Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:38:40.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeolithic Archaeology at the Swan Valley Community School, Swanscombe, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Francis Wenban-Smith ,
David Bridgland ,
Simon Parfitt ,
Andrew Haggart  and
Phillip Rye
Francis Wenban-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ
David Bridgland
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Durham, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE
Simon Parfitt
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
Andrew Haggart
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Greenwich, Chatham, Kent ME4
Phillip Rye
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on the recovery of Palaeolithic flint artefacts and faunal remains from fluvial gravels at the base of a sequence of Pleistocene sediments revealed during construction works at two sites to the south of Swanscombe village, Kent. Although outside the mapped extent of the Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath Formation, the newly discovered deposits can be firmly correlated with the Middle Gravels and Upper Loam from the Barnfield Pit sequence dating to c. 400,000–380,000 BP. This increases greatly the known extent of these deposits, one horizon of which produced the Swanscombe Skull, and has provided more information on their upper part.

Comparison of the lithic assemblages from volume-controlled sieving with those from general monitoring demonstrated that artefact collections formed without controlled methods of recovery, such as form the majority of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeological record, are likely to be disproportionately dominated by larger, more visible, and more collectable neatly-made handaxes to the detriment of more poorly made, asymmetrical handaxes and cores, flakes, and percussors. The lithic assemblage from the fluvial gravel was confirmed as dominated by pointed handaxes, supporting previous studies of artefacts front the equivalent Lower Middle Gravel at Barnfield Pit. The raw material characteristics of the assemblage were investigated, and it was concluded that there was no indication that the preference for pointed shapes could be related to either the shape or source of raw material.

This paper also reviews the significance of lithic assemblages from disturbed fluvial contexts, and concludes that, contrary to some current perspectives, they have a valuable role to play complementing less disturbed evidence in developing understanding of the Palaeolithic.

Résumé

Cette étude relate la découverte d'objets manufacturés en silex et de restes fauniques datant du Paléolithique dans des graviers fluviaux situés à la base d'une séquence de sédiments du Pléistocène et mis au jour pendant des travaux de construction sur deux sites au sud du village de Swanscombe. Bien qu'ils se trouvent à l'extérieur de la zone cartographiée de la formation Boyn Hill/Orsett, on peut confirmer que les dépôts nouvellement recueillis ont de forts liens avec les graviers intermédiaires et l'argile sableuse supérieure de la séquence de Barnfield Pit, qui date d'environ 400 000–380 000 ans avant le présent. Cette découverte accroît d'une manière importante l'étendue connue de ces dépôts, dont une couche a révélé le crâne de Swanscombe et a fourni un supplément de renseignements sur leurs niveaux supérieurs.

La comparaison entre les assemblages lithiques provenant de tamisages à volume contrôlé avec ceux résultant d'une observation générale a démontré que les assemblages obtenus sans contrôle des méthodes de récupération, comme par exemple ceux qui constituent la majorité des archives archéologiques du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen sont susceptibles d'être dominés, d'une manière disproportionnée, par des bifaces, soigneusement taillés, plus grands, plus visibles et plus faciles à collectionner au détriment des bifaces asymétriques de qualité inférieure, des nucléus, des éclats et des percuteurs. Il a été confirmé que la collection lithique provenant des graviers fluviaux était dominée par des bifaces pointus, ce qui va dans le sens des études précédentes d'objets manufacturés du niveau équivalent des graviers moyens inférieurs à Barnfield Pit. On a étudié les caractéristiques de la matière première de l'assemblage et on en a conclu qu'il n'y avait aucune indication que la préférence pour les formes pointues ait pu avoir un rapport avec soit la forme, soit la source de la matière première.

Cette étude réexamine la signification des assemblages lithiques en provenance de contextes fluviaux perturbés, et conclut que, contrairement à certaines perspectives actuelles, ils ont un rôle important à jouer, en complément des témoignages moins perturbés, dans le développement de notre compréhension du Paléolithique.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel berichtet über die Entdeckung von paläolithischen Feuerstein Artefakten und Faunaresten aus fluvialem Schotter an der Basis einer Abfolge von pleistozänen Sedimenten, die bei Bauarbeiten an zwei Stellen südlich des Dorfes von Swanscombe entdeckt wurden. Obwohl die kürzlich entdeckten Ablagerungen außerhalb des bekannten Ausmaßes der Boyn Hill/Orsett Formation liegen, können sie mit Sicherheit mit den mittleren Schottern und dem oberen Lehm der Barnfield Grubenabfolge korreliert werden, die c. 400,000–380,000 BP datiert. Dies erhöht das bekannte Ausmaß dieser Ablagerungen beträchtlich, ein Horizont aus dem der Swanscombe Schädel hervorgegangen ist, und hat somit zusätzliche Information zu ihrem oberen Teil geliefert. Ein Vergleich der lithischen Inventare, die aus kontrolliertem Sieben stammen, mit denjenigen in allgemeinen Kontrollen gefundenen, zeigte, daß die Artefakt Inventare, die ohne kontrollierte Fundbergung zusammen getragen worden sind – unter diesen Umständen wird die Mehrheit des alt- und mittelpaläolithischen archäologischen Materials gesammelt – wahrscheinlich überproportional von größeren, und dadurch leichter sichtbar und zu sammelnden fein gefertigten Faustkeilen als von asymmetrischen Faustkeilen minderer Qualität und von Kernen, Abschlägen und Schlägeln dominiert sind. Weiterhin bestätigt das lithische Inventar aus dem fluvialen Schotter, daß es von spitzen Faustkeilen dominiert war, was frühere Studien über Artefakte vom vergleichbaren unteren mittleren Schotter aus der Barnfield Grube bestätigen. Nachdem die Merkmale der Rohmaterialien des Inventars untersucht waren, konnte geschlußfolgert werden, daß es keine Anzeichen dafür gibt, daß die Präferenz für spitze Formen auf die Form oder die Herkunft des Rohmaterials zurück zu führen ist.

Zusätzlich behandelt der Artikel die Bedeutung von lithischem Inventar aus gestörten fluvialen Kontexten. Im Gegensatz zu anderen neuen Ansätzen, kann man davon ausgehen, daß sie einen wertvollen Beitrag liefern können, indem sie die weniger gestörten Befunde komplimentieren, um schließlich ein besseres Verständnis des Paläolithikums zu entwickeln.

Resúmen

Este trabajo informa del descubrimiento de útiles de sílex y restos de fauna paleolíticos en las gravas fluviales halladas en la base de una secuencia sedimentológica del Pleistoceno, y que han salido a la luz durante las obras de construcción en dos sitios al sur del pueblo de Swanscombe. Aunque no pertenecen a la extensión conocida de la Formación Boyn Hill/Orsett, los recién descubiertos depéisitos pueden ponerse en relación directa con las Gravas Medias y la Marga Superior de la secuencia de Barnfield Pit que data a alrededor de 400,000–380,000 BP. Esto aumenta grandemente nuestros conocimientos de la extensión de estos depósitos, uno de cuyos horizontes produjo el Cráneo de Swanscombe, y ha producido más información sobre su parte superior. Un análisis comparativo de los grupos líticos hallados a través de la criba de volúmenes controlados y con aquellos hallados a través de una búsqueda general, demostró que las colecciones de artefactos formadas sin métodos de recuperación controlados, como es el caso de la mayoría del registro arqueológico del Paleolítico Inferior y Medio, están más probablemente dominadas de manera desproporcionada por hachas de mano más grandes, visibles y bien hechas, en detrimento de hachas asimétricas peor ejecutadas, núcleos, lascas y percutores. El material lítico de las gravas fluviales está dominado por hachas apuntadas, lo cual confirma estudios previos de artefactos procedentes de niveles equivalentes en las gravas bajo-medias de Barnfield Pit. Se investigó la materia prima característica de este grupo, concluyendo que no había ningún indicio de una preferencia por las formas apuntadas en relación ya sea a la forma, ya a la fuente, de la materia prima. Este trabajo también examina la importancia de grupos líticos procedentes de contextos fluviales no intactos, y concluye que, en contra de algunas interpretaciones actuales, éstos tienen un importante papel en el desarrollo de un conocimiento del Paleolítico al complementar la evidencia procedente de contextos intactos.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 67 , 2001 , pp. 219 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2001

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

Ashton, N.M., McNabb, J., Irving, B., Lewis, S.G. & Parfitt, S. 1994. Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk. Antiquity 68, 585–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, N.M. & McNabb, J. 1992. The interpretation and context of the High Lodge flint industries. In Ashton, N.M.Cook, J.Lewis, S.G. & Rose, J. (eds), High Lodge: excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook 1988, 164–8. London: British Museum PressGoogle Scholar
Ashton, N. & McNabb, J. 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In Ashton, N., & David, A. (eds). Stories in Stone, 182–91. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4Google Scholar
Binford, L.R. 1973. Interassemblage variability – the Mousterian and the ‘functional’ argument. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: models in prehistory, 227–54. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Bordeaux: DelmasGoogle Scholar
Bradley, B. & Sampson, C.G. 1986. Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact assemblages. In Bailey, G. & Callow, P. (eds), Stone Age Prehistory: studies in honour of Charles McBurney, 29–45. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1986. Clast Lithological Analysis. Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide 3Google Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1994. Quaternary of the Thames. London: Chapman & HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R., Gibbard, P.L., Harding, P.A., Kemp, R.A. & Southgate, G. 1985. New information and results from recent excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. Quaternary Newsletter 46, 25–38Google Scholar
British Geological Survey. 1998. Dartford. England and Wales Sheet 271. Solid and Drift Geology. 1:50,000Google Scholar
Burchell, J.P.T. 1933. The Northfleet 50 ft. submergence later than the Coombe Rock of post-Early Mousterian times. Archaeologia 83, 67–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreck, J.N. 1972. Chronology of the Quaternary Deposits of South-east England, with Special Reference to their Vertebrate Faunas. University of London: unpublished M. Phil thesisGoogle Scholar
Chandler, R.A. 1930. On the Clactonian industry at Swanscombe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6, 79–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, R.A. & Leach, A.L. 1911. Excursion to Dartford Heath. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 22, 171–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, R.A. & Leach, A.L. 1912. On the Dartford Heath Gravel and on a Palaeolithic implement factory. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 23, 102–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, B.W. & Waechter, J. d'A. 1977. Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. In Shephard-Thorn, E.R. & Wymer, J.J. (eds), South East England and the Thames Valley, 38–44. X INQUA Congress, Excursion Guide A5. Norwich: Geo AbstractsGoogle Scholar
Conway, B.W., McNabb, J. & Ashton, N. (eds). 1996. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, 1968–72. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 94Google Scholar
Dewey, H. 1932. The Palaeolithic deposits of the Lower Thames Valley. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 88, 36–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, H., Bromehead, C.E.N., Chatwin, C.P. & Dines, H.G. 1924. The Geology of the Country around Dartford: Explanation of Sheet 271. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great BritainGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H.L. & Rolland, N. 1992. On assemblage variability in the Middle Paleolithic of western Europe. In Dibble, H.L. & Mellars, P.A. (eds), The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation, behaviour and variability, 1–27. Philadelphia: University Museum PressGoogle Scholar
English Heritage. 1991. Exploring our Past: Strategies for the Archaeology of England. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C.S. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, P.L. 1979. Middle Pleistocene drainage in the Thames Valley. Geological Magazine 116, 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, P.L. 1994. Pleistocene History of the Lower Thames Valley. Cambridge: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, M.A.C. & Kennard, A.S. 1905. The relative ages of the stone implements of the Lower Thames Valley. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 19, 76–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. 1999. Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 286Google Scholar
Hubbard, R.N.L.B. 1982. The environmental evidence from Swanscombe, and its implications for Palaeolithic archaeology. In Leach, P.E. (ed.), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, 3–7. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 48Google Scholar
Kerney, M.P. 1971. Interglacial deposits at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, and their molluscan fauna. Journal of the Geological Society of London 127, 69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, W.B.R. & Oakley, K.P. 1936. The Pleistocene succession in the lower part of the Thames Valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, 52–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchener, A.C. & Bonsall, C. 1999. Further AMS radiocarbon dates for extinct Scottish mammals. Quaternary Newsletter 88, 1–10Google Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithcn, S. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, A.L. 1913. On buried channels in the Dartford Heath Gravel. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 24, 337–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, A.M. 1986. New results on deer from Swanscombe, and the stratigraphical significance of deer in the Middle and Upper Pleistocene of Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 319–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, A.M. 1994. The evolution of the giant deer, Megaloceros giganteus (Blumenbach). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 112, 65–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNabb, J. & Ashton, N.M. 1992. The cutting edge: bifaces in the Clactonian. Lithics 13, 4–10Google Scholar
Ovey, C.D. (ed.). 1964. The Swanscombe Skull: a survey of research on a Pleistocene site. London: Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 20Google Scholar
Parfitt, S.A. & Roberts, M.B. 1999. Human modification of faunal remains. In Roberts, & Parfitt, (eds) 1999, 395–415Google Scholar
Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Peoin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E. & Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429–36Google Scholar
Pitts, M. & Roberts, M.B. 1997. Fairweather Eden: life in Britain half a million years ago as revealed by the excavations at Boxgrove. London: CenturyGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.B. 1999. Quarry 2 GTP 17. Roberts, & Parfitt, (eds) 1999, 372–8Google Scholar
Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A., (eds). 1999. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene hominid site. London: English HeritageGoogle 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, 303–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.B., Stringer, C.B. & Parfitt, S.A. 1994. A hominid tibia from Middle Pleistocene sediments at Boxgrove, UK. Nature 369, 311–13Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, methods of study and preliminary results. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30, 245–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1968a. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1968b. A Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 8Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1980. Introduction: precise moments in remote time. World Archaeology 12, 107–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1913. Stratification at Swanscombe: report on excavations made on behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Geological Survey. Archaeologia 64, 177–204CrossRefGoogle 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, 187–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W.G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage. London: Edward StanfordGoogle Scholar
Stern, N. 1993. The structure of the Lower Pleistocene archaeological record: a case study from the Koobi Fora Formation. Current Anthropology 34, 201–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, C.B. 1985. The Swanscombe fossil skull. In Duff, K.L. (ed.). The Story of Swanscombe Man, 14–19. Nature Conservancy CouncilGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, A.J. 1964. The mammal fauna. In Ovey, (ed.) 1964, 85–111Google Scholar
Swanscombe Committee. 1938. Report on the Swanscombe skull: prepared by the Swanscombe Committee of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 68, 17–98Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1996. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Baker's Hole: a case-study for focus in Lithic analysis. University of Southampton: unpublished PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1998. Clactonian and Acheulian industries in Britain: their chronology and significance reconsidered. In Ashton, N.Healy, F. & Pettitt, P. (eds), Stone Age Archaeology: essays in honour of John Wymer, 90–7. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1999. Knapping technology. In Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A. (ed's), Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site, 384–395. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2000a. Lithic artefacts. In Wenban-Smith, et al. 2000, 224–239Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2000b. Technology and typology. In Wenban-Smith, et al. 2000, 243–8Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2000c. Organisation of production and behaviour. Wenban-Smith, et al. 2000, 248–50Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F., Gamble, C.S. & ApSimon, A.M. 2000. The Lower Palaeolithic site at Red Barns, Portchester, Hampshire: bifacial technology, raw material quality and the organisation of Archaic behaviour. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 209–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. & Bridgland, D.R. 1997. Newly discovered Pleistocene deposits at Swanscombe: an interim report. Lithics 17–18, 3–8Google Scholar
Wessex Archaeology. 1993. The Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project: Report No. 2. Salisbury: Wessex ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. 1998a. On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. 1998b. Twisted ovate bifaces in the British Lower Palaeolithic: some observations and implications. In Ashton, N.Healy, F. & Pettitt, P. (eds), Stone Age Archaeology: essays in honour of fohn Wymer, 98–104. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. 2000. The Clactonian question: on the interpretation of core-and-flake assemblages in the British Lower Palaeolithic. Journal of World Prehistory 14, 1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M., 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. Durham: Quaternary Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1958. Localised battering on handaxes. Archaeological Newsletter 6(6), 139Google Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1964. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, 1955–1960. In Ovey, (ed.) 1964, 19–61Google Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley. London: John BakerGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1974. Clactonian and Acheulian industries in Britain – their chronology and significance. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 85, 391–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1983. The Lower Palaeolithic site at Hoxne. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 35, 169–89Google Scholar
Zeuner, F.E. 1945. The Pleistocene Period: its climate, chronology and faunal successions. London: Allard & SonGoogle Scholar