skip to navigation
ADS Main Website
Help
|
Login
/
Browse by Series
/
Series
/ Journal Issue
Lithics 29
Title
The title of the publication or report
Title:
Lithics 29
Series
The series the publication or report is included in
Series:
Lithics
Volume
Volume number and part
Volume:
29
Number of Pages
The number of pages in the publication or report
Number of Pages:
83
Publication Type
The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book
Publication Type:
Journal
Year of Publication
The year the book, article or report was published
Year of Publication:
2008
Source
Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in.
Source:
BIAB (biab_online)
Relations
Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report
Relations:
URI:
http://www.lithics.org/lithics/lithics29.html
Created Date
The date the record of the pubication was first entered
Created Date:
30 Jun 2010
Please click on an Article link to go to the Article Details.
Article Title
Access Type
Author / Editor
Page
Start/End
Abstract
Editorial
Robert T Hosfield
5
This issue introduces a commentary and reply section for the first time in Lithics, which was inspired by the use of a similar feature within the journal Current Anthropology. In this particular instance comments associated with the paper by Ashton are contained within the main article. (SH)
Transport, curation and resharpening of lithics in the Lower Palaeolithic
Nick Ashton
6 - 17
The identification of lithic transport in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic is unusual. Three examples are given from the localities of Wolvercote, Boscombe and Red Barns, where rare or exotic raw material has been used to produce plano-convex handaxes. In two cases the raw material sources are at least 25km away. The correlation between exotic or rare raw material and handaxe form is argued to be due to greater curation and the regular resharpening of these artefacts. It is also suggested that large flake blanks have often been used as part of this process, which may have contributed to the plano-convex form. Both the curation of the artefacts and the use of flake blanks can, it is suggested, be seen a as an economising measure in areas of otherwise poor quality or rare raw materials.\r\n\r\nAlso includes:\r\nComment: Francis Wenban-Smith (14-15)\r\nArgues that whilst resharpening could lead to shape changes it has no bearing on plano-convexity, stating that it would be difficult or impossible to create plano-convexity in a a handaxe which did not take this form initially. Also suggests that some of the distinctions drawn between groups at Red Barns are not as clear-cut as is presented, and that the quality of raw material at Red Barns is good, despite the fact that much of the flint is frost-fractured. PP-B\r\n\r\nReply to Wenban-Smith: Nick Ashton (15-17)\r\nArgues that transforming a handaxe from bi-convex to plano-convex form is easier than suggested by Wenban-Smith. Defends the grouping of the Red Barn handaxes proposed in the article. Argues that there is no evidence that there are substantial quantities of good quality flint at Red Barns, noting that the proportion of frost-damaged flint is high. PP-B
On the technology of Late Aurignacian burin and scraper production, and the importance of the Paviland lithic assemblage and the Paviland Burin
Rob Dinnis
18 - 29
Argues that, due to recent improvements in understanding of the lithic technology of the Early Upper Palaeolithic, it is now clear that many classic Aurignacian 'tools' are in fact discarded cores from the regular production of bladelets. Suggests that the complexity and standardisation of many of these core artefacts indicates that bladelet production techniques were designed to create bladelets of predetermined form. The Paviland burin is proposed as a bladelet core on the basis of similarities to another, contemporary, artefact. It is argued that its geographical distribution may have implications for understanding of the Aurignacian of Northern Europe.
Palaeoliths from the Thames Headwaters in Gloucestershire and North Wiltshire
Russell Weston
36 - 54
Conventional opinions on raw material procurement and transportation in the Upper Thames are considered, and it is suggested that research into the headwaters might challenge these. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic resources of the region are reviewed, with previously unpublished material added, and it is suggested that current and potential resources are greater than previously expected. In view of this review, raw material provisioning in the region is reassessed and alternative sources of material proposed.
A refitting biface reduction scatter from Newhaven, East Sussex
Matt Pope
A Maxted
55 - 63
During the early 1970s, excavations at Newhaven, East Sussex revealed apparently in situ scatters of flint artefacts associated with fine-grained sediments preserved within a series of periglacial landforms. The original analysis of this assemblage recognised the presence of refitting artefacts directly associated with a bifacially worked core. The presence of loess within the feature fills suggested to researchers at the time a Late Devensian age, a correlation which partially resulted in the erroneous classification of the assemblage as Upper Palaeolithic. Reconsideration of the assemblage, as part of the South East Region Research Framework process, has led to the suggestion that the assemblage results from a soft hammer biface reduction sequence which ended in the abandonment of the unfinished biface due to flaws in the original nodule. The true age of the site remains to be determined through further study.