The 600,000-year-old Lower Palaeolithic Site at the West Gravel Pit, Fordwich, Kent
Recent work at the Lower Palaeolithic site at the West Gravel Pit, Fordwich, Kent, has confirmed the presence of early humans in the area between 560,000 and 620,000 years ago. This breakthrough, which involved controlled excavations and radiometric dating, comes a century after Acheulean handaxes were first discovered at the site. The latest research confirms that early humans, possibly Homo heidelbergensis, occupied
Kent and the surrounding areas in this period – when Kent was still attached to Europe. It provides the first dated evidence for human habitation in Kent before the Anglian Glaciation and makes Fordwich one of the earliest dated Palaeolithic sites in Northwest Europe.
LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY
The West Gravel Pit site near Fordwich is two miles Northeast of Canterbury at NGR TR 180 588. (Fig 1)
The West Pit, also called the High Pit with two further pits, was formed through extensive gravel quarrying in the 1920s and early 1930s (Figs 2 & 3)
During the quarrying work, hundreds of Acheulean handaxes were recovered from the West Pit by workers and collectors on an informal basis (Smith 1933b, 165.) There is little contemporary information on where the handaxes were recovered in the West Pit stratigraphy. The pit is thought to have originally been roughly 350 × 150 m in size, with gravel having been worked to depths of between seven and twenty feet – 2 to 6 metres (See Fig 4). The West Pit is farther up the valley than the other two pits away from the river Stour. It is near the top of a steep hill (OD 41- 44m) on the southern bank of the Great Stour, which flows northwards in a chalk valley (Figs 1, 2 & 3).
THE GEOLOGY OF THE WEST PIT
The course of the River Stour has shifted south- eastwards progressively from an originally more northerly course, there being a series of erosion
Above
Fig 1: Sketch Map to show the location of the West Gravel Pit and the distribution of the three Divisions of the Third
Terrace between Canterbury and Littlebourne (from Ashmore 1980, 84, Fig 1; after Smart et al., 1966, 270, Fig 15
1 = Upper Division 2 = Middle Division 3= Lower Division surfaces, between 30 and 120 metres in echelon successively eastwards, only the lowermost of which preserve gravel spreads (Coleman 1952.) The BGS Memoir for the area (Smart, et al. 1966, 245) notes four terraces of the River Stour marking earlier courses flowing in a Northerly direction from near Chilham. The third, which includes the Fordwich gravels, consists of up to three distinct levels of gravel (Fig 1), each corresponding to a phase of river deposition and separated by marked terrace bluffs incised during the intervening period of downcutting. The West Pit gravels at NGR TR 180588 are believed to belong to the middle division of the third terrace (Smart et al. 1966, 270).
Reginald Smith (1933b, 165) noted that the tongue of high ground between the rivers is covered in patches with gravel and brick-earth resting on Thanet Sand and forms a plateau about five miles long at about the 100 ft. level. So, the West Pit gravels are fluvial in origin. Their base is the Thanet Formation at 40 m OD, or slightly higher, overlain by interstratified, then diffuse gravels and sands (2-6 m thick) succeeded by current-bedded sands and thin gravel, with solifluction debris (‘trail’) at the top.
Smith’s description of the geology of the West Pit has been used by the current researchers as their primary reference point and is given in full in Box One below.
BOX ONE: SMITH’S 1933B DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOLOGY OF THE WEST PIT
‘The gravels rest on Eocene sands, the horizon in contact with the gravel-base being in all probability near the junction of the Thanet and Woolwich beds. The constitution is normal—subangular flints, many Eocene flint pebbles, as well as flint and ironstone derived from the Lenham beds. As a whole, the deposit is not well bedded, yet it is clearly water-laid. In the lower parts it is interstratified with sand; then follows the main mass of gravel, almost without structure. Above are more sands, markedly current-bedded; and at the top of the exposed section a further thin layer of gravel is seen. The upper part of the section shows Trail.’
According to Smith (1933b), the Thanet sands are followed by the main mass of gravel (The Lower Main Gravel) which displays little in the way of clear stratification, followed by a clear band of sand and one further thinner, upper layer of gravel (The Upper Main Gravel), which is in turn covered by loam and soil (Fig 2)
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE WEST PIT SINCE THE 1920S.
189 Acheulean handaxes from the West Pit collected in the 1920s are now curated at the British Museum, and thirty-four more are curated at the Herne Bay Museum. An unknown number of bifaces, flakes and cores entered other private collections or were lost as part of the aggregate output. Table One below summarises the significant developments and research relating to the Palaeolithic artefacts found
Top
Fig 2: Two workers standing in front of the sedimentary deposits in the West Pit during gravel extraction in the 1920s/early 1930s showing the stratification (Photo: E Williams.)
Middle
Fig 3: A further view of the sedimentary deposits in the West Pit during gravel extraction in the 1920s/early 1930s (Photo: E Williams.)
Bottom
Fig 4: John Wymer’s 1977 Sketch Map of the West Gravel Pit showing the location of his section (Wymer 1977)
Above
Fig 5: An idealised cross-section showing the location of the 2020 excavations (Based on Keys et al., 1922, Fig 3)
Table One
A Chronology of significant developments and research at West Pit
Date | Development | Reference |
1920s to early 1930s | Acheulean handaxes 'collected in quantity' by Dr. Ince of Sturry, Dr. Armstrong Bowes of Herne Bay and Dr. Willock of Addiscombe, Croydon. | Smith 1933a |
1932 | In a letter to Reginald Smith dated 13th June 1932, Dr Willock states: ‘the flints only seem to occur when they are working on the extreme western portion of the surface. The grab works from West to East, and as it moves Eastwards the chance of finding anything diminishes.’ | British Museum Archives in the Sturge Room, Franks House. Roe 1968, 14 |
1933 | Implements from high-level gravel near Canterbury – A report by Reginald Smith of the British Museum. He wrote, 'Some hundreds of implements have been found in this pit near the brow of the hill and this accumulation at the edge of a high and level stretch of gravel has to be explained.' | Smith 1933b |
1977 | Seven flakes and a core were found by John Wymer while digging a single test section 50 metres south of the northwest corner of the pit at TR 179587 in July 1977. All were in situ in the Lower Main Gravel. | Wymer 1977 |
1968 | Derek Roe attributes the Fordwich handaxes to Group V of his ovate dominant handaxe tradition. The handaxes in this group have in common an extreme roughness of manufacture, a narrowness and irregularity in shape and a tendency to large size. He suggested that Group V were 'the best attested, earliest handaxe industries of Britain.' | Roe1968, 61&75 |
1968 | John Wymer also noted the crude stone-struck handaxes at Fordwich and suggested they belonged to a separate and earlier stage of the Acheulian culture | Wymer 1968, 68. |
1980 | The typology and age of the Fordwich handaxes – a research report by May Ashmore. She concluded that 'while there are many crudely worked rough handaxes from Fordwich, there are also several well-made, regular, more 'evolved' distinct types.' | Ashmore 1980 |
1981 | Derek Roe again stressed the archaic appearance of the Fordwich handaxes and noted that they had the highest mean value of 0.69 for the ratio of thickness/breadth of any of his selected sites. | Roe 1981, 104-108 |
1998 | David Bridgland found nine flakes et al. in two small section cuttings. Three in the Lower Main Gravel. | Bridgeland et al. 1998, 42 |
2020 and ongoing | A research team led by Alastair Keys produces the first excavation and dating of artefacts discovered in situ at Fordwich, alongside their technological analysis and relationship to those previously recovered. 251 flint artefacts, including 238 flakes, cores, scrapers, and a small piercing or boring tool were discovered in two trenches. The team also collected sixteen sediment samples, dated using infrared-radiofluorescence (IR-RF) dating. | Key A. et al. 2022 |
THE EXCAVATIONS AND SAMPLE COLLECTION IN 2020
During 2020, two 1x1 m trenches were dug into a portion of preserved gravel terrace on the edge of the West Pit quarry (Figs 5 & 6). The primary goal was to confirm whether these sediments retained evidence for the presence of hominins in the form of lithic artefacts. Lithic artefacts were recovered from both excavated trenches.
In addition, eleven samples were collected from freshly cleaned outcrops for infrared-radiofluorescence
(IR-RF) dating led by Tobias Lauer at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology at Leipzig in Germany. Infrared-radiofluorescence (IR-RF) dating determines the point at which feldspar grains were last exposed to sunlight, providing information on the deposits’ burial age. Within the two trenches, samples were principally collected from sand lenses
(samples 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11) or the only visible band of sand (samples 4, 7, and 8.) Collecting samples from the Lower Main Gravels was impossible as no sand lenses were exposed. Repeat samples were taken from several locations. Cross sections of the two trenches give the sedimentary layers, and the location of the samples within these are shown in Fig 6.
Due to the close stratigraphic alignment between David Bridgland and colleague’s 1998 sections and Smith’s 1933 description of the gravels where the original handaxes were found, five samples were also taken from one of the 1998 trenches so that the artefacts discovered in the 1920s could be dated. Two samples were taken from the base of the loam above the thin uppermost gravel layer (samples 13 and 17.) A further two were taken from the first (upper) sand layer in between two gravel layers (samples 14 and 16.) One final sample was taken from a lower sand layer within the main gravel mass (sample 15.) Cross sections
Top
Fig 6: Trenches A (right) and B (left) following the 2020 fieldwork. They confirm Smith’s 1933 account of the stratigraphy in the main gravel. The numbered yellow triangles indicate IF-RF Sample locations (Based on Keys et al., 1922, Fig 3)
Bottom
Fig 7: One of two sections exposed in 1998. The numbered yellow triangles indicate IF-RF Sample locations (Based on Keys et al., 1922, Fig 3)
Above
Fig 8: The complete stratigraphic profile of the 2020 excavations at Fordwich Pit and those from 1998 show the sample locations. (Keys et al., 1922, Supplementary information)
Table Two
The Infrared-Radiofluorescence (IR-RF) ages returned from the Sixteen sediment samples collected in 2020 (Keys et al., 1922)
Original Sample Number | Lab Sample L-Eva | Age in ka | err (ka) | Collated Age in ka (approx. mean age) | Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) Association | Site Date | Stratification Level |
3 | n/a | 2020 | Base of soil | ||||
6 | n/a | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) | ||||
9 | 2279 | 410 | 27 | MIS 11 | 2020 | Sand Lens (UMG) | |
5 | 2275 | 347 | 22 | approx. 372 +/- 7 | MIS 10 or 11 | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) |
11 | 2281 | 372 | 22 | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) | ||
10 | 2280 | 375 | 21 | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) | ||
1 | 2271 | 385 | 21 | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) | ||
2 | 2272 | 383 | 21 | 2020 | Sand Lens (ICF) | ||
4 | 2274 | 570 | 36 | approx. 542 +/- 30 | MIS 14 | 2020 | Middle Sand |
7 | 2277 | 513 | 30 | 2020 | Middle Sand | ||
8 | n/a | 2020 | Middle Sand | ||||
13 | 2282 | 379 | 21 | - | MIS 10 | 1998 | Base of loam |
17 | 2286 | 455 | 24 | approx. 437 +/- 7 | MIS 12 | 1998 | Base of loam |
14 | 2283 | 423 | 29 | 1998 | Upper Sand | ||
16 | 2285 | 437 | 29 | 1998 | Upper Sand | ||
15 | 2284 | 433 | 23 | 1998 | Middle Sand | ||
No sample was assigned to number 12. Ages could not be returned for three samples due to a lack of appropriately sized feldspar grains. |
of this trench giving the sedimentary layers and the location of the samples within these are shown in Fig 7.
An Infrared-radiofluorescence dating methodology is given in the original report (Keys et al. 2002, 7 to 10.)
THE RESULTS OF THE INFRARED- RADIOFLUORESCENCE DATING
The results obtained from the samples are shown in Table Two.
The results showed that three age clusters are present in the sediment. Two clusters, one from approximately 372 000 years ago (372 ka) and another from around 542 000 years ago (542 ka), is located in the 2020 excavation, while the third, approximately 437 000 years ago (437 ka) date cluster is from the 1998 exposure investigated by Bridgland et al. (Table Two and Fig 6).
The Middle Sand (above the Lower Main Gravel) at 542 000 years ago broadly correlates with Marine Isotope Stage 14 (Fig 13). The Upper Main Gravel and the Intermediate Coarse Flints at 347 000 to 410 000 years ago correlate with Marine Isotope Stages 10 and
11. The younger age for the upper part of the sequence has been interpreted to be the result of later reworking of the uppermost part of the fluvial aggradation during Marine Isotope Stage 12. The upper sand layer and loam in the 1998 section at 379 00 years ago to 455 000 years ago correlate with Marine Isotope Stages 10 and 12, and the Middle Sand Layer at 433 000 years ago correlates with Marine Isotope Stage 12. Caution should be applied to the age interpretation of the middle sand layer due to the lack of repeat sampling. These stratigraphic levels from the 1998 section are not present at the 2020 excavations (Fig 8).
The upper limits of the sediment at the 1998 excavations and 2020 excavation are broadly level (Fig 8). This means that, when measured to the underlying Lambeth Group sands, the stratigraphic units in the 1998 section are deeper (both altitude and unit thickness) than in the 2020 section. Both the 1998 and 2020 excavations are toward the extreme west of the pit, where the letter from Dr. Willock that was contemporary with the original quarrying activity suggested that most handaxe artefacts were found.
THE EARLIEST SECURELY DATED ACHEULEAN SITE IN BRITAIN
Fluvial deposition at Fordwich West Pit is interpreted as having occurred during cold climatic periods with high-energy fluvial activity, potentially in a braided river system. Artefacts produced and discarded by hominins in previous warm climate periods would have formed part of this fluvial activity and deposition. So Fordwich represents fluvial aggradation of previously disposed stone tools. As a result, the dating method delivers the minimum age of the artefacts found in the dated sediment layer and the layers below.
Although there is no contemporary information about where in the West Pit stratigraphy the handaxes retrieved from the West Pit by workers and collectors on an informal basis in the 1920s were recovered, many would have been in situ in the Lower Main Gravel having remained untouched by the later MIS 12 period
Table Three
Absolute and relative frequencies of artefact concentrations throughout the excavated gravel sequence from both trenches as measured from the surface of the main gravel mass. The associated sediment layers do not perfectly align with the depth increments. (Based on Keys et al., 1922, Table Three)
Depth in cms. from the surface of the main gravel mass | Number of Artefacts found at this level | Percentage of Artefacts found at this level | Associated Layer (As named in figure four) |
0-10 | 22 | 8.76 |
Upper Main Gravel |
10-20 | 10 | 3.98 | |
20-30 | 21 | 8.37 | |
30-40 | 19 | 7.57 | |
40-50 | 41 | 16.33 | |
50-60 | 17 | 6.77 |
Intermediate Coarse Flint |
60-70 | 5 | 1.99 | |
70-80 | 4 | 1.59 | |
80-90 | 10 | 3.98 | Middle Sand Layer |
90-100 | 14 | 5.58 |
Lower Main Gravel |
100-110 | 16 | 6.37 | |
110-120 | 31 | 12.35 | |
120-130 | 19 | 7.57 | |
130-140 | 16 | 6.37 | |
140-150 | 6 | 2.39 | |
Total | 251 | 100 |
Top
Fig 9: Bowes Collection Handaxe 77 collected in July 1924 (Drawing: M. Moores; Photo: F. Beresford)
Bottom
Fig 10: Bowes Collection Handaxe 298 collected on the 15th April 1926 (Drawing: M. Moores; Photo: F. Beresford)
Gravel. Ten percent were in the Middle Sand Layer, which correlates with Marine Isotope Stage 14 and 43% were in the Upper Main Gravel and Intermediate Coarse Flint.
With the exclusion of the loam and upper gravel/sand layer, the gravels at the 2020 excavations broadly match Smith’s 1933 description of the main gravel mass from which the Fordwich West Pit handaxes were recovered. Consequently, after also considering the abraded nature of many of the lithic tools, the 2020 Research Team (Key et al.) propose that hominins most likely discarded artefacts found in the Lower Main Gravel during Marine
Isotope Stage 15 or MIS 15 but possibly earlier confirming the presence of early humans in Kent and the surrounding area between 560,000 and 620,000 years ago (Table Two). Many of the handaxes would have been retrieved
Above
Fig 11: Bowes Collection Handaxe 323 collected on the 28th July 1926 (Drawing: M. Moores; Photo: F. Beresford)
Left
Fig 12: Two examples of the retouched pieces and a core from the West
Pit, Fordwich in 2020. The double- pointed retouched implement is top left, the largest scraper is bottom left and the largest core is on the right (© Alastair Key; Keys et al., 1922)
Artefacts found in the Upper Gravel were discarded by hominins during Marine Isotope Stages 13 or 15 or earlier. In this context, the majority were likely reworked from MIS 15 and formed an integral part of the MIS15 Acheulean assemblage. Future work is planned to gain additional insights into the complex fluvial architecture of the site. This will provide a better understanding of the distinct MIS 14 and MIS 12 periods of fluvial aggradation, along with the erosion and reworking processes.
THE 1920S LITHICS
Of the three known collections from the 1920s, the largest was that made by Dr Thomas Armstrong Bowes MA MD FSA (1869–1954.) He first visited the West
Pit, or High Pit as he called it, in December 1923 when he retrieved eleven artefacts. His final visit was made in May 1932, when he had accumulated about 540 artefacts for his collection. Smith (1933b) described his collection, stating it “contains 220 artefacts that may be regarded as unrolled pear-shaped hand-axes of the peculiar Fordwich facies. There are ten of this type in a rolled condition and fifty-seven of St. Acheul character. There are also five cores, three good flake implements...….and a large number of amorphous flakes, with a few facetted butts.” Three of the handaxes from the Bowes collection are shown in Figs 9, 10 & 11.
Above
Fig 13: Warm and Cool Marine Isotope Stages up to one million years before present (right to left.) The West Pit at Fordwich is dated to the MIS 15 interglacial period.
Left
Fig 14: Location of the West Pit, Fordwich Site and other early Pre-Anglian Palaeolithic Sites in Northwest Europe. Sites with simple cores and flake technology (blue dots); Sites with Acheulean Technology (red dots);
Homo heidelbergensis type site (green dot); Furthest extent of the MIS 12 (Anglian) Ice Sheet (black dotted line); Cromerian Period Shoreline (green) The arrows show possible communication routes during interglacial (red) and glacial (blue) periods. (Based on Antoine et al. 2019, Fig 1)
THE 2020 LITHICS
In 2020, no further handaxes were recovered, so the Acheulean attribution relies upon those found in the 1920s to early 1930s. However, 238 lithic artefacts, mainly flakes, were recovered from the gravels in the two excavated trenches (Table Three) 112 were located in the Lower Main Gravel. There were four cores, three scrapers, one double-pointed implement, and two notched flakes, while a further flake displayed evidence of continuous retouch on a portion of its edge (Fig 12)
OTHER RELATED SITES
Cold glacial periods repeatedly drove populations out of northern Europe, and until recently, there was only limited dated evidence of Britain being recolonised during the warm periods in between. Now that it is securely linked to MIS 15 (Fig 13), the West Pit at Fordwich has become crucial to our current understanding of the pre- Anglian Palaeolithic in Northwest Europe.
There are two earlier non-Acheulean British sites with simple core and flake technology; Pakefield in Suffolk is linked to MIS 17/19. At approximately 900,000 years old, Site 3 at Happisburgh in Norfolk is the oldest archaeological site in northern Europe (Figs 13 & 14).
Two French Sites with Acheulean technology also pre-date the West Pit site. The French site at Moulin Quignon in Abbeville has evidence of hominins using this technology in Northwest Europe during MIS 17. The 700 000-year-old site with Acheulean technology of la Noira in the Loire Valley in Central France also pre- dates Fordwich and is one of the most technologically diverse pre-MIS 13 sites in Europe (Figs 13 & 14).
Four British sites with Acheulean technology, Rampart Field, Warren Hill, Brandon Fields and Maidscross Hill, all along the former valley of the Bytham River in East Anglia, are also linked to MIS 15. However, currently, they are less secure in their attribution than Fordwich. The Bytham River was removed by the ice sheet during the MIS 12 Anglian glacial period. The site with Acheulean technology at Boxgrove in Sussex is securely dated to MIS 13 and later than West Pit, Fordwich (Fig 14).
THE WEST PIT PALAEOLITHIC PEOPLE
The currently emerging dating and lithics evidence reveals that successive small groups of hominins moved into North-west Europe during the Middle Pleistocene period. The new dating evidence from the West Pit at Fordwich indicates the presence of early people using Acheulean lithics technology in what is now Kent during MIS 15, dating to approximately 560 000–620 000 years ago. They are currently the earliest known inhabitants of the Kent area, although, during this period, the area would have been linked to Europe across a landscape that is now submerged beneath the North Sea and the English Channel.
When this new dating evidence is combined with the discoveries in East Anglia along what was the Bytham river valley and with those in the Somme valley, it is now clear that hominins occupied large tracks of northwest Europe during MIS 15 and were almost certainly at least intermittently occupying a majority of what is now southern Britain. The large handaxe assemblages from the West Pit at Fordwich and the four sites along the Bytham River in East Anglia suggest a more prolonged occupation and larger population sizes that were greater than those of a few small explorative groups.
It has been suggested that the West Pit people arrived in Kent having moved north along a projection of the current Somme valley (see the possible communication routes marked in Fig 14. However, the Channel River would have proved a formidable barrier on this route which they would have to cross or circumnavigate, so it is also possible that they travelled from the East through Doggerland, the name given to the landscape that is now submerged beneath the North Sea.
WHO WERE THEY?
Assigning the West Pit people to a defined group within the genus Homo is difficult. The Boxgrove people from MIS 13 have been linked to a group of humans known as Homo heidelbergensis, and it is suggested that the West Pit people were an earlier form of this group.
The Type Site for Homo heidelbergensis is Mauer in Germany (Fig 14), where the Mauer mandible (Fig 15) was found in 1907 in fluvial sands deposited by the Neckar River 10 km southeast of Heidelberg, Germany.
In 2010, two independent dating techniques, the combined electron spin resonance/U-series method used with mammal teeth and infrared radiofluorescence applied to sand grains as used at Fordwich, were used to date the type-site of Homo heidelbergensis at Mauer to 609 ± 40 ka. This result demonstrated that the mandible is the oldest hominin fossil reported from central and northern Europe (Wagner GA et al. 2010.) Boxgrove is the earliest site in Britain with fossils of the genus homo, and they are also thought to be of Homo heidelbergensis. A tibia was discovered in 1993, and two teeth were found separately in 1995 and 1996. The tibia is the only postcranial element of Homo heidelbergensis in Northern Europe
However, since 1909, the name Homo heidelbergensis has subsequently been applied to an extensive and very variable range of hominin fossils dated to the Middle Pleistocene in Europe and Asia Africa, where the term Homo rhodesiensis has also been used.
Recently Mirjana Roksandic and colleagues (Roksandic M. et al. 2022) have proposed that this large and diverse Homo heidelbergensis group should be split into three and that many of the fossils from Western Europe currently assigned to Homo heidelbergensis be reassigned to Homo neanderthalensis to reflect the early appearance of Neanderthal derived traits in the Middle Pleistocene in the region. This proposal does not preclude the possibility of other human populations in the area simultaneously.
So were the West Pit People an early form of
Homo neanderthalensis, or were they members of another human population, in the area? This complex question remains unresolved.
WHAT NEXT?
Current research will ensure we learn more about the West Pit People. Further work is planned by the 2020 Team (Key et al.) to gain additional insights into the complex fluvial architecture of the West Pit site.
Peter Knowles is also actively pursuing his PhD research into the Palaeolithic in the Stour Valley. Most recently, he has rediscovered, in the basement of the Powell Cotton Museum in Birchington, a collection of six boxes of Pleistocene fossils wrapped in newspapers from the 1920s collected by Percy Powell-Cotton from a site in the Stour Valley. This fossil material has the potential to reveal more about the local environments from 600 000 years ago to 50 00 years ago.
In addition, the author has commenced a reappraisal of the technological characteristics of those artefacts found in the West Pit in the 1920s and now in the British Museum. This should provide a baseline for comparing the technological characteristics of other Acheulean handaxes from Kent and the surrounding area now in museum and private collections.
Did the West Pit People leave a distinctive lithic signature that can be recognised at other sites?
Above
Fig 15: The Mauer mandible (Photo: K Schacherl)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Alastair Keys for agreeing to use the figures from the recent paper. Also, Nick Ashton and the Sturge Room team at the British Museum (Franks House) for their help. Figs 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 are courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. Finally, he would like to thank Stan Matthews for his helpful comments and suggestions after reading an earlier version of this paper.
REFERENCES
Antoine P, Moncel M-H, Voinchet P, Locht J-L, Amselem D, Herisson D, Hurel A, Bahain J-J. 2019: The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest
Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Quignon site, Somme valley, France. Science Rep. 9, 13091.
Ashmore A. M., 1980 The typology and age of the Fordwich handaxes. Archaeologia. Cantiana 96, 83–117.
Roksandic M, Radovic P, Wu X-J, Bae CJ. 2022: Resolving the “muddle in the middle”: The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov. Evolutionary Anthropology. 31:20–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21929
Bridgland D.R; Keen D. H; Schreve D. C; White M. J. 1998: Quaternary Drainage of the River Stour 3.2 Fordwich in The Quaternary of Kent and Sussex 41-42 (editors: JB Murton, CA Whiteman, MR Bates, DR Bridgland, AJ Long, MB Roberts, MP Waller). London, UK: Quaternary Research Association
Coleman A. 1952: Some aspects of the development of the Lower Stour, Kent. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, London 63: 63-86.
Key A, Lauer T, Skinner MM, Pope M, Bridgland DR, Noble L, Proffitt T. 2022: On the earliest Acheulean in Britain: first dates and in-situ artefacts from the MIS 15 site of Fordwich (Kent, UK). Royal Society Open Science 9: 211904. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211904
Roe DA. 1968: British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the. Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82.
Roe DA. 1981: The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smart, J.G.O., Bisson, G., Worssam, B.C. 1966: The Geology of the Country around Canterbury and Folkestone HMSO.
Smith RA. 1933a: Demonstration in the Prehistoric Section of the British Museum with special reference to stratified stone implements. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 1933 Vol. 44; Issue 2, 52-64.
Smith RA. 1933b: Implements from high-level gravel near Canterbury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 165–170.
Wagner GA et al. 2010: Radiometric dating of the type- site for Homo heidelbergensis at Mauer, Germany.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19 726–19 730.
Wymer 1977: Fordwich 30th July – 31sh1977 in Notebook Volume 6, 198 to 201. from Mepham L. 2008: The JJ Wymer archive. Archaeology Data Service, York.
Wymer, J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley, London, 1968.