264 the romano-british barrow on mersea island. 
are noticeable on panning. The washed product is a coarse white sand, 
mostly quartz with a little flint and felspar. The heavy residue is mainly 
limonite, but garnet, ilmenite, zircon, kyanite, rutile, tourmaline, staurolite 
and hornblende are also present. 
(3.) Grey Material at 19 feet : 
Very similar to the last sample. Pebble other than flint rather more 
numerous. They include coarse spicular cherts, red and white ; a spicu- 
liferous sandstone (? Upper Greensand) ; brown sandstone ; bits of 
ironstone bands ; and two pebbles of white quartz. Fibrous rootlets,, 
small fragments of charcoal, and a beetle’s elytron were noticed. 
The heavy residue, as usual, is chiefly earthy limonite, with small 
amounts of garnet, ilmenite, tourmaline, zircon, rutile, staurolite, kyanite,, 
hornblende, and probably andulusite. 
(4.) Red Stratum ad 22ft. 6 in. 
Lumps of red and brown earthy material. On washing, much coarse 
material and sand are left, the former consisting largely of irregular 
lumps of burnt clay. There are also flint pebbles, spiculiferous cherts, 
chalk, yellow ochre, and calcareous lumps containing bits of burnt clay 
(? mortar). Rootlets and lumps of charcoal are fairly abundant. 
The heavy residue is chiefly limonite with small amounts of garnet, 
tourmaline, staurolite, zircon, ilmenite, kyanite, rutile, epidote, and horn¬ 
blende. Splinters of organic (?) material were also seen ; they had a high 
refractive index and low bi-refungence—like apatite. These may have 
been present also in the other samples, but HC 1 was used in these cases 
to eliminate limonite before the heavy residue was examined. 
(5) Samples from washings of the original surface at 23 feet below the 
top of the mound : 
About a dozen fragments, mostly burnt clay, red and whitish chert 
with cavities (? are these due to solution of the ferruginous oasis of 
spicules), and earthy aggregates with slight ferruginous cement. 
G. M. DAVIES, 27th June, 1913. 
The most important result arising from Mr. Davies'' exam¬ 
ination of these samples lies in the light his report throws upon 
the constitution of a certain remarkable stratum of red material 
which was met with in the lower portion of the barrow. This 
stratum consisted chiefly (as is stated fully in the general report) 
of crushed red Roman tile and yellow ochre. The materials 
of which it was composed had clearly been strewn over the tomb 
after this was closed, the stratum being as much as two inches 
thick at the centre, and gradually thinning out to nothing at 
15 or 20 feet from the tomb. I have found that, if the Red 
Stratum material be examined as a' solid object under the 
microscope, without washing, the proportion of ochre is seen to 
be much greater than appears from the washed residue. 
