Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting find... unusual place!

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

  • Interesting find... unusual place!

    I went to visit my elderly mother in North Norfolk recently and we took a little trip out to a venue where local artisans were selling their wares. Cider-makers, bakers, potters, leather-workers, home-made preserves and such. There was a guy selling beautiful carved wooden items and sitting on his table was a box of flattish stones with the label: “Your name engraved: £6.50”. The conversation went something like this:

    - Excuse me, but could I just ask where these stones came from?
    # Off the beach at West Runton. They wash out of the cliffs and I pick up the ones that have a flat enough surface to engrave.
    - How much do you want for this one?
    # It’s £6.50 to have your name engraved on it, like the label says.
    - I just want the stone. Not engraved.
    # OK… but I can engrave it if you want.
    - Well, I’d rather have it just as it is. It’s a Lower Palaeolithic tool. They’re not tremendously valuable, but I collect them.
    # Really? Are you sure? What about the others?
    - They’re just flat stones. This one is different. The edges are worked. It’s a chopping tool.
    # Well, I guess I should put the price up then [laughs heartily], but you can have it for £6.
    - Deal. Thanks very much.

    Here it is:
    Click image for larger version

Name:	West Runton 1.jpg
Views:	300
Size:	111.2 KB
ID:	170026
    Click image for larger version

Name:	West Runton 2.jpg
Views:	173
Size:	80.4 KB
ID:	170027
    Click image for larger version

Name:	West Runton 3.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	93.8 KB
ID:	170028





    Unfortunately, it’s archaeological value is limited since there is no relevant stratigraphy, but it almost certainly came out of the till deposits relating to one of the Cromerian Complex interglacial periods which (in Britain) started around 866,000 years ago and ended 478,000 years ago.

    The archaeological significance of this area of Britain has only been recently recognised. The coastline suffers from considerable erosion and that has gradually exposed deposits where lithic tools have been found in intact stratigraphy with associated organic material that can be carbon-dated. In 2010, at nearby Happisburgh, Parfitt et al from University College London recovered tools from deposits that were dated (by other techniques) to either 866,000 - 814,000 years ago or 970,000 - 936,000 years ago. Subsequent excavations co-ordinated by Chris Stringer led to the discovery in 2013 of the oldest hominin footprints outside Africa, dated to more than 800,000 years old.

    All of this pushes back the known occupation of Britain by at least 280,000 years (preceding the Clactonian industries of Homo erectus). The evidence suggests that the tools were made by Homo antecessor (which was perhaps the evolutionary link between H. ergaster and H. heidelbergensis) living as hunter-gatherers on the flood plains and marshlands that bordered the northern banks of an ancient course of the river Thames.

    Collectively this represents the oldest evidence of human activity in Northern Europe and raises some interesting questions about whether these people had physical adaptations, hunting techniques or technologies (types of clothing, construction of shelters, use of fire etc) that allowed them to live much further north than previously considered possible in the still very cold interglacial periods. Seasonal migration may also have played a part if it can be established whether the sites were continuously occupied or not.
    Last edited by painshill; 08-23-2015, 10:09 AM.
    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.

  • #2
    Very cool item anb a great story about the save.
    TN formerly CT Visit our store http://stores.arrowheads.com/store.p...m-Trading-Post

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice rescue, Shill !

      Comment


      • #4
        That's awesome!

        Comment


        • #5
          Roger, thats so cool you spotted that before someones name was engraved on it,great save indeed

          also, that was a great read. i truly love it when you share your knowledge.
          now i need to go find and extra brain,as mine is getting full from the knowledge i gave gained from reading your posts,and those from others on this site

          Comment


          • #6
            And here we thought our paleoindian period is old! Very cool find Roger and yes, an unusual place but what a pleasant surprise for you!
            Me thinks you should visit that beach/eroding area once in a while and have a look😉

            My niece is a Dartmouth grad and she had a boyfriend there who traveled to Africa every summer on archaelogical digs. He had pics of a set of hominid footprints they had uncovered which were quite nicely preserved and very clear. I wish I could recall which part of Africa he was in. You wouldn't happen to have any pics of those footprints you mentioned do you....they would be cool to see!
            Southern Connecticut

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by cgode View Post
              And here we thought our paleoindian period is old! Very cool find Roger and yes, an unusual place but what a pleasant surprise for you!
              Me thinks you should visit that beach/eroding area once in a while and have a look😉

              My niece is a Dartmouth grad and she had a boyfriend there who traveled to Africa every summer on archaelogical digs. He had pics of a set of hominid footprints they had uncovered which were quite nicely preserved and very clear. I wish I could recall which part of Africa he was in. You wouldn't happen to have any pics of those footprints you mentioned do you....they would be cool to see!
              Yes... for sure I will be going back!

              There's a good summary of the footprint finds in the Wiki entry here (with links to research papers):



              Here's a better close-up:
              Click image for larger version

Name:	Happisburgh Footprints.jpg
Views:	141
Size:	153.6 KB
ID:	170057

              [Picture from "The Telegraph" website]

              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


              • #8
                now that is way cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  What a find! And today there was an article in BBC news online about early occupation in Britain being much earlier than thought. Cool.
                  Searching the fields of NW Indiana and SW Michigan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sneakygroundbuzzard View Post
                    now that is way cool

                    I agree....WAY cool!!
                    It's a shame they were destroyed by the tides Roger.......fortunately they were able to be recognized for what they were and recorded in pictures though.
                    The pics I saw in Africa had clear toe impressions as well......I think it's just cool on a whole new level!
                    Southern Connecticut

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah, what a cool find! Awesome that it's that old. Great story, Roger....
                      Rhode Island

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey Roger, Interesting history of Europe. I love the story of how you bought that amazing artifact.
                        Michigan Yooper
                        If You Don’t Stand for Something, You’ll Fall for Anything

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Amazing find Roger that only the trained eye would spot!
                          Like a drifter I was born to walk alone

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm usually pretty quick to call geofact on new members, but between you and I, when I see some Paleolithic tools, I sometimes wonder if they aren't right.

                            Some of it is recognizable to me, but half the stuff just looks like a chunk of flint with tumble damage. (I am not questioning your assessment, more questioning my own rejections of proposed early tools in the Americas.)
                            Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by clovisoid View Post
                              I'm usually pretty quick to call geofact on new members, but between you and I, when I see some Paleolithic tools, I sometimes wonder if they aren't right.

                              Some of it is recognizable to me, but half the stuff just looks like a chunk of flint with tumble damage. (I am not questioning your assessment, more questioning my own rejections of proposed early tools in the Americas.)
                              It's an interesting observation that you make. I would be certain that sometimes a true artefact gets dismissed as a geofact. If we were kinder, I think in some cases a more appropriate assessment would be along the lines of: "you might be right but there is no contextural evidence or comparative assemblage that supports the case". I think the experienced collectors among us know that's a slippery slope which gives too much false hope to the inexperienced collectors and opens the floodgates for every pointy rock to be claimed as an artefact. I know of at least one archaeologist over here who uses the term "possifact". I continually explain to my dear wife why the pointy rock she has just picked up couldn't be claimed as an artefact, even though it actually might be. She takes it all in, and this very afternoon placed a nice end-scraper in my hand which she found while planting a tree in the garden. We are situated on the edge of a Neolithic settlement area.

                              What I would also say is that the mistaken assessment possibility applies more to very early items in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years, which of course have no known precedent in the Americas. Also, for particular reasons, it applies to a specific period of the late Neolithic in Europe when tools were lazily made and readily discarded. The benefit we have in Europe (and the old World in general) is that we can compare isolated finds (even when out of context) to larger assemblages from known sites. The industry typology for particular styles, lithic re-fitting of debitage, stratigraphy, context, associated organic detritus, hominin fossils and other evidence then puts us in a much stronger position to make more reliable assessments. But it's not foolproof and the rationale still has to respect the null hypothesis.

                              There is however no mileage at all (in my opinion) in making comparisons across the continents of the kind: "these North American pointy rocks resemble crude artefacts from Old World assemblages that are hundreds of thousands of years old, so they must be artefacts as well and must be way earlier than Clovis". For that, you really do need it to be backed up with something more than a lithic style comparison to items made by specific lineages of extinct primitive hominins whose presence (or even possible presence) has never been demonstrated in the Americas.
                              Last edited by painshill; 08-23-2015, 07:33 PM.
                              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

                              Working...
                              X