Neanderthals Among Mammoths

553 Pages·2012·19.96 MB·English

N
e
a
n
d
e
r
t
h
a
l
s

A
m
o
n
g

M
a
m Neanderthals
m
o
t
h
Among Mammoths
s

In spring 2002 mammoth bones and stone tools were discovered in situ at Lynford Quarry, near Munford village, Norfolk, UK.
The finds lay within rich organic sediments of an ancient stream channel. It was immediately realised that Lynford was a site
of great international significance for the study of the most distinctive of human ancestors, Neanderthals.
A detailed archaeological excavation was undertaken with support from Ayton Asphalte, the quarry owners, and English
Heritage, funded through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF). A large team of archaeologists and quaternary Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk
E
scientists recovered exceptionally well-preserved Palaeolithic and palaeoenvironmental information. More than 1,000 d
mammoth bones representing at least 11 individuals were excavated along with other fauna and more than 2,500 stone ite
d
artefacts. Among these the large number of complete and broken handaxes marks Lynford as special in the Palaeolithic b
of Britain and northern Europe. The quality of the preservation made it possible to undertake full investigation of the way y W
the deposits had been formed and how the animal bones and stones tools had come to be incorporated in them. illia
The association of woolly mammoth bones with Middle Palaeolithic bifaces, including distinctive bout coupé handaxes, and m
the wealth of palaeoecological data – mammal remains, beetles, pollen and mollusca – make Lynford the most important A
British site for studying when and how Neanderthals occupied the cold, open environments of what 60,000 years ago B
o
was a peninsula of north-west Europe. These data provide a unique opportunity to investigate questions of Neanderthal is
m
hunting strategies and patterns of land use and to draw wider conclusions about their social structure in a demanding ie
region of Ice Age Europe. r, C
liv
e
G
a
m
b
front cover: The first bout coupé handaxe found at Lyndford and a lingual view of a Mammuthus primigenius third lower molar. le
a
n
back cover: Mammoths and Neanderthals at Lynford: a reconstruction by Dennis Payne. d
F
io
n Edited by William A Boismier, Clive Gamble
a
ISBN 978 1 84802 063 4 C and Fiona Coward
o
Product Code 51546 w
a
r
d
Bar code to be
inserted here
Neanderthals
Among Mammoths
Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk
Edited by
William A Boismier, Clive Gamble and Fiona Coward
This volume is dedicated to
John Wymer and John Lord
for their contributions to Palaeolithic Archaeology
and the Prehistory of Norfolk
Neanderthals
Among Mammoths
Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk
Edited by
William A Boismier, Clive Gamble and Fiona Coward
with contributions from
Julian Andrews, Stella Blockley, Don Brothwell, Matthew Collins, Russell Coope†,
Francesco d’Errico, Randy Donahue, Laure Dubreuil, Adrian Evans, Michael Field,
Charlie French, Christopher Gleed-Owen, Frances Green, Vaughan Grimes,
David Keen†, Nigel Larkin, Simon Lewis, Adrian Lister, Sonia O’Connor,
Kirsty Penkman, Richard Preece, Edward Rhodes, Michael Richards,
Danielle Schreve, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Carol Simmonds,
Anthony Stuart, Keith Tovey and Mark White
Published by English Heritage, The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue,
Swindon SN2 2EH
www.english-heritage.org.uk
English Heritage is the Government’s statutory adviser on all aspects of the
historic environment.
© English Heritage 2012
[The views expressed in this book are those of the author[s] and not necessarily those
of English Heritage.]
Images (except as otherwise shown) © English Heritage or © Crown copyright. NMR
First published 2012
ISBN 978-1-84802-063-4
Product code 51546
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher.
Application for the reproduction of images should be made to the National
Monuments Record. Every effort has been made to trace the copyright holders and
we apologise in advance for any unintentional omissions, which we would be pleased
to correct in any subsequent edition of this book.
The National Monuments Record is the public archive of English Heritage. For more
information about English Heritage images, contact Archives Research Services,
The Engine House, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon SN2 2EH; telephone [phone].
Brought to publication by David M Jones, Publishing, English Heritage
Edited by Louise Wilson
Indexed by Fiona Coward
Page layout by Andrea Rollinson, Ledgard Jepson Ltd
Printed in the UK by 4edge Ltd, 7a Eldon Way, Eldon Way Industrial Estate,
Hockley, Essex, SS5 4AD
CONTENTS
Contributors ............................................................vi 4 Deposit and assemblage formation
Figures ..................................................................vii by W A Boismier
Tables ....................................................................x 4.1 Sedimentary deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Acknowledgements ....................................................xii 4.2 Size sorting and mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Illustration credits ...................................................xiv 4.3 Spatial patterning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Summary ...............................................................xv 4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Résumé ...............................................................xvii
Zusammenfassung ...................................................xix
5 The archaeological assemblages of animals
and lithics
1 The Lynford Middle Palaeolithic site 5.1 The vertebrate assemblage by D C Schreve with
1.1 Background and excavation methods by W A Boismier . . . . 1 contributions by D R Brothwell and A J Stuart . . . . . . . . . 157
1.2 Faunal conservation by S O’Connor and N Larkin . . . . . . . . .14 5.2 Quantitative analysis of mammoth remains
1.3 Archive deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 by A M Lister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
5.3 The herpetofaunal remains by C Gleed-Owen . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4 Stable isotope analysis (C, N, O) of faunal samples
2 Stratigraphy, Association B and dating
by M P Richards, V H Grimes and S M Blockley . . . . . . . . . 216
2.1 Pleistocene stratigraphy and sedimentology 5.5 The lithic assemblage by M J White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
by S G Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5.6 Microwear analysis of the flint artefacts: tool use
2.2 Association B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 by R E Donahue and A A Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
2.2.1 D escription and stratigraphic succession 5.7 The sandstone block by F d’Errico, J Andrews and
by W A Boismier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 L Dubreuil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
2.2.2 Micromorphology by C French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
2.2.3 Diagenetics by J Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6 The Lynford Neanderthals
2.2.4 Deposit compaction by N K Tovey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
by C Gamble and W A Boismier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283
2.3 Dating the deposits and the archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
2.3.1 Optically stimulated luminescence
by J-L Schwenninger and E Rhodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Appendix 1: Conservation of the faunal remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
2.3.2 R adiocarbon dating by WA Boismier and
Appendix 2: Detailed thin section descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
A J Stuart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Appendix 3: Consolidation booking sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
2.3.3 A mino-acid racemisation by K Penkman
Appendix 4: Detailed vertebrate assemblage: tables . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
and M Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Appendix 5: Concordance list of context numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
2.3.4 Discussion by W A Boismier and F M L Green . . . . . . .72 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
3 Environmental evidence Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
3.1 The insect remains by G Russell Coope† . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
3.2 The molluscan assemblages by D Keen† . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3 The pollen assemblages by F M L Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.4 Plant macrofossils by M H Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.5 Palaeoenvironmental interpretation of the vertebrate
assemblage by A J Stuart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
v
CONTRIBUTORS
Julian E Andrews, School of Environmental Sciences, Vaughan Grimes, Department of Archaeology, Memorial
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. University, St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7, Canada.
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Stella Blockley, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway D Keen†, formerly of the Department of Archaeology, University
University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK. of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Email: [email protected]
Nigel Larkin, Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service,
William Boismier, Northamptonshire Archaeology, 2 Bolton Shirehall, Market Avenue, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 3JQ, UK.
House, Wootton Hall Park, Northampton, NN3 8BE, UK. Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Simon G Lewis, Queen Mary University of London, University
D Brothwell, Department of Archaeology, The King’s Manor, of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK.
York YO1 7EP, UK. Email: [email protected]
Matthew Collins, BioArch Biology, S Block, PO Box 373, Adrian M Lister, Department of Palaeontology, The Natural
York YO10 5YW, UK. Email: [email protected]
History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK.
F Coward, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway University Email: [email protected]
of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.
Sonia O’Connor, Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford,
Email: [email protected]
Richmond Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK.
G Russell Coope†, formerly of the School of Geography, Earth Email: [email protected]
and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham,
Kirsty Penkman, BioArCh, Department of Chemistry, University
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
of York, York YO10 5DD, UK. Email: [email protected]
Francesco d’Errico, CNRS UMR 5199 PACEA, Université Bordeaux
R Preece, University Museum of Zoology, Downing Street,
1, avenue des Facultés, F-33405 Talence, France.
Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
E Rhodes, Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Manchester
R E Donahue, School of Life Sciences, University of Bradford,
Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester
Richmond Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK.
M1 5GD, UK. Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Michael Richards, Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck
L Dubreuil, Department of Anthropology, Trent University,
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6,
1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough K9J 7B8, Ontario,
Leipzig, Germany D-04103. Email: [email protected]
Canada. Email: [email protected]
Danielle C Schreve, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway
A A Evans, Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental
University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.
Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire
Email: [email protected]
BD7 1DP, UK. Email: [email protected]
M H Field, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, PO Box Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Research Laboratory for Archaeology
9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks
Email: m.h.fi[email protected] Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Charlie French, Department of Archaeology, University of
Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3ER, UK. Carol Simmonds, Northamptonshire Archaeology 2 Bolton House,
Email: [email protected] Wootton Hall Park, Northampton NN3 8BE, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Clive Gamble, Faculty of Humanities (Archaeology),
Building 65A, Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, A J Stuart, Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham
Southampton SO17 1BF. Email: [email protected] University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.
C Gleed-Owen, CGO Ecology Ltd, 5 Cranbourne House, Email: [email protected]
12 Knole Road, Bournemouth BH1 4DQ, UK. N Keith Tovey, School of Environmental Sciences, University
Email: [email protected] of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Frances Green, Sunnyside, Dilham Road, Worstead, Email: [email protected]
North Walsham, Norfolk NR28 9RJ, UK. Mark J White, Department of Archaeology, Durham University,
Email: [email protected] Durham DH1 3LE, UK. Email: [email protected]
vi
FIGURES
1.1 Lynford quarry in its national and regional setting .......2 2.20 Localised slumping of Unit B-ii:04A gravel facies
1.2 The site prior to start of excavation ........................10 on south side of channel .....................................42
1.3 Mechanical excavation of the site ..........................10 2.21 Unit B-ii:05 Small mid-channel sand bar overlying
1.4 Site plan of quarry showing excavation area and the organic sediments of B-ii:03. South-facing section,
test pit locations ...............................................12 E–W central control baulk ...................................43
1.5 Plan of excavation area .......................................13 2.22 Unit B-ii:05 Lateral infill sediments. East-facing
1.6 Mammoth mandible 50287 in its jacket ...................15 section, south-west control baulk ...........................43
2.1 Location of study site: limits for MIS 12; MIS 2 2.23 Photomicrograph of organic fine sandy loam with
and Loch Lomond glaciations, regional geology fine impure clay in B-ii:03 ....................................48
and drainage, Wissey catchment and sites 2.24 Photomicrograph of laminar, fine sandy, bioturbated
mentioned in text ..............................................16 organic fabric in B-ii:01 ......................................49
2.2 Long profile of the River Wissey. Top and base of 2.25 Photomicrograph of amorphous iron-impregnated
succession at Lynford and Wretton also shown ..........18 fine sand with bioturbated organic matter,
2.3 Generalised N-S geological cross-section through plant tissue and charcoal fragments in B-ii:03 ...........49
2.26 Photomicrograph of lens of sandy clay at the
the site, based on BGS geological mapping
and boreholes ..................................................19 B-ii:03/01 contact .............................................50
2.27 Photomicrograph of lens of sandy clay with very
2.4 Schematic diagram showing relationship of major
facies (contexts) within Facies Association B, fine charcoal at the B-ii:03/01 contact ....................50
2.28 Photomicrograph of bioturbated plant tissue in B-ii:03
based on field data ............................................24
2.5 Ternary plot of sand, silt and clay content of samples (frame width = 2.25mm; plane-polarised light) ........51
2.29 Photomicrograph of amorphous iron impregnated
from Facies Association B ....................................26
sandy clay lens with micro-charcoal in B-ii:01 ...........51
2.6 Summary of changes in particle size, organic carbon
2.30 Photomicrograph of alternating lenses of fine sand,
and carbonate content in four profiles through
partially humified organic matter and calcium
Association B ...................................................27
carbonate in B-ii:01 ...........................................52
2.7 Stages in the development of the fluvial succession
2.31 Mean grain size plotted against depth (OD) ..............57
at Lynford .......................................................31
2.32 Skewness plotted against depth (OD) .....................58
2.8 Part of Harris matrix for Association B (northern
2.33 Kurtosis plotted against depth (OD) .......................58
part of channel) ................................................34 2.34 Wt% organic carbon plotted against depth (OD) ........59
2.9 North-facing central baulk section ....b.etween pp36 & 37 2.35 Wt% CaCO3 plotted against depth (OD) ..................60
2.10 South-facing central baulk section ....b.etween pp36 & 37 2.36 Wt% Corg/Ntot plotted against depth (OD) ..............60
2.11 West-facing central baulk section ......b.etween pp36 & 37 2.37 Stable carbon isotope ratio of bulk organic matter
2.12 East-facing central baulk section ......b.etween pp36 & 37 plotted against depth (OD) ..................................61
2.13 Schematic type section for Association B ..................36 2.38 Stable nitrogen isotope ratio of bulk organic matter
2.14 Distribution of sediment gravity flows .....................37 plotted against depth (OD) ..................................62
2.15 Downwarped and diagenetically altered sediments 2.39 Consolidation curve for sample 1a .........................65
of Association B-ii underlying bounding surface 2.40 Consolidation curve for sample 1b .........................65
for Association B-iii. West-facing section, central 2.41 Consolidation curve for sample 1c .........................65
control baulk ...................................................38 2.42 Consolidation data from Lynford compared with
2.16 Unit B-ii:01 Trough cross-bedded sands (3-D dunes). samples from elsewhere ......................................66
West-facing section, north-west control baulk ...........39 2.43 Comparison of amino-acid concentrations from
2.17 Stony organic sand forming part of Unit B-ii04A. Planorbis (diamonds) and Pupilla (circles) from
East-facing section, N-S central control baulk ............41 unbleached and bleached samples .........................72
2.18 Unit B-ii:04B Sediment gravity flow (debris flow) 2.44 The GISP2 ice-core (cid:98) 180 record ............................73
along north edge of channel. East-facing section, 3.1 Schematic section illustrating pollen sample
north-west control baulk .....................................41 locations within the palaeochannels .....................102
2.19 Unit B-ii:04C Sediment gravity flow (stony sand) 3.2 Pollen percentage data (>1%) Lynford Quarry
along north edge of channel. East-facing section ........42 (37095 STD) sample 30168 ................................104
vii
3.3 Pollen percentage data (>1%) Lynford Quarry 5.17 Proximal midshaft fragment of left metatarsal (50929)
(37095 STD) sample 30238 ...............................112 of Bison priscus, posterior view ............................176
3.4 Pollen percentage data (>1%) Lynford Quarry 5.18 R and L M3 of Mammuthus primigenius
(37095 STD) sample 30257 ...............................121 (50069 and 50273), buccal view .........................177
4.1 Tusk partially embedded in the massive sands of 5.19 R and L m3 of Mammuthus primigenius
Unit B-ii:01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 (51953–51648–51154 and 50656a), lingual view .....177
4.2 Lenses and layers of stony organic sand within 5.20 R and L M1 of Mammuthus primigenius
the organic sediments of Unit B-ii:03 ....................137 (51171 and 51201), buccal view ..........................178
4.3 Vertical distribution of materials within the 5.21 Associated R and L second molars of Mammuthus
sediments of Association B-ii ..............................139 primigenius (50002–50003 and 50358–51730),
4.4 Vertical size sorting showing size class means buccal view ...................................................178
and standard deviations ....................................141 5.22 Tusks of Mammuthus primigenius in the main
4.5 Vertical mixing showing size class medians palaeochannel during excavation ........................179
and spreads ...................................................142 5.23 Proximal L radius of Mammuthus primigenius (51903),
4.6 Distribution of artefacts and vertebrate remains posterior view ................................................179
within the sediments of Association B-ii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5.24 Proximal R ulna of Mammuthus primigenius (51976),
4.7 Cluster 1 .......................................................146 anterior view .................................................180
4.8 Cluster 2 .......................................................147 5.25 Distribution of individual vertebrate finds within
4.9 Cluster 3 .......................................................149 the main palaeochannel ....................................183
4.10 Cluster 4 .......................................................150 5.26 Distribution of refitting and associated vertebrate
4.11 Cluster 5 .......................................................152 finds within the main palaeochannel ....................185
4.12 Cluster 6 .......................................................154 5.27 Pie chart showing the relative frequency of finds
5.1 Partial right ulna of Canis lupus (51860), according to size class (1 = 0–30mm diameter;
anterior view .................................................167 2 = 30–60mm; 3 = 60–90mm; 4 = 90–120mm;
5.2 Associated L m1 (51212) and R m1 (51726) of 5 = 120–150mm; 6 >150mm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Ursus arctos, lingual view ..................................168 5.28 R M1 of Mammuthus primigenius (51240), showing
5.3 L m2 (50558) of Ursus arctos, lingual view .............168 polishing along lingual margin, occlusal view .........189
5.4 Second phalanx of Crocuta crocuta (anterior view) ...169 5.29 R M1 of Mammuthus primigenius (51240), showing
5.5 L m3 (50000) of Mammuthus primigenius, polishing along lingual margin, lingual view ...........189
lingual view ...................................................170 5.30 Second phalanx of Mammuthus primigenius (50733),
5.6 L M3 (50001) of Mammuthus primigenius, showing carnivore puncture mark near proximal
lingual view ...................................................170 end, lateral view .............................................190
5.7 Crushed maxilla with R M2 in situ (51619) of 5.31 First phalanx of Rangifer tarandus (50212),
Mammuthus primigenius, lingual view ..................170 showing carnivore puncture mark near proximal
5.8 R M1 (51440) of Mammuthus primigenius, end, lateral view .............................................190
occlusal view .................................................170 5.32 Tibia diaphysis of juvenile Coelodonta antiquitatis
5.9 R calcaneum (51869) of Equus ferus, proximal view ..172 (51374), heavily gnawed by spotted hyaena,
5.10 Distal R femur (51360) of Equus ferus, posterior view 172 anterior view .................................................191
5.11 Occlusal view of R DP4 (51401) of Coelodonta 5.33 Digested R dp2 of Rangifer tarandus (50795),
antiquitatis ....................................................173 lingual view ...................................................191
5.12 Occlusal view of L P3 (50491) of Coelodonta 5.34 Juvenile neural spine (species undetermined, 51392),
antiquitatis ....................................................173 showing severe pathological deformation at its base ..192
5.13 Antler beam with two tines (50096) of Rangifer 5.35 Rib of Mammuthus primigenius (51179), showing
tarandus, lateral view .......................................174 healed rib fracture, lateral view ...........................193
5.14 L p4 (51322) of Rangifer tarandus, buccal view ........175 5.36 Neural spine of Mammuthus primigenius (50853),
5.15 L p4 (51322) of Rangifer tarandus, occlusal view ......175 showing erosive lesion at base, posterior view .........194
5.16 Left metacarpal (50869) of Rangifer tarandus, 5.37 Rib fragment (51973), lateral view, showing
anterior view .................................................175 evidence of infection ........................................194
viii
5.38 Rib fragment (51955), lateral view, showing 5.58 Size-adjusted scar counts (dorsal scar counts divided
evidence of infection ........................................194 by length) for flakes from the main palaeochannel
5.39 Rib fragment (52007), lateral view, showing compared to Wenban-Smith’s experimental series ....233
evidence of infection ........................................194 5.59 Cores ...........................................................236
5.40 Fused caudal vertebrae (51449) showing evidence 5.60 Handaxes: Bout coupé (40170); Large pointed
of massive low-grade infection, dorsal view ............195 cordiforms (40548, 40591) ................................237
5.41 Fused caudal vertebrae (51449) showing evidence 5.61 Allometric length:width relationship for handaxes
of massive low-grade infection, lateral view ............195 from B-ii .......................................................240
5.42 Long-bone fragments of Rangifer tarandus with 5.62a–i Tripartite Diagrams for the Lynford handaxes .........241
green bone fractures, external lateral view .............198 5.63 Handaxes 40018, 40265, 40416 and 40541 ............243
5.43 Long-bone fragments of Rangifer tarandus with 5.64 Handaxes 40016, 40354 and 40383 .....................244
green bone fractures, internal lateral view .............198 5.65 Handaxes 40544, 40019, 40481, 40015 and 40100 ...246
5.44 Fragment of L humerus diaphysis of Rangifer tarandus 5.66 Edge length and percentage of retouch for handaxes
bearing signs of impact fracture to right hand side, with scraper-type retouch ..................................248
external lateral view ........................................199 5.67 Mean maximum length of handaxes with and
5.45 R m3 and R lower cheek tooth of Equus ferus without scraper-type retouch, with 1 SD ................248
(51631 and 51612) showing evidence of breakage ....200 5.68 Flake tools: 40259, 40278, 40410, 40470, 40498
5.46 Partial thoracic vertebra of Mammuthus primigenius and 40551 .....................................................249
(50075) with fragment of central epiphysis of 5.69 Flake tools: 40401, 40571, 40596 and 40468 ..........250
preceding vertebra attached, anterior view ............201 5.70 Mild particulate polishing ..................................262
5.47 Plate number (excluding talons and platelets) in 5.71 Natural severe wear .........................................267
third molars, upper and lower teeth combined ........209 5.72 Bright spots on artefacts 40265 and 40497 .............268
5.48 Width versus lamellar frequency in upper third 5.73 Artefact 40410: a convergent convex side scraper .....269
molars from Lynford (squares), in comparison with 5.74 Artefact 40100: a biface fragment ........................269
last glaciation Mammuthus primigenius samples 5.75 Mean and standard errors of dorsal ridge rounding
from Pˇredmosti (circles) and the Lea Valley for each context ..............................................271
Gravels (triangles) ..........................................210 5.76 Ideal sequence of wear processes .........................271
5.49 Age structure of the Lynford mammoth assemblage 5.77 Different aspects of the sandstone block 40472 ........275
based on molariform teeth .................................212 5.78a–d Sandstone block: depressions with residues ............276
5.50 Growth of the humerus in Mammuthus primigenius 5.79a–c Microscopic appearance of the sandstone block and
from the Russian Plain, in comparison with the depression D1 after cleaning ..............................277
juvenile specimen from Lynford (51885). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 5.80a–b SEM micrograph of a quartz crystal from depression
5.51 (cid:98)13C and(cid:3)(cid:98)15N isotope ratios of collagen extracted 1 on face a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
from bone and dentine of mammoth samples from 5.81a–b Groove longitudinally crossing face a ....................278
Lynford Quarry ..............................................218 5.82a–c SEM micrograph of the groove on face a ................278
5.52 Size distribution of débitage from Lynford plotted 5.83a–f Micrographs of residues on the Lynford sandstone ....279
against Schick’s experimental data .......................224 5.84a–h Results of the EDS microanalysis .........................281
5.53 Wenban-Smith’s experimental flake data compared 6.1 Local site catchment ........................................287
to Lynford association B-ii .................................224 6.2 Regional site catchment ....................................288
5.54 Orientation plot for plotted artefacts from the 6.3 The classical model of socioecology ......................292
main palaeochannel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 A1.1– The mammoth tusks in situ during excavations
5.55 Distribution of refitted flakes from A1.5 at Lynford .....................................................298
the Palaeochannel ...........................................226 A1.6a–b Mammoth rib 50163 ........................................300
5.56 Handaxe shaping flakes ....................................229 A1.7a–c Antler fragment 51814t .....................................303
5.57 Comparison of cortex percentage frequency A1.8 Rib 51635 after conservation and packing ..............304
between Lynford Association B-ii and Ashton’s A1.9a–b Mammoth mandible 50287 ................................307
experimental series .........................................330 A1.10 Storage support for rib 50l63 ..............................309
ix