Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:13:54.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genuine Diversity? The Broom Biface Assemblage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Robert Hosfield  and
Jennifer Chambers
Robert Hosfield
Affiliation:
Dept. of Archaeology, School of Human & Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK. E-mail: r.hosfield@rdg.ac.uk
Jennifer Chambers
Affiliation:
Flat One, 111 Anderton Park Road, Birmingham, B13 9DQ, UK. E-mail: jennichambers@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Broom Lower Palaeolithic locality, on the river Axe at the Devon/Dorset border in south-western Britain, yielded an assemblage of at least 1800 Acheulean artefacts between the 1870s and 1940s through gravel quarrying and antiquarian collection. The bifacial material, predominantly produced in chert but including a small flint component, is characterised by considerable typological diversity and a distinctive asymmetrical element. While aspects of the assemblage have been reported before, this paper presents new work on the artefacts of the C.E. Bean collection and the sample from Exeter Museum. The Bean archive indicates that the artefact patterning is not due to fluvial mixing of separate, typologically-discrete, assemblages. Analysis of the artefacts suggests that hominin knapping strategies were not notably constrained by variations in raw material granular quality, but that the typological variability strongly reflects blank form and shape. However, while the influences of blank form and resharpening, including the use of tranchet flaking, partially explain the assemblage's asymmetrical component, a significant proportion of those artefacts cannot be understood in these terms. The existence of local, short-lived manufacturing traditions, perhaps reflecting the idiosyncratic approaches of individual knappers, is argued to best explain the distinctive asymmetrical element of the Broom assemblage. This interpretation is further supported by (i) the geoarchaeological model of assemblage formation, which assigns the majority of the artefacts to a single phase of occupation, and (ii) the OSL ages of the Broom fluvial deposits (predominantly MIS-9 and 8) and the atypical character of the assemblage in relation to other British late Lower Palaeolithic material, which oppose the notion of longer-lived, locally, or regionally-maintained, traditions.

Résumé

La localité du Paléolithique inférieur de Broom, sur la rivière Axe à la frontière entre le Devon et le Dorset dans le sud-ouest de la Grande-Bretagne, a produit un assemblage d'au moins 1800 objets façonnés acheuléens entre les années 1870 et 1940 grâce à une carrière de gravier et les collections de férus d'archéologie. Le matériel biface en grande partie produit en silex noir mais comprenant un petit composant en silex, se caractérise par une considérable diversité typologique et un élément assymétrique distinctif. Alors que certains aspects de l'assemblage ont déjà fait l'objet d'un rapport, cette étude présente de nouveaux travaux sur la collection de C.E. Bean et l'échantillon du musée d'Exeter. Les archives Bean indiquent que la disposition des objets façonnés n'est pas due au mélange dans la rivière d'assemblages séparés de typologies peu différenciées. L'analyse des objets donne à penser que les stratégies de taille des hominidés n'étaient pas visiblement restreintes par les variations dans la qualité du grain de la matière première, mais que la diversité de la typologie reflète fortement l'apparence et la forme brutes. Toutefois, alors que les influences de la forme d'origine et la retaille, y compris l'utilisation de l'éclat sur tranchet expliquent en partie le composant assymétrique de l'assemblage, une proportion importante de ces objets ne peut s'expliquer en ces termes. On argumente que l'existence de traditions de fabrication locales de courte durée, reflétant peut-être l'approche idiosyncratique de tailleurs particuliers, est la meilleure explication pour l'élément assymétrique particulier à l'assemblage de Broom.

Cette interprétation est par ailleurs soutenue par (i) le modèle géo-archéologique de formation d'assemblage qui attribue la majorité des objets à une seule phase d'occupation et (ii) les âges OSL des alluvions de la rivière de Broom (avec prédominance MIS-9 et 8) et le caractère atypique de l'assemblage en comparaison avec d'autres matériaux de la fin du Paléolithique inférieur britannique qui vont à l'encontre de la notion de traditions de plus longue durée, entretenues localement ou régionalement.

Résumen

La localidad del Bajo Paleolítico de Broom, en el río Axe, entre Devon y Dorset y al suroeste británico, produjo un total de al menos 1800 artefactos Achelenses entre los años 1870 y 1940, encontrados en canteras de gravilla y colecciones de anticuarios. El material bifaz, predominantemente ejecutado en chert aunque incluye un pequeño componente de sílex, se caracteriza por una considerable diversidad tipológica y un distintivo elemento asimétrico. Aunque aspectos del conjunto han sido examinados en el pasado, este trabajo presenta nuevas investigaciones sobre los artefactos de la colección de C.E. Bean y los del Exeter Museum. El archivo de Bean demuestra que las asociaciones entre los artefactos no se deben a mezcla fluvial de conjuntos separados y tipológicamente diferenciados. El análisis de los artefactos sugiere que las estrategias homíninas de talla no estaban particularmente constreñidas por variaciones en la calidad granular de la materia prima, pero que la variabilidad tipológica es un fuerte reflejo del tipo y de la forma del soporte lítico y del retoque. Sin embargo, mientras que la influencia de la forma y retoque del soporte, incluido el uso de golpe de tranchet, explica parcialmente el componente asimétrico de la colección, una proporción significativa de estos utensilios no puede ser explicada por estos parámetros. Este trabajo mantiene que la mejor explicación para el característico componente asimétrico de la colección de Broom, es la existencia de tradiciones locales de fabricación de corta duración que reflejaban el modo de hacer idiosincrásico de talladores individuales. Esta interpretación es respaldada también por (i) el modelo geo-arqueológico de la formación del conjunto, que asigna la mayoría de los utensilios a una única fase de ocupación, y (ii) las dataciones OSL (Luminiscencia Estimulada Ópticamente) de los depósitos fluviales de Broom (predominantemente MIS-9 y 8) y el carácter atípico del conjunto en relación con otro material del tardo Bajo Paleolítico británico, que contradice la noción de tradiciones locales o regionales de más permanencia.

Zusammenfassung

Die altpaläolithische Fundstelle Broom liegt am Fluss Axe an der Devon/Dorset Grenze in Südwest Brittannien und erbrachte zwischen 1870ger und 1940ger Jahren ein Inventar von mindestens 1800 Acheulien Artefakte, die entweder durch das Anlegen von Kiesgruben gefunden wurden oder aus dem Kunsthandel stammen. Das bifazielle Material ist hauptsächlich aus Feuerstein, und zu einem geringen Anteil aus Flint, und ist durch eine beachtliche typologische Vielfalt und ein distinktives asymmetrisches Element gekennzeichnet. Während bereits früher über bestimmte Aspekte des Inventars berichtet wurde, beinhaltet dieser Artikel neue Arbeiten zu den Artefakten der C.E. Bean Kollektion und zu einem Exemplar aus dem Museum in Exeter Das Bean Archiv zeigt, dass die Zusammensetzung der Artefakte nicht von der Vermischung von verschiedenartigen, typologisch unterschiedlichen Inventaren in folge von Flussbewegung herrührt. Die Analyse der Artefakte zeigt, dass hominide Schlagtechniken nicht in großem Maße die unterschiedlich körnige Qualität des Rohmaterials beschränkt waren, sondern dass die typologische Vielfalt sehr stark die Rohform und Gestalt wiedergibt. Während die Einflüsse von Rohform und Nachschärfen – und der Nutzung von Tranchierabschlagsgewinnung – jedoch nur teilweise die asymmetrische Komponente des Inventars erklärt, kann ein signifikanter Anteil dieser Artefakte unter diesen Gesichtspunkten nicht verstanden werden. Das Vorhandensein von lokalen, kurzlebigen Herstellungstraditionen reflektiert sehr wahrscheinlich die spezifischen Herangehensweisen von individuellen Feuersteinschlägern und scheint deshalb am besten dazu geeignet zu sein, das besondere, asymmetrische Element des Broom Inventars zu erklären. Diese Interpretation wird durch (i) das geoarchäologische Modell der Inventarformation unterstützt, das den Hauptteil der Artefakte einer einzigen Belegungsphase zuordnet; und zweitens, dass die OLS Datierungen der Flussablagerungen von Broom (hauptsächlich aus MIS-9 und 8 stammt) und der atypische Charakter dieses Inventars in der Tat in Verbindung mit anderen altpaläolithischen Funden steht, was wiederum der Konzeption und Tradition (längerfristige, lokale oder regional aufrecht erhaltene Traditionen) widerspricht.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 75 , 2009 , pp. 65 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2009

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

REFERENCES

Antoine, P., Coutard, J-P., Gibbard, P., Hallegouet, B., Lautridou, J-P. & Ozouf, J-C. 2003. The Pleistocene rivers of the English Channel region. Journal of Quaternary Science 18(3–4), 227–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, N.M. 2001. One step beyond. Flint shortage above the Goring Gap: the example of Wolvercote. In Milliken, & Cook, 2001, 99–106Google Scholar
Ashton, N. 2008. Transport, curation and resharpening of lithics in the Lower Palaeolithic. Lithics 29, 6–17Google Scholar
Ashton, N.M. & Lewis, S.G. 2002. Deserted Britain: declining populations in the British Late Middle Pleistocene. Antiquity 76, 388–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, N.M. & McNabb, J. 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In Ashton, N.M. & David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone, 182–91. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4Google Scholar
Ashton, N.M. & White, M.J. 2003. Bifaces and raw materials: flexible flaking in the British Early Palaeolithic. In Soressi, M. & Dibble, H.L. (eds), Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, 109–23. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum PressGoogle Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Mémoires de l'Institut Préhistoriques de l'Université de Bordeaux 1Google Scholar
Briant, R.M., Bates, M.R., Schwenninger, J-L. & Wenban-Smith, F. 2006. An optically stimulated luminescence dated Middle to Late Pleistocene fluvial sequence from the western Solent Basin, southern England. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5), 507–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briant, R.M., Wenban-Smith, F.F. & Schwenninger, J-L. 2009. Solent River gravels at Barton on Sea, Hampshire SZ 230 930. In Briant, R., Bates, M., Hosfield, R. & Wenban-Smith, F.F. (eds), The Quaternary of the Solent Basin and West Sussex Raised Beaches, 161–70. London: Quaternary Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 1994. The Quaternary of the Thames. London: Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 2000. River terrace systems in north-west Europe: an archive of environmental change, uplift and early human occupation. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 1293–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgland, D.R. 2001. The Pleistocene evolution and Palaeolithic occupation of the Solent River. In Wenban-Smith, & Hosfield, 2001, 15–25Google Scholar
Calkin, J.B. & Green, J.F.N. 1949. Palaeoliths and terraces near Bournemouth. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15, 21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, S., Hunt, C.O., Scourse, J.D., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. London: Chapman & HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J.C. 2005a. Like a rolling stone? The identification of fluvial transportation damage signatures on secondary context bifaces. Lithics 24, 66–77Google Scholar
Chambers, J.C. 2005b. River gravels and handaxes: new experiments in site formation, stone tool transportation and transformation. In Fansa, M. (ed.), Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa, Bilanz 2004, Heft 3, 25–41. Oldenburg: Isensee VerlagGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.D. 2001. Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the later Acheulian in Africa. In Milliken, & Cook, 2001, 1–18Google Scholar
Debénath, A. & Dibble, H.L. 1994. Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology. Volume One: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R.A. & Gallois, R. 2004. Geology of the Sidmouth District — a Brief Explanation of the Geological Map. Sheet Explanation of the British Geological Survey. 1:50 000 Sheets 326 & 340 Sidmouth (England and Wales). Nottingham: British Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. 1872. The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. 1897. The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain (2nd edn). London: Longmans, Green & CoGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C.S. & Porr, M. (eds). 2005. The Hominid Individual in Context: archaeological investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, J.H. 1929. Part III. The Victoria West Industry, 53–71 in Goodwin, A.J.H. & Van Riet Lowe, C. (eds), The Stone Age Cultures of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 27, 1–289Google Scholar
Goren-Inbar, N. & Sharon, G. (eds). 2006. Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from quarry to discard. London: EquinoxGoogle Scholar
Green, C.P. 1974. Pleistocene gravels of the River Axe in south-western England, and their bearing on the southern limit of glaciation in Britain. Geological Magazine 111, 213–20Google Scholar
Green, C.P. 1988. The Palaeolithic site at Broom, Dorset, 1932–41: from the record of C.E. Bean, Esq., F.S.A. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 99, 173–80Google Scholar
Green, C.P. & Hosfield, R.T. forthcoming. New investigations at Broom. In Hosfield, & Green, (eds), forthcoming aGoogle Scholar
Green, J.F.N. 1947. Some gravels and gravel pits in Hampshire and Dorset. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 58, 128–43Google Scholar
Hardaker, T. & Dunn, S. 2005. The Flip Test — a new statistical measure for quantifying symmetry in stone tools. http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/hardaker/Google Scholar
Hopkinson, T. & White, M.J. 2005. The Acheulean and the handaxe: structure and agency in the Palaeolithic. In Gamble, & Porr, 2005, 13–28Google Scholar
Horton, A., Worssam, B.C., Whittow, J.B., Holyoak, D.T. & Worsley, P. 1981. The Wallingford Fan Gravel. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 293(1064), 215–55Google Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. 2005. Individuals among palimpsest data: fluvial landscapes in Southern England. In Gamble, & Porr, 2005, 220–43Google Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. 2009. Modes of transmission and material culture patterns in craft skills. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, 45–60. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. & Chambers, J.C. 2004. The Archaeological Potential of Secondary Contexts. London: English Heritage Archive Report (Project No. 3361)Google Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. & Green, C.P. (eds.) forthcoming a. The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Broom. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Hosfield, R.T. & Green, C.P. forthcoming b. History of research: The Bean Archive. In Hosfield, & Green forthcomingGoogle Scholar
Hosfield, R.T., Brown, A.G., Basell, L.S. & Hounsell, S. 2006. Beyond the caves: the Palaeolithic rivers of south-west Britain. Geoscience in South-West England 11(3), 183–90Google Scholar
Hosfield, R.T., Brown, A.G., Basell, L., Hounsell, S. & Young, R. 2007. The Palaeolithic Rivers of South-West Britain. London: English Heritage Archive Report (Project No. 3847)Google Scholar
Hosfield, R.T., Marshall, G.D. & Chambers, J.C. forthcoming. The Broom lithic assemblage. In Hosfield, & Green forthcomingGoogle Scholar
Keeley, L. 1993. Microwear analysis of lithics. In Singer, R., Gladfelter, B.G. & Wymer, J.J. (eds), The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England, 129–38. Chicago: University PressGoogle Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518–26Google Scholar
Lacaille, A.D. 1954. Palaeoliths from the lower reaches of the Bristol Avon. Antiquaries Journal 34(1), 1–27Google Scholar
Lericolais, G., Auffret, J-P. & Bourillet, J-F. 2003. The Quaternary Channel River: seismic stratigraphy of its palaeo-valleys and deeps. Journal of Quaternary Science 18(3–4), 245–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, A.J. 2008. Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen (1999). Antiquity 82(317), 761–5Google Scholar
Machin, A.J. 2009. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: a multifactorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology 9(1), 35–58Google Scholar
Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R.T. & Mithen, . 2005. Testing the functional utility of handaxe symmetry: Fallow deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 26, 23–37Google Scholar
Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R.T. & Mithen, S.J. 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(6), 883–93Google Scholar
Marshall, G.D. 2001. The Broom pits: a review of research and a pilot study of two Acheulian biface assemblages. In Wenban-Smith, F.F. & Hosfield, R.T. (eds), Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River, 77–84. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 7Google Scholar
Marshall, G.D., Gamble, C.S., Roe, D.A. & Dupplaw, D. 2002. Lower Palaeolithic technology, raw material and population ecology. http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/bifaces/index.cfmGoogle Scholar
Maw, G. 1864. On a supposed deposit of boulder-clay in North Devon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 20, 445–51Google Scholar
McNabb, J. 2001. The shape of things to come. A speculative essay on the role of the Victoria West phenomenon at Canteen Koppie, during the South African Earlier Stone Age. In Milliken, & Cook, 2001, 37–46Google Scholar
McNabb, J. 2007. The British Lower Palaeolithic: stones in contention. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
McNabb, J., Binyon, F. & Hazelwood, L. 2004. The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Current Anthropology 45(5), 653–77Google Scholar
McNabb, J. & Rivett, C. 2007. Getting round to the point: biface tip shape in the British Lower Palaeolithic. Lithics 28, 20–32Google Scholar
McPherron, S. 1995. A re-examination of the British biface data. Lithics 16, 47–63Google Scholar
McPherron, S. 2006. What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production. In Goren-Inbar, & Sharon, 2006, 267–85Google Scholar
Milliken, S. & Cook, J. (eds), A Very Remote Period Indeed: papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. 1993. Individuals, groups and the Palaeolithic record: a reply to Clark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 393–8Google Scholar
Mithen, S.J. 1994. Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene: hominid group size, social learning and industrial variability. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(1), 3–32Google Scholar
Mithen, S.J. 1996. Social learning and cultural tradition. In Steele, J. & Shennan, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry, 207–29. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S.J. 1999. Imitation and cultural change: a view from the Stone Age, with specific reference to the manufacture of handaxes. In Box, H.O. & Gibson, K.R. (eds), Mammalian Social Learning: comparative and ecological approaches, 389–99. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S.J. 2008. ‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’. Antiquity 82(317), 766–9Google Scholar
Moir, J.R. 1936. Ancient man in Devon. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society 2, 264–75Google Scholar
Newberry, J. 2002. Inland flint in prehistoric Devon: sources, tool-making quality and use. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 60, 1–36Google Scholar
Norman, C. 2000. Early humans in the Vale of Taunton — a new perspective. In Webster, C. (ed.), Somerset Archaeology, 53–8. Taunton: Somerset County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Nowell, A. & Chang, M.L. 2009. The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. PaleoAnthropology 2009, 77–88Google Scholar
Petraglia, M.D., Shipton, C. & Paddaya, K. 2005. Life and mind in the Acheulean. In Gamble, & Porr, 2005, 197–219Google Scholar
Pope, M., Russel, K. & Watson, K. 2006. Biface form and structured behaviour in the Acheulean. Lithics 27, 44–57Google Scholar
Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A. 1999. Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1971. Palaeolithic artefacts from the River Avon terraces near Bristol. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society 13(3), 319–26Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Roe, D.A. 2001. Some earlier Palaeolithic find-spots of interest in the Solent region. In Wenban-Smith, & Hosfield, 2001, 47–56Google Scholar
Roux, V. & Bril, B. (eds). 2005. Stone Knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour. Cambridge: McDonald InstituteGoogle Scholar
Salter, A.E. 1898. Pebbly and other gravels in Southern England. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 15, 264–86Google Scholar
Sampson, C.G. (ed). 1978. Palaeoecology and Archaeology of an Acheulean Site at Caddington, England. Dallas: Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist UniversityGoogle Scholar
Schreve, D.C. 2001. Differentiation of the British late Middle Pleistocene interglacials: the evidence from mammalian biostratigraphy. Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 1693–705Google Scholar
Shakesby, R.A. & Stephens, N. 1984. The Pleistocene gravels of Axe Valley, Devon. Report of the Transactions of the Devon Association for the Advancement of Science 116, 77–88Google Scholar
Sharon, G. 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: technology, chronology, and significance. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1701Google Scholar
Sharon, G. 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(5), 1329–44Google Scholar
Sharon, G. & Beaumont, P. 2006. Victoria West: a highly standardized prepared core technology. In Goren-Inbar, & Sharon, 2006, 181–99Google Scholar
Shaw, A.D. & White, M.J. 2003. Another look at the Cuxton handaxe assemblage. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 305–13Google Scholar
Stephens, N. 1974. The Chard Area and Axe Valley sections. In Straw, A. (ed.), Field Handbook for the Quaternary Research Association: Easter Meeting 1974, 46–51. Exeter: Quaternary Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
Toms, P., Hosfield, R.T., Chambers, J.C., Green, C.P. & Marshall, P. 2005. Optical Dating of the Broom Palaeolithic Sites, Devon & Dorset. London: English Heritage Centre for Archaeology Report 16/2005Google Scholar
Tyldesley, J.A. 1987. The Bout Coupé Handaxe: a typological problem. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 170Google Scholar
Villa, P. 2001. Early Italy and the colonization of Western Europe. Quaternary International 75, 113–30Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2004. Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics 25, 11–21Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. & Hosfield, R.T. (eds). 2001. Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River. London: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 7Google Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F., Gamble, C.S. & ApSimon, A. 2000. The Lower Palaeolithic site at Red Barns, Porchester: bifacial technology, raw material quality, and the organisation of archaic behaviour. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 209–56Google Scholar
Wessex Archaeology, . 1993. The Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project. Report No. 2. 1992–1993. The South West and South of the Thames. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology & English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Westaway, R., Bridgland, D.R. & White, M.J. 2006. The Quaternary uplift history of central southern England: evidence from the terraces of the Solent River system and nearby raised beaches. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 2212–50Google Scholar
White, M.J. 1998a. On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. 1998b. Twisted ovate bifaces in the British Lower Palaeolithic: some observations and implications. In Ashton, N.M., Healy, F. & Pettitt, P. (eds), Stone Age Archaeology: essays in honour of John Wymer, 98–104. London: Oxbow Monograph 102/Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 6Google Scholar
White, M.J. 2006. Axeing cleavers: reflections on broad-tipped large cutting tools in the British earlier Palaeolithic. In Goren-Inbar, & Sharon, 2006, 365–86Google Scholar
White, M.J. & Jacobi, R. 2002. Two sides to every story: bout coupé handaxes revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 109–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. & Plunkett, S. 2004. Miss Layard Excavates: a Palaeolithic site at Foxhall Road, Ipswich, 1903–1905. Liverpool: Western Academic & Specialist PressGoogle Scholar
White, M.J. & Schreve, D.S. 2000. Island Britain – peninsula Britain: palaeogeography, colonisation and the Lower Palaeolithic settlement of the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 1–28Google Scholar
White, M., Scott, R. & Ashton, N. 2006. The Early Middle Palaeolithic in Britain: archaeology, settlement history and human behaviour. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5), 525–41Google Scholar
Whittaker, K., Beasley, M., Bates, M.R. & Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2004. The lost valley. British Archaeology 74, 22–7Google Scholar
Winton, V. 2004. A Study of Palaeolithic Artefacts from Selected Sites on Deposits Mapped as Clay-with-flints of Southern England: with particular reference to handaxe manufacture. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 360Google Scholar
Woodward, H.B. & Ussher, W.A.E. 1911. The Geology of the Country near Sidmouth and Lyme Regis. Memoirs of the Geological Survey. England and Wales. Explanation of Sheets 326 & 340. London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain, as Represented by the Thames Valley. London: John BakerGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J.J. 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology & English HeritageGoogle Scholar