Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:09:17.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: Some Problems, Methods of Study and Preliminary Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

D. A. Roe
D. A. Roe
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is an interim report on a Cambridge Research Thesis which has been in progress for three years, and which will eventually cover the major part of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. The whole project may be divided into four phases:

  • 1. Collection and examination of all the available material;

  • 2. Selection of those groups of implements appropriate for study;

  • 3. Application of objective methods of study, mainly in the field of metrical and statistical analysis;

  • 4. Interpretation of the results.

The present paper gives some account of what has so far been done under the first three of these headings. It is still too early to attempt any major conclusions, although it is perhaps fair to indicate the lines along which it can be hoped they will take shape.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 30 , December 1964 , pp. 245 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1964

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

Clarke, D. L. 1962. ‘Matrix Analysis and Archaeology with particular reference to British Beaker pottery’, PPS, XXVIII, pp. 371–82.Google Scholar
SirEvans, John. 1897. The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments, of Great Britain, 2nd edition, revised (Longmans & Co.).Google Scholar
McBurney, C. B. M. (with West, D. J.). 1954. ‘The Quaternary Deposits at Hoxne, Suffolk, and their Archaeology’, PPS, XX, pp. 139–55.Google Scholar
Oakley, K. P. 1939. A Survey of the Prehistory of the Farnham District (Surrey Archaeological Collections), Part I, pp. 3–58.Google Scholar
Oakley, K. P. 1952. ‘Swanscombe Man’, Proc. Geol. Assoc., LXIII, pp. 271–300.Google Scholar
Smith, W. G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage (Stanford).Google Scholar
Tester, P. J. 1950. ‘Palaeolithic Flint Implements from the Bowman's Lodge Gravel Pit, Dartford Heath’, Arch. Cant., LXIII, pp. 122–34.Google Scholar
Tester, P. J. 1963. ‘Interim Report on the Discovery of a Palaeolithic Site at Cuxton’, Arch. Cant., LXXVIII, p. 48.Google Scholar
Treacher, M. S., Arkell, W. J. and Oakley, K. P. 1948. ‘On the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire, and its contained Flint Implements’, PPS, XIV, pp. 126–54.Google Scholar
Wymer, J. 1961. ‘The Lower Palaeolithic Succession in the Thames Valley and the Date of the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire’, PPS, XXVII, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar