Riparian landscapes and human habitat preferences during the Hoxnian (MIS 11) Interglacial

Abstract

The archaeological, environmental and geological data from Hoxnian Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11) sites from Britain are examined to elucidate the type of habitats that humans preferred during this temperate episode. The conclusion is that humans avoided lacustrine situations, but did make use of the full range of resources that fluvial environments provide. This model is strengthened by the examination of other non-archaeological Hoxnian sites. The problem of archaeological visibility in lacustrine sediment sequences is also discussed and methods of identifying other evidence of human presence are suggested that may offset the deficiencies in the lithic record. These include presence of cut-marked bone, micro-debitage and possibly charcoal in fine-grained sediments deposited in distal settings. The reasons for human selection of fluvial situations are discussed. It is concluded that these environments provide a greater diversity of animal, plant and lithic resources, but also are major route-ways through the landscape. Patterns of human site use are identified, which seem to be triggered by local changes in hydrology and drainage, themselves possibly caused by regional changes in climate. Finally, Lower Palaeolithic sites on the interfluves are discussed. Although they lack environmental or dating evidence, it is tentatively suggested that they were used during cooler episodes, when more open conditions prevailed.

Luminescence dating of sediments from a Palaeolithic site associated with a solution feature on the North Downs of Kent, UK

“…At some sites, or parts of sites, there is evidence of in situ scatters that are only marginally affected by these disturbance processes or, if moved en masse, might survive, such as at Caddington where almost complete handaxe manufacturing sequences were reconstructed (Smith, 1894). However, we can no longer be confident about the timing of hominin use of the uplands in this area (White, 1997;Ashton et al, 2006), beyond broad statements of Lower or Middle Palaeolithic origin, or determine the environments that prevailed (White, 1997;Ashton et al, 2006;Campbell and Hubbard, 1978).…”

“…Hominins were probably attracted to these sites by the availability of raw material, water supply from ponds formed in the solution hollows and the associated resources that could be utilised from upland locations. The importance of these upland sites lies in providing insights into hominin activities away from the river valleys (Ashton et al, 2006), though their geographical and stratigraphical isolation can present significant challenges for correlation and dating in the absence of suitable materials. Where burnt lithic materials associated with tool manufacture are recovered from either the solution features or near-surface deposits, thermoluminescence (TL) dates have provided a means of assigning production to a particular period.…”

Terrestrial implications for the maritime geoarchaeological resource: A view from the Lower Palaeolithic

“…To some extent the latter has principally focused on the better contextualised material (e.g. Conway et al 1996;White 1998a, b;Ashton et al 1998;White et al 2006;Ashton et al 2006), although some studies have also utilised regional data sets including assemblages with limited provenancing (e.g. Ashton and Lewis 2002;Hosfield 2005).…”

The Danube Corridor Hypothesis and the Carpathian Basin: Geological, Environmental and Archaeological Approaches to Characterizing Aurignacian Dynamics

“…In situations such as that of the earliest occupation of Europe by modern humans, where the chronological resolution is insufficient to transform the archaeological record into a coherent cultural narrative, it is appealing to use large geographic features such as the Danube to explain cultural migration routes. While rivers may have served as valuable migration axes in the early Upper Paleolithic and even earlier (Ashton et al 2006), they do not preclude other productive biomes, which may have been welcome alternatives to climatic variations in both annual and longer timescales. Furthermore, if the Danube did play a role in the migration route of modern humans in the Carpathian Basin, we currently lack the archaeological resolution to tell us in what direction it may have been used.…”