Aldhouse-Green et al. 2015. The nature of human activity at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves and the...

The nature of human activity at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves and the dating of prey and predator presences Stephen Aldhouse-Green1, Rob Dinnis2, Kate Scott3 & Elizabeth A. Walker1

with contributions by Richard Bevins1 & Alf G. Latham5 1

Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NP, UK. [email protected] 2

School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. 3 St Cross College, St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LZ, UK.

4 School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.

Abstract

The adjoining caves of Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno are situated in the Vale of Clwyd, North Wales. The caves were excavated in the 1880s and both yielded hyaena den faunas co-stratified with Palaeolithic artefacts. The aim of the present study is to reassess the nature and use of the artefacts and to define the chronologies of the use of these caves by humans and other carnivores.

Introduction

Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves are situated near Tremeirchion in the Vale of Clwyd, North Wales (Fig. 1; NGR: SJ 0852 7244). The two sites, although not apparently interconnecting, are physically contiguous. At the time of first excavation the Cae Gwyn cave lay on the Cae Gwyn estate owned by Edwin Morgan and the Ffynnon Beuno cave was located on the Nantlys estate owned by Mr P.P. Pennant.

Both sites were excavated in the 1880s by Dr Henry Hicks (1886a) and both yielded hyaena den faunas interstratified with Palaeolithic artefacts. The finds from Ffynnon Beuno include a blade-leaf point likely to belong to the earliest Upper Palaeolithic known in Britain, specifically the northern European Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ; Flas 2002). Other finds from that site include an undoubted Aurignacian burin busqué. The LRJ is thought by most to have been made by the last Neanderthal occupants of northern Europe (an assertion we return to in our conclusion), and the Aurignacian is agreed to have been made by early modern humans. Thus Ffynnon Beuno is particularly important as it apparently contains material from the last Neanderthal and first modern human occupations of Britain.

The present study was developed as an adjunct to the Pontnewydd and Paviland Cave projects. The latter site, situated on the south coast of Gower, has produced numerous flint and chert artefacts principally of Aurignacian age, together with artefacts of ivory and the well-known mid Upper Palaeolithic ceremonial burial of the ‘Red Lady’ of Paviland. These discoveries, and the fauna from that site, have been the subject of study (Aldhouse-Green 2000), as also has Pontnewydd (Aldhouse-Green et al. 2012).

In comparison, study of material from Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno has been lacking. It is clear that the faunal and lithic material from the caves is archaeo-logically problematic, both in terms of its original publication and the scope of current research. Indeed, in the 19th century publications, the fauna of both sites

was simply pooled as it was assumed – but not demon-strated – that their faunal histories were identical. Despite these problems, it is obviously important to review the stratigraphic and chronological contexts of the artefacts and fauna, as far as they are known.

Figure 1. The location of Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves, North Wales. © Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales.

The history of the nineteenth century work at the caves

Dr Henry Hicks Dr Henry Hicks was the excavator of Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn caves. He was a medical doctor from St Davids, Pembrokeshire, who developed an interest in geology. He served on the Council of the Geological Society of London in 1883–1885 and as its President 1896–1898; he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1885 (Anon. 1899). Hicks was a man who courted controversy during his career. He entered into stormy

No Stone Unturned: Papers in Honour of Roger Jacobi

78

debates with Ramsay about the nature of the Neoproterozoic rocks in 1874 and with Sir A. Giekie in 1876 when he sub-divided the Neoproterozoic into two (Woodward 1907, 219–221). In 1886 he commenced a dispute with Thomas McKenny Hughes, whose work at Pontnewydd Cave had led Hughes to conclude that the artefacts and bones were later than the extension of the Snowdonian ice into that area and to the submergence that he considered marked the end of the great glaciation (Hughes & Thomas 1874, 390; Hughes & Williams Wynn 1882, 700; Hughes 1885, 33, 1887). Hicks disagreed and set out to identify an undisturbed cave in North Wales that he could excavate and from which he could formulate his own thinking about the origins of its contents and the age of relative drift deposits in North Wales (Anon. 1899).

Ffynnon Beuno Hicks first visited Ffynnon Beuno in August 1883 when he was taken to see the cave by Mr E. Bouverie Luxmoore of St Asaph (Hicks 1884, 12). Luxmoore facilitated the excavations by lending Hicks men and tools and also by participating in the exploration himself. They established that just within the cave entrance some deposit had previously been cleared out for the purposes of providing shelter for cattle (ibid.). Hicks recorded a heap of spoil thrown out from this work, but he did not examine it (Hicks 1888, 6). His excavations uncovered a stalagmite floor which was overlain with fragments of limestone. On breaking through this he found animal bones which were identified as originating from rhinoceros and mammoth, some attached to the underside of the stalagmite. Hicks recorded the cave earth as being about a foot in thickness resting on loose gravel which he interpreted as derived from the local rocks of the hills above (Hicks 1884, 14).

In 1886 The Royal Society provided funding for further work, which again was undertaken by Luxmoore and Hicks (Hicks 1888, 3). The 1886 excavations at Ffynnon Beuno worked inwards from the entrance, removing a sequence they recorded as comprising a surface loam about one foot in thickness containing recent bones including sheep and domestic fowl. Beneath this a stalagmitic breccia layer of about six inches in depth overlay a reddish cave-earth. This was about two feet in depth and contained abundant bones which Hicks observed lay horizontally or slightly inclined. Directly beneath this was a yellowish band which was interpreted as the original floor of an animal den. Underlying this lay a sterile gravel layer (ibid.). The reddish cave-earth contained a flint implement found associated with a large fragment of a rhinoceros jaw and mammoth bones (ibid. 7). Elsewhere in the cave further flint implements were found and Hicks recorded finding what is now interpreted as a blade-leaf point lying in association with a mammoth tooth (ibid. 8–9). As Hicks excavated more of the cave he became convinced that the deposits were undisturbed.

A summary of the deposits in the cave was published by Hicks (1885, 16). 1. Surface soil; 2. Stalagmitic breccia with some charcoal; 3. Reddish cave earth with bones of Pleistocene mammals and a flint implement; 4. Gravel consisting mainly of local raw materials with angular blocks of limestone (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. The stratigraphic sequence within Ffynnon Beuno as published by Hicks (1886a, 6).

Cae Gwyn In August 1884 Hicks discovered a second cave higher up the hill which was completely undisturbed (Hicks 1884, 15). Hicks originally thought that the entrance may have been at least 25 ft further forward and quarried away, although this has since been disproved (Davies 1949). Luxmoore again provided the funding and men which enabled Hicks to excavate. The cave was found to contain a talus of limestone that blocked the cave entrance but which on exploration Hicks realised masked a more extensive cave system than previously thought (Hicks 1884, 15). Excavation revealed a red cave-earth containing recent bones and extensive rabbit burrowing. Beneath this, in the cave chamber, he found a hard floor which he broke through. He described it as consisting of several layers of ferruginous clay and calcareous matter (ibid. 16). Hicks equated this deposit with the Upper Boulder Clay of the Vale of Clwyd, in which he recorded finding rolled pebbles of felsites, quartz and sandstone (Appendix 1). There were also fragments of an old stalagmite floor. He noted that the bones (identified as rhinoceros, reindeer and horse) were all inclined, which led him to conclude that they were from a reworked deposit from elsewhere, disturbed by water, before becoming enclosed in this deposit. In this layer he found what he described as a flint scraper in association with reindeer bones (ibid. 17).

The nature of human activity at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves

79

Further excavations were reported at Cae Gwyn during the latter part of 1885 and then in 1886 and 1887 when The Royal Society funded work at the cave (Hicks 1888, 561). This funding enabled Hicks to clear away the debris which blocked up the entrance (ibid.). The deposits between the entrance and the earlier trial chamber excavation area were recorded and Hicks and Luxmoore then sank a shaft over a depressed part of the field surface above the cave. Here they discovered an abrupt limestone cliff with an opening below into the cave. Excavations revealed this to be a wide entrance over 11 ft across and between 6 and 8 ft deep. A published section drawn through the deposits shows their continuation into the entrance and over the cavern (Fig. 3). The focus of the work then moved to the brecciated cave earth at the bottom of the section which he concluded was disturbed or collapsed. A flint flake was found with hyaena and reindeer teeth in a reddish sandy-clay layer containing fragments of stalactites, stalagmites and angular blocks of limestone (Hicks 1888, 564–565). This may have been the context of the speleothem dated by Alf Latham (Appendix 2). Hicks believed that this was the main entrance into the cave and that deposits in the cave were of marine origin, washed in by water (Hicks 1888, 566).

Figure 3. The stratigraphic sequence within Cae Gwyn as published by Hicks (1888, 563).

A final season of work was undertaken in 1887, in part to seek to discredit Hughes’ theories about movements of the deposits down slope (Hughes 1887, 109; Hicks 1888, 568). Hicks took Geikie to visit the excavations and he was happy to offer conclusions in support of Hicks’ interpretation of the deposits. He was to confirm his opinion that a roof or cave-wall fall took place before the deposition of the glacial deposits and that the marine deposits were subsequently laid down against the limestone bank thereby concealing the main cave entrance (ibid. 568).

Hicks versus Hughes Hicks believed that his work at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno demonstrated that the caves of North Wales were occupied by a Pleistocene fauna and humans before the submergence of the land beneath water which laid down marine sands and boulder clays. He was to conclude that the animal bones and flint implements therefore pre-dated the glacial deposits (Hicks 1886b, 220). Hughes disagreed, arguing that pre-glacial caves should contain Pliocene animals if they pre-dated the great submergence. He suggested that the animal remains found in the caves should be older than those found in deposits later than the submergence (Hughes 1887, 110). He concluded that there was not an older group of animals in Ffynnon Beuno, but rather species that he could see represented in post-glacial gravels in south-eastern England. Hughes believed that humans came to North Wales soon after the glaciers; but maintained that there was no evidence that they had visited the north-western part of Europe before (ibid. 115). Dr John Evans supported Hughes, suggesting that the age of the artefacts was post- not pre-glacial. Earlier, Professor Boyd-Dawkins had also taken the side of Hughes in postulating that the artefacts found at Pontnewydd Cave were made of felstone from glacial deposits which proved the human presence there had to be after, rather than earlier than the glacial period and therefore the Palaeolithic people were post-glacial, rather than pre-glacial (Boyd Dawkins 1880, 192). By 1887 Boyd-Dawkins was happy to enter the debate at the Geological Society of London by confirming that he was willing to accept Hicks’ evidence as he considered the drift deposit in which the scraper was found in Cae Gwyn was in situ. He also provided evidence that mammal species found in the caves in the Vale of Clwyd were all living in the eastern counties in the pre-glacial age and that they were later driven away from Britain by the lowering temperature and depression of the land. The same species returned to Britain after the retreat of the ice and re-elevation of the land (Hughes 1887, 118).

Hicks was ultimately to be proved correct that the cave had been occupied during the glacial period and that the stone tools and animal bones were both contemporary with this period of cave-use (Garrod 1926, 115; O’Connor 2007, 65).


80

The Hicks lithic collection from Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn caves

Introduction: the British Early Upper Palaeolithic and a note on terminology of the ‘LRJ’ The LRJ of the northern European Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) has been the subject of much research and discussion over the past decade (e.g. Flas 2002, 2009, 2011; Jacobi 2007; Dinnis 2009; White & Pettitt 2011; Cooper et al. 2012). The large lithic artefacts by which it is typified – leaf-shaped points which seem to have been used as spear-heads – are, as a result, much better documented in the literature. Recently, researchers have preferred to distinguish between fully bifacial leaf-points and blade-leaf points (these precise terms being those used by Jacobi & Higham 2011). At several northern European sites both of these artefact types are found stratified within LRJ assemblages. However, these artefact types have important techno-typological differences which cannot be overlooked, especially when dealing with un- or poorly-stratified assemblages such as that from Ffynnon Beuno.

Fully bifacially worked leaf-points are a somewhat obvious technology. Indeed, if a broad typological classification is applied then examples can certainly be found in European Middle Palaeolithic, EUP, Late Upper Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic contexts. In contrast, blade-leaf point technology, where spear-points are created on long, rectilinear blades with comparatively little retouched modification of their shape, are only known from EUP sites in northern Europe. Thus blade-leaf points can be considered as an index fossil of the LRJ, whereas assigning fully bifacial leaf-points to the LRJ without stratigraphic reason is methodologically more difficult. As described in more detail below, the LRJ artefact from Ffynnon Beuno is a typical blade-leaf point, with strong technological parallels at, in particular, Kent’s Cavern and Beedings. Therefore, we prefer the term blade-leaf point here. This emphasises that the allocation of the Ffynnon Beuno artefact to the LRJ is justified on typological grounds, as well as underscoring its similarity to blade-leaf points from LRJ assemblages elsewhere.

Lithic material from Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn caves It is now generally accepted that the EUP of Britain is comprised of two separate archaeological cultures; the earlier LRJ and the later Aurignacian (Jacobi 2007; Dinnis 2009; Flas 2011; White & Pettitt 2011; Cooper et al. 2012). The Hicks collection of nine worked flints from Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn caves contains artefacts from both of these cultures. Here, each of the nine lithic pieces from Hicks’ campaigns at Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn is described and discussed. It should be stressed from the outset that sound interpretation of these artefacts is difficult, due largely to the lack of contextual data accompanying them. Confounding this is the

realisation that Hicks’ collection as represented in museums is an extremely selected portion of what was found at the site; although selective retention of archaeological material can be argued for most or all 19th century British cave assemblages, this is particularly pronounced at Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn (Dinnis 2012a). A recent comparison with more complete lithic assemblages from chrono-culturally comparable sites elsewhere (Dinnis & Conneller 2011) suggested that the assemblage originally present in Ffynnon Beuno cave alone should have comprised at least several hundred lithic pieces, and possibly many more. Recent fieldwork at Ffynnon Beuno cave, including testing of Hicks’ spoil-heap, supports this suggestion (Dinnis & Conneller in press). The collection’s context should therefore be remembered throughout: namely an absence of stratigraphic and other contextual data and the obvious bias within the collection.

Cae Gwyn Bladelet One artefact whose spatial provenance is known is the small flint blade found outside the covered entrance to Cae Gwyn in 1886, at the base of the stratigraphy which was central to Hicks’ arguments (see above). Hicks (1888, 564) figured this heavily-patinated piece and compared it with the flint artefacts he had found previously in Ffynnon Beuno and with artefacts found by Pengelly in ‘the lower deposits’ in Kent’s Cavern. It is 47 mm in length and 12 mm in width, and has slightly, but deliberately, been truncated obliquely on the right side of its distal extremity. The blade is notably curved, and has clearly been struck from a uni-polar core.

Considered purely typologically, this blade could belong to many different periods, although its patina and condition would indicate a Palaeolithic age, as would its stratigraphic position. The possibility that recycled LRJ blade-leaf points at Beedings, West Sussex, were used to create bladelets of approximately this size has been raised by Jacobi (2007, 262–266). However, the curvature of the bladelet from Cae Gwyn would argue against it deriving from a recycled blade-leaf point as the ‘bladelet’ removals from blade-leaf points at Beedings are consistently rectilinear.

Production of bladelets of this size and morphology can, however, be seen in continental European Aurignacian assemblages. This includes the Aurignacian assemblage from the Belgian site of Trou du Renard (Otte 1976), which also contains Recent Aurignacian Dufour bladelets (Roc de Combe sub-type) and their parent burin busqué cores (Dinnis & Flas in prep.). It is therefore more likely that this artefact relates to the Aurignacian occupation at Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn.

End-scraper on a blade A small, elegant, well-crafted end-scraper on a blade from Cae Gwyn cave has been considered previously as


81

Aurignacian (e.g. Garrod 1926). Although small end-scrapers on blades can be found in different periods, as Aldhouse-Green and colleagues have noted (Green & Walker 1991; Aldhouse-Green & Pettitt 1998) the carefully worked retouch is more reminiscent of the Aurignacian. Direct parallels for this artefact can be found in the assemblage from level 7 at Abri Pataud (Dordogne, France) (Dinnis pers. obs.), an assemblage which also contains burins busqués. Comparable artefacts have not been found in good association with blade-leaf points, and the blade upon which the scraper is made is unlike the larger blades generally produced in the LRJ. This artefact, too, is therefore more likely Aurignacian than LRJ. Although only partially patinated, its patina and condition are consistent with the Aurignacian burin busqué from Ffynnon Beuno cave.

The uniformity of the retouch facets on the Cae Gwyn scraper is noteworthy. Along with a lack of any secondary retouch/modification of the ‘scraper’ edge – despite such retouch along the left margin of the piece – this uniformity may, in fact, indicate that it was a core for the production of small, curved bladelets. If so, these would have been ≤1 cm in length; small by Aurignacian standards, but not outside of the range of micro-lithic bladelets produced elsewhere in the British Aurignacian, and particularly at Paviland (Dinnis 2008, 2012a).

Blade Davies (1949, 348) records a patinated flint blade apparently from Hicks’ excavations at Cae Gwyn. Davies records its last known whereabouts as in the possession of E.A. Douglas Morgan (The Reverend Edwin Arthur Douglas Morgan), the son of Mr Edwin Morgan, the landowner of Cae Gwyn at the time of Hicks’ excavations. From the description and photograph provided by Davies it is a partially cortical blade of flint, with both ends truncated, approximately 3 cm in width and 11.5 cm in length. It is apparently patinated white, thereby according with EUP material from the site.

Ffynnon Beuno Blade-leaf point Only one blade-leaf point from Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn was accessioned into a museum collection (Fig. 4). It is typical of blade-leaf points from across England and Wales. The blank has been struck from an opposed platform core and its extremities have been shaped ventrally and (to a lesser extent) dorsally to produce the classic blade-leaf point form. This is the only specific lithic artefact from Ffynnon Beuno cave for which Hicks provides contextual information. It was recovered from the eastern fissure passage, south of the cave’s chimney. This artefact has been central to discussions regarding the cultural division of British EUP lithic material (e.g. Campbell 1977, 1980; Jacobi 1980; Allsworth-Jones 1990; Aldhouse-Green & Pettitt 1998).

Recent consideration of the chronology of the British LRJ (Jacobi 2007; Cooper et al. 2012) indicates that the

LRJ is apparent c.38–36,000 BP, whereas the British Aurignacian, as known from Ffynnon Beuno cave and elsewhere, most likely dates to 33–31,000 BP (Dinnis 2012b). The two are therefore separated by several millennia, perhaps with a complete hiatus in human settlement of Britain between them (White & Pettitt 2011; but see Higham et al. 2011 and Dinnis this volume).

Jacobi (1980, 30) noted differences in the condition of the edges of the Ffynnon Beuno blade-leaf point and other artefacts from the site, including the undoubtedly Aurignacian burin busqué. This indicates a different taphonomic history for this artefact, which may be explicable if it were deposited at a different time from the other artefacts from this site. Dinnis (2009) has speculated that the cold conditions coincident with Heinrich Event 4 c.34,500 BP may be enough to explain this difference. The damage on the blade-leaf point may simply result from it lying close to, or at, the surface during this period of intense cold, with Aurignacian artefacts deposited afterwards not displaying the same damage. Irrespective of this, the contrasting condition of this artefact with other EUP artefacts from the site is certainly consistent with their relating to chronologically different occupations.

Figure 4. Blade leaf-point from Ffynnon Beuno, dorsal and ventral views. © The Natural History Museum, London.


82

Figure 5. Burin busqué bladelet core from Ffynnon Beuno, showing the bladelet débitage surface. Note the ventrally positioned bladelet scar. This removal would have produced a bladelet with a triangular cross-section, which at other sites has sometimes been modified to create Caminade-type bladelets. © The Natural History Museum, London.

Burin busqué The Aurignacian burin busqué from Ffynnon Beuno is entirely typical of its artefact class. Burins busqués are now known to be cores for the production of a bladelet technology that included Dufour bladelets of the Roc de Combe sub-type (e.g. see Flas et al. 2007). No Dufour bladelets are known from British sites, but this is certainly due to a general lack of smaller pieces in these early collections.

Systematic bladelet production from burins busqués is a feature of the Recent Aurignacian of western Europe. The example from Ffynnon Beuno is technologically similar to those found across France and Belgium. Its bladelet débitage surface and stop-notch are both well-defined. Other technological features also invite comparison with continental European examples. The blank chosen is triangular in cross-section, partially cortical, with signs of cresting visible on this cortical area. Similar blanks, deriving from the initial, preparatory flaking of blade cores, have been chosen for burin busqué bladelet production at the Recent Aurignacian knapping workshop at Maisières Canal, Belgium (Flas et al. 2007).

Furthermore, a single, ventrally-orientated facet on the bladelet débitage surface of the Ffynnon Beuno burin busqué hints at the production of a second type of bladelet, more triangular in its cross-section than the normally flat cross-sectioned bladelets (Fig. 5). At Maisières Canal and at sites in southern France these subtly different bladelet blanks have sometimes been retouched to create Caminade bladelets (Bordes & Lenoble 2002; Flas et al. 2007). It is therefore at least possible that the discarded burin busqué at Ffynnon Beuno had been used to create two types of micro-lithic Aurignacian tool; Dufour bladelets (Roc de Combe subtype) and Caminade bladelets.

Angle-burin In two parts with the mesial part missing – presumably broken during its excavation – is a retouched artefact which has been described as a ‘plane graver’ (Garrod 1926) and as an ‘angle-burin’ (Green & Walker 1991; Aldhouse-Green & Pettitt 1998). The blank is partially cortical and triangular in cross-section, and is therefore similar to that chosen for the bladelet-core burin busqué. Both artefacts are of a similar size, and share a similar patina.

The burin scar on the left of the artefact lies opposite retouched shaping of the burin ‘bit’. This retouch is somewhat reminiscent of the stop-notch on the burin busqué. It is therefore possible – although not demonstrable – that this artefact also served as a burin busqué bladelet core. It may have been discarded after the burin removal had completely removed all evidence of this bladelet débitage surface. If so, this burin removal was possibly a failed attempt to renew the bladelet débitage platform.

Figure 6. Scraper edge of the ‘shouldered scraper’ from Ffynnon Beuno. © The Natural History Museum, London.

Figure 7. Burin on flake from Ffynnon Beuno, dorsal and ventral views. © The Natural History Museum, London.

Figure 8. Retouched flake from Ffynnon Beuno, showing ventral and dorsal modification/retouch. © The Natural History Museum, London.


83

Shouldered scraper A small, retouched flake has been interpreted by some as a ‘shouldered scraper’ (grattoir à épaulement), reminiscent of those found in other British Early Upper Palaeolithic collections. The flint is patinated to a light grey, and modern removals show it to be blue/black in colour. It is possible that this damage occurred during its excavation. The scraper edge is predominantly formed by one large retouch facet, flanked on both sides by a handful of direct sub-parallel removals. This is then overlain with classic, secondary stepped scraper retouch along the ventral margin (Fig. 6).

Jacobi (Jacobi & Pettitt 2000; Jacobi & Higham 2011) considered this artefact, along with single finds from Nottle Tor, Gower and Aston Mill, Worcestershire, to be technologically and culturally comparable to the groups of concave/oblique scrapers found at Kent’s Cavern and at Paviland Cave (Garrod 1926; Swainston 2000). However, the typological class ‘shouldered scraper’ is problematic when applied as an umbrella term for all these artefacts (Dinnis 2009). This is partly because these artefacts are techno-typologically variable across these sites, but also because ‘shouldered scrapers’ as a typological classification is liable to lead to interpretative confusion. Grattoirs à épaulements are increasingly classified on account of their bladelet-core morphology (e.g. Chiotti 1999). Very few examples from British sites can reasonably be interpreted as bladelet cores, including the example from Ffynnon Beuno.

Jacobi viewed his ‘shouldered scrapers’ as a diagnostic component of the British Aurignacian (Jacobi & Pettitt 2000). Although similar artefacts (i.e. concave/oblique scrapers) can easily be found in continental European Aurignacian assemblages (e.g. La Quina aval, Charente, France (Dujardin 2005, 282, fig. 7); Abri Pataud levels 8, 7 and 6 (Dinnis pers. obs.; for an example see Chiotti 1999, 641)), and despite the fact that they are a conspicuous part of the Kent’s Cavern Early Upper Palaeolithic and the Paviland collections, their general techno-typological simplicity and lack of techno-typological uniformity does not allow them to be seen as a secure index-fossil at all British sites. Examples can also be found in non-Aurignacian assemblages (e.g. Leroi-Gourhan & Leroi-Gourhan 1964, 60, fig. 23, artefact 9; also in Gravettian levels at Les Vachons, Dinnis pers. obs.).

It should be stressed that this does not mean that this artefact from Ffynnon Beuno cave is not Aurignacian. Rather, it cannot be soundly demonstrated to be so. In fact, the condition of the artefact is much closer to the certainly Aurignacian burin busqué than it is to the blade-leaf point, and therefore it is perhaps likely that this particular example is Aurignacian.

Irrespective of this, the relative technological simplicity of the Ffynnon Beuno scraper does not allow its precise function to be stated with complete certainty. The secondary retouch along its scraper edge may indicate that it was indeed a scraping tool. It has recently been suggested that this and similar artefacts may have

been used to shape or re-sharpen antler points often found in association with burins busqués in more complete Aurignacian assemblages (Dinnis 2012a).

Burin on flake A burin on truncation has been worked proximally on a thin, wide, triangular-cross-sectioned, partially-cortical blank (Fig. 7). A seemingly deliberate transverse fracture has been used to truncate the blank, removing the proximal end. This scar has then itself been truncated with a short, stepped burin removal at its proximal end. The artefact is unlikely to be a tool, but is instead likely to be a failed attempt to shape the blank for its use as some form of burin; feasibly a bladelet-core carinated burin/burin busqué. In texture and colour the patina on the flint matches that of the ‘shouldered scraper’ (see above), and both plausibly relate to reduction of the same nodule. Its condition recalls the undoubtedly Aurignacian burin busqué more than it does the blade-leaf point.

Retouched flake A relatively large, heavily-patinated flake is the result of a knapping mistake. During its detachment, the flake has broken in two, following a hinge-like fracture. This artefact is the distal part of this initial removal. Inverse retouch has subsequently been used to shape its proximal end, removing the mass of flint around this hinge fracture (Fig. 8). The reason for this is unclear. The flake has also been modified distally, on its right side. In areas this modification/retouch is visibly stepped (Fig. 8). As a result, the artefact superficially approaches the form of a Middle Palaeolithic-type side-scraper. However, emanating from this retouched area is a stepped transverse burin scar, visible on the ventral surface of the blank, recalling the similar transverse truncation seen on the burin on flake (above). Overall, both artefacts should be considered as culturally undiagnostic, but both plausibly represent the abandonment of pieces in the process of the creation of more formal tools. The heavy patina of the flint is subtly, but certainly, different from all other artefacts from the site, being more glossy and creamy in colour.

Summary and interpretation of Hicks’ lithic collection The highly-selected lithic assemblage from Hicks’ work at Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn includes only two pieces that can be attributed to archaeological cultures with certainty; the LRJ blade-leaf point and the Aurignacian burin busqué. The lack of any spatial or other contextual data regarding the relationship between these two pieces and the remainder of the lithic assemblage makes assigning other artefacts to archaeological cultures difficult. However, starting from the assumption that Hicks only excavated archaeological material from the LRJ and the Aurignacian, the techno-morphology of at least some these artefacts hints that they more likely


84

belong to the Aurignacian than they do the LRJ. Their condition would also support this interpretation.

Despite the incompleteness of the assemblage, several chrono-cultural and behavioural conclusions can be drawn. First, the blade-leaf point demonstrates the occupation of North Wales at the very beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic; on current data c.37,000 BP, at a time when blade-leaf point makers occupied all of England and Wales. It is tempting to interpret the single, complete blade-leaf point from Ffynnon Beuno cave as a solitary, casual loss. However, Hicks’ (1886b, 219) description of finding ‘lance-heads’ (in the plural) in the cave, along with the rarity of complete blade-leaf points at any LRJ site, would suggest that this interpretation is likely to be incorrect. Instead, the LRJ assemblage at Ffynnon Beuno cave probably comprised multiple artefacts, and most likely multiple blade-leaf points. It may therefore be that Ffynnon Beuno was actually the scene of a short period of activity by the blade-leaf point makers, potentially scanning the vista from the rock outcrop above the cave whilst re-tooling their hunting kit. Discarded material from this visit would then have become re-deposited into the cave via its chimney, awaiting its discovery by Hicks. Jacobi (2007) suggested that the primary prey of the blade-leaf point makers may have been horse, due to the direct association of horse and LRJ archaeology at Glaston, Rutland. The presence of horse in the Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn faunal assemblage would obviously accord with this interpretation.

The later Aurignacian occupation at Ffynnon Beuno cave, and potentially the entire Aurignacian occupation of Britain, appears to have taken place during or shortly following the longest and most significant warm phase in the lifespan of the European Aurignacian (Greenland Interstadial 8: c.38,500–36,500 cal. BP, or c.33,000–31,500 BP) (Dinnis 2012b). The burin busqué from Ffynnon Beuno was discarded after it had been used to create a characteristic Recent Aurignacian bladelet technology. That this artefact is technologically indistinguishable from contemporary artefacts in southern France and Belgium at this same time is significant. The bladelets produced may have served as barbs in a complex, multi-component hunting kit. Judging by the production, morphology and size of the bladelet component of this hunting apparatus, contemporary Aurignacian populations in North Wales and southern France were apparently using the same weaponry.

The potential flexibility of this hunting kit may have allowed different environments to be exploited (Dinnis 2009; Flas 2009). However, the technological similarity of the Ffynnon Beuno burin busqué to those from farther south surely indicates that environments were similar enough that an overall change in weaponry was not required. This accords with the Aurignacian occupation at Ffynnon Beuno occurring during an interstadial period. As has been argued elsewhere (Dinnis 2012a), the Ffynnon Beuno Aurignacian may hint at what we are

missing, due to the subsequent, hugely destructive Last Glacial Maximum glaciation – namely, that Aurignacian ranges in the favoured western fringes of Britain may have extended a considerable distance north during this relatively clement period.

The discarded bladelet core demonstrates that flint was knapped at Ffynnon Beuno during the Aurignacian occupation. Other flint artefacts which may relate to the Aurignacian occupation also indicate the working of flint at the site. Few of these give firm indication of the activities carried out, although at least one other worked flint artefact may also relate to bladelet production, and the ‘shouldered scraper’ suggests working/re-working of osseous points. Overall the Ffynnon Beuno assemblage is consistent with a period of weapon re-tooling during the Aurignacian (Dinnis 2012a). Only the presence of the end-scraper at Cae Gwyn cave may indicate that a greater array of activities were undertaken, and thus that the site was the scene of more substantial occupation.

The Faunas

The Cae Gwyn fauna The Cae Gwyn fauna, formerly housed at Tremeirchion School, now forms part of the Denbigh Museum collection (acc. no. E740). This material (Table 1) is a mixture of Last Glacial (Devensian) species accumulated primarily by hyaenas and Post-glacial material. Some of the latter are probably not very old, or even necessarily of archaeological interest. In particular, it is unlikely that the fallow deer antlers belong to the site assemblage: one antler is a shiny black, quite uncharacteristic of the preservation of most of the fauna, and the other almost has velvet adhering to it. Table 1. Cae Gywn fauna in the Denbigh Museum collection (certain identifications only, by K. Scott).

Species n

Woolly rhinoceros 4 Reindeer (bones) 1 Wolf 5 Horse 1 Bos 1 Lion 1 Red deer 1 Hyaena 1 Roe deer 1 Wild boar 1 Mammoth 1 Bear 1 Red fox 1 Badger 1

Some bones have fractures that might have been

caused by people smashing them but no cut-marks were observed on any of this material. This has been confirmed by independent study by Dr Ruth Charles. Unpublished tables (housed in the National Museum of


85

Wales) indicate whether or not the bones show signs of gnawing. This gnawing has all the hallmarks of typical hyaena modification as seen at other Devensian sites. The fauna compares with the ‘Coygan’ faunas identified by Currant & Jacobi (1997) – now renamed Pin Hole (Currant & Jacobi 2001) – and, accordingly, should fall in the period c. 60–25,000 BP. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) is one in each case.

The Ffynnon Beuno fauna Fauna from Ffynnon Beuno was formerly with the Pennant family but is now housed in the collections of the National Museum of Wales and Bangor University. The impression given by the fauna is that all this material (Tables 2 and 3) comes from a period of hyaena occupation of the site during the Devensian. That is not to say that there were not other contributors, including humans, but the extent of gnawing and the absence of chop or cut-marks, suggests a large carnivore. The predominance of horse and woolly rhinoceros among the prey species is very characteristic of British sites generally considered to have been the dens of spotted hyaenas. It is possible that some of the material is of Post-glacial date – reindeer, bos/bison, red deer and horse were all in Britain after the end of the Devensian (Last Glacial) – but the bulk of the material looks typically mid-Devensian, c. 60–25,000 years ago as at Cae Gwyn. The MNI is one in each case, except hyaena (3) and horse and woolly rhinoceros (2 each). Table 2. Ffynnon Beuno fauna in the Pennant collection (certain identifications only by K. Scott).

Species No. excluding teeth

No. of teeth

Totals Total %

Hyaena 2 8 10 13.9 Fox - 3 3 4.2 Woolly rhino 14 (14 gnawed) 9 23 31.9 Mammoth 1 (1 gnawed) 1 2 2.8 Horse 7 (2 gnawed) 15 22 30.5 Reindeer 1 (1 gnawed) 6 7 9.7 Red deer 2 - 2 2.8 Fallow deer 2 - 2 2.8 Bird 1 - 1 1.4 Totals 30 42 72

Table 3. Ffynnon Beuno fauna: fauna donated by P. Pennant to the Museum of the School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor. Pennant collection (certain identifications only by K. Scott).

Species No. excluding teeth

No. of teeth

Totals Total %

Woolly rhino 23 6 29 42.0 Bovid 2 1 3 4.4 Horse 17 6 23 33.3 Reindeer 12 2 14 20.3 Totals 54 15 69

Radiocarbon dating

The radiocarbon data presented The methodological difficulties arising from the use of radiocarbon dating at the far end of its useable age range are well acknowledged (e.g. Pettitt et al. 2003; Higham et al. 2006). Recent research has highlighted contamination of samples by small amounts of younger carbon as a methodological pitfall which can impact significantly on dating of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 age material. Generally speaking, this problem has resulted in radiocarbon dates produced sometimes being younger than the real radiocarbon age of the material being dated (see Higham et al. 2006; Jacobi et al. 2006; Higham 2011). The introduction of an ultrafiltration pre-treatment step at the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory has apparently ameliorated this problem for dating of osseous material. Jacobi et al.’s (2006; see also Jacobi & Higham 2008) reassessment of British MIS 3 age archaeological material resulted in older radiocarbon dates which, at least in some cases, accord better with continental European MIS 3 cultural chronology (e.g. Dinnis 2012b).

Much research is still left to be undertaken before the impact of these methodological issues can be understood completely. Here we present radiocarbon dates for fauna from Welsh cave sites including Ffynnon Beuno/Cae Gwyn. While we have no reason to question a priori the reliability of these dates, it should be noted that all dates cited were run at the Oxford laboratory prior to the introduction of ultrafiltration pre-treatment of samples. These radiocarbon dates and the conclusions we draw from them should therefore be read with these issues in mind. Further radiocarbon dating of a small amount of fauna from new excavations at Ffynnon Beuno cave is currently being attempted, and this will hopefully bring some clarity to this situation.

Furthermore, it should also be stated explicitly that the chronology of human occupation at Ffynnon Beuno/Cae Gwyn is determined with reference to more recently obtained radiocarbon dates and comparison with continental sites and sequences (see Jacobi 2007; Dinnis 2012b for radiocarbon dates used to date the LRJ and British Aurignacian).

A bid for the use of the Oxford Accelerator to date samples from Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno was submitted to NERC on 29th January 1999. This submission sought to address two key questions; first, to assess and compare the age of the hyaena dens at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno with the wolf and bear dens at Pontnewydd Cave and to interpret any differences. Second, to assess the significance of the faunal composititions at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno in the light of data from Pontnewydd (Pettitt et al. 2012) and Paviland (Pettitt 2000). Here comment will be made first on the individual results (Table 4). One general point to note is that, of eight samples selected for dating in the current round, three failed altogether and one (with low collagen) produced a result which was regarded as


86

suspect. Clearly, more work is needed on samples from the sites to explain this phenomenon.

The new radiocarbon dates The bone sample on the spotted hyaena originally dated to 18,520 ± 130 BP (OxA-9696) was re-sampled in 2006 by Jacobi and Higham and a new result of 18,850 ± 650 BP (OxA-X-2198-08) was obtained. This result came with an OxA-X number, meaning that the laboratory had concerns about the chemistry of the bone due, in this instance, to the collagen yield being very low. The samples taken on the wild horse, reindeer and red deer all failed to produce enough collagen for radiocarbon determinations but, at Cae Gwyn, patterns of gnawing characteristic of hyaenas were seen on the bones of woolly rhinoceros, mammoth, horse and reindeer (Table 1). At Ffynnon Beuno, hyaena gnawing was identified on the remains of woolly rhinoceros, mammoth, horse, reindeer and red deer (Table 2). Accordingly, since the determination on the hyaena sample is suspect on account of its low collagen, the best estimates of age of the hyaena den(s) will be the proxy dates produced for the woolly rhinoceros and bovid. The woolly rhinoceros bone generated a result of 28,030 ± 340 BP (OxA-9020) and the bovid of 24,450 ± 400 BP (OxA-8998).

Two new mammoth determinations, both on gnawed chunks of the shafts of long bones (identifications by Kate Scott) have been dated respectively to 41,800 ± 1,800 BP (OxA-8314) and to 27,870 ± 340 BP (OxA-9008). The first comes from an unknown context (but likely to be from layer 3) in Cae Gwyn cave from a collection originally housed in Tremeirchion School and now in the

care of Denbigh Museum (find ref. no. 41). The second comes from a similarly unknown context in Ffynnon Beuno (find ref. no. 13). It is housed in the National Museum of Wales (ex-Pennant collection)

The wider picture presented by radiocarbon-dated fauna in Wales One of the first points to make is that Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn caves were in use 42–24,000 BP on the basis of the radiocarbon results, were used largely by hyaenas and only to a far lesser extent by hibernating bears and cub-raising wolves. In the Pontnewydd report, Aldhouse-Green (2012, 340) notes “caves [were] preferred by hyaenas [as shelters and present] a totally different [pattern of use] from other carnivores [in that] food is brought to the site … cave-mouths and side-passages find favour as eating areas, plus some use for defecation (but, more usually, hyaenas will walk twenty metres or more from the den before voiding their coprolites)”. Small caves, and awkward side passages of larger caves, are particularly liked by young hyaenas as places to ‘scoff’ food without challenge whilst the main chambers are used for denning. Hyaenas are largely nocturnal and so spend many of the hours of each day ‘holed up’ in the den and the young do not leave it until they are eight months old. Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn are small caves with side passages and, so, would have been particularly attractive to hyaenas.

There are only two determinations on spotted hyaena from Goat’s Hole, Paviland, and these date to 27,750 ± 500 (OxA-6980) and 17,880 ± 180 BP (OxA-

Table 4. Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves 14C dates.

Specimen reference Identification Result

Ffynnon Beuno 47.97/72 Crocuta crocuta spotted hyaena

OxA-9696 18,520 ± 130 BP Re-sampled in 2006 by Jacobi and Higham; result obtained OxA-X-2198-08 18,850 ± 650 BP. Higham has commented: “we have some serious doubts about the accuracy of the OxA-X result due to very low yield and suspicion of conservation treatment (we tried to deal with this with a solvent extraction).“

Ffynnon Beuno 11 2007.46H/10

Equus ferus wild horse

Failed No collagen


Coelodonta antiquitatis woolly rhinoceros

OxA-9020, δ13

C -19.3‰ 28,030 ± 340 BP


Rangifer tarandus Reindeer

Failed No collagen

Ffynnon Beuno 51

Cervus elaphus red deer

Failed No collagen


Bos sp./Bison sp.

OxA-8998, δ13

C -20.0‰ 24,450 ± 400 BP

Ffynnon Beuno Mammuthus primigenius mammoth carpal bone

Birm-146, δ13

C unavailable 18,000 +1400/-1200 BP (Rowlands 1971)


Mammuthus primigenius gnawed chunk of long bone shaft

OxA-9008, δ13

C -20.9‰ 27,860 ± 340 BP

Cae Gwyn cave Mammuthus primigenius gnawed chunk of long bone shaft

OxA-8314 δ13

C = -21.6‰ 41,800 ± 1,800 BP


87

7087) but there are also a number of hyaena-chewed bones, dated in the range 35,400 to 30,300 BP (Pettitt 2000, 69). Overall, these give a range of 35,000–28,000 BP for hyaena-denning at Goat’s Hole; the 17,880 ± 180 BP result may be regarded either as an outlier, perhaps from a small-scale re-occupation following abandonment during the last glacial maximum, or as an erroneous result.

There is one woolly rhinoceros date from Pontnewydd (33,200 ± 650 BP (OxA-6267)) and no bovid dates. This contrasts with Paviland which has produced six determinations on bovid between 32,600 ± 950 BP (OxA-6932) and 26,820 ± 460 BP (OxA-6926), and five on woolly rhinoceros between >38,100 BP (OxA-7082) and 32,500 ± 700 BP (OxA-6936). It is particularly unfortunate that the horse determination failed, given the apparent association between human hunters using LRJ technology and horse at Glaston in Rutland (Cooper et al. 2012), and the predominance of horse as a prey species at Ffynnon Beuno.

Wolf takes the place of hyaena at Pontnewydd with dates of 28,730 ± 420 BP (OxA-4369); 27,790 ± 210 BP (OxA-11682); 26,950 ± 210 BP (OxA-11566) and 24,470 ± 170 BP (OxA-11608), but these can likewise be extended backwards and forwards in time using the evidence of dated, wolf-chewed, reindeer bones with results of 25,210 ± 120 BP (OxA-13984); 30,240 ± 230 BP (OxA-13993) and an early outlier of 41,400 ± 1,400 BP (OxA-14055; Scott 2012, table 8.4). At Paviland, there are three wolf dates: 27,400 ± 500 BP (OxA-6994); 27,060 ± 360 BP (OxA-6986) and 23,800 ± 220 BP (OxA-6884), all of which compare well with the results from Pontnewydd.

What is important about the 41,800 ± 1,800 BP (OxA-8314) radiocarbon result on mammoth from Cae Gwyn is that it demonstrates the existence of reworked Middle Devensian sedimentary elements and so suggests the former existence of deposits both of Middle Palaeolithic and Earliest Upper Palaeolithic age – in both caves – which could have been the context of the blade-leaf point from Ffynnon Beuno. In any event, it now seems less easy to sustain the view that “at smaller sites … in particular Ffynnon Beuno … Aurignacian elements and

leaf points really do belong together” (Allsworth-Jones 1990, 208).

The well-known result on mammoth bone from Ffynnon Beuno, obtained now some forty years ago, gives an age of 18,000 +1,400/-1,200 BP (Birm-146) (Rowlands 1971; Green 1991, 41). The latter result is not far removed from the younger part of the range of mammoth ivory determinations from Paviland (Aldhouse-Green & Pettitt 1998) but these results were regarded as suspect by Jacobi and Higham (2008, 901–902). The context of the finds in Cae Gwyn seems to have been debris flows (Collcutt 1984, 58) and, accordingly, the wide span of the new dates published here remains plausible within the context of a potentially long phase of faunal accumulation, followed by the input of flows at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum. The latter has been given an age of 22,800 sidereal years BP – and so equivalent to a 14C age of c. 20,000 BP – by a 36Cl determination from the Arthur’s Stone glacial erratic in Gower on the former southern edge of the Devensian ice sheet (Bowen 1994, 210). Birm-146, with a 2σ range of 20,800–15,600 BP or a calibrated age of 21,556 ± 1,535 BP (CalPal 2007_HULU) is clearly consistent with this. Even so, one has only to recall the history of dating the Red Lady of Paviland (Jacobi & Higham 2008) to lose confidence in samples dated early in the history of radiocarbon dating.

If we plot the species dated to the nearest millennium to its mean age (Table 5), it seems a reasonable inference that the human and hyaena occupations may have been sequential, with humans present before 32,000 BP and hyaenas from 28,000 to 24,000 BP. The small selection of fauna from Ffynnon Beuno in the Natural History Museum seems to have been carefully chosen (Table 6), given the presence of rarer species here such as bear, wolf and lion. Of these, the lion, which appears in the Lower Cave Earth at Pin Hole where it is dated in the range 50–38,000 BP (Currant & Jacobi 2001, 1711–1713) should date here to c. 40,000 BP, as at Pontnewydd, and so could have been the accumulator of the mammoth at Cae Gwyn. We may note the presence of lion in Kent’s Cavern also, where it is dated to 43,600 and 28,380 BP (Jacobi & Higham 2011).

Table 5. 14C of species to the nearest millennium, including Homo inferred.

> CG FB CG FB FB FB FB FB FB

41 Mammoth 35 Blade-leaf

point

32 Aurignacian ‘end-scraper’

Aurignacian Burin busqué

28 woolly rhinoceros

27 mammoth 24 bison 18 hyaena 18 mammoth


88

Table 6. Ffynnon Beuno. List of fauna in the Natural History Museum, London (identifications from NHM records).

Species No. excluding teeth No. of teeth Ivory Totals Total %

Hyaena 6 (2 gnawed) 16 - 22 26.4 Woolly rhino 8 (8 gnawed) 20 - 28 33.6 Mammoth 2 (2 gnawed) 1 1 4 4.9 Bos sp./Bison - 2 - 2 2.4 Horse 2 (2 gnawed) 16 - 18 21.7 Reindeer 2 (1 gnawed) 2 - 4 4.9 Red deer 1 (1 gnawed) 3 - 4 4.9 Sheep - 1 - 1 1.2 Totals 21 61 1 83

Table 7. Frequency values where a/b = c; where b is the total number of bones dated (51 at Pontnewydd, 32 at Paviland, excluding humanly modified bones and minimum ages) from the period 42–21,000 BP; a is the total number of determinations in any one time block of 3,000 years and c is the resulting faunal frequency value expressed as a percentage.

Years BP No. of samples dated

Pontnewydd fauna frequency value (%)

No. of samples dated

Paviland fauna frequency value (%)

42–39,000 7 13.7 – – 39–36,000 2 3.92 – – 36–33,000 7 13.7 5 15.6 33–30,000 10 19.6 6 18.8 30–27,000 14 27.5 12 37.5 27–24,000 10 19.6 5 15.6 24–21,000 2 3.92 4 12.5 Outliers 21–17,000

– – 3 – (not included in analysis)

To summarise, we see, at Pontnewydd, apart from

lion at c. 40,000 BP; bears from 40 to 26,000 BP; wolves at 40,000 BP and between 30 to 24,000 BP; and red fox from 28 to 25,000 BP. There is no hyaena at Pontnewydd, but, locally at Cefn, it was present from 35 to 32,000 BP. At Paviland, it is present from 35 to 28,000 BP and, later, at 18,000 BP (Pettitt 2000; Turner 2000). It seems to have been coeval with wolf but to have sought ‘B & B’ in different establishments. One point worth making en passant is that hyaenas – when not scavenging – generally ambush their prey and, so, rocks or trees or bushes are needed for cover; wolves by contrast pursue their prey across open country (Finlayson 2009, 127 and 179). Bear appears at Paviland from 30 to 25,000 BP; and wolf at 27,000 and 24,000 BP. At Paviland, all the carnivores are present between 28,000 and 27,000 BP; at Pontnewydd, all the carnivores except lion are present between 28,000 and 26,000 BP.

Conclusions

Certain new perspectives have come from this study and from the work on which it is based. Thus the radiocarbon dating of some mammoth remains at Cae Gwyn, to a context contemporary with the Middle Palaeolithic, lends confidence in recognizing the Ffynnon Beuno blade-leaf point as being as old as LRJ material from other sites. Jacobi’s recognition (1980, 30) of the blade-leaf point as having cryoturbated margins, unlike the other artefacts from the caves, would support an earlier

– and therefore pre-Aurignacian – age for this artefact. The recent consideration of the dating of the British LRJ by Jacobi (Jacobi et al. 2006; Jacobi 2007), supported by the dating of the LRJ site of Glaston, Rutland (Cooper et al. 2012), suggests an age close to (and possibly in excess of) 37,000 BP. By contrast, the British Aurignacian probably dates to 33–31,000 BP, based on radiocarbon dates from osseous points from the Hyaena Den and Uphill Quarry, Somerset (Jacobi et al. 2006) and on the type of lithic material found at Ffynnon Beuno and at some other British sites (Dinnis 2012b).

At present the LRJ is thought by most to have been made by late Neanderthals (Flas 2008, 2011; Jöris & Street 2008; Cooper et al. 2012), largely on account of perceived typological and technological similarity with preceding Middle Palaeolithic northern European assemblages (see Flas 2011). However, at no site has any human fossil been found in secure stratigraphic association with LRJ material, and it is conceivable that some or all of the LRJ was instead made by very early modern humans (see comments in Swainston 1999; Pettitt 2008). Of the suite of pre-Aurignacian Upper Palaeolithic or ‘transitional’ cultures across Europe, only in the French Châtelperronian can diagnostically Neanderthal remains be found. The recent assertion that the Italian Uluzzian is authored by modern humans (Benazzi et al. 2011) must inevitably lead us to reconsider who created the LRJ. Put simply, without fossil evidence for any LRJ site, we cannot be sure who


89

the very early Upper Palaeolithic occupants at Ffynnon Beuno were.

We can be more confident that the Aurignacian occupants at Ffynnon Beuno were modern human. It is highly likely that the discarded burin busqué at Ffynnon Beuno had been used to create Dufour bladelets of the Roc de Combe subtype, probably serving as barbs in a multi-component hunting kit. It is striking that contemporary Aurignacian populations in North Wales and southern France were apparently using the same weaponry. This suggests that the flexibility of this hunting kit may have allowed a range of different environments to be exploited, but also that environments between northern Wales and southern France were not so dissimilar as to warrant employment of different hunting technologies.

The two occupation events evidenced in the small lithic assemblage from Ffynnon Beuno are seemingly separated by three millennia (or perhaps more), and are possibly divided by a complete hiatus in the human settlement of Britain (but see Higham et al. 2011). The question of hiatus in human settlement can, of course, be approached via study of direct dates on appropriate artefacts, such as those which date the British Aurignacian, but these are frustratingly rare. In conjunction, the continuity of presence (or otherwise) of mammalian fauna can provide insights into whether conditions during the Late Pleistocene were conducive to human presence.

In regard to this, we can consider 21,000 years of later Pleistocene faunal evidence from Pontnewydd (Pettitt et al. 2012, fig 11.13), a short distance away from Ffynnon Beuno/Cae Gwyn across the Vale of Clywd, as well as that from elsewhere. Counting the frequency of fauna dated over the 3,000 years between 36 and 33,000 BP as a crude proxy for mammal (and potentially human) presence yields a value of c. 14% which may be contrasted with the values obtained at Pontnewydd and Paviland (Pettitt 2000, table 4.1, p. 64) as a whole (Table 7). If one takes the data at face value, one can read into it the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum with a value of 3.92. The other comparable low falls at 39–36,000 BP (c. 43–41,000 cal. BP). Is this where we should expect to see a hiatus in human settlement? As mentioned above, the available data suggest the LRJ falls within this period, although the chronology of the LRJ is still far from resolved in comparison to the Aurignacian, where osseous artefacts allow direct dating of human activity and where comparable lithic material at multiple well-dated and well-stratified continental European sites can be found.

It is of interest that this 39–36,000 BP horizon seems to be marked by a total absence from the Paviland stratigraphy and it seems to correlate with the same early cold climate phase recognized at Pontnewydd. Overall, the radiocarbon dates from Paviland are congruent with the majority of the archaeological material known from the site (late Aurignacian lithic material and Mid Upper Palaeolithic ritual activity, including the Red Lady of Paviland burial). However, there are also several LRJ blade leaf-point and point fragments from Paviland (see Flas 2008 for most recent appraisal). The lack of dated faunal material of this age from Paviland is thus intriguing, although we should certainly remain mindful of the difficulty of successfully dating radiocarbon material of this age.

At this point we come to the end of our analysis of Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves. The author, V.S. Naipaul (1980, 213) has proposed that “… we read, really, to find out what we already know”. It is our own hope, in dedicating this paper to Roger Jacobi, that we have not only revealed the knowledge-potential of the caves and why this matters, but that we have been able to lift the curtain a little and let in some light.

Appendix 1 – Lithological identifications from Cae Gwyn cave

Richard Bevins

The occurrence of volcanic pebbles in Cae Gwyn cave – but not in Ffynnon Beuno – is described by Hicks (1886a, 12) as occurring within layer 3 “with pebbles of felsite, granite, gneiss, quartz, quartzites, sandstones, and of local rocks”. A preliminary examination of clasts in the Denbigh Museum collection suggests that only two of the specimens appear to be of local provenance (a fossiliferous limestone and a sandstone), the remainder being exotic (Table 8). The majority comprise various kinds of volcanic, volcaniclastic and tuffaceous rocks, all of probable Lower Palaeozoic age. The nearest source for these lithologies is Snowdonia and Llyn. Neither the pink microgranite nor the pink granite, however, appear to have come from North Wales and a Lake District source is a possibility. It is also possible, therefore, that the various Lower Palaeozoic volcanic and related rocks were derived from this region. The range of clasts compares well with Pontnewydd and is consistent with an interpretation of components of various Welsh and Irish Sea drifts becoming incorporated in debris flows which infilled Cae Gwyn.


90

Table 8. List of preliminary identifications on clasts from Cae Gwyn.

Ref. no. Description Dating

59 Grey-coloured silicic tuff, containing small (2 cm max) lithic clasts and mudstone intraclasts.

Probably Lower Palaeozoic in age.

60 Conglomerate containing sub-rounded volcanic fragments up to 1 cm across.


62 Black silicic tuff, containing lithic clasts up to 0.75 cm and 2-3 mm white feldspar crystals.


29 Pink microgranite, showing signs of alteration (chlorite replacing original mafics).

Probably Palaeozoic in age, but not of Welsh origin.

42 Dacite lava, containing stretched vesicles and phenocrysts of plagioclase feldspar.


28 Limestone containing corals. Probably of local origin, and Carboniferous in age. 52 Greenish-grey volcaniclastic sandstone. Probably Lower Palaeozoic in age. 51 Green, altered andesite or dacite containing

microphenocrysts up to 3 mm across. Probably Lower Palaeozoic in age.

35 Dark greenish-grey ignimbrite, showing well-developed parataxitic texture.


33 Pink microgranodiorite, probably Lower Palaeozoic in age. Provenance uncertain.

Possibly North Wales or English Lake District.

53 Olive-coloured, micaceous sandstone. Probably of local provenance and of Carboniferous in age. 33 Pink granite, partly altered with biotite replaced by

chlorite. Not of Welsh provenance, possibly derived from the English Lake District.

Table 9. U-series dates for Cae Gwyn. CG1 is the inner part of the stalagmitic pillar and CG2 the outermost part. All errors 1σ. Dates correspond to late MIS 7.

Sample (Run)

U conc. (ppm)

Th conc. (ppm)

(234

U/ 238

U)o

234U/

238U

230Th/

234U

230Th/

232Th

U yield (%)

Th yield (%)

Age uncor. (ka)

Age cor. (ka)

CG1 (595)

0.051 ± 0.003

0.004 ± 0.004

1.585 ± 0.234

1.333 ± 0.097

0.892 ± 0.060

42.000 ± 34.914

28.35 37.09 200.5 +41.2 -30.8

-

CG2 (596)

0.056 ± 0.003

0.020 ± 0.003

1.407 ± 0.165

1.243 ± 0.075

0.877 ± 0.049

9.437 ± 1.335

20.51 38.39 198.0 +33.0 -25.8

183.8 +35.1 -28.2

Appendix 2 – Uranium-series date from Cae Gwyn cave

Alf G. Latham

One stalagmite had formed part of the Cae Gwyn collection formerly housed in Tremeirchion School and now curated in Denbigh Museum (Table 9). Hicks’ report (1886a, 12) on his excavations at Cae Gwyn records that layer 3, the ‘sandy clay with pebbles’, contained “large fragments of stalactites and of stalagmite” in addition to a single flint scraper and the bones of lion, hyaena, bear, red deer, reindeer, horse and rhinoceros. The fact that the speleothem fragments were angular suggests that they were derived from older deposits which were broken up by freeze-thaw processes. The age determined tells us that the cave was in existence 183,000 years ago and that stalagmite was forming there at this time.

Ffynnon Beuno, by contrast, had what was interpreted as an area of in situ stalagmitic floor which directly sealed a mammoth tooth and a flint blade-leaf point (Hicks 1886a, 8–9, figs 5–6). No samples were available for dating.

Acknowledgements

Stephen Aldhouse-Green would like to thank Thomas Higham for help with this project. Rob Dinnis wishes to thank Beccy Scott for discussions regarding the flints, Robert Kruszynski for arranging the visit to the Natural History Museum for study and for permission to reproduce the photographs, Charley Coleman for taking the photographs at the Natural History Museum and Robin Maggs for those taken at the National Museum of Wales. Thanks are also due to the Leverhulme Trust who supported the AHOB project, allocating the time to write the work up. Elizabeth Walker would like to thank Professor Mike Bassett for assistance with references.


91

References

Aldhouse-Green, S. 2000. Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a Definitive Report. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press.

Aldhouse-Green, S. 2012. The Pontnewydd people: their cave and their world. In Aldhouse-Green, S., Peterson, R. & Walker, E.A. (eds). Neanderthals in Wales: Pontnewydd and the Elwy Valley Caves. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 327-344.

Aldhouse-Green, S., Peterson, R. & Walker, E.A. (eds) 2012. Neanderthals in Wales: Pontnewydd and the Elwy Valley Caves. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Aldhouse-Green, S. & Pettitt, P. 1998. Paviland Cave: contextualising the ‘Red Lady’. Antiquity 72, 756–772.

Allsworth-Jones, P. 1990. The Szeletian and the stratigraphic succession in Central Europe and adjacent areas: main trends, recent results and problems for resolution. In Mellars, P. (ed.). The Emergence of Modern Humans: an archaeological perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 160–242.

Anon. 1899. Obituary: Dr Henry Hicks, F.R.S., F.G.S. Geological Magazine decade 4 6, 574–575.

Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K. & Weber, G.W. 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature 479, 525–528.

Bordes, J.-G. & Lenoble, A. 2002. La ‘lamelle Caminade’: un nouvel outil lithique aurignacien? Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 99 (4), 735–750.

Bowen, D.Q. 1994. Late Cenozoic Wales and South-West England. Proceedings of the Ussher Society 8, 209–213.

Boyd Dawkins, W. 1880. Early Man in Britain and his Place in the Tertiary Period. London: Macmillan and Co.

Campbell, J.B. 1977. The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain: a study of man and nature in the late Ice Age. (2 volumes.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Campbell, J.B. 1980. Les problèmes des subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur britannique dans son cadre européen. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire 91, 39–77.

Chiotti, L. 1999. Les Industries Lithiques des Niveaux Aurignaciens de l’Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne): Etude Technologique et Typologique. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Muséum National d‘Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Collcutt, S.N. 1984. The sediments. In Green, H.S. (ed.) Pontnewydd Cave, 31–76. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.

Cooper, L., Thomas, J.S., Beamish, M.G., Goldwell, A., Collcutt, S.N., Williams, J., Jacobi, R.M., Currant, A. & Higham, T.F.G. 2012. An Early Upper Palaeolithic open-air station and mid-Devensian hyaena den at Grange Farm, Glaston, Rutland, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 78, 73–93.

Currant, A. & Jacobi, R. 1997. Vertebrate faunas from the British Late Pleistocene and the chronology of human settlement, Quaternary Newsletter 82, 1–8.

Currant, A. & Jacobi, R. 2001. A formal mammalian biostratigraphy for the late Pleistocene of Britain. Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 1707–1716.

Davies, E. 1949. The Prehistoric and Roman Remains of Flintshire. Cardiff: William Lewis Ltd.

Dinnis, R. 2008. On the technology of late Aurignacian burin and scraper production, and the importance of the

Paviland lithic assemblage and the Paviland burin. Lithics 29, 18–35.

Dinnis, R. 2009. Understanding the British Aurignacian. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield.

Dinnis, R. 2012a. The archaeology of Britain’s first modern humans. Antiquity 86, 627–641.

Dinnis, R. 2012b. The timing of Aurignacian occupation of the British Peninsula. Quartär 59, 67–83.

Dinnis, R. & Conneller, C. 2011. The Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Ffynnon Beuno. Abstract of paper delivered to the AHOB. Symposium, Queen Mary University of London, May 2012.

Dinnis, R. & Conneller, C. In press. New treasures from an old cave: recent archaeological fieldwork at Ffynnon Beuno Cave. Speleology.

Dinnis R. & Flas D. In prep. The Aurignacian lithic assemblage from Trou du Renard in the context of the northern European Recent Aurignacian.

Dujardin, V. 2005. Débitage lamellaire aurignacien à la Quina Aval (Gardes-le-Pontaroux) et à la Grotte des Renardières (Les Pins, Charente, France). In Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bordes, J.-G. & Bon, F. (eds), Productions Lamellaires Attribuées à l’Aurignacien: chaînes opératoires et perspectives techno-culturelles. Luxembourg: Archéologiques 1, pp. 273-295.

Finlayson, C. 2009. The Humans who Went Extinct. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flas, D. 2002. Les débuts du paléolithique supérieur dans le Nord-Ouest de l’Europe: le Lincombien–Ranisien–Jerzmanowicien. Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113, 25–49.

Flas, D. 2008. La transition du Paléolithique moyen au supérieur dans la Plaine Septentrionale de l’Europe. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d‘Anthropologie et de Préhistoire 119.

Flas, D. 2009. The Lincombian-Ranisian-Jermanowician and the limit of the Aurignacian spreading on the northern European plain. In Djindjian, F. Bicho, N. & Kozłowski, J.K. (eds), Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherers Concept of Territory, Proceedings of the XVth UISPP Congress, Lisbon, 2006, Colloquium 16. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 1938, pp. 135–142.

Flas, D. 2011. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Northern Europe: the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician and the issue of acculturation of the last Neanderthals. World Archaeology 43(4), 605–627.

Flas, D., Miller, R. & Jacobs, B. 2007. Les ‘burins’ de l‘Atelier de débitage aurignacien de Maisières-Canal (Province du Hainaut, Belgique). In Bracco, J.-P., de Araujo Igreja, M. & Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (eds), Burins Préhistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. Luxembourg: Archéologiques 2, pp. 55-74.

Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Green, S. 1991. The Palaeolithic and its Quaternary context. In Manley, J., Grenter, S. & Gale, F. (eds), The Archaeology of Clwyd, 26–46. Mold: Clwyd County Council.

Green, S. & Walker, E. 1991. Ice Age Hunters: Neanderthals and Early Modern Hunters in Wales. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.

Hicks, H. 1884. On some recent researches in bone-caves in Wales. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 9 (1), 1–20.

Hicks, H. 1885. On some further researches in bone-caves in North Wales. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 10, 15–18.


92

Hicks, H. 1886a. Results of recent researches in some bone-caves in North Wales (Ffynnon Beuno and Cae Gwyn). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 42, 3–19.

Hicks H. 1886b. Report of the committee consisting of Professor T.McK. Hughes, Dr H. Hicks, Messrs H. Woodward, E.G. Luxmoore, P.P. Pennant and Edwin Morgan, appointed for the purpose of exploring the caves of North Wales. The Report of the Fifty-Sixth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Birmingham in Sept. 1886, 219–223.

Hicks, H. 1888. On the Cae Gwyn Cave, North Wales. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 44, 561–577.

Higham, T. 2011. European Middle and Upper Palaeolithic radiocarbon dates are often older than they look: problems with previous dates and some remedies. Antiquity 85, 235–249.

Higham, T., Compton, T., Stringer, C., Jacobi, R., Shapiro, B., Trinkaus, E., Chandler, B., Groning, F., Collins, C., O’Higgins, P., FitzGerald, C. & Fagan, M. 2011. The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern Europe. Nature 479, 521–524.

Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R.M. and Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using ultrafiltration. Radiocarbon 48 (2), 179–195.

Hughes, T.McK. 1885. Notes on the geology of the Vale of Clwyd. Proceedings of the Chester Society of Natural Science 3, 5–37.

Hughes, T.McK. 1887. On the drifts of the Vale of Clwyd and their relation to the caves and cave-deposits. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 43, 73–120.

Hughes, T.McK. & Thomas, D.R. 1874. On the occurrence of felstone implements of the Le Moustier type in Pontnewydd Cave, near Cefn, St Asaph. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 3, 387–390.

Hughes, T.McK. & Williams Wynn, R.W.H.W. 1882. The results of recent further excavations in the caves of Cefn near St Asaph, North Wales. Report of the Fifty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at York in August and September 1881, 700.

Jacobi, R.M. 1980. The Upper Palaeolithic in Britain, with special reference to Wales. In Taylor, J.A. (ed.), Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 76, pp. 15-99.

Jacobi, R.M. 2007. A collection of Early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Beedings, near Pulborough, West Sussex, and the context of similar finds from the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73, 229–325.

Jacobi, R.M. & Higham, T.F.G. 2008. The ‘Red Lady’ ages gracefully: new ultrafiltration AMS determinations from Paviland. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 898–907.

Jacobi, R.M. & Higham, T.F.G. 2011. The British Earlier Upper Palaeolithic: settlement and chronology. In N.M. Ashton, N.M. Lewis, S.G. & Stringer, C.B. (eds), The Ancient Human Occupation of Britain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 181-222.

Jacobi, R.M., Higham, T.F.G. & Bronk Ramsey, C. 2006. AMS radiocarbon dating of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic bone in the British Isles: improved reliability using ultrafiltration. Journal of Quaternary Science 25(5), 557–573.

Jacobi, R.M. & Pettitt, P.B. 2000. An Aurignacian bone point from Uphill Quarry (Somerset) and the earliest settlement of Britain by Homo sapiens sapiens. Antiquity 74, 513–518.

Jöris, O. & Street, M. 2008. At the end of the 14C time scale - the Middle to Upper Paleolithic record of western Eurasia. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 782–802.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. & Leroi-Gourhan, Arl. 1964. Chronologie des Grottes d’Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Gallia Préhistoire 7, 1–64.

Naipaul, V.S. 1980. Conrad’s darkness in The Return of Eva Peron. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd, pp. 205-256.

O’Connor, A. 2007. Finding Time for the Old Stone Age: a history of Palaeolithic archaeology and Quaternary geology in Britain, 1860–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Otte, M. 1976. L’occupation aurignacienne du Trou du Renard (Furfooz). Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire 87, 117–139.

Pettitt, P.B. 2000. The Paviland radiocarbon dating programme: reconstructing the chronology of faunal communities, carnivore activity and human occupation. In Aldhouse-Green, S. (ed.). Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a Definitive Report. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press, pp. 63-71.

Pettitt, P.B. 2008. The British Upper Palaeolithic. In Pollard, J. (ed.). Prehistoric Britain. London: Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology, pp. 18-57.

Pettitt, P.B., Davies, W., Gamble, C.S. & Richards, M.B. 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: Quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12): 1685–1693.

Pettitt, P.B., Housley, R. & T. Higham 2012. Last Glaciation faunas: the radiocarbon determinations. In Aldhouse-Green, S., Peterson, R. & Walker, E.A. (eds), Neanderthals in Wales: Pontnewydd and the Elwy Valley Caves. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 301-319.

Rowlands, B.M. 1971. Radiocarbon evidence of the age of an Irish Sea glaciation in the Vale of Clwyd. Nature 230, 9–11.

Scott, K. 2012. Short note on the Pontnewydd reindeer remains examined for gnawing. In Aldhouse-Green, S., Peterson, R. & Walker, E.A. (eds), Neanderthals in Wales: Pontnewydd and the Elwy Valley Caves. Oxford: Oxbow Books, p. 104.

Swainston, S. 1999. Unlocking the inhospitable. In Davies, W. & Charles, R. (eds), Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic: Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 41-56.

Swainston, S. 2000. The lithic artefacts from Paviland. In Aldhouse-Green, S. (ed.), Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a Definitive Report. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press, pp. 95–113.

Turner, A. 2000. The Paviland Mammalian Fauna. In Aldhouse-Green, S. (ed.), Paviland Cave and the ‘Red Lady’: a Definitive Report. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press, pp. 133–140.

White, M.J. & Pettitt, P. 2011. The British Late Middle Palaeolithic: an interpretative synthesis of Neanderthal occupation at the northwestern edge of the Pleistocene world. Journal of World Prehistory 24 (1), 25–97.

Woodward, H.B. 1907. The History of the Geological Society of London. London: The Geological Society.

Aldhouse-Green et al. 2015. The nature of human activity at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves and the...

Documents

Transcript of Aldhouse-Green et al. 2015. The nature of human activity at Cae Gwyn and Ffynnon Beuno caves and the...