When Britain was "balmy".

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

For your information, here is one of a number of short reports on what transpired at the recent Paleoanthropology Society meeting held one month ago (April 5-6), in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This one attempts to summarize a “talk & poster” presentation by Chris Stringer, entitled: Major gaps in the early human occupation of Britain.

Once-Balmy Climate Lured Humans to England Early.

By Ann Gibbons -- Science, 22 April 2005;  308: 490.

Scientists following a trail of stone tools and butchered animal bones have uncovered evidence that early humans lived in Britain well before 500,000 years ago, perhaps not long after the first Europeans appear much farther south in Spain and Italy, about 800,000 to 1 million years ago. The early English settlers probably followed a wave of hippos, elephants, hyenas, and other animals drawn to Britain’s then-balmy climate, according to a talk and poster by paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. But when the climate cooled, as it did repeatedly over the following epochs, all traces of human occupation vanished.

Several new sites suggest that humans were in Britain well before the appearance of the 500,000-year-old Boxgrove Man, whose shinbone and teeth were discovered in a gravel quarry in Boxgrove, England, from 1993 to 1996. The sites may help shed light on whether more than one type of human migrated to Europe more than 500,000 years ago and reveal the type of terrain they could inhabit. “This pushes the age of humans north of the Alps back further than previously documented,” says paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

Boxgrove showed that the earliest known Briton was a member of Homo heidelbergensis, a proto-Neandertal species with deep roots in Europe. The new sites have no human remains, but researchers found tools along the coast of the ancient Bytham River in East Anglia. The tools appear in some of the most ancient river terraces and are associated with insects and animals that suggest a date far older than Boxgrove, Stringer said in his talk. One site with tools may be as old as 700,000 years.

These early Europeans carried a primitive stone tool kit for scraping and cutting. But they lacked the hand ax—a versatile stone tool nicknamed the Paleolithic Swiss Army knife—already in widespread use in Africa. The Boxgrove hominid did wield a hand ax and so may have been part of a separate wave of settlers, says Stringer, who directs the $1.88 million Ancient Human Occupation of Britain program funded by the Leverhulme Trust. Studies of animal fossils paint a portrait of a warm climate that allowed animals now found only in Africa to migrate from northern Europe to England across a land bridge.

Although humans arrived in Britain early, they did not live there continuously, said Stringer. There are no signs of human occupation during several periods, particularly during glaciations. From 180,000 to 130,000 years ago, herds of mammoth and reindeer roamed England, but there is little evidence of humans. Hippos and elephants reappear when the ice caps melt at about 130,000 years, but humans don’t show up again until about 60,000 years ago when Neandertals return. Modern humans came later, but even they disappeared during an Ice Age as recent as 25,000 to 17,000 years ago. “People assume that once people were in Britain, they were always there,” says Stringer. “We’re seeing little pulses of human occupation. They disappeared when it got very cold. There is not a continuous human presence until 12,000 years ago.”

Note that more information on this meeting has already been presented HERE and that mention of the Leverhulme Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project was made HERE.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[SteveF]

Funnily enough, I'm doing my Masters on the possible reasons for human absence from the UK during the last interglacial.  Anyways, thought the following paper might be of interest.  It describes the nature of reoccupation of the UK following a glacial and suggests two waves of colonisation bringing different tool technologies

White, M.J. and Schreve, D.C. 2000.  Island Britain-Peninsula Britain: palaeogeography, colonisation and the Lower Palaeolithic settlement of the British Isles.  Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, 1-28.

Also, the timing of occupation of the UK is becoming an extremely contentious issue.  On the one hand we have the Cambridge set and the vole clock and on the other we have Jim Rose and his lithostratigraphy.  Jim places the earliest arrivals in MIS19.  Clearly this is pretty early.

[Daryl Habel]

Funnily enough, I'm doing my Masters on the possible reasons for human absence from the UK during the last interglacial.  Anyways, thought the following paper might be of interest.  It describes the nature of reoccupation of the UK following a glacial and suggests two waves of colonisation bringing different tool technologies

White, M.J. and Schreve, D.C. 2000.  Island Britain-Peninsula Britain: palaeogeography, colonisation and the Lower Palaeolithic settlement of the British Isles.  Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, 1-28.

Also, the timing of occupation of the UK is becoming an extremely contentious issue.  On the one hand we have the Cambridge set and the vole clock and on the other we have Jim Rose and his lithostratigraphy.  Jim places the earliest arrivals in MIS19.  Clearly this is pretty early.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reference, although the paper itself is not available to me in present circumstances.  "Funnily enough", the UK human absence during the last interglacial is one of my interests.  As well as the earlier ebb-and-flow of human habitation in peri-glacial environments across all northern Eurasia.   The UK being the north-western extremity of this overall region, it's understandable that it would sometimes be habitable, and sometime not.  The difference in the UK is the geography of the palaeovalleys of the English Channel (the Channel River) and what's being called Western Doggerland.  I've collected some suggestions for the Ipswichean absence in my notes... It is a perplexing issue.  Good luck on the Masters.

It seems possible that recolonization sometimes occurred from the south, but that also there were times when recolonization from the east (across Doggerland) was more likely.  Two waves of colonization following the Upper Pleistocene reoccupation might fit the MTA/Lincombian sequence of the UK.  When I find the time, I need a closer look into the literature on Doggerland Upper Pleistocene palaeoenvironment.

The earliest possible occupation of the UK mentioned in the AHOB information posted earlier by Jacques is pre-Anglian Lower Palaeolithic deposits that might be MIS 15 or 17.  Can you refence Rose's lithostragriphy that suggests MIS 19?

That is pretty early.  Of course, your perspective is much closer than mine, so I'd be interested in anything else you'd be gracious enough to add.

Dar  

[SteveF]

Dar,

Basically Jim's lithostratigraphy uses river terraces, which are formed during glacials and then cut through in interglacials, to simply count back in time to date a particular site.  This method has proven rather successful with the Thames terrace sequence for post Anglian (MIS 12) glacial-interglacial cycles and produces dates that are in good agreement with mammalian biostratigraphy and the rare cases where we have some geochronology.  

Dave Bridgland has done most of the terrace work in the UK and a good general reference (not specifically relevant to the issue we are discussing here) is:

Bridgland, D.R.  (2000) River terrace systems in north-west Europe: an archive of environmental change, uplift and early human occupation.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 1293-1303.

Anyways, the AHOB material is primarily based on the Vole clock which the guys at Cambridge (and generally in North West early-middle Pleistocene research) use.  There is some, er, shall we say, mild disagreement between the two camps.  This disagreement falls into two areas, firstly the Cambridge crew only believe there to have been (or at least be evidence preserved for) one major lowland glaciation prior to the Devensian in the UK (in MIS 12).  Jim reckons there to have been lowland glaciations in MIS 6, 10, 12 and 16.  I'm not convicned by 6 and 10 but I'm confident that the tills that the Cambridge group as MIS 12 can be spilt up into MIS 12 and something earlier (possibly 16).  

This research has been evolving (with the British Geological Survey) for a few years now but is only just making its way into print (I have been taught by Jim, hence me being privy to this debate).  The first hints were made in a field guide to East Anglia published by the Quaternary Research Association (QRA).  By all accounts this provoked a strong response so Jim and colleagues quickly bashed out a few ideas on their new glacial stratigraphy in the semi formal QRA newsletter.  This provoked a response (that is at times rather hysterical and silly) by the Cambridge crew.  Unless you are a member of the QRA I doubt you will be able to get hold of a copy, but the references are as follows:

Hamblin, R.J.O., Moorlock, B.S.P. and Rose, J.  (2000) A new glacial stratigraphy for Eastern England.  Quaternary Newsletter, 92, 35-43.

Banham, P.H., Gibbard, P.L., Lunkka, J.P., Parfitt, S.P., Preece, R.C. and Turner, C.  (2001) A critical assessment of 'A new glacial stratigraphy for Eastern England.'  Quaternary Newsletter, 93, 5-14.

But happily, there has been a recent and more formal publication that you can read (or I can email to you):

Lee, J.R., Rose, J., Hamblin, R.J.O. and Moorlock, B.S.P.  (2004)Dating the earliest lowland glaciation of eastern England: a pre-MIS 12 early Middle Pleistocene Happisburgh glaciation.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 1551-1566.

Now, placing a glaciation in MIS 16 and the terrace model for dating this has led to the second major disagreement, namely over the earliest occupation of the UK.  By putting a glaciation in MIS 16, it pushes various sites we know to be earlier than the deposits Jim has as MIS 16, much further back in time.  The key one being Pakefield which both groups accept as showing the earliest Archaeology.  

I think the consensus view (based on biostrat) is for Pakefield being in MIS 15 or possibly 17, but Jim has it in 19 based on his lithostratigraphy and terrace dating.  Its probably worth pointing out that Dave Bridgland thinks Jim may have counted a terrace or two too many (you can get multiple terraces within one glacial interglacial cycle).  Nonetheless, Jim thinks his system is robust and there doesn't appear to be a great deal of budging being done by either side.

Now, this particular argument hasn't reached press yet but the following paper has material on Pakefield (not the archaeology - I don't think anyone has published on it):

Stuart, A.J. and Lister, A.M.  (2001) The mammalian faunas of Pakefield/Kessingland and Corton, Suffolk, UK: evidence for a new temperate episode in the British early Middle Pleistocene.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 20, 1577-1692.

Anyways, this is a brief summary of an interesting debate.  I'm currently remaining agnostic (except on the subject of their being more than one middle Pleistocene lowland glaciation - I think Jim has this one right) and am somewhat sceptical that any agreement will be reached any time soon.

Steve

[Robert Henvell]

  BBC news announced [2003] that stone tools and fauna bones with human markings at Happisburg,Norfolk ,had been tentatively dated to circa 700Ka.C Stringer is reported to have said that similar items at Westbourn,England had been redated to about 600 Ka.
Has any data been published on the above?

[Daryl Habel]

Dar,

Basically Jim's lithostratigraphy uses river terraces, which are formed during glacials and then cut through in interglacials, to simply count back in time to date a particular site.  This method has proven rather successful with the Thames terrace sequence for post Anglian (MIS 12) glacial-interglacial cycles and produces dates that are in good agreement with mammalian biostratigraphy and the rare cases where we have some geochronology.  

Dave Bridgland has done most of the terrace work in the UK and a good general reference (not specifically relevant to the issue we are discussing here) is:

Bridgland, D.R.  (2000) River terrace systems in north-west Europe: an archive of environmental change, uplift and early human occupation.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 1293-1303.

[following snipped except for references]

Hamblin, R.J.O., Moorlock, B.S.P. and Rose, J.  (2000) A new glacial stratigraphy for Eastern England.  Quaternary Newsletter, 92, 35-43.

Banham, P.H., Gibbard, P.L., Lunkka, J.P., Parfitt, S.P., Preece, R.C. and Turner, C.  (2001) A critical assessment of 'A new glacial stratigraphy for Eastern England.'  Quaternary Newsletter, 93, 5-14.

But happily, there has been a recent and more formal publication that you can read (or I can email to you):

Lee, J.R., Rose, J., Hamblin, R.J.O. and Moorlock, B.S.P.  (2004)Dating the earliest lowland glaciation of eastern England: a pre-MIS 12 early Middle Pleistocene Happisburgh glaciation.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 1551-1566.

[snip]

Now, this particular argument hasn't reached press yet but the following paper has material on Pakefield (not the archaeology - I don't think anyone has published on it):

Stuart, A.J. and Lister, A.M.  (2001) The mammalian faunas of Pakefield/Kessingland and Corton, Suffolk, UK: evidence for a new temperate episode in the British early Middle Pleistocene.  Quaternary Science Reviews, 20, 1577-1692.

Anyways, this is a brief summary of an interesting debate.  I'm currently remaining agnostic (except on the subject of their being more than one middle Pleistocene lowland glaciation - I think Jim has this one right) and am somewhat sceptical that any agreement will be reached any time soon.

Steve

Steve,

First my apologies for delay in answering with many thanks for this very informative comment.  I've been wondering where all the media reports (BBC, etc.) of 700,000-year-old UK humans had been published.  I'll have to see about digging up the three QSR papers, at least, but I agree with you it would seem like this biostrat/lithostrat debate likely will not be easily decided.  

Thanks again,
Dar