Abstract
AbstractRecent archaeological discoveries from exposures of the Cromer Forest‐bed Formation at Happisburgh, UK, have radically changed interpretations of the nature and timing of early hominin occupation of northern latitudes, but this in situ archaeology is only one part of the picture. Surface finds of Pleistocene mammalian remains have been found along this coastline for centuries, with stone tools adding to this record over the past 7 years. The ex situ nature of these finds, however, means they are often seen as limited in the information they can provide. This work contributes to a growing body of research from a range of landscape and environmental contexts that seeks to demonstrate the value and importance of these ex situ assemblages. Here the focus is on Palaeolithic flint artefacts and Pleistocene mammalian remains recovered by a group of local collectors through systematic, GPS‐recorded beach collection from 2013 to 2017, and their use in developing a methodology for working with ex situ Palaeolithic finds in coastal locations. The results demonstrate significant patterning that identifies unexplored exposures both onshore and offshore, considerably expanding the known extent of deposits and facilitating new insights into the wider archaeological landscape associated with the earliest occupation of northern Europe.
Highlights
The Pleistocene archaeological record is inherently complex, filtered by initial behaviours of creation and discard, and by post‐depositional and taphonomic processes
Artefact densities are high to the southeast of these sites, a pattern that is seen to a lesser extent with the fossils
Ex situ artefacts form a significant part of the Palaeolithic archaeological record but extracting information from them is far from straightforward
Summary
The Pleistocene archaeological record is inherently complex, filtered by initial behaviours of creation and discard, and by post‐depositional and taphonomic processes. The resulting archaeology is invariably fragmentary, dispersed and, for the most part, disturbed from its original context; the in situ ‘site’ forms a minute proportion of the available record (Foley, 1981). Steinberg, 1996; Bailey, 2007; Holdaway and Fanning, 2008; Stern, 1993) The scale of these investigations needs to reflect these differing archaeological signatures, from the high‐ resolution and short‐lived but high‐density sites such as Boxgrove, to those made up of palimpsests, dispersed or mixed aggregations of artefacts at a range of potential scales
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
