CORRELATION OF THE PREHISTORIC "FLOOR." 275
''double-ended" form; that is, cores worked from both ends
by parallel flaking. The divergence, however, is not very great.
Taking the evidence of the pottery, the agreement is not so
close. It is worthy of note, however, that the pottery from
different sites, and even from the same site, on the Buried Pre-
historic surface of Eastern Essex, varies much, and yet it un-
doubtedly all comes within a narrow range of time. The pottery
that I have so far found belonging to the Earlier Series in that
district amounts to between sixty and eighty small fragments,
most of them very small. I have very much more than this
belonging to the Later Series. The earlier pottery varies far
less in paste than that of the Later Series. It is always hand-
made, it has much coarsely crushed flint in its composition, and
is usually brown, or reddish brown, in colour. The later pottery
is also hand-made, and is usually softer and darker in colour
than the earlier. It sometimes contains crushed flint, and is
then usually black in colour. The greater part of it, however,
contains neither crushed flint nor quartz grit in its composition.
It is thick and soft and dark brown in colour, and not infre-
quently ornamented with finger-nail impressions. Besides
these, I have also found fragments of the "Drinking-Cup''
or Beaker pottery.29
The pottery which has been found at Hullbridge I am unable
to precisely match with anything from Eastern Essex. It cer-
tainly more nearly resembles that of the Later Series than that
of the Earlier, and it must be remembered that the former
varies far more than the latter. It is coarse hand-made pottery,
of primitive type, but is at the same time harder and better
baked than that of the Later Series. There is also a suggestion
of greater advancement about its curves.
After this paper was read at the meeting of the Essex Field
Club on 17th December 1910, and before the manuscript had
passed through the press, Mr. Rand wrot? to me to say that
the pottery which was shown at the meeting was not found on
the principal floor below the bottom peat, but on a second
surface above this lower peat. The greater number of the flint
implements from Hullbridge have certainly come from the lower
surface below the bottom peat. It thus transpires that the
somewhat puzzling pottery which I could not precisely match
29 Hon. J. Abercromby, Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxxii. (1903 , p. 373).