sign in sign up
<<
Home , Giles Guthrie, Henry De la Beche, Joseph Prestwich, Levallois technique, Ras El Kelb, Round Green

C. Gamble: 150 Years of Cutting Edge Research

150 YEARS OF CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH

Clive Gamble

Centre for Quaternary Research, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK. Contact mail: [email protected] ______

Full reference: Gamble, C. 2009. 150 years of cutting edge research. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 9–12. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: St. Acheul, Prestwich, Evans,

There have been at least two and a half 600,000 or even the genetic benchmark of 6 million years of stone making but only million years for a last common ancestor. one hundred and fifty years of understanding. On April 27th 1859, when We have been refining this proof for 150 and John Evans years and the study of lithics has led the way. photographed, and then plucked, a biface As this volume demonstrates there have been from the gravels at St Acheul on the outskirts at least three phases of roughly fifty years of Amiens they turned speculation and each. First came the heroic age when a pre- conjecture into repeatable scientific enquiry. historic was established and the In the whirlwind four weeks that followed, Palaeolithic became a science tasked with until Prestwich presented their results to the charting the chronological and typological Royal Society on May 26th, they not only boundaries of this new intellectual confirmed what Boucher de Perthes had long landscape. Then came the age of the claimed as antédiluvienne artefacts (Breuil collector when many million flint were 1945; de Bussac 1999) but they also harvested, worldwide, from gravels, fields rediscovered John Frere‟s overlooked letter and . These added detail to the to the Society of Antiquaries of 1797, visited classifications, by period and region, laid Hoxne and spoke to workmen who were down in the heroic age of lithics. Finally, the acquainted with such „fighting stones‟; last fifty years has been a period of became aware, thanks to Augustus Franks, of experimentation when chronologies, thanks the Gray‟s Inn handaxe found in the 1690s; to science-based dating, became absolute and wrote and re-wrote their papers and unexpected variation in and convinced most of the main players in the typology has been teased from the data. This principal learned societies of the veracity of transition is captured in Figures 1 & 2. The their results (Gamble & Kruszynski 2009). first is a cartoon from 1912 and the age of collectors. It shows a cowering audience at This great moment in the history of science the Society of Antiquaries. Which specialist is significant because it transferred the from this volume, I wonder, is portrayed? burden of proof for the antiquity of The second is Phil Harding participating as from texts to artefacts. The stone was now an expert knapper in the experimental mightier than the pen. Without such a programme for the Hand-to-Mouth project, transfer antiquity could not have been an international collaboration based at pushed back beyond the 6000 biblical years University College London, commenced in to the unimaginable recesses of 60,000, 2006, and aimed at investigating the

9

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 1: „A member of the Society of Antiquaries gives a demonstration of his theory of the construction of ‟ [George Morrow for The Sphere, April–December 1912]

Figure 2: Phil Harding carrying out expert replication of early , under the gaze of Dr. Blandine Bril of the École des Hautes Études en Science Sociale, Paris

10

C. Gamble: 150 Years of Cutting Edge Research evolution of speech and manual dexterity. the last century produced many driven Experimental flint knapping has developed individuals, fanatics such as Henry Stopes from an antiquarian curiosity into a and James Reid Moir and those who are not mainstream scientific endeavour for widely known outside their local areas; archaeologists; 100 years later and lithic Charles Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel studies are being taken seriously once again. Treacher, George Smith, F.C.J. Spurrell. These busy and dedicated collectors The heroic age did more than demonstrate established our primary archives which in the antiquity of humans. At the same time it Britain have provided the quarry for future instituted the study of variation. In his paper research in projects such as Derek Roe‟s to the Society of Antiquaries on June 2nd (1968b) CBA Gazetteer, John Wymer‟s 1859, Evans described the main forms of (1999) English Rivers Survey and the artefacts they had collected from the Somme Ancient Human Occupation of Britain led by and seen in : Chris Stringer (2006). Such archives are not unique to Britain. They form the basis for “The classification I propose is as follows – major syntheses in (de Lumley 1969, 1. Flint flakes, apparently intended 1971, 1976), (Bosinski 1967) and for -heads or . (Goodwin & van Riet Lowe 2. Pointed weapons, some probably 1929), to name only a few examples. lance or -heads 3. Oval or almond-shaped The third phase of experimentation starts, I implements, presenting a cutting believe, with Hazzledine Warren (1914) and edge all round” his debunking of the eoliths that so many (Evans 1860: 288–9) collectors were busily amassing. Then followed the Clactonian debates that have The pattern of pointed, ovate and flake was formed a vital focus for discussions of spotted early and confirmed by many later technological and typological variability studies, most notably the seminal overview (McNabb 2007); a theme of international of the British Palaeolithic by Derek Roe interest in Bordes‟ study of the (1968a). Many other patterns followed with and its competing explanations of variability the work of Lartet and Christy and the in archaeological evidence. The experimental insights of de Mortillet (Richard 1999) and thread is, however, always present during the Commont; Lower, Middle and Upper collectors‟ phase with Breuil‟s (1912) vision Palaeolithic were all differentiated as was the of the and Garrod‟s (1937) (Westropp 1872), and the major study of the change between the Middle and cultural divisions: , Levallois, Upper Palaeolithic. But it has come to , and many others. prominence only in the last forty years with Unlike their archaeological contemporaries painstakingly acquired technical expertise who were classifying metalwork and pots supporting new investigative areas of chaîne that had been known for many years, these opératoires, raw material studies, use wear lithic pioneers started from nothing to chart and residue analysis. Experimental analyses, new archaeological territories with what to as Phil Harding shows us (Figure 2), have us seems like unerring accuracy. opened up possibilities for studying Extraordinary insights were produced from Palaeolithic cognition and memory and re- detailed local knowledge which, in the hands invigorated investigations into shape and of a sharp observer such as Worthington symmetry by better understanding the Smith, had wide ramifications for properties of stone. understanding our earliest ancestors. This anniversary volume fittingly recalls the The age of the collector in the first half of achievements and contributions of many of

11

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) the key players in lithics‟ three ages. But moyen du Midi méditerranéen dans son cadre where will a fourth age lead us? Will we wait géologique, 1. Ligurie – Provence. Gallia Préhistoire supplément 5. on a scientific breakthrough either to date de Lumley, H. 1971. Le paléolithique inférieur et individual stone tools by a simple MRI-like moyen du Midi méditerranéen dans son cadre scan, or to retrieve by a cheap, everyday géologique, 2. Bas Languedoc, Roussillon- technique, ancient DNA from their surface Catalogne. Gallia Préhistoire supplément 5. so that we can know not only which hominin de Lumley, H. (ed.) 1976. La Préhistoire Française. CNRS, Paris. species made a particular tool, but what it Evans, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint implements was used to cut, scrape, shave or bore? Such in undisturbed beds of gravel, sand, and clay. wish lists should not however cramp our Archaeologia 38: 280–307. style. Those who studied lithics in the past Gamble, C. & Kruszynski, R. 2009. John Evans, did so from a sense of curiosity and a desire Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the time barrier. Antiquity 83: 461–475. to understand more about our ancestors. Garrod, D.A.E. & Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The There is no substitute for that hands-on of Mount Carmel. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. experience when it comes to the properties Goodwin, A.J.H. & van Riet Lowe, C. 1929. The and potential of stone. And it is that complex Stone Age cultures of South Africa. Annals of the shared hominin experience, with its deep South African Museum 27: 1–289. McNabb, J. 2007. The British Lower Palaeolithic: emotional underpinnings, that should guide Stones in Contention. Routledge, Abingdon. our steps into a fourth age of lithics. Richard, N. 1999. Gabriel de Mortillet. In T. Murray (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Archaeology: The great archaeologists: 93–107. ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara. REFERENCES Roe, D.A. 1968a. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34: 1–82. Bosinski, G. 1967. Die Mittelpalaolithischen Funde Roe, D.A. 1968b. A gazetteer of British Lower and im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamental Reihe Middle Palaeolithic sites. Council for British A/4, Koln. Archaeology Research Report 8, London. Breuil, H. 1912. “Les subdivisions du Paléolithique Stringer, C. 2006. Homo Britannicus: the incredible supérieur et leur signifcation”. Comptes Rendus du story of human life in Britain. Penguin, London. 14e Congrès International d'Anthropologie et Warren, S.H. 1914. The experimental investigation of d'Archéologie Préhistorique, Genève, 1912: 165– flint fracture and its application to problems of 238. human implements. Journal of the Royal Breuil, H. 1945. The discovery of the antiquity of Anthropological Institute XLIV: 412–450. man. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Westropp, H.M. 1872. Pre-historic phases; or, Institute 75: 21–31. introductory essays on pre-historic archaeology. de Bussac, E. (ed.) 1999. 1859: Naissance de la Bell and Daldy, London. Préhistoire, récits des premiers témoins. Wymer, J.J. 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic occupation (Préhistoire 3). Clermont Ferrand: Paléo. of Britain. Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. de Lumley, H. 1969. Le paléolithique inférieur et

12

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes

BOUCHER DE PERTHES: PIONEER OF PALAEOLITHIC

J.A.J. Gowlett

School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology (SACE), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GS, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Boucher de Perthes (1788–1868) is known as the „father of prehistory‟. For many years a customs official at in northern France, he pioneered the archaeological investigation of the river Somme. Foremost a „man of letters‟, and luminary of the local scientific society, Boucher de Perthes wrote on many subjects, taking an idiosyncratic view of the „Creation‟. But his conviction that hundreds of centuries would be just an instant to the Almighty, and that Noah who survived the flood started his life before it, were great aids to Boucher in accepting a long human timescale. His investigations in pits around Abbeville led to the discovery of flint artefacts at great depth in the gravels, especially at Menchecourt. Boucher‟s publications of the discoveries in the 1840s were largely ignored or ridiculed, but from 1858 to 1860 he was able to convey his findings to a group of English scientists, including Falconer, Prestwich, Evans, and Lyell.

Full reference: Gowlett, J.A.J. 2009. Boucher de Perthes: pioneer of Palaeolithic prehistory. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 13–24. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: de Perthes, Abbeville, palaeolith, handaxe, creation, antiquity of man

INTRODUCTION It plays its part in counteracting the developing challenge of creationism in later It is well known that Boucher de Perthes years. discovered some of the first known early stone tools in gravels of the Somme river There is much truth here, but also a hint of near Abbeville and Amiens. He is credited as rearrangement after the events. My aim in the ‗Father of Prehistory‘, and his pioneering this piece is to set Boucher de Perthes in the work is fittingly celebrated 150 years ideas of his own period, in the context of afterwards. barely-emerging evolutionary thought, both in natural history and geology — that is, in The reality is that we tend to fit Boucher as the periods before him rather than after him. an icon in our origins stories. He fits the bill: The struggle is to understand the period in its he works painstakingly, is long disregarded, own terms. That is hard because we are so even ridiculed. His work is eventually completely enveloped now in the discovered and verified by English evolutionary paradigm, that we scarcely geologists — just in time to be celebrated by know how to discard it, and we struggle to the new and all-embracing idea of Darwinian recapture the earlier picture in which other evolution. In this evolutionary liberation, it is ideas ruled. taken up as key evidence of human antiquity.

13

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

In this exploration, first let us outline philanthropic and philosophical issues. His Boucher de Perthes, the bald facts; then leisure, of course, was largely spent on his explore the scientific context of his work. archaeology, especially in later years: ―By his collections of gathered in Europe, Asia and Africa, and by his monumental BOUCHER — THE BIOGRAPHICAL work Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes: OUTLINE Mémoirs sur l‟industrie primitive et les arts à leur origine (Paris 1847, 1857, 1864), he is Here are the bare bones of Boucher‘s life generally regarded as the first to establish the (much as given in many encyclopaedias: presence of man in the Quaternary period‖ Boucher did not in the 9th edition of (Encyclopaedia Britannica 10th Ed. 1902, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but appears in Vol. 26: 321; cf. also Bowler 1986; Breuil the new volumes added in 1902). He was 1945; Broca 1877, cited in Thompson 1878). born on 10th September 1788 (the autumn of (Lyell, who named most divisions of the a winter of discontent in which the French Tertiary, used merely ‗post-Tertiary‘ rather revolution was brewing) at Rethel in the than ‗Quaternary‘ (Lyell 1863), but for French Ardennes. The eldest son of Jules Lubbock (1865) it was permissible to talk of Armand Guillaume Boucher de Crèvecoeur Quaternary fauna.) and Etienne-Jeanne-Marie-de Perthes, he combined their two moderately long names Boucher‘s initial work with early artefacts to make a very long one (Jacques Boucher de met with little approval, until the famed visit Crèvecoeur de Perthes). The older Boucher of English geologists in 1859 pronounced in was a customs officer, and botanist. his favour (see below, and Lamdin- Reputedly the young Boucher aimed for a Whymark, and Pope & Roberts, this life at sea, but his aspirations were volume). In the meantime publication of ‗quenched‘ by the age of thirteen, following Darwin‘s Origin of species transformed a stormy voyage in the English Channel. He everything. In 1863 and 1864 the finds of too entered government employment as a flints seemed to be capped by the discovery customs officer, in 1802 (by now the era of of human jawbones at the quarry of Moulin- Napoleon). His duties took him to for Quignon, near Abbeville. Doubts arose and several years — a vital broadening of his continued, but in 1864 there came young experience, which included personal recognition too: Boucher and Quatrefages, visits to Rome and Naples (Mallet 1997). He his champion, were made officers of the returned in 1811, undertook a special Legion of Honour. In retirement Boucher mission through Venice and central Europe remained highly active, making a number of (Mallet 1997), passed through various visits abroad. promotions, and in 1825 succeeded his father at Abbeville — a setting crucial to our What do we learn from this potted account, and of course an important customs biography? There are a few key points: base, not so much in terms of the channel ports, as for its manufacturers, especially of Boucher‘s father was a botanist, a textiles, and glass. Boucher stayed scholar as well as a member of the minor in Abbeville for the rest of his working life, gentry. retiring there in 1853, and eventually dying They operated within a strong local in Amiens in his eightieth year. Boucher was scientific society, the Société not just a customs officer and archaeologist, d‘Emulation (referred to by Breuil as the but probably foremost, in his own view, a Society ‗Polymathique‘). man of letters. He was the author of several Italy, the destination of everyone‘s tragedies, two works of fiction, and a European grand tour, though fragmented, number of other books on economic, was partly occupied by the French.

14

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes

The strong comparative aspect of the old ideas was The Great Chain of Being Boucher‘s interests is broadly seen in (Lovejoy 1936). This spelled out the contemporary studies, echoing for necessity of each thing having its place as a example Cuvier‘s foundation of link in the chain. For some everything was comparative anatomy. made for humankind (‗Man‘), but for others this fullness showed the relative insignificance of the human place. They EIGHTEENTH CENTURY include Immanuel Kant, the most influential EXPLORATIONS…NINETEENTH of philosophers, who shows the principle of CENTURY WORLDS plenitude when, in his treatise on the solar system, he fills the outer planets with Boucher de Perthes was a child of the inhabitants — a fantasy with a reason (cf. eighteenth century, and an inheritor of its Boucher de Perthes‘ Création, below). The science. In a curious way, the eighteenth scientist-philosopher, he not only reconciles century often appears a more modern time the strong animosity between the currents of than the nineteenth century. Its books rationalism and empiricism, but reintroduces frequently have a modern tone of rational an idea of evolution in cosmology. exploration, of a world then far less well Alongside the philosophy of Kant, there was known, but opening up in all kinds of also a revolution in social appreciation. exciting ways. All round was a spirit of Rousseau launched the romantic movement. exploration of the natural world almost Paine wrote The rights of man (Paine 1791). untrammelled by religious restriction. Events Their thinking swirled around the American were stimulated by world exploration, revolution and paved the way to the French shaping new views of human societies. What revolution. were the major ideas in this pre-evolutionary epoch? Above all the watchword was Here too we have the voyages of Captain ‗Nature‘. Scholars of the time combine ideas Cook, the exploration of the Pacific, the of classical philosophy, of biblical influence, discovery of , and a growing and new thinking, but nearly always, in any awareness of the variety of humankind (Rhys discipline, they are seeking to understand a 1999). In his curious study of the effects of ‗nature‘ that must be explored and defined. diet on the habits of man, Falconer (1781) Nor are they restricted to one discipline in ranges widely through the continents. In this (Pantin 1968). The interconnections are Astronomy Herschel used far more powerful legion, and to a large degree the main figures telescopes, revealing a larger universe of eighteenth and early nineteenth century (Hoskin 1963). In these formative times natural history knew one another, or one there appears to have been more another‘s work. They collaborated as they commonality of thought than we now easily analysed and classified the vast numbers of recognise. There were small numbers of specimens and species. universities and scholars, who in addition to and beyond the historical role of Latin, Following the Enlightenment (Aufklärung) enjoyed a facility of exchange of knowledge of the earlier 18th century, a flowering of in French, English, German and Italian, and science and thought came especially in the who wrote prolifically both in period 1760–1840. In this there was a correspondence and for publication. Social constant interaction of old and new ideas. All worlds, natural worlds, geological worlds, the way back to Plato, there was the tension were far less separate then than now, for the between plenitude, continuity and separation. modern disciplines scarcely existed. It was Species had to be unequivocally separate, to perhaps natural that this multidimensional provide the necessary range of forms expansion of knowledge should struggle out (plenitude). Amongst the most important of into evolutionary thought. But there were

15

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) few prompts towards this, and a long time changes. scale had to be constructed before it was likely to happen. The short timescale was in Later critiques tend to damn Lamarck for the part a dogma of the church, but also simply errors of (4) (Lamarckism), but they perhaps the state of current knowledge. miss the point that like others of the period he strove for a global scheme, but that he In natural history, a continental dominance was far ahead of them in his appreciation of was marked out by Buffon, Linnaeus, Cuvier time and the dynamics of biological change. and Lamarck. The last two were known personally to Boucher through his father. I lean to Lamarck‘s ‗rival‘, Cuvier, in this Buffon died in the year that Boucher was story, because his huge knowledge was born (1788). Best known for his Histoire spread across the plant and animal naturelle, which was produced in Paris in 44 kingdoms, and extended to the first proper volumes between 1749 and 1804 (the later comparative analysis. From the bones ones edited by Daubenton and de Lacépède), frequently sent to him, Cuvier became adroit he also published in 1778 his Epoques de la at matching fossil and modern records. nature, suggesting an appreciation of the Cuvier has become depicted as a reactionary problems of time. He too shows the link with figure, preoccupied with politics, and who England through his fellowship of the Royal stood in the way of evolutionary thought and Society — a connection with Needham and the acceptance of Boucher‘s work, but this is Banks, its influential secretaries (Andrade a stereotypic view. Actual reading of 1960). Cuvier‘s major work shows that he was sifting huge quantities of data extremely Lamarck (1744–1829), whose most carefully (Rudwick 1997). Indeed, he knew distinguished work was on the invertebrates, more occurrences of fossil mammoths across clearly played the most crucial role in setting Europe and Asia than most of us are aware out evolutionary principles, as summarised of today. He simply could not see in this in his Histoire naturelle des animaux sans evidence of evolutionary change. His vertèbres (1815): catastrophism is not linked to the flood — like Buffon he accepted numbers of 1. Life by its proper forces tends geological epoques. He saw water-lain continually to increase the volume of sedimentary rocks that are dominant in the every body possessing it, and to enlarge record as evidence of multiple past floods. its parts, up to a limit which it brings To paraphrase from the French: ‗we once about. thought just of the flood — but most 2. The production of a new organ in an sediments show water, and there must have animal body results from the been numbers of similar cataclysms‘. Cuvier supervention of a new want continuing to gives a modern example, noting how distinct make itself felt, and a new movement the marsupial fauna of Australia is. Suppose, which this want gives birth to and it were eliminated in a catastrophe; then, encourages. probably, other animals from S.E. Asia 3. The development of organs and their would colonise the area. But it would not force of action are constantly in ratio to mean that these animals had evolved from the employment of those organs. the marsupials. 4. All which has been acquired, and laid down, or changed in the organisation of The celebrated English geologist Lyell — a individuals in the course of their life is protagonist in the story of Boucher — conserved by generation and transmitted confirms the more sympathetic view of to the new individuals which proceed Cuvier. Lyell expresses his high regard in an from those which have undergone those early series of lectures given in London in

16

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes

1831–1833 (Rudwick 1975), noting Cuvier‘s the new voyages, but that in itself did not caution, and stating that he, Cuvier, by give time depth (Daniel 1962; Shorr 1935; comparisons with other scientists would Thomsen 1836). Yet times were changing. have very little ever to recant in the light of Laplace the physicist, who had written a new knowledge. Then, Lyell‘s famous further evolutionary synthesis of the solar Principles of Geology (1833) brings together system (Système du Monde: 1796), was even the evidence across a great breadth that teased by Napoleon in 1804 for omitting all echoes Cuvier. There is much overlap in the mention of God in his Mécanique Céleste interests of Lyell and Cuvier in the (Dampier 1942). And above all the exploration of all the earth and life sciences foundations of geology were coming (as we now know them). Again, Lyell together, shaped by Hutton, Cuvier and inherits a tradition, shaped already by Hutton indeed Lamarck, then Lyell. Evolution of the (e.g. 1785), Buckland, and others. He is a cosmos was in the air, the long timescale young man, assembling information across a they had in the rocks. The sticking point was great breadth. He shows continuity with human antiquity — humankind was still the Cuvier, and like him was not (at this stage) last arrival. convinced by any evidence of great human antiquity. BACK TO BOUCHER: THE STORY IN As two grand figures of the French DETAIL academies, Cuvier and Lamarck debated evolution in the early 1800s, though it was We have seen that Boucher de Perthes was a the debate with another scholar, Geoffroy, competent public servant, not thrilled by his which brought matters to a head (Appel profession, but as a man of letters engrossed 1987). What then was the dominant in its role. He wrote more than 8 volumes on paradigm that confronted Boucher de the subject in his Sous dix rois (had he been Perthes, the provincial scholar of Abbeville, English, it would have been ‗serving under as a mature man in the 1830s? Rationalism, three kings and a queen‘ but in France, he empiricism, a free spirit of exploration, had two Napoleons, as well as a brace of freedom to speculate and make new Bourbons, and ‗le peuple souverain‘ more syntheses, all somewhat hindered by old than twice). For us Boucher seems insulated ideas. Important here was the short timescale from these turbulent times, but he like other which goes back to Newton. As Shorr (1935: scholars benefited from Napoleon‘s 431) notes ―There was still the question of investment in academic research, and in the the antiquity of that age — of the antiquity 1840s was just 60 kilometres from the place of man — to be answered, before the of Napoleon III‘s imprisonment at Ham (he primitive world could come clearly into too a man of letters, writing on everything view‖. For Shorr the rationalists of the from artillery to constitution: Bresler 1999). eighteenth century had failed to grapple with this problem, not for want of scientific spirit, On his return to Abbeville from his missions but because they were not quite free from a abroad, Boucher de Perthes was installed in residual ‗devotion to theology.‘ Buffon an office in the Hotel de Cépy, a fine town epitomises the case: ―Had it not been for his house which his father had acquired in 1803. allegiance to Biblical cosmology, there is no The house became the centre of their doubt that his researches would have led him collections, filled with botanic specimens, to the belief in the high antiquity of man‖ porcelain and statues before it ever saw any (Shorr 1935: 431). True, in Denmark stone tools. Boucher inherited the house in Thomsen and Worsaae were establishing the 1844, and the collections increased steadily existence of a stone age, bolstered by the up to his own death in 1868. knowledge of stone tools that came in from

17

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 1: Jacques Boucher de Perthes „on the job‟ as a customs officer [© Cliché Girard: see acknowledgements]

A customs officer then cut a fine figure, with thrown up by the dredger along the Somme a distinguished uniform (Figure 1). It was a canal. Out of the peats came flints, bones, time when official functions were and a polished hafted in deer developing (Bosher 1971), and Boucher‘s antler. According to Breuil, his friend Picard succession to his father was not a run of the regarded these as Celtic, and encouraged mill nepotism. Earlier, it had been normal for Boucher to take up their study, presumably an official to operate autonomously, with his because he had the time and resources to do own house and secretariat. Boucher was the so. From 1835 he was collecting, from 1837 exception in carrying on in this tradition, and the museum was buying specimens. in his later years often had problems with the higher authorities, perhaps a reflection of his The early years idiosyncrasies. Sadly Picard died young — but possibly it Boucher was ―no naturalist, but surrounded was this death that flung Boucher himself in the Societe Polymathique of Abbeville, by much further into his archaeological good naturalists‖ (Breuil 1945: 23). Initially research. Although Boucher put all his the artefacts came to him, and the efforts into the problem from 1837 (Breuil remarkable thing is that their ages were 1945; Lyell 1863 mentions the key date as sorted out to any degree, in view of the total 1841), it seems to have taken several years absence of dating techniques. They were for his later views to take shape. There is no

18

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes apparent trace of them in his ‗Création‘ of deposits. These sands and gravels were for 1838–46 (Cohen 1997; Pautrat 1997), but he Boucher the ‗antediluvium‘. His first find of emphasises the importance of his exposure to an artefact in these came from a quarry at the direct evidence in the field: ―Dès ce Menchecourt, just north-west of Abbeville moment, J‘y entrevoyais une nouvelle page (Figure 2), in 1841 (Avebury 1900). Others d‘histoire‖ (Cleyet-Merle 1997: 14). were found in subsequent years, ―especially during the formation of the Champs de Mars The first finds presented the challenge of at Abbeville, where a large quantity of gravel disentangling different periods. Fairly, was moved and many of the so-called Boucher was interested in all. Lubbock notes ―hatchets‖ were discovered‖ (Avebury 1900: that he may have found remains of ‗lake 319). Repairs to the fortifications of dwellings‘ on the Swiss model (Avebury Abbeville, and new building, occasioned 1900, Lubbock 1865). The important much of the digging (Lyell 1863). Collection distinction, in Boucher‘s terminology, was took place predominantly in the winter, between the diluvium — the peats up to 10m when the quarries were more active, hence thick representing the — and older few visitors saw the workings.

Figure 2: An old pit at Menchecourt. View facing east into Abbeville along the Menchecourt road, which borders the Somme floodplain. The land slopes up left towards the high and chalk ridge. The pit is bordered by the higher trees. [Photograph by the author, 2009]

Rigollot 1819. By 1855 he had found numerous flint artefacts buried at least 3m down in ancient Boucher‘s first publication in 1846, Mémoirs gravels at St Acheul, in terraces of the Avre sur l‟industrie primitive, was based on south-east of Amiens, and was thus a sound readings to the Société d‘Emulation made professional convert. He too was since 1836. In 1847 he changed the title, to disbelieved. add to its impact. This was the beginning of rejection: his work was either ignored or The English ridiculed. We might note that Cuvier and Lamarck were gone — it was their protégés In 1858 Boucher de Perthes received a visit in Paris who were immovable. In 1853, from Falconer. After pioneering research on however, Boucher prevailed on the sceptical the fossils of the Siwaliks, , Dr Rigollot of Amiens to view his MD FRS, had returned from in 1855, collections. Rigollot had published a memoir and spent the rest of his life making a on the Somme mammalian fossils as early as comparative study of fossils in Europe. He

19

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) had studied natural history at Aberdeen, and 167). It is an account all too reminiscent of medicine at Edinburgh. It was Falconer‘s trip what was to come at Piltdown, a site which which led to the famed visits of 1859 could have benefited from a visit by onwards by the English geologists and comparably astute geologists. Meanwhile, archaeologists, Evans, Lubbock, Prestwich Boucher de Perthes remained convinced, and Lyell. Lyell (1863) makes plain that he unable to doubt his subordinates, and undertook independent diggings. They may perhaps more easily fooled than in his earlier have injected a new rigorousness into the years, when he had rejected many frauds. work, for Boucher de Perthes‘ one published section, of Menchecourt, was undertaken in Field Research — the immediate 1860, and is assiduously labelled layer by postscript layer. The broad acceptance now gained by the finds (Gamble & Kruszynski 2009) was By now Boucher de Perthes was an old man, of course complemented and confirmed by and the baton had already passed on (Cleyet- the burst of evolutionary Merle 1997: 18). Lyell shows, as one might unleashed by the Darwinian revolution expect, a much more advanced grasp of the (Piggott 1959). stratigraphy, and a more strategic approach to exploration. He details his new work, The Moulin Quignon affair especially in the Montiers region between Abbeville and Amiens, at length (Lyell Yet something was still missing — the 1863: 132–147). He confirms the co- human remains themselves. Surely, if early existence of large mammals, especially humans existed, their remains should be elephants, and human artefacts. He tackles found. It was a matter that had greatly the absence of human bone, and observes exercised Cuvier, who discredited the that it is ―a new and emphatic illustration of ‗giants‘ as elephants, and had nothing left. the extreme imperfection of the geological There was no clear appreciation of record‖ (1863: 145). taphonomic factors, though Lyell was well aware of the issues (for instance, his discussion of porcupine gnawing: Lyell THE BREAKTHROUGH 1863: 510). The need was so compelling that Boucher compounded an earlier error (as we The key issue for us is that, long before see it) by offering large sums of money to Darwinism was in the air, there was some anyone who could find early remains. great conversion or transformation. Boucher Already that approach had led to the de Perthes seemingly passed quite suddenly fabrication of many fake flint implements, as from being a local collector, operating within was rapidly appreciated by the English the normal framework, to one who made — scholars (Tylor 1863). Now a human jaw perhaps without altogether realising it — a was found, apparently in situ, at Moulin major paradigm shift. How did this happen? Quignon, which Lyell recognised to be a high terrace site. Although Boucher de Part of the story may be his idiosyncrasy. In Perthes accepted the find enthusiastically, later life, he expressed three regrets — his and later published extensively on it in the failure to become married; his failure to gain final of his three volumes on the Somme a position in Paris; and his failure to have a antiquities, others were unconvinced from piece performed on stage. He smacks more the start. A few days after the discovery in than a little of the naïve enthusiast. Each March 1863, Evans, Prestwich and Tylor morning he zips out for a dip in the Somme; visited ―and observed circumstances which he plugs through the dull office work during led us to fear that a deception had been the morning; then he indulges fully in all his practised by the quarrymen‖ (Tylor 1863: cultural activities through the rest of the day.

20

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes

He holds court in the Société d‘Emulation — “Your counsel has not been lacking for me: I rejected by the grand Academy of Paris, he used it to a great degree when in our reigns centrally in this one, funding activities sessions of 1836–1840 I was developing this by his philanthropy, surrounded by loyal theory for you, as a complement to my book helpers. „De la Création‟, adding that this fossil man and his products should be found in the Breuil (1945) suggests that Boucher was diluvium, the sediments that would now be helped by his enthusiasm for an erroneous termed Tertiary.” idea. For Cuvier and all the others human (Boucher de Perthes 1864: 2) history was simply the recent period after the flood, represented locally by the Somme In treating Boucher as ‗father of prehistory‘ peats. But in Boucher‘s reasoning Noah many commentators have somewhat coyly survived the flood — so by definition there left aside his literary achievements as were humans before the flood (the bible something of an embarrassment. Let gives us a good list of them), so surely they Boucher just take his place in his niche. But could be found. Nor is the timescale a as we have seen, even Kant had some quite problem, for God (in whom Boucher extraordinary ideas about planetary certainly believes) would take a thousand inhabitants, and in struggling with the centuries as no more than an instant in our biblical timescale Boucher de Perthes was eyes (Boucher de Perthes 1864). hardly alone. His ‗Creation‘ has cycles of rebirth and reincarnation, and is in modern Possibly the ideas of Thomsen (1836) were parlance a bit ‗off the wall‘, but it seems to another influence — Thomsen (like Boucher have helped him towards a conclusion of born in 1788) clearly expressed the evidence major importance, in which he was far ahead for a separate stone age. Boucher himself of his time. Schmerling may have been gives us other insights. The reader will be inching in that direction, but even Lyell aware that other work was taking place in expresses a regret that he did not listen to caves, for example by Tournal of Schmerling more. Boucher, however, did not Montpellier, Schmerling at in give up. He went on and on until he was , and Buckland in Britain (Buckland listened to. His local Society had not rejected 1820, 1823; Lyell 1863; Shorr 1935: 433). his ideas (that might have been unwise), they Boucher shows that he was well aware of the just wanted the evidence. He gave the proof caves from an early age. In 1805 he was at to them and the world. Marseille with M. Brack, brother-in-law of Cuvier, and friend of his father, and collected in the Grotte Roland. In 1810, he visited the CONCLUSION of Palo, and collected animal bones (Boucher de Perthes 1864). No doubt he was The idea of Boucher de Perthes as the ‗father aware of all the subsequent researches, and of prehistory‘ was shaped by French scholars surely particularly those of Schmerling who in the latter part of the 19th century. Already found the Engis cranium in Belgium and he was in the past, while de Mortillet, Lartet published in the 1830s. and others worked on in the present. His achievement, as Broca saw it, was that he Boucher tells us also — and perhaps this is stayed the course. Others found things, but more important — of his theoretical they did not convince the world. Boucher development. For his idea, that humankind was fortunate that the world became ripe for was born before the flood that gave the convincing, in two stages — the one driven present shape to the land, he gives by geologist-palaeontologists was to provide acknowledgement to his Society: the long time scale. The second, the Darwinian revolution, provided the

21

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) evolutionary dynamics. Boucher de Perthes ancestors active in the Napoleonic wars — in did indeed stay the course — towards fifteen command of one of Nelson's ships, or in the years without outside support, then another Coldstream guards at Waterloo, or even in few with converts and supporters — and the Napoleonic home guard. These links even then he had another ten years of life to drew out further ones from other colleagues: enjoy his fame. ―I have two anecdotal links back to the Napoleonic era. I apparently had an ancestor Academic enterprises are social, and the who served on the Bellerophon and my strength and weakness of his appears to have German parentage comes from German been that it was strongly local. Human soldiers stationed in Sussex during the time networks can however branch out and leading up to Waterloo. We like to think they interlink. The British geologists who feature were Prussian infantry fresh from the fight at largely in the story from our point of view La Hougoumont‖. And then: ―My own are the ‗weak links‘ which operate so maternal great-great-great-grandfather had as strongly in modern network theory (Roberts a sister the Duke of Wellington‘s wife, and 2009), and they made sure to get the story (as a consequence probably!) two brothers out. who fought as Wellington‘s Generals in the Peninsular campaign before injury and death respectively. And on my paternal side a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Customs Officer in Kent!‖ Another of the ancestors, Thomas Greatorex, represents I am grateful to Matt Pope, Francis Wenban-Smith these times very fully, because as a musician and Rob Hosfield for thoughts and suggestions, and for a memorable celebration of the 150th anniversary he knew almost everyone. He polished of events in Abbeville, on the spot. There we were lenses with Herschel (another musician), reminded by the stark rebuilding of central Abbeville stayed in the house of the Earl of Sandwich, that the Hotel de Cépy is alas no more, destroyed in Captain Cook‘s patron, sang for the exiled the bombardment of 1940. Presumably the original Bonnie Prince Charlie in Rome, and portrait of Figure 1 was destroyed with it. It was preserved in an old post card (Cliché Girard), conducted concerts for George III in London. reproduced in the Colloquium Proceedings Giving perspective on Boucher de Perthes, (1989/1997). It is pleasing to note that the Société he was similarly involved in an almost crazy d‘Emulation d‘Abbeville continues in good health. range of things, including scientific writing. At the very limits of oral tradition, we have 32 great-great-great-grandparents each, and ADDENDUM the certainty that they were on this stage somewhere — indeed a five-generation link To a surprising degree of Boucher of oral tradition is common in clans around de Perthes in the earlier part of the the world. Those colleagues with ancestry nineteenth century are almost still linked to elsewhere in the world may well lack the us by living memory, and so retain an written records, but have other traditions unhistorical freshness. When my parents showing that 200 years is still quite a short came to their house, an elderly postman time. could tell of his grandfather, who had fought in the Napoleonic wars, and then became the first village constable (Peeler) presiding over REFERENCES bare-fist fights in the fields, where navvies, drawn from the canal and railway building Andrade, E.N. da C. 1960. A brief history of the Royal would gather for a ‗summer holiday‘ of crop Society. The Royal Society, London. harvesting. (Sir Robert Peel himself was yet Appel, K.A. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy debate: French biology in the decades before Darwin. another born in the same year as Boucher, Oxford University Press, New York. 1788). Several colleagues, at least, trace Bosher, J.F. 1971. French Administration and public

22

J.A.J. Gowlett: Boucher de Perthes

finance in their European setting. In A. Goodwin Kant, I. 1755. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und (ed.) The American and French revolutions 1763– Theorie des Himmels (Universal Natural History 93: 565–591. The New Cambridge Modern and Theory of the Heavens). Wilhelm Webel, History, Volume 8. Cambridge University Press, Zeiss. (Translation by Ian Johnston: Cambridge. http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/kant/kant2e.htm) Boucher de Perthes, J. 1847–1864. Antiquités Lord Avebury. 1900. Prehistoric times (6th Edition). celtiques et antédiluviennes: Mémoirs sur Williams and Norgate, London. l‟industrie primitive et les arts à leur origine (3 Lovejoy, A.O. 1936. The great chain of being. Vols.). Treuttel et Wurtz, Paris. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Bowler, P.J. 1986. Theories of : a Massachusetts. century of debate, 1844–1944. The Johns Hopkins Lyell, C. 1830–1833. The principles of Geology. University Press, Baltimore. London. Bresler, F. 1999. Napoleon III: a life. Harper Collins, Lyell, C. 1863. The geological evidences of the London. antiquity of man. John Murray, London. Breuil, H. 1945. The discovery of the antiquity of Lubbock, Sir J. 1865. Prehistoric times. Williams man: some of the evidence. Journal of the Royal and Norgate, London. Anthropological Institute 75 (1/2): 21–31. Mallet, R. 1997. Boucher de Perthes: découvreur du Buckland, W. 1820. Vindiciae geologicae. Reprinted passé et de l‘avenir. In Jacques Boucher de in D.C. Goochman (ed.) 1973. Science and Perthes, un découvreur à découvrir. Actes du religious belief 1600–1900: 349–368. John Wright colloque d‘Abbeville, 1988: 77–92. Société and Sons, The Open University. d‘Emulation d‘Abbeville. Buckland, W. 1823. Reliquiae diluvianae. Reprinted Paine, T. 1791. The rights of man. Introduction by A. in D.C. Goochman (ed.) 1973. Science and Seldon, Everyman Edition (1963). Everyman‘s religious belief 1600–1900: 369–398. John Wright Library, Dent, London. and Sons, The Open University. Pantin, C.F.A. 1968. The relations between the Cleyet-Merle, J.-J. 1997. Boucher de Perthes et le sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Musée des Antiquités Nationales. In Jacques Pautrat, J.-Y. 1997. De la Création de Boucher de Boucher de Perthes, un découvreur à découvrir. Perthes: bio-théologie, libéralisme et archéologie. Actes du colloque d‘Abbeville, 1988: 13–18. In Jacques Boucher de Perthes, un découvreur à Société d‘Emulation d‘Abbeville. découvrir. Actes du colloque d‘Abbeville, 1988: Cohen, C. 1997. L‘―Evolutionnisme‖ de Boucher de 93–108. Société d‘Emulation d‘Abbeville. Perthes et les idées scientifiques de son temps. In Piggott, S. 1960. Prehistory and evolutionary theory. Jacques Boucher de Perthes, un découvreur à In S. Tax (ed.) Evolution after Darwin, Vol. II, The découvrir. Actes du colloque d‘Abbeville, 1988: Evolution of Man: 85–97. University of Chicago 35–42. Société d‘Emulation d‘Abbeville. Press, Chicago. Cohen, C. & Hublin, J.J. 1989. Boucher de Perthes: Rhys, E. (ed.) 1999. The voyages of Captain Cook. 1788–1868: les origines romantiques de With an introduction by S. Marshall. Wordsworth . Belin, Paris. Editions, Ware, Hertfordshire. Dampier, W.C. 1942. A history of science and its Roberts, S. 2009. Constraints on social networks. In relations with philosophy and religion (3rd R. Dunbar, C. Gamble & J. Gowlett (eds.) Social Edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brain and Distributed Mind: 117–137. British Daniel, G.E. 1962. The Idea of Prehistory. Watts, Academy, London. London. Rudwick, M.J.S. 1975. , F.R.S. (1797– Falconer, W. 1781. Remarks on the influence of 1875) and His London Lectures on Geology, climate,, situation, nature of country, population, 1832–33. Notes and Records of the Royal Society nature of food, and way of life on the disposition of London 29(2): 231–263. and temper, manners and behaviour, intellects, Rudwick, M.J.S. 1997. Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, laws and customs, form of government, and and Geological Catastrophes: New Translations & religion of Mankind. Dilly, London. Interpretations of the Primary Texts. University of Gamble, C. & Kruszynski, R. 2009. John Evans, Chicago Press, Chicago. Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the Shorr, P. 1935. The Genesis of Prehistorical Research. time barrier. Antiquity 83: 461–475. Isis 23(2): 425–443. Hoskin, M.A. 1963. William Herschel and the Thomsen, C.J. 1836. Ledetraad til nordisk construction of the heavens. Oldbourne, London. Oldkyndighed (A Guide to Northern Antiquities). Hutton, J. 1785. An abstract of a dissertation Copenhagen. concerning the system of the earth, its durability Thompson, A.H. 1877–1878. Notes on the antiquity and stability, read to the Royal Society of of man. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Edinburgh by James Hutton, member of the Royal Science 6: 12–17. Academy of Agriculture at Paris. Royal Society of Tylor, A. 1863. On the Discovery of Supposed Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Human Remains in the Tool-Bearing Drift of

23

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Moulin-Quignon. Anthropological Review 1(1; May, 1863): 166–168.

24

E.A. Walker: Father John MacEnery & William Pengelly

DISCOVERIES IN : THE WORKS OF FATHER JOHN MacENERY AND WILLIAM PENGELLY

Elizabeth A. Walker

Curator of Palaeolithic & Mesolithic Archaeology, Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NP, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

The early investigators of Kent’s Cavern, , Devon, had an important part to play in the understanding of human antiquity. Father John MacEnery (1796–1841) first realised the significance of Kent’s Cavern as a site where stone tools and extinct animal bones could be found together. It was, however, to be William Pengelly (1812–1894) who came to be credited with proving the ancient contemporaneity of stone tools and extinct fauna, firstly at Windmill Hill Cave, Brixham, Devon, and later during excavation of Kent’s Cavern, Torquay. Pengelly adopted a methodical approach to his excavations recording everything he discovered in such a way that much of his work can now be plotted using sophisticated computer mapping techniques that were unimaginable in his day (McFarlane & Lundberg 2005). The finds from MacEnery’s investigations became largely scattered between different private and public collections, whilst those from Pengelly’s work remain mostly in the collection of Torquay Museum, which he helped to found. The stone tools are now known to span throughout the prehistoric occupation of Britain, and include handaxes, Mousterian scrapers, Aurignacian forms, Font-Robert points and types typical of the late Upper Palaeolithic. A human mandible discovered during later excavations in 1926 at the cave by Keith (1927), now dated to an age beyond 35,000 BP, has tantalisingly yet to reveal itself as either a late , or an early Modern Human (Stringer 2006: 197). MacEnery and Pengelly’s work at Kent’s Cavern continues to be built upon by modern workers and still makes a large contribution to present- day research.

Full reference: Walker, E.A. 2009. Discoveries in Devon: the works of Father John MacEnery and William Pengelly. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 25–33. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: MacEnery, Pengelly, Kent‟s Cavern, Windmill Hill Cave

INTRODUCTION boxes and other necessaries for the expedition‟ (Maton 1797; Polwhele 1797). Today, just as it was two hundred years ago, The first excavation in the cave was Kent‟s Cavern is a tourist attraction, visited undertaken by Thomas Northmore in 1824, by many people each year. Visitors, who was attempting to find evidence of a including Dr Maton and Rev. Polwhele, Mithraic temple (MacEnery & Vivian 1859: whose reports of 1797 are amongst the 6). Later the same year, Mr W.C. Trevelyan earliest known, record how they were shown conducted some more scientifically-based to the cave by local women, whose „business excavations, finding and reporting it was to provide escort, candles, tinder- rhinoceros, hyaena and tiger teeth with jaws

25

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) of bear and fox (Kenrick 1861; Alexander travelling abroad, living in Rome in 1831 1964: 122). The cave was also visited by and in Paris during 1837. He returned to who is recorded to have Torre Abbey in 1838, but died on 18th found a flint and over a thousand February 1841 and was buried in Torre animal bones in the cave (Anon. 1825; Churchyard, Torquay (ibid: 117–118). Buckland 1826; Kennard 1945: 185). The MacEnery left his one book about his work following year John MacEnery found and discoveries from excavations at Kent‟s himself amongst a party investigating the Cavern, and the caves at Anstey‟s Cove, cave with Thomas Northmore. Seemingly Chudleigh and Berryhead, and their possible less than impressed by the methods being interpretations unfinished and unpublished. used by Northmore, he commenced his own Nineteenth century commentators attributed excavations at the cave in 1825 which he this to a lack of funds (e.g. Vivian‟s preface continued until 1829 (Alexander 1964). to MacEnery & Vivian 1859). MacEnery managed to pay for the preparation of most of the thirty plates that were intended to FATHER JOHN MacENERY illustrate the book, and he had sought to raise (1796–1841) the money required to see it to publication by subscription on two occasions, but failed to John MacEnery was a Catholic priest, who raise sufficient funds. Subsequently, it has originated from near Limerick, Ireland. His been suggested by twentieth century father emigrated to America with his family, commentators that it was not in fact due to yet left John behind to pursue his studies at lack of money that the book remained St Munchin‟s Seminary in Limerick where unpublished, but really due to the influence he was ordained to the priesthood in June of William Buckland, who persuaded 1819. In 1822 he became chaplain to the MacEnery to doubt the evidence he saw Cary family who, post-reformation, had before him, and left him uncertain about bought Torre Abbey in Torquay which they putting his observations out into the wider turned into their family home. This post gave world. Buckland did not accept that the him a salary of £120 per year and the use of discoveries made by MacEnery were a horse (Alexander 1964: 115–116). unequivocally undisturbed, and so had urged MacEnery‟s interest in Kent‟s Cavern came caution in making any assertion to the effect about as a result of an accidental meeting that they were so (Cook 2003: 180–181). At one day in Torquay. He commenced MacEnery‟s death his vast collection of excavations there in 1825 and was joined in fossil remains from the cave was sold by his work by Mrs Cazalet, who became one of auction and dispersed. The book the most regular contributors to his manuscripts, his sermon notes and other excavations and after whom he proposed to papers were purchased by John Lear of name a cave they investigated together at Torquay. On Lear‟s death sometime prior to Anstey‟s Cove (ibid: 125). In 1826 he 1850 the manuscript and a cabinet of fossils accompanied Sir in his were purchased by W. Long of investigations of Dean Cave, Buckfastleigh Saxmundham, Suffolk, who presented the and in his survey of Babbacombe and manuscript to Edward Vivian, a banker, Torbay. In 1827 he investigated the magistrate and local antiquarian of Torquay Berryhead Cave with Mr Nepean (ibid: 129) for publication. This was achieved in edited and went on to work at Ugbrooke Fissure form in 1859 (MacEnery & Vivian 1859), and Pixie‟s Cave at Chudleigh (ibid: 117). In and in 1867 Vivian presented the original 1829 MacEnery had a serious accident whilst manuscript to the Torquay Natural History working in Kent‟s Cavern when overcome Society in whose museum it is now with foul air. He never fully recovered, and preserved (W. Pengelly 1869a: 196–197). was forced to retire. He spent a few years Vivian‟s publication was a severely edited

26

E.A. Walker: Father John MacEnery & William Pengelly version of MacEnery‟s manuscripts, so in the flints, and their relationship to the 1869 William Pengelly, co-founder with stalagmite floor and to the animal bones, is Vivian of the Torquay Natural History something that caused MacEnery concern, Museum, published the manuscript in its and the accounts as drawn together by entirety, unedited, with all spelling errors, Vivian show how much consideration he alterations etc. in the Devonshire gave to this question (MacEnery & Vivian Transactions (MacEnery 1869). This 1859: 61). unedited version provides a valuable insight into the work that MacEnery undertook After MacEnery‟s work in the cave came to within Kent‟s Cavern. an end in 1829 there were no further investigations of Kent‟s Cavern until Robert MacEnery recorded his first visit to Kent‟s A.C. Godwin-Austen undertook minor work Cavern in some detail in his manuscript. It in 1840 (Austen 1842: 444–446). A few appears that on the day he first visited the years later William Pengelly was to take up cave it had not been his intention to go there the cause as abandoned by MacEnery and at all, but chance led him to meet his friend placed both their names, along with Kent‟s Captain Welby on his way to join an Cavern, firmly on the map. Of particular exploring party being led by Thomas interest to MacEnery, had been the discovery Northmore with the local coastguard in the Kent‟s Cavern deposits of carnivore commander and his men (ibid: 208). He teeth that were first attributed to Ursus recalled the futility of attempting to hack cultridens by Cuvier. Now identified as the through the stalagmite floor, and how, felid Megantereon cultridens, these having observed an area of the cave showing specimens were, however, reattributed to the signs of more recent disturbance quietly took sabre-toothed cat Machairodus latidens [now himself off there. He soon found some fossil Homotherium latidens] during Pengelly‟s teeth, the discovery of which he kept to time (W. Pengelly 1869b: 486). The himself, preferring to send them to Oxford, significance of these teeth and their where William Buckland would be made association with stone tools led Dr Hugh aware of them (ibid: 210). MacEnery‟s Falconer to call their provenance into excavations were extensive in the cave. He question (letter quoted in Alexander 1964: recorded finding flints sealed below the 134). Pengelly took on the challenge of stalagmite, including blades, and tools he seeking to determine whether or not the described as representing arrow- and spear- apparent evidence of Machairodus latidens heads and hatchets, intermingled with animal really did originate within this cave. He bones. In an area he describes as disturbed concluded that MacEnery had genuinely MacEnery also found and human found five teeth during his work at Kent‟s remains. MacEnery doubted the human Cavern and he set his sights on proving this evidence he found was contemporary with by finding further specimens from known any ancient animal bones. In his manuscript contexts (ibid: 493; cf. below). MacEnery quotes Buckland with the comment „I cannot sum up better than with his [Buckland‟s] remarks‟ (ibid: 225). WILLIAM PENGELLY (1812–1894) Buckland‟s interpretation was that, whilst found together in the same soil, the co- William Pengelly (Figure 1) was born at East occurrence of extinct animal species and Looe, in 1812. He left school aged evidence for a human presence could not be just twelve to go to sea with his father, a more than accidental. He observed that they ship‟s captain (H. Pengelly 1897). Pengelly had no proof of how or when human was shipwrecked once and rescued from artefacts were introduced into the deposit drowning twice, before his mother brought containing ancient animal bones. The age of him back to Looe immediately following the

27

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 1: William Pengelly towards the end of his life

28

E.A. Walker: Father John MacEnery & William Pengelly death of his younger brother in an accident at Torquay Natural History Society, the three school (ibid: 11). He began to teach himself founder members secured a small grant from mathematics in the nights, until in 1830 he it to enable them to undertake a limited moved to Torquay, where he set up a small investigation of Kent‟s Cavern (H. Pengelly day-school (ibid: 16). It was to be in 1897: 26). The aim of this work was to Torquay that he had his first encounters with investigate the problem of human antiquity, geology and from where he embarked on and to address the possibility of there being correspondence with many of the eminent flint tools in the deposits in the cave geologists of the time. Most significant alongside bones from extinct mammals, as perhaps was his friendship with Sir Charles had been observed by MacEnery earlier in Lyell for whom he became an adviser to both the century (McFarlane & Lundberg 2005: of his main works (Julian 1913: 228); 39). Vivian‟s report of the work, as read to Principles of Geology (1830) and Geological the British Association for the Advancement Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863). In of Science, made clear that they had broken 1844 Edward Vivian, Robert Battersby and through undisturbed stalagmite to find flint Pengelly established the Torquay Natural artefacts (Vivian 1847a: 73). The geological History Society and later saw it establish its academic establishment was clearly not museum on Babbacombe Road, Torquay, prepared for such a revelation and refused to which was to be Pengelly‟s intellectual home publish it, instead just allowing publication for the rest of his life. In 1846 Pengelly of a note to the effect that „in this paper an found that the number of private students he account was given of some recent researches had was sufficient for him to be able to give in that cavern by a committee of the Torquay up his day-school and instead to concentrate Natural History Society, during which the on private tutoring in natural sciences and bones of various extinct species of animals mathematics. Amongst his pupils were were found in several situations‟ (Vivian members of the Russian imperial family and 1847b: 353). Pengelly observed how curious members of several royal houses from across this was, given that the Journal already Europe (ibid: 228). His reputation as a contained a disclaimer that the authors alone Quaker was erroneous, although his second were responsible for the facts and opinions wife Lydia Spriggs was from a Quaker within published papers printed in it (W. family (ibid: 229). In 1862 he was Pengelly 1868: 518). The unpublished paper instrumental in setting up the Devonshire claimed human antiquity, and that the stone Association for the Advancement of Science, tools discovered were contemporary with Literature and Art and was to become its ancient and extinct animal bones. Pengelly President in 1867 (Boylan 2006: 81). In 1863 adopted this case readily, and was to he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society champion it with Vivian throughout his and in 1886 was awarded the Lyell Medal by lifetime. In 1856 Vivian was made aware of the Geologists‟ Association (H. Pengelly the survival of MacEnery‟s manuscripts and 1897: 275). Pengelly‟s geological work provided an announcement and taster of their focused on three areas: the investigation of contents at a meeting of the British deposits at Bovey Tracey; the examination of Association in Cheltenham (Vivian 1856: caves; and miscellaneous geological studies 79). Pengelly would also have been aware of across the south-west peninsula (Bonney these and he was clearly well aware of the 1897: 291). It is his work concerning the need for caution in publicising the contents. examination of caves, particularly at So, when an opportunity to excavate the Windmill Hill Cave (Brixham) and at Kent‟s previously unknown Windmill Hill Cave at Cavern (Torquay), both in Devon, which Brixham came about in 1858, he did so in a particularly concerns us here. highly organised and systematic manner in order to prevent it being possible to refer In 1846, two years after establishing the bones or any indications of a human

29

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) presence to the wrong beds, depths or of Science (unpublished presentation in the associations (H. Pengelly 1897: 76). Geology section of the meeting) that eight flint tools had been found in various parts of This work was undertaken under the the cave, all of them in association with auspices of both the Royal Society and the bones of mammals appearing at depths Geological Society, from whom grants were varying from nine to 42 inches in the “cave- secured by Dr Hugh Falconer, who, on earth”, the reddish-brown tenacious clayey- learning of its discovery had also expressed loam noted above, on which lay a sheet of an interest in its contents. Joseph Prestwich stalagmite from three to eight inches in was also on the excavation committee, thickness, and having within and on it although it was Pengelly who oversaw all the remains of lion, hyaena, bear, mammoth, work (ibid: 74–75). The cave floor was rhinoceros and reindeer. In the furore that found to be sealed by a stalagmite floor, so followed it became clear to Pengelly that the Pengelly chose to adopt a method by which reason geologists, including MacEnery, had he removed the stalagmite floor horizontally been, and were, so wary about entertaining throughout the entire length of the cave. the question of human antiquity was really Beneath this he removed the next bed and so due to the untrustworthiness of much on down. His view was that in this way he evidence that had previously been offered to could reveal the stratigraphical sequence of them on the subject (H. Pengelly 1897: 76; the deposits and be able to record the amount Rudwick 2008: 228). Prestwich, an early and direction of any dip in them. He could advocate of human antiquity, in his 1860 also record the variations in the thickness of paper to the Royal Society likewise stated the beds and this method would ensure that that it was not until he himself had witnessed he secured all the fossils contained within the conditions under which the flint them. From these he would be able to implements had been found at Brixham that determine the quantity of the different he could become fully impressed with the animal bones in the cave, the ratios which validity of the doubts thrown upon the the numbers of individuals of various species previously prevailing opinions with respect bore to one another, as well as all peculiar or to such remains in caves (Prestwich 1860: noteworthy relationships between them and 278–279). the extent, character and features of the cave (ibid: 75–76). The results of the work at Brixham led Pengelly to seek to convince the scientific Pengelly‟s work at Windmill Hill Cave, world that Kent‟s Cavern might, after all, be Brixham took place over one year and came entitled to its place amongst science. At the to an end in June 1859 (H. Pengelly 1897: Bath meeting of the British Association for 76). The sequence of deposits beneath the the Advancement of Science in 1864 an stalagmite comprised four layers: the exploration committee was appointed uppermost was a breccia; this was underlain comprising Lyell, Evans, Lubbock, Phillips, by a layer of blackish matter; this in turn was Vivian, Pengelly (British Association for the underlain by a reddish-brown tenacious Advancement of Science 1864: xliv). They clayey-loam; and a gravel bed lay at the base were later joined by Busk, Dawkins, Sanford of the sequence. Worked flints were recorded and Lee (Bonney 1897: 303). Work with animal bones in both the loam and basal commenced under the superintendence of gravel. The bones were examined by George William Pengelly, with Henry Keeping Busk who noted they were found throughout employed as site foreman, and this work all the deposits, other than the blackish layer continued for 16 years. The sequence of (Bonney 1897: 298). In September 1858 deposits recorded comprised, from the top: Pengelly reported to the meeting of blocks from the roof; a black the British Association for the Advancement mould layer; a granular stalagmite of

30

E.A. Walker: Father John MacEnery & William Pengelly generally a foot or more in thickness sealing artefacts from the two main deposits sealed the cave floor; a red loam; and, at the base, a beneath the stalagmitic floor in the cave. The breccia. Pengelly once again adopted a stone tools found in the “cave-earth” were rigorous excavation methodology. Layers predominately made on flakes and were were removed in a series of blocks that found with bone tools, ornaments, , Pengelly called „yards‟, each three feet long eyed-needles or bodkins, awls, pins and and a foot square in cross-section. The perforated teeth. However, the tools from the material removed in each yard was first basal breccia beneath were more roughly examined by candlelight inside the cave, and formed, not on flakes, but on nodules, then taken to the cave door for re- suggesting that the “breccia men” were examination in natural light, with anything „ruder‟ than those who followed. He was of interest that the sediment yielded being able to claim that both sets of tools and placed in a labelled box. All the boxes were therefore their makers, whilst distinct sent to Pengelly daily who would „civilizations‟, were nonetheless both coeval meticulously clean, label, pack and record all with extinct animals (W. Pengelly 1873: specimens found and note the day‟s work 208). This observation was confirmed and into a journal (W. Pengelly 1865: 20; noted by others in their syntheses of the state Bonney 1897: 305). Pengelly was reported to of knowledge in the latter half of the have spent no less than five hours each day nineteenth century. Boyd Dawkins also engaged in working on the finds from Kent‟s observed that there must have been a Cavern on top of his regular tutoring, which considerable time between the laying down remained his sole source of earnings of these two deposits, as in some parts of the throughout his life. He claimed no financial cave the remnants of a stalagmite were found remuneration from the excavations for between the layers (Dawkins 1874: 328– himself (Bonney 1897: 312). In 1872 329). Pengelly was able to prove another aspect of MacEnery‟s research correct. It had long It was not until ‟s work in been Pengelly‟s aim of determining the the early 20th century (cf. Price, this volume) presence of the extinct sabre-toothed cat that more sense was made of the stone tools Machairodus latidens [as the felid remains retrieved by Pengelly‟s excavations (Garrod now known as Megantereon cultridens were 1926). She noted how Pengelly observed that then attributed] in the cave, and particularly the cave-earth was unstratified, and its relationship to the stone tools found in the commented that this was in most probability cave (W. Pengelly 1869b). Pengelly due to Pengelly, in common with the eventually found a single incisor tooth within understanding of his time, failing to the uppermost levels of the reddish-brown understand the nature of archaeological clayey-loam (the so-called “cave-earth”) „floors‟. A mixture of industries could which he reported to the Brighton meeting of therefore have resulted from his foot-deep the British Association and which excavation spits. She did, however, credit demonstrated the contemporaneous date of Pengelly‟s cataloguing method, as this this cat with the stone tools (W. Pengelly provided a means of relocating individual 1872). Previously MacEnery had reported artefacts back to their positions in the cave, finding teeth of the sabre-toothed cat in the and she found she was able to reconstruct Long Arcade, and Pengelly‟s discoveries separate layers within his single context of now put paid to thoughts that these were not “cave-earth”. From this she sorted the tools genuine (Bonney 1897: 309). into four assemblages. The oldest group contained chert cordiform handaxes The work in Kent‟s Cavern was accompanied by some side-scrapers, which painstakingly undertaken and Pengelly she deemed to be Mousterian. Then came a himself observed two distinct groups of group of Middle Aurignacian tools,

31

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) including a bone pin of similar form to those east of Devonshire. Transactions of the Geological seen at Paviland Cave, on the Gower Society of London 6(2): 433–489. Bonney, T.G. 1897. The scientific work of William peninsula, South Wales. The next group Pengelly. In H. Pengelly (ed.) A Memoir of William includes seven proto-Solutrean points of Pengelly, of Torquay, F.R.S., Geologist: 291–322. Font-Robert type. And the final, youngest John Murray, London. and stratigraphically highest, group Boylan, P. 2006. William Pengelly (1812–1894), the comprises a Magdalenian-type assemblage, history of cave studies and the Devonshire Association, Studies in 14: 81–83. including backed blades and barbed points British Association for the Advancement of Science. made from reindeer antler (ibid.). Garrod 1864. Recommendations adopted by the General noted that approximately 800 stone tools Committee at the Bath Meeting in September 1864. were recorded by MacEnery and Pengelly, Report of the Thirty-Forth Meeting of the British although most of MacEnery‟s collection was Association for the Advancement of Science held at Brighton September 1872: xliv. not located by her. Buckland, W. 1826. Notice of the hyaenas‟ den near Torquay. The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal 14: More recently it has proved possible for the 363–364. entire site to be reconstructed from Cook, J. 2003. The discovery of British antiquity. In Pengelly‟s records and recreated in a three- K. Sloan (ed.) Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century: 178–191. The dimensional format (McFarlane & Lundberg British Museum Press, London. 2005). This is quite an achievement, and Dawkins, W.B 1874. Cave Hunting, Researches on whilst today many credit workers such as the Evidence of Caves Respecting the Early Pitt-Rivers with inventing modern Inhabitants of Europe. Macmillan and Co., excavation, perhaps it is really Pengelly in London. Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in his excavations at Kent‟s Cavern and the Britain. The Clarendon Press, Oxford. work of Henry Keeping as his site foreman, Julian, H.F. 1913. A short sketch of the Life of who should be seen as having run the first William Pengelly, F.R.S., F.G.S. by his youngest truly modern excavation. The meticulous daughter. Journal of the Torquay Natural History recording of Pengelly, and his belief in Society 1(5): 225–232. Keith, A. 1927. Report on a fragment of a human jaw. MacEnery‟s observations, made Kent‟s Transactions and Proceedings of the Torquay Cavern both a key site in the acceptance of Natural History Society 5: 1–2. the antiquity of Man, and one of the key sites Kenrick, J. 1861. The Rev. Mr M‟Enery‟s researches in a modern understanding of the British in the bone cave of Kent‟s Hole, Torquay and their Palaeolithic. Without both MacEnery and relation to the archaeology and palaeontology of Britain. Reprinted in W. Pengelly, 1878. The Pengelly, much would not now be known Literature of Kent‟s Cavern, Torquay part IV. The about these important times in our Report and Transactions of the Devonshire understanding of the Palaeolithic as we know Association for the Advancement of Science, it today. Literature and Art 10: 141–181. Kennard, A.S. 1945. The early digs in Kent‟s Hole, Torquay. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 56: 156–213. REFERENCES Lyell, C. 1830. Principles of Geology. John Murray, London. Alexander, E.M.M. 1964. Father John MacEnery: Lyell, C. 1863. Geological Evidences of the Antiquity scientist or charlatan? The Report and Transactions of Man. John Murray, London. of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement MacEnery, J. 1869. Manuscript. Origin of Cavern of Science, Literature and Art 96: 113–146. Researches. Published in full by W. Pengelly, Anonymous 1825 (March). Provincial Occurrences, 1869. The literature of Kent‟s Cavern. Part 2. The Devonshire: Organic remains in Kent‟s Hole and Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Chudleigh Cave. Monthly Magazine 59: 190–191. Association for the Advancement of Science, Reprinted in W. Pengelly 1869. The literature of Literature and Art 3: 191–482. Kent‟s Cavern. Part 2. The Report and MacEnery, J. & Vivian, E. 1859 (MacEnery undated Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the ms, edited by Vivian). Cavern Researches. Advancement of Science, Literature and Art 3: 194. Simpkin, Marshall and Co., London. Austen, R.A.C. 1842. On the geology of the south- McFarlane, D.A. & Lundberg, J. 2005. The 19th

32

E.A. Walker: Father John MacEnery & William Pengelly

century excavation of Kent‟s Cavern, England. Association for the Advancement of Science held at Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 67(1): 39–47. Brighton September 1872: 28–47. Maton, W.G. 1797. Observations relating chiefly to Pengelly, W. 1873. Ninth report of the Committee for the Natural History, Picturesque Scenery and Exploring Kent‟s Cavern, Devonshire. Report of Antiquities of the Western Counties of England, the Forty-Third Meeting of the British Association made in the years 1794 and 1796. Reprinted in W. for the Advancement of Science held at Bradford Pengelly, 1868. The Literature of Kent‟s Cavern, September 1873: 178–209. Torquay prior to 1859. The Report and Polwhele, R. 1797. The History of Devonshire. Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Reprinted in W. Pengelly, 1868. The Literature of Advancement of Science, Literature and Art 2(2): Kent‟s Cavern, Torquay prior to 1859. The Report 470–471. and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for Pengelly, H. 1897. A Memoir of William Pengelly, of the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art Torquay, F.R.S., Geologist. John Murray, London. 2(2): 471–473. Pengelly, W. 1865. First report of the Committee for Prestwich, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint- Exploring Kent‟s Cavern, Devonshire. Report of implements, associated with the remains of animals the Thirty-Fifth Meeting of the British Association of extinct species in beds of a late geological for the Advancement of Science held at period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in Birmingham September 1865: 16–25. England at Hoxne. Philosophical Transactions of Pengelly, W. 1868. The literature of Kent‟s Cavern, the Royal Society of London 150: 277–317. Torquay, prior to 1859. The Report and Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds before Adam: the Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform. Advancement of Science, Literature and Art 2: The Chicago University Press, Chicago and 469–522. London. Pengelly, W. 1869a. The literature of Kent‟s Cavern. Stringer, C. 2006. Homo Britannicus. Allen Lane, Part 2. The Report and Transactions of the London. Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Vivian, E. 1847a. Respecting the phenomena of Science, Literature and Art 3: 191–482. Kent‟s Cavern. Report of the Seventeenth Meeting Pengelly, W. 1869b. On the alleged occurrence of of the British Association for the Advancement of Hippopotamus major and Machairodus latidens in Science held at Oxford, June 1847: 73. Kent‟s Cavern, Torquay. The Report and Vivian, E. 1847b. On Kent‟s Cavern, near Torquay. Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of Advancement of Science, Literature and Art 3: London 3: 353. 483–494. Vivian, E. 1856. Researches in Kent‟s Cavern, Pengelly, W. 1872. Eighth report of the Committee Torquay. Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the for Exploring Kent‟s Cavern, Devonshire. Report British Association for the Advancement of Science of the Forty-Second Meeting of the British held at Cheltenham, August 1856: 78–80.

33

M. Pope & M. Roberts: Joseph Prestwich

“CLENCHING AUTHORITY”: JOSEPH PRESTWICH AND THE PROOFS OF THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN

Matthew Pope & Mark Roberts

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London, WC1H OPY, UK. Contact emails: [email protected]; [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Joseph Prestwich, born in 1812 in London, was to play a pivotal role in determining the unequivocal antiquity of man during a visit to Northern France in 1859. This paper considers his early career and examines how a man who geologised as a part-time distraction to a family wine business rose to become the most respected authority on stratigraphy in Victorian Britain. During the momentous events of 1859 the scientific community looked to Prestwich for confirmation on the association of flint implements and extinct fauna.

Full reference: Pope, M. & Roberts, M. 2009. ―Clenching Authority‖: Joseph Prestwich and the proofs of the antiquity of man. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 35–44. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Joseph Prestwich, Abbeville, Acheulian, Antiquity of Man, Somme, handaxe, Brixham, John Evans, Hugh Falconer

“Point to a broken pebble and there is one recorded by Joseph Prestwich and John who will tell you the point of the compass Evans within the gravels of the Somme, from which it came, the stratum which heralded a new paradigm in scientific yielded it, the distance it has travelled, the understanding. It is hard to conceive, amount of rolling it had undergone and the amongst the millions of subsequent finds of time it had occupied in the journey. The Stone Age implements, of a single tool power thus acquired was soon to be applied which could compete in terms of importance with clenching authority to the proofs of the and implication to the story of human antiquity of man” origins. This volume was conceived in part (Falconer 1868: 584) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of these events. It is therefore fitting to consider in a little detail the role of the individual who INTRODUCTION was to deliver the apparently conclusive pronouncement on the unresolved subject of “If, during next summer, you should happen the true age of humanity. Specifically, we to be paying a visit to France, let me wish to examine the early career of strongly recommend you come to Abbeville” Prestwich in order to understand how he, a (Letter from H. Falconer to J. Prestwich, 1st man who made ―geologising‖ the pursuit of Nov. 1858, in G. Prestwich & Geikie 1899: his leisure time away from a successful wine 119) business, became one of the principal authorities to which the academic During April of 1859 there was a moment community looked in pronouncing on such a where the observation of a single , contentious issue. Given that Prestwich was,

35

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) later in his career, to become associated serve his later passion for ‗geologising‘. indelibly with the Eolith debate as a great Prestwich recalls becoming entranced by proponent of their status as true artefacts (cf. specimens of gypsum crystals from the local McNabb, this volume) — a sadly misguided Tertiary geology; he developed a passion for position belying his academic status despite drawing and chemistry, together with a talent the concerns and advice of those closest to for languages (G. Prestwich & Geikie 1899). him — here we present the career of the He was characteristically mischievous as a younger Prestwich, a man who was at the child but universally well-liked, working his very forward edge of revolutionary changes way into the affections of his own family as in scientific thought relating to the age and well as his French guardian family. genesis of our own species. The biographical Throughout his education he balanced, with notes and observations presented here are seeming lack of contradiction or tension, the largely taken from letters and sketches single-minded pursuit of his chemistry presented by Prestwich‘s widow Grace, and studies with a passion for poetry and a talent (G. Prestwich & Geikie for oil painting which supplemented his 1899). income during university. His studies were further pursued at University College, London with zeal, working demandingly THE EARLY LIFE AND CAREER OF long hours, with a Spartan disregard for his PRESTWICH needs in terms of food, sleep or even adequate light to study by. During this time Joseph Prestwich (Figure 1) was born on he was led, quite literally, to the study of March 12th 1812 in Clapham, London, to geology by noting the variety of stone used parents Joseph Prestwich, a wine merchant in the paving of the London streets on his of Mark Lane, London, and Catherine (née route to and from college. His inquiring Blakeways). Joseph was named after his mind, competent knowledge of chemistry father and his elder brother, who had died and new-found fascination with the origin of after only a few weeks of life. Joseph was rock types combined within the young man sent to be educated in France, perhaps to form an intent to dedicate his life to the because of links his father had made through study of geology and palaeontology. his wine business. Whatever the reason for a continental education it was to establish However, while geology was to dominate his Prestwich both with a grounding for cross- passions it was not, for the next forty years, channel travel and French culture, both of to dominate his time. His professional path which would serve him well in later years. was to take him away from academic study During his first day in France, before he had and into the city to continue the management even left Calais, the 11 year old Prestwich of the family wine importation business. It was to have his first baptism in geological was to be the hours spent away from the exploration: office that became the moments he lived for, with every day planned to maximise his “I took the opportunity of going down one of studies before and after office duties, and the shallow which were then to be weekends and holidays structured around found in most of the courtyards of the town, field trips and excursions to the quarries and and came up, I imagine, not much the wiser” coal fields which held his fascination. (J. Prestwich, in G. Prestwich & Geikie 1899: 10) Through his twenties he began a serious study of the geology of the Thames Basin, Wisdom was perhaps to come later, but from researches which were to lead to the 1823 and the start of his education in Paris, crystallisation of his academic pursuits in the he began to develop skills which were to classification of Tertiary stratigraphy within

36

M. Pope & M. Roberts: Joseph Prestwich

Figure 1: Joseph Prestwich, 1812–1896 southern Britain and, crucially, northern It would be wrong, however, to equate France, where business in the family wine Prestwich‘s self-sacrifice with a meanness of trade often took him. During these spirit or dour demeanour. He was, excursions, those colleagues and friends who throughout his life, generous both in terms of accompanied him would have to endure days time, attention and money to those both close in which eating and comfort were sacrificed, and unknown to him who were in need. The time being dedicated only to observation large collection of scientific and within the quarries and pits of the region. As experimental instruments he amassed for his evening approached, there was often to be own studies he put at the disposal of others, little respite with the party of young men establishing the short-lived Zetetical Society covered in the dust and mud of the pits, so for the pooling of equipment and resources laden down with fossils and geological for mutual support of young academics from specimens that they were sometimes refused all branches of science and natural admittance to local hostels and inns. Whilst philosophy, pointedly excluding discussions for Prestwich‘s companions these of a theological nature. While short-lived the deprivations were only to be endured for the whole premise of the Society was in duration of the excursions, for Prestwich harmony with Prestwich‘s approach to they formed part of the fabric of his daily science — that it was to be founded on close life. Dinner was often only biscuits or buns, relationships with his peers, and the and regular meals were disregarded in favour generous sharing of both knowledge and of more hours spent in study and more materials for the advancement and benefit of finances with which to purchase equipment all. and materials (G. Prestwich & Geikie 1899).

37

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Within both his professional and personal Beach of Brighton, a paper significant to the circle he inspired a great amount of present writers as first demonstrating fully affection, and was considered a man of both the presence of the higher ―Goodwood– great integrity and good discernment. Still a Slindon‖ raised beach within Sussex bachelor, he relished time spent close to (Prestwich 1858). family and friends, and endured rather than relished the long periods of isolation his Despite no longer a young man, he continued frequent geological excursions would a bachelor lifestyle into his forties, enforce upon him. He would therefore disregarding his own health and alternating balance the necessary periods of isolation the deprivations of field work with the with frequent parties and dances, often enjoyment of parties upon his return to hosted at his own house, dancing being a London. It was also during this period that passion of his which he indulged whenever Prestwich almost lost his life in pursuit of his possible. Other parties would be organised work, being cut off by the tide at the base of for his friends and sisters which involved the Shakespeare Cliff, near Dover, and having to consumption of large amounts of nitrous climb the sheer chalk surface without a ; oxide and ether, personally produced by this sobering experience is perhaps the last Prestwich for the occasion. One such party example of the young reckless Prestwich. resulted in one friend L‘Anson going into The death of his father in 1856 led to the convulsions and E.T. Newton, a future Lyell taking on of greater responsibilities in Medal winner and President of the relation to the family business, and the Geologists‘ Association, fleeing the scene in taking up of residence at the London family fear. home; here he was looked after by his sister Civil. Alongside providing a stable domestic life for Joseph, Civil worked as a fully- THE SCHOLAR engaged assistant in her brother‘s studies, beginning to organise not only regular meals While Prestwich published his first paper in but also his archives and references. It is of 1834, at the age of 22 (Prestwich 1834), it note that among the references organised by was to be through his thirties that he really Civil during this period, the subjects of began his prolific and significant Boulder Clay, Raised Beaches, Drift, Caves contribution to Geology. Between 1840 and and River Deltas are amongst the most 1855 he published some 27 papers, mostly prominent, reflecting in part the focus of his on subjects relating to the British coalfields attentions during this time. or the Tertiary geology of Britain and northern Europe. During this period his It was during the following year, 1857, that researches were, however, to periodically Prestwich was to meet the man who was touch upon the Drift geology of the region, from that point forward to become perhaps either in terms of differentiation from the his closest personal friend and notable younger Tertiary geology or on their own colleague. A meeting on a train with the merits as an increasingly persistent focus of antiquarian, John Evans (cf. Lamdin- his interest. Papers on the Drift and Whymark, this volume), as both journeyed to associated fossils at Sangatte, Calais give evidence at the same legal case (Gamble (Prestwich 1851), Salisbury, Wiltshire & Kruszynski 2009), led first to (Prestwich 1855a), and Reculver, Kent acquaintance and then to friendship. Out of (Prestwich 1855b), show the interest that this friendship was to come the introduction was beginning to alight in him on the more of Evans to the Geological Society of recent and superficial deposits of his chosen London, which we might view as study region. In 1858 he was to publish On symbolically cementing the early union of the Westward Extension of the Old Raised geology and archaeology. Shortly after, and

38

M. Pope & M. Roberts: Joseph Prestwich with the encouragement of Hugh Falconer, expertise and group consensus in equal Scottish geologist and future father-in-law to measure. Joseph, the friendship and mutual interest of the two men was to be crystallised in a new It was to be here in Brixham Cave, in the subject of endeavour, establishing the summer of 1858, from the coordinated works evidence for the antiquity of Man. of Falconer‘s team, that fossils of Pleistocene fauna were for the first time recovered in association with stone tools by BRIXHAM AND ABBEVILLE controlled excavation. A report was very quickly prepared. Brixham at this point stood In the mid-nineteenth century, faunal poised to become a site of huge historical remains from caves and fissure deposits in and scientific importance, opening the case Britain had received scant attention. for the antiquity of Man as a demonstrable Collections had previously been scientific fact and cementing Brixham‘s unsystematic and the subject had not yet place in the history of early human studies. been addressed in a coherent manner. However, this was not to be the case, as the Falconer and Prestwich were determined to wisdom of publishing a report, as a remedy this, seeing it as essential that the document finished and signed by the systematic investigation of cave systems was Brixham committee, was questioned by undertaken to fully determine the nature and Prestwich: age of these deposits. Only with clear regard for the precise stratigraphic relationship and “For my own part I should not like it to be context of cave finds could the work of read at the Brit. Assoc. A report of that sort William Buckland, the pioneering comes with a degree of might and authority palaeontologist, culminating in the which a short note would not have. The publication of Reliquiae Diluvianae (1823), statement you make with regard to human be built upon to a fuller understanding of the industrial remains is one likely to give rise to significance of these deposits. In 1858 the so much controversy, and is one which you opportunity arose to undertake such work, make so distinctly, that I do not like to see it with the discovery at Windmill Hill, near embodied in a report which may be supposed Brixham, Devon of a new undiscovered cave to express the opinions of the several system. Falconer oversaw what we might members of the Committee and in which I view as the first properly organised and see my name introduced‖ funded exploration of Pleistocene deposits in (Letter from J. Prestwich to Falconer, 21st northern Europe. With a grant of £100 from September 1858, in G. Prestwich & Geikie the Royal Society, and under the direction of 1899: 117) a committee assembled by Falconer and including Prestwich, as Treasurer, Andrew Prestwich did not consider it wise that such Ramsay and Charles Lyell, works were momentous conclusions should be drawn undertaken at the site under the day-to-day from one season of works at a single site. In direction of William Pengelly (O‘Connor his view, continued excavations at Brixham 2007; Walker, this volume). This team, were needed to prove and clarify the comprising skilled talent from a variety of association of stone tools and Pleistocene backgrounds, could be viewed as the first fauna, and if possible further occurrences multi-disciplinary research group in the early needed to be investigated. During this time history of Palaeolithic archaeology, forging a Prestwich seemed to be engaged in a flurry discipline which had previously not existed of visits to other sites to find this and founded on the basis of collaboration, corroborative evidence. During the summer close oversight of the project in hand and of 1858, he made visits to Banwell, Grays, interpretation on the basis of individual Ilford, and a prolonged fieldtrip to study the

39

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) action of glaciers in . Prestwich alongside the remains of mammals including suggested, in letter to Falconer in September E. primigenius. Falconer seemed genuinely of 1858, that further localities be explored to convinced by de Perthes‘ evidence, but find correlative evidence, including Kent‘s encouraged Prestwich to see the material for Cavern, cave localities on the Welsh coast himself, perhaps knowing full well that little (Gower), Bedford, Clacton, Herne Bay or else would satisfy the geologist‘s sense of Bracklesham. It was apparently his intention caution. Undoubtedly, Falconer knew that to cast the net wide and to progress the study Prestwich countenanced nothing other than of the subject on a broad front, whereby an first hand evidence; he also seemed to know overwhelming body of evidence could be that Prestwich was the man to drive this slowly built and cross-referenced; he thought avenue of research forward. at this time a single site insufficient upon which to make such claims. “I am satisfied that English geologists are much behind the indications of the materials Moreover, Prestwich wished to see the site now in existence…and you are the man to for himself and he was not prepared to bring up the leeway.‖ publish such a significant paper until he (Letter from Falconer to J. Prestwich, 1st himself had ―worked on the ground and November1858, in G. Prestwich & Geikie looked at all the bearings‖. There is nothing 1899: 119) in the tone of Prestwich‘s notes which seems to be sceptical at this time, indeed he seems During early 1859, Prestwich had yet both open-minded and active in looking for another opportunity to reconcile himself to the corroborative evidence, nor does there the genuine association of flint tools and seem to be impatience on the part of ancient bones at Brixham, and there was Falconer. So the stage was set by late 1858 another short window within which Brixham for the events of the following year. Clear may have been elevated to international indications for the great antiquity of human significance. Godwin Austin, the English origins had been provided by the systematic geologist who worked with Prestwich at investigations at Brixham, but they required Brixham in early 1859, had convinced both further corroborative proof before their himself and apparently Prestwich of the significant findings could be presented to the genuine nature of the artefacts, and their world with absolute confidence. Prestwich association with the bones, and Prestwich continued to consider other sites which had now first hand experience of the ground might provide this evidence and waited for it having visited the site. Yet Prestwich was to be delivered. still not content to pronounce the association as clear evidence of man‘s antiquity until he Again it was Falconer who was to direct had considered every other possible Prestwich to the eventual source of the explanation, and until the entire cave system necessary supporting evidence which could had been emptied ―to the very bottom of demonstrate that the Brixham site was part everything in the several galleries‖ (G. of a much wider body of evidence. Falconer Prestwich & Geikie 1899: 121). Falconer by had visited Boucher de Perthes in Abbeville this time was in Italy and had himself found on the 1st November 1958 and, having been stone tools alongside fossil bones at Grotta cordially welcomed by the ageing di Maccagnone, in Sicily (Falconer 1860), antiquarian, was impressed by his but Prestwich was able to assure him by overwhelming collections which filled the telegram that everything was now in place hotel run by de Perthes. In particular, for him to visit de Perthes in Abbeville. Falconer encouraged Prestwich to examine for himself the large collections of tools The history of de Perthes‘ discoveries in the found by de Perthes in the local gravel pits Amiens and Abbeville district are dealt with

40

M. Pope & M. Roberts: Joseph Prestwich elsewhere in this volume by John Gowlett; exhaustively in the deposits himself. here it suffices to say that little was known in Apparently the body of evidence, from both Britain either about the man, his finds or the work at Brixham, as well as their widespread dismissal by French reconsideration of British sites including science. Prestwich arrived in Abbeville in Hoxne, only required this further example late April 1859 and was joined almost from northern France to persuade him immediately by John Evans, now a good completely of their genuine association and friend following their meeting some years accept its implications. Yet in the month earlier. The two were the only members of between the visit to Abbeville and presenting what was to have been a much larger party, his paper Prestwich was not idle; he but fate had conspired that only two experts, convened a second visit to the Abbeville area one in artefacts, the other in Tertiary and with Godwin Austin, John Wickham Flower Drift stratigraphy, were to jointly witness the and Robert Mylne. This was closely events in the Somme valley that month. The followed by a meeting at Amiens with details of the journey are already well know Charles Lyell. Upon returning to England, he and most recently summarised by Gamble also urgently went to visit the site of Hoxne (2008) and Gamble & Kruszynski (2009). with Evans to see the find-spot of the flint tools resurrected by Evans from the Prestwich and Evans were greeted by the collections at the Society of Antiquaries. ageing Boucher de Perthes and taken to his This activity seemed to be directed at guesthouse which also served as a museum engaging with peers as much as reviewing for his collection of stone tools, mammalian the evidence. Prestwich was now in fauna and many hundreds of other antiquities possession of an explosive idea and, while a and curiosities, both of genuine and suspect man as deliberate in reaching his conclusions provenance. Local pits inspected with de might not be swayed easily by others, the Perthes proved relatively unproductive, opinions of close peers and colleagues would although nonetheless some flakes were have undoubtedly been sought (Figure 2). recovered in situ, but the subsequent visit to a pit close to Amiens at St Acheul, finally These extra data however, contributed to the produced the evidence to settle the matter. body of evidence within Prestwich‘s paper, Here, towards the base of a Pleistocene which was presented to the Royal Society on terrace gravel several metres thick, a single 26th May 1859 (G. Prestwich & Geikie flint handaxe was first photographed, and 1899); the following week, on the 2nd June then recovered, in situ from clearly ancient 1859, Evans addressed the Society of sediment beds. From the moment of this Antiquaries (ibid.). discovery onwards events moved quickly; within a month Prestwich had presented before the Royal Society, with Evans at his AFTER ABBEVILLE side (O‘Connor 2007), his landmark paper On the occurrence of Flint Implements Prestwich had not been the first to pronounce associated with the Remains of Animals of on the genuine association of extinct fauna Extinct Species in Beds of a Late Geological and stone tools in the Somme Valley. Period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville Originally deeply sceptical, having and in England at Hoxne (Prestwich 1859). conducted research on mammalian species within the Somme, a local physician Dr. There was apparently no doubt left in Jean-Paul Rigollot (1810–1873) had been Prestwich‘s mind on the subject, no further intrigued enough by de Perthes‘ claims to concerns about considering other hypotheses conduct his own investigations in 1854. for the co-occurrence of tools and fossil During the course of his work he was to bones, no further need to excavate more recover several hundred artefacts from gravel

41

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 2: Joseph Prestwich (seated on left) and geological colleagues (Morris, Edwards and Woods) regarding Palaeoliths; students of Lower Palaeolithic society will notice how the large handaxe is in the possession of the dominant male while an on-looking colleague appears only to hold a flake or small tool beds up to 30m above the current bed of the But we should not take the rapidity and river Somme. His work was presented in an decisiveness of Prestwich‘s initial (1860) exhaustive memoir accompanied by careful publication to suggest that he had lost his illustrations (Lyell 1863: 95–96) and customary caution in the interpretation of the concluded that the stone tools were from the St Acheul observations: same geological layers bearing extinct mammals. Despite Dr Rigollot‘s “He [Prestwich] does not consider the facts thoroughness and diligent publication, his as they at present stand of necessity carry work did not apparently carry the weight back man in past time more than they bring necessary to lead to the wider acceptance of forward the great extinct mammals, towards the idea. It was therefore left to Prestwich to our own time, the evidence has reference present to the world a case which became only to relative and not to absolute time‖ rapidly accepted on both sides of the channel (Prestwich 1859: 1) and effectively brought the study of human antiquity into a legitimate scientific Prestwich‘s caution came from a personal framework. conviction that the extinction of mammals

42

M. Pope & M. Roberts: Joseph Prestwich and the period of human occupation frameworks in which to formulate and test represented by the implements was brought the basic hypothesis that the human species to an end by a great flood. The rapid, was present earlier in geological time, and catastrophic nature of this inundation associated with quite different ecological required only a short time frame to account contexts and climatic conditions to those of for the geological succession between the the present day. Without absolute dating Somme finds and our own era. Whatever techniques, a clear biostratigraphic misgivings and qualifications Prestwich framework or tangible habitation records, held, it did not prevent Falconer, Evans, there was simply no definitive analytical Godwin-Austin, Flower and Lyell allowing method open to them to prove the case. In the geologist to present the sober facts of the the infancy of the subject, the most discovery alone as a single author. This, no persuasive tool was the reputation, objective doubt, was due simply to the high esteem interest and general esteem of one man. and personal regard shown to Joseph Falconer‘s enthusiasm for Prestwich‘s Prestwich by his peers. Lyell, writing some participation in the committee overseeing four years after the events at the St Acheul Brixham and his encouragement of site, expressed it thus: Prestwich to visit the Somme, both stemmed simply from the enormous weight and “There was no one in England whose respect that his opinion carried. Prestwich authority deserved to have so much weight in had come from outside the formal hierarchy overcoming incredulity in regard to the of Victorian academia and pursued an antiquity of the implements in question” interest in Drift deposits arising from an (Lyell 1863: 103) interest in stratigraphic succession, continuing seamlessly from his mapping of And here is where the role of Prestwich in the Tertiary sedimentation of northern the discovery of the antiquity of man Europe. His work on the coal measures and becomes clear. Prestwich‘s paper was other geological aspects of wider public and intended from the start to be the opening commercial good, had established a salvo of a succession of publications and reputation based on the translation of papers, including those of Evans and Lyell. academic endeavour into cold, prosaic The well-respected geologist would provide economic realities. In short, Prestwich the definitive account of the association and combined both a peerless understanding of it was then to be left to his peers and close stratigraphy with an established reputation associates to follow up the breach in for sober, literal reading of the geological accepted opinion with less equivocal record. Prestwich fulfilled, with regard to the pronouncements on the antiquity of man. emerging body of evidence for humanity‘s great antiquity, the role of an analytical tool. The evidence for the ancient age of the His opinions, alone in the community of human species, as with the concept of academics pursuing this subject, were those evolution, was not suddenly born in 1859. It which could carry the weight necessary to had been developing slowly for many years make such an important and revolutionary with, besides Frere‘s much earlier (1800) claim. interpretation of the Hoxne finds, Lyell and Falconer becoming increasingly convinced The subsequent course of Prestwich‘s career of the evidence, despite earlier scepticism. into old age is quite a different story, and one They however, realised, like Prestwich, that we leave to be told elsewhere in this volume the associations already documented from (cf. McNabb, this volume). But any cave sequences were too unreliable a basis consideration of his later role in the study of upon which to make such a revolutionary Eoliths, Tertiary Man and Pleistocene claim. The subject was without clear inundations must be framed against his key

43

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) role in the events in the Somme Valley in Geoscientist 18: 11–19. 1859, where the respect and affection of Gamble, C.S & Kruszynski, R. 2009. John Evans, Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the Victorian Britain looked to him alone to time barrier. Antiquity 83: 461–475. deliver a new paradigm in the understanding Lyell, C. 1863. The Antiquity of Man (1st Edition). of human origins. Ramsay, London. O‘Connor, A. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Prestwich, G.A.M.M. & Geikie, A. 1899. Life and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Letters of Sir Joseph Prestwich. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh. The authors would like to thank colleagues and Prestwich, J. 1834. On some of the faults which affect friends who helped shape this paper through the coal field of Coalbrookedale. Proceedings of discussions over the past year. In particular we are the Geological Society of London 2: 18. grateful to John McNabb, Rob Hosfield, John Prestwich, J. 1851. On the Drift at Sangatte Cliff, near Gowlett, Roger Jacobi, Beccy Scott and Andy Shaw Calais. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society for their insights. To Clive Gamble for his own of London 7: 274–278. inspirational work on Prestwich and Evans as well as Prestwich, J. 1855. On a Fossiliferous Drift near some useful advice. Also to Francis Wenban-Smith Salisbury. Quarterly Journal of the Geological on organising a very enjoyable trip and convivial Society of London 5: 101–107. meal at Abbeville in April 2009 during which much Prestwich, J. 1855. On a Fossiliferous Bed of the Drift of this paper took shape. Period near the Reculver. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 11: 110–112. Prestwich, J. 1858. On the westward extension of the REFERENCES Old Raised Beach of Brighton; and on the extent of the sea-bed of the same period. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 15: 215–221. Buckland, W. 1823. Reliquiae Diluvianae, or Prestwich, J. 1859. On the occurrence of flint- Observations on the Organic Remains contained in implements, associated with the remains of extinct Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel and on Other mammalia, in undisturbed beds of a late geological Geological Phenomena attesting the Action of an period [Abstract]. Proceedings of the Royal Society Universal Deluge. John Murray, London. of London 10: 50–59. Falconer, H. 1860. On the ossiferous Grotta di Prestwich, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint Maccagnone, near Palaermo. Quarterly Journal of implements, associated with the remains of animals the Geological Society of London 16: 99–106. of extinct species in beds of a late geological Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological Memoirs, period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in Volume 2. Robert Hardwicke, London. England at Hoxne. Philosophical Transactions of Frere, J. 1800. Account of flint weapons discovered at the Royal Society of London 150: 277–317. Hoxne in Suffolk. Archaeologia 13: 204–205. Gamble, C.S. 2008. Breaking the Time Barrier.

44

H. Lamdin-Whymark: Sir John Evans

SIR JOHN EVANS: EXPERIMENTAL FLINT KNAPPING AND THE ORIGINS OF LITHIC RESEARCH

Hugo Lamdin-Whymark

School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Sir John Evans is one of the founding fathers of Palaeolithic archaeology. In 1859 he, along with Joseph Prestwich, demonstrated the provenance of artefacts in the drift and that they were the product of the human hand, so proving the greater antiquity of humankind. This paper traces the origins of John Evans‟ experimental flint knapping back to 1859 and explores how these experiments influenced his argument that the flints from the Somme were the product of the human hand. The paper also briefly explores the influence of John Evans‟ experimental flint knapping on his approach to and the identification of fakes and frauds.

Full reference: Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2009. Sir John Evans: experimental flint knapping and the origins of lithic research. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 45–52. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Sir John Evans, Ancient Stone Implements, experimental flintknapping, archaeological fakes, Flint Jack

INTRODUCTION a revised second edition in 1897. In this text Evans outlined Palaeolithic and Neolithic Sir John Evans (17th November 1823–31st typologies and initiated research into artefact May 1908) was an eminent figure and morphology and function (White 2001). He arguably a model Victorian; a family man also provided the first complete gazetteer of and a polymath with interests in business, Palaeolithic artefacts from Britain and set a hydrology, numismatics, geology, and, of benchmark for detailed illustration of lithics course, archaeology (MacGregor 2008b). that few have exceeded (Roberts & Barton Archaeologists hold John Evans in 2008). particularly high esteem as a founding figure of Palaeolithic archaeology who, along with As a distinguished figure Sir John Evans has his good friend Joseph Prestwich, been the focus of considerable research and demonstrated the antiquity of humankind in publication. Most recently a co-authored 1859. For this feat alone he warrants a volume, Sir John Evans 1823–1908: special place on the archaeological „wall of Antiquity, Commerce and Natural Science in fame‟, but arguably Evans‟ most enduring the Age of Darwin, was published by the legacy was his systematic and innovative Ashmolean Museum to mark the centenary research on lithics from the British Isles and of John Evans‟ death. This lavish volume further afield, culminating in the publication explores key facets of John Evans‟ life, of The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons interests and research, and represents and Ornaments of Great Britain in 1872 and essential reading for anyone wishing to

45

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) explore his life further (MacGregor 2008a). John Evans‟ early passions included John Evans‟ daughter, Joan, wrote an numismatics; an interest inherited from his extensive biography (1943) and several father. He developed an extensive collection papers have also been published on aspects with a particular focus on early British of his career and life (Forrer 1909; Wintle coinage and from 1850 until his death he 1982; White 2001). In this paper, I wish to regularly wrote articles for the Numismatic consider John Evans‟ early research into Chronicle. Evans‟ early interests in lithics and, especially, the influence of archaeology perhaps developed from his experimental flint knapping and artefact research on British coinage as his first replication on his approach to lithic analysis. excavations were on a Roman Villa at I will also briefly consider how Evans‟ Boxmoor, Herefordshire, which was personal experience of flint knapping discovered during works at the railway uniquely placed him as an authority on fakes station in 1852. Evans lectured on this site in and frauds in the context of Victorian St Albans, to an audience including Lord Britain. Verulam (Joan Evans 1943), and rapidly published an account of his excavations in Archaeologia (1852). He was elected to the A BRIEF BACKGROUND 1823–1857 Society of Antiquaries of London in December 1852 and continued his John Evans was born on the 17th November excavations at Boxmoor, publishing a second 1823 to Anne (née Dickinson) and Arthur account in Archaeologia (1853). Benoni Evans. His father was not a wealthy man, but earned a modest wage as the rector Evans also held interests in geology and for Burnham, , and hydrology that developed from his work at supplemented this income by tutoring pupils, Nash Mills and litigation with the Grand many of whom lodged with the family Junction Canal Company (GJCC) over the (MacGregor 2008b). Arthur was later diversion of water from the mills by appointed headmaster of the free grammar pumping ground water for the canal from a school at Market Bosworth, where John well. The dispute was resolved in April 1852 completed his education. At sixteen years of when John Dickinson and John Evans age, after turning down the offer of a place at demonstrated the effect on their water Oxford University, John Evans started work supplies with a hydrological model and a in the accounting office of a paper mill permanent injunction was obtained against owned by his uncle John Dickinson in the the GJCC. In light of this success John village of Nash Mills, near Hemel Evans acted as an expert witness in other Hempstead, Herefordshire. Through his own water-rights cases and this led him to meet efforts, and an advantageous marriage to his Joseph Prestwich (c. 1855) who was acting uncle‟s daughter Harriet, Evans was as the rival expert in one case (Joan Evans admitted as a junior partner in 1850 and by 1943: 83). As a result of this chance meeting 1857 he was managing the business with his John Evans and Joseph Prestwich developed brother-in-law (Penwarden & Stanyon a close friendship based on their interests in 2008). Evans was a successful and ultimately geology, and they undertook regular a wealthy businessman, seeking new markets excursions to the gravels around Tring, and developing machinery that led to the Slapton and Leighton Buzzard (Joan Evans registration of several patents (ibid: 43). His 1943: 89). Evans was elected a Fellow of the success in the commercial world allowed Geological Society in 1857. him to pursue academic interests and develop collections that rivalled any in As the outline above demonstrates, by 1857 Victorian England. Evans had developed strong interests in both archaeology and geology, but his interests in

46

H. Lamdin-Whymark: Sir John Evans prehistory and lithics were still embryonic. as early as 1837, but the scientific Indeed, Evans records in Ancient Stone community had greeted news of these Implements that the first stone tool to enter discoveries with scepticism. This was in part his collection was a fragment of a Neolithic due to extravagant claims by M. Boucher de polished axe which he found at Eastbourne Perthes that went well beyond the in 1852, and records of his collection reveal archaeological evidence and masked the that he did not actively start to collect lithics important lithic discoveries that he had made until after his visit to the Somme in 1859 (John Evans 1860b; White 2001; cf. Gowlett, (John Evans 1897; Roberts & Barton 2008). this volume). Times were changing though, Evans‟ interest in prehistory was to develop and by the late 1850s the scientific from 1858 during a period of his life that community was becoming increasing open to was marked by a personal tragedy. His wife, ideas of the greater antiquity of humankind. Harriett, was taken ill following the birth of Joseph Prestwich saw the potential in their fifth child on the 19th December 1857 Boucher de Perthes‟ discoveries to directly and she died on New Year‟s morning 1858 address this issue and he organised a party (Joan Evans 1943: 93). from the Geological Society to visit the Somme in late April 1859. For various reasons other members of the party were THE FRENCH CONNECTION unable to attend and only John Evans arrived at Abbeville train station on the 27th April John Evans‟ interest in the antiquity of the 1859. Evans records in his diary that their drift deposits was spurred on by the research “object was if possible to ascertain that these of Joseph Prestwich, and in April 1858 they had been actually deposited with the went to see elephant bones discovered in a gravel, and not subsequently introduced” railway cutting near Bedford (Joan Evans (Joan Evans 1943: 101). The visit was 1943: 97; cf. Pope & Roberts, this volume). initially without success as the local quarries These discoveries, coupled with Jacques were bereft of artefacts, but, through M. Boucher de Perthes finds in the gravels of Boucher de Perthes‟ contacts, information the Somme around Abbeville, France, were arrived that there was an axe to be seen in beginning to rouse Evans‟ interests. In situ at Amiens (Joan Evans 1943: 101). March 1859, John Evans recorded in his Evans recorded in his diary that: diary: “We proceeded to the pit where sure enough “Think of their finding flint axes and the edge of an axe was visible in an entirely arrowheads at Abbeville in conjunction with undisturbed bed of gravel and eleven feet the bones of Elephants and Rhinoceroses 40 from the surface. We had a photographer ft. below the surface in a bed of drift. In this with us to take a view of it so as to bone cave in Devonshire now being corroborate our testimony and had only time excavated by the Geological Society they say to get that done and collect some 12 or 15 they have found arrowheads among the axes from the workmen in the pit…” bones, and the same is reported for a cave in (Joan Evans 1943: 102) Sicily. I can hardly believe it. It will make my ancient Britons quite modern if man is Witnessing the discovery of an axe in the carried back in England to the days when gravels was the evidence that Prestwich and Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Hippopotamuses Evans required. Arguably though, getting and Tigers were also inhabitants of the this evidence was easier than the process of country…” convincing the scientific community and (Joan Evans 1943: 100) wider population of their discoveries‟ implications for the prolonged history of M. Boucher de Perthes had reported his finds humankind.

47

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

REVEALING THE OLD STONE AGE configuration, or arose from some inherent tendency to a peculiar form of fracture.” The stage was set for John Evans and Joseph (John Evans 1860b: 288) Prestwich to announce their dramatic discoveries and on their return from France Evans further supported his morphological they wasted no time in addressing the arguments by discussing the method of highest echelons of the scientific community. manufacture of Palaeolithic axes, with an Joseph Prestwich first revealed their oblique reference to the replication of discoveries to the Royal Society on the 26th prehistoric artefacts: May, but having left without John Evans‟ communication on the flint implements that “The manner in which they have been he was to incorporate into his lecture it fell fashioned appears to have been by blows on Evans to provide an additional impromptu from a rounded pebble mounted as a lecture. The following week, on the 2nd June hammer, administered directly upon the edge 1859, John Evans reported their discoveries of the implements, so as to strike off flakes to the Society of Antiquaries of London and on either side. At all events I have by this publications in Archaeologia and means reproduced some of the forms in flint, Philosophical Transactions appeared the and the edges of the implements thus made following year. present precisely the same character of fracture as those from the drift.” Due to the wide reaching implications of (John Evans 1860b: 293) their discovery, it was imperative that a water-tight case was made for the antiquity It therefore appears that John Evans‟ and human origin of these tools. Prestwich understanding of lithic technology derived focussed on the geological context, while the from both the study of the artefacts and task of convincing a sceptical audience that artefact replication, although he only makes the axes and flakes were the product of the limited reference to the latter. Moreover, in human hand fell to John Evans. Evans had to Archaeologia (1860b) it is unclear if Evans develop an original argument to convince the is referring to his own efforts at experimental scientific community that these tools were knapping or those of someone else. In an more than geological curios or accidental article published in Records of forms. In his article On the occurrence of Buckinghamshire (1860a) resulting from a flint implements in undisturbed beds of meeting held on the 5th January 1860 (which gravel, sand and clay (1860b), Evans begins appears to represent the transcription of a by arguing that the regularity of the artefacts lecture as it is written in the third person), implies design: Evans is more forthcoming:

“That they really are implements fashioned “...he showed from the general similarity in by the hand of man, a single glance at a form, the nature of the chipped edges their collection of them placed side by side, so as analogy to a certain extent with weapons of to show the analogy of form of the various a later period, that there could be no specimens, would, I think, be sufficient to reasonable doubt as to their having been convince even the most sceptical. There is a really formed by the hand of man. An uniformity of shape, a correctness of outline, objection had been raised by some that these and a sharpness about the cutting edges and forms could not have been chipped out by points, which cannot be due to anything but people unacquainted with the use of metals, design; so that I need not stay to combat the but he had himself experimented upon this opinion that might otherwise possibly have point, and had produced the form of one of arisen that the weapon-like shapes of the the implements with precisely the same flints were due to some natural character of edge, by chipping one out of a

48

H. Lamdin-Whymark: Sir John Evans block of flint by means of a rounded pebble.” This quote, however, is not an introduction (John Evans 1860a: 141) to Evans‟ flint knapping experiments, as he proceeds to illustrate flint knapping and The date of this article can leave little doubt lithic technology with a description of gun that flint knapping and artefact replication flint manufacture and several ethnographic was pivotal to John Evans‟ argument that the examples. Indeed, Evans only makes four flints from the drift were the product of the references to his own flint knapping human hand. Moreover, he appears to have experiments in the 622 pages of the first developed this approach and argument edition of Ancient Stone Implements. These around the time he first visited the Somme. It comprise the manufacture of flakes by direct still remains unclear precisely when John hard hammer percussion (ibid: 20), the Evans first learned to flint knap, but in a manufacture of flakes by indirect percussion diary entry Evans notes that he celebrated his with a punch (ibid: 22), the manufacture of birthday (17th November 1859) by making „a scrapers (ibid: 33), and the manufacture of pretty good flint axe‟ (Joan Evans 1943: leaf-shaped and barbed and tanged 105). It is also unclear if he developed these arrowheads using a flint fabricator (ibid: 38). skills independently or was taught by gun In one case, before describing his attempts at flint knappers. There is no reference to gun manufacturing scrapers, he further expounds flint knappers in either his 1860 or 1863 the value of replication studies: Archaeologia papers, but he was certainly acquainted with the by 1863 when “…I think that if, at the present time, we are he reported on a series of French forgeries able to produce tools precisely similar to the (Roberts & Barton 2008). It is, however, ancient „scrapers‟ by the most simple way possible to speculate that John Evans may possible, and without the aid of metallic have first met the East Anglian flint appliances, there is every probability that knappers on his honeymoon, following his identically the same means were employed of second marriage to Fanny Phelps on the 23rd old. Now, I have found by experiment that, July 1859. In what can only be described as a taking a flake of flint (made, I may remark, two week archaeological tour they visited with a stone hammer, consisting of a flint or several gravel pits, but most significantly quartzite pebble held in the hand), and they visited Ely and Norwich, which were placing it, with the flat face upwards, on a only a short distance from the surviving smooth block of stone, I can, by successive centres of the gun flint industry at blows of the pebble, chip the end of the flake Icklingham and Brandon (Joan Evans 1943: without any difficulty into the desired form.” 105). (John Evans 1872: 33)

Evans developed his thoughts on the value of In contrast to John Evans‟ own publications, replicating ancient and in there are many references to his flint Ancient Stone Implements (1872) he opens knapping skills in other publications. In 1870 chapter two with the bold statement: Edward Stevens in Flint Chips, a catalogue of flints from the Blackmore Museum, “In seeking to ascertain the method by which Salisbury, records that: the stone implements and weapons of antiquity were fabricated, we cannot, in all “At a recent meeting of the International probability, follow a better guide than that Congress of at which is afforded us by the manner in which Norwich (1868), Mr. John Evans made flint instruments of similar character are scrapers and tools by pressure as well as by produced at the present day.” percussion, demonstrating the possibility of (John Evans 1872: 13) accomplishing the work by both methods. The tool used by Mr. Evans for flaking by

49

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) pressure was a piece of stag‟s horn, having a stone-using societies were considered to chisel end...” have been left behind by evolution and were (E.T. Stevens 1870: 84) increasingly termed primitive or savage. But these views were not solely applied to Moreover, Stevens goes on to state: foreign societies as, for example, in 1880 an anthropological study of the Brandon gun “Mr. Evans long since suggested that the flint knappers argued for the continuity of flint implements found in the drift had been flint knapping from the Palaeolithic and formed by blows given with a rounded concluded that the local population were the pebble, but he did not give this opinion until remnants of an ancient British race (Park he had himself reproduced some of the forms Harrison 1880). In this social context Evans in flint, with such a hammer.” may have been prudent not to mention his (E.T. Stevens 1870: 85) own primitive skills, as he may have been caricatured as a savage, as Darwin was as an John Evans‟ own daughter, Joan, also states ape. If this was the case, further credit is due that he was a “skilled maker of flint to John Evans for recognising the importance implements” who “worked with reindeer of replication studies and pursuing this horn” (Joan Evans 1943: 119). Evans also branch of lithic studies regardless of the shared his knapping skills with other potential stigma it held. It was in fact not archaeologists. In 1875, Lane Fox (Pitt- until the 1960s, a full century after Evans, Rivers) wrote that John Evans had taught that the full potential of replication studies him the „art‟ of knapping flint celts (Johnson for the interpretation past lithic industries 1978; Roberts & Barton 2008) and in c. 1882 was recognised (Johnson 1978). This avenue Evans showed Joseph Stevens how to of lithic research continues to be fruitful to manufacture scrapers while in a gravel the present day and has heavily influenced quarry on Caversham Hill, Reading (J. the present author‟s research. A second Stevens 1894: 17). Few examples of John possible reason could be that Evans may not Evans‟ flint knapping survive, but the have wished to encourage flint knapping as, Ashmolean Museum hold a small collection whilst he made replicas to imitate originals, of artefacts, including an ovate handaxe and many others made forgeries to deceive the a small number of leaf-shaped and barbed unsuspecting collector (E.T. Stevens 1870). and tanged arrowheads, which demonstrate his skill (White 2001; Roberts & Barton 2008). THE GENTLEMAN AND THE THIEF: FAKES AND FRAUDS IN VICTORIAN The emphasis that John Evans places on the ENGLAND value of modern replication for understanding past technologies therefore Evans‟ and Prestwich‟s discoveries of 1859 dramatically contrasts with the created a demand for lithic artefacts to fill comparatively limited references he makes in the curiosity cabinets of respected gentlemen print to his own flint knapping experiments. who sought to represent their breadth of Indeed, at first this seems almost knowledge through collections of geological, inexplicable, but two possible explanations archaeological and cultural objects. In may be presented. Firstly, Charles Darwin‟s response to this demand an antiquities theory of evolution, published in On the market developed and, in parallel, an illicit Origin of Species in November 1859, market in fakes emerged. Fakes and frauds strongly influenced anthropological research were a problem in all areas of the antiques through the mid to late Victorian period and market, from provision of false provenances increasingly extreme views of social to Arretine Wares in London (Marsh 1979), evolution were being expressed. Modern to the mass production of „medieval‟ lead

50

H. Lamdin-Whymark: Sir John Evans pilgrims badges and medallions by William Small time forgers, such as Flint Jack, were Smith and Charles Eaton (known as Billie clearly a problem for the uninformed and Charlie) which scandalised the collector, but John Evans was particularly archaeological establishment in the 1850s concerned with identifying more deceitful and 1860s (John Evans 1893; Noèl Hume frauds. In Ancient Stone Implements Evans 1956). Evans‟ broad collecting interests, and describes methods of identifying fakes and particularly his experience of handling and various processes that forgers may use to replicating flints, ideally placed him to make artefacts appear ancient (John Evans address the issue of forgery and he was 1897). A particularly serious problem was clearly passionate about this subject. Evans the seeding of archaeological sites to deceive first delivered a lecture The Forgery of serious collectors and scientific study. In the Antiquities to the Royal Institution on the mid Victorian period Evans considered that 24th February 1863 and numerous variations this was more of a problem in France than and updated versions of this lecture were England (ibid: 658) but, as the Piltdown published in newspapers and gentleman‟s Fraud would later demonstrate, this would magazines until the 1890s (John Evans not always remain the case. The most 1893). controversial episode of forgery and fraud in the 1860s emerged from a quarry at Moulin The most notorious Victorian forger of flint Quignon in the Somme. In 1863 M. Boucher artefacts was an itinerant thief, Edward de Perthes made a series of new discoveries Simpson, who was better known by his alias, in this quarry, including numerous flint Flint Jack. Flint Jack began forging flints in implements and a human jaw. These c. 1856, but in 1859 he was exposed as a discoveries sent a ripple of excitement forger and he began to earn “a somewhat through the scientific community and Evans more honest penny by publicly exhibiting his and Prestwich visited France to see them at process of manufacture”, between stints in first hand. They were, however, not prison for theft (John Evans 1893). On the convinced by the artefacts and considered 7th January 1862 he demonstrated flint that the workmen had probably knapping to the Geological Society in manufactured the flints for sale (Joan Evans London, where he produced various 1943: 117). The controversy rumbled on for arrowheads, selling them to the audience for some months, with axes sent between six-pence apiece (J. Stevens 1894), and in various parties, as M. Boucher de Perthes 1863 he was invited to the Blackmore was insistent that they were genuine. It was Museum, Salisbury, where he produced a not until a second visit by the pair in the series of artefacts for their collection (E.T. company of other geologists that an axe Stevens 1870). Flint Jack‟s replicas, or emerged from the quarry smeared with mud „dooplicates‟ as he is said to have referred to that still showed the finger-marks of the them, are relatively crude having been forger and resolved the dispute beyond manufactured using a steel hammer and an question (ibid.). The subtlety of Evans‟ iron rod (J. Stevens 1894: 9) and John Evans observations, combined with his experience commented that his tools were „coarse and of flint knapping and knowledge of the gun less deceptive‟ than those of other forgers flint knappers methods, made him an (John Evans 1893: 15). Ironically, Flint authority on fakes, and after this affair Jack‟s public demonstrations secured his Eduard Lartet declared Evans‟ “Inspector notoriety as a forger and many of his general of all forgeries on both sides of the artefacts were intentionally collected, but his Channel” (ibid: 119)! activities highlight a fraudulent market primarily aimed at deceiving inexperienced collectors.

51

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

CONCLUSIONS Co., London. Forrer, L. 1909. Sir John Evans, 1823–1908: biographie et bibliographie. E. Bertrand, Chalon- This paper has only scratched the surface of sur-Saone, France. Sir John Evans‟ contribution to archaeology Johnson, L.L. 1978. A history of flint-knapping and lithic studies. In terms of Palaeolithic experimentation, 1838–1976. Current archaeology John Evans warrants a special Anthropology 19(2): 337–372. place in history for his part in demonstrating MacGregor, A. (ed.) 2008a. Sir John Evans 1823– 1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the antiquity of drift and that the artefacts the age of Darwin. Ashmolean Museum, recovered were the product of the human , Oxford. hand. In particular, I have chosen to MacGregor, A. 2008b. Sir John Evans, model emphasise his innovative use of flint Victorian, polymath and collector. In A. knapping from 1859, firstly to formulate MacGregor (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823–1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age arguments to convince the world that the of Darwin: 1–38. Ashmolean Museum, University stone artefacts from the drift were the of Oxford, Oxford. product of the human hand, and also to Marsh, G. 1979. Nineteenth and Twentieth century demonstrate and reconstruct ancient Antiquities dealers and Arretine Ware from technologies. For various reasons John London. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 30: 125–129. Evans chose not to emphasise his flint Munro, R.A. 1905. Archaeology and false antiquities. knapping skills in print, but it is important to Methuen, London. acknowledge that the information his flint Noèl Hume, I. 1956. Treasure in the Thames. Muller, knapping experiments provided him with is London. expressed through his exquisite Park Harrison, J. 1880. On the flintworkers at Brandon. Report of the British Association for the technological and typological descriptions, Advancement of Science 15 ( Meeting): as exemplified in Ancient Stone Implements 626–627. (1872, 1897). Moreover, his experience of Penwarden, J. & Stanyon, M. 2008. The business manufacturing flints uniquely placed him to foundation for a public career: Evans, the paper address the issue of fakes and frauds that industry and life at Nash Mills. In A. MacGregor (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823–1908: antiquity, proliferated in the Victorian Period and commerce and natural science in the age of allowed him to become an authority on the Darwin: 39–51. Ashmolean Museum, University subject. John Evans was therefore an of Oxford, Oxford. innovator as well as a pioneer and he Rieth, A. 1970. Archaeological fakes. Barrie & provided the foundation for research that is Jenkins, London. Roberts, A. & Barton, N. 2008. Reading the unwritten ongoing today. history: Evans and Ancient Stone Implements. In A. MacGregor (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823–1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age REFERENCES of Darwin: 95–115. Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, Oxford. Evans, J. 1860a. Flint implements from the drift. Stevens, E.T. 1870. Flint chips: a guide to pre- Records of Buckinghamshire: 141–144. historic archaeology, as illustrated by the Evans, J. 1860b. On the occurrence of flint collection in the Blackmore Museum, Salisbury. implements in undisturbed beds of gravel, sand and Bell and Daldy, London. clay. Archaeologia 38: 280–307. Stevens, J. 1894. Flint Jack E. Simpson: a short Evans, J. 1872. The ancient stone implements, history of a notorious forger of antiquities. weapons and ornaments of Great Britain. Reading. Longmans, London. White, M.J. 2001. Out of Abbeville: Sir John Evans, Evans, J. 1893. The forgery of antiquities. Palaeolithic patriarch and handaxe pioneer. In S. Spottiswoode, London. Milliken & J. Cook (eds.) A very remote period Evans, J. 1897. The ancient stone implements, indeed: papers on the Palaeolithic presented to weapons and ornaments of Great Britain (2nd Derek Roe: 242–248. Oxbow, Oxford. edition). Longmans, Green and Co., London. Wintle, J. 1982. Makers of nineteenth century culture, Evans, J. 1943. Time and chance: the story of Arthur 1800–1914. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Evans and his forebears. Longmans, Green and

52

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell

THE QUIET MAN OF KENT: THE CONTRIBUTION OF F.C.J. SPURRELL TO THE EARLY YEARS OF PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY

Beccy Scott1 & Andrew Shaw2

1 Department of Prehistory and Europe, The British Museum, Franks House, 38–56 Orsman Road, London, N1 5QJ, UK. Contact email: [email protected] 2Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

In the 1880s, Flaxman C.J. Spurrell discovered two of the most important British early Middle Palaeolithic sites: the ―chipping floor‖ at Crayford; and the Levallois sites of the Ebbsfleet Valley, later to be known as Baker’s Hole. However, little is now known of his wider work, and he has sadly slipped into obscurity. This paper reviews the work, contemporary impact and ongoing legacy of this quiet man.

Full reference: Scott, B. & Shaw, A. 2009. The quiet man of Kent: the contribution of F.C.J. Spurrell to the early years of Palaeolithic archaeology. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 53–64. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell, early Middle Palaeolithic, Crayford, Baker’s Hole, Ebbsfleet Valley

INTRODUCTION of taphonomy, of context, of methods of artefact manufacture — and sought, through Flaxman C.J. Spurrell (1842–1915) remains, experiment and refitting, to understand the to some extent, a shadowy figure around the evolving mind of ―man‖. In this article we margins of early Palaeolithic endeavour, but outline Spurrell’s contribution to Palaeolithic the sites he discovered still dominate archaeology in the late 19th century, drawing research into the earlier Middle Palaeolithic upon his publications, extant of Britain. A diffident and somewhat correspondence, and society reports of field cautious researcher, his publications are trips and meetings. regrettably few and terse in tone, striving as he did always to present the ―bare facts‖ of his investigations. In fact, his reserve can be A FAMILY AFFAIR seen as reflecting surprisingly modern concerns with the integrity of the material Spurrell shared his interest in all things with which he dealt; whilst others sought to archaeological and geological with his establish sequences (O’Connor 2007: 100) father, Flaxman Spurrell, a medical doctor Spurrell urged caution when faced with the from the poorer side of an old Norfolk immense variety apparent at individual sites family. Dr. Spurrell’s own interest in (cf. Spurrell 1883: 93). Instead, he concerned geology, and natural history more generally, himself with the particular — with questions reputedly began by collecting fossils from

53

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) the cliffs at Cromer, near the family home at member of the West Kent Natural History, Bessingham (Caiger 1992). His eldest son Microscopical and Photographic Society was actually christened Charles John (hereafter WKPS) and served on the Flaxman Spurrell, in an effort to placate his committee until his death in 1892, acting as maternal grandfather, a wealthy London president between 1864–5. He was businessman who disapproved of his especially interested in fungi (―Cryptogamic daughter’s marriage to her less well-off botany‖; WKPS 1893), an interest he shared cousin (Caiger 1992). However, following with his son who stood in for him at West the old man’s death in 1866, Spurrell junior Kent Cryptogamic field meetings when he changed his name to Flaxman Charles was unwell (WKPS 1889: 5). An early and James, and together with his mother, ongoing archaeological interest of Spurrell inherited the wealth which would allow him junior was the investigation of ―deneholes‖ to devote himself to his geological and — deep shafts cut to extract chalk for field archaeological studies (Caiger 1992). liming (Le Gear 2008). He explored and recorded many such features, pioneered the Spurrell never seems to have worked, use of magnesium flash photography in their describing himself in various censuses as a depths (see NMR FX501), and even lowered ―medical student‖ (1871 — though he never members of the Geologists’ Association completed his studies), ―geologist‖ (1891) or down them (Holmes 1882: 400). An early simply listing ―no occupation‖ (1881). photograph shows father and son (age 24, However, at no point does he appear to have holding a ruler) reclining at the entrance to a been idle. Spurrell and his father were active denehole, together with Spurrell’s brothers participants in several newly-formed learned and other members of the WKPS (Figure 1). societies. Spurrell senior was a founder

Figure 1: The only known photograph of Flaxman C.J. Spurrell, together with his father, at the ―four pillared pit, Stankey, Bexley‖ (1866, FCJS); from left to right: FJS [Spurrell senior], FS [Spurrell junior], AS [Alfred Spurrell], Capt. Popperwell [a demonstrator of chemistry at the Royal Naval College, fond of creating explosions at the WKPS], HS [Herbert Spurrell] and Sir J.M. Wilson. [ms NMR/FX/501, reproduced with the kind permission of English Heritage]

54

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell

Spurrell and his father certainly shared an described his friend as ―infuriating‖ and interest in Pleistocene fauna and collected ―provoking‖; Spurrell rarely seems to have numerous fossil bones from the Crayford and been capable of turning up anywhere on Erith Brickearths, close to the family home time, if at all, and appears to have been in Belvedere. Whilst A.S. Kennard (1944: 9) painfully shy. At Petrie’s wedding he acted suggests that most of the fauna from the as best man, though only once assured that: brickearths was collected by Spurrell’s father, the Geologists’ Association attributed ―there will be no social ceremonies and the material to C.J. Spurrell Esq. (Spurrell performances of any kind[…]You won’t be in junior) in 1872 when they visited the for any more than in witnessing a will or a collection at their Belvedere home (Morris lease[…]so don’t be scared.‖ 1872: 229). Spurrell seems to have been hit (Petrie to Spurrell 22.09.97, ms hard by his father’s death in 1892; the PMA/WFPI/16/2/1 [3]) Proceedings of the WKPS for that year records that he read a paper on ―True and Once Petrie devoted himself to fieldwork in alleged stone implements of the North , his friend proved an invaluable asset Downs‖ on the 22nd April 1892, but not even back in England; writing cheques on Petrie’s an abstract is provided, in contrast to papers behalf (Petrie to Spurrell 03.11.92, ms read by others in that year. PMA/WFPI/16/2/1 [3]), receiving and storing finds (e.g. Petrie to Spurrell 17.4.80, Whilst Spurrell’s father clearly had an ms NOR), as well as refitting and writing up important impact upon his developing any flint artefacts (Petrie to Spurrell interests, his closest friend was the renowned 12.09.93, ms PMA/WFPI/16/2/1 [3]; Egyptologist Flinders Petrie. The pair first Spurrell 1894). However, whilst Spurrell met in 1876 when Petrie, then only 22, may have learned much from Petrie in terms exhibited measured drawings of of method, Petrie seems not to have acquired at the Archaeological Institute (Caiger 1992). a reciprocal interest in the Palaeolithic; he Spurrell was deeply impressed by Petrie’s makes no response to Spurrell’s urging that methods, especially of recording, and sought he look out for Palaeoliths when he first to imitate his technique: went to Egypt, and when invited down to view Spurrell’s floor at Crayford, makes no ―Thank you very much for your card and mention at all of it in his next letter — promises of a plan — It is perfectly instead praising the ―Roman Camp‖ at astonishing — the way you measure — I Abbey Wood they had visited on the same have with great trouble planned the camp & day. In fact, there are hints that this a thing or two near — but slowly and ill — friendship with the supremely confident and & really you took my breath away.‖ ebullient Petrie had an adverse effect upon (Spurrell to Petrie 18.04.79, ms Spurrell, who frequently compared himself PMA/WFPI/16/5/1 [5]) unfavourably with his friend:

Spurrell and Petrie surveyed many Kentish ―I can hardly express the obligations under enclosures and monuments together, Petrie which I lie to you in an antiquarian sense for teaching Spurrell ―three rod surveying‖ the kindness & attention that you have given (Petrie to Spurrell 04.03.80, ms to my wants. Your method has given me a PMA/WFPI/16/2/10). On one occasion great insight into some requirements for the Spurrell was sent back to an enclosure near useful & trustworthy study of very difficult Swanscombe to finish the work, pick up the remains, & I feel much disappointed with pegs, and search for a sieve mislaid by Petrie myself in consequence of much that I do not (Petrie to Spurrell 02.11.80, ms do — I shall avoid matters in future that are PMA/WFPI/16/2/10). Petrie frequently too much for me.‖

55

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

(Spurrell to Petrie 27.04.80, ms which Spurrell was a member formed during PMA/WFPI/16/5/1 [5]) this period: the Kent Archaeological Society (1858); West Kent Natural History, This extract comes from a letter written to Microscopical and Photographic Society Petrie within two weeks of his discovery of (1859); and the rather less spectacularly the floor at Crayford, and suggests that named Essex Field Club (1880). Whereas Spurrell was overwhelmed by his find — and previously Evans and Prestwich had urged fearful of not doing it justice. Indeed, he these Victorian scientists to seek implements begged Petrie to visit the floor ―as a from British gravels on a par with those from competent observer‖ (Spurrell to Petrie Abbeville (O’Connor 2007: 83), by the 04.03.1880, ms PMA/WFPI/16/5/1). Given 1880s the antiquity of man was widely Spurrell’s apparent shyness and lack of self- accepted. Such artefacts — and evidence for confidence, it is perhaps unsurprising that he this distant period — were highly prized by published so little, whilst doing so much. members of these learned societies. Individuals like Spurrell, who were able to devote themselves to Palaeolithic research SPURRELL AND THE “OLD MEN” during its earliest years, were in a privileged position, and were greatly appreciated by Whilst Spurrell’s archaeological and those who relied on their conclusions; in his scientific tastes were wide-ranging, his work Geological Memoire of London, Whitaker as an early Palaeolithic archaeologist stands fully acknowledges his debt to ―those useful out not only because of the sites that he local observers‖ (Whitaker 1889: 382). recorded, but the approach he took to Fully mechanised quarrying was years away, investigating the material he recovered. He and quarrymen themselves became adept at experimented with flint knapping (Spurrell recognising artefacts, which could be sold as 1884), and appears to have been the first a valuable financial bonus. The late person to investigate how artefacts were nineteenth century therefore witnessed the made by refitting them (Spurrell 1880a, b). discovery of many of the sites which still He was a careful and assiduous observer, dominate Palaeolithic research in Britain. and, like his west London compatriot John Allen Brown, was wealthy enough to devote Two of Spurrell’s best-known sites — his time to the detailed study of his Ebbsfleet (Spurrell 1883; 1884) and immediate area, observing changes in Crayford (Spurrell 1880a, b) — are still accessible quarry faces and the material that particularly important to early Middle came from them. For instance, when leading Palaeolithic research, and he is most closely an excursion of the Geologists’ Association associated with his discoveries at Crayford. to Dartford Heath in 1891, Spurrell urged the Spurrell and his father had devoted much party to travel on to Little Thurrock; the pit time to searching the brick pits of the there was being infilled and this visit might Crayford–Erith area for fossils, but the first represent a final chance to view the artefact to come from them was a single exposures (Spurrell 1891: 194). flake published by the Reverend Osmund Fisher in 1872 (Fisher 1872). Flakes from Spurrell, along with other noteworthy these deposits were important at the time characters such as Brown, Benjamin because the ―trail‖ which caps the Harrison and Worthington Smith, was one of brickearths was assumed to be glacial in a new breed of Victorian enthusiasts. The origin, and thus they demonstrated the latter part of the nineteenth century existence of ―Pre-Glacial Man‖ (O’Connor witnessed a mushrooming of local societies 2007: 40). Spurrell had noticed flakes within devoted to all manner of scientific endeavour the Crayford brickearths before 1880, but (O’Connor 2007: 76) and several societies of had dismissed them as being derived from

56

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell

Figure 2: Spurrell’s flaking floor at Stoneham’s Pit, Crayford; this photograph was potentially taken by Spurrell himself, a keen photographer [ms BM[FH]/PDA Crayford/London; reproduced with the kind permission of the British Museum] elsewhere: carrying off the bones & the sand is falling over the flakes[…]for the next 3 or four days ―Believing from their shape, colour, and I must keep watch on my remarkable find as mineral condition that they had come from I have written to ask John Evans to come & another stratum of the river deposits‖ see them.‖ (Spurrell 1880a: 544) (Spurrell to Petrie 04.03.1880, ms PMA/WFPI/16/5/1) He was extremely concerned with establishing how particular bones and Petrie was one of the first people to visit the artefacts became incorporated within ancient site, and whilst not personally very interested deposits; this preoccupation with context in it, urged Spurrell to ensure that others appears repeatedly in Spurrell’s articles and visited — mentioning, as well as Evans letters. (whose presence Spurrell had already invoked): Franks, Tylor, Braebrooke and On the 4th March 1880, Spurrell wrote Lane-Fox (Petrie to Spurrell 09.04.1880, ms excitedly to Petrie to tell him of a new and PMA/WFPI/16/2/1). Spurrell may have very different find: taken photographs in an effort to record the site; an archive photograph at the British ―suppose a cliff of chalk; — above a flint Museum, Franks House (Figure 2) shows the mine, — below a beach of hard sand, on the densely-packed layer of flint sloping down sand a layer of beautiful flakes. As this lies from the chalk cliff within the brickearths, now, the river has covered up the flakes with the section having recently collapsed. more sand and bones of extinct animals — Spurrell was certainly a keen photographer, the whole is like a picture. — No time is to and an album of his photographs is held by be lost for the men of the pit are desirous of English Heritage (ms NMR/FX/501). Almost

57

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) immediately, Spurrell began refitting the whom were only convinced that the site was material he collected from the site. By mid- an in situ occurrence after digging flakes out April, refitting was fully underway, and ―with their own hands‖ (e.g. T. McKenny Spurrell continued to revisit the section; Hughes, in Spurrell 1880a). By November indeed, Petrie felt obliged to return to (the end of the summer quarrying season) Spurrell a flake he had carried away to aid Spurrell seemed quite worn out by the whole the process (Petrie to Spurrell 17.04.80, ms affair: NOR). ―in a manner with my ―Old Man‖ (as the Spurrell was swift to publicise his find, and Cornish people say of the prehistorics) of scrupulous in his descriptions of it; he Crayford has given me much exercise — presented his results to the Geological along with the Thames above. I have had Society four months after he first made the numerous geologic friends to visit the site discovery (23rd June 1880) and then to the and many remarkable ideas have been Archaeological Institute (1st July 1880). Both propounded — I have for instance involved papers give very detailed descriptions of the myself in sundry ―faults‖ &c.‖ site; a hard sandy ―beach‖ below a chalk (Spurrell to Petrie 04.11.1880, ms cliff, adjacent to a band of flint weathering PMA/WFPI/16/5/1 [7]) out of the chalk and used as raw material. Spurrell’s observations are meticulous, and However much trouble Spurrell’s ―Old Man‖ he was careful to lay out all he had seen may have given him, he discovered a second before drawing conclusions. These papers major early Middle Palaeolithic site the indicate an explicit concern with following summer; Spurrell was the first understanding site formation processes: person to recover material from near the area of the Ebbsfleet Valley later celebrated as ―all the edges are perfectly sharp; this would ―Baker’s Hole‖ (Smith 1911: 515), a not have been the case had they been rolled discovery first noted in a letter to Petrie: or rubbed over each other‖ (Spurrell 1880b: 296) ―This Ebbsfleet Valley is extremely interesting — elephants, rhinoceros, flint Spurrell also suggests that the cliff was flakes &c. are found at the top & bottom of it repeatedly visited as a ―chipping ground‖ at vertical distances of nearly 100ft! & and if where flint was available, noting that other you go you will get flakes by the cart and see layers, apart from his main floor, were an elephants head in situ &c &c. I should visible above and below it (Spurrell 1880a: like to shew you them‖ 546; 1880b: 297). His concern for accurately (Spurrell to Petrie 07/1881, ms establishing context extends to the fauna PMA/WFPI/16/5/1 [7]) from the site; Spurrell noted the co- occurrence of ―warm‖ and ―arctic‖ species at Although Spurrell assured Petrie that he was Crayford, but emphasised that in order to writing up this site for publication, it was not understand the landscape occupied by the until 1883 that Spurrell published details of ―Old Men‖, one must only consider those the Ebbsfleet site, again describing the recovered in direct association with the material as coming from a ―kind of a beach‖. flaking floor (Spurrell 1880b: 298) — and He may have deliberately not revealed the not conflate remains from throughout the location of this site to other collectors sequence. (Spurrell 1884: 111), perhaps as a result of the trouble he himself had been put to over The site at Crayford was visited again later the Crayford find, or perhaps to protect the in the summer of 1880, this time by site from less scrupulous collectors members of the Geological Society, some of (O’Connor 2007: 86). If he hoped to refit

58

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell material from here, as he had at Crayford, &c‖. Interestingly, in these early papers he then he could not allow flakes to be carried viewed the facetted ends of flakes as away. evidence of use, but changed his mind after experiment and refitting. By 1884 he Refitting flint flakes was one way Spurrell correctly interpreted the faceting as a ―detail sought to understand how flint artefacts were of manufacture‖, observing that: made, but he also experimented with flint knapping himself (Spurrell 1884: 112). He ―when placed together, the trimming above used his experience to help him interpret the described passing continuously across the artefacts he collected — although his base of both of them; thus they were chipped technique (the wild swing of a cylindrical in a preparatory way more or less, or not at flint hammer) was somewhat unorthodox. all, as occasion required‖ His early publications of the Crayford (Spurrell 1884: 112) material describe two major refitting sequences from the site (Spurrell 1880a, b), It is also likely that examination of material but he clearly succeeded in refitting more of from the Ebbsfleet site allowed Spurrell to the material over time, and interpreted how better understand the Crayford assemblage. they had been worked in different ways (e.g. He does not seem to have refitted many Spurrell 1884). As a knapper, he explicitly artefacts from Ebbsfleet, but nevertheless noted deficiencies in the available raw provided a technological reading of how the material and the subsequent difficulties these artefacts were produced, and an accurate presented: description of the classic Levallois method:

―The blocks of weathered and bruised flint ―A mass of flint was trimmed from the sides, were obstinate and flawed, and great and worked roughly into a rounded form at difficulty was experienced getting good the top. This worked part was then detached pieces to work upon[…]betokening great at a single blow[…]leaving a turtle-back necessity and very little art‖ flake‖ (Spurrell 1880a: 294) (Spurrell 1883: 107; see also Spurrell 1884: 113) Although Spurrell interpreted this particular sequence as relating to the manufacture of a The Levallois technique had first been broken ―Hâche‖, and not, as is now apparent, described in relation to J. Reboux’s (1867) as the products of Levallois flaking (Scott in find from the Paris suburb after which it is prep.), his knapping experience did lead him named (and also, arguably, by Boucher de to consider what was missing from each Perthes, though with little impact — cf. sequence, as well as what remained. He Schlanger 1996). Although Spurrell does noted that the least complete sequences are draw some comparisons between some on better quality raw material — the desired scrapers he collected and the ―Cave‖ pieces having been carried away (Spurrell implements of France (Spurrell 1883: 97), 1880a: 298). Others he assumed may have his description of the flaking method is ―whirred off‖ to distances of over 40 feet seemingly drawn from the material he away when struck (Spurrell 1884). His studied, rather than a comparison with a writings show that he was thinking through continental description. He further sought to reduction sequences, and the processes and understand how particular retouched forms problems which impact upon artefact were made and used, and it is around this variability. In his 1880 papers, he describes a question that a notable difference between second sequence from Crayford as reflecting Spurrell’s approach and that of his the production of flakes ―for smaller contemporaries emerges. implements, such as arrow-heads, knives,

59

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

By the late 19th century, early Palaeolithic Not only should such contexts be sought out, researchers had amassed a notable corpus of but care taken in their investigation; he Palaeolithic artefacts, especially from the berated the excavators of caves — perceived terraces of the Thames. The question now by him as similarly undisturbed contexts — arose as to how these riches were to be for their ―haste and carelessness‖ during arranged and interpreted. Evans, for instance, excavation, and for not attempting refitting classified handaxes into three types by form, work themselves (Spurrell 1884: 110). and by 1860 sought to understand their distribution throughout the ―River Drifts‖ However, even within taphonomically secure (Evans 1863: 75; O’Connor 2007: 80). contexts, Spurrell still felt that the variety of Worthington Smith sought order through material recovered defied easy classification; three ―classes‖ of Palaeolithic implement he pointed out that his Ebbsfleet site (see O’Connor 2007: 86–97), but Spurrell included: urged caution in trying to tease out such patterns. Firstly, he was concerned about ―five different forms of hâche[…]all made on taphonomy; only in the highest, oldest the same spot, with great diversity of finish, deposits might it be possible to identify a at the same time that it continued to be a ―type‖ indicative of relative age — the flaking floor‖ further one descended, the more likely it (Spurrell 1883: 93; see also Spurrell 1884: became that material of a variety of dates 113) was conflated. Whilst relative abrasion was sometimes helpful, it could not be relied He therefore sought to understand how these upon: different forms were produced, pointing out that at Ebbsfleet, the difference between a ―The determination of relative age in types ―slick‖ () and a hâche lay only in the cannot then be safely made in recent decision to retouch one or both faces, and deposits, but old types must be made out in that the two forms actually morph into one old deposits which cannot contain late ones. another, the edges being progressively Wear and rudeness of manufacture are no retouched as the flake dulled through use proof of age, and peculiarities of work and (Spurrell 1883: 107). He also reflected on shape without the assistance of geological how retouch must have affected the position are fallacious guides‖ functional properties of such edges. By 1884, (Spurrell 1886: 76) he had also succeeded in refitting much more of his material from Crayford, and Spurrell felt that only in situ occurrences — enumerated the diverse knapping techniques like his Crayford floor — might give any undertaken: picture of precisely what the ―Old Men‖ were up to at any one time (Spurrell 1883: ―In some cases the whole stone was split up 93). He urged others to seek similar into long, parallel, regular flakes…In other situations, suggesting to Benjamin Harrison stones the object was clearly to break the that he concentrate on: stone, but apparently without ulterior purpose as to the pieces detached, so coarse ―Find[ing] the implements in situ, in a and clumsy were the results[…]Other stones deposit sufficiently deep or marked to were broken evidently to obtain knifelike prevent all doubts that they are not mere plates[…]and this was accomplished by surface[…]entanglements‖ continual rectification of the superior (and (Spurrell to Harrison 25.06.1891, ms necessary) plane of percussion from which MBA/RW/―life‖ 165) the large flakes were struck.‖ (Spurrell 1884: 110)

60

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell

Spurrell’s concern with the particular factors It is not easy to assess Spurrell’s position that affect artefact variability feels very within late 19th century networks; few letters familiar today. His emphasis upon from or to him can now be traced. He was taphonomic processes and contextual certainly friendly with Benjamin Harrison, integrity foreshadows the questions that must largely basing his 1883 ―West Kent‖ paper be asked of any assemblage. Whilst upon Harrison’s Palaeolithic finds, and accepting some progression in form and Harrison seems to have esteemed him as a broad groupings of artefacts (notably Lartet local expert to whom artefacts could be sent and Christy’s ―Cave‖ and ―Drift‖ for approval (e.g. Harrison 28.08.84, ms implements; O’Connor 2007: 115), MBA/Harrison notebook 7). He initially Spurrell’s real interest was understanding the sought Harrison’s acquaintance after seeing mind of the people who produced this some of his Oldbury finds within W.J. Lewis material — and specifically, their reaction to Abbott’s collection (Harrison 08.11.80, ms different difficulties and circumstances. MBA/Harrison notebook 2), but his attitude Indeed, he felt that the best insights into ―the towards Harrison’s eolithic finds (McNabb, progress of man’s mind‖ (Spurrell 1884: this volume) was more ambivalent. Spurrell 110) could be obtained by re-creating these seems not to have objected to the pieces moments of individual choice, rather than themselves (or at least not all of them) so grouping particular classes of implement much as their geological context, and even together. Spurrell’s whole approach echoes seems to have become frustrated with the modern notion of the chaîne opératoire Harrison’s preoccupation with surface — concentrating on individual action at implements when fissures (esteemed by specific places within the landscape, and Spurrell as contextually secure) abounded seeking to understand the mind behind the nearby (e.g. Spurrell to Abbott 02.01.93, gestures he reconstructed. MBA/Harrison notebook). Other workers (e.g. John Allen Brown) sought him out as an expert guide to the exposures of his area, SPURRELL AND HIS as well as visiting the Crayford site itself. CONTEMPORARIES Following the publication of his work at In an era where most workers sought to Crayford, Spurrell’s ―re-assemblies‖ were establish and add to sequences, the cautious widely admired, and spurred others on to approach advocated by Spurrell was never attempt similar work. Worthington Smith, in going to revolutionise Palaeolithic research. particular, spent three years refitting material However, he was well respected by his peers from his pits at Caddington, and greatly for both his archaeological and geological admired the work undertaken by Spurrell, knowledge (see Kennard 1947: 285). He commenting that; ―I shall never forget more often read papers than published them, reading for the first time of this remarkable as a result of which he has faded somewhat achievement‖ (Smith 1887: 83). Others were into the background over the years. His equally impressed but less successful; the cautious nature does not seem suited to material collected by John Allen Brown from publication, and it is interesting that whilst Creffield Road, Acton includes several his nearest contemporaries, John Allen broken Levallois points which have been Brown and Worthington Smith, both forcibly glued to the butts of different published books on their researches (Brown Levallois products — and then bound round 1887; Smith 1894), Spurrell did not. His with tape to secure the join. Palaeolithic publications are restricted to the 1880s; Petrie suggests that after they became The geological difficulties of the late 19th friends Spurrell devoted himself more to century were a constant worry to Spurrell, ―largely Egyptian matters‖ (Petrie 1915). and his considerations of many of the

61

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) problems that plagued other workers are (after several unsuccessful attempts), by thoughtful and questioning. He, like so many presenting her with a ready-completed others, struggled to understand the marriage licence. Spurrell was driven to significance of ―the wretched boulder clay‖ church in a carriage, whilst his bride, a (Spurrell to Petrie 14.10.82, ms renowned horticulturalist, wore her PMA/WFPI/16/5/1 [5]) on the north bank of gardening clothes (Caiger 1992). After his the Thames, as well as the ―warp‖ or ―trail‖ death in 1915 Petrie went through Spurrell’s he encountered on top of and within the correspondence and retained material of Crayford brickearths, in relation to whether interest to himself, but sadly for one who humans were present in pre- or post-glacial recorded so much, and published so little, the times (for a detailed consideration of these location of the rest of Spurrell’s archive is issues, see O’Connor 2007: 27–71). Spurrell unknown. was inclined to accept Geikie’s (1877) picture of multiple glacial/interglacial intervals, rather than a single ―Ice Age‖, and CONCLUSION Skertchly’s (1876) pattern of repeated interglacial human presence. Spurrell viewed Flaxman C.J. Spurrell’s major contribution the ―trails‖ of the Crayford area as relating to to the early years of Palaeolithic research a variety of ―fits‖ of glaciation, but carefully was as one of several diligent local searched through all available literature on researchers, who not only amassed the pre- arctic exploration to try and understand mechanisation Palaeolithic resource exactly how these deposits formed, available to us today, but also sought to concluding that they probably related to understand how the ―Old Men‖ might have slope processes during cold conditions lived. The sites he discovered, and the (Spurrell 1886: 82–89). He sought probable questions he raised, still repay investigation modern equivalents around West Kent, — the ―curious mix‖ of warm and cold fauna cutting sections in likely positions, carefully at Crayford continues to confound (Schreve drawing them and measuring the angle and 2001; Scott 2009). The approach he took to alignment of pebbles (ibid: 88). investigating the Palaeolithic prefigured many modern concerns — taphonomy, His diligence as a geological observer was contextual integrity, technology and ancient widely appreciated, and long after Spurrell cognition. The time that he invested in had ceased to publish on Palaeolithic refitting the Crayford assemblage is readily matters, he continued to be an active member apparent, and many of his conclusions of the Geologists’ Association, directing broadly correct, if couched in slightly field meetings on his local patch (Higham, unfamiliar terms. Without men like Spurrell, Crayford, Swanscombe, Dartford Heath, the Evans’ of this world would have had Grays and Northfleet) and attending those little to write about. It seems fitting to further afield. The last excursion he led was, conclude with the words of one who knew fittingly, to Crayford and Erith in 1897 Spurrell personally, and valued his work: (Monkton 1899: 110). By this stage Spurrell had left the area; after his father’s death in ―Spurrell was a remarkable man, very quiet 1892, Petrie suggests that he became and very retiring, but he did know, though melancholy and pessimistic (Petrie 1915) published but little, and his work can always and when his mother died four years later, be relied on‖ Spurrell sold the house in Belvedere and (Kennard 1947: 286) moved to Norfolk to rejoin his extended family. His final years were not without comfort; in 1912, at the age of 72 he finally persuaded his cousin Catherine to marry him

62

B. Scott & A. Shaw: Flaxman C.J. Spurrell

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Petrie, W.M.F. 1915. Flaxman Spurrell, 1843–1915. Ancient Egypt 2: 93–94. We would like to thank the editors for encouraging us Reboux, J. 1867. Silex taillés associés à des to commit our enthusiasm for F.C.J. Spurrell and his ossements dans les terrains quaternaires des work to paper, and Anne O’Connor for numerous environs de Paris. In Congrès International (frequently late night) discussions about the early d’Anthropologie et Archéologie Préhistorique, years of Palaeolithic archaeology. We are indebted to 2ème Session: 103–109. Reinwald, Paris. her for her knowledge, encouragement and cheap red Schlanger, N. 1996. Understanding Levallois: Lithic wine. Numerous individuals and institutions have technology and cognitive archaeology. Cambridge helped track down and secure access to archive Archaeological Journal 6: 231–254. resources, as well as providing permission to quote Schreve, D.C. 2001. Mammalian evidence from the from unpublished sources: the British Museum Middle Pleistocene fluvial sequences for complex (Franks House), Bexley Local Studies Centre, English environmental change at the oxygen isotope sub- Heritage (National Monuments Record), Greenwich stage level. Quaternary International 79: 65–74. Heritage Centre, Norwich Castle Museum and the Scott, B. 2009. The Crayford Brickearths Project. Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology (UCL). We Quaternary Newsletter 117: 44–48. would especially like to thank Angela Mathuna and Scott, B. In prep. Missing the point; a re-analysis of Giles Guthrie of Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art the refitting flint assemblage from Crayford, Gallery for access to the Harrison Archive, and Greater London, UK. Angela in particular for all her work tracking down Skertchly, S.B.J. 1876. On the Discovery of references to Spurrell within the archive — an Palaeolithic Implements of Inter-glacial Age. impossible task to anyone but her! Nature 14: 448–449. Smith, W.G. 1887. Primeval Man in the Valley of the Lea. Transactions of the Essex Field Club 3: 102– 147. REFERENCES Smith, W.G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage: his Haunts and Relics from the Hill-tops of Brown, J.A. 1887. Palaeolithic Man in North-West to Blackwall. Stanford, London. Middlesex. Macmillan, London. Spurrell, F.C.J. 1880a. On implements and chips from Caiger, N. 1992. F.C.J. Spurrell, Kentish Antiquary the floor of a Palaeolithic Workshop. and Archaeologist. Kent Underground Research Archaeological Journal 38: 294–299. Group Research Report 8. Spurrell, F.C.J. 1880b. On the discovery of the place Evans, J. 1863. Account of some Further Discoveries where Palaeolithic Implements were made at of Flint Implements in the drift on the Continent Crayford. Quarterly Journal of the Geological and in England. Archaeologia 38: 280–307. Society of London 36: 544–548. Fisher, O. 1872. On a worked flint from the brickearth Spurrell, F.C.J. 1883. Palaeolithic implements found of Crayford. Geological Magazine 9: 268–269. in West Kent. Archaeologia Cantiana 15: 89–103. Geikie, J. 1887. The Great Ice Age and its Relation to Spurrell, F.C.J. 1884. On some Palaeolithic knapping the Antiquity of Man. Edward Stanford, London. tools and modes of using them. Journal of the Holmes, T.V. 1882. Excursion to the deneholes of Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Bexley. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association Ireland 13: 109–118. 7: 400–403. Spurrell, F.C.J. 1886. A sketch of the History of the Kennard, A.S. 1944. The Crayford Brickearths. Rivers and Denudation of West Kent, &c. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 55: Transactions of the West Kent Natural History, 121–169. Microscopical and Photographic Society 1885– Kennard, A.S. 1947. Fifty and One Years of the 1886: 53–104. Geologists' Association. Proceedings of the Spurrell, F.C.J. 1891. Excursion to Grays Thurrock, Geologists' Association 58: 271–293. Essex. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association Le Gear, R. 2008. Another Dene Hole at Northfleet. 12: 194. Kent Underground Research Group Newsletter 96: Spurrell F.C.J. 1894. Flint Tools from Tell el Amarna. 4. In W.M.F. Petrie (ed.) Tell el Amarna: 37–38. Monkton, M.R. 1899. Excursion to Erith and Quarto, London. Crayford. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Whitaker, W. 1889. The Geology of London and Parts Association 15: 110–113. of the Thames Valley: Volume 1. HMSO, London. Morris, J. 1872. Excursion to Belvedere. Proceedings WKPS. 1889. Proceedings of the West Kent Natural of the Geologists’ Association 2: 229–230. History, Microscopical and Photographic Society O'Connor, A. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone for 1888–89. Age: A History of Palaeolithic Archaeology and WKPS. 1893. Proceedings of the West Kent Natural Quaternary Geology in Britain, 1860–1960. History, Microscopical and Photographic Society Oxford University Press, Oxford. for 1892–93.

63

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES ms NMR/FX/501. National Monuments Record, Swindon, Flaxman Spurrell papers. ms BM[FH]/PDA. British Museum, Franks’ House, ms NOR. Norwich Castle Museum. Photographic Document Archive. ms PMA/WFPI. Petrie Museum of Egyptian ms MBA. Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art Archaeology, University College, London, William Gallery, Harrison Papers. Flinders Petrie papers. ms MBA/RW. Maidstone Museum and Bentlif Art Gallery, Harrison Papers, Series W records book.

64

F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes

HENRY STOPES (1852–1902): ENGINEER, BREWER AND ANTHROPOLOGIST

Francis Wenban-Smith

School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Henry Stopes was a prominent Victorian brewery architect and engineer with a lifelong passion for flints and fossils, and an active participant in the Eolithic debate of the late 19th century. He amassed possibly the largest ever private collection of lithic artefacts and, foreshadowing today’s conflicts between development and heritage, endeavoured to mitigate the impact of building near the key Swanscombe site of Dierden’s Pit by prior excavation. Drawing from a substantial archive of original material kindly made available by his grandson Harry Stopes-Roe, this paper introduces Stopes the man, and revisits aspects of his archaeological contribution, sadly curtailed by his early death.

Full reference: Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2009. Henry Stopes (1852–1902): engineer, brewer and anthropologist. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 65–84. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Henry Stopes, Eoliths, Benjamin Harrison, Tertiary Man, Dierden‘s Pit (Ingress Vale), Victorian heritage curation

INTRODUCTION occurred on the threshold of what might have been his flagship legacy. This brief Henry Stopes is a minor, and to most, paper attempts to present a more rounded unknown figure in the canon of 19th century picture of Stopes the man, to review his antiquarians whose activities provided the Eolithic advocacy within the wider context foundations of today‘s Palaeolithic of his other anthropological endeavours, and archaeology. He made no seminal to consider his work not just as of historical discoveries, or at least none published interest, but for its enduring legacy. sufficiently for posterity to recognize, although he was one of the first to collect at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe. He carried out FAMILY BACKGROUND AND no groundbreaking methodological work PROFESSIONAL LIFE acclaimed in the present day. And, worst of all, he backed the wrong horse in devoting Henry Stopes was born in Colchester, 17th the majority of his anthropological energies February 1852, youngest child of to passionate pursuit and promotion of Christopher and Maria Stopes, into an Tertiary Man and the ―Eolithic‖ cause. And affluent, professional background. yet, there is much to be gained from Christopher Stopes (a Quaker elder, born in revisiting Stopes‘ anthropological Britwell, south Oxfordshire, and from a long contribution, inevitably diminished by his line of predominantly clergy stretching back early death, which, as revealed below, to Bishop Aylmer of Tudor times) had spent

65

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) time in America, but returned to Colchester was also elected to the Royal Historical and prospered there, having established a Society, and thereafter he continued to brewery in 1828. His first wife Ann gave accumulate an astonishing array of birth to Henry‘s eldest brother Alfred in Fellowships and Memberships in both the 1834, but then died in May 1835. However, commercial and academic worlds, later being Christopher Stopes rapidly remarried to made a Freeman of the City of London. At Maria Nice (born in Layer Marney, not far this point Stopes, although only in his mid- from Colchester) who gave birth to a twenties, was now the complete package of succession of six children from 1837, brewer, engineer and architect, not to concluding in the birth of Henry in 1852. mention geologist and antiquarian. Henry was privately educated at two Colchester schools, firstly Stockwell House Stopes was a regular attendee of the annual until the age of 12–13, and subsequently late summer meeting of the British Linton House Academy, where he was a Association for the Advancement of Science very capable all-round pupil, excelling (henceforth, the British Association). He met particularly in mathematics, and developing his wife Charlotte (née Carmichael, daughter an interest in fossils and archaeological of a well-known Edinburgh painter) at the remains that would continue throughout his Plymouth meeting of 1877, and they were life. married in her home town of Edinburgh in June 1879. They set up home in Upper As recounted in the British Journal of Norwood, south London in summer 1880 on Commerce (9th July, 1887) in the article return from their honeymoon tour of Europe, accompanying his pin-up portrait, issued as a the Middle East and Egypt. Their eldest loose enclosure with that edition of the daughter Marie was born shortly after, in journal (Figure 1), his eldest full brother October 1880, and they later had a second Aylmer died after a hunting accident in daughter Winifred (usually called Winnie) September 1871, and Henry was summoned early in summer 1884. from a city apprenticeship at the age of 19 to replace Aylmer as his father‘s junior partner Stopes doted on his daughters, and on the in a rapidly expanding business. Henry was family dog Daisy, but does not seem, despite evidently highly successful in this the fact of his daughters‘ birth, to have had partnership, and furthermore developed a an especially warm relationship with his complete understanding of every aspect of wife. This has been extensively dissected by the brewery process, and of the engineering others, particularly Hall (1977), since this and structural technicalities underpinning the relationship was instrumental in the equipment used and the brewery premises psychological and emotional development of themselves. He was made a full partner in their eldest daughter Marie, subsequently the family business at the age of 21 in 1873, and consequently to become such a key alongside his slightly older brother Arthur; figure in the related fields of birth control their father retired shortly after, making over and satisfactory marital relations that she the whole business to his sons. At the same was voted ―Woman of the Millennium‖ by time, Stopes became friendly with W.H. Guardian readers in 1999. There must have Dalton of the Geological Survey, who was been an unbridgeable chasm between mapping in Essex between 1873 and 1876. Henry‘s unbridled and passionate enactment With Dalton‘s support, Stopes, who had of his Victorian male role and his wife distinguished himself in helping map the Charlotte‘s independent intellect — she was Essex Red Crag, from which he was a keen a prominent Shakespearean scholar and fossil collector, was elected one of the proponent of female suffrage — allied to her youngest ever Fellows of the Geological own restrictively puritanical instincts, as she Society in 1874 at the age of 22. In 1876 he was to later to write to him on his deathbed:

66

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes

Figure 1: Henry Stopes, pin-up of the Victorian commercial world

67

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

―The sensual look has passed away from instigated an annual exhibition and your face that so pained me, & you seem to competition for British barley producers in have regained the chastened expression of an attempt to raise standards, remaining your youth which made me trust you‖ (HSR- Chair of the judging committee until the end 1) [Throughout this paper, material from the of his life. And he published what, for many Harry Stopes-Roe archive is referenced decades, was regarded as the standard text HSR-n, and details given in the book on the subject: Malt and Malting (H. bibliography]. Nonetheless, there was no Stopes 1885). question of infidelity or divorce; rather they seem to have remained on friendly and It was, as the brewing fraternity saw it, his mutually supportive terms but evolved betrayal of brewers in support of farmers that increasingly separate lives, spending lay at the root of his professional downfall. increasing time apart and pursuing their own As an undesired result (from the perspective academic and intellectual interests, not to of British farmers) of the repeal of the malt mention business interests in Henry Stopes‘ tax in 1880, brewers were focusing on use of case, which included frequent travel across the cheapest imported grain enhanced by Britain and Europe, as well as to and additives such as gelatinised rice. These the US. factors led British barley producers to agitate for a Pure Beer Bill restricting ingredients of Coinciding with the start of his married life beer to barley, hops, water and yeast. Henry in London, Stopes established his own Stopes initially took the lead in resisting this independent firm of H. Stopes & Co, with move on behalf of the brewing community, premises in Southwark. One of his early becoming founding president in June 1886 of projects was the rebuilding of his own the Free Mash-Tun and Pure Beer family‘s brewery in East Hill, Colchester, Association — formed to lead opposition to conducted in two phases between 1880 and the Pure Beer Bill, the effect of which would 1888, the frontage of which still survives in be, the brewing lobby anticipated, to greatly the present day (Pearson 1999). H. Stopes & increase brewing costs and restrict use of a Co flourished through the 1880s, carrying number of convenient additives. However, out a range of jobs across the UK from Stopes rapidly became converted to the Pure minor installations of technical equipment to Beer cause, into which he then threw himself complete brewery rebuilds. According to ―heart and soul‖ and ―greatly distinguished Pearson (ibid.) his architectural style was himself‖ (East Anglian Daily Times, 8th severely functional with zero decoration, December 1902), having become shocked with the dramatic exception of his and astonished by evidence of the range of brewhouse tower column for Barrett‘s often poisonous additives used by less Brewery in Vauxhall, south London, known scrupulous brewers. His brewing client base locally as Barrett‘s Column, which was then conspired to boycott his business if he topped by an illuminated bottle, on its side, persisted in figure-heading support for the 1 weighing 3 /2 tons and 20ft long, free- Bill, which he did, and then so did they. rotating to act as both dominating advertisement and weather vane. His main Although his business did not formally fold, contribution to the Victorian brewing it underwent a substantial upheaval in the profession, however, was in his early 1890s. Following a nervous breakdown understanding of the technicalities of the on a trip to Toronto in July 1891 (HSR-2), he malting stage of the fermentation process, was advised to rest more and get more fresh whereby barley was part-germinated prior to air, so, although retaining much reduced steeping. Wanting to support British farmers, business premises in London, he moved to but feeling that British barley was of Swanscombe, renting Mansion House, the insufficient quality for this process, he largest property in the village — deliberately

68

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes chosen as an advantageous centre for flint- the deposits, and this work demonstrates collecting activity. He was forced to give up sound archaeological thinking. However, it Mansion House in June 1898 for financial was his interest in fossil-collecting and a reasons and the desire to have his daughters discovery from the Pliocene Red Crag educated in London, where he set up a house outcrop at Walton-on-the-Naze that was to with his wife in Denning Road, Hampstead. have greater import for the rest of Stopes‘ He still regularly returned to Swanscombe, antiquarian career. In 1880 a fossil specimen however, presumably renting overnight of the scallop Pectunculus glycimeris came accommodation when needed. From his into Stopes‘ possession, obtained from a Swanscombe base, despite increasing bouts fellow collector, and carved with an obvious, of illness culminating in a last 6 months of albeit crude representation of a human face, severe suffering, he devoted the last ten with a central hole above to facilitate years of his life to accumulation of what may hanging as a personal pendant (Figure 2). be the most substantial private collection of lithic artefacts ever assembled. He died on December 5th 1902 at the age of only 50, leaving his wife Charlotte struggling financially and frantically hawking his flint collection around prospective purchasers, although remaining sufficiently principled to his memory to keep the collection together rather than cash in on selling off its best specimens separately (Walker 2001).

EARLY ANTHROPOLOGICAL INTERESTS AND THE RED CRAG SHELL

Stopes developed an early interest in fossils and, as recounted in Henry Woodward‘s anonymously published obituary (Anon 1903), he was whipped at the age of 8 for taking a fossil echinoid to bed with him, to ponder upon its origins. His earliest known archaeological endeavour was a systematic survey in the late 1870s of ―Salting Mounds‖ along the Essex coastline — extensive exposures of reddened earth showing signs Figure 2: Stopes’ Pectunculus portrait. 20mm of anthropogenic origin. As well as mapping scale. them, he excavated a number of test pits with the deliberate intention of investigating their Stopes was convinced by its finder that it stratigraphic sequence and any artefactual genuinely came from the Red Crag, and thus content, sieving the spoil systematically from presented it to the 1881 York meeting of the top to bottom, and proving the presence British Association, arguing that it should throughout of crude pottery, bricks and ―substantiate the belief in Crag Man‘s charcoal (H. Stopes 1879, 1880). Although existence...and confirm the struggling belief he failed to find any evidence that proved in man‘s extreme antiquity‖ (H. Stopes their age or purpose, he firmly established 1882). The reaction to this claim is not the presence of human activity throughout reported in the proceedings, but, as Stopes

69

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) later confirmed, it was rejected and widely true context of discovery (M. Stopes 1913). ridiculed: not so much for the claim for The naive crudity of the image also Tertiary occupation, since geologists and irresistibly brings to mind a schoolboy hoax antiquarians across Europe had been engaged rather than the dawn of human art. So how since 1860 in the hunt for pre-Pleistocene can one explain its staining and the man (E.T. Newton 1897), but for this embedded sand? One possibility is that the particular carving as its evidence. Despite shell is a Medieval pilgrimage token, the apparently being the subject of much debate scallop (associated with St. James; Figure and exhibited at the Anthropological 3a) being the widely used symbol for, Institute, no academic journal would publish primarily although not solely, one of the it. Stopes later wrote in the foreword to a major pilgrimages to , the Camino de self-published pamphlet: ―I have afforded the Santiago de Compostela. Such tokens were scientific world matter for laughter for some carried as personal pendants or adornments, years. My turn to laugh is surely and rapidly and often buried as grave-goods (Figure 3b; coming, for man will most certainly be Spencer 1998) or buried separately proved to be as old as the Crag.‖ (H. Stopes overlooking the coastline. There are 1887). numerous ways in which such a Medieval token could have become buried or reworked Stopes went to his grave firmly believing his into the foot of the Crag talus, and thus proof of Tertiary man had been unjustly acquired its staining and embedded sand denigrated. His daughter Marie instigated a grains, and given the impression of being posthumous review of the shell by a genuinely in situ in undisturbed Crag specially convened committee of the deposits several hundred years later. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia (M. Notwithstanding any present day doubts, Stopes 1913; Sturge et al. 1913). It was Stopes‘ conviction of its authenticity fuelled subject to a range of investigations, which his collecting zeal for the rest of his life, and, seemed to indicate that the shell was already most importantly, provided the necessary fossilised when carved, but that it was preconditions for his subsequent genuinely stained and embedded with sand embracement of Benjamin Harrison‘s work grains indicative of prolonged burial within and Eolithic cause. the Red Crag, inconsistent with a modern fraud. The committee‘s conclusion was that ―the weight of evidence was in favour of the HENRY STOPES’ FLINT Pliocene age of the human work [but] it was COLLECTION impossible to speak with absolute certainty...the evidence of further finds ―The abundance of so many natural forms would be required.‖ (Sturge et al. 1913: was quite uncalled for‖ 332). (Smith 1918: 35)

So why is this shell (no longer in the Stopes Stopes‘ flint collection is a remarkable family, thought to have been given to a accumulation, made between the mid 1870s Museum, possibly the British Museum or the and his death in 1902. Estimated as Geologists‘ Association) not widely containing between 100,000 and 200,000 accepted, or at least discussed, in the present specimens at its peak, it has since then day? Firstly, besides that further finds have undergone at least two significant phases of not been forthcoming, its provenance is by downsizing: firstly when packed for the no means impeccable. Its original finder move from Mansion House to Hampstead, in reportedly had it ―for some years‖ before 1898; and secondly when repacked in 1912 Stopes acquired it (HSR-3), and there is no for the move to the National Museum of record beyond the hearsay of the finder of its Wales at Cardiff where it now resides. At

70

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes

Figure 3b: The scallop as a Medieval pilgrimage token in a burial [© Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections]

Figure 3a: The scallop as a Medieval pilgrimage token on a statue (circled) [© Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections] this point it was crudely estimated as perhaps identifying number, and in the Catalogue he containing 60,000 to 70,000 objects by recorded details of how/where he obtained it, Reginald Smith, of the British Museum, who and sometimes when, along with a short was seconded in 1918 to examine the description. Each identifying number relates collection on behalf of its new owners who not to individual items, but to localities or had paid £30,000 for it at today‘s prices. sources, so all items sharing the same According to Smith‘s report to Dr. Hoyle, provenance were given the same number. Director at Cardiff: ―You did right to warn Some entries are rather vague, with details of me that an examination of the Stopes the vendor or the country of origin; but Collection would be no light undertaking‖ others are remarkably specific, with site (Smith 1918: 35), and it was never fully locations and specific stratigraphic contexts unpacked or quantified; although Smith (Figure 4). performed an initial sort of the majority of the collection, a number of boxes ―which The earliest dated entry in the catalogue is a appeared to be of minor importance [were] ground flint , collected from Stopes‘ left for some future occasion‖ (ibid.). native Colchester in 1876 (No. 242); the last entry (No. 764a) was collected by his wife One of the main features of Stopes‘ Charlotte after his death, on a trip to collection is that from the beginning he kept Rickmansworth to try and identify the true a relatively detailed catalogue, transcribed by provenance of a particularly fine handaxe his daughter Marie when he moved from she had found in a gravel consignment used Swanscombe (M. Stopes 1898). Each item for road building on Hampstead Heath. The was assigned, and marked with, an intervening entries, comprising almost

71

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) entirely lithic artefacts (as well as several part has been examined in detail...No thousand eoliths), range from across the numerical estimates have been attempted‖ world, and from the earliest period to recent (Roe 1968: v), sites mentioned in Stopes‘ ethnographic examples. Obsidian pieces catalogue were included by Roe in his from Easter Island are sandwiched in the county listings. Background research in Catalogue between eoliths from East Dean, advance of housing development at Ingress Sussex and handaxes from ―the great gravel Abbey, Greenhithe (cf. Capon 2009) led to pit, Milton Street‖. Other entries cover: Roe‘s (1968: 163) entry for Embleton‘s American Indian arrowheads from Ohio and Garden, Ingress Vale, and ultimately to the Dakota; pieces from ―within 6 or 7 miles of National Museum of Wales‘ basement, Bellary Town, Madras‖; 350ft down where several hours of search by Elizabeth Geelong Mine (South Africa); Cairo; Walker through dusty crates, many Jerusalem; Rhode Island; New Guinea; etc. apparently untouched since packed by Comparison of entry no. against date proved Reginald Smith in 1918, had revealed one instructive (Figure 5). Until 1892, there is no rather pathetic rolled handaxe, representing trend; after that point, coinciding with Catalogue No. 751 ―found by Winnie Stopes Stopes‘ move to Swanscombe, there is a in Embleton‘s garden at Ingress Abbey, old burst of collecting activity that starts to garden.‖ decline in c. 1895, before coming to a halt after 1900, when Stopes‘ health began to This exercise did, however, identify the fail. collection and its catalogue as: (a) of potential unrealised importance; and (b) a continuing embarrassment in its present state to the National Museum of Wales (cf. Wymer 1978). There was evidently a substantial job to be undertaken collating the numerous duplicate references in the Catalogue to the same sites under slightly different names, and in carrying out some detective work to identify sites not clearly named, but for which various locational clues were given. Furthermore, Roe‘s work had not involved any analysis of the lithic material, associated in some instances with specific horizons, so a basic technological appraisal of the associated lithic material for each catalogue entry was also overdue, as

previously recommended by Wymer (ibid.) Figure 4: Typical entries from the Catalogue who had found that ―contrary to ideas based [Reproduced by kind permission: Amgueddfa Cymru on recollections of my previous visit, the – National Museum Wales] collection is in the main well worthy of preservation.‖ Alongside the more exotic entries, there are more numerous entries from the British Isles, These tasks were carried out in 2003, as the particularly from Kent, and it is through this Stopes Palaeolithic Project, supported by the that I first became aware of Stopes‘ Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. The collection, ultimately as a result of Roe‘s project focused upon the Kent entries in pioneering trawl through forgotten museum Stopes‘ catalogue, since this was his main collections across the country. Although: ―in collecting area, where he provided most the case of the vast Stopes collection...only a contextual detail and was most likely to have

72

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes

Stopes Catalogue: find-spot ID vs date order 1910

1905

1900

1895

1890 Year

1885

1880

1875

1870 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Find-spot ID

Figure 5: Dates of Stopes’ Catalogue entries (when known) plotted against entry no. identified new sites. This was also an area ―another [pit] on the same side of the stream, earmarked for rapidly expanding by the side of the road, near by‖. However, infrastructural and urban development, so what was initially baffling was the presence there were clear curatorial, as well as of more than 4,000 wholly natural pieces of academic, benefits. The full report (Wenban- flint. Even Reginald Smith, a believer in Smith 2004) is accessible online through the eoliths, commented (1918: 35): ―the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) so the full accumulation of so many natural forms was results are not reiterated here. There proved quite uncalled for‖. This is explained to a to be 175 Kent entries in the catalogue, certain extent by Stopes‘ published representing 92 sites (Table 1), the great declarations of his working methods: majority being in the Swanscombe and Ightham areas, and more than 24,000 items ―Every stone I see...is carefully examined. If (Table 2; Table 3), including more than it shows any sign of use it is kept. If entirely 5,000 handaxes of which 4,000 came from distinct from others, it is placed in a position the Great Pit, Milton Street, Swanscombe, where it is brought under my notice very later known as Barnfield Pit (Smith & frequently...Eventually more turn up, Dewey 1913; Conway et al. 1996). showing clearly the purpose for which the type was used‖ Many of the sites identified were not (H. Stopes 1901: 300) previously on the curatorial radar, a particularly important discovery being the Furthermore: location of Bevan‘s Wash-pit (Catalogue no.s 14, 27, 543 and 598) located (TQ 61020 ―By implement should be meant every stone 73520) in the heart of the development area used [sic — Stopes‘ emphasis in original text] around the Ebbsfleet International Station, to facilitate man’s action, not necessarily and source of more than 20 handaxes; it later made or shaped for use, but used [sic — became clear that this pit is obliquely Stopes‘ emphasis, as before], indication of use referenced by Spurrell (1890: cxlv) as being determined by wear, in conjunction

73

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Period Accurately Estimated Generally Unknown Total located location located location Both Palaeolithic and Late Prehistoric 11 10 17 - 38 Palaeolithic only 7 1 1 1 10 Late Prehistoric only 3 4 11 2 20 No material surviving 5 6 12 1 24 Total 26 21 41 4 92

Table 1: Identification of Stopes’ Kent sites, and survival of material of different periods in his collection

Assemblage size Pal Late P Nat Forged Ethno Misc Total 1,000–10,000 1 1 1 - - - 100–1,000 3 8 8 - - 7 10–100 17 21 14 1 - 8 1–10 28 30 33 2 2 11 0 43 32 36 89 90 76 Total assemblages 49 60 56 3 2 26 Total no. artefacts 11,427 6,093 4,156 23 3 2,499 24,201

Table 2: Stopes Collection assemblage sizes and artefact counts for different periods [Pal: Palaeolithic; Late P: Late Prehistoric; Nat: natural flints; Ethno: ethnographic artefacts; Misc: miscellaneous others]

Assemblage size Ha HaF C F-t Deb Perc Misc Total 1,000–10,000 1 - - - 1 - - 100–1,000 2 1 - - 2 - - 10–100 9 3 2 3 7 - - 1–10 23 8 8 5 27 4 2 0 14 37 39 41 12 45 47 Total assemblages 35 12 10 8 37 4 2 Total no. artefacts 4,584 758 103 106 5,866 8 2 11,427

Table 3: Technological breakdown and quantification of Stopes’ Palaeolithic assemblages [Ha: core-tool handaxes; HaF: handaxes on flake blanks; C: cores; F-t: flake-tools; Deb: débitage; Perc: ; Misc: miscellaneous others] with, or altogether apart from, form‖ transmission, 25th March 1956: ―The (H. Stopes 1895: 325) Archaeologist‖)

His daughter Marie also recalled: It is evident from Stopes‘ regular brief reports, buried in the obscurity of the British ―Father collected in a way that had never Association proceedings (e.g. H. Stopes been seen before. He didn’t merely buy the 1894), that he believed in, and collected, best specimens…he went to the pits himself, Eolithic implements, and that he was also in often taking the whole of his family…and we touch with Benjamin Harrison, well-known searched for days at a time…We brought as one of the central figures of this debate home to his collection not only the best and (Harrison 1928; O‘Connor 2003; McNabb, handsomest axes but all the scraps of stone this volume). However, what has become which showed any sign of human clear from the copious correspondence workmanship‖ between Stopes and Harrison preserved both (HSR-4: script for BBC Home Service in Maidstone Museum and the Harry Stopes-

74

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes

Roe archive, is that Stopes was not merely Harrison, 1st September 1892) an associate of Harrison and a participant in the Eolith debate of the late 19th and early The following ten years were marked by 20th centuries. He was a vigorous and numerous field outings, sessions re- vociferous proponent of the Eolithic cause, examining and cataloguing both men‘s flint and the close friend, mentor and confidante collections, the posting back and forth of key of Harrison. Not only that, but, despite the finds and relevant academic books and eminent Prestwich‘s support, Harrison could papers, and the sometimes daily exchange of even have lost his faith in his Eolithic cause letters. Harrison, despite having the most without the encouragement of Stopes, driven appalling handwriting as many by his own need for vindication of Tertiary commentators have noted, not least his own Man. son: ―I agree as to the difficulties of my father‘s handwriting‖ (HSR-7), was a prodigious letter-writer. He also, much to the STOPES AND HARRISON benefit of future investigators, was in the habit of copying out letters to and from him Stopes entered Harrison‘s life unannounced by hand, and passing them on in his in late August 1892, calling as many did on correspondence to others. It is clear that his shop in Ightham, the village grocery and Stopes had a galvanising effect on Harrison general store: ―Mr Stopes called...bought at a critical juncture, as the ―raging vortex‖ forth an unmistakeable eolith from Norwood. (cf. O‘Connor 2003) of the Eolithic storm Accepted same, he much interested. developed following Prestwich‘s (1889, Encouraged me to keep on. Felt sure of my 1891, 1892) publications: case — kept on...‖ (HSR-5). Shortly after, Stopes wrote the first of many hundreds of ―Your visit...stimulated me to renewed letters between the two men: exertions [and] has been productive of great good, it has called forth latent strength and ―I was greatly interested in your collection made me work with a will and to good and permit me once more to thank you for purpose, because one feels confident of the your kind hospitality...I shall be very happy truth...‖ to have a field day with you, and if next (HSR-8: letter from B. Harrison to H. Sunday may be convenient ...we may have a Stopes, 31st January 1893) good ramble in the fields together...You happen to be singularly placed [and] the Like in any close relationship, there were inevitable outcome of your toil and careful tiffs and misunderstandings. However, these study...must be that you will have it in your were always quickly overcome. Both men power to throw much light upon this most shared the mutually reinforced conviction interesting subject...No sane being can doubt that they were blessed as the chosen agents that the vast majority of the stones stored by of enlightenment in the battle to convince the you have been worked by men and used in world, and initially the English academic various ways...I should not be at all establishment, of the presence in England of surprised if in continuing your study and Tertiary Man, extending the antiquity of research, you secure evidence in your Man beyond the period of the great immediate neighbourhood of preglacial man glaciation of East Anglia, and even (in their in such form that no scientific man who is wilder moments) arguing for the Kentish truly scientific could reject...I think you have plateau as the cradle of the human race. done exceedingly good work in the past, I Evidence was adduced in the form of flint believe you will do still better work implements, subsequently christened hereafter. Yours faithfully, H. Stopes.‖ ―eoliths‖ by Brown (1893). These, as (HSR-6: letter from H. Stopes to B. indicated above, did not just include artefacts

75

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) showing, or thought to show, traces of should be left with Harrison, who wrote to working and shaping, but stones merely Stopes‘ widow Charlotte, in two letters showing alleged traces of wear, or even just shortly after his death: having a form interpretable as having been used. ―He so well grasped the significance of my Plateau rudes and spoke out like a prophet. There is no need to repeat here the minutiae Not a hesitating namby-pamby time server of the arguments for and against eoliths as like some of the so-called big guns.‖ being of human origin, and the debate over (HSR-10: undated letter from B. Harrison to the equally crucial matter of their geological C. Stopes, c. 1903–1904) provenance (cf. McNabb, this volume). The war was waged through the 1890s, and: particularly in the discussions of Section C (Geology) and Section H (Anthropology) of ―I was very, very proud of Mr S’ first the annual British Association meeting. letter...There are more about in many Throughout this period believers were hundreds in my stores [of letters]...They probably in the majority, and Stopes and acted as a stimulus to me and encouraged Harrison were continually convinced that me to persevere, notwithstanding the long their case was almost won. However, there delay of Evans, the insolence of — [Here was always a rump of doubters, led by the Harrison has inserted a long dash; it seems ―little St. Thomas‖ Sir John Evans and Boyd likely he was thinking of Worthington Dawkins (E.T. Newton 1897); the battles Smith, cf. Roe 1981: Plate 5]. I venture to that turned the war for the doubters were think I have done a work which will live and probably the early 20th century papers of he [Sir John Evans] has treated with Boule (1905) and Warren (1905), although contempt...‖ skirmishes continued through the 1920s and (HSR-11: undated letter from B. Harrison to 1930s (e.g. Moir 1924, 1927), and even C. Stopes, c. 1903–1904) persist in the present day on the wilder fringes of academic discourse and the hinterlands of the internet. However, Stopes SWANSCOMBE RESEARCHES: did not himself live to see his hopes dashed, DIERDEN’S PIT, INGRESS VALE retaining throughout the remainder of his life the convictions expressed early in his Besides his work with Harrison on the Kent relationship with Harrison: plateau, Stopes investigated many sites in the Swanscombe area. As previously mentioned, ―I have little to add...other than heart-felt he accumulated a huge, and unselective, congratulations on the probability of your collection from Barnfield Pit, which, despite life-work being of real value to humanity...A being unprovenanced to specific horizons, right understanding of the truth...is after all could be usefully re-examined today to more worthy of attainment than any empty explore the full diversity of handaxe honours ―courtiers‖ may gain...it has typology in the Lower Middle Gravel, from sometimes come to us to be leaders of which the vast majority of this part of his thought, to be discoverers of truths...I am collection undoubtedly came. He made a firmly convinced that you will be fortunate in large collection from the pit at Galley Hill, living long enough to see the truths you have thought by many at that time to have fought for accepted.‖ produced a human skeleton of early (HSR-9: letter from H. Stopes to B. Palaeolithic age (E.T. Newton 1895); Harrison, 14th July 1893) although apparently Stopes himself was sceptical according to his wife‘s later The feeling was mutual. The last words here memory: ―Your father would have liked to

76

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes have believed in it, but he could not be sure, students) a much more extensive faunal list from the enquiries he made...‖ (HSR-12: including small rodents, fish, reptiles and 45 letter from C. Stopes to M. Stopes, 20th mollusc species, seven of them extinct in January 1913). He made the main surviving Britain. collection from the Globe Pit, Greenhithe, which despite having a complex (and poorly On paper, Stopes (1900a, b) seems to have recorded) provenance (although see Dewey regarded the main importance of the site as 1932), demonstrates a predominance of confirming the Pleistocene age of the high handaxe types quite distinct from the median terrace gravels of Swanscombe (occurring type of the Lower Middle Gravel, and thus between c. 80 and 100 ft), which had hints at a different phase of occupation in the produced so many Palaeolithic artefacts at area, further discoveries of which should the Great Pit, Milton Street; this was not in now be a priority. There are also numerous great doubt however, as the Great Pit gravels tantalising references in his surviving were already known to contain extinct fauna, archive to other discoveries, for instance: ―I as well as the height of the terrace being went yesterday to Ightham, walking thence accepted as indicating a very ancient to Swanscombe whence the men had sent a precursor of the Thames. He also argued that telegram that they had unearthed a splendid the Dierden‘s Pit material had bearing on the tusk‖ (HSR-13); shortly followed by: ―The age of the gravels at similar height at the tusk is a very large one & several of the nearby Galley Hill Pit, and consequently bones are enormous‖ (HSR-14). upon the age of the human skeleton reportedly from that pit (E.T. Newton 1895); Dierden‘s Pit, Ingress Vale became, again, however, the age of the gravels was however, the focus of the last part of Stopes‘ not greatly disputed: the main point of life. He stumbled upon Dierden‘s (also spelt debate concerned whether or not the skeleton ―Dearden‖ by many) small gravel working in was reliably associated with the gravels. So Greenhithe, on the north-western side of one might wonder why Stopes was so Swanscombe, on 27th April 1900 (Figure 6), excited by his shell-bed on anthropological and discovered that: ―the workmen had cut grounds, as opposed to palaeontological. into a deep and exceedingly fossiliferous However, W.M. Newton‘s (1901) paper and band of stratified sands and gravels‖ (H. that posthumously presented by Stopes‘ wife Stopes 1900a: 302). From a so-called ―shell- Charlotte to the 1903 British Association bed‖ 10 ft thick, resting on Chalk bedrock at meeting at Southport (C. Stopes 1904) are 78 ft (23.80 m) OD, and overlain by 4 ft of more informative as to Stopes‘ likely non-fossiliferous sediment, he obtained thinking. numerous flint artefacts in association with mammalian fossils and molluscan remains. Both papers emphasise the occurrence of He immediately regarded the site as of prime high numbers of extinct species, indicating a importance for its rich fossiliferous, and greater age than thought for Man‘s antiquity, particularly molluscan, content including and for the Swanscombe gravels, including several extinct species. With remarkable some species ―suggesting a closer relation to rapidity, he processed a bulk sediment Pliocene beds than have previously been sample and obtained (from A.S. Kennard) found in the Thames Valley‖ (W.M. Newton identification of the molluscan remains, and 1901: 81); and both also emphasise the co- was reporting the discovery and a occurrence of ―rude implements‖ (i.e. preliminary faunal list to a meeting of the eoliths) with better worked forms. Newton in Anthropological Institute less than 3 weeks particular, with whom Stopes was on very later (ibid.). Further processing and friendly terms and exchanged numerous identification followed, and later reprints of letters, elaborates on the Dierden‘s Pit the same paper give (confusingly for modern deposits as containing older derived

77

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 6: Dierden’s Pit, Ingress Vale, probably in May 1900 [HSR-15]

Figure 7: Locations of: (a) Dierden's Pit; and (b) the plot of land purchased by Astor for Stopes to excavate [Base map OS 1:2500 survey, 3rd edition; © Crown Copyright and Landmark Information Group Limited 2009; all rights reserved 1905]

78

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes implements of ―more primitive form‖ along 1968: 333). However, Stopes had bigger with natural stones ―exhibiting signs of much plans. In December 1901, the plot of land use‖ gathered from the Weald plateau (ibid.). adjoining Dierden‘s pit (Figure 7) was Thus it seems that Stopes‘ reading of the site advertised for sale by Rayner & Bridgland, was not so much for the expanded land agents of Gravesend (HSR-16). In interpretive potential of the rich faunal January 1902, Stopes wrote direct to the evidence in terms of climate and local American millionaire William Waldorf Astor environment, nor for the unprecedented at his private residence in Carlton House predominance of ovate forms, many with a Terrace, one of London‘s most exclusive twisted profile (in contrast to the typically addresses: pointed forms from the Milton Street Pit), as drawn attention to by W.M. Newton (ibid.), ―I wish to enlist the sympathy of a wealthy but as another front in the war for acceptance man, for a purely scientific object, where a of pre-Palaeolithic Tertiary Man on the Kent small outlay...can directly help scientific plateau. research. I appeal first to you. The most intensely interesting plot of land in Gt Whatever Stopes‘ main motivations, and he Britain is shortly to be sold in small building can be forgiven for missing what we would plots and I ask you to become its today regard as important aspects of the site, owner...Then, please permit me to extract notwithstanding his inability to move beyond from it all the facts it contains relating to the his Tertiary agenda, he correctly identified early history of man in the Thames the rich faunal remains at Dierden‘s Pit as of Valley...had I the means, I would buy it, but I high importance for confirming the date of have not. I have been a scientific worker for the deposits, and by association, the date of many years to my impoverishment. For 10 nearby deposits thought to be equivalent. years I have been looking for the evidence Already sensitised to the irretrievable loss of this land can give, and it is there without any Palaeolithic evidence accompanying the possibility of error. No other spot in Britain exploitation of aggregates in the has yielded so much evidence as I have Swanscombe vicinity — ―The removal of already found in only a small part of it...if ballast, the use of concrete...cause this prompt action be not taken, it will be lost to demolition to continue with ever-increasing science for ever. rapidity...[This] daily destruction and removal, without record...is one of the ―The total outlay is under £1,000...I will do saddest blots upon the proud escutcheon of everything in connection with it without science in the Victorian era‖ (Stopes 1895: remuneration, other than the right to work 325) — Stopes publicly urged all ―students the top surface, and to retain the worked and collectors‖ urgently to fill their boots at flints now resting in the gravel. The shells Dierden‘s Pit as promptly as possible, since: and bones I do not want, but you would win ―The deposit is of limited extent, and...is eternal fame by giving, or permitting me to being rapidly removed, and will speedily give, in your name sets to the British disappear‖ (Stopes 1900b: 93). Museum, ...and also selected University Museums in this country, A number of collectors appear to have America and Europe. followed up this invitation. As well as Stopes‘ own collection, held at the National ―...if you will do as I suggest, there will be Museum of Wales, artefacts from the site no other spot in Europe so much discussed. originating from a number of private Many of our best Geologists, collectors — Corner; Newton; Kennard; and Anthropologists and Palaeontologists Warren — are preserved in Dartford already admit this to be the most important Museum and the British Museum (Wymer discovery affecting our knowledge of early

79

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) man, since the establishment of primitive rather than Freehold. The sale then seemed man in the gravel of the Somme, in France. set to proceed, but legal formalities dragged on throughout the summer. At the same time, ―May I crave the favour of an interview unknown to Astor and his agent John when I can explain more fully? Would you Adams, with whom Stopes was dealing, care to meet me at my house in Hampstead, Stopes‘ health was failing. In June he where you can see the things found and a undertook a trip to , ostensibly a collection of 100,000 stone implements? Or fact-finding mission with a delegation of may I attend any place and time you may be Essex farmers as guests of the Hungarian good enough to appoint? government, but in fact a change of scene to help his health. However, the trip seems to ―Again craving your forgiveness should the have been counterproductive, with the matter not meet with your approval. I Hungarian summer heat and travel meaning remain, Sir, Faithfully yours, H. Stopes‖ that he returned feeling worse than when he (HSR-17: letter from H. Stopes to W. Astor, left. By August, several letters refer to his 27th January 1902) very poor health (HSR-18; HSR-19).

Stopes‘ targeted benefactor was well-chosen. At this point he still dreamt of carrying out Recently naturalised as an English citizen, his work at Dierden‘s, and endeavoured, Astor was firstly extremely wealthy, but with the support of Adams, to get access. more importantly had a passion for art and However: ―I am afraid you cannot take , and was evidently keen to embrace possession of the land yet…I find to my the cultural life of his adopted country. surprise that it is let on a yearly tenancy to Acting with decisiveness and rapidity, he Dearden‖ (HSR-20). The vendors then immediately instigated a 3-man committee undertook to cancel the tenancy, which they drawn from senior staff of the British had initially promised could be quickly done, Museum (Charles Read), the Natural History but: ―Dearden built 2 corn stacks upon the Museum (Arthur Woodward) and the land y‘day so it does not look as if he Anthropological Institute (Frederick Rudler) contemplated giving up at once‖ (HSR-21). to advise him on the scientific value of the Completion of the sale continued to be proposed project. Having received a delayed through September ―in consequence favourable report (Natural History Museum of the property being so charged with archives: letter from C. Read to A. encumbrances‖ (HSR-22), and whilst APCM Woodward, 24th February 1902), and paid lip service to the principle of allowing tweaking his agreement with Stopes to Stopes prior access, it was without evicting ensure that Eton College Museum also Dierden and his ―stacks [&] piles of rubbish received a dividend in the form of a old carts etc with which the land is now representative artefact and fossil series, he encumbered‖ (HSR-23). Meanwhile, early in gave Stopes the go-ahead in late February September, Stopes had written to his wife: 1902. ―It seems futile if not foolish for me to try to look ahead...I feel as if I were gaining flesh. Then followed one of the great Tragedies of The hole in my left lung seems also to have anthropological endeavour. Despite healed...But I do not gain strength‖ (HSR- immediately agreeing to meet the asking 24). Both situations reached their crises in price, it took until June for the sale to be October: agreed, following further wrangling over price with the Associated Portland Cement ―I can do nothing more to get you possession Manufacturers (APCM) Ltd, who it until completion takes place...As to this I fear transpired were the vendors, and an attempt we shall have to resort to litigation...If you by them to restrict the sale to Leasehold are writing to Apps [the APCM

80

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes representative] tell him our patience is quite not well enough to give much attention to exhausted‖ this just now but as soon as I am better will (HSR-25: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, make up. I am sorry it has already been so 8th October 1902) much trouble. Truly yours‖ (HSR-28: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, Shortly after, Stopes finally confessed to 8th November 1902) Adams: Stopes died less than four weeks later, in his ―The delay has caused loss of time and rented Greenhithe room, with Mrs Margaret opportunity that I fear is irrecoverable. My Garnett, his ex-housekeeper from his throat has developed tuberculosis & I am Mansion House days, in attendance. seriously ill. I have thought very anxiously & Following his death, Astor tried to get one of gravely about the proper course to Stopes‘ contemporaries to follow through pursue...It may be that I shall be glad to give with investigating the site, but none would, my whole time to exploration...or there is the and Astor then sold the site for development other fear that I can only patiently await the without any investigations having taken end.‖ place (HSR-4). (HSR-26: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, 23rd October 1902) The evidence from Dierden‘s Pit and its shell-bed deposits remains enigmatic to this To his credit, Adams, with whom Stopes day. The handaxes in Newton‘s collection seems to have developed a rapport early in from the site are mostly twisted ovates and their relationship, immediately responded cordates (W.M. Newton 1901), quite distinct with expression of great sympathy and from those remaining in Stopes‘ collection, reaffirming his commitment to purchasing which are of typical Lower Middle Gravel the land: form (Wenban-Smith 2004: Appendix 3, Catalogue no. 65). Later investigations by ―I am exceedingly distressed to receive your Smith & Dewey (1914) recovered, from letter of yesterday’s date...Surely...there can deposits they regarded as part of Stopes‘ be no doubt of your ultimate cure...If open shell-bed, only flakes similar to the series air treatment is prescribed for you, what (later christened Clactonian) from the Lower more delightful occupation can you have Gravel at Barnfield Pit, leading them to than to superintend the exploration of this equate the Dierden‘s Pit shell-bed with the land?‖ basal phase of the Barnfield Pit sequence (HSR-27: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, (Lower Gravel and Lower Loam). However, 24th October 1902) this is incompatible with the range of Rhenish mollusc species in Stopes‘ shell-bed After this point, events began to move. assemblage, which, as emphasised by Completion was agreed for 6th November, Kerney (1971), would indicate equivalence and Adams sent a clerk on the 7th to Stopes‘ with the middle phase of the Barnfield Pit rented accommodation in Greenhithe, just sequence (Lower Middle Gravel and Upper round the corner from Dierden‘s pit, from Middle Gravel). One can only conclude that where he could probably see the site out of there is (or was) unrecognised stratigraphic his bedroom window, and presented him complexity in the vicinity of the site, with with the deeds for him to sign and take investigators dazzled by the spectacular ownership. Stopes‘ last written words were faunal preservation into inadequate to Adams: stratigraphic recording and mistaken correlation of different fossiliferous ―Dear Mr Adams, I duly rec’d visit from horizons. Re-investigation of any surviving your clerk & signed deeds...I am sorry I am deposits under the rigour of modern methods

81

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) must be a priority if the opportunity arises. attention to the potential of, the deposits at Dierden‘s Pit, which as discussed above provide conundrums relevant to today‘s CONCLUSIONS research. Who can say what would now be our understanding of the Lower Palaeolithic Stopes emerges superficially as an archetypal in the key Swanscombe area if Stopes had Victorian male, embedded within, and lived even one more year to implement his contributing significantly to, the industrial, investigations? Perhaps more importantly, he commercial and intellectual gold-rush of the anticipated to an uncanny degree today‘s era. His wealthy professional and Quaker conflicts between Palaeolithic heritage and background gave him an excellent education development, bemoaning the unrecorded and a commercial niche, of which he took daily destruction of the remains of the full advantage. Prospering initially, he then remote past preserved in gravel bodies, and fell victim to the harsh Darwinian realities of begging the Society for the Preservation of Victorian capitalism, ending his life Ancient Monuments ―to take cognizance of penniless in a rented room having spent his this‖ (H. Stopes 1895), a battle still being fortune on flints (and incidentally, an waged exactly 100 years later (Wenban- extensive library of rare antiquarian cookery Smith 1995). Finally, Stopes exemplified the and brewing books, although these were to a private passions that drive development of certain extent professionally justifiable). He any subject. He was not neutrally engaged in was without doubt capable and dynamic, a an academic sideshow, but totally committed fluent and persuasive public speaker, driven in service of both his own needs and, as I‘m to work unstintingly at both his professional sure he would have argued, for the good of and antiquarian endeavours and to take wider society and general scientific progress, leading organisational roles whenever in investigation of one of the great issues of possible. However, as with Captain Ahab, the day, the origin of humanity. Stopes was there seems to have been a special lunacy above all, he claimed, a seeker after truth: ―I lurking within; his collecting passion and his shall be content so long as the truth be obsession for his own White Whale of found‖ (1887); one doubts, however, he Tertiary Man stormed and carried any could ever have let go of Tertiary Man. common sense instincts for financial security for himself and his family. A similar quixotic spirit underpinned his willingness, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS indeed his urgent and uncontrollable desire, to put his head above the parapet in the Pure Firstly, I remain grateful to all who helped with the Beer debate, regardless of the inevitable original ALSF-funded Stopes Palaeolithic Project, particularly: Helen Keeley and Peter Kendall of consequences — attributes that later re- English Heritage; Lis Dyson of Kent County Council; emerged in the campaigning zeal of his Richard Brewer and Elizabeth Walker of National daughter Marie (Hall 1977). Museum Wales; and those who helped with the project itself, Sandy Budden, Tim Ace and Chris Personal psychology and Victorian history Duke. Secondly, I thank all those who freely gave permission for various of the figures to be reproduced, aside, is there an academic legacy of Stopes‘ particularly: Alison Cameron of Aberdeen City anthropological work? I believe so. The Council Archaeological Unit (Figure 3); and detailed record of his Catalogue is a Elizabeth Walker [again!] (Figure 4). I also thank my miniature Sites and Monuments Record in fellow editors of this volume for their hard work, itself, listing numerous locations of particularly Rob Hosfield for his great forbearance of my tardy delivery and for having the initial idea for Palaeolithic and Late Prehistoric lithic finds, this special volume of Lithics. Finally, the greatest that may reflect archaeological remains to thanks must go to Harry Stopes-Roe, grandson of take account of if/when any development Henry Stopes, who not only freely let me delve into takes place. He discovered, and drew the intimate archive of his mother and maternal

82

F.F. Wenban-Smith: Henry Stopes grandparents, but generously loaned the whole lot to taken in a small quarry with identical me to facilitate prolonged study; I hope the results are sediments to the shell-bed sequence on 10th worthwhile. May 1900, one of which is marked on the back by Marie Stopes: ―Henry Stopes on the site, Swanscombe‖. HSR-16: newspaper cutting of advertisement in the REFERENCES Gravesend Reporter, 7th December 1901. HSR-17: letter from H. Stopes to W. Astor, 27th Anon [H. Woodward]. 1903. Henry Stopes. The January 1902. Geological Magazine 40: 142–143. HSR-18: letter from H. Woodward to H. Stopes, 8th Boule, M. 1905. L‘origine des éoliths. L’Anthropologie August 1901. 17: 257–267. HSR-19: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, 22nd Brown, J.A. 1893. On the Continuity of the August 1901. Palaeolithic and Neolithic Periods. Journal of HSR-20: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, 15th the Anthropological Institute 22: 66–98. August 1901. Capon, L. 2009. Early Roman features, possibly HSR-21: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, 23rd defensive, and the modern development of the August 1901. parkland landscape at Ingress Abbey, HSR-22: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, 11th Greenhithe. Archaeologia Cantiana 129: 1–31. September 1901. Conway, B.W., McNabb, J. & Ashton, N. (eds.) 1996. HSR-23: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, 30th Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, September 1901. 1968–72. British Museum Occasional Paper 94. HSR-24: letter from H. Stopes to C.C. Stopes, 7th British Museum Press, London. September 1901. Dewey, H. 1932. The Palaeolithic deposits of the HSR-25: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, 8th Lower Thames Valley. Quarterly Journal of the October 1902. Geological Society of London 88: 36–56. HSR-26: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, 23rd Hall, R. 1977. Marie Stopes: a Biography. André October 1902. Deutsch, London. HSR-27: letter from J. Adams to H. Stopes, 24th Harrison, E.R. 1928. Harrison of Ightham. Oxford October 1902. University Press, London. HSR-28: letter from H. Stopes to J. Adams, 8th HSR-1: letter from C.C. Stopes to H. Stopes, 10th November 1902. November 1902. Kerney, M.P. 1971. Interglacial deposits at Barnfield HSR-2: letter from H. Stopes to C.C. Stopes, 3rd July Pit, Swanscombe, and their molluscan fauna. 1891. Journal of the Geological Society of London HSR-3: typed manuscript biography of H. Stopes by 127: 69–93. A.S. Kennard, May 1948. Moir, J.R. 1924. The geological and cultural age of HSR-4: script for BBC Home Service transmission, the Harrisonian eoliths. Nature 113: 461–462. 25th March 1956: ―The Archaeologist‖. Moir, J.R. 1927. The Antiquity of Man in East HSR-5: undated letter from B. Harrison to C.C. Anglia. Cambridge University Press, Stopes, c. 1903–1904. Cambridge. HSR-6: letter from H. Stopes to B. Harrison, 1st Newton, E.T. 1895. On a Human Skull and Limb September 1892. Bones found in the Palaeolithic Terrace–gravel HSR-7: letter from Sir E. Harrison to M.C. Stopes, at Galley Hill, Kent. Quarterly journal of the 27th February, 1945. Geological Society of London 51: 505–52. HSR-8: letter from B. Harrison to H. Stopes, 31st Newton, E.T. 1897. The evidence for the existence of January 1893. Man in the Tertiary period. Proceedings of the HSR-9: letter from H. Stopes to B. Harrison, 14th July Geologists’ Association 15: 63–82. 1893. Newton, W.M. 1901. The occurrence in a very limited HSR-10: undated letter from B. Harrison to C.C. area of the rudest with the finer forms of Stopes, c. 1903–1904. worked stones. Man 66: 81–82. HSR-11: undated letter from B. Harrison to C.C. O‘Connor, A. 2003. Geology, archaeology and ‗the Stopes, c. 1903–1904. raging vortex of the ―Eolith‖ controversy‘. HSR-12: letter from C.C. Stopes to M.C. Stopes, 20th Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association January 1913. 114: 255–262. HSR-13: letter from H. Stopes to W.A. Sturge, 27th Pearson, L. 1999. British Breweries: An Architectural March 1899. History. The Hambledon Press, London and HSR-14: letter from H. Stopes to C.C. Stopes, 6th Rio Grande. April 1899. Prestwich, J. 1889. On The Occurrence of Palaeolithic HSR-15: Black-and-white photographic print; Flint Implements in the Neighbourhood of unlabelled, but recognisable as one of a group Ightham, Kent, their Distribution and Probable

83

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Age. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Stopes, H. 1894. On the evolution of stone Society 45: 270–297. implements. Report of the Sixty-fourth Meeting Prestwich, J. 1891. On the Age, Formation, and of the British Association for the Advancement Successive Drift-Stages of the Darent; with of Science held at Oxford in August 1894: 776. Remarks on the Palaeolithic Implements of the John Murray, London. District. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Stopes, H. 1895. A prehistoric metropolis in Kent. Society 47: 127–163. Athenaeum 3541 (Sept. 7th): 325. Prestwich, J. 1892. On the primitive Characters of the Stopes, H. 1900a. On the discovery of Neritina Flint Implements of the Chalk Plateau of Kent, fluviatilis with a Pleistocene fauna and worked with reference to the Question of their Glacial flints in High Terrace gravels of the Thames or Pre-Glacial Age. Journal of the valley. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Anthropological Institute 21: 246–262. Institute 29 (New Series, 2): 302–303. Roe, D.A. 1968. A Gazetteer of British Lower and Stopes, H. 1900b. Pleistocene Man in the Thames Middle Palaeolithic Sites. CBA Research Report gravels. Athenaeum 3795 (July 21st): 92–93. 8. Council for British Archaeology, London. Stopes, H. 1901. Unclassified worked flints. Journal Smith, R.A. 1918. Report on an examination of the of the Royal Anthropological Institute 30: 299– ―Stopes‖ collection of stone implements by Mr. 304. Reginald A. Smith, M.A., F.S.A. 11th Annual Stopes, M.C. 1898. Catalogue of the Collection of Report of Museum (1917–1918), Appendix V: Flint Implements made by, Henry Stopes, 35–37. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. F.G.S., F.A.I. Unpublished manuscript held at Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1913. Stratification at National Museum Wales, Department of Swanscombe: report on excavations made on Archaeology and Numismatics. behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Stopes, M.C. 1913. The Red Crag shell portrait. Geological Survey. Archaeologia 64: 177–204. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1914. The high terrace of the Anglia 1 (Part III): 323–326. Thames: report on excavations made on behalf Sturge, W.A., Moir, J.R., Burrell, W.H. & Clarke, of the British Museum and H.M. Geological W.G. 1913. Report of special committee [on Survey in 1913. Archaeologia 65: 187–212. ―The Red Crag shell portrait‖]. Proceedings of Spencer, B. 1998. Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 1 (Part Badges: Medieval Finds from Excavations in III): 326–332. London. The Stationery Office, London. Walker, E.A. 2001. Old collections — a new resource? Spurrell, F.C.J. 1890. Excursion to Swanscombe. The history of some English Palaeolithic Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 11: collections in Cardiff. In S. Milliken & J. Cook 145. (eds.) A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on Stopes, C. 1904. Palaeolithic implements from the the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe: 249– shelly gravel pit at Swanscombe, Kent. Report 259. Oxbow Books, Oxford. of the Seventy-third Meeting of the British Warren, S.H. 1905. On the origin of ‗Eolithic‘ flints by Association for the Advancement of Science natural causes, especially by the foundering of held at Southport in September 1903: 803–804. drifts. Journal of the Royal Anthropological John Murray, London. Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 35: 337– Stopes, H. 1879. The Salting Mounds of Essex. 364. Archaeological Journal 36: 369–372. Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1995. Managing the Palaeolithic Stopes, H. 1880. On the Salting Mounds of Essex. heritage IV: the end of the beginning. In A.J. Report of the Fiftieth Meeting of the British Schofield (ed.) Lithics in Context: 115–124. Association for the Advancement of Science Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No. 5. held at Swansea in August and September Lithic Studies Society, London. 1880: 631. John Murray, London. Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2004. The Stopes Palaeolithic Stopes, H. 1882. Traces of Man in the Crag. Report of Project: Final Report. Unpublished report the Fifty-first Meeting of the British prepared for English Heritage, March 2004. Association for the Advancement of Science Available on-line from Archaeology Data held at York in August and September 1881: Service, York. 700. John Murray, London. Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Stopes, H. 1885. Malt and Malting: An Historical, Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley. Scientific and Practical Treatise. F.W. Lyon, John Baker, London. London. Wymer, J.J. 1978. Letter to G. Boon, 31st January 1978, Stopes, H. 1887. On the Antiquity of Man: is the accompanying unpublished assessment of Antiquity of Man Proved by his Works? Paper Stopes‘ lithic collection; both held at National read 25th November 1887 to Dulwich Eclectic Museum of Wales, Department of Archaeology Club. Privately published (12pp). and Numismatics.

84

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith

WORTHINGTON GEORGE SMITH (1835–1917)

Derek A. Roe

Oxford University, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Worthington Smith was an important member of the group of archaeologists whose work established Palaeolithic Archaeology as a discipline in Britain. He observed, meticulously recorded and published traces of some of the best Acheulian sites ever to come to light in England. While his overview of the Palaeolithic period has inevitably not stood the test of time, his publications remain of great value for the factual information they contain, and for his fine illustrations. Most of his artefact collections also survive, well-documented in spite of the loss of many of his written notes, and these too are important.

Full reference: Roe, D.A. 2009. Worthington George Smith (1835–1917). In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 85–95. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: WG Smith, Palaeolithic Archaeology in the 19th century, Caddington

INTRODUCTION ground to a halt. Working on the card index indeed proved an excellent starting point, I first came across the work of Worthington even if it eventually took me over five years Smith in 1962, soon after I began doctoral to complete it and produce the CBA‘s British research at Cambridge University on the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Gazetteer British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, with (Roe 1968) by contacting and actually particular reference to handaxes. I was visiting museums myself. However, it was utterly unprepared for the encounter: there from cards originally sent in to Charles had been little active research interest in the McBurney by James Dyer, and filed under British Lower Palaeolithic for many years, Bedfordshire, that I first became aware of and there was no recent text book, which Worthington Smith, the site of Caddington might have mentioned him. My supervisor, and Smith‘s remarkable book Man the Charles McBurney, was more than happy to Primeval Savage (W.G. Smith 1894). hand over to me ‗as a useful starting point — Charles McBurney, famously absent- completing it ought to take you about three minded, may or may not have looked at the weeks‘, a file of cards collected by the CBA cards that were returned to him, but, Council for British Archaeology, which had when I asked him, he denied ever having decided to carry out period surveys for heard of Smith‘s work, and was much Britain, based on local records of sites and impressed, for at least a few minutes, with artefact collections held by museums. what I told him. It was not long before I had McBurney had been talked into taking on the found myself (for less than a pound) a copy role of secretary, a duty for which he had of Smith‘s book, which I still have. little time to spare, and, after some patchy initial local enthusiasm and the return of The early 1960s were pre-computer days for about 300 cards, the project had pretty well archaeological research students: pre-

85

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) internet, pretty well pre-information- Smith‘s life and achievements for more than technology of any effective kind. One can 50 years, and has written the two most tell present-day research students that, and substantial biographical accounts (Dyer they may listen politely, but I doubt that they 1959, 1978). He has also very kindly can really have any conception of either the provided the photograph of Worthington constraints or the wonderful benefits of Smith, which appears as Figure 1 and research that depends on working through commented on a draft of this text. the whole body of the literature and making notes by hand, in libraries open only for limited hours on weekdays, checking, for WORTHINGTON GEORGE SMITH: example, through long runs of the endless HIS LIFE AND CAREER national and local journals, and then going to study at first hand the actual collections of Smith was born in 1835 (a date which makes material. The fact is that, in the early 1960s, him just pre-Victorian) in Shoreditch, then a we were by necessity not very far removed residential area on the northern edge of from the scholarly working methods of Sir London, with open country beyond. John Evans or of Worthington Smith ‗Worthington‘ was actually his mother himself, so perhaps we were meeting such Sarah‘s maiden surname, and ‗George‘ was figures on their own ground, even if we had his father‘s first name. It is important to note the advantage of a much broader overview of that his father was a Hertfordshire man, born the Palaeolithic and the Pleistocene. I in 1804 in Gaddesden Row in the north of wonder, however, whether general that county, near the border with awareness of Worthington Smith is much Bedfordshire; he moved to London, after higher now than it was then, and how many marrying, to take up a Civil Service post, but of today‘s younger researchers have read his made frequent visits to various relatives book — I mean actually read it, as opposed living, and in some cases farming, in the to listing it in a bibliography because Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire villages that someone else had referred to it. There seems were later to become the scene of little current appetite for consulting books Worthington Smith‘s most important more than a few years old, and that is a archaeological discoveries. That area was shame, because some of the 19th century thus one with which the latter was closely publications contain the only first hand familiar from childhood, and where he accounts of important sites that no longer always felt at home. exist. Perhaps some may actually find the title Man the Primeval Savage offensive — For altogether fuller details of Worthington something that would never have occurred to Smith‘s life, the reader is referred to James its author, whose imaginative reconstructions Dyer‘s excellent account (1978). My purpose of life in Lower Palaeolithic times envisaged here is simply to pick out some of the events roles of equal importance for men and and circumstances which seem likely to have women, even in the matter of stone tool shaped his approach to archaeology, and manufacture: his sketches show women defined both its strengths and weaknesses; flaking stone (1894: 45–59, 263–4, Figs. the same factors also need to be borne in 196–7, and Figure 4 in this chapter). Perhaps mind when we come to compare him with the short account offered here will encourage his peers, some of whom are the subjects of a few to look more closely at Worthington other chapters in this volume. If we start Smith‘s work and publications. with the matter of education, the family was not wealthy and Smith‘s schooling was I would like to end this brief introduction unpretentious; there never seems to have with a grateful acknowledgement of the been any question of his going to University. work of James Dyer, who has been studying He spent little time studying languages, and

86

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith evidently gained no thirst for foreign travel. became a route to two important new In spite of those things, he had (and retained interests, in plant and crop diseases and in throughout his life) the natural scholar‘s mycology, and he became and remained a willingness to devote himself with great respected and widely consulted authority on energy to finding out about those subjects both, writing a number of books and papers, which particularly interested him — in his and becoming a member of various leading case, in early life, these included history, national societies. antiquities, architecture and various aspects of natural history. He also possessed from Those who know Worthington Smith only as the start a real talent for drawing. All these an archaeologist may be surprised to interests came together in his choice of discover how well known he also is to architecture as a career after leaving school; botanists and mycologists, even though one should remember that the styles of knowledge in both fields has moved on since architecture in England in the mid 19th his days. This is not the place to go further century were essentially backward looking, into this side of Smith‘s career, but a number as the name ‗Gothic Revival‘ implies, and of points are relevant, notably that he spent the interest in Gothic was itself a reaction to much time working at, and for, the British strong continuing classical influences. Museum of Natural History; this, and his Decorative architectural detail often membership of the national societies, incorporated motifs taken from the world of brought him into contact with people plant life, demanding from its designer quite interested in Natural History generally, some detailed botanical knowledge. Smith of them major figures in the world of excelled in drawing plants; he was also sent scholarship, at a particularly exciting time, by his employers to the British Museum to just as the work of Charles Darwin and draw classical antiquities, particularly Alfred Russell Wallace, with all its sculpture, and thus early on absorbed some implications, was coming to the notice of the of the atmosphere of the place. He also scientific world. Smith was also becoming added the skills of wood-block engraving to familiar with the task of communicating his those of drawing. work to others, through his publications and through occasional lectures which he was He showed real talent as an architectural invited to give. draughtsman, and received many commissions, but the routine side of working If we now turn specifically to Worthington for a firm of architects which was more often Smith‘s involvement with Palaeolithic concerned with dilapidation and drainage archaeology, it is easy enough to see how, systems than with grand buildings led to moving in the circles just described, he disillusionment, and in 1861 he abandoned would come to hear of the startling the profession in favour of life as a free- discoveries in France of humanly worked lance draughtsman and illustrator, stones in undoubtedly ancient fluviatile specialising in buildings, antiquities and deposits which also contained the bones of plants. This was no small decision, for by extinct animals, and of the growing then he was married to Henrietta White, awareness that such finds could also be made whom he had met at , where her in the river gravels of southern England. family home was, and the second of their However, the availability of knowledge on children had just been born. There was these matters was dramatically increased in plenty of work for him, and he could make 1872 by the publication of John Evans‘ enough money to keep the family going, but extraordinary 640-page book, The Ancient with little to spare for luxuries — a situation Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments which never really changed for the rest of his of Great Britain (Evans 1872). Smith life. His success in botanical illustration himself tells us (1894: 189) that it was this

87

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) work which first alerted him to the fact that sometimes including refittable pieces, and early stone tools had been found close to often accompanied by organic remains: where he lived, at Hackney Downs and animal bones, shells, plant remains and Highbury, and he was not the man to leave wood. He called it ‗the Palaeolithic floor‘. such information lying idle. No doubt he was The deeper sections showed that the ‗floor‘ just as interested to read Evans‘ comments was overlain by ‗contorted drift‘, and (1872: 479–485) of the finds made by James sometimes other beds of gravel occurred Wyatt and others in his beloved below it, which also contained artefacts, Bedfordshire. though not in such pristine condition. Smith further described the floor in a detailed paper As it turned out, a remarkable opportunity read in June 1883 to the Anthropological awaited him almost on his doorstep. At this Institute and subsequently published (W.G. stage of his life, Smith and his family lived Smith 1884); a good general account of his in Mildmay Grove, Shoreditch, and by the work, and his thoughts about the floor‘s 1870s a wide area of north and northeast nature and significance, can also be found in London was beginning to be turned from Chapter 15 of Man the Primeval Savage, open countryside into residential suburbs, profusely illustrated with his own drawings with large numbers of terraced houses and (W.G. Smith 1894: 189–298). their associated services being built. Apart from the making of roads and the digging of To us looking back on Worthington Smith‘s drainage trenches, many of the new houses career nearly a century after his death, it had basements, which meant foundations might almost seem as if Fate had selected deep enough to reach the deposits of him for the arduous but rewarding role of Pleistocene age which overlay the London being the right man in the right place at the Clay. Some of the gravel, sand and right time. In these early days in north brickmaking clay needed for the building London, he had developed all the right operations was brought in by rail, but much interests; he also possessed abundant was obtained in extraction pits dug locally. patience and energy, willingness to learn, a Before long, Smith himself was finding natural instinct to make accurate records of worked flints: he spent all the spare time he his observations and the technical training to could inspecting the gravel heaps and measure and draw not only his finds but their watching and recording any exposed stratigraphic context. His drawn sections sections, whether in drainage trenches in the may often be composite and diagrammatic, new roads beside Stoke Newington but how many of his contemporaries drew Common, or newly dug graves in Abney sections at all? In the same way, a few years Park Cemetery. The workmen were puzzled later, still in the early days of photography, by his interest, but happy enough to humour but having a son who had made it his him for such small financial rewards as he professional career, he was quick to perceive could afford, though later on, after his the value of photographic records of reporting of his finds had attracted other archaeological sites. He also became a quite collectors with deeper pockets, they ceased exceptional draughtsman of flint artefacts, to be so cooperative. He read a paper on his and one who clearly understood how they initial discoveries to the Anthropological had been made. Institute in 1878, which was published the following year (W.G. Smith 1879). Over the By the end of the north London period of his next few years he became convinced that life, Smith‘s discoveries, and the obviously there were widespread occurrences over high quality of his work, had made him a north-east London of a buried ancient land- welcome member of the distinguished group surface on which abundant Palaeolithic whose work and writings essentially artefacts lay in extremely fresh condition, established Palaeolithic Archaeology in

88

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith

Britain over the next few decades. It must be frequently by train to continue his work for remembered that those amongst them whose various publishers and for the Natural interests were principally archaeological (as History Museum. His friends and colleagues opposed to geological or palaeontological) remained in close touch, notably Evans, soon were all operating as amateurs, albeit in very to be knighted, who lived not far away in different personal circumstances. At one end Hertfordshire. Smith became heavily of the scale, John Evans (Lamdin-Whymark, involved in the archaeology and local history this volume) or General Pitt Rivers had of Dunstable, and of Bedfordshire generally abundant private means to support their (see Dyer 1978), and for the rest of his life efforts, to travel, or to amass collections finds of many ages were constantly being from all over the world. Figures like brought to him by local people for his Worthington Smith, the freelance opinion, but it is with his work on the local professional illustrator, or Benjamin Palaeolithic sites that we must concern Harrison (McNabb, this volume), the village ourselves here. It seems likely that Smith store-keeper, had no such advantages. Yet in would have contrived to find at least a few the field, or the lecture room, social status Palaeolithic artefacts wherever he had moved mattered little. There might be radically to from London, but what he discovered in different views, sincerely held, on matters of Bedfordshire and the adjacent parts of interpretation, but for most of those involved Hertfordshire was material of outstanding the main concern was simply to gather quality, and the discoveries were all the more knowledge and to pioneer a brand new field, remarkable, because they were made in what and mutual respect and cooperation were the he regarded as a most unlikely situation, and order of the day. They also shared in their one where few would have bothered to look: different ways the unstoppable, consuming, the high Chalk and Clay-with-flints country fervent energy which amateur archaeologists of the . have always shown, and they were living in times when almost everything was still There is no space to tell the story fully here, awaiting discovery. Anne O‘Connor, in her and it is available anyhow in Worthington book Finding Time for the Old Stone Age, Smith‘s own words (1894: 60–175), but it gives an excellent summary of Smith‘s began in 1888 with his finding a few career and achievements, and a well artefacts in gravel which had been brought to documented assessment of his relationships Dunstable for road-making from a number of with his contemporaries (O‘Connor 2007: different sources. With typical patience, see especially pp. 86–91). Smith methodically checked all the pits, travelling as ever on foot for the considerable Whether or not Fate was writing the script, distances involved, and after a year he finally no sooner had Worthington Smith published found the true source at Caddington, high on his second paper on the Stoke Newington the Chiltern downs (Figure 1). Here were floor, than the circumstances of his life several brickmakers‘ clay pits, exploiting changed. He found himself suffering heart patches of brickearth filling hollows in the problems, and his doctor recommended a Clay-with-flints and overlain by contorted move to the countryside. It is hardly drift, which was largely reworked material surprising that the area eventually chosen from the latter. Although there were derived was Bedfordshire, the home of his forebears, artefacts in the contorted drift, the important or that his wife suggested Dunstable discovery was that in places the brickearth specifically; the move was made in 1885, contained undisturbed floors with and he was to live there, at 121 High Street implements and abundant waste flakes in (unfortunately since demolished), for the rest extremely sharp condition. Smith‘s of his life. He did not lose his London experience of the Stoke Newington floors connections, however, travelling up made him the ideal person to make this

89

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) discovery at this time, and over the next several examples of implements with several years he continued energetically to manufacturing flakes replaced (Figure 3), gather artefacts at Caddington and record and one of refitted trimming flakes from a them in detail, also drawing sections (Figure handaxe that was not present, though he 2) as he had in north-east London. Soon he could reconstruct much of it, using plaster of found that refittable (or, to use his own term, Paris (1894: Figs. 113–4). He argued (1894: conjoinable) flakes were present: he was 126), very justifiably, that he had found ‗the familiar with the remarkable work of F.C.J. actual spot at Caddington where implements Spurrell (1880a, 1880b) on conjoining at had been manufactured in Palaeolithic times‘ Crayford, and indeed had himself made a and noted the presence of piles of selected few conjoins at Stoke Newington. By 1894, struck flakes, abandoned cores, heaps of after working through his entire Caddington nodules collected for knapping, punches and collection, he had over 500 conjoins, possible anvils. including some substantial refitted blocks,

Figure 1: Worthington Smith at Caddington, an undated photograph by his son Arthur Smith, now in the archive collection of James Dyer

Unlike Stoke Newington, Caddington did not principal report of the work at Caddington yield animal bones or other organic remains. was published in 1894 in Man the Primeval Smith, however, offered a reconstruction of Savage (W.G. Smith 1894); although he the Palaeolithic setting, envisaging a marshy continued to recover material there area at the foot of gently sloping hills, with sporadically for several more years, it seems small lakes or large confluent ponds offering likely that by 1895 the clay extraction had a constant supply of water, and habitable passed beyond the area where the main firmer ground forming their shores, the concentration of Lower Palaeolithic artefacts surrounding higher ground having been had been (cf. Sampson 1978: 7–8, 145). subsequently removed by later erosion. The

90

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith

Figure 2: Section at Caddington, engraved by Smith from a photograph, with details added in the pit. A: topsoil; B–E: various components of the ‘contorted drift’; F, G, H, K: stratified brickearth; J: floor with sharp artefacts, duplicated at L. Note heaps of collected flint in J. [Source: W.G. Smith 1894: 78]

Figure 3: Handaxe from Caddington, broken in two during manufacture, the pieces rejoined by Smith and some manufacturing flakes also refitted. The length of the piece as shown is 150mm. [Source: W.G. Smith 1894: 137. Drawn and engraved by Smith himself.]

As it turned out, Caddington was only the End, , also produced traces of a floor: first of several primary context Lower material collected by Smith survives, but Palaeolithic sites which Worthington Smith there is no detailed written account. Having found after his move to Dunstable, the others in mind the unfortunate effects of his early being Round Green (Luton, Bedfordshire), publication of the Stoke Newington finds — Gaddesden Row (Hertfordshire) and the ruthless activities of collectors, the Whipsnade (Bedfordshire), the first two of hostility of the workmen, and the these sites again being ‗floor‘ situations with development of a substantial trade in artefacts in pristine condition, including forgeries — he kept these latter sites more or refits although, like Caddington, lacking any less secret until he had finished his work, accompanying organic remains. Ramridge publishing the first two only late in his life

91

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

(W.G. Smith 1916), while Whipsnade was to all, throughout his life. Benjamin Harrison reported by Reginald Smith of the British was a good and valued personal friend, Museum (R.A. Smith 1919) after whom he had first visited as early as 1878, Worthington Smith had died. and they remained in touch for almost 40 years, right up to Smith‘s death: several of Worthington Smith continued to live an the letters he wrote to Harrison are quoted in active life right to the end, in spite of periods Harrison of Ightham, a biographical volume of illness for both himself and his wife. They compiled by Benjamin Harrison‘s son, Sir both died within the space of four months in Edward Harrison (1928). 1917. In 1902, he had been awarded a Civil List pension, on the recommendation of his old friends Sir John Evans and Lord ASSESSING WORTHINGTON SMITH Avebury (the former Sir John Lubbock), and the following year he became the first It is time to turn from this brief and selective Freeman of the Borough of Dunstable, look at Worthington Smith‘s life to an honours which delighted him, though he had assessment of his significance. There are, never sought such things himself. He lived perhaps, two aspects of the latter: on the one for more than 20 years after the publication hand, how important was his contribution of Man the Primeval Savage, a period during during his own lifetime to the birth of which Palaeolithic archaeology was only one Palaeolithic Archaeology; and on the other, of the many fields in which he was carrying do his actual discoveries retain sufficient out research, lecturing, producing importance to be of real interest to us a publications or conducting detailed century or so later? correspondence with friends and colleagues. His work at Caddington had ended, but it Smith played an extremely active role for was during this time that he faithfully and some 45 years in the crucial formative period quietly recorded, and eventually published, of British Palaeolithic Archaeology. Though the excellent Acheulian sites of Round Green he consulted widely and shared his findings and Gaddesden Row, mentioned above. freely with other workers, his best contributions were made as a talented During this same period, the ‗eoliths‘ individual field worker, largely self-taught. controversy reached its height in Britain (see By tireless solo effort, using carefully also McNabb, this volume), and gathered local knowledge, he located, Worthington Smith steadfastly maintained observed and meticulously recorded some of his view that the eoliths were not human the best-preserved Lower Palaeolithic sites artefacts, as did Sir John Evans (who died in that have ever come to light in Britain, first 1908), though Joseph Prestwich (who was in London and afterwards in Bedfordshire knighted in January 1896, barely six months and Hertfordshire. He was particularly before the end of his life), was a strong interested in the artefacts, applying proponent. Feelings ran high in some innovative techniques to his study of them, quarters as the debate progressed (cf. such as refitting, and seeking always to Wenban-Smith, this volume), but Smith reconstruct from them the activities of their always remained calm and kept a sense of makers and the nature of the human humour about the whole affair, especially in occupation at each individual site (Figure 4). his personal correspondence with Benjamin Harrison, whose interpretation of his The sites themselves he recorded with great discoveries in Kent, guided by Prestwich, care, drawing sections and illustrating their provided the principal battleground (Roe locations and settings, and making early use, 1981a). It is hard to imagine Smith acting with his son‘s help, of photographic otherwise: he seems to have been courteous recording. In his lectures and his writings, he

92

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith

Figure 4: One of Smith’s reconstructions of life in Palaeolithic times, drawn and engraved by himself: two not-too-savage primeval persons making a handaxe. [Source: W.G. Smith 1894: 198] communicated to his peers and to a wide A sure sign of the value of Worthington public the facts of what he had discovered Smith‘s contribution within his own lifetime and his vision of human life in the early Old is the respect shown to his work by his Stone Age. All these things he did with leading contemporaries, many of whom insight, accessibility and a light touch allied became close friends and regular visitors. Sir to rigour of detail. I have not referred here to John Evans — the original inspirer of his archaeological contributions to periods Smith‘s interest in Palaeolithic artefacts — is other than the Palaeolithic, but they were an excellent example. Smith could not and numerous and valuable; in Bedfordshire, he did not aspire to Evans‘ status as a scholar, was the complete local Antiquary, patient, to his leading position in British scientific generous, widely respected and available to circles or to his international role, which all. He saved and recorded the Palaeolithic included travelling and corresponding artefacts he found, with great care and widely, and attending conferences around the perception, marking every piece in some world. Within the first six pages of Ancient detail and further listing them in his Stone Implements, Evans (1872) quotes handwritten catalogue (which fortunately sources in Greek, Latin, French, German and survives, though his journals and many other Coptic, clearly from first hand knowledge. records were destroyed during bombing in Smith‘s Man the Primeval Savage is a very London in the Second World War). Many different kind of book, with no such pieces he retained in his own collection, but embellishments — he himself (in a letter to he also gave them away freely to other Benjamin Harrison in 1893, quoted in collectors, notably to Sir John Evans. Today, Harrison 1928: 345) described it as ‗a brief much of his material survives in Luton readable account of the implements and Museum (which also has many of his geology of this place,‘ meaning Caddington, original drawings) and in the British though it is of much wider scope than that. Museum. Few of his contemporaries saved Evans and Smith operated on very different the items of knapping debris they found, as scales, for reasons touched on earlier in this well as retouched tools, as Smith did, with chapter, but their friendship and mutual important results, notably at Caddington and admiration were genuine. It is a nice touch Round Green. At Caddington he also had the that Smith‘s own work is given full credit, foresight to preserve some artefacts and his book warmly welcomed, by Evans in embedded in substantial pieces of their the second edition of his Ancient Stone containing brickearth deposit. Implements (1897).

93

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

What, finally, should we ourselves think of during redevelopment in Luton and, if it Worthington Smith? The accretion of does, we are well placed to study it in ways knowledge since his day has not been kind to Smith could not even have imagined, which the general conclusions he drew about the would be the best possible tribute to his Palaeolithic period, but that is hardly memory. Meanwhile, for an excellent sober surprising; he lived in the days when it was evaluation and reinterpretation of Smith‘s still uncertain whether early human activity work at his Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in Britain was ‗pre-glacial‘ or, as Smith sites, see White (1997). One can envisage himself believed, wholly ‗post-glacial‘. He that Smith himself would have read White‘s could not know anything of the Quaternary contribution with great interest, though he sequence as we now perceive it, or of the might have been surprised at how small a world distribution and the overall role the artefacts play in it, when he himself chronology of the Lower Palaeolithic, nor made so much of them, something which did he have at his disposal any of the simply reflects a century of changing analytical techniques of archaeological interests in Palaeolithic Archaeology. It is science that we now take for granted, when also striking to note how far our knowledge we set out to study artefacts, stratigraphy or of the complexities of the British Pleistocene environmental evidence in the kind of field succession advanced between Sampson‘s situations that confronted him. The loss of (1978) re-evaluation of Caddington, and that many of his written records has also sadly of White less than twenty years later. That undermined our appreciation of his skill and process is continuous and, as time and care as an observer. I once described Stoke knowledge march on, Worthington Smith Newington — and the same is true of will become for us increasingly a historical Caddington or Round Green — as ‗a fine figure rather than a guiding hand. For site, discovered too early for its own myself, however, my admiration for his archaeological good‘ (Roe 1981b: 175), but insight in the early days, his energy, the scale the counter to that is that, if Worthington and high standards of his single-handed Smith had not observed these sites for us, we achievements, and his remarkable should know nothing at all of their existence. presentation of them, remains undimmed. In The Acheulian assemblages he recovered such ways, he will surely always remain an from them are still well worth careful study. example to us all.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that, while we have no reason to doubt the general accuracy REFERENCES of Smith‘s observations, the sites themselves have all vanished, and none of several Dyer, J.F. 1959. ―Middling for Wrecks‖: extracts attempts to rediscover traces of them has yet from the story of Worthington and Henrietta Smith. Bedfordshire Archaeologist, Journal of the South met with real success. Little now survives in Bedfordshire Archaeological Society 2: 1–15. north east London in the way of accessible Dyer, J.F. 1978. Worthington George Smith. undisturbed deposits, and the Bedfordshire Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record sites too seem almost all gone; the Society 57 (Worthington George Smith and other Caddington brickearths were not formed in Studies presented to Joyce Godber): 141–179. Evans, J. 1872. The Ancient Stone Implements, the widespread marshy lake that Smith Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain. envisaged, but as the fillings of small Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London. individual sink-holes, all worked out by the Evans, Sir John. 1897. The Ancient Stone Implements, brick-makers (Sampson 1978; see also Roe Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain (2nd 1981b: 172–5, 184–198). I myself am among Edition, Revised). Longmans, Green & Co, London. those who have sought for and failed to find Harrison, Sir Edward R. 1928. Harrison of Ightham: a traces of Smith‘s ‗floors‘ — perhaps Book about Benjamin Harrison of Ightham, Kent, something will still turn up, for example made up principally of Extracts from his

94

D.A. Roe: Worthington George Smith

Notebooks and Correspondence. Oxford London (2nd Series) 31: 39–50. University Press, Humphrey Milford, London. Smith, W.G. 1879. On Palaeolithic implements from O‘Connor, A. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone the Valley of the Lea. Journal of the Age: a History of Palaeolithic Archaeology and Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Quaternary Geology in Britain, 1860–1960. Ireland 8: 275–279. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Smith, W.G. 1884. On a Palaeolithic floor at North- Roe, D.A. 1968. A Gazetteer of British Lower and east London. Journal of the Anthropological Middle Palaeolithic Sites. Council for British Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 13: 357–386. Archaeology (Research Report No. 8), London. Smith, W.G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage: his Roe, D.A. 1981a. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Haunts and Relics from the Hill-tops of Periods in Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Bedfordshire to Blackwall. Edward Stanford, London. London. Roe, D.A. 1981b. Amateurs and Archaeologists: some Smith, W.G. 1916. Notes on the Palaeolithic Floor early contributions to British Palaeolithic studies. near Caddington. Archaeologia 67: 49–74. In J.D. Evans, B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds.) Spurrell, F.C.J. 1880a. On implements and chips from Antiquity and Man, Essays in Honour of Glyn the floor of a Palaeolithic workshop. Daniel: 214–220. Thames and Hudson, London. Archaeological Journal 37: 294–299. Sampson, C.G. (ed). 1978. Paleoecology and Spurrell, F.C.J. 1880b. On the discovery of the place Archaeology of an Acheulian Site at Caddington, where Palaeolithic implements were made at England. Department of Anthropology Institute for Crayford. Quarterly Journal of the Geological the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist Society of London 36: 544–548. University, Dallas. White, M.J. 1997. The earlier Palaeolithic Occupation Smith, R.A. 1919. Flint implements from the of the Chilterns (southern England): reassessing the Palaeolithic ‗floor‘ at Whipsnade, Beds. sites of Worthington G. Smith. Antiquity 71: 912– Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of 931.

95

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

THE KNIGHT, THE GROCER, AND THE CHOCOLATE BROWNIES; JOSEPH PRESTWICH, BENJAMIN HARRISON AND THE SECOND ‘ANTIQUITY OF MAN’ DEBATE

John McNabb

Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Between 1889 and 1896 Benjamin Harrison, an amateur archaeologist, and Joseph Prestwich, one of the most celebrated geologists of his day, fought a spirited campaign to establish the presence of hominins during the glacial Pleistocene period, and possibly before it. The consensus opinion at the time was that humans were predominantly post-glacial. This paper discusses the reasons Harrison and Prestwich came to believe in glacial and pre- glacial humans.

Full reference: McNabb, J. 2009. The Knight, The Grocer, and the Chocolate Brownies; Joseph Prestwich, Benjamin Harrison and the second ‗Antiquity of Man‘ debate. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 97–115. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Eolith, palaeolith, handaxe, Victorian, geology, human origins

INTRODUCTION relative obscurity. Although others take on the fight, all is in vain and the banner of the We modern humans like our stories and our status-quo still flies over the establishment‘s heroes; old ones like the fall of Troy or bastions. Beowulf where men struggled against their destinies; newer ones like Charles Darwin or We mythologize Prestwich and Evans Prestwich and Evans at war against the because of the ‗Antiquity of Man‘ debate; establishment; or even made up ones such as Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and Hooker for the Brothers Grimm or The Lord of the evolution. Why? Because they were right. Rings where, as in all really good stories, Desmond (1994, 1997) convincingly shows hidden messages lurk beneath the obvious. how Huxley and his allies deliberately This is a story too. A lone man, an outsider, manipulated the memory of this period, glimpses a great truth. A knight errant mythologizing it into a heroic struggle arrives and takes him under his protection. against traditionalism. They turned it into a They struggle against powerful adversaries political weapon for rallying the new caste of and the blindness of orthodoxy. Sadly professional scientists that Huxley was though, this story doesn‘t have a happy busily creating. We see them as visionaries, ending. Our heroes were wrong, their brave because their judgement calls are set into the vision was false. The good knight was foundations of modern debates; what they already old when battle was joined, and he did is relevant to modern understanding. But dies in the midst of the fray. Our hobbit-like in doing this we run the risk of de- visionary is left unprotected and returns to contextualising their work; celebrating

97

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) isolated moments outside of the framework period, especially in the late 1870s and into which generated those moments. It is not that the 1880s (O‘Connor 2007: 63ff), however these people, or their insights, do not deserve these had met with equal scepticism. James to be famous: they do. The danger is that in Geikie led the Scottish glaciologists in de-contextualising them we lose the real opposition to the English geologists, arguing perspective of their achievements. for successive glacial and interglacial periods (Geikie 1877), while Sydney Skertchly The ‗Antiquity of Man‘ debate spanned the argued the same thing based on stratigraphic transition from the early to middle Victorian sequences in the Fenland, many containing eras (1837–1860 and 1860–1880). The early Palaeolithic handaxes (Miller & Skertchly Victorian period saw the rise of many 1878). But they were largely ignored and challenges to established social orthodoxy in powerful conservative forces were ranged all walks of life. The middle Victorian period against them, in particular William Boyd was, in my opinion, the time when those Dawkins, whose Early Man in Britain and challenges were met and their resolution his Place in the Tertiary Period (Dawkins ultimately consolidated into a new emergent 1880) epitomised the orthodox establishment consensus. This new status quo was in place view of post-glacial humans. by the late Victorian period (1880–1901). In terms of the establishment of human But in the late 1880s and early 1890s this antiquity, the original debate had focused on changed. Benjamin Harrison and Joseph demonstrating that humans were the Prestwich presented a series of papers which contemporaries of the extinct mega-fauna, challenged Boyd Dawkins and the consensus placing them in a period of time long before view. I have no doubt that it was the that admitted by the Noachian chronology. authority, if not near legendary status, of During the middle Victorian period the Prestwich‘s name that led to these ideas emergent consensus was that Man was a being given a serious airing. If a man like ‗post-glacial‘ animal; for most English Skertchly, an officer of the British Victorian scientists there had been only one Geological Survey, was not to be believed, glacial period, only one ice age. The cutting what chance would a village grocer have of of the modern river valleys, their flights of taking on the might of the geological gravel terraces (the drift as it was known to establishment alone? the Victorians), and the ancient mammal remains and handaxes within the drifts, all So, the late Victorian Second Antiquity of these post-dated the retreat of the glaciers at Man debate was not about whether our the close of the ice age. species was ancient; rather, it was about how old we truly were. The litmus test against I will suggest here that in the late Victorian which to measure this antiquity was the ice era a ‗Second Antiquity of Man‘ debate age itself. arose. This was a challenge to the post- glacial dating of hominin occupation in Matt Pope and Mark Roberts deal with Britain. Evidence was presented to suggest Prestwich‘s broader career elsewhere (Pope that humans were present in intra-glacial and & Roberts, this volume). I will concentrate even pre-glacial times. Although a very early only on those areas where Prestwich‘s date for humans had been predicted by many writings‘ relate to Harrison and the eolith of Darwin‘s followers, for example Huxley debate in order to keep any overlap to a (Desmond 1994, 1997), the evidence was minimum. I will make no attempt to set the confined to the Continent, and was not taken archaeology and geology of the Kentish seriously by most English geologists. There eolith debate into any modern interpretative had been a few attempts to demonstrate frameworks. Here I chose to treat Harrison humans in Britain earlier than the glacial and Prestwich‘s ideas as a self-contained

98

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison time-bubble, relevant only to the period Darent, at what height the high level valley- which shaped the argument. More recent drifts had been in the Somme Valley, in discussions on the geological context can be which the St. Acheul implements had been found in Gallois & Edmunds (1965) and in recovered during the heady years of the first Dines et al. (1969); archaeological context Antiquity of Man debate. Using the Darent may be found in Spencer (1990) and in as an example Prestwich pointed to mid-way O‘Connor (2007). up the valley side. Harrison realised that he had found implements at heights greater than this — further up the valley side. Age, in BACKGROUND terms of river drifts, was counted from the top down. The highest terraces on a valley‘s We know a great deal about Benjamin side were the oldest, those at the bottom the Harrison. He was an inveterate hoarder, and youngest. In other words Harrison had found kept a voluminous collection of notebooks in implements that were in older drifts than which he recorded almost everything that he those of Boucher de Perthes. From that point did. These are curated in various museums, on Harrison began to explore the highest but principally in Maidstone. It would not be drifts in the area for implements. With difficult to reconstruct much of his life in Prestwich‘s encouragement he was very detail, and especially his collecting activities, soon finding palaeoliths in the drifts on the if it were possible to read his atrocious tops of hills. These were in geological handwriting (which I barely can). situations that were beyond and above the Fortunately his son, Sir Edward Harrison limits of the valleys. They had to be very old collated and condensed his archive into a indeed. very remarkable book Harrison of Ightham (Harrison 1928). This is a detailed record of Harrison‘s eolith hunting, compiled from his PRESTWICH’S GEOLOGICAL notes and letters, and of the development of SCENARIO his ideas. It is also a unique window into the late Victorian world of archaeology and This was developed in three classic papers geology, and I know of no other book that is (Prestwich 1889, 1891, 1892) which became able to so vividly evoke this lost world. the major source of information and argument in support of the whole Kentish Harrison had been a keen collector of lithics eolith question. Two were given to the and antiquities in general, and a prodigious Geological Society, one in 1889, and one in field walker, before 1878. During that year 1891, both published in the year they were however, William Davies of the British delivered, and the third to the Museum, and Worthington Smith, who came Anthropological Institute, also in 1891, and to look at his flint collection, asserted that in published the following year. and amongst the many Neolithic specimens were Palaeolithic implements from the ‗rock As noted above, for the majority of the shelters‘ of Oldbury (Harrison 1928; English geological establishment there had Worthington Smith recanted when he got only been one glacial period, and this was home!). John Lubbock, also consulted, the ice age. There was much discussion as to confirmed that they were Palaeolithic. From its character, duration, and age in the this point on Harrison began to concentrate geological literature. This in turn meant that on the search for Palaeolithic implements. for most late-Victorian English geologists He met Prestwich in August 1879 at his the Pleistocene period was synonymous with house in Shoreham. During the interview he this single glacial event. But for many who asked Prestwich, as they stared out of the accepted the orthodox viewpoint there were professor‘s window down the valley of the still questions that needed to be addressed.

99

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Some geologists argued for a pre-glacial what would later become the Greensand Pleistocene. This was a time at the beginning Escarpment, the Vale of Holmesdale, the of the Pleistocene when there was a milder Chalk Escarpment, and the Chalk Plateau climate that persisted until the glaciers directly behind the escarpment. The Chalk arrived. Others argued for a post-glacial Escarpment and Plateau behind it form Pleistocene, a time of cooler climate, but today‘s North Downs. A schematic cross- warm enough for the Pleistocene fauna to section of this is shown in Figure 1, persist until they were replaced by the originally drawn up by Benjamin Harrison modern fauna. (Harrison 1904). This uninterrupted plateau surface dipped northwards and ran all the Following Victorian interpretation, during way across to the area which would later the later Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene the become the Thames Valley. Figure 2 also Wealden mountain range rose 2000–3000‘ shows this in more detail, corresponding to above the level of the highest point of the the area between ‗North Downs Chalk Chalk Downs today. From its slopes a plain Escarpment‘ and ‗Lower Greensand extended northwards, uninterrupted, over Escarpment‘ on Figure 1.

Figure 1: Plate II from Harrison 1904. [The text accompanying the plate reads as follows: ―In Plate II is shown a geological section across the Weald of Kent and Sussex, from the River Thames to the English Channel, a distance of about fifty miles from north to south. Section A represents the country as it now exists; Section C is the same as Section A, with the ancient Wealden dome reconstructed over the present land surface of Kent and Sussex; and Section B represents a conjectural intermediate stage between A and C, showing the Wealden hills in a partly denuded condition as they may possibly have existed when the eolithic implements were made. The actual amount of denudation that had taken place when Eolithic Man dwelt in the land is unknown, and Plate IIB must not be taken as equivalent to a pronouncement on the point. In the sections: 1 represents Chalk; 2 represents Upper Greensand and Gault; 3 represents Lower Greensand; 4 represents Wealden Beds; T represents Tertiary deposits; O represents Plateau Drift containing Eolithic Implements; X represents the ancient land surface whereon the implements are supposed to have been made. The vertical scale of the sections is exaggerated.‖ (Harrison 1904: 21–22)]

100

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

Figure 2: Schematic showing the main sedimentary deposits, in relation to each other, discussed by Prestwich in his 1889 and 1891 papers to the Geological Society. [The diagram is a visual representation only, a heuristic device to allow comparison between the two adjacent geographical areas discussed by Prestwich. The diagram does not represent the actual geographical relationship between the river valleys of the Shode and the Darent. The relative position of the rivers, in relation to their terraces is picked out by the gray shading below number 4, the low-level terrace/drift. This could be taken to represent alluvium.]

101

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Two major sediment units were found on 127). At the edge of the escarpment the this Chalk Plateau (represented by number 1 plateau capping of red clay-with-flints and on Figures 1A–1C): the Southern Drift and Southern Drift was abruptly truncated. This the clay-with-flints. In the northern part of beheading of the sediments had to be related the Thames Valley the Southern Drift was to the formation of the escarpment itself (see dated on stratigraphic grounds to before the Figures 1 & 2). The drifts on top of the time of the Northern Drift/Boulder clay. It escarpment therefore pre-dated its formation, was therefore pre-glacial/pre-Pleistocene in as did any implements contained within age. The Southern Drift was a gravely those drifts. deposit which contained small Tertiary flint pebbles, small angular brown flints, and In creating the Chalk Plateau and its critically, chert and ragstone from the Lower escarpment, the glaciers also cut the Vale of Greensand. Since these indicator lithologies Holmesdale (i.e. the large east–west valley were also found within the Thames Valley, it that ran along the base of the North Downs‘ was suggested that rivers draining the chalk scarp face; see Figure 2). The sloping plain/Chalk Plateau flowed Greensand Escarpment was probably cut at northwards. It was assumed that the north– the same time. In the area of Ightham there south line of the Darent Valley existed in was no direct evidence for glacial action some form during the early-glacial, and that remaining, and Prestwich was only able to the rivers draining the plateau were probably infer that this was the mechanism tributaries of this proto-Darent. responsible for sculpting the landscape in front of the Chalk Escarpment. In the Darent The second sedimentary unit found on the Valley Prestwich suggested that certain drift Chalk Plateau was the visually diagnostic red deposits may have been preserved as isolated clay-with-flints. In the 1889 paper Prestwich patches that related to this event (number 5 observed that the remnant patches of the on Figure 2). Southern Drift lay on top of the clay-with- flints (279, 289, at least in places; also 1891: On the glacially eroded plain below the 127). It was widely assumed (but not proven) North Downs‘ Chalk Escarpment (Figure 2) that the red clay-with-flints was of local the modern topography showed isolated origin, formed in-situ by sub-aerial patches of drift deposits at heights in excess weathering of the plateau surface. In addition of 340‘ OD. Some of these units represented to the Southern Drift, and the clay-with- deposition by rivers flowing from north to flints, there were remnants of Tertiary south across the base of the Vale of deposits which also outcropped on the Holmesdale, and which dated to the glacial surface of the Chalk Plateau. These were period. They were carrying, and depositing sands, or other fine-grained sediments, or the debris from the cutting of the occasionally took the form of patches of escarpment. There were brickearth/loess shingle. Their relationship to other drift deposits as well; like the drift gravels they deposits on the Plateau was unknown. too occurred in isolated patches on the landscape. At least some of these brickearths A major reason why Prestwich believed that in the area around Ightham were, Prestwich all of the drifts on the Chalk Plateau were argued, flood deposits of the rivers and pre-glacial, or early-glacial in age, was his possibly dated to different times. Other belief that the Chalk Escarpment itself was patches of brickearth, particularly in the formed during the same period as the erosion valley of the Darent, were deposited by other of the Wealden heights, and possibly by the mechanisms (see below). same agency — glacial ice. By 1891 he had come to believe that these two great erosion In summary, during the glacial period, rivers events had begun at the same time (1891: were depositing drift at levels of between

102

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

340 and 500/600‘ OD on the glacially low level valley-drift/terrace, numbers 3 and scoured landscape to the south of the North 4 on Figure 2. Both contained palaeoliths, Downs‘ Chalk Plateau. These drifts and they were similar to the hill-group. contained remnants of the much older drift These implements from high and low level deposits and Tertiary‘s from the Chalk valley-drifts were termed the ‗valley-group‘ Plateau, brought down to the base of the or valley-drift/period implements. escarpment by the erosive effects of the glacier as it cut the escarpment (erosion in Although this is not a part of Prestwich‘s Victorian terminology was termed argument, there is a point I would like to denudation). There were artefacts within make here that refers back to the first these re-deposited drift gravels, so these also Antiquity of Man debate and to the dated to the glacial period. They were clearly subsequent disbelief of those English derived from the plateau because of their geologists epitomised by Boyd Dawkins and very worn condition. However, within these the post-glacial school that was mentioned re-deposited drifts there were other above. All of the geological arguments put implements that were in a much fresher forward by Prestwich and Evans in the 1859 condition, so these were interpreted as being debate, and in their papers in the early 1860s contemporary with the formation of the drift (see Pope and Roberts this volume), referred deposits they were found in. In the 1889 to what Prestwich was in 1889 and 1891 paper they were termed the ‗hill-group‘, or calling the valley-group (and in fact I suspect implements of the hill-drift (Figure 2). mostly the high-level valley group). In suggesting the implementiferous drifts of the The watershed between the three river hill-group, Prestwich was in effect valleys near Ightham (the Leybourne (a presenting a stratigraphic argument for tributary of the Medway which flows to the hominins before the post-glacial and its time east), the Oxted (a tributary of the Darent of valley incision. In suggesting a plateau- which flows to the west), and the Shode group, he was extending this even further, which flows southwards to the Medway) but again on the grounds of stratigraphic was, during the Pleistocene, about 340‘ OD logic. The subtleties of this point would have at its highest (1889: 273). All of the drifts been appreciated by Prestwich‘s audience, below the Chalk Escarpment that were but for us today is more difficult to extract higher than this watershed (i.e. the drifts from his writings. described in the preceding paragraph, the hill-group, see Figure 2) were therefore older Outside of the Shode, in the valley of the than the post-glacially cut rivers and their Darent (Prestwich 1891), the situation was valley-drifts. broadly similar. A high level valley-terrace (3a and 3 on Figure 2), with implements, Continuing this line of argument (1889), could be traced down from Limpsfield Prestwich suggested that all of the drifts Common, along the base of the North contained within the three river valleys (i.e. Downs‘ Chalk Escarpment, and then turning below the level of the watershed at 340‘) northwards, through the escarpment, on to dated to post-glacial times, and therefore the Dartford. These isolated patches of gravel cutting of these valleys themselves must also paralleling the river were the equivalent of have post-dated all of the drifts higher than the great spread of gravel along the south 340‘ OD — the hill-group. bank of the Thames between Dartford Heath and Milton Street, Swanscombe, with which There were two drift phases within the river they were correlated. (At one point (1891: valleys, but they were best developed along 154) Prestwich asserts that this high level the slopes of the valley of the Shode. There valley-drift (i.e. 3a on Figure 2) was was a high level valley-drift/terrace, and a equivalent to the hill-group from Ightham

103

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

(1889). This is difficult to reconcile unless responsible for the high level brickearths he was implying that the Ightham hill-group, described in the 1889 paper near Ightham and the high terrace of the valley-group in (above), was not properly clarified. the Darent occurred within a similar height zone and had similar artefacts; at least the latter was clearly stated to be so. As in the PRESTWICH AND HARRISON’S Shode (Prestwich 1889) the low level valley- ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCENARIO drift or terrace of the Darent was also rich in FROM THE 1889, 1891 AND 1892 palaeoliths (Prestwich 1891). I will speculate PAPERS here that by 1891 Prestwich may have been inclined to view the drifts of the hill-group of Prestwich‘s views on the status of the the Shode valley around Ightham (1889; eoliths, whether or not they were humanly number 1 on Figure 2), and the Limpsfield made, and their relative importance in Gravel of the Darent (1891; number 3a on relation to the handaxes/implements found Figure 2) as part of the same specific phase on the Chalk Plateau, underwent of drift deposition, laid down by rivers development over the four years covered by running at the same general height and these three publications. therefore of the same age; however his writings on this are not clear (1891: 145 & In the first paper stone tools came in three 154). distinct visual categories. Physical appearance and condition were the key to In the Darent Valley, a series of fragmentary provenance and therefore age: and isolated patches of drift which were dated to the period between the high level Group 1. Surface shows little valley-drift, and the low level valley-drift, discolouration and looks like natural flint heralded a return to glacial conditions in the colour. area, and indicated the renewed influence of Group 2. The flint has turned white or ‗ice and snow‘ on the sediments. The slightly yellow (described as a Chevening/Dunton Green gravels in the ‗molecular change of the surface‘; Darent Valley (number 6 on Figure 2) were Prestwich 1892: 255), but has a very high of an unusual character. They appeared to gloss (called patina by Prestwich). have been pushed into the bedrock rather Usually, these were unabraded. than laid over it as in normal river drift. They Group 3. Dark yellow or more often were located on the floor of the Holmesdale brown. Sometimes glossy, they were valley, beyond the limits of the river‘s often abraded; those implements which margin, emplaced there by the ice. were a deep brown to ochreous colour, a Elsewhere these sediments had been planed sub-set of group 3, were usually very off as if a body of ice had overridden them. worn and appeared cruder than the other Other evidence of a temporary return to implements. glacial conditions, between the times of the upper and lower terraces of the valley-drifts, Group 1 was by and large ignored since it was the ‗festooning‘ of the chalk surface in mostly referred to surface Neolithic finds. places (formation of spherical pockets, 2–4‘ Groups 2 and 3 reflected different deep, with concentric patterns of sediment depositional contexts. Group 2 resulted from within them), and the presence of chalk being buried in brickearth or loess. Prestwich rubble (chalk-with-flints) on hill slopes and believed the brickearth was once extensive at their bases. Brickearths in the Darent over the landscape below the Chalk Valley were also probably related to the Escarpment in the Ightham area (1889: 287 temporary return of glacial conditions. ff; Figure 2). Whether this mechanism was also

104

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

Group 3 implements acquired their surface The implication then is as follows. Prestwich appearance from being buried in ferruginous believed in 1889 that the Plateau or Ash gravels. Group 3 occurred very frequently in group of artefacts was composed of a few the valley and hill-drifts. These implements well made handaxes, a larger proportion of occurred in a wide variety of conditions, cruder handaxes, and a few natural pieces indicating a range of potential ages, but some which were humanly retouched. They were very worn and therefore appeared formed part of a single continuum of tool markedly older (the group 3 sub-set) — not types (Harrison 1928: 164). Whereas some only in condition, but also in technique of may have been older than others, in a relative manufacture and form. This sub-group sense, they nonetheless comprised a single Prestwich believed were derived into the hill homogenous group of artefacts that dated to and valley-drifts from higher up — i.e. they the early-glacial or before. On the other hand came from the erosion of the Chalk Harrison was beginning to suspect the Escarpment. situation was much more complicated than that proposed by his ‗leader‘. He had These cruder (and therefore older) accepted a great age for all the Plateau implements were termed the Ash or Plateau artefacts, long before Prestwich (Harrison group/implements (a term that later became 1928: 84, 91 & 130). He had also accepted synonymous with eoliths, but in 1889 was the eoliths as tools before Prestwich restricted to handaxes or handaxe-like (Harrison in 1886 and Prestwich in artefacts). Their physical appearance (colour 1888/1889). After the 1889 Geological and condition) was very similar to the small Society meeting Harrison began to suspect and worn brown flints which formed a that the eoliths from the plateau were older natural component of the Southern Drift on than the handaxes from the plateau (Harrison the Chalk Plateau in which they were found 1928: 163, 154 & 176; Harrison 1904: 7–8). (indeed many of these smaller flints from the plateau would later be identified as eoliths). By 1890, Prestwich‘s emphasis on the typological character of the Plateau group Significantly, and in addition to the crude, was beginning to shift. This must have been rolled and heavily stained handaxes, the in response to the sheer numbers of eoliths Plateau group contained a small number of that Harrison and his co-eolith hunters (A.M. natural flakes/pieces with what was Bell, de Barri Crawshay, R.A. Bullen and described as artificial retouch. In the 1889 Harry Lewis) were finding (Harrison 1928: paper these eoliths represented a small 155–156). The frequency and importance of component of the Plateau group (Figure 3). the handaxes began to be downgraded. As far as I am aware, these were the first eoliths sensu Harrison to be described and In the second of Prestwich‘s papers (1891), illustrated as such in Britain. However, at all six of the retouched implements this stage Prestwich was more concerned illustrated were eoliths, and some of them with emphasising the handaxes. He believed were of the classic crescent or double (Harrison 1928: 145) all the Plateau group concave shapes (see below) that would later artefacts were of the same age as each other come to typify eoliths. They were either split as they were found in the same deposits. At pebbles or tabular pieces with the ‗retouch‘ this point, it was more important for the confined to the margins, and no sign of geologist to identify unambiguous flaking or flake scars on the main body of implements as being clearly associated with the artefacts (i.e. no invasive flaking, see intra-glacial or pre-glacial sediments, and also 1892: 255–256). Their simplicity and therefore situate humans in the early or pre- lack of surface working was acknowledged glacial Pleistocene. and explained by their being the very first attempts of humans to use stone as a tool

105

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 3: Plate XI from Prestwich 1899. A selection of pieces recovered from Ash and Bower Lane on the Chalk Plateau. [They were originally reproduced at 1:1 scale with the exception of 3, 6, and 8 which were reduced to three quarters of their original size. Scale indicators removed from this scan of the plate as my intention here is merely to depict the variety of forms present in what would later be called eoliths. Re-labelled after Prestwich 1899: the numbering reproduces Prestwich‘s own numbers and the figures in brackets represent Harrison‘s catalogue numbers. Object 4 (464) is an important piece. This was the first eolith to be accepted by Prestwich as a genuine artefact (Harrison 1928). Whereas piece number 1 is possibly a genuine percussion flake, the artefactual status of the remainder is ambiguous, and it is not possible to tell, from the illustrations, whether they are genuine artefacts or not. However the shapes of a number of them, especially numbers 2, 6 and 8, make it obvious why Prestwich and Harrison could have come to believe these were implements. On the other hand the pieces depicted in their plate X (not shown here) were evidently implements (number 8 being strongly reminiscent of a flat butted cordate). Reproduced with the permission of the Geological Society of London.] medium. hill-group or valley-group drifts was understandable in the light of the continuous In responding to criticisms that had arisen erosion of the Chalk Escarpment, and the since the 1889 paper, Prestwich in 1891 was removal of the debris by rivers. at pains to note that while these ‗rude‘ forms (i.e. eoliths) were present on the Chalk In addition to being based on discreet Plateau along with the more advanced location (i.e. eoliths contemporary with their Plateau implements, and even the odd more drifts on the Plateau, but not with hill and advanced looking handaxe (a result of an valley-drifts), this argument was put forward occasional gifted Plateau-group knapper; to counter the claims that if the eoliths were 1891: 256), the eoliths were mostly absent a purely natural phenomenon they would be from the hill-drift or the valley-drift expected to occur in all drift deposits implement groups. On the occasions they did everywhere (Harrison 1928: 158); but they occur, they were evidently derived as their didn‘t! different surface appearance attested; there were no eoliths that were contemporary with As noted above, over the course of the three the hill or valley-drift handaxes (see also publications there is a shift in the emphasis Harrison 1928: 163). Prestwich argued that that Prestwich placed on the artefacts that the presence of the derived specimens in the comprised the Plateau group. This reflects

106

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison the evolution of his ideas over this period: What helped in making them acceptable was that they were, at the end of the day, The 1892 paper clearly indicates that handaxes, and recognizable as such. But the worn handaxes/implements were still a eoliths were a different story. Whereas their constituent part of the Plateau status in 1889 had been rather ambiguous, assemblages. However their frequency, their potential as evidence for an even earlier by comparison with the eoliths, phase of human occupation had by 1892 suggested they were not a significant come sharply into focus; inevitably, so had group of artefacts. their potential as a source of controversy. The almost proto-handaxes which featured more prominently in the 1st In the final paper Prestwich speculated that paper (1889: plate 11; which is here the artefacts (eoliths and handaxes) reproduced as Figure 3, specifically associated with the Southern Drift may have artefacts 2, 3 (3 is actually an eolith), 6, been washed down from the slopes of the 7, and especially 8) are still mentioned, Wealden mountain range by rivers flowing but now more or less in passing off the heights. This would have afforded all (included I think in the descriptions of the artefacts from the Plateau drifts a vast edge trimming in 1892: 256, point 3, and antiquity. However Prestwich, while illustrated in 1892: plate 21, figure 8). suggesting that the valley-drift race and the It is the eoliths that figure heavily in the Plateau-drift race might actually be separate final paper, where two of the three plates races of humans, as their technological of artefact illustrations are given over to achievements and geological position eoliths, and they are stated to be the most indicated, still did not distinguish between common form of artefact present on the the rolled-worn handaxes on the Plateau, and plateau. the eoliths from the Plateau; in 1892 he still Well made unabraded handaxes/ believed all the Plateau group artefacts implements identical to those found in represented a single continuum of variation, the lower river drifts occur on the Chalk all made by the same race of people (see also Plateau, but these date to the later river the letter from A.M. Bell to Harrison in drift period. In 1899 these specimens had Harrison 1928: 163; and the letter from been put down to the occasional gifted Prestwich to Bell, ibid: 164). knapper in Plateau Drift times. But now that an earlier phase of human antiquity Harrison, as noted above, was in his own had been defined and the time line had mind already distinguishing between the been ‗stretched‘ as it were, these well eoliths and the palaeoliths, considering the made examples in good condition did not former older and the product of a distinct fit anymore, so they had to be later in race of people (Harrison 1928: 176). He was date. beginning to call the eoliths the ‗old olds‘ (ibid: 159f) in order to clearly delimitate In his descriptions, which I must confess I them from the other artefacts on the Plateau. find ambiguous at times, Prestwich seems to blur the boundaries between the first three It was only to the Anthropological Institute points just made. By 1892 the argument for in June of 1891 that Prestwich went into presence and proportion had become much more details about the artefacts. Prestwich in more important than a simple presence this third paper speculated on the role of the versus absence. The genuine handaxes were eoliths. The fact that the eoliths were made accepted by most people as evidence of on flint debris (fragments of naturally Plateau drift man. Sceptics like John Evans shattered flints), rather than being formed and Worthington Smith were warming to out of whole nodules as the river-drift their glacial and possibly pre-glacial age. handaxes were, was another proof of the

107

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) extreme antiquity of the eoliths. This analogies. Prestwich was being canny here. explained the absence of invasive flaking If modern stone tool using peoples did not over their surface. Additionally, the unflaked retouch their artefacts to any great extent, or appearance of the eoliths led him to suggest invasively flake them, then criticisms of this that the primary functions of these early type could not be levelled at the Plateau tools were ‗chipping, hammering, and artefacts either. scraping‘ either for processing bones (for marrow) and skins, or wooden tools, or in It was at the Anthropological Institute that the making of other eoliths. They did not Harrison and Prestwich broached the subject appear to be weapons. He asked whether this of classifying the tools in the Plateau-group. reflected the lack of hunting opportunities in Prestwich‘s classification is presented in the early or pre-glacial period, or were these Table 1. A selection is shown in Figure 4. ancient peoples more peaceable? The three broad groups show a progression from forms with the least modification, and Objections had been raised to the eoliths on which, on appearance, looked the least the amount and unconvincing character of purposeful, to the crude ovates and pointed their retouch. Playing to the audience, handaxes reminiscent of those in the valley- Prestwich suggested that the amount of drifts (for example artefacts 6 and 8 on retouch on many of the artefacts was no Figure 3). The ability to classify the eoliths greater or smaller than that seen on the tools as belonging to discreet groups was a crucial of modern Aboriginal people in Australia. lynch pin in Prestwich and Harrison‘s Comparisons with the tools of other modern argument. If consistently recognizable forms ‗primitive‘ peoples might reveal instructive were present it validated them as deliberately

Figure 4: Selected eoliths from Prestwich 1892 from Plates 19 and 20. [The numbering follows Prestwich‘s original and these are the eoliths that both Prestwich and Harrison used to illustrate their respective typologies. The numbering follows that presented in Table 1. Modified and re-drawn after Prestwich 1892.]

108

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

Joseph Prestwich’s categorisation of the forms of implement found on the Chalk Plateau as presented to the Anthropological Benjamin Harrison’s categorisation of eoliths from the Society in June 1891 (Prestwich 1892) Chalk Plateau given at same meeting Group Description % 1892 Description (B.H.’s categories illustrated by same figures as Plate No. Prestwich’s) 1. Shape of the stone a) Thin flat pieces or natural flakes, no shape, sides retouched, sometimes 19.1 Single curve scraper determines form. Little into concavities, or pointed 40% 19.2 Combination tool (points, concavities, edges) purposeful shaping by probably an 19.3 Semi-circular tool retouch under- 19.4 Tool with retouch all around b) Split half of tertiary pebble, marginal retouch estimate 19.5 Split pebble group with work on one side 19.6 c) Larger stones, some trimming, used mainly in percussion activities e.g. on 19.7–19.9 bone, hammering, trimming 2. Natural stone still a) Scraper - ordinary on flattish blank 20.1 used as blank. b) Scraper – knob headed and shaped, plano-convex split pebble, 20.2–20.3 However retouch cortical, working mostly at one end shows more design, c) Scraper – massive, thick plano-convex, retouched on one or two edges 20.3 intent to shape tools d) Scraper – square or chisel shaped ends for particular tasks. e) Scraper – crescent shaped (drawshave), concavity formed by retouch, 20.4 Drawshave or hollow scraper – most common form of all Design is evident very common eolithic form 20.5 (20.4 and 20.5) f) Scraper – double, like e) but two adjacent concavities formed by retouch, 20.6 point in middle where concavities meet. Two forms – ordinary has elongated 20.7 point (20.7, 20.8), ‗depressed‘ has short point (20.6, 20.9). 54% 20.8 Double curve scraper Very common eolithic form 20.9 g) Scraper – double in form of hour glass, infrequent h) Scraper – beak shaped, projecting pointed corner (beak) formed by 20.10 Crook point tool meeting of natural/retouched concavity with a retouched edge. Common 20.11 eolithic form i) Crook shaped, elongated concavity 20.12 3. Flaking of surfaces a) Percussion flake, unretouched, used for cutting 21.1 more extensive. Some b) Percussion flake, wide and marginally retouched 21.2 forms common in c) Ovate handaxes, common in valley group, but twisted forms frequent in 21.4–21.6 lower drifts valley drifts (and Shode Valley) are absent from plateau group 6% d) Pointed handaxes, smaller by comparison with those in valley group 21.8–21.9 e) Pointed handaxes with point slightly curved 21.7 Crook shaped (20.12), circular shapes – possibly for throwing, short rod- 21.12 Infrequent types or shaped, drill shaped (21.12), triangular point (21.3) 21.3 single forms 20.12

Table 1: Comparison of the typological categories of eolith proposed by Prestwich, and by Harrison, in 1892

109

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) made tools since the argument of purposeful use is kept to a minimum. I have already design was more difficult to refute (as it had mentioned his opinion on the simplicity of been in 1859) if a series of discreet the tasks that he thought tools from this groupings could be demonstrated. It also period in human evolution were put to; validated the arguments about the intentional scraping and pounding mostly, and possibly nature of the retouch. some use as hammer stones in the making of other eoliths. The frequency of the different The arguments for, and against, the groups of scrapers certainly reflects this. The acceptance of eoliths are summarised in crescent scrapers, and double scrapers are Table 2. One thing quickly emerges from the suggested to have been used in scraping table; the arguments put forward in their wood or branches, possibly to make wooden defence are a tautology. Each element in the tools, but this line was not developed. argument is used to support the validity of Prestwich, a stickler for facts and another element, which is then used in turn observations, may have deliberately kept the to support the original point. As individual speculation on uses down to a minimum. As and separate proofs, the condition, discreet a geologist in the Anthropological Institute location of specific artefacts, crudity of he may have thought that speculation on uses manufacture, and geological location, were would have detracted from the impact that not sufficient to independently establish the simple observation and classification would integrity of the eoliths as tools. But when make; in effect Harrison and Prestwich were wielded together, these proofs became delivering a sales pitch for the authenticity of mutually reinforcing, and so lent the the eoliths and their broader implications. argument a seemingly greater weight. But Prestwich (1892: 259) asserts that Harrison‘s for many in the audiences of the Geological typology is based more on inference of use, Society, and the Anthropological Institute, though I do not see this myself. His this was not enough. Opinions ranged from descriptions are a little more ambiguous than complete acceptance (H. Hicks), to partial Prestwich‘s, and so lack the impression of acceptance (John Allen Brown) to complete the different types as established facts that disbelief (Boyd Dawkins, John Evans; see the geologist‘s plain descriptions convey, but also Harrison 1928: 184). I do not see them as being more interpretative. Harrison‘s typology (1892) of the eoliths differed from that of Prestwich (see Table 1 Prestwich wrote three further articles on the & Figure 4). It was simpler, with fewer eoliths of the North Downs. Two of them regular forms, and so admitted a much larger (Prestwich 1895a, 1895b) addressed the frequency of ‗one offs‘, which Harrison criticisms which were being continuously referred to as field tools (Harrison 1892: levelled at the eoliths as tools. In one guise 264). In addition to those listed Harrison also or another, these were the same objections recognized a crude form of , but constantly re-stated, see Table 2. In the these were not illustrated. For him the key Nineteenth Century, a popular topical late issue was that the deliberately chipped eolith Victorian magazine, Prestwich broached the shapes were repeated in the different patches subject of dating these events. Rejecting all of remnant drift where ever he went on the earlier and longer chronologies he suggested Plateau. So not only were the eoliths that the river-drift men appeared in Britain validated by the occurrence of consistently some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, and identifiable groups of tools, but these tool- disappeared 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. groups were spatially consistent as well. River-drift/Palaeolithic man was post- glacial. He estimated a 15,000 to 25,000 year Prestwich‘s typology is a crisp description of period for the duration of the glacial phase the recurring types, and any interpretation of itself, and this put a lower age limit on

110

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

Main Objections to Eoliths Harrison & Prestwich’s Response The 1889 paper to Geological Society Evans. Given huge length of time, and huge The escarpment was cut by glacial action isolating the landscape changes, we can‘t know whether drifts Plateau drifts. Nothing else really explains the are really pre or post-glacial. The lithologies of high escarpment. Fluvial pattern must explain a) Lower level hill drifts, and high and low level valley drifts Greensand lithologies north of their source area (i.e. can be explained by other drainage patterns now by rivers flowing north and depositing on Chalk destroyed. Plateau), and b) lithologies derived from the Chalk Plateau (chalk fragments, rolled ochreous flints, Tertiary flint pebbles) to the south of their source area. This scenario is more parsimonious explanation Evans. Presence of three condition groups only Discreet location is important. Crude implements in a reflects sediment burial (i.e. not provenance). very worn state are restricted to plateau. If in hill or Otherwise whole collection (i.e. plateau, hill group, valley drift — clearly derived (this was also used to valley group) is one group of rather crude handaxes support the erosion argument above). Explanation below is also directly relevant here. Whitaker. They reflect a general problem of surface The implements are always found in gravely patches. finds (there are so many of them) not related to their This problem was addressed in the paper. Concretions parent gravel deposits on artefact‘s surfaces‘, and on natural flints, imply that both originate from same ferruginous drift. The artefacts and natural flints are deeply stained, brown and ochreous, and heavily rolled/worn. So flints and implements must come from the same drift. They can‘t come from hill or valley drifts as contemporary implements in these are less worn and less ochreous. The 1891 paper to the Geological Society Implementiferous drifts are close to the heads of Post glacial/modern valleys are clearly cut through post-glacial valleys cut into the Chalk Plateau. Southern Drift and clay-with-flints. There are Therefore the drifts on the Plateau relate to modern implementiferous drifts on Plateau, they are too high not ancient drainage and too far away from any post-glacial drainage patterns to be explained by modern streams. Eoliths are present in hill and valley drifts, they Eolith collectors have been addressing this very issue were just overlooked by people concentrating on by looking for eoliths in gravels below the Chalk finding recognizable implements Plateau. There are none contemporary with the hill or valley drifts. The few that are found are in a visibly derived condition. Topley. Same question as Whittaker‘s above, but Lack of sections and excavations on Plateau does now explicitly asks whether any eoliths or hinder identifying them in-situ, but Harrison has implements have been found in-situ within Plateau found implements/handaxes in-situ. Prestwich drift deposits reiterates the above point about surface modification and encrustation that could only be a result of burial within a drift (in 1895 and 1896 excavations by Harrison at Parsonage Farm were aimed at demonstrating this issue). The 1891 paper to the Anthropological Institute published in 1892 ‗Rudeness‘ of form and shape is not a guarantee of This was admitted from the first. A few finer the antiquity of an object. Crude and more advanced specimens occur on the Plateau, while a few cruder types can occur together in the same assemblage specimens occur in the valley drifts. It is these exceptions that prove the rule. The Plateau is dominated by ruder forms, whilst the valley drifts are dominated by more advanced types. This numeric dominance is further empowered by geological position and the discreetness of location (as above) Retouch is not human, it is a result of the flints The limited quantity and non-invasive character of the moving in the gravels of their rivers and colliding retouch is exactly what you would expect of humans with other flints. at the beginning of their evolutionary leap toward stone tool making. It is purposeful, not arbitrary, and the practiced eye soon appreciates this.

111

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

They are shapeless and show no imposition of Many are indeed shapeless, but many others fall into design in their retouching a small number of distinct and recognizable types. This ability to group them, along with the above point about retouch, clearly implies design. Others are of more familiar shape, like valley drift handaxes. Evans did not accept the retouch argument. The Prestwich reiterates the arguments about discreet eoliths and their retouch look entirely natural. The location, proportion of occurrence, and evidence of retouching blunts, rather than sharpens the edges knapping skill as answers to these objections. It is the and the resulting tools are consequently useless. linkage between these three points that empowers Variation in colour and staining, size, invasive them as individual arguments. flaking, and evidence of knapping skill, are always present in any assemblage. This is seen in valley drift assemblages (reiterating earlier objections). Harrison’s 1904 pamphlet Sheer quantity of eoliths found must indicate they The Plateau was occupied over a long period, by large are natural objects population, during which time humans did not evolve. So artefacts are always similar. Flints are indestructible, they have been concentrated by rivers into drifts, but then they are left in place. Continued scepticism about the character of eolithic If you place a number of eoliths together then the retouch retouch always looks the same, and is always unidirectional. In addition to standardization of retouch, it is always found in same place on different specimens belonging to the same eolith category. This implies a consistency not found in nature. Nature would chip at projecting points, not enhance hollows. Validation by sequence. Place a series of eoliths next to a series of palaeoliths and these next to a series of Neolithic axes, and they will all grade into a single sequence, from crude to advanced. There will be no gap in the sequence. This proves eoliths fit into general evolution of tools. Eoliths and handaxes are found together therefore Only on the surface. Excavations have only ever they must be contemporary recovered eoliths from within the Plateau drifts. Other objections Retouch on the eoliths was blunt and at a very This was rather avoided as a problem. But it does obtuse angle to the flat face of the tool. Such an explain why Harrison later promoted the idea of some edge would be no good for cutting. John Evans eoliths as body stones for scraping off the hard skin asked of Harrison why he had not considered the on the soles of the feet. Blunt retouch was thought ‗utter uselessness‘ of the eoliths as tools ideal for this. However Prestwich, in his 1895 paper ‗Nature and Art‘, asserted that some of the scrapers were sharp edged. He was countering arguments generated on a single piece from a beach which resembled an eolith, but clearly made by the sea. This natural shape had blunt retouch. He said it fortuitously resembled a scraping eolith. He challenged people to find natural examples in quantity — he said they wouldn‘t; as nature could not replicate these forms. The geological position does not explain the lack of The Southern Drift can not be explained by anything glacial or pre-glacial beds on the Chalk Plateau other than river transport from the Wealden heights before the Chalk escarpment was cut. No evidence for a distinct race of humans older than This was not really addressed; it was just assumed glacial or pre-glacial period as the eoliths would that there had to be such a race of older humans. suggest (particularly if Harrison‘s viewpoint on the age of eoliths was accepted).

Table 2: A review of some of the major objections raised against the artefactual character of the Kentish eoliths, during the 1880s and 1890s, and the response to them.

112

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison

Eolithic man. He presented these figures Prestwich died toward the end of June 1896. cautiously, emphasising a long period was Whether he broached these types with his necessary if the eoliths were to evolve into old leader, and what his response was, is not the palaeoliths. stated. The Maplescombe Valley was a particularly rich source of transitionals, but The third publication on eoliths, also in the they also occurred on the Plateau proper as same year (Prestwich 1895c), was the re- well, significantly at South Ash, one of release of the paper to the Anthropological Harrison‘s earliest and most prolific patches Institute from 1892, now in a volume of of Southern Drift. These were, as the name collected essays. There were minor implies, transitional between eoliths and true emendations to the text and a few factual palaeoliths. In later years Harrison would updates, but the most important change was sell collections of eoliths to interested to the typological list in Table 1. The two parties, illustrating and typing the specimens varieties of double scraper — those with an in the collection. Two such ‗sale catalogues‘, elongated point and those with a ‗depressed‘ dated 1897 and 1898, are preserved in the point were now split into two separate Harrison archive of the British Museum. categories; the former became the double They show pieces illustrated as the bridge scrapers, and the latter were now bow- between the ovate type of handaxe (ovoid shaped scrapers with a small central point. A transitionals) and the pointed type (pear- new category was added — drills/borers/ shaped transitionals). Effectively, they are wedges, while the crook-shaped scrapers of handaxe shaped natural stones with a group 2 in Table 1 were dispensed with (but modicum of natural marginal damage which were retained in the category of infrequent Harrison interpreted as eolithic-style retouch. types). Prestwich also included more He clearly believed they were an ethnographic data in a new section to the evolutionary bridge between eoliths and paper and specifically cited work by the palaeoliths. anthropologist E.B. Tylor who had drawn parallels between the eoliths and the stone Another change from earlier years was tools of the Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania Harrison‘s interpretation of the uses that at (Tylor 1894): least one class of eolith was put to. He began to use the term body stone. Harrison‘s “It seems more likely to consider that in notebooks in the British Museum (entry for their remote corner of the globe they may December 1895) describe a visit by a Dr have gone on little changed from early ages, Thompson who had travelled widely. On so as to have remained to our day living seeing a series of double scrapers (as in representatives of the early Stone Age, left Table 1 & Figure 4: artefact 20.8) he behind in industrial development even by the immediately pronounced these to be body ancient tribes of the Somme and the Ouse.” stones. ‗Savages‘ used them to exfoliate, in (Tylor 1894: 148–149) particular remove hard skin from the soles of their feet. Harrison was impressed with this Harrison‘s interpretations of the eoliths as it explained why blunt retouch, so remained fairly constant over the years. After common on many eoliths like the double Prestwich died in 1896, he introduced one scrapers and the crescents, would be new type (the pole scraper — an idea he may required. The normal sharp angled retouch of have got from Tylor). However, one a scraper would just cut the skin. Body important development was the introduction stones appear in the sales catalogues of the of transitional forms. The earliest mention of late 1890s and in Harrison‘s only major these in Harrison of Ightham is 22nd March independent publication on eoliths which 1896 (as it happens exactly 113 years to the was privately printed (Harrison 1904). This day as I sit and write this paragraph). interpretation explains the now famous

113

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) cartoon that Worthington Smith sent to arguments for the eolith‘s authenticity. Harrison, in 1906, sketched on a flint from Piltdown was still some years off. Then, Caddington. A cartoon eolithic man uses a early in the twentieth century, the debate huge double scraper to scrape his shins — shifted to East Anglia and a whole new class the legend reads ‗a combination shin scraper‘ of pre-glacial stone tools was identified, the (see O‘Connor 2007: Figure 5.2 for a pre-Palaeolithic rostro-carinates of the depiction of this). Norfolk and Suffolk coastal cliffs.

I suspect that Prestwich would have had little Is it such a coincidence that this new phase patience with such an interpretation, and followed the same pattern as that for the while alive, he acted as something of a North Downs of Kent? A lone visionary and restraint on Harrison. outsider (James Reid Moir), sees something that everyone else has missed (pre- Palaeolithic tools); he is befriended by a POST-PRESTWICH powerful knight errant (Sir Edwin Ray Lankester); and together they battle against a Edward Harrison describes the years after disbelieving establishment (enter Hazzledine Prestwich‘s death as ones of consolidation Warren to take up the establishment‘s banner for his father. He had begun to excavate in of disbelief from John Evans); they have to the Plateau gravels in 1894 (Harrison 1895), defend a new type of tool (rostro-carinate) and continued these excavations in the that no one accepts; and a new phase of succeeding years, finding eoliths at depth but human antiquity (sub-Crag man) that no one significantly no handaxes, thus confirming expected. Ultimately, they too fail and the his belief in the greater antiquity of the establishment wins through. eoliths and their in-situ provenance. His collecting activities went on uninterrupted. But the death of his celebrated patron CONCLUSION removed the immediate access Benjamin Harrison had formerly enjoyed to the broader We venerate Prestwich because he got it academic world. Harrison wrote little from right in 1859; quite rightly so. We tend to this point onwards (Harrison 1899, 1904 & forget that he got it wrong in the 1890s, well 1909), and his natural shyness, and chronic partly so at least. We ignore the contribution deafness, left him disinclined to venture to of Harrison because he got it wrong, even London and the meetings of the learned though he got it wrong for the same reasons societies, or follow the British Association as Prestwich. This is surely unfair. on its annual pilgrimage around Britain and the empire. I suspect had his natural The achievements of Harrison have been diffidence not restrained him, he would have overshadowed for too long. His work found no shortage of patrons amongst the excavating the in-situ Mousterian site of elite of Victorian geology, anthropology, and Oldbury (Mount Pleasant), is scarcely archaeology. Sadly however, he chose not to remembered (but see Cook & Jacobi 1998, do so. for an important first step in reinstating Harrison here), but it was right by modern Although the great and good still beat their standards and contributes important data to way to his door, and his museum was still a modern views on Neanderthal occupation in place of pilgrimage, from this point onwards Britain. It is now largely forgotten that the others would carry the flag into public battle. worn handaxes from the surface of the North The debate stagnated somewhat in the late Downs (i.e. the implements from the 1899 1890s and early 1900s. There were no paper) were the first properly contextualised spectacular new Kentish finds to invigorate evidence of glacial and pre-glacial

114

J. McNabb: Joseph Prestwich and Benjamin Harrison occupation to be accepted in Britain. Even Science held at Ipswich in September 1895: such sceptics as Evans and Worthington 349–351. John Murray, London. Harrison, B. 1899. Plateau implements (eoliths) — Smith congratulated the pair on their results of recent research. Transactions of the discovery of intra-glacial, or less likely, pre- South Eastern Union of Scientific Societies 12– glacial humans. The fact we remember 17. Prestwich for the only thing he got right, in Harrison, B. 1904. An outline of the history of the modern terms, actually says a lot more about eolithic flint implements. Privately Printed Booklet by B. Harrison. us than it does about Joseph Prestwich or Harrison, B. 1909. Text of paper given to the Benjamin Harrison. museums association in July 1909. British Museum Offprint Collection, Franks House. Harrison, E. 1928. Harrison of Ightham. Oxford REFERENCES University Press, London. Miller, S.H. & Skertchly, S.B.J. 1878. The Fenland past and present. Longmans, Green, and Cook, J. & Jacobi, R. 1998. Observations on the Company, London. artefacts from the breccia at Kent‘s Cavern. In O‘Connor, A. 2007. Finding time for the Old Stone N. Ashton, F. Healy & P. Pettitt (eds.) Stone Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Prestwich, J. 1889. On the occurrence of Palaeolithic Wymer: 77–89. Lithics Studies Society flint implements in the neighbourhood of Occasional Paper No. 6. Oxbow Books, Ightham, Kent, their distribution and probable Oxford. age. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Dawkins, W.B. 1880. Early man in Britain and his Society of London 45: 270–297. place in the Tertiary period. Macmillan and Prestwich, J. 1891. On the age, formation, and Co., London. successive drift-stages of the valley of the Desmond, A. 1994. Huxley: The devil’s disciple. Darent; with remarks on the Palaeolithic Michael Joseph, London. implements of the district, and on the origin of Desmond, A. 1997. Huxley: Evolution’s high priest. its chalk escarpment. Quarterly Journal of the Michael Joseph, London. Geological Society of London 47: 126–163. Dines, H.G., Buchan, S., Holmes, S.C.A. & Bristow, Prestwich, J. 1892. On the primitive characters of the C.R. 1969. The geology of the country around flint implements of the chalk plateau of Kent, Sevenoaks and Tonbridge; explanation of one- with reference to the question of their glacial or inch geological sheet 287, new series. HMSO, pre-glacial age with notes by Messrs B. London. Harrison and de Barri Crawshay. Journal of the Gallois, R.W. & Edmunds, F.H. 1965. British th Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and regional geology: The Wealden district (4 Ireland 21: 246–276. edition). HMSO, London. Prestwich, J. 1895a. The greater antiquity of Man. Geikie, J. 1877. The great ice age and its relation to nd The Nineteenth Century 37 (April): 617–628. the antiquity of Man (2 edition, revised). Prestwich, J. 1895b. Nature and art. Geological Edward Stanford, London. Magazine 32: 375–377. Harrison, B. 1892. On certain rude implements from Prestwich, J. 1895c. On the primitive characters of the the north downs (Notes added to Prestwich‘s flint implements of the chalk plateau of Kent, paper ‗On the primitive characters of the flint with reference to the question of age and make. implements of the chalk plateau of Kent with In J. Prestwich (ed.) Collected Papers on Some reference to the question of their glacial or pre- Controverted Questions of Geology: 49–80. glacial age‘). Journal of the Royal Macmillan and Company, London. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Spencer, F. 1990. Piltdown: A scientific forgery. Ireland 21: 263–267. Natural History Museum Publications, London. Harrison, B. 1895. High-level flint drift of the chalk. Tylor, E.B. 1894. On the Tasmanians as Report of the committee, consisting of Sir John representatives of Palaeolithic man. Journal of Evans (chairman), Mr. B. Harrison (secretary), the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain Professor J. Prestwich and Professor H.H. and Ireland 23: 141–152. Seeley. Report of the sixty-fifth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of

115

A. Tuffreau: Victor Commont

VICTOR COMMONT

Alain Tuffreau

Laboratoire de Préhistoire et Quaternaire, Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

The study of Palaeolithic archaeology in Northern France entered the scientific era with Victor Commont’s research at the beginning of the 20th century. Commont’s research into the Palaeolithic industries was based around detailed stratigraphical observations of the fluvial deposits and their loamy capping. He recognized four fluvial terraces, identified by their height above the lowest river deposits, and studied the profiles of the loamy deposits, especially in the area of Amiens. The Bultel-Tellier pit played an important part in these studies. At this pit Victor Commont demonstrated that the major chronostratigraphical division was the “limon fendillé”, a palaeosol now attributed to the Last Interglacial pedogenesis. Commont recognized three lithic industries in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: the Chellean, the Acheulean and the Mousterian. He also discovered at Montières one of the oldest Middle Palaeolithic industries of continental north-west Europe, characterised by a volumetric laminar débitage. Successive studies of the Somme terraces have demonstrated the soundness of the majority of Commont’s observations, which remain precious today.

Full reference: Tuffreau, A. 2009. Victor Commont. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 117–125. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Somme Valley, Fluvial terraces, Palaeolithic, loess, chronology

INTRODUCTION HIS LIFE

The Somme Valley has played an important Victor Comment (Figure 1) was born on role in the history of Palaeolithic prehistory, June 28th 1866 at Buire-Courcelles near with the publication of the “Antiquités Péronne in the Somme region (Bordes & celtiques et antédiliuviennes” by Jacques Fitte 1953; Ponchon 1923). His father, an Boucher de Perthes in 1849 (Gowlett, this artisan, settled in Amiens after the 1870 war volume). The discovery of in situ handaxes between France and Germany. When he was at Saint-Acheul by Rigollot in 1854 and the 18, Victor Commont left high school with a confirmation of these discoveries by J. school certificate and was appointed as an Prestwich in 1859 (Pope & Roberts, this adjunct teacher, first at Neuville and volume) highlighted the eponymous site of subsequently at Hem, a suburb of Amiens. In the Acheulean. However, the study of 1894, he was appointed as a teacher of Palaeolithic archaeology in Northern France science. After spending one year at Alençon, did not enter the scientific era prior to Victor in Normandy, in 1895 he was nominated Commont’s research at the beginning of the director of the elementary school that was 20th century. joined to the teacher’s training school at

117

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Amiens. He remained there until his death, Préhistorique de France, amongst others). less than 23 years later. François Bordes and Paul Fitte (1953) have drawn up a complete list of his publications, of which the most important are probably “Saint-Acheul et Montières. Notes de Géologie, de Paléontologie et Préhistoire” (Commont 1909) and “Les Hommes contemporains du Renne dans la vallée de la Somme” (Commont 1913a).

In November 1917, during a geological field excursion in a sector of the Somme battlefield left by the German troops, Victor Commont fell sick. He was subsequently obliged to leave his house in March 1918 because of the shelling of Amiens, located just ten kilometres from the frontline, and died at the hospital of Abbeville on 3rd April 1918, aged 51 years old. This untimely death prevented him from writing a synthesis about Saint-Acheul (Agache 1958; Fagnart 1993; Groenen 1994; Tuffreau 1987).

The artefacts collected by Victor Commont Figure 1: Victor Commont [A. Tuffreau Personal were bought by André Vayson de Pradenne, Collection] a mining engineer, who published in 1920 a memoire entitled “La plus ancienne industrie Being not very strong, Victor Commont took de Saint-Acheul”, which provides valuable a very active interest in the botanical and, information on the stratigraphy of the after 1903, he devoted all of his free time to deposits of Saint-Acheul. prehistory and the study of Quaternary deposits. As his house was located on Edinburgh Street in the Saint-Acheul suburb, THE STUDY OF THE SOMME he oversaw almost daily the exploitation of TERRACE SEQUENCE the quarries and brickyards in this suburb of Amiens. He also had the help of Victor Commont’s research into the correspondents for the quarries located in the Palaeolithic industries of the Somme utilised other parts of the Somme basin, and detailed stratigraphical observations of the Commont understood the nature and fluvial deposits and their loamy capping. He importance of the geological and recognized the influence of the soliflucted paleontological backgrounds of the artefacts sediments within the fluvial accumulations, discovered in the different pits. Between and their importance, long before the 1904 and 1917, he published 72 papers and solifluction deposits’ formal identification. mémoires in the Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne du Nord de la France and in He recognized four fluvial terraces (Figure numerous other reviews (Annales et 2), identified by their height above the Mémoires de la Société Géologique du Nord, lowest river deposits and not by their height Bulletin trimestriel et Mémoires de la Société above the bedrock under the modern des Antiquaires de Picardie, Bulletin de la floodplain: the Low or 10 metre Terrace, 2nd Société Géologique de France, and Congrès or 30 metre Terrace, 3rd or 40 metre Terrace

118

A. Tuffreau: Victor Commont

(divided into two different deposits), and the profile dipped downwards in the direction of 4th or 55 metre Terrace, which had only a the Channel, with a disappearance of the small number of visible sections (Commont Low Terrace under the floodplain in the low 1910a, 1911). Very precise levelling of the valley between Amiens and Abbeville, close different deposits permitted Commont to to Longpré-les-Corps Saints. demonstrate that the terrace sequence’s long

Figure 2: The Somme terraces at Montières, after V. Commont

He observed the presence of a “limon Commont could not observe the Palaeolithic fendillé” (soil of the Last Interglacial) above sites of Abbeville as frequently as those of an old (i.e. older than the Last Glacial) loess, Saint-Acheul and Montières, because of their visible in a depression of the Buhant- distance from his home. However, he gave Muchembled-Tattegrain pit at Montières, a us precious descriptions of the Quaternary western suburb of Amiens, and located in the deposits at Abbeville (Commont 1910b). upper part of the Low Terrace deposits. With the help of a collaborator he sampled, Victor Commont (1909, 1913a) assigned a like G. d’Ault du Mesnil, remains of large Würmian age to the Low Terrace and a mammals in a calcareous silt, called “marne Rissian age to the 2nd Terrace. In this context blanche”, at the Carpentier pit, although no it is important to recall that at the beginning Palaeolithic implements have been found in of the last century, references to the this deposit or in the underlying gravels glaciations had a different meaning to those attributed to the 40 metre Terrace. of today: the glacial divisions did not have a strict chronological meaning but were interpreted as phases of till extensions.

119

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

THE LOAMY CAPPING THE LITHIC INDUSTRIES

Victor Commont continued Jules Ladrière’s Victor Commont (1911, 1912a) recognized (1843–1923) investigations of Pleistocene three key lithic industries in the Lower and loam deposits from Northern France Middle Palaeolithic of the Somme: the (Ladrière 1890). He studied the profiles of Chellean, in the old fluvial deposits; the the Somme Basin, especially in the area of Acheulean, from the old loesses; and the Amiens, located in the south. The Bultel- Mousterian, discovered in the “ergeron”. The Tellier pit (Figures 3 & 4) played an oldest industry was the Pre-Chellean, important part in these studies. Commont including crude hand-axes and small flake- (1912a) demonstrated that the major tools, found in the gravels of the 2nd Terrace chronostratigraphical division was the and at the external part of the 3rd Terrace at “limon fendillé” (a palaeosol). Now Saint-Acheul. The Chellean was attributed to the Last Interglacial characterized by the presence of pointed pedogenesis (Figure 5), this unit is visible in hand-axes with thick butts called “ficrons”, the upper part of the old loesses (of Middle collected from the sands overlying the Pleistocene age). From a chrono- gravels of the 2nd Terrace at Saint-Acheul. stratigraphical point of view, the major The evolved Chellean, discovered in the division is the “limon fendillé” because it gravels of the Low Terrace at Montières, corresponds to the boundary between the some kilometres downstream from Saint- Last Interglacial and the Last Glacial. But Acheul, was recognizable by its pointed Ladrière thought that the major division was hand-axes, called “triangular” by Commont. between the “limon gris” (a pedological complex of the Early Last Glacial) and the The Lower Acheulean, found at the basis of “ergeron” (a loess of the Last Glacial) the old loesses (at the Bultel-Tellier pit: because the “limon fendillé” is often visible “station Commont” for A. Vayson de under the “limon gris”. For Commont, the Pradenne or “atelier Commont” for F. Last Glacial loesses were subdivided into Bordes; and the “sables roux” unit at Cagny three units, of which the oldest was the Street, Saint-Acheul; Commont 1908), “limon gris” (cf. Sommé & Tuffreau 1978). included various types of handaxes. A He thought that the major cause of these younger level with twisted ovate hand-axes loess deposits was reworking of Tertiary and “amygdaloidal” forms was recognized at deposits from the upper part of the slopes or Saint-Acheul, above the sandy loam of the from hillsides, but he also suspected an “atelier Commont”. Pointed handaxes aeolian influence in the loess formation. (“lancéolés”) typical of the Upper Acheulean were found in the “limon fendillé” (Last The recent loess covering the Low Terrace Interglacial pedogenesis). and underlying the Holocene soil was interpreted as post-glacial. The age of its The old Mousterian was present in the basal layer of gravels was Würmian and the gravels (C2) between the “limon fendillé” age of the older loess was considered to be and the lower sandy “ergeron” (B2). Its interglacial because of their stratigraphical handaxes were flat and triangular (shapes position between two layers of gravels typical of the Type A Mousterian of corresponding to the Rissian and Würmian Acheulean Tradition). Other pieces appeared tills. to be Micoquian, in particular at Saint- Acheul (Commont 1909, 1910a, 1913a, 1913b). The Middle Mousterian, which has been compared to that of , has been found in the gravels (C1) of the middle part of the “ergeron”. Influenced by the

120

A. Tuffreau: Victor Commont

Figure 3: The Bultel-Tellier pit in exploitation (Commont 1909)

121

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 4: The stratigraphy of the Bultel-Tellier pit, after V. Commont

Figure 5: The Last Interglacial Soil covered by recent loess, at Saint-Acheul in 1995. [© A. Tuffreau]

122

A. Tuffreau: Victor Commont

South-West France discoveries, Commont to Commont’s Pre-Chellean, although the also compared the latest Mousterian to the originality of Breuil’s classification (Breuil “Upper Mousterian” of in his later & Kelley 1954) was due to his division publications (Commont 1913b). between the flake industries (Clactonian, Levalloisian) and the handaxe industries The Northern French Mousterian is most (, Acheulean). often characterized by the presence of Levallois, the débitage of which was well François Bordes (1919–1981; see Pettitt, this described by Commont (1913a). Commont volume) refuted Breuil’s theories using, in (1912b) also recognized at Montières large part, Commont’s stratigraphical (Boutmy Pit) a Mousterian-associated observations. In this way Bordes assemblage including numerous elongated demonstrated the numerous inconsistencies blades, found in sandy and calcareous layers of Breuil’s chronological scheme (Bordes of the Low Terrace attributed to MIS 7. 1950). These blades were associated with pointed handaxes. This assemblage appears to be one Now, the Acheulean sensu stricto refers to of the oldest Middle Palaeolithic industries the handaxe industries with poorly of continental north-west Europe where a standardized flake-tools of the Somme volumetric laminar débitage is present Middle Terrace (Formation V-Garenne, (Révillion & Tuffreau 1994; Tuffreau 1983). Formation IV-Epinette: Tuffreau & Antoine This Mousterian has been described as 1995). The industries with low handaxe “warm” because the fauna (Elephas frequencies and with diversified flake-tools antiquus, Hippopotame, Rhinoceros mercki, found in the Low Terrace and in the old Equus stenonis aff., Equus caballus, Felis loesses and loams (MIS 8 to 6) have been leo sp., Cervus elaphus, Cervus sp., Bos designated the Epi-Acheulean, one priscus, Bos primigenius (?), Ursus arctos) component of the oldest part of the Middle found in the same units is typical of Palaeolithic (Tuffreau 1981, 1982; Tuffreau temperate conditions. et al. 1981).

VICTOR COMMONT’S HERITAGE REFERENCES

The various different studies into the Somme Agache, R. 1958. Aperçu des recherches sur le terraces (Agache et al. 1963; Antoine 1990, Paléolithique de la Somme depuis Victor Commont. Bulletin trimestriel de la Société des 1994; Bourdier 1969; Haesaerts & Dupuis Antiquaires de Picardie: 269–292. 1986; Tuffreau 1982, 2001; Tuffreau et al. Agache, R., Bourdier, F. & Petit R. 1963. Le 1981) have demonstrated the soundness of Quaternaire de la Basse Somme. Bull. Soc. Géol. the majority of Commont’s observations, France 7(V): 422–442. which remain especially precious today Antoine, P. 1990. Chronostratigraphie et environnement du Paléolithique du bassin de la because of the scarcity of visible profiles. Somme. Publications du CERP 2. Univ. Sciences Techn. Lille, Lille. Henri Breuil (1877–1961; see Davies, this Antoine, P. 1994. The Somme Valley terrace system volume) in particular recognised Commont’s (Northern France); a model of river response to great contribution. His famous paper (Breuil Quaternary climatic variations since 800 000 BP. Terra Nova 6: 453–464. & Koslowski 1931, 1932, 1934) “Etudes de Bordes, F. 1950. L’évolution buissonnante des stratigraphie paléolithique dans le Nord de la industries en Europe occidentale. Considérations France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre” was théoriques sur le Paléolithique ancien et moyen. highly influenced by Commont’s works, and L'Anthropologie LIV: 393–420. numerous of Victor’s profile drawings were Bordes, F. & Fitte, P. 1953. L’Atelier Commont (album de dessins de Victor Commont) avec une adopted. Breuil’s Abbevillian corresponded étude de l’atelier. L’Anthropologie 57: 1–45.

123

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Bourdier, F. 1969. Etude comparée des dépôts J.-Cl. Blanchet, J.-P. Fagnart & N. Mahéo (eds.) quaternaires des bassins de la Seine et de la L’archéologie à Amiens de la préhistoire à la ville Somme. Excursion dans le bassin de Paris de gallo-romaine: 4–15. Musée de Picardie, Amiens. l’Association internationale pour l’étude du Groenen, M. 1994. Pour une histoire de la Quaternaire. Bull. Information des Géologues du préhistoire. Le Paléolithique. Jérôme Million, bassin de Paris 21: 169–231. Grenoble. Breuil, H. & Kelley, H. 1954. Le Paléolithique Haesaerts, P. & Dupuis, C. 1986. Contribution à la ancien: Abbevillien, Clactonien, Acheuléen, stratigraphie des nappes alluviales de la Somme et Levalloisien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Avre dans la région d’Amiens. In A. Tuffreau Française (Les grandes civilisations préhistoriques & J. Sommé (eds.) Chronostratigraphie et faciès de la France) LI: 9–26. culturels du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen dans Breuil, H. & Koslowski, L. 1931. Etudes de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest. Supplément au Bulletin stratigraphie paléolithique dans le Nord de la de l’Association française pour l’Etude du France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. Quaternaire 26: 171–186. L’Anthropologie: XLI: 449–488. Ladrière, J. 1890. Etude stratigraphique du terrain Breuil, H. & Koslowski, L. 1932. Etudes de quaternaire du Nord. Annales de la Société stratigraphie paléolithique dans le Nord de la Géologique du Nord XVIII: 93–149 & 205–276. France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. Ponchon, A. 1923. Un préhistorien picard: Victor L’Anthropologie: XLII: 27–47 & 291–314. Commont. Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires Breuil, H. & Koslowski, L. 1934. Etudes de de Picardie 2: 164–171. stratigraphie paléolithique dans le Nord de la Révillion, S. & Tuffreau, A. 1994. Les industries France, la Belgique et l’Angleterre. laminaires au Paléolithique moyen. Dossier de L’Anthropologie: XLIV: 249–290. documentation archéologique 18. CNRS Editions, Commont, V. 1908. Les industries de l’ancien Saint- Paris. Acheul. L’Anthropologie XLIX: 527–572. Sommé, J. & Tuffreau, A. 1978. Historique des Commont, V. 1909. Saint-Acheul et Montières. Notes recherches sur le Quaternaire de la région du Nord de Géologie, de Paléontologie et de Préhistoire. de la France. Bulletin de l’ Association française Mémoires de la Société Géologique du Nord VI pour l’Etude du Quaternaire 15: 5–13. (III). Tuffreau, A. 1981. L’Acheuléen dans la France Commont, V. 1910a. Note préliminaire sur les septentrionale. Anthropologie XIX/2: 171–183. terrasses fluviatiles de la vallée de la Somme. Tuffreau, A. 1982. The Transition Lower/Middle Annales de la Société Géologique du Nord Palaeolithic in Northern France. In A. Ronen (ed.) XXXIX: 185–210. The Transition from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic Commont, V. 1910b. Excursion de la Société and the Origin of Modern Man: 137–149. BAR Géologique du Nord et de la Faculté des Sciences (International Series No. 151), Oxford. de Lille à Abbeville, le 11 juin 1910. Les gisements Tuffreau, A. 1983. Les industries lithiques à débitage paléolithiques d’Abbeville. Stratigraphie, faune, laminaire du Paléolithique moyen de la France industrie humaine. Situation par rapport aux septentrionale. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 7: terrasses fluviatiles de la Somme. Annales de la 135–141. Société Géologique du Nord XXXIX: 249–293. Tuffreau, A. 1987. Le Paléolithique inférieur et Commont, V. 1911. Les terrasses fluviatiles de la moyen du Nord de la France (Nord Pas-de-Calais, vallée de la Somme. Bulletin archéologique: 173– Picardie) dans son cadre stratigraphique. 195. Unpublished Doctorat d’Etat Thesis, Université des Commont, V. 1912a. Note sur le Quaternaire du Nord Sciences et Techniques de Lille. de la France, de la vallée du Rhin et de la Belgique. Tuffreau, A. 2001. Historique des recherches sur le Annales de la Société Géologique du Nord XLI: complexe des moyennes terrasses du Bassin de la 12–59. Somme et sur ses industries lithiques. In A. Commont, V. 1912b. Moustérien à faune chaude dans Tuffreau (ed.) L’Acheuléen dans la vallée de la la vallée de la Somme à Montières-les-Amiens. Somme et Paléolithique moyen dans le Nord de la Congrès international d’Anthropologie et France: données récentes. Publications du CERP 6: d’Archéologie préhistoriques: 291–300. Genève. 9–18. Commont, V. 1913a. Les hommes contemporains du Tuffreau, A. & Antoine, P. 1995. The earliest Renne dans la vallée de la Somme. Mémoires de la occupation of Europe: Continental North-western Société des Antiquaires de Picardie XXXVII: 207– Europe. In W. Roebroeks & T. van Kolfschoten 646. (eds.) The Earliest Occupation of Europe: 147– Commont, V. 1913b. Moustérien ancien à Saint- 163. Leiden University Press, Leiden. Acheul et Montières. Congrès Préhistorique de Tuffreau, A. & Fagnart, J.-P. 1986/87. Nouvelles France: 297–320. Angoulême. recherches à la carrière Bultel-Tellier de Saint- Fagnart, J.-P. 1993. Aperçu sur la Préhistoire et le Acheul (Amiens, Somme). Antiquités Nationales Quaternaire de la région d’Amiens. In D. Bayard, 18/19: 47–54.

124

A. Tuffreau: Victor Commont

Tuffreau, A., Munaut, A.-V, Puisségur, J.-J. & Sommé J. 1982. Stratigraphie et environnement des Sommé, J. 1981. Les basses terrasses dans les industries acheuléennes du bassin de la Somme vallées du Nord et de la Picardie: stratigraphie et (région d’Amiens). Bulletin de l’Association Paléolithique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique française pour l’Etude du Quaternaire 19: 73–82. Française 78: 291–305. Vayson, A. 1920. La plus ancienne industrie de Saint- Tuffreau, A., Munaut, A.-V., Puisségur, J.-J. & Acheul. L’Anthroplogie 30: 441–496.

125

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

THE ABBÉ HENRI BREUIL (1877–1961)

William Davies

Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the considerable contributions made to the development of Palaeolithic archaeology by the Abbé Henri Breuil. It is argued here that Breuil developed pre-existing currents of thought in Francophone archaeology and made them globally-applicable for the first time. His concerns with Palaeolithic art and the chronological and technological development of artefacts set the research agenda for much of twentieth-century Palaeolithic archaeology. Evolutionary processes were discussed more as Lamarckian than Darwinian in Breuil’s work, and this was a direct result of his intellectual heritage.

Full reference: Davies, W. 2009. The Abbé Henri Breuil (1877–1961). In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 127Ŕ 141. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Palaeolithic art, Upper Palaeolithic sequence, Darwin, Lamarck, evolution, global Palaeolithic

INTRODUCTION introduced Breuil to prehistory and showed him the Somme terrace deposits (Brodrick ŖI think it is true to say that [Breuil] was the 1963; Straus 1994). This paper will look first prehistorian to develop a genuine both ways, exploring how Breuil developed world-outlook, and his investigation and ideas forged in the uniformitarian and correlation of a mass of evidence from evolutionary Ŗwhite heatŗ of the mid- widely-separated areas has led directly to nineteenth century, and developed them, thus that change of axis which to-day we are making his contribution to the development beginning to take for grantedŗ of twentieth-century archaeological thought. (Garrod 1938: 2; author's comments in []) I shall also consider his legacy for todayřs archaeology. Linking the Abbé Breuil to the discoveries of Boucher de Perthes, and their validation by Breuilřs interests were various and eclectic, Prestwich and Evans in 1859, might seem a covering lithic artefacts, geological far-fetched proposition given that Breuil was sequences, natural history, anthropogenic born almost two decades after that event. (versus carnivore) modification of bone However, connections can be made: his great (Breuil 1938), and Palaeolithic/hunter- uncle was a President of the Antiquarian gatherer art. He was primarily a field- Society of Picardy, and a friend of Boucher worker, but many of his major contributions de Perthes; in the 1890s, Breuil became to the archaeology of the first half of the acquainted with a relative by marriage, twentieth century were in theoretical Geoffroy dřAult de Mesnil, who was an systematisations and syntheses. He was a early geologist and archaeologist, and who founding professor of the Institut de

127

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Paléontologie Humaine (henceforth, IPH), The works of nineteenth-century French the first holder of a chair in prehistory at the Palaeolithic archaeologists stand as a Collège de France, and an early board somewhat confusing corpus of work, with member of the Centre National de la differing methods, classifications and lines Recherche Scientifique. He was Ŗone of the of evidence being preferred by different first modern professional prehistoriansŗ specialists. The roots of French Palaeolithic (Straus 1994: 190); not only did he take a archaeology lay in Geology and the Natural Ŗglobalŗ perspective on the Palaeolithic, he Sciences, and it comes as no surprise to find was the first to obtain a direct, first-hand that they treated niveaux (levels) and experience of the Palaeolithic around the couches (layers) as de facto proxies for world (Garrod 1938). To some extent this phases of occupation (and thus representing experience derived from his fame, gained successions of different Ŗcultural entitiesŗ), early on in the twentieth century: success and that archaeological artefacts themselves bred success, and it led to many invitations could Ŗevolveŗ in a Lamarckian way, ever from prehistorians around the world for him striving for improvement. Darwinian to examine their local records, and fit them evolution, with its emphasis on lines of into the global syntheses for which he was descent and so much a feature of 1859, was renowned. This can explain his visits to the not clearly applied to archaeology by UK from 1899, Central Europe (the 1920s), nineteenth-century French early Africa (from 1929) and (1931), for prehistorians, or by many twentieth-century example. He had gained a reputation as a ones, for that matter (Breuil included; Straus great and indefatigable field-worker; 1994). The idea that artefacts (and their ironically, as a child, he was somewhat authors) could show diachronic and sickly. synchronic change, through selective pressures operating on typo-technological variation generated within cultural traditions, ORDER OUT OF CHAOS was a somewhat later (and emphatically Anglophone) approach. Nineteenth century views of the Palaeolithic, primarily focused on France, were inculcated While the roots of French Palaeolithic in Breuil, and shaped his approaches. To research lie deep, they are surprisingly some extent, while he reworked and dependent on a very restricted number of corrected them as appropriate, he never sites, from which large extrapolations were completely abandoned them; he saw himself made. Let us briefly consider the Palaeolithic as working in a great living tradition of archaeologists that preceded Breuil in French research, applied at the global scale. France, and assess their impact on his For a prehistorian whose career had been thought. The work of Jacques Boucher de largely built on the identification of Perthes (1788–1868), which started at chronologies, he made little use of Abbeville in 1837 (Breuil 1951), was radiometric dating techniques and results preceded by the work (Table 1) of François when they exploded into archaeological use Vatar de Jouannet (1765–1845), Joseph- in the last decade of his life, and it would Jean-Théophile de Mourcin (1784–1856) seem he did not quite know what to do with and Paul Tournal (1805–1872), and was them (Breuil 1954a). Perhaps by then his penecontemporary with that (Table 2) of the views were too entrenched for such Abbé Audierne (1798–1891), Alexis Joseph techniques to have an impact. Much of this Dominique de Gourgue (1801–1885), last decade was spent in writing synthetic Édouard Lartet (1801–1871) and Henry and consolidating works that would Christy (1810–1865) (Aufrère 1935; Cleyet- articulate a lifetime of accumulated Merle et al. 1990). As can be seen in Table experience and views. 1, perhaps four major sites (Pech de lřAzé,

128

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Combe-Grenal, Badegoule and the Grotte de stone were made by de Jouannet; he also Bize) had been explored in southern France recognised the importance of stratigraphic before about 1830, and little would change, succession (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990). despite re-exploration of those sites, until the Tournal devised a term (anté-historique) to late 1850s. Pech de lřAzé and Combe- describe the period before history, but it is Grenal, for example, were both excavated debatable whether it really encompassed from c. 1816 by de Jouannet (Bordes & what we know now as Ŗprehistoryŗ (Rowley- Bourgon 1950, Bordes 1955). While serious Conwy 2006). The Abbé Audierne, while research in the pre-1859 period was scanty happy to retain the chronologies derived and irregular (dominated by antiquarians and from the Bible, was among the first people to collectors, such as de Mourcin and the Abbé emphasise the importance of open-air sites, Audierne), some methodological and the transport patterns of flint raw materials, theoretical advances were made in this and the demonstration of in situ knapping period. For example, relative diachronic from scatters of debris (Cleyet-Merle et al. distinctions between knapped and polished 1990).

Archaeologist Years of (field) Publication Sites Significance work dates Joseph de Mourcin 1824–1828 1877–1881 Primarily an (1784–1845) antiquarian/collector François de Jouannet c. 1810–1845 c. 1811– Interested in typological (1765–1845) 1837 classification; proposed in 1834 that knapped stone preceded polished stone; emphasised the importance of stratigraphic succession. Abbé Audierne Mid-1820s 1863 Essentially an Ŗarmchairŗ (1798–1891) onwards Pech de lřAzé, archaeologist; revisited Combe-Grenal, Jouannetřs sites, without Badegoule exploring any for new ones. Keen to maintain Biblical/catastrophist view of the past. Was among the first to emphasise: the importance of open-air sites, the transport patterns of lithic (flint) raw materials, and the importance of knapping debris in demonstrating in situ knapping. Paul Tournal 1827 1828 Human bones associated with (1805–1872) those of extinct animals. Divided Grotte du Bize the record into historic and anté- historique in 1833.

Table 1: Principal French antiquarians and archaeologists working prior to 1859 (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990)

However, the pattern and intensity of galvanise a new phase of exploration in research seems to change from the late France. One French researcher that straddled 1850s, doubtless linked to the interest seen in this Ŗ1859 divideŗ was the Vicomte de Abbeville, further north. The publication of Gourgue (Table 2), who concentrated on the tenets of Darwinian evolution, together exploring sites in the Vézère valley of SW with the validation of Boucher de Perthesř France, in and around Les Eyzies. He was finds by Evans and Prestwich, seemed to primarily interested in how the work of

129

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Boucher de Perthes, and that of Lyell, related mobiliary art uncovered by this intense to the antiquity of human development, and season of excavations came to reside in the how geological events, such as glaciations, British Museum, on the death of Christy in affected the timing of human developmental 1865. These collections in the British ones. He also began to develop the Museum were to be of crucial importance to conclusions of Evansř and Prestwichřs Breuil, some 35 years later. validation of Boucher de Perthesř findings; no longer was it adequate simply to prove In a sense, while the Lartet and Christy stratigraphic connection between extinct excavations were to mark a crucial turning animal bones and human artefacts, but point in the exploration of the French human impact on those bones Palaeolithic, providing an increased database (modifications, cutmarks, etc.) needed to be for constructions of chronology (Lartetřs demonstrated. De Gourgue also tried to Ages of: Large Cave Bear; Mammoth and describe horizontal distributions of artefacts Rhinoceros; Reindeer; Bison and Aurochs) within sites, including concentrations, at the and typology, theoretical developments sites he studied. To this end, he made would move slowly, until Breuil set to work preliminary explorations of now-classic in the beginning of the twentieth century. Périgordian sites, such as La Madeleine, the Intriguingly, Lartet himself believed that the two main Laugerie locations, sites in the diagnostic material from Aurignac preceded Gorge dřEnfer, and Le Moustier (Cleyet- that from Solutré, and came after Le Merle et al. 1990). Essentially though, de Moustier (de Mortillet 1870: 50–1): a Gourgue initiated, rather than exhaustively foreshadowing of the arguments that were to developed, promising lines of research. His make Breuilřs name. The typological collections of artefacts were to prove of constructs of Gabriel de Mortillet (e.g. de crucial importance to his friend, Édouard Mortillet & de Mortillet 1881), developed Lartet. between 1869 and 1872, were to prove a straightjacket to such developments, and a In late 1860, Lartet (1861) had stopped at the tectonic shift of emphasis and analysis was Pyrenean town of Aurignac, where he needed to advance the discipline. Despite the located bones, stone tools and a split-based events of 1859, Darwinian evolution was antler point in a black layer of charcoal and slow to permeate the world of the French ashes within the Grotte dřAurignac. Lartet Palaeolithic. Although Christy was part of had been in epistolary contact with de Darwinřs circle (Hooker 1862), and Gourgue since at least March 1862, on the presumably well-versed in his theory of direct advice of Boucher de Perthes himself, evolutionary descent through Natural which alerted him to the potential of the Selection, Darwinřs theory did not seem to Dordogne as a productive area of study. The have had much impact on French approaches sites he studied with the Englishman Henry to the Palaeolithic, perhaps because Lartet Christy, in the winter of 1863Ŕ4, provided a and de Mortillet outlived Christy. Lartet, of suite of sites (together with the already- course, although he had studied Law in Paris known Pech de lřAzé and Grotte Richard) in the 1820s, had also studied with Cuvier that would still be talismanic in Breuilřs day: and Lamarck. That might explain the Laugerie-Haute and Laugerie-Basse, Le strongly Lamarckian approach to change in Moustier, La Madeleine, the Gorge dřEnfer the Palaeolithic by French researchers sites and La Liveyre. Art, such as the ivory particularly, to which Breuil was no real plaquette bearing an engraving of a exception. Evolution, for him as for others, mammoth from La Madeleine, became the moved in discrete, ever more earliest-known to the age, and also helped to improved/advanced stages (except for demonstrate the coexistence of humans with isolated cases of Ŗdegeneracyŗ, such as the now-extinct species. Much of the wealth of Mesolithic Asturian of Northern Spain).

130

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Archaeologist Years of (field) Publication Sites Significance work dates Vicomte Alexis de c. 1824 onwards 1843–1873 La Madeleine, One of the first to connect Boucher de Perthesř & Lyellřs works to the antiquity of Gourgue (1801– Laugerie-Basse & humanity; interested in the relative chronological position between human events and 1885) Laugerie-Haute, geological ones (glaciations, Ŗdiluviaŗ, etc.). Not content with stratigraphic associations Gorge dřEnfer, Le between lithics and bones, but wanted direct proofs of whether (and how) humans modified Moustier such bones. Tried to describe horizontal distributions and concentrations of artefacts within sites, and the identifiable levels of (taphonomic) disturbance. Édouard Lartet 1837–c. 1868 c. 1860– Grotte de Massat, Trained as a lawyer in Paris in 1820s, though also studied under Cuvier and Lamarck. (1801–1871) 1870 Grotte dřAurignac, Excavated vertebrate fossils at Sanson between 1837 and 1856. Became interested in the Abri Crô-Magnon flints and bones recovered from Gr. de Massat by A. Fontan in 1856; in epistolary contact (see below for with Boucher de Perthes from early 1859. Publishes a paper in 1860 (Lartet 1859–60), excavations with part-dealing with anthropogenic markings on fossil bones. Sept. 1860: on return from Christy) examining Gr. de Massat, stops at Aurignac, where he finds a black layer of organic materials containing bones and artefacts (published in May 1861: Lartet 1861). Proposes first chronological succession based on types of fauna. Informed by Boucher de Perthes of de Gourgue and his collections, and makes contact with the latter. Henry Christy (with 1862–1865 1864–1870 Grotte Richard, Following Lartetřs discovery of a breccia block in a Paris antique dealerřs shop, containing Lartet) Gorge dřEnfer reindeer bones and lithics; Lartet and Christy undertake a series of excavations in the (1810–1865) valley, Laugerie- region of the Vézère valley between autumn 1863 and spring 1864. Abri Crô-Magnon Haute, Laugerie- excavated in 1868, after Christyřs untimely death. Basse, Le Moustier, La Madeleine, La Liveyre, Pech de lřAzé

Table 2: French archaeologists and antiquarians working at or in the aftermath of the events of 1859 (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990)

131

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Following the daughter of Marcelino de working. Thus, de Mortillet believed ŕ for Sautuolařs discovery of the Bison Ceiling at the Upper Palaeolithic ŕ that the acme of Altamira in 1879, the Madrid professor stone-working was the Solutrean, and that Vilanova came to be convinced that the this must therefore come immediately after images were genuinely Palaeolithic. the Mousterian. The Solutrean was Vilanova spoke on the subject of these succeeded by the Magdalenian, of which a paintings at an international congress in small facies was the niveau d’Aurignac of Lisbon in 1880. Among the audience were Lartet. This Aurignacian was held to be Émile Cartailhac, who was sceptical of their intermediate between the Solutrean and the authenticity, and John Evans, whose Magdalenian, as it contained both finely- response to a request for authenticating them worked lithic implements (cf. Solutrean) and is not recorded (Brodrick 1963). We may worked bone, antler and ivory ones (cf. the suppose, however, that he did not feel Magdalenian). impelled to travel to Spain to validate them; a general indifference among the delegates By the 1890s, problems had arisen with this pertained, and only later did a French civil chronological scheme, largely due to the engineer, Édouard Harlé, visit the site and excavations of Dubalen, and then Piette, at pronounce the paintings modern forgeries Brassempouy. Breuil (1906) lists another (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990: 34; Ripoll Perelló seven sites, such as Trou Magrite, Goyet and 1995). It might seem that the nineteenth Spy (Belgium), and Pair-non-Pair and La century, while amenable to the concept of Ferrassie (France), whose stratigraphies Palaeolithic mobiliary art, was incapable of placed the Aurignacian in the Ŗpre- acknowledging the existence of parietal art. Solutreanŗ period. The Solutrean, in contrast, immediately underlies Magdalenian Nevertheless, from Lartet and Christy occupations, with no trace of an intervening onwards, the twin elements of art and Aurignacian. It is worth noting that typology became the prisms through which ŖAurignacianŗ, as defined by Breuil in a to view the (French) Palaeolithic record. series of key papers (1906, 1907, 1909a, Breuil was to combine and realign those 1909b, 1912), encompassed three types (see prisms, creating a Ŗglobal Palaeolithicŗ for Table 3), defined by key tool types. These the first time. The nineteenth century had papers comprise a significant contribution to made huge advances in the study of the the Bataille Aurignacienne (Battle of the Palaeolithic, but these advances were Aurignacian), fought against Adrien de essentially isolated and moderately Mortillet (son of Gabriel), Paul Girod, and incremental. The analytical frameworks others, who changed their accounts of sites erected by Gabriel de Mortillet and others in a desperate attempt to support their were imperfect in their construction, and increasingly fragile position. Breuil (1907, restricted any advances that could be made. 1909a) responded by adducing more It was difficult to make reliable comparisons stratigraphic data from an increased number between different sites, often dug with of sites, and by explicitly describing the different research agendas, and using extensive bone industries from Solutrean different techniques. sites. By 1912, when Breuilřs paper to the Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques (Geneva) on BREUIL’S BUILDING BLOCKS his refinements to his Upper Palaeolithic chronology was published, he had won the The underlying rationale behind de battle, and de Mortilletřs defenders were Mortilletřs scheme was that Ŗsimpleŗ routed. Having established the early Upper preceded Ŗcomplex.ŗ Stone-working was Palaeolithic on a firmer footing, Breuil only held to be more Ŗprimitiveŗ than bone- intermittently engaged with typological-

132

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Early Upper Palaeolithic Sub- Description Divisions Lower Aurignacian (Châtelperron Curved, backed knives, generally thick, with abrupt, backing retouch; type) sometimes short and squat, sometimes thin and tapering. Numerous [=Peyronyřs Lower Périgordian Mousterian types persisted, and bone tools (if present) were rare and (phases I–II); Garrodřs poorly-defined. Châtelperronian] Middle Aurignacian (Aurignacian The culmination of ŖAurignacian retouchŗ, used to make Aurignacian type) blades, which were generally large and sometimes strangulated, frequently [=Peyronyřs Aurignacian (phases carrying an endscraper on one/both extremities. Lamellar retouch was I–V); Garrodřs Aurignacian] mostly identified on thick flakes or cores, removing thin, narrow parallel bladelets from the lithic blank, and creating thick, carinated and nosed endscrapers, and rabots (large, heavy-duty tools, presumed to have been used for scraping or shaving wood), as well as burins busqués. Bone tools are both varied and abundant, e.g. several types of bone/antler point, with the split-based forms being held to be particularly characteristic (pointes d’Aurignac). Upper Aurignacian (Gravette General disappearance of the above tool-types, and development instead of type) assemblages comprising very large quantities of angled burins made on [=Peyronyřs Upper Périgordian retouched truncations. Characterised by well-made flint points of variable (phases IV–V); Garrodřs size, made on blades and sometimes bladelets, which have been created by ] abrupt backing retouch on one side of a -like blank. These Gravettian points were accompanied by Font-Robert ones (with distinctive tanged ends), Noaillian burins and fléchettes (thin, often laminar, marginally- biconvex pieces with semi-abrupt marginal retouch); endscrapers on both retouched and unretouched blades, truncated pieces, marginally-retouched blades and bladelets.

Table 3: Breuil’s (1912) subdivisions of the early Upper Palaeolithic (modified after Davies 2001); all three stages were believed to have had independent origins cultural debates thereafter, though he did results of the 1902 expedition to Altamira participate in the British Ŗeolith questionŗ (which included Breuil) finally vindicated (see below and McNabb, this volume) and the Palaeolithic attribution of the art at helped to define the ŖSolutreanŗ of Central Altamira, and spurred Édouard Piette (who Europe (now better known as the Szeletian; had always believed its authenticity) to Breuil 1923). Much of the rest of his encourage Cartailhac to repent his scepticism research would instead concentrate on the (Bahn & Vertut 1997: 20–2). Breuil had also description and discussion of parietal art. begun to think of the Upper Palaeolithic succession in France, re-evaluating de Mortilletřs idiosyncratic classification and BREUIL’S DEVELOPMENT chronology in the light of Pietteřs and Rutotřs discoveries. It is astonishing to note Breuilřs progress, making major changes to views on the Upper Breuil had come into contact with Piette in Palaeolithic succession and Palaeolithic art 1897, when he was 20, and already while still a student. Even before he obtained embarked on training for the priesthood at his degree in Natural Sciences from the the seminary at Issy-les-Moulineaux, a University of Paris in October 1903, at the dependency of St.-Sulpice, in Paris. At Issy, age of 26, Breuil had already made major the Abbé Guibert encouraged Breuilřs contributions to Palaeolithic archaeology. He interest in natural history and evolution, and was instrumental in authenticating Upper also encouraged him to consider prehistory, Palaeolithic parietal art, at La Mouthe, Les lending him the works of de Mortillet Combarelles and Font-de-Gaume in 1901 (Brodrick 1963: 29). While at Issy, Breuil (Brodrick 1963; Bahn & Vertut 1997). The also befriended Jean Bouyssonie, who ŕ

133

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) together with his brother, also a priest, and Monaco conference, where Breuil for the the Abbé Bardon ŕ was to uncover the first time addressed his ideas on the Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal skeleton in Aurignacian question and the succession of 1908. In 1895, dřAult de Mesnil had co- the Upper Palaeolithic to a wide audience written a paper arguing that ŖChelleanŗ (A.C.B. 1906), and was to die only a few (which Breuil (1932) later tried to rename months after Breuil was elected an Ordinary ŖAbbevillianŗ) preceded the Acheulean, Fellow of the Royal Anthropological which itself predated the Mousterian (Breuil Institute of Great Britain and Ireland on 24th 1945: 25). Thus, in broad outline, the relative March 1908. chronology of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was settled before the end of the Breuil was ordained a priest in late 1900, but nineteenth century; the same could not be managed to persuade the Bishop of Soissons said for the disarray that was the Upper to excuse him from parochial work for four Palaeolithic. Breuil became reacquainted years. During this time he would be formally with dřAult de Mesnil in 1896, and was attached to the Diocese of Soissons, and his introduced to the Somme river gravels, a title would be ŘAbbéř, a priest unconnected topic and region to which he was to return with a specific parish (Brodrick 1963). He frequently throughout his career. still continued to read for his degree, and also developed his researches in Upper 1897 was a momentous year for Breuil, as Palaeolithic art, chronology and typology. not only did he enrol as a student at the By the time of his graduation in 1903, Breuil Faculty of Sciences, University of Paris was well-placed to become the pre-eminent (while still at the seminary of St.-Sulpice), Palaeolithic specialist of his generation. The but he moved beyond his native northern next few years were to see him consolidate France, and took up Bouyssonieřs invitation that position, operating on the twin fronts of to come to Brive, and thence to Les Eyzies art and typology/chronology. Nevertheless, (Brodrick 1963). In the latter place, he met while the Roman Catholic Church had Denis Peyrony (1869–1954), his elder and a provided the education, it did not provide the local school-teacher (Breuil 1954b). In July money to indulge his secular interests, and that year, he joined Piette at the Pyrenean thus a patron was needed. Initially, the fate site of Brassempouy, where stratigraphic of having to become a parish priest was evidence had been recovered that made a prevented by obtaining a private teaching nonsense of de Mortilletřs Upper position at the University of Fribourg, thanks Palaeolithic chronology. Viewing Pietteřs to the intercession of his peer at the Issy incomparable collection of Magdalenian seminary, the Abbé Brunhes. However, the mobiliary art and artefacts, at his home in Monaco conference brought a rather larger, Rumigny, inspired Breuil to study the and more influential, patron into the picture: Magdalenian. He thus returned to the Vézère Prince Albert of Monaco, who had the following year to dig at Crô-Magnon and sponsored the 1906 conference, and much La Madeleine (Brodrick 1963). other archaeological work besides, and who was planning to establish his own In 1899, Breuil made his first visit abroad, to archaeological institute in Paris (the IPH). the UK, where he looked over the Christy Given his rapid and deserved success in just collection of Magdalenian mobiliary art, a few years, Breuil was considered by the while staying with Sir John Evans at his Prince to be the pre-eminent candidate for house at Nash Mills, Hertfordshire (Breuil the chair of Prehistoric Ethnology (Brodrick 1945; Brodrick 1963). Breuil was evidently 1963). The Institute was formally constituted not to forget his contact with Evans, as he in 1910, but its building would not be would later refer to him regularly. In completed until 1920, delayed from the end addition, Evans was present at the 1906 of 1914 by the distractions of

134

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

(Boule 1922). Breuil now had his base from the walls of neighbouring Bacon Hole that which to conquer the global Palaeolithic. they described (Sollas 1913: 372) were subsequently revealed to be nineteenth- century daubs (Daniel 1961: 259). Despite THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE contributing to these questionable lines of evidence, Breuil also made significant ŖI have often regretted, for England, that no contributions to the study of the British work has tried to group, by critiquing them, Palaeolithic, particularly the Lower the results obtained since Buckland and (Clactonian, ŖChelleanŗ and Acheulean: MacEnery. It even seemed that the interest Breuil 1930, 1932; Kelley & Breuil 1956). for these studies had greatly weakened Breuil (1930) was instrumental in helping to among your compatriots since the heroic age define the Clactonian, distinguishing it from of Prestwich, Lyell, and Evans. It is with the ŖMesvinianŗ (Breuil 1926), and fitting it great pleasure that I have seen it re- into his pre-Acheulean phase. He was also emerging, first with the re-excavation at responsible for encouraging Garrod (1926) Paviland by Professors Sollas and Marett, to to study the British Upper Palaeolithic which I am happy to have contributed.ŗ material, so that it could be fitted into a (Breuil1, in Garrod 1926: 5Ŕ6; 1Originally in continental synthesis. Breuilřs election as French, authorřs translation] president of The Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in the mid-1930s helped to steer it Although the UK seems to have been the towards a more international perspective, first foreign country to be visited by Breuil, ultimately to be renamed, simply, The his academic involvement with its Prehistoric Society. Palaeolithic record does not really seem to have started until about 1912. That year saw Breuil had a long-standing research interest him invited by Lankester and Moir to Britain in Iberia, which started in 1902 with to offer expert advice on the vexed question Altamira (Figure 1). Revisiting Spain in of the sub-Crag flints. Breuilřs initial view of 1906, he worked mainly in the north (along the eoliths was one of extreme scepticism, the Cantabrian coastal strip) with Alcalde del but a return to the subject in 1921 found him Rio, but later (1908) visited the Spanish readier to believe their authenticity as Levante region with Cabré Aguilo to view anthropogenically-used artefacts (Moir 1921: the . In 1909, Breuil worked with 418, 1929: 63; Garrod 1961: 206). With Hugo Obermaier (Züchner, this volume) at hindsight, it is difficult to know why Breuil sites such as El Castillo, Altamira and allowed himself to be convinced by Reid Covalanas (Pales 1962), and impressed the Moirřs examples, but perhaps they came to visiting Prince Albert of Monaco enough for fit his changing conception of pre-Acheulean him to offer Breuil the chance to be a part of technocomplexes. his proposed IPH. Breuil had a natural affinity with Spain, learning to speak fluent While on a trip to the UK with Boule in Spanish, and this would later lead to him summer 1912, he visited Oxford, and both becoming attached to the French Embassy men examined the material uncovered by and Naval Bureau in Madrid during World Buckland from Paviland. A little later, Breuil War I. Running occasional diplomatic visited Paviland with Sollas (Sollas 1913: errands between Madrid and , he 329); having pronounced on the Upper found himself with just enough leisure time Palaeolithic succession of western Europe, to discover the Mousterian site of Devilřs Breuil was happy to classify the materials Tower in April 1917 (Breuil 1922). Almost a from that site as his ŖAurignacianŗ, from the decade later, Breuil would recommend that Middle and Upper phases (i.e. Aurignacian his ex-pupil Garrod excavate this site further and Gravettian: Table 3). The red stripes on (Garrod 1961). Breuil would continue to be

135

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) involved with work in Iberia for the rest of Catholic institution, free of the secular his career, even working as Visiting tendencies of the French state (Hammond Professor at the University of Lisbon in 1982), and the Bouyssonie brothers, 1941–2, just after he had been in France, Obermaier and Teilhard de Chardin, to take inspecting the newly-discovered art at some examples, were all fellow priests with . an interest in archaeology. Garrod had converted to Catholicism during World War In the mid-1920s, Breuil (1923, 1924, 1925) I. The role of Catholicism should not be travelled greatly round countries in central overstated, however, as many of Breuilřs Europe, gaining first-hand experience of colleagues were not Catholics, notably Miles their Upper Palaeolithic records in particular. Burkitt and Mary Boyle. Catholicism seems In 1929, he made his first trip to South to have provided a network of largely Africa, and would return to that country sympathetic researchers that Breuil could frequently, notably being invited by Field- exploit, especially at the outset of his career. Marshall Smuts to spend the duration of Breuil was canny in the ways in which he World War II (from 1942) there (Brodrick operated within accepted codes of conduct. 1963). It was on Breuilřs advice that the In contrast, Teilhard de Chardin, a friend and Archaeological Survey of South Africa had frequent collaborator with Breuil, had been founded in the 1930s (Garrod 1961), displeased the Catholic Church by his and his effects on South African archaeology writings on evolution, and was thus sent were far-reaching and long-lasting. Breuil abroad in the 1920s, ostensibly to keep him was struck not only by the wealth of out of trouble. However, that strategy seems archaeological material from South Africa, to have backfired: having sought to combine but also its wealth of ethnography. By the his scientific, theological and philosophical end of the 1930s, Breuil had made many knowledge with evolution while in the UK visits to different parts of Africa, even between 1908 and 1912 (he dug at Piltdown venturing to pass comment on the in 1912), Teilhard de Chardin became archaeology of northern Africa, for instance involved in when in China. on the (Pales 1962). Despite a largely peripatetic existence for The 1930s were an especially busy time for much of his life, Breuil regularly found time Breuil, given that not only was he travelling to return to the Somme gravels, his native in Europe and Africa, but had also ventured region. His presidential address on the to China in 1931 and 1935, and become centenary of Boucher de Perthesř Antiquités involved with ŖPeking Manŗ in conjunction Celtiques et Antédiluviennes (printed in with his frequent colleague Teilhard de 1847, but only offered for sale in 1849) in Chardin (Pales 1962). He also visited 1949 (Breuil 1951) set his own thoughts on Garrodřs and Neuvilleřs excavations in the the Lower Palaeolithic of northern France Levant in 1933 (Garrod 1961), but perhaps into a broader historical context of research, more as a Ŗtouristŗ than as a researcher. with Boucher de Perthes as the fulcrum point. He clearly saw himself as an heir and It cannot be denied that Breuil was well- upholder of Boucher de Perthesř legacy. connected, right from the start of his career. Interestingly, in this publication aimed However, that would also underestimate his squarely at the Francophone audience, Breuil own considerable abilities, and the way he carefully mentioned just two precursors to applied them; it did not take long for his Boucher de Perthes, both English ŕ successes to lead to further invitations of Conyers and Frere ŕ but noted a collaboration. These connections were contemporary lack of reaction to their frequently facilitated by his connections publications. It is implied that this presumed within the Catholic faith: the IPH was a lack of co-ordinated British response to their

136

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Figure 1: Breuil in Autumn 1902, during a break from recording the parietal and ceiling art at Altamira, N. Spain; the white dots on his cassock are wax drips from the candles used to illuminate the art [Photograph reproduced from Ripoll Perelló 1995: 70]

137

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) compatriot pioneers of the discipline thus left across the Channel at the start of the the field open to Francophone dominance. twentieth century (Breuil 1945; in Garrod 1926: 5–6). To some extent, he was not wrong, at least in his own case: he had many BREUIL’S LEGACY: ‘THE ABBÉ British disciples, such as Burkitt and, EXTRAORDINARY’ notably, Garrod (Price, this volume). However, the best of those disciples It is impossible to avoid the global developed and tested Breuilřs ideas, and did perspective when discussing Breuil. He not always support his conclusions. himself ensured that he would be considered as a global prehistorian from the outset of his In this anniversary year, it is worth passing career. That might explain in part why he final comment on Breuilřs relationship with took such a variety of approaches to the the Darwinian theory of evolution. Unlike Palaeolithic, e.g. technology/typology, art his friend and sometime colleague Teilhard and symbolism, and the modification of bone de Chardin, Breuil deliberately avoided and stone (distinguishing anthropogenic confrontation with the Catholic Church over agencies from other, non-human ones). In the application and significance of evolution. some ways, he can be seen as a key figure in He wrote remarkably little on the subject, the development of our concepts of the and when he did, was remarkably vague. Palaeolithic, devising new ideas to explain Detailed, high theory evidently interested techno-typological development, rationales him little; instead he was notable for his for parietal and mobiliary art (where, despite empiricism, almost preferring to see artefacts his eminence at the time, he encountered as entities independent of their authors. mixed success in explaining and/or dating Breuilřs preference often seemed to be for such images), and non-human/taphonomic unilinear developmental sequences, as he explanations for modifications on bones and first described for the Upper Palaeolithic of stones. He employed experimental Western Europe, and which he vigorously reconstructions to try and explain creation of defended (with Garrodřs invaluable eoliths and identify anthropogenic assistance) for the first half of the twentieth modifications on bones. He also was among century. However, on occasion he could be the first to predict the effects of too many persuaded to support multi-linear evolution, visitors to Palaeolithic decorated caves, and especially in the Lower and Middle warned of measures that needed to be taken Palaeolithic, where he saw contemporary, to protect them (Breuil & Bégouën 1933), separately evolving Ŗcultural traditionsŗ ironically some years before the discovery (Breuil 1926: 178; 1930: 226). Breuil was and subsequent over-exploitation of prepared to countenance morphological Lascaux. evolution between type fossils, e.g. from Abri Audi points into Châtelperronian knives Underlying all those advances, Breuil had a (Breuil 1909b), but was less inclined to shrewd idea of his own worth, and never believe that technocomplexes evolved into knowingly undersold himself. He also had a other ones. That belief arose from his strong sense of historical perspective in the conviction that stone tool industries reflected development of the Palaeolithic, and sought ethnicity, and that the lithic remains of these to place himself within it. He had great ethnic groups should not necessarily be respect for the nineteenth-century British expected to evolve into new artefactual pioneers of the discipline, such as MacEnery, forms. The detection of Řethnicityř in Lyell, Prestwich and Evans (Walker, Pope & material artefacts is still hotly-debated today. Roberts, McNabb, Lamdin-Whymark, this volume), but felt (along with compatriots Excepting the verification of Boucher de such as Boule) that the torch had been passed Perthesř work in 1859, that year marks less

138

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil of a paradigmatic threshold in Francophone constrained. than Anglophone archaeology. A steady increase in the number of excavated French It is difficult to summarise the achievements sites from the beginning of the 1860s was of someone who published over 830 papers instead used to consolidate and develop ideas and books in a paper like this. Breuilřs career based on existing preconceptions. The starts by acknowledging the contributions French took a long time to come fully to made by people such as Piette and Cartailhac terms with Darwinian evolution, and it can to his researches, and people such as John easily be argued that even in the time of Wymer (Ashton, this volume) are similarly- Breuil and Boule, the Catholic establishment credited near its end (Kelley & Breuil 1956). was trying to neutralise the full implications Breuilřs research differs most from that of of Darwinřs ideas (Hammond 1982). Bouleřs today in its scales of analysis, both temporal conception that every fossil hominin he and spatial. Breuil struggled to grasp the full evaluated was an extinct side-branch of implications of radiometric dating, human evolution (Gillette 1943; Hammond admittedly when the techniques were still in 1982), found an analogue in Breuilřs their infancy. He also tended to see patterns treatment of typological and technological in the artefactual and artistic records developments in the Palaeolithic: individual separately from their broader behavioural elements might change, but larger-scale contexts, e.g. development of individual changes could only be explained as sudden images and artefact types in isolation from (catastrophic) events, such as migrations or the rest of the assemblage. Garrod has population replacements. In this sense, summarised Breuilřs overall contributions to Lamarck rather than Darwin was still the archaeology well. In her review of Brodrick dominant paradigm in French academic (1963), she opined (Garrod 1965: 68) that: discourse ŕ setting Breuil in a long line of Lamarckian French archaeologists extending “[Breuilřs] original contribution was very back to Lamarckřs pupil Lartet. great, greater than is now realized by some of his survivors who did not know him in his Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, even prime, and who were stung by his somewhat today, Breuilřs definitions of authoritative ways. Time will re-establish his technocomplexes and their successions have true position, not perhaps on the pinnacle survived relatively unchanged in their sometimes claimed, but very high.” outlines, especially for the Upper Palaeolithic, where he started his career. The 1930s arguments between Peyrony and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Breuil, and their followers, were largely resolved by the mid-1950s, and it was the I should like to thank Clive Gamble, Paul Bahn, modified Breuil scheme that prevailed. Pamela Jane Smith and the editors for their comments on drafts of this paper. All remaining errors are my Breuilřs vast, mostly first-hand, experience responsibility. of the global Palaeolithic, combined with his meticulous and critical evaluation of the evidence to hand, and set within a pragmatic, REFERENCES testable and workable scheme for explaining the Palaeolithic, had helped to give him the A.C.B. 1906. Proceedings of Societies. Monaco. edge over most of his contemporaries, and Prehistoric Anthropology. Man 6: 94Ŕ96. ensure that even today he cannot be ignored. Aufrère, L. 1935. Une controvers entre François Peyrony was content to restrict most of his Jouannet et Casimir Picard sur les Ŗhaches ébauchéesŗ. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique exploration to a radius of one hourřs cycle Française 32: 300Ŕ302. ride from Les Eyzies (Rigaud & Simek Bahn, P. & Vertut, J. 1997. Journey through the Ice 1987: 55); Breuil was not happy to be so Age. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

139

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Bordes, F. 1955. La stratigraphie de la Grotte de Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Combe-Grenal, commune de Domme (Dordogne): Ireland 75: 21Ŕ31. Note préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Breuil, H. 1951. Boucher de Perthes: ses précurseurs, Préhistorique Française 52: 426Ŕ429. ses continuateurs. In Centenaire de la publication Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1950. Le gisement du Pech du tome premier des antiquités celtiques et de lřAzé-Nord, prise de date et observations antédiluviennes de Boucher de Perthes (1849): 42Ŕ préliminaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique 58. Société dřEmulation Historique et Littéraire Française 47: 381Ŕ383. dřAbbeville, Abbeville. Boule, M. 1922. LřŒuvre anthropologique du Prince Breuil, H. 1954a. Les datations par C14 de Lascaux Albert 1er de Monaco et les récents progrès de la (Dordogne) et Philip Cave (S.W. Africa). Bulletin paléontologie humaine en France [Huxley de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 544Ŕ Memorial Lecture for 1922]. Journal of the Royal 549. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Breuil, H. 1954b. Nécrologie: Denis Peyrony. Bulletin Ireland 52: 151Ŕ63. de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 530Ŕ Breuil, H. 1906. Les gisements Présolutréens du type 533. dřAurignac: coup dřœil sur le plus ancien âge du Breuil, H. & Bégouën, H. 1933. De la Protection des Renne. Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Grottes préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Préhistoriques [XIIIe session], Préhistorique Française 30: 235Ŕ238. Monaco, Volume II: 323Ŕ46. Brodrick, A.H. 1963. The Abbé Breuil: Prehistorian. Breuil, H. 1907. La question aurignacienne: Étude Hutchinson, London. critique de stratigraphie comparée. Révue Cleyet-Merle, J.-J., Soubeyran, M., Memoire, N., Préhistorique 2: 173Ŕ219. Marino-Thiault, M.-H., Roussot, A. & Rigaud, J.- Breuil, H. 1909a. LřAurignacien Présolutréen: P. 1990. Lartet, Breuil, Peyrony et les autres: Une Epilogue dřune controverse. Révue Préhistorique histoire de la Préhistoire en Aquitaine. Ministère 4: 5Ŕ46. de la Culture, Société des Amis du Musée et de la Breuil, H. 1909b. Études de Morphologie Recherche Archéologique, Sarlat. Paléolithique I: La Transition du Moustérien vers Daniel, G. 1961. Editorial [Issue 140]. Antiquity 35: lřAurignacien à lřAbri Audi (Dordogne) et au 257Ŕ262. Moustier. Révue de l’École d’Anthropologie 19: Davies, W. 2001. A Very Model of a Modern Human 320Ŕ340. Industry: new perspectives on the origins and Breuil, H. 1912. Les subdivisions du Paléolithique spread of the Aurignacian in Europe. Proceedings supérieur et leur signification. XIV Congrés of the Prehistoric Society 67: 195Ŕ217. International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Préhistoriques, Geneva, Volume 1: 165Ŕ238. Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Breuil, H. 1922. Palaeolithic Man at Gibraltar: New Garrod, D.A.E. 1938. The Upper Palaeolithic in the and old facts. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Light of Recent Discovery. Proceedings of the Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 52: 46Ŕ54. Prehistoric Society 4: 1Ŕ26. Breuil, H. 1923. Notes de voyage paléolithique en Garrod, D.A.E. 1961. Obituary: Henri Breuil: 1877Ŕ Europe centrale, I: Les industries paléolithiques en 1961. Man 61: 205Ŕ207. Hongrie. L’Anthropologie 33: 323Ŕ346. Garrod, D.A.E. 1965. Review of ŖThe Abbé Breuil, Breuil, H. 1924. Notes de voyage paléolithique en Prehistorian,ŗ by A.H. Brodrick [1963]. Antiquity Europe centrale, II: Les industries paléolithiques du 39: 67Ŕ68. loess de Moravie et Bohême. L’Anthropologie 34: Gillette, J.M. 1943. Ancestorless man: the 515Ŕ552. anthropological dilemma. Scientific Monthly 57: Breuil, H. 1925. Notes de voyage paléolithique en 533Ŕ545. Europe centrale, III: Les cavernes de Moravie. Hammond, M. 1982. The expulsion of the L’Anthropologie 35: 149Ŕ151. from human ancestry: Marcellin Breuil, H. 1926. Palaeolithic Industries from the Boule and the social context of scientific research. beginning of the Rissian to the beginning of the Social Studies of Science 12: 1Ŕ36. Würmian Glaciation. Man 26: 176Ŕ179. Hooker, J.D. 1862. Letter to Charles Darwin, 7 Breuil, H. 1930. Le Clactonien et sa place dans la November 1862. Darwin Correspondence Project, chronologie. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Letter 3767. Cambridge: http://www.darwin Française 27: 221Ŕ227. project.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-3797. Breuil, H. 1932. Le Paléolithique ancien en Europe html (accessed: 26th March 2009). Occidentale et sa Chronologie. Bulletin de la Kelley, H. & Breuil, H. 1956. Les éclats acheuléens à Société Préhistorique Française 29: 570Ŕ578. plan de frappe à facettes de Cagny-la-Garenne Breuil, H. 1938. The use of bone implements in the (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique old Palaeolithic period. Antiquity 12: 56Ŕ67. Française 53: 174Ŕ191. Breuil, H. 1945. The discovery of the antiquity of Lartet, E. 1859Ŕ60. Note sur des os fossiles portent man: some of the evidence. Journal of the Royal des empreintes ou entailles anciennes et attribuées

140

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

à la main de lřHomme. Bulletin de la Société Rigaud, J.-P. & Simek, J.F. 1987. ŘArms too short to géologique de France (2e série) 17: 492Ŕ95. box with Godř: Problems and prospects for Lartet, E. 1861. Nouvelles recherches sur la Palaeolithic prehistory in Dordogne, France. In O. coexistence de lřHomme et des animaux réputés Soffer (ed.) The Pleistocene Old World: regional caractéristiques de la dernière période géologique. perspectives: 47Ŕ61. Plenum, New York. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, 4e série Ripoll Perelló, E. 1995. El Abate Henri Breuil (1877– 15: 177Ŕ253. 1961). Universidad Nacional de Educación a de Mortillet, G. 1870. Notes. Matériaux pour Distancia, Madrid. l’Histoire Primitive et Naturelle de l’Homme [et Rowley-Conwy, P. 2006. The concept of Prehistory l’Étude du Sol, de la Faune et de la Flore qui s’y and the invention of the terms ŖPrehistoricŗ and rattachent], 6e année (2e série, No 1): 49Ŕ52. ŖPrehistorianŗ: the Scandinavian origin, 1833Ŕ de Mortillet, G. & A. de Mortillet 1881. Musée 1850. European Journal of Archaeology 9: 103Ŕ Préhistorique. Reinwald, Paris. 130. Moir, J.R. 1921. On an Early Chellean-Palaeolithic Sollas, W.J. 1913. Paviland Cave: An Aurignacian workshop-site in the Pliocene ŖForest Bedŗ of Station in Wales. Journal of the Royal Cromer, Norfolk. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 43: 325Ŕ374. Ireland 51: 385Ŕ418. Straus, L.G. 1994. The Abbé Henri Breuil: Pope of Moir, J.R. 1929. A Remarkable Object from Beneath Palaeolithic Prehistory. In J.A. Lasheras (ed.) the Red Crag. Man 29: 62Ŕ65. Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray: Pales, L. 1962. LřAbbé Breuil (1877Ŕ1961). Journal 189Ŕ198. Museo y Centro de Investigación de de la Société des Africanistes 32: 7Ŕ52. Altamira, Monografías no. 17, Altamira.

141

C. Züchner: Hugo Obermaier

HUGO OBERMAIER, REGENSBURG 1877–FRIBOURG 1946

Christian Züchner

University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Prehistory, Kochstr. 4/18, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Hugo Obermaier was born in Regensburg in 1877. After his ordination as a catholic priest in 1900 he went to Vienna to study prehistory from 1901–1904. In 1911 Obermaier and his friend Henri Breuil were appointed professors of the “Institut de Paléontologie Humaine” (IPH) in Paris. Between 1911 and 1914, both conducted extraordinarily successful research into the Palaeolithic archaeology and cave art of Western Europe. In 1914, during excavations in the Castillo Cave, Obermaier was surprised by the outbreak of World War I. He could not return to France and stayed until 1936 in Spain. He was appointed Professor, as the new chair of “Human Prehistory”, at the Universidad Central in Madrid in 1922. During a congress in Oslo 1936, he was again surprised, this time by the Spanish Civil War, and again could not return, this time to Spain. After further difficult years he became Professor at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) from 1938/39 until his death in 1946. His academic legacy is still highly regarded in Spain.

Full reference: Züchner, C. 2009. Hugo Obermaier, Regensburg 1877–Fribourg 1946. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 143–152. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Hugo Obermaier, Henri Breuil, Palaeolithic research, Castillo cave, Altamira cave

INTRODUCTION started school at the Catholic primary school in his hometown. From 1886–1895 he This biography of Hugo Obermaier is attended the Königliche Alte Gymnasium, and compiled mainly on the basis of personal graduated on July 14th 1895 with very good documents and manuscripts kept in the and good grades. Afterwards he studied archives of Erlangen, Regensburg (Germany) philology in Regensburg from 1895 to 1896, and Fribourg (Switzerland). Additional and Catholic theology starting in 1896. In information is taken from previous 1900 he was ordained priest (Figure 1). biographies and bibliographies. For detail cf. Züchner 1997 and the Archive of the Hugo Obermaier’s interest in the prehistory of his Obermaier-Gesellschaft at Erlangen: home country had already started to develop http://www.uf.phil.uni- during his time at school and university. In erlangen.de/obermaier/hogarchiv.html. 1897 he assisted J. Fraunholz in the excavation in the Kastlhäng cave, an Hugo Maximilian Joseph Obermaier was born important Magdalenian site in Southern in Regensburg, Germany, on January 29th, Bavaria. The two men then jointly published 1877, the son of the teacher and librarian their findings in 1911. Johann Anton Obermaier and his second wife, Josepha, née Grad. In the fall of 1882 he Around 1900 Obermaier met Professor

143

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Ferdinand Birkner from Munich. His Eiszeitalters in Mitteleuropa (Man’s Habitat influence induced him to dedicate his life to during the Ice Age in Central Europe). In the the early history of man. From 1901 to 1904 fall of 1904 he traveled to Paris, where he met he studied prehistoric archaeology, geography, M. Boule and H. Breuil (see also Davies, this geology, paleontology, ethnology, German volume). The acquaintance with Abbé Henri philology and human anatomy in Vienna, Breuil (1877–1961) was at first strained by the . Among his teachers were the fact that both had applied for a lectureship at prehistorian M. Hoernes, the geologist A. the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Penck and the anatomist K. Toldt. During the When Obermaier withdrew in favor of Breuil, semester, Obermaier also worked regularly at the encounter turned into a close, lifelong the K.K. Naturhistorisches Hofmuseum friendship. (Imperial Royal Natural History Court Museum), which was managed by I. Between 1904 and 1905 Obermaier studied in Szombathy and M. Hoernes. Within the scope particular the Quaternary and the diluvian of his studies he traveled to Southern people of Western Europe. During his long Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, journeys, some of them undertaken together Hungary, Switzerland, Upper Italy and with H. Breuil, Obermaier traveled to the . Dordogne for the first time in early 1905, where he visited the recently discovered sites of Ice Age art. From the end of July until the beginning of October he stayed in the Pyrenees to study the Quaternary geology, paleontology and archeology of the Garonne basin near Toulouse and the Neste and Adour basins. In December 1905 Obermaier returned to Regensburg. In February 1906 he obtained from his bishop the permission to qualify as a Professor at the University of Vienna.

In April 1906 Breuil and Obermaier were elected secretaries of the 13th Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie Préhistoriques in Monaco. On this occasion, Obermaier was introduced to Albert I, Prince of Monaco (1848–1922). This encounter developed into a friendship that would be decisive for Obermaier’s future.

After the congress Obermaier returned to Vienna to continue working on his post- doctoral thesis. Henri Breuil visited him in August to study the Central European Figure 1: Hugo Obermaier ordained as a priest, Palaeolithic sites and artifacts together with 1900. [© Archive of Hugo Obermaier-Society at his friend and colleague. Erlangen]

th In 1907 Obermaier left for his second, long On July 19 1904 Obermaier completed his expedition to the foothills of the Pyrenees. In doctor’s degree in Vienna with his dissertation 1908 he obtained his postdoctoral degree in Die Verbreitung des Menschen während des Vienna with the thesis Die Steingeräte des

144

C. Züchner: Hugo Obermaier französischen Altpaläolithikums (The Stone Torrelavega. After initial animosities, the Tools of the Early Palaeolithic in France). three men became friends, which was Soon afterwards, Obermaier and his teacher, reflected in their joint publication on the A. Penck, became estranged because when paintings of La Pasiega. The travelers visited Obermaier was supposed to be made a various caves, made a test excavation in private lecturer at the University of Vienna Hornos de la Peña and finally started in September 1909, Penck heavily opposed working in the entrance hall of Castillo in the appointment. Obermaier was forced to July 1909. The Prince of Monaco funded the look for another job. excavation until the outbreak of World War I. Over the years, numerous well-known In the same year, 1909, Prince Albert I of academics participated in the excavations: Monaco planned a trip to Altamira (Figure the Alsatian Paul Wernert, a faithful 2), on which he was to be accompanied by companion of Obermaier, the Italian Alberto the two friends, Breuil and Obermaier. Blanc, the French philosopher and During his stay in Northern Spain, prehistorian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Obermaier met Don Hermilio Alcalde del American Miles C. Burkitt, the Englishman Río — the discoverer of numerous caves in Nils C. Nelson, and the German Ferdinand which rock paintings had been found — in Birkner from Munich.

Figure 2: Hugo Obermaier at the original entrance of the , 1912. [© Archive of Hugo Obermaier-Society at Erlangen]

145

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

It was probably this successful trip to Spain Numerous academic societies admitted him that made the Prince of Monaco take the as a member. decision to found an international institute for studies of the early history of man. The In March 1914, Obermaier and Paul Wernert ―Institut de Paléontologie Humaine‖ (IPH) were back in Puente Viesgo to continue their was founded in Paris in 1910, with the excavations in Castillo. There the two anthropologist Marcelin Boule (1861–1942) friends were surprised by the outbreak of as its director. Obermaier was appointed World War I. As a German, Obermaier could Professor of the Quaternary Geology no longer return to France. M. Boule and Department of the Institute on January 25th other colleagues turned against him because 1911. He left Vienna for good and moved to he belonged to the hostile nation. His library Paris. and private collection were confiscated in Paris. Faithful friends would later buy some Between 1911 and 1914 Obermaier and of his possessions and send them to his new Breuil did extraordinarily successful research home in Madrid. Nevertheless Obermaier in Southwest Europe. In 1911 and 1912 they suffered considerable material and non- traveled through Spain down to the province material losses. He temporarily considered of Málaga and documented numerous glacial joining the military as an army chaplain or and postglacial rock art sites. The summer paramedic but he was not allowed to leave months were reserved for the excavations in Spain. The Prince of Monaco would still Castillo. The meters-high sequence of stone- have been willing to support him financially age cultures turned out to be an essential despite the turmoil of war, but when M. element in the sequence of Upper Boule in his function as director of the IHP cultures still valid today, which Breuil tried to control the work in Castillo in spite presented at the 14th Congrès International of the events in Paris, Obermaier declined to d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie accept the prince’s generous offer. Préhistoriques in Geneva in 1912. In 1912 the first edition of his book Der Mensch der Without the payments from Monaco and Vorzeit (Prehistoric Man), which Paris, the circumstances of their lives became summarized the knowledge of that time financially difficult. According to Gómez- about the Ice Age and early humans, was Tabanera (1985), Obermaier and P. Wernert published. It is still one of the most were at first offered accommodation and important books on prehistory and support by the geologist and prehistorian documents Obermaier’s extraordinary ability Father Jesús Carballo. Through him they met to present complex phenomena as a whole. the Duque de Estrada, VII. Conde de la Vega de Sella, who was excavating the Despite all these activities and projects, Magdalenian station of La Paloma with Ed. Obermaier always kept close ties with his Hernández-Pacheco and E. Bolívar at that home country: In September and October time. The Conde de la Vega placed his house 1912 and in September 1913, he participated in Nueva near Llanes generously at their in the excavations in the Klausen caves in the disposal. The gentlemen also arranged for the valley of the river Altmühl in Bavaria. Due to friends to be admitted to the Comisión de the outbreak of World War I and the events in Investigaciones Paleontológicas y the years following it, the results have, Prehistóricas (CIPP), which was founded at unfortunately, never been published the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales appropriately. (National Museum of Natural Sciences) in Madrid in 1912. Obermaier was employed as The years from 1911 until early 1914 were a an associate professor, Wernert as successful period of travels and research, and extraordinary assistant of this institution so also of honors for the young academic. that both of them earned at least a modest

146

C. Züchner: Hugo Obermaier living. Obermaier found accommodation in the Universidad Central in 1922, and as of the Colegio de Prima/ Segunda Enseñanza of August 11th 1922 Obermaier held this chair. the Marianists (Society of Mary) around His employment and salary certificate Father Chaminade. He was paid a small salary documents an annual salary of 7,500 pesetas. for saying Mass at the Colegio del Pilar of the In 1924 (Figure 3) he became a Spanish Barrio de Salamanca every day. Obermaier citizen and was now a recognized, full continued to do this until the outbreak of the member of Spanish society. Spanish Civil War in 1936, long after he had become Professor at the University of Madrid. In 1996 Moure Romanillo comprehensively described the circumstances leading to the In the course of time, Obermaier met establishment of the chair in Madrid and of numerous important people, such as the Obermaier’s importance for the study of the Duke of Alba, whose confessor he became. Quaternary period in Spain, so this article He was admitted to the court of King only gives a summary of this period of Alfonso XIII and became the confessor of Obermaier’s life. The professorship kept Queen Victoria. He was friends with the Obermaier very busy in the following years intelligentsia of his time: with José Ortega y but he also continued to render great services Gasset, Ramón Menéndez Pidal, Manuel to the prehistory and Quaternary geology of Gómez Moreno, Elías Tormo and many his new home. His achievements were more. As a member of the CIPP, Obermaier honored worldwide. They are documented in was able to pursue several study projects, of mostly large-format diplomas that are kept in which his and P. Wernert’s documentation of the archive of the Hugo Obermaier Society the rock paintings of the Valltorta gorge, and in Erlangen, Germany. His career reached a the publication on the Quaternary of peak in 1926, when Obermaier became a Cantabria are of special importance. In 1916, member of the honorable Real Academia de the first edition of his major publication, El la Historia (Royal Academy of History) in Hombre Fósil (Fossil Man), was published. Madrid, which meant that he was finally A new improved edition followed in 1925. A recognized as a Spanish academic. reprint of the second edition with contributions of J.M. Gómez-Tabanera, H.G. Between 1922 and 1936, Obermaier traveled Bandi and E. Aguirre was published in 1985. to numerous countries in the New and Old World, sometimes in an official capacity. The In the years after 1914, Obermaier went on biographical data that Obermaier himself, and long journeys again and became a member of maybe also his sister, Emma Dantscher, wrote several academic societies. Despite, or maybe down based on their collection of postcards because of these successes, tensions started to includes a list of “extended travels and study arise among his Spanish CIPP colleagues, visits” (unfortunately undated, however): which culminated in the dismissal of Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Obermaier and Wernert in 1919. Obermaier Hungary, Switzerland, France, Belgium, now subsisted on the small salary he received England, , , North America, for saying Mass at the Colegio del Pilar. He North Africa, and the eastern Mediterranean. was lucky, though, for at the beginning of the The postcard collection was burned, 1920s, his fate would take a decisive turn for presumably on July 12th 1944, during a bomb the better. In 1921 the chair of ―Contemporary attack on Munich, during which Emma’s Literature in Neolatin Language‖ in Madrid husband, Kaspar Dantscher, was also killed. became vacant after the death of Doña Emilia Pardo Bazán. Thanks to interested, influential A multitude of publications on Quaternary circles around the Duke of Alba, the chair was geology and the prehistory of Spain date changed into an associate professorship of from the same years. Worth mentioning are ―Human Prehistory‖ at the Faculty of Arts of the excavations in Altamira in 1924 and

147

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 3: Hugo Obermaier in Pamplona (Spain), 1924. [© Archive of Hugo Obermaier-Society at Erlangen]

148

C. Züchner: Hugo Obermaier

Figure 4: Hugo Obermaier at Djemila (), 1930. [© Archive of Hugo Obermaier-Society at Erlangen]

1925. In 1935 they resulted in a new essays on the rock art of North and South monograph by Breuil and Obermaier, which Africa in the following years. Besides many was considerably better than the one from other commitments, in 1927 Obermaier took 1906, and remained the standard publication on the publication of the international on this cave for many years. A major focus monthly Investigación y Progreso was on the studies of the eastern Spanish (Investigation and Progress), in which he and rock paintings and the of his students reported regularly on their Galicia. Arising from his participation in Leo activities. Slowly this led to the development Frobenius’ monumental publication of a ―Madrid school‖ that competed with the Hádschra Maktuba he published a ―School of Barcelona‖, based around the comprehensive contribution on the rock art famous Pedro Bosch-Gimpera. of ―Kleinafrika‖ (―Africa Minor‖, Algeria: Figure 4) in 1925, and a number of other As of January 31st 1928, the chair in Madrid

149

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) was changed into a full professorship and Central at the second Congrès International Obermaier’s annual salary raised to 12,000 des Sciences Préhistorique et pesetas, which can certainly be seen as a result Protohistorique in Oslo. There he was of his recognition as an academic and teacher surprised by the outbreak of the civil war at the Universidad Central. The proclamation during which he would again lose a major of the Second Republic on April 14th 1931 and part of his research material and library to the emigration of the Spanish royal family looting and pillaging. Obermaier listed the were a cause of great concern to Obermaier, events from 1936 to 1939 and the who was quite attached to them. He was negotiations about his return to Madrid in a nevertheless able to keep his position and Curriculum Vita kept in the Obermaier- attract numerous students, some of whom Archiv in Erlangen. He reported immediately would later perform important functions, for to the Spanish embassy in Oslo which, example Martín Almagro Basch as the however, was already resigning, to confirm director of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional his association with General Franco’s party. (National Archaeological Museum) in Madrid, Then he traveled to Rome via Berlin, where and Julio Martínez Santaolalla, who inherited he introduced himself to the Spanish Obermaier’s chair in Madrid during Franco’s ambassador, Mr. Agramonte. On November rule. In 1932 he was also appointed head of 19th 1936 he visited the Spanish ambassador the Department of Prehistory at the Museum at the Vatican, Admiral Mazaz, to express of Anthropology in Madrid, after his his congratulations for Italy’s recognition of predecessor, Ed. Harnández-Pacheco was the Franco administration. In the following made director of the Geology Department of year of 1937, he continued to make every the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. effort to prove his loyalty to the government He received a salary of 2,000 pesetas for this of Burgos, i.e. Franco’s supporters. On June task. 2nd 1937, for example, he gave a lecture on ―Spain in Prehistory‖ in Berlin, which had On June 9th 1932 the Prussian Ministerium been organized by the ―German–Spanish für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Volksbildung Society‖ under the patronage of the Spanish (Ministry of Science, Art and Education) ambassador, ―of course under apologetic invited Obermaier to take over the honorable aspects for the nationalist Spain‖, as he states position of Max Ebert in Berlin, starting on in a paper kept in Erlangen. October 1st 1932. To keep him in Madrid, the local Faculty of Arts was prepared to raise Since the summer or fall of 1937, Obermaier his annual salary from its own funds by had now been living in Fribourg 8,000 pesetas to 20,000 pesetas. After long (Switzerland). From there he also went on hesitation, he finally declined the call to various journeys and participated in the Berlin on November 5th 1932; not least excavations in the Romanelli cave (Italy) in because he anticipated the imminent dangers 1938. From Fribourg Obermaier corresponded of Nazi Germany. Due to his integrity, the intensively with his friend and patron, the organizers of the International Anthropology Duke of Alba, who urged him time and again Congress in Stockholm in 1934 asked him to return to his former chair as soon as the expressly to make the closing speech, in circumstances would permit it, and who gave which he condemned the restrictions him advice on how to proceed further with the imposed on research in Germany. Spanish authorities and the Real Academia de la Historia; A. Moure Romanillo describes the Obermaier’s life now finally seemed to take details of these discussions based on Spanish a quieter and ordinary course. But the archive material in the biography of 1996. military coup d’état of July 18th 1936 Obermaier hesitated a long time but when he destroyed his existence again: in August was assured safe conduct, he traveled to his 1936 he was representing the Universidad beloved Spain for the last time in June 1939

150

C. Züchner: Hugo Obermaier

(Figure 5) — first to Vitoria to take his who worked for the press office of the constitutional oath, and then to Madrid, where German embassy after the civil war, albeit he found his former place of work destroyed without any official function because his wife — but then had to hurry back to Switzerland was Jewish. Obermaier gave him his because of a severe gastroenteric influenza. archaeological and ethnological collection as a gift; Foertsch in turn helped him sell the The doctors strongly advised him against possessions he had left in Madrid and assisted moving to Spain, so that in May or June he him in acquiring new Spanish publications. finally decided to stay in Switzerland. As he explained to the Duke of Alba, he took this In the winter of 1938/1939, Obermaier held decision because his old-age pension was not courses at the University of Fribourg as a ensured in Spain and because his student, ―professor with a teaching assignment‖. On Santaolalla, had betrayed him by publicly July 4th 1939 he was made a full professor as demanding his chair in Madrid for himself; it of October 1st 1939. However the repeated was beneath his dignity to compete with his destructions of his existence, the outbreak of student. Despite this decision, he assured his World War II and the difficult times soon friends and colleagues that he would always started to affect his health. He developed remain close to his home and was interested severe diabetes. Despite this illness he was in all news. He was nevertheless deprived of able to give a number of public lectures his regular membership of the Real during his years in Fribourg, and to produce Academia de la Historia, which had meant several papers on the Quaternary history of so much to him. Switzerland and the prehistory of man. In particular, he completed the third edition of his publication El hombre prehistórico y las orígenes de la humanidad (Prehistoric Man and the Origins of Mankind) in 1943. Again, he attracted numerous friends and students who remembered their teacher with great admiration. His last two students, Hans- Georg Bandi and Johannes Maringer, dedicated themselves to his academic legacy immediately after he died.

Obermaier continued to give lectures until Christmas 1945. On New Year’s Eve 1945, when he was already seriously ill, he suffered a stroke that left him almost completely unable to speak. Before this he had already found accommodation in the Salesianum Theological Seminary, where he was devotedly taken care of until he died. Figure 5: Hugo Obermaier and Henri Breuil in When his old friends, the Duke of Alba and Abbeville (France), 1939. [© Archive of Hugo Henri Breuil, visited him one last time, he Obermaier-Society at Erlangen] was visibly happy and thankful although he was hardly able anymore to communicate Between 1939 and 1944, Obermaier with them. corresponded with his friend, Eduardo Foertsch from Nuremberg, who had come to On November 12th 1946 Obermaier died at the San Sebastián and later to Madrid as a age of almost 70 after severe illness. A large correspondent of Ullstein in about 1922 and mourning ceremony was held in his honor on

151

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

November 16th 1946 at the Church of Saint MAJOR BIOGRAPHIES & Peter. It would take more than a year however BIBLIOGRAPHIES — probably due to the difficult times and unresolved questions of inheritance — before, Bandi, H.-G. 1946. Hugo Obermaier 1977–1946. in 1948, the university finally placed an order Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 1: 331–333. Bandi, H.-G. & Beltrán-Martínez, A. 1987. Zur for a gravestone with an inscription. Erinnerung an Hugo Obermaier. Quartär 37/38: 7– 12. Not even in his grave would the great Bandi, H.-G. & Maringer, J. 1953. Das Werk Professor academic find his final rest, however. For Dr. Hugo Obermaier 1877–1946. Eiszeitalter und when H.G. Bandi invited the Hugo Gegenwart 3: 136–143. Gómez-Tabanera, J.M. (ed.) 1985. Reprint of: Hugo Obermaier Society to Fribourg for its annual Obermaier 1925: El Hombre Fósil. Museo Nacional conference in 1986, he found that the grave de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. no longer existed and the gravestone had Gómez-Tabanera, J. M. 1985. Sesenta años después: disappeared without a trace. Nobody unas palabras de introducción a la reimpresión de remembered the grave or the name and “El Hombre Fósil”, de Hugo Obermaier. In J.M. Gómez-Tabanera (ed.) Reprint of: Hugo Obermaier importance of the deceased so that today, 1925: El Hombre Fósil: 5–19. Museo Nacional de only the commemorative plaques on the Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. house where he was born in the Hurel, A. 2006. Hugo Obermaier et Henri Breuil. Gesandtenstraße in Regensburg and in the Destins divergents. Les nouvelles de l’archéologie University of Fribourg pay tribute to an 106(4): 12–16. academic who played such an essential role Jacob-Friesen, K.H. 1951. Hugo Obermaier zum Gedächtnis. Quartär 5: 140–143. in the study of early man. Moure Romanillo, A. (ed.) 1996. “El Hombre Fósil” 80 años después. Volumen conmemorativo del 50 Translation: Andrea Züchner aniversario de la muerte de Hugo Obermaier. Universidad de Cantabria. Moure Romanillo, A. 1996. Hugo Obermaier, La institucionalización de las investigaciones y ARCHIVES intregración de los estudios de prehistoria en la universidad Española. In A. Moure Romanillo (ed.) Erlangen: Archive of the Hugo Obermaier-Society. c/o “El Hombre Fósil” 80 años después. Volumen Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität conmemorativo del 50 aniversario de la muerte de Erlangen-Nürnberg. For documents of Obermaier’s Hugo Obermaier: 17–50. Universidad de Cantabria. life see: Oehl, W. 1946. Professor Dr. Hugo Obermaier. St. www.uf.phil.uni-erlangen.de/obermaier/hogarchiv.html. Nikolaus-Glocken vom Samstag 16(265/46): 3. Fribourg: Archive of the University Miséricorde Skutil, J. 1963. Hugo Obermaier und das Paläolithikum Fribourg, Switzerland. Mährens. Quartär 14: 133–136. Regensburg: Bischöfliches Zentralarchiv Regensburg Vaufrey, R. 1947. Nécrologie — Hugo Obermaier. (Episcopal archive): Akten des Bischöflichen L’Anthropologie 51: 529–532. Ordinariats Regensburg. ―Personalien des Priesters Züchner, C. 1995. Hugo Obermaier 1877–1946 — Dr. Obermaier, Hugo / 1900 / 10.VI – B.A. Dokumente seines Lebens und Wirkens im Archiv Regensburg: Bestand Personalakten, sign: 2511‖. der Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft zu Erlangen. France: cf. Hurel, A. 2006. Madrider Mitteilungen 36: 48–59. Spain: cf. Moure Romanillo, A. 1996. Züchner, C. 1997. Hugo Obermaier Regensburg 1877– Fribourg 1946. Leben und Wirken eines bedeutenden Prähistorikers. Quartär 47/48: 7–28.

152

L. Vallin: Harper Kelley

HARPER KELLEY (1896–1962): A MODEST PREHISTORIAN

Luc Vallin

Service Régional de l’Archéologie du Nord — Pas-de-Calais, France. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Harper Kelley is a difficult individual to grasp. Little is known about his life and he published few papers. His career, spent mostly at the head of the Department of Prehistory of the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, is divided into two parts separated by the Second World War. In the 1930s, he devoted himself mainly to African Prehistory, while post-war publications deal mainly with the French Palaeolithic. Although he can be considered, in many ways, as a “disciple” of the Abbé Breuil, he showed originality of thought and above all a methodological rigour that anticipated concepts developed later, such as the variability of the Levallois method.

Full reference: Vallin, L. 2009. Harper Kelley (1896–1962): a modest prehistorian. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 153–161. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Harper Kelley, Alice Bowler-Kelley, Musée de l’Homme, African Prehistory, Palaeolithic, refitting, Levallois

INTRODUCTION At the end of his life, his own personal collection included more than 30,000 The scientific career of Harper Kelley objects, divided between South Africa (Cape presents some paradoxes. He occupied a Province, Transvaal and the Orange state), central position in the set of French equatorial Africa, the Near East, England, prehistorians (―Maître de Recherches‖ and North America and France (north of the Paris ―Directeur de Recherches‖ at the Centre Basin, and the valley of the Garonne). National de la Recherche Scientifique; Head However, Kelley’s precise observations of the Department of Prehistory and Director allow current prehistorians to gather useful of the Laboratory of Ethnology at the Musée information and his work anticipates many de l’Homme) yet his list of publications is modern concepts. short and does not include any great synthesis that structures his work or develops a new theory. His friends themselves have AN AMERICAN IN PARIS acknowledged this deficiency, which they explained by the involvement of Harper The adventure of the Musée de l’Homme Kelley in the organization, then management of the collections, of the Musée de l’Homme. We know very few circumstances of Kelley’s life and we are unaware of the Indeed Harper Kelley was, above all, a background of this American, beyond being collector concerned with the understanding born in the in 1896 and settling of objects, as shown by his publications in France at the end of the First World War, which are mainly devoted to the Typology. in 1917. His first contacts with French

153

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Prehistory were given by Dr Henri-Martin, major museums in the United States, to who welcomed him in France (Kelley 1957a, explore exchange opportunities with the 1958) and with whom he excavated at La Museum of Trocadéro. Quina between 1927 and the Second World War. We know nothing of the events that got Kelley’s African career him into touch with Paul Rivet, Director of Ethnography at the Museum of Trocadéro in Kelley's first publications, before the Second Paris, who in 1932 offered him a room at the World War, were devoted solely to Africa, Museum of Natural History [a separate although he had already performed, alone or institution, which however displayed its with Abbé Henri Breuil (cf. Davies, this ethnographic collections at the Trocadéro] to volume), surveys in Picardie and Haute- house his prehistoric collection, which was Normandie. In 1929 Abbé Breuil made his already significant. From 1933 onward, first trip to South Africa, where he stayed Kelley was occupied with organizing the with Harper Kelley and his first wife, Alice Department of Prehistory in the Museum of Bowler-Kelley; it was on this occasion that Trocadéro, which, under Paul Rivet, became Alice led Breuil on the track of the the Musée de l’Homme in 1937 (Faublée ―Brandberg White Lady‖ (Le Quellec 2006), 1962). The museum presentation, in the and the couple also surveyed in with spirit of the time, was focused upon Breuil and van Riet Lowe (Figure 1). Kelley comparative archaeology and aimed to show was also one of the founding members of the main evolutionary trends from one continent French Society of Africanists, in 1930. to another. This work led in particular to Kelley carrying out a mission in 1935 to

Figure 1: Kelley during a field survey near Pretoria in September 1929; from left to right: Abbé Breuil, Mrs Hoerne, Harper Kelley, van Riet Lowe and Mrs A. Kelley [© Musée d’Archéologie Nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Breuil Fund, Album n°2]

154

L. Vallin: Harper Kelley

Kelley’s contributions to the African 1939 and 1951, primarily due to the Second Prehistory are conceived on the same pattern World War, which forced him to take refuge and in the same spirit as most of his later in the United States. We know that the publications; the point of view is purposely Musée de l’Homme was at the heart of a descriptive and analytical, and the plan of the Resistance network fighting against German article is often the same: two or three pages occupation and, even if Kelley was not part of text followed by many figures where of the ―Groupe du Musée de l’Homme‖, his artefacts are precisely captioned, with the position in occupied France would probably topic usually deriving from the collections of have been difficult. Once in the United the Museum of Trocadéro, including States, a passport to return to France or Kelley’s own material, subsequently England was repeatedly denied to him during bequeathed to the Museum. So Kelley the war. During the years 1941–1942 he was published: a series of Neolithic bone looking for temporary situations, and in 1942 harpoons collected in Niger (Kelley 1934); he set up the Hall of Prehistory in the Tumbian lithic series collected in the Belgian Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Congo (Kelley & Doize 1934); some Ethnology at Harvard University (letter to Acheulian bifaces found in Mali and gorge- Paul Rivet, 15th December 1942, archives of axes from sub-Saharan Africa (Kelley 1935); the Musée de l’Homme, serial number lithic series of the and 2AP1C, held in the Muséum National collected by the Mission du d’Histoire Naturelle). Kelley was able to Bourg de Bozas in Abyssinia (Breuil & return to France once the war had ended, and Kelley 1936); an Acheulian settlement in took up his duties again at the Musée de Tassili des Ajjers which was prospected by l’Homme; in 1946 he was dignified with the Henri Lhote (Lhote & Kelley 1936); and rank of Chevalier of the French Legion of lithic series from Congo (Droux & Kelley Honour by the Vice-President at Arcy-sur- 1939). Just one publication on African Cure, at the same time as Breuil was raised material was produced after the 1930s to the rank of Officer. (Kelley 1951), but it is a supplement to his paper of 1935. THE SECOND CAREER OF KELLEY The role played by his wife Alice in Kelley's career should be mentioned. Curiously, they The influence of Breuil had similar careers and comparable lists of publications; she presented several papers The dominant position of Abbé Breuil on about lithic typology of African Prehistory French Prehistory for several decades was during the French Prehistoric Congress at based on a well-established network (cf. Périgueux in 1934 (Bowler-Kelley 1935) and Davies, this volume). The Kelley couple, some notes, in collaboration with Breuil, Harper and Alice, was part of this network. about the Quaternary of the Somme Valley The roles of Harper Kelley at the Musée de in 1939 and 1947 (Breuil et al. 1939; Breuil l’Homme, and the Assistant Manager Louis et al. 1939, 1947). Divorced at an Pales, another friend of Breuil, gave to undetermined date, both Harper and Alice Breuil access and control over some key subsequently re-married. Alice Bowler died collections (notably, amongst many others, on 25th July 1956 in Bar Harbor in Maine. those of: Vayson de Pradenne, obtained by the Musée de l’Homme in 1948; Marquis de Vibraye; and Dubus, from Normandy). THE INTERLUDE OF THE SECOND Kelley trusted Breuil greatly and remained WORLD WAR loyal to him; after the war, the Kelleys’ lived at 52 Avenue de la Motte-Picquet in Paris, at Kelley’s bibliography shows a gap between the same address as Mrs Marguerite de

155

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Mallevoüe, sister of Breuil. Kelley’s work on the French Palaeolithic

This influence is reflected in Kelley’s The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was the publications, where he always supports favourite period for Harper Kelley. His field Breuil’s viewpoint concerning such diverse investigations, carried out mainly between topics as: the lack of Levallois débitage 1932 and 1938, and between 1945 and 1954, during the Acheulian (Breuil & Kelley 1956) consisted mainly of the exploration of and the origin of pedunculate points in the Pleistocene loess of the northern Paris basin Spanish Solutrean (Kelley 1955a). Some — Seine-Maritime (Saint-Jacques-sur- topics were also suggested to Kelley by Darnétal, Mesnil-Esnard, Mont-Saint- Breuil, such as the article on leaf bifaces Aignan), Oise (Allonne, Montguillain), (Kelley 1960a). Kelley was the co-author Seine-et-Marne (Le Tillet) — and in the chosen by Breuil for his synthesis on the survey of the quarries of the Somme (Cagny- Lower Palaeolithic, on the occasion of the la Garenne, Cagny-Cimetière and Fiftieth Anniversary of the French Montières). Flint artefacts were mainly Prehistoric Society (Breuil & Kelley 1954). collected from the walls of the brickyards Breuil and Kelley also made a number of and quarries with little attention given to surveys together, not only in Africa as their chronostratigraphic context by Kelley previously mentioned, but also in France, (Joullié & Kelley 1961). Yet he also particularly in the northern Paris Basin, excavated a Typical Mousterian knapping including, amongst others: in Aisne in 1930 floor, in situ in an Early Glacial (quarry pits of Pommiers, Pont d’Arcy, (Weichselian) layer at Saint-Just-en- Presles-et-Boves); in the quarries of the Chaussée (Oise), recovering 3586 lithic Somme Valley (Cagny-Cimetière, Cagny- artefacts, including 237 cores, and achieved Garenne) between 1932 and 1938; and in several refittings of Levallois flakes and Montières-Etouvie in 1957. By an amazing blades onto their cores (Kelley 1954a). coincidence, Harper Kelley survived his Although he did not publish this excavation, mentor by only a year; suffering health his observations remain useful in the present problems since at least 1960, he died in 1962 day (Tuffreau 1977; Figure 2). (Field 1963).

Figure 2: Stratigraphy of the Mousterian site of Saint-Just-en-Chaussée (Oise), based on a section drawn by H. Kelley (Tuffreau 1977)

156

L. Vallin: Harper Kelley

The papers written by Kelley about the Kelley also showed a modern approach to French Palaeolithic are like those that he analysis of Levallois débitage, exemplified produced on African Prehistory. The aim is by his interest in experimental flint knapping very modest, they are mostly short notes, few (it is the reason why he sought the advice of hypotheses are proposed and the author Bordes in 1947, and Coutier in 1954) and his restricts himself to descriptions, avoiding use of refitting, to support and develop possible interpretations (except in articles technological understanding. His most written in collaboration). The text, often very interesting paper is probably the one he short, is supported by numerous illustrations, produced about the ―étude de la technologie which were very important to Kelley — levalloisienne‖ (Kelley 1954a). As he thanks to grants from the CNRS and other himself pointed out, few previous foundations, he used the services of the best publications had been devoted to refitting of drawers of the time: P. Laurence, R. Palaeolithic artefacts, apart from the Humbert, C. Bouttier and E. Evrard. The pioneering Spurrell’s work about Crayford viewpoint of the museum curator is always (cf. Scott & Shaw, this volume), evident in his choice of topics; Kelley was Worthington Smith’s work about Caddington attracted by the outstanding object: the (cf. Roe, this volume), de Munck’s work at biggest biface in France or in Europe (Kelley Spiennes (Arts & Cziesla 1990) and a few 1960b); the biggest ever flaked artefact refittings published by Victor Commont (Kelley 1960c); the biggest Levalloisian (1910). Prehistorians had not yet appreciated blank (Kelley 1965) etc. He was also the benefits of this method, not only for attached to aesthetics of the artefacts. spatial analysis, but also for recognition of Typological inventories (Kelley 1937, schémas opératoires, in which the 1954b, 1955a, 1955b, 1956, 1957b) were reconstruction of the succession of gestures then fashionable, see for example Gérard allows us to perceive the knapper’s mental Cordier’s papers about perforated tools processes. Harper Kelley was probably the (Cordier 1964), Louis Pradel’s papers about first one who started on this work thanks to burins (Pradel 1966), not to mention the high quality material from several rich sites seminal work of Bordes (1950a). Yet one in the loess deposits from northern France, can find in his publications the premonition notably: Fitz-James (Oise); Saint-Jacques- of contemporary fields of enquiry: an article sur-Darnétal (Seine-Maritime); Mont-Saint- about leaf tools (Blattspitzen) refers to Aignan (Seine-Maritime); Saint-Just-en- central European influences in the French Chaussée (Oise); and Arras (Pas-de-Calais) Middle Palaeolithic (Kelley 1960a; Cliquet — these last three sites are particularly 2001); and the question of the appearance of worthy of attention because they are Levallois débitage as early as the Middle probably in situ flint-knapping workshops. Acheulian is raised about the levels of Furthermore, Kelley’s paper is the only Cagny-la-Garenne (Kelley 1949; Lamotte significant publication on the prolific sites of 1995; Tuffreau 2001). Kelley shows some Mont-Saint-Aignan and Arras, although the hesitation on the latter subject, probably site of Mont-Saint-Aignan is briefly under Breuil’s influence. In 1947 he met discussed in a later publication (Kelley François Bordes and asked for his opinion on 1957b). The descriptions of refittings by this matter, publishing a short paper in the Kelley are accurate and pertinent, they show Bulletin of the French Prehistoric Society a full understanding of lithic technology and (Kelley 1949), before he changed his view in they are supported by excellent illustrations a joint paper with Breuil (Breuil & Kelley (Figure 3). They came several decades 1956), where the authors refute the before the work of Eric Boëda on the ―Acheuléen de facies levalloisien‖ brought variability of Levallois débitage, who was forward by Bordes (Bordes 1950b). the first to rehabilitate Harper Kelley’s work:

157

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

―il est surprenant que cet auteur soit très peu l’absence de facettes, mais l’angle du plan cité en référence alors qu’il nous semble de frappe par rapport au plan d’éclatement être, avec F. Bordes, l’un des préhistoriens à de l’éclat.‖ avoir le mieux cerné pour son époque le (Kelley 1954a: 150–151) schéma opératoire Levallois‖ (Boëda 1994: 4) The conclusion of Kelley’s paper signposts the direction for subsequent scholars of The lithic collection from the brickyard lithic, and particularly Levalloisian, Peuleboeuf in Arras, which was visited in technology: 1939 by Kelley’s assistants (including his wife Alice) and the discoverer of the site ―il y a lieu d’espérer que des essais de taille, Jean Joire, was re-examined in 1992 at the plus poussés que ceux qui ont été pratiqués Musée de l'Homme. This was the site, now jusqu’à présent, nous renseigneront plus disappeared, where the most extensive exactement sur les méthodes qui furent refitting sequences were found by Kelley, employées pour dégager les éclats showing several Levallois schémas levalloisiens de leur nucléus.‖ opératoires: recurrent centripetal (Kelley (Kelley 1954a: 169) 1954a: Fig. 3); recurrent bipolar (ibid: Fig. 10 & Fig. 11–12); unipolar convergent (ibid: Fig. 7, no. 2); and lineal bipolar (ibid: Fig. 7, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS no. 3). Supplementing the refitting sequences described by Kelley, we added four other I am grateful to Arnaud Hurel, Ingénieur de more partial sequences, which remain Recherche in the Institut de Paléontologie Humaine (Paris), for information, and to Mrs Alice Lemaire, unpublished to date (Figure 4). The most from the Central Library of the Muséum National complete refitting includes eight flakes d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) who gave me easy access conjoined on the core, plus two to the archives of the Musée de l’Homme; I am decortification flakes which Kelley failed to indebted to Mrs Agnes Billy for her help to consult refit, and which can be replaced, as we the archives of the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. I thank also Francis Wenban- established, on the proximal portion of the Smith who suggested to me the idea for this Levallois surface — ―surface of débitage‖ contribution. (cf. Boëda 1995). Another incomplete refitting, showing the same schéma opératoire (recurrent bipolar) is represented REFERENCES by seven conjoined flakes, supplemented by two not refitting but identified as part of the Arts, N. & Cziesla, E. 1990. Bibliography (1880– same sequence. Kelley’s conclusions show 1988) on the subject of refitting stone artefacts. In that he had fully understood the Levallois E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoff, N. Arts & D. Winter (eds.) The Big Puzzle. International Symposium on concept, and already classified the various Refitting Stone Artefacts: 651–683. Holos, Bonn. methods: Boëda, E. 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes. CNRS Editions, Paris. ―…c’est l’ensemble de la préparation du Boëda, E. 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, bloc destiné à livrer un ou plusieurs éclats methods, a technique. In H.L. Dibble & O. Bar- Yosef (eds.) The Definition and Interpretation of ou lames qui caractérise l’industrie Levallois Technology: 41–68. Madison, Prehistory levalloisienne…On voit que les sens Press. d’enlèvements de cettte préparation ont été Bordes, F. 1950a. Principes d’une méthode d’étude dirigés, soit vers le centre, soit parallèlement des techniques de et de la typologie du en partant d’une ou des deux extrémités, soit Paléolithique ancien et moyen. L’Anthropologie 54: 19–34. souvent de manière convergente en partant Bordes, F. 1950b. L’évolution buissonnante des d’une extrémité…La question la plus industries en Europe occidentale: considérations importante n’est pas la présence ou théoriques sur le Paléolithique ancien et moyen.

158

L. Vallin: Harper Kelley

Figure 3: Refitting from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Arras (Kelley 1954a)

L’Anthropologie 54: 393–420. mars 1939, 208: 1037. Bowler-Kelley, A. 1935. Sur une nouvelle technique Breuil, H. & Kelley, H. 1936. Les collections de burins microlithiques en Afrique du Sud. africaines du Département de préhistoire exotique Comptes-rendus du Congrès Préhistorique de du Musée d’ethnographie du Trocadéro. V, France, 11e session, Périgueux, 1934: 344–346. Documents préhistoriques recueillis par la mission Breuil, H., Aufrère, L. & Bowler-Kelley, A. 1939. Les du Bourg de Bozas en Abyssinie (1901–1902). phénomènes de solifluxion au-dessus des alluvions Journal de la Société des Africanistes 6(1): 111– anciennes au voisinage du Moulin-Quignon près 140. d’Abbeville: note. Comptes-rendus de l’Académie Breuil, H. & Kelley, H. 1954. Le Paléolithique ancien. des Sciences de Paris, séance du 15 mai 1939, 208: Bulletin Spécial du Cinquantenaire de la Société 1598. Préhistorique Française 51(8): 9–26. Breuil, H., Aufrère, L. & Bowler-Kelley, A. 1947. La Breuil, H. & Kelley, H. 1956. Les éclats Acheuléens à structure du Quaternaire de la terrasse du Moulin- plans de frappe à facettes de Cagny-la-Garenne. Quignon près d’Abbeville: note. Comptes-rendus Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 53 de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, séance du 10 (3–4): 174–191. mars 1947, 224: 747–749. Cliquet, D. (ed.) 2001. Les industries à outils Breuil, H., Bowler-Kelley, A. & Aufrère, L. 1939. Les bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen d’Europe alluvions à Elephas meridionalis de la Carrière occidentale. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques Carpentier près d’Abbeville: note. Comptes-rendus de l’Université de Liège 98, Liège. de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, séance du 27 Commont, V., 1910. L’industrie moustérienne dans la

159

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 4: Refitting sequence from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Arras, unpublished by Kelley [Coll. Musée de l’Homme, drawing by L. Vallin]

160

L. Vallin: Harper Kelley

région du Nord de la France. Comptes-rendus du Préhistorique de France, 15e session, Poitiers- Congrès Préhistorique de France, 5e session, Angoulême, 15–22 juillet 1956: 624–631. Beauvais, 1909: 115–157. Kelley, H. 1957b. A propos des ―pseudo-pointes‖ Cordier, G. 1964. Contribution aux inventaires levalloisiennes. Bulletin de la Société d’instruments perforés (Creuse, Cher, Indre, Préhistorique Française 54(1–2): 9–12. Vienne, Deux-Sèvres, Indre-et-Loire). Bulletin de Kelley, H. 1958. Sur quelques pièces du Moustérien la Société Préhistorique Française 61: 135–148. de La Quina. In G.H.R. von Koenigswald (ed.) Droux, G. & Kelley, H. 1939. Recherches Hundert Jahre Neandertaler: 215–216. Kemink en préhistoriques dans la région de Boko-Songho et à Zoon, Utrecht. Pointe-Noire, Moyen-Congo. Journal de la Société Kelley, H. 1960a. Bifaces acheuléens de forme des Africanistes 9: 71–80. foliacée. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Faublée, J. 1962. Harper Kelley. Journal de la Société Française 57(7–8): 480–492. des Africanistes 32(2): 325–326. Kelley, H. 1960b. Bifaces de dimensions Field, H. 1963. Harper Kelley: 1896–1962. Man, a exceptionnelles. Comptes-rendus du Congrès Monthly Record of Anthropological Science, April Préhistorique de France 16e session, Monaco, 1963: 55. 1959: 739–772. Joullié, H. & Kelley, H. 1961. Recherches récentes Kelley, H. 1960c. Les grandes pièces arquées du sur le Paléolithique de la région de Vailly-sur- Magdalénien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Aisne. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 57(9–10): 592–606. Française 58(7): 440–449. Kelley, H. 1965. Outils levalloisiens de grande taille. Kelley, H. 1934. Les collections africaines du Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 62 Département de Préhistoire Exotique du Musée (1): 135–143. d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro. I, Harpons, objets en Kelley, H. & Doize, R.-L. 1934. Collections os travaillés et silex taillés de Taferjit et Tamaya africaines du Département de Préhistoire exotique Mellet (Sahara nigérien). Journal de la Société des du Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro. II, Africanistes 4(1): 135–143. Nouvelles recherches préhistoriques au Congo. Kelley, H. 1935. Les collections africaines du Journal de la Société des Africanistes 4(2): 303– Département de préhistoire exotique du Musée 312. d’ethnographie du Trocadéro. III, bifaces Lamotte, A. 1995. Données nouvelles sur l’Acheuléen acheuléens trouvés dans l’Adrar des Iforas; IV, de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest. Bulletin de la Société haches à gorge africaines. Journal de la Société des Préhistorique Française 92: 193–199. Africanistes 5(2): 153–154. Le Quellec, J.-L. 2006. L’abbé Breuil et la Dame Kelley, H. 1937. Acheulian flake tools. Proceedings Blanche du Brandberg. Naissance et postérité d’un of the Prehistoric Society 2: 15–28. mythe. Les Nouvelles de l’Archéologie 106: 21–28. Kelley, H. 1949. Prise de date. Bulletin de la Société Lhote, H. & Kelley, H. 1936. Les collections Préhistorique Française 46(11–12): 405. africaines du Département de préhistoire exotique Kelley, H. 1951. Outils à gorge africains. Journal de du Musée d’ethnographie du Trocadéro. XI, la Société des Africanistes 21(2): 197–206. Gisement acheuléen de l’Erg d’Admer (Tassili des Kelley, H. 1954a. Contribution à l’étude de la Ajjers). Journal de la Société des Africanistes 6 technique de la taille levalloisienne. Bulletin de la (2): 217–226. Société Préhistorique Française 51(3–4): 149–169. Pradel, L. 1966. Classification des burins avec Kelley, H. 1954b. Burins levalloisiens. Bulletin de la notation chiffrée. Bulletin de la Société Société Préhistorique Française 51(9): 419–428. Préhistorique Française 63: 485–500. Kelley, H. 1955a. Pointes à pédoncule du Solutréen Tuffreau, A. 1977. Le gisement paléolithique inférieur français. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique et moyen de Saint-Just-en-Chaussée (Oise). Française 52(1–2): 45–56. Cahiers Archéologiques de Picardie 4: 9–29. Kelley, H. 1955b. Burins acheuléens. Bulletin de la Tuffreau, A. 2001. Historique des recherches sur le Société Préhistorique Française 52(5–6): 278–286. complexe des moyennes terrasses du Bassin de la Kelley, H. 1956. Nouveau type d’outil Levalloisien. Somme et sur ses industries. In A. Tuffreau (ed.) Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 53 L’Acheuléen dans la vallée de la Somme et (3–4): 144–146. Paléolithique moyen dans le Nord de la France: Kelley, H. 1957a. Ciseau en os et autres pièces données récentes: 9–18. Publications du CERP No inédites de La Quina. Comptes-rendus du Congrès 6, Lille.

161

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

ONE VISION, ONE FAITH, ONE WOMAN: DOROTHY GARROD AND THE CRYSTALLISATION OF PREHISTORY

K.M. Price

Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

Dorothy Garrod is considered a pioneer of the development of early prehistoric archaeology. She was an advocate of prehistory on a global scale, excavating over a wide geographical area and making connections between continents to achieve her vision. Garrod‘s work strongly contributed to the development of prehistoric archaeology as a defined subject in its own right. Garrod was renowned as a field archaeologist, continuing to research and excavate up until her death in 1968. It is her excavations at Mount Carmel for which she is most famous, through which she contributed towards the foundation of the chronology of the prehistory of the Levant, the basis of which remains to this day. Garrod was the first women to be appointed to the Disney Chair of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, subsequently training the next generation of prehistoric archaeologists and lecturers who took prehistory out into the World. Garrod was not herself keen to be thought a feminist figurehead but today she is considered a pioneer within the disciplines of the Archaeology of Women and Gender Archaeology, providing inspiration even today. As a committed Catholic throughout her life, Garrod‘s humility, thoughtfulness and gentleness is evident within her work and no doubt provided her with strength throughout her extensive career.

Full reference: Price, K.M. 2009. One vision, one faith, one woman: Dorothy Garrod and the crystallisation of prehistory. In R. Hosfield, F.F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 163–183. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Dorothy Garrod, prehistoric archaeology, world prehistory, Levant, Europe, SW Asia, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Natufian, women in archaeology, religion in archaeology, Cambridge University

INTRODUCTION forward-thinking prehistoric archaeologists was born: Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod. One hundred and fifty years since Prestwich and Evans‘ breaking of the ‗time barrier‘ Dorothy Garrod first became interested in (Gamble & Kruszynski 2009), and the archaeology after the First World War during publication of On the Origin of Species by her time in where her father, Sir Charles Darwin, prehistoric archaeology is Archibald Garrod, a prominent physician, now a subject to be studied in its own right, had been stationed during the war as director and taught in universities throughout the of war hospitals (Champion 1998: 187; Clark world. Thirty-three years after the revelation 1999: 401). Having already obtained a in the northern French quarry, one of the History degree from Cambridge University most respected, influential, inspiring and in 1916 (Davies 1999a: 1), on her return to

163

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Britain she enrolled at Oxford University in concept of inter-disciplinary work in teams 1921, and gained a distinction in the and her publications throughout her career Archaeology Diploma in 1922 under the testify to this. Garrod‘s dedication to direction of Professor R.R. Marett (Davies fieldwork highlights her awareness of the 1999a: 2). Following this she travelled to value of first-hand experience of a range of France to study for two years with the Abbé archaeological material, and the need to Breuil at the Institut de Paleontologié validate and test old hypotheses, and Humaine, Paris (Clark 1999: 402; Roberts formulate new ones in the light of 1995: 203). Garrod had first met Breuil developing evidence. Through her quest to while studying for her Oxford diploma expand prehistory and increase the wealth of (Davies 1999a: 2), and he became her the archaeological record, she was the first to lifelong mentor, colleague and friend consider looking for, and subsequently find, (though their relationship would cool open-air Mousterian sites in the Levant somewhat towards the end of Breuil‘s life). (Ronen et al. 1999). Her development of a Garrod‘s training and experience in France worldwide prehistory also included her under Breuil provided her with confidence, a British homeland (especially at the start of firm basis in archaeological excavations, her career), where her research brought the prehistory, the analysis of stone artefacts, Upper Palaeolithic of Britain into a broader and no doubt fuelled her mind with ideas. research framework for the first time (Garrod 1926, nd). Garrod was a highly respected Dorothy Garrod first came to prominence pioneer female archaeologist, though with her excavation of the Devil‘s Tower, reluctant to be considered as one, and in her Gibraltar, in 1925, and at the end of her day-to-day interactions with others showed career was still involved in active research in great humility, perhaps a result of her and France, until her death in 1968. commitment to her Catholic faith. During her forty-five years as a prehistoric archaeologist, she contributed extensively to This paper examines her major contributions the development of early prehistory, lithic in piecing together the picture of early research and exerted much influence within prehistory from the archaeological evidence the archaeological community. In the last and also considers Garrod‘s less obvious decade, inspired partly by the rediscovery of contributions and the endurance of her her archives at the Musée des Antiquités legacy, through her work in the development Nationales, St. Germain-en-Laye, her of world prehistory, her faith, and her interests and legacy have begun to be re- influence in the role of women within explored (Davies & Charles 1999). It is only archaeology. fitting once more that she be included in a volume that commemorates the birth of the subject she contributed to so extensively. DOROTHY GARROD AND THE ADVENT OF A WORLD PREHISTORY Garrod‘s interests lay in chronology and the spatial distribution of the archaeological Dorothy Garrod advocated a worldwide evidence, though in the formulation of her approach to prehistory, taking prehistory ideas and the piecing together of prehistory beyond Europe, and excavated throughout she was frustrated by the limitations of the her career across a large geographical area. archaeological record of the time. She This perhaps is her most important and contributed extensively to increasing the significant contribution to piecing together archaeological record through her numerous the fundamentals of early prehistory. excavations that were designed to explore Through her worldwide approach, Garrod her global perspective on the Palaeolithic. highlighted south-west Asia as an important Through these, Garrod developed the area for prehistoric research, developed a

164

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod framework of chronology for Levantine considered within a larger theoretical and prehistory — the basis of which is still in geographical framework. In his biography of existence today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef Garrod, Clark (1999: 410) attests to the fact 1999) — and investigated connections that Garrod was one of those most between and within continents and cultures, responsible for the emergence of a world significantly contributing to a re-definition prehistory. Garrod‘s commitment to a world of the Upper Palaeolithic industries of prehistory can be seen through her many Europe (Davies 1999b). Garrod introduced publications which consider the available the terms ‗Châtelperronian‘ and ‗Gravettian‘ archaeological evidence on a far-reaching to replace Breuil‘s ‗Lower Aurignacian‘ and scale (e.g. Garrod 1938, 1953 & 1965). ‗Upper Aurignacian‘ respectively, and even though today Garrod‘s terms are applied on During her time as Disney Professor at more of a localized scale than they were in Cambridge following the Second World 1936, the name and nature of these two War, Garrod introduced a module on World industries remain part of the Upper Prehistory (Clark 1989: 91), perhaps Palaeolithic sequence to this day (ibid). unsurprising given that she was also the first Through her extensive excavations, Garrod prehistorian to hold the chair. She expanded extended the analytical framework for the existing module to include territories Europe. She shed light on flaws in lithic outside France and Europe, where previously analysis by cementing the obsoleteness of de it had been essentially French in character Mortillet‘s classification scheme (Roberts (ibid). Such a development must have been 1995: 221), breaking away from a seen as intrinsic to the development of Eurocentric classification though her prehistory and archaeology as a whole: Levantine lithic analysis (Davies 1999b: Trigger (2006: 383) records this very event 271) and upholding the position that the in his History of Archaeological Thought. It labels Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic was so important to Dorothy Garrod that should only be used as a chronological students should travel and visit markers, rather than simply to infer typology archaeological sites that she bequeathed (Garrod 1938: 2). Garrod also developed money for a fund to provide travel grants to new fieldwork methods and practices, Cambridge students, especially if they were pioneering a woman workforce at the El- travelling abroad (Roberts 1995: 226). This Wad excavations in Palestine (Callander & fund still exists today in the form of the Smith 2007), and she was the first to Dorothy Garrod Travel Fund. incorporate aerial photography into her excavations (Anderson 2001). Dorothy Garrod as a Worldwide Excavator Breuil and Garrod were the first prehistorians to consider prehistory on a Garrod, first and foremost, was an excavator, global scale, most importantly by extensive assisting with, and directing, excavations travel and excavations throughout the world, from the very beginning to the very end of and to a lesser extent through familiarization her career, spending a total of nearly 5 years with the literature (Davies 1999b: 263). actively engaged in the field. Garrod Garrod was the first of the two to extend excavated over a wider geographical area prehistory firmly beyond Europe. Research than any of her contemporaries, and her was at this time being undertaken outside specialism was not limited to a specific Europe, though such excavations were country but extended over continents. She confined to limited areas, for example excavated over twenty three sites in seven Zhoukoudian, China in 1921 (Lanpo et al. countries, across two continents: in Britain, 1990) and Taung, South Africa in 1924 (Dart France, Gibraltar, , Anatolia, 1925). These excavations were not Palestine, and Lebanon (Table 1). As

165

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Davies (1999b: 266) rightly informs us, it is the results obtained increase the quality of the geographical range of her practical the end results. The combined efforts of expertise which makes her work significant. Petraglia (Petraglia et al. 2007, 2008; Petraglia & Allchin 2007; Petraglia & Rose Today, specialisation of a particular 2009) and Rose (2004, 2007; Rose & Bailey geographical area is the norm, as is the 2008) take in research across two continents, comparison of archaeological material on a Africa and Asia, including the Arabian large scale. It is rare to find teams of Peninsula, while addressing one of the archaeologists following in Garrod‘s archaeological questions that concerned footsteps and excavating across more than Dorothy Garrod, the emergence of Homo one continent, though where this is occurring sapiens. it is evident that the practical experience and

Year Country Site Notes 1923–1934 France La Quina Assisted Henri Martin France Isturitz Assisted Saint-Perier France Correzi Assisted Bouyssonie 1924 Britain Torbryan Valley, Devon Initial exploration of a series of cave sites 1925–1926 Gibraltar Devil‘s Tower Mousterian artefacts and Neanderthal burials uncovered 1927 Britain Langwith Cave, Derbyshire Exploration of the cave; discovered scanty (late Upper Palaeolithic) remains, heavily disturbed 1928 Palestine Shukba, Wady en Natuf, W. Judaea Natufian culture identified 1928 Iraq Kirkuk, S. Kurdistan Mousterian 1928 Iraq Hazar Merd, S. Kurdistan Mousterian 1928 Iraq Zarzi, S. Kurdistan Late Upper Palaeolithic 1929–1933 Palestine El-Wad, Mount Carmel Middle Palaeolithic, and Natufian 1930 Palestine El-Kebara, Mount Carmel Garrod dug a small test trench in this cave. Turville Petre directed the 1931 excavations. Neanderthal burials in abundance. 1929–1934 Palestine Tabun, Mount Carmel Middle and Upper Palaeolithic 1932 Palestine Es-Skhul Mousterian burials 1935 Palestine Atlit quarries Survey

1938 Anatolia Reconnaissance Proposed excavations met with resistance, so went to Bulgaria instead 1938 Bulgaria Bacho Kiro Szeletoid Late 1940s France Fontéchevade Assisted Henri Martin 1948–1963 France Angles-sur-l‘Angin With de Saint-Mathurin 1958 Lebanon Abri Zumoffen Upper Palaeolithic 1959–1960 Lebanon Ras el-Kelb Mousterian Cave 1963 Lebanon Bezez Cave Middle and Upper Palaeolithic

Table 1: A comprehensive list and brief description of Garrod‘s excavations

Though primarily a research excavator, two Haifa harbour (Roberts 1995: 207), and, in of the sites which Dorothy Garrod excavated 1959, excavations at the Mousterian cave could also be considered ‗rescue site of Ras el-Kelb, Lebanon were carried archaeology‘. Excavations at Mount Carmel out in advance of a new autoroute to extend only began in earnest due to their threat of though the headland on which the cave was being quarried away in order to build the situated (Copeland 1999: 154). It must be

166

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod noted however, that once the archaeological evidence are evident throughout her career, significance of Mount Carmel was and led her to assess these important established, it was never quarried. The myth attributes throughout the Levant and Europe, still perpetuates that only commercial allowing discussion of population archaeology is involved in ‗rescue movements and cultural influence between archaeology‘, whereas the research sector is groups (Garrod 1953; Davies 1999b). She blessed by an infinite amount of time and did not, however, much consider spatial money (Coelho 2009). Many ‗research distributions at the intra-site scale, perhaps excavations‘ today are indeed ‗rescue with the exception of her Natufian sites excavations‘ in disguise. Research (Garrod 1957). excavations investigating modern humans in Southern India at the site of Jwalapuram are Pioneering the Chronology of Levantine constantly under threat due to ash mining Prehistory (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). ‗Rescue archaeology‘ emphatically affects In 1929, Garrod agreed to direct the cave archaeology both commercial and research. excavations at Wadi el-Mughara, Mount It is impossible to imagine what the Carmel, Palestine as a joint venture between archaeological record would have looked the British School of Archaeology in like had Dorothy Garrod not excavated at Jerusalem and the American School of Mount Carmel. Prehistoric Research (Roberts 1995: 207; Figure 1). Clark (1989: 46) notes that the It is important to mention Garrod‘s first decision to excavate ―…proved to be one of internationally-renowned excavations at the the most productive research projects ever Devil‘s Tower, Gibraltar, between 1925– mounted in Palaeolithic studies‖. 1926, as this firmly established her reputation as a prehistoric archaeologist In total, excavations were carried out in four (Davies 1999: 3). It was the discovery of caves over a period of almost twenty two Mousterian individuals at Garrod‘s site in months, over seven seasons, recording an Gibraltar and at Turville-Petre‘s Zuttiyeh almost unbroken Palaeolithic succession cave near the Sea of Galilee that had led from the end of the Lower Palaeolithic to the Grant MacCurdy to consider the Mesolithic, firmly placing the prehistory of geographical extent of the Neanderthal Palestine on the archaeological map (Roberts Mousterian in south-west Asia (Roberts 1995: 208). Garrod classified and analysed 1995: 205; Clark 1999: 403). This ultimately all 92,000 artefacts (Caton-Thompson 1969: led to one of the most prolific series of 348; Clark 1999: 404). excavations to occur in the history of prehistory, which Dorothy Garrod was to The results from Mount Carmel were direct as part of an Anglo-American unprecedented. Garrod recognised the collaboration: Wadi el-Mughara, Mount presence of local forms which seemed Carmel. The series of over twelve excavation indigenous to the area and were not seasons discovered over thirteen individual encountered in Europe (Belfer-Cohen & Bar- Neanderthal and modern human burials, Yosef 1999: 121). Garrod ascribed them new thousands of stone tools ranging from the names, and noted that some cases resembled Middle Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic and African artefacts (ibid). Through this, laid the foundation of the prehistoric foundations for the Levantine prehistoric sequence for south-west Asia (Garrod & sequence were established (Boyd 1999: 209). Bate 1937). The chronology for the prehistory of the Levant has inevitably altered through time, Garrod‘s interests in chronology and the but it is Garrod‘s groundbreaking research in spatial distributions of the archaeological Palestine, combined with that of Rene

167

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 1: Dorothy Garrod (third from the left) with Powers and P. Levy, Palestine 1928. [Pit Rivers Museum, University of Oxford; PRM 1998.294.154]

Neuville‘s in Palestine and Alfred Rust‘s in typological change in Mousterian industries Syria, that provides the basis of the throughout the Middle Palaeolithic, Levantine prehistoric sequence that exists preferring to rely on biostratigraphic changes today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999; as more of a reliable marker than the Boyd 1999). presence or absence of a particular type of artefact (Hovers 2009: 12). Bordes was Through the Levantine evidence, Garrod correct in considering that different dismissed once and for all the idea of a technologies could be in use simultaneously, Eurocentric prehistory in which all evidence though it is Garrod‘s theories and thinking could ultimately be tied into the French data, that have stood the test of time and research firmly establishing prehistory outside and form the basis of the Levantine France. Garrod disagreed with French chronology today (Belfer-Cohen & Bar- theoreticians, and especially with Bordes Yosef 1999). during the 1950s and 1960s (Hovers 2009: 12). Bordes advocated on typological Making Connections and Re-defining the grounds that different technological Upper Palaeolithic of Europe traditions could have been present at the same time, based on the patterns in Garrod emphasised a concentration on the Levallois-Mousterian material resulting from details and relationships of ‗cultures‘, the process of branching evolution over time realising that interpretations of the past (ibid.), and recognised Mousterian depended on the patterning within the assemblages based on a fixed typology of available evidence (Davies 1999: 263). As a tool types (Bordes 1961; Prior 1977). result of applying this to her Levantine However, Garrod believed in a linear path of research, it subsequently led Garrod to re-

168

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod define the nature of the European sequence. coherent understanding of the archaeological evidence. Garrod coined the term ‗Chatelperronian‘ to replace Breuil‘s ‗Lower Aurignacian‘ and Garrod‘s publication remained the only ‗Gravettian‘ in preference to his ‗Upper monograph on the subject for half a century Aurignacian‘ for the European sequence in (Jacobi 1999: 35); it was used as the starting 1936 (Davies 1999: 266), and applied them point for the doctoral thesis of Grahame in subsequent publications (Garrod 1938). Clark (Clark 1989: 53), and even today The geographical distribution of these remains an important introduction to the industries has narrowed in light of new subject (Swainston 1999: 41). For this evidence (Davies 1999: 266), but they are pioneering book Garrod received a BSc from still identified today as an established part of Oxford University (Davies 1999a: 2), which the sequence of the Early Upper Palaeolithic serves to highlight the importance attached industries of Britain. In her 1938 paper, to this research at the time of publication. Garrod (1938) made connections between During the late 1950s/early 1960s Garrod ‗cultures‘ across Europe, the Middle and updated her views on the British Near East, and North Africa, with her new Palaeolithic, revisiting the evidence from industries firmly in place, and proposed that and Kent‘s Cavern as well as such blade cultures developed outside incorporating the results from McBurney‘s Europe (Garrod 1938: 3). This could be seen excavations in Wales. However, as this as emphasising a global view of prehistory, document was kept in St. Germain-en-Lave and highlighting the inappropriateness of a and not published, it was only her original Eurocentric attitude. Garrod argued that thoughts on the British Palaeolithic in 1926 connections should be made where that were prevalent. appropriate, unnecessary typological splits should not be made, while real differences if The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain was present should be reflected in the Dorothy Garrod‘s first serious publication of terminology used (Garrod 1937). Garrod‘s her career. In this publication the direction of viewpoints differed from those of Bordes her thoughts, which evolve in later (see above) and to an extent from her mentor publications, become apparent; in the Breuil; Garrod gives consideration in her summary of the book, Garrod begins to make 1953 paper to the possibility of convergence tentative links between the collected data, in tool form, while Breuil argues for and that of the French archaeological record evolution within tool types (Davies 1999b: (Garrod 1926). Throughout the book she 271). followed Breuil‘s lithic classification (Roberts 1995: 218), as this was the accepted Dorothy Garrod‘s research in the British classification at the time, and her Palaeolithic culminated in the publication of background to date was firmly within the The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain in 1926. prehistory of France. However, Garrod was This publication was the first to address the already issuing warnings about the continued Upper Palaeolithic of Britain on a national usefulness of the de Mortillet-Breuil scheme scale, and the first serious study on Upper for regions beyond western Europe: Palaeolithic lithic research in Britain, enabling the wealth of information to be ―…we can no more expect the classification accessed worldwide. The book is significant of Gabriel de Mortillet to hold good over the as it signals an important step in the Palaeolithic world than we could expect the advancement of lithic research. Through geological strata of a whole continent to be Garrod‘s dedication, the scattered pieces of everywhere at the same time…‖ the British Upper Palaeolithic were bought (Garrod 1926: 194) together to enable, for the first time, a

169

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Within this publication Garrod considered Regardless of subsequent criticism, it the British variant of the classic Magdalenian achieved its intentions: to be distinct enough from the rest of Europe as to warrant its own name (Roberts 1999: ―…A general survey of the Upper 21): Palaeolithic in Britain shows that in spite of scanty material and imperfect records it is ―…I propose tentatively ‗Creswellian‘, since possible to distinguish some kind of outline, Creswell Crags is the station in which it is which, incomplete in itself, may yet serve as found in greatest abundance and variety…‖ a basis for future work in this field…‖ (Garrod 1926: 194) (Garrod 1926: 191)

What constitutes the ‗Creswellian‘ today has It was Garrod‘s knowledge, experience and been revised and now refers to, in a British skill in her fieldwork methods and lithic context, only to the Late Magdalenian-style analysis that led her to pioneer the industry (Jacobi 1991). Garrod‘s Creswellian chronology of the Levant, re-define the has been a part of the British Upper European sequence, and synthesise the Palaeolithic industries for over eighty years, British material. Her skill as a lithic expert is only recently questioned by Jacobi and directly linked to her role in developing Pettitt who prefer to subsume the world prehistory. Garrod possessed a ―Creswellian‖ within the Late Magdalenian command of the principles of lithic analysis, (Jacobi & Pettitt 1991). For a first understood the importance of an objective publication, to identify and name a new outlook in actively attempting to approach ‗culture‘ which is still recognised eighty lithic analysis without a pre-conjectured years on, can only be a reflection of her cultural affinity in mind, and had a archaeological ability even at the very confidence in the artefacts and the ability to beginning of her career. extract from the artefacts the information she knew they held. These skills are fundamental On reflection, Roberts (1995: 220) considers when faced with new assemblages that are Garrod‘s publication to be ―…disappointing addressed with questions to be answered not …‖, though this judgement isn‘t entirely fair. just on a local scale, but with those which The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain is written have connotations on a global scale, i.e. the in a clear and concise manner (as was to be origins of modern humans. the hallmark of Garrod‘s publications), with more attention given for sites considered of Subjective and Objective Lithics greater importance; Kent‘s Cavern and Creswell Crags, which are still regarded as Lithic classifications and typologies were such today. We must also remember and introduced and have been refined from as praise accordingly the immense task Garrod early as the 1870s (de Mortillet 1872) to the chose to undertake as her first academic present day (Clarkson 2009). The publication. preconceptions of those undertaking lithic analysis, a subjective approach, were most Whatever the criticism regarding the nature prevalent within the early attempts at of the publication, the fact still remains that classification, e.g. de Mortillet (1872) and it was then a pioneering book, synthesising a Bordes (1950), whereas today a more complex period for an entire country, and objective approach is advocated, considering that is what gives it its importance. The the artefacts independently from the publication provided a comparison for other preconceptions of the lithic analyst sites and new research, encouraging (Andrefsky 2005; Clarkson & Lamb 2005). connections and inter-continent comparisons. Garrod was aware of the limitations of the early classificatory schemes (Garrod 1928)

170

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod and through her Levantine lithic material in her decision to consider the industries as attempted to address these limitations. local phenomena, and her subsequent recording of them using local names. Dorothy Garrod‘s lithic training background was, as that of most prehistorians at the time, Ronen (1982: 26) heavily criticised Garrod‘s grounded within a French world. De handling of the Mount Carmel material, Mortillet‘s original classification scheme had saying her reports show a ―…careful been subject to a radical revision by Breuil observer uninterested in details…‖ and that between 1906 and 1912 (Davies 1999b), on the whole, Garrod‘s work has needed a though parts of it were still in use later on, as great deal of substantiating over the last fifty Garrod highlights its limitations in her years as the terms she used were not precise publication in 1928 (Garrod 1928). Garrod enough for thorough understanding. herself was operating within Breuil‘s revised Garrod‘s work was designed to answer her classification (Davies 1999b), and by 1938, research questions, which focussed on the with the expansion of prehistory out of Palaeolithic record of the Near East, and its Europe, it was finally realised that de importance as a ―gateway of prehistoric Mortillet‘s scheme was only applicable on a migrations‖. She was also interested in the localised scale. Garrod takes delight when social and economic nature of the Mesolithic referring to the ―…demolition as a system of and the Natufian (Garrod & Bate 1937). world-wide application…‖ (Garrod 1938: 1) Ronen‘s comments seem too harsh a of de Mortillet‘s classification, arguing that judgement when you consider Garrod was regional scales of analysis would allow more attempting to develop a chronology for the reliable interpretation of artefacts. Levant while working within a Europe- focussed era, though attempting to ‗break the It was Garrod‘s work at Mount Carmel that mould‘ but lacking comparable data and contributed to this ‗demolition‘ while evidence from the archaeological record at securing the prehistoric chronology of the the time. Garrod understood more than Levant. Even though Garrod initially anyone else in her field the problems of the followed the original French subdivision of existing methodologies (Roberts 1995: 215), the Upper Palaeolithic, as was the ‗norm‘ and constantly pointed out the limitations (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999: 121), this surrounding nomenclatures and typologies was where it also ended. Garrod tried to (Garrod 1926, 1938, 1946). It is right to classify the artefacts objectively without too agree with Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef many preconceived notions as to their (1999: 130), who praise her decisions in chronology, through considering the various developing the Levantine nomenclatures and assemblages as primarily local phenomena typologies as displaying ingenuity and (Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef 1999: 130), foresight. proposing changes to the then current French terms (Copeland 1999: 163), and by In her 1938 paper, Garrod takes the idea of considering the artefacts on their own merit, change in classification one stage further and as independent from the established proposes that ―…the time has come when the European criteria rather than subjectively labels Lower, Middle and Upper Palaeolithic incorporating them into the then current should be used exclusively in a Eurocentric cultural framework. Garrod chronological sense without any typological compared the Levantine material to Europe, connotation whatsoever…‖ (Garrod 1938: though she did so in order to emphasis its 2). difference, e.g. her ―Tayacian‖, ―Acheulean‖ and ―Levalloiso-Mousterian‖ of Tabun Garrod recognised that these terms were (Garrod 1937). Belfer-Cohen & Bar-Yosef used more or less synonymously with (1999: 130) paid tribute to Garrod‘s insight handaxe, flake and blade industries

171

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) respectively (ibid). Garrod heeded this North Arabian Desert, summarising the warning in 1938, but this connection was widespread distribution and temporal nature still being taught at an undergraduate level of the artefacts which included Acheulean- only ten years ago. It is only in the last type bifaces, Levallois-Mousterian cores and decade that steps have truly been made to flakes and Upper Palaeolithic scrapers attempt to view our subject in a more (Garrod 1946: 19). This testifies to Garrod‘s objective way with regard to the awareness of the importance of corroborating development of lithic industries and their together evidence over a large geographical chronologies, moving away from scale rather than a specific area in order to assumptions of certain time periods, e.g. the assess and compare the nature of lithic Upper Palaeolithic, being synonymous with assemblages and the hominins who made particular industries, e.g. blade technology them, to address such issues as the origin of (Bar-Yosef & Kuhn 1999). Upper modern humans. As research develops in Palaeolithic elements occur within the Arabia, it will be interesting to see the nature ‗Middle Palaeolithic‘, and can be associated of the artefact assemblages, the possible with ‗Middle Palaeolithic‘ hominins, e.g. connections with other geographical areas, Neanderthals (Foley & Lahr 1997). There is especially the Levant, and perhaps compare also more emphasis on technological with Garrod‘s initial observations eighty analysis as opposed to rigid typological years ago. classifications (Clarkson et al. 2009). This shift has occurred due to recognition of the What is also interesting to note about the significant role that the environment played research being undertaken in Arabia is that it in prehistory, as Garrod recognised in 1946 is inter-disciplinary in nature, with research (see below). Garrod was cautious of groups such as Human Origins and Palaeo- typologies from an out-of-date classification Environments (HOPE) at Oxford Brookes system, in particular the Palaeolithic cultures University being involved. Dorothy Garrod developed by French prehistorians and was not only a pioneer of research in the finalized by Breuil in 1912 (Clark 1999: Levant, but developed the concept of inter- 404), when developing a new chronology for disciplinary teamwork. Eighty years on, the Levant. Eighty years on, the same pioneering inter-disciplinary research is warning is given by Rose (Rose & Bailey being undertaken in the almost unknown 2008) as pioneering work is undertaken in area of Arabia. Arabia. A purely objective approach will never be truly possible as the baggage of Inter-disciplinary Research preconceptions, judgements, culture, and specific research agendas will always Interdisciplinary studies involve different accompany us. However, as Palaeolithic disciplines uniting together to address a archaeologists, we must at least try. common question, whereas in a multi- disciplinary approach each discipline It is interesting to note here that, in 1927–28, involved will yield its own specific results Henry Field surveyed the prehistoric sites in with integration left to a third party observer. the North Arabian Desert (Field 1960), and Garrod was not interested in multi- Garrod analysed the lithic material from disciplinarity, but developed the concept of these surveys (Garrod 1960). With inter-disciplinary work in teams, with the observations from further discoveries in emphasis on the common goal (Davies pers. Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Field envisaged a comm.). This can be seen throughout all her widespread Palaeolithic population excavations, especially at Mount Carmel throughout the Arabian peninsula (Field where she combined the expertise of 1971), and in her 1946 paper Garrod prehistoric archaeology (herself), dedicated a section to the Palaeolithic of the zooarchaeology (Dorothea Bate), and

172

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod palaeoanthropology (Arthur Keith). the end of the excavations, and Garrod obtained a D.Sc. from Oxford for this In her 1946 paper, Garrod acknowledged the publication (Davies 1999a: 6). Bate was, in importance of the disciplines of geography, fact, involved in most of Garrod‘s projects geology, palaeontology and ethnology. She including Gibraltar, Shukba, Mt. Carmel and recognised the potential of their at the Athlit quarries (Garrod 1942). contributions to prehistory especially with the reconstruction of the environment, which During Garrod‘s excavations at Ras el-Kelb, she saw as a vital aspect to understanding Lebanon, 1959, she discovered the and interpreting stone tools and early man Levalloiso-Mousterian artefacts on a marine (Garrod 1946). shingle beach on the cave floor (Copeland, 1999: 156). This provided a link between the ―…Man as a human being, and not Man as a independently-constructed ice age fossil, is the true subject of the chronology of the Quaternary, and for the prehistorian…‖ first time in the Near East, relationships (Garrod 1946: 11) between specific marine evidence and specific industries had been established Throughout her career Garrod was engaged (ibid). in ‗inter-disciplinary‘ archaeology that today is considered vital to all archaeological Such inter-disciplinary research forms the research undertaken. Even on her first basis of much archaeological research today, excavation in Gibraltar she incorporated the with such research groups as the Centre for analyses of flora and fauna into her the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO) discussion, rather than appending them after at Southampton University, and excavations her conclusions, which Roberts (1995: 204) at Jwalapuram, Southern India which draws states was to become a ―…hallmark of on expertise from disciplines ranging from Dorothy Garrod‘s painstaking, thorough geomorphology, volcanology and climate excavation reports…‖. Today may be the age modelling (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). of inter- and multi-disciplinary research, but Garrod was not only thinking along these Dorothy Garrod’s Fieldwork Methods lines seventy years ago, but actively pursing and Approaches what she advocated (see Garrod‘s extensive list of publications in Davies & Charles Garrod herself did not excavate in her large- 1999). scale projects (notably Mt. Carmel), but was always on site supervising with a controlled This can be so evidently seen with the manner (Callander & Smith 2007: 78; publication of the Palestine caves. The Callander 2009). She was more actively excavation report (Garrod & Bate 1937) was involved in her smaller-scale excavations. jointly authored with Dorothea Bate, the Even later in life, when her health was pioneering palaeontologist, zoologist and fading, she would sit upon a chair with full ornithologist, who is considered the founder view of the excavation. There can be no of the discipline of zooarchaeology (Shindler doubt that Garrod kept meticulous records 2005: 229). The report combining the results from her excavations, and the discovery of of the archaeology, fauna, climate and the ‗lost archive‘ of Garrod‘s papers and environment of the Mount Carmel field notebooks in the Musée des Antiquités excavations served as a pioneering Nationales (Smith et al. 1997) will in time monograph of the time, highlighting the shed more light on the way Garrod wealth of understanding to be gained through conducted her fieldwork. inter-disciplinary research. The monograph was published remarkably soon following Garrod‘s field methods, in regards to her

173

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) excavations in France, are considered flourishing on many different projects today ―…models of superb specialized (Price & Stevenson in prep.) and perhaps methodology…‖ (Ellis 1999: 133). Three part of its roots can be traced back to the specific fieldwork methods are particularly 1920s. A photograph of her Arab workforce noteworthy here. In his biography of Garrod, at the excavations of El-Wad, 1929, depicts Davies (1999: 9) draws our attention to the twelve women as opposed to only 4 men fact that Garrod employed the use of dry (ibid.), and Garrod even planned to obtain a sieves on her excavations and had done so place at Cambridge University for one of since her days in Gibraltar, continuing to use them (Smith 2000). Women were preferred them throughout her excavations in Palestine as workers, and continued to be employed and Bulgaria. Davies (ibid.) notes that the throughout all Garrod‘s field seasons at use of dry-sieving would have placed Mount Carmel, with some men employed for Garrod‘s excavations among the most up-to- the more heavy-duty tasks (Callander & date of the time. The ‗dry sieve‘ is a Smith 2007). Davies (1999: 6) states that the fundamental component of the prehistoric women worked well, and considers the archaeologist‘s equipment and is used on contribution their wages would have made to excavations throughout the world, from their families. Callander and Smith (2007: Europe to Asia. Given that Garrod was 77) consider that Garrod could guarantee active in the field during the early stages of their safety and honour with easier work than the development of fieldwork methods, they were accustomed to. Women can be Garrod‘s recognition of the information that more methodical in their way of thinking and would be lost without the use of correct Dorothy Garrod would have been aware of excavation equipment is testament to her the status that may have been attached to expertise as a field archaeologist. those women and their families while employed during the course of her During the ‗rescue excavation‘ at Ras el- excavations. Even today, local villagers are Kelb Cave, Lebanon, the disturbance of employed by research excavations and work on the road tunnel, combined with the women preferred for certain tasks such as compactness of the brecciate deposits, dry-sieving due to their eye for detail, e.g. in resulted in Garrod systematically removing India (Haslam & Petraglia 2009). the hard deposits in blocks which were later ‗excavated‘ and their contents analysed in Through her extensive excavations across (Davies 1999a: 11). This meant that Europe and south-west Asia, Garrod‘s vision the deposits could receive more attention of prehistory on a worldwide scale continued than if they were excavated under the time to consolidate. The archaeological literature constraints and unsuitable conditions in the was enhanced by her many excavation field. Such an innovative solution to a reports which opened further the door of problem, while not compromising the prehistoric archaeology. It wasn‘t only in the archaeology, again must shine as an example field that this was achieved but also in the to her mastery of field archaeology. classroom. However, Smith (2000) informs us that lecturing was not Garrod‘s strength; At Mount Carmel, Garrod employed people she preferred teaching in small, informal from the local villages to assist with the groups. Garrod felt more comfortable in excavations, preferring to employ the girls these situations (ibid.), which were perhaps and women (Callander & Smith 2007: 79; more familiar to her, mirroring somewhat the Figure 2). Perhaps Garrod can be seen as a dynamics of a small intimate field team to pioneer of ‗Community Archaeology‘, which she was much more accustomed. involving and training local people in their own prehistory and heritage (Davies pers. comm.). Such ‗Community Archaeology‘ is

174

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

Figure 2: Mount Carmel Excavations, Palestine 1934. View from Back of Cave. [Pit Rivers Museum, University of Oxford; PRM 1998.294.354]

The Prehistoric Door is Opened Archaeology. Not only did she introduce a module on world prehistory, as discussed Dorothy Garrod helped to open up the earlier, she spearheaded a re-organisation of subject of prehistory, prehistory in its the Cambridge Tripos. Garrod designed, won worldwide context, and expanded the acceptance for, and implemented a system accessibility of the discipline. which greatly increased the options for the candidates of Archaeology (Clark 1989: 59), This can be seen as a direct result of her thus creating Part II (Archaeology) of the election to the Disney Chair in 1939 which Cambridge Archaeological and she held until her retirement in 1952. Her Anthropological Tripos (Daniel 1969: 1). appointment placed her within a position of This system was implemented in 1948 great influence which she used to change the (Davies 1999a: 9), and remains to this day. way that prehistory was considered and taught within the Department of This meant that Cambridge was the first

175

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

British university to offer undergraduate 1950s, and was the first university-trained courses in prehistoric archaeology (Clark prehistorian to make Australia his subject, 1989: 99). Garrod was therefore responsible and has been described as the ‗Father of for introducing the study of prehistory in its Australian Archaeology‘ (Australian own right in the British University teaching Archaeological Association 2004). Professor system. Garrod was a teaching fellow and Hallam J. Movius Jr. was part of Garrod‘s Director of Studies at Newnham College team at Mount Carmel, and obtained a from the beginning of the 1930s (Davies Cambridge PhD (Clark 1989: 46), later 1999a), though when it is considered that introducing the concept of the Movius Line until she was elected to the chair, Garrod had in 1948, and excavating at many sites, never held any academic lecturing position notably . Other students of (Daniel 1969: 1), the connotations of what Dorothy Garrod and those she influenced she achieved are immeasurable. Clark (1989: include Ann Sieveking (Smith 2000), 143) considered that Cambridge University‘s Jacquetta Hopkins (Clark 1989: 43), most important service to prehistory is that Lorraine Copeland (Copeland 1999), John of ensuring prehistory as an acceptable Waechter (Clark 1989: 143) and Louis subject for teaching and by training the Leakey (Smith 2000). necessary staff to take prehistory into other institutions. This has its roots in the dedication, forward thinking and passion that DOROTHY GARROD AND HER FAITH Dorothy Garrod and her team held for the subject, and in the long line of prehistorians Since 1859, a ‗science versus religion‘ that Garrod herself personally inspired and debate has persisted. Beliefs in science and encouraged. in religion are questioned by beliefs in the other. Darwin himself agonised over the Dorothy Garrod‘s influence on her students publication of Origin of Species due to the and the ‗next generation‘ of prehistorians, very reason that it would contradict the and what these individuals subsequently teaching of the church (Darwin Exhibition at went on to achieve, can be considered an Auckland Museum 2007). Only in 1950, in integral part of Garrod‘s legacy, and her his encyclical Humani Generis, did Pope indirect influence on the advancement of Pius XII (Pius 1950) state that evolution as a prehistoric archaeology. As a tutor, she theory was not incompatible with the encouraged students to fulfil their potential Catholic faith. and explore archaeology further. Dorothy Garrod inspired many of her students and Dorothy Garrod was a committed Catholic young colleagues to make major throughout her adult life, converting from contributions to archaeology. Anglicanism in 1913 (Callander 2009). She experienced doubts within her faith due to Among her colleagues were Grahame Clark her prehistoric studies, though returned to (her successor in the Disney Chair, from the Church with the help of Teilhard de 1952), who excavated at Star Carr and wrote Chardin‘s philosophy of evolution (Caton- extensively on the Mesolithic; Charles Thompson 1969: 343). Garrod had met McBurney (later Professor of Quaternary Teilhard de Chardin in the early 1920s, when Prehistory at Cambridge University), whose they worked at adjoining tables in the 1967 book on was considered, in its basement of the Institut de Paléontologie day, the most important single contribution Humaine in Paris (de Saint-Mathurin 1970). made to the prehistory of northern Africa Himself a priest and a prehistorian, de (Clark 1989: 64). He dedicated it to Dorothy Chardin‘s (1965) philosophy followed an Garrod (ibid). Emeritus Professor John evolutionist understanding with a belief in Mulvaney was a student of Garrod‘s in the human evolution emphasising the

176

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod development of the human consciousness Plunkett says of Nina Layard that: towards an overall ‗omega‘ point (still to come) of the divinisation of humanity. Along ―It is an essential part of her legacy that she with Dorothy Garrod, other prominent lived and experienced within herself the prehistoric archaeologists of her time also transition from a pre-Darwinian religious shared her belief in a Christian God; Nina consciousness to a type of 20th Century Layard, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, and of spirituality which is still valid — and that course the ordained Abbé Breuil. Breuil has she made this transition through the study of been called ―…The Pope of Palaeolithic prehistory‖ Archaeology…‖ (Straus 1994); if this is the (Plunkett 1999: 256) case then Garrod, as his student, must be a Cardinal. As Davies (1999a: 3) interestingly Perhaps then it is an essential part of points out, Garrod nicknamed the Dorothy Garrod‘s legacy that she was part of Neanderthal child remains she discovered at the new post-Darwin scientific age; a Devil‘s Tower, Gibraltar, ―Abel‖ (Davies supporter and enthusiast of new scientific 1999a: 3), one of the sons of Adam and Eve developments (e.g. radiocarbon dating), in Genesis (Genesis 4:2). advancing and expanding prehistoric studies while at the same time remaining committed The concept of human evolution is much to her own personal belief in a Christian debated and scrutinised between Christians God, in which she found ―…conviction and who hold differing views of the bible, and strength…‖ (Caton-Thompson 1969: 343). the theory of how we became into being. This can be seen in the 1st Marett Lecture she Christians who hold a literal belief in the gave on 17th May 1948 entitled ‗Early Man bible advocate without question the theory of and the Threshold of Religion‘ in which she ‗creationism‘ as it is stated word for word in considers cave art as evidence of the Genesis chapters 1–2. Those who consider religious life of Palaeolithic Man through the the bible a collection of books of different current scientific evidence, theories and types of writing, including historical, debates. prophetic, poetry and stories, still believe it is God‘s word, but consider Genesis chapters During her advancement of prehistoric 1–2 as a ‗myth‘, not in the modern sense but studies, Garrod grappled with two of the in the sense of man attempting to understand most debated questions of human evolution, how he came to be. These Christians accept which are still in contention today. Through human evolution as fact, but the process as her prehistoric research, especially in guided by God; the mystery for them is how Palestine, Garrod addressed two of the most He guided the process. There is no doubt that crucial ‗transitional‘ periods of prehistory — such a debate was also prevalent in Garrod‘s those of the Middle to the Upper time, and perhaps this dichotomy of opinions Palaeolithic, and the Mesolithic to the contributed to the doubts she experienced Neolithic. within her faith. It is perhaps interesting to note that the majority of her research was Dorothy Garrod as a ‘Revolutionary’ undertaken in Palestine, what is now modern day , and the Mount Carmel caves are Overall responsibility of the Levantine cave merely twenty-eight miles from Jerusalem. excavations fell to Garrod, who trusted the Being so close to the Holy City of Jerusalem, young T.D. McCown to excavate es-Skhul where Jesus ministered and was crucified, during her absence owing to illness (Caton- while undertaking fieldwork and uncovering Thompson 1969: 347). The Mousterian Neanderthal burials must have made quite an burials subsequently discovered there caused impression on Dorothy Garrod (Figure 2). much controversy, with McCown advocating the remains to be that of atomically modern

177

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) humans, while Keith believed them to be ―…indispensable basis for the understanding hybrids of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens of the first farming cultures which (Caton-Thompson 1969: 347). Their followed…‖. The nature of the Natufian and conclusions drew immense criticism from its relationship to the subsequent Neolithic Brothwell and Higgs (1961). Garrod herself are issues still trying to be resolved today, placed the burials as Lower Levalloiso- and many of Garrod‘s concerns are still Mousterian (Caton-Thompson 1969: 351). contested today (Boyd 1999: 218). The Levant has proved to be a key area regarding the development from the Middle Garrod strongly believed in the testing of to the Upper Palaeolithic, partly due to its hypotheses (Copeland 1999: 162). It is the geographical setting and due to the wealth of nature of our subject to test old hypotheses in the sometimes conflicting evidence that it the light of new evidence, work with new yields. It is now one of the most researched theories and new sites, re-define and re- areas in the world. Garrod‘s work in discover forgotten sites, propose new Palestine contributed in highlighting the questions and avenues for research and be significance of this particular era of ‗in-tune‘ with new archaeological prehistory, but also, as McCown‘s developments. Without all this then conclusions attest, the contentious nature of prehistory will become stagnant. this transition. In her 1938 and 1953 papers Garrod discussed environmental conditions, Dorothy Garrod was not afraid to change her colonisation, population diffusion and original ideas without compromising her movement to explain the spread and fundamental theories (Davies 1999b: 268). distribution of lithic industries, industrial/ Davies (ibid.) informs us that Garrod cultural interpretations, and dating: the main realised that re-examining and changing ones aspects of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic ideas in light of new evidence was the only transition debate (Davies 1999: 271 & 269). way to conduct prehistoric research. Davies (1999b) analyses the way in which Garrod In 1928 Garrod conducted her first fieldwork constantly altered her current thinking in the in Palestine at the Shukbah Cave, Wadi en- light of new evidence. We can see Garrod‘s Natuf. Here she discovered an unknown re-assessing of ideas throughout her culture that she named publications. As Boyd (1999: 218) Natufian (Garrod 1957: 212). Further illustrates, Garrod had previously suggested evidence for the Natufian culture was that Anatolia was a likely source for the unearthed at Garrod‘s excavations the origins of the Natufian, but in her 1957 paper following year at el-Wad (Callander & Smith she retracted the suggestion and concluded 2007), and at el-Kebara, the cave having that she could not discern its traceable roots been discovered by Garrod in 1931 (Boyd in the past (Garrod 1957: 225). 1999: 214).

Boyd (1999: 215) details that Garrod DOROTHY GARROD AND THE ROLE proposed as early as 1931 that the Mesolithic OF WOMEN layer at el-Wad provided evidence of agriculture due to the high number of sickle- Perhaps a less obvious, but important, blades and hafts discovered. In 1957 Garrod contribution of Dorothy Garrod‘s to the agreed with Neuville that ―…the Lower development of early prehistory and its Natufian people were probably the first lasting legacy, is that of her influence as a agriculturists…‖ (Garrod 1957: 216). pioneer woman archaeologist.

Renfrew (1999: ix) unequivocally states that Dorothy Garrod was the first woman to hold Garrod‘s work on the Natufian forms the the prestigious Disney Chair, and

178

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod inadvertently contributed to allowing women 9). full status within Cambridge University. Garrod was a pioneer of women in field Garrod collaborated with de Saint-Mathurin archaeology, and was considered one of the in excavations at the Angles-sur-l‘Anglin ‗Three Graces‘ in France alongside Suzanne Magdalenian rock-shelter between 1947 and de Saint-Mathurin and Germaine Henri- 1963 (Ellis 1999: 133). She wrote Martin. extensively about the , paintings and engravings uncovered (Davies 1999a: In the Encyclopaedia of Great 10), significantly contributing to the Archaeologists (Murray 1999), Garrod is one development of studies in French prehistoric of only 2 women whose biographies appear rock art. Garrod also assisted Henri-Martin alongside those of fifty-six men. Today, she in her excavations at Fontéchevade in the is studied within the archaeological late 1940s (Davies 1999a: 10), where even disciplines of Gender Archaeology and the today new evidence continues to be Archaeology of Women, is considered a unearthed (Chase et al. 2009). ‗beacon‘ within the circle of women archaeologists, and her lasting legacy gives Dorothy Garrod was uncomfortable as a us a realisation of what women in ‗figurehead‘ (Smith 2000), and no doubt her archaeology have the potential to achieve. modesty and humility did not allow her to fully appreciate the effects of the extent of On the 6th May 1939, Dorothy Garrod her achievements, the influence she yielded became the first woman and first prehistorian and the inspiration she gave. Garrod‘s to be elected to the Disney Chair at prestigious position within the disciplines of Cambridge University (Smith 2000: 265). Gender and Women Archaeology, and as one Garrod was however, a reluctant pioneer, of the ‗pioneers of prehistory‘, stands as a and struggled with the hierarchical nature lasting legacy of her immense contribution and formalities that the Disney Chair bought and high regard within archaeology. with it (Smith 2000: 136). Nevertheless, her time as Disney Professor was intensely In a letter written shortly after her election to successful. At this time, there were very few the Disney Chair in 1939, Garrod stated: women in teaching posts in Cambridge (Smith 2000: 278) and women did not have ―The election was a tremendous surprise to full university status. As the Cambridge me, as I had never seriously considered it Review in May 1939 stated: possible. Naturally, I am tremendously pleased, and I hope it may quickly lead to ―…The election of a woman to the full membership of the University for women Professorship of Archaeology is an immense up here.‖ step forward towards complete equality (Suzanne de St Mathurin & Germaine Henri- between men and women in the Martin archives) University…‖ (Smith 2000: 267) Dorothy Garrod and the Archaeology of Women Cambridge University gave full membership to women in 1947 (University of Cambridge Although Champion (1998: 193) asserts that 1999), and it is more than likely Garrod‘s Garrod did not express feminist interests appointment and success as Disney Professor within her works, this is perhaps contributed to this decision, as well as to the unsurprising given her background. appointments of other women to Nevertheless, she was a prominent, professorships as occurred in the years successful, well-known prehistorian of her following her appointment Davies (1999a: time, gender aside, and the discipline of

179

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

‗feminist and gender archaeology‘ was yet to Archaeologists. be born. Garrod saw herself as continuing the family‘s academic traditions, especially It is to Dorothy Garrod as an inspiration, a after the deaths of her three brothers in WW1 women archaeologist and a significant (Caton-Thompson 1969). The only reference contributor to the development of early from Garrod herself regarding the male- prehistoric studies that my generation of dominated world of prehistoric archaeology female archaeologists and generations to in which she lived is: ―…It is noteworthy come will look to as an example of how that among those who have built up the study much can be achieved. of Early Man nearly all the outstanding names belong to men…‖ (Garrod 1946: 7). Dorothy Garrod is most certainly an CONCLUSION outstanding name that can be added to this flock, and the words inscribed on an ornate Dorothy Garrod excavated some of the best- scroll presented to her on her retirement by known Palaeolithic sites still considered the Faculty paid homage to this (Smith 2000: today, including Mount Carmel and the 136). Devil‘s Tower. The results of her excavations became renowned worldwide Thus it was a surprise to Garrod that she now and encouraged prehistorians to address found herself as the first woman in the issues on a global scale, adhering to Garrod‘s Disney Chair However, she was well aware vision of a worldwide prehistory. Garrod of the connotations of her appointment (see established the foundation for the her letter above) as the first woman in the chronology of Levantine prehistory and Disney Chair, and as Roberts (1995: 227) addressed the complex relationships of the points out, ―…the very presence of a woman differing Upper Palaeolithic cultures of professor at the head of a thriving Europe. She addressed some of the major department could only act as a spur and an issues in archaeology still in contention encouragement…‖, especially if one was a today and changed forever the way woman (Smith 2000: 134). prehistory was considered and taught, opening up the subject to its awaiting eager Today, Dorothy Garrod is considered a audience. pioneering woman archaeologist (Diaz- Andreu & Sorensen 1998; Hamilton et al. Garrod‘s career spanned forty-five years and 2007). This is also recognised by the diverse was an invaluable and irreplaceable number of ‗Women In Archaeology‘ contribution to the early development of websites she appears on, including Pagans lithic research and prehistoric archaeology, for Archaeology (Pagans for Archaeology particularly of Europe and the Near East. Her 2009) which has links to her online immense contribution to prehistory was biographies, and the Anthropology influential not just to her contemporaries and department of Southern Carolina (Smith immediate successors, but has a lasting 2008) which honours her as one of the legacy even today, which will continue no greatest women in Anthropology. Garrod doubt to inspire future generations. Garrod‘s even appears on a website of ‗Ladies‘ Firsts‘ achievements were numerous and extremely in recognition of her election to the Disney important milestones in piecing together the Chair (Dockers 2000), and with the fundamentals of early prehistory from the development of organisations such as British archaeological record. Women Archaeologists (Teather et al. 2008), perhaps one can argue that Dorothy Garrod is amongst one of the most significant figures in the history of British Women

180

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ine/previous_issues/articles/2009_01_09/caredit.a0 900007 (July 2009). I am extremely thankful to Matt Pope for providing Caton-Thompson, G. 1969. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth me with the opportunity to write this paper, for his Garrod 1892–1968 (obituary). Proceedings of the encouragement and comments throughout, and British Academy 65: 339–361. assistance in selecting a title. I am also indebted to Champion, S. 1998. Women in British Archaeology; William Davies for his invaluable suggestions and Visible and Invisible. In M. Diaz-Andreu & M.L. recommendations on the initial draft of this paper at Stig Sorensen (eds.) Excavating Women; A history very short notice, and subsequent drafts, and am of women in European archaeology: 175–197. grateful as ever for his continuing advice and support. Routledge, London. de Chardin, T. 1965. Man‘s Place in Nature. Harper, New York. Chase, P.G., Debénath, A., Dibble, H.L. & REFERENCES McPherron, S.P. 2009. The Cave of Fontéchevade: Recent Excavations and their Palaeo- Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic anthropological Implications. Cambridge Approaches to Analysis (Cambridge Manuals in University Press, Cambridge. Archaeology). Cambridge University Press, Clark, J.D.G. 1999. Dorothy Garrod. In T. Murray Cambridge. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Archaeology: the Great Anderson, K. 2001. Emuseum at Minnesota State Archaeologists Volume 1: 401–12. ABC-CLIO, University, Mankata. http://www.mnsu.edu/ Santa Barbara. emuseum/information/biography/fghij/garrod_doro Clark, J.D.G. 1989. Prehistory at Cambridge and thy.html (July 2009). Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Australian Archaeological Association. 2004. Clarkson, C. & Lamb, L. 2005. Lithics ‗Down Australian Archaeological Association Inc. Under‘: Australian Approaches to Lithic http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.co Reduction, Use and Classification. British m.au/john_mulvaney (July 2009). Archaeological Reports International Monograph Bar-Yosef, O. & Kuhn, S. The big deal about blades: Series S1408. Archaeopress, Oxford. Laminar technology and human evolution. Clarkson, C., Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Haslam, American Anthropologist 101(2): 322–338. M., Boivin, N., Crowther, A., Ditchfield, P., Fuller, Belfer-Cohen, A. & Bar-Yosef, O. 1999. The D., Miracle, P., Harris, C., Connell, K., James, H. Levantine Aurignacian: 60 years of research. In W. & Koshy, J. 2009. The oldest and longest enduring Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and microlithic sequence in India: 35,000 years of the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the modern human occupation and change at the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Jwalapuram Locality 9 rockshelter. Antiquity 83: Europe: 118–134. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 326–348. Bordes, F.H. 1961. Mousterian cultures in France. Copeland, L. 1999. The Impact of Dorothy Garrod‘s Science 134: 803–810. Excavations in the Lebanon on the Palaeolithic of Boyd, B. 1999. ―Twisting the kaleidoscope‖ Dorothy the Near East. In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Garrod and the Natufian Culture. In W. Davies & Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric of the Near East and Europe: 152–166. Oxbow Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 209– Books, Oxford. 223. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Daniel, G. 1969. Editorial. Antiquity 43: 1–2. Brothwell, D.R. & Higgs, E.S. 1961. North Africa and Dart, R.A. 1925. Australopithecus africanus: the man- Mount Carmel: Recent Developments. Man 61: ape of South Africa. Nature 115(19): 5–9. 138–139. Davies, W. 1999a. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth Garrod Callander, J. 2004. Oxford Dictionary of National (5th May 1892–18th December, 1968): A Short Biography; Dorothy Garrod. http://www. Biography. In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) oxforddnb.com/view/article/37443 (July 2009). Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Callander, J. & Smith, P.J. 2007. Pioneers in Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology Palestine: The Women Excavators of El-Wad of the Near East and Europe: 1–14. Oxbow Books, Cave, 1929. In S. Hamilton, R.D. Whitehouse & Oxford. K.I. Wright (eds.) Archaeology and Women; Davies W. 1999b. Nova et Vetera: Reworking the Ancient and Modern Issues: 76–82. Publications of Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. In W. Davies the Institute of Archaeology UCL, Walnut Creek & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the California. Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Coelho, S. 2009. Science Careers from the Journal Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Science; Archaeology for Fun and Profit. Europe: 263–276. Oxbow Books, Oxford. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magaz Davies, W. & Charles, R. (eds.) 1999. Dorothy

181

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic Jacobi, R.M. & Pettitt, P. 1991. The Creswellian, Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near Creswell and Cheddar. In R.N.E. Barton, A.J. East and Europe. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Roberts & D.A. Roe (eds.) The Late Glacial in Diaz-Andreu, M. & Stig Sorensen, M.L. (eds.) 1998. north-west Europe: Human adaption and Excavating Women; A History of Women in environmental change at the end of the European Archaeology. Routledge, London. Pleistocene: 128–140. Council for British Dockers, M. 2009. Ladies First. http://web.ukonline. Archaeology Research Report 77, London. co.uk/m.gratton/Names/Dorothy.htm (July 2000). Jacobi, R. 1999 Some Observations on the British Ellis, L. (ed.) 1999. Archaeological Method and Earlier Upper Palaeolithic. In W. Davies & R. Theory: An Encyclopaedia. Routledge, London. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Field, H. 1960. North Arabian Desert Archaeological the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Survey. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 35–40. Field, H. 1971. Preface. In H.A. McClure The Oxbow Books, Oxford. Arabian Peninsula and Prehistoric Populations: Lanpo, J., Huang, W. & Erickson, P.A. 1990. The iv–v. Coconut Grove, Florida. Story of ; From Archaeology to Foley, R. & Lahr, M.M. 1997. Mode 3 Technologies Mystery. Oxford University Press, USA. and the Evolution of Modern Humans. Cambridge de Mortillet, G. 1872 Classification des Ages de la Archaeological Journal 71: 3–36. Pierre. Comptes rendus: Congrés International Gamble, C. & Kruszynski, R. 2009. John Evans, d‘Anthropologie et d‘Archéologie Préhistorique 6 Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the (Bruxelles): 432–444. time barrier. Antiquity 83 (2009) 461–475. Murray, T. 1999. Encyclopaedia of Archaeology: the Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Great Archaeologists. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara. Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Pagans for Archaeology. 2009. Pagans for Garrod, D.A.E. 1937. The Near east as a gateway of Archaeology: Women in Archaeology. http:// prehistoric migration. Bulletin of the American archaeopagans.blogspot.com/2009/03/women-in- School of Prehistoric Research 13: 17–21. archaeology.html (July 2009). Garrod, D.A.E. 1938. The Upper Palaeolithic in the Petraglia, M.D. & Allchin, B. (eds.) 2007. The Light of Recent Discovery. Proceedings of the Evolution and History of Human Populations in Prehistoric Society 4: 1–27. South Asia. Springer, Dordrecht. Garrod, D.A.E. 1942. Excavations at the Cave of Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Boivin, N., Clarkson, Shukbah, Palestine 1928. Proceedings of the C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Koshy, J., Lahr, M.M., Prehistoric Society 8:1–21. Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Garrod, D.A.E. 1946. Environment, Tools and Man; Schwenninger, J.-L., Arnold, L. & White, K. 2007. An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge University Assemblages from the Indian Press, Cambridge. Subcontinent Before and After the Toba Super- Garrod, D.A.E. 1953. The Relations between South eruption. Science 317(5834): 114–116. West Asia and Europe in the later Palaeolithic Age. Petraglia, M., Korisettar, R., Katsuri Bai, M., Boivin, Journal of World History 1: 13–38. N., Janardhana, B., Clarkson, C., Cunningham, K., Garrod, D.A.E. 1957. The Natufian Culture: The Life Ditchfield, P., Fuller, D., Hampson, J., Haslam, M., and Economy of a Mesolithic People in the Near Jones, S., Koshy, J., Miracle, P., Oppenheimer, C. East (Albert Reckitt Archaeological Lecture Read & White, K. 2008. Human occupation, adaptation 20th November 1957). Proceedings of the British and behavioral change in the Pleistocene and Academy 43: 211–227. Holocene of South India: recent investigations in Garrod, D.A.E. 1960. The Flint Implements. In H. the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Field North Arabian Desert Archaeological Survey Eurasian Prehistory 6(1): 119–166. 1925–1960. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Petraglia, M.D. & Rose, J.I. 2009. The Evolution of Garrod, D.A.E. & Bate, D.M.A. 1937. The Stone Age Human Populations in Arabia: Palaeo- of Mount Carmel Vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. environments, Prehistory and Genetics. Springer, Garrod, D.A.E. & Clark, J.G.D. 1965. Primitive Man New York. in Egypt, Western Asia and Europe. In D.A.E. Pius XIII, Pope. 1950. Humani Generis; some false Garrod & J.G.D. Clark (eds.) The Cambridge opinions threatening to undermine the foundation Ancient History Vol. 1: 3–61. Cambridge of the Catholic doctrine. Encyclical Vatican City University Press, Cambridge. 21. Haslam, M. & Petraglia, M.D. 2009. The Toba Super- Plunkett, S. 1999. Nina Frances Layard, Prehistorian eruption. http://users.oz.ac.uk/~arch0265/index. (185–1935). In W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) htm (July 2009). Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R.D. & Wright, K.I. (eds.) Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology 2007. Archaeology and Women; Ancient and of the Near East and Europe: 242–262. Oxbow Modern Issues. Publications of the Institute of Books, Oxford. Archaeology UCL, Walnut Creek California. Prior, F.W. 1977. Preliminary Analysis of Functional

182

K.M. Price: Dorothy Garrod

Variability on the Mousterian of Levallois Facies: de Saint-Mathurin, S. 1970. Dorothy Annie Elizabeth A Re-examination. Ohio Journal of Science 77(3): Garrod, 1892–1968 (Newnham 1913–1916). 119–124. Newnham College Roll Letter, January 1970: 50– Renfrew, C. 1999. Foreword. In W. Davies & R. 54. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Shindler, K. 2005. Discovering Dorothea: The life of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric the pioneering fossil-hunter Dorothea Bate. Harper Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: ix–x. Perennial, London. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Smith, M. 2008. University of South Carolina; Roberts, A. 1999. The Path Not Taken: Dorothy Women in Anthropology. http://www.cas.sc.edu/ Garrod, Devon and the British Palaeolithic. In W. anth/Womeninanthropology/Womeninanthropolog Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and y/Womeninanthropology.html (July 2009). the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the Smith, P.J., Callander, J., Bahn, P.G. & Pinçon, G. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and 1997. Dorothy Garrod in Words and Pictures. Europe: 19–34. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Antiquity 71: 265–270. Roberts, J.G. 1995. British women archaeologists: Smith, P.J. 2000. Dorothy Garrod, First Women From the eighteenth century to the beginning of the Professor at Cambridge. Antiquity 74: 131–136. Second World War. Unpublished Thesis, Cardiff Straus, L.G. 1994. L‘Abbé Breuil: Pope of University. Palaeolithic Prehistory. Homenaje al Dr Joaquin Ronen, A. 1982. Mount Carmel Caves — The first González Echegaray: 189–198. Madrid Muses y Excavations. In A. Ronen (eds.) The Transition Centro de Investigación de Altamira. from Lower to Middle Palaeolithic and the Origin Swainston, S. 1999. Unlocking the Inhospitable. In of Modern Man; International Symposium to W. Davies & R. Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod commemorate the 50th anniversary of excavations and the Progress of the Palaeolithic Studies in the in the Mount Carmel Caves by D.A.E. Garrod. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and BAR International Series 151. BAR, Oxford. Europe: 41–56. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Ronen, A., Tsatskin, A. & Laukhin, S.A. 1999. The Teather, A., Pope, R. & Wright, J. 2008. British Genesis and Age of Mousterian Paleosols in the Women Archaeologists. http://britishwomen Carmel Coastal Plain, Israel. In W. Davies & R. archaeologists.org.uk (August 2009). Charles (eds.) Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of Trigger, B.G. 2006. A History of Archaeological the Palaeolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Thought Second Edition. Cambridge University Archaeology of the Near East and Europe: 136– Press, Cambridge. 151. Oxbow Books, Oxford. University of Cambridge. 1999. Fact Sheet: Women Rose, J.I. 2004 The question of Upper Pleistocene at Cambridge: A Chronology. http://www.admin. connections between East Africa and South Arabia. cam.ac.uk/news/press/factsheets/women2.html Current Anthropology 45(4): 551–555. (July 2009). Rose, J.I. 2007. The Arabian Corridor Migration Model: Archaeological evidence for Hominin Dispersals into Oman during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene. Proceedings of the Seminar for ARCHIVES Arabian Studies 37: 219–237. Rose, J.I. & Bailey, G.N. 2008. Defining the Suzanne de St Mathurin & Germaine Henri-Martin Palaeolithic of Arabia? Notes on the Roundtable archives. Musée des Antiquités Nationales, St. Discussion. Proceedings of the Seminar for Germain-en-Laye, France. Arabian Studies 38: 65–70.

183

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

THE UNSUNG HEROES

R. Hosfield

Department of Archaeology, School of Human & Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the roles played by local collectors, often little-known or rarely remembered, in the compilation of Britain’s Earlier (Lower and early Middle) Palaeolithic record, with reference to the work of C.E. (Charles) Bean at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Broom, and the activities of George Smith and Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher in the Middle Thames Valley. Their collecting practices, publication records, and archaeological knowledge and insights are reviewed, and their impacts assessed with reference to the activities of other contemporary collectors, and the regional archaeological records of the south-west and the Middle Thames. Their archives demonstrate that while the key sites and artefact assemblages sampled by Bean, Smith and the Treachers would not otherwise have been unknown, their work left important legacies in terms of rich artefact assemblages, site archives (Bean), and the long-term monitoring of key sites and fluvial terraces.

Full reference: Hosfield, R. 2009. The unsung heroes. In R. Hosfield, F.F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 185–200. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn & Mabel Treacher, G.W. Smith, Broom, Middle Thames

INTRODUCTION observational skills of these local workers stands comparison with those of the well- This paper highlights the contributions of the known names of Palaeolithic research (see local collectors in the history of Palaeolithic the other contributions in this volume). The research and artefact collection in Britain. roles played by these four collectors in the While the valuable activities and collections construction of their local and regional of many local workers have sadly been archaeological records, and their individual entirely forgotten, there are others whose impacts upon the character of those archives researches have been documented and is also evaluated, alongside the broader discussed (e.g. Wymer 1968; Roe 1981: Ch. research contexts of the late 19th and early 2; O‘Connor 2007). Four collectors who fall 20th century period. squarely into the latter category are C.E. (Charles) Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher, and George Smith. BACKGROUND

In reviewing the work of these four Short biographical outlines of C.E. Bean, individuals, the paper is not seeking to Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher, and George highlight unique or outstanding Smith are provided below, prior to a contributions. Instead the goal is to assess discussion of the quality and scope of their whether the fundamental field and working practices and their respective

185

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) impacts upon the Earlier (Lower and early that Llewellyn emphasised the importance of Middle) Palaeolithic records in their regions recording the exact provenance of each find. of interest. In the latter part of his life Llewellyn worked alongside his wife Mabel (–1959), whom he Charles or C.E. Bean (1892–1983; Figure 1), married in 1922. Mabel had trained as a Surveyor, Sanitary Inspector and Water geologist at Cambridge, prior to working as a Engineer to the Sherborne Urban District school teacher and a cartographer, and Council, was also a keen and distinguished played a key role in recording much of amateur archaeologist (for further details see Llewellyn‘s work (Cranshaw 1983: 9). Her PDNHAS 1983; Hosfield & Green key publication on their work in the forthcoming). As well as Sherborne, Bean Caversham Ancient Channel (M.S. Treacher explored many other parts of the county of et al. 1948) was also encouraged and guided Dorset, but from a Palaeolithic perspective it by R.A. Smith (ibid: 133). was Bean‘s collecting of over 1,000 Acheulean artefacts from Broom (at Hawkchurch near Axminster; Figure 2A) which is of central interest. Bean was in touch with contemporary archaeological figures, including Reginald (R.A.) Smith of the British Museum (who encouraged Bean to keep an archaeological diary), while his archaeological library was one of the finest in the south-west (PDNHAS 1983: 183). It is clear from Bean‘s archaeological archive that he was not a casual collector: his finds were labelled, accompanied by sketch maps and sections, and cross-referenced to diary entries, while site heights were surveyed and photographs taken.

Although a market gardener and fruit grower by trade, Llewellyn Treacher (1859–1943; Figure 3) was a notable amateur geologist and archaeologist (e.g. receiving an award from the Lyell Fund through the Geological Society of London in 1913; for fuller details of his geological interests see Dewey 1944; and for a fuller biography see Cranshaw 1983: 1–10). His Palaeolithic interests were initiated by Dr Joseph Stevens of Reading Museum in the 1880s, and Treacher subsequently compiled extensive artefact collections from the gravel pits of the Middle Thames valley, with a particular focus on the areas around Reading, Twyford, where he lived, and Maidenhead (Figure 2B; Wymer 1968: 168). Henry Dewey (1944: 43) clearly had confidence in Treacher‘s work, noting Figure 1: C.E. (Charles Edward) Bean, 1892– 1983 (PDNHAS 1983: 182) that Treacher carried with him examples of artefacts so as to train the gravel diggers, and

186

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

A) B) Chard 1) Furze Platt 2) Roebuck & Cookham es e Grovelands Pits ham x Chard Junction pits R. T 1 A 3) Toot’s Farm Pit . l R Broom pits e n Maidenhead an h C t n e ci Kilmington Axminster n Twyford pits A N 3 N Reading Caversham 2 Boyn Hill Terrace Terrace gravels Lynch Hill Terrace 0 2 4km (approximate extent) 0 2 4km

Figure B

R. Thames (Post-Anglian diversion)

Figure A R. Axe N

0 50 100km

Figure 2: Key locations discussed in the text (after Wymer 1999: Maps 6 & 7; Shakesby & Stephens 1984: Fig. 1)

George Smith (Figure 3) combined his activities as a Caversham banker with the collection of a large quantity of local antiquities, including Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts: ―as a young man in the Bank...He would run all the way to Caversham and back in his lunch hour to secure a specimen from a gravel pit‖ (Smallcombe & Collins 1946: 62). His extensive local collection is comparable only to that of the Treachers. However the Smith material is characterised both by a prevalence of ‗choice‘ artefacts and a rather uneven documentation (ibid: 62–63). Much

of his lithic material, both Palaeolithic and Figure 3: Llewellyn Treacher (second from that of later periods, was unmarked. Where right) and George Smith (second from left) in labelled, details typically include reference Cannoncourt Farm Gravel Pit, Furze Platt, May to a particular gravel pit, with information 1931. [© Reading Museum Service (Reading regarding artefact depth and other details Borough Council), all rights reserved] very rare (ibid: 64). The collection was

187

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) deposited with Reading Museum, along with addressed the geology, and archaeology, Smith‘s three volumes of notes and short of the Thames Valley. Perhaps most entries relating to his various discoveries significant was the work of Smith and between 1885 and 1941 (Smallcombe & Dewey (e.g. 1913) at Swanscombe in the Collins 1946: 64; Wymer 1968: 137). 1910s, and the increasing acceptance of a ‗standard‘ sequence in this period has been argued by O‘Connor (2007: 223) to THE WIDER CONTEXT be reflected in the number of apparent ‗anomalies‘ which were being recorded The activities of Bean, Smith, and the (such anomalies included, for some, Treachers were of course occurring against a Warren‘s Mesvinian from Clacton-on- rich background of research into Palaeolithic Sea). Finally, considerable attention was archaeology and Pleistocene geology (see also being paid to the continent, O‘Connor 2007 for an excellent review). The including Victor Commont‘s work in the period between the 1880s and the 1930s can Somme (Tuffreau, this volume). be broadly divided into four phases (for Perhaps unsurprisingly in light of the details of aspects of the ‗first eolith debate‘ earlier attention paid to the Somme and of the 1890s see McNabb, this volume): other mainland European sequences, the 1920s saw British researchers querying The 1880s and 1890s saw a shift from the apparent contrast between the the use of numerous individual tool continent (where Palaeolithic industries descriptions and classificatory schemes were argued to span multiple glacial and (and concerns with differences and interglacial periods) and the ‗home‘ view similarities between the artefacts of the (a pre- and post-glacial model). Re- caves and the river drift) towards an excavations of High Lodge, Hoxne, and acceptance of Gabriel de Mortillet‘s Foxhall Road by Marr (1921), Moir ‗standard terminology‘ (e.g. de Mortillet (1927) and Boswell & Moir (1923; see & de Mortillet 1900). In geological terms also White & Plunkett 2004 with regards the leading debate was between a view of to Nina Layard‘s earlier work at Foxhall multiple glacials and interglacials, Road) resulted in a widespread principally advocated by James Geikie acceptance of two glacials and an (e.g. 1894), and a single glacial model interglacial, although their correlation (with post-glacial Palaeolithic artefacts), with the four Alpine glaciations remained with the majority opinion supporting this problematic. Doubts were also being latter view (O‘Connor 2007: Ch. 2). raised about the use of archaeology to Finally this was also a period punctuated explain the geological record, and by the by outstanding work into the tool-making mid-1920s the linear Palaeolithic techniques and lifestyles of Palaeolithic sequence had been replaced by the notion people, for example by Worthington- of parallel tool-making cultures, mostly Smith (Roe, this volume) and F.C.J. thanks to the Abbé Breuil (Davies, this Spurrell (Scott & Shaw, this volume). volume) and Dorothy Garrod (Price, this Work in the 1900s and 1910s was volume). concerned with identifying a relative The 1930s saw the re-defining of certain chronological sequence for Britain‘s industries and the manner in which they Palaeolithic artefacts, and resolving the were utilised, especially within large- number, and order, of distinct geological scale models and syntheses such as those periods. Harmer (e.g. 1910) and Boswell of Breuil. These industries included the (e.g. 1914), among others, explored the Clactonian, sub-divided into four stages glacial deposits of East Anglia, while (e.g. Oakley & Leakey 1937), while a Hinton and Kennard (e.g. 1905) chronological series of handaxe phases

188

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

(the Abbevillian and Acheulean I–VII) Bean collected artefacts from Pratt‘s Old Pit, were argued to run parallel to these flake and occasionally from Pratt‘s New Pit, and industries (e.g. Breuil & Koslowski compiled an invaluable series of field notes 1931). This period also saw ongoing (Figure 4), site plans and section drawings debates regarding artefact/geological (Figure 4), and a photographic archive deposit correlations, principally the (Figure 5) between September 1932 and glacial and fluvial sediments of East October 1941, over the course of 93 visits. Anglia and the Thames Valley (e.g. the relationships between the Clacton Visit frequency, the lengths of intervals Channel and the Swanscombe deposits, between visits, and the rate of artefact and the attempts, particularly by Kenneth acquisition varied markedly, with Bean Oakley (King & Oakley 1936), to sometimes only visiting the homes of the maintain the expected sequence of quarrymen and not the pits (Green 1988; Clactonian phases (for further details see Hosfield & Green forthcoming). Bean both McNabb 1996; O‘Connor 2007: Ch. 10). purchased artefacts from the quarrymen and directly collected from the pit faces, with his own acquisitions including cores, flakes and BEAN & BROOM possible manuports as well as bifaces (although Roe (1968: 25) noted during a visit The Broom locality consists of a sequence of in the 1960s that numerous stacked trays of Middle Pleistocene fluvial sediments, OSL ‗lesser flakes‘ had been overgrown by dated to approximately 250–300 kya (Toms grasses and weeds in Bean‘s garden). In et al. 2005; Hosfield & Chambers in press). general the average interval between Bean‘s At least 1,800 Lower Palaeolithic artefacts, appearances at Broom was less than 30 days, probably locally re-worked (cf. Moir 1936; although there were specific periods of Green 1988; Hosfield & Chambers in press), sustained month-to-month activity, most are associated with the sediments. The notably between late 1934 to early 1936 and assemblage is predominantly made up of late 1936 to late 1939. One factor Acheulean bifaces, the majority produced in influencing this visit frequency may have locally available chert. The Broom been the cost of the artefacts: assemblage is notable for the distinctive, asymmetrical plan-form of approximately “Feb 1936…Dowel (old) had good one quarter of the bifaces and the site‘s one…10”…from Perry + Perry’s…sold it relative richness compared to the numbers of 14/6 to man at cottage for his Lower Palaeolithic artefacts elsewhere in the boss…conclude items now too dear for me” south-west region (Wymer 1999: 181–188; (C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, Hosfield et al. 2006). As the assemblage Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4; February taphonomy strongly suggests that the 1936) artefacts are broadly contemporary with the age of the sediments, the biface-dominance During late 1941 Bean documented his is in contrast with the shift to prepared core artefact collections from Broom, according (Levallois)-dominated technologies in the to a range of criteria, including shape, south- around this time (M.J. condition, year of recovery, and metrics, White et al. 2006). with the individual records tabulated as part of his archive (Figure 6). Interestingly his 17 Broom lies in the valley of the river Axe, and shape-based biface categories were its Pleistocene sediments and archaeology idiosyncratic and appear to have been were exposed through commercial gravel defined specifically for the Broom material. working of three pits during the latter half of It is curious that Bean adopted his own the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. categories, since he also used widely-shared

189

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) terminology of the period on other understanding of the site and its material occasions: extend far beyond the collection of the artefacts themselves. Bean‘s site plans and “St Acheul & clean Clacton III [flake sections, including carefully surveyed industries of the High Lodge and Barnfield heights using a Topographic Abney Level, Pit Middle Gravel type] brought there in have enabled reconstructions of the site semi-frozen clay etc…” datum, the development of Pratt‘s Old Pit, (C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, and the elevations of the key sediment Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4; 22nd May bodies (Green 1988). His field descriptions 1938; RTH‘s comments in []) underpinned both general (Moir 1936) and more detailed (Green 1988) discussions of Bean‘s field notes also highlight that he was the Broom fluvial sequence, and continue to aware of a number of important Palaeolithic do so (Green & Hosfield forthcoming; issues (both then and now), ranging from the Hosfield et al. forthcoming; Hosfield & potential presence of in situ material to Chambers in press), while the detailed questions of raw material availability and documentation of his artefact acquisitions interpretations of early human behaviour: between 1932 and 1941 is suggestive of localised biface variations within the fluvial “…Have the unrolled ones fallen through a sediments. sheet of ice when men were hunting animals going to drink at waterholes in the ice. All fits in except the flakes and chips. Did they live on the ice which was deserted when thaw set in?” (C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4; 13th January 1935)

However Bean‘s interpretations were essentially ‗local‘ in character: concerned with the nature of the early humans and their Palaeolithic occupation at Broom, rather than with the 1930s‘ wider issues of industrial sequences and geological correlations. By contrast Moir‘s (1936: 267–268) Broom paper was at least partially concerned with establishing a sequence of chronologically distinct industries, making reference to Early and Late Acheulean handaxes and Clacton III material of the Third Inter-Glacial, and comparing the implementiferous deposits with the ―100‘ terrace of the Lower Thames Valley‖.

While Bean never formally published his collections and observations, he clearly influenced Moir (―I have received invaluable Figure 4: Example of C.E. Bean’s field notes and help from Mr C.E. Bean‖; Moir 1936: 266), sketches for Broom. [C.E. Bean archive; Dorset and Bean‘s unpublished archive further County Museum, Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4] reveals that his contributions to current

190

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

Figure 5: Panorama of the lower gravels at the eastern end and north-eastern corner of Pratt’s Old Pit, 14th July 1935. Compiled from C.E. Bean’s photographic archive. [C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4]

191

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Barnstaple and Exeter Museums). However, the regularity of Bean‘s visits to Broom, combined with his well-established contacts and familiarity with the quarrymen, assisted him in evaluating provenance and highlighting the less eye-catching elements of the assemblage:

“He said none were found in the lower beds. I am afraid they miss them as I picked up a rough one. He said “we don’t bother about these”.” (C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4; 26th June 1938)

Bean‘s frequent presence therefore resulted in a rich documentary record in comparison with those for the Broom artefacts in other museum collections, as well as the regular collection of non-bifacial artefacts and atypical or ‗non-classic‘ bifaces (after Figure 6: Example of C.E. Bean’s artefact Ashton & McNabb 1994). At the same time records for Broom. [C.E. Bean archive; Dorset it is clear that Broom would not have been County Museum, Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4] neglected or ignored as a Palaeolithic site without Bean‘s activities, since the numbers It is evident from his archive however that of artefacts collected from the Railway Bean was not the only recipient of artefacts, Ballast Pit during the late 19th century (a with material being sent and sold to other minimum of 300) had already highlighted collectors: Broom as one of the major Lower Palaeolithic localities in the south-west “The good one last week still eludes me…I region: to date only the known findspots in hear Spurway sends them to a Professor in the Vale of Taunton (Norman 2000) and London…” along the Avon (Roe 1971; Wymer (C.E. Bean archive; Dorset County Museum, 1999: 184–186) are comparable in scale. th Dorchester: DORCM 1986.40.1–4; 7 April Without Bean it is likely that greater 1935) numbers of Broom artefacts would simply have made their way into the hands of other, These references demonstrate how well ‗remote‘ collectors. established the Broom locality was as a source of Palaeolithic artefacts. The earliest In summary, the status of Broom as a key collections were made from the Railway Lower Palaeolithic artefact assemblage from th Ballast Pit in the latter part of the 19 the south-west, and its dominance of the century, when Broom artefacts were again regional record, would have survived with or being purchased by remote collectors, without the activities of C.E. Bean. including Worthington Smith (O‘Connor Nonetheless the richness and reliability of 2007: 89–90). Bean himself was familiar the Bean archive (artefact records, field notes with this history of Broom collecting, and and sketches, survey heights, and site knew of the locations of at least some of the photographs) has greatly facilitated current artefacts from the Ballast Pit (e.g. at re-analysis of the site along the lines of the

192

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith recent studies of Swanscombe (Conway et Treachers‘ emphasis upon documenting al. 1996) and Foxhall Road (White & artefact provenance, at least to a site level Plunkett 2004), and highlights the key role of (Wymer 1968; although not all sites are now the local, ‗non-professional‘ archaeologist. identifiable: Cranshaw 1983: 6); their involvement in the purchase, exchange, and sale of artefacts, and the potential transfer of THE TREACHERS, SMITH & THE specimens between pits (Dewey 1944; MIDDLE THAMES Cranshaw 1983); and the limited nature of the Treachers‘ published records (ibid: 3–4). The post-diversion Middle Thames Yet while Llewellyn published no significant represents one of the key Palaeolithic papers during his lifetime (cf. M.S. Treacher landscapes in Britain (Figure 2), with a rich et al. 1948), his short Geologists‘ archaeology and well documented series of Association excursion reports contain Pleistocene landforms and sediments valuable, if brief, observations: e.g. ―but in (Wymer 1968; Gibbard 1985; Bridgland the lower pits [at Boyn Hill and Furze Platt] 1994; Wymer 1999). The post-Anglian instruments of the finest Acheulien [sic] type glaciation landforms begin with the Ancient are occasionally found, which is not the case Channel (Black Park Terrace) between in the upper pits‖ (L. Treacher & White Caversham and Henley-on-Thames, 1909: 198–199). Similarly Mabel‘s representing the course of the river during notebooks, especially book III, contain the late Anglian (MIS-12). After the valuable dated diary entries and references to abandonment of the Ancient Channel at the key sites such as Toot‘s Farm, Furze Platt, end of the Anglian, the Thames remained and Lent Rise. within its current valley, with a relatively limited southward migration resulting in the The ongoing and long-term nature of the extensive removal of earlier terrace deposits Treachers‘ gravel pit visits is also much as the river incised c. 30m, down through the evident from their papers, with for example Boyn Hill to the Shepperton terraces and the acquisition of artefacts from Highland‘s gravels to the present floodplain level Farm in 1889, 1892 and 1925 (M.S. Treacher (Bridgland 1994). et al. 1948: 136). These working practices are especially valuable as they highlight the The lives and works of both the Treachers apparent clustering of artefacts within the and, to a lesser extent, Smith have been excavated deposits (―After five years of previously discussed (H.J.O White 1943; yielding nothing, Kennylands suddenly Dewey 1944; Smallcombe & Collins 1946; became the most productive pit of the Wymer 1968; Cranshaw 1983), and the [Ancient] Channel‖; M.S. Treacher et al. reader is referred to these sources for fuller 1948: 131) and provide support for details. The following discussions draw upon evaluating the ‗absence of evidence, the Treachers‘ own papers, including evidence of absence‘ problem: ―I have Llewellyn‘s short Geologists‘ Association repeatedly searched the gravel at Remenham excursion reports (L. Treacher 1896, 1899, for implements, but hitherto without the least 1904, 1905, 1910, 1911, 1916, 1926, 1934; result‖ (L. Treacher 1896: 43). L. Treacher & White 1906, 1909, 1910; M.S. Treacher et al. 1948), and the Smith archive Although Llewellyn impressed upon the and the various papers annotated by Mabel quarrymen the importance of exact Treacher, held at Reading Museum. provenance information, this was made difficult by the working practice of digging The Treachers away at the base of gravel layers until the undercut gravels collapsed into the pit Previous authors have highlighted the (Cranshaw 1983: 2): the majority of

193

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) implements were collected by the workmen The enduring quality of his observations is when ―shovelling ‗falled‘ [sic] material‖ perhaps best reflected in his work‘s (M.S. Treacher et al. 1948: 137). acknowledgement by Lacaille (1940) and in Stratigraphic information was consequently the notable similarities between Llewellyn‘s either unobtainable or rather imprecise, writing and that of Arkell and Oakley (both although entries in the Treachers‘ diaries and of whom were aware of Treacher‘s earlier papers indicate that they were fully aware of views), although the presence of Mabel as a its value when it could be obtained: ―The co-author on the later paper may well also [Kennylands] pit is now about 30 ft. deep have been a factor: with a clay band about two thirds of the way up. The men say that the implements are “...Palaeolithic Man sought out spots where found just above this band‖ (05/12/1933, suitable flints were easily obtainable, quoted in M.S. Treacher et al. 1948: 137); probably on the banks of a stream, and there ―Most of the [Toot‘s Farm] implements were he sat down and chipped out his tools...Then found at the base of No. 4 [a unit of sandy the stream shifted its course, or a flood of gravel]‖ (L. Treacher 1904: 17). waters came and spread a deposit of gravel over the place, covering up past recovery... Llewellyn Treacher ascribed to the view that At the same time, the flood would take up Palaeolithic artefacts could be used as ―zone some of the implements and roll them about fossils‖ to aid in distinguishing the various among the gravel or wash them down deposits of the Thames and its tributaries. stream. In this way we may account for the Although he doubted the validity of the isolated specimens found which are almost numerous Acheulean and Mousterian sub- all much abraded.” stages proposed in the 1930s (Dewey 1944: (L. Treacher 1896: 17–18) 43; O‘Connor 2007: Ch. 9), the very presence of those doubts reveal his and “...wandering groups of hunters settled for a Mabel‘s awareness of the wider research time to manufacture thousands of issues of the day. implements upon the river bank...The meanderings and minor oscillations of river The Treachers‘ observations also level...[caused] the river to sweep over the demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of habitation sites and incorporate many of the artefact condition and context, and the implements in the gravels. Some of the archaeological implications of this evidence. implements were not shifted far from the spot At Ruscombe Brickyard for example, where they were dropped and consequently Llewellyn observed four or five implements they remain fresh and unrolled; others were associated with sharp and unworn waste carried perhaps for miles along the gravel flakes, lying on or slightly into the bed, or swept to and fro for centuries, and underlying clay, which were in marked consequently became more or less rolled contrast to the bruised and worn artefacts before they came to rest. In this way can be found within the overlying gravels (L. explained the almost universal occurrence of Treacher 1896: 41). The abraded nature of rolled and unrolled implements side by side artefacts from the gravel at Twyford was in the same gravel” argued by Llewellyn to indicate that they (M.S. Treacher et al. 1948: 153) were derived from the higher level Ruscombe gravels (ibid: 41), while with As well as a familiarity with the emerging specific regard to the Ruscombe implements ‗standard‘ typological categories of the day he was at pains to observe that: ―There is no (e.g. L. Treacher 1896: 18 & 42; L. Treacher reason to suppose that these differences in 1904), Llewellyn also gave consideration to colour and condition are any test of the a now-familiar range of technological and relative age of the implements‖ (ibid: 41). behavioural issues:

194

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

“Possibly the owners, having broken off the Smith‘s collecting was locally focused and points while using the implements, simply sustained. His activity at the Toot‘s Farm Pit trimmed the ends again to form fresh points in Caversham (Figure 2B) in particular [see also McPherron (1995), Ashton (2008) highlights his association with nearby sites for recent examples of handaxe re- over a number of years. His journal first sharpening/reduction intensity debates].” mentions Toot‘s Farm in January 1892 (L. Treacher 1896: 42) (Smith‘s diaries: entries 6–16), although it is possible that his earliest acquisition of “In general the implements are not well artefacts from the site occurred in 1890 (see wrought, being often nothing but nodules of Wymer 1968: 137 for details). His collecting flint with a few chips taken from them to continued until 1905, keeping pace with bring them to a point [see also Ashton & local changes: in 1898 Smith recovered McNabb (1994), M.J. White (1998) for artefacts from the Old Toots Pit ―now being recent examples of raw material conditioning turned into a tennis lawn‖ (Smith‘s diaries: and handaxe variability debates].” entry 13; Wymer 1968: 137), while in 1903 (L. Treacher 1896: 18) he refers to Toot‘s Pit as the ‗little pit round the corner of Darell Road‘ (Wymer 1968: George Smith 137), suggesting that the gravel digging, and Smith‘s collecting activities, were shifting Despite his extensive collections the location in line with house building. By the notebooks left to Reading Museum by G.W. end of 1905 houses had been built across the Smith are rather limited, although his plan of site, and Smith turned elsewhere. His swift Palaeolithic localities in and around Reading awareness of local collecting opportunities (modified in Wymer 1968: Fig. 47) is an are also evident at the Roebuck Pit in invaluable resource. The notebook entries Tilehurst (Figure 2B) where Smith had are typically brief, although listed dates do acquired a collection of fresh condition allow the life of pits to be documented (e.g. handaxes within just a few months of the from at least 1892 to 1905 in the case of opening of the pit in 1910. Toot‘s Farm Pit, Caversham; Wymer 1968: 137–138). Smallcombe & Collins (1946: 63) However Smith was not solely restricted to described the notebooks as containing ―much Reading and Caversham, with the Middle irrelevant data and many gaps‖, and Thames‘ artefacts in his Reading Museum particularly frustrating are the occasional collections coming from as far east as vagaries with regards to site names. Cookham and Maidenhead (Figure 2B), ‗Caversham Hill‘ was initially used to while his journal documents his friendship describe material from Toot‘s Farm, and with G. ―Deffy‖ Carter, finder at Furze Platt while many of these artefacts were later of Britain‘s largest Palaeolithic handaxe corrected to ‗Toot‘s Farm‘, leaving their (Wymer 1968: 214–228 & Fig. 79). The provenance in no doubt, the origin of those Reading Museum collection also reveals that pieces only marked ‗Caversham Hill‘ is Smith acquired artefacts from further afield, more uncertain. Smallcombe & Collins presumably through exchanges and/or (1946: 62–64) also highlighted Smith‘s purchases, with material from British selective collecting and tendency to ignore Palaeolithic sites in East Anglia and the flakes (―only the more shapely examples or Solent (there are also archaeological and those with fine retouch were collected... ethnographic pieces from across Europe and Core-tools are thus unduly prominent‖), the Americas). although they also suggest that his approaches to collecting became more all- The Smith, and Treacher, archives also hint encompassing during the last 15 or 20 years at the changing nature of artefact collecting of his life (i.e. the post-1920s). opportunities in the Middle Thames during

195

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) the first part of the 20th century. Within Wymer (1968: 131) and Mabel Treacher et Reading and Caversham the contexts of the al. (1948: 130) noted that great collections of exposed gravels broadly shift after the First palaeoliths from Reading and Caversham World War from large gravel pits (e.g. were made by Joseph Stevens (the first Toot‘s Farm Pit and Grovelands Pit) to curator of Reading Museum), Shrubsole and smaller urban infrastructure projects (e.g. the Overy, with Shrubsole (1890) claiming the laying down of the main Caversham find of the first Reading palaeolith (in 1879) drainage in 1931–1932, in Highmoor Road and Stevens (1881) providing the first and Harrowgate Road; Wymer 1968: 144). published record, again describing finds Both Smith and the Treachers were sensitive made in 1879. Llewellyn himself noted that to these changing opportunities, making Toot‘s Farm had yielded 600–700 artefacts frequent visits to Caversham after 1918. by 1904 (L. Treacher 1904: 17), while his and George Smith‘s museum collections Despite the notebooks‘ gaps, Smith‘s from that site only total 328 artefacts observational skills are evident in his entries. (Wymer 1968: 137 & 141; although the At McIlroy‘s Pit he documented the shortfall may be partly explained by provenances of a series of well-made pointed Treacher‘s trading and exchanging of his handaxes: ―from a mixture of clay and gravel own artefacts rather than by the activities of — a kind of pocket‖, ―from under 12 ft. other collectors; Cranshaw 1983: 2–3). In the gravel on clay‖, ―in situ on clay and loam case of the prolific Grovelands Pit the after overlying gravel and clay had been majority of the artefacts in Reading Museum removed‖ (quoted in Wymer 1968: 150). At are not annotated as belonging to the Smith the Black Horse Pit on Caversham Hill he collection (162 of 212, 76.4%; after Wymer provides valuable data on the heights of the 1968: 155), while the richer publication artefacts within the gravel: ―said to be from records of both Stevens (1881, 1882, 1894) the base of the gravel‖ (Smith‘s diaries: and Shrubsole (1885, 1890, 1893, 1898) on 24/12/1912), ―in situ 7 feet from top‖ the artefacts and gravels of Reading and its (Smith‘s diaries: 18/10/1913), ―all found in surroundings are also notable in comparison the loose sandy level about 8 feet from the to Smith, especially, and also the Treachers surface of the ground in the same layer as the (excluding Llewellyn‘s Geologists‘ other implements from this pit‖ (Smith‘s Association reports). Wymer (1968: 131) has diaries: 1915; quoted in M.S. Treacher et al. further suggested that collecting in 1948: 137). Caversham declined after Stevens‘ death in 1899, although the closure of Toot‘s Farm The Contemporaries of Smith and the Pit in 1905 must also have been a factor in Treachers the decline.

While Smith and the Treachers can Although Wymer (1968: 168) has noted that occasionally be uniquely associated with a Stevens did little collecting outside of single site (e.g. Smith and Roebuck‘s Pit; Reading and Caversham, Llewellyn Treacher Wymer 1968: 149–150), a number of other (1896: 16–17 & 40) made contemporary collectors were active in the Middle Thames, reference to other local collectors who were both before and after them (Table 1). There active beyond these areas: for example ‗Mr was undoubtedly knowledge exchange and J. Rutland and others‘ with regard to the low sharing between them (Shrubsole 1890: 584 level gravels near Taplow Station, and O.A. & 591; H.J.O. White 1943: xc), with Shrubsole, who in 1890 reported finding and Reading Museum‘s Smith collection obtaining artefacts from Twyford and the including artefacts noted as ―formerly in Ruscombe pits. The key factors were of Treacher collection‖ for example. course available opportunities, combined with the presence of interested and

196

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

Collector Key Sites/Localities Active Period(s) Reference Rev. C. Overy Caversham Heights (e.g. - M.S. Treacher et al. Kidmore Road) (1948: 130) E.W. Dormer Kidmore Road Pit - Wymer (1968: 148) W.A. Smallcombe Denton‘s Pit Early 1930s Wymer (1968: 131) J. Stevens Caversham; Grovelands Pit; 1879–1899 Stevens (1882, 1894); Maidenhead; Redlands; Wymer (1968: 131) Shiplake; Taplow O.A. Shrubsole Caversham; Charvil Hill; 1879–at least 1902 Shrubsole (1885, Grovelands Pit; Redlands; 1890) Ruscombe; Shiplake; Toot‘s Farm Pit

Table 1: The role of other collectors in the Middle Thames region knowledgeable participants, as indicated by artefact searches. The Treachers and G.W. the recovery of flakes and cores from Smith were by no means the only such Denton‘s Pit by W.A. Smallcombe (curator figures in the region, but they were key of Reading Museum, 1928–1958) in the players nonetheless. early 1930s (the pit had been expanding from 1877 onwards; Wymer 1968: 131). CONCLUSION In summary, the majority of major sites in the Middle Thames were targeted by The importance of C.E. Bean, G.W. Smith multiple collectors, a consequence of the and Mabel and Llewellyn Treacher does not sites‘ reputations as rich artefact sources, the lie in their discovery of exceptional sites (cf. length of their ‗working lives‘, and the large Roe, this volume) or in a legacy of population of the Thames Valley. groundbreaking publications and frameworks Unsurprisingly it was often the smaller, (cf. Davies; Pettitt, this volume). In their short-lived, sites which were the preserves of activities they represent the many, many individuals. However the role of specific other local collectors, both in Britain and local collectors in developing understanding elsewhere, whose researches have helped to of particular contexts within the wider provide the fundamental buildings blocks of Palaeolithic landscape, for example the Palaeolithic record. It is true that in their individual terraces, is still apparent in the absence other collectors would most likely Middle Thames: Mabel Treacher et al. have stepped into their , and that the (1948) highlight Llewellyn‘s ‗constant‘ publication of their work was highly observation of, and collection of artefacts variable. And yet their contributions as from, the Caversham Ancient Channel, and individuals are also worthy of highlighting. his early observations regarding the Bean‘s detailed archiving has facilitated the significance of the deposits. While in their ongoing analyses of a dominant regional early years both Smith and Llewellyn assemblage, while the sustained activities of Treacher were working alongside other the Treachers and Smith reveal changing active collectors (e.g. Stevens and patterns in deposit richness over time. Their Shrubsole), their ongoing work during the researches were also frequently first four decades of the twentieth century characterised, if not always documented, by was a key factor in the continued sound fieldwork skills and an appreciation of compilation of large artefact collections from archaeological issues. the gravels of the Middle Thames. The legacy of such work is not only in the While their idiosyncrasies in publication, richness of the artefact collections, but also selectivity, and trading are frequently a in the evidence of unsuccessful periods of source of frustration to new researchers,

197

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) much more information would undoubtedly Somme. L’Anthropologie 41: 449–488. have been lost in their absence. The ongoing Bridgland, D.R. 1994. Quaternary of the Thames. Chapman & Hall (Geological Conservation Review challenge is to draw sense and meaning from Series), London. their collections as they are, not as we would Conway, B., McNabb, J. & Ashton, N.M. 1996. wish them to be. But a last word on the Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe 1968– frustrations of the human artefact record is 1972. British Museum (Occasional Paper No. 94), perhaps best left, with thanks, to Mabel: London. Cranshaw, S. 1983. Handaxes and Cleavers: Selected English Acheulian Industries. BAR (British Series “The everlasting implements always No. 113), Oxford. annoyed me; they would not talk, would not de Mortillet, G. & de Mortillet, A. 1900. Le tell. And now when at last made to talk, what Préhistorique; origine et antiquité de l’homme (3rd scandal! They are messing up the Thames Edition). Reinwald, Paris. and my husband’s work.” Dewey, H. 1944. Llewellyn Treacher. Proceedings of th the Geologists’ Association 55(1): 42–4. (Mabel Treacher, February 24 1946; quoted Geikie, J. 1894. The Great Ice Age and its Relation to in Cranshaw 1983: 9) the Antiquity of Man (3rd Edition). Edward Stanford, London. Gibbard, P.L. 1985. The Pleistocene History of the Middle Thames Valley. Cambridge University ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Press, Cambridge. Green, C.P. 1988. The Palaeolithic site at Broom, Thanks to the Dorset County Museum, Dorchester, Dorset, 1932–41: from the record of C.E. Bean, and in particular Peter Woodward, for granting Esq., F.S.A. Proceedings of the Geologists’ permission to reproduce quotes and images from the Association 99: 173–80. C.E. Bean archive (DORCM 1986.40.1–4). Thanks Green, C.P. & Hosfield, R.T. Forthcoming. New also to Reading Museum and Jill Greenaway for Investigations at Broom. In R.T. Hosfield & C.P. facilitating access to the G.W. Smith notebooks, and Green (eds.) The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Broom. the Reading Museum database and Smith collection Oxbow Books, Oxford. card index (© Reading Museum Service (Reading Harmer, F.W. 1910. The Glacial Geology of Norfolk Borough Council), all rights reserved), and for and Suffolk. Jarrold & Sons, London. providing a digital copy of the photograph of G.W. Hinton, M.A.C. & Kennard, A.S. 1905. The Relative Smith and Llewellyn Treacher (Figure 3). Thanks also Ages of the Stone Age Implements of the Thames to Matt Pope for valuable discussions on aspects of Valley. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association this paper, and to the two anonymous referees for 19: 76–100. their comments on an earlier version. Hosfield, R.T., Brown, A.G., Basell, L. & Hounsell, S. 2006. Beyond the caves: The Palaeolithic Rivers of South-West Britain. Geoscience in South-West REFERENCES England 11(3): 183–90. Hosfield, R.T. & Chambers, J.C. In press. Genuine Diversity? The Broom Biface Assemblage. Ashton, N.M. 2008. Transport, curation and Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75. resharpening of lithics in the Lower Palaeolithic. Hosfield, R.T. & Green, C.P. Forthcoming. History of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society Research: The Bean Archive. In R.T. Hosfield & 29: 6–17. C.P. Green (eds.) The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Ashton, N.M. & McNabb, J. 1994. Bifaces in Broom. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Perspective. In N.M. Ashton & N. David (eds.) Hosfield, R.T., Marshall, G.D. & Chambers, J.C. Stories in Stone: 182–91. Lithic Studies Society Forthcoming. The Broom Lithic Assemblage. In (Occasional Paper No. 4), London. R.T. Hosfield & C.P. Green (eds.) The Lower Boswell, P.G.H. 1914. On the Occurrence of the Palaeolithic Site at Broom. Oxbow Books, Oxford. North Sea Drift (Lower Glacial) and Certain other King, W.B.R. & Oakley, K.P. 1936. The Pleistocene Brick-Earths, in Suffolk. Proceedings of the Succession in the Lower Part of the Thames Geologists’ Association 25: 121–153. Valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2: Boswell, P.G.H. & Moir, J.R. 1923. The Pleistocene 52–76. Deposits and their Contained Palaeolithic Flint Lacaille, A.D. 1940. The Palaeoliths from the Gravels Implements at Foxhall Road, Ipswich. Journal of of the Lower Boyn Hill Terrace around the Royal Anthropological Institute 53: 229–262. Maidenhead. The Antiquaries Journal XX(2): 245– Breuil, H. & Kozlowski, L. 1931. Etudes de 271. stratigraphie paléolithique dans le nord de la Marr, J.E. 1921. Excavations at High Lodge, France, la Belgique et l‘Angleterre: la vallée de la

198

R. Hosfield: C.E. Bean, Llewellyn and Mabel Treacher & George Smith

Mildenhall, in 1920 A.D. Report on the Geology. Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1913. Stratification at Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Swanscombe: Report on Excavations made on Anglia iii: 353–367. Behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Geological McNabb, J. 1996. Through the Looking Glass: An Survey. Archaeologia 64: 177–204. Historical Perspective on Archaeological Research Stevens, J. 1881. Palaeolithic Flint Implements, with at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe, ca. 1900–1964. In Mammalian Remains, in the Quaternary Drift at B. Conway, J. McNabb & N.M. Ashton (eds.) Reading. Journal of the British Archaeological Excavations at Barnfield Pit, Swanscombe 1968– Association 37: 1–11. 1972: 31–51. British Museum (Occasional Paper Stevens, J. 1882. On the Earliest Known Traces of No. 94), London. Man in the Thames Drift, at Reading. Reports and McPherron, S. 1995. A re-examination of the British Transactions of the Berkshire Archaeological and biface data. Lithics: The Newsletter of the Lithic Architectural Society 1881–1882: 1–18. Studies Society 16: 47–63. Stevens, J. 1894. The Geology of the Thames Valley Moir, J.R. 1927. The Silted-up Lake of Hoxne and its at Shiplake, with an account of the Palaeolithic Contained Flint Implements. Proceedings of the Implements found in the Drift-Gravel. In E.J. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia v: 137–165. Climenson (ed.) The History of Shiplake: 420–7. Moir, J.R. 1936. Ancient Man in Devon. Proceedings Eyre & Spottiswoode, London. of the Devon Archaeological Exploration Society Toms, P., Hosfield, R.T., Chambers, J.C., Green, C.P. 2: 264–75. & Marshall, P. 2005. Optical dating of the Broom Oakley, K.P. & Leakey, M. 1937. Report on Palaeolithic sites, Devon & Dorset. English Excavations at Jaywick Sands, Essex (1934), with Heritage, London. some Observations on the Clactonian Industry, and Treacher, L. 1896. Palaeolithic Man in East Berks. on the Fauna and Geological Significance of the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Clacton Channel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Archaeological Journal 2: 16–8 & 39–43. Society 3: 217–260. Treacher, L. 1899. Excursion to Cookham. Norman, C. 2000. Early humans in the Vale of Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 15: Taunton — a new perspective. In C. Webster (ed.) 101–4. Somerset Archaeology: 53–8. Somerset County Treacher, L. 1904. On the occurrence of stone Council, Taunton. implements in the Thames Valley between Reading O‘Connor, A. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone and Maidenhead. Man 10: 17–9. Age: A History of Palaeolithic Archaeology and Treacher, L. 1905. Some notes on the Parish of Quaternary Geology in Britain, 1860–1960. Ruscombe, Berks. Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxford University Press, Oxford. Oxfordshire Archaeological Journal 11: 43–6. PDNHAS. 1983. Charles Edward Bean, 1892–1983 Treacher, L. 1910. Excursion to Sonning. Proceedings Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and of the Geologists’ Association 21: 533–4. Archaeological Society 105: 179–83. Treacher, L. 1911. Excursion to Hedgerley and Roe, D.A. 1971. Palaeolithic Artefacts from the River Burnham Beeches. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Avon terraces near Bristol. Proceedings of the Association 22: 21–4. University of Bristol Speleological Society 13(3): Treacher, L. 1916. Excursion to Bourne End. 319–26. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 27: Roe, D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic 107–9. Periods in Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Treacher, L. 1926. Excursion to Shiplake. London. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 37: Shrubsole, O.A. 1885. On certain less familiar forms 440–2. of Palaeolithic Implements from the Gravel at Treacher, L. 1934. Field Meeting in the Marlow Reading. The Journal of the Anthropological District. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 14: 192–200. Association 45: 107–8. Shrubsole, O.A. 1890. On the Valley-gravels about Treacher, L. & White, H.J.O. 1906. Excursion to Reading, with especial reference to the Palaeolithic Marlow. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Implements found in them. Quarterly Journal of Association 19: 155–9. the Geological Society of London 46: 582–94. Treacher, L. & White, H.J.O. 1909. Excursion to Shrubsole, O.A. 1893. On the Plateau-Gravel South of Maidenhead. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Reading. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Association 21: 198–201. Society of London 49: 320–4. Treacher, L. & White, H.J.O. 1910. Excursion to Shrubsole, O.A. 1898. High Level Gravels in Taplow and Burnham Beeches. Proceedings of the Berkshire and Oxfordshire. Quarterly Journal of Geologists’ Association 21: 396–400. the Geological Society of London 54: 585–600. Treacher, M.S., Arkell, W.J. & Oakley, K.P. 1948. On Smallcombe, W.A. & Collins, A.E.P. 1946. The Late the Ancient Channel between Caversham and George W. Smith of Reading. Berkshire Henley, Oxfordshire, and its contained Flint Archaeological Journal 49: 62–4. Implements. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

199

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

14: 126–54. White, M.J., Scott, R. & Ashton, N.M. 2006. The White, H.J.O. 1943. Llewellyn Treacher. Proceedings Early Middle Palaeolithic in Britain: archaeology, of the Geological Society of London 99: xc. settlement history and human behaviour. Journal of White, M.J. 1998. On the significance of Acheulean Quaternary Science 21(5): 525–41. biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in of the Prehistoric Society 64: 15–44. Britain, as Represented by the Thames Valley. John White, M.J. & Plunkett, S. 2004. Miss Layard Baker, London. Excavates: a Palaeolithic site at Foxhall Road, Wymer, J.J. 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic Ipswich, 1903–1905. Western Academic & Occupation of Britain. Wessex Archaeology & Specialist Press Limited, Liverpool. English Heritage, Salisbury.

200

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

FRANÇOIS BORDES

Paul Pettitt

Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

François Bordes was one of the most influential Palaeolithic archaeologists in the western European and North American paradigms. In a career that spanned some four decades he devised the classificatory scheme that is still widely employed today, through meticulous excavation of Quaternary sites in France from the Périgord to the Paris Basin, pioneering experimental knapping, ensuring that the heuristic of l‟evolution buissonante came to define how Palaeolithic archaeologists conceived of change, and, particularly, the introduction of quantification to existing type fossil approaches to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Here, I survey briefly some main points of his work, and his contribution to and opinion of other contributions to the „Mousterian debate‟. Far from being restricted to developing our understanding of the Mousterian, Bordes‟ output was just as important in the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic. His technotypological scheme, introduced in the 1950s, precipitated a major change in the way prehistorians thought about the Palaeolithic record, and essentially ushered in the modern intellectual world.

Full reference: Pettitt, P. 2009. François Bordes. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 201–212. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Lithics, Mousterian, Middle Palaeolithic, Typology, France

INTRODUCTION acquaintance with lithics from southwest French sites — many of which he excavated For the middle decades of the twentieth — yet was not afraid to extend the insights century, the Palaeolithic of the Périgord and he‘d gained from study of these sites to a François Bordes (1919–1981: Figure 1) were continental or even global stage. The purpose effectively synonymous. Along with his of this paper is not to provide a wife, Denise de Sonneville-Bordes (1919– comprehensive review of Bordes‘ work, but 2008) Bordes set the technological and rather to ‗sample‘ areas in which his typological scene for the western European influence was (and remains) profound, and research paradigm from the early 1950s, and place these in something of a wider context. has left a legacy that still influences Readers may find it somewhat biased in researchers in Western and Central Europe favour of the Anglophone literature: it is and North America to this day. He can deliberately so, to show the profound effect indeed be regarded as ―one of the founders Bordes‘ work had on Anglo-American of modern Palaeolithic research‖ (Rolland & archaeology, and this should not be taken to Dibble 1990: 481). Like his predecessors lessen the considerable influence Bordes had such as the Abbé Breuil (Davies, this in France and many other European volume) Bordes had an intimate countries. When discussing Bordes it is

201

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) inevitable that the subject of ‗Mousterian Bordes, not the Mousterian, and my variability‘ will come somewhat to the fore; I coverage is intended to elucidate Bordes‘ have felt it necessary to provide a brief contribution and opinions about the ‗history‘ of the debate that ensued after contribution of others to the debate. First, Bordes recognised Middle Palaeolithic however, I shall explore his wider interests assemblage patterning, but this is cursory and achievements. and uneven for a reason; this is a paper about

Figure 1: François Bordes (right) with F. Clark Howell. From the collection of Denise de Sonneville- Bordes. Unknown photographer. [Photograph courtesy of Michel Lenoir]

BORDES’ BROADER CAREER AND Bordes‘ work was the cornerstone of my THE BORDESIAN ERA doctoral research; I was investigating aspects of Mousterian lithic assemblage variability, Perhaps the best way to crystallise Bordes‘ in southwest France, using collections from contribution to Palaeolithic archaeology is to Bordes‘ own excavations at pose the question of what the field would be and Pech de l‘Azé. Bordes bestrode the like had he not made any contribution to it. pages of the thesis like the colossus. My This question was, in fact, posed to me supervisor Paul Mellars and I would often during my PhD viva in 1998 by my discuss aspects of Bordes‘ work, and examiners, Clive Gamble and John Gowlett. particularly the debates between himself,

202

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Bordes and Binford over what the would have found the route at some point, technological and typological variability but one wonders how far behind the recognised within the Mousterian meant. I discipline would have been if, for example, had read most of Bordes‘ series of Palaeolithic lithic analysis had missed the publications of the 1950s and 1960s in which ‗new archaeology boat‘ of the mid-1960s. he developed the méthode Bordes and in which he developed the typological, Bordes was, for much of his career, technological characterisation and statistical Professor of Prehistory and Quaternary analysis of lithic assemblages, and my copy Geology at the University of Bordeaux, of the Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et where he had studied botany and geology in Moyen, which I had bought in Les Eyzies in the 1930s. At Bordeaux he inherited an 1993, never made it from my desk to the intellectual tradition that could be traced shelf until I had finished writing. Yet the back through Peyrony to Breuil, in which the question totally threw me. I had taken sequences of Palaeolithic assemblages Bordes‘ work totally for granted, and it took derived from the rockshelters of the some mental gymnastics to even try to Dordogne were seen to have wider (at least conceive what the academic field of Lower western European) significance, unfolded in and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology might a temporal succession over Pleistocene time, have been like if Bordes had not made such a and could be described and distinguished on pronounced contribution to the field. It could the basis of technotypological traits which easily have happened, given his history and formed the basis of an artefact taxonomic early interests. What if, for example, he had system (Sackett 1991, and see also Davies, stuck with botany; specialised in geology; this volume). Bordes, however, brought written science fiction as Francis Carsac full- geological expertise to Palaeolithic time; or worse, died as a resistance fighter in archaeology; his contact with Raymond the second world war? Our understanding of Vaufrey and Jean Piveteau in Paris during the lithic record would be considerably the second world war led to research on the poorer for want of his pioneering loess sequences and Lower and Middle experimental knapping (Bordes & Crabtree Palaeolithic archaeology of the Somme and 1969, and see Dibble & Debénath 1991: Seine Basins just after fighting ended, 222). There would be no vocabulary that resulting in the presentation of a thesis to the focussed prehistorians on why Middle Facultés des Sciences in Paris. From this Palaeolithic assemblages varied, and time onwards Bordes was working on a therefore no structured debate as to the standardised typology of the Lower and behavioural capacities of the Neanderthals. Middle Palaeolithic that culminated in the Lewis Binford would not have had Typologie (Bordes 1961b). The use of Mousterian variability to kick-start his fossiles directeurs had been promoted by the promotion of the ‗new archaeology‘, nor brothers Bouyssonie, but it was only with the would Paul Mellars have a chrono-cultural méthode Bordes that assemblages could be sequence to demonstrate assemblage change compared objectively in terms of the over time. In turn, this would not have frequency of these type fossils (Binford & stimulated Harold Dibble to introduce Binford 1966: 238; Kozlowski 1992). The perspectives from New World archaeology emergent patterning revealed, in Bordes‘ as explanations for the dynamics of lithic term, l‟évolution buissonante — branching variability, and overall we would not have (or bushy) evolution — through which arrived at our understanding today of the archaeologists could recognise that lithic variable trajectories of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, and thus behaviour, evolved in technologies that resulted from Neanderthal complex ways as did biological species behavioural flexibility (Hovers & Kuhn (Bordes 1950a). Straus & Clark (e.g. 1986) 2006). Of course one can argue that others coined the term phylogenetic paradigm to

203

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) describe French lithic systematics, which to formative period — that in which he was some seemed self-contained and inward developing his method and interests and looking, although which, with the benefit of essentially laying down the contribution for hindsight, had a profound effect upon later which he is mainly remembered — twentieth century Palaeolithic archaeology. essentially spans two decades from 1950 to Sackett (1991: 132), for example, has 1970. Subsequent to his studies of the defined the ‗Bordesian era‘ as the period northern French loess sites in the late 1940s with which ―we enter modern times‖. his work progressed from initial outlines of Bordes‘ method ―is [still] considered the his method (e.g. Bordes 1950b) to the standard typology for the Lower and Middle recognition of l‟évolution buissonante; Palaeolithic in most of the western Old discrimination of the Mousterian, Tayacien World‖ (Dibble & Debénath 1991: 222). To and Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes & Bourgon Sackett, the Bordesian era ―saw a significant 1951b); refinement of technological criteria, leap in the degree of resolution with which notably Levalloisian (e.g. Bordes 1952a, prehistorians were able to exercise control 1953a); statistical analysis (e.g. Bordes over the empirical contents of the [Middle 1953b); further refinement of typological and] Upper Palaeolithic record‖ (ibid: 133). definitions (e.g. Bordes 1953c, 1954a); Implications of this new ability to quantify, stratigraphy and chronology, particularly characterise, compare and interpret lithic with the new radiocarbon technique (e.g. assemblages were profound, and affected Bordes 1956a, 1957a, 1958a, 1960); even recovery methods and sampling interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic lithic strategies; ―excavation took on the character assemblage variability (Bordes 1961a, 1970); of stratigraphic dissection…all lithic and Upper Palaeolithic typology and wider materials were now saved…techniques were behavioural aspects including art (e.g. devised to use…palaeoenvironmental data in Bordes 1958b, 1963, 1964a, 1964b, 1965a). conjunction with the artefact industries to The excavation and study of cave and seriate site stratigraphies holistically, thus rockshelter assemblages spans the entirety of recasting regional taxonomic schemes into Bordes‘ formative period, involving a the form of ‗chronostratigraphies‘ which minimum of 38 publications on 29 sites eventually came to be supplemented by a (Table 1). time line of radiocarbon dates (ibid: 133). In this sense, in addition to provoking for the Although Bordes tends to be associated most first time rigour in recovery strategies, strongly with the Mousterian, it is clear from Bordes‘ scheme can be seen as transitional, the table that his attention was focussed as in the sense that it both represented the most much on the Lower and Upper Palaeolithic, sophisticated expression of relative schemes with the Lower Palaeolithic represented by in archaeology and the absolute some 24% (n=7) of his published sites and chronostratigraphy that was just around the the Upper Palaeolithic by 31% (n=9), i.e. a corner. little over 50%. The association of Bordes primarily with the Middle Palaeolithic has Bordes introduced statistics to the study of come about by the number of publications lithic assemblages in 1950, enabling both relating to the period (44% of the total using qualitative and quantitative approaches to the publication list in Bordes 1992), which is lithics to be employed simultaneously. not surprising, given that they were critical Assemblages would be characterised on the to the development of the méthode Bordes. basis of a combination of his typological trait list and technological attributes, following which they could be subjected to statistical characterisation. Although Bordes was a highly prolific researcher and writer, his

204

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Sites by period Publication reference Lower Palaeolithic Carrièrre Bouchon (Seine) 1946 Pech de l‘Azé Nord 1951b L‘Atelier Commont 1953d Vassincourt 1955a Combe-Grenal 1955b Amiens 1955c Pech de l‘Azé II 1969 Middle Palaeolithic Le Moustier 1948a, 1959 Saint-Cyprien Bordes & Bourgon 1948 Pech de l‘Azé Nord Bordes & Bourgon 1950, 1951a La Chaise 1952b, 1953e, 1965b L‘Abri Armand Chadourne 1954b Pech de l‘Azé 1954c L‘Ermitage 1954d Combe-Grenal 1955b, Bordes et al. 1966 Mas Viel 1956b Haute-Roche 1957b La Micoque 1958c Roc de Marsal 1962 Upper Palaeolithic Abilly (Solutrean) 1950c Villejuif (Aurignacian) 1948b, 1949 Evreux (Epipalaeolithic) 1951b Laugerie-Haute 1954e, 1958b, Bordes & de Sonneville-Bordes 1958 Gare-de-Couze (Magdalenian) 1963, 1964a Roc de Gavaudun (Gravettian) 1964b Laugerie-Haute (Solutrean) 1965a Corbiac (Gravettian) 1968a, Bordes & Crabtree 1969

Table 1: Selected publications by Bordes on the stratigraphy and assemblages of major Palaeolithic sites in France & neighbouring countries 1950–1970. This is not meant to be exhaustive.

BORDES, THE MOUSTERIAN, AND Bordes recognised that Mousterian THE ‘MOUSTERIAN DEBATE’ assemblages of southwestern France could be divided into four main types: Bordes, either working alone or initially in collaboration with Maurice Bourgon, Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition developed his classificatory scheme of (characterised by the presence of Mousterian variants between 1947 and 1965, handaxes and thus seen to be descended although the méthode Bordes was effectively from the preceding Acheulian, as well as in place by 1953 (e.g. Bordes 1953c). From numerous scrapers, denticulates and, in that point Bordes expanded his system particular, backed knives). This he geographically. The scheme was developed subdivided into Type A (chronologically using sites and materials deriving from the earlier and with higher frequencies of Périgord to the Seine Basin. In 1981, after handaxes) and Type B (chronologically twenty-five years of development and later, with fewer handaxes and a general discovery, Bordes (1981) felt that his scheme rise in the importance of backed knives) for western Europe was still justified and that additional aspects of Mousterian variability Typical Mousterian (with no singularly could be recognised from northern Europe to predominant form, differing from the the Near East. previous by sharply reduced frequencies

205

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

of handaxes and backed knives) common origin, and more original variants found in Central and Eastern Europe Denticulate Mousterian (dominated by suggested centres of origin that were denticulated and notched tools, with no independent of western Europe (ibid: 108; handaxes or backed knives and the rest of 1968b: 106–20). the assemblage comprised of scrapers, burins and borers in relatively low More importantly, the recognition of frequencies) patterning inevitably stimulated investigation; ‗the system [Bordes], Charentian Mousterian (with few originally descriptive, gradually called for an handaxes or backed knives, but with high interpretation‘ (Rolland 1981: 16). A critical frequencies of scrapers). This he belief of the phylogenetic paradigm of Breuil subdivided into two subgroups on –Peyrony–Bordes/de Sonneville-Bordes was technological grounds; the Quina variant that the industrial phases recognised through in which Levallois technology was technotypological analysis had cultural absent or rare, and the Ferrassie variant importance in that they constituted material in which Levallois technology was expressions of specific ethnic groups relatively common. (Sackett 1991: 111–2). Others disagreed. Bordes expressed his views very clearly, for Taking the two subdivisions of the example; Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition and two of the Charentian Mousterian into account, “What is the significance of this variability? this divided the French Mousterian into six We tend to interpret these different industries variants. Levallois technology crosscuts most as reflecting the cultural differences of of these. Statistical exploration of these human groups in possession of varied variants, from sites in the Périgord (e.g. traditions. Others prefer to explain these Doran & Hodson 1966; Callow & Webb variations as the result of different activities 1977: 1981) and the Périgord and Near East carried on by people of the same culture. (Binford & Binford 1966) tended to support And others again think that the Mousterians these major assemblage divisions that Bordes represent different steps in the evolution of had identified — ―the typology seems to do the Mousterian culture” what it was intended to do‖ (Kuhn 1991: (Bordes 1972: 146) 245) — although exactly how much these support the reality of the subtleties of the In support of his ‗cultural‘ interpretation subdivisions is debatable (Mellars 1996: Bordes suggested that the ―four main parallel 183). lines [of the Mousterian, i.e. the variants]…did not interfere with one another Other than the prolongation of Acheulian to any great extent‖ (1968: 141), and traditions in the form of bifaces, which is famously noted that ―in primitive societies, implicit in his naming of the Mousterian of conservatism is usually very strong. If one Acheulian Tradition, Bordes noted that the supposes that a Mousterian of Acheulian origins of these variants was difficult to tradition man married a Quina woman, she establish, largely because of our poor might have gone on using the thick scrapers understanding of the lithic industries of the to which she was accustomed, but we doubt Last Interglacial from which he assumed that her daughters would have done the they all derived (Bordes 1981: 108). All he same‖ (Bordes 1972: 147). Some countered could say was that the vast geographical that there was too little geographical range of diverse Mousterian types resulted isolation of the variants for such lack of from the phenomena of convergent evolution interaction to pertain — effectively an and human dispersals from a perceived argument stemming from the notion that

206

P. Pettitt: François Bordes allopatric speciation could apply to lithic Bordes objectively considered other technology — but these objections could be explanations; two, in fact (1961a). He felt conveniently dismissed on the grounds that that it was unlikely that each variant ―man is more ready to exchange his genes corresponded to activities in a particular than his customs, as the whole history of season and thus could be distinguished at Europe demonstrates‖ and in any case, this level, as most of the assemblages he because ―the Palaeolithic world was an worked with comprised abundant lithics empty world…the population was certainly which were derived from thick palimpsest very thin on the ground…a man must often assemblages which would be pushing have lived and died without meeting anyone interpretative reason to squeeze into single of another culture, although he knew ‗that season occupations. Similarly, he felt that there are men living beyond the river who one could eliminate an environmental make handaxes‘‖ (Bordes 1968: 144). How correlation, as several variants could be sharp a contrast in reasoning to current found at the same location and within at least hypotheses which assume the broadly similar environmental contexts. contemporaneity of Neanderthals and Homo Debate instead revolved around two other sapiens and on the basis of which promote potential factors; Paul Mellars‘ observations notions of contact and interaction as factors that there was at least a degree of diachronic in the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition patterning of the southwest French (e.g. Mellars 1999, 2004)! Mousterian variants, and Lewis and Sally Binford‘s contention that function played an Binford and Binford perceived weaknesses important role in constituting the variants. in Bordes‘ preferred interpretation; Paul Mellars (e.g. 1965, 1969) noted that a “good arguments can be presented against degree of chronological patterning could be such an explanation, based on our observed among Mousterian variants of the knowledge of formal variation in material Périgord region, whereby in situations of remains of populations of Homo sapiens. interstratification at sites such as Combe- Nevertheless, such arguments remain Grenal, Abri Chadourne, Abri Caminade-Est, opinion, for as yet no one has proposed a Roc-en-Pail and others, the Quina variant of means of testing Bordes‟ hypothesis…formal the Charentian always overlay the Ferrassie variation in material items that is variant, and the MTA tended to overlie all inexplicable in terms of function or raw variants and was typically located high in the materials can be termed stylistic variation; Middle Palaeolithic stratigraphy, often close these stylistic variations tend to cluster to the lower margins of the Upper spatially in direct relationship to the amount Palaeolithic strata. Mellars in fact saw his of social distance maintained between observation as giving ―by far the strongest societies. Spatial clusterings of the various support to the major features of the Bordes Mousterian assemblages are not taxonomy…clear evidence for the demonstrable…in the Dordogne…[they] stratigraphic and chronological distribution occur interdigitated at several localities” of the principal industrial variants in the (Binford & Binford 1966: 240) southwestern French sites‖ (1996: 183). Mellars was able to refine his observations To some extent this was an unfair argument over the next two decades or more; the as the Binfords had used spatial (i.e. application of TL dating demonstrated the anthropological) data, and failed to account relatively recent age of the Mousterian of for diachronic change in the distribution of Acheulian Tradition as one would expect social groups, but they had at least identified from the stratigraphical observations (e.g. the inherent untestability of loosely-defined Mellars 1986, 1989, 1992); and eventually ‗cultural‘ interpretations. his observations were supported by the work

207

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) of Rolland (1988), all clear testimony to the past human systems of adaptation‖ (Binford robusticity of Bordes‘ patterning. Given his 1973, quoted in Binford 1983: 153). The general lack of attention to its tenets, Binfords believed that ―the use of however, Bordes was clearly unconvinced by multivariate statistics allows us to partition Mellars‘ argument, dealing with this in Mousterian assemblages into subunits of simple, pithy sentences, e.g. ―the hypothesis artefacts which can reasonably be that different Mousterian types represent an interpreted as representing tool-kits for the evolution of the same general Mousterian performance of different sets of tasks…these culture is negated by the numerous subunits of artefacts vary independently of interstratifications known today‖ (1972: one another and may be combined in 147), and ―the many interstratifications numerous ways‖ (Binford & Binford 1966, encountered in the deposits shows that we quoted in Binford 1983: 123, my emphasis). are dealing with different lines, and not as Thus, contra Bordes‘ cultural interpretation, was formerly thought with an evolution‖ their ―findings suggest that a great deal of (1968: 141). Mellars made no claims to the variability in Mousterian assemblages explain all Mousterian variants in terms of can be interpreted as functional variability” chronological change, so this should have (ibid: 123, original emphasis). Bordes felt been acceptable to Bordes, especially as that this conclusion clearly merited greater there was a diachronic element to his own consideration than the diachronic argument, classificatory scheme where the Mousterian e.g. ―the ‗different activities‘ hypothesis, of Acheulian Tradition of Type A preceded outlined by Lewis and Sally Binford, needs that of Type B (see above). Why this was closer examination‖ (1972: 147). Despite apparently so unacceptable to Bordes is this, Bordes was similarly dismissive of their unclear, although presumably a demonstrable interpretation as he was of Mellars‘. He diachronic element to the Quina, Ferrassie argued that, even if one accepted the validity and Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition types of the factor analysis on which the Binfords A and B — i.e. most of the Mousterian based their division of site types and thus variants — would leave too little functions, a number of objections could be contemporaneity between remaining variants raised. Tool types may co-vary with each to allow for his cultural interpretation. other, but this tells us little if their function is unknown. Ethnographically, different tool Lewis Binford, who, like Mellars, had kits are known, but always within the same excavated for Bordes, initially in site; how then, can we expect distinct tool collaboration with Sally Binford (e.g. kits to dominate any specific assemblage, Binford & Binford 1966) explored Bordes‘ especially when we know these are variants using multivariate statistical analysis palimpsests? Why do open air sites not yield on French and Near Eastern assemblages. different assemblages to cave and rockshelter The Binfords found them to be relatively sites? What of regional-scale differences robust, even if, as discussed above, they between variants, where, for example, in the found his interpretations of the resulting Charente, as the name implies, the patterning unconvincing. Turning to Charentian Mousterian (Quina and Ferrassie interpretation themselves, they explored variants) dominates and the Mousterian of various potential explanations. Bordes had Acheulian Tradition is exceptionally rare; effectively precipitated a major awakening in and Provence, where the Mousterian of Palaeolithic archaeology as, to Binford, this Acheulian Tradition is hardly known? was ―an appeal to archaeologists to explain Bordes rightly asked why activities were so their observations…[addressing the] difficult common in the Dordogne that were task of determining what our taxonomies are apparently unnecessary in Provence and rare measuring and what [Bordes‘] demonstrated in Charente. It is important to note that to patterning refers to in the organisation of Bordes, his cultural interpretation was not

208

P. Pettitt: François Bordes mutually exclusive with the functional enough to be the subject of major intellectual argument. Assuming that different ways of paradigm shifts in the investigation of performing the same tasks existed…―why Palaeolithic lithic technology. ―If correct, the not admit that the different Mousterian types reduction models…would not invalidate just represent these different ways, and that Bordes‘ typology. On the contrary, it would the difference is indeed cultural?‖ (1972: strengthen the use of the typology as an 149). To him, it was simply different ways of analytical tool in interpreting Palaeolithic doing similar things. assemblages‖ (Dibble 1987a: 116). The first manifestation of these models, in which The last major reorientation of thought about Rolland (1977) suggested that aspects of Bordesian Mousterian variability arose in the Mousterian variability related to ―differing late 1980s, stemming from a particularly degrees of secondary modification [i.e. North American school of anthropologically- resharpening]‖ clearly ―relies on the Bordes informed lithic analysis. New models were classificatory system‖ (ibid: 251, my initially proposed by Nicholas Rolland and emphasis) and ―confirms the usefulness of Harold Dibble; most researchers tend to the Bordes system‖ (ibid: 35) which was ―an quote the latter — Dibble wrote more important means for describing and prolifically on the models and pursued their comparing Lower and Middle Palaeolithic specific applications through to 1995 — assemblages (Dibble 1987a: 116). although the original notion was Rolland‘s and he should be credited far more than he is. According to these models (e.g. Rolland CONCLUSIONS 1977, 1981, 1988; Dibble 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1991, 1995; Rolland & Dibble 1990; Where exactly does Bordes stand in the Dibble & Rolland 1992), variability of the history of Palaeolithic archaeology? He was major typological forms on which a colossus indeed, but with one foot firmly Mousterian variability was predicated rooted in the French intellectual tradition of (notably scrapers), resulted from the degree the first few decades of the twentieth and manner in which they were resharpened century, and with the other firmly rooted in during use. The novel element of such the ‗scientific‘ traditions of modern research. models was that, effectively for the first For the Bordesian era was transitional, one time, formal type fossils of Bordes‘ system ―which redefined Peyrony‘s world in were not seen as deliberate products, but as Bordesian terms…and culminated...[in]…the relatively unintended by-products of a fluid considerably more complex world of technological system in which only industrial flux with which a prehistorian of generalised tool forms were consciously today must contend‖ (Sackett 1991: 135). desired. The form of these general products Bordes had inherited the ‗palaeontological would be determined by the quality and paradigm‘ from predecessors such as Breuil availability of raw material, and the and Peyrony, but whilst retaining the critical concomitant intensity of use wherein basis of this paradigm — the type fossil — resharpening of one or more edges might he shifted attention towards inclusive take certain typological forms of scraper in quantification of lithic assemblages, in a particular from one Bordesian category to context that viewed them as samples of another. It is not important here to discuss varying populations. One can, in particular, the specifics of the tool reduction models emphasise Bordes development of (see for example Mellars 1996 and Pettitt l‟evolution buissonante which took 1999 for critical discussions), and as these Palaeolithic archaeology out of the phase of were forwarded mainly after Bordes‘ death, linear geological epochs and ensured an their relevance to this paper is simply to organic heuristic, in keeping with biological show how Bordes‘ system was robust

209

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

(and thus palaeontological) change that has Bordes, F. 1946. La Stratigraphie des limons endured to the present. quaternaires de la carrière Bouchon à Ivry (seine) et ses répercussions possibles sur la chronologie préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société Géologique One cannot underestimate the heuristic and Française 16: 503–10. disciplinary importance of the Mousterian Bordes, F. 1948a. Les couches moustériennes du debate, which Bordes will forevermore be gisement du Moustier (Dordogne). Typologie et associated with. It ―provided the major techniques de taille. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 45: 113–25. intellectual focus for Middle Palaeolithic Bordes, F. 1948b. Une station aurignacienne in situ research for over two decades‖ (Dibble dan les loess de Villejuif. Bulletin de le Société 1991: 240). To a certain extent it continues Préhistorique Française 45: 107–8. today, at least as it is replayed in university Bordes, F. 1949. Le limons de la région de Villejuif et lectures as an object lesson in how leurs industries préhistoriques. L‟Anthropologie 53: 1–19. archaeologists recognise artefact patterning Bordes, F. 1950a. L‘évolution buissonante des and how they interpret it. Thus, while industries en Europe occidentale. Considérations modern research into Middle Palaeolithic théoriques sur le Paléolithique ancien et moyen. lithics has to some extent broadened its L‟Anthropologie 54: 393–420. horizons into raw material effects on Bordes, F. 1950b. Principes d‘une méthode d‘étude des techniques et de la typologie du Paléolithique technology, the chaîne opératoire, transport ancien et moyen. L‟Anthropologie 54: 19–34. in the landscape and the wider environmental Bordes, F. 1950c. Un abri du solutréen à Abilly context, the système Bordes is still there, (Indre-et-Loire). Bulletin de la Société underpinning the classificatory roots of the Préhistorique Française 47: 146–53. discipline; ―the Bordes typology has not Bordes, F. 1951b. Une industrie épipaléolithique à Evreux. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique been entirely forsaken: it remains the pre- Française 48: 520–38. eminent descriptive language for Middle Bordes, F. 1952a. Technique Levallois et Levallois Palaeolithic retouched tools, and the ancien. L‟Anthropologie 56: 554–6. Mousterian ‗facies‘ that issue from its Bordes, F. 1952b. Les industries moustériennes de la application continue to structure much grotte de La Chaise. Premiers résultats et diagnose comparative research‖ (Kuhn 1995: 15). I provisoire. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 49: 528–31. suspect it always will be with us. Bordes, F. 1953a. Levalloisien et Moustérien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 226–34. Bordes, F. 1953b. Typologie et statistique. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Observations sur le note de Melles Alimen et Vignal. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 50: 74–8. I am grateful to the editors, particularly Rob Hosfield, Bordes, F. 1953c. Essaie de classification des for their kind invitation to contribute to this special industries ‗Moustériennes‘. Bulletin de la Société issue, and for allowing me the opportunity to think Préhistorique Française 50: 457–66. about Bordes. For help with the production of the Bordes, F. 1953d. L‘Atelier Commont. paper I owe a debt to Jean-Guillaume Bordes and, L‟Anthropologie 57: 1–44. particularly, Michel Lenoir and Robin Dennell for Bordes, F. 1953e. Station de La Chaise, grotte Suard. their comments on a draft, and two anonymous Les industries moustériennes, premiers résultats. referees for their improvements. Needless to say, any Mémoires de la Société Historique et remaining mistakes are my own. Archéologique de la Charente années 1952–3: 17– 18. Bordes, F. 1954a. Notules de typologie Paléolithique: REFERENCES III, pointes moustériennes, convergents et déjetés, limaces. Bulletin de la Société Binford, L.R. 1983. Working at Archaeology. Préhistorique Française 51: 336–8. Academic Press, New York. Bordes, F. 1954b. L‘abri Armand Chadourne aux Binford, L.R. & Binford, S.R. 1966. A preliminary Eyzies. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian Française 51: 229–54. of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist Bordes, F. 1954c. Les gisements du Pech de l‘Azé 68(2): 238–95. (Dordogne). I, le Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne. L‟Anthropologie 58: 401–32.

210

P. Pettitt: François Bordes

Bordes, F. 1954d. Le Moustérien de l‘Ermitage (Charente), quelques rectifications. (foilles Pradel). Comparisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 69: 602–3. L‟Anthropologie 58: 444–9. Bordes, F. 1968a. Emplacement des tentes du Bordes, F. 1954e. Présence probable de jaspe de Périgourdien supérieur au château de Corbiac, près Fontmaure dans l‘Aurignacien V de Laugerie- Bergerac (Dordogne). Revue des Musées de Haute. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Bordeaux 14–15. Française 51: 67–8. Bordes, F. 1968b. The Old Stone Age. Weidenfeld and Bordes, F. 1955a. L‘acheuléen moyen de Vassincourt Nicolson, World University Library, London. (Meuse) et la question de l‘Acheuléen ‗Froid‘. Bordes, F. 1969. Os percé et os gravé acheuléen du Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Française 52: Pech de l‘Azé II. Quaternaria XI: 1–6. 157–62. Bordes, F. 1970. The significance of variability in Bordes, F. 1955b. La stratigraphie de Combe-Grenal Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology 2(1): (Dordogne). Note préliminaire. Bulletin de le 61–73. Société Préhistorique Française 52: 426–9. Bordes, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Harper and Bordes, F. 1955c. Un biface exceptionnel provenant Row, New York. d‘Amiens. Bulletin de le Société Préhistorique Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-Cinq ans après: le complexe Française 52: 719–21. Moustérien revisité. Notae Praehistoricae I: 103– Bordes, F. 1956a. Some observations on the 8. Pleistocene succession in the Somme Valley. Bordes, F. 1992. Leçons sur le Paléolithique Tome II Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22: 1–6. Paléolithique en Europe. CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Bordes, F. 1956b. Le gisement moustérien du Mas Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1948. Sur quelques éclats Viel (Lot). L‟Anthropologie 60: 209–35. en calcaire, de type moustérien, provenant de Bordes, F. 1957a. Radiocarbone et corrélations Saint-Cyprien (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société lœssiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: 572–3. Préhistorique Française 45: 335. Bordes, F. 1957b. Le Moustérien du Haute-Roche: Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1950. Le gisement du Pech comparaisons statistiques. L‟Anthropologie 61: de l‗Azé Nord. Prise de date et observations 279–88. préliminaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Bordes, F. 1958a. Loess et chronologie Paléolithique. Française 47: 381–3. L‟Anthropologie 62: 160–6. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951a. Le gisement de Bordes, F. 1958b. Nouvelles fouilles à Laugerie- Pech de l‘Azé Nord. Campagnes 1950–1951. Les Haute. Premiers résultats. L‟Anthropologie 62: couches inférieures à Rhinoceros mercki. Bulletin 371–5. de la Société Préhistorique Française 48: 520–38. Bordes, F. 1958c. La Micoque. Ibidem for 1958: 166. Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1951b. Le complexe Bordes, F. 1959. Le contexte archéologique des Moustérien: Moustérien, Levalloisien et Tayacien. hommes du Moustier et de Spy. L‟Anthropologie L‟Anthropologie 55: 1–23. 63: 154–57. Bordes, F. & Crabtree, D. 1969. The Corbiac blade Bordes, F. 1960. Radiocarbon dates and Upper technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12: 1–21. Palaeolithic archaeology in Central and Western Bordes, F. & Fitte P. 1964a. Microlithes du Europe. Current Anthropology 5-6: 355–91. Magdalénien VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). Bordes, F. 1961a. Mousterian cultures in France. In E. Ripoll Perello (ed.) Miscelánea en homenaje Science 134: 803–10. al abate Henri Breuil, 1877–1961: 259–67. Bordes, F. 1961b. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien Diputación provinciale de Barcelona, Instituto de et Moyen. Publications de l‘Institut de Préhistoire Prehistoria y Archeologia. de l‘Université de Bordeaux Mémoire 1. Delmas, Bordes, F., Laville, H. & Paquereau, M. 1966. Bordeaux. Observations sur le Pléistocène supérieur du Bordes, F. 1962. Découverte d‘un squelette d‘enfant gisement du Combe-Grenal (Dordogne). Actes de moustérien dans le gisement de Roc de Marsal, la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux 103 (série B, commune de Campagne du Bugue (Dordogne). n.10): 3–19. Comptes rendus de l‟Académie des Sciences 254: Bordes, F. & de Sonneville-Bordes, D. 1958. Position 714–5. stratigraphique de l‘Aurignacien V à Laugerie- Bordes, F. 1963. Gravure féminine du Magdalénien Haute Est. L‟Anthropologie 62: 364–7. VI de la Gare de Couze (Dordogne). Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1977. Structure in the S.W. L‟Anthropologie 67: 347–60. French Mousterian. Computer Applications in Bordes, F. 1964b. Le Périgordien Supérieur à burins Archaeology 4: 69–76. de Noailles du Roc de Gavaudun (Lot-et-Garonne). Callow, P. & Webb, R.E. 1981. The application of L‟Anthropologie 68: 353–6. multivariate statistical techniques to Middle Bordes, F. 1965a. Une sculpture du Solutréen Palaeolithic assemblages from southwestern inférieur de Laugerie-Haute. L‟Anthropologie 69: France. Revue d‟Archéométrie 5: 129–38. 99–102. Dibble, H.L. 1984. Interpreting typological variation Bordes, F. 1965b. A propos de la grotte de La Chaise of Middle Palaeolithic scrapers: function, style, or

211

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

sequence of reduction? Journal of Field Nature 205: 626–7. Archaeology 11: 431–36. Mellars, P.A. 1969. The chronology of Mousterian Dibble, H.L. 1987a. The interpretation of Middle industries in the Périgord region of south-west Palaeolithic scraper morphology. American France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35: Antiquity 52(1): 109–17. 134–71. Dibble, H.L. 1987b. Comparaisons des séquences de Mellars, P.A. 1986. A new chronology for the French réduction des outils moustériens de la France et du Mousterian period. Nature 322: 410–11. Proche-Orient. L‟Anthropologie (Paris) 91: 189– Mellars, P.A. 1989. Chronologies du Moustérien du 96. sud-ouest de la France: actualisation du débat. Dibble, H.L. 1991. Mousterian assemblage variability L‟Anthropologie 94: 1–18. on an interregional scale. Journal of Mellars, P.A. 1992. Technological change in the Anthropological Research 47: 239–57. Mousterian of southwest France. In H. Dibble & Dibble, H.L. 1995. Middle Palaeolithic scraper P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Palaeolithic: reduction: background, clarification, and review of Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability: 29–43. the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph Method and Theory 2(4): 299–368. No. 72), Philadelphia. Dibble, H.J. & Debénath, A. 1991. Paradigmatic Mellars, P.A. 1996. The Neanderthal Legacy; an differences in a collaborative research project. In Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: Princeton University Press, New . Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Mellars, P.A. 1999. The Neanderthal problem Gatherer Research: 217–26. University of continued. Current Anthropology 40(3): 341–64. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mellars, P.A. 2004. Neanderthals and the modern Dibble, H.L. & Rolland, N. 1992. On assemblage human colonization of Europe. Nature 432: 461–5. variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of western Pettitt, P.B. 1999. Tool Reduction Models, Primary Europe: history, perspectives, and a new synthesis. Flaking, and Lithic Assemblage Variation in the In H.L. Dibble & P.A. Mellars (eds.) The Middle Middle Palaeolithic of Southwest France. Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour, and Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Variability: 1–28. University of Pennsylvania Cambridge. Museum (Monograph No. 72), Philadelphia. Rolland, N. 1977. New aspects of Middle Palaeolithic Doran, J.E. & Hodson, F.R. 1966. A digital computer variability in western Europe. Nature 266: 251–2. analysis of Palaeolithic flint assemblages. Nature Rolland, N. 1981. The interpretation of Middle 210: 688–9. Palaeolithic variability. Man 16: 15–42. Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S. (eds.) 2006. Transitions before Rolland, N. 1988. Observations on some Middle the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Palaeolithic time series in southern France. In H. Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Dibble & A. Montet-White (eds.) Upper Springer, New York. Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia: 161– Kozlowski, J. 1992. Préface. Bordes, F. Leçons sur le 79. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Paléolithique Tome II Paléolithique en Europe. Rolland, N. & Dibble, H.L. 1990. A new synthesis of CNRS, V–VIII, Paris. Middle Palaeolithic variability. American Antiquity Kuhn, S.L. 1991. New problems, old glasses: 55: 480–99. methodological implications of an evolutionary Sackett, J.R. 1991. Straight archaeology French style: paradigm for the study of Palaeolithic technologies. the phylogenetic paradigm in historical In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Past: perspective. In G.A. Clark (ed.) Perspectives on the Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Gatherer Research: 243–57. University of Gatherer Research: 109–39. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Kuhn, S.L. 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology: an Straus, L.G. & Clark, G.A. 1986. La Riera cave: Ecological Perspective. Princeton University Press, Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Princeton. Northern Spain. Tempe: Arizona State University Mellars, P.A. 1965. Sequence and development of Anthropological Research Papers 36. Mousterian traditions in south-western France.

212

N. Ashton: John James Wymer

JOHN JAMES WYMER, 1928–2006

Nick Ashton

Department of Prehistory and Europe, British Museum, Franks House, 38–56 Orsman Road, London, N1 5QJ, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the remarkable career of John Wymer, in particular the transition from a young, avid amateur of prehistory to an internationally renowned specialist in Palaeolithic studies. The launch into a professional world came from the discovery of the third piece of the Swanscombe skull in 1954, eventually leading to a curatorship at Reading Museum. Greater things were to come with his appointment as field officer for the University of Chicago, directing extensive excavations in South Africa and then Britain. There followed an outstanding series of books from detailed site reports and gazetteers to a global overview of the Palaeolithic. These culminated in the comprehensive survey of British Palaeolithic sites (The English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey) funded by English Heritage during the 1990s. ‘Retirement’ merely led to more fieldwork and new discoveries, none more astonishing than the finding of artefacts in the Cromer Forest-bed at Pakefield. He was co-author of the paper on this discovery published in Nature in 2005, a short time before his death.

Full reference: Ashton, N. 2009. John James Wymer, 1928–2006. In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 213– 222. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Palaeolithic, Swanscombe, Klasies River Mouth, Pakefield

INTRODUCTION Palaeolithic archaeology in the context of the second half of the 20th century. John Wymer would have been a remarkable man in any century, but none more so than in the 20th and early 21st, until his death in EARLY YEARS 2006. He was born into an amateur tradition, embraced professionalism in every sense of John James Wymer was born in Richmond the word and left an unparalleled legacy for on the 5th March 1928. His father, Bertram future generations. It is right and proper that Wymer, was an accomplished artist and his biography should be the final account of illustrated many of the Tiger Tim comics, a long list of giants. He would have while his French mother, Leah Wymer, was dismissed such accolades, but his a professional pianist and played in the silent contribution was one of the most important movie palaces of the 1920s. Illustration and to Palaeolithic studies for several playing blues piano were two skills that John generations. Much has been written about his inherited from his parents, but from an early character, in particular his generosity of age he was also introduced to their passion spirit and his zest for life (e.g. Lawson & for Palaeolithic archaeology. It is clear from Rogerson 1998); however, this account will John’s immaculately kept notebooks (now in concentrate on his contribution to the British Museum) that the Wymers spent

213

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) most weekends visiting and collecting from licenses had to be obtained for more formal the gravel pits of the Thames Valley, Kent, excavation by John and his father. East Anglia and beyond, from sites such as Excavations began on July 29th 1955, and Caversham, Fordwich and Brandon. His first remarkably on the second day, a right flint illustrations are also recorded with a parietal of a human skull was discovered. collection of fine ink drawings of scrapers The bone was sent to the British Museum from Santon Downham and Icklingham. On (Natural History) and on August 4th it was the reverse of the card he has noted ‘These confirmed by letter that this piece of skull are the first drawings of flint I attempted, refitted to those discovered by Marston in some time in 1949. J. Wymer’. A typical 1935 and 1936. As was typical of John, his entry from these years is that of Saturday notebook understates the discovery in a August 21st 1954, where he describes a visit rather sober record: to Fordwich, Kent (Figure 1). “Saturday 30th July 1955. Discovery of right Through these endeavours the Wymers parietal” mingled with other well known amateurs of the time, such as J.C. Draper in Hampshire It is hoped that the lack of an entry for and Alvan T Marston in the Lower Thames Sunday 31st July reflects the less sober Valley. Many of the trips were made with the celebrations of the night before. Five days Shoreditch Training College Archaeological later was a little more Society, who travelled significant distances exuberant: from their base in east London to sites such as Burnham and Furze Platt in Berkshire for “While excavating in the gravels at section cleaning, recording and collecting. Swanscombe, Kent, Mr. and Mrs. B.O. Wymer, their son, Mr J. Wymer, and Mr. It was from within this context of amateur Adrian Gibson have discovered the major exploration that the Wymers initiated more portions of a human skull bone. This is formal excavations at Barnfield Pit in stated by Sir Gavin de Beer, Director of the Swanscombe. The site was already renowned Natural History Museum.” as one of the flagships of the British Palaeolithic through the early work of Smith Brief reports on this discovery appeared the & Dewey (1913, 1914), with the same year by both John (J.J. Wymer 1955) identification of a long sequence of and his father (B.O. Wymer 1955) in Nature archaeological horizons, starting with a core and Man respectively. Over the following and flake industry in the lower beds (later to five years excavations continued, primarily be termed the Clactonian) followed by a at weekends, with the co-operation of the series of handaxe industries. The discovery British Museum (Natural History) and of two pieces of skull in the Upper Middle Nature Conservancy, and by November 1960 Gravel by Marston in 1935 and 1936 further virtually all of the remaining accessible promoted Swanscombe as the most deposits of Upper Middle Gravel had been important British site for the Lower examined. The full monograph of this work Palaeolithic (Marston 1937). Wymer first appeared four years later (Ovey 1964), where visited the site in early 1950 in the belief that the name Wymer appeared alongside the most of the Upper Middle Gravel had been great professionals of the day, such as worked out. However, in 1953 after frequent Hinton, Kennard and Oakley. visits to the site an area of the skull-bearing gravel was located. By this time the site was owned by the Nature Conservancy and

214

N. Ashton: John James Wymer

Figure 1: Visit to Fordwich, 1954

FROM AMATEUR TO lived jobs, starting as a railway clerk with PROFESSIONAL Great Western Railways and finishing with a teaching post at Wokingham. However, in The Swanscombe discovery must 1956 he was offered the post of curator at undoubtedly have helped in the launch of Reading Museum. Here he devoted his Wymer’s professional career. After leaving energies to a range of exhibitions and East Sheen county school and Shoreditch fieldwork in the Kennet Valley, including Training College he had a series of short- significant fieldwork on Mesolithic sites at

215

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Thatcham (Figure 2; Wymer & Churchill including bone tools. This discovery formed 1962), but perhaps more importantly this one of the main pillars of what has since gave him the opportunity to undertake become known as the ‘Out of Africa’ frequent visits and small-scale fieldwork at hypothesis, arguing for an African origin for the gravel pits of the Middle Thames Valley, Homo sapiens (Stringer 1988). including Furze Platt and Remenham. The Wymer notebooks faithfully record the Much of this work led to his first day to day activities at the site. However, monumental tome, Lower Palaeolithic what they don’t reveal are the difficulties of Archaeology in Britain as Represented by excavating in such a remote location. A the Thames Valley (Wymer 1968). The book flavour of the daily routine is summarised by (often nick-named the ‘Old Testament’, for Andy Lawson (Lawson & Rogerson 1998). more was to come) set a new standard and a A total of 255,244 artefacts were recorded new formula for the recording of the British from the 20m thick sequence. Such massive Palaeolithic. Its importance cannot be over- undertakings were achieved with only a estimated for it provided the first gazetteer of small team of eight. Sieving was cunningly all the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic undertaken by harnessing the natural motion occurrences in the Thames catchment, of the sea with a Heath-Robinson style systematically detailing the history of construction of mesh boxes, and discovery, geological context along with a pulleys. Supplies arrived only weekly and summary of the lithic assemblages, recording had to be carried the last mile and a half, and the condition and types of handaxes for each then down the steep cliff to site. On these location. The excellent artefact drawings and occasions the nightly allowance of a small the accompanying maps would become a can of lager was supplemented by gallon jars familiar sight in subsequent publications. of cheap, white wine and these days became known as wyndaag. An expansive monograph on the site was published in 1982 INTERNATIONAL CAREER by Chicago University Press, illustrated throughout by John’s characteristic ink and In 1965 his career was set to take a different line drawings (Singer & Wymer 1982). To course. Under the recommendation of Louis this day Klasies River Mouth remains one of Leakey he was offered a position by Ronald the key sites for understanding the origins of Singer, recently appointed to the Chair of anatomically modern humans and the Anatomy at Chicago University, to succession from the Middle to the Late Stone undertake fieldwork in his native South Age in Africa. Africa. Excavations ensued at Elandsfontein and Langebaanweg, but both were Wymer returned to Britain in late 1968 still overshadowed by the major work undertaken employed by the University of Chicago. The at Klasies River Mouth 400 km east of Cape first major endeavours were at Clacton from Town on the Tzitzikama coast. Late 1969 to 1970, where excavations recovered Pleistocene sediments partially filling two the first large, well-excavated assemblage adjacent coastal caves were excavated in two from the site (Singer et al. 1973). This was six-month seasons in 1967 and 1968; these soon followed by a major campaign at contained a wealth of evidence that Hoxne from 1971 to 1974 and in 1978. documented human physical and cultural Hoxne was renowned from the paper change over the last 125,000 years. The most presented to the Society of Antiquaries by startling result was the discovery of hominin Sir John Frere in 1797. Here he described the remains with anatomically modern features now-famous handaxes as ‘…evidently dating back to 100,000 years ago and weapons of war, fabricated and used by a associated with Middle Stone Age artefacts, people who had not the use of metals’ (Frere

216

N. Ashton: John James Wymer

Figure 2: Packing up excavations at Thatcham (1959?)

1800). Despite John’s previous endeavours he was employed as a Senior Research at Swanscombe and his international Associate in the Department of reputation, achieved through the work in Environmental Sciences at the University of South Africa, there were mixed reactions in East Anglia. From here, he went on to some quarters of the establishment to his employment with the Essex and new work at Hoxne. Although attempts were subsequently with the Norfolk made to stop the work, decrying his lack of archaeological field units. As a skilled professional qualifications, excavations went excavator, he was much-valued by these ahead as scheduled. As ever, the project was organisations, although often the lack of meticulously planned and executed, research-orientated fieldwork, the formulaic producing two of the most important methods of excavation and the proliferation archaeological assemblages for the period, of rules and regulations were less to John’s and in direct association with cut-marked taste. animal bone. The work also embraced other new methods of investigation, from micro- These years, however, were fruitfully spent. wear analysis of the flint tools to new forms From his early years he had made frequent of dating, such as Uranium-Series and visits to France, often leading fieldtrips for Thermoluminesence. the Slough and Reading Workers Educational Association (Figure 3). While in The monograph on this work was published South Africa, Wymer had also taken the in 1993, displaying yet again John’s skills as opportunity to visit many of the other sites in an organiser of archaeological data and his that and neighbouring countries, including artistic ability with the pen (Singer et al. the and the rock-art site of 1993). However, his high standards were not Botsabelo Rockshelter, Lesotho (Figure 4). reflected by some of the other illustrations In the following years he travelled to such and he was frustrated by the delay in diverse places as , Hungary and the publication, although these concerns were USA. By the early 1970s he had acquired an rarely voiced. international reputation and it was these experiences and his extensive knowledge of In what had already been a rich and varied sites across Africa and Eurasia that career, Wymer’s life was to take yet another eventually led to the publication of The turn. The funds from the University of Palaeolithic Age (Wymer 1982). On its Chicago had dried up, so from 1979 to 1980 publication there were a few raised eyebrows

217

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Figure 3: Visit to Cagny, France (20th July 1956) about some of the chapter headings, such as interglacials of the Cromerian, Hoxnian and ‘Chapter 5. The transition from savagery to Ipswichian was widely accepted and thought barbarism: Mousterian and other industries’. to place the Hoxnian, for example, at perhaps However, the headings belied the contents 250,000 years ago (e.g. Mellars 1974; Roe within, which were up-to-date, detailed, 1981). Wymer, however, attempted to use clearly presented and included all the new the new Oxygen Isotope chronology and techniques of investigation. Nearly three apply it to the European terrestrial record. In decades later this book still contains a wealth doing so, he argued that the Anglian was the of information that is relevant today. most extensive of the British ice-sheets and therefore ought to equate with the most One of the overlooked facts about the book pronounced of the cold events recorded in is that Wymer was the first archaeologist to the Oxygen Isotope curves. Stage 8 and embrace and publish on the longer Stage 10 were somewhat muted and chronology for the European Palaeolithic. A therefore he proposed that the Anglian shorter chronology with the three correlated with Stage 12 and thus the

218

N. Ashton: John James Wymer

Figure 4: Visit to Botsabelo, Lesotho (1968)

219

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Hoxnian with Stage 11 at about 400,000 archaeology at Dunbridge in Hampshire. A years ago. Over the last 28 years new dating vociferous archaeological pressure group, work has proved him to be correct and few backed by famous local residents, such as would argue with these correlations. David Frost, called for quarrying to end and archaeology to begin. The resulting public As if a book on the world Palaeolithic was enquiry came to a compromise, but the long- not enough, Wymer was also compiling yet term result was the Southern Rivers another monumental volume on the British Palaeolithic Project with the subsequent The Palaeolithic. This time ‘The New Testament’ English Rivers Palaeolithic Survey and The was The Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia Welsh Lower Palaeolithic Project. These (Wymer 1985). Like its predecessor on the back-to-back projects funded by English Thames Valley, this gazetteer documented Heritage and Cadw through Wessex all the occurrences of Lower and Middle Archaeology set out to provide a complete Palaeolithic archaeology in East Anglia. survey of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Twenty five years later, it is still as valuable record in England and Wales to better inform a record of the East Anglian sites as when it local planning authorities about the risk to was first published, and it is garnished Palaeolithic archaeology. This monumental throughout with the inimitable illustrations task was given in 1990 to John Wymer with that mark all of Wymer’s work. assistance in the field from Phil Harding. By now at the age of 62 most people would have In combination these books illustrate his been thinking of retiring, but John devoted attention to detail, but set within a global the next eight years with vigour and framework. They also reflect his ability to enthusiasm to the job in hand. take on board new methods, ideas and interpretations. His open-minded approach The results are a series of catalogues with was clearly illustrated when he fully colour location maps relating to the surface accepted, after a critical review of the geology with details of every known Lower evidence, the startling new discoveries at and Middle Palaeolithic occurrence across Boxgrove. In 1983 the excavations by Mark England and Wales. The entries include Roberts had revealed well-made ovate summaries of artefact assemblages, handaxes that were apparently pre-Anglian collectors, museum locations, geological in age (Roberts 1986). Others verbally context and related publications, together dismissed the revelations, preferring to stick with an assessment of the site’s importance. with the traditional interpretation that if there As well as being an invaluable tool for local were pre-Anglian handaxes (which in itself planning authorities they have also been an was doubtful) then they should be primitive important source of data for other in form. Although Wymer used typology as a Palaeolithic researchers (e.g. Bridgland means of description and sometimes 2001; Ashton & Lewis 2002). The surveys interpretation, he was always cautious in are the envy of our European colleagues who using it as a means of dating, particularly are lumbered with much more dispersed when it was outweighed by the scientific archives and records, and the surveys, evidence. Again, he was the first to state condensed for publication into the two- clearly that in a British context handaxe volume set The Lower Palaeolithic typology could not be used to date sites Occupation of Britain (Wymer 1999), will (Wymer 1988). continue to be an unparalleled research tool for generations to come. There was one final chapter left in Wymer’s career. In 1986 English Heritage had been caught off-guard by large-scale quarrying at a known location for Lower Palaeolithic

220

N. Ashton: John James Wymer

THE FINAL YEARS Studies Society Occasional Paper 7, Southampton. Frere, J. 1800. Account of flint weapons discovered at Hoxne in Suffolk. Archaeologia 13: 204–205. John Wymer finally retired from a paid Lawson, A.J. & Rogerson, A. 1998. Bifaces, booze career in 1998. Never one to sit back, he still and the blues. Anecdotes from the life and times of visited many of the old sites and new a Palaeolithic archaeologist. In N.M. Ashton, F. excavations alike. He also found more time Healy & P. Pettitt (eds.) Stone Age Archaeology. for many of the other pleasures he enjoyed: Essays in Honour of John Wymer: 1–14. Oxbow Monograph 102 & Lithic Studies Society steam locomotion; wildlife; good food, wine Occasional Paper 6, Oxford. and beer; trips to France; and playing blues Marston, A.T. 1937. The Swanscombe Skull. Journal piano. However, on a Quaternary Research of the Royal Anthropological Institute 67–68: 339– Association trip in 2000 at Pakefield in 406. Suffolk he was involved in the discovery of a Mellars, P.A. 1974. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In C. Renfrew (ed.) British Prehistory. A New flake apparently from the Cromer Forest-bed Outline: 41–99. Duckworth, London. Formation, a deposit on the East Anglian Ovey, C.D. (ed.) 1964. The Swanscombe Skull: a coast that had defied archaeologists, Survey of Research at a Pleistocene Site. Royal geologists and palaeontologists alike in Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 20, providing evidence of humans. Subsequent London. Parfitt, S.A., Barendregt, R.W., Breda, M., Candy, I., excavations proved the initial findings and Collins, M.J., Coope, G.R., Durbidge, P., Field, the paper, including Wymer’s flint report and M.H., Lee, J.R., Lister, A.M., Mutch, R., Penkman, illustrations, was published in Nature in K.E.H., Preece, R.C., Rose, J., Stringer, C.B., December 2005 (Parfitt et al. 2005). This Symmons, R., Whittaker, J. E., Wymer, J. J. & paper demonstrated that humans were in Stuart, A.J. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in Northern Europe. Nature 438: 1008– northern Europe at 700,000 years ago, an 1012. astonishing 200,000 years earlier than Roberts, M.B. 1986. Excavations of the Lower previously thought. Just as Wymer had Palaeolithic site at Amey’s Eartham Pit, Boxgrove, started his career with a paper in Nature in West Sussex: preliminary report. Proceedings of 1955, so it was to be completed 50 years the Prehistoric Society 52: 215–245. Roe, D.A. 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic later with a paper in the same international Periods in Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, journal. London. Singer, R., Gladfelter, B.G. & Wymer, J.J. (eds.) John died only three months later in 1993. The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, February 2006 at the age of 75 through the England. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Singer, R. & Wymer, J.J. 1982. The Middle Stone Age rapid onset of Alzheimer’s disease. He left at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. University behind an unparalleled legacy that forms a of Chicago Press, Chicago. rock-solid foundation for future research in Singer, R., Wymer, J.J., Gladfelter, B.G. & Wolff, R. Britain and abroad. He also left behind many 1973. Excavation of the Clactonian industry at the enduring memories. Despite his remarkable golf course, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 6–74. achievements he remained one of the most Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1913. Stratification at human of men with a generosity of spirit that Swanscombe: report on excavations made on should be an example to us all. behalf of the British Museum and H.M. Geological Survey in 1913. Archaeologia 64: 177–204. Smith, R.A. & Dewey, H. 1914. The High Terrace of the Thames: report on excavations made on behalf REFERENCES of the British Museum and H.M. Geological Survey. Archaeologia 65: 185–212. Ashton, N. & Lewis, S. 2002. Deserted Britain: Stringer, C.B. 1988. The dates of Eden. Nature 331: declining populations in the British late Middle 565–566. Pleistocene. Antiquity 76: 388–396. Wymer, B.O. 1955. The Discovery of the right Bridgland, D.R. 2001. The Pleistocene evolution and parietal bone at Swanscombe, Kent. Man 55: 124. Palaeolithic occupation of the Solent River. In F.F. Wymer, J.J. 1955. A further fragment of the Wenban-Smith & R.T. Hosfield (eds.) Palaeolithic Swanscombe skull. Nature 176: 426–427. Archaeology of the Solent River: 15–25. Lithic Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in

221

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley. John Wymer, J.J. 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic Baker, London. Occupation of Britain. Wessex Archaeology, Wymer, J.J. 1982. The Palaeolithic Age. Croom Salisbury. Helm, London. Wymer, J.J. & Churchill, D.M. 1962. Excavations at Wymer, J.J. 1985. Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia. the Maglemosian sites at Thatcham, Berkshire, Geo Books, Norwich. England, and the stratigraphy of the Mesolithic sites Wymer, J.J. 1988. Palaeolithic archaeology and the III and V at Thatcham, Berkshire, England. British Quaternary sequence. Quaternary Science Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28: 329– Reviews 7: 79–98. 370.

222