^{page 64 note 1} A short description of this deposit was given in the Geological Magazine, vol. lvii, 1920, p. 307.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} “The Superficial Deposits and Preglacial Valleys of the Northumberland and Durham Coalfield”: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. lxi, 1905, pt. 1, and map, pl. ix, p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} I consider that this geologist, who evidently thoroughly appreciated the importance of the occurrence of high-level Raised Beaches in Durham, was quite justified when he asked me to be cautious in accepting the evidence for their existence (see discussion, Geographical Journal, 07, 1907, p. 56Google Scholar).

^{page 64 note 4} I also think that until the Easington deposit was discovered, Dr. Trechmann, in speaking of the beds along the coast of South Durham, had complete justification for stating “that he did not see the necessity for assuming these gravel deposits of marine origin” (Q.J.G.S., vol. lxxi, pt. i, 1915, p. 75Google Scholar). I had, however, definite evidence in 1900–6 of a Raised Beach at a higher level in northeast Durham, and had made in 1903–4 a detailed examination of the course of conglomerate to the north and south of Easington, which had convinced me of its origin. (I do not think that the path that cuts through the Easington deposit existed at that time.)

^{page 65 note 1} It is important to notice that the platform must have been cut on boulder clay. This clay is the Main or British Drift of this coast containing Lake District and Cheviot erratics. Even if the Raised Beach is restricted to the narrowest limits, yet the platform must have been cut on boulder clay.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} About 10 feet can be clearly seen in the section, but its thickness {allowing that the platform runs back horizontally} has been proved by a cutting made in the face above it to be 15 feet. The bedded gravels are this thickness, being overlaid by a few inches of soft sand containing shell fragments, above which is a reassorted boulder clay. Calcreted gravels with a level upper limit can be seen in the railway cutting above at about 90 feet. The writer is of the opinion they are marine, although it is difficult to prove this; it is also uncertain whether they are continuous with the gravels and sands below.

^{page 66 note 2} A collection of shells from this deposit has been placed in the Sunderland and Newcastle museums.

^{page 66 note 3} My determination of the forms has in most cases been verified by Dr. Trechmann or Mr. Iredale, of the British Museum.

^{page 66 note 4} At one part two or three shells of Helix are cemented in.

^{page 69 note 1} I have obtained numerous perfect Littorinas from the higher beach on Fulwell, and some have been found in the Cleadon Sand Pit, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} “The Interglacial Problem and the Glacial and Post-Glacial sequence in Northumberland and Durham”: GEOL. MAG., Vol. LVIII, 1921, p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} e.g. the Horsebridge Head deposit near Newbiggen, and the Sewerby Kaised Beach near Flamborough Head were so preserved.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} The estuarine leafy clays and well-worn shingle which occur at Ivirmington (Lincolnshire) obviously lessens the force of this argument (see footnote p. 71).Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Low level beaches (30 feet (?) and 10 feet) do occur in North Northumberland, and high level beaches (125 feet) occur in Scotland.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} In these deposits fossils are scarce, but the shells found in connexion with the higher beds indicate a colder climate than those of the Durham beaches. The fauna includes Pecten greenlandicus, Leda arctica, Tellina myopsis (all Arctic forms) and remains of the small Arctic seal. The lower terrace is associated with clays containing Scrobicularia piperata (which also occurs in the Kirmington deposit), and indicates the incoming of warmer conditions. Geikie, J., Great Ice Age, p. 273Google Scholar, and Geol. Surv. Mem.: “The Neighbourhood of Edinburgh,” 1910, p. 335Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 1} B. A. Report, Cambridge, 1904, p. 272. In this section there is a deposit of laminated clay with estuarine shells, etc., at about 70—80 feet above sealevel. It is underlaid by Purple Drift (= Main or British Drift of Durham Coast) and above it is a well-worn beach-shingle, principally of battered flints and a clay with foreign stones. Is this clay a true boulder clay ? Is it Hessle clay ? If so, it is the equivalent of the Durham Prismatic Clay and other reassorted clays which are not of direct Glacial origin. The Kirmington deposit is, in my opinion, late Pleistocene, and may be similar in age to the raised marine deposits of the Durham littoral and contemporaneous with some of the leafy and other clays of the Tyne Valley, etc. The evidence does not appear to be sufficient to prove the Kirmington deposit to be an Interglacial (or even an Interval) deposit, see Lamplugh, “The Interglacial Problem in the British Isles”: International Geological Congress, Canada, 1913, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Geology in the Field, p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Woodward's Geol. of England and Wales, p. 555.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 4} e.g. the Brown clay, Common clay, etc., of the Tyne valley.

^{page 72 note 1} The higher part of the Easington gravels (90 feet) may be contemporaneous with this 150 beach in north-east Durham. I stated in my paper on “The Superficial Deposits of the Northumberland and Durham Coalfield” (op. jam. cit., p. 75) that the course of cemented gravels of which the Easington deposit forms a part appears to rise very gradually from south to north. This observation, which now that these deposits are proved to be of littoral formation, is one worthy of investigation and surveying, as if it is correct, and due to the uplift only, it should not only be of value in considering the Pleistocene deposits of the East of England, but also in connexion with an important subject in theoretical geology, viz. that such changes of level as the Easington and similar formations prove were due to movements of the terrestrial crust and not to oscillations of the surface of the ocean (SirGeikie, A., Q.J.G.S., vol. lx, 1904, p. cix).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Mr. Merrick, E. informs me this depression can be definitely proved to have occurred.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Some of the clay with boulders (unstriated or occasionally striated) which is often called boulder-clay is not of direct Glacial origin, but is reassorted material. Another term should be used to distinguish it, perhaps “Stony clay” would do.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} This statement is true whether we accept the higher beach as proved or not, although in my opinion the extent and mode of occurrence of the leafy clays necessitate the existence of the higher beach. The formation of the beaches was contemporaneous with the deposition of stony and stoneless reassorted non-laminated clays and with leafy days; and the uplift with extensive erosion of these and earlier Glacial and Fluvio-glacial beds. The Kirmington estuarine deposit was probably laid down at the same time as the leafy clays of the Tyne valley.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} I am of the opinion that the sea invaded the area as the ice was melting. The rafted boulders which have been dropped into the deposits were carried by floating ice (no remains of trees are found in the clays), and the contorted sands that sometimes occur (e.g. Ryhope) were probably produced by stranding ice-blocks.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} Same as the Purple Clay of Yorkshire.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} The Yorkshire Basement Clay is probably slightly later than the Durham. The evidence appears to prove that there was a Glaciation-Interval (Interglacial Period?) between.Google Scholar