Pakefield 700,000 yr old human occupation of Britain

[Daryl Habel]

There are two articles of interest in this week's issue (Dec 15, 2005) of Nature, dealing with the 700,000-year-old site of Pakefield, UK.  The articles can be accessed by subscribers of Nature from the bottom of the editor's summary, at:CLICK HERE

Pakefield and the early occupation of Britain was discussed earlier on the Palanth forum, at: CLICK HERE, where Steve F. commented that he thought the archaeology at Pakefield was not yet published.  Apparently published now, it seems, although I haven't yet got my hands on the current Nature articles.

The story seems to have hit the media in a big way.  An article from BBC has photos of the tools and a video, at: CLICK HERE

Another, from Yahoo news (AP): CLICK HERE

Kris Hirst, at Archaeology about.com has posted an article with a drawing of some of the tools at: CLICK HERE

Dar

[SteveF]

Exciting times in British Pleistocene research.  I've got the paper in front of me (plan to read it tonight) and I've been thrilled to note the wide media coverage.  Couple of things to note; firstly, keep and eye out for one of the co-authors, Kirsty Penkman, she has updated (and improved) Amino Acid dating and this work could prove very useful.  Secondly, I just started my PhD in this field (broadly speaking) and so was invited up to help on a short dig on this stretch of coastline in October - there may well be some further cool work to come out!

[Mikey Brass]

Exciting times in British Pleistocene research.  I've got the paper in front of me (plan to read it tonight) and I've been thrilled to note the wide media coverage.  Couple of things to note; firstly, keep and eye out for one of the co-authors, Kirsty Penkman, she has updated (and improved) Amino Acid dating and this work could prove very useful.

Which sites has she applied her testing to?

Secondly, I just started my PhD in this field (broadly speaking) and so was invited up to help on a short dig on this stretch of coastline in October - there may well be some further cool work to come out!

May I inquire at which university?

[Daryl Habel]

Exciting times in British Pleistocene research.  I've got the paper in front of me (plan to read it tonight) and I've been thrilled to note the wide media coverage.  Couple of things to note; firstly, keep and eye out for one of the co-authors, Kirsty Penkman, she has updated (and improved) Amino Acid dating and this work could prove very useful.  Secondly, I just started my PhD in this field (broadly speaking) and so was invited up to help on a short dig on this stretch of coastline in October - there may well be some further cool work to come out!

Hi Steve,

Good to see you're still here. I've now read both Roebroeks'  news article and the Letter to Nature (Parfitt et al. 2005).  I don't think there's any doubt about the genuine nature of the artifacts (although I don't think one could describe them representative of Acheulean).  Leaving  the issue of the "700,000 years old" dating.  I did manage to acquire and read three of the Quaternary Science Reviews articles you referenced in our earlier discussion.  Taking  into consideration all of this previously published documentation, the dating quoted in Parfitt et al. 2005:1011 is, "the archaeology can be dated to MIS 17 (about 680 kyr ago) at the very youngest"..."the archaeology at Pakefield could be as old as the later part of MIS 19  (about 750 kyr ago)....." seems reasonable to me.  Whether occupation was MIS 17 or MIS 19, it doesn't really affect the issue of dating that  Pakefield is about 200,000 years older than Boxgrove.  The paleomag limits to <780k maximum age and everything else points to early Cromerian.  Dating Pakefield to about 700,000 years old seems about right to me, anyway.  Good also to have someone (you) right on the scene.  Please do keep us informed as events transpire.

Best regards,
Dar

[SteveF]

Mikey;

Off the top of my head, no I can't remember which sites she has sampled.  I saw her give a presentation at the British Museum in January and she listed a few there, but they escape me.  I seem to recall hearing mention of an upcoming paper with Richard Preece and no doubt more details will follow there.  Personally I'd like the Hoxnian MIS11/MIS9 issue to be attacked (again) with AA.  As for where I am, I'd rather keep a measure of annonymity on the net. 

Daryl;

Yes, I think they deal with the dating in quite a reasonable fashion in the paper, particularly when you consider that the debate has been rather heated at times.  I guess this was put aside for a Nature article!  My supervisor and I worked out that the British Pleistocene gets a Nature paper or two, roughly every decade!

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Steve, Dar, Mikey, and others,

Here is some additional information that specifically pertains to the “bio-chronology” component of what appears to be an excellent example of true interdisciplinary work carried out under the AHOB umbrella that has already been mentioned HERE

Bio-archaeologists pinpoint oldest northern European human activity

University of York
Communications Office
Media Information: David Garner 01904 432153

Scientists at the University of York used a 'protein time capsule' to confirm the earliest record of human activity in Northern Europe.

A team of bio-archaeologists from York were able to provide the final piece of scientific evidence which confirmed that primitive stone tools discovered in East Anglia dated back around 700,000 years – 200,000 years earlier than any other traces of human colonisation of northern latitudes.

Dr Kirsty Penkman and Dr Matthew Collins were part of an international team, headed by the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain (AHOB) project, which studied the worked flint flakes discovered two years ago in a cliff at Pakefield near Lowestoft, Suffolk.
"Helping to demonstrate the antiquity of the Pakefield site has been very exciting, and we are now trying to apply the same technique to more sites in Britain and overseas"
Dr Kirsty Penkman

After members of the international team used stratigraphy to indicate the likely age of the flints, the York scientists were called in to confirm the antiquity of the artefacts using a newly-refined technique of amino acid analysis. The technique measures the extent of deterioration of proteins in fossils found close to the flints - in this case, opercula, the tiny trap-doors that close a snail's shell.

The results of the research are published in the latest edition of Nature today (Thursday 15 December 2005).

Dr Penkman, an Associate member of AHOB, said: "The amino acids were very securely contained in enclosed crystals of the opercula, unchanged by environmental factors other than normal internal protein degradation. In effect, they are a protein time capsule, enabling us to confirm the Pakefield opercula were significantly older than 500,000 years, the previous earliest date for humans north of the Alps."

Dr Collins said: "The method relies upon measuring the products of decomposition, so we had to isolate a protein sample that was well protected and did not leak the products of decay."

Dr Penkman added: "Helping to demonstrate the antiquity of the Pakefield site has been very exciting, and we are now trying to apply the same technique to more sites in Britain and overseas. A systematic survey will enable us to build a framework which records the extent of protein degradation in different sites, so that we can link the patchy terrestrial records of past climate change with the long continuous records from ice cores and marine sediments".

The original release – and a likely point of entry for Mikey to have his question answered -- can be found by clicking HERE

Finally, may I suggest that if we were to be lucky enough to have a discussion or exchange going on the specifics of protein and amino acids dating, it should be carried out where it belongs, i.e., in the Archaeometry & Chronostratigraphy board.

Jacques

[Mikey Brass]

Mikey;

Off the top of my head, no I can't remember which sites she has sampled.  I saw her give a presentation at the British Museum in January and she listed a few there, but they escape me.  I seem to recall hearing mention of an upcoming paper with Richard Preece and no doubt more details will follow there.  Personally I'd like the Hoxnian MIS11/MIS9 issue to be attacked (again) with AA.  As for where I am, I'd rather keep a measure of annonymity on the net.  

My interest in British archaeology is not that high, as I am far more interested in the archaeology and palaeoanthropology of Africa. I'm South African and did my studies there under Judy Sealy, andy sillen, Andy Smith and John Parkington. My Honours dissertation was on the origins of modern human behaviour from a southern African perspective. I try and keep updated on the latest in palaeoanthropology but am starting to find myself falling behind in being familiar with some of the "newer" names on the block, as my research focus has shifted irrevocably to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene periods of the Sahara (looking at the origins of social complexity and population movements). I appreciate mention of the additional researchers who I have either not heard of yet or whose articles I have not yet read, like Penkham.


Thanks Jacques, that did indeed answer my query.

[SteveF]

Jacques,

The good news is, AHOB has got a funding extension.  It was supposed to finish this year but will carry on for another 2 or 3. 

I don't know enough about the new aspects of AA dating, so I won't start a new thread.  However, I will briefly say that the updated approach apparently satisifes the concerns that Danny McCarroll had when he wrote the following (generally accepted as far as I can tell) critical article:

McCarroll, D.  (2002) Amino-acid geochronology and the British Pleistocene: secure stratigraphical framework or a case of circular reasoning?  Journal of Quaternary Science, 17, 647-651.

[Robert Henvell]

Exciting times in British Pleistocene research.  I've got the paper in front of me (plan to read it tonight) and I've been thrilled to note the wide media coverage.  Couple of things to note; firstly, keep and eye out for one of the co-authors, Kirsty Penkman, she has updated (and improved) Amino Acid dating and this work could prove very useful.  Secondly, I just started my PhD in this field (broadly speaking) and so was invited up to help on a short dig on this stretch of coastline in October - there may well be some further cool work to come out!

Steve,
During 2003 the BBC news  reported on the discovery of bones,which had been modified by hominids circa 700Ka at Happisburgh [sp?],Norfolk.Since they cited C Stringer,the release seemed to be genuine.It is not mentioned in the above article.Do you have any information about  Happisburgh and is there another name for the site?
There seems to be quite a few excavations in along this relic coast line and the scribe has minimal knowledge of  Suffolk and Norfolk.There appears to have been  a reasonable hominid presence ialong the ancient shoreline or they were very mobile.

[liz s]

Robert, Steve,

There is a very full account of the background to this research in the latest (Jan/Feb 2006) edition of British Archaeology. This isn't on-line yet, I think the policy is to post the previous edition as the next becomes available. For those in the UK, the journal is on sale at large outlets. (For more information on British Archaeology see: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba.html)

Drawing on this to answer some of the points asked - Pakefield and Happisburgh, which are very close together, are both within the Cromer Forest -bed (known as a rich fossil zone since the 19th century) but until these two sites were re-investigated recently after becoming re-exposed, there were no tools known from this formation. There is a flint handaxe from Happisburgh, which Simon Parfitt places at the same period as Boxgrove. The conflict in the dating seems to be between the biostratigraphers and those working directly with the glacial tills. The former would give a wider spread to the, in total, 5 temperate stages in the Cromerian complex, bracketing the whole series of episodes between MIS19 and MIS12. The latter want a much briefer total timespan, from MIS19 to MIS17. Hence the importance of the independent amino acid racematisation dating referred to in a previous post. The important question is going to be how that fits with the vole-clock evidence from the deposits - Pakefield has Mimomys, but the Happisburgh till at its type locality is said to overlie deposits with Arvicola.

Exciting times indeed!

[shenzhou]

There is a very full account of the background to this research in the latest (Jan/Feb 2006) edition of British Archaeology. This isn't on-line yet, I think the policy is to post the previous edition as the next becomes available.

The Jan/feb 2006 issue of British Archaeology is now available online. The article can be read here:

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml

[Robert Henvell]

There is a very full account of the background to this research in the latest (Jan/Feb 2006) edition of British Archaeology. This isn't on-line yet, I think the policy is to post the previous edition as the next becomes available.

The Jan/feb 2006 issue of British Archaeology is now available online. The article can be read here:

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml

Mega thanks for the link,
Bob

[pierfig]

PAKEFIELD WIMEREUX possible similarities?

 While recently visiting  PALANTH  Forum, I have discovered several references about PAKEFIELD (UK) My curiosity has been tickled  by several analogies between the tools found in PAKEFIELD and those found on a prehistoric site in France, just across the Channel, in WIMEREUX, on the opposite side of the strait from PAKEFIELD.

      On PAKEFIELD site 32 flint stone artefacts, estimated to be about 700.000 years old, have been recently discovered. This would make them the oldest known knapped stone tools of Great Britain.

        At that time, the strait didn't exist and the two sites were only distant of about 25 to 30 miles. They were probably populated by human beings possessing the same technological level.  It was hence likely that there should be great similarities between these two stone industries.

        I have been doing some research on WIMEREUX site. I have selected among the tools that I have collected those that look most like those found in PAKEFIELD. I have arranged the oldest ones of them in a similar way as those visible on a picture of the English site (that's the only one I have so far). The result is astonishing; it looks like plagiary photography…

Click here for WIMEREUX tools

 Of course it would be necessary to provide a lot more evidence than a picture in order to prove that it was indeed the same stone knapping industry.

 I was wandering what some  experts might think about this observation.

 Yours sincerely.  Charles.belart

 ( writen in English with the help of PAUL TREHIN,   thanks! )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------