Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some recent Upper Palaeolithic bits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some recent Upper Palaeolithic bits

    Some Upper Palaeolithic (UP) bits and pieces that I have found recently. The trouble with the UP stuff is that it lacks the beauty of bifacial hand axes; that you get from Lower & Middle Palaeolithic periods. It is also clumpy and lacks the sophistication of the Mesolithic & Neolithic. But despite its clumpy appearance, knowing that you are holding Neanderthal tools (and waste !!!) is quite special

    The scrapper is one obvious tool and a couple are bifacial cleavers (albeit crude in appearance)






  • #2
    Are those from a confirmed Neanderthal occupation site (of which there are relatively few in Britain)? If not, what confirms them as Neanderthal, as opposed to Cro-Mangon/AMH? Just curious.
    I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.

    Comment


    • Sunny
      Sunny commented
      Editing a comment
      Never gave it any thought to be honest.
      Upper Palaeolithic in the UK is generally associated with Neanderthal. But you are right, especially as the evidence indicates Anatomically Modern Humans (or the older title: Cro-Magnon) coexisted for thousands of years alongside Neanderthals; and interbred according to the genome studies.

      I had just - for simplicity - associated my crude finds with Neanderthal assemblages and the blade technology with AMH. Although I did read of copies of AMH blades being found at a confirmed Neanderthal site.

      Not looked in to the first proven occupation of the Uk...but saw this today, which is nice )



      I have no idea what period these flints are....and trying to find a good reference source of 'everyday' flint artefacts is really difficult/impossible. Most books and museums have the best-of-the-best illustrated. So when it comes to the average field find it is a buggers-muddle to age the technology; made worse by different flint reacting differently to weathering.

      For that reason I tend to retain pieces that interest me as apposed to the entire cohort of worked flint I see on fields. If it looks like I can show it to friends and they don't think I have lost the plot then it comes home :0)

      These finds are from a small area of a very large field, on a slight slope next to a chalk plateau. Finds over the rest of the field are very sparse; the kind of background you get on any chalk escarpment in this area. Yet the area these all came from is no larger than a football pitch. The stone is weathered and none are mint/freshly disturbed. There are no river deposits at this area and the flint is local, matching the background plough exposed natural nodules.
      I would think it is either a settlement site or very close to the site (slightly further up the slope perhaps).
      I don't know any other fields that have such a concentration of this style of working. The complete absence of small or sophisticated blades is also compelling. If it is anything it is more likely to be Neanderthal.... but who knows :0)

  • #3
    I have extended the search area to this site, covering fields for a few miles in most directions.....still more to be done.

    It has driven me to research French and Spanish find sites and publications, as there is precious little for the Britain; which was mostly de-populated during this period of Neanderthal/AMH occupation of Europe.

    There has been much conjecture amongst academics and archaeologists over the various ages of these technocomplexes (new word I picked up !!!). c14 dating analysis has been subject to scrutiny and much has been said about site contamination of occupation layers and disturbances resulting from later burials.
    That said, the evidence is currently distilling towards acceptance that Châtelperronian was Neanderthal and Aurignacian was AMH...based on an ever increasing number of sites in (mostly) France, Spain and southern Europe.

    How does this influence the identification of my finds, pictured above ?
    Well both Aurignacian and Châtelperronian are dominated by large core flake tools, with some clear differences in the shape and retouch quality of both. Châtelperronian includes many scrapers and wide flake tools with many displaying fine (chip) edge retouch, very little of which is invasive; as seen in later Solutrean artefacts.
    But they have this fine retouch on their broad scrapers, side scrapers and end scrapers; as well as knives and points. This is markedly different (in central and southern Europe) from the preceding Mousterian; especially when it comes to the manner of flake generation and retouch. Not all Mousterian is dominated by Levallois technique...although I have found a Levallois core in the vicinity of this site.

    The flakes in this post have greater affinity with the large volume of Mousterian finds from across Europe. There are precious few proven sites in the UK and most are in southern England. There are even few publications on the Mousterian technocomplex of Britain than there are sites here !
    If you want to research the period you really have to look to France, Spain and few other European works.

    One thing that stands loud and distinct about the site these flake tools came from is that it is absent any flakes/blades or characteristic LUP or Mesolithic cores. The tools are not heavily influenced by fine edge retouch and I have not yet found any Levallois material on the immediate location. Local flint from both Mesolithic and Neolithic periods has a different patination and the Mesolithic especially is dominated by microliths, of which there are none yet found on this site. The patination of local flint (in my area) to a broad white is ordinarily associated with greater age. I have seen bronze age flint as white, from other areas of the UK, but here in the Hampshire Basin it does not patinate that way; taking much longer.

    The evidence is mounting for this material being late Middle Palaeolithic, based on fabrication style and patination........but this is not conclusive, so without a formal excavation and something like c14 dating then it is just my conjecture ....although I am learning )

    I will try to post some more photos, which give a better impression of the flake sizes, perhaps alongside some that are accepted as Meso/Neo. I also have a macro les now for my iPhone, so perhaps a few edge close ups to bring out the points being raised

    Comment

    Working...
    X