Abstract
This comment concerns the article by Lewis et al. (2019). We do not question the detail of the Happisburgh site sequence, but the stratigraphical significance, the regional correlations and the age of certain localities with which the Happisburgh 1 sequence is equated by these authors. In particular we question the correlation with sequences at Warren Hill (Three Hills) and High Lodge in Suffolk since detailed research has demonstrated that they are neither the same age nor of the origin stated in the original article. We also question the correlation of disparate geological sequences on the basis of their artefactual contents; an approach long considered to be inappropriate.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Quaternary Science Reviews |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 25 Jul 2019 |