Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:33:25.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English “ Eskers ”—their Structure and Distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

J. W. Gregory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The terms “ kame ” and “ esker ” have been applied in England to various mounds and ridges of sand and gravel. For some, such as those in South-east Essex either name is inappropriate, since they are not glacial deposits but are tide-formed banks of shelly sand. Most of the described English kames and eskers are clearly related to glacial formations, and their distribution and structure throw light on the later stages of British glaciation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , January 1922 , pp. 25 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1922

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 25 note 1 Holmes, Geol. in Field, 1909, p. 57.Google Scholar

page 25 note 2 Geogr. Journ., vol. xl, 1912, pp. 169–75: Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow, vol. xiv, 1012, pp. 199–218; Phil. Trans., ser. B, vol. ccx, 1920, pp. 115–51; Scott. Geogr. Mag., vol. xxxi, 1915, pp. 465–76.Google Scholar

page 25 note 3 Hist. Berwick. Field Club, v, 1886, pp. 224–31. Mem. Geol. Surv., 110 S.W., 1895, pp. 76, 77; Geol. Assoc., Geol. in Field, 1910, p. 695.Google Scholar

page 27 note 1 Norman, F. M., Hist. Berwick. Field Club, x, pt. iii, 1884, pp. 440–2. Mem. Geol. Surv.. 110 S.W., 1895, p. 74.Google Scholar

page 27 note 2 Mem. Geol, Surv., 110 S.W., p. 74.Google Scholar

page 27 note 3 Mem. Geol, Surv., 110 S.W., 1895, p. 78.Google Scholar

page 28 note 1 Ramsay, , Phys. Geol. England and Wales, 1894, 6th ed., p. 262; G. Tate, Hist. Berwick. Field Club, v, 1866, p. 239; G. A. Lebour, Geol. Northumberland, 1886, p. 21; Geol. Assoc., Geol. in Field, 1910, p. 695; Mem. Geol. Surv., 110 S.E., 1900, pp. 108–9.Google Scholar

page 28 note 2 Hist. Berwick. Field Club, v, p. 239.Google Scholar

page 29 note 1 Proc. Geol. Soc., 1841, iii, p. 346.Google Scholar

page 29 note 2 Mem. Geol. Surv:, 108 S.E., 1887, pp. 108–110.Google Scholar

page 29 note 3 Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Northumberland, n.s. III, 1908, p. 83, and IV, 1910, p. 95.Google Scholar

page 29 note 4 Cf. Lebour, op. cit., 1886, p. 25.Google Scholar

page 29 note 5 Q.J.G.S., lxxi, 1915, pp. 73–7, pl. viii.Google Scholar

page 29 note 6 GEOL. MAG., Vol. LVIII, 1921, p. 28.Google Scholar

page 29 note 7 Glac. Geol. Gt. Brit., 1894, p. 172.Google Scholar

page 29 note 8 Q.J.G.S., lxxi, 1915, p. 76.Google Scholar

page 29 note 9 Q.J.G.S., lviii, 1902, p. 575.Google Scholar

page 30 note 1 Geol. Yorks. Coalfield, 1878, pp. 775, 779, and 782; Mem. Geol. Surv., 92 S.E., 1879, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 30 note 2 Carvill Lewis has doubtfully referred to the mounds at Bingley as part of his terminal moraine, which he also suggests was possibly at Skipton (op. cit., pp. 193, 239.)

page 31 note 1 Geol. Yorks. Coalfield, 1878, p. 779; Mem. Geol. Surv., 92 S.E., 1879, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 31 note 2 Loc. cit., 1894, pp. 34, 243. It has been identified as a prehistoric earthwork.Google Scholar

page 32 note 1 92 S.E., 1879, p. 12.Google Scholar

page 32 note 2 Mem. Geol. Surv., 96 N.W. and S.W., 1886, p. 55.Google Scholar

page 32 note 3 Geol. Riv. E. Yorkshire, 1901, p. 17.Google Scholar

page 32 note 4 Proc. Yorks. Geol. and P. Soc., xii, 1893, p. 311Google Scholar

page 32 note 5 Ibid.

page 32 note 6 Geol. Rivers, E. Yorks., 1901, p. 17.Google Scholar

page 32 note 7 Presid. Addr. Brit. Assoc., Rep. Brit. Assoc. 1910, p. 26.Google Scholar

page 32 note 8 Proc. Yorks. Geol. and Poly. Soc, N.S., vii, pp. 421–39, pl. xxiii.Google Scholar

page 32 note 9 Mem. Geol. Surv., 93 N.E., 1884, pp. 28–30.Google Scholar

page 32 note 10 Proc. Yorks. Geol. and Poly. Soc., vi, 1878, pp. 214–38.Google Scholar

page 33 note 1 Mem, Geol. Surv., 104 S.W., S.E., 1888, p. 67.Google Scholar

page 34 note 1 Phillips, J., Rivers, etc., Yorks., 1853, p. 124; Mem. Geol. Surv., 93 S.E., 1886, p. 33; Geol. Holderness, 1885, pp. 51–3.Google Scholar

page 34 note 2 Mem. Geol. Surv., 83, 1888, pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

page 35 note 1 Cf. Proc. Norwich Geol. Soc., i, 1884, p. 272; Mem. Geol. Surv., 65, 1893, p. 79.Google Scholar

page 35 note 2 Mem Geol. Surv., 65, p. 75.Google Scholar

page 35 note 3 Mem. Geol. Surv., 65, 1893, pp. 75–9.Google Scholar

page 35 note 4 Geol. in Field, p. 173.Google Scholar

page 35 note 5 Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1883, viii, p. 135; Mem. Geol. Surv., 69, 1899, p. 88.Google Scholar

page 35 note 6 GEOL. MAG., 1883, p. 441.Google Scholar

page 35 note 7 Glac. Geol. Gl. Brit., pp. 340–1.Google Scholar

page 36 note 1 GEOL. MAG., 1883, p. 441.Google Scholar

page 36 note 2 Mem. Geol. Surv., 68 S.W. and N.W., 1884, pp. 34, 35, 37; Geol. Engl. and Wales, 1887, p. 510; Proc. Norw. Geol. Soc., i, pt. 8, 1884, p. 266.Google Scholar

page 37 note 1 GEOL. MAG., 1883, p. 441.Google Scholar

page 37 note 2 GEOL. MAG., 1883, pp. 439–40; Mem. Geol. Surv., Carlisle, 1899, pp. 45–7.Google Scholar

page 37 note 3 Q.J.G.S., xxi, 1875, pp. 91, 92.Google Scholar

page 37 note 4 Geology, 1876, pp. 470–1.Google Scholar

page 37 note 5 Mem.Geol. Surv., 97 N.W., p. 188.Google Scholar

page 37 note 6 Mem. Geol. Surv., 102 S.W., p. 98.Google Scholar

page 37 note 7 Mem. Geol. Surv., 98 N.E., 1888, pp. 42, 45.Google Scholar

page 37 note 8 Geol. Lake District, 1916, pp. 179–80.Google Scholar

page 37 note 9 Proc. Geol. Soc, iii, 1841, p. 347.Google Scholar

page 37 note 10 Q.J.G.S., xxix. 1873, p. 354.Google Scholar

page 40 note 1 Geol. I. of Man, 1903, pp. 353–8.Google Scholar

page 40 note 2 Mem. Geol. Surv., S.W. Lancashire, 1877, p. 44.Google Scholar

page 40 note 3 Woodward, H. B., Geol. England and Wales, p. 490; Strahan, Mem. Geol. Surv., 80 S.W., 1882, p. 17.Google Scholar

page 40 note 4 Geol. Country around Liverpool, 1897, pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

page 40 note 5 Proc. Birmingham Nat. Hist. Soc., xiv, 1916, pp. 25–35, pl. v, vi.Google Scholar

page 41 note 1 Geol. Assoc, Geol. in Field, pp. 764–5.Google Scholar

page 41 note 2 Q.J.G.S., xlviii, 1892, p. 86.Google Scholar

page 41 note 3 Mem. Geol. Surv., 154, 1919, p. 179.Google Scholar

page 41 note 4 Proc. Birmingham Nat. Hist. Soc., xiii, 1914, p. 17.Google Scholar

page 41 note 5 Proc. Geol. Soc. Liverpool, iv, 1883, p. 361.Google Scholar

page 41 note 6 Mem. Geol. Surv., 79 S.E., 1890, pp. 130, 131, 135, 137, 139, 142.Google Scholar

page 42 note 1 Mem. Geol. Surv., Anglesey, 1919, vol. ii, pp. 706, 725, 730, 741, 749–50, 759, 762.Google Scholar

page 42 note 2 GEOL. MAG., 1878, p. 541; 1882, p. 256.Google Scholar

page 42 note 3 Mem. Geol. Surv., S.W. Coalfield, ii, 1900, pp. 89–90; Newport, 249, 1899, pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

page 43 note 1 Trans. N.H.S. Northumberland, iv, 1910, p. 111.Google Scholar

page 43 note 2 For help in this map I am indebted to Mr. M. A. Peacock.Google Scholar