Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T15:13:00.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report on the Re-investigation of the Westley (Bury St. Edmunds) Skull Site

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

D. F. W. Baden-Powell ,
K. P. Oakley ,
I. W. Cornwall  and
C. R. Hoskins
D. F. W. Baden-Powell
Affiliation:
University Museum, Oxford
K. P. Oakley
Affiliation:
British Museum Natural History
I. W. Cornwall
Affiliation:
LondonUniversity Institute of Archaeology
C. R. Hoskins
Affiliation:
Department of the Government Chemist, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fossil human remains which can be attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic period are so rare that it is important to investigate thoroughly all finds for which such claims have been made. Almost all the human skulls discovered in Pleistocene deposits in Britain have proved to belong to Homo sapiens. Where the deposits are older than Upper Palaeolithic it is more than likely that such remains are not contemporaneous but represent later intrusive burials. However, the confirmation of the Lower Palaeolithic (Acheulian) age of the Swanscombe skull which, in so far as it is preserved, is not distinguishable from Homo sapiens, has revived interest in other human remains of modern type which have been reported from early deposits but laid aside as being of doubtful antiquity. Unfortunately some of these finds are now lost (e.g. Foxhall jaw). Outstanding among those which have survived are the Galley Hill skeleton and the Bury St. Edmunds skull. By application of the fluorine-dating method the former has been shown to be a comparatively recent intrusive burial (Oakley and Montagu, 1949).

The human skull fragment found near Bury St. Edmunds in 1882 has been preserved in the Moyse's Hall Museum at Bury, and is especially worthy of re-investigation as it Was claimed to be in a fossilized condition, and to have been found in a deposit which contained remains of mammoth and Acheulian implements. A Committee under Section H of the British Association was appointed in 1949 to re-investigate this discovery, and to try to find out (1) the geological age of the deposit from which the skull had been reported and (2) whether the skull was contemporaneous with this deposit. The work and conclusions of this Committee are described in the present report.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , May 1953 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baden-Powell, D. F. W. 1948. The chalky boulder clays of Norfolk and Suffolk. Geol. Mag., 85, pp. 279–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baden-Powell, D. F. W. 1951a. The interglacial beds at Hoxne, Suffolk. Nature, 168, pp. 701–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baden-Powell, D. F. W. 1951b. Palaeoliths from the Fen District. Proc. Prehist. Soc., N.S. 16, pp. 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baden-Powell, D. F. W. 1951c. The age of the interglacial deposits at Swanscombe. Geol. Mag., 88, pp. 344–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuil, H. and Koslowski, L. 1931–1932. Étude de la stratigraphie paléolithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique et l'Angleterre. L'Anthropologie, 41, pp. 449–88 and 42, pp. 28–47 and 291–314.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C. F. C., Oakley, K. P. and Warren, S. H. 1938. The Industries of the Barnfield Pit, Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. 68, pp. 30–47.Google Scholar
Keith, A. 1913. The Bury St. Edmunds cranial fragment. Journ. Anat. and Physiol., 46, pp. 73–9.Google Scholar
Moir, J. R.c. 1926. The Bury St. Edmunds Skull. The Bury Free Press. Translation reprinted in Montagu, M. F. Ashley, 1949, pp. 34–5.Google Scholar
Moir, J. R.c. 1927. The silted-up lake at Hoxne, and its flint implements. Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia 5, pp. 137–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, J. R.c. 1935. Lower Palaeolithic Man at Hoxne, England. Bull. Amer. School Prehist. Research, 11, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Montagu, M. F. A. 1949. Le fragment cranien de Bury St. Edmunds, Bull, et Mém. Soc. d'Anthrop. (9), 10, pp. 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, K. P. and Montagu, M. F. A. 1949. A Reconsideration of the Galley Hill Skeleton, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Geol. ser., 1, pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
Paterson, T. T. and Fagg, B. E. B. 1940. The Upper Brecklandian Acheul (Elveden), Proc. Prehist. Soc., N.S., 6, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigg, H. 1885. On a portion of a human skull of supposed Palaeolithic age from near Bury St. Edmunds. Journ. Anthrop. Institute, 14, pp. 51–5.Google Scholar
Sainty, J. E. 1927. An Acheulian Palaeolithic workship site at Whitlingham. Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia, 5, 2, pp. 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. G. 1894. Man the Primeval Savage. London.Google Scholar