Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:06:57.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Mark J. White
Mark J. White
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 64 , January 1998 , pp. 15 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. 1992. Cultural inheritance and evolutionary ecology. In Smith, E.A. & Winterhalder, B. (eds), Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behaviour, 61–92. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bradley, B.A & Sampson, C.G. 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulean artefact assemblages. In Bailey, G.N. & Callow, P. (eds), Stone Age Prehistory: essays in memory of Charles McBurney, 29–44. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1983. The Quaternary Fluvial Deposits of North Kent and Eastern Essex. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, City of London Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1994. Quaternary of the Thames. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. & Harding, P. 1986. An attempt to relocate the ‘Wolvercote Channel’ in a railway cutting adjacent to Wolvercote brick pit. Quaternary Newsletter 48, 12–16.Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. & Harding, P. 1989. Investigations at Gaddesden Row brickpit, Hertfordshire. Quaternary Newsletter 59, 2–4.Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R., Gibbard, P.L & Preece, R.C. 1990. The geology and significance of the interglacial sediments at Little Oakley, Essex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B328, 307–39.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.J. 1988. The environmental background to human occupation in the Upper Thames Valley during the Quaternary period. In MacRae, R.J. & Moloney, N. (eds), Non-flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, 167–86. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 189.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.J., Coope, G.R. & Gilbertson, D.D. 1985. The Chronology and Environmental Framework of Early Man in the Upper Thames Valley: a New Model. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, C.M., Roe, D.A. & 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 11(5), 397–415.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, P. 1976. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in Britain and Adjacent Areas of Europe. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Callow, P. 1986a. A comparison of British and French Acheulian bifaces. In Collcutt, S.N. (ed.), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: recent trends, 3–7. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Callow, P. 1986b. Raw materials and sources. In Callow, P. & Cornford, J.M. (eds), La Cotte de St. Brelade: excavations by C.B.M. McBurney, 203–11. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
Catt, J.A. 1986. The nature, origin and geomorphological significance of clay-with-flints. In Sieveking, G. De G & Hart, M.B. (eds), The Scientific Study of Flint and Chert. Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic 10–15 April 1983, 151–6. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, R.H & Leach, A.L. 1907. Excursion to Crayford and Dartford Heath. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 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. & Smith, R.A. 1924. Flints from the Sturry Gravels. Archaeologia 74, 117–36.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1979. The effects of raw materials on biface manufacture. Science 204, 815–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Rogers, A.R. 1989. Does biology constrain culture. American Anthropologist 90, 819–31.Google Scholar
Rolland, N. & Dibble, H.. 1990. A new synthesis of Middle Palaeolithic assemblage variability. American Antiquity 55(3), 480–99.Google Scholar
Rose, J. & Allen, P. 1977. Middle Pleistocene stratigraphy in south-east Suffolk. Journal of the Geological Society of London 89(1), 83–102.Google Scholar
Sainty, J.E. & Boswell, P.G.H. 1927. An Acheulean Palaeolithic workshop at Whitlingham near Norwich. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 5, 177–210.Google Scholar
Sampson, C.G. 1978. Paleoecology and Archaeology of an Acheulian Site at Caddington, England. Dallas: SMU.Google Scholar
Sandford, K.S. 1924. The river gravels of the Oxford District. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 80, 113–79.Google Scholar
Sandford, K.S. 1926. Pleistocene deposits. In Pringle, J. (ed.), The Geology of the Country around Oxford, 104–172. Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Schick, K. 1987. Modelling the formation of early stone age artefact concentrations. Journal of Human Evolution 16, 789–807.Google Scholar
Schlanger, N. 1993. Chaîne Opératoire for an archaeology of mind. In Renfrew, C. & Zubrow, E.B.W. (eds), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, 143–52. Cambridge: Univerity Press.Google Scholar
Sieveking, G. de G. & Hart, M.B. 1986. The Scientific Study of Flint and Chert. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, R., Gladfelter, B.G. & Wymer, J.J. 1993. The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J.G.O, Bisson, G. & Worssham, B.C. 1966. Geology of the Country around Canterbury and Folkestone. London: Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Smith, R.A. 1921. Implements from the plateau brickearth at Ipswich. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 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