On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain | Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The significance of morphological variation in Acheulean bifaces has been a central issue in Palaeolithic research for well over a century. For much of that period interpretation has been dominated by culture-historical models and it is only in the past 20 years that other explanatory factors have received adequate attention. This paper examines the combined role of several of these factors – namely raw materials, reduction intensity, and function – on biface variability in the British Isles, with special reference to the two major shaped-based ‘tradition’ devised by Roe (1967; 1968). First-hand examination of bifaces from 19 assemblages suggests that final biface shape depends largely on the dimensions of the original raw materials and the technofunctional strategies designed to deal with them. Through these observations a new model is generated and tested. This suggests that the patterning in the British Acheulean simply reflects the nature of the resources available at a site and the hominid procurement and technological strategies used to exploit them. According to this model, well-worked ovates with all-round edges were preferentially produced wherever raw materials were large and robust enough to frequently support intensive reduction procedures, usually when obtained from primary flint sources. Assemblages characterised by partially-edged, moderately-reduced pointed forms were only manufactured when smaller, narrower blanks, that imposed restrictions on human technological actions regarding the location and extent of working, were exploited. Such blanks were usually obtained from a secondary flint source, such as river gravel. Thus, Roe's pointed and ovate ‘traditions’ are seen not as the products of different biface making populations, but as the same broad populations coping with the exigencies of a heterogeneous environment, using different resources in an adaptive, flexible manner.

Résumé

La signification de la variation morphologique dans les bifaces acheuléens est au centre d'une discussion dans les recherches paléolithiques depuis plus d'un siècle. Pendant la plupart de ce temps l'interprétation est dominée par des modèles socio-culturels et ce n'est que pendant les vingt derniers ans que d'autres moyens d'explication reçoivent l'attention qu'ils méritent. Cet article examine le rôle commun que jouent plusieurs d'entre ces moyens – c'est-à-dire les matières premières, l'intensité de réduction et la fonction - sur la variabilité des bifaces dans les îles britanniques, en mettant l'accent sur les deux plus grandes “traditions“ basées sur la forme et établies par Roe (1967; 1968). Les analyses à première main des bifaces de 19 assemblages indiquent que la forme finale des bifaces dépend principalement des dimensions des matières premières d'origine et des stratégies techno-fonctionnelles visées à s'en servir. Par moyen de ces observations un nouveau modèle est établi et mis à l'épreuve. Ceci indique que le dessin pendant l'acheuléen britannique ne fait qu'exprimer la nature des ressources présentes sur place et leur procuration par les hominiens et les stratégies technologiques employées pour les exploiter. Selon ce modèle, des ovates bien taillées à côtés bien arrondis étaient produites de préférence partout là où les matières premières étaient assez grandes et robustes pour entretenir fréquemment les procédés de la réduction intensive, d'habitude quand elles venaient de sources primaires de silex. Les assemblages caractérisés par les formes à côtés partiels et à pointes modérément réduites étaient fabriqués seulement dans le cas où l'on exploitait de plus petites, plus étroites bases qui imposaient des restrictions sur les actions technologiques humaines en ce qui concerne la location et l'étendue de l'exploitation. Telles bases étaient normalement obtenues d'une source secondaire de silex, par exemple du gravier fluvial. Ainsi, les traditions pointues et ovates de Roe ne se présentent pas comme des produits de différentes populations qui fabriquaient les bifaces mais des mêmes populations générales qui se débrouillaient avec les exigences d'un milieu hétérogène en utilisant divers ressources d'une manière adaptive et flexible.

Zusammenfassung

Die Bedeutung der morphologischen Variietheit der acheuleén doppelseitigen Werkzeuge war mehr als ein Jahrhundert lang ein Hauptthema in der paläolithischen Forschung. Fast während der ganzen Periode wurde die Interpretation von kulturhistorischen Modellen dominiert. Nur in den letzten zwanzig Jahren haben andere aufklärende Faktoren genügend Aufmerksamkeit erhalten. Dieses Referat überprüft die gemeinsame Rolle einiger dieser Faktoren - namentlich Rohstoffe, reduzierte Intensität und Funktionen – die bei der Variiertheit doppelseitiger Werkzeuge auf den Britischen Inseln eine Rolle spielten, insbesondere die, welche auf zwei bedeutende, auf Formen basierte ‘Traditionen’ hinweist und die von Roe 1967/68 erfunden wurde. Aus erster Hand gemachte Untersuchungen der Werkzeuge aus neunzehn Assemblagen weisen darauf hin, dass die endgültige doppelseitige Form zum größten Teil von den Dimensionen der Rohmaterialien und dem technisch funktionierenden System mit den Werkzeugen zu Rande zu kommen, abhing. Durch diese Beobachtungen ist ein neues Modell entstanden und geprüft worden. Dies wiederum weist darauf hin, dass ein Mustervorbild in der britischen Acheuleen-Periode einfach nur die Begebenheit dieser auf diesem Gelände verfügbaren Rohmaterialien und deren ursprüngliche Herschaffung und ihre technologischen Strategien, diese Rohmaterialien auszunützen, reflektiert. Nach diesem Modell wurden dort gut verarbeitete ‘Ovate’ mit rundgeformten Rändern mit Vorliebe produziert, wo Rohmaterialien in Genüge vorkamen und ziemlich robust waren, um oft intensive Reduktionsprozeduren, gewöhnlich wenn diese Rohmaterialien bei primären Feuersteinstellen gefunden wurden, zu unterstützen. Assemblagen, die sich durch teilweis geränderte, mäßig reduzierte, gespitzte Formen auszeichneten, wurden nur dann hergestellt, wenn schmälere enge Abschlage die Einschränkungen auf menschliches technologisches Handeln bezüglich des Ortes und Ausmaßes der Verarbeitung auferlegten, ausgenutzt. Solche Abschlage wurden gewöhnlich bei sekundären Feuersteinfundstellen, wie zum Beispiel Flusskies, gefunden. Deshalb sollen Roes gespitzte und Ovate ‘Traditionen’ nicht als Produkte verschiedener Völker, die doppelseitige Werkzeuge herstellten, angesehen werden, sondern als die der gleichen Bevölkerung, die mit den Anforderungen einer heterogenen Umwelt verschiedener Naturschätzen in einer adaptiven, flexiblen Weise nützend, fertig zu werden.

Résumen

La transcendencia de la variabilidad morfológica de los bifaces achelenses, ha constituido un tema central de las investigaciones sobre el Paleolítico a lo largo de más de un siglo. Durante la mayor parte de este periodo, las interpretaciones han sido predominantemente del tipo histórico-cultural. Solamente en los últimos veinte años, otros factores explicativos han recibido atención adecuada. Este trabajo examina el papel desempeñado por la combinación de varios de estos factores (disponibilidad de materias primas, intensidad de su reducción, y su utilización), en la variabilidad de los bifaces de las Islas Británicas, con especial atención a las dos mayores “tradiciones” morfológicas definidas por Roe (1967; 1968). Un examen de primera mano de bifaces provenientes de 19 colecciones, parece indicar que la forma final del bifáz depende en gran parte de las dimensiones del material originalmente utilizado y de las estrategias técnico-funcionales escogidas para trabajarlo. A través de estas observaciones se propone y comprueba un nuevo modelo. Este modelo sugiere que la estructura del achelense británico simplemente refleja la naturaleza de los recursos disponibles en un determinado lugar, su obtención por los individuos, y las estrategias tecnológicas adoptadas para su explotación. De acuerdo con este modelo, los muy trabajados bifaces ovales con filo continuo fueron producidos preferentemente en zonas con materias primas de tamaño y resistencia suficientes para permitir frecuentes procesos de retoque, normalmente cuando el material se obtenía de yacimientos primarios de sílex. Colecciones caracterizadas por ejemplares de forma puntiaguda con filos parciales y escasos retoques, sólo fueron producidas cuando los núcleos utilizados eran más pequeños y estrechos, lo que impuso limitaciones a la acción tecnológica humana en cuanto a la situación y extensión de las superficies a trabajar. Cuando se utilizaban, tales núcleos procedían normalmente de fuentes secundarias de sílex, como, por ejemplo, de depósitos fluviales. Así pues, las “tradiciones” puntiaguda y ovalada de Roe, no son vistas como productos de distintas poblaciones fabricantes de bifaces, sino de más o menos las mismas poblaciones, haciendo frente a las exigencias de un medio ambiente hetereogéneo y usando distintos recursos de un modo adaptativo y flexible.

References

Allen, P. 1984. Field Guide to the Gipping and Waverney Valleys. Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association.Google Scholar

Ashmore, A.M. 1980. The typology and age of the Fordwich handaxes. Archaeologia Cantiana 96, 83–117.Google Scholar

Ashton, N.M. 1992. The High Lodge flint industries. In Ashton, N.M.Cook, J.Lewis, S.G. & Rose, J. (eds), 1992, 124–63.Google Scholar

Ashton, N.M. in press. The technology and site formation of the lithic assemblages, in Ashton, N.M.Lewis, S.G. & Parfitt, S. (eds), Excavations at Barnbam, Suffolk, England 1989–1994. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 125.Google Scholar

Ashton, N.M & McNabb, J. 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In Ashton, N.M & David, A. (eds), Stories in Stones, 182–91. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4.Google Scholar

Ashton, N.M, Cook, J., Lewis, S.G. & Rose, J. 1992. High Lodge: excavations by G. De G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar

Austin, L. 1994. The life and death of a Boxgrove biface. In Ashton, N. & David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone, 119–26. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4.Google Scholar

Avery, B.W., Bullock, P., Catt, J.A., Rayner, J.H., & Weir, A.H. 1982. Composition and origin of some brickearths on the Chiltern Hills, England. Catena 9, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bamforth, D.B. 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity 51(1), 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergman, C.A. & Roberts, M.B. 1988. Flaking technology at the Acheulean site of Boxgrove, West Sussex (England). Actes du colloque ‘Cultures et Industries Paléolithiques en Milieu Loessique’, miens 9–11 Décembre 1986. Revue Archéologique de Vicar die 1–2, 105–13.Google Scholar

Bergman, C.A., Roberts, M.B., Collcutt, S. & Barlow, P. 1990. Refitting and spatial analysis of artefacts from quarry 2 at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulean site of Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. In Cziesia, E.Eickhoff, S.Arts, N. & Winter, D. (eds), The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Stone Artefacts, 265–81. Bonn, Holos.Google Scholar

Binford, L.R. 1985. Human ancestors: changing views on their behaviour. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4, 292–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Binford, L.R. 1987a. Searching for camps and missing the evidence: another look at the Lower Palaeolithic. In Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, 17–31. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Binford, L.R. 1987b. Were the elephant hunters at Torralba? In Niketi, M.H. & Niketi, D.H. (eds), The Evolution of Human Hunting, 47–105. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Binford, L.R. 1989. Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: an organisational approach. In Trinkaus, E. (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans: biocultural adaptations in the later Pleistocene, 18–41. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Binford, L.R. & Binford, S. 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropology 68, 238–95.Google Scholar

Binford, L.R. & Ho, C.K. 1985. Taphonomy at a distance: Zhoukoudian, the cave home of Beijing man? Current Anthropology 26, 413–42.Google Scholar

Bloom, E.F.D. 1934. Geology. In Hine, R.L. (ed.), The Natural History of the Hitchin Region, 26–52. Hitchin: W.M. Carling.Google Scholar

Boëda, E., Geneste, J.M. & Meignen, L. 1990. Identification de chaînes opératoire lithiques du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Paléo 2, 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bordes, F. 1973. On the chronology and contemporaneity of different Palaeolithic cultures in France. In Renfrew, A.C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, 217–26. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Boreham, S. & Gibbard, P.L. 1995. Middle Pleistocene Hoxnian stage interglacial deposits at Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 106, 259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, P.G.H. 1914. On the occurrence of North Sea Drift and upper glacial brickearths in East Anglia. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 34, 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, P.G.H. 1927. The Geology of the Country Around Ipswich. London: Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar

Boswell, P.G.H., & Moir, J.R. 1923. The Pleistocene deposits and their contained Palaeolithic flint implements at Foxhall Road, Ipswich. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 53, 229–63.Google Scholar

Boucherde Perthes, J. de Perthes, J. 1857. Antiquités Celtiques et Antédiluviennes: mémoire sur l'industrie primitive ou des arts à leur Origine. Tome Deuxieme. Paris. 20, 122–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chandler, R.H & Leach, A.L. 1912. On the Dartford Heath Gravel and on a Palaeolithic implement factory. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 23,: 102–11.Google Scholar

Coleman, A. 1952. Some aspects of the development of the Lower Stour, Kent. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 63, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, J., Ashton, N.M., Coope, G.R., Hunt, C.O., Lewis, S.G. & Rose, J. 1991. High Lodge, Mildenhall, Suffolk (TL 739754). In Lewis, S.G., Whiteman, C.A. & Bridgland, D.R. (eds), Central East Anglia and the Fen Basin: field guide, 59–70. London: Quaternary Research Association.Google Scholar

Cox, F.C., Gallois, R.W & Wood, C.J. 1989. Geology of the Country Around Norwich. London: Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar

Cranshaw, S. 1983. Handaxes and Cleavers: selected English Acheulean industries. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crompton, R & Gowlett, J.A.J. 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 25, 175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dewey, H. 1959. Palaeolithic Deposits of the Thames at Dartford Heath and Swanscombe, North Kent. Unpublished, edited Manuscript of the Henry Stopes Memorial Lecture, Geologists' Association, 1959.Google Scholar

Dewey, H.S.W, Wooldridge, H.W.Cones, T. & Brown, E.E.S. 1925. The geology of the Canterbury District. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 26, 275.Google Scholar

Dibble, H. 1987. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52(1), 109–17.Google Scholar

Dibble, H. 1989. The implications of stone tool types for the presence of language during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. In Mellars, P.A. & Stringer, C. (eds), The Human Revolution: behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans, 415–33. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar

Dibble, H. 1991. Local raw material exploitation and its effects on Lower and Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability. In Montet-White, A. & Holon, S. (eds), Raw Material Exploitation Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, 33–46. Kansas: University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19.Google Scholar

Dibble, H. & Rolland, N. 1992. Beyond the Bordes Binford debate: a new synthesis of factors underlying assemblage variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of Western Europe. In Dibble, H. & Mellars, P.A. (eds), The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation, behavior and variability, 1–28. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.Google Scholar

Dines, H.C. 1964. General account of the 100ft terrace gravels of the Barnfield Pit. In Ovey, C.D. (ed.), The Swanscombe Skull: a survey of research on a Pleistocene site, 5–10. Royal Anthropological Institute, Occasional Paper 20.Google Scholar

Doran, J.E. & Hodson, F.R. 1975. Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, J. 1863. Account of some further discoveries of flint implements in the drift of the Continent and England. Archaeologia 39, 57–84.Google Scholar

Feblot-Ausgustins, J. 1997. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique. ERAUL 75.Google Scholar

Floss, H. 1994. Rhomaterialversorgung im Palaolithikum des Mittelrheingebietes. Bonn: Habert.Google Scholar

Foley, R. & Lee, P. 1996. Finite social space and the evolution of human social behaviour. In Steele, J. & Shennen, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: power, sex and tradition, 47–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1993a. Timewalkers: the prehistory of global colonisation. Stroud: Alan Sutton.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1993b. Exchange, foraging and local hominid networks. In Scarre, C. & Healy, F. (eds), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, 35–44. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 33.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1994. Personality most ancient. British Archaeology 1, 6.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1995a. Raw materials, technology and variability in Middle Pleistocene Europe. Evolucion Humana en Europa y los Yacamientos de la Sierra de Atapuerca, 387–402.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1995b. Lithics and social evolution. In Schofield, A.J. (ed.), Eithics in Context: suggestions for the future direction of lithic studies, 19–26. London: Lithics Studies Society.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1996a. Hominid behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene: an English perspective. In Gamble, C.S. & Lawson, A.J. (eds), The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, 63–71. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar

Gamble, C.S. 1996b. Making tracks: hominid networks and the evolution of the social landscape. In Steele, J. & Shennan, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: power, sex and tradition, 253–77. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Geneste, J-M. 1985. Analyse Litbique des Industries Moustériennes du Périgord: une approche technologique du comportement des groups au Paléolithique moyen. Thesis: Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar

Gibbard, P.L. 1979. Middle Pleistocene drainage in the Thames Valley. Geological Magazine 116, 35–44.Google Scholar

Gibbard, P.L. 1986. Flint gravels in the Quaternary of Southeast England. In Sieveking, G. de. G. & Hart, M.B., The Scientific Study of Flint and Chert, 141–49. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Gibberd, P.L. 1994. The Pleistocene History of the Lower Thames Valley. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Gladfelter, B.G. 1993. The geostratigraphic context of the archaeology. In Singer, R.Gladfelter, B.G. & JWymer, .J. (eds), The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England, 23–66. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar

Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gowlett, J.A.J. 1984. Mental abilities of early man: a look at some hard evidence. In Foley, R. (ed.), Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology, 167–92. London: Academic.Google Scholar

Gowlett, J.A.J. 1990. Technology, skill and the phychosocial sector in the long term of Human evolution. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9(1), 82–103.Google Scholar

Gowlett, J.A.J. 1996. Mental abilities of Early Homo: elements of constraint and choice in rule systems. In Mellars, P.A. & Gibson, K.R. (eds), Modelling the Early Human Mind, 191–215. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monograph.Google Scholar

Gowlett, J.A.J., & Crompton, R.H. 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and the question of allometry. African Archaeological Review 12, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, J.M. 1970. (with a note from D.A. Roe) Discrimination of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups using canonical variates. World Archaeology 1, 321–42.Google Scholar

Green, S. 1988. Pontnewydd Cave: the selection of raw materials for artefact manufacture and the question of natural damage. In MacRae, R.J. & Moloney, N. (eds), Non-flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, 223–32. Oxford: British Archaeologocal Report 189.Google Scholar

Harding, P. & Gibbard, P.L. 1984. Excavations at Northwold Road, Stoke Newington, Northeast London, 1981. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 134, 1–18.Google Scholar

Hey, R.W. 1986. A re-examination of the Northern Drift of Oxfordshire. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 97, 291–302.Google Scholar

Hill, W. 1891. Our forgotten lake. Journal of the Hitchin Natural History Club 12, 93–7.Google Scholar

Hill, W. 1908. On a deep channel of drift at Hitchin (Hertfordshire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 64, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hine, R.L. (ed.). 1934. The Natural History of the Hitchin Region. Hitchin: W.M. Carling.Google Scholar

Holmes, S.C.A. 1971. The geological mapper and the employment of his results, as illustrated in some areas of Southern England. Proceedings of the Geologists' Society 82, 161–86.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 1993. Tool use, sociality and intelligence. In Gibson, K.R. & Ingold, T. (eds), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, 429–6. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Isaac, G. 1972. Early phases in human behaviour: models in Lower Palaeolithic archaeology. In Clarke, D. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, 167–99. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Isaac, G. 1977. Olorgesailie: archaeological studies of a Middle Pleistocene lake basin in Kenya. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar

Isaac, G. 1984. The archaeology of human origins: studies in the Lower Pleistocene in East Africa. In Wendorf, F. & Close, A.E. (eds), Advances in World Archaeology 3, 1–87. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Jelinek, A.J. 1977. The Lower Palaeolithic: current evidence and interpretations. Annual Review of Anthropology 6, 11–32.Google Scholar

Jones, D.K.C. 1980. Southeast and Southern England. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Jones, P. 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic Archaeology. World Archaeology 12(2), 153–65.Google Scholar

Jones, P. 1981. Experimental implement manufacture and use: a case study from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In: Young, J.Z. (ed.), The Emergence of Man, 189–95. Philosophical. Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 292.Google Scholar

Jones, P. 1995. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge. In Leakey, M. & Roe, D. (eds), Olduvai Gorge Volume 5: excavations in Beds III, IV and the Masek Beds 1968–71, 254–298. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, S.J. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar

Lacaille, A.D. 1940. The palaeoliths from the gravels of the Lower Boyn Hill Terrace around Maidenhead. Antiquaries Journal 20, 245–71.Google Scholar

Lacaille, A.D. 1961. The palaeoliths of Boyn Hill, Maidenhead. Antiquaries Journal 41, 154–85.Google Scholar

Layard, N.F. 1903. A recent discovery of Palaeolithic implements in Ipswich. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 33, 41–3.Google Scholar

Layard, N.F. 1904. Further excavations on a Palaeolithic site in Ipswich. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 34, 306–10.Google Scholar

Layard, N.F. 1906. A winter's work on the Ipswich Palaeolithic site,. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 36, 233–6.Google Scholar

Layard, N.F. 1907. Account of a Palaeolithic site in Ipswich. Cambridge Antiquarian Society Communications 11, 32–502.Google Scholar

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993. Gesture and Speech. London: MIT Press (Trans. Berger, Berstock).Google Scholar

Lewis, S.G. & Bridgland, D.R. 1991. Ingham (TL 855715) and Timworth (TL 853692), Suffolk. In Lewis, S.G.Whiteman, C.A. & Bridgland, D.R.. Central East Anglia and the Fen Basin: field guide, 71–84. London: Quaternary Research Association.Google Scholar

MacRae, R.J. 1988. Belt, shoulder bag or basket? an inquiry into handaxe transport and flint sources. Lithics 10, 2–8.Google Scholar

Maddy, D., Lewis, S.G. & Green, C.P. 1991. A review of the stratigraphic significance of the Wolvercote Terrace of the Upper Thames Valley. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 102, 217–25.Google Scholar

McPherron, S.P. 1994. A Reduction Model for Variability in Acheulian Biface Morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

McPherron, S.P. 1996. A Re-examination of the British biface data. Lithics 16, 47–63.Google Scholar

Mellars, P.A. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian Industries in the Perigord Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, 134–71.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J.C. 1996. Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64–9.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J.C. & Gorman, A. 1995. On the cutting edge: a report on a day meeting on lithic use-wear analysis. Lithics 15, 32–42.Google Scholar

Mithen, S.J. 1994. Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithen, S.J. 1996. Social learning and cultural tradition: interpreting early Palaeolithic technology. In Steele, J. & Shennan, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: power, sex and tradition, 207–29. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Moir, J.R. 1919. On the occurrence of humanly fashioned flints, etc, in the Middle Glacial Gravel at Ipswich, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 49, 74–93.Google Scholar

Mortillet, G. de. 1883. Le Préhistorique: antiquité de l'homme. Paris: Bibliothéque des Sciences Contemporaines.Google Scholar

Mosquera-Martinez, M. 1998. Differential raw material use in the Middle Pleistocene of Spain: the evidence from Sierra de Atapuerca, Torralba, Ambrona and Aridos. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(1), 15–28.Google Scholar

Mussi, M. 1995. The earliest occupation of Europe: Italy. In Roebroeks, W. & van Kolfschoten, T. (eds), 1995, 27–49.Google Scholar

Newcomer, M.H. 1984. Flaking experiments with Pontnewydd raw materials. In Green, H.S. (ed.), Pontnewydd Cave: a Lower Palaeolithic Hominid Site in Wales. The First Report, 153–8. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.Google Scholar

Ohel, M.Y. 1987. The Acheulean handaxe: a maintainable multi-functional tool? Lithic Technology 16, 54–5.Google Scholar

Paterson, T.T. 1942. Palaeolithic Man in the Cambridge Region. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Paterson, T.T & Fagg, B.E.B. 1940. Studies in the Palaeolithic succession in England II: the Upper Brecklandian Acheul (Elveden). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6, 1–29.Google Scholar

Pelegrin, J. 1993. A framework for analysing prehistoric stone tool manufacture and a tentative application to some early stone industries. In Berthelet, A. & Chavaillon, J. (eds), The Use of Tools by Human and Non-human Primates, 304–14. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Pitts, M. and Roberts, M.B. 1997. Fairweather Eden: life in Britain half a million years ago as revealed by the excavations at Boxgrove. London: Century.Google Scholar

Potts, R. 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Potts, R. 1994. Variables versus models of early Pleistocene land use. Journal of Human Evolution 27, 7–24.Google Scholar

Prestwich, J. 1891. On the age, formation and successive drift-stages of the valley of the Darent; with remarks on the Palaeolithic implements of the district and the origin of the Chalk escarpment. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 47, 126–63.Google Scholar

Reid, C. 1898. The Palaeolithic deposits at Hitchin and their relation to the glacial epoch. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society & Field Club 10, 14–22.Google Scholar

Reid, C. 1901. A further note on the Palaeolithic deposits at Hitchin. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society & Field Club 12, 63–4.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B. 1986. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at Amey's Eartham Pit, Boxgrove West Sussex: a preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 215–45.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B. 1990. Amey's Eartham Pit, Boxgrove. SEQS Field Excursion Guidebook: The Cromer Symposium, Norwich.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B. 1996a. Man the Hunter returns at Boxgrove. British Archaeology 18, 8–9.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B. 1996b. And then came clothing and speech. British Archaeology 19, 8–9.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B., Stringer, C.B. & Parfitt, S.A. 1994. A hominid tibia From Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove U.K. Nature 369, 311–13.Google Scholar

Roberts, M.B., Parfitt, S.A., Pope, M.I & Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1997. Boxgrove, West Sussex: rescue excavations of a Lower Palaeolithic landsurface (Boxgrove Project B, 1989–91). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 303–58.Google Scholar

Roe, D.A. 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, method of study and preliminary results. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 245–67.Google Scholar

Roe, D.A. 1967. A Study of Handaxes Groups of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods, using Methods of Metrical and Statistical Analysis, with a Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Roe, D.A. 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82.Google Scholar

Roe, D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Roebroeks, W. & Kolfshoten, T. van. 1995. (eds). The Earliest Occupation of Europe (Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993). Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 27.Google Scholar

Roebroeks, W, Kolen, J. & Rensink, E. 1988. Planning depth, anticipation and the organisation of MiddJe Palaeolithic technology: the ‘Archaic Natives’ meet Eve's descendants. Helinium 28, 17–34. 32, 1–16.Google Scholar

Smith, R.A. 1933. Implements from high level gravels near Canterbury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 165–70.Google Scholar

Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1914. The high terrace of the Thames: report on excavations made on behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Geological Survey in 1913. Archaeologia 65, 187–212.Google Scholar

Smith, W.G. 1883. Primeval man in the Valley of the Lea. Transactions of the Essex Field Club 3, 102–47.Google Scholar

Smith, W.G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage: his haunts and relics from the hilltops of Bedfordshire to Blackwall. London: Stanford.Google Scholar

Smith, W.G. 1916. Notes on the Palaeolithic floor near Caddington. Archaeologia 67, 49–74.Google Scholar

Steele, J. & Shennan, S. 1996. Introduction. In Steele, J. & Shennan, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: power, sex and tradition, 1–41.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Summerfield, M.A. 1991. Global Geomorphology. England: Longman.Google Scholar

Tester, P.J. 1951. Palaeolithic flint implements from the Bowman's Lodge gravel pit, Dartford Heath. Archaeologia Cantiana 63, 122–34.Google Scholar

Tester, P.J. 1975. Further consideration of the Bowman's Lodge industry. Archaeologia Cantiana 91, 29–39.Google Scholar

Torrence, R. 1986. Time budgeting and technology. In Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: a European perspective, 11–23. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Torrence, R. 1989a. Tools as optimal solutions. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools, 1–6. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Torrence, R. 1989b. Retooling: towards a behavioural theory of stone tools. In Torrence, R. (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools, 57–67. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Toth, N. 1982. The Stone Technologies of Early Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: an experimental approach. Unpublished Ph.D, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Toth, N. 1985. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 101–20.Google Scholar

Toth, N. 1987. Behavioural inferences from early stone artefact assemblages: an experimental model. Journal of Human Evolution 16, 763–82.Google Scholar

Treacher, L. 1896. Palaeolithic man in East Berks. Berks., Bucks., and Oxon. Archaeological Journal 2, 39–43.Google Scholar

Trimmer, J. 1853. On the origin of the soils which cover the Chalk of Kent, part 3. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 9, 286–96.Google Scholar

Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A. & Marcy, J-L. 1997. Land-use and site function in Acheulean complexes of the Somme Valley. World Archaeology 29(2), 225–41.Google Scholar

Tyldesley, J.A. 1986a. The Wolvercote Channel Handaxe Assemblage: a comparative study. Oxford, British Archaeological Report 153.Google Scholar

Tyldesley, J.A. 1986b. A reassessment of the handaxe assemblage recovered from the Wolvercote Channel, Oxford. In Collcutt, S.N. (ed.), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: recent trends, 23–5. Sheffield: John Collis.Google Scholar

Underwood, W. 1911. Note of a paper: ‘discovery of bones and implements in a gravel pit near Dovercourt’, read at the Ipswich meeting on March 17th 1909. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 1, 112.Google Scholar

Underwood, W. 1913. Discovery of Pleistocene bones and flint implements in a gravel pit at Dovercourt, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 1(3), 360–8.Google Scholar

Villa, P. 1983. Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France. University of California Publications in Anthropology 13. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Villa, P. 1990. Torralba and Aridos: elephant exploitation in Middle Pleistocene Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 19, 299–309.Google Scholar

Warren, S.H. 1926. The classification of the Lower Palaeolithic with especial reference to Essex. South Eastern Naturalist 31, 19–26.Google Scholar

Warren, S.H. 1932. The Palaeolithic industries of the Clacton and Dovercourt districts. Essex Naturalist 24, 1–29.Google Scholar

White, H.J.O. 1909. The Geology of the Country Around Basingstoke. London: Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar

White, M.J. 1993. Lower Palaeolithic cores and flake technology: a comparison of Hoxne and High Lodge. Unpublished BA Dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar

White, M.J. 1995. Raw materials and biface variability in Southern Britain: a preliminary examination. Lithics 15, 1–20.Google Scholar

White, M.J. 1996. Biface variability and human behaviour: a study from South-Eastern England. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

White, M.J. 1997. The Earlier Palaeolithic occupation of the Chilterns: reassessing the sites of Worthington G. Smith. Antiquity 71, 912–31.Google Scholar

White, M.J. in press. Twisted ovate bifaces in the British Lower Palaeolithic. In Ashton, N.M.Pettitt, P.B. & Healy, F. (eds), Stone Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Wymer 98–104. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 6.Google Scholar

White, M.J., Bridgland, D.R., Ashton, N.M., McNabb, J. & Berger, M.A. 1995. Wansunt Pit, Dartford Heath (TQ 513737). In Bridgland, D.R.Allen, P. & Haggart, B.A. (eds), The Quaternary of the Lower Reaches of the Thames: Field Guide, 117–28 London: Quaternary Research Association.Google Scholar

Willis, G.W. 1947. Hampshire Palaeoliths in the clay with flint. Papers and Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society 16(3), 256.Google Scholar

Woodcock, A.G. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Sussex. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 94.Google Scholar

Woodcock, A.G. 1986. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Sussex: a summary of current knowledge, present research and future objectives. In Colcutt, S.N. (ed.), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: recent trends, 31–5. Sheffield: John Collis.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1964. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, 1955–1960. In Ovey, C.D. (ed.), The Swanscombe Skull: a survey of research on a Pleistocene site, 19–60. Royal Anthropological Institute, Occasional Paper.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley. London: John Baker.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1980. The excavation of the Acheulean site at Gaddesden Row. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 14, 2–4.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1985. Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1991. The use of hand-axes for dating purposes. In Lewis, S.G.Whiteman, C.A. & Bridgland, D.R. (eds), Central East Anglia and the Fen Basin: field guide, 45–8. London: Quaternary Research Association.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. 1992–1993. Region 4: River Stour. The Southern Rivers Project. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar

Wymer, J.J. & Singer, R. 1993. Flint industries and human activity. In Singer, R.Gladfelter, B.G. & Wymer, J.J. (eds), 1993, 74–128.Google Scholar

Wynn, T. 1995. Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27(1), 10–24.Google Scholar