The Lower Palaeolithic Industries near Warsash Hampshire

Abstract

For many years past Mr Mogridge, of the Winchester Museum, has been indefatigable in collecting Lower Palaeolithic flint implements from a number of gravel pits lying between the villages of Warsash and Hook, in the district of the Lower Hamble river, Hampshire. From time to time he has brought up selected specimens to meetings of the Prehistoric Society in London, and exhibited them to members at the conclusion of the formal lectures. These Warsash finds are extremely numerous, show very fine workmanship, and exhibit certain special features which make them of exceptional importance to all students of Lower Palaeolithic cultures in England. Some time ago I suggested to Mr Mogridge that his valuable finds ought to be placed more permanently on record. He at once consented to the writing of a joint article for our Proceedings, and placed all his information at my disposal. Together we visited the sites, examined the sections, and talked to the workmen, from whom, of course, most of the implements are in the first instance obtained. I also consulted with my former pupil, and now colleague, Mr T. T. Paterson, and he very kindly consented himself to study the Quaternary geology on the spot, and to write a brief account. The drawings are from my wife's pen.

The stratigraphy and chronology of the fluvial sediments at Warsash, UK: implications for the Palaeolithic archaeology of the River Test

“…While the former are typically rolled and stained, the Levallois material is much fresher and typically patinated. This and the observations of Burkitt et al (1939) support Ashton and Hosfield's (2010) Miall's (1977Miall's ( , 1996 lithofacies analysis approach as modified by Briant (2002).…”

“…His collection formed the basis of Burkitt et al (1939), one of the few papers to deal directly with aspects of the Warsash Palaeolithic record prior to the current work, the others being Myra Shackley's (1974Shackley's ( , 1978 The most recent work on the Warsash Palaeolithic material is that of Davis (2013;Davis et al 2016), who has been able to resolve some of the uncertainty over the provenance of the Warsash material. This has been achieved through a combination of historic map regression and the study of museum collections and archives, which has enabled Mogridge's pits to be located and identified on historic maps (Figure 2).…”

“…Neither of these sites revealed the extensive buff, stony loam or 'localised' blue clay that overlies the Mottisfont/Lower Warsash Terrace (Burkitt et al 1939). In addition to Park's Pit and Dyke's Pit, two further locations in the Warsash area which could potentially retain in situ deposits around the perimeter of former quarries Newbury's Pit and Fleet End Pit were identified (Davis 2013).…”

“…The area was quarried extensively during the 20 th century, and soon became recognised as a rich source of Palaeolithic artefacts (e.g. Burkitt et al 1939). Unfortunately the majority of the material collected at Warsash was not accompanied by detailed stratigraphic or contextual detail.…”

“…The stratigraphic relationship between the handaxe assemblage and the smaller Levallois assemblage at Warsash is significant in understanding the nature of early Middle Palaeolithic occupation, both in the Solent region and in Britain in general (Ashton and Hosfield 2010;Ashton et al 2011;Pettitt & White 2012;Ashton et al 2015;Davis et al 2016). Burkitt et al (1939) provided brief notes on the geology at Warsash as seen in a section at Newbury's Pit (Figure 2). They describe a 3.65 m sequence of fluvial deposits covering Barton Sand, which rises in hummocks.…”