Mapping the human record in the British early Palaeolithic: evidence from the Solent River system

Abstract

The lithic record from the Solent River and its tributaries is re-examined in the light of recent interpretations about the changing demography of Britain during the Lower and early Middle Palaeolithic. Existing models of the terrace stratigraphies in the Solent and its tributary areas are reviewed and the corresponding archaeological record (specifically handaxes) for each terrace is assessed to provide models for the relative changes in human occupation through time. The Bournemouth area is studied in detail to examine the effects of quarrying and urbanisation on collection history and on the biases it introduces to the record. In addition, the effects of reworking of artefacts from higher into lower terraces are assessed, and shown to be a significant problem. Although there is very little absolute dating available for the Solent area, a cautious interpretation of the results from these analyses would suggest a pre-Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 12 date for the first appearance of humans, a peak in population between MIS 12 and 10, and a decline in population during MIS 9 and 8. Owing to poor contextual data and small sample sizes, it is not clear when Levallois technology was introduced. This record is compared and contrasted to that from the Thames Valley. It is suggested that changes in the palaeogeography of Britain, in particular land connections to the continent, might have contributed to differences in the archaeological records from the Solent and Thames regions.

Terrace reconstruction and long profile projection: a case study from the Solent river system near Southampton, England

“…Westaway et al (2006) also note the presence of Levallois artefacts at Kimbridge and Dunbridge, shown on their long profile as correlating with their Belbins Terrace. However, this age model has recently been challenged by Ashton and Hosfield (2009) on two grounds. Firstly, the age used for first occupation of southern Britain is based on a reinterpretation of the age of deposits at Pakefield that Ashton and Hosfield (2009) believe to be erroneous.…”

“…However, this age model has recently been challenged by Ashton and Hosfield (2009) on two grounds. Firstly, the age used for first occupation of southern Britain is based on a reinterpretation of the age of deposits at Pakefield that Ashton and Hosfield (2009) believe to be erroneous. Secondly, Ashton and Hosfield (2009) argue that the low number and insecure provenance of Levallois artefacts in the Solent region make this an insecure tie-point to use in dating these sequences.…”

“…Firstly, the age used for first occupation of southern Britain is based on a reinterpretation of the age of deposits at Pakefield that Ashton and Hosfield (2009) believe to be erroneous. Secondly, Ashton and Hosfield (2009) argue that the low number and insecure provenance of Levallois artefacts in the Solent region make this an insecure tie-point to use in dating these sequences. New work at both Dunbridge (Harding et al, in revision) and Warsash (Hatch, 2011) will hopefully shed light on the exact location of the Levallois material and its stratigraphic implications.…”

“…White, 1998) have claimed that certain types of archaeological material can be age-diagnostic, this has been disputed (e.g. Ashton and Hosfield, 2009) and such material from this region is sparse. OSL dating is possible on these deposits, but as this paper will show, has proved problematic due to difficulties in exposing suitable deposits.…”

Behaviour and process in the formation of the North European Acheulean record: Towards a Unified Palaeolithic Landscape Approach

“…White 2000). Moreover, when likewise using extant distribution maps to investigate demographic patterns, Ashton and Hosfield (2010) and Davies (2013) have demonstrated that numbers of rolled handaxes increase the lower down a given terrace staircase (in this instance, the Solent) is sampled.Conversely, plateau and interfluve contexts cannot receive artefacts from higher, earlier eroding points in the landscape, relying, therefore, on people to deposit artefacts there. The assemblages recovered from them are sealed by fine-grained sediments (eg.…”