Cuxton Giant Handaxes
Background
In August 2005 two small test pits were dug at the Lower Palaeolithic site at Cuxton (Rochester). The site was first identified in 1889 when, as reported by George Payne (Collectanea Cantiana 1893), an ‘enormous flint heavy celt’ was picked up in the Palaeolithic flint-elfa that lay upon the bank. Further finds within a few yards of the same spot led John Morris to conclude that this site was indeed a Palaeolithic settlement. But it was not until the 1980s that the importance of these was finally recognised. Tester (1998) reviewed the incredible 210 handaxes (from three small test pits) as well as numerous cores, flake-tools and river gravel finds. These he believed had a Lower to Middle Palaeolithic age based on typology (J. D. 2001). Typologically these handaxes were classified as bout coupé, ovate and cleaver types. The Test pit 2 sample date was probably of the same age as the Middle Gravels at Swanscombe, despite the great difference in elevation and the presence at Cuxton of flower and cleaver types absent at Swanscombe, and the relative abundance of flake-tools.
Further work took place in the 1980s on the opposite side of Rochester Road (Case et al. 1997). Closer attention was paid to the finer gravel that contained the artefacts. Lithological analysis confirmed it was laid down by the Medway, and, controversially, it was correlated with the Birmley Gravel of the Hox. but dated at that time to only around 450,000 BP. Contradictory dating (besides the abundance of mint or fresh handaxes) led some to conclude that the site had been bioturbated and that the artefacts were essentially redeposited. In 2004 Phil Harding and a team from Wessex Archaeology revisited Cuxton to obtain more precise dates using amino acid racemization dating of faunal material. A mid-Anglian date has now been confirmed by these methods.
The Lower Palaeolithic finds consist of complete and broken flint handaxes, cores, flake-tools and evidence of debitage from their manufacture, suggesting that early hominins found the area a favourable location for the manufacture of these tools. They were probably taking advantage of localised resources and using the handaxes for the butchering of game.
ABOVE: Location and layout.
LEFT: David Norwood watching excavation of his front lawn.
BELOW: Sondage section with cleaver in situ and holes left by other handaxe finds.
OPPOSITE PAGE: The cleaver.
es) was provided by TL-dating of loam capping the gravel to at least 100,000BP. Overall, these enhanced gravel exposures have raised the profile of the site and provided a world of little interest to the date of the find.
Then, as part of the Aggregates Levy, Medway Valley Palaeolithic Project, a small team from the University of Southampton were invited to continue the study. The main objective was to gain access to stratified deposits for optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating. In the course of this work, we recovered further well-preserved artefacts, that would be a bonus.
Work was kindly permitted by the present site, Rev. Roger Knight, to dig a test pit to the north of the factory drive. And we dug a second test pit at 21 Rochester Road, directly opposite, which produced the spectacular finds discussed below. We and the archaeological community are forever indebted to David and Sarah Norwood for allowing us to excavate on their front lawn.
Two giant handaxes
After clearing away overburden of turf and made ground, a sondage was carefully dug by machine. The upper levels comprised fluvial sands, lacking artefacts. About 80cm down, the sands came down onto a more gravelly layer. As this level was being reached, the scrape of the machine bucket revealed the butt of a large handaxe in the bottom of the trench. With the tip buried by the recently disturbed spoil. Upon retrieval, the handaxe was found to be a monstrous item. 30cm long, making it the second longest handaxe known in Britain after a pointed specimen from Furze Platt found in 1919 and now in Wilmer 1982: 228). Besides its extreme size, the workmanship is exquisite, almost flamboyant. The narrowed waist of the ficron is approximately two-fifths towards the butt. From the waist to the tip, both sides are straight and perfectly symmetrical. As a final flourish, one side of the tip has been finished with two tranchet blows, creating a sharp edge extending 13mm, without affecting the ficron.
A second, flake-based axe was also found well-embedded in the section, and removal of this was left until the section had been recorded and OSL sampling completed. Upon examination in the lab, we realised we were dealing with a classic but another giant handaxe, this time a cleaver. 170mm long by 130mm wide at its widest point and with a transverse cutting blade 110mm wide. The knapping skill is again extraordinary. Despite the large size, there are no mistakes such as step fractures across the wide expanse of the faces. The cross-sections along the long axis and across it are perfectly symmetrical. The cleaver edge, straight and perfectly orthogonal to the long axis, has been achieved by two immaculate opposing tranchet blows, one from each edge. The lateral edges are finely and the same sharp edge as the ficron, and even show similar tranchet blows to define the ends.
Language in the lower Palaeolithic?
What can we make of these finds? There is debate about whether Palaeolithic handaxes genuinely reflect deliberately made types, or whether the varied types most analysts perceive are the accidental by-product of the application of a generalised bifacial knapping approach to nodule of varying shape. As a relatively experienced flint knapper, I can confidently assert that, particularly at this site, the clean plan, straight edges and symmetrical waist of the ficron would not arrive except by design. Above all, the use of diverse approaches to tranchet-sharpening in each of these two examples of handaxes is an evidence other than as a finishing touch to deliberate types as research was underway, which again would result from continuing the more habitual flaked knapping operation noted on the main axis of the ficron. If one accepts that these flakes were deliberately shaped into a desired form, then many would argue (e.g. Davidson & Noble 1993) that this reflects a symbolic capacity compatible with speech in those making them.
Dating and cultural development
We don’t yet know the date of the site. Preliminary indications of the OSL sampling are for a final Lower Palaeolithic date, between 300,000 and 500,000 BP. It is beginning to look as if this period was characterised by an increasing diversity of handaxe types, specifically in the operations of cleavers and ficrons at many sites. Perhaps, the Lower Palaeolithic is not ‘the derived Acheulian’, but rather a period of independent improvement of this great tradition, and increasing behavioural development as it continued into, and through the Middle Palaeolithic.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to David and Sarah Norwood for permitting us to excavate on their front lawn, to Gilbert Marshall, Marcus Huxham and James Cole for help with the excavation and finds, to Dennis O’Brien (of Kent County Council) and Peter Kendall and Helen Kealey (of English Heritage) for their support of the Cuxton fieldwork and the Medway Valley Palaeolithic Project.
References
Case, H.J. 1997. Further investigation of the Medway channel deposits. Archaeologia Cantiana 106: 38–51.
Davidson, I. & Noble W. 1993. Tools and language in human evolution. In R.G. Bednarik (Ed.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution, 363-383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tester, J.R. 1998. An Australian site: dating the development of the early stone tools. Antiquity 33: 50-69.
Wynne-Edwards, V.C. 1982. Enlarged site, the Palaeolithic in Kent: a re-examination of archaeological finds in southern Britain. John Bale, London.
Medway Valley Project:
www.arch.soton.ac.uk/research/medway/valley
www.whiterooves.com
A more detailed report on the new discoveries is published in April in this year’s Essays in honour of R.J. McArdle, a special issue of the Annual Journal of the Lithic Studies Society
James Whittam-Smith
Department of Archaeology
University of Southampton