352 ■ D. Bell — The Great Ice Age and Submergence. 



also this other point, that the shelly clay consists almost wholly of materials derived 

 from some distance, differing from those in the immediate neighbourhood, and from 

 the Boulder-clay and gravel above and below it. Further, though the clay itself 

 suggests deposition in deep and comparatively still water, the shells and other 

 organisms it contains are almost entirely of littoral species ; and though the stones 

 in it are in general rounded and water-worn, some distinctly striated are associated 

 with them, and all occur promiscuously imbedded in this fine unstratified clay, 

 without, as a rule, even a streak of accompanying sand or gravel. Mere submergence 

 seems inadequate to account for these facts. And we venture to siy that to assume, 

 first, a submergence of over 500 feet, then a re-elevation to about the old level, 

 with a return of glacial conditions much the same as before, is to hang an immense 

 series of changes upon the (as regards interpretation) more or less doubtful evidence 

 before us." (Report, p. 31.) 



Let us now look at some of the difficulties advanced on the other 

 side. One is the well-preserved condition of many of the shells. 

 Numbers of them, it is admitted, are crushed and broken ; but many 

 of them, it is pointed out, are whole, some having the epidermis 

 entire, and none, so far as observed, showing any trace of ice- 

 markings or abrasion. All this, however, is paralleled by numerous 

 known instances in which even delicate shells have been transported 

 uninjured by ice, so that it cannot be said to be at all conclusive. 



Other points that are urged against the ioe-transport theory are 

 the " extent " of the bed, its " horizontality," and its exhibiting 

 "no trace of deformation or disturbance" ("Great Ice Age," p. 141), 

 But in regard to these points opinions will diifer as to the clearness 

 or decisiveness with which they are proved by the Report. Take, 

 first, the "extent." We admit, of course, the fact that a "blue 

 sandy clay" was found at 30 yards east and 160 yards west of the 

 main pit, and also in bores at other two points between. Nor are 

 we disposed to make much of the accompanying fact that only one 

 of the bores showed any traces of shells. We are willing to grant 

 that it was probably the same clay, and probably continuous. We 

 remark, however, as very likely having some bearing on its mode 

 of formation, that it seemed to thin out very unevenly on both 

 sides of the main pit, and at a certain distance on either side it 

 ceased altogether. At the main pit it was 16 feet in thickness; at 

 30 yards to the east it was but 2\ feet ; and at 61 yards in the same 

 direction it was not found. Again, at 160 yards west, it was only 

 15 inches in thickness ; at 197 yards it was not found. It thus 

 appears to be a very irregular mass, and I'estricted within certain 

 definite limits. Certainly it is not " horizontal," the difference in 

 level between its two extremes being about 20 feet. And as 

 certainly it has been subjected to great compression and crushing — 

 whether during its deposition, or since, is a question. 



Now (1) we might ask whether the known instances in which 

 masses of clay and fragile slabs of Chalk, etc., of considerable 

 dimensions (some upwards of 180 yards in length) have been 

 transported uninjured by the ice, are not sufiicient in some degree 

 to neutralise, or lighten, any objection resting on the apparent or 

 " proved " extent of the " bed " ? ^ 



^ See Mellard Eeade on "Masses of Chalk imbedded in the Drift of Cromer" 

 (Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxviii, 1882). Also " Great Ice Age," p. 338. 



