The Norfolk Crag deposits bear a considerable resemblance to those of Suffolk, consisting, like the latter, of a variable group of shallow-water marine sands, pebbly gravels, and laminated clays, with occasional seams or patches of shells.

The chief differences appear to be:—

(1) The progressive lowering of temperature observed as the Suffolk beds are traced from south to north has continued still further, culminating in the “Tellina balthica” aspect of the Weybourne Crag.

(2) In every known exposure the Norfolk Crag rests directly on the chalk, not on a Tertiary clay.

(3) The Norfolk “Stone Bed” ıs much more closely packed with flints than the corresponding “Detritus Bed” of Suffolk.

(4) The “coprolitic” content is much less.

(5) The mammalian fauna presents some differences from that of the Detritus Bed.

(6) It is possible the latter deposit is of a greater age than the former.

The attention of students of Prehistory was first called to the Crag deposits by Reid Moir's discovery in 1909 of apparently humanly worked flints in the Detritus Bed at Ipswich. This discovery, though supported by W. G. Clarke's researches at Norwich, was hotly contested, and gave rise to one of the most prolonged and embittered controversies of recent times, the echoes of which, however, have by now almost died away. At the present time every outstanding authority, who has studied the deposits in person, has endorsed Reid Moir's views.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and figure eight palæolithic flint implements discovered in the Cannon-shot gravel of Norfolk. The specimens were found during researches carried out under a grant from the Percy Sladen Trustees, to whom I am much indebted for their help. I have also to acknowledge the assistance given me by Mr. G. Maynard and Mr. J. E. Sainty, who have been intimately associated with my investigations.

The Cannon-shot gravel derives its name from its contained rounded and battered flint pebbles, symmetrically shaped like the cannon-balls in use at the time when Wood and Harmer first examined it. This gravel is well-known to geologists, and extends over large areas in Norfolk. It often occupies high ground, and can be examined in the cliff sections along the north-east coast of this county, and also in many inland pits. The gravel, wnich contains an appreciable number of foreign rocks, usually presents little evidence of stratification, though horizontal and thin layers of sand and loam are to be observed in its mass. The contained stones often rest in a vertical or inclined position in the gravel, a fact which makes it difficult to believe that water-action of the normal kind was responsible for the laying down of the deposit.

In order to prepare an address calculated to be of general interest to my fellow archæologists, it is essential that it be composed of a variety of ingredients. Now, it so happens that the results I have been obtaining during the course of my investigations in the last few years not only embrace a large number of culture phases, but, when arranged in proper sequence, they form a consecutive narrative. Furthermore, the greater part of the researches I have undertaken relates to those periods in British prehistory concerning which we know least. I refer to the so-called ‘Upper Palæolithic’ and ‘Early Neolithic’ times.

It is not my intention to deal in this paper with those inter-glacial and cultural phases which antedate the formation of the Lower Purple Boulder Clay of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and the Lower Chalky Boulder Clay of East Anglia, though I would mention I have recently discovered in the glacial deposits of north-east Ireland specimens similar to those which have been found beneath the Cromer Forest Bed of Norfolk and in the Sub-Crag Detritus Bed of Norfolk and Suffolk. These specimens will be fully described and illustrated in our “Proceedings” at a later date.

In Prof. Fairfield Osborn's address on “The Discovery of Tertiary Man” (Nature, Jan. 11th, p. 55), it is stated, in regard to the discoveries I have made in East Anglia, that Prof. Breuil “shifts the entire pre-Chellean and Chellean flint industries from mid-Quaternary down to the base of Quaternary time, namely, into the first Interglacial or Mindel-Riss stage.” The first inter-glacial is, however, that of the Günz-Mindel—according to the Penckian scheme—and it is to this phase—represented in East Anglia by the Cromer Forest Bed—that Breuil now relegates the Chellean industry. Prof. Osborn had no doubt in mind Breuil's recently published list of his scientific papers when writing the address referred to, as in thıs list the impression is given, no doubt unintentionally, that the author was the first to refer the Chellean implements to the first inter-glacial epoch. This impression is, however, incorrect, as no less than ten years ago, in 1920, I published a note in the Geological Magazine (vol. 57, No. 671; May, 1920, pp. 221–224), in which, with much detail, I set forth my views on the relationship of palæolithic man to the glacial period, and stated (p. 223) that “The Chellean implements may therefore be of Günz-Mindel inter-glacial age.” When I made this announcement, to which I have adhered with ever-increasing conviction, few, if any, archæologists agreed with my opinion, and it was only after several visits of Prof. Breuil to East Anglia that he was convinced of its truth.

The object of this paper is to describe and to figure accurately a remarkable double-ended rostro-carinate flint implement found by me during this year (1929) upon the north-east coast of Norfolk. The discovery was made upon the foreshore about mid-way between East and West Run ton, where at low water there are exposed considerable areas of the Basement Bed, resting upon the chalk, and referable to either the lowermost division of the Cromer Forest Bed or to the Stone Bed beneath the Norwich Crag. The implement was not found in situ in the Basement Bed, but was lying, with other stones, close to an exposure of this deposit. Apart, also, from this association, the specimen contains, in some of its interstices, portions of the highly ferruginous sand of the Basement Bed, while its colour and condition make it clear to those who are familiar with the stones in this deposit, that the implement at one time—and that recently—formed a part of it. The implement exhibits a typical mottled colouration consisting of areas of black, tawny brown and chocolate brown, while its ridges and outstanding portions show in most cases a rounded and somewhat broken-down appearance, which may be due to attrition by water-rolling, but which I am inclined to regard, as I have stated elsewhere, is to be accounted for by the action of some solvent present in the Basement Bed. The specimen exhibits but few incipient cones of percussion upon its flaked surfaces (which show a well-marked glaze), and cannot, therefore, have been subjected to collisions with other stones set in movement by running water. On the other hand a certain number of striae are to be observed upon the flake-scars of the implement, and these scratches not only, as it appears, cut into the patinated surfaces, but are in a weathered-out condition, thus showing that the flint was first patinated, then striated, and afterwards exposed to atmospheric effects.