolvercote

624 add some definite evidence: not only are they not tools, they are not local flints at all. Fortunately, both carry some natural breaks in which the rock quality is clearly visible. In contrast to the local flint (see Figure 9-2), the rock is of good quality and neither thermal fractures nor patination occur

(see Figure 9-3). These two items make clear that that the tool-makers brought the flint in nodule form at least on occasion, though we should not necessarily assume that all the flint was transported as such.

Figure 9-3: Natural materials (imported}, No. 616 and 624.

Figure 9-4: Handaxe trimming flakes, No. 631 and 632, from Wolvercote.

Average values

Length

Breadth

Thickness

Simple flint debitages (A)

5.02cm (100.00%)

3.9cm (100.00%)

1.33cm (100.00%)

Flint handaxe trimming flakes (B)

5.11cm (101.80%)

4.1cm (105.13%)

0.86cm (64.66%)

Length

Breadth

Thickness

1.80%

5.13%

-35.34%

The Diff. ( B-A) %

Table 9-1: Metrical differences between the simple debitages and handaxe trimming flakes

115

Hyeong Woo Lee

9-3:

Debitages

(Simple

trimming flakes is quite clear. The only type of debitages which result from soft-hammer flaking at Wolvercote are the handaxe trimming flakes, and the only type of debitages made only from imported flint, is again the handaxe trimming flakes. This is a very striking coincidence. The same factors of soft-hammering and preference for imported rock are also characteristic features of the typical handaxes found at Wolvercote. The handaxes may contain some flaking done by hard hammer but they are also completed by the use of a soft hammer, and the large majority of them at Wolvercote were made not of the local flint but the imported flint. By definition, the handaxe trimming flakes are the waste product from handaxe production, especially its later stages, and it is very clear that in the surviving collections the handaxe trimming flakes at Wolvercote are very closely related to the handaxes from the site. But the simple debitage is less likely to be related to the handaxes because these flakes were not made with a soft hammer, and a substantial number of them are of local flint. Therefore, I conclude that many simple debitages are likely to relate to the manufacture of other tools such as Misc. flake and core tools, rather than to be any part of the process of handaxe manufacture.

Flakes)

The numbers of debitages are 81 in total. Of these 81 items, flint debitages total 75 and 6 are of quartzite. Of the flint debitages, 1 item is too seriously (recently) broken for use here, while the rest are in rather good condition. There are two kinds of flint debitages; simple waste flakes and handaxe trimming flakes. The criteria for making this division are the characteristic features on the dorsal and ventral surfaces: generally, the handaxe trimming flakes have numerous pre-flaked scars on the dorsal surface, and also a slightly curved surface on the ventral side (Figure 9-4).

The total number of simple flint debitages is 52, including one broken item, while there are 23 handaxe trimming flakes. The average dimensions of the 51 flint debitages (i.e. excluding 1 broken debitage) are: length 5.02cm, breadth 3.90cm and thickness 1.33cm (Table 9-1). For the 23 flint handaxe trimming flakes, the figures are; length 5.11cm, breadth 4.10cm and thickness 0.86cm (Table 9-1 ). When we compare size, length and breadth are not much different between the simple debitages and the handaxe trimming flakes. However, the thickness is obviously very different between the two. When the values of the simple debitage is considered as 100%, the length and breadth of handaxe trimming flakes are 101.80% and 105.13%. So the differences for length and breadth are only 1.80% (101.80% - 100.00% = +1.80%) and 5.13% (105.13% - 100.00% = +5.13%). On the contrary, the thickness difference between them is much bigger, 35.34% (64.66% 100% = -35.34%) for the handaxe trimming flakes. So for thickness, there is a gap of 35.34% between the simple debitages and the handaxe trimming flakes.

It is also worth pointing out that the soft-hammer handaxe trimming flakes at Wolvercote are from final finishing of the handaxes and perhaps some of them may represent re-sharpening after use. If so, perhaps the handaxes were brought to the site already roughed out and flaked at least to the stage where the maker changed from a hard to a soft hammer. In fact, there is still a possibility that nodules might have been brought as well for handaxe making, but I think the exclusive presence of soft-hammer flakes as the debris ofhandaxe manufacture makes this unlikely.

Generally speaking, then, the thickness of the simple debitages and handaxe trimming flakes is significantly different while the length and breadth are similar in the two cases. For this, one possible reason can be suggested, namely that the technology used to manufacture the simple debitages and handaxe trimming flakes might be quite different. My conclusion is that most handaxe trimming flakes were made by soft hammering, so that they are naturally thin in profile. On the other hand, the simple debitages were not made with the soft hammering technology, but hard hammer was preferred, with thicker profiles predictably resulting.

9-4:

Flake

Tools

(Flint)

In total, 33 flint flake tools are listed in the Appendix. As with the simple debitages, local and imported flint were both used for the tools. The total number of the imported flake tools is 24. Of these 24 tools, 1 item is seriously broken, while the rest are only slightly broken or unbroken. So 23 items can be measured. The average size is length 5.62 cm, breadth 3.83cm and thickness 1.36cm, and the average weight is 35.44g. The number of locally made flint flake tools is 9. The average size is length 5.75cm, breadth 4.32cm and thickness 1.71cm and the average weight is 55g. When these two kinds of flake tools are compared, the size of imported flake tools is slightly smaller than the size of the local tools. This seems very likely to reflect the respective 'values' of the raw materials. In order to economise the imported flint, even small pieces of it would be utilised. But with the local material it was not necessary to economise, so the size and weight could be bigger.

Another interesting point is the usage of rock. Of 23 handaxe trimming flakes, none of them was made of local flint: all are of imported flint. However, the case of the simple debitages is very different: out of 51, only 34 items are of imported flint and 17 items are of local flint. This is a substantial difference, neatly reflecting the fact that the flint handaxes were being made from imported, not local flint, while the local flint was used for making artefacts whose waste flakes count as simple debitages. Some of the imported flint was also used to make such tools, however.

The difference is not only in the size and weight. When we consider the intensity ofretouch and the number of major flake scars, there are significant differences. The size and weight of imported tools are not only smaller than those of the local tools, but also the intensity of retouch and number of major flake scars of the imported tools is consistently

Two important points are involved here: one is softhammering flaking, the other is the usage of imported rock. The difference between the simple debitages and handaxe

116

Chapter 9: Wolvercote

greater than the local tools. Among 11 local items, the biggest completeness point score is 300, while the smallest score for imported tools is also 300. In other words, not even a single local tool has a higher score than any one of the imported tools. The average scores tell the same story: for the imported tools, 426.09 points, and for the local tools, only 255.56 points. Thus, the imported flake tools have much more refined forms, and more attention was devoted to their manufacture.

1.9cm x 2.85cm. These two items have a comparable lack of regularity, but in terms of the size, weight and specially retouch intensity, they are simply different. No. 39 is slightly smaller and lighter than No. 554, and its completeness score is 500 points, while No. 554 has only 300 points. Although the shape of No. 39 certainly cannot be called regular, the retouches were placed in a regular pattern, particularly on the left side, but No. 554 does not have such intensive and regular retouches on the edge.

On the other hand, there is no significant difference in shape regularity between the local and imported flake tools. However, as I have argued in other chapters of this thesis, I believe that a low degree of shape regularity in flake tools is a common phenomenon right through the Lower Palaeolithic period. As I mentioned in Chapter 4, human responses are not only constrained by the specific conditions such as the distance from the source, but are also constrained by the general phenomena such as the limitations of lithic technology and tradition, which remain consistent for a long-term period of time. A specific condition such as the 'travelling cost', can be revealed by analysing particularly the intensity of retouches, but such studies do not tell us anything about the overall lithic technology and tradition. In the same way, the overall lithic technology and tradition can perhaps be understood by the long-term consistent pattern, but the latter is not an appropriate basis for understanding the variation of the retouch intensity between the local and imported tools.

This example shows how the variation of the retouch intensity depends on what type of flint is used. There are two possible reasons for this. One is an intentional economical way of behaviour, and the other is the actual flaking quality of the rocks. In a general sense, the tool-makers might consider the imported flint more valuable than other local flint, but also the local flint is so poor that it would have been difficult to make refined retouches on the edges. Even though the tool-makers will doubtless have tried to make more refined tools with the local source material, the quality of the rocks never really enabled them to succeed. I think both of these two points are significant equally. The toolmakers found that their local flint was too poor, so they brought in better quality non-local flint, and then they treated the imported flint with far greater care. As an example of the different level of retouch, No. 680 shows a significant retouch pattern (see Figure 9-6). It is a side scraper made of imported material: length 5.9cm, breadth 3.7cm and thickness 0.9cm. Usually, retouch oflocal flint flake tools is 'unifacial', i.e., only a single side is retouched; many imported flake tools also have unifacial retouch. However, No. 680 has 'bifacial' retouch. The left view is the dorsal surface of No. 680 and the right is the ventral surface, showing both faces of the bifacially worked edge in the highlighted area.

Artefact No. 39 is classified as a side scraper, and its dimensions are length 6cm, breadth 3.6cm and thickness 0.7cm (see Figure 9-5, left). It was made of imported flint. As seen in the figure, there is no shape regularity. Unlike the handaxes, it is not a symmetrical form and it cannot be described as a recurrent pattern. The artefact No. 554 (Figure 9-5, right) is a local flake tool measuring 9.4cm x

Figure 9-5: The comparison between the imported and local flake tools, No. 39 imported (left) and No. 554 local (right).

117

Hyeong Woo Lee

Figure 9-6: The bifacial retouch on artefact No. 680 (imported).

imported tools' maximum edge angle is 51.96 degrees, while for local tools it is much bigger, 63.89 degrees. In the case of the minimum working edge angle, the mean value for imported tools is 37.39 degrees, while for local tools it is 46.89 degrees. This means that the imported flake tools have much sharper edges, probably due to the better utilisation of the edges. Because most imported flake tools have more intensive edge retouch, in consequence, lower edge angles were produced. However this does not mean that all the imported flake tools have low-angle sharp edges. Even though the retouches were very intensively applied, some working edges of the imported tools show a quite high angle. Artefact number 630 has length 6cm, breadth 2.4cm and thickness 0.85cm (see Figure 9-7). As seen in the figure, especially the highlighted area (part C), the retouch is very intensively applied on a regular pattern, the retouch point score being 3002, which is certainly the one of the higher scores: except for No. 629, which has 400 points, this flake tool is the most intensively retouched tool. In spite of this good retouch, the edge angle has a maximum angle of 65 degrees and a minimum angle of 45 degrees. When compared with the average values for all the imported flake tools (Max. 51.96 degree and Min. 37.39 degrees), the No. 630 has significantly higher values.

Figure 9-7: A steep edged flake tool. No. 630.

Of all the flake tools, the most dominant type is the scraper. All kinds of scrapers are found: side scraper, double side scraper, rounded scraper, convergent scraper, and end scraper. Within these various scrapers, the side scraper (including double side scrapers) is the most common type at this site, although within this general class, the edge shapes are not all the same; in the plan view, they may be convex, concave, straight or denticulate. In the case of No. 680, the edge is straight or slightly convex. The definition of straight is not the same as straight edge in a handaxe. The straight edge in the handaxe is judged on the side view, while for the flake tool it is determined in the plan view.

The reason why such a well-retouched item has such a steep angle, is probably due to intentional purpose. The toolmakers probably tried to make as steep an edge as they could. In the figure, the retouch is heavily concentrated on the bottom part (part C). While on each side (part A and B), there is no clear sign retouch at all. The tool-makers deliberately retouched part C and made a quite steep edge on it. The point is, the tool-makers did not always tried to make a sharp edge with retouch, but sometimes a steep edge was deliberately made by flaking of the kind seen here. The skill

In terms of the edge angle, the average value of the

2 The range of retouch intensity is from 100 points to 500 points.

118

Chapter 9: Wolvercote

of the retouch certainly suggests that the steep angle was deliberate, but this is not a case of steep blunting retouch designed to create a grip.

9-5:

Flake

Tools

Acheulian. Detailed analyses of these handaxes have been given by J. Tyldesley (1986). Of the 56 core tools, the number of pointed handaxes is 25, and the remainder are non-typical ovate style bifaces, Misc. core tools, etc. The average size of the 25 pointed handaxes is length 13.41cm, breadth 7.35cm and thickness 3.45cm. Mostly these pointed handaxes are in fresh condition, but a few are not: out of 25 pointed handaxes, 20 are in fresh condition, 4 of them are less fresh and 1 is weathered.

(Quartzite)

There are 10 quartzite flake tools at Wolvercote, 7 of them being scrapers and the other 3 Misc. flake tools. The average size of the 7 scrapers is length 7.34cm, breadth 5.94cm and thickness 1.86cm, and the weight is 92.14g. The average size of the 3 Misc. flake tools is length 8.72cm, breadth 6.13cm and thickness 3.02cm, and the weight is 158.33g.

According to J. Tyldesley (1986:b), the artefacts from the site could have made by one person or a small group of people, and the occurrence implies a restricted geographical and chronological distribution. When we consider the weathering patterns of the pointed handaxe only, her view seems highly possible. From the figures just given, 80% of the total pointed handaxes fall in my category of fresh condition and an extra 4.21 % is in the neighbouring weathering pattern class, less fresh. Thus the weathering pattern is very consistent and the post-depositional process of all these pointed handaxes is likely to be one and the same. This supports the view that the pointed handaxes were made during the same period of time.

Because of the raw material quality problem, all the quartzite flake tools are poorly made, and little sign of retouch is found. In some case, it is even difficult to see whether they are natural or humanly made tools. In spite of that, some regular retouch does occur, although it is never as clear as on the flint tools. But it is good enough to establish them as artefacts. In addition, the presence of good quartzite core tools also loosely supports this diagnosis. Nicely made quartzite core tools were found at Wolvercote: a chopper, a chopping tool, a pointed handaxe, an ovate handaxe and other bifacially worked core tools. Therefore there is no strong reason why quartzite flake tools should be absent.

The next consideration is the patination pattern, and it is necessary to consider whether the patination degree and patination colour are consistent, like the weathering process. There are 4 patination degrees. Of 4 degrees, 3 patination degrees are present from 25 pointed handaxes. 12 of them are deeply patinated, 9 of them are slightly patinated and 4 of them are unpatinated. In the case of the patination colour, 8 different colours out of the possible total of 13 colours are listed, namely pale yellow, pale gray, gray, dark gray, pale brown, brown, dark brown and black. Clearly, the patination degree and colour do not show the consistent pattern that the weathering pattern has.

Nos. 520 and 521 are good examples of them (Figure 98). The size of No. 520 is length 6.15cm, breadth 5.3cm and thickness 1.4cm, and of No. 521, 6.85cm, 6.35cm and 1.5cm. The weight is 60g and 75g respectively. As seen in the figure, retouch scars are present, and these retouches made perfect working edges. Most of the retouch scars are abrupt in character.

In fact, the weathering process and patination process are basically different kinds of process. The weathering process is caused by physical alteration, especially abrasion, while the patination process is caused by chemical alteration, such as the action of water. Therefore, it is not necessary to say these two processes should have occurred at the same level of intensity. Thus, the lack of consistency of patination at Wolvercote cannot be evidence for disproving the hypothesis that the pointed handaxes were made in a single period of time. However, at least we ought to try and establish why the patination process is widely varied throughout the artefacts. According to D. Roe (1981: 118-130), it is believed that the Wolvercote artefacts were found in several different levels of the Wolvercote Channel deposits; some of them were from the lower channel filling and some from the upper channel filling. Especially at the base of the channel filling, some of tools were recovered from swirl holes made by the flowing water of the channel itself. Since the swirl holes represent action by the stream, the patination process might be deeper. On the other hand, the artefacts not found in swirl holes might have had less active contact with water. In consequence, the chemical process by water would be varied, depending in which part of the sediments the tools were bedded. That could be the main reason why the patination degree is widely varied on the pointed handaxes. There was also an iron pan deposit locally present, which might have

Figure 9-8: Quartzite flake tools, No 521 (left) and 520 (right).

9-6:

Flint

Core Tools

In total, 56 flint core tools are listed (see Appendix). Of these 56 flint core tools, most are pointed handaxes, which can be attributed in terms of traditional typology to the Late 119

Hyeong Woo Lee

had an effect on some implements but not on others.

ovate handaxes are falling into the category of the Highlands Farm ovate handaxes, we would expect to find that they have similar shapes. Table 9-2 shows the narrowness (horizontal scale) and pointedness (vertical scale). As illustrated, the narrowness range of the Highlands Farm tools is from 0.579 to 0.939 and the pointedness is from 0.34 to 1.29. And the narrowness range of Wolvercote is 0. 73 to 0.81 and the pointedness is 0.64 to 0.74. Therefore, all the Wolvercote ovate handaxes fall within the range of the Highlands Farm ovate tools. This strongly suggests that the Wolvercote ovate handaxes can be said to be typical ovate handaxes because the Highlands Farm ovate handaxes are believed to be typical.

There are 4 ovate style handaxes, whose average size is: length, 9.55cm, breadth, 7.41cm and thickness, 3.39cm. The biggest ovate handaxe is No. 58 which measures 11.95cm x 9.7cm x 3.8cm in size, and the smallest one is No. 56, whose dimensions are 8.3cm, 6.5cm and 2.9cm. In comparison with the pointed handaxes, the number of ovate handaxes is very small. For this reason, it is hard to know whether they are an independent assemblage or not. In order to decide that, two major factors can be used: one is the weathering and patination pattern, and the other is the typological and metrical point of view. The ovate handaxes at Wolvercote can be analysed by metrical methods. The main reason to apply metrical analysis is to decide whether these ovate handaxes can be regarded as typical or not. If they are not typical ovate handaxes, the presence of the ovate handaxes can be disregarded, and it can be said that the Wolvercote assemblage is of purely pointed handaxe type. For this, the D. Roe method (1968 and 1981) can be applied. As explained in Chapter 1, metrical analysis enables us to visualise and express artefact shape variation. Basically, the calculated values of LllL should be used for dividing whether they are in the broad sense cleaver, ovate or pointed types. However, we can dispense with that here, because all the 4 items are classified as ovate handaxe by typological means. Basically typology and metrical methods have the same purpose, to classify the lithic variation. However, their basic approaches are slightly different; the typology is on the basis of visual impression, while the metrical analysis depends on objective calculation. Eventually the results of these two methods should correlate closely, but a few exceptions cannot be avoided because the basic starting point is different.

It thus appears that the Wolvercote ovate handaxes are not basically different from the Highlands Farm ovate handaxes, and accordingly there are not only pointed handaxes but also ovate handaxes at the site of Wolvercote. Since the site was not systematically excavated, we do not know their relative stratigraphic positions. However, the ovate handaxes are confirmed as typical from the metrical point of view is different between the pointed and ovate handaxes. Therefore it is possible that the ovate handaxes could be chronologically separated from the pointed handaxes.

1.6

1.4 1.2

0.8 0.6

In the analysis of the 4 ovate handaxes, I am trying to combine the two approaches. So the initial classification of the type is done by a typological assessment, and then at a later stage, shape variation will be analysed by the metrical way. For comparison, the ideal assemblage from those studied in this thesis is the artefacts from Highlands Farm, since there are large numbers of ovate handaxes there, and detailed measurement results are available.

0.4 0.2 0

1.6 1.4

At Highlands Farm, there were 30 classified typical ovate handaxes, including 1 broken item (see Appendix). In appendix, they are assigned to type code 26. However, in type code 24 which is in the poorly made handaxe section, there are also 5 crudely made ovate handaxes. Even though these 5 items are crudely made, they are still ovate handaxes in typological sense. So the total number of ovate tools from Highlands Farm 35 including 1 broken one, and the corresponding number from Wolvercote is 4. The main point is whether these 4 Wolvercote tools are categorically the same kind as the 31 Highlands Farm tools 3 .

1.2

0.8 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Table 9-2: Shape diagram for ovate handaxes from Highlands Farm and Wolvercote.

The value of BIL and B 1/B2 are measured for each handaxe. The combination of them can make a graph which has X axis for BIL and Y axis for B 1/B2. If the Wolvercote

At the site of Warren Hill in Suffolk, there are two lithic types; ovate handaxes and crude pointed handaxes. In almost all cases there, the ovate handaxes have relatively fresh condition, while the pointed handaxes are rather worn

3

Originally, there were 34 items, but for 3 of them the data were missing. 120

Chapter 9: Wolvercote

(J. Wymer 1985). Wymer insisted that the crude handaxes could be derived. If that were also the case at Wolvercote, the Wolvercote ovate handaxes, which have a different weathering degree, may well be derived and belong to an earlier period than the pointed handaxes.

length 11.32cm, breadth 9.1cm and 4.15cm, and the weight is 585g. Compared to No. 636, it is a relatively small core tool, but it was also made from a similar quartzite pebble. Although the number of flake removals is only 4 or 5, they created a perfect zigzag working edge. So typical chopping tool features are present on this specimen. Amongst the quartzite tools, the best made are those in the handaxe class. The average size of the 4 pointed handaxes is 11.78cm, 7.98cm and 3.6cm. Unlike the chopper and chopping tool described above, these pointed handaxes are extremely well made (see Figure 9-9). The remaining cortex shows that all the pointed handaxes were made from quartzite pebbles. The percentage of remaining cortex is very different from that on the previously described choppers and chopping tools. On the front face, the average of cortex coverage of the choppers/chopping tools is 85%, while on the pointed handaxes only on average 16.25% of cortex is left. On the back face, this character does not change; 95% cortex is left on the choppers/chopping tools, and only 6.25% on the pointed handaxes. In fact, if we consider only the flint core tools, the W olvercote assemblage clearly represents the Late Acheulian or even Micoquian type. On the other hand, the sites Berinsfield 4 , Iffley and Stanton Harcourt are of the Mid-Acheulian types. Typologically, then, the flint core tools at W olvercote are somewhat different from the flint core tools from Berinsfield, Iffley and Stanton Harcourt. Following that observation, the question I want to consider is whether the W olvercote quartzite core tools are typologically similar to the quartzite core tools from Berinsfield, Iffley and Stanton Harcourt or whether they too are typologically different.

Figure 9-9: Quartzite pointed handaxes at Wolvercote (from 1988).

9- 7: Core Tools

For this question, one of the most interesting features of the pointed handaxes at W olvercote is their thickness. The Late Acheulian or Micoquian handaxes usually have flat forms, by comparison with the Early and Middle Acheulian handaxes. In consequence, if the quartzite W olvercote handaxes followed the typical Late Acheulian or Micoquian tradition, the thickness should be flatter than their counterparts at the other sites. To measure the tendency of narrowness, the calculated values of length/breadth can be used.

J. Tyldesley

(Quartzite)

Although only small numbers of implements are involved, a flatness comparison with some Upper Thames sites such as Stanton Harcourt and Berinsfield would be possible. At Berinsfield, the artefacts number 199, 231,232 and 233 are quartzite pointed handaxes, and numbers 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and A29 at Stanton Harcourt are quartzite pointed handaxes. The flatness ratio of the 4 Berinsfield quartzite handaxes is 1.55 and the ratio for the 8 Stanton Harcourt tools is 1.73. However, the flatness ratio of the 4 Wolvercote quartzite pointed handaxes is 2.27. From these 3 ratios, the highest score is 2.27 from Wolvercote. The value 2.27 is not merely greater than the rest, there is also a big gap between the figure of 2.27 and the others. According to

A total of 14 quartzite core tools from Wolvercote are listed in the Appendix: 1 chopper, 1 chopping tool, 4 pointed handaxes, 1 cordate handaxe, 3 Misc. core tools and 4 hammer stones. Previously, R. J. MacRae and J. Tyldesley (1988) have considered the Wolvercote quartzite tools. The artefact number 636 is classified as a chopper, and one of the interesting features is its size and weight. It is a considerably large core tool; the size is length 22.8cm, breadth 16.4cm and thickness 5.7, and the weight is 2765g. The weight makes this the heaviest tool in all my data. It is made from a large quartzite pebble, but the modification is very slight. Only a couple of major flake scars are present, and no trimming retouch is found on the piece. It is mostly covered with cortex, as one would expect with so little flaking involved. Number 510 is a chopping tool which has

4 The case of Berinsfield is slightly different from Iffley and Stanton Harcourt. Because of the presence of a few piano-convex style and Micoquian type core tools, it is difficult say the assemblage is purely Mid-Acheulian. However, it is certain that majority of tools have Mid-Acheulian affinity: see the chapter on Berinsfield, Chapter 6.

121

Hyeong Woo Lee

F. Bordes (quoted by A. Debenath and H. Dibble 1994: 132), if the ratio is greater than 2.35, it counts as flat. In fact, the Wolvercote has 2.27, which is not 'more than 2.35'. But it is quite close to that, and no other ratios are closer to the qualifying figure than the ratio from W olvercote.

which they used on flint. And all of the handaxes could have been made at the same time.

9-8: From this point, I conclude that the quartzite pointed handaxes at W olvercote are likely to have been made under the same tradition as the flint pointed handaxes. Before finally concluding this point, one thing should be considered: all the quartzite pointed handaxes were made from forms of pebble, not from nodules like the flint ones. Therefore, only if the original pebble is flat, can the final product itself be flat. For example, chopping tools made of flat pebbles are usually flat, but this cannot be regarded as an intentional design. It might be argued that the reason for the existence of the flat pointed handaxes was not the intentional design but the form of the rock that was used. In my own view, even when starting from a pebble form, these flat pointed handaxes were made on the basis of intentional behaviour. This is verified by analysing the cortex coverage. If the cortex is removed not only from the tip part but also the butt part, it can be said these tools were very heavily worked. If a large amount of cortex is still left on the butt part and these tools are still flat, such as chopping tools made of flat pebbles, the reason for the flatness is due to the fact that the selected rock was a flat pebble.

Hammerstones

At W olvercote, 4 hammer stones were recovered, artefact numbers 505, 506, 507 and 515. All of them are of quartzite in pebble form. Usually a hammer stone should be of less brittle rock than that on which it is to be used (J. Whittaker 1994: 85-87), thus locally available and tough and dense rock such as quartzite was preferred. No. 506 is the smallest hammer stone, the size being length 5.2cm, breadth 4cm and thickness 3.3cm. And the longest one is No. 507, which has length 10cm, breadth 6.8cm and thickness 5.55cm. In terms of weight, the lightest one is not No. 506 but No. 515, which weights 65g, and the heaviest one is No. 507 at 490g. Thus the size and weight is not very consistent but widely varied. According to J. Whittaker (1994: 85-87): 'As a general rule, the hammer should be lighter than the core it is striking, and the size of the hammer will also affect the size of the flake you can strike off.'

The fact with the Wolvercote pointed handaxes is that not much cortex at all is left. As seen in the figure above (Figure 9-9), No. 18, the cortex may be completely removed and the rest of them are also showing very little remaining cortex. In addition, No. 62 gives more information, since the back face of this tool has scars from deep invasive flaking. This flaking was certainly not for making the edge but for making the whole artefact more flat, and accordingly producing the plano-convex style. The plano-convex handaxes were thus not only made from flint but also from the poor quality local material, quartzite. Therefore, the flatness of these pointed handaxes is entirely the result of intentional behaviour under the tradition of the Late Acheulian or Micoquian style. The presence of the planoconvex handaxe (No. 62) affords the clearest evidence for this. Since the W olvercote artefacts were not found in a proper excavation, it is difficult to say whether the quartzite and flint handaxes are contemporary or not. But the evidence of the flat quartzite handaxes, cortex coverage and presence of a quartzite plano-convex handaxe enables us to say the quartzite handaxes were at least made under the same lithic tradition as the flint handaxes. Chronologically, all of them might have been made in a single brief period of time. As explained earlier, the Wolvercote flint pointed handaxes are highly likely to be made in a single period of time; the quartzite handaxes had the same lithic tradition as the with flint tools, and are likely also to have same chronological time span.

Figure 9-10: Two hammer stones, No. 507 (left) and 505 (right).

Because the flint for making the proper tools, especially handaxes, needed to be brought from a distant place, the tool-makers alternatively sometimes tried to use local quartzite material. When making a handaxe with such local rock, the tool-makers did apply the same lithic tradition Figure 9-11: Hammer stones from

122

J. Whittaker

(1994: 88).

Chapter 9: Wolvercote

He said he had several different size kits; small (100 to 200g), medium (250 to 500g) and large (600 to 1000g). The main reason he has several different sizes is because they have different purposes. He uses the small one for working small cores and for the initial stage of handaxe manufacture. The medium one is for striking large flakes and the large hammer is used for removing very large flakes from big cores. For the same reason, no doubt, the W olvercote hammer stones were of various sizes and weights. The toolmakers at W olvercote made various forms of tools, flake tools and core tools. Therefore, these various sizes of hammer stones would be required.

Thirdly none of the quartzite core tools at W olvercote shows any such localised abrasion pattern. If I had found such a distinctive pattern on the typical core tools, this pattern could have some other explanation, but no core tools have it. Therefore, all the hammer stones at W olvercote are indeed genuine and typical tools for making artefacts.

9-9:

Concluding

Comments

The Wolvercote site is particularly important because of the presence of the piano-convex handaxes. However, in this chapter I have concentrated mainly on other aspects, such as a detailed examination of waste flakes, flake tools, quartzite core tools and hammer-stones, since these generate a rather different kind of lithic variation perspective. From these studies, I have made suggestions concerning: the varied economical significance of the local and imported tools ( see page 269-271); the means ofraw material transportation (see page 265); the chronological significance of the presence of ovate handaxes (see page 277-278) and the presence of typical hammer stones at the site (see page 283-284).

All the hammer stones at W olvercote have a very distinctive wear pattern (Figure 9-10). This wear pattern is remarkably like the hammer stone which J. Whittaker illustrated in his book (1994: 88, see Figure 9-11). When the two figures are compared, the wear pattern is almost identical, and it could not be made by nature. In terms of abrasion, this wear pattern cannot be treated as weathering pattern. Usually the weathering affects the entire outer surface of the rock: it is very rare to find weathering occurring only on a specific area. Secondly, basically the wearing and weathering patterns are visually different.

123

Chapter

10-1:

The Artefacts

10: Highlands

of Highlands

Farm The site of Highlands Farm is placed in the Ancient Channel at Rotherfield Peppard, between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire. Research at the site was done from 1955 by J. Wymer (1961 & 1968). Later on, R. J. MacRae studied the same area since the late 1960's. Historically the site had been known and occasionally visited since last century; H. White referred to it in 1895 (quoted in J. Wymer 1968: 191), and Treacher, Arkell and Oakley in their study of the Caversham Ancient Channel mentioned two artefacts which had been labelled 1889 and 1892 1 (M. Treacher et al. 1948, quoted by J. Wymer 1968: 191).

Farm

Very numerous tools were found during controlled excavations by J. Wymer and by collection over the years. Many artefacts, which include various tool types, have been collected; these include crudely made Clactonian style flakes and cores, rough handaxes made by hard-hammer flaking, and fine ovate Acheulian handaxes (Wymer 1968, 1975). In total, 400 artefacts were analysed by me, most of them (345 pieces) are from the MacRae Collection stored at the PittRivers Museum, Oxford University, and rest (55 pieces) are from J. Wymer Collection, at Reading Museum.

10-2:

Flint

Debitages

{Simple

Flakes) Modified

fromf

Wymer 1968: 195-197

Highlands Farm

A chopping

tool

For this thesis I studied two major collections of artefacts from Highlands Farm: one is the MacRae collection stored at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford University, and the other is the Wymer collection, located at Reading Museum. In these two collections, there are in total 45 flake debitages. Of them, 34 are flake debitages made by simple direct percussion. The remaining 11 items are handaxe trimming flakes, made with clear traces of soft hammering. In the case of the simple flakes, the mean dimensions of the 34 items are 6.75cm length, 5.61cm breadth and 2.14cm thickness, and the mean value for the weight is 90.15g. The average size is thus significantly bigger than the average sizes for complete material from the other sites, as Table 101 shows. Site

High. Berin. Iflley

S.H.

Wol.

No. Length (cm)

34

Breadth ( cm)

6.75 5.61

Thickness ( cm)

2.14

Weight (g)

38 6.52

44

9

51

4.89

5.02

3.94

5.98 4.37

3.89

1.68 1.62 90.15 64.87 35.3

5.02

1.65 1.31 53.33 35.94

Table 10-1: The mean dimensions for the sizes. Ovate handaxes

Figure 10-1: Five artefacts from the same gravel deposit at Highlands Farm. From the top, a Clactonian chopping tool, crudely made by hardhammer flaking, two Acheulian handaxes made by hard hammer flaking, and two ovate Acheulian handaxes finished by soft-hammer flaking. Note: the tranchet finish scar is found in the ovate handaxe at bottom left. All the drawings are by J, Wymer.

1 Each author had worked a slightly different spot, but generally they are quite close enough to class as one archaeological area. The finds were all associated with a single gravel quarry, which was greatly enlarged over the years, though it no longer exists today.

The main reason that the debitage size from Highlands Farm is so much bigger than any others is surely just a matter of economy. Except for Highlands Farm, the sites listed in the table are all located far from the flint source, but since the lithic source, good chalk flint, was quite nearby at Highlands Farm, the tool-makers did not need to take any care about using it sparingly. But the tool-makers at the other sites certainly did, because the flint source was too far away to use the resource wastefully. As a point of detail, the artefact number 1185 measures 12.75cm x 8.15cm x 3.75cm. At the other sites, there are no flake debitages bigger than this one. At Highlands Farm, the source is so rich that there was no strong reason to make any further use of this item of

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

waste. However, at the other sites in the Upper Thames Valley it would be a different matter: such a debitage flake would probably be made into a flake tool with further retouch and trimming.

cortex left on the dorsal surfaces. Number 938 has 40% of cortex left on the dorsal surface and number 948 is covered with 80% of cortex. The total number of primary scars found on the two dorsal surfaces is only three. That is to say, these debitages are initially removed pieces, and were discarded without any thought of further modification. If the flint source had been limited, debitages of this kind would probably be hard to find.

Not all of the simple flakes were made at one single time. Especially, the weathering degree is varied. Of 33 items (34, less one for which I had no data), 9 of them are in more or less fresh condition, 23 items are in less fresh condition and one item is seriously weathered. These data suggest that the post depositional process was not precisely similar in all cases, and accordingly the period of deposition must have varied. Artefact number 930, which has length 5.1cm, breadth 5.55cm and thickness 1.1cm, has a weathering condition, being seriously abraded: even the flaking scars cannot be clearly detected in all cases. In contrast, number 909 (length 5.1cm, breadth 3.7cm and thickness 1.5cm) is in very fresh condition. The technology represented on these two debitages is exactly same, simple hard hammer direct percussion, but the weathering pattern is completely different.

10-3:

Handaxe

Trimming

Flakes

Unlike the simple debitages which are crudely detached, the handaxe trimming flakes are made by a different flaking method, soft hammering. Because the soft hammering technique was used, they are mostly thin. There are in total 11 handaxe trimming flakes, and the average thickness is 0.61cm, compared with the simple debitages, whose average thickness is 2.14cm: the handaxe trimming flakes are significantly thinner than the simple debitages. Other comparisons show us that these trimming flakes are byproducts of the fmal stage of manufacture of core tools such as ovate and pointed handaxes. There are two reasons to say they are final stage debitages; one is the complete absence of cortex, and the second one is the presence of many primary flaking scars, often also showing the characteristics of soft hammer flaking.

Also, the patination colour is not homogeneous. There are in total 13 possible different patination colours: at Highlands Farm, in all, 10 different patination colours are found (see Appendix); white, pale yellow, yellow, dark yellow, pale gray, gray, dark gray, brown, dark brown and GDBR (gray with dark brown). Since I have argued that the patination colour reflects the specific climatic conditions at the time of the making and discarding of the artefacts ( see Chapter 3), we may conclude that the debitages were made and discarded in several different sets of climatic conditions, and this implies that they are of different ages.

As regards cortex, there is not much of it left on these pieces. All 11 items were examined for the presence of cortex. Only one handaxe trimming flake, number 1187, has a small amount of cortex on the dorsal surface, occupying 20 % of it. The remainders have no cortex left at all. In comparison with the simple flaking debitages, the percentage of remaining cortex of the handaxe trimming flakes is therefore significantly less. The mean value of the cortex remaining of the simple debitages is 22. 73%, but the case of the handaxe trimming flakes is only 2.27%, almost 10 times less that of the simple debitages. If No. 1187 had happened not to survive, the mean value would have been 0.00%!

In terms of the patination degree, the evidence also supports the concept of variable chronology. The patination degrees are basically divided into four different categories; U (un-patinated), S (slightly patinated), D (deeply patinated) and VD (very deeply patinated). Artefact number 1200 has length 5.35cm, breadth 5cm and thickness 0.9cm, and artefact number 1067 has length 5.5cm, breadth 5.6cm and thickness 2.8cm: these two items were made by the same technique, simple hard hammer direct percussion. Even though they are so similar in size and lithic technique, they have completely different patination degrees, the former one being unpatinated and latter one very deeply patinated. If they were made and discarded at the same point in time, the patination degree should be homogeneous. However, all four degrees of patination are found at Highlands Farm. As with the weathering degree and patination colour, the patination degree is varied, not concentrated in one or two categories. 3 items are unpatinated, 19 items slightly patinated, 10 items deeply patinated and 2 items very deeply patinated.

It is clear from the foregoing technological evidence that the simple debitages and the handaxe trimming flakes are different in terms of the tool technology and manufacture stage. But this casts no light on whether they were made at different periods of time. We cannot assume that these two types of debitage are chronologically different just because technique and manufacture stage are different. However, since most of the debitages came from collection rather than excavation, absolute dating is not possible, and so whether they are chronologically different or not, must ultimately remain uncertain.

As regards their technological status, many debitages are the results of initial flaking. Many of them do not show many primary flake scars on their dorsal faces, and sometimes there are none. For example, numbers 938 and 948 are typical of that. Number 938 measures 5.8cm x 5.2cm x 2.55cm, and number 948 is 7cm x 4.5cm x 3.25cm. When the dorsal surface is covered with cortex or if the dorsal surface is not much flaked, this is clear evidence that the flake is the result of initial flaking. On the basis of that, I examined the number of retouches and percentage of the

125

Hyeong Woo Lee

Simple flakes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

N.

2

4

0

1

5

5

4

0

3

1

8

0

0

Trimming F.

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

N.

0

9

0

0

5 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Table 10-2: Patination colour: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared.

Un-Patinated

Slightly patinated

Deeply patinated

Very deeply patinated

Simple flakes

3

18

10

2

Trimming F.

0

1

10

0

Table 10-3: Patination degree: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared.

Fresh

Less fresh

weathered

Simple flakes

9

23

1

Trimming F.

11

0

0

Table 10-4: Weathering degree: simple debitages and trimming flakes compared.

Source sites

Barnham

Clacton

Swanscombe

Highlands

%

25%

5%

4%

3%

Non-source sites %

Iffiey

Berins.

S.H.

Wolvercote

0%

1%

1%

0%

Table 10-5: Quantities of core debitages at the various sites, here expressed as percentages of the artefact sample studied in each case.

On the other hand, the evidence from the study of patination colour and degree, and weathering degree, may offer a clue about the period of making the debitages. There are three tables above; the first is for the patination colour difference, the second one is the patination degree and the last one is for weathering degree. In the first table (Table 102), the colours of the simple debitages are distributed very widely, while the colours of the handaxe trimming flakes are concentrated in No. 3, yellow colour 2 . In the case of the patination degree (Table 10-3), it is very much the same story: the simply made debitages are represented in all four different sections; un-patinated, slightly patinated, deeply patinated and very deeply patinated. However, the handaxe trimming flakes are not distributed evenly, rather, they are strikingly all concentrated in one patination degree category, namely 'deeply patinated'. The evidence of weathering degree (Table 10-4) is similar. The simply made debitages are found in three sections; fresh, less fresh and weathered. In the fresh section, 9 items are listed, and the less fresh section and weathered section have respectively 23 and 1 items. By contrast, the handaxe trimming flakes are very highly concentrated, all 11 items belonging to one single section, fresh. From these three different tables, the same simple 2 The numbers represent each colour; 1: white, 2: pale yellow, 3: yellow, 4: dark yellow, 5: pale gray, 6: gray, 7: dark gray, 8: pale brown, 9: brown, 10: dark brown, 11: gray with brown, 12: gray with dark brown and 13: black.

conclusion can be drawn. The simple flake debitages are likely to have been made and discarded in several different periods of time, while the handaxe trimming flakes were made and discarded during one single period. There is a possibility that some of the simple debitages could have been made at the same time as the handaxe trimming flakes, but it is difficult to say that that is certainly so.

10-4:

Core Debitages

(Waste

Cores) 14 core debitages are listed in Appendix. Even though the listed items are 14, there are certainly more than that. The 14 are simply those that were in my random sample of the MacRae Highlands Farm collection. I would estimate that the core debitages from the MacRae collection alone total more than 100 items. However, in comparison with the Upper Thames sites, the 14 core debitages would still be the biggest number. Iffley and Wolvercote have no core debitages at all, and Stanton Harcourt and Berinsfield each have 3. From the economic point of view, the producing of core debitages is a waste of flint. If flint was hard to obtain, any core debitages would need to be re-used for making

126

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

other artefacts. For this reason, the sites which are located far from the source such as Berinsfield, Iflley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote show very few core debitages. The size of the debitages also supports the concept of economical behaviour. The average core debitage size ( as represented by weight) from Highlands Farm is 376.92g, while the average at Berinsfield is 198.33g, where the weight of one artefact (number 27) was only 135g. From this fact, it is realised that any core debitages abandoned at the non-source sites were too small to make into other artefacts. However, the core debitages abandoned in the source area were certainly good enough to make into other artefacts if the tool-makers had wanted. That is to say, the tool-makers in the non-source area economised their lithic resources by necessity, while the tool-makers in the source area did not have any need to consider economy of flint.

10-5:

Flake

Tools

I analysed a total of 110 flake tools. There are three parts: scraper types, Misc. flake tools and pointed forms. More than half of them are scraper types, a total of 67 items. The types of the scrapers are: convergent scraper, double side scraper, elongated scraper, end scraper, rounded scraper, side scraper, transverse scraper and scrapers with combined features. The total number of the Misc. flake tools is 40, and there are just 3 pointed forms, made on flakes. Within these three main tool classes, the flake tools which show most design regularity are the scraper types, though that is only relative to the other flake tools, and certainly does not mean that they have good repetitive shapes. Most scrapers were made by a simple hard hammer technique without much concern over the shape. After initial flaking, several retouches on the edges are a common feature. The Misc. flake tools are even worse in terms of regularity of shape.

Similar economic behaviour can also be seen if we look at the artefacts from other areas. The other Lower Palaeolithic sites such as Barnham, Clacton and Swanscombe show the same situation. All these sites are located more or less near to a flint source, and the presence of core debitages is reported. If the sites had been located far from the source area, no doubt the core tool presence would have been extremely low, as at the sites in the Upper Thames Valley. At Barnham, the listed core debitages are 23 in total: remember that I am only studying a random sample of Barnham artefacts here, and actual core debitages at the site were a much larger number. Clacton-on-Sea and Swanscombe also have significantly large numbers of core debitages.

The flake tools classified as side scrapers total 24 items. The mean value of the length is 7.7cm, breadth, 5.19cm and thickness, 2.46cm, and the average weight is 106.96g. The first impression of the scrapers is that the shape was not deliberately made, the mechanism of the shaping being simply 'trial and error' (T. Wynn 1979: 377). For example, artefact number 757 measures length 8.6cm, breadth 6.3cm and thickness 2.9cm; the ventral surface was made by a single hard hammer blow, and the dorsal surface was made with several retouches. It is clear that there was not much further flaking for the modification of the shape. But probably the tool-makers simply chose an initial flake from those which had been struck from a nodule and added simple retouches to the edges only if the flake already had a suitable shape. If the shape was not suitable for whatever purpose was in mind, it would simply be abandoned. This implies that the scrapers were not made step by step following a standard procedure. In this sense, number 757 was simply a lucky choice: fortunately, it had a suitable shape to be a scraper after the initial flaking. Any flake which did not have a suitable shape for that, would probably be abandoned without further modification. Artefact number 751 measures length 10.8cm, breadth 7cm and thickness 3.9cm. The primary flaking is exactly the same as number 757; the ventral surface is formed by the single blow which removed the flake from a nodule, and on the dorsal surface, the cortex is still left on the distal end and no refined retouch was applied. Artefact number 749 measures 8.6cm x 4.8cm x 4cm, and number 926 is 7.4cm x 4.3cm x 1.85cm. Like the previous tools, they are covered with cortex on the dorsal surface and show no refined trimming or modification flaking on either dorsal or ventral surface.

When we considering the percentage of the core debitages among the total listed items in each site, the significant difference between source and non-source sites is very clearly seen (Table 10-5). In the case of Barnham, the percentage is about 25%, and all the other source sites have bigger percentages than those of the non-source sites. None of the non-source sites has more than 1% core debitages, while Iflley and Wolvercote have none at all. Against that, the source sites have more: Clacton-on-sea has 5%, Swanscombe has 4% and Highlands Farm has 3%. There is a clear distinction between source and non-source sites, and it can be attributed to different human economic behaviour, depending on the ease of obtaining lithic materials. The patination colour, degree and weathering degree are varied, for the core debitages, in much the same way as with the flake debitages. The patination colours of the core debitages are yellow, dark yellow, dark gray, gray with brown, gray with dark brown, and black, so the different patination colours are presented. The patination degree is also widely varied, with some population of all four categories, un-patinated, slightly patinated, deeply patinated and very deeply patinated. Similarly, the distribution covers all categories of weathering degree from fresh to seriously weathered. On the basis of this evidence, we may conclude that the core debitages were made in several different periods.

This low quality of manufacturing is also found in most of the other flake tools in the site. There are in total 8 double side scrapers; the mean value of the length, breadth and thickness is 7.83cm, 4.68cm and 1.77cm. The manufacturing method is almost the same as for the single side-scrapers: a simple flaking blow, no further modification of the shape 3 , 3 The main reason why I have classedthese items and the ones that followas flaketools and not simplewaste flakesis that their shapes,edge positions and 127

Hyeong Woo Lee

and only minimal retouches. Artefact number 910, for example, measures 7.7cm, 3.9cm and 1.7cm; there are no secondary scars on the ventral surface and no further major scars on the dorsal surface, which remains fully covered by cortex on the surface. As shown in the Appendix, the cortex coverage on the dorsal surface is 95%. Only the edges have been simply retouched to provide a scraping edge. Artefact number 908 has similar features. Many of end scrapers are also poorly made flake tools: artefacts Nos. 935, 936 and 942 are classified as end scrapers. They are also covered with cortex with only minimal further retouch. The situation of the Misc. flake tools is even more dubious. There are in total 40 items, but this includes several broken tools. Most of them do not have any clear sign of further modification flaking and the placing of the working edges is very irregular.

To summarise the characteristic features of the flake tools at Highlands Farm, most flake tools completely lack any strong regularity. The tendency to irregularity is strongest in the Misc. flake tools. In terms of regularity, the core tools, especially handaxes, are a striking contrast to the flake tools. Most of the handaxes were made with a strong regularity of shape. However, the flake tools, which are very likely to be contemporary with the handaxes, notably lack morphological regularity, and this point seems significant enough to raise several questions. Why is regularity of shape only found amongst the major core tools such as handaxes? What kind of factors might account for such a difference? While the same situation is found at the other sites studied, it is particularly clear at Highlands Farm, and the fact that the flint is locally available is also significant.

Usually, the working edges of the scrapers are located in particular places which helps to define the tool type, and can be measured, but the working edges of Misc. flake tools are not systematically located. Another feature is the highly irregular shape of the working edge. Normally, scraper edges are straight, convex or concave in shape, and the shape of the edges are more or less maintained over their whole length. However, the Misc. flake tools do not have such regularity. The artefact number 950, for example, measures 6cm, 7.3cm and 1.7cm (see Figure 10-2). On the dorsal surface, the retouches are clear enough, but firstly the overall shape cannot be classified as any specific type of flake tool, and secondly the retouched edges are not sufficiently regular to be classified as straight or curved. Lastly, it is by no means clear where the working edge either starts or fmishes.

Many archaeologists have in the past taken the view that the Clactonian core tools and Acheulian core tools belong to completely different tool kits, and that these two industries may well be separated chronologically. Recently, however, a number of authors have suggested that the Clactonian artefacts are not an entity that is culturally and technologically independent from the Acheulian (N. Ashton et al. 1992). In order to support this point of view, the evidence concerning tool regularity and other factors such as tool refmement could be an important factor. By analysing the flake tools, it might be possible to argue that the Clactonian core tools and Acheulian core tools were made in the same period of time and possibly even that both of them were made by same people. The artefacts from purely Acheulian sites are largely of two kinds; flake tools and core tools. On the basis of current archaeological data, there is no doubt in these cases that the flake tools and handaxes were made at the same time (D. Roe 1981 and J. Wymer 1968). From that, an interesting point arises: why are these tools, flake tools and handaxes, technologically so different from each other? In my own view, the manufacture process of these two sets of tools is completely different. The flake tools were made by a process of 'trial and error', while the handaxes were made by a process involving pre-conception. The former emphasises only the working edge, but the latter does not only consider the edge but also considers the shape. The former involves only the use of a hard hammer, but the latter requires work with both a hard hammer and a soft hammer. In addition to this, the level of what we might call 'manufacture knowledge' is also different. When making flake tools, there is no need to learn the procedure. Without any inherent information, flake tools can be easily made, but the handaxes are different, since in order to make recurrent shapes, strong inherent knowledge is defmitely required. S. Mithen (1996: 118) said that: 'To achieve such symmetry and form, longer knapping sequences were required.'

Figure 10-2: No. 950 from Highlands Farm.

But it is clear that, even though the flake tools and handaxes are completely different elements within the Acheulian tool kit, they were made in the same period of time, as part of the same assemblage.

edge angles are suitable for scraping or whatever else. A division into flake tools and simple flakes is made in the Appendix. This classification depends on the presence of retouches and morphological features, so if there are no retouches on the edge and the flakes have no proper shape, or are too small and too thin to be genuine tools, they are classified as debitages. I have no doubt that others might reach different conclusions about some of these items, and ultimately it is a matter of personal option. Microwear analysismight have helped, but the material is not in good enough condition.

But what about the Clactonian core tools? Do they have the same character and technical features as the Acheulian

128

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

core tools? The answer is 'no'. When considering the manufacture process, morphological character, technology and manufacture knowledge, the choppers and chopping tools of the Clactonian are pretty much the same as the flake tools (Table 10-6)

In order to see whether the two sets of flake tools are different or not, the character of the two kinds of flake tools should be considered. No matter what is the kind of core tools, pointed handaxes, ovate handaxes, choppers and chopping tools, flake tools are usually found with them. And the technology of the flake tools is certainly not very much different, whatever kind the accompanying core tools may be. For example, I have studied for this thesis eight different flake tool assemblages 4 ; Barnham, Berinsfield, Clacton-onSea, Highlands Farm, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt, Swanscombe and Wolvercote. Table 10-7 relates to one aspect of them 'completeness'. As described in Chapter 1, the completeness is assessed on the basis of the combination of the number of major flake scars and the intensity of retouches. The range of the completeness scores extends from 200 to 1000. If the tool is extremely poorly made, the score for the completeness would be 200, while if it were extremely well made, the score would be 1000.

In summary, all the flake tools and the Clactonian choppers and chopping tools share the same characteristic features, while the Acheulian pointed and ovate handaxes have different features that distinguish them from all those. The next question is to see whether these flake tools really belong with the Clactonian core tools and Acheulian core tools. To reach a conclusion, we need to be sure that the flake tools really were made by the 'Clactonian' and 'Acheulian' people. We need the evidence of good systematic excavations to determine this point. If the flake tools from good quality excavations prove to be of different age, then the relationship between the Clactonian and Acheulian cannot be understood by reference to the flake tools.

From the sites in the table Barnham and Stanton Harcourt should really be omitted, because there were too few items for a proper analysis. If we omit Barnham and Stanton Harcourt, six sites were studied. As seen in the table (Table 10-7), the highest score is 414 points from Berinsfield and the lowest score is 301 from Clacton-on-Sea. There are two main reasons for concluding that the flake tools are not technologically different throughout the sites. One is the range of the completeness. Given the full range of possible completeness scores from 200 points to 1000 points, the difference between an average of 301 points and an average of 414 points is not significant at all. Secondly, there is no need to think that there is still a difference between the Clactonian industry and Acheulian industry, merely because the lowest score is for a Clactonian site and the highest is for an Acheulian site. For example, the score for the Swanscombe Lower Loam (Clactonian) is 392, which is certainly higher than the score for two typical Acheulian sites, Iffley (361) and Wolvercote (380), and is even quite close to the score of Berinsfield (414). The general closeness of the scores indicates that there is no clear technological difference between the Clactonian flake tools and Acheulian flake tools. In terms of the respective associations with the Clactonian core tools (choppers and chopping tools) and Acheulian core tools (pointed and ovate handaxes ), the flake tools are not different, whatever may be the kind of core tool assemblage. It is in fact quite clear that the flake tools that occur with both core tool assemblages are closely similar, both morphologically and technologically.

At Swanscombe, flake tools and handaxes certainly came from the same deposits. According to N. Ashton and J. McNabb (1996), during Waechter' excavations, flake tools were found in the deposits Lower Gravel, Lower Loam and Lower Middle Gravel. They also report that bifaces were found in both the Lower Gravel and the Lower Middle Gravel. The handaxes found have various shapes, some of them are ovate handaxes and others are pointed shapes (1996: 217-218). Boxgrove also yields both flake tools and handaxes: in Q2/C section, retouched flake tools and ovate handaxes were found (M. Roberts 1997). Now it is time to consider the Clactonian choppers and chopping tools. Were the Clactonian chopping tools made at the same time as flake tools? The answer is a very clear 'yes'. In the case of the Clactonian core tools and flake tools, the golf course site at Clacton-on-Sea is the one of several good examples. There are three artefact bearing deposits; Gravel, Marl and Gravel above marl. All three deposits contain the Clactonian choppers and flake tools (R. Singer et al. 1973), and these two kinds of tools were made at the same period of time. We can accordingly confirm that both Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages yield 'flake tools'. The next step is to consider whether these flake tools are different or not from those at the Acheulian sites. If the characteristic features of the flake tools found with Clactonian core tools and Acheulian core tools respectively are completely different, we could certainly argue that the people who made the Clactonian core and flake tools, might be people of a different period or people of a different kind. If however the two kinds of flake tools, which accompany Clactonian core tools and Acheulian core tools, have same characteristic features, it might be considered that all of them were made at the same period of time and by the same kind of people. According to M. Ohel (1982), the flake tools found with Clactonian and Acheulian industries are not basically different from each other, and the typical Clactonian core tools are found not only at the typical Clactonian sites such as Clacton-on-Sea, but also at the typical Acheulian sites such as Hoxne and Swanscombe. Ohel concludes that the Clactonian tools from Barnham belong to the Acheulian complex.

4 The compositionof the flake tool samplesis varied. For some sites. all the flake tools are studied (Berinsfield,Iffley,Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote), while for others a limited number of tools were used, by the taking of a proper random sample (Barnham, Clacton-on-Sea,Highlands Farm and Swanscombe). 129

Hyeong Woo Lee

Flake tool

Handaxes

Manufacture process Morphological character Technology

trial and error working edge hard hammer

Manufacture knowledge

no strong inherent tradition

pre-conception working edge and shape hard hammer and soft hammer strong inherent tradition

Choppers & Chopping tools trial and error working edge hard hammer no strong inherent tradition

Table 10-6:A general comparison of flake tools, handaxes and Clactonian core tools.

Barnham Berinsfield Clacton-on-Sea Highlands Farm Iffley Stanton Harcourt Swanscombe LG Swanscombe LL Wolvercote

Completeness 228 414 301 380 361 413 347 392 380

N. 7 29 21 108 38 8 62 12 30

Table 10-7:The degree of flake tool completeness.

Iffley 1. flake tools 2. flake tools 3. Core tools 4. Core tools

Flint Imported Local Imported Local

N. 15 23 13 16

Points 393.33 339.13 638.46 437.5

Diff.(I-L) 54.2

Wolvercote 1. flake tools 2. flake tools 3. Core tools 4. Core tools

Flint Imported Local Imported Local

N. 23 9 34

Points 426.09 255.56 764.71 372.73

Diff.(I-L) 170.53

11

200.96

391.98

Table 10-8: Comparative study using the difference of status and rock quality: flake and core tools from Iffley and Wolvercote.

The point scores for completeness can to some extent be divided. Some sites, which are located far from the flint source area, used two different kind of flint material. The sites such as Berinsfield, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote are located in non-resource areas. Basically, the tool-makers there transported their supplies of good flint, but they also used local poor quality flint material as an alternative. The points I want to make here are, 'was the manufacturing process different between a local flake tool and an imported flake tool?' and ' if there is a difference, how important is it? and 'is any difference between the local flake tools and imported flake tools the same as the difference between the local core tools and imported core tools?' From the point of view of economy of raw material, it could be presumed that all the imported flake and core tools would be better made than the local flake and core tools. Since the 'completeness' reflects manufacturing intensity, I applied this test. In order to do so, 4 main categories are required. The flake tools are divided into local

flake tools and imported flake tools, and the core tools are also divided into local core tools and imported core tools. In Table 10-8, these categories occur in the following order:

I. 2. 3. 4.

The flake tools made of imported flint The flake tools made of local flint The core tools made of imported flint The core tools made of local flint

Not all the sites are relevant for this test, since some, such as Highlands Farm and Swanscombe, are located quite near a good quality flint source. For this reason, Barnham, Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe have been omitted. Unfortunately, there is a second problem, the usage of the flint itself: some sites hardly used the local poor quality flint, so a comparative study cannot proceed. This rules out Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt. At Berinsfield, not many local flint tools were found, indeed, only one local flint tool is reported, and it was too seriously broken to 130

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

measure. In the case of Stanton Harcourt, no local flint flake tools were found. Thus in the end the applicable sites are only two: Iflley and Wolvercote. The result of the comparison is listed in Table 10-8.

superiority (Acheulian handaxes) is not something that is relevant to their entire output of stone tools: the flake tools they made were not created by the full Acheulian core tool technology. Even though the people had the ability to make refined handaxes, they employed a lower level of technology when manufacturing other tools such as the flake tools. A further interesting factor is next noted, namely that the Clactonian core tools have basically the same characteristic features as the Acheulian flake tools. This allows the possibility that the people who made the Acheulian flake tools and the Clactonian core tools may not be different people or people from a different period of time. Since the manufacture process, morphological character, technology and manufacture knowledge are all the same, for the Clactonian core and flake tools and Acheulian flake tools, it is difficult to say that Clactonian tools are an entity independent from the Acheulian. Finally Step 3 establishes that the flake tools of the Clactonian and Acheulian are not significantly different from each other. This would also support the view that the Clactonian and Acheulian are not separated chronologically.

In the table, the first and second columns are for the four divisions of the flake and core tools and for the type of flint. N. in column 3 shows the size of the sample. Average point scores are in column 4 and the difference is indicated in column 5. In the case Iflley, the imported flint tools are better made than the local flint tools, and the core tools have same story. If the difference had been a minus quantity, not a plus one, it would have mean that the local tools were better made, but this is not so (see the 5th column). In all cases, every imported tool is better made regardless of the status and quality. The important point is that the gap for the flake tools (No. 1 and 2) is much smaller than the gap for the core tools (No. 3 and 4). At Iflley, the gap between Nos. 1 and 2 is only 54.2 points, but the gap between No. 3 and 4 is much bigger, 200.96 points. Wolvercote tells the same story. The gap for the flake tools is 170.53 points, while the gap for the core tools is much bigger than that, 391.98 points. The explanation for this is that manufacturing intensity is not always the same for every kind of tool. Although the toolmakers had the ability to make better than these flake tools, simply they did not set out to achieve in them the characteristic features which are found in the core tools. Therefore we can accept that the two broad types of tools, flake and core tools which were made at the same period of time, possibly had very different manufacturing concepts.

If we were only to consider the core tools, the difference between the Clactonian and Acheulian would be in no doubt. But if we consider the flake tools as well, the question of whether there is a real difference should be reconsidered. My own view is that there is no chronological order between the Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages; there is no separation, and the Clactonian and Acheulian should be understood as a single entity; and the Clactonian and Acheulian toolkits should be regarded as a single assemblage.

In Table 10-7, we found a slight gap of the flake tools' completeness between the typical Clactonian bearing assemblage and Acheulian bearing one. I thinl( this difference is not because the lithic technologies are basically different. From the evidence of Table 10-8, this difference is not caused by the technological depth but the economical behaviour. As we have seen throughout this thesis, the better made flake tools are the imported ones. A certain amount of the difference in completeness arises because the toolmakers more economised the imported source than local source. Therefore, in terms of lithic technology, not the economy, the basic concept of the flake tools of Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages are very similar, and it would follow that Clactonian core tools, different as they are from the Acheulian handaxes, could also perfectly well have been made at the same period of time. Of my five principal sites, it is only at Highlands Farm that we have the situation of a substantial number of 'Clactonian' and 'Acheulian' artefacts occurring together in the same gravel deposit.

At Highlands Farm, the traditional view is that the gravels contained a mixture of three separate industries: Clactonian, Early Acheulian and evolved Acheulian. The artefacts are not only separated by typological factors, but also by different degrees of weathering. If we only considered the typological point of view and only the core tools, this would be regarded as chronological separation resulting from the evolution of lithic technology. Since the different weathering degrees indicate different environmental conditions, this environmental separation also implies chronological separation, and this could form the basis for a chronological sequence that matched the lithic evolution. One would suppose that the Clactonian is the oldest industry, the Early Acheulian industry is the middle one and the evolved Acheulian industry is the latest. Such an ordering of these industries at Highlands Farm would be seen as reflecting the technological sequence of the Lower Palaeolithic in Northwest Europe.

Summarising the point of view just expressed, Table 109 might be useful. There are three steps in the argument that the Clactonian assemblage is merely a part of the Acheulian assemblage. In Step 1, it is confirmed that only the Acheulian core tools are different and the rest of them, namely the Acheulian flake tools, Clactonian core tools and Clactonian flake tools, are all similar in technological terms. In Step 2, the fact that the Acheulian core and flake tools were being made at the same time is verified. Thus it is realised that the Acheulian tool-makers regularly produced two different kinds of tool kits, namely Acheulian core tools and Acheulian flake tools, at the same period of time. This is important because it reminds us that one technological

In my own view, the lithic variation at Highlands Farm actually suggests chronological separation but not necessarily any particular chronological sequence. Typological and technological evolution over a given period of time is not an adequate interpretation for the artefacts found at Highlands Farm. As argued above, Clactonian and Acheulian can be viewed as a single entity, not separated, so the lithic variation is only evidence of chronological separation, not chronological order, and some aspects of it actually reflect differing environmental conditions. There is no clear evidence for an order of types, or a sequence from Clactonian to evolved Acheulian type. We cannot place the different kinds of artefacts into any order at all. Although I 131

Hyeong Woo Lee

have argued here that there is no chronological distinction between the Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages, this does not mean that there is no chronological distinction between the so-called Early Acheulian, Middle and Later Acheulian assemblages in Britain. This is quite another matter, and its problems are not likely to be solved by use of the methods I have proposed above.

not make artefacts as good as, or better than those of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic people. This is the 'general' behavioural constraint that affected the Lower Palaeolithic people at Highlands Farm, who could only vary their behaviour within the range available to Lower Palaeolithic humans (see Chapter 4), as regards levels of tool technology, ability to transmit information, and so forth. This has been a substantial diversion, in the last few pages, from the task of commenting on the various artefact classes at Highlands Farm, but I believe it to have been an important and worthwhile one. It arose out of the description of the flake tools and their particular nature. It is now time to return to the Highlands Farm assemblage and consider the next class, which is chopping tool.

Step 1 Q.: Are the charaeteristk feaiurm different for the following 1ypcd? I. Clc1CtonianfliJke tools Z. Clc1Ctonia.nco ro tools 3. Acheu lion core tools 4. Acheu lion fliJke too Is

Answer: Yes/no Tlw charocteristic foatu ros of the C loctonian core tool and flake tools found with them om the same .. while the Acheulian cot'e too Is and the fliJke found with them are not the.same.

10-6:

Tools

A total of 35 chopping tools were listed in Appendix. The average length of the 35 items is 7.85cm and the breadth and thickness respectively average 7.82cm and 5.3cm. The average weight is 330.57g. The morphological feature of the chopping tools is not quite the same as the chopping tools from other sites such as Stanton Harcourt. The main reason for the dissimilarity relates to the use of different kinds of rock and the manner in which those rocks occur. The site Stanton Harcourt is located far from the flint source area, and chopping tools, which could be made in simple manner, were usually made with locally available rock, that is to say a quartzite material. According to N. Preston (1988: 200), the quartzite was available in discoidal and bladed pebble forms, and this is the key to the nature of the chopping tools. The quartzite was available in the form of pebbles, and several hard hammer blows can produce tools shaped like the two in the picture below (Figure 10-3, left). However, the case of Highlands Farm is slightly different. The actual technology employed was not different at all: in order to create an artefact, the same simple hard hammer flaking was used. As seen in the figure below (Figure 10-3, right), there is no further modification, no trimming flaking and no precise retouches. This situation is just the same as with the Stanton Harcourt chopping tools. Therefore, the actual technology is not different for the two kinds of chopping tools from these two sites: the reason why the shapes vary is the quality of rock and the nature of its occurrence. Unlike Stanton Harcourt, the locally available rock at Highlands Farm is in the form of nodules, not pebbles. According to B. Stainton (1994: 7-10), the Chilterns, which is the region in which the Highlands Farm site is located, yield good quality flint in the form of nodules. Since the chopping tools were made from such nodules, using simple hard hammer technique and no secondary flaking designed to modify the shape, the shape itself was created by the condition and the original shape of the nodule, rather than by deliberate human planning.

Step 2

G:;i:!: bo the flake 111ob haw -the same dating m the core 111olsin eaeh m::.:anblage? Acheulian core tools we ro made Clc1Ctonicncore tools we ro made

Chopping

and the fliJke too Isfound with them at the sane period of time. and the fliJke tools found with them at the sane period of time.

Ansfflll": Ym According to several excavation results. the fliJke tools found with the Cla.ctonicn core tools. and the flake too Is found with the Acheullan core tools aro contemporory in eoch cc1Se,

Step 3 Q3: Are the c haraeterisfie fea-turm of the two sm of flake tools different? The degree of completeness of the Clo.ctonicn flake tools and t!1e deg roe of the completeness of the Acheulian fliJke tools are not significantly different. An::ifflll":No

Tlwy aro morphologically and technologically ve ',similar.

Table 10-9: The examine the entities of Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages.

The next question is, if the variation of artefact types at Highlands Farm is not the result of a chronological sequence which also reflects lithic evolution, why should we find such variation at all during the Lower Palaeolithic period? For this question, a conclusive answer is still difficult to find. The situation could be thought of as dependent on functional reasons, so that certain given conditions could lead to manufacture of different tool kits, or different emphases within the whole combined Clactonian-Acheulian range. The tool-makers of Highlands Farm were trying to cope with their own given environmental conditions, on a number of different occasions. For this reason, the results of their behaviour were varied. However they had a certain general limitation: whatever local conditions might be, they could

For this reason, I conclude that any morphological difference in the chopping tools at all the sites I studied would be due to the rock quality and mode of occurrence. In order to verify the significant importance of the rock quality and shape, an in-depth lithic analysis is required. 132

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

Stanton Harcourt locally available rock: Quartzite. Status: Pebble forms

Highlands Farm Locally available rock: Flint. Status: Nodules

Resulting Shape

Resulting Shape

Figure 10-3: Chopping tools made by simple direct percussion: variation of tool forms according to raw material.

Flint (nodule) zigzag edge N. straight edge N.

Berins. 1 0

High. 31

Quartzite (pebble) zigzag edge N. straight edge N.

Berins. 11

0

S.H.

4

Iffiey 0 0

High. 1 0

Iffiey 1 0

S.H.

2

0

8

1

Wolver. 0 0 Wolver. 3 0

Table 10-10: The working edge variation of chopping tools.

Figure 10-4: Nos. 1163 and 1111 (chopping tools).

Table 10-10 examines the working edge forms of chopping tools. The first part of the table is for flint and second one is for quartzite. As explained above, the overall artefact shapes are very much influenced by the rock used. However, the more important question is whether the working edge itself, which reflects the actual usage of the tool, is different or not. In the study area, the flint is usually

in nodule form while the quartzite is in pebble form. Therefore the division of flint and quartzite is essentially a diversion between nodule forms and pebble forms. In the table, in the flint section, most chopping tools have zigzag working edges: except for the Highlands Farm, all the sites have only zigzag chopping tools. When we look at the quartzite section, again the dominant working edge is of

133

Hyeong Woo Lee

zigzag form: all the quartzite chopping tools from Berinsfield, Highlands Farm, Iflley and Wolvercote have zigzag edges. The only exception is a single straight-edged chopping tool from Stanton Harcourt, but the rest of those from the site show zigzag edges. From these data, while we can certainly say that, while the overall shape of chopping tools differs because of the rock, the actual function for usage does not seem to be different, because they all have the same type of working edge.

10- 7: Pyramidal

Core Tools

20 pyramidal core tools in total were listed in Appendix. According to J. Wymer, these tools, which were made with a distinctive, primitive method of working stone, should be classified as choppers and chopper cores, and they are usually found in the Clactonian culture 6 (J. Wymer 1968: 38). Any tools shaped in this way (see Figure 10-5, especially No. 238 and 239) should be classified into this culture.

As regards the chronology of the manufacture of these chopper/chopping tools, I do not think they were all made in a single period of time, or that they were made under a single lithic tradition. Since most chopping tools have been found at Clactonian sites, the presence of choppers/chopping tools is attributed to Clactonian culture. However, evidence against that has come from various recent excavations, such as High Lodge and Boxgrove, and also from my own flake tool analyses. That is to say, the Clactonian and Acheulian are not completely separated lithic traditions, so the presence of choppers/chopping tools does not exclusively imply the presence of a distinctive Clactonian. In other words, chopping tools could be made at any time during the Lower Palaeolithic period. At sites where Acheulian handaxes are dominant, some choppers and chopping tools are often also found. A different line of evidence also shows us that they are an integral part of more than one tool-kit: weathering degree, patination degree and patination colour. Artefacts Nos. 1111 and 1163 provide good examples of this. No. 1111 measures length 7.75cm, breadth 8.4cm and thickness 5.7cm, and No. 1163, 8.05cm, 6.85cm and 6.2cm (Figure 10-4). As can be seen in the figure, the tool technology is consistent; simple direct percussion and no further retouches on either piece. But the weathering degree, patination degree and patination colour are completely different. No. 1111 has colour pattern GDBR and, when translating colour darkness, it is code 125 , while No. 1163 has gray colour, code 6. Also the patination degree is different in each case. 1111 is classified as a slightly patinated item, while 1163 is unpatinated. The weathering degree confirms the difference between them. No. 1111 is in weathered condition but No. 1163 is in fresh condition. Since these three factors are all a reflection of different environmental conditions, it would be hard to argue that the two tools were made at the same period of time. Especially the weathering degree is important, because the major core tools at the site have mainly two different weathering degrees: the Clactonian and Early Acheulian style artefacts are weathered and those of the evolved Acheulian style are in fresh condition (see Chapter 3). On the basis of that, it could be thought that No. 1163 might have been made with the evolved Acheulian core tools because it has a fresh condition, while No. 1111 could have been made with the so-called Clactonian core tools.

From .J. Wymer (1968:

316)

Fig. 95 {= po.g,r_n6} (,/;1'1,mis.n!1:du.ttr_y - Lirlk Thwn;r:J;, 2g8-41 Chci'f,tr-a:re;. (B;. (J. J,_ W1:'1UrCM!.)

Figure 10-5: Chopper cores, a Clactonian site at Grays Thurrock, Lower Thames as illustrated by J. Wymer (1968: 316); the numbers are his, and do not correspond to numbers in my own Appendix.

If we follow his definition strictly, core tools of this particular kind would not be distinguished from the tools which I already classified as choppers and chopping tools, but it seems to me that there are several differences between the typical choppers /chopping tools and tools like those shown in the figure above. I have therefore classed them as pyramidal core tools. Morphologically, they are of single pyramidal shape or bi-pyramidal shape. In spite of their undoubted technological similarity to the choppers and chopping tools, a number of factors make them distinctive, notably the distribution of remaining cortex, and the way in which their occurrence seems to be related to the nature of the flint supplies available at sites where they are found. I will explore these two points further.

Other specific examples could be given, but enough has perhaps already been said in this chapter to show that it is not necessary to consider that the choppers/chopping tools were all made only within a supposedly separate Clactonian culture as part of its core -tool component.

First of all, the basic technology applied is not different between the choppers/chopping tools and the pyramidal core tools. When examining the scar pattern on these items, we find that both types were made with simple direct percussion, and the working edges of the pyramidal core tools are mostly zigzag shapes like those of the typical choppers and chopping tools. I counted the number of major flake scars on the artefact surfaces. Among these 20 items, the maximum numbers of flake scars is 20 (on artefact No. 1131) and the minimum number is 6 (artefact No. 1140). The average number of scars is 11.95. The choppers and chopping tools were also analysed; data for 35 items is given in Appendix.

5 For details of the colour codes, see chapter 2, 'Patination and weathering'.

6 Although ]. Wymer called these pyramidal core tools 'conical chopper-cores', the morphological features are exactly same as the pyramidal core tools that I called in my thesis.

134

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

The maximum number of major flake scars was 20 (artefact No. 1163), which is the same figure as for the pyramidal core tools, and the minimum number was 4 (artefact No. 1117), the average value being 10.77. These data show that the number of flaking episodes is not very different between the two tool classes: in other words, the manufacturing technology is basically the same.

even smaller, only 4.62% of cortex being left. To summarise, the significant points of similarity and dissimilarity for the tool types at Clacton-on-Sea are exactly same as at Highlands Farm, and this suggests that the characteristic patterns are likely to be consistent everywhere, though ideally one would wish to analyse some other large samples to be sure of this.

Since the nature of the working edge directly reflects the usage of tools, I also examined the working edge. Two aspects of edge morphology can help us to understand the usage; the edge form and edge angle. In terms of the edge form, essentially two types, straight and zigzag edge, are found at the site. Of 35 chopper and chopping tools, 31 items have zigzag edges and the remaining 4 have straight edges. In the case of the pyramidal core tools, 15 items out of 20 have zigzag edges and 5 have straight edges. Therefore, the distribution of edge shape suggests that there is no significant difference between them. In edge angle, the choppers and chopping tools have an average angle of 82 degrees, and the pyramidal core tools have 82.1 degrees, virtually identical. Since the working edge form and angle are so similar, the usage of these two types of tools seems unlikely to be very different. In spite of this similarity, however, there is one significantly different point, the cortex coverage.

If the tool-makers had just wanted to make a zigzag working edge, it would not have been necessary to remove most of the cortex from the tools. But in fact, they did try to remove most cortex of the tools, for some unknown reason. On the basis of that, it is difficult to say the typical chopper/chopping tools and pyramidal core tools had precisely the same purpose as artefacts. It is more useful to think that these two types, choppers/chopping tools and pyramidal core tools are related forms: they are generally but not exactly the same kind of tools. It is still unlmown what was the actual purpose of pyramidal core tools, but they could have had some slightly different purpose from the ordinary choppers and chopping tools. Another interesting point about pyramidal core tools is the relationship between their presence and the nature of the flint resources. The sites that yield pyramidal core tools amongst those I have studied in my research are Barnham, Clacton-on-Sea, Highlands Farm and Swanscombe. And the other sites, those in the Upper Thames region, such as Berinsfield, Stanton Harcourt, lfiley and Wolvercote do not have them. The only exception is a single artefact, No. 93 from Stanton Harcourt. Its dimensions are: length 4.5cm, breadth 6.85cm and thickness 6.9cm. It is actually a pyramidal core tool very similar to tools found at Highlands Farm, but the main point is that it was not made of flint but of locally available quartzite (Figure 10-6). It is interesting that this particular pyramidal core tool was not made of the 'expensive' imported flint but of an 'inexpensive' locally available rock, quartzite. Otherwise, there is clear evidence that the manufacture of the pyramidal core tools is strongly related to the easy availability of abundant supplies of good flint.

The cortex coverage is measured on both sides, front and back. The average cortex remaining on front side of the choppers and chopping tool is 31% and on the back side it is 18.57%. However, for the pyramidal core tools, remaining cortex average only 8% on the front side and 3.75% on the back side, far lower figures when compared to the choppers and chopping tools. It is a general feature that pyramidal core tools are not much covered with cortex, that is to say, the same pattern is also found at other sites. Most sites which yield both choppers/chopping tools and pyramidal core tools show the same technology but different cortex coverage for the two types. At Clacton-on-Sea, there are 27 choppers and chopping tools and 14 pyramidal core tools. As regards the edge form, all of them have zigzag edges regardless of the type, that is to say, there is absolutely no difference in edge form here between the choppers/chopping tools and pyramidal core tools. Basic flaking technology is again the same.

The significance of this last point only becomes clear if we look at the whole distribution of flint pyramidal core tools and consider all the sites studied. All the sites which yield flint pyramidal core tools are located in flint resource rich areas and the preferred form of raw material is especially flint of nodule type. On the other hand, the sites not having any of these tools are located far from the richresource areas. There is only a simple instance of a locally available source such as quartzite being used as an alternative. Therefore manufacture of the pyramidal core tools seem entirely dependent on the abundance of the resource and even more on the presence of flint in the form of nodules.

This again suggests that manufacturing technology and assumed function (even if not precisely identified) are not different between choppers/chopping tools and pyramidal core tools. However, at Clacton-on-Sea, just the same as at Highlands Farm, the cortex coverage is different between them. In the case of choppers/ chopping tools, the amount of cortex left averages 45.37% on the front side and 32.59% on the back side. Against that, the pyramidal core tools have only 10.36% on the front side, which is a lot less than the choppers/chopping tools, while the figure for the back side is

135

Hyeong Woo Lee

Figure 10-6: Pyramidal core tools, Swanscombe Lower Loam (No. 1433, left), Swanscombe Lower Gravel (No. 334, centre) and Stanton Harcourt (No. 93, right). Unlike the two others, the latter is made of quartzite.

Figure 10-7: Artefacts numbers 460 (left) and 820 (right) from Reading Museum.

If the nature of the raw material sources is the main factor in understanding these tools, another factor which needs to be considered is cultural tradition, because most pyramidal core tools have been found with the Clactonian artefacts. However in my view this is not something of great significance, since I have argued in this chapter that the Clactonian type of assemblage is not an independent entity. As I explained earlier in this chapter, the so-called Clactonian is not a valid stage with its own place in the chronological sequence, but is better seen as the outcome of environmental adaptation. Therefore, the presence of the pyramidal core tools cannot simply be attributed to an

independent Clactonian culture. For what it is worth, the single quartzite example at Stanton Harcourt would have to be said to occur in an Acheulian context. In summary, technologically and functionally, the pyramidal core tools are not basically different from the ordinary choppers/chopping tools. But the tool-makers were evidently deliberately trying to make a rather different outer shape, and a tool type with less cortex present. Even though

136

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

pointed handaxe, showing much the same features.

their precise purpose 7 is unknown, the pyramidal core tools cannot be treated as exactly the same category as the choppers/chopping tools. In addition, they seem to reflect the presence of a particular resource in the immediate area, and that resource appears to be flint in the form of nodules.

10-8:

Handaxes

(Pointed

Generally speaking, with such pointed handaxes, there is little or no clear evidence for soft-hammer flaking technique, and mainly they were certainly made with only simple hard hammer work. Therefore, the pointed handaxes lack symmetrical forms and their working edges are not straight. If they had been retouched by careful trimming, their edges could have been straight, but many of them have zigzag working edges. For the 39 artefacts, except for one item that was too broken (No. 1122), the working edges are analysed, and fell into three main groups; straight, zigzag and intermediate. The percentages of these three patterns are; 34.21 % for straight edge, 52.63% for zigzag edge and 13.16% for intermediate edge. Thus the dominant edge type is not the straight edge but the zigzag edge. Compared to sites 8 in the Upper Thames Valley, the pointed handaxes at Highlands Farm are more crudely made. For instance, the pointed handaxes at Berinsfield have all straight edges and all the Stanton Harcourt pointed handaxes are straight edged except only one item. Thus these are inferior in workmanship to pointed handaxes at any of my sites from the Upper Thames valley, and this is all the more striking because there was no shortage of good quality flint at the site. In a traditional typological sense, they can be considered as Early Acheulian type handaxes.

and

Ovate) As various authors have previously recorded, there are mainly two types of handaxes at Highlands Farm: crudely made pointed handaxes and ovate handaxes. Unlike my other sites, in the Upper Thames Valley, Highlands Farm does not yield Mid-Acheulian handaxe types. Following the definition of J. Wymer (1968), there are many type D, E, G, and K handaxes, which are his Early and Late Acheulian handaxes types. But type F, which represents the MidAcheulian pointed handaxe tradition, is not found. I studied a total of 207 core tools at Highlands Farm, mostly made of flint. The number of flint core tools was 203, and the other 4 were of quartzite. Of the 203 flint core tools, 72 in total are handaxes, the rest being chopping tools, pyramidal core tools, cleavers and Misc. core tools. Thus there are large numbers of core tools which are not handaxes at the site. Of the non-handaxe core tools, many do not have regularised forms, notably the Misc. core tools, of which there are 52.

Turning to the measurement of completeness, the average points scores for the Highlands Farm flint pointed handaxes are much less than those of other sites: that is to say, although they can be classed as pointed handaxes, the degree of completeness is much lower in the case of the Highlands Farm implements. The average score for the 38 items studied is 528.95 points, while Stanton Harcourt, Berinsfield, Wolvercote and Iflley scored much higher. The comparable artefacts (i.e. pointed handaxes) at Stanton Harcourt are 29 items, excluding broken implements and those with missing data, and their average score is 796.55. Berinsfield has 10 items and they scored on average 840. At Wolvercote, the total of relevant artefacts is 24, and their average score was 770.83 points. At Iffley the number of pointed handaxes is relatively small, only 7 items, but the average completeness score is still much higher than that of Highlands Farm, 714.29 points. These data clearly show once more that the pointed handaxes at Highlands Farm were poorly made.

A total of 39 crudely made handaxes are listed in Appendix. There are three more handaxes, which were too seriously broken to classify the type, and these three were removed from the sample. Most of them (27 items) are from the MacRae collection stored at the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Centre (Pitt-Rivers Museum) in Oxford, but the rest (12 items) were part of the excavation collection made by J. Wymer. They are stored in Reading, at Reading Museum. Unlike the sites in the Upper Thames Valley, Highlands Farm has no proper Mid-Acheulian handaxes. Most of the pointed handaxes in the sample are crudely made in comparison with those from the Upper Thames Valley sites. For example, in Figure 10-7, artefact number 460 is classified as a crude pointed handaxe. The size is length 16.8cm, breadth 9.2cm and thickness 6.7cm. It can indeed clearly be seen to be a crudely made pointed handaxe. There is no trace of soft-hammer flaking, and it is by no means a perfectly symmetrical form. Further, the preferred flaking method is not invasive but a more abrupt type of flaking: since abrupt flaking is used, the scars on the surface are very deep and big. Because the detached flakes were so thick, it was not possible to modify the shape by any further flaking. Another pointed handaxe is also shown in the same figure, No. 820, which has 15.2cm length, 7.7cm breadth and 5cm thickness. Like No. 460, No. 820 is also a crudely made

At Highlands Farm, another major core tool type is ovate handaxes. In total, 30 ovate handaxes were studied, some of them are from the MacRae collection (8 items) and the rest from Reading Museum (22 items). Of these 30 tools, one item was seriously broken, but the remaining 29 were in reasonable condition for measuring. Detailed information is given in the Appendix, and the following is a general summary. Like any typical ovate handaxes, they were made by both hard and soft hammer blows, with the result that the working edges are well trimmed and straight in the side view. Associated with these ovate handaxes, examples of twisted cutting edges and the tranchet finish are also found. Out of 29 ovate handaxes, only 1 item has a zigzag edge and 2 items have intermediate edges. Thus the rest of them, 26 ovate handaxes, show well made straight working edges: in

7 The definition of purpose in this context is some sort of intentional behaviour, whether its origin is cultural, functional or of some other kind.

8 In this case, Berinsfield, Iffley, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote.

137

Hyeong Woo Lee

percentage terms, 89.66% of them have straight edges. In comparison with the pointed handaxes from the site, the ovate handaxes have refined forms and represent the use of more refined technology, soft hammering. Their degree of refmement is also found by their completeness score, the average of 7 51. 72 being certainly much higher than that for the pointed handaxes. Most of them are of cordate or ovate shape, with symmetrical forms.

they cannot outnumber the single remaining category, that is to say the tools which are in fresh condition. Thus for the ovates the dominant weathering pattern is not the non-fresh tools but the fresh tools, and we can say that the weathering patterns of the pointed and ovate handaxes are different, being very clearly divided into non-fresh and fresh artefacts respectively. If we next consider the patination degree, the pattern that emerges tells the same story. It will be recalled that there are four categories of patination: 'unpatinated', 'slightly patinated', 'deeply patinated' and 'very deeply patinated' patterns. In the case of the pointed handaxes, slightly patinated items are very strongly dominant, the percentage being 92 .11% of the total number of artefacts. Against that, the percentage of slightly patinated ovate handaxes only reaches 41.38%, and the commonest category is not 'slightly patinated' but 'deeply patinated' (55.17%). The patination colour also suggests that the two types of tools are chronologically separated from each other. The cumulative chart shown in Figure 10-9 is able to show the distribution preference of the patination colours for the two groups of handaxes. There are 13 different colours, lower numbers of colour code such as 1 and 2 being generally correlated with deeply patinated condition, while the higher value of codes such as 12 and 13 indicate a totally unpatinated or only very slightly patinated condition. The figure below expresses the cumulative percentage of these colour codes. In the figure, the graph placed on the lower part, is for the pointed handaxes, and the graph placed on the upper part is for the ovate handaxes. It can be clearly be seen that the pointed handaxe colour codes are highly concentrated between 11 and 12, since the graph ascends steeply only after the code 10. However, the ovate colour codes are somewhat more widely dispersed compared to the pointed handaxes, resulting in a less steep angle on the graph, with points of concentration that are different from the case of the pointed handaxes: the latter are concentrated on the codes 11 and 12, as we have seen, but the ovate handaxes are concentrated on codes 5 and 6.

As an example, artefact number 518, from Reading Museum, is shown in Figure 10-8: it measures length 10.9cm, breadth 7.3cm and thickness 2.8cm. Compared with any of the pointed handaxes at Highlands Farm, it is an extremely well made handaxe. First, there is no cortex left, while on most of the pointed handaxes, some cortex does remain. As before, cortex coverage is measured in two parts, the front and back sides. For the 38 pointed handaxes, the remaining cortex on the front side averaged 17.76% and on the back side, 9%. However, the cortex coverage on the ovate handaxes is much lower than that: from 29 ovate handaxes, 1.2% on the front side and 3.28% on the back. This cortex coverage difference reflects more modification of the ovates, for better shaping and a finer working edge. Artefact number 12 is also shown in Figure 10-8, measuring 10.6 cm in length, 8.9cm breadth and 3.3cm thickness. It has no cortex left on either side. Like No. 518, it was knapped by soft-hammer flaking technique and invasive retouches were applied. Unlike these two, No. 5 (see Figure 10-8) does have remaining cortex, but cortex coverage, as we have just seen, in rare on the ovates by comparison with the pointed handaxes at the site. An important feature of this ovate handaxe is a tranchet blow. At Highlands Farm ovate handaxes, outstanding technical features are twisted cutting edges and tranchet blows. As seen in this picture (No. 5 in Figure 10-8), a soft-hammer made tranchet scar is present: for another example, see Figure 10-1. It can be said that the tranchet finish is typical feature of this ovate assemblage. At Boxgrove, Warren Hill and High Lodge, there were also plenty of uses of tranchet technique 9 (D. Roe communication). From this point of view, these two types of handaxes at Highlands Farm are basically different in terms of their lithic technology, tool regularity and refmement. The main point, which I want to consider next, is whether these two types are chronologically separated. If we take at face value the evidence of typology and technology, we might well be tempted to conclude that these two types are separated by a substantial period of time. Moreover, there is additional evidence to support this in the weathering and patination patterns. Table 10-11 gives the evidence relating to the weathering patterns. In the case of the pointed handaxes, the dominant patterns are the 'less fresh' and 'weathered' categories. Less fresh tools are 52.63% and weathered tools are 42.11%. In total, these two patterns account for 94.74%. In other words, non-fresh items make up nearly 95% of the total of pointed handaxes. On the other hand, the dominant weathering pattern for the ovate handaxes is different. Nonfresh items ('less fresh' and 'weathered' tools) are only 37.93%: even when the two categories are added together,

From these three aspects; weathering degree, patination degree and patination colour, it seems likely that these two types of tools have been deposited in different conditions, and, in consequence, that they are chronologically separated. However, it is not possible to say the pointed handaxes were made earlier than the ovate handaxes. We know from the work at Boxgrove, High Lodge and Warren Hill that finely made ovate handaxes very like those of Highlands Farm are some of the earliest of British handaxes, because there is evidence at all these sites for a pre-Anglian age (J. Cook et al. 1991, N. Ashton 1988, M. Roberts et al. 1994 and M. Roberts et al. 1997). At Boxgrove and High Lodge, the ovate handaxes occur by themselves, but at Warren Hill they are accompanied by roughly made hard-hammer handaxes, many of which are pointed (D. Roe 1981: 113). Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that the ovate handaxes from Highlands Farm were certainly made after the pointed handaxes manufacture, even though I have often in this thesis used the traditional typological classification 'Late Acheulian' when referring to them.

9 Since MacRae collection does not include many examplesshowing these features,twistedcutting and tranchet fmish,I did not make a formal analytical study of them.

In summary, the chronological separation between the pointed handaxes and ovate handaxes has been verified by

138

Chapter 10: Highlands Farm

various methods: typology and lithic technology help us to understand the variation, and patination and weathering patterns are also good methods to provide generally supporting evidence. Although these patterns cannot in themselves suggest a precise date for manufacture or deposition of the tools, it is still useful to know whether these two types were made and deposited in the same period of time or not. In fact, the application of these tasks to the Highlands Farm handaxes should add to our confidence in the reliability and usefulness of the analyses of these three kinds of pattern. Since the typology, technology and these analyses all point to the same answer, we may conclude that patination and weathering analysis can also be useful for the study of other assemblages at other sites.

thirteen. The case of the ovate handaxes is similar. All the three different weathering degrees are represented, although the pattern is not evenly distributed; also, three out of four patination degrees are found and eight different patination colours out of thirteen. For example, artefacts Nos. 482 and 1121 are both pointed handaxes. No. 482 is 9.3cm in length, 6cm in breadth and 3.45cm in thickness, while the dimensions of No. 1121 are length, 14.4cm, breadth, 9.3cm and thickness, 6.3cm. In spite of their being the same type of tool, the weathering and patination condition is different: No. 482 is in 'less fresh' condition, but No. 1121 is 'weathered'. The patination degree is also different; No. 482 is unpatinated, while No. 1121 is slightly patinated. The patination colour of No. 482 is dark gray, but that of No. 1121 is brown. In the case of the ovate handaxes, similar variations can be seen. The artefacts Nos. 737 and 739 are good examples. Both of them are well made ovate handaxes: No. 737 has length 11cm, breadth 7.9cm and thickness 3.5cm, and No. 739 has length 9.6cm, breadth 6.2cm and thickness 2.7cm. Although they are similar ovate handaxes, their weathering and patination condition are different from each other. First, No. 737 is in fresh condition, while No. 739 is in weathered condition. Secondly, the patination degree of No. 737 is slightly patinated, but that of No. 737 is deeply patinated. Thirdly, the patination colour of No. 737 is dark gray, unlike that of No. 739, which is gray.

So far, then, the chronological separation between the pointed and ovate handaxes has been verified. However, it is still unknown whether each assemblage was made in a short period of time or not. Within the whole pointed handaxe cultural period, the tool-makers could have this site visited more than once. Equally, the tool-makers who worked within the ovate handaxe culture or tradition, could have made their part of the assemblage at several different periods of time. Without the help of scientific and objective methods, it is difficult to know what the actual circumstances were. But the only available methods at Highlands Farm are the patination and weathering analyses. Although there are limitations, since the patination and weathering analyses do not offer precise dating, and revealing the chronological sequence is equally impossible, it is still useful that they can give us a firm impression of chronological separation.

These examples suggest that not all the pointed handaxes and ovate handaxes of Highlands Farm were made, discarded and deposited in the very same environmental context. Even though I found a generally consistent pattern from each assemblage, it does not mean that every pointed handaxe and every ovate handaxe was made or deposited in exactly same environment condition. From this point of view, within what I have referred to as the pointed handaxes culture, the tool-makers could have visited the site more than once, and the ovate culture people could have done the same.

Amongst the pointed handaxes, the weathering pattern does not fall entirely into one single group, since there are a few fresh items as well as the large number of less fresh and weathered items. In a strict sense, it can certainly be said that not all the pointed handaxes have exactly the same weathering pattern. Indeed, three kinds of patination degrees out of four are present, and so are seven colour codes out of

Figure 10-8: Three ovate handaxes from Highlands Farm, No. 518 (left), No.12 (centre) and No. 5 (right).

139

Hyeong Woo Lee

Total N. 38 (100%) 29 (100%)

Pointed H. Ovate H.

Fresh Less fresh Weathered 2 (5.26%) 20 (52.63%) 16 (42.11%) 18 (62.07%) 9 (31.03%) 2 (6.90%)

Table I 0-11: The weathering patterns of the pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Fann.

u

Total applied N. 38 (100%) 29 (100%)

Pointed H. Ovate H.

s D 35 (92.11%) 1 (2.63%) 12 (41.38%) 16(55.17%)

2 (5.26%) 1 (3.45%)

VD 0 (0%) 0(0%)

Table 10-12: The patination degree of pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Fann.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Figure 10-9: Distribution of patination colours in pointed and ovate handaxes at Highlands Fann.

10-9:

different, it seems that these two types were made in a similar technological manner (see page 315). An in-depth metrical and morphological analysis helped to confirm that the pointed handaxes at Highlands Farm are poorly made, unlike those at other sites in the Upper Thames Valley (see page 319-320). On the basis of lithic typology, patination and weathering analysis, the chronological separation between the so-called Early Acheulian and Late Acheulian assemblages at Highlands Farm can be demonstrated although the question of their phases in the chronological sequence cannot be properly answered with these methods (see page 323-325).

Summary

In comparison with other sites from the Upper Thames Valley, the artefacts of Highlands Farm have very distinctive features in terms of usage of rock, different lithic types and quantity of artefacts. The site offered a good chance to make an in-depth study of these things and a comparison of the sites. Many aspects of the assemblage were found to be distinctive. As regards the waste cores and flakes, the size of them are usually bigger than at the other sites, and waste cores are very numerous (see pages 288-289 and 293-295). This relates to the proximity of the flint source area. The study of patination and weathering suggested a chronological distinction between simple waste flakes and handaxe trimming flakes (see page 291-293). The probability that the Clactonian is an integral part of the Acheulian assemblage is also indicated by the analysis of characteristic features of flake tools, and of Clactonian and Acheulian core tools (see page 298-309). And the technological similarity between the chopping tools and pyramidal core tools was also examined. Even though the shapes of them and cortex coverage (see page 315-316) are

In this chapter, as with the other chapters dealing with my principal sites, I have simply selected various aspects of the stone tool assemblage for comment, and in some instances have followed up particular points of interest in more detail, taking other sites into consideration for the purpose of comparison. All the detailed information and classification of the artefacts is contained in the Appendix, and I have not repeated in Chapters 6-10 the information about the assemblages. One final brief chapter of general conclusions now remains.

140

Conclusions

Throughout my work, I have considered five selected Lower Palaeolithic sites in the Upper and Middle Thames Valley: Berinsfield, Iffiey, Stanton Harcourt, Wolvercote and Highlands Farm. Most artefacts from these sites are not from recent excavations, except for one single case, the Stanton Harcourt Channel. Therefore, precise geological information is not available. However, this sad reality provides the impetus for using other approaches, and makes all the more important the evidence of the artefacts themselves. The study is of objects made by humans in the remote past. Clearly, 'the artefacts are the result of human behaviour a long time ago'. I can state this as a general truth, but can I answer why they made them and how they used them? These questions are very hard to answer. The result of human behaviour is always complex, being conditioned by individual intention, society and a given environment (Chapter 4). Therefore, clearly, in the context of archaeology, human behaviour is very difficult to understand. We cannot be sure that the tool-makers' thoughts, when they made the stone tools, will have been exactly the same as our thoughts. The aspect of the tools is completely different between the tool-makers and us. They made them simply as tools: the tool-makers made them for hunting, butchering and other tasks. But we are looking at them not as they were made, but to try and achieve understanding. In order to understand that, I have applied various methods: geological, typological and morphological analysis, metrical analysis, and patination and weathering analysis (Chapters 1, 2 and 3). Before that, I considered some theoretical aspects. It seemed to me that a poorly made hypothesis may mislead the archaeological interpretation. Therefore, I have tried to generate my own theoretical point of view (Chapter 4). In this, I laid emphasis on three particular factors, which are general circumstances, specific contexts and human intentions, and it is these that have generated human behavioural results. In other words, I cannot rely on any simple and straightforward hypotheses which are valid regardless of time and space. Therefore, my main approach to the archaeological data is not expectation but consideration. My approach to the data is very much contextual because it is depending on these three factors, and the archaeological data is inevitably insufficient. I believe human behaviour is the result of 'cause and effect'. The problem is whether the past 'cause and effect' are fully represented by the surviving forms of archaeological data, and whether I myself am fully aware of the 'cause and effect' with my hypothesis. For this reason, I need as many objective verification procedures as possible. I believe that my applied methods cope adequately with these problems of highly contextual human behaviour and limited archaeological data.

I can group the main points that have emerged from my work under four general headings: time, economy, cultural tradition and Clactonian independence. The conclusions under these headings have emerged from my chosen body of

archaeological data through the approaches I have devised and applied, both practical and theoretical. Firstly, under the heading of 'time', I have used various methods: typology, metrical analysis, patination colour and degree. Clearly, typology alone is not good enough to reveal the answers to chronological questions, because of the limitation of geological data in my research sites. But with the addition of metrical analysis, patination and weathering studies, these questions can be more effectively addressed. For instance, when comparing two Middle Acheulian affinity sites, Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt, typologically Berinsfield has also a post-Middle Acheulian component, in the form of a few Micoquian artefacts. Typologically, the Berinsfield artefacts could be regarded as covering a longer period than those of Stanton Harcourt. This idea is confirmed by the metrical analysis, patination and weathering studies. In Chapter 3, the chi-square test and box plot test for the patination and weathering variation showed that the Berinsfield site had indeed been longer habituated than Stanton Harcourt. This combined study also gave a more reliable interpretation of the chronological separation between pointed handaxes and ovate handaxes at Wolvercote, and between crude pointed handaxes and ovate handaxes at Highlands Farm. In Chapter 9, the chronological separation is metrically proved not only by a typological assessment but also through the metrical evidence (see page 277-278). At Highlands Farm, typologically, pointed handaxes are Early Acheulian and ovate handaxes are Late Acheulian type. The possibility of these two types' chronological separation is enhanced by the use of patination and weathering analysis: in Chapter 10, the analysis of patination and weathering variation did indeed indicate that these two types were made in different periods of time (see page 323-325). Secondly, I have carefully studied the influence of economical thinking on human behaviour. By applying Pearson's r formula, the relationship between the distance from flint source area and importing frequency is proved, and I have argued that considerations of economy were the key factor in the exploitation of the lithic resources (Chapter 5: 133-134). In the course of this, the evidence of tool reduction, reworking and reshaping was examined (Chapter 5: 137-147). This economical point of view also helps us to understand some aspects of lithic type variation. At Berinsfield (Chapter 6), the crude tools which are not symmetrical and are simply designed, were usually made with local material, while, on the other hand, the refined tools which are symmetrical and well designed were mostly made from better quality imported flint. That is, crude shaped choppers and chopping tools were made of poor quality local rocks, while pointed handaxes were made of good quality imported rocks. In the interests of economy, the tool-makers did not want to make the simple tools with 'expensive' imported flint.

Hyeong Woo Lee

Out of the 5 main sites, only Highlands Farm has a significantly large amount of waste cores, and waste flakes at this site are normally bigger than at any other site in the Upper Thames Valley. I believe this particular phenomenon is explained by my observation that only resource-rich sites have assemblages which show such features (Chapter 7 and 10). At the Upper Thames sites, more economically significant patterns have been found. Usually the flake tools which were made of imported rocks are better retouched in comparison with the flake tools which were made of local rocks (Chapter 8). In addition, the percentage of cortex coverage can also be given an economical explanation. At Highlands Farm, significantly large amounts of cortex are left on the artefacts, while all the tools from the Upper Thames sites have less cortex coverage. For economic reasons, the pattern of lithic utilisation is different, depending on the location of site in relation to the flint source area (Chapter 6).

the flake and core tools. I would explain this by cultural tradition, constrained by what I have referred to as the general category (Chapter 4): in other words, the Lower Palaeolithic manufacturing tradition was far more concentrated on the core tools than on the flake tools. Lastly, I have taken the opportunity to consider whether the Clactonian assemblage is independent from Acheulian assemblage or not. I have applied various methods to understand this. In terms of the weathering degree, quartzite made Clactonian core tools (choppers and chopping tools) and non-Clactonian core tools (including handaxes) from Berinsfield were compared (Chapter 6: 195-196). These two types of tools have a very similar weathering pattern. At Highlands Farm, essentially three different lithic types are present: Clactonian, Early Acheulian and Late Acheulian. Among three types, the Early and Late Acheulian tools have strongly different weathering patterns, but the Clactonian tools do not have any strong weathering preference (Chapter 3: 84-85). If the Clactonian complex had been an independent entity, the Clactonian core tools at Berinsfield might well have had a different weathering pattern from the non-Clactonian ones, and the Clactonian tools at Highlands Farm might be expected to show a different weathering pattern from the Early and Late Acheulian tools. From these two sites, I suggest that the Clactonian assemblage is more likely to be a part of Acheulian lithic tradition than a separate entity.

Thirdly, cultural behaviour can also be deduced from a study of the lithic assemblage. The sites of Berinsfield, Stanton Harcourt and Wolvercote yield relatively large numbers of handaxes made from local quartzite. The shape similarity between these quartzite handaxes and other typical flint handaxes can be demonstrated not only by visual but also by metrical analysis (Chapters 6 and 7). The main reason why the tool-makers made handaxes with locally available rocks is that, economically, local rock is more easily accessible. The shapes themselves are evidence of cultural as well as economic factors, and the analysis of the working edge was of particular interest, simply because the working edges of the quartzite handaxes are not exactly the same as those of the flint handaxes; the former ones have more zigzag edge types, while later ones have generally straight types (Chapter 7: 226-227). In spite of such different edge types, which results from the need to make use of local raw materials, the tool-makers tried to make morphologically similar types from quartzite to their typical flint handaxes. It is clear that a culturally generated lithic tradition had been deeply involved in handaxe manufacture, though economic factors could still have some effect.

Additional evidence that Clactonian may simply be a part of the Acheulian assemblage is found from the study of the chopping tools and pyramidal core tools. In Chapter 7, the presence of the pyramidal core tools is very clearly a feature of the flint rich sites. I analysed the characteristic feature of the pyramidal core tools: their lithic technology is almost the same as the typical Clactonian core tools such as chopping tools, and they are a normal occurrence at typical Clactonian sites such as Barnham and Swanscombe (see Appendix). Therefore, the pyramidal core tools can be treated as belonging with the typical Clactonian core tools such as the chopping tools. At a site where good quality flint is scarce, pyramidal core tools are very rare. There are a few examples of them at the sites in the Upper Thames Valley, but in these cases all the pyramidal core tools were made not of imported good quality flint, but of locally available quartzite. That is to say, the pyramidal core tools were made only from locally available material. If the site is located on the source area, they were made of the good quality local flint, while if the site is far from the source, they were made of poor quality local rock. In the case of the chopping tools, the situation is same. All the chopping tools from resourcepoor sites such as Berinsfield and Stanton Harcourt and Iflley were made of local poor quality flint and quartzite, and not of good quality imported flint (Chapter 7: 212). These observations suggest to me that the Clactonian assemblage should be explained in terms of economy of lithic raw material, related to the distance of a site from the actual source area, and not in terms of cultural and chronological separation from the Acheulian assemblage.

Another evidence for the importance of cultural tradition is observed in the comparisons I have made between flake tools and core tools ( especially bifaces ). Even though these two types of tools were made in the same period of time, the applied lithic technology is quite different; the flake tools were made in a trial-and error manner, emphasising working edge only, not the shape, and using, in most cases, hard hammer flaking only. Such tools did not require sophisticated manufacturing knowledge. By contrast, the core tools (handaxes) were made under pre-concept sequence, emphasising not only the edges but also the shapes, applying both hard hammer and soft hammer techniques and they required a high level of manufacturing knowledge (Chapter 10). As I explained in Chapter 9, the flake tools made of imported rocks were much more fully retouched than the flake tools made of local rocks. However, the shapes of these two sets of flake tools are not much different. Unlike the core tools (handaxes), nether the local nor the imported flake tools have shape regularity. This combination of circumstances shows that, although the toolmakers had the ability to use refined technology and knowledge, they did not pay an equal degree of attention to

From my study of the Lower Palaeolithic artefacts from the selected sites from the Upper and Middle Thames Valley, I conclude that no single dominant factor or any straightforward hypothesis is sufficient by itself to explain

142

Conclusions

the actual archaeological data. It is clear that human behaviour is constrained by various circumstances (Chapter 4). Although the archaeological data are an incomplete record of the human activities they represent, I am sure that we accept this general conclusion: 'the archaeological data are the result of complex human behaviour, and the general truth is that no single specific factor such as culture, function or economy is capable of explaining the whole of human behaviour, since the latter is directed by a process of 'cause and effect which depends on a dynamic mixture of all such factors.

143

Bibliography

Addington, L. 1986. Lithic Illustration. Chicago, University of Chicago Press Andrefsky, W. 1994. Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity, Vol. 59(1 ), 21-34 Arkell, W. 1947. The Geology of Oxford. Oxford, The Clarendon Press Ashton, N. 1988. The High Lodge Flint Industry. In: High Lodge, Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking, 1962-8, and J Cook, 1988, (eds.) N. Ashton, J. Cook, S. Lewis & J. Rose, London, British Museum Press, 124-163 Ashton, N. 1991. Flaked flakes: What, Where, When and Why? Lithics, No. 12, 1-11 Ashton, N. 1992. The High Lodge Flint Industries. In: High Lodge Excavations By G. de G. Sieveking, 1962-68 and J Cook 1988. (eds.) N. Ashton, J. Cook, S. Lewis and J. Rose, British Museum Press, 124-163 Ashton, N. and McNabb, J, 1996. The Flint Industries from the Waechter Excavations. In: Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968-72 (eds.) B. Conway, J. McNabb and N. Ashton, British Museum Occasional Paper 94, 201-240 Ashton, N., McNabb, J, Irving, B, Lewis, S. and Parfitt, S. 1994. Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian Flint Industries at Barnham. Suffolk, Antiquity, Vol. 68, 585-9 Ashton, N., McNabb, J. and Parfitt, S. 1992. Choppers and the Clactonian: A Reinvestigation. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. Vol. 58, 21-28 Bailey, G. 1983. Hunter-gather Behaviour in Prehistory: problems and perspectives, In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, (ed.) G. Bailey, Cambridge University Press, 1-6 Bailey, G. 1983. Economic Change in Late Pleistocene Cantabria. In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, (eds.) G. Bailey, Cambridge University Press, 149-165 Ballantyne, C. and Harris, C. 1994. The Periglaciation of Great Britain. Cambridge University Press Bamforth, D. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation.AmericanAntiquity, Vol. 51(1), 38-50

G. Bailey, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 168-186 Beck R., Cartledge K., Currant A. and Robinson E. 1985. The Stanton Harcourt Channel. In: The chronology and Environmental Framework of Early Man in The Upper Thames Valley, (eds.) D. Briggs, G. Coope, D. Gilbertson, BAR British Series Vol. 137, 108-138 Bicho, N. 1988. The Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in Portuguese Prehistory: A Technological Perspective. BAR, Vol. 700, 39-61 Bond, J. 1948. Rhodesian Stone Age Man and His Raw Materials. South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 3(11), 55-60 Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. 2 Vols. Memoires de I'Institut Prehistoriques de I'Universite de Bordeaux 1. Bordeaux, Delmas Boydston, R. 1989. A Cost-benefit Study of Functionally Similar Tools. In: Time, Energy and Stone Tools, (ed.) R. Torrence, Cambridge University Press, 67-77 Bridgland, D. 1988. The Quaternary Derivation of Quartzites used by Palaeolithic Man in the Thames Basin for Tool Manufacture. In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) MacRae R.J. and Moloney N. BAR British Series, Vol. 189, 187-215 Bridgland, D. 1994. Quaternary of the Thames, Chapman and Hall. London. Bridgland, D. 1996. Quaternary River Terrace Deposits as a Framework for the Lower Palaeolithic Record. In: The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, (eds.) Gamble, C.S. and Lawson, A.J., Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Ltd., 24-39 Bridgland, D., Collins, J., Currant, A., Hunt, C. and Thew, N. 1985. The Summertown-Radley Terrace, (eds.) Briggs, D., Coope, G., and Gilbertson, D. The Chronology and Environmental Framework of Early Man in the Upper Thames Valley. BAR British Series Vol. 137, 69-107 Briggs, D. 1988. The Environmental Background to Human Occupation in the Upper Thames Valley during the Quaternary Period. In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) MacRae R.J. and MoloneyN., BAR British Series Vol. 189, 167-186

Barker. G. 1975. Prehistoric Territories and Economies in Central Italy. In: Pal aeoconomy, (ed.) E. Higgs, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 111-175

Briggs, D., Coope, G., and Gilbertson, D. 1985. Towards a New Pleistocene Chronology of the upper Thames, (eds.) Briggs, D., Coope, G., and Gilbertson, D. The Chronology and Environmental Framework of Early Man in the Upper Thames Valley. BAR British Series Vol. 137, 139-163

Bahn, P. 1983. Late Pleistocene Economies of the French Pyrenees. In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, (ed.)

Brown, A. 1995. Beyond Stone Age Economics: a Strategy for a Contextual Lithic Analysis. In: Lithics in Context, (ed.)

Bibliography

Schofield, A.J., Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No. 5, 27- 36

Elements of Stability and Variability. In: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Vol. 12, 211-265

Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. 1997. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London, Routledge

Fletcher, M. & Lock, G. 1994. Digging Numbers. Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology

Buckingham, C., Roe, D. and Scott, K. 1996. A Preliminary Report on the Stanton Harcourt Channel Deposits (Oxfordshire, England): geological context, vertebrate remains and Palaeolithic stone artefacts, Journal of Quaternary Science. Vol. 11, 397-415

Freeman, LG. 1973. The Significance of Mammalian Faunas from Palaeolithic Occupations in Cantabrian Spain. American Antiquity. Vol. 38, 3-44 Gamble, C. 1986 The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Cahen, D., Keeley, L. and Van Noten, F. 1979. Stone Tools, Tool Kits, and Human Behaviour in Prehistory. Current Anthropology Vol. 20, 661-683

Gamble, C. 1994. Time for Boxgrove Man, Nature. Vol. 369, No. 6478, 275-276 Gamble, C. 1995. Lithics and Social Evolution. In: Lithics in Context, ed. Schofield, A.J., Lithic Studies Society, Occasional Paper No. 5, 19-26

Conway, B. 1996. The Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Pleistocene Deposits of Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. In: Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968-72, (eds.) Conway, B., McNabb, J and Ashton, N. British Museum Occasional Paper 94 Cook, J. and Ashton N. 1991. High Lodge, Mildenhall. Current Archaeology, No 123, Vol. 3, 133-138

Gowlett, I.A.I. 1980. Acheulian Sites in the Central Rift Valley, Proceedings of the 8th Pannafrican Congress of Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, (eds.) R. Leakey and B. Ogot, TILLMIAP, 203-213

Coulson, S. 1986. The Bout Coupe Handaxe as a Typological Mistake, In: The Palaeolithic of Britain and Its Nearest Neighbour, (ed.) Collcutt, S.N., University of Sheffield, 53-56

Green, H. S. 1988. The selection of Raw materials for Artefacts Manufacture, In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. (eds.) R. MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British Series, Vol. 189, 223-232

Crabtree, K. 1985. The Floodplain Terrace, eds. Briggs, D., Coope, G., and Gilbertson, D. The Chronology and Environmental Framework of Early Man in the Upper Thames Valley, BAR British Series Vol. 137, 26-68

Harding, P., Gibbard, P., Lewin, J., Macklin, M., and Moss, H. 1987. The Transport and Abrasion of Flint Handaxes in a Gravel-bed River. In: The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, (eds.) Sieveking, G. and Newcomer, M., Cambridge University Press, 115-126

Cranshaw, S. 1983. Handaxes and Cleavers, Selected English Acheulian Industries, BAR, Vol. 113 Dark, K. Duckworth

1995.

Theoretical

Archaeology,

Hayden, B. 1989. From Chopper to Celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques. In: Time, Energy and Stone Tools, (ed.) R. Torrence, Cambridge University Press, 7-16

London,

Inizan, M.-L., Roche H., and Tixier J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon, CREP

Davidson, I. 1983. Site Variability and Prehistoric Economy in Levante. In: Hunter-Gatherer economy in Prehistory, (ed.), G. Bailey, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 79-95

Isaac, G. 1977. Olorgesailie; Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. Chicago University Press

Davidson, I. 1991. The Archaeology of Language Origin. Antiquity, Vol. 65, 39-48 Debenath, A & Dibble H. 1994. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Vol. 1, Pennsylvania University

Isaac, G. 1986. Foundation Stones; Early Artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities. In Stone Age Prehistory, (eds.) G. Bailey & P. Callow, Cambridge University Press, 221-41

Dibble, H. 1992. On Assemblage Variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of West Europe, In: The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability. (eds.) H. Dibble & P. Mellars, Pennsylvania University

Jeske, R. 1989. Economies in Raw Material Use by Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers. In: Time, Energy and Stone Tools, (ed.) Torrence, R., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 34-45

Ericson, J. 1984. Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In: Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, (eds.), J. Ericson, and P. Barbara, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1-9

Keeley, L. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses; A Microwear Analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press Kleindienst, M. 1961. Variability Within the Late Acheulian Assemblage in Eastern Africa. The South African Archaeological bulletin, Vol. XVI. (61), 35-52

Feblot-Augustins, J. 1993. Mobility Strategies in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Central Europe and Western Europe:

145

Hyeong Woo Lee

Klein, R. 1989. Human Career; Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago and London, University of Chicago

Newman, J. 1994. The Effects of Distance on Lithic Material Reduction Technology. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 21, 491-501

Kuhn, S. 1991. "Unpacking" Reduction Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 10, 76-106

Noble, W. and Davidson, I. 1996. Human Evolution. Language and Mind. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Lambert, D. 1987. Prehistoric Man. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Oakley, K. and Leakey, M. 1937. Report on Excavations at Jaywick Sands, Essex (1934), with Some Observations on the Clactonian Industry, and on the Fauna and Geological Significance of the Clacton Channel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 111, 217-260

Lewis, S. 1998. Quaternary Geology of East Farm Brick Pit, Barnham and the Surrounding Area. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at eat Farm Barnham, Suffolk, 1980-94, (eds.) N. Ashton, S. Lewis and S. Parfitt, with illustrations by P. Dean, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 125, 23-78

Ohel, M. Y. 1979. The Clactonian: An Independent Complex or an Integral Part of the Acheulean? Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, 685-726

MacRae, R. 1982. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Berinsfield. Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia, 1-11

Ohel, M.Y. 1982. Is Barnham indeed Praehistorische Zeitschrift 57(2), 181-200

MacRae, R. 1986. Tool Manufacture in Quartzite and Similar Rocks in the British Palaeolithic. Lithics, No. 7, 7-12

Paterson, T. 1937. Studies on the Palaeolithic Succession in England, No. 1. the Barnham Sequence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 111

MacRae, R. 1987. The Great Giant Handaxe Stakes. Lithics, No. 8, 15-17

Clactonian?

Press, F. and Siever, R. 1994. Understanding Earth. New York, Freeman

MacRae, R. 1988. Belt, Shoulder-Bag or Basket? An Enquiry into Handaxe Transport and Flint Sources. Lithics, No. 9, 2-7

Preston, N.J. 1988. The Triassic Bunter Pebble Bed as a Source for Non-Flint Artefacts in the Upper Thames. In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) R. MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British Series Vol. 189, 199-215

MacRae, R. 1990. New Finds and Old Problems in the Lower Palaeolithic of the Upper Thames Valley. Lithics, No. 11, 3-15

Price, D. & Brown, J. 1985. Aspects of hunter-gatherer Complexity. In: Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, (eds.) D. Price and B. Brown, Academic Press, 3-20

MacRae, R. 1991. New Lower Palaeolithic Finds from Gravel Pits in Central Southern England. Lithics, No. 12, 1219 Martingell, H. and Saville, A. 1988. The Illustration of Lithic Artefacts: A Guide to Drawing Stone Tools for Specialist Reports. LSS Occasional Paper No. 3, AAI & Technical Paper, No. 9

Renfrew, C. and Bahn P. 1991 Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice. London, Thames and Hudson Roberts, M., Stringer, C. and Parfitt, S. 1994. A Hominid Tibia from Middle Pleistocene Sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature, Vol. 369, No. 6478, 311-313

McNabb, J. and Ashton, N. 1992. The Cutting Edge, Bifaces in the Clactonian. Lithics, Vol. 13, 4-10

Roberts, M., Parfitt, S., Pope, M. and Wenban-Smith, F. 1997. Boxgrove, West Sussex: Rescue Excavations of a Lower Palaeolithic Landsurface (Boxgrove Project B, 198991). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 63, 303-358 Roe, D. 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Handaxe Groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, (ed.) J. Clark, 1968, 1-82

Mignon, M. 1993. Dictionary of Concepts in Archaeology. Wesport, USA, Greenwood Press Mithen, S. 1994. Technology and Society during the Middle Pleistocene: Hominid Group Size, Social Learning and Industrial Variability. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 4, 3-32

Roe, D. 1976. Palaeolithic Industries in the Oxford Region: Some Note. Field Guide to the Oxford Region, Quaternary Research Association, 36-43

Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. London, Thames and Hudson

Roe, D. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul

Moloney, N. 1988. Experimental Biface Manufacture using Non-Flint Lithic Materials. In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) R. J. MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British Series, Vol. 189, 49-66 Muller-Karpe, H. 1966. Handbuch Der Vorgescichte. Munchen: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung

Roe, D. 1986. Introduction: Progress in the British Palaeolithic. In: The Palaeolithic of Britain and Its Nearest Neighbours, (ed.) S. Collcutt, University of Sheffield, 1-2

146

Bibliography

Roe, D. 1986. The Palaeolithic Period in the Oxford Region. The Archaeology of the Oxford Region, (eds.) G. Briggs, J. Cook and T. Rowley, Oxford, Oxford University Department for External Studies, 1-17

The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, (eds.) C. Gamble and A. Lawson, Trust for Wessex archaeology Ltd, 52-56

Terradas, X. 1998. From Raw Material Procurement to Tool Production: Reconstruction of the Lithic Production Process during the Late Glacial Period in the Eastern Pyrenees. BAR, Vol. 700, 1-16

Roe, D. 1988. The Study of non-flint artefacts in the British Palaeolithic: its value and significance. In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) R. MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British Series, Vol. 189, 1-9 Roe, D. 1994. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Oxford Region. Oxoniensia, Vol. LIX, 1-15

Torrence, R. 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Techonology, In: Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective. ed. Bailey, G., Cambridge University Press, 11-22

Roe, D. 1995. The Start of the British Lower Palaeolithic: Some Old and New Thoughts and Speculations. Lithics, No. 16, 17-26

Torrence, R. 1989a. Tools as Optimal Solutions. In: Time, Energy and Stone Tools, (ed.) R. Torrence, Cambridge University Press

Roe, D. 1996. Artefact Distributions and The British Earlier Palaeolithic. In: The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, (eds.) C. Gamble and A. Lawson, Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Ltd., 1-6

Torrence, R. 1989b. Retooling: Towards a Behavioural Theory of Stone Tools, In: Time. Energy and Stone Tools, (ed.) R. Torrence, Cambridge University Press Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan Reassessed; a Close Look at Early Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 12, 101-120

Roebroeks, N., Conard, N. and Kolfschoten, T. 1992. Dense Forests, Cold Steppes, and the Palaeolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Current Anthropology, Vol. 33, 551-587

Treacher, M., Arkell, W. & Oakley, K. 1948. On the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire, and its Contained Flint Implements. Proceedings. of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 14, 126-154

Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J. and Rensink, E. 1988. Planning Depth, Anticipation and the Organization of Middle Palaeolithic Technology. Helinium Vol. XXVlll/1, 17-34 Rolland, N. and Dibble, H. 1990. A New Synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic Variability. American Antiquity, Vol. 55(3), 480-499

Tyldesley, J. (a) 1986. A Reassessment of the Handaxe Assemblage Recovered from the Wolvercote Channel, Oxford. In: The Palaeolithic of Britain and Its Nearest Neighbours, (ed.) S. Collcutt, University of Sheffield

Semenov, S.A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. 2nd edition (English translation version), London, Cory, Adams & Mackay

Tyldesley, J. (b) 1986. The Wolvercote Channel Handaxe Assemblage: A Comparative Study. BAR British Series Vol. 153

Schick, K. and Toth, N. 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Tyldesley, J. 1988. Quartzite Implements Recovered from the Wolvercote Channel, Oxfordshire (with on additional note by R. J. MacRae). In: Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, (eds.) R. MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British Series, Vol. 189, 159-166

Schofield, A. 1995. Artefacts Mean Nothing. In: Lithics in Context, ed. Schofield, A.J., Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, No. 5, 3-8

Vita-Finzi, C. and Higgs, E. 1970. Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 36, 137

Singer, R., Wymer. J., Gladfelter, B. & Wolff, R. 1973. Excavation of the Clacton Industry at the Golf Course, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex. In: Proceedings. of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 39, 6-74

West, R. 1977. Pleistocene Geology and Biology. 2nd edition, London, Longmans

Stainton, B. 1994. Introduction to the Chilterns. In: The Archaeology of The Chilterns: from the Ice Age to the Norman Conquest, (ed.) K. Branigan, Chess Valley Archaeological and Historical Society

White, M. 1995. (for 1994) Raw Materials and Biface Variability in Southern Britain: a preliminary examination. Lithics, No. 15, 1-20

Straus, L.G. 1977. Of Deerslayers and Mountain Men: Palaeolithic Faunal Exploitation in Cantabrian Spain. In: For Theory Building in Archaeology, (ed.) L. Binford, New York, Academic Press, 41-76

White, M. and Pettitt, P. 1995. Technology of early Palaeolithic Western Europe: Innovation, Variability and a Unified Framework. Lithics, No. 16, 27-40 Whittaker, J. 1994. Flint knapping: Making & Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin, California

Stringer, C. 1996. The Boxgrove Tibia: Britain's Oldest Hominid and Its Place in the Middle Pleistocene Record. In:

147

Hyeong Woo Lee

Palaeolithic Studies. In: The Palaeolithic of Britain and Its Nearest Neighbours, (ed.) S. Collcutt, University of Sheffield, 103-106

Whittow, J. 1976. The Wallingford Fan Gravel. In: Quaternary Research Association, Field Guide to the Oxford Region, (ed.) D. A Roe, 44-45

Wymer, J. 1988. A Reassessment of the Lower Palaeolithic Activity in Britain. Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation MacRae and N. Moloney, BAR British 23

Wymer, J. 1956. Palaeoliths from Gravel of the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley at Highlands near Henley. Proc. Prehistoric Society, Vol. XXII, 29-36

Geological Range of In: Non-Flint Stone of Britain, (eds.) R. Series, Vol. 189, 11-

Wymer, J. 1961. The Lower Palaeolithic Succession in the Thames Valley and the date of the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley. Proceedings. of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 27, 1-27

Wymer, J. 1988. Palaeolithic Archaeology and the British Quaternary Sequence. Quaternary Science Reviews Vol. 7, 79-88

Wymer, J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley. London, John Baker

Wymer, J. 1993-94. Southern Rivers Project Report No.I. Trust For Wessex Archaeology

Wymer, J. 1975. Highlands Farm Pit, Rotherfield Peppard (Caversham Ancient Channel). In: Quaternary Research Association, Field Guide to the Oxford Region, (ed.) D. A Roe, 48-49

Wymer, J. 1995. The Contexts of Palaeolithic. In: Lithics in Context, (ed.) A Schofield, Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No. 5, 45-51 Wymer, J. 1996. The English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey. In: The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, eds. Gamble, C. S. and Lawson, A.J., Trust for Wessex Archaeology, 7-22

Wymer, J. 1982. The Palaeolithic Age. London and Sydney, Croom Helm Wymer, J. 1985. Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia. Norwich, Geo Books Wymer, J. 1986. Overview: Recent Trends in British

Wynn, T. 1979. The Intelligence Hominids. Man, Vol. 14, 371-391

148

of Later Acheulean

Explanatory

Notes

for the Appendix

In the Appendix, I have recorded all the measurements and observations I made for every implement studied. I hope this will be a valuable source of information for other researchers, and the figures and notes should also be used to document statements made in the thesis text.

Artefact Number (Column 1, applied for all artefacts): Most numbers are assigned by the present author, but some artefacts which were already numbered ( e.g. artefacts stored at British Museum and Reading Museum) retain their original numbers. Site (Column 2, applied for all artefacts): This simply recorded the archaeological fmd-spot or excavated site which from which each artefact came (e.g. Berinsfield and Highlands Farm). Box (Column 3, applied for all artefacts): It represents the box in which the tool is originally stored, in the MacRae collection. Type (Colunm 4, applied for all artefacts): It explains basic character of a tool (e.g. a flake tool is NFT, and a core tool is NCT). More details are in Chapter 1. Typology (Colunm 5, applied for all artefacts): The typological category is represented, from the list of 48 different types (see Chapter 1). Type Code (Column 6, applied for all artefacts): Each number is given to each specific type of tool (see more in Chapter I) Length, Breadth and Thickness (Colunm 7, 8 and 9, applied for all artefacts): Artefacts maximum sizes are measured, some broken tools are written as '?'. Bl, B2, Ll, Tl, T2 (Colunm 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, only for handaxes ): Only for handaxes types are applied for a metrical analysis ( cm). Unidentified handaxes (mainly because of serious breakage) are described as '?'. Other tools such as flake tools, Misc. core tools and waste flakes are not included. The sections for non-handaxes are left blank. (see Chapter 1). Status (Column 15, applied for all artefacts): Unbroken tools are described as UD (undamaged), rest of them are described as bl* (very seriously broken), bl, b2 and b3 (slightly broken). In some cases, the specific damaged part is also recorded. Colour and Colour Code (Colunm 16 and 17, used only for

flint tools): These sections are only for flint artefacts. Nonflint tools are un-described and left as 'blank'. Edge Shape (Colunm 18, applied for only flake tools and core tools): This section is basically designed for flake tools and core tools. The flake tools are classified on the side dorsal view, while the core tools are classified on the side view. All un-identified ones are written '?'. Others, such as waste flakes, cores and all kinds of Misc. tools are not included.

Material (Colunm 19, applied for all artefacts): This records the nature of the raw material. Etc (Colunm 20, applied for all artefacts): Any extra information of significance is noted in this colunm. Weathering (Colunm 21, applied for all artefacts): This records the intensity of physical weathering (see Chapter 1). Weight (Colunm 22, applied for all artefacts): The weight is measured as grams. Where (Column 23, only for flint items): This section is for determining whether the rock was imported (I) or local (L ), when the site is located far from a lithic source. If the site is near to a source, it is described as 'near site' (mainly for flint material). Patination (Colunm 24, only for flint items): This is for the description of flint patination intensity: very deeply patinated (VD), deeply patinated (D), slightly patinated (S) and unpatinated (U). CS (Column 25, only for handaxes): This records the cross section shape of selected core tools. Mainly, this section is for handaxes, so non-handaxes and flake tools are not normally described unless there is a specific reason ( see Chapters 1 and 7 for the details of the classes, I, II, III and IV).

Cortex Re. 1 and 2 (Colunm 26 and 27, only for flake and core tools, not for waste items): This is a measure of approximate remaining cortex on both sides of tools. In the case of flake tools, measuring cortex on dorsal surface is Cortex Re. 1, and ventral surface is Cortex Re. 2. The core tools are rather difficult to define. The criteria of mine are,

the surface, which is more retouched and more convex in cross-section view is front, otherwise it is back. Measuring the front surface is Cortex Re. 1 and the back surface is Cortex Re. 2. All the measurements are represented as %. Some unknown items are written as'?'.

described in chapter 1. Unknown items (because of breakage) are described as '?'. Retouch and Values (Column 34 and 35, only for flake and core tools not for waste items): A measure of the intensity of retouch (see Chapter 1). Unknown items (because of breakage) are described as '?'.

Max Edge A. and Min. Edge A. (Column 28 and 29, only for flake and core tools not for waste items): This records maximum and minimum edge angles. The tools which are impossible to identify, are written as '?', in some case, a specific reason is given.

Completeness (Column 36, only for flake and core tools not for waste items): A score based on the combination of 'N. flaking' and 'Retouch'. The ranges are points 200 to 1000. Unknown items (because of breakage) are described as '?'. See Chapter 1.

Whole L. and Edge L. (Column 30 and 31, only for flake and core tools not for waste items): They measure the outer circumference of artefacts and their edges (cm). The tools which are impossible to identify, are written as '?', in some case, a specific reason is given.

S.P., Degree S.P. and Fracture P. (Column 37, 38 and 39, only for flake tools): S.P. is for classifying striking platforms (P for plain, D for dihedral and F for faceted platform) and Degree S.P. is the measurement of their angles. Fracture P. is for flake termination forms (N for normal, H for hinge and S for step fracture). Unknown items (because of breakage) are described as'?'. For details, see Chapter 1.

N. Flaking and Values (Column 32 and 33, only for flake and core tools, not for waste items): This is a count of significant major scars on the artefacts, the range is

150

Numbers

of Artefacts

in Each Typological

Class

Type

Bamham

Berins.

Clacton

lffley

lffley

Highlands

Code

BritishM_

Mac_Collection

BritishM_

Pitt-RiversM.(1)

Pitt-RiversM.(2)

Mac_Collection

9

40

4

33

Flint

FlakeDebitages(SimpleRakes)

1

30

22 [3]

Flint

TrimmingRake

2

27

25

Flint

Others

3

Quartzite

FlakeDebitages(SimpleRakes)

4

Quartzite

TrimmingRake

5

11

2

1

6

Quartzite

Others

6

UnknownM.

Al/types

7

Flint

CoreDebitages(WasteCores)

8

Flint

Others

9

Quartzite

CoreDebitages(WasteCores)

10

Quartzite

Others

11

UnknownM.

Al/types

12

Flint

Scrapers

13

6

24 [1]

14

28

63 [1]

Flint

Others

14

1

11 [5]

7

9 [1]

35 [2]

Flint

PointedForms

15

4

1

3

Flint

Leva/loisian

16

6

Quartzite

Scrapers

17

4

Quartzite

Others

18

4

UnknownM.

Al/types

19

Flint

Choppers& ChoppingTools

20

2

Flint

PyramidalCoreTools

21

1

Flint

Cleavers

22

2

Flint

Bifacia/lyW. Tools

23

10

Flint

CrudeHandaxes(MostlyPointed)

24

Flint

PointedHandaxes(Mid-Acheulian)

25

Flint

Ovate,CordateHandaxes

26

7 [3]

Flint

LingulateHandaxes

27

1

Flint

FicronHandaxes

28

Flint

Others(Inc.Misc.tools)

29

Flint

BrokenHandaxes(typesunknown)

30

[22]

Flint

PointedForms

31

4

Quartzite

Choppers& ChoppingTools

32

11

Quartzite

PyramidalCoreTools

33

2

Quartzite

Cleavers

34

3

Quartzite

BifaciallyW. Tools

35

4

Quartzite

CrudeHandaxes (MostlyPointed)

36

5

Quartzite

PointedHandaxes(Mid-Acheulian J

37

1

Quartzite

Ovate,CordateHandaxes

38

2

Quartzite

LingulateHandaxes

39

Quartzite

FicronHandaxes

40

Quartzite

Others(Inc.Misc.tools)

41

Quartzite

BrokenHandaxes(typesunknown)

42

Quartzite

PointedForms

43

UnknownM.

Al/types

44

1

23

3

1

1

27

35

14

20

1

[1]

10 [1]

1

26 [1]

1 2

a,[5J,r

5 [1] 1

2

7 [1]

5 [2]

4 [3]

41 [2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

5

4

8

1

1

3 [3] 1

8 [2]

7

1

1

3

1 [1] 4

2

1

Flint

Al/types

45

3 [1]

Al/types

46

2

UnknownM.

Al/types

47

2 [3]

3 [1]

12 [5] 3

1 5•

48

241

91

Total

13 [1] 3

Quartzite

GrandTotal

4

83

35•

12'

2'

138

55

347

1621

*: Natural materials, They are not relevant to the archaeological analysis. **: At the British Museum, from the sites of Stanton Harcourt, Wolvercote and Berinsfield [ ] : Seriously broken tools (1) Teaching collection (2) In store

151

Numbers

Flint

RakeDebitages(SimpleFlakes)

Flint

TrimmingFlake

Flint

Others

Quartzite

RakeDebitages(SimpleFlakes)

Quartzite

TrimmingFlake

Quartzite

Others

Unkno\M'IM.

All types

Flint

CoreDebitages(WasteCores)

Flint

Others

Quartzite

CoreDebitages(WasteCores)

Quartzite

Others

Unkno\M'IM.

All types

of Artefacts

in Each Typological

Class

Highlands

Swanscombe

S.H.

S.H.

Wolvercote

Wolvercote

ReadingM.

BritishM_

Excavation

Mac_Collection

Pitt-Rivers M_(1)

Pitt-Rivers M_(2)

1

74

5

4

45. 1-

7

1

3

1

12

11

1

6

7

1

1

3

Flint

Scrapers

3

55

1

20

5

Flint

Others

3

16

2

4 [1]

1

Flint

PointedForms

5 [1]

1

2

Flint

Levalloisian

Quartzite

Scrapers

Quartzite

1

7 2

Others

Unkno\1111 M.

All types

Flint

Choppers& ChoppingTools

4

Flint

Pyramidal CoreTools

3

Cleavers

Flint

Bifacially W. Tools

3

Flint

CrudeHandaxes(MostlyPointed)

12

Flint

PointedHandaxes(Mid-AcheulianJ

Flint

Ovate,CordateHandaxes

Flint

UngulateHandaxes

6

Flint

Ficron Handaxes

2 [1]

2

1

1

10

5

2

1

3 [1]

22.r

24

1[1]

10

5 [1]

7

[8]

[1]

[8]

Flint

PointedForms

Quartzite

Choppers& ChoppingTools

Quartzite

PyramidalCoreTools

1

Quartzite

Cleavers

1

Quartzite

Bifacially W. Tools CrudeHandaxes(MostlyPointed)

Quartzite

Ovate,CordateHandaxes

Quartzite

UngulateHandaxes

Quartzite

Ficron Handaxes

Quartzite

Others(Inc.Misc.tools)

Quartzite

BrokenHandaxes(types unknown)

Quartzite

PointedForms

Unkno\1111 M.

All types

Flint

All types

Quartzite

All types

Unkno\1111 M.

All types

Total Grand Total

1

4 [4]

BrokenHandaxes(types unknown)

PointedHandaxes(Mid-Acheulian)

2. [1]

1

Others(Inc.Misc.tools)

Flint

Quartzite

1-

[1]

Flint

Quartzite

1

2

Flint

22

2

[1]

4

2

1

7

3

7 4

1 (Handaxe)

1

1·

3•

56

177

27

1

1

1

1, 4 (Hammers)

2 (Handaxe)

2 (Chopper& Ha)

2

1

1

2

4•

102'

103

228

1621

*: Natural materials, They are not relevant to the archaeological analysis. **: At the British Museum, from the sites of Stanton Harcourt, Wolvercote and Berinsfield [ ] : Seriously broken tools (1) Teaching collection (2) In store

152

2

75

Main Appendix

with Details of Material

Studied

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

57

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.6

2

0.6

UD

P. Brown

8

Flint

LG.

12

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.8

3.9

1.1

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

63

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.8

2.8

0.5

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

49

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.95

3.3

1.7

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

50

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.2

2.2

0.7

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

233

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.2

2.4

1

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

23

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.8

2.5

1

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

37

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.9

3.9

1.3

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LG.

18

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4

2.3

1.3

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

58

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4

2.2

0.8

UD

P. Brown

8

Flint

LG.

22

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.3

5.3

0.95

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LG.

62

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.4

4.3

1.6

UD

GBR

11

Flint

LG.

64

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.4

3.2

2.45

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

7

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.8

3

1.4

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

9

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.9

3.95

1.8

UD

P. Brown

8

Flint

LG.

61

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5

2.8

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

69

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.2

4.65

1.8

UD

P. Brown

8

Flint

LG.

53

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.2

3.8

1.3

UD

Black

13

Flint

LG.

239

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.2

3.6

1.5

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

231

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.3

5

3.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

4

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.35

7.5

2.2

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

67

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.4

4.9

2.4

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LG.

15

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.5

2.9

1.1

UD

Black

13

Flint

LG.

48

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.5

4.3

1.45

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

3

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.6

5.6

1.3

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

51

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.6

2.35

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

73

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6

4.3

2

UD

Black

13

Flint

LG.

234

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.15

5.4

1.8

UD

Brown

9

Flint

LG.

243

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.15

3.8

2.4

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

27

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.3

5.2

2.7

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

70

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.3

3.5

2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

11

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.5

6

2.8

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LG.

65

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.5

5

2.85

UD

Brown

9

Flint

LG.

240

Barnfield, Swan.

15

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.5

4.7

2.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

30

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.7

4.8

2.3

UD

Black

13

Flint

LG.

54

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.2

4.9

3.25

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LG.

225

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.3

6.9

3.1

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

LG.

224

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.6

4.5

2.5

UD

GBR

11

Flint

LG.

220

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.7

4.9

2.4

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

5

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NF

ffakedebitage

1

9.4

7.75

2.8

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LG.

263

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NF

ffakedebitage

1

13.3

13

5.2

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

LG.

24

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.4

2.4

0.8

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LG.

328

Barnfield, Swan.

22

NC

coredebitage

8

7.5

7.75

3.85

UD

Brown

9

Flint

LG.

329

Barnfield, Swan.

23

NC

coredebitage

8

15.8

6.5

3.8

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

16

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

doublesidescraper

13

4.25

4.5

1.7

UD

P. Brown

8

straight

Flint

LG.

44

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

sidescraper

13

4.6

2.5

0.9

UD

Gray

6

denticulate

Flint

LG.

223

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

sidescraper

13

4.75

4.5

1.55

UD

P. Yellow

2

convex

Flint

LG.

17

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidehaflow scraper

13

4.9

3.8

1.25

UD

P. Gray

5

straight

Flint

LG.

154

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

57

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

2

nearsite

s

12

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

11

nearsite

u

63

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

3.5

nearsite

49

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

20

nearsite

s s

50

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

7

nearsite

233

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

8

nearsite

23

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

10

nearsite

37

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

17

nearsite

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

200

300

?

?

H

200

300

p

125

H

200

300

?

?

H

400

500

?

?

H

u u

18

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

10

nearsite

58

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

7.5

nearsite

s s s s

22

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

21

nearsite

D

62

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

25

nearsite

64

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

23

nearsite

7

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

18

nearsite

9

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

22

nearsite

61

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

22

nearsite

69

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

37

nearsite

s s s s s s

53

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

27

nearsite

u

239

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

28

nearsite

231

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

71

nearsite

4

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

85

nearsite

67

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

41

nearsite

s s s s

15

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

15

nearsite

u

48

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

26

nearsite

s

3

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

44

nearsite

u

51

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

15

nearsite

s

73

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

45

nearsite

u

234

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

weathered

80

nearsite

D

243

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

45

nearsite

27

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

80

nearsite

70

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

weathered

40

nearsite

11

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

98

nearsite

s s s s

65

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

75

nearsite

D

240

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

58

nearsite

s

30

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

55

nearsite

u

54

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

88

nearsite

225

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

160

nearsite

224

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

77

nearsite

s s s

220

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

85

nearsite

u

5

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

135

nearsite

D

263

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

871

nearsite

24

Bamfield, Swan.

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

10

nearsite

s s

328

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

weathered

172

nearsite

D

329

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

lessfresh

490

nearsite

16

Bamfield, Swan.

double sidescraper

fresh

26

nearsite

44

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

11

nearsite

s s s

223

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

32

nearsite

D

17

Bamfield, Swan.

sidehalfow scraper

fresh

23

nearsite

s

0 0 0 0

0 5 0 0

155

53

40

14

7

4

100

50

30

12

4.7

5

100

40

30

16.5

4

4

100

w w w

40

25

14.5

4.5

5

100

WW

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

56

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.05

3.15

2.05

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

L.G.

19

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.1

4.1

1.85

UD

P. Gray

5

convex

Flint

L.G.

8

Bamfield, Swan.

1

NFT

convergent scraper

13

5.8

6.7

2.55

UD

P. Brown

8

convex

Flint

L.G.

336

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NFT

sidescraper ornotch

13

8.3

5

2.6

UD

D. Brown

10

notch

Flint

L.G.

46

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NFT

convergent scraper

13

6.7

4.8

1.8

UD

Gray

6

denticulate & straight

Flint

L.G.

222

Bamfield, Swan.

14

NFT

endscraper

13

4.7

3.9

1.3

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

L.G.

226

Bamfield, Swan.

14

NFT

endscraper

13

6.8

4.7

1.6

b3

Gray

6

straight

Flint

L.G.

219

Bamfield, Swan.

14

NFT

round scraper

13

3.4

3.6

1.1

UD

D. Gray

7

round

Flint

L.G.

29

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.3

4.1

1.25

UD

D. Brown

10

convex

Flint

L.G.

261

Bamfield, Swan.

17

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.2

4.55

1.65

UD

P. Brown

8

concave

Flint

L.G.

235

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

transverse scraper

13

6.35

5.9

2.65

UD

Gray

6

round

Flint

L.G.

236

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

transverse scraper

13

4.3

6.7

1.8

b3

Gray

6

steepstraight

Flint

L.G.

218

Bamfield, Swan.

14

NFT

transverse scraper

13

6.7

4.7

1.7

b2

Gray

6

straight

Flint

L.G.

242

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

sidescraper

13

8.15

5.6

3.3

b3

P. Brown

8

steepdenticulate

Flint

L.G.

267

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NFT

convergent scraper

13

8.3

4.5

3.6

UD

P. Gray

5

straight

Flint

L.G.

21

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NFT

sidescraper

13

9.2

6.5

2.9

UD

GDBR

12

straight

Flint

L.G.

52

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

sidescraper

13

9.5

5.15

3.6

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

L.G.

31

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NFT

endscraper

13

9.5

6.8

3.45

UD

GBR

11

straight

Flint

L.G.

228

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

transverse scraper

13

2.5

5.1

1.3

UD

Brown

9

straight

Flint

L.G.

322

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NFT

sidetransverse scraper

13

6.9

7.5

2.8

UD

D. Gray

7

steep& denti.

Flint

L.G.

227

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.25

4.3

2

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

L.G.

19891-31

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidescraper

13

7.6

4.2

2.6

UD

P. Gray

5

denticulate

Flint

L.G.

325

Barnfield, Swan.

22

NFT

transverse scraper

13

11.8

12

5.7

UD

D. Gray

7

round

Flint

L.G.

38

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

endscraper

13

5.05

3.8

1.4

UD

Brown

9

straight

Flint

L.G.

47

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

scraper

13

6.5

5.3

2.1

UD

D. Gray

7

notch& concave

Flint

L.G.

28

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NFT

sidescraper

13

3.4

4.25

1.1

UD

Brown

9

convex

Flint

L.G.

32

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NFT

doublesidescraper

13

4.4

4.5

1.55

UD

D. Gray

7

concave

Flint

L.G.

59

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NFT

transverse scraper

13

4.75

4.7

1.5

UD

P.Brown

8

convex

Flint

L.G.

891-3 216

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.35

4.7

2.5

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

L.G.

60

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NFT

sidescraper

13

3

3

0.6

UD

P. Brown

8

denticulate

Flint

L.G.

36

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

convergent scraper

13

5

3.9

2.1

UD

Gray

6

steepconcave

Flint

L.G.

66

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.4

5.2

1.25

UD

Black

13

convex

Flint

L.G.

13

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidescraper

13

4.75

3.75

1.55

UD

D. Gray

7

notch & convex

Flint

L.G.

35

Barnfield, Swan.

2

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.2

6.2

1.8

UD

Gray

6

denticulate & straight

Flint

L.G.

72

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NFT

endscraper

13

5.8

4

1.45

UD

Gray

6

denticulate

Flint

L.G.

323

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NFT

sidescraper

13

7.5

6.3

2.8

UD

D. Gray

7

steepround

Flint

L.G.

20

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidescraper

13

7.7

4.6

2.8

UD

D. Gray

7

?

Flint

L.G.

55

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NFT

endscraper

13

3.3

3

1.1

UD

D.Brown

10

straight

Flint

L.G.

10

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.65

5.6

2

b3

P.Brown

8

straight

Flint

L.G.

324

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.35

6

2.95

UD

D. Gray

7

steepround

Flint

L.G.

2

Barnfield, Swan.

1

NFT

borer/pseudoLevaffoisian)

14

5.05

3.35

1.75

UD

Gray

6

?

Flint

L.G.

238

Barnfield, Swan.

15

NFT

triangular shapedf tool(pseudoLev.)

14

6.1

4.95

1.6

UD

P. Gray

5

denti. & concave

Flint

L.G.

217

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

Misc.flaketool(pseudo Lev.)

14

7.4

6.4

2.6

UD

Brown

9

denti.& convex

Flint

L.G.

331

Barnfield, Swan.

23

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

5.5

6.15

3.35

UD

D. Gray

7

denti.

Flint

L.G.

45

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

Misc.flaketool/pseudo Lev.)

14

5.9

5.3

2.3

UD

Brown

9

convex

Flint

L.G.

221

Barnfield, Swan.

14

NFT

notch

14

6

5.8

2.4

UD

D. Gray

7

notch

Flint

L.G.

241

Barnfield, Swan.

15

NFT

burin

14

6.4

4.7

2.6

UD

P. Gray

5

burin

Flint

L.G.

43

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

8.7

4.95

3.1

UD

Gray

6

steep

Flint

L.G.

156

?

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

200

300

p

120

N

200

300

F

97

N

200

400

D

115

N

0

0

85

70

14

4

4

100

0

0

70

30

15.5

4.7

5

100

nearsite

s s s

0

0

30

25

21

9

6

200

w w w

495

nearsite

D

0

0

68

42

23

11.5

13

300

vw

300

600

D

130

N

lessfresh

63

nearsite

5

0

60

28

19

9

4

100

300

F

140

N

fresh

25

nearsite

10

0

65

40

15

3

6

200

200

400

p

120

N

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

fresh

40

nearsite

10

0

45

25

18

4

5

100

200

300

?

?

H

219

Bamfield, Swan.

round scraper

lessfresh

15

nearsite

u

20

0

70

50

10

7

2

100

w w w w

200

endscraper

s s s

200

300

p

95

N

20

0

40

25

15.5

6

3

100

400

p

110

N

5

25

21

17.5

4

5

100

300

400

?

?

N

20

0

65

43

19.5

5.5

4

100

vw vw vw

300

20

300

400

F

125

N

30

0

80

60

19

5.5

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

H

30

0

75

47

21

10.5

3

100

vw

300

400

?

?

N

30

0

60

40

22.6

8.5

7

200

w

200

400

?

?

N

30

0

50

32

20.5

6

5

100

vw

300

400

p

120

N

30

20

48

35

24

5.5

4

100

w

200

300

p

120

H

4

5

100

vw

300

400

p

130

N

56

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

30

nearsite

19

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

35

nearsite

8

Bamfield, Swan.

convergent scraper

lessfresh

86

336

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper ornotch

weathered

46

Bamfield, Swan.

convergent scraper

222

Bamfield, Swan.

226 29

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

27

nearsite

261

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

28

nearsite

235

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

lessfresh

90

nearsite

236

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

lessfresh

58

nearsite

218

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

lessfresh

60

nearsite

242

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

145

nearsite

267

Bamfield, Swan.

convergent scraper

lessfresh

80

nearsite

21

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

145

nearsite

s s s s s s s s

52

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

170

nearsite

u

30

0

55

45

25.5

s s

30

0

40

35

26

4

5

100

V

100

200

p

140

N

40

0

12

45

30

5.5

3

100

vw

300

400

p

130

N

40

5

70

33

24.5

12

2

100

WW

400

500

p

143

N

50

0

80

50

16

5.1

3

?

vw

300

?

p

130

N

31

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

lessfresh

185

nearsite

228

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

lessfresh

15

nearsite

322

Bamfield, Swan.

sidetransverse scraper

fresh

160

nearsite

227

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

41

nearsite

u u

19891-31

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

56

nearsite

s

50

0

50

30

20

9

7

200

w

200

400

p

130

H

325

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

fresh

703

nearsite

u

50

5

60

45

38

20

3

100

vw

300

400

p

135

N

38

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

lessfresh

27

nearsite

0

73

60

13.5

4.5

2

100

300

F

110

H

scraper

fresh

48

nearsite

60

0

75

35

18

3.5

4

100

200

300

D

120

H

28

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

15

nearsite

70

0

40

25

12.5

4.8

5

100

w w w

200

Bamfield, Swan.

s s s

60

47

200

300

p

130

N

32

Bamfield, Swan.

double sidescraper

fresh

26

nearsite

u

70

0

65

50

14.5

8

4

100

WW

400

500

p

130

H

59

Bamfield, Swan.

transverse scraper

fresh

35

nearsite

70

0

70

45

15.5

6

4

100

V

100

200

p

120

N

891-3 216

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

weathered

15

nearsite

N

60

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

7.5

nearsite

36

Bamfield, Swan.

convergent scraper

lessfresh

46

nearsite

s s s s

66

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

33

nearsite

13

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

28

nearsite

35

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

55

nearsite

72

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

lessfresh

40

323

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

20

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

55

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

10

Bamfield, Swan.

324

70

0

40

30

18.5

4.2

3

100

V

100

200

F

120

80

0

30

30

11

2.8

3

100

200

300

?

?

H

80

0

83

73

14.5

5.5

2

100

w w

200

300

p

120

N

u u

80

0

65

32

16

4.5

5

100

vw

300

400

D

132

N

90

0

50

35

14

6

2

100

w

200

300

p

120

N

90

0

65

40

18

11

1

100

WW

400

500

p

110

N

nearsite

s s

90

0

65

55

16

10

2

100

w

200

300

p

120

H

150

nearsite

u

90

5

85

65

22.5

8.5

2

100

300

400

p

130

N

weathered

80

nearsite

90

0

55

35

21

8

3

100

300

400

F

135

N

lessfresh

15

nearsite

95

0

70

65

10.5

4.5

1

100

w

200

300

?

?

N

sidescraper

lessfresh

70

nearsite

95

0

45

35

21

8

3

100

WW

400

500

?

?

N

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

110

nearsite

70

0

75

60

20

9

5

100

WW

400

500

p

136

N

2

Bamfield, Swan.

borer(pseudo Levalloisian)

fresh

25

nearsite

0

50

60

?

14

notsig.

4

100

V

100

200

p

130

N

238

Bamfield, Swan.

triangular shapedf tool(pseudoLev.)

fresh

27

nearsite

s s s s s s

vw vw

0

0

60

37

16

11

6

200

w

200

400

p

110

N

217

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.ffaketool(pseudoLev.)

lessfresh

105

nearsite

D

0

0

60

30

22.5

11

4

100

V

100

200

D

125

N

331

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.ffaketool

fresh

110

nearsite

5

20

50

45

19.5

6.7

8

200

V

100

300

p

120

H

45

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.flaketool(pseudo Lev.)

lessfresh

76

nearsite

s s

5

0

70

40

18.5

13.5

5

100

w

200

300

p

125

N

221

Bamfield, Swan.

notch

lessfresh

70

nearsite

u

10

0

90

85

18

3.5

4

100

vw

300

400

D

130

H

241

Bamfield, Swan.

burin

fresh

60

nearsite

30

0

55

38

18

5

7

200

w

200

400

p

125

N

43

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

107

nearsite

s s

30

0

80

70

20.5

2

8

200

V

100

300

D

125

N

157

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

33

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NFT

notch

14

3.1

4.5

1.1

UD

Gray

6

notch

Flint

LG.

237

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

Misc.ffaketool(pseudoLev)

14

8.4

5.3

1.35

UD

Gray

6

denti.

Flint

LG.

26

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

11.3

7.8

4.2

UD

GDBR

12

straight

Flint

LG.

34

Bamfield, Swan.

2

NFT

notch

14

6.7

4.7

2.1

UD

D. Gray

7

notch

Flint

LG.

229

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

6.7

4.4

2.3

UD

GBR

11

straight

Flint

LG.

330

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NFT

burin

14

7.1

4.8

4.65

UD

D. Gray

7

burinpoint

Flint

LG.

68

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NFT

pointedform

15

5.45

5

2.1

b3

Gray

6

straight

Flint

LG.

230

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NFT

pointedform

15

9.8

5.9

3.5

UD

Brown

9

convex& denti.

Flint

LG.

321

Bamfield, Swan.

17

NFT

pointedform

15

6.55

4.2

2.1

UD

P. Gray

5

point

Flint

LG.

71

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NFT

pointedform

15

6.05

3.5

2

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

269

Bamfield, Swan.

17

NFT

pointedform

15

7.2

4.6

2

UD

Brown

9

point

Flint

LG.

268

Bamfield, Swan.

17

NFT

brokenpointedform

15.44

5.8

4.3

1.6

B.1'

P. Brown

8

?

Flint

LG.

42

Bamfield, Swan.

3

NCT

chopping tool

20

6.8

7

4.85

UD

GDBR

12

zigzag

Flint

LG.

326

Bamfield, Swan.

22

NCT

chopping tool

20

8.7

8.9

6.3

UD

D. Gray

7

zigzag

Flint

LG.

335

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NCT

chopping tool

20

9.4

7.5

5.85

UD

D. Brown

10

zigzag

Flint

LG.

332

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NCT

chopping tool

20

7.7

4.4

4.2

UD

D. Gray

7

zigzag

Flint

LG.

334

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NCT

pyramidalcoretool

21

3.6

6.4

5.65

UD

D. Gray

7

zigzag

Flint

LG.

333

Bamfield, Swan.

23

NCT

bi-pyramidal coretool

21

6

6.7

5.75

UD

D. Brown

10

zigzag

Flint

LG.

232

Bamfield, Swan.

15

NCT

22

9.8

6.8

4.3

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

LG.

327

Bamfield, Swan.

22

NCT

cleaver cleaver

22

13.6

9.5

5.7

UD

D. Brown

10

straight

Flint

LG.

75

Bamfield, Swan.

4

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

6.6

6.2

5.3

UD

Black

13

zigzag

Flint

LG.

74

Barnfield, Swan.

4

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

6.45

5.2

2.95

UD

D. Gray

7

cleaver edge

Flint

LG.

40

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

6.9

7

4.6

UD

Gray

6

zigzag

Flint

LG.

41

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

4.35

5.7

2.2

UD

Black

13

steepstraight

Flint

LG.

39

Barnfield, Swan.

3

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

8.75

4.25

3.3

UD

D. Gray

7

zigzag

Flint

LG.

272

Barnfield, Swan.

17

NCT

brokenpointedform

31.44

7.6

5.8

4.9

B.1'

P.Brown

8

straight

Flint

LG.

14

Barnfield, Swan.

1

Nat

nature/fracture

48

5

2.5

1.2

Black

13

Flint

LG.

25

Barnfield, Swan.

2

Nat

nature/fracture

48

5.5

3.8

1.9

D. Gray

7

Flint

LG.

6

Barnfield, Swan.

1

Nat

nature/fracture

48

5.75

4.85

2.7

P.Brown

8

Flint

LG.

1381

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

1.8

0.6

0.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

LL

1443

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.2

1.7

0.4

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LL

1428

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.4

2.6

0.8

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1438

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.7

2

0.65

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1376

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.8

2.9

1.1

UD

Black

13

Flint

LL

1399

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.85

2.7

0.5

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LL

1375

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.1

2.5

0.8

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1398

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.1

1.8

0.8

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1441

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.7

2.85

0.65

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1378

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.8

2.6

1.7

UD

Black

13

Flint

LL

1384

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.8

3.9

1.7

UD

Brown

9

Flint

LL

1380

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.85

3.7

1

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

LL

1437

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.85

3.3

0.85

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1397

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.1

2.7

1

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1426

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.4

4.25

1.1

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1370

Barnfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.6

2.8

1.3

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

158

convex

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

w w

200

300

p

120

H

200

300

p

110

N

68

Bamfield, Swan.

pointedfonn

lessfresh

57

nearsite

s s s s s s s

230

Bamfield, Swan.

pointedfonn

lessfresh

148

nearsite

D

321

Bamfield, Swan.

pointedfonn

fresh

35

nearsite

D

5

0

0

0

17.5

0

7

200

V

100

300

p

125

H

71

Bamfield, Swan.

pointedfonn

lessfresh

46

nearsite

u

80

0

85

75

16.5

9

2

100

WW

400

500

F

?

N

269

Bamfield, Swan.

pointedfonn

lessfresh

60

nearsite

D

0

0

0

0

19.5

0

6

200

V

100

300

p

120

N

268

Bamfield, Swan.

brokenpointedfonn

lessfresh

40

nearsite

10

0

0

0

16

0

6

200

V

100

300

p

?

N

42

Bamfield, Swan.

choppingtool

weathered

233

nearsite

20

20

90

80

21.5

6.5

8

200

V

100

300

326

Bamfield, Swan.

choppingtool

fresh

426

nearsite

20

5

100

45

28

16.5

10

200

V

100

300

335

Bamfield, Swan.

choppingtool

weathered

60

nearsite

s s s s

35

70

70

60

26.5

8.5

8

200

V

100

300

p

135

N

332

Bamfield, Swan.

choppingtool

fresh

150

nearsite

u

80

70

90

48

20

4.7

8

200

V

100

300

334

Bamfield, Swan.

pyramidal coretool

lessfresh

112

nearsite

80

0

0

15.5

0

8

200

V

100

300

Bamfield, Swan.

bi-pyramidal coretool

weathered

165

nearsite

40

0

0

0

19.5

0

11

300

V

100

400

232

Bamfield, Swan.

cleaver

lessfresh

242

nearsite

80

8

85

75

26.5

4.5

3

100

w

200

300

p

120

N

327

Bamfield, Swan.

cleaver

lessfresh

650

nearsite

s s s s

40

333

50

0

80

72

37

7.8

8

200

V

100

300

75

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

250

nearsite

u

30

40

80

70

21

6

10

200

V

100

300

74

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

107

nearsite

40

80

78

55

19.5

5.5

4

100

V

100

200

40

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

215

nearsite

s s

40

20

120

75

22.5

9.5

6

200

V

100

300

41

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

80

nearsite

u

80

65

85

75

17

4

6

200

V

100

300

39

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

126

nearsite

80

30

80

65

22.5

11

1

100

w

200

300

272

Bamfield, Swan.

brokenpointedfonn

fresh

151

nearsite

s s

20

5

70

40

21

11

7

200

V

100

300

14

Bamfield, Swan.

natural fracture

fresh

18

nearsite

25

Bamfield, Swan.

natural fracture

fresh

47

nearsite

u u

6

Bamfield, Swan.

natural fracture

fresh

72

nearsite

s

1381

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

0.1

nearsite

D

1443

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

1

nearsite

s

1428

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

3.5

nearsite

1438

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

3

nearsite

1376

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

5.8

nearsite

u u u

1399

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

3.8

nearsite

1375

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

6.6

nearsite

s s

1398

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

4.4

nearsite

u

1441

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

85

nearsite

s

1378

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

14.2

nearsite

u

1384

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

19.4

nearsite

D

1380

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

11.3

nearsite

D

1437

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

9.9

nearsite

s

1397

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

10.5

nearsite

1426

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

18

nearsite

1370

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

12

nearsite

u u u

33

Bamfield, Swan.

notch

fresh

15

nearsite

237

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.flaketool(pseudo Lev)

fresh

53

nearsite

26

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.flaketool

lessfresh

357

nearsite

34

Bamfield, Swan.

notch

fresh

54

nearsite

229

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.flaketool

lessfresh

54

nearsite

330

Bamfield, Swan.

burin

fresh

140

nearsite

40

0

75

65

12.2

2

2

100

40

0

50

38

22.5

6

4

100

60

0

75

53

32

8.5

?

?

V

100

?

F

140

H

70

0

93

85

18

5.2

4

100

w

200

300

p

98

N

80

0

70

40

18

4

4

100

V

100

200

p

125

N

30

0

0

0

21

0

6

200

200

400

0

0

45

40

17.5

3.5

5

100

200

300

p

115

H

0

0

70

55

25

17

5

100

w w w

200

300

p

140

N

159

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

1406

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.7

3.3

0.8

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1371

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.8

3.6

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1385

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.9

2.6

1.4

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1373

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5

3.7

0.9

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1427

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.3

2.85

1.1

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1377

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.7

4.6

2.3

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1383

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.7

3.6

1.6

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

LL

1429

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.5

2.3

0.65

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1409

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.7

5.2

2.2

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

LL

1405

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.9

5

2.1

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1407

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.95

5.2

1.4

UD

GBR

11

Flint

LL

1404

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.2

4.95

1.7

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1408

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.4

4

1.4

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1367

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.8

7.1

1.6

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1396

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.7

6.8

3

UD

Black

13

Flint

LL

1424

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NF

ffakedebitage

1

9.2

8

2.45

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1382

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NF

ffakedebitage

1

11.75

6.5

3.7

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

LL

1368

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NC

coredebitage

8

7.9

7.4

6.6

UD

Black

13

Flint

LL

1372

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NC

coredebitage

8

8.15

6.1

4

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

LL

1379

Bamfield, Swan.

74

NC

coredebitage

8

9.4

9.45

5.9

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1432

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NC

coredebitage

8

9.5

8

6.2

UD

Brown

9

Flint

LL

1401

Bamfield, Swan.

76

NC

coredebitage

8

18.6

8

9.6

UD

Gray

6

Flint

LL

1436

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

4.05

3

1.1

UD

D. Gray

7

denticulate

Flint

LL

1425

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

5.3

4.6

1.7

UD

D.Yellow

4

convex

Flint

LL

1440

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NFT

convergent scraper

13

6.7

5.7

1.8

UD

Gray

6

convex

Flint

LL

1431

Bamfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.9

4.9

1.8

UD

Brown

9

denticulate

Flint

LL

1400

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NFT

sidescraper

13

8.1

4.8

2.95

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

LL

1423

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

12.1

6.7

2.3

UD

D. Gray

7

straight

Flint

LL

1402

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NFT

sidescraper

13

8

5

2.15

UD

D.Brown

10

convex & notch

Flint

LL

1439

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

3.45

4.7

1

UD

Gray

6

straight

Flint

LL

1434

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

endscraper

13

7

5

1.9

UD

Gray

6

convex

Flint

LL

1442

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

sidescraper

13

7.45

3.95

1.5

UD

D. Gray

7

denticulate

Flint

LL

1430

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

endscraper

13

5.6

3.6

1.5

UD

D. Gray

7

steepedge

Flint

LL

1435

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

2.6

3.2

0.7

UD

D. Gray

7

convex

Flint

LL

1403

Barnfield, Swan.

76

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

8.2

5.8

2.4

UD

Brown

9

convex

Flint

LL

1433

Barnfield, Swan.

78

NCT

bi-pyramidal coratool

21

7.4

5.9

4.7

UD

GDBR

12

zigzag

Flint

LL

173

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.1

3.1

0.5

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

P199010-7157

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.3

3.45

0.7

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

15

Barnham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.6

3.7

0.8

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

162

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.75

4.2

0.9

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

163

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.75

2.8

0.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

11

Barnham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

2.95

4.5

0.8

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

164

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3

2.5

1

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

167

Barnham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.2

2.2

1.2

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

19933-110

Barnham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.4

2

1

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

160

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

1406

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

12.5

nearsite

1371

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

21

nearsite

1385

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

16.6

nearsite

1373

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

10

nearsite

1427

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

18

nearsite

1377

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

45.4

nearsite

s s s s s s

1383

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

27.6

nearsite

D

1429

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

11.1

nearsite

u

1409

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

weathered

67

nearsite

D

1405

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

51

nearsite

1407

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

36.6

nearsite

1404

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

58

nearsite

1408

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

35

nearsite

s s s s

1367

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

69

nearsite

1396

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

fresh

128

nearsite

u u

1424

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

147

nearsite

s

1382

Bamfield, Swan.

flakedebitage

lessfresh

264

nearsite

D

1368

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

fresh

218

nearsite

1372

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

fresh

117

nearsite

u u

1379

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

fresh

357

nearsite

s

1432

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

weathered

259

nearsite

D

1401

Bamfield, Swan.

coredebitage

fresh

1139

nearsite

1436

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

11.3

nearsite

s s

0

0

75

70

12

3.8

6

200

WW

400

600

?

?

N

1425

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

42

nearsite

VD

0

0

40

30

17.5

4.5

7

200

V

100

300

?

?

N

1440

Bamfield, Swan.

convergent scraper

fresh

64

nearsite

s

0

0

60

30

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1431

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

weathered

62

nearsite

D

0

0

47

38

19.5

5

5

100

V

100

200

?

?

N

1400

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

102

nearsite

0

65

55

21.5

7.5

9

200

V

100

300

?

?

N

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

180

nearsite

s s

0

1423

0

0

40

30

32

7

9

200

300

500

?

?

N

1402

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

weathered

65

nearsite

D

10

0

70

35

21.5

9

5

100

300

400

F

125

N

1439

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

lessfresh

13

nearsite

80

0

43

40

13

4.5

4

100

200

300

?

?

H

1434

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

lessfresh

56

nearsite

80

0

30

27

20.8

3.5

4

100

200

300

D

123

N

1442

Bamfield, Swan.

sidescraper

fresh

40

nearsite

s s s

vw vw w w

80

0

80

75

18.5

10

2

100

WW

400

500

D

125

N

1430

Bamfield, Swan.

endscraper

lessfresh

33

nearsite

90

0

85

80

16

2

2

100

vw

300

400

p

105

N

1435

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.ffaketool

fresh

7

nearsite

u u

20

0

38

31

9.5

3

5

100

WW

400

500

?

?

N

1403

Bamfield, Swan.

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

116

nearsite

0

0

60

50

23

10

6

200

w

200

400

D

135

N

1433

Bamfield, Swan.

bi-pyramidal coretool

weathered

195

nearsite

s s

5

10

0

0

21

0

12

300

V

100

400

D

173

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

3.2

nearsite

P199010-7157

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

5.6

nearsite

D

15

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

7.2

nearsite

VD

162

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

9

nearsite

VD

163

Bamham

flakedebitage

lessfresh

5

nearsite

VD

11

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

10

nearsite

VD

164

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

5.5

nearsite

D

167

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

8.3

nearsite

D

19933-110

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

3.8

nearsite

VD

161

notsig.

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

175

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.4

2.4

0.9

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

172

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.5

2.1

1.3

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

171

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.7

2.9

1.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

174

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.75

2.75

0.7

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

14

Bamham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.2

2.1

1.6

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

170

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.2

2.2

1.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

17

Bamham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.3

5.1

0.9

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

160

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.3

3.3

0.7

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

168

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.5

2.75

1.05

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

169

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.6

3

1.5

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

166

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.7

3.8

1.45

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

450

Bamham

95

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.75

4.6

1.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

161

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.95

8.1

2.15

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

158

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.45

7.45

1

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

21

Bamham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.65

3.4

1.1

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

16

Bamham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6

4.4

1.85

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

P19933-1433

Bamham

95

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.6

5.5

1

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

159

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.8

4.3

1.2

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

177

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

11.5

5.75

2.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

178

Bamham

9

NF

ffakedebitage

1

11.5

7.9

3.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

23

Bamham

67

NF

ffakedebitage

1

11.7

9.8

2.4

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

435

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

2.2

1.7

0.3

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

458

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

2.2

1.1

0.25

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

454

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

2.7

2.2

0.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

436

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3

2.8

0.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

452

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3

2.1

0.4

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

456

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.15

2.5

0.6

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

442

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.25

2.2

0.4

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

441

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.35

2.2

0.55

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

437

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.5

5

0.7

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

439

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.55

1.95

0.4

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

448

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.7

2.1

0.5

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

443

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.9

3

0.3

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

449

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

3.9

1.8

0.3

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

460

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4

2.7

0.65

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

440

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.15

2.6

0.25

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

445

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.2

3.55

0.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

446

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.5

3.85

0.3

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

453

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.5

4.4

0.75

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

457

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.7

3.5

0.5

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

444

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.9

3.2

0.55

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

455

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.15

3.3

0.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

447

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.5

3.1

1.3

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

451

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.5

2.5

0.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

459

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.65

4.65

1

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

19

Bamham

67

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.7

2.8

0.5

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

438

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.8

4.4

1.3

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

461

Bamham

95

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6

5.1

1

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

162

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

175

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

5.3

nearsite

D

172

Bamham

flakedebitage

weathered

11.2

nearsite

171

Bamham

flakedebitage

lessfresh

17.7

nearsite

174

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

7

nearsite

s s s

14

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

12

nearsite

VD

170

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

10.7

nearsite

D

17

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

15.5

nearsite

VD

160

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

12.5

nearsite

D

168

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

12.6

nearsite

D

169

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

17.2

nearsite

s

166

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

29

nearsite

D

450

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

50.3

nearsite

VD

161

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

94.9

nearsite

VD

158

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

42

nearsite

VD

21

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

15.9

nearsite

VD

16

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

35

nearsite

VD

P19933-1433

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

20

nearsite

VD

159

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

41

nearsite

VD

177

Bamham

flakedebitage

weathered

243

nearsite

D

178

Bamham

flakedebitage

weathered

357

nearsite

D

23

Bamham

flakedebitage

fresh

215

nearsite

VD

435

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

0.8

nearsite

VD

458

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

0.9

nearsite

VD

454

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

1.9

nearsite

VD

436

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

2

nearsite

VD

452

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

3

nearsite

VD

456

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

3

nearsite

VD

442

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

2

nearsite

VD

441

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

3.3

nearsite

VD

437

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

16.3

nearsite

VD

439

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

2.6

nearsite

VD

448

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

3.3

nearsite

VD

443

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

3.8

nearsite

VD

449

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

1.8

nearsite

VD

460

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

4.8

nearsite

VD

440

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

2.5

nearsite

VD

445

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

12.9

nearsite

VD

446

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

10

nearsite

VD

453

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

10.4

nearsite

VD

457

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

5.4

nearsite

VD

444

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

5

nearsite

VD

455

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

8.9

nearsite

VD

447

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

19.5

nearsite

VD

451

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

7.9

nearsite

VD

459

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

17.8

nearsite

VD

19

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

8

nearsite

VD

438

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

33

nearsite

VD

461

Bamham

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

25.3

nearsite

VD

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

163

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

624

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

4.25

4.5

2

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

EastFarm

1029

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

4.6

4.8

4.3

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

EastFarm

P199010-7607

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

5.5

5.3

3.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

608

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

5.5

5.2

5.5

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

EastFarm

625

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

5.5

6.4

5.1

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

EastFarm

1033

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

5.8

6.7

5.1

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

EastFarm

614

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

6.3

4.65

4.85

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

620

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

6.35

5.2

2

UD

P. Gray

5

Flint

EastFarm

615

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

6.75

4.8

4.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

1031

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

6.8

5.5

3.75

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

EastFarm

610

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

7.2

6.2

5

UD

White

1

Flint

EastFarm

1036

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

7.6

7.8

5.8

UD

Brown

9

Flint

EastFarm

617

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

7.7

6.6

4.6

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

623

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

7.7

5

2.6

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

EastFarm

P199010-7618

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

7.9

6.35

3.8

UD

Brown

9

Flint

EastFarm

1037

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

7.9

8.4

7

UD

Brown

9

Flint

EastFarm

1030

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

9.1

7.7

6

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

EastFarm

1028

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

9.3

7.3

6.7

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

EastFarm

1032

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

9.3

5.4

4.7

UD

Gray

6

Flint

EastFarm

622

Bamham

28

NC

coredebitage

8

9.5

12.2

8.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

612

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

9.8

8.9

4.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

EastFarm

609

Bamham

27

NC

coredebitage

8

9.9

6.1

6

UD

Gray

6

Flint

EastFarm

1035

Bamham

55

NC

coredebitage

8

13.2

10.5

7.6

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

EastFarm

176

Bamham

9

NFT

sidescraper(pseudoLev)

13

4.2

3.7

1.2

UD

Yellow

3

convex

Flint

EastFarm

165

Bamham

9

NFT

scraper(pseudo Lev)

13

7.75

5.55

1.5

UD

D.Yellow

4

convex

Flint

EastFarm

12

Bamham

67

NFT

sidescraper

13

8.1

6.7

2.4

UD

D.Yellow

4

convex

Flint

EastFarm

22

Bamham

67

NFT

sidescraper

13

7.4

5.7

1.5

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

EastFarm

13

Bamham

67

NFT

sidescraper

13

9.05

6.3

2.5

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

EastFarm

20

Bamham

67

NFT

sidescraper

13

10

9.2

1.8

UD

D.Yellow

4

convex

Flint

EastFarm

18

Bamham

67

NFT

longblade

14

14.5

3.8

2.75

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

EastFarm

621

Bamham

28

NCT

chopping tool

20

13.1

10

9.6

UD

Yellow

3

zigzag

Flint

EastFarm

1034

Bamham

55

NCT

chopping tool

20

6.95

8.15

5.5

UD

GBR

11

zigzag

Flint

EastFarm

613

Bamham

27

NCT

pyramidalcoretool

21

3.5

4.9

4.1

UD

Brown

9

zigzag

Flint

EastFarm

619

Bamham

28

NCT

notch

29

10.4

6.3

4.6

UD

White

1

notch

Flint

EastFarm

240

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

3.35

3

0.8

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

277

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4

3.4

1

UD

Brown

9

Flint

279

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.4

3.7

1.6

UD

Gray

6

Flint

280

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.4

5.7

1.5

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

252

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.7

3.85

0.7

UD

P. gray

5

Flint

253

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.75

4

0.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

292

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

4.9

2.6

1

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

268

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5

3.4

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

247

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.15

4.6

1

b. side1

P. Yellow

2

Flint

290

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.15

6.15

1.7

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

249

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.2

2.5

0.9

UD

Brown

9

Flint

164

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

624

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

34

nearsite

1029

Bamham

coredebitage

weathered

90

nearsite

s s

P199010-7607

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

102

nearsite

VD

608

Bamham

coredebitage

lessfresh

171

nearsite

s

625

Bamham

coredebitage

lessfresh

182

nearsite

D

1033

Bamham

coredebitage

weathered

221

nearsite

D

614

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

123

nearsite

D

620

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

73

nearsite

s

615

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

90

nearsite

D

1031

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

146

nearsite

s

610

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

207

nearsite

D

1036

Bamham

coredebitage

lessfresh

295

nearsite

D

617

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

260

nearsite

D

623

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

86

nearsite

s

P199010-7618

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

165

nearsite

D

1037

Bamham

coredebitage

lessfresh

414

nearsite

D

1030

Bamham

coredebitage

lessfresh

475

nearsite

D

1028

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

322

nearsite

VD

1032

Bamham

coredebitage

weathered

240

nearsite

s

622

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

626

nearsite

VD

612

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

235

nearsite

D

609

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

283

nearsite

D

1035

Bamham

coredebitage

fresh

677

nearsite

176

Bamham

sidescraper(pseudo Lev)

lessfresh

17.1

nearsite

s s

0

0

40

32

13.5

3.8

5

100

w

200

300

p

95

N

165

Bamham

scraper(pseudoLev)

fresh

60.3

nearsite

D

0

0

45

30

21.5

10.5

7

200

V

100

300

p

130

H

12

Bamham

sidescraper

lessfresh

100

nearsite

VD

0

0

40

35

23.5

7.5

4

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

22

Bamham

sidescraper

fresh

49.7

nearsite

VD

30

0

35

28

21.5

6

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

13

Bamham

sidescraper

fresh

135

nearsite

VD

30

0

50

40

26

7

4

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

20

Bamham

sidescraper

fresh

151

nearsite

VD

50

0

40

30

32

7.5

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

18

Bamham

longblade

fresh

131

nearsite

VD

50

0

60

30

33

15

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

621

Bamham

choppingtool

fresh

904

nearsite

VD

20

0

85

60

36.5

11.5

11

300

V

100

400

1034

Bamham

choppingtool

weathered

290

nearsite

s

40

40

65

55

24

8

3

100

V

100

200

613

Bamham

pyramidal coretool

weathered

52.7

nearsite

D

80

0

9

?

?

?

?

?

619

Bamham

notch

fresh

252

nearsite

VD

70

70

4

2

100

V

100

200

240

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

10

I

277

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

15

L

s s

279

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

fresh

25

I

u

280

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

30

I

252

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

10

I

253

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

15

I

292

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

10

I

s s s s

268

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

15

I

u

247

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

25

I

s

290

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

weathered

55

I

D

249

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

fresh

15

I

u 165

50

38

26

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

270

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.2

3.6

1.6

UD

Brown

9

Flint

261

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.35

3.65

1.15

UD

Black

13

Flint

241

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.7

3.1

1.9

b. side1

D.Yellow

4

Flint

273

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.7

3.9

1.3

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

239

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.75

4.25

1.5

UD

Black

13

Flint

238

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6

4.1

2.1

UD

Brown

9

Flint

281

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.1

4.2

1.1

UD

Gray

6

Flint

242

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.2

5.8

1.8

UD

Brown

9

Flint

287

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.2

5.3

2.3

UD

P. gray

5

Flint

269

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.3

5.2

1

UD

Black

13

Flint

274

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.3

4.6

1.6

UD

Black

13

Flint

286

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.4

5

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

156

Berinsfield

Box14

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.6

5.2

3.4

UD

Black

13

Flint

353

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.6

6.8

0.9

b. top2

Brown

9

Flint

291

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

6.8

5.15

1.3

UD

Brown

9

Flint

272

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7

5.9

1.4

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

135

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.35

5.3

1.95

UD

Black

13

Flint

237

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.8

5.6

1.95

b. side1

Yellow

3

Flint

136

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.9

5.1

2.8

UD

D. gray

7

Flint

246

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.1

3.6

1.05

b. side1

Black

13

Flint

138

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.1

7.4

2

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

131

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.1

7.3

2.5

UD

D. gray

7

Flint

125

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

9.1

9.1

2.5

UD

Brown

9

Flint

127

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

9.4

7

2.9

UD

Black

13

Flint

129

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

9.6

5.1

2.4

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

128

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

10.8

8.2

1.6

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

130

Berinsfield

Box12

NF

ffakedebitage

1

12.4

8.3

4.25

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

283

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

2.9

4.4

0.7

UD

P. Yellow

3

Flint

265

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.3

3.25

0.45

UD

P. gray

5

Flint

278

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.4

3.7

0.85

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

259

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.7

2.4

0.9

UD

Brown

9

Flint

262

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.7

3.7

0.8

UD

Black

13

Flint

256

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

4.85

3.3

1.3

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

347

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.2

6.5

1.35

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

257

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.2

3.2

0.7

UD

Brown

9

Flint

251

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.3

3.8

0.5

UD

Brown

9

Flint

255

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

5.9

3.5

0.8

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

254

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6

3.7

1.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

285

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6

4.5

1

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

258

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6

3.2

0.9

UD

D. gray

7

Flint

260

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.15

4

0.9

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

266

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.4

3.55

1.3

UD

Black

13

Flint

250

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.4

3.8

0.8

UD

Brown

9

Flint

289

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.4

5.4

2.2

UD

Gray

6

Flint

342

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.5

3.4

0.8

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

288

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

6.6

5.15

1.2

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

349

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7

6.4

0.95

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

337

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.1

3.9

0.85

UD

White

1

Flint

166

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

s s s s s s s s s

270

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

30

I

261

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

20

I

241

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

35

I

273

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

25

I

239

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

45

I

238

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

weathered

50

I

281

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

30

I

242

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

60

I

287

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

65

I

269

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

20

I

274

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

35

I

u u

286

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

weathered

40

I

s

156

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

115

I

353

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

fresh

40

I

u u

291

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

45

I

s

272

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

60

I

D

135

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

85

I

237

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

65

I

136

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

110

I

s s s

246

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

fresh

35

I

u

138

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

90

I

131

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

115

I

s s

125

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

210

I

D

127

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

130

I

129

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

100

I

128

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

185

I

130

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

400

I

283

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

10

I

265

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

5

I

278

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

10

I

259

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

5

I

s s s s s s s s

262

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

15

I

u

256

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

20

I

347

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

40

I

257

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

10

I

251

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

20

I

255

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

weathered

15

I

s s s s s

254

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

fresh

25

I

u

285

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

weathered

30

I

D

258

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

15

I

s

260

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

20

I

D

266

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

30

I

250

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

15

I

289

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

10

I

342

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

25

I

288

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

lessfresh

45

I

s s s s s

349

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingflake(soff flaking)

fresh

55

I

D

337

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

30

I

D

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

167

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

248

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.2

4.2

0.9

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

350

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.5

6.3

1.4

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

267

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.55

4.1

1.05

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

346

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.8

4.5

1.4

UD

Gray

6

Flint

264

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.9

4.1

1.2

UD

P. Yellow

2

Flint

271

Berinsfield

Box21

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

7.9

5.7

0.9

UD

Yellow

3

Flint

338

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

8.45

5

1.6

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

348

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

8.7

5.4

1

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

351

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

handaxe trimming flake

2

9.9

5.3

1.4

UD

D.Yellow

4

Flint

188

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

6.6

7.75

2.4

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

198

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

6.9

4.3

1.6

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

194

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

7.7

6

2.4

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

189

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

8.3

9.6

2.8

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

193

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

10.85

7.1

2.4

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

187

Berinsfield

Box16

NF

ffakedebitage

4

13.2

9.4

3.7

UD

Q

14

Quartzite

354

Berinsfield

Box26

NF

ffakedebitage

7

6.1

6.4

1.2

UD

Yellow,etc

15

unknown

161

Berinsfield

Box14

NC

coredebitage

8

5.5

5.1

2.55

UD

GDBR

12

Flint

155

Berinsfield

Box14

NC

coredebitage

8

6.95

5.15

2.6

UD

Brown

9

Flint

331

Berinsfield

Box26

NC

coredebitage

8

10.25

9.1

3.9

UD

D.Yellow

4

236

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

convergent scraper

13

4.65

5.4

1.2

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

345

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

sidescraper

13

6.7

2.4

1.1

UD

BLACK

13

convex

Flint

244

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

denticulate scraper

13

8

5

0.9

UD

Brown

9

denticulate

Flint

243

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

endscraper

13

4.9

4.6

1.4

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

334

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

sidescraper

13

8.5

5.2

1.8

UD

Gray

6

convex

Flint

126

Berinsfield

Box12

NFT

sidescraper withholfow

13

11

5.8

1.3

UD

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

245

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

holfow scraper

13

6.5

5.1

1.9

UD

Black

13

hollow

Flint

333

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

unifacial scraper

13

11.15

7.25

2.1

UD

P. Yellow

2

convex

Flint

263

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

sidescraper

13

9.25

4.15

2.5

UD

Brown

9

?

Flint

137

Berinsfield

Box12

NFT

doublesidescraper

13

10.5

5.7

2.7

UD

D. brown

10

straight

Flint

352

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

round scraper

13

7.25

6.8

2

UD

BLACK

13

round

Flint

162

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

broken sidescraper

13.44

6.3

4.8

2.4

B.1'

GDBR

12

284

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

4.7

4

1.3

UD

P. Yellow

2

round

Flint

275

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

4.7

3.45

1.3

UD

Gray

6

round

Flint

276

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

5.5

3.6

1.45

UD

Brown

9

convergent

Flint

282

Berinsfield

Box21

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

5.5

4.9

0.9

UD

GBR

11

round

Flint

139

Berinsfield

Box12

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

6.45

6.2

1.65

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

163

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

borer

14

4.7

2.5

2.2

UD

Gray

6

point

Flint

164

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

Misc.flaketool

14

9.35

5.1

2.6

UD

Black

13

steepedge

Flint

150

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

brokentool

14.44

6

3.75

2.3

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

159

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

brokentool

14.44

6.2

3.7

1.7

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

169

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

brokentool

14.44

9.1

6

2.1

B.1'

Yellow

3

?

Flint

160

Berinsfield

Box14

NFT

brokentool

14.44

?

?

?

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

322

Berinsfield

Box24

NFT

pointedForm

15

9.5

4.9

2.6

UD

Yellow

3

straight

Flint

143

Berinsfield

Box13

NFT

pointedform

15

10.35

5.6

3.3

UD

Yellow

3

straight

Flint

335

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

pointedform

15

7.5

4.1

1.7

UD

Gray

6

point

Flint

133

Berinsfield

Box12

NFT

pointedform

15

9.2

5.8

2.4

UD

GDBR

12

point

Flint

340

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levalfoisian flaketool

16

7

5.3

1.2

UD

P. Yellow

2

convex & concave

Flint

344

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levalfoisian flaketool

16

7.35

4.95

1.3

UD

P. Yellow

2

straight

Flint

168

Flint

steepedge

Flint

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

248

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingffake(soff ffaking)

lessfresh

30

I

s

350

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingffake(soff ffaking)

lessfresh

70

I

D

267

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

25

I

D

346

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

40

I

u

264

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

40

I

271

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingffake(soff ffaking)

lessfresh

50

I

338

Berinsfield

handaxe trimming flake

lessfresh

65

I

348

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingffake(soff ffaking)

fresh

50

I

351

Berinsfield

handaxetrimmingffake(soff ffaking)

fresh

80

I

s s s s s

188

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

125

Q

Q

198

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

55

Q

Q

194

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

110

Q

Q

189

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

240

Q

Q

193

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

230

Q

Q

187

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

500

Q

Q

354

Berinsfield

flakedebitage

lessfresh

55

161

Berinsfield

coredebitage

lessfresh

90

I

155

Berinsfield

coredebitage

lessfresh

80

I

331

Berinsfield

coredebitage

lessfresh

425

I

236

Berinsfield

convergent scraper

lessfresh

35

I

s s s s

345

Berinsfield

sidescraper

fresh

30

I

u

244

Berinsfield

denticulate scraper

lessfresh

35

I

243

Berinsfield

endscraper

lessfresh

25

I

s s

334

Berinsfield

sidescraper

fresh

75

I

u

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

unknown unknown

126

Berinsfield

sidescraperwithhollow

lessfresh

85

I

s

245

Berinsfield

hollowscraper

fresh

55

I

u

333

Berinsfield

unifacial scraper

fresh

185

I

D

263

Berinsfield

sidescraper

lessfresh

90

I

u

137

Berinsfield

double sidescraper

lessfresh

125

I

s

352

Berinsfield

roundscraper

fresh

120

I

u

162

Berinsfield

broken sidescraper

lessfresh

75

I

284

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

fresh

20

I

275

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

20

I

276

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

25

I

282

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

weathered

25

I

139

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

80

I

163

Berinsfield

borer

lessfresh

30

I

s s s s s s s

164

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

125

I

u

150

Berinsfield

brokentool

weathered

45

L

159

Berinsfield

brokentool

weathered

40

I

169

Berinsfield

brokentool

weathered

140

I

160

Berinsfield

brokentool

lessfresh

40

I

322

Berinsfield

pointedFann

lessfresh

125

I

143

Berinsfield

pointedfonn

lessfresh

180

I

s s s s s s

335

Berinsfield

pointedfonn

fresh

60

I

u

133

Berinsfield

pointedfonn

lessfresh

110

I

s

340

Berinsfield

Levalloisian flaketool

lessfresh

50

I

D

344

Berinsfield

Levalloisian flaketool

lessfresh

55

I

s

0 0 0

80

70

17

12

7

200

V

100

300

?

?

?

35

30

16.5

7.5

7

200

WV

300

500

?

?

N

30

25

21

21

5

100

w

200

300

?

?

H

40

30

15

3

5

100

V

100

200

?

?

H

55

45

22

9

4

100

WW

400

500

p

130

N

35

30

25

9

7

200

400

?

?

H

50

40

19

6

7

200

w w

200

30 40

0 0 0 0 0

200

400

p

130

N

55

45

30

16

5

100

WW

400

500

p

140

N

50 50 90 40

0 0 0 0

60

50

22

7

5

100

w

200

300

F

?

?

65

45

26.5

12

2

100

WV

300

400

?

?

N

65

35

24

20

4

100

WW

400

500

D

120

H

60

50

18

6

5

100

w

200

300

?

?

?

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

45

35

13.5

5.5

6

200

WV

300

500

?

?

?

60

30

14

8.5

10

200

WV

300

500

?

?

?

60

35

14

8

10

200

WV

300

500

?

?

?

50

35

17

17

10

200

WW

400

600

?

?

N

?

?

?

?

8

200

V

100

300

p

120

N

60 60 ? ? ?

30 0 ? ? ?

60

55

13

8

7

200

w

200

400

?

?

?

X

X

23

3

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

H

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? 0 0 5 10

? 0 0 0 0 0 0

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

65

28

23

12

13

300

WV

300

600

?

?

N

65

55

26

17.5

more10

300

WW

400

700

?

?

?

65

60

20

8.5

8

200

WV

300

500

D

130

N

45

60

23.5

15

15

300

WW

400

700

?

?

N

40

35

20

14

6

200

V

100

300

F

120

N

40

30

21

11.5

6

200

V

100

300

F

120

N

0 0 0 10 10 20

IV

0 0

169

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

336

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levafloisian flaketool

16

7.6

6.15

1.45

UD

P. Yellow

2

convex& straight

Flint

339

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levafloisian flaketool

16

8.15

4.45

1.3

UD

BLACK

13

straight

Flint

341

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levafloisian flaketool

16

8.4

5.4

1.3

UD

P. Gray

5

convex& straight

Flint

343

Berinsfield

Box26

NFT

Levafloisian flaketool

16

8.8

3.5

0.7

UD

P. Gray

5

straight

Flint

191

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

transverse scraper

17

6.7

4.6

1.7

UD

Q

14

convex

Quartzite

190

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

sidescraper

17

8.2

6.3

1.3

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

213

Berinsfield

Box18

NFT

scraper

17

8.4

6.65

2.6

UD

Q

14

convex

Quartzite

219

Berinsfield

Box19

NFT

rounded scraper

17

9.1

8.1

2.2

UD

Q

14

round

Quartzite

196

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

Misc.flaketool

18

8.05

6.6

2.75

UD

Q

14

convex

Quartzite

195

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

Misc.flaketool

18

8.5

6.4

2.3

UD

Q

14

point

Quartzite

186

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

Misc.flaketool

18

9.85

7.75

2.8

UD

Q

14

round round

Quartzite

197

Berinsfield

Box16

NFT

Misc.flaketool

18

7.8

5.3

2.9

UD

Q

14

point

Quartzite

303

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

chopping tool

20

9.7

7.1

3.65

5.05

4.8

4.9

2.2

3.45

UD

Brown

9

zigzag

Flint

295

Berinsfield

Box22

NCT

22

12.9

8.3

4.45

8.12

6.65

7

2.08

3.5

b. side1

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

119

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

22

11.9

8.3

3.55

7.28

4.32

7.3

1.75

3.1

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

305

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

8.8

5.8

2.5

UD

D. gray

7

straight

Flint

115

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

9.9

6.6

3.2

4.65

5.8

4.7

1.8

3.1

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

120

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

10.4

7.2

3.5

6.2

5.4

6.3

2.1

3.4

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

118

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

12.7

6.9

3.5

5.8

5.3

7.7

1.75

2.9

UD

Yellow

3

straight

Flint

146

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

5.35

5

2.4

UD

D.Yellow

4

point

Flint

157

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

6.2

7.45

3.45

UD

D.Yellow

4

zigzag

Flint

152

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

6.8

5.15

3

UD

D.Yellow

4

zigzag

Flint

134

Berinsfield

Box12

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

10

5.2

2.5

4.2

4.3

2.9

1.3

1.85

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

323

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

13

9.1

4.7

5

7.8

5.1

1.6

4.7

b. tip3

Brown

9

straight

Flint

304

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

23

8.25

4.2

2.5

UD

Brown

9

straight

Flint

183

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

crude pointhandaxe

24

9.5

7.2

3.5

182

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

broken crude handaxe

24.44

9.75

6.3

2.9

317

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

elongated pointedhandaxe

25

11.4

6.8

320

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

elongated pointedhandaxe

25

12.9

p19906-31

Berinsfield

BritishM.

NCT

pointedhandaxe

25

318

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

elongated pointedhandaxe

140

Berinsfield

Box13

NCT

145

Berinsfield

Box13

p19906-31

Berinsfield

294

cleaver cleaver

3.65

4.95

4.3

2.45

3.2

b.

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

P. Gray

5

?

Flint

3.3

2.9

6.65

2.6

1.6

2.5

UD

P. Yellow

2

straight

Flint

7.9

3.45

3.7

6.25

4.7

1.6

3.45

b. butt1

P. Yellow

2

straight

Flint

14.6

8.8

4.1

6

8.2

5.7

2.3

4

UD

D. Brown

10

straight

Flint

25

15.2

7.5

3

2.9

7.1

3.9

1.2

2.9

UD

D. Brown

10

straight

Flint

elongated pointedhandaxe

25

15.7

8.5

3.85

4.8

7.65

6.2

1.55

3.8

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

NCT

pointedhandaxe

25

12.8

7.5

3.3

4.5

6.25

3.9

1.55

2.6

UD

GBR

11

straight

Flint

BritishM.

NCT

pointedhandaxe

25

15

7.2

4.5

3.3

6.8

5

2

4.5

UD

D. Brown

10

straight

Flint

Berinsfield

Box22

NCT

pointedhandaxe

25

18

10.5

5.9

5.5

10.5

4.8

2

4.7

b. tip1

Brown

9

straight

Flint

142

Berinsfield

Box13

NCT

elongated pointedhandaxe

25

13.3

7.8

3.7

4

7.7

2.6

1.58

3.6

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

311

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

brokenpointedhandaxe

25.44

8.8

6.6

3.1

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D. gray

7

straight

Flint

308

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

brokenpointedhandaxe

25.44

9.8

6.2

3.4

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

312

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

brokenpointedhandaxe

25.44

10.8

7.9

3.8

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

327

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

brokenpointedhandaxe

25.44

14.1

8

4.7

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

Brown

9

straight

Flint

165

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

cordate handaxe

26

8.1

6.4

2.2

3.8

6

2.95

1.3

1.8

b. side2

Yellow

3

straight

Flint

116

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

elongated ovatehandaxe

26

9

5.8

2.5

4.65

5

5.3

1.3

1.95

UD

Black

13

straight

Flint

144

Berinsfield

Box13

NCT

elongated cordatehandaxe

26

11.4

7.6

3.1

4.65

6.5

4.75

1.6

2.75

UD

Yellow

3

straight

Flint

111

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

sub-core/ate handaxe

26

8.45

6

2.1

3.2

5.4

3.85

1

2

UD

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

301

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

thickcordatehandaxe

26

10.3

7.1

4.5

3.7

6.5

3.5

2.3

4.25

UD

Black

13

zigzag

Flint

306

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

elongated cordatehandaxe

26

12.2

7.5

4

4.1

6.25

4.9

1.85

3.9

b. tip2

Black

13

straight

Flint

296

Berinsfield

Box22

NCT

elongated cordatehandaxe

26

12.3

8.1

5.1

5.5

7.2

4.8

2.4

4.15

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

329

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

broken ovatehandaxe

26.44

7

8.8

2.9

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

Black

13

?

Flint

170

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

336

Berinsfield

Levalfoisian flaketool

lessfresh

60

I

s

0

0

45

35

22

17

8

200

V

100

300

F

125

N

339

Berinsfield

Levalfoisian flaketool

fresh

55

I

u

30

23

16

8

200

w

200

400

F

123

N

Berinsfield

Levalfoisian flaketool

lessfresh

70

I

40

25

23.5

12

8

200

V

100

300

F

125

N

343

Berinsfield

Levalfoisian flaketool

lessfresh

30

I

s s

25

20

22

8.5

9

200

V

100

300

F

120

N

191

Berinsfield

transverse scraper

lessfresh

60

Q

Q

35

25

18

6

2

100

V

100

200

p

125

N

190

Berinsfield

sidescraper

lessfresh

85

Q

Q

50

40

23

7

3

100

V

100

200

p

110

N

213

Berinsfield

scraper

lessfresh

125

Q

Q

65

45

23

10

3

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

219

Berinsfield

rounded scraper

weathered

175

Q

Q

60

38

27

7

4

100

V

100

200

?

?

?

196

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

weathered

155

Q

Q

50

35

23

12

6

200

V

100

300

D

125

N

195

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

130

Q

Q

186

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

lessfresh

210

Q

Q

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 5 0 15

40

341

0 0 0 20 30 50 60 15 70 95 100

65

45

23

7.7

7

200

V

100

300

?

?

?

45

35

29

23

6

200

V

100

300

p

135

N

60

40

21

15

7

200

V

100

300

p

120

N

75

55

26

10

10

200

w

200

400

40

40

35

7.5

more20

500

WW

400

900

40

33

32

9

15

300

WW

400

700

75

45

23

11.5

more10

300

w

200

500

50

30

26

9

more20

500

WW

400

900

55

45

29

12

more20

500

WW

400

900

0 0 10 40

46

25

33

9

20

400

WW

400

800

95

75

17

12

15

300

300

600

75

65

21.5

9.5

more15

400

65

50

19

8

7

200

vw vw w

197

Berinsfield

Misc.ffaketool

weathered

100

Q

Q

303

Berinsfield

choppingtool

lessfresh

260

L

D

I

295

Berinsfield

cleaver

weathered

440

I

D

II

119

Berinsfield

cleaver

lessfresh

325

I

II

305

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

120

I

115

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

215

I

I

0 0

120

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

285

I

u u u u

50 0 10

118

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

290

I

D

II

146

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

65

I

u

157

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

weathered

165

I

152

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

weathered

95

L

II

40

40

50

30

24.5

5

15

300

II

50 70

5 40

60

55

36

19

?

?

70

50

21

9.5

15

300

I

0 ?

0 ?

80

70

25

8

10

?

?

?

?

?

0 0 0 0

60 50 55 0

75

65

30

11

65

50

32

70

40

38

75

50

37

0 5 5 5 20

5 0 5 5 5

70

49

38

55

30

70

45

85 70

? ? ? ? 0

? ? ? ? 0 40

134

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

155

I

323

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

480

I

304

Berinsfield

bifacialfywonked coretool

lessfresh

105

L

s s s s s

183

Berinsfield

crudepointhandaxe

lessfresh

240

I

D

182

Berinsfield

broken crudehandaxe

weathered

180

I

D

317

Berinsfield

elongated pointedhandaxe

weathered

235

I

D

320

Berinsfield

elongated pointedhandaxe

lessfresh

300

I

D

p19906-31

Berinsfield

pointed handaxe

lessfresh

495

I

s

318

Berinsfield

elongated pointedhandaxe

lessfresh

315

I

140

Berinsfield

elongated pointedhandaxe

lessfresh

465

I

u u

II

s s s

145

Berinsfield

pointed handaxe

lessfresh

285

I

p19906-31

Berinsfield

pointed handaxe

lessfresh

435

I

294

Berinsfield

pointed handaxe

lessfresh

925

I

142

Berinsfield

elongated pointedhandaxe

lessfresh

335

I

311

Berinsfield

brokenpointedhandaxe

lessfresh

165

I

308

Berinsfield

brokenpointedhandaxe

lessfresh

185

I

312

Berinsfield

brokenpointedhandaxe

lessfresh

310

I

327

Berinsfield

brokenpointedhandaxe

lessfresh

480

I

s s s

165

Berinsfield

core/ate handaxe

lessfresh

115

I

D

I

116

Berinsfield

elongated ovatehandaxe

lessfresh

145

I

u

II

144

Berinsfield

elongated cordatehandaxe

lessfresh

260

I

II

111

Berinsfield

sub-core/ate handaxe

weathered

115

I

301

Berinsfield

thickcordatehandaxe

weathered

340

I

s s s

306

Berinsfield

elongated cordatehandaxe

lessfresh

320

I

u

I

296

Berinsfield

elongated cordatehandaxe

lessfresh

440

I

s

II

329

Berinsfield

broken ovatehandaxe

lessfresh

175

I

u

u u

I I

0 0 5 15 40

0 0 5 5 5 10 ?

300

700

200

400

WW

400

700

300

?

300

600

200

vw vw w

200

400

?

?

?

?

more20

500

WW

400

900

19

15

300

WW

400

700

33

more20

500

vww

500

1000

28

more20

500

WW

400

900

22

more20

500

vww

500

1000

34

26

more20

500

WW

400

900

36

23

more20

500

vww

500

1000

65

44

24

more20

500

WW

400

900

50

34

10

more10

300

WW

400

700

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

60

50

23

17.5

more15

400

vw

300

700

75

35

24

13

20

400

WW

400

800

0 5 0 5 10

65

45

30.5

30.5

more15

400

WW

400

800

60

40

23

23

more20

500

WW

400

900

80

50

28

9

more20

500

200

700

60

50

31.5

15.5

15

300

w vw

300

600

80

50

32.5

30

more20

500

WW

400

900

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

171

?

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

3.75

153

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

broken ovatehandaxe

26.44

6.6

7

2.7

4.7

4.7

2.1

2.2

B.1'

Black

13

straight

Flint

309

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

pa,t of ovatehandaxe

26.44

9.7

5

2.8

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

141

Berinsfield

Box13

NCT

fingulate handaxe

27

15.85

8.9

3.7

6.45

7.6

8.2

2.25

3.35

b. tip2

P. Yellow

2

straight

Flint

298

Berinsfield

Box22

NCT

ficron handaxe

28

19.35

8.4

5.65

3.1

8.3

4.1

2.05

5.5

b. tip,butt1

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

319

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

ficron handaxe

28

13.3

9.2

4.45

3.2

8.85

3.3

1.55

4.1

b. tip 1

Brown

9

straight

Flint

326

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

ficron handaxe

28

11.8

5.6

3.7

3.1

5.25

2.7

1.6

3.25

b. tip 1

D. Brown

10

straight

Flint

124

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of ficronhandaxe

28.44

8.7

4.15

1.5

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

313

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

broken ficron handaxe

28.44

9.2

9.3

4.5

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D. gray

7

straight

Flint

123

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,tof ficrontip

28.44

11.5

4.2

2.8

?

?

?

?

?

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

158

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

5.3

4

1.9

UD

D.Yellow

4

332

Berinsfield

Box26

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

10.5

8.6

3.4

b. side3

Gray

6

325

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

10.8

7

3.2

UD

Yellow

3

?

Flint

316

Berinsfield

Box24

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

14.7

8.5

3.7

b. tip2

GBR

11

straight

Flint

299

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

6.5

4.9

2.45

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

307

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

11.7

8.2

3.9

b. tip3

Brown

9

straight

Flint

154

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

Misc.coretool

29

6.6

5.2

3

UD

GBR

11

zigzag

Flint

181

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

unfinished tool

29

9.5

7.3

4

UD

Yellow

3

?

Flint

168

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

brokentool

29.44

7.8

6.3

3.15

B.1'

GBR

11

?

Flint

300

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

brokentool

29.44

9.8

4.55

3.2

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

147

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

4

3.4

1

B.1'

GBR

11

?

Flint

184

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

4.35

7.45

3.45

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

121

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

4.8

4.1

1.7

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

151

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

5.2

3.1

0.9

B.1'

Yellow

3

?

Flint

328

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

pa,tof H. butt

30.44

6.25

7

2.3

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

112

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

6.6

8.9

3.2

B.1'

Black

13

?

Flint

122

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

6.85

3.8

1.2

B.1'

Yellow

3

?

Flint

175

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

7.1

6.8

2.9

B.1'

P. Gray

5

?

Flint

176

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

7.25

8.3

4.9

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

117

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

7.7

4.6

2.3

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

149

Berinsfield

Box14

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

7.9

6.45

2.85

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

177

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

8.2

7.3

2.5

B.1'

Black

13

?

Flint

179

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

8.2

8.2

4.55

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

180

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,tof handaxe

30.44

8.7

9

4

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

178

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

9.3

8.2

3.4

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

172

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

9.6

8.6

4.1

B.1'

Black

13

?

Flint

174

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

9.7

8.4

3.8

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

114

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

10.15

6.9

3

B.1'

Yellow

3

?

Flint

113

Berinsfield

Box11

NCT

pa,t of handaxetip

30.44

10.3

7.8

3.85

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

173

Berinsfield

Box15

NCT

pa,t of handaxebutt

30.44

10.6

9.8

5.6

B.1'

Brown

9

?

Flint

324

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

broken handaxe

30.44

11.1

9.2

3.7

B.1'

Black

13

?

Flint

330

Berinsfield

Box25

NCT

pa,tof H. butt

30.44

12.1

10

4.65

B.1'

D.Yellow

4

?

Flint

314

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

pointedform

31

9.1

3.95

3.8

b. tip3

Brown

9

straight

Flint

302

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

elongated pointedform

31

9.8

6.2

2.7

UD

P. Yellow

2

straight

Flint

310

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

pointedform

31

7.5

3.85

3

b. tip1

D.Yellow

4

point

Flint

315

Berinsfield

Box23

NCT

elongated pointedform

31

7

4.3

2.2

UD

D.Yellow

4

straight

Flint

227

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

choppingtool

32

11.3

12.9

7.1

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

226

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

chopper

32

11.9

9.5

6.2

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

203

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

chopper

32

9.3

12.7

3.9

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

4.3

4.35

2.55

1.9

6.4

172

8.38

5.9

5.95

4.3

7.4

3 5.2

2.7

2.2

4.1

2.35

2

1.1

0.95

3.7

2.8

3.7

2.2

2.1

5.7

convergent zigzag

Flint Flint

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

20

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

153

Berinsfield

broken ovatehandaxe

lessfresh

145

I

u

309

Berinsfield

parlof ovatehandaxe

lessfresh

110

I

s

141

Berinsfield

lingufate handaxe

lessfresh

555

I

VD

II

0

0

70

50

40

31

more20

500

wvw

500

1000

298

Berinsfield

ficron handaxe

weathered

500

I

0

0

75

70

48

24.5

more20

500

WW

400

900

Berinsfield

ficron handaxe

lessfresh

425

I

II

5

0

85

65

37

25

more20

500

WW

400

900

326

Berinsfield

ficron handaxe

weathered

220

I

II

40

0

70

65

31

16

more20

500

WV

300

800

124

Berinsfield

parlof ffcronhandaxe

lessfresh

50

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

broken ficron handaxe

weathered

230

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

123

Berinsfield

parlof ffcrontip

lessfresh

80

I

? ? ?

?

Berinsfield

? ? ?

?

313

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

158

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

weathered

40

L

s s s s s s s

II

319

0

0

65

60

15.5

6

10

200

WV

300

500

332

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

360

I

u

0

20

80

45

32

32

more20

500

700

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

240

I

0

0

80

50

29

13

more15

400

200

600

316

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

440

I

5

15

70

62

38.5

14

more20

500

WW

400

900

299

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

75

I

10

5

85

75

18.5

6

more10

300

WV

300

600

307

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

lessfresh

320

I

15

5

80

55

30

8.5

15

300

500

Berinsfield

Misc.coretool

weathered

120

I

50

20

70

65

20.5

7

10

200

w w

200

154

s s s s s

w w

200

325

200

400

181

Berinsfield

unfinished tool

lessfresh

230

I

D

?

?

?

?

?

notSig.

?

?

?

?

?

168

Berinsfield

brokentool

weathered

145

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

brokentool

lessfresh

110

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

147

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

15

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

184

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

130

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

121

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

5

I

? ? ? ? ?

?

Berinsfield

? ? ? ? ?

?

300

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

151

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

20

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

parlof H. butt

lessfresh

105

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

112

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

weathered

170

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

122

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

10

I

D

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

175

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

130

I

D

? ? ? ? ?

?

Berinsfield

? ? ? ? ?

?

328

s s s s s s s s

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

176

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

315

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

60

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

149

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

weathered

110

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

177

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

165

I

? ? ? ?

?

Berinsfield

? ? ? ?

?

117

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

179

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

280

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

parlof handaxe

lessfresh

315

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

178

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

300

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

172

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

390

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

174

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

305

I

? ? ? ? ?

?

Berinsfield

? ? ? ? ?

?

180

s s s s s s s s s

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

114

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

105

I

D

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Berinsfield

parlof handaxetip

lessfresh

255

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

173

Berinsfield

parlof handaxebutt

lessfresh

540

I

s s

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

324

Berinsfield

broken handaxe

lessfresh

450

I

u

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

330

Berinsfield

parlof H. butt

lessfresh

610

I

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

314

Berinsfield

pointedfonm

lessfresh

125

L

s s

? ? ? ? ?

?

113

? ? ? ? ? 0

30

85

80

23

11

10

200

V

100

300

302

Berinsfield

elongated pointedfonm

weathered

120

I

VD

0

0

60

50

25.5

21.5

?

?

WW

400

?

310

Berinsfield

pointedfonm

lessfresh

90

I

5

0

65

60

19.5

13

12

300

w

200

500

315

Berinsfield

elongated pointedfonm

weathered

45

L

s s

227

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

925

Q

Q

226

Berinsfield

chopper

lessfresh

810

Q

Q

203

Berinsfield

chopper

weathered

515

Q

Q

I

II

II

I

I

?

10

5

55

45

18

11

?

?

WV

300

?

40

70

85

70

39

14

12

300

V

100

400

40

100

85

55

34

15.5

10

200

V

100

300

50

90

60

55

36

11.5

3

100

V

100

200

173

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Number

Site

Box

Tvoo

Tvooloav

Tvoe Code

Lenath

Breath

Thickness

B1

B2

L1

T1

T2

Status

Colour

Colour Code

Edae Shaoe

Material

ETC

202

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

chopper

32

12.5

9.9

4.8

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

218

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

chopper

32

9

10.5

4.7

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

225

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

chopping tool

32

9.2

9.8

6.1

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

205

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

chopping tool

32

11

12.1

4.9

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

200

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

chopping tool

32

16.5

13

4.1

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

220

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

chopping tool

32

6.9

9

2.5

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

229

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

chopping tool

32

7.8

10.15

5.2

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

234

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

chopping tool

32

15.8

10.3

5.8

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

223

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

singlepyramidal coretool

33

11.15

11

5.3

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

222

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

singlepyramidal coretool

33

10

15.1

7.1

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

221

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

34

11.2

7.75

4.35

6.3

6.3

5

3.15

3.8

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

207

Berinsfield

Box18

NCT

34

12.2

11

5.8

10.5

8.55

6.7

3

5.25

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

208

Berinsfield

Box18

NCT

34

13.5

10.1

4.9

9.55

5.95

8.9

1.7

4.75

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

215

Berinsfield

Box18

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

35

5.95

7.5

3.6

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

216

Berinsfield

Box18

NCT

bifaciallyworkedcoretool

35

6.4

6.2

3.25

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

204

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

bifaciaffy workedcoretool

35

13.3

7.6

5.3

3.3

6.35

4

2.15

4.7

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

185

Berinsfield

Box16

NCT

bifaciaffy workedcoretool

35

18.1

12

7.1

7.3

10.2

7.6

4.7

5.3

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

231

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

crudeelongatedpointedhandaxe

36

12.5

6.7

4.5

3.95

4.7

5.2

2.3

4.7

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

233

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

crude pointed handaxe

36

13.1

9.1

5.35

2.6

8.45

3.5

1.5

4.9

b. tip2

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

201

Berinsfield

Box17

NCT

crudecordate handaxe

36

10.3

8.1

3.45

4.7

7.7

2.3

2.4

3.4

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

232

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

crudeelongatedpointedhandaxe

36

11.5

6.5

3.5

2.7

5.7

3.8

1.6

3.3

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

199

Berinsfield

Box16

NCT

crudeelongatedpointedhandaxe

36

13.6

7.4

6.4

4.2

6.5

3.85

2.35

5.7

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

228

Berinsfield

Box20

NCT

Misc.coretool

41

9.7

7.9

5.55

5.25

7.7

3.5

2.9

5.1

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

192

Berinsfield

Box16

NCT

pseudobiface

41

12.1

6.7

4.1

UD

Q

14

?

Quartzite

224

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

Misc.coretool

41

12.7

8.2

4.9

4.1

7.45

5

4.2

4.1

UD

Q

14

point

Quartzite

217

Berinsfield

Box19

NCT

pointedform

43

14.35

9.5

5.3

4.7

8.4

3.2

3.05

4.85

UD

Q

14

zigzag

Quartzite

214

Berinsfield

Box18

NCT

pointedform

43

10.75

6.8

3.8

3.5

6.4

4.65

1.7

3.7

UD

Q

14

point

Quartzite

170

Berinsfield

Box14

N?T

steepedgedscraper

45

7.7

3.2

2.8

UD

Brown

9

148

Berinsfield

Box14

N?T

hollow sidescraper

45

8.15

4.8

2

UD

GDBR

12

straight

Flint

132

Berinsfield

Box12

N?T

pointedform

45

8.1

5.2

2.15

UD

D.Yellow

4

point

Flint

167

Berinsfield

Box14

N?T

brokentool

45.44

8

5

2.1

B.I'

Yellow

3

230

Berinsfield

Box20

N?T

Misc.coretool

46

11.4

7.65

3.6

4.9

7.25

4.3

2.05

3.55

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

235

Berinsfield

Box20

N?T

crudeelongated core/ate form

46

14.4

8.4

3.8

5.1

7.3

6

2

3.1

UD

Q

14

straight

Quartzite

206

Berinsfield

Box17

Nat

natural material

48

Q

14

Quartzite

209

Berinsfield

Box18

Nat

natural material

48

Q

14

Quartzite

210

Berinsfield

Box18

Nat

natural material

48

Q

14

Quartzite

211

Berinsfield

Box18

Nat

natural material

48

Q

14

Quartzite

212

Berinsfield

Box18

Nat

natural material

48

Q

14

Quartzite

243

Clacton-onSea

32

NF

ffakedebitage

1

5.5

4.5

1.45

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

Wa.LionP.

341

Clacton-onSea

40

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.15

4.7

1.2

UD

GBR

11

Flint

Wa.LionP.

241

Clacton-onSea

32

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.2

7.4

2.6

UD

D. Gray

7

Flint

Wa.LionP.

332

Clacton-onSea

40

NF

ffakedebitage

1

7.8

6.7

2.8

UD

Black

13

Flint

Wa.LionP.

250

Clacton-onSea

33

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.4

4.7

2.35

UD

P. Brown

8

Flint

Wa.LionP.

255

Clacton-onSea

33

NF

ffakedebitage

1

8.8

10

3.85

UD

D. Brown

10

Flint

Wa.LionP.

cleaver cleaver cleaver

5.75

174

11.55

5.35

2.9

2.95

Flint

Flint

Main Appendix with Details of Material Studied 1 Number

... 2

5

21

22

23

24

25

26

Tvocloav

Weatherina

Weiaht

Where

Patination

Cs.

Cortex Re.1

27

28

29

Cortex Re. 2 Max. Edae A Min.EdaeA

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Wholel.

Edae L.

N. Flakina

Values

Retouch

Values

Comoleteness

S.P.

Deoree S. P.

Fracture P.

202

Berinsfield

chopper

weathered

710

Q

Q

50

100

77

65

36.5

20.5

5

100

V

100

200

218

Berinsfield

chopper

weathered

490

Q

Q

60

100

75

55

31

11

4

100

V

100

200

225

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

615

Q

Q

60

80

100

70

29

12.5

6

200

V

100

300

205

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

890

Q

Q

60

0

80

65

40

23.5

6

200

V

100

300

200

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

895

Q

Q

60

70

80

60

45.5

25

15

300

V

100

400

220

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

200

Q

Q

70

80

70

60

26

16

11

300

V

100

400

229

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

450

Q

Q

70

70

82

75

29

12.5

7

200

V

100

300

234

Berinsfield

choppingtool

weathered

1250

Q

Q

70

0

75

65

43

15.5

8

200

V

100

300

223

Berinsfield

singlepyramidal coretool

lessfresh

640

Q

Q

5

5

85

65

36

16

14

300

V

100

400

222

Berinsfield

singlepyramidal coretool

weathered

1365

Q

Q

20

50

80

60

42

13.5

10

200

V

100

300

221

Berinsfield

cleaver

weathered

455

Q

Q

I

0

0

80

70

31

5

20

400

300

700

207

Berinsfield

cleaver

weathered

940

Q

Q

II

30

40

80

50

40

8

6

200

vvv w

200

400

208

Berinsfield

cleaver

weathered

595

Q

Q

II

90

30

55

30

40

10

4

100

V

100

200

215

Berinsfield

bifacialfyworl