276 CORRELATION OF THE PREHISTORIC "FLOOR."
with anything from Eastern Essex is really later than the
majority of the other remains from the Hullbridge site. It
does not belong to the Buried Prehistoric [" Lyonesse "j Surface,
which is of such wide distribution. I have not traced this later
stage in Eastern Essex. It is obvious that a second surface
might easily be inhabited, after submergence had set in, in such
situations as Hullbridge, which might well furnish a habitable-
surface when no such thing would have been possible in situa-
tions nearer the open sea. Some small fragments of pottery
were also sent to me by Mr. Rand. This is soft, rather thin,
very coarse, black, and with a great abundance of crushed
flint. It is identical with a type not infrequently found among
that of the Later Series of Eastern Essex. It was found by Mr.
Rand, in the clay beneath the buried surface of Hullbridge. I
should not wish to suggest from such slender evidence that the
Hullbridge floor is itself later than my Later Series. The
pottery in question may quite easily have got into this position
through some slight disturbance of the ground, either by the
hand of man, or by burrowing animals.
Upon reviewing the whole evidence, I do not think there can
be any considerable difference between the age of the Hullbridge
floor and that of the Buried Surface of Eastern Essex. And
further, that if there be any difference in age between them, that
the available evidence does not enable one to say upon which
side it may lie.
VI.—THE AGE OF THE BURIED PREHISTORIC
SURFACE AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PREHISTORIC REMAINS.
I now come to consider the question of the actual age of
the Buried Prehistoric surface, primarily of Eastern Essex, and
secondarily of localities which appear to be approximately
contemporary with it. That is to say, we now come to the
problem as to where the archaeological remains found upon
that ancient surface should be placed in our prehistoric succession.
The geological position of the buried surface, beneath widely
spread accumulations of tidal silt, is indicative of important
changes in level. It is therefore so suggestive of profound anti-
quity that one is disposed at the outset, to place it in the Neolithic
age without any further consideration.