A re-evaluation of the timing of the earliest reported human occupation of Britain: the age of the sediments at Happisburgh, eastern England

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Rob Westaway ; ^a ; ^{r.w.c.westaway@ncl.ac.uk"" rel=""nofollow} ; ^{r.w.c.westaway@open.ac.uk"" rel=""nofollow}
• 关键词：Happisburgh ; England ; Pleistocene ; Palaeolithic ; Biostratigraphy
• 刊名：Proceedings of the Geologists' Association
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：June 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：122
• 期：3
• 页码：383-396
• 全文大小：792 K

文摘

Lower Palaeolithic artefacts have been reported at Happisburgh, north Norfolk, in sediments that have been assigned to the late Early Pleistocene, in either marine isotope stage (MIS) 25 or 21, using magnetostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and clast lithology. However, the proposal that these sediments were deposited by the ancestral River Thames is inconsistent both with the established late Early Pleistocene palaeogeography of the region and with the dispositions of the contemporaneous Thames terraces. The Happisburgh deposits were evidently emplaced by a local river, which reworked older sediments that from their lithology had been derived largely from the Bytham River rather than the Thames catchment. Nonetheless, the potential significance of this sedimentary succession for early human dispersal and behaviour requires a conservative assessment of its youngest possible age. Although its basal part is clearly Early Pleistocene, there is nothing to preclude an early Middle Pleistocene age for the overlying sediments that have yielded the artefacts and the mammalian biostratigraphic evidence. It is indeed arguable that these sediments date from the cooling transition at the end of MIS 15c, and are thus younger than the artefact-bearing succession at Pakefield. Pending the availability of additional dating evidence, future discussion of the Happisburgh site should be qualified with respect to any claim for an Early Pleistocene age for the human occupation indicated.