Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T08:01:40.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Aspects of the Hampshire Plateau Gravels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

Henry Bury
Get access

Extract

Before proceeding to consider the special features of the Hampshire Basin, and their bearing on palæolithic problems, I should like to say a few words on more general subjects. It is very well known, but perhaps not always remembered, that scarcely one of our commonly accepted conclusions regarding the geological position of the early palæoliths rests on a secure foundation; in almost every case we have to content ourselves, not with a sound logical deduction, but with the most probable of several possible inferences from inadequate and conflicting data. And as an example of what I mean, let us glance at some points in the history of river terraces. First of all the word terrace usually connotes two distinct structures, a basal rock-shelf, and a series of deposits resting on it; and although it is generally assumed that the two are so intimately bound together as to be practically contemporaneous, yet that is not a sure inference, since it is equally possible that there may have been, in some cases at least, a long interval between them. The importance of this possibility to archæologists will be evident when I remind you of the contention of several eminent authorities that the different human cultures of the Pleistocene belong rather to such intervals than to the period of accumulation of the drift to which they are generally referred.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 1924 , pp. 15 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1924

Access options

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

References

page 15 note * See Marr., , Proc., Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia, 1920, pp. 177–191Google Scholar.

page 16 note * For some evidence on this point in the North Downs, see Bury, , Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XXXIII. (1922) p. 101Google Scholar.

page 15 note † Bull. Soc. Géol. de France, vol. 18 (1918), 4 série, p. 17Google Scholar.

page 15 note ‡ See Mem. Geol. Surv. “Isle of Purbeck,” p. 230Google ScholarPubMed.

page 17 note * Mem. Geol Surv., “Ringwood,” 1902, pp. 29–32Google Scholar.

page 17 note † Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. XXVI., (1870), pp. 528–551Google Scholar.

page 17 note ‡ Reid, C., Mem. Geol. Survey, “Ringwood,” 1902Google Scholar, and Sheet 314; Ibid, “Southampton,” 1902, and Sheet 315. White, H. J. O., Mem. Geol. Surv. “Bournemouth,” 1917Google Scholar, and Sheet 329; Ibid, “Lymington and Portsmouth,” 1915, Sheets 330–1.

page 17 note § Reid, C. and Strahan, A., Mem. Geol. Surv., “Isle of Wight,” 1889, p. 211Google Scholar; and Dr.Longstaff, , quoted by Smith, R. A., Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XXVI., 1915, p. 9Google Scholar

page 17 note ∥ T. Codrington, op. cit., p. 547; Hull, E., Geol. Mag., dec. v., vol. IX., 1912, pp. 100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hooley, R. W., Proc. Hants. Field Club, vol. IX., 1922, pp. 151–172Google Scholar.

page 17 note ** Mem. Geol. Surv. “Ringwood,” 1902, p. 35Google Scholar.

page 19 note * Even on the Chesil Bank there seems to be far less lateral movement than is generally supposed. See Prior, E. S.“The Bridporl Shingle,” Proc. Dorset Field Club, vol. XL., 1920, pp. 53–65Google Scholar.

page 19 note † See the list given by Hooley, op. cit., p. 155.

page 20 note * Op. cit., p. 546.

page 20 note † Geological Survey Map, Sheet 329.

page 20 note ‡ Mem. Geol. Surv., “Bournemouth,” p. 61Google ScholarPubMed.

page 22 note * Op. cit., p. 159.

page 23 note * Mr. Hazzledine Warren has noticed the difference in composition between the gravel of Canford Heath and those of the Stour valley (Geol. Mag., Dec., IV., vol. VII., 1900, p. 411Google Scholar.

page 23 note † “Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain,” 2nd edition, 1897, p. 694Google Scholar.

page 23 note ‡ Bull. Soc. Geol. du Nord, vol. 39 (1910), p. 255Google Scholar.

page 25 note * Dr.Ord, , in “A Natural History of Bournemouth,” 1914, p. 3Google Scholar.

page 27 note * Mem. Geol. Surv., “Ringwood,” 1902, pp. 33–37Google Scholar.

page 27 note † Mem. Geol. Surv., “Bournemouth,” 1917, p. 52Google Scholar.

page 28 note * In conversation with Dr. Longstaff I find that he too has noticed this feature.

page 28 note ** Op. cit., pp. 40–41.

page 28 note † Bull. Soc. d'Hist. Nat. de Savoie, XIX (1922) p. 83Google Scholar. And in Comp. Rend., vol 168 (1918) p. 983Google Scholar, the same author states that the 100 m. beach can be seen at Blackgang in the Isle of Wight.

page 28 note ‡ Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XXXIV (1923) p. 21Google Scholar.

page 28 note § Ibid, vol. XXX. (1919) p. 45. Mr. Barrow thinks that these are deep-water deposits belonging to a sea level of 600 ft. O. D. or more; but I have shown (Ibid, vol. XXXIII., 1922, p. 102) that some at least are of later date.

page 28 note ∥ Ibid, vol. XXVI., (1915) p. 6, Fig. 2.

page 29 note * Codrington, Op. cit., p. 532.

page 29 note † Proc. Hants. Field Club, vol. IX., 1922, pp. 175–7Google Scholar.

page 30 note * For descriptions of these see Smith, R. A., Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XXVI., 1915, p. 8Google Scholar. And O. G. S. Crawford, Op. cit., p. 175.

page 32 note * “Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain,” 2nd edition, 1897, p. 624Google Scholar.

page 33 note * Mem. Geol. Surv., “Isle of Wight,” 1921, p. 176Google ScholarPubMed.

page 34 note * I have met with both those features at Farnham, as well as at Bournemouth.

page 34 note † Mr. de Barri Crawshay tells me that this proportion would, in his opinion, hold good for the Thames valley (Swanscombe and the Kentish Plateau.)

page 35 note † For the influence of glacial conditions in producing and re-arranging gravels see, among others, Strahan, and Reid, , Mem. Geol. Surv., “Isle of Wight,” 1889, p. 211Google Scholar. Pocock, , Mem. Geol. Surv., “Summary of Prtgress,” 1902, pp. 201–2Google Scholar, and Dewey, , Proc. Prchist Soc. E. Anglia, vol. II., 1915, p. 114Google Scholar.

page 35 note ‡ Mem. Geol. Surv., “Ringwood,” 1902, p. 34Google Scholar.

page 37 note * The effect of such lateral changes in the river-mouth on the terraces of the Somme has been traced with admirable skill by General de Lamothe in the work already quoted.

page 37 note † Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XIX., 1905, p. 80Google Scholar.

page 37 note ‡ Ibid, vol. XXHI., (1912), p. 104.

page 38 note ‡ Abst. Proc. Geol. Sec., No. 1096, pp. 28–29.

page 39 note * Smith, R. A. and Dewey, H. (Archæologia, vol. LXIV., 1913, p. 197)Google Scholar say the third, but in Ibid, vol. LXV., 1914, p. 205, this is changed to the second.

page 39 note † Soc. Geol. de France, vol. 18 (1908), 4 série, pp. 3–58Google Scholar.

page 39 note ‡ Les gisements paleclithiques d'Abbeville (Lille, 1910) p. 205Google Scholar.

page 39 note § No implements at all are found in the Caubert pit, which de Lamothe nevertheless assigns to the second terrace (Op. cit., p. 23.)

page 39 note ** “Les Hommes Contemporains du Renne,” (Amiens 1914), pp. 28, 38, and 42Google Scholar

page 40 note * Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. XXIV., 1913, pp. 186–8Google Scholar. The Dippenhall gravel is probably not a product of the main river, and its one implement is a doubtful artifact.

page 40 note † Hinton and Kennard, Op. cit., p. 81.

page 41 note * Op. cit., p. 17.

page 41 note † Hinton and Kennard, Op. cit., p. 81.