Wonders of Nature: The Giant Antarctic Egg

Certain natural objects provoke a deep response in me. Awe and wonder are too prosaic to describe the sensation they engender. Something at the back of my mind screams “other!”..

That’s when the fascination with finding out what this thing is, where it comes from and how it fits into our world, begin, for me.

So it was when I saw my first picture of this fossil, in a BBC news report

Adapted from the BBC (2020): “Scientists in the US have uncovered the mystery of a giant egg discovered in Antarctica almost a decade ago.

For years researchers could not identify the fossil, which resembled a deflated football, leading it to gain the sci-fi nickname "The Thing".

‘The Thing’ from forskning (2020). Original caption reads: Legendre and his colleagues do not believe the egg comes from a dinosaur, since the dinosaurs that lived in Antarctica at that time were largely too small to lay such large eggs.

But now, scientists say the egg probably belonged to a giant sea reptile that lived around 68 million years ago. It is the believed to be the world's largest reptile egg.

The giant fossil egg from El Comercio (2020). Original caption reads: Of almost 30 centimeters, it would correspond to a marine reptile that lived more than 66 million years ago on the peninsula. (Photo: Handout/Chilean National Museum of Natural History/AFP)

The fossil - which measures 11 by 7 inches (28cm by 18cm) - was found by researchers from Chile in 2011, but it was only in 2018 that a scientist from the University of Texas at Austin recognised it could be a deflated egg. While the size of the egg suggested it belonged to an animal the size of a large dinosaur, its soft shell was "completely unlike a dinosaur egg", Lucas Legendre, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, said.

"It is most similar to the eggs of lizards and snakes, but it is from a truly giant relative of these animals," he said.

By comparing the size of hundreds of reptiles alive today and their eggs, researchers say the animal that laid the egg would have been at least seven metres long.

Other fossils found at the same site suggest the egg could have belonged to a giant marine reptile called a mosasaur, although it is unclear whether the egg was laid on land or at sea.

The media reports, I discovered were based on a paper in the journal Nature by Legendre et al. (2020). Here is the abstract:

“Egg size and structure reflect important constraints on the reproductive and life-history characteristics of vertebrates. More than two-thirds of all extant amniotes lay eggs. During the Mesozoic era (around 250 million to 65 million years ago), body sizes reached extremes; nevertheless, the largest known egg belongs to the only recently extinct elephant bird, which was roughly 66 million years younger than the last nonavian dinosaurs and giant marine reptiles. Here we report a new type of egg discovered in nearshore marine deposits from the Late Cretaceous period (roughly 68 million years ago) of Antarctica. It exceeds all nonavian dinosaur eggs in volume and differs from them in structure. Although the elephant bird egg is slightly larger, its eggshell is roughly five times thicker and shows a substantial prismatic layer and complex pore structure. By contrast, the new fossil, visibly collapsed and folded, presents a thin eggshell with a layered structure that lacks a prismatic layer and distinct pores, and is similar to that of most extant lizards and snakes (Lepidosauria). The identity of the animal that laid the egg is unknown, but these preserved morphologies are consistent with the skeletal remains of mosasaurs (large marine lepidosaurs) found nearby. They are not consistent with described morphologies of dinosaur eggs of a similar size class. Phylogenetic analyses of traits for 259 lepidosaur species plus outgroups suggest that the egg belonged to an individual that was at least 7 metres long, hypothesized to be a giant marine reptile, all clades of which have previously been proposed to show live birth. Such a large egg with a relatively thin eggshell may reflect derived constraints associated with body shape, reproductive investment linked with gigantism, and lepidosaurian viviparity, in which a ‘vestigial’ egg is laid and hatches immediately.”

Whether the identification of the egg as being laid by a mosasaur is in the paper or was just suggested by Legendre in interview, I am unsure as the paper is behind a paywall.

Good images of the mosasaur and its hypothesised mode of giving birth are shown by Newsround (2020)

Mosasaur from Newsround (2020). Original caption reads: The egg could've been laid by the massive marine reptile mosasaur.

Mosasaur young hatching underwater from Newsround (2020).

From media reports, several other interesting facts can be gleaned:

• Chemical analysis, showed that the surface and sub-surface layer were different from the surrounding sediments and was originally living tissue, probably eggshell
• The egg contained no skeleton, hence all assignment to genus/species is supposition without supporting evidence
• The site did contain such evidence: fossils of mosasaur and young. However, plesiosaur fossils were also found too
• The fossil was found on the Antarctic peninsula island of Seymour
• The suggestion that the fossil could be a soft-shelled egg came from Julia Clarke, a professor in the University of Texas (Austin), Jackson School Department of Geological Sciences

The species that laid the egg could therefore been a mosasaur or plesiosaur, or other species of suitable size and age. A quick bit of research identified species of Ichthyosaur, Thalattosuchians (marine crocodiles) and Palaeophis (marine snakes) that were of the correct length [ca. 7m] and lived in the correct part of the cretaceous era.

But what of the site being in Antarctica? I thought Dinosaurs liked hot climates? Well I had to find out what position the continent was in, in the late Cretaceous. If we compare maps of the disposition of the continents from 65mya and now, we see:

A comparison of the position of the continents, as they were at the end of the Cretaceous and now.

Note how much further north the Antarctic Peninsular is now – almost in contact with Argentina.

Additionally, according to O’Herrle et al. (2015), the ocean temperatures averaged 35⁰C. Therefore, the ocean temperature near the poles would have been perfect for marine reptiles.

Next, I wanted to know where exactly, was Seymour Island and what the site was like. Consulting Reguero (2019), I was quite surprised to find that a large number of palaeontological surveys  had taken place on the rocky island over the last 30 years, and that it was at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsular:

Map of Antarctica adapted to show Seymour Island, from Maps of Antarctica (2001)

Reading around I found a paper by Reguero (2019) that provides detail on the occurrence of marine reptiles on Seymour Island:

“The López de Bertodano Formation (LBF) contains a fully marine fauna indicative of open marine conditions. The LBF has been the subject of extensive paleontological and stratigraphic studies over the last 30 years and contains the best shallow marine record in the Southern Hemisphere of the K/Pg mass extinction event.

Locality IAA 10/13 is very productive and has a significant high geo-heritage value. Mesozoic marine reptiles, mosasaurs and elasmosaurid plesiosaurs (Figure 9) are important components of the Cretaceous marine deposits of Unit 9 of the López de Bertodano Formation.”

Geological map of Seymour Island adapted from Reguero (2019) and Montes et al. (2013). Original caption reads: “Figure 7 Schematic geological maps (after Montes et al., 2013) of key fossil vertebrate sites in Seymour Island, north eastern Antarctic Peninsula. Position of the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary (K/Pg) is indicated.”

Reguero (2019), also provides a nice panoramic showing the location of site IAA10/13, where many of the mosasaur fossils originated:

Original caption reads: Figure 8. General view of the uppermost horizons of the López de Bertodano Formation at Seymour Island showing the K/Pg boundary between units 9 (Late Maastrichtian) and 10 (Danian). Localities IAA 10/13 and 11/13 are indicated.

Having taken the time to research the background of the picture of the giant egg that sparked my interest in this topic, I have become aware of a hugely important palaeontological site. Again, I feel the wonder of discovery, and although it is just a virtual and therefore vicarious experience, it makes me proud to call myself a Scientist and reaffirms my joy at seeking the interconnectedness of all things.

Scientists searching for fossil locations on Seymour Island in 2011, from CBC News (2020). Original caption reads: “People hike during an expedition on Seymour Island in Antarctica in this picture taken in 2011, when the egg was found. (Rodrigo Otero/University Of Chile/Handout”

Sadly, there is a the darker side to the story. Reguero (2019), highlights the fragility of the site with respect to international tourism. In particular, he raises concerns that Antarctic cruises may be responsible for destruction of key samples through unauthorised fossil collection on the island. Secondly, although we all understand that the Antarctic environment is also under threat from global warming, I had not realised how dire the situation is. Mehar (2020) reports that once again a new Antarctic record high temperature of 20.75⁰C was recorded on Seymour Island on February 9^th this year. 

There is, however, a big caveat to this story. In the same issue of Nature was a paper by Norell et al. (2020). This provides evidence that early dinosaurs eggs such, as those laid by Protoceratops and Mussaurus sp. were soft shelled. While this is a possibility, Legendre, did point out that all the dinosaurs found in Antarctica so far have been too small to produce the egg in question. I therefore, think that, the jury is still out on the identity of the giant egg layer.

References:

BBC (2020) “Mystery egg likely belonged to giant sea reptile, scientists say” at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53085318 accessed 24.06.20

CBC News (2020) “Mysterious Antarctic fossil identified as giant egg” at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/giant-egg-antarctica accessed 26.06.20

Crame JA, Beu AG, Ineson JR, Francis JE, Whittle RJ, Bowman VC (2014) The Early Origin of the Antarctic Marine Fauna and Its Evolutionary Implications. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114743

El Comercio (2020) “Scientists reveal the mystery of a famous fossil found in Antarctica” at: https://elcomercio.pe/tecnologia/ciencias/cientificos-revelan-el-misterio-de-un-famoso-fosil-hallado-en-la-antartica-noticia/?ref=ecr accessed 24.06.20

forskning (2020). “Mysterious Antarctic fossils were huge eggs” at: https://forskning.no/dinosaurer-ntb-paleontologi/mystisk-antarktis-fossil-var-enormt-egg/1702225 accessed 24.06.20

J. O. Herrle, C. J. Schroder-Adams, W. Davis, A. T. Pugh, J. M. Galloway, J. Fath. Mid-Cretaceous High Arctic stratigraphy, climate, and Oceanic Anoxic Events. Geology, 2015; 43 (5): 403 DOI: 10.1130/G36439.1

Live Science (2016) “Cretaceous Period: Animals, Plants & Extinction Event” at: https://www.livescience.com/29231-cretaceous-period.html accessed 25.06.20.

Legendre, L.J., Rubilar-Rogers, D., Musser, G.M., Davis S N., Otero R.A., Vargas A.O., and J.A. Clarke. (2020) A giant soft-shelled egg from the Late Cretaceous of Antarctica. Nature (2020). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2377-7

Mehar, P. (2020) Tech Exploist, “Antarctica has recorded a new record temperature yet again” at: https://www.techexplorist.com/antarctica-recorded-new-record-temperature/30077/ accessed 26.06.20

Montes M, Nozal F, Santillana S, Marenssi S, et al. (2013). Mapa Geológico de la isla Marambio (Seymour) Escala 1:20.000 Primera Edición. Serie Cartográfica Geocientífica Antártica. Madrid-Instituto Geológico y Minero de España; Buenos Aires-Instituto Antártico Argentino.

Newsround (2020). “Fossil of giant egg belonged to prehistoric sea reptile” at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53090752 accessed 24.06.20

Norell, M.A., Wiemann, J., Fabbri, M. et al. The first dinosaur egg was soft. Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2412-8 accessed 25.06.20

Reguero, M. A. (2019). Antarctic Paleontological Heritage: Late Cretaceous

Paleogene vertebrates from Seymour (Marambio) Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Advances in Polar Science Vol. 30 No. 3: 328-355 doi: 10.13679/j.advps.2019.0015

Being Human: Art 2 A Palaeolithic Bird sculpture from China

A new paper by Li et al. (2020) details the discovery of a Palaeolithic figurine in the shape of a bird from Lingjing, Henan, China. The estimated age is about 13,500 BP, making it the oldest piece of portable art from China. Here’s the abstract:

“The recent identification of cave paintings dated to 42–40 ka BP in Borneo and Sulawesi highlights the antiquity of painted representations in this region. However, no instances of three-dimensional portable art, well attested in Europe since at least 40 ka BP, were documented thus far in East Asia prior to the Neolithic. Here, we report the discovery of an exceptionally well-preserved miniature carving of a standing bird from the site of Lingjing, Henan, China. Microscopic and microtomographic analyses of the figurine and the study of bone fragments from the same context reveal the object was made of bone blackened by heating and carefully carved with four techniques that left diagnostic traces on the entire surface of the object. Critical analysis of the site’s research history and stratigraphy, the cultural remains associated with the figurine and those recovered from the other archeological layers, as well as twenty-eight radiometric ages obtained on associated archeological items, including one provided by a bone fragment worked with the same technique recorded on the object, suggest a Late Paleolithic origin for the carving, with a probable age estimated to 13,500 years old. The carving, which predates previously known comparable instances from this region by 8,500 years, demonstrates that three-dimensional avian representations were part of East Asian Late Pleistocene cultural repertoires and identifies technological and stylistic peculiarities distinguishing this newly discovered art tradition from previous and contemporary examples found in Western Europe and Siberia.”

Here is the little bird sculpture from the paper:

Original caption reads:

Fig 4. Lingjing bird carving. (A) Photographs of the six aspects of the carvings. (B) 3D renderings of the carving obtained by CT scan. Scales = 2 mm.

Here is another image from Cascone (2020):

Original caption reads: A 3-D print of the 13,500-year-old miniature bird figurine discovered at Lingjing (Henan Province, China). Photo courtesy of Francesco d’Errico and Luc Doyon

Fig. 1 From Zhan-yang (2007). Original caption reads: (A) Aerial top view of the Lingjing site, with the Lingjing site in the red frame; (b) The sight of the Lingjing site before excavation; (c) Excavation and its number from 2005 to 2015; (d) T9 shows the exploration of human fossils

The site was first noted in modern times, by villagers who dug a well near an ancient spring, on the edge of the village of Lingjing in 1958.

The site was discovered in the mid-1960s, when microblade tools and mammalian fossils were collected on the surface [Zhou (1974)]. Excavation work began in 2005 after the spring dried up and faunal remains began to appear. As of 2018 had reached 9m. The bottom of the sedimentary sequence has not yet been reached.

The stratigraphy is as follows: Eleven levels have been excavated, with a total thickness over 9 m deep from modern surface.The bottom of the stratigraphy has not been reached.

The current stratigraphic sequence, from top to bottom, is as follows: Layers 1-4 (thickness: ≈2.9 m) are Holocence in age, yielding cultural materials representing the Neolithic to the Shang-Zhou Bronze Age. Layer 5 (thickness: 0.62–0.70 m) contains yellowish silty sediment and has yielded late Upper Paleolithic cultural materials including carved bone artifacts, microliths, perforated ostrich eggshells, hematite, and animal remains. Layer 6 is a flowstone layer (thickness: 0.4 m). Layer 7 is a yellowish silty soil (thickness: ≈0.85 m). Layer 8 is an archeologically sterile thin stratum of black ferruginous soils (thickness: ≈0.20 m). Layer 9 is an archeologically sterile and thick layer of brownish ferruginous silt, with a vertical root hole-like structure (≈2 m in thickness). Layer 10 is a similar brownish ferruginous silt with vertical root hole-like structures, containing lithic artifacts, animal bones and small pebbles (≈1.6 m in thickness). The lowest level, Layer 11, consists of sage-green silt with minimally inclined bedding; it contains the human fossils, abundant lithic artifacts, animal bones, and hematite inclusions. Its total thickness is not known.

Li et al (2019) give the ages of the layers as: 1-4, Holocene in age, with material culture

spanning from the Bronze Age to the Neolithic; layer 5 (yellowish silt), LGM to the Younger Dryas, layer 6 (flowstone layer), sterile; layer 7 (yellowish silt), sterile; layer 8 (black ferruginous soil), sterile; layer 9 (brownish ferruginous silt), sterile; layer 10 early Late Pleistocene  OSL ages from layer 11 indicate a deposition taking place at c. 125–105 ka BP.

Fig. 1a from Doyon et al (2018).  Original caption reads: “Location of Lingjing (Henan, China); b) Stratigraphy indicating the geological and cultural layers.”

The site’s significance was soon realised due to the richness and variety of finds discovered.

Whilst extremely beautiful and well fashioned, the bird sculpture is not the most important art discovered at the site. Early, late Pleistocene art was discovered in layer 11. Two specimens of weathered bone were reported [Li et al (2019)] to have been intentionally incised by archaic humans. The parallel striations were produced with a sharp stone implement, and in one case, then rubbed with red ochre.

Li et al (2019) Fig. 3. Original caption reads: “Photographs of the engraved specimens: A) 9L0141; B) 9L0148.

Li et al (2019) Fig. 4. Original caption reads: “Photographs and tracing of the engraving on specimens: A) 9L0141 (red dots indicate the location of red residues); B) 9L0148”

Li et al (2019) Fig. 4. Original caption reads: “Microscopic photographs of engraved lines on specimen 9L0141. Changes in direction of lines crossing the fibrous structure of the bone indicate the use of a sharp point (A–B). Red residues are present inside the engraved lines (C)”

Due to their age, these intentional, symbolic marks were therefore made by archaic humans likely to be of a species other than Homo sapiens. They are some of the earliest art ever uncovered and compare well to other early examples. These include the engraved patterns on a freshwater shell from Trinil, Indonesia (540 kya); a bone from Bilzingsleben in Germany (370 kya); ochre fragments from the South African sites of Klasies River, Pinnacle Point and Blombos Cave (110–73 kya); and an antler from Vaufrey in France (120 kya)  and an intentionally striated, Stegodon ivory tusk found in Xinglongdong Cave, south China a layer  (150–120 kya).

These were not the only other examples of early artifacts known from the site. Bone tools used to retouch lithic implement, either by pressure flaking or soft hammer percussion have been used for millenia in Eurpoe and the middle east.

Doyen (2018) reports bone retouchers from the site. Here is part of the abstract:

“Most Chinese lithic industries dated between 300,000 and 40,000 are characterized by the absence of Levallois debitage, the persistence of core-and-flake knapping, the rarity of prepared cores, their reduction with direct hard hammer percussion, and the rarity of retouched flakes. Here we report the discovery of seven bone soft hammers at the early hominin Lingjing site (Xuchang County, Henan) dated to 125,000±105,000. These artefacts represent the first instance of the use of bone as raw material to modify stone tools found at an East Asian early Late Pleistocene site. Three types of soft hammers are identified. The first consists of large bone flakes resulting from butchery of large herbivores that were utilized as such for expedient stone tools retouching or resharpening. The second involved the fracture of weathered bone from medium size herbivores to obtain elongated splinters shaped by percussion into sub-rectangular artefacts. Traces observed on these objects indicate intensive and possibly recurrent utilization, which implies their curation over time. The last consists of antler, occasionally used.”

Doyen (2018) Fig. 3. Original caption reads: “Fig 3. Retoucher 6L1657 from Lingjing. White brackets indicate the areas where impact scars are present. Scales = 1cm.”

So who were these humans? Unsurprisingly, considering the wide morphological, variation over time and space of fossils from north eastern Asia we do not yet know. Five individuals from the site have so far been recovered. The best preserved are named Xuchang 1 and 2, they were found in layer 11 and exhibit an interesting mixture of morphological traits. Once again here is an excerpt from the abstract from Li et al. (2017):

“Two early Late Pleistocene (~105,000- to 125,000-year-old) crania from Lingjing, Xuchang, China, exhibit a morphological mosaic with differences from and similarities to their western contemporaries. They share pan–Old World trends in encephalization and in supraorbital, neurocranial vault, and nuchal gracilization. They reflect eastern Eurasian ancestry in having low, sagittally flat, and inferiorly broad neurocrania. They share occipital (suprainiac and nuchal torus) and temporal labyrinthine (semicircular canal) morphology with the Neandertals. This morphological combination reflects Pleistocene human evolutionary patterns in general biology, as well as both regional continuity and interregional population dynamics.”

Here are the crania in question:

Xuchang 1 from Li and Wu (2018). Original caption reads:

Figure 2 3D virtual restoration of Xuchang No. 1 skull. (a) Front view; (b) Top view; (c) Right side view; (d) Left side view; (e) back view; (f) bottom view

Xuchang 2 from Li and Wu (2018). Original caption reads:

Figure 3 3D virtual restoration of Xuchang No. 2 skull (a) back view; (b) left side view; (c) right side view; (d) back side view; (e) inside view; (f) bottom

Incidentally, there were 3 more partial skulls which, as yet, remain unpublished. It is also worth mentioning that another specimen from China also exhibited the same temporal labyrinthine morphology - Xujiayao 15 – which I covered in another post (see here).

Finally I would like to discuss the perspective from which the authors view and discuss this piece of sculpture. Here are two sentences which highlight their intent.

First  from the abstract: “The carving, which predates previously known comparable instances from this region by 8,500 years, demonstrates that three-dimensional avian representations were part of East Asian Late Pleistocene cultural repertoires and identifies technological and stylistic peculiarities distinguishing this newly discovered art tradition from previous and contemporary examples found in Western Europe and Siberia.”

Secondly from their discussion: “The style of this diminutive representation is original and remarkably different from all other known Paleolithic avian figurines. Avian representations, and passerines in particular, constitute a recurring theme in Chinese Neolithic art, the oldest example being a passerine made of jade dating back to circa 5 ka BP [89,90]. The Lingjing bird carving predates previously known instances from this region by almost 8,500 years. The sophistication reflected by the object manufacturing process suggests this three-dimensional representation is several conceptual stages removed from the origin of a long-standing artistic tradition, extending well into the Paleolithic, that may be better characterized by future discoveries.”

Here they are subtly saying a number of things. Firstly that these ‘Chinese’ sculptural techniques are unique to this region, now within China.

That the later Neolithic art/sculpture also shows some birds and therefore may be a direct successor of this form of sculpture, and also that the techniques used to create the bird may date back into the deep Pleistocene.

The overall aim seems, as usual to differentiate the art and fossils found within the region now called China as unique and showing deep continuity within the region.

This sadly echoes the regional continuity model of evolution (the multiregional evolution theory), which Chinese scientists seem so keen to push in the last couple of decades. Granted that their views seem to have softened recently, with the admission that some gene flow may have entered into the region from without. However, this paper and the recent suite of papers from the site are all written with this undercurrent of presumed, ancient linkage/continuity within the region.

Let me propose an alternative: the art from late Middle Pleistocene recovered from the site was made by the direct ancestors of the bird sculptor. Yes, despite the 100,000 years of time that elapsed between the creation of the two examples of ancient art being made or deposited at the site, there was genetic continuity. Seems likely doesn’t it? Well no – I don’t think so either.

However, in this paper the authors are hinting that this form of art (the bird sculpture) may have influenced the Neolithic art of 8500 years later. I think that, that idea is just as ludicrous as the one I put forward at the top of this paragraph. I base this on one simple fact: genetic turnover of populations and migrations, worldwide between 13,500BP and present have been enormous.

Therefore, it seem unlikely that Li et al. (however subtly) are presenting anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to support the regional continuity model once again.

References:

Cascone, S. (2020). “Archaeologists Discovered a Paleolithic Bird Figurine in a Rubbish Heap. Turns Out It’s the Oldest 3D Chinese Art in the World” artnet news at: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ancient-bird-oldest-chinese-art-1885044

Doyon L, Li Z, Li H, d'Errico F (2018). Discovery of circa 115,000-year-old bone

retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 13 (3): e0194318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194318

Li, Z.Y., Wu, X.J., Zhou, L.P., Liu, W., Gao, X., Nian, X.M. and Trinkaus, E., 2017. Late Pleistocene archaic human crania from Xuchang, China. Science, 355(6328), pp.969-972.

Li Zhanyang, Wu Xiujie. Xuchang human fossils found in Lingjing site in Henan Province and related research progress[J]. Science & Technology Review, 2018, 36(23): 20-25.

Li, Z., Doyon, L., Li, H., Wang, Q., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Q. and d'Errico, F., 2019. Engraved bones from the archaic hominin site of Lingjing, Henan Province. Antiquity, 93(370), pp.886-900.

Li Z, Doyon L, Fang H, Ledevin R, Queffelec A, Raguin E, et al. (2020) A Paleolithic bird figurine from the Lingjing site, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0233370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233370

Zhan-yang, L.I., 2007. A Primary Study on the Stone Artifacts of Lingjing Site Excavated in 2005 [J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2 pp20-25.

Zhou, G. X. (1974). Stone age remains from Lingjing, Xuchang of Henan province.

Archaeol. 2, 91–108

Derbyshire Bone Caves 3: Ravencliffe Cave

Several visits were necessary to locate Ravencliffe cave in high summer 2019. The vegetation was very tall and dense, the dale side very steep and the path non-existent. On one early attempt, I took too high a line and ended up amidst crags on very steep ground, with the only exit upwards via a 70^o gulley of lush vegetation! Views from below are completely blocked by tall trees, therefore it was incredibly difficult to find. Once I finally stood on the threshold I took a GPS reading. The correct coordinates are: 53^o 15.523’ N, 01^o 44.437’ W.

Ravencliffe cave entrance. Photograph by N. Barden May 2019.

Interior view of the cave ibid.

Adapted from Historic England (2015): “The cave, is located in, the Derbyshire Peak District on the eastern side of Cressbrook Dale. It was explored between 1902 and 1906, and again between 1927 and 1929.”

Ravencliffe Cave initial excavations January 1903 from Storrs Fox (1910).

Ravencliffe Cave excavation in 1906 from Storrs Fox (1910).

Ravencliffe Cave excavation 1928 from Storrs Fox (1928)

Comparing these last three views with the two by the author above, it is clear that a huge depth of sediments was removed during the two periods of excavation.

Historic England (2015) continues: “In both instances the published reports are rather lacking in detail. Items recovered from the cave include "an isolated scraper of uncertain affinity" (Campbell), but regarded as Upper Palaeolithic; Neolithic polished stone axes, a leaf arrowhead, scrapers and sherds of Peterborough Ware; Beaker sherds; two strips of ribbed gold, possibly representing some kind of ornament, (bracelets?) of Bronze Age date; collared urn sherds; Iron Age pottery; Roman pottery, glass beads, bronze brooches, stone hones and shale beads. A bronze awl and some bone items including a ring are probably later prehistoric in date. One glass bead may be Saxon. Human and animal remains were also recovered. The former are generally regarded as later prehistoric in date. The latter may cover all periods from the Palaeolithic to the Roman period.”

Contrary to the Historic England (2015) assessment of the excavations, consulting the original papers by Storrs Fox (1910 and 1928) and Read (1910), I find them quite detailed and thoughtful for their time.

Here is Storrs Fox’s description of the cave:

“Cressbrook Dale has its origin near Wardlow Mires, and for about half a mile takes a south-westerly course to Peter’s Stone. From thence its general position is in a direction due south to Cressbrook Mill, where it joins Monsal Dale. The imposing crags on the east side of Cressbrook Dale are cut in the base of Wardlow Hay Cop, a conical hill whose summit is 1227 feet above sea-leveI. One of these crags looks down on the little block of houses generally called Bury-me-wick, but marked on the ordnance map as Ravendale Cottages.

It is in this crag 1000 feet above sea-level that the ca.ve is situated. Its mouth faces south-west. The cave is formed by the falling-in of the roof between two main joints which run parallel to a line drawn across the entrance. A reference to the roofplan will make this plain. The wall at the back of the cave is formed by the solid rock beyond the first joint; a sudden drop in the height of the roof takes place at the next one, at a third the cave widens out into a chamber within the more narrow entrance, and at a fourth the entrance begins in the face of the crag. The ground-plan gives some idea of the difficulty of the work. At E there stood up above the floor a mass of detached blocks of rock cemented together and deeply encrusted with stalagmite. This mass extended eastward below the floor and reached to, a known depth of 7 ft. between this and the north-western side of the entrance (marked I on the plan) there was a cascade of stalagmite. Beneath the surface this was found to dip very suddenly towards the opposite side of the cave, and soon all trace of it was lost. At D a large block rose above the surface. Such were the main features of the cave; others are mentioned in the explanation at the foot of the plan.”

Storrs Fox describes the difficulties encountered during the excavations thus:

“The exploration of this cave was attended with unusual difficulties. Large blocks of rock, fallen from its roof, and heaped up in disorderly fashion formed the floor. Throughout quite half the area of the cave these blocks were firmly cemented together with stalagmite. This condition of things not only made excavation laborious and sometimes practically, impossible, but also rendered it hopeless to look for traces of distinct beds, except in one or two isolated regions. Moreover, its chronological sequence was marred in other ways. Rabbits had burrowed among the looser material of the floor, and the gaps between the blocks had provided a ready means for both ancient and modern pottery and implements to find their way clown far below their proper level.

Another serious difficulty was caused by the unsafe state of the roof. This was flat and formed by a, bed of rock stretching the whole distance across the cave, firmly supported only at the north-western side. On the other side it was broken.

Moreover, the crack ran in the wrong direction to afford support, consequently the removal of material below would probably cause a slight subsidence, but sufficient to bring the whole roof down. This danger was increased by the fact that the south-eastern wall was (at C) formed by a detached block of stone with its edge resting on a second block (B), which in turn lay upon a bed of small stones, or chitter. It was therefore unwise to attempt to carry the excavation to any great depth, and before long the necessary supports to the roof made it impossible, Although the mixed character of the finds detracts somewhat from the interest of the cave, its value as a cave was increased by the evidence of its former extension outwards from the present mouth towards the dale, and the discovery of a prehistoric piece of walling, many feet below the surface, with a sealed passage at the opposite corner of the cave containing little else but remains of bear.”

Plan of Ravencliffe Cave from Storrs Fox (1910). Original caption reads:

B Detached block of rock (below the surface) on which C partly rested. C Detached block of rock forming part of the cave wall. D Mass of rock rising 2 feet above the floor-level. E Large mass of detached rocks. G Area in which human remains were first met with, H Small pinnacle of rock above the floor level. I "Cascade" of stalagmite, M Entrance of the Bear passage. O Passage. P Passage. * Position of the gold bands.

On the excavations Storrs Fox reports:

“Outside the cave lay a rough terrace terminating abruptly towards the dale in a low, precipitous crag. It was at the very edge of this that operations were begun. This was made imperative by the necessity of getting rid of refuse material.

A wide trench was cut along the whole length of this terrace, all the material down to the solid rock being removed. The rock dips backwards towards tire cave, and the depth of material overlying it varied from 4 ft. near the edge to 11 ft. at the entrance to the cave.

Within a distance of 5 ft. from the edge of the terrace large blocks of stalagmite were met with. About 7 ft. nearer the cave the blocks were exchanged for a solid bed of stalagmite, persisting to a depth of 4 ft. throughout the remaining stretch of terrace. This bed and the above-mentioned blocks lay a few inches above the limestone, being separated from it by a layer of very fine yellowish soil, which contained here and there

remains of reindeer, rhinoceros, and bear. Just within the cave bones and teeth of the last two animals were found above the stalagmite, which was there covered by several feet of yellow gravelly earth.

Human bones were first met with in the area marked G on the plan. More or less under B were found a spoon-shaped worked flint, 3.45 ins. long and 1.7 ins. across (plate iii. 3, top illustration); a well-polished awl, 3.22 ins. long, made from the metapodial bone of a sheep or goat (plate iii. 6, bottom illustration); and a bone ring (plate iii. 8, bottom

illustration).

At the back of the cave a trench was found. It was about 3 ft. wide and lay between the cave wall and rock-mass, E.

At its south-eastern end it was 4 ft. deep; but it gradually sloped down towards the opposite extremity till it reached a depth of 6 ft, Here its boundaries became ill-defined; but at the more shallow end it was closed by rock and stalagmite.

Its bottom was formed by a sheet of stalagmite another, though less perfect. sheet sealing it above. In this trench gold ornaments, a bronze penannular brooch, a bronze awl, and several implements of bone and flint were found. These were mixed up indiscriminately with quantities of human bones and those of deer, boar, ox, sheep, and goat.

The human bones 400 in number-included those of adults of different ages, and of children down, to earliest babyhood. Only eighteen fragments of skull were found, and there was nothing approaching to a complete one. There were, however, seven mandibles (all adult), as well as thirteen broken pieces of others.

Near the passage O the excavation was carried down to a depth of 7 ft. The solid limestone forming the wall at the back of the cave abruptly ended near this level, and beneath it were the remains of a wall which had apparently enclosed a chamber. In this chamber a stone celt and some flints were found.

The passage P was cleared out, but it contained nothing of much interest. But another passage was found running in a south-easterly direction from M, averaging about 4 ft. high and 5 ft. wide, and extending for a length of 21 ft., when it abruptly came to an end. This passage was filled nearly to the top with earth and stones, containing a considerable quantity of bears' bones, both Ursus spelaeus and Ursus horribilis occurring. A sheet of stalagmite-thicker towards the sides, and in contact with the roof there, but thin and sometimes discontinued midway across, where it was divided from

the roof by a space of two or three inches-rested upon the material which filled the passage.

The work was begun in December, 1902 and was finally abandoned in January, 1908.”

The faunal remains excavated belonged to the following species:

Man, 400; Cat, 32; Dog (or Wolf), 87; Fox, 152; Badger, 13; Bear, 178; Ox, 131; Sheep and Goat, uncounted; Deer, 48; Boar,45; Horse, 9; [Woolley] Rhinoceros, 15; Hare, 57; Rabbit and Vole, uncounted; Bird (including 1 of Eagle) 101 and Frog and Toad, uncounted.

This is an interesting list with two bear species: Ursus spelaeus and Ursus horribilis. The first is well known to modern palaeontologists as the Cave Bear but we can only surmise that Storrs Fox meant ‘large brown bear’ for U. horribilis, this is because the closest bear species with this Latin appellation is the north American Grizzly bear, which is confined to the continent of the same name.

Ravencliffe Cave bear remains from Manchester Museum by Gelsthorpe (2018).

The key facts are:

• Some disturbance to sedimentary sequence was seen
•  Cold stage fauna were noted
•  Cold stage fauna were found above and below the stalagmite layer
• Human skeletal material was abundant, but no crouched or extended burial were seen, only what appear to have been exhumations, at the back of the cave
• A singular walled niche at the bottom of the trench at the back of the cave, although it contained a celt [an axe-like tool] and flint tools but no burial. This structure is highly suggestive of some of the encisted, cave burials such as those on the Magnesian Limestone at Markland Grips Sepulchral Cave, Langwith Cave and Ash Tree Cave [see Beresford (2011)] and my post on Calling Low Dale (see here).
• Whilst Read (1910) described all the finds, except the fauna, Storrs Fox could not help mention those he felt of particular interest and give their relative positions – this included “a spoon-shaped worked flint, 3.45 ins. long and 1.7 ins. across”

The DCC Wonders of the Peak (2018) website also reports mammoth, woolly rhino and reindeer.

All other finds were described by Sir Hercules Read, President of the Society of Antiquaries, and Director of the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities at the British Museum [Read (1910)].

First he provides the following opinions on the stratigraphy:

“The exploration of caves that have been used by man as habitations or otherwise is a fascination pursuit and rarely fails to add somewhat to our knowledge of the past. At the same time the conditions, natural or artificial, are rarely such as allow the investigator to read the story of its successive occupations. It is but seldom that stratification tells the story in consecutive and well-arranged chapters as was the case at Kent's Cavern, near Torquay. There the layers succeeded in clear sequence from the Palaeolithic period up to a few centuries ago. All that was needed was some indication of the length of the intervals between the various periods, and this may yet be forthcoming from such a site.

In the Ravencliffe Cave we have just the same mixture of periods, though the occupation of the cave itself does not seem to date beyond the Neolithic age; but the relics of most recent date Are even more modern than those of Kent's Cavern.”

The finds included:

Neolithic stone tools: 2 stone axes, flint scrapers, other tools, rubbers and hammers of quartzite. Bone instruments and fragments of pottery.

Some stone tools which Read deems worthy of note are described in detail: “The larger of the two stone axes (plate iii, fig. 1 top illustration [see below]) is a stout square-shaped tool, polished only near the cutting edge; the main part of the body is rough, and pitted so regularly and evenly as to suggest intentional bruising. In any case, the roughened surface would make a firmer hold for the wooden handle. The smaller axe (plate iii., fig. 2, top illustration) is of I more elegant and symmetrical form, and presents an entirely different aspect.

The flints have no very uncommon features. They include a good number of scrapers, mostly, of the short, rounded type found commonly in Derbyshire. One scraper, however, is of the duck's bill type (plate iii., fig. 8, top illustration), carefully chipped not only at the rounded fore-edge, but along the two sides also. One or two knives are also notable for, their serviceable appearance (plate iii., fig. 4, top illustration). The condition of the flints as to colour and patination is very diverse; the colours are black, translucent honey colour, and some pieces are grey. The patination shows less variety, one or two implements having a white cloudy tint; but the majority of the chipped surfaces are practically unchanged, either in colour or condition.”

Stone tools from Ravencliffe Cave - Read (1910). The plate is numbered I in contradiction to his text. Original caption reads: 3.- Spoon-shaped flint implement. 7.-Rude implement of chert, with worked edge.

Bone and bronze objects from Ravencliffe Cave – Read (1910). This plate is numbered II in contradiction to his text. Original caption reads: 6. - Awl made from sheep's metapodial bone  8 - Bone ring  10,- Awl made from splint-bone of horse 11 -Bronze awl

Of the pottery finds Read stated nothing more really, than that they were of late Neolithic or early Bronze age or later and were often calcified. Other pottery included Roman Castor ware.

Of the bone implements, he says: “The general aspect of some of the bone tools recalls those from Harborough Cave but they are hardly of the same age, and do not present the same well-defined types that sufficed to date the Harborough specimens with some certainty. In all probability the bone tools belong mainly to the same age as the pottery fragments - i.e., the barrow period..” In other words he assigns them to the late Neolithic or bronze age. He goes on to hazard some of their uses:

“Two pointed strips of bone (plate iii.. figs. 5, 14, bottom illustration) recall the use of similarly shaped bones from the Swiss lake dwellers, who, by binding a number of such bone strips together, made a rude kind of comb that might well serve usefully in weaving.” Bone tools also from the Bronze consisted of, a number, of interesting pieces:  awls made from sheep's metapodial bone, splint-bone of horse, a bone ring. Lastly spathulate bone stylus, possibly used in the decoration of pottery and a pierced bone tube – possibly a toggle - he assigns to the Romano-British era.

Articles in Bronze included an awl and two broaches one of undoubted, Roman influence.

Bronze broach of 2^nd century AD. Picture from Smith (1912).

Last but definitely not least, are the two beautiful, finely beaten and incised gold bands. Of these Read (1910) says: “The objects, however, found in the cave which are of most intrinsic value, and are, at the same time, the most puzzling to explain, are two gold bands, alike enough to be called a pair. They are ridged lengthwise in somewhat rude fashion, and the edges of the metal are lapped over on the back. No means of attachment to any garment or other object is now to be seen, and it is most difficult to suggest what purpose they can have served. The nearest analogy that I know, is to be found in a gold band in the museum at Nantes. This is figured in "Parenteau" Inventaire Archeologique (Nantes' 1878), pl.6r, No. 1. This is stated, on page 2 of the same volume, to have been found with copper axes under " roches druidiques," at Saint-Pere-en-Retz If the Ravencliffe bands have any relation to these Brittany examples, it would point to their being of the early Bronze period, an attribution fully borne out by their inherent qualities of style In fact it is by no means unlikely that the gold bands are the contemporaries of the stone axes and the flint flakes found in the Ravencliffe Cave. The evidence of the barrow finds would fully bear this out.”

The two gold bands excavated at the back of Ravencliffe cave, from The British Museum (2020). Here is their description: “Gold decorated strip. Rectangular strip made with a beaten sheet of gold and decorated with irregular embossed ribs and incised lines. The four edges of the sheet have been bent over to form defined rims. And the curator’s opinion: “Listed by Taylor (1980, 136, Dr 2) as a hilt band. Similar multi-grooved strips of Bronze Age date are known from north-west Europe including in the British Museum collection from Flixton, Yorkshire (2004,0904.1a-b). Narrow-ribbon ornaments from the Saint-Marc-le-Blanc hoard, Brittany (Eluère 1981, 91, fig. 107), have fewer and correspondingly broader ribs/grooves. They are finer on an earring from Saint-Père-en-Retz, Loire- Atlantique, (ibid.) and finer still on some Irish Bronze Age ornaments. Among the latter are examples in two important associations, from Saintjohns, Co. Kildare, and Derrinboy, Co. Offaly (Eogan 1983, 227, 240, fig. 11b and 14). Good parallels are harder to find in Britain, but there is a similar grooved strip from The Hamel, Oxford, excavated from a layer which also yielded Beaker pottery of the Early Bronze Age (Palmer 1980, 124-134). Three gold grooved strips from Scottish grave finds which served as hilt/pommel mounts for Early Bronze Age daggers are crafted differently and may be less relevant (Henshall 1968, 173-95; contra Taylor 1980, 136).”

To summarize Read (1910) his key points were

• The stratigraphy is disturbed
• No occupation before the Neolithic
• Many Bronze Age and Romano-British finds in flint, bone and gold
• His plate numbered II shows the unusual scraper, with the caption underneath reading “3.- Spoon-shaped flint implement”. Inexplicably he offers no commentary on it, despite it being an obvious anachronism by its chipping technique, suggestive of a much earlier date. Yet he is obviously is aware that it is an important piece, from his inclusion of it in his caption below the plate. From this, I conclude that he had his suspicions of its likely much older origin, but did not want to ‘stick his neck out’ and state this explicitly.

The true nature of this scraper emerged slowly, and in curious fashion. I will let Storrs Fox (1928) take up the story:

“It has already been stated that the purpose of the work in 1927 and 1928 was the discovery of traces of Palaeolithic man. Now, it happened that on 1st June, 1905, a flint implement of peculiar form and character was found inside the cave in the area marked I on the plan, and it was extracted from the Pleistocene bed. It was shown to an authority at the British Museum, and he stated that it was Neolithic, and it would have been impertinence on the part of an amateur to have questioned the diagnosis of an expert. Moreover, the report was divided into two parts, and the second part, dealing with artifacts, was written by Sir Hercules Read, President of the Society of Antiquaries, and Director of the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities at the British Museum. The implement in question was illustrated on the upper part of Plate III, fig. 3, and it was in the hands of Sir Hercules Read when he wrote his account of the artifacts.

Nevertheless, he passed it over in complete silence. On p. 147 he remarked, " the occupation of the cave does not seem to date beyond the Neolithic age." That no doubt is true so far as actual occupation is concerned, and so far as evidence has been forthcoming up to date.

But in 1927, the Abbe Breuil and Mr. A. Leslie Armstrong paid a visit of inspection to the cave, and afterwards came to see my collection. When the Abbe saw this flint among a number of Neolithic implements, he at once singled it out, and exclaimed,  "That is not Neolithic: it is Palaeolithic." In the course of years the particulars regarding its discovery had been forgotten; but, when it was examined, on its underside were the date of finding and the bed from which it had been derived. On referring to notes made at the time no doubt was possible as to its having been found in the same bed which had produced reindeer, rhinoceros, and bear. It follows that Palaeolithic man had wandered in the neighbourhood of Ravencliffe Cave, even if he never voluntarily entered it.”

Thus the fire was lit for the further excavation of the cave, the following year. Storrs Fox (1928) recounts his new findings and corrects some errors in his previous stratigraphy:

“In the Journal (voI. xxxii, 1910, p. 143) it was stated that remains of reindeer, rhinoceros, and bear (see picture 16) were found beneath the bed of stalagmite. But this is manifestly an error, which was probably the result of a mistaken deduction. No doubt in the early days of excavation the hypothesis was that beds no. 3 and 4 ran horizontally throughout their whole course towards the terrace edge, and therefore that bones of reindeer, etc., found within a few inches of the solid rock must have been deposited before the stalagmite began to form. But the truth is that the further out these beds reached the more were they exposed to weathering, and that the stalagmite in particular became very much reduced in depth, and finally disappeared. And here the Pleistocene bed passed beyond it and in turn reached the rock-floor, consequently, the true position of the first finds of reindeer, rhinoceros, and bear was above the stalagmite bed and not below it.”

He thus revises the stratigraphy to:

“1. Dark, vegetable soil, no doubt to a large extent the result of leaves which in the course of centuries had been blown into the cave. This bed varied in depth from 2 or 3 inches to 7 feet or more.

2. A thin layer of lighter brown colour, which here and there was intermediate between nos. 1 and 3.

3. Small, angular stones closely compacted together, and cemented by means of stalagmite into a very tough breccia, so tough that it only yielded to pick-axe and crow-bar and consequently bones could rarely be extracted from it without fracture. This bed rested within the cave on solid stalagmite, and extended from the north-west wall to the south-east, and through the entrance to within a few feet of the outer edge of the terrace. Wherever it had been exposed to weather, it was less hard. It is called the Pleistocene bed, and surpasses all others in importance.

4. A bed of solid stalagmite covering the same area as no. 3. It reached a thickness of upwards of 4 feet, but gradually petered out towards the edge of the terrace.

5. Between no. 4 and the solid limestone floor there was a layer of sticky yellow soil, in which only unrecognisable fragments of bones have been found up to the present

date.”

He also gives a new plan of the cave:

Note that the position of the “Spoon shaped flint’ has changed from B to g. This inconsistency was also noted by Sykes (2010): “There is disagreement between the two reports on the area in which the scraper was found in the cave: the earlier report describes it as a ‘spoon-shaped’ piece, and states that it was found on the south east side of the cave, underneath large blocks, where later prehistoric artefacts were also found, though no information on their association with the scraper are given. The later report identifies the scraper as Palaeolithic, not Neolithic, and gives the location as on the north-west side of the cave. It is quite unambiguous however about the deposit from which the scraper was excavated: the breccia with the Pleistocene fauna.”

Here is the scraper in question from Storrs Fox (1928):

The drawing and caption are by Leslie Armstrong. Caption:

The Ravencliffe Implement.

A side-scraper of Mousterian type and technique, 1 ¾  inches wide and 3 ½  inches long, in a fine chalcedonic flint, originally of a brownish shade, but patinated a pale blue, flecked with white and resembling " basket patina."

The edges are sharp and un-abraded. The implement has been worked on a thermally fractured piece of flint, or upon a flake struck from a thermally

fractured surface which is seen on the under side of the implement. Except for very slight retouching on the underside at the narrow end, the whole of the flaking is upon the upper face of the scraper and consists of bold primary flaking over the whole surface of the implement and a fine secondary re-touch around the margins, much of which is step-flaking of typical Mousterian character. (A. Leslie Armstrong).

Whilst some modern comments on the scraper, such as those from Historic England (2015) are indeterminate “an isolated scraper of uncertain affinity”, other views are becoming more positive concerning its attribution.

From DCC, Wonders of The Peak (2018): “This flint scraper was discovered in Ravencliffe Cave in the early 1900s. The 9cm long tool was knapped from a flake of blueish-grey flint. Archaeologists identified the flint knapping technique as Mousterian – a style closely associated with Neanderthals. The scraper is thought to date to around 40,000 years old, during the Middle Palaeolithic.”

Photograph of the same scraper from DCC Wonders of the Peak (2018).

The most interesting finds apart from the lone scraper were the faunal remains. These may well help  date the scraper with some certainty. They included: reindeer, (woolly?) rhinoceros, and cave bear. These put the date of the layer either around 50,000BP or after the last glacial maximum ca. 16,000-11,500BP.

A modern view of the fauna excavated from Ravencliffe cave, is given by Sykes (2017), who characterised the fauna of the cave as “Probable Pin Hole MAZ”, in other words the mammoth-steppe fauna of the Pin Hole mammal assemblage-zone (MAZ).

Sykes (2017) explains the recolonization of Britain during late MIS4 and early MIS3 thus: “Following the MIS-4 glaciation, the beginning of MIS-3 is characterised by rapid climatic amelioration with frequent, abrupt oscillations, the formation of a mammoth-steppe ecosystem, and the reappearance of Neanderthal occupation.”

Sykes (2010) describes the scraper: “a single highly resharpened convergent scraper probably from a source up to 150 km distant.” and “The local geology at Cressbrook Dale is Carboniferous limestone (containing chert) and coal. There are some igneous tuff outcrops in the Dale, and locally some intrusive dolerites and lavas. The flint used for the scraper is unlikely to be locally available. The nearest outcrop source of any flint is over 100 km, in eastern Yorkshire, although this is northern flint, and the scraper appears to be made on southern flint (based on its translucency) despite the inclusions, therefore the nearest southern chalk deposits are in fact almost 170 km distant.”

Sykes (2010) comments: “The typological assignation of the piece to the Mousterian is generally accepted (R. Jacobi pers. comm. 2007), and is therefore the only evidence of a Neanderthal presence in the Peak District during MIS 3. It appears that the scraper was brought to the cave as a curated, highly resharpened tool, probably as part of a personal toolkit designed for portability and maintainability. The lack of any other obviously Mousterian artefacts such as more scrapers or bifaces suggests this may have been a single visit, perhaps only involving one or two people, although it is possible that there may have been some small pieces of associated debitage that were missed during excavation, or simply not recorded. This occupation, with apparently no exploitation of local stone, suggests high mobility, as does the distant source of the flint, at least 50 km away.”

The same scraper from Sykes (2017). Original caption reads: “..Fig. 8. Retouched artefact variation.. D Convergent scraper Ravencliffe Cave (southern flint).”

There can thus be very little doubt that Neanderthals at least visited Ravencliffe Cave during long-range hunting trips. However, it seems unlikely that due to the almost complete emptying of the cave, the discarding of the sediments and the lack of an accurate stratigraphic record of its deposits, a more detailed and exact chronology of the occupation of the cave is impossible to deduce. Indeed, looking again, at the first five pictures, it is evident that a vast volume of sediment and debris was removed from the cave.

However, on my visit to Ravencliffe Cave in July 2019, did nevertheless reveal some hope of dating the flowstone floor (layer 4) just above which, the Pleistocene layer containing the Mousterian scraper is situated.

Inspecting the back, of the central portion of the cave revealed intact remnants of the stalagmite/flowstone floor.

Extant stalagmite floor at the back of Ravencliffe cave. Photograph by N. Barden May 2019.

If a sample was taken and dated via the U/Th method a date just prior to the Neanderthal occupation could be ascertained.

References:

Beresford, M., 2011. An Analysis of Prehistoric Cave Burials in the Magnesian Limestone region of north-east Derbyshire. MB Archaeology Local Heritage Series, Number 2, October 2011. Published online at: http://www.mbarchaeology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LHS2%20%20Prehistoric%20Cave%20Burials.pdf            

DCC, [Derbyshire County Council] Wonders of The Peak (2018) “Neanderthals in Derbyshire” at: https://www.wondersofthepeak.org.uk/facts/neanderthals-in-derbyshire/ accessed 13.11.18

Gelsthorpe, D. (2018) at: https://twitter.com/paleomanchester/status/1034394911997612032 accessed 19.07.19

Historic England (2015) at: http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=309125 accessed 13.11.18

Read, C. H., (1910). Ravencliffe Cave II. Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society v. 32 pp 147-157

Smith, R. (1912) Ravencliffe Cave. Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society v. 34 pp 147-157

Storrs Fox, W. (1910) Ravencliffe Cave I. Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society v. 32 pp141-146

Storrs Fox, W.  (1928). Ravencliffe Cave. Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society 50, 1928 Page(s) 71-78

Sykes, R.W., 2010. Neanderthals in Britain: Late Mousterian Archaeology in Landscape Context (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology).

Sykes, R.M.W., 2017. Neanderthals in the Outermost West: Technological adaptation in the Late Middle Palaeolithic (re)-colonization of Britain, Marine Isotope Stage 4/3. Quaternary International, 433, pp.4-32.

The British Museum (2020) at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=843003001&objectId=1390793&partId=1 accessed 19.07.19