Further Notes on Humanly Worked Bones from the Norwich Formation

Cranium, jrg. 8, no. 1, pag. 5-9, april 1991

Further notes on humanly worked bones from the Norwich Crag

Formation of Easton Bavents

P.G. Cambridge

Summary

in Two artifacts of fossilised boneoriginating the Norwich Crag Formation are discussed. According to the author the workmanship of the artifacts cannot be dated.

Samenvatting

Twee artefacten, afkomstig uit de Norwich Crag Formatie, wordenbesproken. Volgens de auteur is datering van de be- werking niet mogelijk.

The question whether tool making hominids existed in

the British Isles during the Pliocene and Early Pleisto-

cene is one which has occupied the minds of geologists,

and for Peri- archaeologists anthropologists many years. odically evidence is offered that artifacts have been

found in the Crags of East Anglia. Much of the eviden-

ce has related to flaked flints from stone beds at the base of the Red Crag and the Norwich Crag Forma-

tions. In addition there was the carved face on a Red

Crag shell shown to the British Association in 1881 of

doubtful and the sharks' very authenticity perforated

teeth described by T. McKenny Hughes. The only re- cord of human skeletal remains from the Crags is that

of a human lower jaw excavated by workers in a phos-

phate pit at Foxhall, near Ipswich, but most of the con-

temporary workers did not accept it as a Red Crag fos- sil and the specimen has since been lost. More recently

Mr. H.D. Codings of Southwold has reported flint fla-

kes from a stone heap in the old pit at Cove Bottom and

from the Norwich Crag at Easton Bavents Cliff. In addi-

tion number of bone from the latter a fragments expo-

sure have been described as humanly worked (COL-

Some the latter LINGS, 1974). of are discussed by the

author.

The Geological Section at Easton Bavents

The Norwich Crag Formation is intermittently exposed in the cliffs between Southwold and Covehithe (Fig. 1).

is overlain beds It by glacial and outwash gravels ofpre-

itself Anglian age. The Crag consists of three members. is series of thin bedded The upper a sands with occasio-

nal pebble seams and obscure borings, which has been

interpreted as a shallow water marine deposit. The

middle member is a dark loamy clay, occasionally with

the Easton Bavents marine shells, known as Clay. The

lowest member consists of shelly sands, the shells being

often most common in distinct layers where pebbles

also tend It is in the of these shell to occur. upper part

beds that the artifacts were reported. Much of the lower Fig. 1 Generalised geological section of the Cliffs between Easton

Bavents and member ("Norwich Crag") is concealed by the beach Covehithe. Arrow shows level of the Upper Shell Bed.

1 Schematische deposits and scree. Fig. geologische doorsnede van de ’Cliffs’ tussen Eas-

ton = Bavents en Covehithe. (pijl niveau van Upper Shell Bed)

5 Plate 1. Four antler Hoe Tods from the Neolithic of Obours, Belgium. Photographs by courtesy of the Insitute Royal des Sciences Naturelles de

Belgique, Brussels

Vier Plaat 1 gewei artefacten van het Neoliticum van Obours, België. Foto’s ter beschikking gesteld door Institute Royal des Sciences Naturelles

de Belgique, Brussel.

6\1 The bone artifacts been collec- of bed referred are reported as having appearance a pebble (sometimes to as

the of the Stone is the in ted from uppermost shell layers and this bed the Bed). As case the Crags generally

in detail. There is flint from is described more a rich molluscan most of the pebbles are of the Chalk and of

of non-marine local but this bed also contains of fauna with rarer examples shells, frag- derivation, a variety

and brackish shells. Fish ments of estuarine clay, water rock types including Carboniferous cherts, Jurassic bones of terrestrial erra- are fairly common. Fragments mam- cherts, Cretaceous fossils, sponge cherts, igneous mal bones rock It should are not rare and probably represent existing tics, crystal, etc. be noted that the term

Stone Bed has fossils derived from valley gravels during the Crag mari- no particular stratigraphical meaning. ne transgression. Many are heavily mineralised, dark in The Worked Bone Artifacts colour on the outside but lighter inside, and more or

and less rounded polished by scouring, although many the author to examine Some years ago was permitted what have were fractures. In the originally sharp places some bonefragments said to come from this bed. These bed is shell more or less decalcified so that it gives the were later illustrated and described as examples of hu-

artifact from Easton Bavents. 2a: Mr. D. Plate 2. The antler Original drawingby Collings (Suffolk Nat. Soc., 1974)for comparison

Easton Bavents. 2a: De Mr. Plaat 2. Het gewei artefact van originele tekening van D. Collings (Suffolk Nat. Soc., 1974)ter vergelijking.

7\2 in the the in- manly worked bones. The author has no opinion to ex- material on display galleries. Among very

flint flakes which he did examine but small series of artifacts from the press on the not teresting displays was a

that the Industrie of This inclu- was convinced some of specimens figured (2a spiennienne Obours, Belgium. and 2c) showed signs of human workmanship. In parti- ded what are almost certainly complete examples of the

The cular that figured as 2a showed purposeful wor- "antler artifact" of Easton Bavents (Plate 1). Belgi-

hoes been king,though at the time the type of artifact and its use an artifacts were described as and must have

The 2c showed shafted. on the Continent the was not clear. edges of Fig. notches, Although not uncommon

been some polished but others displaying deliberate work- implement has not yet described from the British

If the manship. The most interesting specimen was that figu- Neolithic. this interpretation is correct then Suf-

folk could not have come from un- red as 2a. It consisted of a fragment of deer antler at the specimen (Plate 2) point where a tine meets the main beam. One end (up- disturbed Crag beds. permost in the figure) was flattened and had a bevelled If the is Neolithic then why did the maker use a mi- edge all round, formed by some kind of filing action, age neralised of antler? the of the of specimen Perhaps weight which left a series parallel scratches of uneven depth. in hoe. The workman the end there material suggested an advantage a At opposite were two bevelled, curved, have the material with which the must accepted as antler, worked surfaces on opposite edges of a fractured and Per- he was familiar as a tough material. face. Complete these would have formed a hole right strong very the shaft when the hole was being bored for the es- through the antler fragment. The comparatively sophis- haps

sential brittleness of the material was revealed and the ticated workmanship immediately suggested a culture

Norwich arti- broken artifact discarded. of younger age than the Crag. Although

from of in Af- facts are known deposits comparable age of "notched" bone is not The purpose and use the appa- rica they are ofcrude design and workmanship. rent but is was clearly worked in a similar manner to the

antler. The other bone fragments were not examined By Upper Palaeolithic times antler working reached a which showed the "filed" closely by the author but any high state of skill and the so called "baton de command- 2a 2c show of shows in si- finish of examples and must workmanship ment" of the Continent borings antler, very bones the same culture. Somewhat similar pointed are milar to that in the Easton Bavents specimen (OAKLEY, the Creswell figured by KJTCHING (1963) from caves, 1950, Fig. 25d). In Neolithic times the properties of ant- although other authors have attributed these to hy- ler were well known and the material used for a number from the aenas. Broken whalebone fragments Red Crag of artifacts. Thus comparison with other British cultures sometimes show similar pointed ends but these heavily suggests a rather late date for this type of workmanship. either lowerPliocene other hand there is little doubt that the of mineralised bones are probably or On the age

Norwich is least million earlier and Upper Miocene in age. the Crag at a years the redating of the Easton Bavents Crag to a younger Conclusions period is impossible. The shell beds were deposited un- distance from der marine conditions, at no great shore, In the author's opinion there is no doubt that the two in so that the possibility of a working site situ is not like- artifacts examined show human workmanship. Nor is ly. There is no geological evidence for a land surface there doubt that the material is fossilised bone ori- any marked below the Easton Bavents Clay and there is no ginating in the Norwich Crag Formation. The work- at its base. The antler and bone fragments discontinuity but its manship cannot be dated sophistication rules out from the are visually similar to other bone fragments date with the and it could be a contemporary Crag any Norwich Crag and are to be older than the Nor- likely Palaeolithic the period from the to present day. The wich Crag marine transgression. However, the working with a series of artifacts from the Bel- antler compares of the antler must have been subsequent to its minerali- gian Neolithic of a form not known in the United King- sation. Closer examination shows that the worked parts dom. The material seems to have split before the shaft are of a lighter colour where the outer darker layer has hole was completed and the filing on the bevels is quite been removed. At this stage the evidence clearly poin- the artifact been in the unworn. Had high energy envi- ted to human workmanship, after the bones had been ronment of the Crag shell beds one would expect the "fossilised" and of a pointing to a much sophistication sand scratches to be worn by scour. Further work seems later date. At this point there seemed no further eviden- advisable to see whether artifacts could have been in- ce as to the of the artifacts other than a lingering age into the troduced Crag by some means. Are we looking doubt as to their provenance. im- at a Neolithic experiment in an attempt to make an

in plement of an otherwise unfamiliar type Britain from A Neolithic Age? material not really suitable for the purpose?

In September 1984 while studying Crag material in vari- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ous museums in the Low Countries, the author visited the National Museum of Natural History in Brussels, I would like to thank Mr. D. Codings of Southwold for and as well as the study work, looked at archaeological giving me the opportunity to study and photograph the

8 bone tools mentioned; Dr. D. Cahen of the Inst. Roy.

des Sciences Naturelles deBelgique, Brussels for provi-

ding the photographs in Plate 1 and 2. Mr. G. Varndell of the London British Museum, for help on possible

British distribution of the Neolithic hoes.

REFERENCES

1974: Man COLLINGS, H.D., worked bones from the Norwich Crag at Easton Bavents. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 16 part 5,309-315.

KITCHING, J.W., 1963: Bone, Tooth and Horn Tools of Palaeolithic Man, Manchester University Press.

OAKLEY, K.P., 1950: Man the Toolmaker,British Museum (Natural History).

Author’s address:

P. G. Cambridge

258 Bleubell Road

Norwich NR4 7 LW