Derbyshire Bone Caves 5: Ash Tree Cave

Ash Tree Cave was discovered by Leslie Armstrong in 1938 and excavated by him intermittently until his death in 1958.

Ash Tree Cave summer 2019. Photograph the author.

Ash Tree Cave internal view from cave centre, back towards the entrance. Note the depth of sediments removed by Armstrong is easily gauged as the floor was initially in line with the bottom of the gate! Loose, rocky, fill now covers the entirety of the floor.

The cave is located on the southeast side of a dry valley known as Burnfield Grips. Armstrong described his first impressions of the small cave in 1949 thus: “The interior is lofty, the floor piled high with debris and tabular rock fallen from the flat roof.”

Ash Tree Cave lies on the line of the royal blue Magnesian limestone rocks immediately east of Sheffield. Adapted from Hind (1998).

The chamber contained a collection of human remains belonging to several individuals. These represented at least four separate deposits, two were covered with a mass of rocks and earth which Armstrong had initially thought to represent roof collapse in the centre of the cave. A cist-like structure on the left of the passage, at the back of the cave contained further human remains. Lastly a scooped out hollow, just inside the entrance contained a cremation burial. No artefacts were associated with any of these burials, bar a few non-diagnostic flint flakes. However, an Early Bronze Age radiocarbon date (3970BP), derived from a human tibia, was published by Hedges (1996).

Other finds from the cave included a spectacular sequence of animal remains stretching back to the Pleistocene, with stone and bone tools apparently in situ.

While Mesolithic and Creswellian material represented by microliths and animal bones, was fully accepted, Armstrong claimed to have found human made tools of Pleistocene date, but examination of the extant material by Jenkinson in the late 1970s failed to identify a single artefact of Palaeolithic date. Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman pottery was also found.

Armstrong excavation at Ash Tree Cave in the 1950’s, from Sykes (2010). Original caption reads: Figure 2.2.19 Ash Tree Cave during excavation by Armstrong, showing location in gorge edge and deposits in front of cave (photograph courtesy of Sheffield Museum).

Subsequently, the excavations were continued by the Hunter Archaeology Society, initially by West and Riley, with the final excavation being undertaken in 1959-60 by McBurney.

In order to understand what was found during these and subsequent excavations, I have collated the key finds and stratigraphic detail given by Armstrong (1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956),  and by Fisher (1959 and 1960) in the table below:

Year	Depth	Description
1949	3’6’’	A trial trench cut across the external rock shelter revealed a soil layer of 6’’ - 1’ resting on a glacial drift layer 2’6’’ - 3’. On which were traces of a Mesolithic occupation. Drift rests on red cave earth of Pleistocene date with Creswellian tools and charcoal
1950	4’6’’	Cave surface presented as a tabular limestone slabs loosely compacted by a Black loam. Centre of cave higher assumed to be a larger rockfall, it was in fact a layer of slabs laid on a burial. 6’’ below and right another burial, also human remains scattered on this horizon throughout the cave. Brown sandy loam - a glacial drift varying in depth 2’6’’ at entrance merging into red cave earth 10’ into cave. Archaeologically sterile, except for intrusive cremation burial at entrance. Has abraded limestone fragments, erratic and Bunter pebbles, and has all the characteristics of glacial drift or outwash material. Rests on red cave earth 4 to 6’’ in depth containing charcoal fragments and artifacts of Creswellian type, bone tools, and split bones. Bones of Reindeer, Bison and Horse. Characterised as a ‘Pleistocene deposit’ by Armstrong.. Rests on a Yellow, stony cave earth the depth of this zone is not yet known.
1951	5’6’’ 6’6’’	Rear of Cave - Extension of cave further backwards and down – Tabular limestone and black loam [Neolithic cist burial in dry cove] Centre of cave. Yellow cave earth examined to depth of 1’ – Top Creswellian flint flakes and bone awl. Below in same stratum a Mousterian layer [charcoal, flaked quartzite pebbles, large pebble pounder bones of Hyaena, horse, bison reindeer]. Evidence of waterlogging.
1952	9’6’’	Centre of cave. Yellow cave earth stony and calcareous. Evidence of occupation scanty = occasional use, crumbs of charcoal. LA divides this into 3 zones: Zone 1, 6’ - 6’ 9’’, Zone 2, 7’6’’ - 8’6’’; Zone 3, at 9’ 6’’. Cave Lion, Woolly Rhinoceros, Bear, Badger, Arctic Fox, and Red Deer. Mousterian zones pebbles and pounders of quartzite; split and chipped quartzite pebbles; two flakes of flint; a small scraper of Derbyshire black chert, step flaked on one edge; utilised split bones and a bone awl; two tibias of bird, perforated at the distal end for suspension and believed to be personal ornaments/amulets. (Similar examples found in the Mousterian levels of Pin Hole Cave). A human tooth was found in Zone 2. It is a third molar, of the upper right side, with two short and rather weak roots, fused together, and degenerate cusping on the crown. Though abnormal in some respects and possessing some of the characters of a Neanderthal tooth (found in association with Mousterian artifacts).
1953	10’6’’	Mousterian Zone 3 teeth of Cave Bear and Cave Lion, also a tooth of Giant Deer, together with specimens of all the fauna previously recorded. Interesting fragments of an unidentified species of deer. Fragments of bone, both gnawed and humanly split are frequent. The artifacts include split & chipped quartzite pebbles; pebble pounders; utilized split bones, bone tools & a bone awl.
1954	12’’	[Yellow] cave earth more compacted and stony. Mousterian occupation continues, evidence more plentiful. Well worked Mousterian point in flint, patinated white, (similar to those from the Pin Hole Cave); a few small flakes of flint; split quartzite pebbles; also a number of large quartzite pebbles, possibly used as pounders, [no evidence of use]. Numerous stone tools and utilised split bones and two large pieces of split bone, probably Rhinoceros, or Mammoth long bones, and a portion of rib, showing signs of use. Several teeth of Woolly Rhino, tooth of Mammoth; teeth of Hyaena; Giant Deer; Horse; Wolf and Cave Bear teeth. Reindeer teeth and fragments of Antler, rodent remains and molluscs.
1955	15’6’’	Calcareous [white] clay layer. Hearth in centre of cave [Mousterian]. Around it numerous splinters of bone, including a large portion of a young Rhino humerus, gnawed by Hyenas, probably brought there by man. Numerous quartzite pebble tools, crudely worked.
1956		Report writing
1957		Removal of a remnant of the hearth revealed a fissure, 18’’ inches wide, filled with carbonaceous matter and humanly split fragments of bone, in a matrix of sandy clay. Excavated to a depth of two feet beneath floor level, but the bottom has not been reached. A Mousterian quartzite side scraper was found embedded in the fissure at a depth of twelve inches, and a deer antler awl, skilfully cut and trimmed at the point, was found beside the hearth on the floor of the cave.
1958		Death of Armstrong. Excavations by Mr. D. N. Riley and Mr. S. E. West begin.
1959		McBurney takes over directorship of excavations.
1960		McBurney continues excavations. Important correlations of the cave filling with a boulder clay in the valley (Main Wurm glaciation) have been noted. Flint flakes in the lower part of the stony cave earth are associated with a fragment of a human jaw and rich Pleistocene fauna.

Clearly, the extant materials did not include the lithics highlighted in bold. What material was, actually preserved from Armstrong’s excavation is unclear and hence the conclusion of Jenkinson is only based on the material available to him.

However, he statements of Armstrong (1956) on the cave stratigraphy are quite indisputable: he found a Mesolithic layer, a Creswellian (Magdelanian) one and Mousterian levels in situ below those. From his original paper a Neanderthal occupation is quite clear: “A central cross-section of the deposit, cut from the Creswellian horizon to bed rock of the cave, revealed three zones of Mousterian occupation comparable in general character and position with those of the Pin Hole Cave.”

After describing the depth and composition of each zone, and noting their similarity to those from Pin Hole Cave, Armstrong goes on:

“In each zone the evidence of occupation was scanty and indicative of only occasional use either by man or animals. The artifacts found are similar in type to those from corresponding horizons in the Pin Hole, but of inferior workmanship. Quartzite tools predominate but few of them bear any secondary retouch and as a whole they suggest production for casual use. Flakes of flint chert were present, but few in number. One well worked flint point and a skilfully retouched scraper of black Derbyshire chert, are the most outstanding artifacts.

Several bone awls were found, also portions of two bird tibias each perforated at the distal end for suspension, and believed to be personal ornaments, or amulets. These are similar to examples found in the Pin Hole, in Mousterian levels.”

Lastly, an addendum added after the report was complete states: “During 1957, subsequent to writing this Report, removal of a remnant of the hearth in the centre of the section revealed that it was sited over a fissure, in the rock floor eighteen inches wide. This proved to be filled with carbonaceous matter and humanly split fragments of bone, in a matrix of sandy clay. The fissure has been excavated to a depth of two feet beneath floor level, but the bottom has not been reached. A Mousterian quartzite side scraper was found embedded in the fissure at a depth of twelve inches, and a deer antler awl, skilfully cut and trimmed at the point, was found beside the hearth on the floor of the cave.”

Beresford (2011), commenting on the lithic and faunal remains says “Artefacts recovered from within the cave showed it had been used from Neanderthal times right through to the Neolithic.”

Dating on a bison upper molar, excavated by McBurney in 1960 from the ‘Clay’ layer of trench CII, spit 36 and analysed by the Oxford AMS system gave an age of 40,500 +/- 1600.

On balance, it seems likely, given Jenkinson’s examination of only the extant material and not the full range of lithics excavated, that this cave was, however briefly, occupied by Neanderthals.

During a review of the above text and its supporting references, prior to the publication of this article on my blog, I became aware of a new appraisal of both the Ash Tree Cave lithics and their dating by Rebecca Wragg Sykes (2010a).

Her introduction is very succinct and telling: “Our understanding of the archaeology of the late Neanderthals in Britain rests on a basis of many decades of previous research, with a corresponding development in methodologies, concepts and the types of questions informing interpretations. This thesis seeks to bring our knowledge of the stone tool assemblages of this period up to date using current lithic analysis methodologies, and thereby redefine the British Mousterian through synthesising the available data and producing a new interpretation of the occupation of Britain during MIS 3. To this aim, material from twenty-two sites is analysed, and interpreted within a broader context of other data from Britain and Europe, to create a comprehensive new understanding.”

She includes Ash Tree Cave, ergo, it is a Neanderthal site as her PhD dissertation passed peer review. End of story.

However, it is worth looking at Sykes’ analysis of the faunal and lithic evidence in detail to show how she firmly positions Ash Tree Cave in the Neaderthal re-colonisation of Britain during the late MIS 4 – early MIS3 transition 50,000 – 40,000 years ago.

One of the main supporting planks of Sykes’ argument are the radiocarbon dates drawn from a variety of sources carried out on bone samples from the lowest levels of the cave and the typification of these remains as Pinhole MAZ. She comments:

“The fauna here is very important, as it appears to be one of the few cave sites with a Pin Hole MAZ and an underlying MIS 5a Banwell MAZ (Hedges et al 1994: 339; 1996: 392, 397), see Table 2.1.32. A similar Banwell fauna at Wood Quarry, Steetley, Nottinghamshire has produced a mean date from U-Series of 66,800 ± 3000 BP (date range 72,800- 60,800 BP) (Pike et al 2005), and also at Stump Cross Cavern, North Yorkshire another Banwell assemblage has been dated to >79,200 ± 2400 BP (Sutcliffe et al 1985), providing a terminus post quem for the deposits containing the Pin Hole MAZ and the archaeology.”

Here is her Table 2.1.32:

On dating Sykes (2010) states: “The dates for the Stony Cave Earth containing the Pin Hole MAZ are MIS 3 (Table 2.1.33), although the relatively late hyaena specimen low in the sequence suggests either disturbance of the deposits or a poor sample. Samples from the Basal Clay (Banwell MAZ) are older, and especially the ultra-filtrated samples. As no samples from the Stony Cave Earth are ultra-filtrated, it is likely that the age of this deposit is currently a minimum.”

Here is her table 2.1.33:

Sykes goes on: “The total number of artefacts excavated is not known at present due to poor publication. The total included here, based on raw materials and techno-typological assessment is 28 including flint, quartzite and clay-ironstone artefacts, from the excavations by Armstrong, West and Riley and McBurney.”

The assemblage was mainly debitage elements (25 of 28), there are however, two retouched tools and a single core.

Of the raw materials, a very high percentage was clay-ironstone  (57.1%, n=16), followed by quartzite (28.6%, n=8), a much smaller amount of northern flint (10.7%, n=3) and a single piece of southern flint (3.6%).

Importantly Sykes states: “Due to the recording of the excavations and lack of detailed publication, it is difficult to know whether discrete assemblages existed within the Stony Cave Earth deposit. Some spatial data was recorded for some artefacts, but there is not enough information to discern clear groups; the lithics are therefore treated as a single palimpsest assemblage for the purposes of the analysis.”

It is worth pointing out here, that at least two of the most diagnostically Mousterian tools (see highlighted examples in my table above) are missing and hence do not feature in Sykes’ analysis.

Let us turn to the tools from Ash Tree Cave she included in her analysis.

Section 6.7.2 “Debitage and cores” can be summarised as follows:

• Debitage is most the common category of elements 25/28 artefacts
• All raw materials have examples of debitage
• Many of the flakes are thinning/resharpening flakes
• At least one of the flakes may be from retouching a tool (ATC9, clay-ironstone) as it appears to preserve two edges of an artefact that would be too narrow for a biface, unless it was the very tip.
• Many of the other clay-ironstone examples are certainly biface thinning/re-sharpening flakes based on their morphology (Figure 6.7.2). 

Sykes figure 6.7.2., a clay-ironstone biface thinning/re-sharpening flake (ACT 6). 

• Also mentioned are 2 quartzite flakes either from biface thinning or of retouching tools (these are give a figure reference but not actually figured).
• A southern flint is likely a flake from a biface based on the presence of large flat scars on the dorsal (Figure 6.7.3).

Sykes figure 6.7.3. Original caption reads: Figure 6.7.3 Southern flint biface thinning flake ATC 31.

• Some artefacts display features that likely attributable to a discoidal reduction technique. This is a key point as this method, according to Thiébaut (2013), generates pseudo-Levallois points used by Neanderthals in hunting. Additionally, according to, Eren et al. (2008) this method of core reduction was used only between MIS5 and 3 – before atomically modern humans arrived in Britain. 
• Two examples of possible a-typical pseudo-Levallois points, made from quartzite, were indeed found (ATC-4 and ATC-25), which strengthen Sykes’ supposition at the bullet point above. 
• The analysis of non-thinning flakes thinning flakes and the solitary core found, show that partially decorticated and fresh cores were imported and worked. Orphan flakes (transported-in artifacts that do not refit to anything) without parent cores and a core without any debitage flakes from this chaînes opératoires, show that lithic material was transported to the cave and then removed again.
• Sykes also notes that “Despite primary flakes being present in all raw materials, none are Toth types 2 or 1, implying that cores (brought in) were at least already partially decorticated.”It is worthy of note that “Toth’s flake types are good indicators of the prevalent mode of core reduction represented in an assemblage..” [Pei et al. (2017)]

Type 1 and 2 flakes are those struck are as follows:

Toth type 1 and 2 flake definitions from Toth (1982).

• On thinning flakes of quartzite having remaining cortex Sykes comments “This suggests that the bifaces in this stone may only have been partially worked, and finished at the site, while those in other raw materials were already finished and were being re-sharpened in-situ.”
• The single core of quartzite and is relatively small and thin, with a flattened lenticular shape, which is naturally suited to knapping. It retains large areas of cortex as it is not much reduced from its original volume (Figure 6.7.4). The reduction approach used is alternate/centripetal, with at least one other removal. Although seven flake scars are present, it could have been further reduced (there is an incipient fracture cone present showing perhaps that further attempts were made, but here the striking angle was too obtuse). One flake scar is quite large, > 3cm breadth, but most of the others are much smaller, < 2cm in breadth. The core is a pale grey colour, different to all of the quartzite debitage which is either reddish-grey or white, indicating that the flakes acquired from it may have been removed from the cave.

Quartzite core from Ash Tree cave, Sykes (2010b). Figure 6.7.4 Quartzite core ATC 2.

The same quartzite core from Sykes (2017). Original caption reads: Fig. 4. Discoid and centripetally reduced cores.. D Ash Tree Cave (quartzite)..

Sykes (2017) commentary on cores of this type are very apposite to the find of this quartzite core at Ash Tree Cave: “Alternate or alternating reduction occurs in some assemblages alongside centripetal and discoid technology, at a similar frequency. This is more volumetrically ‘informal’ than discoid, lacking a secant plane, instead reduction proceeds along a ridge or perimeter. Yet it still features systematic gestures, where previous flake scars are utilised as striking platforms as the core is ‘flipped’, which produces some cores with partially radial scar patterns.

Alternate reduction is strongly associated with non-flint raw materials, and is the most common single strategy for quartzite at the Creswell Crags sites. This may be because it allowed easy exploitation of the hard cobbles, with the high energy impact necessary on this stone producing thick, naturally-backed removals. Previous authors have tended to refer to such cores at Creswell Crags as “choppers” (e.g. White and Pettitt, 2011), but they do not show obvious evidence of use-wear, and many have irregular edges unsuitable for use, therefore are likely to be primarily aimed at flake production.”

6.7.3 Retouched artefacts. On these two artifacts (a denticulate in northern flint and a clay-ironstone notch), the main points are:

• Sykes simply describes the likely Chaînes opératoires. However, she also adds comment on the flint “The denticulate seems to be made on a possible core-edge removal flake with a facetted butt which may indicate more intensive management of this raw material,..”

This again adds weight to her high mobility hunting model of Neanderthals in the region, with their curated toolkits.

Sykes (2010b) Fig. 6.7.5 Clay-ironstone retouched notch ATC 18 from Ash Tree Cave derived from the coal-measures ca. 10km to the east.

Sykes (2010b) Fig. 6.7.6 Northern flint denticulate ATC 3.

6.7.4 Raw material procurement

Main points:

• Ash Tree Cave is 2.5 km northwest of Creswell Crags, therefore sources of raw materials are broadly similar
• Quartzite pebbles appear to occur locally in the superficial deposits of the surrounding area.
• The cave is < 10km from the coal measure deposits to the east, this explains the dominance of clay-ironstone working, as it is available locally in superficial deposits in this geological formation.
• The northern flint was probably available in local superficial deposits, or regionally, but the southern flint biface that the thinning flake came from is likely to have been sourced at least 60 km away.

6.7.5 Technological organisation

Main points:

• Chaînes opératoires are very discontinuous for all raw materials.
• Northern flint occurs as a tiny flake fragment, a biface thinner and a denticulate. The physical appearance of all these artefacts is dissimilar, suggesting that are not from the same parent material. It would appear that the retouched flint tool was brought in and discarded. Given its small size, the flake fragment is likely to reflect the in-situ working of a core, which was subsequently removed together with any other products. The thinning flake is evidence that a biface was brought in, probably resharpened and removed again.
• Quartzite tool and core, colour analysis, shows that some of the flakes from the core may be missing, and that almost all the debitage comes from at least three different cores that are not present in the assemblage.
• This could indicate either that these cores were knapped in-situ and then removed, or that the flakes were imported into the cave. However, given the rather small size of most of the flakes and the local availability of nodules the first scenario seems probable.
• The two thinning flakes in quartzite, which were probably from bifaces, therefore these represent the import, finishing/reworking and export of at least two quartzite bifaces, based on colour differences. 

Sykes (2017), discussion on how this type of assemblage fits in with Neanderthal behaviour in early MIS3, in Britain is also quite illuminating:

“While patterns of techno-economic organisation within the British LMP such as preferential transport of high quality stone (most often in the form of bifaces or retouched tools) match existing systems known for Neanderthals, some aspects stand out.

The dominance of bifaces and coherent core reduction approaches (discoid/centripetal, alternate and informal), with a lack of Levallois, present across the whole region is unusual for the period and

wider north-western Continental context. The overall technological strategy appears to be focused on flexibility, reliability and maintainability, and may reflect a combined adaptation to fluctuating MIS-3 environments, greater seasonality and dispersal of fauna, that resulted in highly mobile hunting.”

To me this paints a picture of Neanderthals, possibly from as far afield as northern France or Belgium following the migratory herds west and north each year in the spring, into Britain.

Britain ca. 50,000BP  with dry land shown in green, adapted from AOHB (2009).

These human hunters probably travelled as families or groups of families. They likely made camp in the open air or based themselves in caves such as those at Creswell Crags and carried out hunting forays from there.

The hunting groups, likely to consists of single individuals to small groups of both male and female Neanderthals, travelled light with a toolkit of large flakes and partially worked bifaces. They carried a variety of locally available stone types and highly curated fine flints from southern England. These they fashioned into weapons – perhaps hafting points into spears – and tools for butchering the animals they brought down.

They stayed, where possible at suitable caves such as Ash Tree Cave and may even have ventured as far west as Ravencliffe Cave or Elderbush Cave (see here and here) 40km away in the White Peak.

The landscape they passed through, ca. 40,000BP [see Buckland et al. (2019)] being Taiga, Dwarf Shrub Heath and Tundra further north was extremely uninviting in winter, with temperature ranging, in winter, from -22 to -2⁰C. In summer, however, a range of 8 to 14⁰C caused the Tundra vegetation to flourish, therefore attracting big game, which the Neanderthals hunted.

Seasonal Neanderthal hunters going after (very!) big game, from Wenban-Smith (2010)

When these seasonal hunting trips/low level occupations began is the subject of intense debate, with most authorities settling on a date of around 60,000BP. However, Wenban-Smith et al. (2010) has found pristine Neanderthal tools at a site in Kent dated to between 115,000BP and 88,000BP, with a most likely date of 95,000BP.

It therefore seems that this phase of Neanderthal visits and/or occupation of Britain lasted a considerable length of time from 95,000BP to ca. 35,000BP, when anatomically modern humans replaced them entirely.

My last thoughts on this cave are that I have many unanswered questions.

Do the three best lithic pieces from Ash Tree Cave still lurk in some dusty museum draw? What about the flint flakes found by McBurney in the lower part of the stony cave earth, in association with with a fragment of a human jaw and rich Pleistocene fauna? Where did this earliest lithic material originate?

Where exactly are the two critical bone samples – the Neanderthal like tooth excavated by Armstrong from his Mousterian zone 2 and the partial lower jaw excavated by McBurney in 1960 as mentioned above? What about the bone tools, utilised bones and awls from the Mousterian levels? Has anyone analysed them? What sort of tools were they?

Intriguingly, on human bones Wall and Jacobi (2000) during their cataloguing effort of the very dispersed collections from the Creswell Crags area, do record human bones in several museum collections:

“The museum [NHM London] is temporarily holding two human specimens, a human mandible from Ash Tree Cave thought to be either Neolithic or Bronze Age..”

Cambridge University, Department of Bio-Anthropology: “This is a small collection of human bone from two sites excavated by Leslie Armstrong. There are about twelve specimens altogether, six specimens are from Sepulchral Cave in Markland Grips and six from Ash Tree Cave in Burnhill Grips.”

Sheffield City Museum, Department of Archaeology: “Material from Ash Tree cave was excavated by Leslie Armstrong in the 1930s and Charles McBurney in 1959/60. McBurney’s archive was transferred to Sheffield from Cambridge in 1990. The collection includes a wide range of Pleistocene and Holocene material including fauna (including small mammals), human bone, stones/pebbles, flint and chert, quartzite flakes and pebbles, pottery, glass, molluscs, charcoal samples, sediment, breccia. The largest proportion of the material is bone which includes many small bone fragments and a small number of larger specimens.”

I think Ash Tree Cave has a lot more to tell us yet..  

Note: I visited this cave in May 2019. Recent excavations may have taken place and it is now gated.

References:

Ancient Human Occupation of Britain [AHOB] (2009), at: https://www.ahobproject.org/AHOBIII/About.php accessed 18.07.20

Armstrong, A.L. 1949 Exploration of Prehistoric Sites In East Derbyshire. Derbyshire

Archaeological Journal.69: 69-73

Armstrong, A.L. 1950 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.70: 88-91

Armstrong, A.L. 1951 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 71: 66-68

Armstrong, A.L. 1952 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 72: 133-135

Armstrong, A.L. 1953 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 73: 102-104

Armstrong, A.L. 1954 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 74: 156-157

Armstrong, A.L. 1955 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 75: 145-150

Armstrong, A.L. 1956 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.76: 133-137

Armstrong, A.L. 1957 Report on the excavation of Ash Tree Cave, near Whitwell, Derbyshire, 1949 to 1957 76:57-74

Beresford, M. (2011) An Analysis of Prehistoric Cave Burials in the Magnesian Limestone region of north-east Derbyshire. Archaeology Local Heritage Series, Number 2

Buckland, P.I., Bateman, M.D., Bennike, O., Buckland, P.C., Chase, B.M., Frederick, C., Greenwood, M., Murton, J., Murton, D. and Panagiotakopulu, E., 2019. Mid-Devensian climate and landscape in England: new data from Finningley, South Yorkshire. Royal Society open science, 6(7), p.190577.

Eren, M.I., Greenspan, A. and Sampson, C.G., 2008. Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Journal of Human Evolution, 55(6), pp.952-961.

Fisher, F 1959 Archaeological Reports, Notes and News 1959.  Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.79: p130

Fisher, F 1960 Archaeological Reports, Notes and News 1960.  Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.80: p132-133

Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Ramsey, C.B. and Klinken, G.V., (1996). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 22. Archaeometry, 38(2), pp.391-415.

Hind, D. (1998). Chert use in the Mesolithic of Northern England. Published online at: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/assemblage/html/4/4hind.html accessed 28.06.20

Historic England (2015) at: https://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=318369  accessed 25.05.19

Pei, S. et al. (2017). Early Pleistocene archaeological occurrences at the Feiliang site, and the archaeology of human origins in the Nihewan Basin, North China. PloS one, 12(11), p.e0187251.

Sykes, R.W., (2010a). Neanderthals in Britain: Late Mousterian Archaeology in Landscape Context v.1 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology).

Sykes, R.W., (2010b). Neanderthals in Britain: Late Mousterian Archaeology in Landscape Context v.2 (Appendices: tables, figures and supplementary statistics)

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.

Thiébaut, C., 2013. Discoid debitage stricto sensus: a method adapted to highly mobile Middle Paleolithic groups?. Palethnologie. Archéologie et sciences humaines.

Toth, N.P., (1982). The stone technologies of early hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: an experimental approach. University of California, Berkeley.

Wall, I.J. and Jacobi, R.M., 2000. An assessment of the Pleistocene collections from the cave and rockshelter sites in the Creswell area. Creswell Heritage Trust, Worksop.

Wenban‐Smith, F., 2010. M25 roadworks reveal earliest UK Neanderthal occupation at Dartford. Geology Today, 26(5), pp.175-179.

Wenban‐Smith, F.F., et al. 2010. Early Devensian (MIS 5d–5b) occupation at Dartford, southeast England. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25(8), pp.1193-1199.