Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:17.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—Fossil Arctic Plants from the Lacustrine Deposit at Hoxne, in Suffolk1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Clement Reid  and
H. N. Ridley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Near the village of Hoxne, close to the northern border of Suffolk, and about five miles east of Diss, lies the well-known lacustrine deposit from which Palaeolithic implements were obtained more than 90 years ago. This deposit has been so well described that it may seem presumptuous to imagine that there is still anything new to be said about it. But it so happens that every observer up till now has studied the deposit either from an archaeological or from a geological point of view. No one has paid special attention to the character of the associated plants, or to the climatic conditions which these plants indicate.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , October 1888 , pp. 441 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1888

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 441 note 2 Archæologia, vol. xiii. p. 204, 1800, two pp. and two 4to. plates of implements.Google Scholar

page 441 note 3 This is a mistake, the shells, etc., are freshwater.

page 441 note 4 Phil. Trans, vol. cl. pp. 304–308, pl. xi.Google Scholar

page 441 note 6 Ibid. cliv. p. 283.

page 442 note 1 Prof. Prestwich informs us that the oak wood was not found by himself, but was obtained from one of the men, who stated that pieces occasionally occur in a very sound condition, like the specimen which he produced. The wood is evidently fossil, but the exact horizon from which it was obtained may have been wrongly observed.

page 442 note 2 Determined by Mr. E. T. Newton.

page 442 note 3 Quart. Journ. Sci., n.s. vol. vi. pp. 289–304.Google Scholar