Ancient Earthwork in Epping Forest. 
227 
of tlieir labours, and implements were hardly likely to be 
found in the rampart; they could only get there by accident 
during its erection. 
The number, position, and unweathered condition of the 
flakes seem to indicate that they were struck off at the time 
the camp was made, and that the makers of the structure 
used flint tools ; but we put forward this suggestion with 
diffidence, as great caution is necessary in making deductions 
from the evidence at present in our possession, and we beg 
leave to refer to General Pitt-Rivers’ separate opinion on this 
point given herewith. 
Flakes, of course, are the waste splinters of flint struck off 
in the manufacture of tools, and were esteemed only as 
rubbish by the tool-makers. The question now is—Where 
are the finished tools which were produced by the flaking ? 
Judging from what we know of other camps, and from the 
fact that a body of men, who perhaps used stone weapons 
and tools, probably lived inside the camp, it is not unreason¬ 
able to suppose that finished tools may be found within the 
space enclosed by the ramparts, if the original floor be 
exposed by the removal of a foot or two of the humus by 
which it is now covered. In this position, celts, arrow-heads, 
“scrapers,” “knives,” “fabricators,” and other tools might 
be found, as we find them in the soil of other camps when 
the interior is disturbed by the plough. 
Although none of the specimens appear to precisely agree 
in quality and texture with those found in Ambresbury 
Banks, still, as in that earthwork, the pottery of the Loughton 
Camp may be divided into two classes. The first is very coarse 
and of very rude manufacture, the clay being ill-prepared, 
and containing fragments of quartz and pebble ; the other is 
thinner, of finer material, harder and closer in texture, and 
without the angular stony grains. Both classes are manifestly 
insufficiently fired, and all the specimens are hand-made. 
They have been submitted to Mr. A. W. Franks, F.R.S., of 
the British Museum, who points out the great difficulty ot 
accurately estimating the age of rude pottery where no 
ornamentation is present to afford a clue, and where only 
