The Recently Discovered Frindsbury Academy Early Palaeolithic site
Recent archaeological excavations that were conducted in advance of building work for a new school to be called Frindsbury Academy have uncovered Palaeolithic artefacts that were recovered from fluvial deposits that are thought to date from the Marine Isotope Stage 9 interglacial about 300 000 years ago. They were found in deep Pleistocene sediments on a hillside above the Medway Valley at Frindsbury. The Palaeolithic artefacts included several handaxes, two of which have been classed as ‘giant handaxes’. The initial report (Ingrey et al., 2023) introduces the site and presents one of these large handaxes – the third longest found in Britain. This important new Palaeolithic site is presented here using the information published in the initial report, and the new site is then considered in the context of the other known Earlier Palaeolithic sites of the Lower Medway Valley. Further consideration is then given to the technology of giant handaxes.
Where is the site?
The site at Manor Farm, Frindsbury, Kent (NGR: 574596 170317) is located close to one of the roundabouts on the western approach road to the Medway Tunnel and just north of the well-known Frindsbury Palaeolithic site excavated in the early 1920s near Frindsbury Church (Fig 1). The latest fieldwork at Frindsbury started in early 2021. It began with an evaluation by geoarchaeological test pitting, which then informed a more extensive work programme. It was undertaken by the Archaeology South-East team from the UCL Institute of Archaeology led by Letty Ingrey, Senior Geoarchaeologist.
The geology
The initial investigations included a programme of geoarchaeological test pitting as the British Geological Survey’s mapping of the site shows
Fig 4: Schematic section showing the find position of the largest handaxe (RF 53) in weakly bedded gravel with coarse sand within the sequence of deposits in MA3 (Ingrey et al. 2023.)
This work revealed that many areas had intact fluvial deposits and colluvial sediments (Head) from the Pleistocene epoch. The later work in 2021 showed the significant extent of this spread. It also became clear that the proposed landscaping for the school would affect at least some of these deposits (Ingrey et al. 2023.)
Stepped excavation
As a result of this assessment, it was decided to excavate three deep stepped trenches to investigate the archaeology and nature of these areas of Pleistocene fluvial deposits (Figure 1.) The depth of the trenches reached the base of the Quaternary deposits wherever possible and elsewhere reached the base of the intended landscaping. The deep trenches were called ‘Mitigation Areas’ and numbered 1 to 3 (MA1-3).
All deposits and archaeological remains were recorded, and samples were taken to help establish the date and evidence of the environment at this time.
The report explains that ‘the surface of the Upper Chalk had undergone extensive solution, with the formation of both localised solution pipes and larger doline structures.
This offered capture points for preserving the Thanet Formation sands and, more locally, Pleistocene deposits.’ The ‘Bullhead’ flint beds were frequently encountered where the Thanet Formation made contact with the Upper Chalk. ‘They took the form of a layer of weathered and mineral-stained flint cobbles and pebbles which had been formed during the Palaeogene. The base of the fluvial deposits was at approximately 27m OD. This terrace, from a small west bank tributary of the proto-Medway, is mapped by the BGS as ‘River Terrace Deposits, 3’ (Ingrey et al., 2023)
A long trench (MA3) delivered the largest handaxe. A full description of the Pleistocene geology of MA3, as described in the initial report, is given in Box 1.
The finds
Eight hundred Palaeolithic artefacts were recovered during this fieldwork (Fig 3), and a full report on these artefacts is being prepared. The initial report states that they ‘were found buried in material which filled a sinkhole and covered a water channel that is a former tributary of the Medway.
They were recovered during each stage of the work, being present at low densities throughout the fluvial deposits. All had undergone minimal abrasion, and they are not likely to have been extensively reworked.’ (Ingrey et al. 2023.)
THE TWO ‘GIANT’ HANDAXES
The handaxes include two ficrons, which the report describes as ‘very large or Giant handaxes.’ The first handaxe (RF 50) was 230mm in
Box 1: The Pleistocene Geology of the Stepped Trench MA3
(From Ingrey et al. 2023.)
‘In the north-western area of the site where MA3 was located, fluvial deposits were present in channels and appeared to have undergone minimal deformation even though Pleistocene fluvial deposits had been locally subjected to significant deformation owing to the solution of the underlying chalk.
The Pleistocene fluvial deposits in MA3 comprised moderately to well-sorted gravels in a matrix of sand and clay in channels incised into the Thanet Formation and overlain by Pleistocene Head.
The channels were discrete and intercutting, each one up to 20m wide and extending up to 3m below ground level.
The deposits consisted of up to 90% well-rounded to sub-rounded flint pebbles, largely reworked from Palaeogene deposits but containing occasional weathered flint nodules from both the ‘Bullhead’ and Upper Chalk.
Within the fluvial gravels were beds of finer-grained sands, which were frequently finely bedded or laminated.
Overall, the fluvial deposits appeared to relate to a series of episodes consisting of relatively high-energy deposition by a braided river system, with periods of lower-energy deposition.
This could relate to deposition on the inner banks of meanders and within cut-offs associated with anatomising channels, reflecting localised changes in depositional regime over time.
Fig 6: Measuring the largest handaxe RF53 (Ingrey et al. 2023.) The base of the fluvial deposits was at approximately 27m OD.’
length, although missing its tip. The report explains that ‘It was recovered from a sand unit at the surface of the fluvial deposits.
This was in an area stripped to facilitate later archaeology excavation and was present within deposits just below the topsoil.
Further excavation in the area showed the deposits here to have been mostly eroded but locally preserved within a solution feature that had deformed the underlying Thanet Formation and trapped the Pleistocene fluvial deposits.’
The second handaxe (RF 53) was much longer at 296mm in length (Figures 4, 5 & 10.) ‘This was found during the excavation of MA3, the long-stepped trench in the north- west of the site. It was 1.2m below ground level at 28.8m OD. It was minimally abraded and much larger than any of the other clasts within this part of the channel, suggesting that it was probably recovered from its primary depositional context and had only moved a short distance, if at all. After its discovery, careful hand excavation within the immediate area did not produce any further artefacts.’ (Ingrey et al. 2023.)
Dating the site and finds
All early Palaeolithic sites in the Lower Medway Area have proved difficult to date, and this new site follows that trend. The British Geological Survey maps the river terrace at this site as ‘River Terrace Deposits, 3’. Its position suggests that this terrace belonged to a tributary which joined the proto-Medway from the east.
The report concludes that ‘no specific correlation is confirmed but a late Middle Pleistocene age (Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8) is considered highly probable given that at least two morphologically distinct terraces are mapped in the area at lower elevations.’ (Ingrey et al. 2023.) This suggests a date around 300,000 years ago.
Other Earlier Palaeolithic sites in the Lower Medway Area
This dating matches the current dating for the three other most important Earlier Palaeolithic sites in the Lower Medway area (Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8.) These sites are Cuxton Rectory, Lower Twydall Chalk Pit and Frindsbury Church. During Marine Isotope Stages 10-9- 8, the course of the proto-Medway was to the west of its current path, and a network of tributaries flowed from the east to join it, including the tributary which passed the Twydall Chalk Pit with a confluence with the proto-Medway west of the Frindsbury Academy site. The probable course of this tributary is marked by three fluvial deposits mapped by the British Geological Survey as ‘River Terrace Deposits, 3’, which matches their mapping of the gravel terrace at the Frindsbury Academy site. The location of all four sites is shown in Fig 7, and the course of the proto- Medway and this tributary channel
Table 1. Cuxton Rectory Site | |
Dates | 1889, 1963, 1980, 2005 |
Excavation/collection at the site | The 1963 finds were in a thin body of fluvial gravel lying on a Chalk terrace bench at c. 17m OD in the ground of Cuxton Rectory. The 1980 finds were across the road in the same fluvial gravel and a deeper sequence of fluvial sands and gravels with a base level of 14m OD, again lying on Chalk bedrock. In 2005, a further deep test pit in another garden across the road found the exceptionally large ficron and a large cleaver where cross- bedded sands came down onto a more gravelly layer around 16.5m OD. |
Technological Characteristics | 300+ Pointed Handaxes including Ficrons and Cleavers. Cores and Flake tools. Simple prepared cores. There are no handaxes in the deeper 1980 sequence. |
Probable Dating | Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8? |
References | Payne 1902; Tester 1965; Cruse 1987; Wenban-Smith 2004 & 2006. |
Table 2. Lower Twydall Chalk Pit Site | |
Dates | 1908 to 1920s in the quarry and continuing on the foreshore |
Excavation/collection at the site | Artefacts were found either in layers of sand and a little gravel overlying the chalk bedrock and beneath brickearth at about 15–18 m during the extraction of chalk from Lower Twydall Chalk Pit or on the adjoining foreshore after this sediment was dumped to form a causeway and related to a south–north channel flowing down to an east-west channel flowing to a confluence with the proto-Medway. |
Technological Characteristics | 300+ Pointed handaxes including Ficrons and Cleavers. Cores and Flake tools. Levallois prepared core flakes linked to a higher level. Most of the handaxes have damaged or broken tips. |
Probable Dating | Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8? |
References | Payne 1915; Roe 1981; Beresford 2018 & forthcoming. |
Table 3. Frindsbury Church Site | |
Dates | 1923 |
Excavation/collection at the site | Artefacts found in a hollow of about four hundred square feet within fine- grained colluvial slope wash deposits directly above chalk bedrock during chalk extraction from Frindsbury Chalk Pit to the east of Frindsbury Church. |
Technological Characteristics | Over four thousand artefacts were reported. Six small pointed handaxes. Many large, simple prepared cores and flakes. |
Probable Dating | Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8? |
References | Cook and Killick 1924; Beresford 2016. |
Above
Tables 1, 2 & 3: Summary descriptions of the other major Earlier Palaeolithic sites in the Lower Medway Area
Above – a simple prepared core and below – a flake – dorsal and ventral faces (Photo: courtesy of the British Museum.)
The large, simple prepared cores and flakes from Frindsbury Church Chalk Pit Site (Fig 8) are distinctive.
However, this technology was also found at Cuxton, and some examples of Levallois-prepared core technology were found at Twydall.
The technological characteristics of the artefacts found at Cuxton and Twydall appear like those from the Frindsbury Academy site based on the limited available information. Many of the Cuxton and Twydall handaxes comprise thick, lightly reduced points with cortical butts and partial cutting edges made on a range of available flint blanks, which include elongated, narrow burrow flint, other varied, frequently elongated and often asymmetrical flint nodules, smaller flint cobbles and sections of tabular flint. While this basic pattern is evident, it is also apparent that the differences in shape reflect a combination of the actual original blank shape, the way the knapper chose to work it, and individual preference and skill (Shaw & White, 2003).
THE GREAT GIANT HANDAXE STAKES
The Great Giant Handaxe Stakes, a list of the longest handaxes from Britain that were known in order of size, was introduced by
R. McRae in an intentionally light- hearted article in 1987. His list included six handaxes that ranged in length from 235mm to 323mm. Since then, further examples have been added, but four from the original list remain in the current listings.
Fig 9: The longest: The Furze Platt Giant (Length = 323mm), reproduced from Lacaille (1940) with an ‘average’ sized handaxe (Length = 117mm) shown to the right for comparison (Photo: Luke Dale 2022, 279)
Some entries are new finds; others are previously unmeasured and unrecorded examples from museums or other collections. A tentative list of the current reported longest fifteen handaxes that range in length from 248mm to 323mm is shown in Table
4. It includes six examples from Kent, five of which are from the sites in the Lower Medway. The Twydall handaxe and the lower two from Cuxton, all now in the British Museum, were carefully measured for this study
– the other measurements were taken from the given references.
THE LARGEST HANDAXE ON THE LIST
The largest currently known and reported handaxe in Britain remains the example found during a day’s work digging gravel by G. Carter in Cannongate Farm pit on the south bank of the Thames at Furze Platt in Berkshire in March 1919 (Lacaille 1940, 267.) It is light grey with some light brown staining, boldly flaked all over and with straight cutting edges. It was subsequently presented to the Geological Museum (now part of the Natural History Museum) and displayed for many years in a case at the front end of the balcony. It is also attributed to Marine Isotope Stages 10-9-8.
Table 4 | |||||
Order of size | Find Site | Handaxe Type | Date of discovery | Length (mm) | Reference |
1st | Furze Platt Berkshire. | Pointed | 1919 | 323 | Lacaille 1940 |
2nd | Cuxton, Kent | Pointed Ficron. | 2004 | 307 | Wenban-Smith 2004; 2006 |
3rd | Maritime Academy, Kent | Pointed Ficron. | 2022 | 296 | Ingrey, L et al. 2023 |
4th | Canterbury West, Kent | Pointed Ficron. | 1925 | 285 | Knowles 2023 |
5th | Shrub Hill, Norfolk | Pointed | 1869 | 285 | Wymer 1985 |
6th | Broom, Devon. | Type Unknown | ? | 282 | Hosfield and Green, 2013 |
7th | Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire. | Pointed Demi- ficron. | 1986 | 269 | MacRae 1987 |
8th | Sonning Town, Berkshire | Pointed Ficron. | 1913 | 266 | MacRae 1987 |
9th | Warsash, Hampshire | Ovate. | ? | 262 | Dale 2022 |
10th = | Twydall, Kent | Pointed | 1909 | 260 | Beresford 2018 |
10th = | Warren Hill, Suffolk | Ovate. | (1932). | 260 | MacRae 1987 |
12th | Cuxton, Kent | Pointed Ficron. | 1962/3 | 258 | Tester 1965 |
13th | Cuxton, Kent | Pointed Ficron. | 1962/3 | 255 | Tester 1965 |
14th | Warsash, Hampshire | Ficron. | ? | 253 | Dale 2022 |
15th | Warsash, Hampshire | Ovate. | ? | 248 | Dale 2022 |
Table 4: A tentative list that shows the currently reported top fifteen Acheulean ‘giant’ handaxes from Britain. (Based on MacRae 1987, Dale 2022 and Ingrey et al. 2023)]
The six large handaxes from Kent in the list
Six handaxes in the tentative list were found in Kent, and five from the sites in the Lower Medway Valley (Figure 10.) Francis Wenban- Smith and colleagues found the second longest in a pit that had fortunately become available in a front garden opposite the Cuxton Rectory Site in 2004 (Wenban- Smith, F. 2004. 2006.) A giant cleaver was also found near it. The third longest is the example from the Frindsbury Academy Site. The fourth longest was found around 1925 at Canterbury West and has just been presented for the first time by Pete Knowles (Knowles 2023.) The tenth equal longest was found in 1909 in the layers above the chalk at Sharps Green Chalk Pit – another name for the Lower Twydall Chalk Pit. Cook and Killick probably found
Fig 10: From L-R, The Frindsbury Academy Ficron - 3rd (Ingrey et al. 2023.); The Cuxton Ficron - 2nd (Photo: Francis Wenban-Smith.); The Canterbury West Ficron - 4th (Photo: Pete Knowles)]
Fig 11: Bottom right: the Twydall Pointed Handaxe, 10th equal; Centre and left. Two more Cuxton Ficrons, 12th and 13th (Photo: courtesy of the British Museum)
Peter Tester found the twelfth and thirteenth longest during his work at the Cuxton Rectory Site in 1963/4.
Five of the Kent handaxes are described as Ficrons. The shape of a Ficron is characterised by long, thinner and finely worked tips, with incurving or straight edges and thicker and more crudely worked butts (Cranshaw 1983, 107.) Much of the character of a handaxe is predetermined by the shape of the raw materials. As already noted, at both Cuxton and Twydall, varied and, at times, asymmetrical handaxes were made by selecting from an extensive range of available flint blanks. The knapper would have frequently used the blank type that first came to hand to produce a usable handaxe quickly. However, the prevalence of exceptionally long handaxes, particularly in the Lower Medway Valley, does introduce the possibility that some knappers may have had a prior intention to create this form and so sought out suitable blank shapes - very elongated nodules or pieces of elongated narrow burrow flint - with that specific intention.
The longest handaxe in the world
Larger handaxes have been found outside Britain. In November 2023, it was announced that a team of researchers working in the desert landscape called the Kur Plain that is south of Alula in north-west Saudi Arabia, had discovered what is, for the moment, likely to be the longest stone ‘hand axe’ artefact found anywhere in the world, more than a half a metre long (Figure 12.) It is a fine-grained basalt tool of uniform thickness and width (length: 513 mm, width: 95 mm, thickness: 57 mm.) It has been worked on both sides to produce a robust tool if used with both hands, with all edges useable and no defined butt. Initial field assessment suggested that it dates to the Lower-Middle Palaeolithic period and is over 200,000 years old (News provided by The Royal Commission for Al-Ula (RCU) 07 Nov 2023, 06:36 GMT.)
But are they handaxes?
Such large implements are difficult to hold and use with the hand and appear too large to have been practical in this way. They are also difficult to transport. They could have been used with two hands or cooperatively between two individuals. It has also been suggested that such large, long cutting edges may have been used rested on the ground with the animal carcass pressed down onto the upward-facing edge or fixed in a static upright position for a similar use (Foulds et al., 2017.) However, this is a demanding use for fragile ficrons.
Did giant handaxes also have some other less functional value? The repeated occurrence in the late Lower Palaeolithic record of these large handaxe shapes requiring specific technical and shaping traits suggests that they may have had some broader significance than utility. Were these visually superior forms valued for their looks? Were they a form of early art or sculpture? Did they indicate social status, or did they have a symbolic purpose?
Hodgson (2015) suggested that the apparently ‘over-engineered’ nature of the giant handaxes could be evidence of increased cognitive development. This is interesting when linked to the indication that giant handaxes are more commonplace during MIS 10-9-8. The occurrence of simple and Levallois-prepared core technology during MIS 10-9-8 points to the cognitive and behavioural development that marks the change from the Lower to the Middle Palaeolithic. The Lower Medway Valley giant handaxe technology and prepared core technology are found at Cuxton and Twydall, and simple prepared technology at Frindsbury Church. If the suggestion that giant handaxes were more frequent in later (particularly MIS 9) assemblages is correct (Dale, 2022), could Giant Handaxes be another indicator of the Lower– Middle Palaeolithic transition?
WHAT NEXT?
The recently discovered Frindsbury Academy Early Palaeolithic site is a treasured addition to our understanding of the Lower Palaeolithic in the Lower Medway Area, particularly when considering the Earlier Palaeolithic Sites in the area. It has provoked many new and exciting questions about the technology and the landscape around the proto –Medway during MIS 10-9-8 and its braided network of tributaries. We eagerly await the next report from Letty Ingrey and the Archaeology South-East team.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Letty Ingrey and the Archaeology South-East team for making their initial report and its associated illustrations readily available. He would also like to thank Letty Ingrey, Francis Wenban-Smith, Matt Pope and Stan Matthews for their helpful comments and suggestions after reading an earlier version of this paper. Figures eight and eleven are courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
References
Bates, M.R., Bates, C.R., Briant, R.M., Gibbard, P.L., Glaister, C., Jones, S., Meijer, T., Penkman, K.E.H., Schwenninger, J-L., Walker, M.J.C., Wenban-Smith, F.F. and Whittaker, J.E. 2017 ‘Chapter 2.
The Quaternary evolution of the Lower Medway: new evidence from beneath the flood plain’ in G. Dawkes (ed) Between the Thames and Medway. Archaeological excavations on the Hoo Peninsula and its environs, Portslade: Spoil Heap Publications 13, Archaeology South-East. 9-63.
Beresford, F.R. 2016. Further Palaeolithic material from Frindsbury, Kent. Kent Archaeological Society Magazine 2016 (Winter): 4–7.
Beresford, F.R. 2018. Palaeolithic material from Lower Twydall Chalk Pit in Kent: The Cook and Killick Collection. Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 39: 20–35.
Beresford, F.R. (forthcoming). Palaeolithic material from the Lower Twydall Chalk Pit in Kent: the Baker and Payne Collection and the Baker Collection.
Bridgland, D.R. (2003). ‘The evolution of the River Medway, SE England, in the context of Quaternary palaeoclimate and the Palaeolithic occupation of NW Europe’, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 114(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0016-7878(03)80026-3
Cranshaw, S. (1983). Handaxes and cleavers: selected English Acheulian industries (Vol. 1). Oxford: BAR
Cook, W.H. & Killick, J.R. (1924). ‘On the discovery of a flint-working site of Palaeolithic date in the Medway Valley at Rochester, Kent, with notes on the drift stages of the Medway’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 4, 133–49.
Cruse, R.J. (1987). Further investigations of the Acheulean site at Cuxton. Archaeologia Cantiana 104, 39-81
Dale, L. (2022). ‘Early Neanderthal Social and Behavioural Complexity During the Purfleet Interglacial: handaxes in the latest Lower Palaeolithic’, PhD thesis, Durham University.
Dines, H., Holmes, S.C.A. & Robbie, J.A. (1954). Geology of the Country around Chatham. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. London: HMSO
Foulds, F.W., Shuttleworth, A., Sinclair, A., Alsharekh, A.M., Al Ghamdi, S., Inglis, R.H. and Bailey, G.N. (2017). A large handaxe from Wadi Dabsa and early hominin adaptations within the Arabian Peninsula. Antiquity 91(360), 1421 – 1434.
Hodgson, D. (2015). The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2, p.204 – 208.
Hosfield, R. & Green, C.P. (eds) (2013). Quaternary History and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the Axe Valley at Broom, South West England, Oxford: Oxbow
Ingrey, L., Le Hegaret, K. and Pope, M. (2021). ‘Palaeolithic Archaeology from Fluvial Deposits at the Maritime Academy Site, Manor Farm, Frindsbury, Geoarchaeological Evaluation: Interim Report’, Unpublished Archaeology South East report for Bowmer and Kirkland.
Ingrey, L., Duffy, S., Bates, M.,
Shaw, A. & Pope, M. (2023). On the Discovery of a Late
Acheulean ‘Giant’ Handaxe from the Maritime Academy, Frindsbury, Kent, Internet Archaeology 61. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.61.6
Lacaille, A.D. (1940). ‘The palaeoliths from the gravels of the Lower Boyn Hill Terrace around Maidenhead’, The Antiquaries Journal 20(2), 245-71
MacRae, R.J. (1987). ‘The great giant handaxe stakes’, Lithics 8, 15–17.
Knowles, P.G. (2023). A magnificent ficron and assemblage containing cleavers from Canterbury: a reanalysis of the collection of Dr Tom Armstrong Bowes and the problem of provenance. Lithics 41.
Payne, G. (1902). Cuxton. Archaeologia Cantiana 25: lxvii.
Payne, G. (1915). Twydall. Archaeologia Cantiana 31: pp. 275–277.
Roe, D.A. (1968). ‘British Lower and Middle palaeolithic handaxe groups’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0079497X00013840
Roe, D.A. (1981). The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain. Routledge & Keegan Paul, London.
Tester P.J. (1965). An Acheulian Site at Cuxton Archaeologia Cantiana 80
Wenban-Smith, F. (2004). ‘Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton’, Lithics 25, 11–21.
Wenban-Smith, F. (2006). ‘Cuxton giant handaxes’, Kent Archaeological Society Newsletter 68, 2-3.
Wenban-Smith, F.F., Bates, M.R. & Marshall, G.D. (2007). ‘Medway Valley Palaeolithic project final report: The Palaeolithic resource in the Medway gravels (Kent)’, Unpublished report submitted to
English Heritage – available online.
Wymer, J.J. (1968). Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley. John Baker, London
Wymer, J.J. (1985). The Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia, Geo Books.