{"id":14,"date":"2018-08-26T08:06:53","date_gmt":"2018-08-26T08:06:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/?page_id=14"},"modified":"2021-03-04T13:13:52","modified_gmt":"2021-03-04T13:13:52","slug":"palaeolithic-and-mesolithic","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/","title":{"rendered":"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

National overview\n<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since the publication of the revised\nframework for the East of England in 2011, there have been significant\ndevelopments relevant to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic studies at a national\nscale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Particularly important, and\nunfortunate, was the closure of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF)\nin 2011, which had provided a major source of funding for projects concerned\nwith the conservation and management of the archaeology of the Pleistocene.\nSummaries and outputs of ALSF funded projects, including many within the East\nof England, are archived by the Archaeological Data Service and a major recent\npublication has synthesised the results of these projects and assesses their\nimpact on understandings of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (White 2015a).\nEqually significant was the end of the third and final phase of the Leverhulme\nfunded Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project (AHOB) in 2013. Summaries of\nall the sites investigated under the auspices of AHOB, including many from the\nEast of England, are available on an online database (Stringer et al 2015).\nSimilarly, some of the results of the English Palaeolithic Rivers Project are\nnow available as a searchable online database hosted by the ADS. Several\ndetailed but accessible syntheses, which cover the Lower and Middle\nPalaeolithic, and draw extensively on the results of AHOB and other important\nwork undertaken in the last two decades, are now available (Pettitt and White\n2012; Morigi et al 2011; Ashton 2017).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Upper Palaeolithic also\nbenefited from work carried out under the auspices of AHOB, especially in terms\nof reanalysis and dating programmes on museum collections (e.g. Jacobi and\nHigham 2009; 2011). Arguably as significant, however, has been the recovery,\nduring both research and developerled fieldwork, of Late Upper Palaeolithic\nassemblages from open-air sites from southern and eastern England. Analysis and\npublication of these sites has made a significant contribution to understanding\nthe chronology and character of occupation during the Late Glacial and earliest\nHolocene (e.g. Barton et al 2009; Conneller 2009; Conneller and Ellis 2007;\nCooper 2006; 2012; Jones 2013; Lewis and Rackham 2011). Meanwhile, the online\ndissemination of the late Roger Jacobi\u2019s comprehensive card index of Upper\nPalaeolithic and Mesolithic finds (the Pamela database; Wessex Archaeology and\nJacobi 2014) represents a particularly important resource for studies of the\nUpper Palaeolithic. A recent synthesis of the Upper Palaeolithic is provided in\nPettitt and White\u2019s monograph on the British Palaeolithic (2012) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent years have witnessed an\nupsurge of interest in the Mesolithic period, long the \u2018Cinderella\u2019 period of\nBritish prehistory. This has been driven by a new and active generation of\nacademic researchers as well as by major and well publicised fieldwork projects\nat sites such as Star Carr (Milner et al 2013), Howick (Waddington 2007),\nBouldnor Cliff (Momber et al 2011) and Blick Mead (Jacques et al 2013). There\nhave also been important developments in understandings of the chronology of\nthe period (Waddington et al 2007; Conneller and Higham 2015; Conneller et al\n2016). The 2013 Mesolithic Research and\nConservation Framework <\/em>has been published by Historic England (Blinkhorn\nand Milner 2013). These developments notwithstanding, there remain major\nuncertainties concerning the Mesolithic sequence in many areas of the country\nand there is also a lack of detailed syntheses of the period at a national\nscale to compare with those of earlier periods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessment of Key Projects (since 2011) <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Following on from the successes\nof AHOB, research is ongoing at several key Lower Palaeolithic sites in the\nregion. At and along the Norfolk coast around Happisburgh a programme of\nmonitoring of exposures of the Cromer Forest-bed formation has resulted in the\nrecovery of lithics from several locations including Eccles North Gap, Sea\nPalling and Waxham, which reflect pre-Anglian activity equivalent to the\nexcavated sites at Happisburgh Sites 1 and 3. Most spectacularly, in 2013\nhominin footprints were discovered in newly exposed estuarine silts belonging\nto the Cromer Forest-bed Formation, within a hundred metres of (and suggested\nto be broadly contemporary with) the lithic assemblage from the excavations at\nSite 3 (Ashton et al 2014).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A new campaign of research\nexcavations, begun in 2013, is ongoing at East Farm, Barnham, where Lower\nPalaeolithic lithics have been recovered since the early 20th<\/sup>\ncentury and where excavations carried out in 1989-1994 recovered two\nsubstantial lithic assemblages in primary context within deposits attributed to\nthe Hoxnian interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11). The new fieldwork is\norientated towards investigating the stratigraphic relationship between these\ntwo assemblages and has produced important evidence that flake and core\n(Clactonian) industries occurred earlier in the interglacial than assemblages\nwith handaxes (Acheulian) (Ashton et al 2016). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other sites in the Breckland are\nalso seeing ongoing research, under the aegis of the Leverhulme funded Breckland Palaeolithic Project<\/em>. This\nincludes investigation of key sites belonging to the PreAnglian Bytham River\nsystem at Warren Hill (Mildenhall) and Maidcross Hill (Lakenheath). A paper\nsummarising some of the preliminary results of this work and including an\naccessible synthesis of the Lower Palaeolithic of the Breckland have been\nrecently published (Davis et al 2017).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although not strictly within the\nregion, the results obtained through monitoring of offshore aggregate\nextraction and subsequent seabed sampling in Area 240, some 10km east of Great\nYarmouth, has allowed the recovery of a substantial collection of Pleistocene\nfauna and Palaeolithic lithics, the latter including handaxes and Levallois\nmaterial suggested to belong mostly to MIS8\/7 (Early Middle Palaeolithic)\n(Tizzard et al 2014). This work has also provided detail on the Pleistocene and\nHolocene development of the Palaeo-Yare River, with which the finds are\nassociated. Such off-shore work is now informed by the North Sea Prehistory\nResearch and Management Framework (Peeters et al 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aside from new excavations and\ninvestigations there have been several major publications of earlier work,\nincluding a major monograph on the Late Middle Palaeolithic site at Lynford,\nNorfolk (Boismier et al 2012) and a report on investigations carried out in\nPurfleet, Thurrock, for High Speed 1, which has provided additional evidence\nfrom the important sequence in this part of the Lower Thames which provides the\nbest evidence for the \u2018Purfleet\u2019 Interglacial, correlated with MIS 9 (Bridgland\net al 2013). An important synthesis of the Quaternary sequence of the river\nvalleys of the Wash fluvial network has also been published (Boreham et al\n2010). Drawing partly on work carried out by an ALSF funded project (The Lower\nand Middle Palaeolithic of the Fenland Rivers of Cambridgeshire) this study has\nimplications for the understanding of Palaeolithic material recovered from the\nterrace gravels of many of the major rivers in Eastern England. Recent research\nhas reassessed the geological context of Palaeolithic artefacts from the\nimportant sites at High Lodge and Warren Hill, Suffolk and suggested that\nrather than being associated with the Pre-Anglian deposits of the River Bytham,\nthey instead relate to a post-Anglian interglacial  (inter\nalia<\/em> Gibbard 2013; West et al 2014). This interpretation does, however\nremain highly controversial (e.g. Bridgland and White 2015; Voinchet et al\n2015; Davis et al 2016) and the work of the Breckland Palaeolithic Project is\nlikely to cast new light on this issue in the immediate future.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between 2013 and 2015 Historic England funded two programmes of enhancement of Historic Environment Records within the region which are of direct relevance to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. In Essex the Managing the Essex Pleistocene project developed a predictive model allowing the assessment for the potential for the survival of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology. This was based around integrating HER and other archaeological data sources with geological information and allowed the mapping of areas of potential survival which can act as a guide to the impact of development on the archaeological resource (O\u2019Connor 2015). In Norfolk a project to enhance the records relating to early prehistory (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic) was undertaken. This involved reviewing all Palaeolithic and Mesolithic records and integrating new information from varied sources including important newly available data sets such as the archives of John Wymer and Roger Jacobi (Cattermole and Watkins 2014). The resulting records (available in large part online at www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk) provide comprehensive and detailed accounts of findspots of these periods which represent an important resource both for management and research purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Projects: Lower and Middle Palaeolithic<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
Project <\/th>Location <\/th>Authority <\/th>Type <\/th>Comments <\/th>Date <\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Area 240 <\/td><\/td><\/td>Monitoring\/sampling <\/td>Off shore geoarchaeological sampling and monitoring of deposits associated with the PalaeoYare valley. Recovery of substantial lithic assemblage and faunal remains relating to MIS8\/7 (Early Middle Palaeolithic) (Tizzard et al 2014). <\/td>Early Middle Palaeolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Managing the Essex Pleistocene <\/td> <\/td>Essex <\/td>HER enhancement <\/td>County-wide predictive modelling of potential for survival of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology based on geology and archaeological records (O'Connor 2015). <\/td>Lower and Middle Palaeolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
High Speed 1 <\/td>Purfleet <\/td>Essex <\/td>Publication <\/td>Publication of results of excavations\/investigations of MIS 9 and associated deposits. (Bridgland et al 2013). <\/td>MIS 9 (Purfleet Interglacial)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Happisburgh <\/td><\/td>Norfolk <\/td>Monitoring\/excavation <\/td>Recovery of flints from exposures of the pre-Anglian Cromer Forest-bed Formation and recording of hominin footprints exposed in the intertidal zone, believed contemporary with Happisburgh III (MIS 25 or 21) (Ashton et al 2014). <\/td>Pre-Anglian <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lynford <\/td> <\/td>Norfolk <\/td>Publication <\/td>Monograph on excavations of major Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic and faunal assemblage from palaeochannel on the Wissey floodplain (Boismier et al 2012). <\/td>Late Middle Palaeolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Enhancement of Early prehistoric Records <\/td><\/td>Norfolk <\/td>HER enhancement <\/td>Review, expansion and updating of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic HER records in Norfolk (Cattermole and Watkins 2015). <\/td>Palaeolithic and Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
East Farm <\/td>Barnham <\/td>Suffolk <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Renewed excavation of MIS 11 Clactonian and Acheulian assemblages (Ashton et al 2016). <\/td>MIS 11 (Hoxnian) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Warren Hill <\/td> Mildenhall <\/td>Suffolk <\/td>Excavation <\/td> Ongoing investigation of sediments belonging to the Pre-Anglian Bytham river (Davis et al 2017). <\/td> Pre-Anglian <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maidcross Hill <\/td>Lakenheath <\/td>Suffolk <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Ongoing investigation of sediments belonging to the Pre-Anglian Bytham river (Davis et al 2017). <\/td>Pre-Anglian <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quaternary of the Wash <\/td> <\/td>Various <\/td>Synthesis <\/td>Publication of synthesis of the Pleistocene history of the major river valleys of the Wash (Boreham et al 2010) <\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In recent years a significant\ndevelopment has been the recovery of several substantial Terminal Palaeolithic (\u2018long\/bruised blade\u2019)\nassemblages during developer-led excavations at Hi-Tech House, Norwich (House 2010); Dairy Farm,\nWillington, Bedfordshire (CAU in prep<\/em>)\nand Hinxton, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cambridgeshire (Haskins and\nClarke 2014; Bishop et al 2016). These major sites are accompanied by an\nincreasing number of sites where smaller numbers of diagnostically Late Upper\nPalaeolithic lithics have been recovered as part of multi-period assemblages as\nat Brandon Road, Thetford (Atkins and Connor 2010); North West Cambridge\n(Cessford and Evans 2014); Sawston, Cambridgeshire (Paul et al 2016) and Stoke\nQuay, Ipswich (OAE in prep<\/em>). A\nnotable number of putatively LUP lithics recorded on the Portable Antiquities\u2019\nScheme database or otherwise reported have also been found as stray finds or\nduring amateur fieldwork (e.g. Martingell 2013). Small scale reinvestigation of\nthe Terminal Palaeolithic site at the Devil\u2019s Wood Pit, Sproughton (Wymer 1976)\nhas been undertaken, resulting in the recovery of a small assemblage of lithics\nand new OSL and 14<\/sup>C dates on the floodplain deposits at the site\n(Waghorne 2011).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to the LUP (and\nspecifically the Terminal Palaeolithic) there has been very little work\nrelating to the Early Upper Palaeolithic, which remains poorly represented in\nthe region. One exception to this was the discovery, in 2012, of an Early Upper\nPalaeolithic blade point from a ploughsoil context at Colby, Norfolk, which\njoins a small number of this type of artefact from the region, most notably\nthose from Bramford Road, Ipswich and White Colne, Essex (see Jacobi 2007;\nPiprani 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although excavations continue to\nroutinely recover small quantities of Mesolithic lithics, major discoveries\nremain rare. Significant excavations since 2011 include the investigation of\nmulti-period lithic scatters with a major Mesolithic component at Gaul Road,\nMarch (Mellor 2011); sampling of Later Mesolithic flint scatters sealed by\nalluvial deposits on the floodplain of the R. Ouse at Dairy Farm, Willington\n(CAU in prep<\/em>) and recovery of a\nsubstantial Later Mesolithic assemblage from deposits infilling a natural\nhollow near Barnham, Suffolk (OAE in prep). A large multi-period lithic\nassemblage from Over, Cambridgeshire, incorporating a large proportion of\npredominantly Early Mesolithic flintwork, has been recently published (Evans et\nal 2016) as have the results of fieldwork on an extensive lithic scatter at\nPriestly Farm, Bedfordshire (Moore 2010), and other assemblages with a\nsignificant Mesolithic component from Sawston, Cambridgeshire (Paul et al 2016)\nand Brandon Road, Thetford (Atkins and Connor 2010). The important results of\nenvironmental and geoarchaeological investigations of the Suffolk Rivers\nProject have recently been published in monograph form (Gearey et al 2016),\nwhilst the 14<\/sup>C dates from the important pollen sequences from\nHockham Mere, Norfolk, have been modelled (Healy et al 2014). Additionally, the\nearlier Holocene paleogeography of the lower Waveney has been modelled and\ndiscussed in the context of Mesolithic occupation (Dewing 2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the most significant\nrecent discovery is from Langford, Essex, where a cremation deposit found\nwithin a small pit has been securely dated to the sixth millennium BC (Gilmour\nand Loe 2015). The deposit contained 118g of cremated bone representing at\nleast one adult or older juvenile individual and represents the first\ndocumented Mesolithic cremation from Britain. Also relevant in this context is\nthe recent dating of the partial skeleton of an adult male, recovered from\nalluvial deposits at Tilbury, Essex in 1883, to c. 6000 BC (Schulting 2013).\nThe condition and context of the skeleton strongly suggest it represents a\ndeliberate burial and, together with the cremated remains from Langford, joins\na small group of around twenty findspots in Britain where Mesolithic human\nremains have been recovered.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current writer\u2019s recent PhD thesis provides an up to date synthesis of the evidence for the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of a large part of the region including Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire (Billington 2016). A comprehensive gazetteer of findspots of LUP and Mesolithic lithic artefacts was compiled as part of this study, and the distribution of known sites was assessed and discussed in relation to biases caused by land-use, geomorphology and research histories. The research also allowed the analysis of several poorly documented assemblages including those from the Terminal Palaeolithic sites at Whiteway Drove, Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire and the Kings Site, Mildenhall. The enhancement to the Norfolk HER discussed above is as relevant to the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic as it is to earlier periods, and provides an exhaustive record of finds and sites in Norfolk.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Projects: Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic<\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
Project <\/th>Location <\/th>Authority <\/th>Type <\/th>Comments <\/th>Date <\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Dairy Farm <\/td>Willington <\/td>Bedfordshire <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Excavation of large Terminal Palaeolithic lithic scatter sealed by colluvial deposits. Sampling of sub-alluvial Later Mesolithic lithic scatters on the floodplain of the Great Ouse. <\/td>Terminal Palaeolithic; Later Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Priestly Farm <\/td>Flitwick <\/td>Bedfordshire <\/td>Publication <\/td>Publication of large scale sampling of multi-period ploughzone lithic scatter with significant Mesolithic component. Associated environmental sequence from palaeochannel of the Flit (Moore 2010). <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hinxton Genome Campus <\/td><\/td>Cambridgeshire <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Excavation of Terminal Palaeolithic lithic scatter preserved within natural hollow on terrace of the River Cam\/Granta. <\/td>Terminal Palaeolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Land off Gaul Road <\/td>March<\/td>Cambridgeshire <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Sampling of extensive Mesolithic and Neolithic lithic scatters from peat sealed buried soils (Mellor 2011). <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Over Narrows <\/td>Over <\/td>Cambridgeshire <\/td>Publication <\/td>Publication of large multi-period lithic scatters with substantial Early Mesolithic component from the floodplain of the Lower Great Ouse (Evans et al 2016) <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tilbury <\/td> <\/td>Essex <\/td>Dating\/ publication <\/td>Radiocarbon dating of human skeleton from Tilbury Docks to the Later Mesolithic (Schulting 2013). <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Langford <\/td><\/td>Essex <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Excavation of Mesolithic cremation deposit from small pit, first of its kind in Britain (Gilmour and Loe 2015). <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hi Tech House <\/td>Norwich <\/td>Norfolk <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Recovery of Terminal Palaeolithic lithic assemblage from small exposures of sub-alluvial surface of the Wensum floodplain (House 2010). <\/td>Terminal Palaeolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Barnham <\/td><\/td>Suffolk <\/td>Excavation <\/td>Excavation of Later Mesolithic lithic scatter preserved in natural hollow in the Little Ouse valley. <\/td>Later Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Suffolk Rivers Project <\/td> <\/td>Suffolk <\/td>Publication <\/td>Synthesis of the results of the Suffolk Rivers Project incorporating geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental work on floodplain deposits across Suffolk (Gearey et al 2016). <\/td>Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
LUP and Mesolithic lithic scatters in Eastern England <\/td><\/td>various <\/td>PhD thesis <\/td>Synthesis of the LUP and Mesolithic of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire (Billington 2016). <\/td>Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n

Assessment of progress on research topics\nproposed in 2011 <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Key research topics for the Lower\nand Middle Palaeolithic highlighted in the revised research framework included\nthe potential of systematic fieldwalking to identify new sites, especially away\nfrom the river valleys. There has been little progress on this issue, which is\nreturned to below. The need to better understand the geological context of\nextant collections of Palaeolithic artefacts was raised, especially in terms of\nre-visiting the sites of older, poorly provenanced\/contextualised, collections\nto investigate the geological sequence and where possible acquire new samples\nof artefacts and dates. This too remains largely unfulfilled, although the\nrecent re-investigations at various sites in the Breckland represent an obvious\nmajor exception.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The erosion and loss of\nPleistocene deposits along the coastline was raised as issue of particular\nconcern in the context of the then very recent discoveries at Happisburgh and\nPakefield. The successes of monitoring of this coastline have been noted above\nand should be considered an ongoing priority, worthy of expansion to all areas\nwhere high potential Pleistocene deposits are exposed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attention was also drawn to the\nneed to better characterise the nature of lithic assemblages recovered from\ngravel terraces, in particular assessing the taphonomic of artefacts within a\nderived\/secondary context in gravel and sand deposits to assess their integrity\nand interpretative potential.  Most\nrecent work has focused on sites where artefacts are found in primary or near\nprimary contexts and such investigation of artefacts in secondary contexts\narguably continues to be somewhat neglected. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Special emphasis was given to the need to provide local\nauthorities with information necessary to adequately protect the Palaeolithic\nresource. In particular it was suggested that the incorporation of geological\nand palaeoenvironmental data into HERs should be a priority. The Managing the Essex Pleistocene <\/em>project\nand its predecessor, the ALSF funded Medway\nValley Palaeolithic Project <\/em>provide models of this kind of work which\nshould prove an invaluable tool for assessing the impact of proposed\ndevelopment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Research topics for the Upper\nPalaeolithic specifically were largely limited to the observation that the\nevidence for the Late Upper Palaeolithic in the region in particular required\nfurther study to \u201ccharacterise and model\u2019 the evidence for activity. There has\nbeen some progress on this issue with the Norfolk HERs enhancement,\nincorporating information from the Jacobi and Wymer archives, providing very\ndetailed information on the LUP sites from that county, whilst Billington\n(2016) highlights the relative poverty of the evidence for LUP activity  during the Late Glacial Interstadial, but\ncontrast this with the plentiful and often high quality evidence for the\nTerminal Palaeolithic and is able to discuss the character and landscape\ndistribution\/location of Terminal Palaeolithic lithic scatters in some\ndetail.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key research topics identified\nfor the Mesolithic included a need to consider how fieldwork methodologies\nmight be improved to allow the detection of Mesolithic sites, which appeared to\nbe underrepresented by the results of developer-led projects. This remains a\nkey issue and is discussed in more detail below. It was suggested that\npredictive modelling\/better understanding of site location of site location\nbased on collation and analysis of the existing corpus of sites would be an\nimportant first step towards improving understanding of the period and this has\nbeen explicitly addressed by Billington (2016) for parts of the region.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a more general level the need to better understand and\nmodel Holocene sequences and environments from river valleys across the region,\nand offshore and wetland areas and the implications of this for Mesolithic\nsettlement and the preservation of sites was highlighted. There has been\nimportant work in this area, including the large amount of work that has been\ndirected towards understanding the off-shore palaeo-landscapes of \u2018Doggerland\u2019\nand the history of sea level rise during the early Holocene (e.g. Gaffney et al\n2009; Sturt et al 2013), and assessment of alluvial sequences of river valleys\nin certain areas (e.g. Gearey et al 2016) and modelling of the palaeolandscapes\nof parts of the Broads (Dewing 2012). There do, however, remain many areas,\nincluding major river valleys, where understanding of Holocene geomorphology\nand environments remain relatively poor. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Future Research Topics <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Any consideration of research\ntopics for the Middle and Palaeolithic of the region must begin with an\nacknowledgement that the archaeology of the Pleistocene remains poorly\nintegrated into broader developer-led programmes of investigation and\nmitigation. This issue has been explicitly addressed by Mark White in a\ndiscussion of research priorities frameworks for these periods, written in the\ncontext of an assessment of the major achievements in Palaeolithic studies\nduring the early twenty first century (White 2015b). White\u2019s concise paper\ndeserves close reading by curators, consultants and contractors across the\nregion. In particular, his review highlights the manner in which the\noverwhelming majority of recent research has been undertaken by a small group\nof academic specialists and has focused on sites known since the late 19th<\/sup>\nor early 20th<\/sup> century \u2013 put simply, with a few notable exceptions\nsuch as Lynford and Happisburgh, there has been a failure throughout the later\ntwentieth and twenty-first century to identify and investigate new sites (see\nalso Pettitt and White 2012, 4-6).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this, defining specific\nresearch aims or topics relating to Pleistocene archaeology is arguably far\nless important than developing methods and procedures by which the\ninvestigation of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic archaeology can become part of\n\u2018mainstream\u2019 archaeological projects. For this reason this section does not\nprovide a list of what would be essentially irrelevant research topics (for\nnational research objectives, see Historic England\u2019s 2008 Research and Conservation Framework for the British Palaeolithic<\/em>),\nand very briefly reflects on the prospects for approaching Lower and Middle\nPalaeolithic archaeology in a developer-led context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recognition of the problems\nin integrating Pleistocene archaeology into developer-led projects is not, of\ncourse, a new one (see, e.g. Wenban-Smith 1994; 1995a&b), but it remains an\nintractable issue, especially given the somewhat acrimonious breakdown in\ncommunication between the ALSF funded National Ice Age Network and the Mineral\nProducts Association (the latter representing the concerns of quarry companies\noperating in the UK) (see Schreve 2015, 96-101). We remain in a position where\nthe fate of Pleistocene archaeology remains very much dependant on the stance\nand concerns of individual local authority archaeologists and contractors and\ntheir relationships with individual developers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whilst acknowledging this problem, the review of recent\nprojects provided above clearly shows that some progress has been made. Of\nespecial importance are those projects which have served to provide curators\nwith detailed information on the potential for Palaeolithic archaeology,\nexemplified by the Mapping the Essex Pleistocene project, but also provided in\npart by the Cambridge Rivers project and the Norfolk HER enhancement. Mapping\npotential and collating existing data is an essential first step towards more\neffective curation of Pleistocene archaeology and it is notable that the Essex\nmapping project has informed recent fieldwork specifications, with\ninvestigation of Pleistocene deposits carried out as part of trial trench\nevaluations at sites believed to have potential for Palaeolithic archaeology or\nimportant geological sequences (e.g. Collie 2018). In this context it would\nclearly be extremely useful if comparable mapping projects could be undertaken\nfor other parts of the region, but in a post-ALSF world it is difficult to\nimagine where the resources from such work will originate in the future. Beyond\nmapping for potential and enhancing records of known Palaeolithic finds, there\nare now a set of reasonably well-established methodologies for evaluating\nPleistocene archaeology which can be integrated into programmes of fieldwork;\ntypically these include programmes of geophysical survey, bore-holing, test\npitting and watching-briefs. A useful summary of these approaches has recently\nbeen provided by Martin Bates and Matthew Pope (Bates and Pope 2015), but there\ndoes remain a pressing need for explicit guidance documents, summarising these\nmethods and providing contacts to appropriate specialists, if these practices\nare to be undertaken on a more routine basis during developer-led work.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As noted above, there have been\nsubstantial developments at national scale in understandings of the chronology\nof the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in recent years and it is essential\nthat work carried out within the region is undertaken, and contributes to,\nthese wider themes. For both periods there has traditionally been a heavy\nreliance on certain typologically distinctive flint tools for dating purposes\nand the great majority of lithic material can only be attributed a very broad\ndate, of dubious relevance for understanding activity over the extended time\nspans and changing environmental conditions of these periods. In recent years,\nand particularly for the Late Upper Palaeolithic, studies of lithic assemblages\nhave demonstrated chronologically significant differences in technology which\nhave the potential of assemblages lacking strictly diagnostic forms to be\nplaced in a more detailed chronological sequence. Studies of LUP assemblages\nfrom the region should draw on this growing body of work (see e.g. Barton et al\n2009; Conneller and Ellis 2007; Cooper 2006; Cooper in Jones 2013).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has been less work of this\nkind in relation to the Mesolithic and dating remains heavily reliant of\nmicrolith typology. There have, however, been important developments in this\narea, especially in terms of the recognition of the diachronous appearance of\nnarrow-blade, later Mesolithic across Britain and an increasingly detailed\nunderstanding of chronological developments in the earlier part of the period\n(Waddington et al 2007; Reynier 2002; 2005; Conneller et al 2016). Again, it is\nessential that work on Mesolithic assemblages in the region engages with this\nwork.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At present, evidence from the\nregion makes little contribution to chronological understandings of the Upper\nPalaeolithic and Mesolithic at a national scale, with a very small number of\nsites with reliable associated 14<\/sup>C dates. To a large extent this\nreflects the dearth of minimally disturbed lithic scatters representing single\nor relatively discrete episodes of occupation associated with material suitable\nfor dating (see below).  Where such sites\nare located and investigated every effort should be made to secure reliable\nsamples for dating and the implications of such dates will invariably be of\nmore than regional significance.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be useful to apply more\ndetailed technological studies to Mesolithic lithic assemblages to explore\nwhether there are chronologically significant differences in raw material use,\ncore redaction strategies and assemblage composition during the period. Such\ndifferences are hinted at in the existing data set, and can be paralleled in\nother parts of the country (see Billington 2016), but remain poorly understood\nat a regional scale and might have important implications for understanding\nchanging patterns of mobility and settlement over the course of the Holocene. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Improving fieldwork methodologies\nfor locating and investigating Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites remains\na key concern. This applies especially to those rare, but disproportionately\nimportant sites where minimally disturbed\/in\nsitu <\/em>lithic scatters survive, and are sometimes associated with other\nevidence such as faunal remains and palaeoenvironmental proxies. Within the\nregion the best opportunities for investigating sites of this kind come from\nthe alluviated floodplains of the river valleys and from areas of former\ncoastal wetland. The problems of prospecting for ephemeral lithic scatters\nsites in such contexts are well known and have seen substantial discussion,\nespecially in terms of the deficiencies of traditional evaluation strategies\n(see papers in Bradley 1998). Recent work elsewhere in southern Britain provide\nmodels and discussion of how such landscapes can be effectively evaluated\nthrough deposit modelling, trenching and bore hole\/test pit sampling (e.g.\nBates et al 2007; Bates and Stafford 2013; see Jones 2013, 1-7), whilst within\nthe region systematic sampling of the extensive buried soils in the Fenland\nduring evaluation fieldwork have been effective in locating lithic scatters of\nall periods (e.g. Evans et al 2016). There is a real need for effective\nstrategies for locating and investigating sites of this kind to be implemented\nin areas of high potential and it is important to note that these periods are\noften poorly served by watching brief\/strip-mapand-sample type briefs, where it\nis difficult to anticipate and adequately deal with ephemeral artefact\nscatters.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aside from alluvial contexts,\nimportant in situ <\/em>scatters of Upper\nPalaeolithic and Mesolithic date continue to be recovered from beneath\ncolluvial deposits and within near surface sub-soil layers, occasionally in\nlocations where it would be difficult to anticipate the survival of such\ndeposits, as at Rookery Farm, Cambridgeshire (Conneller 2009) or Great Melton,\nNorfolk (Wymer and Robins 1995). This again highlights the need for effective\nmodelling and sampling of deposits encountered during evaluation phases.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to improving methods\nto locate such high integrity sites, it is essential that appropriate fieldwork\nmethodologies are applied in their investigation, particularly in terms of\nsecuring as total excavation\/recovery as possible, together with intensive\nsampling and sieving of deposits and detailed spatial recording. The potential\nof such work to be carried out at, even at a very large scale, within the\ncontext of developer funded projects has been demonstrated in a number of\nrecent fieldwork projects in Southern Britain such at Bexhill, and Stainton\nWest, Cumbria. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from these kinds of\nwell-preserved sites of clear interpretative potential\/value, the evidence for\nUpper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity invariably takes the form of lithic\nmaterial, often as a component of multi-period assemblages, recovered from\ncontexts which have seen considerable post-depositional disturbance, including\nthose derived as a residual element from excavation of later sites and from\nploughsoil deposits. Despite the interpretative difficulties of dealing with\nassemblages of this kind they provide the only evidence for activity in areas\nwhere better preserved scatters are absent and can yield important information,\nbut do require appropriately intensive sampling. Ploughzone archaeology in\ngeneral remains poorly served by developer-led projects but intensive sampling\nthrough excavation of a ploughzone scatter with a major Mesolithic component at\nPriestly Farm, Bedfordshire (Moore 2010), demonstrates what can be achieved\nwhen sufficient resources are available for the investigation of known\nploughzone sites, and could be usefully emulated elsewhere.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fieldwalking has declined in\nimportance as a strategy for evaluation during developer-led projects and it\nwould be beneficial to consider methods of sampling ploughsoil artefact\nscatters during evaluation trenching to allow significant ploughsoil scatters\nto be identified. As noted above, many new findspots have been identified\nthrough amateur fieldwork and are reported\/recorded on the PAS database.\nParticularly notable is the number of finds of putatively Upper Palaeolithic\ndate, which presumably partly reflects the visibility of large and distinctive\nblade based products of this period. It would be very valuable to carry out\nfurther investigations of some of these locations where the potential to\nrecover substantial assemblages and\/or locate well-preserved sites seems high. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A central research topic for\nthese periods is in documenting the scale, distribution and character of\noccupation in the region and interpreting these patterns in terms of the\ndramatic climatic and environmental changes that occurred over the course of\nthe Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. The very sparse record of Early Upper\nPalaeolithic activity in the region is characteristic of lowland southern\nBritain more generally and at present there is little scope for detailed\ninterpretations of this period. The identification of new findspots would be of\nimportance in expanding the known distribution of activity, whilst the\nrecovery, almost a century ago, of an Early Upper Palaeolithic leaf\/blade point\nand associated fauna within a deposit of fluvial sand on the floodplain of the\nColne at White Colne (Layard 1927), demonstrates the potential for the survival\nof undisturbed sites of this date under some, probably very rare,\ncircumstances. The same points largely apply to that part of the Late Upper\nPalaeolithic record belonging to the Late Glacial Interstadial (i.e Creswellian\/Final\nMagdalenian and Final Palaeolithic (Hengistbury-type and Federmesser\nassemblages)), which, taken at face value, suggests relatively limited,\nepisodic occupation by small populations (Pettitt and White 2012, 423). It is\nnotable, however, that there are significantly more findspots of Final\nPalaeolithic date than those belonging to the Creswellian\/Final Magdalenian\n(Billington 2016), and this might indicate that the latter part of the\ninterstadial saw somewhat more sustained\/intensive activity. In adjacent parts\nof the continent, especially in the Low Countries, Final Palaeolithic sites are\nextremely common in some areas (e.g. Cromb\u00e9 et al 2011) and future work, both\nin terms of new fieldwork and reassessment of older assemblages, should attempt\nto assess the extent to which Final Palaeolithic activity may have been\nunderestimated and\/or how it differs from the continental record.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Terminal Palaeolithic record\nof the region is of considerable importance at a national scale (Barton 1998)\nand recent projects have continued to recover new and important assemblages of\nthis date. This data set has potential for making useful inter-site comparisons\nin terms of assemblage composition, landscape location and possible site\nfunction. There is an emerging picture, in the region and elsewhere in southern\nBritain, of a high degree of variability between assemblages of this date which\nmight indicate substantial differences in the character and duration of\noccupation at different locales (see Cooper 2006). This offers a challenge to\nthe interpretation that many such \u2018long blade\u2019 sites represent somewhat\nspecialised and short lived workshop or butchery sites (e.g. Barton 1995;\nFagnart 2009; Naudinot and Jacquier 2014) and is an issue which the evidence\nfrom the region is well placed to address, although several major assemblages\nincluding the Kings Site, Mildenhall; Staunch Meadow, Brandon;\nHockwold-cum-Wilton, Norfolk and Whiteway Drove, Swaffham Prior, are poorly\ndocumented and require analysis and\/or reporting. Patterns of raw material use\nalso require more detailed analysis – sites are generally located in proximity\nto high quality sources of flint and include abundant evidence for on-site\nworking, but the extent to which material was transported around the landscape,\nand in what form, remains unclear. Analysis of site location in part of the\nregion has revealed that there are major clusters of findspots in the lower\nriver valleys of Norfolk and Suffolk and there seems to be a clear preference\nfor floodplain\/river valley locations (Robins and Wymer 2006; Billington 2016).\nAt present our understanding of sites located away from such locations is very\npoor and characterising some of the findspots from more \u2018upland\u2019 locations is\nnecessary to determine any differences in the character of activity taking\nplace in different parts of the landscape. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evidence for Mesolithic activity\nis widespread across the entire region. Traditionally the distribution of\nMesolithic findspots has been taken to indicate the preferential occupation of\nriver valleys, with less activity on the boulder clay uplands and a general\npreference for lighter sandy soils. Whilst these patterns remain compelling,\nthere is a need to test them in specific areas through systematic survey and,\nequally importantly, to determine whether there are chronological and\/or\nfunctional differences between sites located in different topographic and\ngeological locations.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the major difficulties\nfacing research in the region is the frequency with which Mesolithic sites from\na component of large multi-period palimpsest lithic scatters, in which not only\nare different phases of the Mesolithic itself represented, but later\nprehistoric material is also abundant (e.g. Edmonds et al 1999; Leivers et al\n2009). Whilst such sites will always be interpretatively challenging in terms\nof characterising activity belonging to specific episodes of occupation,\nattention needs to be paid to attempting to identify the tempo and history of\noccupation of such sites; even in the very coarse sense of estimating the\nextent of Early versus Later Mesolithic material.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One striking aspect of the\nMesolithic record of the region is the substantially greater proportion of findspots\nof \u2018Early Mesolithic\u2019 broad blade microlith forms than Later Mesolithic narrow\nblade forms. This pattern was first observed by Jacobi in relation to the\nrecord from Essex (Jacobi 1996) and has been paralleled in a study of Norfolk,\nSuffolk, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire (Billingon 2016). Although Jacobi suggested\nthis pattern reflected a genuine decline in activity in some areas during the\nLater Mesolithic, coincident with changes in ecology and resource availability,\nthis is a pattern that needs testing through more systematic work and in light\nof future discoveries, especially given the diminutive size of Later Mesolithic\nmicrolith forms and their corresponding underrepresentation in assemblages\nwhich have not been subject to rigorous collection\/sampling.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discovery of the cremation\ndeposit at Langford raises the possibility that a hitherto unrecognised\ntradition of Mesolithic cremation burial may be present in parts of southern\nBritain and emphasises the requirement for deposits of this kind to be\nroutinely dated. Attention should also be directed to other putatively\nMesolithic cut features which have been reported during excavations. There are\na growing number of sites where small pits, generally containing only small\nassemblages of flintwork have been suggested to date to this period (e.g.\nDawson 1988; Wymer 1996; Powell 2013) and it would be useful if analysis of\nthese features and their finds and 14<\/sup>C dating could examine this\nissue in more detail. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Mesolithic\/Neolithic\ntransition remains a key research topic for the region, especially given the ubiquity\nof palimpsest scatters with both Mesolithic and Neolithic material. Given the\nprogress in understanding the Early Neolithic sequence in recent years, it is\nimportant to recognise the poor chronological control we have over the\nMesolithic, a period that spans over 5000 years. As Frances Healy has recently\nemphasised, at many sites where both Early Neolithic and Mesolithic material\nare found the activity they represent could often be separated by millennia\n(Healy 2012), and at present, unlike some other areas of Britain, evidence from\nthe Mesolithic side of the transition can contribute little to ongoing debates\non the subject (cf. Griffiths 2014a and b). One area that could be of\nconsiderable interest is comparing, in detail, lithic assemblages from what\nseem to be the earliest Neolithic sites in the region (e.g. those associated\nwith very early dates and\/or carinated bowl pottery) with those from discrete\nLater Mesolithic assemblages (e.g. Robins 1998), although absolute dating of\nthe relevant Mesolithic assemblages might be seen as an essential pre-requisite\nfor this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is an urgent requirement\nfor detailed and up-to date and readily accessible regional\/countybased\nsyntheses of the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic to be produced. For most\nareas the most recent of these kinds of accounts remain those of Jacobi for\nEssex and parts of Norfolk and Suffolk (Jacobi 1980, 1984 1996), since which\ntime there have been significant changes in our understanding of the periods,\nas well the accumulation of much new evidence. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ashton N, Lewis SG, De Groote I,\nDuffy SM, Bates M, Bates R, et al. (2014) Hominin Footprints from Early\nPleistocene Deposits at Happisburgh, UK. PLoS\nONE<\/em> 9(2), e88329.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ashton, N. 2017. Early Humans<\/em>. Collins New Naturalist\nLibrary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ashton, N.M., Bowen, D.Q.,\nHolman, J.A., Hunt, C.O., Irving, B.G., Kemp, R.A., Lewis, S.G., McNabb, J.,\nParfitt, S. and Seddon, M.B., 1994. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site\nat East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989\u201392. Journal\nof the Geological Society<\/em> 151 (4), pp.599-605. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Atkins, R. and Connor, A. 2010. Farmers and Ironsmiths: Prehistoric, Roman\nand Anglo-Saxon Settlement beside Brandon Road, Thetford, Norfolk<\/em>. East\nAnglian Archaeology 134. Bar Hill: Oxford Archaeology East. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barton, R.N.E. 1995. The long\nblade assemblage. In Allen, T.G. Lithics\nand Landscape: archaeological discoveries on the Thames Water pipeline at\nGatehampton Farm, Goring,<\/em> Oxfordshire 1985-92. Oxford: Oxford\nArchaeological Unit\/Oxbow Books, 54-64. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barton, R.N.E. 1998. Long Blade\ntechnology and the question of British Late Pleistocene\/Early Holocene lithic\nassemblages. In Ashton, N., Healy, F. and Pettitt, P. (eds.), Stone Age Archaeology: essays in honour of\nJohn Wymer<\/em>. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 102, 158-64 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barton, R.N.E., Ford, S.,\nCollcutt, S., Crowther, J., Macphail, R., Rhodes, E. and Van Gijn, A. 2009. A\nFinal Upper Palaeolithic site at Nea Farm, Somerley, Hampshire (England) and\nsome reflections on the occupation of Britain in the Late Glacial Interstadial.\nQuart\u00e4r<\/em> 56, 7-35. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bates, M.R., Bates, C.R. and\nWhittaker, J.E., 2007. Mixed method approaches to the investigation and <\/p>\n\n\n\n

mapping of buried Quaternary\ndeposits: examples from southern England.\nArchaeological Prospection<\/em>, 14(2), pp.104-129. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bates, M. and Pope, M. 2015.\nMethods for Reconstructing Ice Age Landscapes. In In White, M. (ed.) 2015. Lost Landscapes of Palaeolithic Britain<\/em>.\nOxford Archaeology Monograph 26, 11-51. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bates, M. and Stafford, E. 2013. Thames Holocene: a geoarchaeological\napproach to the investigation of the river floodplain for High Speed 1\n1994-2003.<\/em> Wessex Archaeology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Billington, L. Lithic Scatters and Landscape Occupation in the Late Upper Palaeolithic\nand Mesolithic: A Case Study from Eastern England<\/em>. Unpublished PhD thesis:\nUniversity of Manchester. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bishop, B. with Clarke, R. and\nHaskins, A. 2016. A Late Upper\nPalaeolithic Lithic Assemblage from Hinxton, Cambridgeshire. Catalogue and\nOverview Report<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report No. 1995. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blinkhorn, E. and Milner, N.\n2013. Mesolithic Research and Conservation\nFramework 2013<\/em>. English Heritage\/The University of York\/Council for British\nArchaeology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boreham, S., White, T.S.,\nBridgland, D.R., Howard, A.J. and White, M.J., 2010. The Quaternary history of\nthe Wash fluvial network, UK. Proceedings\nof the Geologists’ Association<\/em> 121 (4), 393-409. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boismier, W.A., Gamble, C. and\nCoward, F. 2012. Neanderthals among\nMammoths: Excavations at Lynford Quarry, Norfolk. <\/em>Swindon: English\nHeritage.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bradley, P. (ed.) 1998. Lithics<\/em> 19. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bridgland, D. R. and White, M. J.\n2015. Chronological variations in handaxes: patterns detected from fluvial\narchives in north-west Europe. Journal of\nQuaternary Science<\/em> 30, 623-638. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bridgland, D.R., Harding, P.,\nAllen, P., Candy, I., Cherry, C., George, W., Horne, D.J., Keen, D.H., Penkman,\nK.E., Preece, R.C. and Rhodes, E.J., 2013. An enhanced record of MIS 9\nenvironments, geochronology and geoarchaeology: data from construction of the\nHigh Speed 1 (London\u2013Channel Tunnel) rail-link and other recent investigations\nat Purfleet, Essex, UK. Proceedings of\nthe Geologists’ Association<\/em> 124 (3), 417-476. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cattermole, A. and Watkins, P. 2014. Enhancement of early prehistoric information\nwithin the Norfolk Historic Environment Record: End-of-Project Report.<\/em>\nEnglish Heritage Project No. 6623. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cessford, C. and Evans, C. 2014. North West Cambridge Archaeology: University\nof Cambridge 201213 Excavations. Introduction and Prehisto<\/em>ry (NWC Report\nNo. 3; Pt. 1) Unpublished Cambridge Archaeological Unit Report No. 1225. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collie, T. 2018. Land at Maldon Road, Burnham West, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex.\nArchaeological Evaluation Report.<\/em> Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East\nReport No. 2216. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conneller, C. 2009. Investigation\nof a Final Palaeolithic Site at Rookery Farm, Great Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society<\/em>\n75, 167-88. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conneller, C. and Ellis, C. 2007.\nA Final Upper Palaeolithic Site at La Sagesse Convent, Romsey, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society<\/em>\n73, 191-227. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conneller, C. and Higham, T.\n2015. Dating the Early Mesolithic: new results from Thatcham and Seamer Carr.\nIn Ashton, N. and Harris, C. (eds.) No\nStone Unturned: Papers in honour of Roger Jacobi<\/em>. London: Lithic Studies\nSociety, Occasional Paper 9, 157-166. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conneller, C., Bayliss, A., Milner,\nN. and Taylor, B. 2016. The Resettlement of the British Landscape: Towards a\nchronology of Early Mesolithic lithic assemblage types. Internet Archaeology<\/em> 42. \nhttp:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.11141\/ia.42.12. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cooper, L. 2012. An Open-Air\nCreswellian Site at Bradgate Park, Newton Lynford, Leicestershire. Lithics <\/em>33, 30-39. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cooper, L.P. 2006. Launde, a\nTerminal Palaeolithic Camp-site in the English Midlands and its North European\nContext. Proceedings of the Prehistoric\nSociety<\/em> 72, 53-94. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cromb\u00e9, P., Sergant, J., Robinson,\nE. and De Reu, J., 2011. Hunter\u2013gatherer responses to environmental change\nduring the Pleistocene\u2013Holocene transition in the southern North Sea basin:\nFinal Palaeolithic\u2013Final Mesolithic land use in northwest Belgium. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology<\/em>\n30 (3), 454-471. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Davis, R. J., Lewis, S.G.,\nAshton, N.M., Parfitt, S.A., Hatch, M.T. and Hoare, P.G. 2017. The early\nPalaeolithic archaeology of the Breckland: current understanding and directions\nfor future research. The Journal of\nBreckland Studies<\/em> 1, 28-43.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dawson, M. 1988. Excavations at\nUrsula Taylor Lower School. Bedfordshire\nArchaeology<\/em> 18, 6-24. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dewing, E.A. 2012. Mesolithic Coastal Community Perception of Environmental Change in the\nSouthern North Sea Basin<\/em>. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of\nSouthampton. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edmonds, M., Evans, C. and\nGibson, D. 1999. Assembly and Collection \u2013 Lithic Complexes in the\nCambridgeshire Fenlands. Proceedings of\nthe Prehistoric Society<\/em> 65, 47-82. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evans, C. with Tabor, J. and\nVanderlinden, M. 2016. Twice crossed\nriver: prehistoric and palaeoenvironmental investigations at Barleycroft\nFarm\/Over, Cambridgeshire<\/em>. Cambridge. McDonald Institute for Archaeological\nResearch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fagnart, P. 2009. Les industries\n\u00e0 grandes lames et \u00e9l\u00e9ments m\u00e2chur\u00e9s du Pal\u00e9olithique final du Nord de la\nFrance: une sp\u00e9cialisation fonctionnelle des sites \u00c9pi-ahrensbourgiens. In\nCromb\u00e9, P., Van Strydonck, M., Sergant, J. Boudin, M. and Bats, M. (eds.) Chronology and Evolution within the\nMesolithic of North-West Europe: Proceedings of an International meeting,\nBrussels, May 30th-June 1st 2007.<\/em> Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars\nPublishing, 39-55. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gaffney, V.L, Fitch, S., and\nSmith, D. 2009. Europe\u2019s Lost World: The\nrediscovery of Doggerland. York<\/em>: Council for British Archaeology, Research\nReport No. 160.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gearey, B., Chapman, H. and Howard,\nA.J. 2016. Down by the River.\nArchaeological, <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Palaeoenvironmental\nand Geoarchaeological Investigations of the Suffolk River Valleys.<\/em> Oxford:\nOxbow Books.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gibbard, P.L., Turner, C. and\nWest, R.G. 2013. The Bytham river reconsidered. Quaternary International.<\/em> 292, 15-32 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilmour, N. and Loe, L. 2015. A\nMesolithic cremation-related deposit from Langford, Essex, England: a first for\nthe British Mesolithic. Mesolithic Miscel<\/em>lany\n23 (2), 55-57. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Griffiths, S. 2014a. Points in\nTime: The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the chronology of late rod\nmicroliths in Britain. Oxford Journal of\nArchaeology<\/em> 33 (3), 221-243. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Griffiths, S. 2014b. A Bayesian\nRadiocarbon Chronology of the Early Neolithic of Yorkshire and Humberside. Archaeological Journal<\/em> 171 (1), 2-29. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haskins, A. and Clarke, R. 2014. Hinxton South Field, Phase 3\nPost-excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design<\/em>. Oxford Archaeology\nEast Report 1659.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Healy, F. 2012. In the Shadow of\nHindsight. Pre-Iron Age Spong Hill viewed from 2010. In Hills C. and Lucy S. Spong Hill Part IX. Chronology and\nSynthesis.<\/em> Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, 12-21.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Healy, F., Marshall, P., Bayliss, A.,\nCook, G., Bronk Ramsey, C. van der Plicht, J. and Dunbar, E. 2014. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grime\u2019s\nGraves, Weeting-with-Broomhill, Norfolk. Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological\nModelling. Scientific Dating Report<\/em>. Portsmouth: English Heritage, Research\nReport Series No. 27-2014. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

House, J. 2011. Prehistoric and Early Medieval remains at\nHi-Tech House, Norwich<\/em>. Unpublished Oxford Archaeology East Report No.\n1246. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R.M. 2007. A Collection\nof Early Upper Palaeolithic Artefacts from Beedings, near Pulborough, West\nSussex, and the Context of Similar Finds from the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society<\/em>\n73, 229-326. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi R. M., 1980a The Mesolithic\nof Essex In Buckley, D. G. (ed.) Archaeology\nin Essex to AD 1500<\/em> London: Council for British Archaeology, Research\nReport 34, 14-25. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R. 1984. The Mesolithic\nof Northern East Anglia and Contemporary Territories. In Barringer, C. (ed.) Aspects of East Anglian Prehistory.<\/em>\nNorwich: Geo Books, 43-76. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R.M., 1996. The Late\nUpper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Essex. In Bedwin, O. (ed.) The Archaeology of Essex: Proceedings of\nthe Writtle Conference. <\/em>Essex County Council, 10-14. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R.M. and Higham, T.F.G.\n2009. The early Lateglacial re-colonisation of Britain: new radiocarbon evidence\nfrom Gough\u2019s Cave, southwest England. Quaternary\nScience Reviews<\/em> 28, 1895-1913. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R.M. and Higham, T.F.G.\n2011. The Later Upper Palaeolithic Recolonisation of Britain: New Results from\nAMS Radiocarbon Dating In Ashton, N., Lewis, S.G., Stringer, C. (eds.) The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain.<\/em>\nAmsterdam: Elsevier, 223-247. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacques, D. and Phillips, T.\n2014. Mesolithic settlement near Stonehenge at Blick Mead, Vespasian’s Camp,\nAmesbury. Wiltshire Archaeological and\nNatural History Magazine<\/em> 107, 7-32. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jones, P. 2013. Upper Palaeolithic Sites in the Lower Courses of the Rivers Colne and\nWey: Excavations at Church Lammas and Wey Manor Farm<\/em>. Woking: Spoil Heap\nPublications, Monograph 5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Layard, N.F. 1927. A Late\nPalaeolithic Settlement in the Colne Valley, Essex. The Antiquaries Journal<\/em>, 7 (04), 500-514. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leivers, M., Barnett, C. and\nHarding, P., 2009. Excavation of Mesolithic and Neolithic flint scatters and\naccompanying environmental sequences at Tank Hill Road, Purfleet, Essex 2002. Essex Archaeology and History<\/em>, 38,\npp.1-44. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lewis, J.S.C. with Rackham, J. 2011. Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge: A Lateglacial\nand Early Holocene hunter-gatherer site in the Colne Valley.<\/em> London: Museum\nof London, Monograph 51.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martingell, H. 2013. Three\nprehistoric worked flints of special interest. Essex Archaeology and History<\/em> 4 (fourth series), 216-217. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mellor, V. 2011. Archaeological Excavations at Gaul Road,\nMarch, Cambridgeshire 2011.<\/em> Unpublished Archaeological Project Services\nReport 06\/11 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Milner, N., Taylor, B.,\nConneller, C. and Schadla-Hall, R. T. 2013. Star\nCarr: Life in Britain after the Ice Age.<\/em> York: York: Council for British\nArchaeology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Momber, G Tomalin, D, Scaife, R,\nSatchell, J and Gillespie, J, 2011. Mesolithic\noccupation at Bouldnor Cliff and the submerged prehistoric landscapes of the\nSolent<\/em>. York: Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 164.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moore, R. 2010. Flint Scatter at\nPriestley Farm Flitwick. Bedfordshire\nArchaeology<\/em> 26. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morigi, A. Schreve, D. and White, M. 2011.\nPart 1. The Ice Ages: palaeogeography,\nPalaeolithic archaeology and Pleistocene environments. The Thames through Time.\nThe Archaeology of the Gravels Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames. Early\nPrehistory: to 1500 BC.<\/em> Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Landscapes\nMonograph No.32, 1-149. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naudinot, N. and Jacquier, J.\n2014. Socio-economic organisation of Final Palaeolithic societies: New\nperspectives from an aggregation site in Western France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology<\/em> 35, 177-189. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

O\u2019Connor, T. 2015. 6639. Managing the Essex Pleistocene Project<\/em>.\nProject Report. Essex County Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul, S., Colls, K. and Chapman, H. 2016. Living with the Flood: Mesolithic to\npost-medieval archaeological remains at Mill Lane, Sawston, Cambridgeshir<\/em>e.\nOxford: Oxbow Books. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peeters, H., Murphy, P. and\nFlemming, N. 2009. North Sea Prehistory\nResearch and Management Framework<\/em>. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel\nErfgoed\/English Heritage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pettitt, P. and White, M. 2012. The British Palaeolithic: Human Societies at\nthe Edge of the Pleistocene World.<\/em> Abingdon: Routledge.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Piprani, J. 2016. Penetrating the \u2018transitional\u2019 category: an\nemic approach to Lincombian Early upper Palaeolithic technology in Britain.<\/em>\nUnpublished PhD thesis. University of Manchester.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Powell, A. 2013. Post excavation assessment report: Pentlows Farm, Braughing,\nHertfordshire<\/em>. Unpublished Post-Excavation Assessment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reynier, M. 2002. Kettlebury 103:\nA Mesolithic \u2018Horsham\u2019 type stone assemblage from Hankley Common, Elstead. Surrey Archaeological Collections<\/em> 89,\n211\u201331 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robins, P. 1998. Mesolithic Sites\nat Two Mile Bottom, near Thetford, Norfolk. In Ashton, N., Healy, F. and\nPettitt, P. Stone Age Archaeology: Essays\nin honour of John Wyme<\/em>r. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 207212. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robins, P. and Wymer, J.J. 2006.\nLate Upper Palaeolithic (Long Blade) Industries in Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology<\/em> 45 (1), 86-95. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schulting, R. 2013. \u2018Tilbury\nMan\u2019: A Mesolithic Skeleton from the Lower Thames. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society<\/em> 70, 19-38. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schreve, D. 2015. Terrestrial\nFluvial Archives. In White, M. (ed.) 2015. Lost\nLandscapes of Palaeolithic Britain<\/em>. Oxford Archaeology Monograph 26,\n73-101. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stringer, C.B., Ashton, N., Polly,\nP.D., Lewis, M., Bello, S., Parfitt, S., Schreve, D., Currant, A., Scott, R., <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacobi, R., Higham, T., Candy,\nI., Lewis, S., Penkman, K., and Preece, R. 2015. The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain Database. London,<\/em> AHOB\nProject. Available at http:\/\/www.ahobproject.org\/database\/index.php  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sturt, F., Garrow, D., and\nBradley, S. 2013. New models of North West European Holocene paleogeography and\ninundation. Journal of Archaeological\nScience<\/em> 40 (11), 3963\u20133976. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tizzard, L., Bicket, A.R.,\nBenjamin, J. and Loecker, D., 2014. A Middle Palaeolithic site in the southern\nNorth Sea: investigating the archaeology and palaeogeography of Area 240. Journal of Quaternary Science<\/em> 29 (7),\npp.698-710. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Voinchet, P., Moreno, D., Bahain,\nJ.-J., Tissoux, H., Tombret, O., Falgu\u00e8res, C., Moncel, M.-H., Schreve, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

D., Candy, I., Antoine, P.,\nAshton, N., Beamish, M., Cliquet, D., Despri\u00e9e, J., Lewis, S., LimondinLozouet,\nN., Locht, J.-L., Parfitt, S. and Pope, M. 2015. New chronological data (ESR\nand ESR\/U-series) for the earliest Acheulian sites of north-western Europe. Journal of Quaternary Science<\/em> 30, 610\u2013622\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waddington, C. (ed.) 2007. Mesolithic Settlement in the North Sea\nBasin: A Case Study from Howick, North-East England.<\/em> Oxford: Oxbow\nBooks.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waddington, C. Bailey, G.,\nBayliss, A. and Milner, N. 2007. Howick in its North Sea Context. In\nWaddington, C. (ed.) Mesolithic\nSettlement in the North Sea Basin: A Case Study from Howick, NorthEast England<\/em>.\nOxford: Oxbow Books, 203-224. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waghorne, R.S. 2011. Rapid climate change during the late glacial in southern England: a\nmultiproxy study of Sproughton, Suffolk.<\/em> Unpublished PhD thesis: Royal Holloway,\nUniversity of London. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1994.\nManaging the Palaeolithic heritage: looking backwards, looking forwards, in N\nAshton and A David (eds), Stories in\nStone<\/em>, Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 4, London, 104\u2013111 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1995a. Square\npegs in round holes: problems of managing the Palaeolithic heritage, in M\nCooper, A Firth, J Carman and D Wheatley (eds), Managing Archaeology<\/em>, London, 146\u2013 62 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wenban-Smith, F.F., 1995b. Managing\nthe Palaeolithic heritage IV: the end of the beginning, in J <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schofield (ed.), Lithics in Context: Suggestionsfor the\nFuture Direction of Lithic Studies<\/em>, Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper\n5, London, 115\u201324 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wessex Archaeology and Jacobi,\nR.M. 2014. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic\nLithic Artefact (PaMELA) database [data-set]<\/em>. Archaeology Data Service\n (doi:10.5284\/1028201). \n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

West, R.G., Gibbard, P.L.,\nBoreham, S. and Rolfe, C. Geology and geomorphology of the Palaeolithic site at\nhigh Lodge, Mildenhall, Suffolk, England. Proceedings\nof the Yorkshire Geological Society<\/em> 60, 99121. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

White, M. (ed.) 2015a. Lost Landscapes of Palaeolithic Britain<\/em>.\nOxford Archaeology Monograph 26. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

White, M. 2015b. Lost Landscapes\nof the British Palaeolithic: Where do we go from here? In White, M. (ed.) 2015.\nLost Landscapes of Palaeolithic Britain<\/em>.\nOxford Archaeology Monograph 26, 131-136. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wymer, J.J 1996 The Excavation of\na Ring-ditch at South Acre. In Wymer, J.J. (ed.) Barrow Excavations in Norfolk, 1984-88.<\/em> East Anglian Archaeology\n77. Gressenhall: Field Archaeology Division, Norfolk Museums Service, 59-89. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wymer, J.J. 1976. A Long Blade\nIndustry from Sproughton. In Carr, R.D., Colman, S., Dunmore, S., Loader, T.,\nMartin, E.A., Plouviez, J., Rose, J., Scarfe, N., Wade, K., West, S.E. and\nWymer, J.J. Suffolk, various papers. <\/em>East\nAnglian Archaeology 3. Ipswich: Suffolk County Planning Department, 1-10. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wymer, J.J. and Robins, P. A.\n1995. A Mesolithic Site at Great Melton. Norfolk\nArchaeology<\/em> 42 (2), 125-147.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National overview Since the publication of the revised framework for the East of England in 2011, there have been significant developments relevant to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic studies at a national scale. Particularly important, and unfortunate, was the closure of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) in 2011, which had provided a major source of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":564,"parent":27,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-14","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nPalaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"National overview Since the publication of the revised framework for the East of England in 2011, there have been significant developments relevant to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic studies at a national scale. Particularly important, and unfortunate, was the closure of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) in 2011, which had provided a major source of […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"East of England Research Framework\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-04T13:13:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2021\/02\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"850\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"191\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/\",\"name\":\"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/10\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-26T08:06:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-04T13:13:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/10\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/10\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg\",\"width\":850,\"height\":191},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Resource Assessments\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/resource-assessments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/\",\"name\":\"East of England Research Framework\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/researchframeworks.org\\\/eoe\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework","og_description":"National overview Since the publication of the revised framework for the East of England in 2011, there have been significant developments relevant to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic studies at a national scale. Particularly important, and unfortunate, was the closure of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) in 2011, which had provided a major source of […]","og_url":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/","og_site_name":"East of England Research Framework","article_modified_time":"2021-03-04T13:13:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":850,"height":191,"url":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2021\/02\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/","url":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/","name":"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment - East of England Research Framework","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2021\/02\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg","datePublished":"2018-08-26T08:06:53+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-04T13:13:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2021\/02\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2021\/02\/Happisburgh-Handaxe-Banner.jpg","width":850,"height":191},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/palaeolithic-and-mesolithic\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Resource Assessments","item":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/resource-assessments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Palaeolithic to Mesolithic Resource Assessment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/#website","url":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/","name":"East of England Research Framework","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":631,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/14\/revisions\/631"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/564"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/researchframeworks.org\/eoe\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}