Pontnewydd Cave:

Aldhouse-Green, Stephen; Bevins, R. E.; Jackson, H R; Peterson, Rick; Walker, Elizabeth Anne

doi:10.2307/j.ctt1f5g4qb.18

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The industry is dominated by handaxes, scrapers and levallois products, mainly on hard rocks but with some flint for smaller items, chiefly sourced from local cobbles and pebbles. The technology in the Lower and Upper Breccias is similar and it is considered that the artefacts were transported from a location outside the cave system and represent a single phase of occupation (Aldhouse‐Green et al ., ), although this cannot be firmly established (see below).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The morphological affinities of the Middle Pleistocene hominin teeth from Pontnewydd Cave, Wales

Compton

Stringer

2015

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seventeen Middle Pleistocene hominin teeth were excavated at Pontnewydd Cave in North Wales between 1980 and 1995 with a probable age of ∼225 ka, associated with handaxe and levallois artefacts. Their Neanderthal characteristics and their affinities with other European Middle Pleistocene teeth and the major sites of Atapuerca‐SH in Spain and Krapina in Croatia are explored. The Pontnewydd teeth are shown to have a marked similarity to those of Atapuerca‐SH, more pronounced than similarities to teeth from other European Middle Pleistocene sites, and to belong in the pre‐Neanderthal stage of Neanderthal evolution. Distinct dental morphological differences between later European Middle Pleistocene specimens, together with those from Atapuerca‐SH, and European Middle Pleistocene Homo heidelbergensis specimens are identified, contradicting the view that both the Pontnewydd and the Atapuerca‐SH fossils belong in that species. Additionally, the similarities in dental morphology between European and non‐European H. heidelbergensis specimens are demonstrated. We argue that when sites are grouped together for comparative purposes this should be done on morphological grounds, and not by apparent date, in view of the possible contemporaneity of European Middle Pleistocene sites that exhibit different degrees of Neanderthal affinities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The morphological affinities of the Middle Pleistocene hominin teeth from Pontnewydd Cave, Wales

Compton

Stringer

2015

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Acheulean bifaces (handaxes and cleavers) are persistent, even dominant, tool forms throughout much of the Old World from 1.75 until 0.1 million years ago, with a distribution ranging from the Cape of Good Hope to Britain and from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to the Himalayan foothills (and perhaps even farther east) (Aldhouse-Green et al 2012; Beyene et al 2013; Corvinus 2006; Cruz-Uribe et al 2003; Haslam et al 2011; Petraglia & Shipton 2008; Raynal et al 2001). The meaning of this ubiquitous and extremely long-lasting cultural tradition has puzzled archaeologists for more than a century, leading many to ponder its biological, cognitive, social and functional implications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Shipton

Clarkson

Cobden

2018

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acheulean bifaces dominate the archaeological record for 1.5 million years. The meaning behind the often symmetrical forms of these tools is the topic of considerable debate, with explanations ranging from effectiveness as a cutting tool to sexual display. Some, however, question whether the symmetry seen in many Acheulean bifaces is intentional at all, with suggestions that it is merely the result of a bias in hominin perception or an inevitable consequence of bifacial flaking. In this paper we address the issue of intention in biface symmetry. First, we use transmission chain experiments designed to track symmetry trends in the replication of biface outlines. Secondly, we use archaeological data to assess the symmetry of Acheulean bifaces from British, East African and Indian assemblages in relation to reduction intensity; the degree of bifaciality; and the symmetry of four Middle Palaeolithic bifacial core assemblages. Thirdly, we look at specific examples of the reduction sequences that produced symmetrical Acheulean cleavers at the sites of Olorgesailie CL1-1, Isinya, Chirki, Morgaon and Bhimbetka. All three lines of evidence support the notion that symmetry was a deliberately imposed property of Acheulean bifaces and not an epiphenomenon of hominin visual perception or bifacial technology.

show abstract

“…This level of variation can easily be accounted for by slight differences in the range of tasks undertaken at different sites. This is almost certainly the case for Pontnewydd, as a result of being the only cave site (Aldhouse- Green et al, 2012). Flake tools are found at all sites, and the variety of flake tools is consistent throughout with scrapers, denticulates and notches.…”

Section: Flake Tool Technology In Britain From Mis 13 To Mismentioning

confidence: 69%

“…As Roe's (1968a) original identifications included a high proportion of flakes that were classed as being retouched due to natural edge damage, careful attention was paid to ensure that all flake tools contained genuine retouch following the methodologies of Baumler (1995), Andrefsky (1998), andInizan et al (1999), who also put more emphasis on how flake tools were manufactured rather than on the dimensions of the finished product We conducted a preliminary assessment of the increase in the number of flake tools within MIS 9 (Research Question 1) by comparing the non-handaxe, handaxe, and PCT assemblages. To determine if any longer-term trends could be identified in the numbers of flake tools compared to previous periods, we compared our data to assemblages both preceding and following MIS 9 based on published sources (Wymer, 1964;Singer et al, 1973;Ashton, 1992;Wymer 1993;Ashton and McNabb, 1996;Ashton et al,1998Ashton et al, , 2005Pope, 2002, White andPlunkett 2004;Gowlett et al 2005;Scott, 2011;Aldhouse-Green et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%