Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:15:41.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the Pleistocene of East Anglia with that of Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

Friedrich E. Zeuner
Friedrich E. Zeuner
Affiliation:
Honorary lecturer in Geochronology at theLondon University Institute of Archaeology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For many years, Professor P. G. H. Boswell has studied the Pleistocene deposits of East Anglia and, from time to time, published most illuminating reviews summarising the progress of work and discussing the possible relations to the corresponding deposits of other districts (especially 1931, 1932, 1936). In his Presidential Address to the Prehistoric Society last year, he paid particular attention to a problem which has often been attacked but not yet solved satisfactorily, namely the correlation of East Anglia with the Continent; and he suggested, as a possible way out of the difficulties, the correlation of the Hunstanton Boulder Clay with Würm 2, the Upper Chalky Drift with Würm 1, the Great Chalky Boulder Clay with Riss, the North Sea Drift with Mindel, and the later Crag deposits containing a cold fauna, with Günz. He admitted, however, that such a correlation would ‘bring other difficulties in its train.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , 1937 , pp. 136 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1937

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

LITERATURE REFERRED TO

Bernsen, J. J. A., 1930–1934. ‘Eine Revision der fossilen Säugetier—fauna aus den Tonen von Tegelen.’ 9 parts. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad, Limburg (Maastricht), XIX–XXIII.Google Scholar
Boswell, P. G. H., 1927. The Geology of the Country around Ipswich. Mem. Geol. Surv., sheet 207.Google Scholar
Boswell, P. G. H., 1931. ‘The Stratigraphy of the Glacial Deposits of East Anglia in Relation to Early Man,’ Proc. Geol. Assoc. London, XLII, 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boswell, P. G. H., 1932. ‘The Contacts of Geology: the Ice Age and early man in Britain,’ Advancement of Science (Brit. Assoc.), 1932, 57–88.Google Scholar
Boswell, P. G. H., 1936. ‘Problems of the Borderland of Archaeology and Geology in Britain,’ Proc. Preh. Soc., 1936, no. 6.Google Scholar
Burchell, J. P. T., 1933. ‘The Northfleet 50-foot Submergence later than the Coombe Rock of post-Early Mousterian times,’ Archaeologia, LXXXIII, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, J. P. T., 1935 (a). ‘Evidence of a further Glacial Episode within the Valley of the Lower Thames,’ Geol. Mag., LXXII, 90–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, J. P. T., 1935 (b). ‘Some Pleistocene Deposits at Kirmington and Crayford,’ Geol. Mag., LXXXII, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchell, J. P. T., 1936. ‘Evidence of a Late Glacial Episode within the Valley of the Lower Thames,’ Geol. Mag., LXXXIII, 91–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuil, H., and Koslowski, L., 1931. ‘Etudes de stratigraphie paléolithique dans le Nord de la France, la Belgique et l'Angleterre,’ L'Anthropologie, XLI, 449–488, Paris.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1932. ‘Les industries à éclats du Paléolithique Ancien. I Le Clactonien,’ Préhistoire, Paris, I (11), 125–190.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1934. ‘De l'importance de la solifluxion dans l'étude des terrains quaternaires de la France et des pays voisins,’ Rev. géograph. phys., Paris, VII (4), 269–284.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1936. ‘Somme et Charente. Comparaison de leurs dépôts quaternaires et de leurs industries paleblithiques anciennes,’ Bull. Soc. Archéol. et Hist, de la Charente, année 1936, 14 pp. Angoulême.Google Scholar
Freudenberg, W., 1927. Palaeont. Zeitschr., VIII, 68–69.Google Scholar
Hellar, F., 1936. ‘Eine oberpliocäne Wirbeltierfauna aus Rheinhessen,’ Neues Jb. f. Min. etc., LXXVI B, 99–160, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Hesemann, J., 1935. ‘Die geschiebekundliche Stellung der Hundisburger Schotter in ihrer Beziehung zur vorgeschichtlichen Forschung,’ Zschr. f. Geschiebeforschung, XI, 55–56.Google Scholar
Hinton, M. A. C., 1926. ‘The Pleistocene Mammalia of the British Isles and their bearing upon the Date of the Glacial Period,’ Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc., new ser. XX, 325–348, Manchester.Google Scholar
Hopwood, A. T., 1935. ‘Fossil Elephants and Man,’ Proc. Geol. Assoc., LVI, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, A. T., 1937. ‘The Identity of Elephas trogontherii Pohlig,’ Bull. Geol. Inst. Upsala, XXVII, 19–24.Google Scholar
King, W. B. R., and Oakley, K. P., 1936. ‘The Pleistocene Succession in the Lower Parts of the Thames Valley,’ Proc. Preh. Soc., 1936, 52–76.Google Scholar
Kormos, T., 1931. ‘Pannonictis pliocaenica n. gen., n. sp., a new Giant Mustelid from the Late Pliocene of Hungary,’ Ann. Inst. Reg. Hung. Geol., XXIX, 163–177, Budapest.Google Scholar
SirLankester, Ray, 1912. ‘On the Discovery of a Novel Type of Flint Implements below the base of the Red Crag of Suffolk,’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, B, CCII, 283–336.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1919. Pre-Palaeolithic Man, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1923. Ant. J., CXI, p. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1924. ‘Tertiary Man in England,’ Nat. Hist., New York, XXIV, 636–654.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1927 (a). ‘The silted-up Lake of Hoxne and its contained Flint Implements,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. A., V, 137–165.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1927 (b). Antiquity of Man in East Anglia, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1931. ‘Further Discoveries of Flint Implements in the Brown Boulder Clay of North-West Norfolk,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E.A., VI (IV), 306–315.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1932 (a). ‘Some Recent Contributions to the Pleistocene Succession in England,’ Geol. Mag., LXIX, 83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1932 (b). ‘The Culture of Pliocene Man,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E.A., VII (1).Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1934. ‘A Giant Hand-axe from Sheringham, Norfolk,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E.A., VII (III), 327–332.Google Scholar
Moir, J. Reid, 1935. ‘The Age of the Pre-Crag Flint Implements,’ J.R.A.I., LXV, 343–374.Google Scholar
Newton, E. T., 1882. The Vertebrata of the Forest Bed Series of Norfolk and Suffolk. Mem. Geol. Surv., London.Google Scholar
Newton, E. T., 1891. The Vertebrata of the Pliocene Deposits of Britain. Mem. Geol. Surv. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborn, H. F., 1922. ‘Pliocene and Early Pleistocene Mammalia of East Anglia, Great Britain, in Relation to the Appearance of Man,’ Geol. Mag., LIX, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Cl., 1890. The Pliocene Deposits of Britain. Mem. Geol. Surv., London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Cl., and Reid, E. M., 1908. ‘On the Pre-glacial Flora of Britain,’ Linn. Soc. J., XXXVIII, 206–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüger, L., 1931. ‘Ein Lebensbild von Mauer,’ Bad. Geol. Abh., Karlsruhe, III, 121–136.Google Scholar
Sainty, J. E., 1929. ‘The Problems of the Crag,’ Proc. Prehist. Soc. E.A., VI, 57–75.Google Scholar
Schmidtgen, O., 1927. ‘Uber Elephas trogontherii Pohl,’ Palaeont. Zscher., VIII, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtgen, O., 1929. ‘Knochenartefakte aus den Mosbacher Sanden,’ Jahrb. Nass. Ver. Naturk., LXXX (2), 1–6.Google Scholar
Schmidtgen, O., 1931. ‘Weitere Knockenartefakte aus dem Mosbacher Sand,’ Jahrb. Nass. Ver. Naturk., LXXXI, 123–127.Google Scholar
Schreuder, A., 1929. ‘Conodontes (Trogontherium) and Castor from the Teglian Clay compared with Castoridae from other localities,’ Arch. Mus. Teyler, (III) VI, 99–319.Google Scholar
Schreuder, A., 1935. ‘A note on the Carnivora of the Tegelen Clay, with some remarks on the Grisoninae,’ Arch. Néerland. Zool., II, 73–94, Leiden.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1914. ‘Die diluvialen Säugetiere Badens,’ Mitt. Bad. Geol. Landesanst., IX, 1–254 Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1926 (a). ‘Exkursion ins Travertingebiet von Ehringsdorf,’ Palaeont. Zeitschr., VIII, 7–33.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1926 (b). ‘Der Bär von Süssenborn,’ Neues Jb. f. Min., etc., LIV B, 115–156, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1936. ‘Hyaena brevirostris Aymard und Hyaena ex aff. crocotta Erxl. aus den Kiesen von Süssenborn,’ Zeitschr. deutschegeol. Ges., LXXXVIII, 525–538, Berlin.Google Scholar
Solomon, J. D., 1931. ‘Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Sites at Morston, Norfolk,’ Man, 275–278.Google Scholar
Solomon, J. D., 1932. ‘The Glacial Succession on the North Norfolk Coast,’ Proc. Geol. Assoc., XLIII, 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelcker, I., 1933. ‘Knochenartefakte aus dem Altdiluvium des Neckars,’ Verg. Heidelb. Naturhist.–Med. Ver., N. F. XVII, 327–331.Google Scholar
Warren, S. H., 1932. ‘The Palaeolithic Industries of the Clacton and Dovercourt District,’ Essex Naturalist, XXIV, 1–29.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1935. ‘The Pleistocene Chronology of Central Europe,’ Geol. Mag., LXXII, 350–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1936. ‘Die Beziehungen des englischen und französischen Pleistozäns zum deutschen Diluvium,’ Proc. 3rd Inqua congress, Vienna 1936. (In press).Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1937. ‘Die Chronologie des Pleistozäns,’ Bull. Serbian Acad. Sci., Belgrade. (In press).Google Scholar