Essex Naturalist Vol 16 1909-1911.

The following is a transcription of the document found in Hullbridge Library 2008 with my own embellishments in italics

On the correlation of the prehistoric floor at HULLBRIDGE with beds elsewhere

By S. Hazzeldine Warren, F.G.S.
Being a Morant Club Report presented to the Essex Field Club on 17th Dec 1910.

1:- The Hullbridge Site.

The visit of certain members of the Morant Club to Rayleigh and Hullbridge on the sixteenth of October last has been described in the previous paper by Mr. F.W.Reader. I was fortunate in being a member of that party, and consequently has an opportunity of examining th prehistoric sites recently discovered by Mr Rand, of Rayleigh. The present paper is concerned with one of these sites only, namely that at Hullbridge, and with a comparison of this site with similar ones which have been discovered elsewhere.

A considerable number of worked flints were found on this site by various members of the expedition. My own "bag" on this occasion amounted to seventy-two worked flints. These consisted chiefly of flakes and cores, and did not include anything of a noteworthy character. A large proportion of these were found in place, in the section of the "floor" exposed on the mud banks of the river, and all had undoubtedly come from that site. The general character of this "floor" has been admirably described by Mr. Reader, in the paper already referred to. I need only say here that this pre-historic floor, or working site, is situated on an ancient surface, now deeply buried beneath accumulations of tidal silt. It is the actual surface on which the users of the stone implements lived, although it is now at a level which is only a very few feet above low water mark.

The buried surface was seen to occur beneath a bed of peat or peaty clay. Mr.Rand reports that he has since found the stump of a tree, in the natural position of life, on the level of the peat, but although wood was abundant, we did not see this on the occasion of our visit. The exposures seen in the banks of the tidal channels continually vary, according to the direction of prevailing wind; someplace's, previously exposed becoming deeply buried under fresh accumulations of silt, others, previously hidden becoming swept clean from all recently deposited mud.

2:- The buried prehistoric surface and the submerged forests.

A prehistoric surface buried beneath the marsh lands, with an associated peat, is widely distributed not only in Essex, but also in Lincolnshire, Somersetshire and elsewhere. It is not infrequently accompanied by a forest growth, and it then forms the familiar "submerged forests" of our coasts. The forest, however is not always present, and is no way an essential part of the phenomenon. It is very commonly seen at a level of almost two to five feet above low water mark, but it passes out of sight below the line, descending to the deeper parts of the submerged river valleys.

To what depth the surface inhabited by prehistoric man may thus descend, I have not been able to ascertain positively. The deep excavations for the docks Barry in South Wales and at Grimsby have bought to light peat beds at depths of fifty or fifty-five feet below high water mark, and at forty feet below high watermark at Liverpool, but no evidence of human occupation has yet been obtained from these depths. It is not improbable that it may yet be found.

The lowest recorded depth at which any prehistoric remains have been found comes from Southampton Docks. These were found in a thick bed of peat filling up an old river channel and not in the more usual position of the former dry land surface beneath the peat. These remains consist of flint flakes , and a perforated stone hammer. The later is stated to have been found near the bottom of the peat, at a depth of about twenty feet from the surface (which is presumably the salting surface; but the conditions under which it was found are not quite clear to me, and it does not appear to have been found in place by a scientific observer. But even taking this depth as strictly reliable, it is not much below the surface as seen on the shore at the lowest tides.

It has already been stated that the usual position in which prehistoric remains are found associated with the submerged forests is on the former dry land surface beneath the peat as exposed between tide marks on the shore of marsh lands, or silted-up estuaries of rivers. Such remains have been found in this situation by the writer at Ingoldmells Point in East Lincolnshire. They have also been recorded from both Porlock and Minehead in West Somerset, where Dr. Boyd Dawkins found flint flakes on the old land surface upon digging through the overlying peat. Kitchen-midden debris consisting of shells of edible marine molluscs and bones split for the marrow, together with flakes and cores of flint, have been discovered in Barnstaple Bay. In the earlier description this was stated to have been found in the peat of the submerged forest. Later work has shown that these prehistoric remains really occur on the old dry land surface formed by the "Head" and beneath the peat. Mr. T. Rogers has found two series of implements at Westward Ho, in this district, the one series beneath the peat exposed low down on the shore, and the other series in a bed of clay seen at just below high water mark and close to the pebble-ridge. From the fact of their higher position Mr. Rogers infers that those from the clay are the later of the two. This might almost be a description of our two series of Eastern Essex, except that in Essex it is possible to trace the junction between the two beds, when it is found that the apparently higher clay (rainwash) with its implements passes under and is overlaid by the prehistoric surface beneath the peat. At the Barry Docks section in South Wales a fragment of polished stone axe was found at the bottom of the upper peat bed, situated at a level of four feet below the Ordinance Datum line. This again appears to correspond with our buried prehistoric surface in Essex. In Whitesand Bay (Pembrokeshire), Dr. H. Hicks refers to having found a well worked flint flake in the submerged forest, associated with the remains of Red Deer and the Brown Bear.

Earlier discoveries in the submerged forest of Cornwall exposed during stream tin workings, have also been recorded.

These consist of human remains (skulls), trees cut with an axe, and other evidences of the presence of man. Further in the North, on the Cheshire coast, large numbers of first implements are reported to have been found on the shore of the peninsula of "Wirral". These have been washed out of a submerged surface, but I have not examined the locality myself; nor have I been able to obtain definate information about them. A human skeleton has been found near Leasowe Castle, in the same district, in the marine clay, underlying the Upper Peat of the Lancashire and Cheshire coast. This Upper Peat may be situated approximately upon the horizon of the "Lyonesse" surface, presently to be defined, but I have no evidence, beyond the general similarity of its position, that this is so. The question is worth further consideration, as its solution would elucidate the relative ages of the Leasowe and Walton-on- Naze skeletons; the latter was described in a preceding paper (ante pp.198-208).

In the Isle of Man, human bones have been found in the submerged forest in the Bay by Carrickey. Earlier discoveries have been made at the same place, including the foundations of a primitive hut, containing "some antique uncouth-looking instruments, conjectured to have been the property of primitive wood cutters." On the former dry land surface beneath the inland peat of the Island, stone axe-heads have also been found. In the North of Ireland, on the other hand, there is evidence of elevation since the prehistoric age, but it is not my purpose to enter further into discoveries so far afield as this.

On the East coast, besides my own discoveries at Ingoldmells Point, many flint chips and other evidences of the presence of man have been found associated with the peat exposed at low tide in the banks of the Humber at Merton.

I might also refer to the discovery, made by the Rev. G. Mumford in 1831, of a flint axe found buried to a depth of 11/2 inches from its cutting edge, in one of the trunks of the trees in the submerged forest near Hunstanton, in Norfolk. As possibly belonging to the same horizon, a chipped flint axe with a ground edge was found embedded in the frontal bone of a skull of Bos Primigenius at the bottom of the peat in Burwell Farm, Cambridgeshire. Nearly the whole skeleton of the animal, which was a fine example of its species, was found, and it had clearly been killed by the axe, which had penetrated the brain. The flint axe was itself broken across, a little way from where it would have entered the handle, probably by the force of the blow.

5:-The Correlation of the Prehistoric "Floor" at Hullbridge.

I think that it is most probable that the implements from the prehistoric floor at Hullbridge belongs to the Later Series, or are at least approximately contemporary with them. More detailed work will have to be done before one can speak with assurance. The buried surface at Hullbridge is, however, precisely similar to that of Eastern Essex, it is also similarly situated in the marsh deposits, and has every appearance of belonging to the same geological event. Some years since, a brickyard was opened in the marshes, not far from the Hullbridge site, and Mr. Rand informs me that at a considerable depth below the level of the prehistoric "floor" a number of large bones were found. I do not know what has become of these remains, but, from the description given by Mr. Rand, there seems little doubt that they belonged to the large Pleistocene mammalia. Thus, so far as one can judge, the whole succession appears to be similar in the two areas.

The technique of the flint industry from the Hullbridge "floor" is also in many respects strikingly similar to that of the Later Series if Eastern Essex, the chief difference noticed being in respect of the cores. At Hullbridge the cores are relatively rather more abundant than in East Essex. They also show a greater tendency to the production of the neat, prismatic "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 Prehistoric surface of Eastern Essex, varies much, and yet it undoubtedly 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. It is always hand-made, it is much coarsely cruches 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 infrequently ornamented with finger-nail impressions. Besides these, I have also found fragments of the "Drinking-Cup" or Beaker pottery.

The pottery which has been found at Hullbridge I am unable to precisely match with anything from Eastern Essex. It certainly 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 later. 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 wrote to me to say that the pottery which was shown at the meeting was not found on the principle floor below the peat, but on the second surface above this lower peat. It thus transpires that the somewhat puzzling pottery which I could not precisely match 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") 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 situations near 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 not 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.