Article contents
Implements from High-Level Gravel near Canterbury
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2013
Extract
Though the terrace gravels and palaeoliths of north-west Kent are well-known, there is little published on the stratigraphy of implements elsewhere in the county, except the Sturry deposits, two miles north-east of Canterbury (Archaeologia, LXXIV, 117). The geological Drift map is old (the latest edition issued in 1875), and there is no memoir to elucidate any but the Dartford area; but in 1925 the geology of the Canterbury district was described by Messrs. Dewey, Wooldridge, Cornes and Brown in the Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol. XXXVI, pp. 257–290, and Messrs. Wooldridge & Kirkaldy read a paper to that Association this April on the physiographic evolution of north-east Kent, which throws much light on the problem presented by the Fordwich flints.
Formerly the port of Canterbury, Fordwich lies on the right or southern bank of the Great Stour opposite Sturry, and at the foot of a steep hill, which rises to 150 ft. and leads to an elevated plain between the valleys of the Great and Little Stour. In the angle between the road leading due southfrom Fordwich and that from Stodmarsh to Canterbury, west of Moat Cottages (6 in. O.S. map, Kent, XLVI, N.E.), gravel has been worked over a considerable area, the depth being about 7 feet on the east and over 20 feet at the west end. The nearest bench-mark is 151·4 feet and the base of the gravel on the west is therefore about 130 feet O.D., rising to the east. The tongue of high ground between the rivers is covered in patches with gravel and brick-earth resting on Thanet Sand, and forms a plateau about 5 miles long at about the 100 ft. level.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1933
References
page 169 note 1 A close, if surprising parallel is one from the lowest deposit in Kent's Cavern, Torquay, generally called Chelles (B.M. Guide, fig. 56).
page 169 note 2 P.S.E.A. II, 524; Journ. R. Anthrop. Inst. XLVI (1916), 197Google Scholar; Science Progress, XII (1917–1918), 83Google Scholar; Pre-palaeolithic Man, 30; Phil. Trans., CCIX (1920), 329Google Scholar; Antiquaries Journal, X (1930), 46Google Scholar.
- 9
- Cited by