The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK
Kent's Cavern is one of Britain's most important Palaeolithic sites. The Torquay Natural History Society excavations in the Vestibule (1926–1928 and 1932–1938) yielded Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic deposits as well as a fragment of human jaw (KC4). Higham et al. (2011) recently ident...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2017
|
| _version_ | 1797068073550741504 |
|---|---|
| author | Proctor, C Douka, K Proctor, J Higham, T |
| author_facet | Proctor, C Douka, K Proctor, J Higham, T |
| author_sort | Proctor, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Kent's Cavern is one of Britain's most important Palaeolithic sites. The Torquay Natural History Society excavations in the Vestibule (1926–1928 and 1932–1938) yielded Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic deposits as well as a fragment of human jaw (KC4). Higham et al. (2011) recently identified it as the oldest modern human fossil known from North West Europe, with a date estimated, using Bayesian modelling, at 44,200–41,500 cal bp (at 95.4% probability). However, White and Pettitt (2012) and Zilhão (2013) have claimed that the poor quality of the excavations and lack of stratigraphic integrity cast doubt on the archaeological and dating evidence from the site. Here, we present a thorough re-analysis of the excavations and show that they were in fact conducted to a reasonable standard. We also carefully examine the stratigraphic and sedimentological sequence and present twelve new AMS determinations from key contexts to test the previous model and chronology. We find that, while Trench C has good stratigraphic integrity, there is some evidence of post-depositional disruption of certain parts; some post-depositional movement is also shown by a limited number of artefact refits. There are two outlying AMS determinations dating to c. 32,000 bp. We therefore cannot exclude completely the possibility that the maxilla's age could be younger than the published probability distribution function (PDF). Our analysis lends support to the assessment by Higham et al. (2011) of the site and KC4 and shows that it offers considerable potential for future study. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:05:30Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:500173fb-3134-4bfb-ad01-7d61b14192c8 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T22:05:30Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:500173fb-3134-4bfb-ad01-7d61b14192c82022-03-26T16:11:00ZThe age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UKJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:500173fb-3134-4bfb-ad01-7d61b14192c8Symplectic Elements at OxfordCambridge University Press2017Proctor, CDouka, KProctor, JHigham, TKent's Cavern is one of Britain's most important Palaeolithic sites. The Torquay Natural History Society excavations in the Vestibule (1926–1928 and 1932–1938) yielded Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic deposits as well as a fragment of human jaw (KC4). Higham et al. (2011) recently identified it as the oldest modern human fossil known from North West Europe, with a date estimated, using Bayesian modelling, at 44,200–41,500 cal bp (at 95.4% probability). However, White and Pettitt (2012) and Zilhão (2013) have claimed that the poor quality of the excavations and lack of stratigraphic integrity cast doubt on the archaeological and dating evidence from the site. Here, we present a thorough re-analysis of the excavations and show that they were in fact conducted to a reasonable standard. We also carefully examine the stratigraphic and sedimentological sequence and present twelve new AMS determinations from key contexts to test the previous model and chronology. We find that, while Trench C has good stratigraphic integrity, there is some evidence of post-depositional disruption of certain parts; some post-depositional movement is also shown by a limited number of artefact refits. There are two outlying AMS determinations dating to c. 32,000 bp. We therefore cannot exclude completely the possibility that the maxilla's age could be younger than the published probability distribution function (PDF). Our analysis lends support to the assessment by Higham et al. (2011) of the site and KC4 and shows that it offers considerable potential for future study. |
| spellingShingle | Proctor, C Douka, K Proctor, J Higham, T The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title | The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title_full | The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title_fullStr | The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title_full_unstemmed | The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title_short | The age and context of the KC4 maxilla, Kent's Cavern, UK |
| title_sort | age and context of the kc4 maxilla kent s cavern uk |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT proctorc theageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT doukak theageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT proctorj theageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT highamt theageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT proctorc ageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT doukak ageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT proctorj ageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk AT highamt ageandcontextofthekc4maxillakentscavernuk |