Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:26:49.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sections in the Beach-plain Deposits of Dungeness, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

R. W. Hey
R. W. Hey
Affiliation:
Sedgwick Museum, Downing Street, Cambridge.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent excavations on Dungeness have provided excellent sections through the deposits of its late Holocene beach-plains. The material at the surface is loose shingle, but at a depth of a few feet this passes down into gravel packed with sand. The gravel in turn rests upon almost stoneless sand with marine shells, the contact between the two deposits falling from - 13 feet O.D. in the most northerly section to - 24 feet in the most southerly.

It is confirmed that the more pebbly deposits were laid down on an actively prograding foreshore, as has generally been supposed. Problems are raised, however, by the low levels of their base and by some of their structural and lithological features. These are discussed, and explanations are offered where possible.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 104 , Issue 4 , August 1967 , pp. 361 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

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

REFERENCES

Bagnold, B. A., 1940. Beach formation by waves: some model experiments in a wave tank. J. Instn. civ. Engrs, 15, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, O., and others, 1939. Recent coastal changes in south-eastern England: a discussion. Geogrl J., 93, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coode, J., 1853. Description of the Chesil Bank, with remarks upon its origin, the causes which have contributed to its formation, and upon the movement of shingle generally. Minut. Proc. Instn civ. Engrs, 12, 520–546.Google Scholar
Drew, F., 1864. The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye. Mem. geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., 1919. Shore Processes and Shoreline Development. New York.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, I. P., 1961. The use of tracers to study beach movements; and the measurement of littoral drift by a fluorescent technique. Revue Géomorph. dyn., 2, 81–98.Google Scholar
King, C. A. M., 1959. Beaches and Coasts. London.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. V., 1931. The effect of wave incidence on the configuration of a shingle beach. Geogrl J., 78, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, W. V., 1932. The formation of Dungeness foreland. Geogrl J., 80, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, W. V., and Balchin, W. G. V., 1940. Past sea-levels at Dungeness. Geogrl J., 96, 258–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, E. D., 1957. Primary structures in some recent sediments. Bull. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol., 41, 1704–1747.Google Scholar
Pettijohn, F. J., 1957. Sedimentary Rocks. New York.Google Scholar
Shepard, F. P., 1963. Submarine Geology. New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. O., 1937. Original structures of beaches, bars and dunes. Bull. geol. Soc. Am., 48, 723–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Straaten, L. M. J. U., 1959. Minor structures of some Recent littoral and neritic sediments. Geologie Mijnb., 21, 197–216.Google Scholar