CORRELATION OF THE PREHISTORIC "FLOOR."
279
questions which it appears to me it would he somewhat out of
place to deal with fully in a paper such as this.
I will only say here that, if we take a fairly broad definition
of the term Neolithic, as not excluding some knowledge Of
primitive metal working, then probably the Later Series of East
Essex are Neolithic. If, on the other hand, we use a more
strict definition of the term Neolithic to the absolute
exclusion of all knowledge of metal, then it is doubtful if even
the Earlier Series with their barbed arrow-points could properly
come within its boundaries—if, indeed, such a period has ever
existed.
What we want to recognise more thoroughly is that our
prehistoric remains cannot be satisfactorily grouped into fixed
periods, sharply marked off from each other. They form a
developmental succession, and we need a system of grouping
or classification which shall represent this in its true light.
The present writer has previously suggested that the Sequence
Date System, which has been used with such success by Prof.
Flinders Petrie in Egypt, should be adapted to the needs of the
European succession.32 The idea would be to take certain pro-
minent stages in the succession, and to give to each of these
certain arbitrary numbers representing " sequence dates."
These would then form a standard of comparison for defining
the relative ages of other remains. The following are the
sequence dates which it was proposed to give to the more
prominent stages in the prehistoric development. The only
modification made here is the addition in brackets of integer
numerals, which begin at 10 at the top, and work back on
a uniform system into the Palaeolithic Age.
Roman occupation [10] 00
Epoch of La Tene (or late Celtic age) [9] 90
Hallstaltien [9] 80
Larnaudien (or Later Bronze Age) [9] 70
Morgien (or Early Bronze Age) [9] 60
Robenhausien (the "Neolithic "of continental authors) [9] 50
Earlier Stage, perhaps pure Neolithic in part [9] 30 to [9] 40
Period between the Palaeolithic and Prehistoric ages [8]
Palaeolithic Period, in various sub-stages [7] 30 to [7] 90
In the paper referred to, I have endeavoured to point out
some of the advantages that I believe we should find in the
adoption of the Sequence Date System to define the relative
32 S. H. Warren, Geological Magazine (1902), p. 97.