Comments on Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England.

Salisbury, Chris

doi:10.1017/s0079497x0000671x

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an example, the depth to the flint bed is given as 2.01 (the units are presumably metres), whereas according to the scale bars the depth is approximately 1.3 m. Also, our surveys indicate that, no matter whether a depth of approximately 1.3 m or exactly 2.01 m is selected for the depth of the 'flint bed', the artefacts would be located within or beneath the laminated beds in the cave. Since both we and Salisbury agree that this is not the case, we are forced to conclude that the 'survey sketch' depicted by Salisbury (1986) is grossly in error and that it cannot be relied upon.…”

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Volume 5 2 of the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society contained two articles (Salisbury 1986;Tipping 1986) critical of our paper 'The stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an upper palaeolithic site in northern England' (Gale and Hunt 1985). Here we reply.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Nevertheless, we express concern lest the location of the artefacts shown on figure 1 of Salisbury's (1986) paper enters the literature as a findspot. There are two reasons for our concern.…”

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider that far more reliance could be placed on the location given for the artefacts had details been recorded at the time of excavation and published afterwards. Secondly, the 'survey sketch' published as figure 1 of Salisbury (1986) and on which the location of the artefacts is shown is difficult to interpret for a number of reasons. First, the scale of 1:300 is in error by a factor of approximately five.…”

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5). Moreover, Salisbury (1986) depicts the stalagmite floor on his figure 1, drawn from a physical and photographic survey made by him in 1986.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England: Discussion

Gale¹,

Hunt²

1990

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volume 52 of the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society contained two articles (Salisbury 1986; Tipping 1986) critical of our paper ‘The stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an upper palaeolithic site in northern England’ (Gale and Hunt 1985). Here we reply.Before dealing with the criticisms made by Salisbury, we correct the factual errors in his paper.1. Bolton and Morris ‘… excavated through, and ultimately removed some 5 to 7 metres of cave earth…’ (Salisbury 1986, 321). In fact, the reports indicate a maximum depth of excavation of 7 ft (2.1 m) (Bolton 1864, cclii) or 8 ft (2.4 m) (Morris 1865–66, 360, 361; 1866, 169, 170; Bolton 1869, 167–68).2. Bolton and Morris's ‘… publications are of little value today, and both may be considered to have been “bone hunters” and collectors’ (Salisbury 1986, 321). The assertion that Bolton and Morris's excavation reports are of little value suggests that Salisbury is not familiar with the wealth of early literature on this site. The reports provide a picture of a rich and varied assemblage of artefacts and macrofauna in the unit overlying the stalagmite floor in the cave. Information is also provided on the lithology of that unit. Interpretation of these reports allows the reconstruction of the stratigraphic context of the finds: we direct Salisbury's attention to Gale and Hunt (1985, 296–97) for an indication of the stratigraphic reconstruction possible from the information given in these early publications.

show abstract

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Response To Comments By Salisburymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5). Moreover, Salisbury (1986) depicts the stalagmite floor on his figure 1, drawn from a physical and photographic survey made by him in 1986.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England: Discussion

Gale¹,

Hunt²

1990

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Archaeology and Environment in Northumberland

Passmore¹,

Waddington²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

xxiv Zuasammenfassung xxv Samenvatting xxvi Sammenfatning xxvii Till Tweed Volume I Erratum xxviii Contents Part 1. Setting the Scene vii Contents Calibration The model for the start and end of the Neolithic The overlapping ceramics model Alternative: the abutting model The Milfield henge complex and related sites Taming of the land: transition or revolution? Settlement Post-built structures Neolithic pits Geography of Neolithic settlement in Northumberland Land use and subsistence Technology and material culture Ceramics Lithics Monumentalising the land Neolithic Chalcolithic 6.

show abstract

Comments on Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England.

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

The Stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England: Discussion

The Stratigraphy of Kirkhead Cave, an Upper Palaeolithic Site in Northern England: Discussion

Archaeology and Environment in Northumberland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About