A further refitting reduction sequence of early middle Palaeolithic laminar flakes from Stoneham’s Pit, Crayford, Kent
By Frank Beresford
In the 1880s, Flaxman C.J. Spurrell discovered two of the most important British Early Middle Palaeolithic sites: the chipping floor at Stoneham’s Pit, Crayford; and the Levallois sites of the Ebbsfleet Valley, later to be known as Baker’s Hole. Both sites are in Kent. Most of the refitting reduction sequences of flakes that he found at Crayford are now curated at the National History Museum. However, at least one refitting reduction sequence remains in Kent and is curated by the Bromley Historical Collections. This paper presents this sequence and its story.
Flaxman C.J. Spurrell’s collection of refitting laminar flakes from Stoneham’s Pit Crayford is the most complete and only definite in situ, British Middle Palaeolithic flint assemblage known (Scott 2011, 132.) Using Spurrell’s and later information, Craig Williams has reconstructed the original scene in the Early Middle Palaeolithic when the knapping took place (Fig 1).
Aston (2017, 175) has described the original setting in which the early humans worked as a broad flat
Above
Fig 1: A reconstruction, circa 330 000 years, ago of the knapping scene at Crayford in front of the chalk face in which a line of flint was the source of cylindrical flint nodules (© Craig Williams.) Right
Fig 2: The Location of Stoneham’s Pit, Crayford (from Kennard 1944, 123) floodplain in a backwater of the slow-flowing proto-Thames. Both the floodplain and the higher ground behind were open steppe with a few stands of woodland grazed by rhinoceros, elephant and horse. Early Neanderthal people occasionally visited to remove elongated flint nodules from a low cliff cut through the chalk by a river. They skillfully worked on these nodules leaving much flint waste which was gently covered in silt by the next flood and left in situ until their discovery in 1880. This gives us an insight into a brief period of human life around 330, 000 years ago in what would later become Kent.
In March 1880, Flaxman C.J. Spurrell discovered ‘a dense layer of chips’ within the brickearths in Stoneham’s Pit which was on the south bank of the Thames at Crayford (Spurrell 1880b, 544; 1884, 112; Fig 2).
He found them where fine-grained deposits were banked up against an eroded chalk cliff covered by chalk rubble (Figs 3 and 4). A band of flint flakes, several inches thick in places, was exposed between 36 and 42 feet from the surface, near the steeper base of the cliff. Their spatial distribution indicated knapping had been undertaken in a sitting or squatting position with legs slightly apart. Fossil mammals were also recovered from the same level, including a juvenile woolly rhino jaw. The Crayford deposits rest upon chalk of Thanet Sand to well below 0m OD and are banked against a Chalk and Thanet Sand
Spurrell found that many of these flakes could be refitted. He also noted that they were free from abrasion and that they must have been found in situ at the place that they were made. Spurrell was a keen early photographer and took his photographs of the site (Fig 3) and the refitting sequences (Fig 5.) Spurrell does not say how many flakes and cores he found, but he gave most of his collection to the Natural History Museum. In 1895 some examples, including refitting sequences, were dispersed to three other museum collections, so the museum now curate over 500 flakes and 10 cores. 120 artefacts form part of 19 refitting sequences. At
Top
Fig 3: Spurrell’s photograph of the flaking floor at the Stoneham’s Pit Site (courtesy of the British Museum.)
Middle
Fig 4: Spurrell’s section of the find site. (Spurrell 1880b, 544.)
Bottom left and right
Fig 5: Spurrell’s photographs of two of his refitting reduction sequences copied from his scrapbook. The left-hand sequence is not currently identified, but the right-hand sequence is now numbered 5 and is the largest sequence of 33 pieces in the Natural History Museum. (from Spurrell, various, c1860-c1886: Bromley Local History Library.) least 7 cores and 113 flakes can be identified within these refitting sets (Cook 1986, 16: Scott 2011, 139.)
Spurrell was keen to share his discovery and immediately wrote to his close friend Flinders Petrie who, before he departed for Egypt in November 1880, lived in Bromley Kent. Both men spoke at the Kent Archaeological Society Meeting in Bromley in 1878. Spurrell wrote ‘if you care to see a very early flint chipping site, come to Crayford, for there it is, – suppose a cliff of chalk – above a flint mine
– below a beach of hard sand, on the sand a layer of beautiful flakes. As this lies now, the river has covered up the flakes with sand and bones of extinct animals and the whole is like a picture – no time to be lost for the men of the pit are desirous of carrying off the bones and sand is falling over the flakes .. I must keep watch on my remarkable finds as I have written to John Evans to come and see them’ (Scott, B. & Shaw, A. 2009; ms. PMA/WFPI/16/5/1)
By late 1880, numerous geologist friends had visited the site with Spurrell including John Lubbock – later Lord Avebury. During this visit, Lubbock found an additional flake that fitted one of the refitted reduction sequences that Spurrell had found earlier. Spurrell used this sequence to illustrate one of his papers on the finds (Spurrell 1880b, 549) and the flake that Lubbock had found was marked JL in this figure (Fig 6).
During his lifetime, John Lubbock built an extensive collection of archaeological and anthropological artefacts many of which he used to illustrate his book ‘Prehistoric Times as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages’, first published in 1865, in which he introduced the terms Palaeolithic and Neolithic. He started collecting around 1864 when his close friend and neighbour, Charles Darwin gave him a bone harpoon from the South American island of Tierra del Fuego. This fuelled his interest in science and in particular in evolution and prompted him to collect additional items to help him understand this controversial new theory. He collected archaeological items that had been found around the world and made comparisons with more recent anthropological items from many countries and cultures. Some items he found himself but most were bought from or given by scientists, antiquaries or other collectors and kept at his home, High Elms in Farnborough, Kent. He kept a catalogue of his collection for forty years until 1903 by which time he had listed 1264 items in it although his numbering became confused after item 1199. Item 1263, he recorded as a ‘Palaeolithic Implement from Ightham Plateau, Ash Place, 497 OD presented by
Mr Harrison of Ightham.’ The catalogue lists gifts from other well-known figures in British Palaeolithic Archaeology at the time such as Worthington Smith.
By 1880, Lubbock had produced four editions of ‘Prehistoric Times’. It was a book that would have been well known to Spurrell. Consequently, he gave one of his refitting sequences of flint flakes from Crayford to Lubbock for his collection. Lubbock recorded two items from Crayford in his catalogue in 1880. On the
Top
Fig 6: One of the refitted reduction sequences, parts of which are now in the Natural History Museum. The flake found by John Lubbock is marked JL. (A.S. Foord del. et lith. in Spurrell 1880b. 549)
Bottom
Fig 7: John Lubbock in his study at High Elms
17th July 1880, he listed item 1173 – ‘Flint chips from Crayford Pit at the foot of a chalk cliff.’ In November 1880, item 1185 is described as ‘a reconstructed flint. Crayford. Presented by F.C.S.Spurrell.’ This second number 1185 is marked on the refitted sequence of flakes in his collection (Lubbock Catalogue, 30-31 Fig 8.) A small collection of flakes and a hammerstone, some of which are marked Crayford, is kept with the refitted sequence and presumably represent item 1173. In the sixth (1912, 322) and the seventh (1913, 345) editions of his book, Lubbock, by then Lord Avebury, wrote ‘Mr Spurrell actually found near Crayford in
Kent the spot where some of these ancient men had been making their implements. It was on the bank of the Thames and, probably by some flood, had been covered over with loam, which had then accumulated to some depth without disturbing the flakes and chips…. By great patience he found some that fitted and he was even able to reconstruct the original flint.’
Above
Fig 8: The refitted Lubbock Reduction Sequence – side view (left); end views (right, far right.)
Writing about his refitting sequences, Spurrell noted that ‘in some cases, the whole stone was split up into long parallel regular flakes such as one I gave to Sir John Lubbock (Spurrell 1884, 110.) He describes a laminar assemblage of blade-like flakes which were at least twice as long as they were wide. The Lubbock reduction sequence now contains at least
22 flakes that were detached by bipolar hard hammer flaking, but it lacks the final central core. Its original blank form was an elongated cylindrical burrow flint nodule (Figs 8 & 9.) It was approximately 87 mm in greatest width and longer than 203 mm. The material as a whole is in mint condition and unpatinated which suggests that the hominins were removing fresh flint nodules from the adjoining flint band that would have been exposed in the chalk cliff.
Originally, Spurrell stuck the Lubbock reduction sequence fully together, but it is now broken into four sets (A, B, C & D) and three loose flakes (Fig 9)
Examination of these sets and loose flakes suggests that the Early Neanderthal knapper initially removed cortical flakes from one end of the nodule to form a striking-platform surface and then removed a relatively broad short cortical flake. The flaking was controlled around a plane of intersection that defined the striking- platform surface and the flaking surface. At least four further refitting flakes were then removed in sequence approximately at right angles to the striking platform plane which was rejuvenated when necessary giving the refitted cluster of top set A a “stepped” profile.
Decortication on the other face followed included the removal of set D using the first platform. A second striking platform was then formed at the other end and used for the removal of set B & most of set C.
A series of laminar flakes were produced, some of which have cortical edges. Each set and the loose flakes are briefly described in Table 1 (over the page).
The refitted laminar flake sequence indicates that the original cylindrical nodule surface already partially provided the volumetric convexities necessary to match some of the criteria that define Levallois exploitation (Boëda 1995). However, as the subsequent core is missing, it is impossible to describe this sequence
Above
Fig 9: Set D (top left); Set C on Set D (top right); Set B on Sets C&D (bottom left); Set A on Sets B,C & D (bottom right.)
Flake set | Number of flakes | Description |
Top set A | 5 | This is the biggest group in size and represents approximately 40% of the volume of the refitted sequence. All flakes are cortical and they were removed from the first platform. |
Upper middle set B | 3 | A small group with shorter flakes - the longest is 89mm in length. The group together only represent about half of the width of the original nodule. Only one is cortical and they were all removed from the second platform. |
Lower middle set C | 5 | The longest flake in this group is 142mm in length and mostly cortical on its dorsal face representing the decortification of one side of the nodule. Another has cortex on the dorsal face and a third has cortex on the edge. All but one were removed from the second platform |
Bottom set D | 6 | These flakes were all removed from the first platform although they do not have large amounts of cortex on the dorsal face implying that some cortical flakes are missing. |
Loose Flakes | 3 | Two flakes are laminar and 107mm and 55 mm in length respectively. The first has cortex on one edge and the second has a cortical platform. The other flake is a short distal portion of a blade (Fig 10.) They are marked 68.31.x in the Bromley Museum sequence also noted on one of the refitted flakes above. |
Total Flakes | 22 |
Scott suggested that, of the nineteen refitted sequences (numbered 1 to 19 in her analysis) curated by the National History Museum, seven were the product of Levallois reduction, four more were probably Levallois. At the same time, it was not possible to determine the reduction method used for the rest. Only one sequence
(5) of 33 pieces contains more components than the Lubbock sequence (Fig 5) while another (1) contains 16 pieces – both represent Levallois reduction. All the other refitted sequences contain less than ten components. By comparison with Spurrell’s illustration of a refitted sequence (Spurrell 1880b, 549; Plate XXII; Fig 6) she established that three of the museum’s refitted sequences (sequence 15 comprised of 2 flakes, sequence 18 comprised of 6 flakes and sequence
of 7 flakes) originally formed parts of this refitting
sequence and that they were probably Levallois. Four other sequences are considered Levallois reduction products but have only a small number of components (sequences 7 has 2, sequence 9 has 1, sequence 10 has 6, and sequence 16 has 9.) Ten further small non– Levallois sequences reflect only the initial decortication of flint nodules. So, the nineteen refitted sequences include many small sets similar to the four sets that are components of the Lubbock sequence. These were initially parts of more extensive reduction sequences, and only three fairly complete reduction sequences have been identified at the National History Museum.
Spurrell’s collection from Stoneham’s Pit, Crayford was found in a primary context and its stratigraphic position and location is well established. The refitted Lubbock reduction sequence (Fig 10) of at least 22 laminar flakes adds a fourth fairly complete sequence to the known number of sequences from this important Early Middle Palaeolithic site, and it is consequently a significant example and deserves further study. The third Lord Avebury presented it to the Orpington Historical Society in December 1947, and its seven parts (4 sets and three flakes) are now curated as Items LDBMP:
68.31: 1 to 7 by the Bromley Historic Collections at the Bromley Central Library, Local Studies Section.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank the staff at the former Bromley Museum, the
Bromley Local Studies Library and Bromley Historic Collections for their help with this research. He would also like to thank the Geological Society for the use of Figs 4 & 6; the Geologists’ Association for the use of Fig 2 and the British Museum for the use of Fig 3. Finally, he would like to thank Craig
Williams (www.craigwilliamsillustration.com) for readily permitting the use of his reconstruction in Fig 1.
Above
Fig 10: The refitted Lubbock reduction sequence with one loose flake (left.)
References
Ashton N. 2017. Early Humans. Collins New Naturalist Library, London.
Beresford F. 2016. Further Palaeolithic material from Frindsbury, Kent. Kent Archaeological
Society Newsletter 104: 4-7.
Boëda, E. 1995. “Levallois; A volumetric reconstruction, methods, a technique,” in The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Edited by H.L. Dibble and 0. Bar Josef,
Madison: Prehistory Press: 41-68.
Cook J. 1986. A blade industry from Stoneham’s Pit Crayford. In S.N. Collcutt (ed.) The Palaeolithic of Britain and its nearest neighbours; recent trends. Department of Archaeology, University nof Sheffield: Sheffield 16-19.
Fontana F., Moncel M.-H., Nenzioni G., Onorevoli G., Peretto C., Combier J., 2013. Widespread diffusion of technical innovations around 300,000 years ago in Europe as a reflection of anthropological and social transformations? New comparative data from the western Mediterranean sites of Orgnac (France) and Cave dall’Olio (Italy.) Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32: 478–498
Kennard, A.S. 1944. The Crayford Brickearths. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 55: 121–169.
Lubbock J., Lord Avebury. 1912. Prehistoric Times as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages. Sixth Edition. Williams and Norgate.
Lubbock J., Lord Avebury. 1913. Prehistoric Times as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages. Seventh Edition. Williams and Norgate.
Pettit P. & White M., 2012. The British Palaeolithic: Human Societies at the Edge of the Pleistocene World. Routledge.
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.
Scott, B., 2011. Becoming Neanderthals. Oxbow Books.
Schreve, D.C. 1997. Mammalian biostratigraphy of the later Middle Pleistocene m Britain. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of London.
Spurrell, F.C.J., 1880a. On implements and chips from the floor of a Palaeolithic Workshop.
Archaeological Journal 38: 294-299.
Spurrell, F.C.J., 1880b. On the discovery of the place where Palaeolithic Implements were made at Crayford Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 36, 544-548.
Spurrell, F.C.J., 1883. Palaeolithic Implements found in West Kent. Archaeologica Cantiana 15: 89-103.
Spurrell, F.C.J., 1884. On some Palaeolithic knapping tools and modes of using them. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 13: 109-118
Spurrell, F.C.J., various, c1860-c1886: On the discovery of Palaeolithic implements at Crayford and other articles. Spurrell’s scrapbook: A collection of articles, photographs and pamphlets bound together. Bromley Local Studies Library.
White, M. J. and Ashton, N. M., 2003. Lower palaeolithic core technology and the origins of the Levallois method in North-Western Europe., Current Anthropology., 44 (4). pp. 598-609.