Print

Print


1.1 whilst I wholeheartedly agree in principle, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the date is still too young with site 3 having the potential to be up to 950,000, thus it might be sensible to push it back to 1mya?

Dr David Underhill


On 23 Oct 2014, at 14:09, Wenban-Smith F.F. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

1.1 - An earlier start for the Palaeolithic

This is a nice easy issue to start with, I hope. Several finds on the Norfolk coast in the last 10-15 years have identified clear evidence of very early hominin occupation in Britain, dated to c. 800,000 years BP [Before Present] at Happisburgh and 700,000 years BP at Pakefield.

 

However, the current English Heritage Period List [version 16, September 2014], downloadable from http://fishforum.weebly.com/download-fish-terminology.html , with the prehistoric parts extracted here (Att 1), still specifies a start date of -500,000.

 

It is therefore recommended to amend this to something more suitable. On present knowledge, a date such as -850,000 would be early enough to cover the earliest possible start date for a British Palaeolithic as currently known.

 

Please express support for this, or make any other suggestions/points.

 

 

Homepage: www.soton.ac.uk/~ffws/New_ffws/index.html

Francis Wenban-Smith (Dr) 
Department of Archaeology (CAHOR - Centre for Applied Human Origins Research)
University of Southampton (Avenue Campus)
Southampton, Hants
SO17 1BF

02380-596 864 (direct)
07771-623 096 (mobile)

 

From: Campbell, Gill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 October 2014 14:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Labels, Lithics and Landforms: Chronology- session 1 - Welcome

 

Dear Colleagues

Welcome to the first session of the Labels, Lithics and Landforms e-conference on chronology

Lead Discussant – Francis Wenban-Smith

Facilitator: Gill Campbell

In this session we will focus on the chronological framework of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic with a view to updating definitions and the FISH period list which is available for reference from here: http://fishforum.weebly.com/download-fish-terminology.html

While not wishing to limit our discussions which we hope will be wide ranging, the topics which we hope to cover are:

  1. An earlier start for the Palaeolithic.
  2. Resolving the Early, Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, and sub-divisions.
  3. Upper Palaeolithic - divide or not.
  4. The Mesolithic - how to deal with overlap with final Upper Palaeolithic.
  5. Having a separate list of terms and date-ranges for geological MI (Marine Isotope) Stages and glacial/interglacial episodes in the UK.
  6. Reconsidering the distinction, and where to place the boundary, between Early Prehistoric and Later Prehistoric.

I will now hand over to Francis to begin our deliberations.

 

Gill

Gill Campbell

Head of Environmental Studies

English Heritage

T: 02392 856780

English Heritage Science Network Convenor

 

www.english-heritage.org.uk

 


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.

Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/

<Att 1 - EH prehistoric period framework.docx>