1916.] THE DEPOSITS. 383 



Both clays are of fine structure and contain a relatively 

 large proportion of colloidal clay. The grains of sand are in 

 small proportion and their shapes indicate that the friction 

 they have been subjected to has had a lateral movement rather 

 than a circular. These grains are not weathered but have 

 remained translucent. 



The lower clay seems to be free from flint implements, 

 but it contains large numbers of flint pebbles derived, no doubt, 

 from the 300 ft. beach. These pebbles are water-worn and 

 patinated. Flint implements may occur, and one given in 

 " from the clay " is a so-called " Eolith," and I suspect that it 

 was from the lower clay. Only pre-Mousterian implements 

 can be in that deposit where not redistributed. 



The clays also contain striated pebbles and rock frag- 

 ments, but these are all of local rocks, excepting flint pebbles 

 and a few of sandstone ; but as these latter are found in all 

 the beaches of the raised-beach period they, doubtless, come 

 from the destroyed 300 ft. beach. These striated stones are 

 few in number, and the striatums are, as a rule, slight. I 

 account for this by the limited area of the ice-cap and the 

 short distance the ice travelled. (See Transactions, 1912, 

 Note on Glacial Clay.) Compare Mr. Sinel's opinion quoted 

 on pages 375 et seq. 



The small proportion of sand contained in the clays will 

 be the result, I think, of the clays having been suspended by 

 water and deposited. 



The upper clay is the same as regards its texture, but it 

 contains less colloid clay ; but the difference is not a great 

 one, its mode of occurrence and deposition are evidently the 

 same. The important difference is not in the clay but in its 

 contents. There are no boulders or at all events, if any, they 

 are few in number, and have only been found in the cliff 

 sections where they occur by having become detached from 

 the first deposit and accidentally become included in the 

 second — that is the explanation which seems to me to account 

 for those manifestly out of place. The next important 

 difference is that the clay is everywhere filled with flints, 

 either artifacts or chippings and cores. (See same paper.) 

 Several of these are Mousterian, all seem to be taken from 

 rolled pebbles, and by far the greater number are lustred by 

 the friction of the clay. This fact, added to the evidence of 

 the intermediate deposits, not yet described, and place the 

 clay after the Mousterian period. This is not agreed to by 

 Mr, Sin el, see ante. 



