Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T02:41:09.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Microlithic Industry from the Cambridgeshire Fenland and other Industries of Sauveterrian Affinities from Britain*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

J. G. D. Clark
J. G. D. Clark
Affiliation:
Disney Professor of Archaeology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of Professor Childe's leading characteristics as a prehistorian has been the range and depth of his interests and sympathies. In the present contribution it is desired to acknowledge the interest he has shown in the mesolithic background to the neolithic colonization of Europe and his uncommon awareness of the relevance of Quaternary Research to the problems of prehistory.

The opportunity will be taken to reconsider, in the light of a more abundant material and of recent advances in knowledge, the microlithic industry of Late Boreal age, first brought to light in the Cambridgeshire fens during the excavations carried out on behalf of the Fenland Research Committee during 1932 and 1934 at Plantation and Peacock's Farms, Shippea Hill. The object of these excavations was primarily stratigraphical and only a comparatively small quantity of mesolithic material was obtained at the time. Since then the opportunity has been taken at favourable seasons to collect on the surface of the sand ridges, and that on Peacock's Farm has yielded a sufficient quantity to give a reliable indication of the cultural affinities of the industry. Further, the researches of our French colleagues have thrown fresh light on the whole question of Post-Azilian microlithic industries and the new discoveries have led to changes of nomenclature directly relevant to the classification of the Peacock's Farm industry. Again, the zoning of British Postglacial deposits by means of pollen-analysis undertaken by Dr Godwin and his colleagues has made it possible to fix the chronological context of the Peacock's Farm assemblage and this in turn has made feasible a new approach to the history of the microlithic industries of Britain. Thanks to Dr Godwin's kind co-operation, it is now possible to publish a re-drawn pollen-diagram, illustrating the stratigraphy of the Lower Peat bed at Peacock's Farm and showing the relationship of the mesolithic occupation both to the forest-history zones and to the neolithic occupation of the sand-ridge on which prehistoric man settled from time to time.

Type
Old Stone Age
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 21 , July 1956 , pp. 3 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1956

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

page 3 note 1 Ant. J., XIII, 1933, 266–96Google Scholar; XV, 1935, 284–319.

page 3 note 2 Godwin, H., ‘Studies of the Post-Glacial History of British Vegetation, III, Fenland Pollen Diagrams’, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, ser. B, No. 570, vol. 230, 1940, 239–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 4 note 1 Fowler, Gordon, ‘The extinct waterways of the fens’, Georg. J., LXXXIII, 1934, 30–9Google Scholar.

page 4 note 2 In conversation with the author.

page 6 note 1 Other than two fresh ones from the lower peat.

page 7 note 1 In reckoning the angles of platforms their categories parallel and at right-angles are deemed to include specimens deviating up to 5°.

page 12 note 1 Law, R. and Horsfall, J., Proc. Yorks. Polytechn. Soc., 1882, 70Google Scholar.

page 12 note 2 Raistrick, A., J. Yorks. Arch. Soc., Pt. 122, 152Google Scholar; Conway, Verona M., J. of Ecology, XLII, 117–47Google Scholar.

page 14 note 1 The Mesolithic Age in Britain. Cambridge, 1932Google Scholar.

page 16 note 1 For a discussion of this in relation more particularly to the south of France, see Smith, M. A., ‘The Mesolithic in the South of France; a critical analysis’, Proc. Prehist. Soc., XVIII, 103–20Google Scholar.

page 16 note 2 L. Coulanges, Les gisements préhistoriques de Sauveterre-la-Lémance (Lot-et-Garonne). Mém. 14, Archives de l'inst. de paléontologie humaine. Paris, 1935.

page 16 note 3 M. and Daniel, R., L'Anthropologie, LII, 417Google Scholar.

page 16 note 4 Taté, E., ‘Petits silex talliés trouvès près Coincy-L'Abbaye’, L'Homme, 1885, 2 e. ann., 688–91Google Scholar.

page 16 note 5 Vielle, E., ‘Pointes des flèches typiques de Fère-en-Tardenois,’ Congr. internal, a'Anthropologie de Paris, 1889, 196Google Scholar.

page 16 note 6 M. and Daniel, R., ‘Le Tardenoisien classique du Tardenois’, L'Anthropologie, LII, 411–49Google Scholar.

page 16 note 7 e.g. at Le Cuzoul de Gramat. See Lacam, R., Niederlender, A. and Vallois, H. V., Le Gisement mésolithique du Cuzoul de Gramat, 9–11Google Scholar. Mém. 21, Archives de l'inst. de paléontologie humaine. Paris, 1944. For a fuller discussion, including material from Central Europe, see Mazàlek, Mojmír, ‘Zur frage der Beziehungen zwischen Mesolithikum und Neolithikum’, Anthropozoikum, III (1953), 224–34. Prague, 1954Google Scholar.

page 16 note 8 Breuil, H. and Lantier, R., Les homines de la pierre ancienne (paéolithique et mésolithique), 254. Paris, 1951Google Scholar. The surface industry from Shewalton Moor, near Irvine, Ayrshire, described by Lacaille (op. cit., 1954, 284–6), it is true, shows some affinities to this late Tardenoisian, but these may be due to convergence; the industry shows apparent signs of contact with Early Bronze Age culture.

page 17 note 1 op. cit., 49.

page 18 note 1 J. Roy. Anthrop. I, LV, 146 ff.Google Scholar

page 19 note 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc., E.A., VI, 335–9Google Scholar.