R. Dinnis

IDENTIFICATION OF LONGHOLE (GOWER) AS AN SITE R. Dinnis1

ABSTRACT Several factors have conspired to deplete the British record of Earlier Upper Palaeolithic occupation and the coeval replacement of Britain’s last Neanderthals by early modern humans. These include, most notably, the destructive effect of the Last Glacial Maximum and the early archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period. Assemblages known to contain early modern human Aurignacian material are scarce, and therefore the identification of new sites is noteworthy. A lithic artefact in the old collections from Longhole, Gower, confirms it as an Aurignacian site. That artefact and justification of its Aurignacian attribution are detailed here. Technological traits of this artefact match those seen in the larger Aurignacian collection from nearby Paviland. These resemblances are strong evidence that Aurignacian occupation at Longhole was broadly contemporary with an Aurignacian occupation at Paviland. Full reference: Dinnis, R. 2012. Identification of Longhole (Gower) as an Aurignacian site. Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 33: 17–29. Keywords: Aurignacian, bladelet technology, Longhole, Paviland, Britain, northern Europe.

THE BRITISH EARLIER UPPER In Britain, several occupation events are PALAEOLITHIC known between the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic and the Last Glacial Maximum, Around 40–35,000 14C BP indigenous c.20,000 14C BP; a period Campbell (1977) European Neanderthals were replaced by termed the “Earlier Upper Palaeolithic”2.The incoming modern humans. At present, first of these occupations is evidenced by Neanderthals are generally thought to have characteristic large lithic weapon tips, either created a suite of very early Upper Palaeolithic ventrally or bi-facially shaped (‘blade-points’ industries (e.g. Châtelperronian, Uluzzian) and ‘leaf-points’ respectively), found in small (Kozłowski & Otte 2000; Bar-Yosef 2002; numbers at many findspots and in Djindjian et al. 2003; Mellars 2004; Zilhão largernumbers at a handful of sites (Beedings, 2006; Mellars & Gravina 2008), perhaps as a Paviland, Kent’s Cavern). These artefacts are result of influence from Aurignacian-bearing currently considered to be part of a northern modern humans entering Europe from the east European phenomenon which has in recent (e.g. Mellars 2004)1. By c.35,000 14C BP the years been referred to as the Lincombian- Aurignacian, certainly made by early modern Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (or LRJ: Flas 2002). humans, was present across much of western The timing of the LRJ is still poorly Europe. Following the Aurignacian in western constrained, although it is certainly extant by Europe are several apparently intrusive 38,000 14C BP (Campbell 1977; Jacobi 2007; industries, appearing from c.29,000 14C BP Flas 2008). A perceived phylogenetic link with (Maisièrian, Font-Robertian, Bayacian, Gravettian). Together, these are often referred to as the Early Gravettian (e.g. Djindjian et al. 1999).

2 Campbell’s “Earlier Upper Palaeolithic” and 1 Several recent publications suggested that this “Later Upper Palaeolithic” encapsulates the central very early Upper Palaeolithic may have been feature of the British Upper Palaeolithic: human authored by modern humans (Bar-Yosef & Bordes occupations at the beginning and end of the Upper 2010; Bordes & Teyssandier 2011; Benazzi et al. Palaeolithic bracketed a long period of absence 2011). This is interesting proposition may make centred on the Last Glacial Maximum. His earlier sense archaeologically, creating a neat division Upper Palaeolithic corresponds to the Early Upper between Middle Palaeolithic industries produced by Palaeolithic and the earliest phases of the Mid- Neanderthals, and Upper Palaeolithic industries Upper Palaeolithic of continental Europe. When created by modern humans. considering British archaeology Campbell’s term certainly remains useful. 1 The British Museum (Prehistory and Europe), Franks House, 56 Orsman Road, London. N1 5QL, England, U.K., [email protected] 17 Lithics 33

Figure 1. British Aurignacian sites (after Jacobi & Pettitt 2000; Jacobi et al. 2006; Dinnis 2009; this paper). Site key: 1. Longhole; 2. Kent’s Cavern; 3. Ffynnon Beuno; 4. Hoyle’s Mouth; 5. Uphill Quarry; 6. Hyaena Den; 7. Aston Mill; 8. Pin Hole (); 9. Paviland. Coastline drawn at c.75 metres below current sea level, approximating its position during the Aurignacian. The inferred position of major rivers is also shown. (Figure: R. Dinnis/S. Bello). Middle Palaeolithic industries also containing assemblages, suggest an Aurignacian presence leaf-point weapon tips has led most to believe in Britain between 33,000 and 31,000 14C BP that the LRJ is the last expression of northern (Jacobi et al. 2006; Dinnis 2009). European Neanderthals (e.g. Otte 1990; Jacobi 1999; Jöris & Street 2008; Flas 2008; Semal et Later still, at c.28,000 14C BP, Britain saw al. 2009). However it should be noted that another occupation of early modern humans, there is no clear association between referred to either as Early Gravettian or diagnostic human fossils and LRJ material at Maisièrian. Stemmed artefacts equivalent to any site. those found at Maisières-Canal in are known from seven British sites (Jacobi et al. A later modern human Recent Aurignacian 2010). A consistent series of radiocarbon dates occupation is known from a small number of from Maisières-Canal are likely to also date lithic and osseous artefacts at a handful of this British material (Jacobi et al. 2010). British sites (Figure 1). The most characteristic Britain is then apparently abandoned for a long British Aurignacian lithic artefacts are two period around the Last Glacial Maximum, with types of carinated burin: the burin busqué and no known later Gravettian or Solutrean the Paviland burin (Figure 2). Both are types of material in British collections. bladelet core, used to produce a micro-lithic technology which is a particularly conspicuous Overall, archaeological material from the part of all Recent Aurignacian assemblages. British Earlier Upper Palaeolithic is scarce. Schematics of these two core artefact types can Large collections, such as the LRJ assemblage be found in Figure 3. Radiocarbon dates from from Beedings and the LRJ/ British Aurignacian osseous artefacts, along Aurignacian/Gravettian assemblage from with comparison of lithic artefacts from Britain Paviland, are exceptions. Most findspots have with those from well-stratified continental yielded only one or a small handful of

18 R. Dinnis artefacts. There are numerous reasons for this mixed assemblages. The methodologies lack of material, of which the four most required to select artefacts in this way significant are: obviously necessitate the rejection of large numbers of culturally undiagnostic lithic 1. During the time of deteriorating climate artefacts. This inevitably results in a much before the Last Glacial Maximum, Britain diminished corpus of material which can was undoubtedly a region of be soundly allocated to each comparatively peripheral human presence. archaeological culture. Furthermore, if In fact, it is probable that throughout this during any period of the Earlier Upper time occupations were punctuated by Palaeolithic Britain was occupied by significant periods of human absence hunter-gatherers who produced a (Pettitt 2008; Jacobi & Higham 2011; generalised Upper Palaeolithic lithic White & Pettitt 2011). Relative to regions technology — lacking technological farther south, one would therefore expect a idiosyncrasies as recognisable as the meagre archaeological record. Aurignacian index fossils in Figure 2 — the absence of unmixed and well-stratified 2. Subsequent to this period, glacial and assemblages means that we would not periglacial geological processes will have recognise their occupations at all. destroyed much of the archaeological record originally deposited in the ground These problems and the resulting overall lack (Jacobi 1990; Dinnis 2009 & in press). of material obviously make archaeological Archaeology will also have been lost interpretation of the period difficult. Therefore beneath rising Holocene sea levels, any additional LRJ, Aurignacian or Gravettian particularly to the west of Britain and in assemblage — be it identified via excavation the North Sea region (see Figure 1). of completely new sites or by identification of diagnostic material in old assemblages — is 3. A significant majority of Earlier Upper significant Palaeolithic sites in Britain were excavated before or shortly after the turn of the 20th LONGHOLE: SITE DESCRIPTION, century. While some sites were obviously EXCAVATION HISTORY, FAUNAL subjected to some sort of screening during ASSEMBLAGE, PREVIOUS CULTURAL excavation (e.g. the 1912 Sollas campaign ATTRIBUTION at Paviland), these are exceptions. Major Longhole lies on the south Gower coast, collection biases are obvious at many sites. roughly equidistant between Point Ffynnon Beuno Cave (north ; Figure to the east and Paviland to the west (Figure 4). 1) is a good example of this. Comparison The cave is elevated c.50 metres above the of the six lithic pieces in the extant high-tide line and faces south across the Bristol collection with other sites excavated to Channel to the north Devon coast beyond. The modern standards indicates that several currently exposed length of the cave void is hundred pieces, or potentially even more, c.15 metres. would have originally been present at the site (Dinnis & Conneller 2011). Recent Deposits inside Longhole were excavated test-pitting of spoil deposits outside extensively in 1861 by Colonel Wood, who Ffynnon Beuno Cave supports this recovered a lithic industry and a faunal interpretation, with a further eight lithic assemblage. The faunal lists of Falconer artefacts recovered from what is likely to (1868), and latterly of Garrod (1926) and Allen amount to only one or two percent of and Rutter (1948), show that the cave deposits removed from the cave. contained material attributable to the Pin Hole Mammalian Assemblage Zone of Marine 4. During the early excavation of British sites Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3), c.60–25,000 years only the most rudimentary stratigraphies ago (Currant & Jacobi 2001 & 2011). were recorded. Frequently no stratigraphy Characteristic MIS 3 taxa in the collection was recorded at all. As a result, different industries are often only recognisable via include , woolly rhino, mammoth typological separation of material within and horse. According to Allen and

19 Lithics 33

Figure 2. Recent Aurignacian burins busqués from Hoyle’s Mouth (1) and Ffynnon Bueno (2), and Paviland burins from Paviland (3, 4, 5) and Kent’s Cavern (6). (Illustrations courtesy of A. David [1, 2], J. Wallis [3, 4] and H. Martingell [5, 6].)

Rutter (1948), hyaena is a particularly had failed to recognise stratigraphy at the site. dominant component of the assemblage from Given the presence of deposits spanning the Wood’s excavations. Like many British , entirety of the Late Pleistocene and the later it is likely that Longhole was a hyaena den for part of the Middle Pleistocene in other caves at least part of MIS 3. on the south Gower coast (e.g. Minchin Hole, Bacon Hole), the presence of pre-MIS 3 According to Falconer (1868), also present in material at Longhole would be unsurprising. Wood’s collections from Longhole are some warmer-adapted species (e.g. straight-tusked Campbell’s 1969 excavation outside the elephant). Garrod (1926: 68) and Allen and entrance of Longhole helped to contextualise Rutter (1948) interpreted this as evidence for a the material found by Wood. Campbell mixed age assemblage, and that Wood was unearthed a long stratigraphy, which he either excavating disturbed deposits or that he interpreted as spanning most or all of the Late

20 R. Dinnis

Pleistocene (Campbell 1977). Analysis of from Longhole: 17 from Wood’s campaign sediment and pollen from this stratigraphy (Campbell 1977) and six from the more recent indicated a major cold phase – reasonably work of Campbell (pers. obs.). In her synthesis interpreted by Campbell as the Last Glacial of the British Upper Palaeolithic Garrod (1926: Maximum — with archaeological (lithic) 69) briefly discussed three lithic pieces from material underlying this event in his Wood’s collection. For Garrod, the presence of stratigraphy. This, of course, is consistent with a scraper with opposed “angle-burin” helped to an MIS 3 age for the archaeology from the narrow the likely culture to which the cave. Identifiable in Campbell’s Earlier assemblage belonged. Given what she saw as a Upper Palaeolithic levels A3a/A3b included lack of Late Upper Palaeolithic material from reindeer and horse (Campbell 1977; Lister Gower’s caves she favoured a “Middle or 1984), again consistent with an MIS 3 age for Upper Aurignacian” age for the Longhole lithic material from the site. lithics. In today’s Upper Palaeolithic taxonomy, this would mean an Aurignacian or At least 23 lithic artefacts are known to come Gravettian attribution.

Figure 3. Schematics of bladelet production from a burin busqué (left) and a Paviland burin (right). (Figure: C. Williams).

Figure 4. The location of Longhole and Paviland on the south Gower Coast. (Figure: C. Williams).

21 Lithics 33

Campbell (1977: 145–6) later suggested that will serve as the bladelet débitage platform. Wood’s collection contained a fragment of Bladelets are then struck from this platform, “leaf-point”, a tool type nowadays assigned to from one side to the other across the width of the LRJ. Campbell related this artefact to the blank. During the reduction of the core, the several of the small flakes he recovered during angle between the burin-scar bladelet débitage his own excavations, suggesting that the platform and the bladelet débitage surface may thickness/breadth ratios of these small flakes become problematic. If so, a new burin may connect them to the manufacture of leaf- removal can be used to renew the bladelet points. However, Jacobi (cited in Barton & débitage platform, thus allowing detachment of Collcutt 1986) later contradicted Campbell’s bladelets to continue. A schematic of this claim for a leaf-point fragment in the lithic process for the best understood form of assemblage from Wood’s excavations. If the carinated burin — the burin busqué — can be blade fragment figured by Campbell (1977: found in Figure 3. fig. 97, artefact 6) is that which he believed to be a blade/leaf-point fragment, then Jacobi’s Evidence for this same process can be seen on interpretation is correct: the artefact’s ventral the artefact from Longhole in Figure 5. A burin modification is as easily explained as removal has been stuck from the proximal end taphonomic damage as it is by deliberate of the blank, on its left hand side and oriented shaping. The small flakes recovered by slightly towards its dorsal surface. The Campbell himself may relate to many different proximal portion of this burin scar has Upper Palaeolithic reduction strategies, and are subsequently been obliterated by another short themselves not a good cultural indicator. burin removal, struck from roughly the same place as the first. Therefore, two overlapping AN AURIGNACIAN CARINATED BURIN burin scars are now visible on the blank: the FROM LONGHOLE longer burin scar overlain by the subsequent shorter scar. (In Figure 5 the location of these Amongst the lithic artefacts collected from scars is marked with an asterisk, and two Longhole by Wood is a blade struck from a arrows indicate the direction from which they nodule of drift flint (Figure 5). Garrod (1926: were struck.) On the right side of the blank is a 69) described the artefact as a “worked angle series of five short removal scars, struck from flake” or “lame de dégagement” (translating as left to right. (In Figure 5 the location of these “clearance blade”). Neither term is widely used scars is marked with a cross, with five arrows in the literature, although “lame de indicating their position). These scars have dégagement” at least hints at how the blank been truncated at their proximal end by the would now be understood: in current parlance, latter of the two burin removals. The first burin we would describe it as a crested blade. scar is therefore the creation of the bladelet Perhaps due its deep patina and apparent débitage platform. From this, short bladelet damage along its margins, Garrod and others removals have been struck, from left to right overlooked the retouching of the blank on its across the blank. Subsequently, the second proximal end (Figure 5). This retouch is burin removal — presumably a failed attempt deliberate, and the order of these removals to renew the bladelet core — has obliterated a allows it to be recognised as a bladelet core part of the bladelet débitage surface. This was carinated burin. apparently the last removal prior to the The technology of bladelet production using artefact’s discard. carinated burin methods is now well- Several aspects of the artefact from Longhole documented (e.g. see Le Brun Ricalens et al. are worthy of attention, and all help to confirm 2005; Flas et al. 2006; Dinnis 2008). The its Recent Aurignacian attribution. First, carinated burin technique allows the systematic carinated burins are particularly characteristic production of small, micro-lithic bladelets of Recent Aurignacian assemblages. Early from large and thick blades or elongated Aurignacian assemblages, in contrast, tend to flakes. The initial step is the creation of the include carinated scrapers, artefacts which are platform from which bladelets will be also found in low levels in many other periods detached. This is achieved via the detachment of the Upper Palaeolithic (Demars & Laurent of a burin spall, creating a burin scar which 1992).

22 R. Dinnis

Secondly, it can be noted that the blank chosen on the proximal end of the blank (Dinnis for the Longhole carinated burin is consistent 2009). The bladelet débitage surface of the with blanks used for bladelet production from carinated burin from Longhole has also been carinated burins at other Recent Aurignacian created proximally. Thirdly, the carinated sites. The débitage from initial shaping and burin from Longhole shares several flaking of large blade cores was often selected, technological features with artefacts in the and particularly thick laminar flakes with large Recent Aurignacian assemblage from triangular cross section (e.g. see Flas et al. nearby Paviland. The first of these is the 2006; Dinnis 2009). Furthermore, in the application of the final burin removal in an Recent Aurignacian assemblage from unsuccessful attempt to continue reducing the Maisières Canal (Atelier de Taille de la Berge core (Figure 5). The same short but invasive Nord-Est area) in Belgium, as at Longhole, a removal can be found on the burin busqué crested blade was exploited in this way (Flas et from Paviland in Figure 6 (marked with an al. 2006). In Recent Aurignacian carinated asterisk). Elsewhere, other approaches to burin assemblages such as level 7, attempted prolongation of the useable life of Gohaud (Loire-Atlantique, ) and carinated burins can be seen. One example is Maisières Canal the bladelet débitage areas of in the Recent Aurignacian assemblage from these blanks have preferentially been created Gohaud. There, a series of delicate dorsal-to-

Figure 5. Aurignacian carinated burin from Longhole. See text for description. The two burin scars on the left, discussed in the text, are emphasised. (Illustration by C. Williams).

23 Lithics 33 ventral removals have been applied to subtly right, and with bladelets struck from right to modify the proximal part of burin-scar bladelet left across the blank (Dinnis 2008 & 2009). débitage platforms, instead of attempting to Conversely, bladelets have been struck from completely renew the area with new burin left to right on all known examples of Paviland removals (Allard 1978; Dinnis 2009). burin (Dinnis 2009; contra Dinnis 2008). The Although a relatively simple technological unusual inclination towards left-to-right strategy, the shared (and failed) approach to detachment of bladelets is a notable feature of renewal of carinated burins at Longhole and the Recent Aurignacian of Britain and Belgium Paviland is not found universally at (Dinnis 2008, 2009 & in press). This Aurignacian sites. It is therefore at least preference is most conspicuous in the potentially significant. collection from Paviland, which contains the largest assemblage of Paviland burins currently A second, shared technological characteristicis known. of more obvious significance. As can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, one difference between While the morphology of the Longhole burins busqués and Paviland burins — the two carinated burin does not allow it to be defining artefact types of the British described as a Paviland burin, it also exhibits a Aurignacian — is the side of the blank from left-to-right oriented bladelet débitage surface, which bladelets are detached. Roughly 90% of and is therefore reminiscent of bladelet western European burins busqués are aligned production in the Paviland Aurignacian. The with their bladelet débitage platform to the geographical proximity of the two sites —

Figure 6. Burin busqué from Paviland. The short burin removal - the last removal at the burin bit and interpreted as a failed attempt to renew the bladelet core débitage platform – is indicated with an asterisk and is emphasised. (Illustration by C. Williams).

24 R. Dinnis

Site/level N Mean (mm) SD (mm) Range (mm) Abri Pataud 7 70 13.5 3.95 23 Abri Pataud 6 24 17.4 4.13 14 Les Vachons 40 17.4 5.55 19 Gohaud 17 13.1 2.82 11 15 14.1 3.64 14

Table 1. Inferred bladelet length for burin busqué bladelet cores from western European Recent Aurignacian assemblages. (“Inferred bladelet length” = maximum length of the bladelet débitage surface on each core, used as a proxy for the length of bladelets detached. Where final stages of working have demonstrably altered the morphology of burin busqué bladelet débitage surfaces, cases have been excluded). The assemblage from Abri Pataud level 6 includes material from the extension area and from level 7 upper (see Chiotti 2005). The assemblage from Les Vachons includes material from Abri 1 and Abri 2. For further details see Dinnis (2009). when considered alongside the complete lack Although extremely rare, artefacts that can of carinated burins with right-to-left aligned reasonably be described as bladelet core bladelet débitage surfaces at Longhole and carinated burins can be found in non- their relative rarity at Paviland – means that we Aurignacian British assemblages, for example can safely interpret this similarity as culturally that figured by Armstrong (1933, 338) from significant. It is therefore likely that the Mesolithic assemblage from Sheffield’s Aurignacian occupation at Longhole was Hill, Lincolnshire. However, these rare broadly contemporary with an Aurignacian examples have been used to create bladelets occupation at Paviland. larger than those favoured in the Recent Aurignacian, and certainly much larger than Finally, we can also note that the micro-lithic the bladelets produced from the carinated burin technology produced from the Longhole from Longhole. Indeed, micro-lithic carinated burin would have been extremely technologies of comparable size and small. Micro-lithic technologies are known production technique to those at Paviland and throughout the European Upper Palaeolithic Longhole are not known from any other period and Mesolithic (Demars & Laurent 1992). of British prehistory.

However, it is in Recent Aurignacian When considered together, the small size of assemblages that systematic production of the bladelets detached from the carinated burin bladelets ≤15mm can be found (Table 1). At from Longhole, shared technological Paviland, the mean inferred length of bladelets characteristics with Recent Aurignacian struck from several bladelet core artefact types material from nearby Paviland, and the MIS 3 is 12.6mm (n=38; SD: 2.92mm; range: 13mm). age of archaeology from the cave make the This mean value is close to or less than those Aurignacian attribution of this artefact certain. for the continental European Recent Aurignacian burin busqué assemblages DISCUSSION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF detailed in Table 1. (See caption for Table 1 LONGHOLE for description of “inferred bladelet length”). The national importance of Gower’s caves for With reference to the surviving part of its understanding the period between the last bladelet débitage surface and the angle and interglacial (Ipswichian/Eemian: c.130,000 position of its penultimate burin scar, bladelets years ago) and the Last Glacial Maximum is detached from the carinated burin from well-documented. In addition to key faunal Longhole are extremely unlikely to have assemblages (Currant & Jacobi 2001 &2011), exceeded 15mm in length, and were in likelihood ≤10mm. The shortness of bladelet débitage from the Longhole carinated burin caves on Gower have also yielded Britain’s therefore recalls bladelet production in the only Upper Palaeolithic decorated burial Paviland Aurignacian. (Paviland), her most abundant Aurignacian lithic assemblage (Paviland), her most

25 Lithics 33 abundant Gravettian lithic assemblage (Cat (2000, 38, fig. 2.11), which show that more Hole) and her second most abundant LRJ than half of the total number of lithics are assemblage (Paviland). 35mm or smaller in length3. The collection of material at Longhole by Wood in 1861 was Despite this obvious importance — and as therefore apparently similar to that by Hicks at described above — interpretation of Ffynnon Beuno in the 1880s, where spoil archaeological collections from these caves is deposits have recently been shown to contain often hindered by their early excavation. In Earlier Upper Palaeolithic archaeology. One recent decades researchers in Britain and would thus expect a quantity of archaeological abroad have returned to the scenes of early material to still be present at Longhole. cave excavations, in order that material previously missed or discarded as unimportant This paper is intended as the initial stage of a can be retrieved from spoil deposits (e.g. broader consideration of Longhole. This will Pelegrin & O’Farrell 2005; Pettitt et al. 2009). comprise a study of extant collections from the In addition to pieces of worked osseous site, as well as new fieldwork with the aim of material and symbolic cultural material such as testing Wood’s spoil deposits for shell beads, small pierced teeth etc., these spoil archaeological material. Hopefully new deposits often contain a quantity of lithic insights into the stone-working techniques of material. Although these lithics are generally Britain’s earliest modern human inhabitants small, they are nonetheless culturally will follow in due course. informative, and therefore archaeologically valuable. CONCLUSIONS Sadly, such an approach is impossible at The record of Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Paviland; by far Britain’s most abundant occupation of Britain is relatively sparse, due Earlier Upper Palaeolithic site, and one of in part to the peripheral position of Britain northern Europe’s most important Aurignacian during the Late Pleistocene, and in part to sites. By the time Sollas excavated the cave in powerful geological forces erasing 1912 the sea had already removed all of its archaeological material from large areas. The external deposits, and likely much of its sparseness of the record has subsequently been internal deposits. Spoil from Sollas’ work was compounded by the early excavation of cave presumably placed directly into the Bristol sites and the inevitable loss of archaeological Channel. In contrast, most if not all of the spoil information. Our knowledge of late deposits at Longhole are still present in and Neanderthal and early modern human around the cave. Its recognition as an occupations is therefore limited. As a Aurignacian site — and more particularly as an consequence, the identification of new sites is Aurignacian site with cultural affinity to particularly important. Paviland — is therefore especially noteworthy: Long recognised as Earlier Upper Palaeolithic, this site alone offers the opportunity to retrieve the lithic assemblage from Longhole, Gower, those important smaller components of the has previously been considered to belong to Gower Aurignacian, many of which have been the LRJ, to the Aurignacian/Gravettian, or to lost forever from Paviland. contain no culturally diagnostic elements. The There can be little doubt that much bladelet core carinated burin described here, archaeological material was overlooked during collected during early excavations at the site, is initial excavation at Longhole. Lithic pieces in undoubtedly Aurignacian. At least a proportion Wood’s collection are uniformly large, of the lithic assemblage from Longhole is demonstrating a significant collection bias. For therefore Aurignacian, the archaeological the eight lithics housed at the British Museum, culture generally regarded as the signature of mean maximum length is 52mm (range: 34– Britain’s first modern human occupants. 69.5mm). This measurement is similar to the heavily biased extant museum collection from Ffynnon Beuno Cave, with a mean maximum length of 61mm (range: 28.5 – 127.5 mm). We 3 The Paviland collection is biased towards larger can contrast these with measurements of the pieces, as evidenced by the prevalence of exhausted Paviland collection by Swainston and Brookes Aurignacian bladelet cores but the lack of the small bladelets they were used to produce (Dinnis 2008).

26 R. Dinnis

This artefact exhibits technological traits Sites. Unpublished report for English consistent with its attribution to the Recent Heritage and CADW. Aurignacian, and it is therefore accordant with Bar-Yosef, O. 2002. The Upper Paleolithic other Aurignacian material from Britain. More revolution. Annual Review of particularly, the left-to-right alignment of its Anthropology 31: 363–393. Bar-Yosef, O. & Bordes, J.-G. 2010. Who were the bladelet débitage surface, unusual in western makers of the Châtelperronian culture? European terms, recalls the large Aurignacian Journal of Human Evolution 59: 586–593. assemblage from nearby Paviland. Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Furthermore, the bladelets produced at both Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., sites were small even by Recent Aurignacian Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., standards. These shared technological traits are Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K. sufficient reason to believe that Aurignacian & Weber, G.W. 2011. Early dispersal of occupation at Longhole was broadly modern humans in Europe and contemporary with an Aurignacian occupation implications for Neanderthal behaviour. at Paviland. Unlike at Paviland, spoil from the Nature 479: 525–528. Bordes, J.-G. & Teyssandier, N. 2011. The Upper early excavation of Longhole is still present at Paleolithic nature of the Châtelperronian the site. This opens up the possibility of testing in South-Western France: Arch- spoil deposits for material inevitably missed eostratigraphic and lithic evidence. during excavation, and in doing so adding to Quaternary International 246 (1–2): 382– the corpus of material available to understand 388. early modern human occupation of Britain. Campbell, J.B. 1977. The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain: A Study of Man and Nature in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Late Ice Age. (2 volumes.) Clarendon Press, Oxford. Very many thanks to Elizabeth Walker (NMW) for Chiotti, L. 2005. Les Industries Lithiques her help with this research. Thanks are also due to Aurignaciennes de lAbri Pataud, Craig Williams for the schematics in Figure 3, the Dordogne, France: Les fouilles de Hallam map in Figure 4 and the lithic illustrations in L. Movius Jr. Oxford, British Figures 5 and 6, and to Silvia Bello for the map in Archaeological Reports International Figure 1. I am also very grateful to Natasha Series 1392. Oxford. Reynolds for her help with editing, and for Currant, A. & Jacobi, R. 2001. A formal willingly allowing me to bore her rigid with more mammalian biostratigraphy for the Late than one unnecessarily animated monologue Pleistocene of Britain. Quaternary Science regarding the piece of stone in Figure 5. The Reviews 20: 1707–1716. manuscript was also improved thanks to the Currant, A.P. & Jacobi, R. 2011. The Mammal thoughtful comments of two reviewers. Needless to of the British Late Pleistocene. In say, these colleagues may or may not agree with the N.M. Ashton, S.G. Lewis & C.B. Stringer conclusions reached here. This work was made (eds), The Ancient Human Occupation of possible thanks to the Leverhulme Trust funded Britain, pp. 165–180. Elsevier. Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project. Amsterdam. Demars, P.-Y. & Laurent, P. 1992. Types d’outils REFERENCES lithiques du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe: Cahiers du Quaternaire No. 14. Allard, M. 1978. Le Gisement Aurignacien de C.N.R.S., Paris. Gohaud à Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef Dinnis, R. 2008. On the technology of late (Loire Atlantique): étude archéologique. Aurignacian burin and scraper production, Gallia Préhistoire 21: 1–42. and the importance of the Paviland lithic Allen, E.E. & Rutter, J.G. 1948. A survey of the assemblage and the Paviland burin. Gower caves with an account of recent Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies excavations, Part II. Welsh Guides, Society 29: 18–35. . Dinnis, R. 2009. Understanding the British Armstrong, A.L. 1931. A late Upper Aurignacian Aurignacian. Unpublished PhD station in North Lincolnshire. Proceedings dissertation, University of Sheffield. of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6: Dinnis, R. In Press. The Paviland burin, the burin 335–339. busqué and Aurignacian occupation of Barton, N. & Collcutt, S. 1986. A Survey of Britain. Anthropologica et Praehistorica. English and Welsh Palaeolithic Cave Dinnis, R. & Conneller, C. 2011. The Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Ffynnon Beuno.

27 Lithics 33

Conference paper given at AHOB 3 Pulborough, West Sussex, and the Context workshop, Queen Mary University of of Similar Finds from the British Isles. London, May 2011. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: Djindjian, F., Kozłowski, J. & Otte, M. 1999. Le 229–325. Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe. Jacobi, R. & Pettitt, P.B. 2000. An Aurignacian Armand Colin, Paris. point from Uphill Quarry, Somerset, and Djindjian, F., Kozłowski, J.K. & Bazile, F. 2003. the colonisation of Britain by Homo Europe during the early Upper Paleolithic sapiens. Antiquity 74: 513–518. (40000-30000 BP): a synthesis. In J. Jacobi, R.M. & Higham, T.F.G. 2011. The British Zilhão & F. d‘Errico (eds.), The Earlier Upper Palaeolithic: settlement and Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the chronology. In N. M. Ashton, S. G. Lewis Transtional Technocomplexes: Dating, & C. B. Stringer (eds), The Ancient Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications,. 29– Human Occupation of Britain: 181–222. 47. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Instituto Elsevier, Amsterdam. Português de Arqueologia, Lisbon. Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G. & Bronk Ramsey, C. Falconer, H. 1868. Note on the occurrence of 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Middle wrought flints, in association with two and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British extinct species of rhinoceros, &c., in Isles: improved reliability using ‘Long Hole’ Cave, Gower. In C. ultrafiltration. Journal of Quaternary Murchison (ed.), Palaeontological Science 21: 557–573. Memoirs and Notes of the Late Hugh Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G., Haesaerts, P., Jadin, Falconer, Volume II: Mastadon, Elephant, I. & Basell, L. 2010. Radiocarbon Rhinoceros, Ossiferous Caves, Primeval chronology for the Early Gravettian of Man and his Contemporaries, 538–540. northern Europe: New AMS R. Hardwicke, London. determinations for Maisières-Canal, Flas, D. 2002. Les débuts du paléolithique Belgium. Antiquity 84: 26–40. supérieur dans le Nord-Ouest de l’Europe: Jöris, O. & Street, M. 2008. At the end of the 14C le Lincombien -Ranisien-Jerzmanowicien. time scale - the Middle to Upper Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113: 25– Paleolithic record of western Eurasia. 49. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 782–802. Flas, D. 2008. La transition du Paléolithique moyen Kozłowski, J.K. & Otte, M. 2000. La formation de au supérieur dans la Plaine Septentrionale l‘Aurignacien en Europe. L’Anthropologie de l’Europe. Bulletin de la Société Royale 104: 3–15. Belge d‘Anthropologie et de Préhistoire Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bordes, J.-G. & Bon, F. (eds) 119. 2005. Productions Lamellaires Attribuées Flas, D., Miller, R. & Jacobs, B. 2006. Les “burins” à l’Aurignacien: chaînes opératoires et de l’Atelier de débitage aurignacien de perspectives techno-culturelles. Arch- Maisières-Canal (Province du Hainaut, éologiques 1, ,. Belgique). In J.-P. Bracco, M. De Araujo Lister, A.M. 1984. The fossil record of elk (Alces Igreja & F. Le Brun-Ricalens (eds), Burins alces (L.)) in Britain. Quaternary Préhistoriques: Formes, Fonctionnements, Newsletter 44: 1–7. Fonctions, 55-74. Actes de la Table-Ronde Mellars, P. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern d'Aix-en-Provence (3-5 mars 2003). human colonization of Europe. Nature Archéologiques 2, Luxembourg. 432: 461–465. Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic age Mellars, P. & Gravina, B. 2008. Châtelperron: in Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. theoretical agendas, archaeological facts, Jacobi, R. 1990. Leaf points and the British Early and diversionary smoke-screens. Upper Palaeolithic. Les industries a Paleoanthropology 2008: 43–64. pointes foliacees du Paleolithique Otte, M. 1990. Les industries aux pointes foliacées superieur europeen, Krakow 1989. du Nord-ouest européen. Les industries a ERAUL 42, Liege: 271–289. pointes foliacees du Paleolithique Jacobi, R.M. 1999. Some observations on the superieur europeen, Krakow 1989. British Early Upper Palaeolithic. In W. ERAUL 42, Liege: 247–269. Davies & R. Charles (eds), Dorothy Pelegrin, J. & O‘Farrell, M. 2005. Les lamelles Garrod and the Progress of the retouchées ou utilisées de Castanet. In F. Palaeolithic: Studies in the Prehistoric Le Brun-Ricalens, J.-G. Bordes & F. Bon Archaeology of the Near East and Europe, (eds), Productions Lamellaires Attribuées pp. 35-40. Oxbow Books, Oxford. à l’Aurignacien: chaînes opératoires et Jacobi, R. 2007. A collection of Early Upper perspectives techno-culturelles: 103–121. Palaeolithic Artefacts from Beedings, near Archéologiques 1, Luxembourg.

28 R. Dinnis

Pettitt, P.B. 2008. The British Upper Palaeolithic. Neandertals: Direct dating if the Belgian In J. Pollard (ed.), Prehistoric Britain, 18– Spy fossils. American Journal of Physical 57. Blackwell Studies in Global Anthropology 138 (4): 421–428. Archaeology, London. Swainston, S. & Brookes, A. 2000. The history of Pettitt, P.B., Jacobi, R.M., Chamberlain, A.T., Pike, collection and investigation. In S. H. A.W.G., Schreve, D., Wall, I., Dinnis, R. Aldhouse-Green (ed.), Paviland Cave and & Wragg Sykes, R. 2009. Excavations the ‘Red Lady’: a definitive report: 19–46. outside Church Hole, Creswell Crags: the Western Academic and Specialist Press. first three seasons (2006–8). Transactions White, M.J. & Pettitt, P.B. 2011. The British Late of the Thoroton Society of Middle Palaeolithic: An Interpretative Nottinghamshire 113: 35–53. Synthesis of Neanderthal Occupation at Semal, P., Rougier, H., Crevecouer, I., Jungels, C., the Northwestern Edge of the Pleistocene Flas, D., Hauzeur, A., Maureille, B., World. Journal of World Prehistory 24 Germonpré, M., Bocherens, H., Pirson, S., (1): 25–97. Cammaert, L., De Clerck, N., Hambucken, Zilhão, J. 2006. Neanderthals and moderns mixed, A., Higham, T., Toussaint, M. & van der and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology Plicht, J. 2009. New data on the late 15: 183–195.

29