The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

• 26 • Nicholas Barton
Table 2.3 Selected AMS radiocarbon dates on organic artefacts of the second phase of the Lateglacial
Interstadial/ early Younger Dryas.
Sources: Apart from references A-C, all the OxA- dates listed here and in Table 2.2 are cited in one
of the following datelists published in the journal Archaeometry.
AM 3 Archaeometry 28, 1 (1986), 116–125
AM 4 Archaeometry 28, 2 (1986), 206–221
AM 9 Archaeometry 31, 2 (1989), 207–234
AM 10 Archaeometry 32, 1 (1990), 101–108
AM 14 Archaeometry 34, 1 (1992), 141–159
AM 18 Archaeometry 36, 2 (1994), 337–374
AM 22 Archaeometry 38, 2 (1996), 391–415
The calibration method, devised by Weninger, is described in Street et al. 1994, 9–13
wide standard deviation makes the age difficult to interpret. On typological grounds, the
assemblages seem to show closest affinity to Federmesser industries on the European mainland,
especially in northern France and Belgium, where dates suggest attribution to the last few centuries
of the twelfth millennium BP. If correct, this implies a much greater diversity in backed tool
forms during the Final Upper Palaeolithic than in the Creswellian.
In contrast to the Creswellian, the bone- and antler-work associated with the woodland phase
of the Interstadial is more restricted in type. The majority of examples directly dated to this
period are uniserial barbed points (Table 2.3).
Raw materials and mobility
The existence of Final Upper Palaeolithic industries often on short flakes probably reflects different
raw material practices from those seen in the Creswellian. In western Britain this is particularly
apparent in the assemblages from Three Holes Cave (upper hearth), Broken Cavern and Pixie’s
Hole, where the small size of artefacts is largely determined by the variable quality of material
selected for knapping. Judging from the surface condition and curvature of the cortical flakes, it
seems clear that most of the materials were small cobbles derived from local sources. It is also
apparent that the rock was transported to the site in the form of whole cobbles, rather than being
reduced elsewhere. In the case of Devon, raw materials of this kind can be localized to gravel
exposures within 16 km or less of each of the sites.
In other parts of the country, the relationship between size of artefacts and raw material
quality may not be so clear-cut. For example, at Symonds Yat East Rockshelter (Gloucestershire),
tools made on short flakes and blades were on flint probably imported from up to 80 km away.
Even in this case, primary reduction of the small nodules appears to have taken place on site
rather than at the point of procurement. Thus, although the potential radius of mobility may
sometimes have approached that proposed for the Creswellian, it seems that, in general, Final
Upper Palaeolithic groups organized themselves rather differently with regard to lithic raw materials.