sign in sign up
<<
Home , Prehistoric Britain

aaoihctasto eg d’Errico (e.g. transition Palaeolithic Higham 2006; d’Errico & including Vanhaeren humans, (e.g. culture extant Conard material 2009; with Conard symbolic associated and behaviours music conspicuous language, contain and assemblages complex capabilities These west. many the in for Iberia and evidence Britain, to east, the in Bailey 2008; Street xetos(..Jcb 07 ls20;Wie&Ptit21) h a ot-etof north-west far the 2011), Pettitt & White 2008; notable Flas some with 2007; although Jacobi But, . (e.g. south-western exceptions and southern of assemblages rich 500B.Atog h nrcce fti vn otnet edbtd hr sbroad is there debated, be to continue event ( culture this of the intricacies that the consensus 40– about Although BP. humans modern 000 incoming 35 by replaced were European Indigenous Aurignacian the Introduction: Dinnis Rob humans modern first Britain’s of The uast ucsflyocp h niecniet(..Kzosi&Ot 00 Davies 2000; Otte & Kozłowski (e.g. continent entire Zilh the 2001; occupy successfully to humans Keywords: ∗ ANTIQUITY  C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity h atdcd a ensgicn dacsi u nesadn fteMiddle–Upper the of understanding our in advances significant seen has decade last The rmnRa,Lno 15L K(mi:[email protected]) (Email: UK 5QL, N1 London Road, Orsman nin ua cuaino rti,TeBiihMsu Peitr n uoe,Fak os,56 House, Franks Europe), and ( Museum British The Britain, of Occupation Human Ancient tal et 6(02:6761http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0860627.htm 627–641 (2012): 86 rti,Erp,UprPlelti,Argain aiadburin, Paviland Aurignacian, Palaeolithic, Upper Europe, Britain, o&dErc 03 oad20;Zilh 2006; Conard 2003; d’Errico & ao ˜ 00.Mc okhsbe are u nteln tairpisand stratigraphies long the on out carried been has work Much 2010). . ∗ tal et tal et 09.Erpa uinca sebae r on rmRussia from found are assemblages Aurignacian European 2009). . 2009). . tal et c 98 otvn20;Bn20;Bre 2005; Bordes 2002; Bon 2000; Tostevin 1998; . 83 0 P a rae ytefis modern first the by created was BP) 000 38–30 . 627 auatr ugssalntyo repeated of occupation. or subsequent west of lengthy period a the bladelet suggests of at types manufacture two of zones now presence The hilly Britain. the preferred colonising down the Valley, Aurignacian River prey Channel of submerged following picture in vivid hunters succeeds a author painting the level, material, this exiguous of sea further challenges the the Confronting been in ignored . excavators have early rise because assemblages depleted subsequent their the by and humans have handful and Britain a modern glaciation now to first is reduced been the what occupied of who sites The o20;Mellars 2006; ao ˜ tal et 07 J 2007; . ui busqu rs& oris ¨ ´ e

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans

Europe, and particularly Britain, has, by comparison, been left behind. Upper Palaeolithic Britain was the scene of only sporadic and marginal human occupation, leaving a meagre archaeological record of the period (Garrod 1926; Pettitt 2008; Jacobi & Higham 2011). Combined with problems of imprecision resulting from its early excavation, the British Aurignacian has therefore hitherto been very difficult to interpret. The re-examination of British Aurignacian material reported here has been encouraged by a recent advance in methodology. Many characteristically Aurignacian lithic ‘burin’ and ‘’ artefacts—previously seen as tools—have been shown to be exhausted cores used to produce bladelets (Le Brun-Ricalens et al. 2005). Studies of these cores and their associated bladelets have highlighted chronological and cultural differences in manufacture and form, with marked differences between the earlier Aurignacian (i.e. Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian) and the later Aurignacian (Bon 2002; Bordes 2005). These insights have allowed old collections to be examined afresh, and answers to archaeological questions found where previously there were only dead ends.

The continental north-western European Aurignacian Forty-two sites in what is now northern France, , Luxembourg and north-western Germany have yielded Aurignacian material (Figure 1). When compared with larger sites in south-western Europe most of these are small assemblages, and they often lack detailed information regarding excavation, stratigraphic context and curatorial history. Exceptions include the stratified Middle–Upper Palaeolithic sequence from Grotte du Renne and the larger Early Upper Palaeolithic sites in Belgium which, whilst lacking precise stratigraphic data, contained abundant Aurignacian material (e.g. Trou Magrite, Spy, Goyet). Previously, it has been suggested that only later Aurignacian is present north of 47◦ N (Djindjian et al. 1999) and certainly, when compared to south-western Europe, most sites are of later Aurignacian type. However, Grotte du Renne level VII is now acknowledged as Proto- Aurignacian, with characteristic large Dufour bladelets (Bon 2002), and new radiocarbon dates demonstrate its early Aurignacian age (c. 35 000 BP; Higham et al. 2010). Although undated, Dufour bladelets from Beg ar C’hastel (north-west France) are morphologically comparable to those from Grotte du Renne (compare the figures of Bon [2006: 140] with those of Giot & Monnier [1976: 1313]). In Belgium, large collections from Spy, Goyet and Trou Magrite include some lithic artefacts more typical of the earlier Aurignacian, with typically earlier Aurignacian split-base osseous points found at five Belgian sites (Otte 1979). Among the later Aurignacian assemblages inter-site variability has been noted. At some sites bladelet production was carried out using ‘scraper’ artefact methods, e.g. Altwies (Brou et al. 2006) and Grotte de la Cave (Otte 1979), while ‘burin’ methods were preferred at others, e.g. Gohaud, Trou du Renard (Dinnis 2009). Additionally, true Vachons burin bladelet cores, usually considered markers of the latest Aurignacian (Pesesse & Michel 2006), are present at Spy (Otte 1979). Current research is focused on understanding this variation, which is likely to be the result of chrono-cultural change during the Aurignacian. The apparent predominance of later over earlier Aurignacian sites in north-western Europe may simply reflect occupation intensity, particularly given the traditional association of the ‘classic’ earlier Aurignacian with a cold climate, and the later Aurignacian with C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

628 oiino ao ie ytm uigteArgaini logiven. also is Aurignacian the during systems river major of position shown is level Sea ol hrfr eusrrsn.Wt hspsiiiyi id ecneaietenorth- Aurignacian the peninsula. later examine British can the the we territories: mind, during Aurignacian in of latitudes possibility extension this northerly westernmost With more unsurprising. be at therefore presence would (Djindjian event human interstadial enhanced observable An terrestrially a and conditions warmer references). including details full for 2009 Dinnis (see key sites site Aurignacian European European North-western 1. Figure r ) oiaigti onro uoewstenwsbegdCanlRvrValley, River Channel submerged now the (Fig- was Plain Europe European of Northern corner great this continental the Dominating of of 1). corner extension ure north-western westernmost the the to forms refers and period Europe, Palaeolithic Upper the in ‘Britain’ Aurignacian British The Loup), du Grotte & Trilobite du Grotte Renne, du (Grotte 7 15 4 21 idasH Wildhaus rted Prince, du Grotte ruWalou, Trou 36 rte e ale (Grotte Saulges des Grottes . .Hoyle’sMouth, .Aubou rud Diable, de Trou . .Pr umzurlay, ¨ ´ e, ohle. ¨ 16 32 aag;Luxembourg: Havange; . Maisi . 37 rts iekey site British c 27 5 5 eo rsn-a ee,crepnigbodyt t oiindrn h uinca.Teinferred The Aurignacian. the during position its to broadly corresponding level, present-day below 75m . pilQuarry, Uphill . –France: Biesdorf, . rted aCave, la de Grotte . 22 ` rsCanal, eres .TrouduRenard, agt&Got el Ch la de Grotte & Margot a ` 1 e rC’hastel, ar Beg . 38 Wettlingen, . eti Aurignacian: certain – 33 6 .BoisdelaHousi yeaDn rbbeAurignacian: probable Den; Hyaena . 17 28 23 lwe;Belgium: Altwies; . ruAl’Wesse, Trou . ruReuviau, Trou . 39 2 Beg-Pol, . Ralingen-Godendorf, . o Dinnis Rob ` r;nrhr Germany: northern ere; ` evre), 1 629 11 otsHl (Paviland), Hole Goat’s . 29 3 Rouvroy, . Gohaud, . 24 rted Docteur, du Grotte . 18 8 rud Sureau, du Trou . .TrouMagrite, Herbeville, . 12 4 Bois-Millet, . 40 Attilly, . Wintersdorf-Assem, . 7 9 so Mill, Aston . aCoxd Bagneux, de Croix La . 34 19 Lommersum, . 30 25 13 eceaxRths(Spy), Betche-aux-Rotches . 2 e rte e od eFor de Fonds des Grottes Les . etsCavern, ’s . rted aPics Pauline, Princess la de Grotte . Belloy-en-Santerre, . 5  C .Saint-G niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity 8 i oe(rselCrags). (Creswell Hole Pin . 35 ´ er 41 ´ eon, idcee H Wildscheuer . .BalverH 3 10 fno Beuno, Ffynnon . tal et 6 .Arcy-sur-Cure .Grand-Claye, 14 Continental Chassemy, . 1999). . 20 ohle, ¨ .Goyet, ˆ et, ohle, ¨ 42 31 26 . . .

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans draining northern France, southern and south-central , western Belgium and large areas of north-central Europe via the Rhine/Meuse system. This vast river played a huge role in shaping the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain (Pettitt 2008). All known British Aurignacian material comes from poorly- or un-stratified assemblages, excavated before modern archaeological controls. For example, at Goat’s Hole, Paviland (hereafter ‘Paviland’), no stratigraphy was apparent to Sollas during his 1912 excavations; thus no spatial data was collected (Sollas 1913). The Paviland lithic assemblage contains material from the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ), believed to be a late (e.g. Jacobi 1999; Flas 2008; Joris¨ & Street 2008), together with several modern human industries (Aurignacian, , Late Upper Palaeolithic, ) (Swainston 2000). To pluck Aurignacian artefacts from such a mixed assemblage necessitates the strictest selection criteria. Consequently, material suitable for study (Table 1) is a small fraction of the Aurignacian material actually collected. The western distribution of British Aurignacian sites is striking, and has been noted and discussed by many (e.g. Garrod 1926; Jacobi 2007; Pettitt 2008; Flas 2009). It is a genuine reflection of the distribution of Aurignacian material and not simply an artefact of differential survival/recognition, since archaeology attributable to late Neanderthals ( and LRJ) and to the Gravettian has been found across England. For Jacobi (1999) and Pettitt (2008), the restriction of Aurignacian sites to western Britain suggested a southern origin, with mobile hunter-gatherers negotiating their way from north-west France and across the mouth of the . As Pettitt (2008) pointed out, this would have taken them into geographically familiar landscapes to the north of the river. For Aldhouse-Green (2004) this coastal movement may have originated farther south, in the Aurignacian heartlands of south-western France. As noted previously, artefacts in British collections bear greater similarity to later rather than earlier forms of the Aurignacian (e.g. Campbell 1980; Aldhouse-Green & Pettitt 1998; Jacobi & Pettitt 2000; Swainston 2000). Admittedly, later Aurignacian artefacts (e.g. burins busqu´es, Vachons burins) are more diagnostic and therefore more liable to be identified and noted. But despite this, earlier Aurignacian assemblages do contain characteristic artefacts (e.g. long Dufour bladelets, large carinated scrapers, split-base osseous points), which are apparently absent from Britain. A late chronology for the British Aurignacian is supported by radiocarbon data of c. 32 000 BP (from the three osseous artefacts in Table 1). This age is consistent with the presence of burins busqu´es in British collections, and in -dated south-western French and Belgian assemblages 33–31 000 BP (Table 2). It has been proposed that British Aurignacian occupation corresponded to a short, warm climatic event, with various suggestions that it occurred during one of Greenland Interstadial 5 (GI5), GI6 or GI7 (Jacobi et al. 2006; Dinnis 2008; White & Pettitt 2011). Correction of the radiocarbon data in Table 2 using OxCal (Bronk-Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2009) and comparison against the ice-core climate record of Svensson et al. (2008) actually indicates that initial occupation probably took place slightly earlier: during, or at very least shortly following, GI8. GI8 is the most significant warm event recorded in the Greenland ice-cores during the lifetime of the Aurignacian, in both its amplitude and its longevity. During this period environments would have had longer to respond to climatic warming, and this would surely have favoured a northward expansion of hunter-gatherer ranges. C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

630 Table 1. Diagnostic Aurignacian artefacts from British sites (Jacobi & Pettitt 2000; Jacobi et al. 2006; Dinnis 2009; Jacobi & Higham 2011). Lithic artefacts Osseous artefacts Thick- Flat- Lozangic Point Worked Paviland Carinated nosed nosed point fragment antler Site burin burin Burin busque´ scraper scraper fragment (undiagnostic) (undiagnostic) Total o Dinnis Rob Paviland 23 7 3 8 7 48 631 Kent’s Cavern 1 1 2 4 Ffynnon Beuno 1 1 Hoyle’s Mouth 1 1 Aston Mill 1 1 Uphill Quarry 1 1 Hyaena Den 11 Pin Hole, 11 Total 24 8 5 8 10 1 1 1 58  C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans et comparable comparable and a es es es ´ ´ ´ burins busqu burins busqu burins busqu . 2006). to those found in Britain. to those found in Britain. lozangic point comparable to those found in Britain. belong to the LRJ andbelong too to old the to Gravettian. Comparable in age to moreAurignacian securely artefacts. al Uphill Quarry. Both points therefore likely relate to contemporary occupation (Jacobi (lozangic) (Jacobi & Pettitt 2000). . 2011 Contains . 2011 Contains . 2006 Similar in age to point from nearby . 2006 Characteristic Aurignacian point-type et al et al et al et al Haesaerts 2004 Contains Higham Jacobi & Higham 2011 Undiagnostic, but too young to Higham animal bone animal bone pedological stratigraphy antler Humanly modified Humanly modified 340 (OxA-15053) Humanly modified 340 (OxA-13803) Point fragment Jacobi 250 (OxA-13716) Point fragment Jacobi + − + − + − 32–31 000 BP 33–32 000 BP . 33–32 000 BP Well-dated c ` eres Canal (Belgium) Maisi Abri Pataud level 6 (France) Four radiocarbon dates, all Abri Pataud level 7 (France) Four radiocarbon dates, all Pin Hole, Creswell Crags (UK) 32 640 Hyaena Den (UK) 31 550 Table 2. Chronological data from British andSite continental European sites used to date the AurignacianUphill occupation Quarry of (UK) Britain. 31 730 Radiocarbon age Material dated Reference Relationship with British Aurignacian

C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

632 aen() n ocv caesfo etsCvr 78.Ilsrtoscuts fA ai 12,J als(–)and (3–4) Wallis J. (1–2), David A. of courtesy Illustrations (7–8). Cavern Kent’s (5–8). from Martingell scrapers H. concave and (6); Cavern 2. Figure hr hyaems ueosaebt ega ae:To art 1)adSy(four). Spy and (13) Magrite Trou assemblages : Belgian burins. two both Paviland the are Paviland, three numerous After or most France. two are northern than they from where more known de produced are Grotte have burins many and sites Paviland containing No these Castanet collections recorded of Abri these none been Despite Piage, cores, 2005). have Le Bordes bladelet also burins assemblages: see French Paviland 2009; southern 1). (Dinnis Font-Yves Table large defining 2008; three the only (Dinnis is in manufacture Aurignacian bladelet British of the method of later burin the Paviland in common left The is their morphology on Aurignacian. bladelet and This length torsion. (Fig- anticlockwise their axial bladelets through an curved similar with (10–20mm), margin, morphologically and short creating were cores bladelets for bladelet These strategies exhausted 3). ure distinct are Both two 2009). reflect 2008, to (Dinnis appear 2) (Figure burin Paviland and uinca eaiu—a sdmr ieybt infiaty a o enidentified been not Gou Although has Britain. significantly, of but, south widely immediately more used behaviour—was Aurignacian h w reattpsta etcaatrs h rts uinca r the are Aurignacian British the characterise best that types artefact two The The uisbusqu Burins ui busqu burin es ´ rmHyesMuh()adFynnBuo() aiadbrn rmPvln 35 n Kent’s and (3–5) Paviland from burins Paviland (2); Beuno Ffynnon and (1) Mouth Hoyle’s from ´ e ldltpouto ehiu—nte enn seto British of aspect defining technique—another production bladelet o Dinnis Rob 633 d 19:1)dsrbdtreatfcsfrom artefacts three described 13) (1996: edo ´  C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity ui busqu burin ´ e

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans

Figure 3. Schematic showing the detachment of bladelets from a burin busque´ (left) and from a Paviland burin (right). Archaeological examples of these artefacts can be found in Figure 2.

Herbeville as “burins busqu´es atypique”, the illustrated examples are too atypical to warrant this classification. Burins busqu´es in north-central or north-western France are instead found south of the Channel River basin, in the Loire basin, e.g. Gohaud, Grand-Claye (Allard & Gruet 1976; Allard 1978). Conversely, burins busqu´es have been recovered from numerous sites in the Somme basin—one of the main tributaries of the Channel River, e.g. Rouvroy, Attilly, Belloy-en-Santerre (Fagnart 1988). They are likewise abundant in larger Belgian cave assemblages (Spy, Goyet), smaller Belgian cave assemblages (e.g. Trou du Renard) and at the open-air site at Maisieres` Canal (Otte 1979; Flas et al. 2006). Undoubtedly, the shared presence of these two bladelet production techniques demonstrates cultural similarity between Britain and north-eastern France/Belgium. This is convincing evidence for an eastern origin for the British Aurignacian, but also raises other important questions. First, given an eastern origin, why is Aurignacian material present only in western Britain? And second, what role did the Channel River play in establishing and maintaining the human geographies of the north-west European Aurignacian?

Colonisation As frequently emphasised, major river systems offer directional routes through landscapes, and models of initial modern human dispersal often reference their role (e.g. Davies 2001; Conard & Bolus 2003). Of equal importance is that migratory fauna—with which all Upper Palaeolithic hunting strategies were interrelated in some way—would have used these same pathways. Correlation between major rivers and human activity and movement can therefore be argued for much, if not all, of the Upper Palaeolithic. Throughout the Aurignacian, this correlation appears particularly pronounced, regardless of initial colonisation dynamics. Movement of Aurignacian lithic material in the Perigord´ is oriented along major river valleys, whereas similar patterns are not apparent later in the Upper Palaeolithic (Djindjian et al. 1999). This strongly suggests seasonal movement along rivers. Otte (1979) noted that of 14 Belgian sites he believed to have yielded Aurignacian material, 11 are <50m from an extant river. The location of Aurignacian sites in Britain C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

634 ruh noteCanlRvrVle,adte oBian olwn hs enerherds. initially these 51 following were Britain, hunters to Aurignacian then and that Valley, River plausible encompassed Channel have therefore the would is into route brought It migration Valley. “towards a River Such heading north-west”. route Channel and migration the west a following the spring, to in Atlantic basin the Meuse the from moved have rsneo enerdrn itrmnh,adams xlsvl rmlt uunt early to autumn the late indicates from (Belgium) exclusively (Stutz Magrite almost Trou spring and of months, for winter 3 during data and reindeer seasonality 2 of increment levels presence cementum Aurignacian Interestingly, the 7. Le from and 14, teeth 5 and reindeer Combe 13 de Pataud Roc Abri and from J assemblages Piage faunal dominating 1). they 1973), (Figure (Mellars Den system important Hyaena latter this and of Quarry valley Uphill they tributary at main Mouth Hoyle’s a and occupants in and Plain; present Aurignacian Paviland River were Cavern, Channel at presence Kent’s Bristol Atlantic; human the and the of overlooked Beg-Pol focus into C’hastel, a draining were ar palaeo-rivers valleys overlooked Beg river At large movement. that suggests and also France northern and umr iia cnrocnesl eevsgdfrtenwsbegdBitlChannel the beyond. Bristol during and submerged terrain now into the British) expansion for (i.e. summer envisaged upland allowing Valley, be into River easily northwards can scenario expand winter, similar to the A during which summer. sheltered refuge importantly, from provided have more base could Perhaps Valley a River ease. and Channel with the allowed it around have and would occupy in size valley’s or areas the traverse and fish, to and of fauna river source good The mammalian a hunter-gatherers. been Aurignacian have for would tributaries terrain its perfect represented have fish will large River spearing to suited as mammals. been larger-sized have wounding hunting, would fatally in more kit game to exploiting expected hunting as big for This designed be systematic prey. been smaller, for can instead and have suitable varied, flora could points weaponry and seasonal lithic point fauna osseous large highly Aurignacian Lacking of harsh, months. survive variety to winter species the greater hardy even the for a required during shelter some Europe, with Particularly habitats, complex Age topographically 2009). Ice Flas of conditions 2009; (Dinnis adaptation Europe’s north. on distance landscapes considerable a preferred extended of have may occupation fringe that western hinting Europe, Western/Central in uinca utrgteesse,teeoe ohv ett hi rfre landscapes. preferred British their presence. to Aurignacian kept an have have to which At German therefore, of the seem, all Ardennes, hunter-gatherers Massif, central Belgian Aurignacian the Amorican of to the an similar landscapes and by valleys, The Rhineland characterised river European in are steeper Northern south. England lie and the its northern topography resembles they and upland to absent, Rather, south-western is regions and Plain. Wales Aurignacian Conversely, upland European the Plain. the Northern where England, of the eastern importantly, of part and, and Mouth flatlands northerly Hoyle’s the and most Paviland in the to latitude situated similar are a none on lie All 2008). (Flas ato rti,ol he eta/etr uoenArgainstsleo rabove or on lie sites Aurignacian European Central/Western three only Britain, of East lhuhArgainpe aid(ryo epc 02,ride a undoubtedly was reindeer 2002), Delpech & (Grayson varied prey Aurignacian Although ihacmlxitra oorpy egah n clg Ptit20) h Channel the 2008), (Pettitt ecology and geography topography, internal complex a With environmental reflect may occupation Aurignacian upland-restricted of pattern This ◦ > :Ble H Balver N: 53 ◦ ,FynnBuoadPnHl r h otnrhryArgainfindspots Aurignacian northerly most the are Hole Pin and Beuno Ffynnon N, tal et headHran H Hermanns and ohle ¨ 95.Stutz 1995). . tal et 19:11 ugs htride adhmn)could humans) (and reindeer that suggest 181) (1995: . hei emn,adG and Germany, in ohle ¨ o Dinnis Rob 635 r uasaI nPoland in II Puławska ora ´  C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans

It is probable, then, that much Aurignacian archaeology was deposited in these now submerged valleys. The extant sites are those high enough to have survived sea level rises. Assuming an Aurignacian presence extending across south-western England, westernmost central England and all of Wales, c. 75 per cent of this area was subsequently glaciated and/or submerged by . If Aurignacian terrain actually extended northwards beyond this, or if any of the submerged Channel River area is taken into account, this figure rises further still. Together, Aurignacian landscape choice and subsequent geological processes have conspired to obliterate evidence of Aurignacian activity. What remains, therefore, is an extremely depleted record, biased much more than that of neighbouring regions which were unaffected by these destructive forces. This destruction of evidence must be considered when we attempt to interpret what archaeology we do have.

Occupation and settlement history The question of how Aurignacian life subsequently developed in Britain is difficult to answer, due to the reduced corpus of material available for study (Table 1). The absence of bladelets from any British site is striking, given the presence of many bladelet core artefacts (burins busqu´es, Paviland burins, carinated burins and thick-nosed scrapers), but unsurprising, since, when complete, most of these bladelets would have been 15mm in length. Extreme selection of archaeological material during the excavation of British Aurignacian sites is obvious, and is particularly evident at Ffynnon Beuno. Of six extant pieces, only one is <25mm in maximum dimension, and all are retouched and of ‘textbook’ typological form. Considered together with inconsistencies between the material described by and accessioned by the excavator (Hicks 1886), it is certain that the assemblage was originally much larger. Despite their absence from British collections, Aurignacian hunter-gatherers were clearly creating small and morphologically very precise bladelets. Well-stratified sites elsewhere show this bladelet industry to be a particularly conspicuous component of later Aurignacian stone- working. Breakage patterns of later Aurignacian bladelets from Le Flageolet I (Dordogne) indicate their use as micro-barbs within a composite weapon system (Hays & Lucas 2001), an interpretation that is commensurate with their delicate size and regular shape. These bladelets would have been hafted laterally, on the shaft of a weapon tipped with either an osseous point or a simple wooden point. Smaller British lithic findspots, yielding only one or a handful of bladelet core artefacts, were probably sites where weapon maintenance took place, and where cores used to produce fresh barbs were discarded. Uphill Quarry and Hyaena Den may simply have been where broken points were abandoned (Jacobi 2007). Considering this, it is interesting to note the occurrence of flat-nosed scrapers, which would have been entirely suitable for re-/sharpening osseous points, as would a series of concave endscrapers from Paviland, Kent’s Cavern (Fig- ure 3) and Ffynnon Beuno, which are probably Aurignacian (Garrod 1926; Jacobi 2007; Dinnis 2009). Known Aurignacian artefacts from British sites can therefore all be related to the maintenance of hunting kit. Only at Paviland is there good reason to suspect a greater variety of activities, since here true burins and worked osseous artefacts, some possibly of Aurignacian age, were present. One important corollary of this is that Aurignacian C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

636 uinca fNrhr uoeprit slt s2 0 Po ae,te h e Lady Red the deposits. then contemporary later, broadly be or well BP the may argued, 000 cores 29 has bladelet Flas as burin as late Paviland if, as and and persists burial Lady Europe Red Northern the of than Aurignacian younger is Britain of Gravettian the ot-etr emn ni 82 0 P hra ins(09 a rudta no that argued has (2009) Dinnis whereas post-dates BP, assemblage and 000 Aurignacian Belgium 28–27 in until presence Aurignacian Germany an north-western suggests (2008) Flas confidence. with Aurignacian after period any to belong interpretation could this method with burin the Paviland consistent the are this, types Accepting core 2008). both (Dinnis of the in Commonalities a sda iet raemcobaees(ins20) h rsneo w complex two of presence The technique 2009). complex collections—the (Dinnis one micro-bladelets British only create quality, in to and methods time size a at satisfactory used of was were materials raw available in variation regions. typological adjacent less immediately is in there than Certainly, Aurignacian event. British brief, the very potentially Aurignacian British single, the that a noted suggest typological reflects to (2008) apparent them an led Pettitt observations and and These collections, sites. British (1999) between in uniformity Jacobi material Aurignacian occupation. of of amount small history the true the unnecessary. belies was strategy archaeology subsistence in in shift conditions significant environmental a that that evidence enough familiar persuasive were is Britain This 2009). (Dinnis remarkable is utrgtee ciiisi rti i o ifrfo lehr;tetechnological the elsewhere; from differ not did Aurignacian later Britain of consistency in activities hunter-gatherer ept vdnefrerirArgainocpto meitl daett rti,the Britain, to adjacent immediately Britain in occupation appears first Aurignacian Aurignacian earlier for evidence Despite Conclusions uiscretykon ftePvln ui side one hnthe Paviland than of younger assemblage indeed largest is the burin Paviland yielded the has If which known. cave currently same burins the from comes burial the sitiun,ntlatgvnte‘e ayo aiad uil o ae to dated now burial, Paviland’ of Lady ‘Red the given least not intriguing, is post-date probably therefore burins Paviland 2005). Pataud (Chiotti Abri 7 at e.g. and production, recent 8 bladelet more levels for methods being ‘burin’ to it methods ‘scraper’ to from switch points evidence Circumstantial the employed. than was method the when dpino hstcnlgclsitoe uhalreae hudcranyb one in counted be certainly should least area at large years. a were than and such rather methods initiation generations over the of two shift for numbers technological these taken time this that the of Presuming Belgium, adoption was an and 2009). one alternatively, Britain in which or, (Dinnis contemporary within occupation other approximately period of the the phases by encompassed two have replaced either to for prolonged sufficiently evidence occupation as viewed be therefore Pad codn oJacobi to according and, BP notntl,crnlgcldt r fisfcetqaiyt aeteedpae fthe of phases end the date to quality insufficient of are data chronological Unfortunately, ehd fbaee rdcin oee,sgetgetrcmlxt fstlmn.When settlement. of complexity greater suggest however, production, bladelet of Methods of amount limited the where issue one is Aurignacian British the of duration The niethe Unlike ui busqu burin ui busqu burin ui busqu burin ´ e ni h eyedo h ot-etr uoenAurignacian. European north-western the of end very the until ´ e ehiu,wihi otenFac per meitl ihthe with immediately appears France southern in which technique, ´ e oPvln ui sebae a eue odtrieprecisely determine to used be can assemblages burin Paviland no , tal et ui busqu burin 21) le hnteBiihGaeta.O course, Of Gravettian. British the than older (2010), . c c 200B,adi dnia ocneprr continental contemporary to identical is BP, and 000 32 . 000B.Fa’ ogcrnlg o h Aurignacian the for chronology long Flas’s BP. 000 30 . ui busqu burin o Dinnis Rob 637 ´ e ldltcrsi rti,Fac n Belgium and France Britain, in cores bladelet ´ e n aiadbrnmethods—should burin Paviland and  C niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity ui busqu burin uisbusqu burins c 9000 29 . ´ e ,if ´ es .

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans assemblages. This occupation coincided with—or shortly followed—a particularly long, pronounced warm phase, perhaps bringing favourable environmental conditions to preferred Aurignacian landscapes in the west of Britain. British site assemblages mainly reflect the maintenance of a hunting kit suitable for predation of varied fauna, the same as that used by groups in Belgium and France. The technological similarity of British and Belgian/north-eastern French lithic artefacts is good evidence that Aurignacian groups first entering Britain did so from the east, via the now submerged Channel River Valley— itself potentially a prime area of occupation. The subsequent presence of two preferred methods of bladelet production is best explained as the result of different periods of occupation or, alternatively, that Britain was occupied over a prolonged period of Aurignacian time.

Acknowledgements Special thanks to , Roger Jacobi† and Damien Flas for their unerring support and guidance during my research. I owe thanks to friends and colleagues too numerous to mention, but am particularly grateful to: Steph Swainston for generous help with understanding Paviland; Tom Higham for encouraging me to write this article; Andrew David, Hazel Martingell and Jeff Wallis for allowing me to reproduce their lithic illustrations; Nick Ashton, Jesse Davies, Claire Fisher, Natasha Reynolds and Beccy Scott for very useful comments on the text and help with editing; Craig Williams for the schematic in Figure 1, and to him and Silvia Bello for help with figures; and museum staff across Britain, Belgium and France for their generous hospitality. Many thanks are also due to two anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped to improve the manuscript. Needless to say, these colleagues may or may not agree with the conclusions of the paper, and any mistakes or oversights are my responsibility alone. This research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and this paper was made possible by the Leverhulme Trust-funded Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project.

References BON, F. 2002. L’Aurignacien entre mer et oc´ean: r´eflexion sur l’unit´e des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans ALDHOUSE-GREEN, S. 2004. The Palaeolithic, in M. le Sud de la France (Memoire´ de la Societ´ e´ Aldhouse-Green & R. Howell (ed.) The Gwent prehistorique´ franc¸aise 29). Paris: Societ´ e´ county history, Volume I: Gwent in prehistory and prehistorique´ franc¸aise. early history: 1–28. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. – 2006. A brief overview of Aurignacian cultures in the context of the industries of the transition from the ALDHOUSE-GREEN,S.&P.PETTITT. 1998. Paviland Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic, in O. Bar-Yosef Cave: contextualising the ‘Red Lady’. Antiquity 72: &J.Zilhao˜ (ed.) Towards a definition of the 756–72. Aurignacian: proceedings of the symposium held in ALLARD, M. 1978. Le gisement aurignacien de Gohaud Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30 2002 (Trabalhos de a Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef (Loire Atlantique): etude´ arqueologia 45): 133–44. Lisbon: Instituto archeologique.´ Gallia Pr´ehistoire 21: 1–42. Portuguesˆ de Arqueologia. ALLARD,M.&M.GRUET. 1976. Les civilisations du BORDES, J.-G. 2005. La sequence aurignacienne du Paleolithique´ superieur´ dans les Pays de la Loire, in nord de l’Aquitaine: variabilite´ des productions H. de Lumley (ed.) La pr´ehistoire franc¸aise, Tome 1: lamellaires a` Caminade-est, Roc-de-Combe, Le les civilisations pal´eolithiques et m´esolithiques: Piage et Corbiac-Vignoble II, in F. Le 1305–1310. Paris: CNRS. Brun-Ricalens, J.-G. Bordes & F. Bon (ed.) BAILEY, S.E., T.D. WEAVER &J.-J.HUBLIN. 2009. Who Productions lamellaires attribu´ees a` l’Aurignacien: made the Aurignacian and other early Upper chaˆınes op´eratoires et perspectives techno-culturelles industries? Journal of Human Evolution (ArcheoLogiques´ 1): 123–54. Luxembourg: Musee´ 57: 11–26. national d’histoire et d’art. BRONK-RAMSEY, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–60.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

638 C C C C C B D D Aurignacian. British the Understanding 2009. – D C D F AGNART ’E ROU ONARD ONARD ONARD ONARD HIOTTI AMPBELL JINDJIAN INNIS AVIES RRICO ainldhsor td’art. et d’histoire national (Arch (ed.) pr Brun-Ricalens Le F. & Igreja Araujo api La eu Arch Revue nentoa eis19) xod Archaeopress. Oxford: 1392). series international Jr de Movius fouilles L. Hallam les France: Dordogne, Pataud, l’abri de h rhsoi Society . the in Aurignacian the and of origins spread the on perspectives new industry: uinca fHheFl aei south-western in Germany. Cave Fels Hohle of Aurignacian met humans modern d’AnthropologieetdePr europ cadre Pal du nucl ane kr(.D eLxmor)e Aubou et Luxembourg) de (G.-D. Aker Laangen tde Society Studies burin. and Paviland assemblage the lithic Paviland the the of and importance production, scraper and burin Aurignacian Sheffield. of University dissertation, PhD Unpublished B S1–S44. evidence interpretation. the its of and review critical A Europe? western utrlinvtosi uoe e eut n new and results challenges. new Europe: of in timing innovations and cultural humans modern of appearance the Pal Pal ’uince asl vall la dans l’Aurignacien ue ouetteeris uia rdto in Germany. tradition south-western musical earliest the document flutes P Colin. ELEGRIN RUN ,L.,S.G ´ hsoius oms ocineet,fonctions fonctionnements, formes, ehistoriques: oihqesup eolithique .20.Avr oe famdr human modern a of model very A 2001. W. , ´ ´ oihqesup eolithique .20.O h ehooyo late of technology the On 2008. R. , u brn)car (burins) eus ´ .2005. L. , .. .M M. N.J., , ,N.J.&M.B basal the from figurine female A 2009. N.J. , 2006. (ed.) N.J. , .P 98 e nutisltiusdu lithiques industries Les 1988. J.-P. , c eCivle(rne:du ie clefs sites deux (France): Coinville de ece ` ,F.,J.Z ooius2:7–0.Lxmor:Mus Luxembourg: 77–100. 2): eoLogiques ´ -R ..18.Lsprobl Les 1980. J.B. , oihqesup eolithique ,F.,J.K ´ ICALENS 98 eneta cutrto in acculturation Neanderthal 1998. . Nature ´ ooiu ePicardie de eologique AFFI ora fHmnEvolution Human of Journal een. ´ ILH 9 18–35. 29: OZŁOWSKI E ´ e nutisltiusaurignaciennes lithiques industries Les ,M.G ´ rere Europe en erieur ultnd aSoci la de Bulletin &P.Z AO ˜ rerdn eNr el France. la de Nord le dans erieur ´ ALINA 5:248–52. 459: OLUS uign Kerns. Tubingen: . ,M.J ihc:TeJunlo h Lithic the of Journal The Lithics: ns nJ-.Bac,M De M. Bracco, J.-P. in enes, ´ rerbianqedn son dans britannique erieur ´ BiihAcaooia Reports Archaeological (British 7 195–217. 67: Anthropology Current hnNadrhl and Neanderthals When RIETTE ´ ehistoire IESAIRE 03 aicro dating Radiocarbon 2003. . &M.M ed aMsle lwe – Altwies Moselle? la de ee ´ Nature &M.O ULIEN msdssubdivisions des emes ` ,F.L 06 udde Quid 2006. . 1 39–77. 91: 153. ,D.B .Paris:Armand 6:737–40. 460: UNZEL ¨ TTE ´ et E ´ eRoyaleBelge 1999. . rceig of Proceedings AFFLER 09 New 2009. . 4 331–71. 44: Burins 39: &J. Le a ` o Dinnis Rob e– ´ ee ´ 639 F H 09 h icminRnsa-ezaoiinand Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician The 2009. – G G G G H H F LAS LAS RAYSON OU IOT ARROD ICKS AYS AESAERTS l’universit ePal le (ed.) Kozłowski J.K. Bicho & N. Djindjian, F. the Plain, on European spreading Northern Aurignacian the of limit the pr sup 11.Djn evc r Service Dijon: 11–16. Bourgogne. sup (ed.) Pautrat Y. in d’Herbeville, Mus fonctions (ed.) Brun-Ricalens pr Le F. Burins & Igreja Araujo De Bracco, J.-P. M. in Belgique), Hainaut, du (Province Britain iiiain pal civilisations ai:CNRS. Paris: Li Maisi M. (ed.) & Otte Haesaerts P. Miller, R. in stratigraphique, Soci Brussels: 119). praehistorica et (Anthropologica Society and Gwyn). Beuno Cae (Ffynnon Wales north in bone-caves rne ce el al od eDjn t8octobre 8 et 7 Dijon, de ronde 1995 table la de actes France: ’tle ed de l’atelier Archaeopress. Oxford: 109–117. 1005): series international Early Paleolithic the Upper of problems fundamental re-solving answers: (ed.) P.T. Thacker & Hays in M.A. bladelets, Dufour Aurignacian of investigations ora fAcaooia Science Archaeological of Journal France? south-western in hunters Palaeolithic Upper uly(ed.) Lumley uPal du 3–2 xod Archaeopress. Oxford: 135–42. 1938): series international Reports Archaeological ,D.,R.M 2008. D. , EDO ´ .M .L M J.-L. & P.-M. , ..&G L G. & M.A. , ege: ` ehistoire. ´ .18.Rslso eetrsace nsome in researches recent of Results 1886. H. , ´ ´ rerdn apan etnroaed l’Europe de septentrionale plaine la dans erieur rere epipal et erieur et ´ entoa ’itiee d’art. et d’histoire national ee ´ ...1926. D.A.E. , .M 96 egsmn aurignacien gisement Le 1996. J.-M. , ´ oihqesup eolithique ,D.K.&F.D ` rsCnl(Belgique) eres-Canal ChesArch (Cahiers oaebledatrplgee de et d’anthropologie belge royale e ´ oihqesup eolithique ´ tdse ehrhsarch recherches et Etudes ´ .20.Maisi 2004. P. , xod lrno Press. Clarendon Oxford: . 2 3–19. 42: ´ hsoius oms fonctionnements, formes, ehistoriques: (Arch edeLi ´ ’tle etil uince de aurignacien taille de L’atelier ILLER atasto uPal du transition La btg uince eMaisi de aurignacien ebitage ´ urel ora fteGeological the of Journal Quarterly apr La ´ oihqe tm et eolithiques ooius2:5–4 Luxembourg: 55–74. 2): eoLogiques ´ UCAS ege. ´ &B.J BiihAcaooia Reports Archaeological (British ´ oihqedn eNr-s ela de Nord-Est le dans eolithique ´ rereurop erieur ONNIER ´ hsor franc ehistoire ELPECH ooiusd oron 6): Bourgogne de eologiques ´  h pe aaoihcaein age Palaeolithic Upper The C rere roiu,i .de H. in Armorique, en erieur ´ 01 Experimental 2001. . niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity rsCnl Cadre Canal: eres ` ACOBS goa el’arch de egional ´ ecnetd ertre dans territories de concept Le 96 e civilisations Les 1976. . EAL10:13–26. 110): (ERAUL 02 pcaie Early Specialized 2002. . ´ esolithiques 06 e brn’de ‘burins’ Les 2006. . ´ een ´ oihqemynau moyen eolithique as,Tm :les 1: Tome ¸aise, ooiusde eologiques ´ 9 1439–49. 29: Pal usinn the Questioning (British ´ eolithique ooi de eologie ´ 1311–14. : eres-Canal `

Research The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans

HIGHAM,T.,R.JACOBI,M.JULIEN,F.DAVID,L.BASELL, MELLARS,P.,K.BOYLE,O.BAR-YOSEF &C.STRINGER R. WOOD,W.DAVIES &C.BRONK-RAMSEY. 2010. (ed.). 2007. Rethinking the human revolution: new Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin implications for the context of ornaments and and dispersal of modern humans. : human remains within the Chatelperronian.ˆ McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the OTTE, M. 1979. Le pal´eolithique sup´erieur ancien en United States of America 107: 20234–39. Belgique (Monographies d’archeologie nationale 5). HIGHAM, T.F.G., R.M. JACOBI,L.BASELL,C. Bruxelles: Musees´ royaux d’art et d’histoire. BRONK-RAMSEY,L.CHIOTTI &R.NESPOULET. PESESSE,D.&A.MICHEL. 2006. Le burin des Vachons: 2011. Precision dating of the Palaeolithic: a new apports d’une relecture technologique ala` radiocarbon chronology for the Abri Pataud comprehension de l’Aurignacien recent du nord de (France), a key Aurignacian sequence. Journal of l’Aquitaine et des Charentes. Pal´eo 18: 143–60. Human Evolution 61(5): 549–63. PETTITT, P.B. 2008. The British Upper Palaeolithic, in JACOBI, R.M. 1999. Some observations on the British J. Pollard (ed.) Prehistoric Britain: 18–57. London: Early Upper Palaeolithic, in W. Davies & R. Blackwell. Charles (ed.) Dorothy Garrod and the progress of the REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE,E.BARD,A.BAYLISS,J.W. Palaeolithic: studies in the prehistoric archaeology of BECK,P.G.BLACKWELL,C.BRONK-RAMSEY,C.E. the and Europe: 3540. Oxford: Oxbow. BUCK,G.BURR,R.L.EDWARDS,M.FRIEDRICH, – 2007. A collection of Early Upper Palaeolithic P. M . G ROOTES,T.PGUILDERSON,I.HAJDAS,T.J. artefacts from Beedings, near Pulborough, West HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN,K.F.KAISER, , and the context of similar finds from the B. KROMER,F.G.MCCORMAC,S.W.MANNING, British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS,J.R.SOUTHON,S. 229–325. TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY,J.VAN DER PLICHT & JACOBI,R.M.&T.F.G.HIGHAM. 2011. The British C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009. Intcal09 and Marine09 Earlier Upper Palaeolithic: settlement and radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years chronology, in N.M. Ashton, S.G. Lewis & C.B. cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–50. Stringer (ed.) The ancient human occupation of SOLLAS, W.J. 1913. Paviland Cave: an Aurignacian Britain: 181–222. Amsterdam: Elsevier. stationinWales.Journal of the Royal Anthropological JACOBI,R.&P.B.PETTITT. 2000. An Aurignacian point Institute of and Ireland 43: 325–74. from Uphill Quarry, , and the colonisation STUTZ, A.J., D.E. LIEBERMANN & A.E. SPIESS. 1995. of Britain by sapiens. Antiquity 74: 513–18. Toward a reconstruction of subsistence economy in JACOBI, R.M., T.F.G. HIGHAM &C.BRONK-RAMSEY. the Upper Pleistocene Mosan basin, in M. Otte & 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Middle and L.G. Straus (ed.) Le trou Magrite: Fouilles Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: 1991–1992: r´esurrection d’un site classique en improved reliability using ultrafiltration. Journal of Wallonie (ERAUL 69): 167–87. Liege:` Centre de Quaternary Science 21: 557–73. recherches archeologiques,´ UniversitedeLi´ ege.` JACOBI, R.M., T.F.G. HIGHAM,P.HAESAERTS,I.JADIN SVENSSON, A., K.K. ANDERSEN,M.BIGLER, H.B. &L.BASELL. 2010. Radiocarbon chronology for CLAUSEN,D.DAHL-JENSEN,S.M.DAVIES,S.J. the Early Gravettian of : new AMS JOHNSEN,R.MUSCHELER,F.PARRENIN,O. determinations for Maisieres-Canal,` Belgium. RASMUSSEN,R.ROTHLISBERGER¨ ,I.SEIERSTAD,J.-P. Antiquity 84: 26–40. STEFFENSEN,&M.VINTHER. 2008. A 60 000 year Greenland stratigraphic ice core chronology. JORIS¨ ,O.&M.STREET. 2008. At the end of the 14C time scale: the Middle to Upper Paleolithic record Climate of the Past 4: 47–57. of western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55: SWAINSTON, S. 2000. The lithic artefacts from Paviland, 782–802. in S.H. Aldhouse-Green (ed.) Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a definitive report: 95–113. Bristol: KOZŁOWSKI,J.K.&M.OTTE. 2000. La formation de l’AurignacienenEurope.L’Anthropologie 104: 3–15. Western Academic and Specialist Press. TOSTEVIN, G. 2000. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic LE BRUN-RICALENS,F.,J.-G.BORDES &F.BON (ed.). 2005. Productions lamellaires attribu´ees a` transition from the Levant to central Europe: in situ l’Aurignacien: chaˆınes op´eratoires et perspectives development or diffusion?, in J. Orschiedt & C.-G. techno-culturelles (ArcheoLogiques´ 1). Luxembourg: Weniger (ed.) Neanderthals and modern humans: Musee´ national d’histoire et d’art. discussing the transition: central and eastern Europe from 50 000–30 000 BP (Wissenschaftliche MELLARS, P.A. 1973. The character of the Schriften des Neanderthal Museums): 92–112. Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition in south-west Mettman: Neanderthal Museum. France, in C. Renfrew (ed.) The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory: 255–76. London: Duckworth.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd.

640 W V eevd 8Ags 01 cetd 0Nvme 01 eie:7Dcme 2011 December 7 Revised: 2011; November 20 Accepted: 2011; August 18 Received: ANHAEREN HITE 4 25–97. 24: world. Pleistocene the edge of north-western the at occupation of Neanderthal synthesis interpretative an Palaeolithic: Middle Science ornaments. by personal revealed Europe of geography ethno-linguistic ..&PB P P.B. & M.J. , 3 1105–1128. 33: ,M.&F. D ETTITT ’E ora fArchaeological of Journal RRICO 01 h rts Late British The 2011. . ora fWrdPrehistory World of Journal 06 Aurignacian 2006. . o Dinnis Rob 641 Z Z ILH ILH nttt Portugue Instituto implications cultural stratigraphies, dating, transitional technocomplexes: the of and Aurignacian the tmatters. it AO AO ˜ ˜ ,J.&F. and mixed, moderns and Neanderthals 2006. J. , vltoayAnthropology Evolutionary D Taahsd ruooi 3.Lisbon: 33). Arqueologia de (Trabalhos ’E RRICO sd Arqueologia. de es ˆ  C e..2003. (ed.). niut ulctosLtd. Publications Antiquity h hoooyof chronology The 5 183–95. 15:

Research