Figure 1a

To date the oldest lithics recognised from the UK are the few flakes (and a single core) recovered from the Cromer Forest-bed formation at the Pakefield site and they are dated to the early part of the Brunhes Chron (ca 700 ka) (Parfitt et al). After this comes Boxgrove, Culford, Happisburgh, High Lodge, Lakenheath, Warren Hill and Westbury ranging from approximately 500 kya to 475 kya (AHOB). Indeed, before the dating of Pakefield, it was felt that humans were unable to colonise the northern latitudes of Europe before 500 kya (Parfitt et al).

Putting this in the wider context of Europe and Eurasia however reveals quite a disparity. In Italy, Pirra Nord is dated to between 1.3 and 1.7 Mya (Arzarello et al), at Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3, sites in the south of Spain, both date to between 1.2 and 1.3 Mya (Cauche, Toro-Moyano) and Vallonnet cave in the south of France dates to around 1 Mya (Cauche). At the oldest end of the spectrum so far is the famous site of Dmanisi in Georgia dating to between 1.7 and 1.81 Mya (Carbonell). Indeed, it is interesting to note that for the most part UK lithic collections are primarily 'Acheulian' not Developed Mode 1 or 'Classic Oldowan' as the aforementioned sites and the site at Atapuerca in Spain are.

Archaeologists in the UK often blame the dominance of "handaxes" in UK material on late 19th and early 20th century gravel pit workmen selling to collectors, archaeologists and museums when in fact all they were doing was satisfy a pre-existing demand. An unanticipated conclusion resulting from this research has been learning that the primary reason for the absence of Developed Mode 1 in the UK record may have more to do with a limited range of expertise, and subsequent difficulty and lack of confidence in identifying worked material, rather than a cultural or taphonomic effect. In other words a systematically reinforced bias resulting from the standardisation in training has had as much effect (if not more) as the aforementioned defence put forward for the palpable distortion (that is directed bias) of the UK archaeological record of the Pleistocene.

The Pakefield flint collection amounts to little more than 32 pieces; a simple flaked core, a crudely retouched flake and a quantity of waste flakes (Parfitt et al). In contrast, the assemblage presented here has hundreds of cores, and thousands of flakes; a sample of which are presented here for public scrutiny. Indeed the Pakefield collection is recognised as being out of primary context (Parfitt et al), whereas this collection has many indicators that imply it is in a primary context - including but not limited to; refitting pieces and well preserved hammerstones.

The "types" of artefact in this collection are consistent with a Classic Oldowan or Developed Mode 1 assemblage (histogram to be provided at a later date). Suffice to say, key characteristics of the lithic industry found here are; hard hammer percussion (freehand), bipolar reduction and direct percussion on anvil. From large core tools to small flake tools, there are both established and apparently regionally unique tool types; proto-bifaces, unifacial and bifacial choppers, awls, burins, and scrapers of all shapes, sizes and arrangements including multi-purpose tools. An abundance of flakes and debitage suggest that raw materials were readily available. Stratigraphic and geographic information is provided elsewhere on this web site.

Figure 1a (above) and b (below). A small flake with fissures indicating that the flint has flexed when it was removed by mechanical fracture (direct percussion). To many knappers this trait will be recognised as a positive indicator for human agency resulting from hard hammer percussion.

Figure 1b

Figure 2a and b. Removal of previous flakes can be easily ascertained. Standard identifiers of human agency as the responsible cause for a mechanical fracture are easily recognisable. The point of detachment is still present, the bulb marked. So why have two well known UK lithic "experts" had so much difficulty correctly identifying this item, claiming it to be the result of "natural processes"? The answer may lay in the absence or scarcity of knowledge with regard to bipolar and on anvil reduction, an effect of training focusing on free hand percussion and pressure flaking, the latter being perhaps the most confidently recognised in the archaeological community but mostly not applicable to the earlier periods of the Lower Palaeolithic era.

Figure 2a

Figure 2b

Figure 3a. To remove sizeable flakes like the one above requires a hammerstone. The pebble below is remarkably well preserved and with use-wear (pitting and fracturing from percussion) still vividly apparent along the lateral margin.

Figure 3b. A much smaller, but similar percussor, possibly also used additionally as a platform abrader. Note how dirt has been transferred onto both through repeated contact, not a sign of single use tools.

Figure 4. Another percussor but on a dense flint with use-wear localised on opposing proximal and distal ends. This pebble has a not inconsiderable mass and good balance that clearly made it well-suited for knapping.

Figure 5. Another percussor or "hammerstone". Countering the "cobble in a river argument" which could be proposed against the artefact in Figure 4 it only has use-wear (pitting and fracturing caused by percussion) on one end.

Figure 6a and b. This large multi-directional flake core is termed a 'proto-biface' according to Mary Leakey's system of classification (Leakey). The butt and cortex make for a comfortable grip with deliberate battering softening the margins. That it is unifacial argues against it being the result of natural processes (e.g. fluvial or glacial deposition) which would be much more likely to result in random fracturing. Platform preparation - by way of cortex removal - is apparent on the left lateral edge (top left in illustration 6b).

Figure 6a

Figure 6b

Figure 7. A sample of unifacial and bifacial choppers and scrapers on pebbles ranging from large to small (left to right, top to bottom row); mostly on quartzite, some flint and even bifacial reduction to a sandstone (top row second from right).

Figure 8a. A pebble scraper or chopper with two distinct flake removals - typically Developed Mode 1. Of course, a single artefact could (and has) been proposed to be "fortuitous". The question is, how many more similar artefacts could credibly also be claimed to be a "fortuitous product of nature"?

Figure 8b. Another pebble scraper or chopper but smaller and on this occasion bearing the negative flake scars of at least four unifacial removals.

Figure 9. The small chopper/scraper (or conceivably even a burin) on a pebble is bifacial.

Figure 10. Both the large pebbles pictured below have had bifacial removals made to them. There can surely be no doubt that human agency was the cause, can there? Well apparently there is; despite one archaeologist from Reading University noting that the latter looked "Oldowan" he concluded that the entire collection presented was the result of natural processes. One might just as quickly conclude that formal training is too rigid and not sensitive enough to the nuances of different lithic industries. Certainly the methodology must be questioned, since other experts have recognised immediately that this item has more than likely been modified by a human and is not resultant from natural processes. The same empirical evidence should not result in two such diametrically opposed opinions. What is required in this instance, and going forward, are objective tests, such as those devised by Gillespie and used in my test.

Figure 11. This pebble tool shows signs of having been used as a hammerstone as well. It has been split by bipolar reduction and subsequently retouched with multi-directional flake removals.

Figure 12. Another pebble core tool, again showing evidence of having also been used as a hammerstone (bottom). The close similarity with the type in Figure 11 is self-evident, however in this instance the largest fracture may have been accidental. Fractures can be seen running through the pebble from many angles.

Figure 13. A large nodule of flint split laterally and bifacially retouched. Note for instance the flake removal directly under the palm of my hand (top middle). The form of the cortex and subsequent flaking indicates that this item was almost definitely selected for its' naturally occurring zoomorphic properties in addition to functional utility. One might expect such an overt indicator of human intervention to ring alarm bells with archaeologists, it does. But invariably the wrong ones since it challenges a commonly held misconception that the cognitive ability to produce simple iconography was not present. Consistently, there is an instant assumption by professionals that they are dealing with a cerebrally challenged member of the public, resulting in a patronizing pat on the head with the assurance that my perceptions are understandable but naive and misguided. Beyond this, there is rarely any substantiation provided or deemed necessary to justify these types of remarks.

Figure 14. A double-ended chopping or scraping tool on a core.

Figure 15. A similar chopping or scraping tool to that in Figure 14, on a cobble. Note the sequentially overlapping flake removals trimming the cortex at the distal end (top left).

Figure 16. "Double-pointed" chopper type tool on core. The utilisation of concave fractures is seen frequently in this assemblage, as this and the next series of figures (17, 18, 19 and 20) suggest. This artefact could quite reasonably be suggested to be palpably iconographic. A "penny like" flake removal has been made which could be construed as an attempt to create the illusion or "visual ambiguity" of an 'eye'. This removal appears to mirror the natural feature on the opposing side (which has been further exposed by deliberate flaking), and is therefore interpreted as an intentional attempt at iconography.

Figure 16

Figure 17. This double-pointed chopping tool is discussed elsewhere on this web site in more detail, including the iconographic aspect which is again self-evident. Use-wear is readily apparent on the "chopping" end.

Figure 17

Figure 18. Another double-pointed chopping tool making use of a concave fracture, but this time somewhat smaller and identified tentatively from one perspective as a 'macaque'. As shown in the detail below, there is deliberate flaking around a concavity that could not be credibly conceived to have a functional utilitarian purpose. That there are two placed together and emphasized or attenuated by controlled flaking around a central "island" of flint strongly suggests that the knapper intended to create a visual ambiguity, i.e. 'eyes'.

Figure 19. This large core tool is discussed in more detail here. Again, the use of a concave fracture giving rise to two "ends" can be observed. A reliable indication of intentionality is the mirroring of a natural feature (the spiral like impression) which can be seen as an adjacent plunging removal (see two small insets below) - interpreted to suggest a 'pair of eyes'.

Figure 20. Finally in this series of "double-edged" or "double-pointed" tools, a smaller chopping tool, again utilising a concave fracture giving rise to two simultaneously working chopping edges.

Figure 21. On a small pebble a burin, showing bifacial retouch. The flint, deeply red, appears to have been thermally altered. Critics will claim, and have, that such thermal alteration "could be" the result of a (fortuitously placed) bush fire. Equally and perhaps more likely given that the in-situ context was with other artefacts that by and large are not burnt, it could be evidence of a deliberate or accidental hominid strategy to make use of "harden" flint irrelevant of the cause.

Figure 22. An awl or burin made on a small pebble utilising bipolar flaking technology on anvil.

Figure 23. A trihedral burin on a flake.

Figure 24. A quadrahedral burin on a flake. Note the two negative flake scars from the ventral plane (middle row with scale directly below).

Figure 25. The burin in Figure 24 was removed from the core shown below. The core exhibits extensive working with less than 40% cortex remaining. The working is characteristic of human agency in many ways. For instance, the right lateral proximal edge has parallel negative flake scars with well defined ripples. Larger planes cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of lacking a marked bulb of percussion or ripples, both of which are often absent with hard hammer percussion and a thick cortex absorbing energy (see Francis Wenban-Smith's discussion on Boxgrove).

Figure 26. The changing morphology of the flint can be directly cross referenced through the series 1 to 7. In the detail image lines (a) and (b) demonstrate that the quartz cavity is at the same distance from the left lateral margin on both core and flake (burin).

It has been proposed by several UK archaeologists, even without knowing the geographic and stratigraphic context, that the assemblage consists primarily of randomly fractured material, with occasional chance artefacts. Therefore it has been further hypothesised that the collection is therefore the result of either a glacial or fluvial deposition. If this were the indeed the case, then it would be very unlikely to identify both a utilised flake tool (the burin) and the core from whence it came. Additionally there is the wider context to consider, including the tools used to manufacture this type of assemblage, e.g. the hammerstones shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Such a chance occurrence is highly improbable - especially if we are given to believe that such material is extremely rare.

Figure 27. Expedient use is apparent throughout the collection. Here a fractured cobble has been retouched either for use as a "large duty" chopper/scraper or even burin. The difficulty that some lithic analysts have in determining the "cause" of this assemblage is the result of an inability to comprehend that bipolar reduction can result in obtuse as well as acute anglular material being produced. This is also apparent in the literature concerning lithics, where bipolar reduction is notable by the absence of discussion.

Figure 28. Again, what appears to have originally been either a natural or bipolar fracture plane has been retouched to a point, possibly for use as a perforator. Note the retouch all along the proximal edge too for use as a scraper.

Figure 29. In the photo-collage below the bulb of percussion on this flake (from a pebble) can be clearly identified in the rightmost image. Negative flake scars are distinct on the ventral side (left).

Figure 30. Similarly this unifacial flake core has marked negative flake scars giving it its' distinct form. In many respects resembling a phallus, it is without any doubt artificially manufactured. Such iconicity should come as no surprise to scholars in the field, another example of behaviour with an anatomical appreciation was the artefact or cuttlefish fossil cast known as the Erfoud manuport (A-84-2) - and noted by Robert Bednarik for it's relevance amongst an Acheulian assemblage.

Figure 31. A backed flake tool showing distinct ripples and feathering to the distal end. Typically "humanly produced", typically Mode 1.

Richard Wilson, 2009 ©