Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:10:04.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Implements and Cores of Crayford

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

R. H. Chandler
Get access

Extract

The well-known brick-earth deposits of Crayford, in Kent (forming part of the so-called 50-ft., or middle terrace of the Thames), have for many years yielded flint implements of Mousterian type, and more recently (1910-12) I have succeeded in finding the cores from which such implements were struck.

In the closing decades of the last century long, slender knives of fine quality flint were abundant, but since the writer first came to have the pits under observation (in 1903) implements of all kinds have been rare, and many winters go by with only the discovery of a few simple flakes.

References up till 1889 are given in the “Geology of London,” and, in 1905, Messrs. Hinton and Kennard brought them up to date in their paper on “The Relative Ages of the Stone Implements of the Lower Thames Valley,” This valuable paper was the first to attribute the characteristic Crayford implement to the Mousterian period, on account of the similarity in workmanship to those from Le Moustier.

Type
Original Papers
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , 1916 , pp. 240 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1916

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 240 note * “Memoirs of the Geol. Survey” (1889).

page 240 note † “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XIX., pp. 76–100 (1905)Google Scholar.

page 240 note † “Man,” April, 1914, No. 31.

page 240 note ∥ “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vols. XIX., pp. 137–141 (1905)Google Scholar; XXIII., pp. 183–190 (1912); XXV., pp. 61–71 (1914). For fauna see ibid Vols. XI., p. 335 (1890); XVII., p. 213 (1901); XX., p. 39 (1907); and XXI., p. 493 (1910); and “Geol. Mag., Dec. 3. Vol. VII., p. 452 (1890)Google Scholar.

page 240 note § In explanation of the diagram shown in Fig. 33 (which was drawn originally for geological purposes, “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XXV., pp. 61–71Google Scholar), it may be said that the 1st (or 100ft.) Terrace of the Thames about reaches down to the top of the section at 85 ft. O.D.

page 242 note * “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XXXVI., pp. 544–548 (1880)Google Scholar.

page 242 note † The same remarks apply to another set of contiguous flakes I was lucky enough to find in another deposit—i.e., a set of rough flakes shewing nothing to suggest the characteristic implements of that deposit (St. Acheul II. and Le Moustier). The deposit in which these contiguous flakes were found is by position and flint implement culture, between the 1st and the 2nd terraces. “Proc. Geol. Assoc., Vol. XXIII., pp. 102–111 (1912)Google Scholar. It is hoped at a future time to illustrate these two sets of flakes and to deal with the interesting points they suggest.

page 243 note * Modern forgers, who are not fortunate enough to live near Brandon, frequently use “Bull Head” flint in preference to any other.

page 245 note * It is a “plunging” flake, but I consider such. production, like “hinge” fracture, to be mostly accidental.

page 246 note * Vide infra.