English: A flaked handaxe. The flint is dark grey and patinated to a glossy off-white. The flint is highly siliceous with a few patches of more chalky composition. The axe is sub-triangular or cordiform in plan, with a plano-convex cross section and a straight profile. Both faces are covered in soft-hammer flake removals resulting from the thinning process. One face has numerous parallel flaking scars, the other has fewer wider and larger flake removals. The butt is gently convex with distinct corners where it meets the straight lateral edges. The butt has been further worked by retouching from both faces. The remaining perimeter has been finely retouched from one face only, creating three continuous cutting edges. In many respects this implement is most similar to an example recorded from Enfield in the Lower Lea Valley (Bishop, B,. 2002, "A bout coupé handaxe from Enfield in the Lower Lea Valley" Lithics: the Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 23, pages 43 - 47) in terms of its form and working, although it is a little smaller.

Cutting edge - 69 mm. Butt - 36 mm
Date: Middle Palaeolithic - 60,000 to 30,000 years BP (58,000 - 28,000 BC)
Dimensions: 94 mm x 72 mm x 22 mm Weight: 147 g

There has been considerable debate over the dating and attribution of the bout coupé type over the past 25 years (see ibid p45-46). Although often considered to be typologically linked to the British Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian period, marking the return of Neanderthal populations to Britain in the last interglacial period, many have expressed a need to be clear of the precise definition of the type (Tyldesley 1987 and Jacobi 2002 cited ibid p45) and not to view them "uncritically as a Mousterian marker fossil" (White and Jacobi cited ibid ) This example conforms in significant respects to those recorded as "true" bout coupé types (see ibid p45 and also Doman, J.H. 2010 "A bout coupé biface found in the Chelmer Valley and its implications for Neanderthal presence in Essex" Lithics: the Journal of the Lithics Studies Society 31, pages 88-93). It may , with some reservations, be considered to be of Neanderthal manufacture and to date to the Mousterian period.