Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T22:00:27.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Evans, Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the time barrier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Clive Gamble  and
Robert Kruszynski
Clive Gamble
Affiliation:
Centre for Quaternary Research, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK (Email: [email protected])
Robert Kruszynski
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It all began in a railway carriage. Two businessmen, travelling to the Kingston Assizes in Surrey, nodded to each other as strangers do, but did not strike up a conversation. They were expert witnesses appearing for different sides in the Croydon Water Question; a legal test case that boiled down to who owned the undergroundwaters of London (Mather 2008: 83–4). Joseph Prestwich (Figure 1a), the older by 11 years, represented the water suppliers. As the train rattled along under full steam he would have seen landmarks from his pioneering geology of the London Basin. But water was not his business. His family ran a profitable wine importers. Geology, however, was his passion.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 320 , June 2009 , pp. 461 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

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

Aufrère, L. 1940. Figures des préhistoriens 1: Boucher de Perthes. Préhistoire 7: 1–134.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. (ed.) 1996. The Cambridge illustrated history of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. 1998. Charles Lyell and the evidences of the antiquity of man, in Blundell, D.J. & Scott, A.C. (ed.) Lyell: the past is the key to the present: 83–93. London: Geological Society.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. & Hublin, J.-J.. 1989. Boucher de Perthes, les origines romantiques de la préhistoire. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836: journals and remarks 1832-1836. London: Coulburn.Google Scholar
Darwin, F. 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter (three volumes). 3rd edition. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
De Bussac, E. (ed.) 1999. 1859: naissance de la préhistoire, récits des premiers témoins (Préhistoire 3). Clermont Ferrand: Paléo.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint implements in undisturbed beds of gravel, sand, and clay. Archaeologia 38: 280–307.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1863. Account of some further discoveries of flint implements in the Drift on the Continent and England. Archaeologia, 39: 57–84.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1868. On man and his earliest known works, in Some account of the Blackmore Museum: 4-21, 87–103. Devizes.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1872. Ancient stone implements of Great Britain. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1882. Unwritten history and how to read it II. Nature: 531-5.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1943. Time and chance: the story of Arthur Evans and his forebears. London: Society of Antiquaries of London.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1949. Ninety years ago. Antiquity 23: 115-11.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1956. A history of the Society of Antiquaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grayson, D.K. 1983. The establishment of human antiquity. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaniari, A. 2008. Evans's sketches from the human antiquity controversy: epistemological proxies in the making, in MacGregor, A. (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823-1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin: 257-25. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. 1860. On the occurrence of works of human art in post-Pliocene deposits. Report of the twenty-ninth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Notices and Abstracts: 93-5.Google Scholar
Lyell, C. 1863. On the geological evidences of the antiquity of Man with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Macgregor, A. (ed.) 2008. Sir John Evans 1823-1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin. Oxford: Ashmolean MuseumGoogle Scholar
Mather, J.D. 2008. The hydrogeological work of Sir John Evans: his role in the battle between geologists and engineers for the water of the Chilterns, in MacGregor, A. (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823-1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin: 68–94. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Oakley, K. 1957. Tools makyth Man. Antiquity 31: 199–209.Google Scholar
Owen, J. 2008. A significant friendship: Evans, Lubbock and a Darwinian world order, in MacGregor, A. (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823-1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin: 206-20. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Prestwich, G.A. 1899. Life and letters of Sir Joseph Prestwich. Edinburgh & London.Google Scholar
Prestwich, J. 1850-1859. Boulogne 1850-59 etc., in Prestwich Papers, Field notebooks. London: Geological Society Library.Google Scholar
Prestwich, J. 1859-1860. On the occurrence of flint implements, associated with the remains of extinct mammalia, in undisturbed beds of a late geological period [Abstract]. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 10: 50–9.Google Scholar
Prestwich, J. 1860. On the occurrence of flint implements, associated with the remains of animals of extinct species in beds of a late geological period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in England at Hoxne. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London 150: 277–317.Google Scholar
Prestwich, J. 1864. Theoretical considerations on the conditions under which the (Drift) deposits containing the remains of extinct mammalia and flint implements were accumulated, and on their geological age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 154: 247–309.Google Scholar
Roberts, A.J. & Barton, N.. 2008. Reading the unwritten history: Evans and Ancient stone implements, in MacGregor, A. (ed.) Sir John Evans 1823-1908: antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin: 95–113. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Roe, D.A. 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, methods of study and preliminary results. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30: 245-24.Google Scholar
Tucker, J. 2005. Nature exposed: photography as eyewitness in Victorian science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Van Riper, B. 1993. Men among the mammoths: Victorian science and the discovery of human prehistory. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, H.B. 1907. The history of the Geological Society of London. London: Geological Society.Google Scholar