a em modes ' Gee oy) whe THE WILTSHIRE Archeological ont Batwral Bistory MAGAZINE, Published unver the Wirection of the Society FORMED IN THAT COUNTY A.D. 1853, VOL. XVI. DEVIZES : H. F. & E. Buut, 4, Sarnt Joun StReer, 1876. The Committee of the Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society desire, on the part of the Society, to express to the Author of the valuable paper on Stonehenge, their deep sense of his kindness in undertaking that work, at their urgent request, and their gratitude for his generosity in presenting the illustrations. CONTENTS OF VOL. XVI. Nos. XLVI.—VII. EPCATIOTIOTEN Can ccaicisie oo, (Su Ga eic uccvainnicic.ele sicutaidiaisicioveaesiees co pale.atele Historical and other Notices of Stonehenge from Henry of Hunting- | don, to the date of the Publication of Sir R. C. Hoare’s “ Ancient WV Mts sd, (ISLD) | ioe este ata eonesine) in bendeaekssscess PENT PART II. Description of Stonehenge ...... ......seeeeeeee SE hein ee Geological Character of the Stonehenge Stoned .ccccccs cccece cece Destruction of the Stones of Stonehenge .........002 secceee ne Bho Pall ‘of the ‘Trilithon: In L797 on. eve cence coves vatece Flint Flakes found within the Area of Stonehenge ............ 2 Diggings within the Precincts of er eae and their results.. The Avenues and Cursus ....... sertatiieielelala sts] cielacateloveie eveia PART III. By whom were these Stones set up? ....... Sage Sah aware + held om How were these Stones brought and set up?P.....eee seccscceeee For what purpose were these Stones set up? .....0 sees. ceccees PART IV. Salisbury Plain and the Stonehenge Barrows .....seassee.coneece Appearance of Stonehenge from the Plain ..........eecees s.eeee The Barrows surrounding Stonehenge and the pence results of BEG ER MEAN AGON a7 ain 's ae eae clan) a).aie wins ainiain\eiaa/ 186 PART V. Porrrcat Novices OF STONEHBNGE...+++++seeecererterceeres Geis. 187 MRE bat. SS Sek cle da Pe leintanae Calin eee se 00 Vos 66 8 RRS SE SETS 192 APPENDIX, (containing a detailed account of the Investigation of the Barrows around Stonehenge) ....+++ sereeeressrcsersrereesree® 193 ADDENDA AND NOTES. ...sececeeecccescscessessesensceese es 88 218 INDEX OF NAMES . coe seprcccsceccrces eecce sere peeewesnesessse? 241 ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE. *Map of Stonehenge and its Environs, from Sir R.C. Hoare’s ‘* Ancient Waltshire,?? svol. 2.5 "asses ate aides. 0? ile « hier ste oe ccc l LO M@Geaenes Fac-simile of Aubrey’s “ Ioknographic of Stoneheng” from his ‘¢Monumenta Britannica” ........ Arp s0S5% HcuceEe Sele lanl ereg caret 32 Sketches from the ‘‘ Monumenta Britannica ”.............. se. 36 Copy of the oldest engraving of Stonehenge, dated 1575, from that made for Gough’s edition of Camden’s “‘ Britannica” .......... 45 Copy of the rude draught of Stonehenge in a MS. in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (from that in Gough’s ‘‘ Camden ”)...... oni 46 Chromolithographic Plans of Stonehenge in its original, and in 1 Ae present state (see page 233) ....cescee caneeees A-89683 eegadood < of *Ground Plan of Stonehenge, from ‘‘ Ancient Wilts”......-.. «s+. 54 Stonehenge; irom. -/ATICient sVValts sy; etcjsiels eievec. 6 oie cise is welee és 58 Copy of sketch of the ‘‘ Slaughtering Stone,” made by Mr. Giudtia ton; EWS, Asli gl S02 WAciets.< o.ajersiareiciss aps s araimanis tes Be wean) nina east 93 Copy of Mr. H. Browne’s print, showing the manner in which the transverse stones of Stonehenge were connected together ........ 93 Map to illustrate the Belgic Inroads in the South of Britain (from Dr. Guest’s map in “ Arch. Journal,” viii.) ......-... a eae isiere = 104 Long Barrow, from Hoare’s ‘‘ Tumuli Wiltunenses” ... ....e0. «- 149 ~tRowl-shaped IBArtOW: °c. slele ohicisialss pac) sipitey eo lolsiete sivto ie Nic et staieteiete 149 **Bell-shaped Barrow ...,......-.+s eferiage sietet sie cus/elelstale's.s eteiseeeTete 149 **Dise-shaped Barrow........ o uiseionts sieppieeiele cies 149 **Section of Disc- Manoa Busoe, at wyeatonbenea Stoke ccm cris aise 149 Uru, with overhanging rim 16 inches high, 11 in diameter, (Hoare’s “ Ancient Wilts,’’ i., 237 and title page)....... 5 incre incmgon ioc 168 eco; +" Stonehon ee gUET 5 sure, cet) poles sai ai staieie el pse"e) aie nie ela aie pNearerate 169 Incense Cups. 1. ‘“‘A very beautiful and perfect grape cup” (Sir R. Hoare ‘Ancient Wilts,” p. 199) from barrow No. 133. 2. Of the ‘‘Contracted” form, from Woodyates. (See on this cup, Thurnam’s British Barrows, ‘‘ Archeeologia,” xliii., 373) .... 169 Drinking Cup, from barrow No. 93, half-size ........ aie (eines teleerarete 171 **Ivory Armlet, from Winterbourn Stoke .........cse20 coosceece 1792 e*Am ber Necklace, from Taks’ a2 sic sfateis ote alates clots loieiey siertte stoi seis 181 **Plates for an Amber Collar, from Lake... .e.sce ccscercescvccce 181 **Collar of Amber, as restored, from Lake .....,ecsecsceceeecececs 181 **Gold Beads, ‘irom Wilts’and Norfolk.:.: Durringten Down Durrington Seale of Chams Wiksford: Group * : W Mast & Come es Conper plater, by the Michele Bag’? By William Long, Esq. | 15 Dehine tantum munus suscepit Hibernia gaudens, Nam virtus lapidum cuilibet ampla subest. Nam respersus aquis magnam transfudit in illas Vim, qua curari sepius eger eget. Uter pendragon hance molem transvexit ad Ambri Fines, devicto victor ab hoste means. O quot nobilium, quot corpora sancta virorum, Tlic Hengistz proditione jacent ! Intercepta fuit gens inclita, gens generosa, Intercepta, nimis credula, cauta minus. Sed tune enituit preclari consulis Eldol Virtus, qui leto septuaginta dedit.” The history of Geoffrey of Monmouth was versified by Robert of Gloucester, who wrote after 1278. These are the last four lines of his account of the transfer of the stones from Ireland .— ‘‘ Uter the Kynges brother, that Ambrose hette also In another maner name ychose was therto And fifteene thousant men, this dede for to do, And Merlyn, for his quoyntise, thider went also.” In vol. ui. of the Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden,! Monachi Cestrensis, p. 23, ed. 1869, is the following, “'The secunde (mer- uaille) is at Stanhenges, nye to Salisbury, where stones of a grete magnitude be exaltede in to the maner of gates, that thei seme as gates putte on gates, where hit can not be'clerely perceyvede how and wherefore the stones were sette there.” In the Eulogium (Historiarum sive Temporis), Chronicon ab Orbe Condito usque ad annum Domini MCCCLXVI., a monacho quodam Malmesburiensi exaratum,? ed. 1860, vol. ii., p. 141, we find the following account of Stonehenge, “ Sunt in Britannié fontes calidi morbis mortalium medicinales. Sunt in ea plura mirabilia; sunt enim apud le Stonhenge lapides mire magnitudinis in modum por- tarum elevati, nec liquide perpenditur qualiter aut quomodo sunt ibi constructi.” Then we have the old story (p. 280) “how the 1 Higden was -born in the latter part of the thirteenth century, somewhere in the west of England. He took monastic vows about 1299, and died in March, 1363, and was buried in the Abbey of Chester. 2 Written in the year 1372. 16 Stonehenge and its Barrows. - Britones nullum falsum cogitantes, constituerunt diem amoris in civitate Ambri, ubi nunc est le Stonehenge ; ” how they were treacherously slain, and how Aurelius Ambrosius (pp. 802, 303) volens honorare sepulturz locum ubi proceres Britonum Engystus ! dolo ceciderat, misit propter choream Gigantum in Hiberniam qui eam per artem Merlini attulit, et circa sepulchrum nobilium occis- orum statuit choream predictam, que nunc vocatur Lapis pendens 1Dr. Rolleston, in a paper on ‘‘ The modes of sepulture observable in date Romano-British and early Anglo-Saxon times in this country,” points out, from the fact that Anglo-Saxon urns, indicating cremation, had been found in as many as fifteen counties in England, and that this practice could only have been prevalent during the 150 years intervening between the comings of Hengist and of St. Augustine, that we have here a clear proof that the Anglo-Saxons came over in great numbers. He says, ‘‘It is the fashion to consider Hengist a mythical person, and to disregard alike the story of his landing in Kent, and of his being executed at Conisborough, in South Yorkshire. But these urns show that men, such as Hengist was, did spread themselves over the very area which he is said to have overrun ; possibly not in so short a period as the forty years assigned for his exploits, but, what is of greater consequence, without giving up the manners and customs and creed of the country whence they came, and in which at the present day (see Kemble’sHore Ferales, pl. xxx. et passim) we find similar relics to those of which we have been here speaking.” Dr. Rolleston also argues from this prevalence of Anglo-Saxon urn burial over such an area and for such a period that the influence of the clergy, and of the Christian religion, which has always resolutely fought against cremation, must have been destroyed. As there is a disposition in some quarters to look favorably upon the revival of cremation, it may be as well to give the following references quoted by Dr. Rolleston, ‘‘ Tertullian, A.D, 197, cit. Grimm, Berlin, Abhand, 1849, p. 207, ‘Christianus cui cremare not licuit’; see also History of Estho- pians, as lately as 1210, A.D.; Grimm, ibid, p. 247; Pusey, Minor Prophets, Amos, vi., 10, ibique citata; Kemble ‘Hore Ferales,’ p. 95, ‘ Wherever Christianity set foot, cremation was to cease.’” The results of the Teutonic invasion of Britain upon its Christianity are forcibly set forth by Dean Milman, in his ‘Latin Christianity ” Book, iv., c. 3, ‘‘ Britain was the only country in which the conquest by the Northern barbarians had been followed by the extinction of Christianity.” . . . ‘‘ The Saxons and the Anglians, in their religion unreclaimed idolaters, knew nothing of Christianity but as the religion of that abject people whom they were driving before them into their mountains and fastnesses. Their conquest was not the settlement of armed conquerors amidst a subject people, but the gradnal expulsion—it might almost seem, at length, the total extirpation—of the British and Roman- British inhabitants. Christianity receded with the conquered Britons into the mountains of Wales, or towards the borders of Scotland, or took refuge among the peaceful and flourishing monasteries of Ireland.’’ . ee — By William Long, Esq. 17 — et Anglice Stonehenges. Post hc periit rex veneno apud Wyn- toniam, anno xliiii regni sui. Sepultus est in cemeterio quod ipse preparaverat, scilicet, infra choream Gigantum. Mortuo Aurelio coronatus est Uther frater ejus. Tempore tamen Aurelii regis per artem Merlini de Hibernia ducti sunt lapides ille (sic) magn que nunc apud le Stonhenge site sunt. In Hibernia vo- cate fuerunt Gigantum Choree. Merlinus autem cum primo regi de lapidibus tetigerat rex solutus est in risum, dicens an lapides Britan- nie tanti valoris essent et tanti pulchritudinis sicut Hibernia? Cui respondit Merlinus: Ne moveas rex vanum risum, quia hec absque vanitate profero. Mystice sunt lapides ille et ad diversa miedicamina salubres; nam olim gigantes illos asportaverunt ex ultimis finibus Afric, et posuerunt in Hiberniam dum ibi habitarent; erat autem hee causa: cum aliquis illorum infirmabatur vel vul- nerabatur, statim infra lapides confecerunt balneum de herbis et de lotione lapidum quia tanti fuerunt medicaminis quod, lapidibus lotis et aqua potata vel in balneum missa, «groti vel vulnerati statim sanitatem reficiunt. Non enim est ibi lapis qui medicamento careat, steterunt autem in monte Killarno. De lapidibus satis est. Andrew Borde, of Phisicke Doctor, who called himself Andreas Perforatus, and whom others called Merry Andrew, “ in his fyrst Boke of the Introduction of knowledge” (1542), reckons among the wonders of England, “ the hot waters of Bath,” and tells us that “in winter the poore people doth go into the water to kepe themself warm, and to get them a heate;” the salt-springs “of the whych waters salt is made;”—the “ Stonege” on Salisbury Plain, “certayne great stones so placed that no gemetricion can set them as they do hang ;” “ fossil wood, there is wood which doth turne into stone ;” and the royal touch, which “doth make men whole of a syckness called the Kynge’s evyll.” See Retrospective Review, vol. i., 1853, N.S. _ John Hardyng was an investigator of our national antiquities and history, and at length clothed his researches in rhyme, which he dedicated under that form to King Edward the Fourth, and with the title of “The Chronicle of England unto the reigne of King VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. c 18 Stonehenge and its Barrows. . Edward the Fourth in verse” (London, 1543). He thus sings of the obsequies of Aurelius Ambrosius :— ‘¢ Within the Giantes Carole, that so then hight, The Stone Hengles, that nowe so named bene, Where prelates and dukes, erles and lords of might, His sepulture to worship there were sene. Thus this worthy Kyng was buryed by dene, That reygned had that tyme but thirten yere When he was dedde and laide so on bere.” And Constantine was :— . “ Baryed at Caroll ne lesse, Besyde Uterpendragon full expresse Arthures fader, of great worthynesse ; Which called is the Stone Hengles certayne, Besyde Salysbury upon the playne.” He had previously thus written of the erection of Stonehenge, as a monument to the Britons :— ‘The Kyng then made a worthy sepulture, With y*® Stone hengles, by Merlins’ whole aduise, For all the lordes Brytons hye nature, That there were slain in false and cruell wise, By false Engest, and his feloes vnwise ; In remembraunce of his forcasten treason, Without cause, or any els encheson.” Leland died in 1552, leaving behind him, amongst other writings, “Commentarii de Scriptoribus Britanicis.” In this work (vol. 1., p. 42—48) is an account of Ambrosius Merlin. The following is an extract from a translation of it, made by Canon Jackson for Dr. Thurnam: “ After the death of Vortigern, the Britons plucked up fresh courage under a new leader; so much so, that in a short time they slaughtered and despatched to the regions below the greater part of the Saxons with their chieftain, Hengist; the rest were dismissed to slavery and a precarious existence. Then it was that Ambrosius began to study the glory of Britain, to restore cities and castles, and once more to elevate religion also to its former dignity. Amongst other things he was seized with the most generous desire of perpetuating the illustrious memory of the British nobles, who, whether through the fraud or the valor of Hengist and his party, I cannot say—fell on Salisbury Plain.” Merlin was sent for, and “began by searching for a bed of stone in large masses, such as By Witham Long, Esq. 19 - abound in Salisbury Plain, and having found one which was both near the site fixed upon and was also remarkable for the enormous size of its blocks, he immediately collected a number of ‘ navvies,’ giving them orders to set to work hard and lay the ground open, wide and deep. The men got their tools together, and set to work. But when they came to raise to the surface the largest of the blocks out of its native bed, the ‘navvies’ were utterly at a xon-plus what to do. Then Merlin by his art and skill lent that aid which the men’s strength could not supply. By wonderful ingenuity that seemed almost inspired, he constructed machines similar to, and certainly not less cleverly contrived than those which in his Tenth Book on Architecture, Vitruvius attributes to Ctesiphon and Metagenes. So superior in difficult undertakings is the mind to the body. And now the engines were set up, the work glowed, every one being intent upon his own special business. To be brief, at least 56 slabs [tabula], of immense size and weight were brought to the spot where a large number of the British nobility had been put to death. Recourse was again had to genius and machinery, for Merlin, having marked out a round place, ordered the stone- quarriers to set up those enormous blocks, which were much greater in height than in breadth, and to place them in circular form at equal intervening distances. His next order was to unite the summits of these stones by placing enormous blocks over the vacant intervals, so as to form acrown. Besides these, other stones also were set up in the same, or very similar manner, only within the area of the outer circle, of which some have fallen through the in- jury of time. The same has also happened to some of the coronary stones of the first circle.” } SO 1 About the fetching of them from Ireland, it is all fabulous. For every person ever of common information must know that these stones, so large as not even to be moved by any mechanism in our unscientific days, were brought by Merlin with marvellous skill and the help of ingenious machinery from some neighbouring quarry to the place where they are now the admiration of travel- lers. It would, indeed, have puzzled him to bring them by sea to Amesbury, for there is no sea coast within 20 miles of it.” From the Latin in Collectanea, ii,, by Canon Jackson ( Wilts Mag. i., 176), who says, ‘‘It is remarkable that though so close to Stonehenge (which, no doubt, he saw), Leland has left no description of that place or Avebury.” c2 20 Stonehenge and its Barrows. In Polydore Vergil’s ! English History (edited by Sir Henry Ellis for the Camden Society, 1846), is the following: “The Englishmenne after this [defeat of the Saxons and death of Ambrosius, King of the Britons] hadd quietnes, nothinge againste their wills, within vj. monethes having vj. hundred discommoditees ; the Britons, never- theles, intentive to nothinge, and the lesse readie to annoye them throwghe there death of there kinge, for whome, in the meane time, in that hee hadde well deserved of the common wealthe, thei erected a rioll sepulcher in the fashion of a crowne of great square stones, even in that place wheare in skirmished hee receaved his fatall stroke. The tumbe is as yet extante in the diocesse of Sarisburie, neare to the village, called Aumsburie.” “ Polydori Vergilii Anglice histori libri xxvii. fol. Basilew, 1557. Angli secundum hee, non inviti quievere, sexcentis intra paucos menses affecti incommodis, Britanno presertim nihil moliente, et ob mortem sui ducis, minus in malis parato, qui interea duci suo Am- brosio de Republica bene merito magnificum posuit sepulchrum, factum ad formam corone, ex magnis quadratis lapidibus, eo loci, ubi pugnando ceciderat, ut tanti ducis virtus ne oblivione eorum, qui tune erant, aut reticentia posterorum insepulta esset. Extat etiam nunc id monimentum in diccesi Sarisberiensi prope pagum, quam Amisberiam vocant.” In the first edition of Camden’s?“ Britannia” (1586), is the following account of Stonehenge: “ Septentriones versus ad vi. plus 1 Polydore Vergil, described by H. Wharton, in his ‘‘ Anglia Sacra,” as “ vir undequaque doetissimus, et Anglicans Historie peritissimus,” was born at Urbino in Italy, in the latter half of the fifteenth century, and died 1555. He was Archdeacon of Wells in 1508, and was employed by Henry VII. to write a history of England. ‘‘ His attainments went far beyond the common learning of hisage. The earlier part of his history interfered with the prejudices of the English. He discarded Brute as an unreal personage ; and considered Geoffrey of Monmonth’s history an heterogeneous mixture of fact and fable, furnishing comparatively little which could be safely relied upon as history” (Sir H. Ellis). Hence the abuse of Vergil by Leland, Sir H. Savile, Paulus Jovius, Humphrey Lluyd, Caius, and others, as a disparager of the British Antiquities, a destroyer of manuscripts, &e. ? Camden was born in London in 1551, and died in 1628. He was buried in Westminster Abbey. Ee By William Long, Esq. 21 minus a Sarisburii milliari, in ill planitie, insana (ut Ciceronis verbo utar) conspicitur constructio.! Intra fossam enim ingentia et rudia saxa, quorum nonnulla xxviii. pedes attitudine, vii. latitudine, colligunt, corone in modo triplici serie eriguntur, quibus alia quasi transversaria sic innituntur, ut pensile videatur opus; unde Stone- henge nobis nuncupatur, uti antiquis historicis Chorea Gigantum a magnitudine. Hoc in miraculorum numero referunt nostrates, unde verd ejusmodi saxa allata fuerint, cum tot& regione finitima vix structiles lapides inveniantur, et quanam ratione subrecta, demi- rantur. De his non mihi subtilius disputandum, sed dolentius de- plorandum obliteratos esse tanti monumenti authores. Attamen sunt qui existimant saxa illa non viva esse, id est, naturalia et excissa sed facticia ex arend purd, et unctuoso aliquo coagmentata. Fama obtinet Ambrosium Aurelianum, sive Utherum ejus fratrem, in Britonum memoriam, qui ibi Saxonum dolo, in colloquio ceciderunt, illa Merlini mathematici operA posuisse. Alii produnt Britannos hoe quasi magnificum sepulchrum eidem Ambrosio substruxisse eo loci; ubi hostili gladio ille periit, ut publicis operibus contectus esset, edque extructione, que sit ad sternitatis memoriam, quasi virtutis ara.” In “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine,” by John Speed,? 1627, is a map of Wiltshire, with an engraving of Stonehenge in one corner. ‘Ten transom stones are represented in it as in their places. ‘Ihe following description is engraved beneath it: “ This ancient monument was erected by Aurelius surnamed Ambrosius, King of the Brittaines, whose nobility in raigne of Vortiger (his countryes scourge) about ye yere of Christ 475 by treachery of ye Saxons, on a daye of parley were there slaughtered and their bodyes 1 Cicero pro Milone, 20. ‘‘ Ante fundum Clodii, quo in fundo, propter _ insanas illas substructiones, facile mille hominum versabatur valentium. Edito adversarii atque excelso loco superiorem se fore putabat Milo, et ob eam rem eum locum ad pugnam potissimum elegerat?” 2 John Speed, born at Farrington, in Cheshire, about 1555, brought up to the business of a tailor, was enabled by the liberality of Sir Fulk Greville to devote himself to the study of English history and antiquities. ‘‘ According to Tyrrel and Bishop Nicholson, he was the first who, slighting Geoffrey of Monmouth and other legendaries, commenced at once with solid and rational matter.” He died in 1629, His history of Great Britain was published in 1614. 22 Stonehenge ‘and its Barrows. there interred. In memory whereof this king Aurel caused this Trophye to be set up. Admirable to posterityes both in forme and quantitye. The matter thereof are stones of great bignes, conteyn- yng twenty eighte foot and more in length and tenn in breadth, these are set in ye ground by towe and a thrid laide gatewise over thwart fastned with tenons and mortaises wrought in the same weh. seeme very dangerous to all that passe thereunder. The forme is rounde, and as it semeth hath been circulated with three rankes of these stones, many whereof are now fallen downe and the uttermost standing contayneth in compass three hundred foot by measure of assize. They all are roughe and of a graye colour, standing within a trench that hath bene much deeper. In this place this forsayd King Aurelius with 2 more of ye Britishe Kings his successours have beene buryed with many more of their nobilitye and in this place under little bankes to this daye are founde by digging bones of mighty men and armoure of large and ancient fashion. Not farr hence is sene the ruines of an ould fortresse thought by some to be built there by the Romaines when this kingdom was possessed by the Emperours.” Speed’s “ History of Britain,” second edition, 1672, p. 267, says, “Unto this Aurelius Ambrosius is ascribed the erection of that rare and admirable monument, now called Stonehenge, in the same place where the Britaines had been treacherously slaughtered and interred, whose manner and forme in our draught of Wiltshire wee have in- serted. The matter being stones of a great and huge bignesse, so that some of them containe twelve tonne in waight and twenty eight foote or more in length, their breadth seven and compasse sixteene. These are set in the ground of a good depth, and standing a round circle by two and two, having a third stone somewhat of lesse quantity laid gate-wise over thwarte on their toppes fastened with tenons and mortaises, the one into the other, which to some seeme so dangerous as they may not safely be passed under, the rather for that many of them are fallen downe and the rest suspected of no sure foundation. Notwithstanding at my being there, I neither saw cause- of such feare, nor uncertaintie in accounting of their numbers, as it is said to be. The stones are gray, but not ee ae ea aes ee By William Long, Esq. 28 marbled, wherein great holes are beaten even by force of weather, that serve for ravens and other birds to build in and bring forth their young. The ground plot containeth about three hundred foot in compasse, in plan almost round, or rather like unto a horse-shoe, with an entrance in the east side. Three rowes of stones seeme formerly to have been pitched, the largest outwards and the least inwards, many whereof are now fallen downe, but those that stande shew so faire an aspect, and that so farre off, that they seeme to the beholders to be some fortresse or strong castle. A trench also is about them, which hath beene much deeper, and upon the plaines adjoyning many round topped hilles without any . . . trench (as it were cast up out of the earth) stand like great Hay Cockes in a plaine meadow. In these and thereabouts by digging have been found pieces of ancient fashioned armour with the bones of men, whose bodies were thus covered with earth that was brought thither by their well-willers and friends even in their head-peeces; a token of love that then was used, assomeimagine. This trophy Aurelius Ambrosius (in memorial of the Bs. massacre) created and is worthily accounted one of the wonders of this island, and one in the verses of Alexr. Necham called the Giant’s Dance, wherein this Ambro- sius, &e., &c., as in Geoffrey.” According to Antony a Wood (Athen Oxonienses, vol. i., p. 631 ; Bliss’ ed. ii., p. 659), John Speed, M.A., M.D., born ec. 1595, son of the above, an eminent physician, wrote “ Stonehenge,” a pastoral which was acted before Dr. Richard Bailie, the President, and Fellows, of St. John’s College, Oxford, in their common refectory, at what time the said Doctor was returned from Salisbury after he was installed Dean thereof, 1635. “The said pastoral is not printed but goes about in MS. from hand to hand.” Among Dr. Thurnam’s memoranda for his intended paper on Stonehenge is the following: “Nero Cesar, 1624, by the trans- lator of Lucius-Florus (Bolton MS. on title) dedicated with leave to the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Admiral. | Stukeley and Aubrey had their Twining, Inigo Jones his Bolton.—J.7.] Page 181, § 32: “ Of the place of Boadicea’s buriall . . . Admirable monument of the stones upon Salisburie plaine . . . the dumbness of it 24 Stonehenge and its Barrows. speakes that it was not the work of the Romans, for they were wont to make stones vocal] by inscriptions . . . That Stonage was a work of the Britaines the rudeness itself persuades . . . plate of metal, etc. appertaine to Stonehenge, or as it is more commonly named Stonage . . . quotes Geoffrey of Monmouth to criticise . Ambrosius’ story alluded to. The ruine of the old fortress, which survives not far from Stonage also thought by some whom- soever to have been a Roman Work, afford no cypher for spelling out the founders of this stonie marvell . , . The bones of men digged up at times neere this place under little bankes, convince it to have been sepulchral, but armours of a large and antique fashion, upon which the spade and pickaxe are sometimes said to hit doe clear the owners of having been in the number of those Britains whom pagan Hengist wickedly slew, for they came weaponless, . . My jealousie touching the cause of Stonage, concludes not others freedom to censure what they please.” In “ Annales, or, a generall Chronicle of England,” begun by John Stow,! continued by Edmond Howes (folic, London, 1631), we find the following: “ Of this Ambrosius, William Malmesbury writeth thus: Surely, even then (saith he) the Brytaines had gone to wracke, if Ambrosius, who onely and alone of all the Romanes, remained in Brytaine, and was Monarch of the Realme after Vortiger, had not kept vnder the proud Barbarians, with the notable travaile of the warriour Arthur. Now it followeth in Geffrey, that this Ambrosius caused Churches to be repaired, which had been spoiled by the Saxons: he caused also the great stones to bee set on the Plaine of Salisbury, which is called Stonehenge, in remembrance of 1 John Stow, born in London, about 1525, was brought up by his father as a tailor, but took to antiquarian researches. His ‘‘Summarie of the Englyshe Chronicle” was compiled at the instance of Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and was published in 1565, and afterwards continued by Edmond Howes. His ‘‘ Survey of London” appeared in 1598. ‘‘ From his papers Edmond Howes published a folio volume, entitled ‘ Stow’s Chronicle,’ which does not however contain the whole of that ‘far larger work,’ which he had left in his study, transcribed for the press, and which is said to have fallen into the possession of Sir Symnods D’Ewes. He died, afflicted by poverty and disease, in 1605, at the age of eighty. He was a correct and gealous antiquary, and a sincere lover of truth, who neyer would be satisfied without a recourse to original documents,” erat ea es By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 25 the Brytaines that were slaine and buried there, in the raigne of Vortiger, at the banquet and communication of Hengist with the Saxons. This ancient Monument is yet to be seen, and is a number of stones, rough, and of a gray colour, 25 foote in length, and about - 10 foot in breadth, they are ioyned by two and two together, and every couple sustaineth a third stone lying overthwart, gatewise, which is fastened by the meanes of tenons that enter into mortaises of those stones not closed with any cement. It appeareth that there hath beene 3 ranks going round as circles one within another : whereof the vttermost and largest containeth in compasse 300 foote, but the other ranks are decayed, and therefore hard to reckon how many stones there be. “The Chronicles of the Britaines doe testifie, that whereas the Saxons, about the yeere of our Lord 450, had slaine 480 of the Britaines Nobility by treason, and vnder colour of a treaty, Aurelius Ambrose now King of the Britainesdesirous to continue their memory with some worthy monument, caused these stones to be set vp in a place of their murther and buriall, the which stones had beene first brought from Affrik into Ireland, and placed on mount Kaillare, and from thence by the industrious meanes of Merlin, were convayed to this place to the aforesaid end. There are about this place certaine little hils, or banks, vnder the which are found sometimes bones of big men, and pieces of armour: also not far from thence, remaine old ruines of the manner of a fortresse, which the Romanes (as it is not vnlike) did build there in times past. : Aurelius Ambrose being poysoned, dyed, when hee had 1 ae 35 yeeres, and was buried at Stonehenge, then called Chorea Gigantum.” Thomas Fuller,’ in chapter 26 of the first book of the “ Church History of Britain” (1656), gives the following account of Stone- henge: “It is contrived in form of a crown, consisting of three circles of stones set up gate-wise; some called ‘corse-stones,’ of 12 tons, others called ‘ cronets,’ of 7 tons’ weight (those haply for 1Dr. Thomas Fuller, the eminent historian and divine, died in 1661. He was the author of ‘‘the Worthies,” ‘‘ the Church History of England,” ‘‘ History of the Holy War,” etc. He was a man of “ quaint conceit,” and had such a memory that he could recite a sermon verbatim after he had heard it once. 26 Stonehenge and its Barrows. greater, and these for inferior officers) ; and one stone at a distanee seems to stand sentinel for the rest. It seems equally impossible, that they were bred here, or brought hither; seeing (no navigable water near) such voluminous bulks are unmanageable in cart or waggon. As for the the tale of Merlin’s conjuring them by magie out of Ireland, and bringing them aloft in the skies (what, in Charles’s Wain ?) it is too ridiculous to be confuted. This hath put learned men on necessity to conceive them artificial stones, con- solidated of sand. Stand they there, in defiance of wind and weather (which hath discomposed the method of them), which, if made of any precious matter (a bait to tempt avarice), no doubt long since had been indicted of superstition; whereas, now they are protected by their own weight and worthlessness.” King James I. visited Stonehenge in 1620, and was so much in- terested in it that he desired Inigo Jones, the celebrated architect, ‘to produce out of his own practice in architecture, and experience in antiquities abroad, what he could discover concerning this of Stonehenge.” The enquiring and somewhat sceptical spirit of the seventeenth century would not be satisfied with the British myths! about 1 Lady Verney well says in her paper on the ‘* Old Welsh Legends and Poetry” in the ‘‘Contemporary Review,” for February, 1876: ‘‘ The chief drawback to the study of Welsh legend has been that, as a German author observes, ‘ most old Cambrian writers have been utterly destitute of all capacity for historical criticism.’ In the pre-scientfic ages of literature they went even beyond the limits of decent self-glorification in which all nations thought it patriotic to in- dulge. ‘Welsh was the language in which Adam made love to Eve.’ ‘If two children were shut up so that they never heard any language spoken what- ever, they would be found to speak Welsh.’ Their early histories are not satisfied with Brut, who confronts us in all our early English accounts, but go back to Annun of Troy, ‘a second son,’ ‘a hero,’ who ‘was the first king of Cambria,’ ‘his identity with Eneas cannot be doubted.’ . . . Although the Welsh pedigree is probably fabulous which mentions casually some time after its opening, that ‘about this time the creation of the world took place,’ yet Noah was only one of the long line of ancestry which headed the trees of families, with any respect for themselves or their descent, while Arthur, Vortigern, and Madoc were showered in ad ubitum.” . . . ‘The antiquity of Welsh poetry and legend has been, no doubt, greatly exaggerated, andif the time and trouble spent in absurd speculations concerning the Druids, attempts to evolve all the | | By William Long, Esq. 27 Stonehenge, and we accordingly find Inigo Jones breaking away from them in the direction of the Romans, Charlton in that of the Danes, and Aubrey in that of the Druids;'! and Samuel Daniel, the poet, (1579—1619) writing thus impa- gods and goddesses of Greece out of rude hints concerning Hu and Ceridwen, or in trying to prove the affinity between Hebrew and Welsh, had been used in sifting the historical evidence, and the allusions contained in the poems, some order would by this time have been worked out of the chaos of words. These have often been put together, says Zeuss, from older poems, without under- standing them, or they have been written down from oral recitation without connection or meaning. Jt has already been seen what light can be thrown upon them by Mr. Nash, though in rather a merciless spirit for the feeling of legendary lore. Their interest is often great, as traces of extremely early manners and customs are to be found in the stories, triads, and the histories of saints. Their present form dates from MSS. of the twelfth and thirteenth cen- turies, but many of the materials from which they have been compiled, even if the exact words have not survived, have clearly come down from very rude ages.” ! As many persons still talk glibly about Druids, and others, (like the Director General of the Ordnance Survey), write about their connection with Stonehenge, as if it were ‘‘a matter, of course,” the writer would venture to commend to consideration the following words of one of the most distinguished modern writers on race and language: ‘‘ Druids are never mentioned before Cesar. Few writers, if any, before him were able to distinguish between Celts and Germans, but spoke of the barbarians of Gaul and Germany as the Greeks spoke of Seythians, or as we ourselves speak of the negroes of Africa, without dis- tinguishing between races so different from each other as Hottentots and Katfirs. Cesar was one of the first writers who knew of an ethnological distinction between Celtic and Teutonic barbarians, and we may therefore trust him when he says that the Celts had Druids, and the Germans had none. But his further statements about these Celtic priests and sages are hardly more trustworthy than the account which an ordinary Indian officer at the present day might give us of the Buddhist priests and the Buddhist religion of Ceylon. Czesar’s statement that the Druids worshipped Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva, is of the same base metal as the statements of more modern writers,—that the Budd- hists worship the Trinity, and that they take Buddha for the Son of God. Cesar most likely never conversed with a Druid, nor was he able to control, if he was able to understand, the statements made to him about the ancient priest- hood, the religion and literature of Gaul. Besides, Cesar himself tells us very little about the priests of Gaul and Britain; and the thrilling accounts of the white robes and the golden sickles belong to Pliny’s ‘ Natural History’ (xvi., ce. 44), by no means a safe authority in such matters. We must be satisfied, indeed, to know very little about the mode of life, the forms of worship, or the mysterious wisdom of the Druids and their flocks,” —Max Muller’s “‘ Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. iii., p. 250, 28 Stonehenge and its Barrows. tiently about the legendary tales which had till then prevailed :— « And whereto serves that wondrous trophy now, That on the goodly plain near Wilton stands ? That huge dumb heap, that cannot tell us how, Nor what, nor whence it is, nor with whose hands, Nor for whose glory it was set to show, How much our pride mocks that of other lands. Whereon when as the gazing passenger Hath greedy look’d with admiration, And fain would know its birth, and what if were, How there erected, and how long agone ; Inquires and asks his fellow-traveller, What he hath heard, and his opinion ! Then ignorance, with fabulous discourse, Robbing fair art and cunning of their right, Tells how those stones were by the devil’s force, From Africk brought, to Ireland in a night: And thence to Britannie, by magick course, From giant’s hands redeem’d by Merlin’s sleight: And then near Ambry plac’d in memory Of all those noble Britons murder’d there, By Hengist and his Saxon treachery, Coming to parle in peace at unaware, With this old legend then, credulity Holds her content, and closes up her care.” Before further mention of Inigo Jones’ work, which was published from his “ few indigested notes,” by his friend John Webb, in 1655, it may be as well to give the slight notices of Stonehenge given by John Evelyn, and Samuel Pepys, in their diaries. The former gives the following account of his visit on the 22nd July, 1654: “We departed [from Salisbury] and dined at a farm of my uncle Hungerford’s, called Darneford Magna, situate in a valley under the plain, most sweetly watered, abounding in trouts catched by spear in the night, when they come attracted by a light set in the stern of a boat. After dinner, continuing our return, we passed over the goodly plain, or rather sea of carpet, which I think for evenness, extent, verdure, and innumerable flucks, to be one of the most delightful prospects in nature, and reminded me of the pleasant lives of shepherds we read of in romances. Now we were arrived at Stonehenge, indeed a stupendous monument, appearing at a distance like a castle; how so many and huge pillars of stone By William Long, Esq. 29 should have been brought together, some erect, others transverse on the tops of them, in a circular area as rudely representing a cloister or heathen and more natural temple, is wonderful. The stone is so exceedingly hard, that all my strength with a hammer could not break a fragment, which hardness I impute to their so long exposure. To number them exactly is very difficult, they lie in such variety of postures and confusion, though they seemed not to exceed 100; we counted only 95. As to their being brought thither, there being no navigable river near, is by some admired ; but for the stone, there seems to be the same kind about 20 miles distant, some of which appear above ground. About the same hills, are divers mounts raised, conceived to be ancient intrenchments, or places of burial, after bloody fights. We now went by the Devizes, a reason- able large town, and came late to Cadenham.” Pepys was there on the 11th June, 1668: “Thence [that is from the Cathedral] to the inne; and there not being able to hire coach-horses, and not willing to use our own, we got saddle horses, very dear. Boy that went to look for them, 6d. So the three women behind W. Hewer, Murford, and our guide, and I single to Stonehenge, over the Plain and some great hills, even to fright us. Come thither, and find them as prodigious as any tales I ever heard of them, and worth this journey to see. God knows what their use was! they are hard to tell, but yet may be told. Gave the shepherd- women, for leading our horses, 4d.” To “ the Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly ealled Stone-heng, on Salisbury Plain, restored, by Inigo Jones, Esq., _ Architect-General to the late King,’ (1655,) is prefixed the - following preface, signed “J. W.” (John Webb.) “This dis- course of Stone-Heng is moulded off and cast into a rude form, _ from some few indigested notes of the late judicious architect, the Virtruvius of his age, Inigo Jones. That so venerable an antiquity might not perish, but the world made beholding to OPS SF him for restoring it to light, the desires of several of his learned friends have encouraged me to compose this Treatise. Had he sur- vived to have done it with his own hand, there had needed no apology. Such as it is, I make now yours. Accept it in his name 30 Stonehenge and its Barrows. from J. W.” The portion of the work for which Jones was responsible was very small. The peculiarities of his plan are that he gives three entrances, and that he makes the two inner portions of the structure of an hexagonal form. The results of his enquiry are as follows: “I suppose I have now proved from authentic authors, and the rules of art, Stonheng anciently a Temple dedicated to Czlus [by some authors called Celum, by others Uranus, from whom the ancients imagined all things took their beginning,] built by the Romans ; either in, or not long after those times [by all likelihood] when the Roman eagles spreading their commanding wings over this island, the more to civilize the natives, introdue’d the art of building amongst them, discovering their ambitious desire, by stupendous and prodigious works, to eternize the memory of their high minds to succeeding ages.” Dr. Charleton,' in a fulsome dedication to King Charles II., of his “Chorea Gigantum,” or the most famous antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stoneheng, standing on Salisbury Plain restored to the Danes,” (1663,) has the following paragraph, which will sufficiently explain his views: “ Having diligently compared Stone-heng with other antiquities of the same kind, at this day standing in Denmark, and finding a perfect resemblance in most, if not in all particulars, observable on both sides; and acquainting myself moreover with the uses of those rudely-magnificent structures, for many hundreds of years together; I now at length conceive it to have been erected by the Danes, when they had this nation in subjection ; and principally, if not wholly, design’d to be a Court Royal, or Place for the Election and Inauguration of their Kings ; according to a certain strange custom, yet of eldest date, most 1 Dr. Charleton (1619—1707) was the son of a clergyman of Shepton Mallet, and physician in ordinary to King Charles I. and afterwards to King Charles II. ‘‘He was very eminent in his profession, and lived to an advanced age ; but by reason of some imprudent management was obliged to retire from his family to one of those islands, which are the remains of our French conquests ; aud there he passed the residue of his days in obscurity and want.” It appears to have been under the influence of Olaus Wormius that the Doctor wrote his work, ascribing the construction of Stonehenge to the Danes. By William Long, Esq. 31 - sacred esteem, and but late discontinuance, among that martial people.” He is very rough in his criticism of Webb’s book, and Webb rejoined in “a Vindication of Stone-heng restored ” (1664). The three works were printed together in one volume in 1725, and, apart from their theories, are not without a considerable amount of interest to the antiquarian reader. Bishop Gibson published an edition of ‘ Camden’s Britannia,’ in 1695 in English. He does not agree with Inigo Jones, in thinking that the Romans, nor with Dr. Charleton, in thinking that the Danes, were the builders of Stonehenge; but says; “I should think one need make no scruple to affirm that it is a British monument: since it does not appear, that any other nation had so much footing in this kingdom, as to be authors of such a rude and yet magnificent pile.” He appears to have adopted Inigo Jones’ description of Stonehenge, with its errors. In Aubrey’s !“ Hypomnemata A.” is the following extract from England described, by Edward Leigh, Esq., 8vo., folio 205, 1659 : * About six miles from Salisbury in the plaines before named (they are but rarely inhabited, and had in late time a bad name for Rob- beries there committed) is to be seen a huge and monstrous piece of *Our old histo. worke Stonehenge.* Within -the circuit of a Ditch cca the. there are erected in manner of a crown in three ranks rt Gigantum, the or courses one within another certain mighty and un- Giant’sDance. Our countrymenreckon wyought stones, whereof some are eight and twenty this for one of our miracles, foot high, and seven foot broad; upon the heads of which others like overthwart peeces doe bear and rest cross-wise, with small tenants and mortises, so as the whole frame seemeth to 3) hang. 1Tt is quite unnecessary to say anything more in a note about John Aubrey, than that his name has, by means of Mr. Britton’s memoir, and Canon Jackson’s life (Wiltshire Magazine, vol. iv.), together with the valuable and inter- _ esting volume entitled ‘* Wiltshire Collections,” become a household word with ; ‘7 Wiltshiremen. It is much to be regretted that nothing has yet been heard of ‘‘ Hypom- nemata Antiquaria B.” It is exceedingly unlikely that this MS. should haye been destroyed. 32 Stonehenge and its Barrows. The following is Aubrey’s account of Stonehenge from his “ Mon- umenta Britannica,” vol. i.: “Templa Druidum. Of Stoneheng. ye eee te I am now come to Stoneheng, one of our English Stonedge(i) Stones Wonders, that hath been the subject of so much Dis- I belive is tte course, the Prospect whereof I give in Plate VI., and ow 2 the Ichnographic double, in Plate the VII"., scilicet, hath now bought one being that of Mr. Inigo Jones in Mr. Web’s the inheritance of ope: i oe a Stoneheng restored, being an handsome harmonicall ces? figure: but the cell is absolutely false : the other (fig. 2) being that which I tooke myselfe from the place, and according to y° truth. “ A.A.A. is the circular trench, which should have been distant from the Center an hundred foot by the scale, had there been space enough and is made by Aim perfectly circular, whereas in trueth it is rude. “The three entrances here are supposed by Aim to be in y‘ angles of an equilaterall Triangle, whereas indeed they are in the angles of a Scelenum. “C. the Worke itselfe. 6. 6.6.5.4. what Mr. Jones calls the celle: which he hath here protracted in the forme of an Hexagon: whereas it should be as fig. 3°. “ Fig. the %* is the Remains of it as it is now. “Had this been a Worke of the Romans, certainly they would have made this celle of some harmonicall figure ; the Ruines of it doe cleerly enough shew (without further demonstration) that it could neither be a Hexagon, or heptagon: nor can all the angles be forced to touch a circle. “From @ to @ in fig. 2° is fourty five foot. The intervall ¢ is three yards + the intervall of y* coupled stones 3 one foote. “The distance between the celle and the greater outer circle of stones is twenty one foote. “ @um : these marks signify the picked stones about five foot high, and whereas in this Diagram they are sett in the middle be- tween the greater circle and the hexagon: they are distant from the great circle but six foot and 3. These picked stones m gy within fig 24, are not a yard distant from the coupled stones. ree he Sek nograprhe ' i Oe ty ee ee ————, yp g, & ww o * Sa: ‘ , of ee Other 2253 Re, SK m4 ULE y P fs | (fhe edregrap he ptt Z neteng as Le e0maines eh : alent yeare # : s Oe ae J" KF PDA hy that Jhave canceled ad fovich uf url Mig ac4 the® Be ple ced nee, % +s anv “ih fe Bae f udp (hag: Posy jhe Wes name PLhrAevil FACSIMILE OF AUBREY S PLAN OF STONEE GE IN 16 h S B £ ! te s 1666, FROM N HIS “MONUMENTA Tr. + BRITANNICA By William Long, Esq. 33 “From the circular Trench to the great cirele of stones is thirty five yards. “The Diameter of the great circle of stones is thirty two yards $. “<3 he supposes an altar-stone; here are stones fall’n down, this supposed Altar being one of them. Perhaps they used no Altar, for I find the middle of these monuments voyed. “The heighth of the outer circular stones in fig 1 four yards. The * breadth of them two yards, the thicknese of them one yard. “The heighth of the upright stones (of the Celle, as he calles it) eighteen foot + halfe a yard. The breadth of them two yards, thicknesse one yard.. “The transome stones (or stones that lye over) fig 2 thick one yard, aad about a spanne more. “In Plate VIIth the two great stones marked a, w, one whereof (se: w.) lieth a good way off, north eastward from the circularish bank, of which there hath not been any notice taken: but I doe guesse it to be materiall, and to be the remaines of the avenue, or entrance to this Temple; which will appeare very probable, by com- paring it with the Temples of Aubury, Kynet, and ye Wedding at Stanton-Drew, one of the stones hath a mark or scratch how deep it should be sett in the earth. “b b b &e. little cavities in the ground, from whence one may well conjecture the stones c. c. were taken, and that they did stand round within the Trench (ornamentally) as at Aubury. “aaa signifie pathes worne by Carts. “09 the Bank. _ q the Ditch or Graffe. _ “The pricked lines from the stones a to ” signifie the imaginarie Walke of stones which was there heretofore. “In Plate VIII fig 2°, x is a Pitt which the Duke of Buckingham From Mrs. Trotman. ordered to be digged, when King James the first was at Wilton: at which time, and by w™ meanes, the stone ‘7 twenty one foote long (now out of the earth) reclined by being _-under-digged. [win fig. 2 and z in the Prospect, plate the ‘VIth.]” -* VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. D 34 Ct Stonehenge and its Barrows. This description of Stonehenge is supplemented by an Appendix.? A Review of Stoneheng, by J. A. “This ancient monument of Stoneheng Caxton? reckons the second Wonder of England. It stands within the Farme of West Amesbury, being part of the Inheritance of the wife of . . . Lord Ferrars, of Chartley, who was daughter and heir of Lawrence Washington, Esq. Upon what ground the writers call it Stoneheng, I cannot tell. Ihave not seen the old Deeds® of this Estate: but by the neighbourhood it is called Stonedge (7) stones set edgewise. “Tn the first part of this Discourse I have sett downe only the schemes of this Antiquity, because I would not perplex and confound it with story. But having gone through that part which is com- parative, I now come to the Historical, and Traditional part. It hath been toucht at by severell Pennes, Historians and Poets. Sir Philip Syd- ‘Neer Wilton sweet, huge heapes of stones are found, ney in his Sonnets. But so confus’d, that neither any eie Can count them just, nor reason reason try What force them brought to so unlikely ground.’ “ But this is a Poeticall excursion. See Drayton’s Polyolbion with Mr.J.Selden’s notes which inserthere. [Here follows a long extract from Caxton’s Chron., cap. lix., with the history of Ambrosius, Hengist’s massacre of the Britons, and the transportation of the stones from Ireland. ] “The Tradition amongst the common people is that these stones were brought from Ireland as aforesayd by the conjuration of Merlin (brother of Uter Pendragon) whereas indeed they are of the very same kind of stones with the Grey Weathers about fourteen 1 Aubrey has here inserted an extract—ex libris antiquis abbatiz Bathoniensis ‘which Mr. Leland perused and quoted.” It is very similar in substance to the extract given above from the ‘*‘ Encomum Historiarum.” 2 Note by Aubrey.—W. Caxton, part ii., cap. iiii, ‘Of Mervailles and Wonders.” The second is at Stonehenge besides Salisbury. Ther ben grete stones and wonder huge and ben rered on heygh as it were gates so that ther semen gates sette upon othir gates. Netheles it is not knowen clerely nor apperceyued how and wherfore they ben so arered and so wonderfully honged.” W. Caxton was a printer, temp. Hen. VI., in Westminster Abbey Church. 3Note by Aubrey —November 7th, 1689. Mr. Baynham, of Cold Ashton, (Gloc.) was steward to Lawrence Washington, Esq.; he telis me that he has seen the original grant of Little Amesbury and Bulford, from William the Conqueror, a little deed. —— By William Long, Esq. 35 miles off.: that tract of ground towards Marleborough (from hence) being scattered over with them greater and lesse (as by a Vulcano) for about twenty miles in compasse. They are so hard that that no toole can touch, and take a good polish: some are of a dirty red, some dusky white, some perfect white, and I have seen some few blew, of the colour of deep blew marle; but generally they are whitish, they lye above the surface of the earth; they say that Porphyry is not drawn out of Quarries, but lies above ground after this manner. ‘ But the stones of this monument (as likewise the Greyweathers) time and the weather have turnd of a gray colour, as it doeth also the Flints that have been broken by the plough. Severall of the high stones of Stonehenge are honycombed so deep that the Stares doe make their nests in the holes ; whether these holes are naturall or artificial I cannot say. The holes are towards the tops of the jambe-stones. This did put me in mind, that in Wales, they do call Stares Adar y Drudwy, sc: Aves Druidum, and in the singular number ADerin y Drudwy, sc: Avis Druidum. The Druids might make these holes purposely for their birds to nest in. They are loquacious Birds, and Pliny lib: Hist. Nat. tells us of a stare that could speake Greeke. “The inhabitants about the Amesburies have defaced this piece of antiquity #Mrs. Trotman Monument since my remembrance sc, one large stone of Bishopstone. carried was taken away to make a Bridge.t “Tt is generally averred hereabouts that pieces (or powder) of these stones putt into their Wells, doe drive away the Toades, with which their wells are much infested, and this course they use still. It is also averred that no Magpye, Toade, or Snake was ever seen here: but this is easy to be believed: for birds of weake flight will not be beyond their power of reaching some Couvert for fear of their enemies Hawkes and Ravens; whereas no Couvert is neer a mile and a halfe of this place. As for the Toades they will not goe beyond a certain distance from the water by reason of spawning, and Snakes and Adders doe love couvert. “The inscription in lead found at’ Stoneheng, which Mr. Lilly D2 36 Stonehenge and its Barrows. the Schoolmaster and Sir Thos. Eliot could not read, might be made by the Druides, who though they used the Greeke character, it might be as much disguised and different from what is now in use as it is in the Sclavonique by the Russians, which a critick in Greeke is not able to read. “ Mr. Inigo Jones saieth that he found a Thuribulum or some such like vase lyeing three foot within the ground. I think it was in the Pitt. Plate viti., fig. 2a. “George Duke of Buckingham, when King James the first was at Wilton did cause the middle of Stoneheng to be digged, and there remains a kind of pitt or cavity still; it is about the bignesse of two sawe pitts. But there is no signe of an Altar stone, as is mentioned in Stoneheng Restored. ’Tis true near to the pitt doe lie three rude roundish stones, which are frustums. [In plate vjii., z., is this pitt. “The Stone that fell downe 21 foot long is x in fig. 24, and in the prospect itis 3 Plate the VIth.] And this under-digging was the cause of the falling downe or recumbency of the great stone there, twenty one foot long. He also caused then a Barrowe (or more than one) to be digged, where something was found, but *Thewife of Mr, What it was Mrs. Mary Trotman,* who lived then at Anthony Trotman. the Farme of West Amesbury to which this monu- ment belongs, (to whom I am obliged for her very good information of this place) hath forgot. She told me that the Duke of Bucking- ham would have given to Mr. Newdich, (then Owner of this place) any rate for it, but he would not accept it. “Here is a good account of Mrs. Trotman’s lost by wett & time . . . Here were also then found Stagges-hornes a great many, Batter-dashers,! heads of arrowes, some pieces of armour eaten out with rust, bones rotten, but whether of Stagges or men they could not tell. “ Philip Earle of Pembroke (Ld. Chamberlayne to King Charles ‘For the meaning of this curious word, which puzzled Sir R. Hoare, see Canon Jackson’s note on p. 9 of ‘‘ Wiltshire Collections.” The Canon thinks that they were a kind of war club, like the crest of the Bathurst family. A copy of Aubrey’s drawing of a ‘‘ Batter-dasher ” is given on the second plate of Illustrations of Stonehenge from the ‘‘ Monumenta Britannica.” eee eee FROM AUBREY'S “MONUMENTA BRITANNICA.” | WARRY SANDARS, OXFORD, LITHO., 1876. lyped frcnr a sShetch tn the w2aigin By William Long, Esq. 37 the First) did say, that an Altar Stone was found in the middle of ng aestgaleed the Area here: and that it was carried away to St. cot, D.D. his Lor» James’ (Westminster), and he also sad, that upon chaplain, Rector of Bishopstone, the digging of the Duke of Buckingham, were found here Be fod orties and Bull’s hornes and Charcoales. “One of the great stones that lies downe, on the west side, hath a cavity something resembling the print of a man’s foot : concerning which the Shepherds and Countrey people have a Tradition (w™ many of them doe stedfastly believe) that when Merlin conveyed these Stones from Ireland by Art Magick, the Devill hitt him in the heele with that stone, and so left the print there. “T am now of the opinion that the east vacuity in Plate VIII fig. 2* did containe only one Tq and no more ; it may well enough agree with the paces and interstices, viz., intervall four paces and 11 five: as also with the distance of the Pilasters BEB. “The three stones which Mr. Inigo Jones would have to be angles of an equilateral triangle, are the angles of a Scalenum. The great one (fig. 6) answereth to fig 7th in the Walke or Avenue. The other two are but about six foot high and went round (within) the circular Banke, as they doe at Aubury; witnesse yet three pittes or signes of them, where the stones were heretofore pitcht and equi- distant : which is a good Remarque. “?Tis strange to see how Mr. Camden, Dr. Hakewell in his Apologie with severall others (even Dr. Robt. Plot) should imagine ’tis apparent certainly that these stonesareartificiall.: they are the stones of theGr ay weathers, distant from hence not above fourteen miles, where there are thousands of such stones to be drawn out of the earth. They were brought hither upon Rowlers, and, on the Downes, one may plainly enough yet discerne, where these vast stones of Aubury and Stoneheng were drawn-out: and some, not being big enough for their purpose, doe lie on the brink of the pitts still. Perhaps the holes where the stares doenest mightinduce Dr. Hakewell to believe them to be factitious; but had he tried them with a toole, he would quickly have been undeceived, and would have found them to have been of the same colour (¢—reddish generally) grain and hardnesse as are the Gray-weathers. 38 Stonehenge and its Barrows. ’ © As I remember there is a great stone that lies in the water at Fighelden as left by the way to Stonehenge: another is somewhere on the Downes which rests on three low stones as a Suffulciment as in order to be carried away, w™ Dr. Charleton shewed his Majestie and R. Highnesse as we wayted on them from Aubury : twas on the Downes between Rockley and Marleborough. “ Mr. Conyers Apothecary at the White Lyon in Fleet Street hath an old manuscript Roll of the time of Henry VI., which con- firms that Aurelius Ambrosius was buried at Stoneheng, w™. see. “ These times were troublesome, and by that meanes there might not be erected for him any magnificent Regal monument: but had there been one of marble or free-stone, the country people would have converted it to their use: and had not this Antiquity of Stone- henge consisted of such an extreme hard and ill coloured stone, that it is hardly fit for any use, without much trouble, this venerable Temple had long since been erased and forgotten. Though this Work might probably be built long before the Romans were masters of Britaine, yet they being delighted with the stateliness and grandure of it, and considering the drie situation of it (which they affected for Urne-buriall) ’tis not unlikely but that they might bury here and hereabout, e¢.g., the Seaven Barrows.! So when the Christian religion was settled, the temples dedicated to the heathen gods (were converted) to their owne use and worship.? “ At Stonehenge one may count, round about it fourty five Bar- rowes. I am not of the opinion, that all these were made for burying the dead that were slayne herabout in Battels: it would require a great deale of time and leisure to collect so many thousand loades of earth: and soldiers have something els to doe flagrante bello : to pursue their victorie, or preserve themselves pursued: the cadavera remained a feast for the Kites and Foxes. So that I presume they were the Mausolea or Burying places for the great Persons and Rulers of those times. “ Lawrence Washington, Esq., owner of this place, told me (1666) 1Note by Aubrey.—’Tis most likely that they might have Ceremonies, Prayers, and Sacrifices, at these Burial places : so we,the Christians,have Masses, ? Note by Aubrey.—Sce a passage in St. Hierome’s epistle to this purpose. By William Tiong, Esq. 89 that in one of the Seaven Barrowes, was lately digged up Coales and pieces of Goates hornes or Stagges-hornes. “Tn one of these barrows was found (by the Duke of Buckingham’s digging) a Bugle-horne tip’t with silver at both ends, w® Mrs. Trotman told me his grace kept in his closet as a great Relique. “Neer to the farme-house of West-Amesbury is a great Ditch where have been found Rowells of Spurres and other thinges: and, Mrs. Trotman. neer to the Penning is Normanton-ditch, but why so ealled no tradition. In the field thereby, about 1635 was found by ploughing as much Pewter as was sold for five pounds: it was, they sayd, very pure Pewter, which the Shephards had pitched through in many places when they pitched for their Folds. She told me, no Coines were found there. “ Within this Farme is a place called Pitt-poole, wherein a King upon his escape riding hastily downe the steep Shoot, was drow- ned.’ She told me his name was mentioned in the Chronicle, but I doubt it. “Dr. Walter Charlton, Physitian to King Charles II. wrote a Booke entitled Stoneheng restored to the Danes, wherein he hath shewed a greet deale of Learning in very good Stile.: but as to his ‘Hypothesis, that it was a work of the Danes, it is a gross mistake for Matthew Paris pag: expressly affirmes, that Stonehenge was the place where the Saxons treacherously massacred the Britons which was . . . . hundred years before the Conquest of the Danes. (I think Symon of Durham and Hen: Huntingdon say the same. vide.) Broad Chalk Hasten Piers 1665. Finis.” 'Sir R. C. Hoare (Ancient Wilts, i, p. 198), says: ‘‘ In vain I searched for all these matters, for the remembrance of them exists not even by tradition. I was enabled, however, to ascertain the position of West Amesbury Penning, which lies in a little vale between tumuli 134 and 137. The King’s grave was a large solitary barrow on the hill above the river, on which a clump of trees has been planted, and is called King Barrow by Dr. Stukeley. Though all traces of the name of Pitt Poole are lost, its situation is clearly pointed out by the steepe shoot above the river. I could find no vestiges whatever of any ditch answering Mr. Aubrey’s description, on Normanton Farm.” 40) Stonehenge and its Barrows. At the back of the last page of the “‘Templa Druidum ” is the following note: “Mr. Paschal’s Letter to ; “The Author of the Bolt soon shott, wasone Mr. . . . . Jay of Nettlecomb lyeing in the Western parts of Somersetshire, deceased (I thinke) 14 or 16 years since. Wells, April 7, 1690. Your &e., A. P.” z+! Mr. Herbert ascribes the “ Fools Bolt” to Mr. John Gibbons who flourished, according to Mr. Herbert, “ cirea 1670.” This curious paper, which is printed in Langtoft’s Chronicle, vol. ii., is amusing enough and worth reading, but space does not admit of much being said about it. It begins thus: “ A wander witt of Wiltshire, rambling to Rome to gaze at antiquities, and there skrewing himself into the company of Antiquaries, they entreated him to illustrate unto them, that famous monument in his country, called Stonage. His answer was that he had never seen, scarce ever heard of it. Whereupon they kicked him out of doors, and bad him goe home, and see Stonage; and I wish all such Aisopicall cocks, as slight these admired stones, and other our domestick monuments (by which they might be admonished to eschew some evil, or doe some good), and scrape for barley cornes of vanity out forreigne dunghills might be handled, or rather footed, as he was.” He considers “ Stonage to be a ‘ British Monument’ of a bloody battel foughten there and won by the Giant Cangi under the command of the famous Stanenges of Honnicott over King Divitiacus and the Belge; that this Temple, made of factitious stones, was consecrated to the Goddess of Victorie and that in it the Victors sacrificed their Captives and spoiles to their said Idoll of Victorie.” Richard Burton, in his “ Wonderful [or admirable] Curiosities, Rarities, and Wonders in England, Scotland, and Ireland” (1682— 1684), thus alludes to Stonehenge (edition 1811, p. 187) : “ About six miles from Salisbury, upon the plain, is to be seen a huge and monstrous piece of work, for within the circuit of a pit or ditch there are erected in the manner of a crown, certain mighty and unwrought stones, some whereof are 20 feet high, and seven feet broad, upon the heads whereof others like overthwart pieces do bear and rest By William Long, Esq. 41 crossways with tenons and mortoises, so that the whole frame seemeth to hang, whereof it is called Stone Henge.” In Plot’s Staffordshire, 1686, chap. x., § 11, p, 398, is the fol- lowing account of Stonehenge: ‘“‘ The Britons usually erecting such monuments as these upon a civil as well as religious account. Witness Kit’s Coty House in Kent, Rollwright in Oxfordshire, and Stonehenge in Wiltshire. The latter was most probably [set up] -as some British Forum or Temple and not of any Roman Pagan Deity, as Inigo Jones would have it, the Romans of the time being skilfull in architecture and most other arts, and therefore no question had they built it, would have made a much more artificial structure than this appears to have been; nor should it have wanted an in- scription, or being someway or other transmitted in their writings down to posterity. Nor is it less unlikely, that it should ever be erected for a Danish forum for inauguration of their kings, as Dr. Charleton would persuade us; for then certainly all the Kings of the Danish race had been crowned either there, or else at Rollwright or some other such cirque of stones elsewhere. Whereas we find Canutus crowned at London, Harold Harefoot at Oxford, and Hardi-Canute likewise at London. Not to mention the Danish transactions in England are of so late a date that our historians have given us a tolerable account of them [the Danes] from their very first entrance, and would not certainly have been silent of so considerable structure, had they been the authors of it, either as a Forum or upon any other account.” Keysler, in his “ Antiquitates selectee Septentrionales et Celtice,” (1720) adopts Inigo Jones’ ground-plan, and ascribes the erection of Stonehenge to the Danes or Anglo-Saxons. Stukeley,in his account of Stonehenge (published 1740, page 66), says that Stonehenge was a work of the Druids, who founded it, B.C. 460. “ About 100 years before our Saviour’s birth, Divitiacus made the Wansdike north of Stonehenge, ‘and drove the possessors of this fine country of the Wiltshire Downs, northwards. So that _ the Druids enjoyed their magnificent work of Stonehenge, but about 860 years. And the very great number of barrows about it, requires - that we should not much shorten the time. Sir Issac Newton , in his 42 Stonehenge and its Barrows. chronology, reckons 19 years for a medium of a King’s reign. So that in that space there were about 19 Kings in this country. And there seems to be about that number of royal barrows (in my way of conjecturing) about the place. I observe this time we have assign’d for the building of Stonehenge, is not long after Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt. When he committed such horrid outrages there, and made such dismal bavock, with the priests and inhabitants in general, they fled the country to all parts of the world. Some went as far as the East Indies, and there taught many of the ancient Egyptian customs; as is taken notice of by the learned. It is not to be doubted that some of them fled as far westward, into the island of Britain, and introduced some of their learning, arts and religion, among the Druids; and perhaps had a hand in this very work of Stonehenge: the only one that I know of, where the stones are chizel’d. All other works of theirs are of rude stones, untouch’d of tool, exactly after the patriarchal and Jewish mode ; therefore older. This was at a time when the Phenician trade was at height, the readier a conveyance to Britain: it was before the second temple at Jerusalem was built: before the Grecians had any history.” The celebrated engraver, George Vertue, (1684—1756,) appears to have paid considerable attention to Stonehenge, and says in his Diary : “ After having seen these stones, and taken draughts of them, and more than once reviewed them, read mostly all that has been published concerning them, and if I may venture to advance my conjecture in an affair so distant to my understanding and pro- fession.—In my opinion I think they were erected by the first heathen Saxons, whom our historians generally allow to have come into England soon, or immediately after, the Roman legions were called away. The people conquered and overcame the Britons, and made the kingdom subject to their power. As Salisbury plain is so extensive, large, and likely then the seat of war between those Saxons and Britons, and this place so nearly the great central part of England, they, the Saxons, might therefore choose to erect a monument of such strength and power, by the hands of an army, that could not easily be moved nor defaced. Such a monument By William Long, Esq. 43 without inscription or image that would surprise all succeeding generations, and be, in all likelihood, permanent for ages to come.” ; In 1730, Mr. Sampford Wallis published a little book (printed at Sarum) entitled “ Dissertation in Vindication of the Antiquity of Stonehenge in answer to the Treatises of Mr. Inigo Jones, Dr. Charleton and all that have written upon that subject, by a Clergy- man in the neighbourhood of that famous monument of An- tiquity.” In Hearne’s copy of the work now in the Bodleian Library, is the following splenetic notice of it written in his small but clear handwriting: “ Tis’ nothing but an extract from Webb, abating some abusive expressions of the thief, who sufficiently exposeth himself by endeavouring to detract from the reputation of those great men Olaus Wormius and Dr. Walter Charleton, tho’ I differ from Dr. Charleton, yet I think that Dr. hath supported his opinion very well, and deserved thanks rather than obloquy. At least it is very unbecoming for such mean writers as the publisher of this extract to attack such a worthy man as the Dr. certainly was, in so rude a manner.” The following spiteful note is appended: “ One Stafford Wallis was incorporated M.A. of Oxford from St. Andrew’s, July 11, 1671.” In the year 1747, John Wood, the Bath architect, described and illustrated Stonehenge. He “differs materially in his lines of the third and fourth circle” from any of his predecessors. He gives it as his opinion “that it was a temple erected by the British Druids, about a hundred years before the commencement of the Christian era.” The Rev. William Cooke, Vicar of Enford, published in 1754 An Enquiry into the Patriarchal and Druidical Religion, Temples, ete.,” and concluded “ that Stonehenge had been a place held sacred by the Druids, and appropriated to ciyil or religious assemblies.” In the year 1771 Dr. John Smith (who calls himself inoculator of the small pox), published a little work in which he endeavoured to prove that Stonehenge had been a tropical temple, erected by the ancient Druids for observing the motions of the heavenly bodies. He dt Stonehenge and its Barrows. says: ‘ From many and repeated visits I conceived it to be an Astro- nomical Temple : and from what I could recollect to have read of it, no author had as yet investigated its uses. Without an instrument or any assistance whatever, but White’s Ephemeris, I began my survey. I suspected the stone called Zhe Friar’s Heel to be the index that would disclose the uses of this structure ; nor was I deceived. This stone stands in a right line with the centre of the Temple, pointing to the North East. I first drew a circle round the vallum of the ditch and divided it into 360 equal parts; and then a right line through the body of the Temple to the Friar’s Heel; at the intersection of these lines, I reckoned the sun’s greatest amplitude at the summer solstice, in this latitude, to be about 6U degrees, and fixed the Eastern points accordingly. Pursuing this plan, I soon discovered the uses of all the detached ‘stones, as well as those that formed the body of the Temple.” His book is entitled “ Choir Gawr, the Grand Orrery of the ancient Druids, commonly called Stonehenge, astronomically explained, and proved to be a Temple for observing the motions of the heavenly bodies.” It is interesting to read Dr. Johnson’s notions about Stonehenge, as we find them in a letter to Mrs. Thrale, written October 9, 1783, vol. x., p. 269 of 1835 ed. “Two nights ago Mr. Burke sat with me a long time. He seems much pleased with his journey. We had both seen Stonehenge this summer for the first time. I told him that the view had enabled me to confute two opinions which had been advanced about it. One, that the materials are not natural stones, but an artificial composition hardened by time. This notion is as old as Camden’s time; and has this strong argument to support it, that stone of that species is nowhere to be found. The other opinion, advanced by Dr. Charleton, is that it was erected by the Danes. | “Mr. Bowles made me observe, that the transverse stones were fixed on the perpendicular supporters by a knob formed on the top of the upright stone, which entered into a hollow cut in the crossing stone. This is a proof that the enormous edifice was raised by a people who had not yet the knowledge of mortar; which cannot be supposed of the Danes, who came hither in ships, —fas 4 ly : fod | _fusernSplancef Salesury XG This sheweth the order eS mncr of of ee monumiétin det Sing ple a il lop brother’ hius then the Britons and coun Wl of erie t Sint erite yofcertayne no creas Ree he Seocons Anno Din 490. Afheweth' greater eof ppofedsa tones in Leng lengthe 28 foote tn oe 1m compas JO srg piece tonas C fheweth wher great bones of men ar-fiwnd. ‘ fo Veyk CoplED FROM THE ENGRAVING IN GougHs ‘CampeEN, 1789 oe co 4 \\000Wi Hy, aA, ‘ AN) By William Long, Esq. 45 and were not ignorant certainly of the arts of life. This proves also the stones not to be factitious; for they that could mould such durable masses could do much more than make mortar, and could have continued the transverse from the upright part with the same paste. “You have doubtless seen Stonehenge; and if you have not, I should think it a hard task to make an adequate description. It is in my opinion, to be referred to the earliest habitation of the island, as a druidical monument of, at least, two thousand years; probably the most ancient work of man upon the island. Salisbury Cathedral and its neighbour Stonehenge are two eminent monuments of art and rudeness, and may show the first essay and the last perfection in architecture.” The additions made by Richard Gough, F.A. & R.S.S., toCamden’s “ Britannia ” for the edition published in 1789, are of sufficient im- portance to deserve reproduction “in ewtenso,” although this will entail a certain amount of repetition hereafter: ‘ About six miles from Salisbury to the north on the plain is what Cicero! would call insana substructio, a wild structure, a number of monstrous rude stones, some of them twenty-eight feet high, and seven broad, placed in three concentric circles surrounded by a ditch: some of them lie across as architraves on the tops of the others ; so that it seems like a hanging work, whence we call it Stonehenge, and our ancient his- torians Choir Gawr, the Darice of Giants, from its size. But as no description can do it justice, I have here annexed a print of it.? “Our countrymen reckon this among their wonders: not beng able to discover whence and how such kind of stones were brought, none such being found in the whole neighbourhood, It is not my as , 1 Orat. pro Milone. _ 2 Mr, Camden’s print being probably copied from an older, dated 1575, with e initials R F., which may be presumed the oldest engraving of this monu- ment, we have thought it advisable to give the older print a place here. The reader will make all due allowance for the errors in the drawing, among which | the making the top stones appear round is not one of the least.” “This older print been re-engraved for the present paper by Mr. Bidgood, curator of the Museum of the Somersetshire Archeological Society, at Taunton, who is as clever an artist as he is an earnest archeologist. 46 Stonehenge and its Barrows. business to enter into any critical discussions on this subject, though I cannot but lament that so little is known of the authors of such a monument. Some, however, think these stones not natural and hewn from a quarry, but made of fine sand and some unctuous cement, like those trophies I have seen in Yorkshire. “ Stonehenge has exercised the conjectures of no less than eight writers since Camden, who, if we except Henry of Huntingdon, first noticed it. There is indeed a rude draught of it in a MS. of the ‘Seala Mundi,’ written about 1340, and continued to 1450, in Benet College Library, which for the singularity is here copied.! “Tt is not mentioned in the Itinerary of Leland, who travelling among towns and along rivers, did not'go out of his way to examine monstrous stones and barrows on wild and widespread downs, though in his note on the extract about it from Geoffrey of Mon- mouth (Coll. 2., 31,) he confutes the idle story of Merlin. Mr. Camden could see nothing but confusion and rudeness in this stately pile; and it must be confessed the print he has given of it in his folio edition (to which we have substituted one dated 1575, signed R. F.) does not help to make it distinct.1_ Camden’s print was copied and modernized by J. Kip, for Bishop Gibson. Inigo © Jones, full of ideas of architecture, conceited it to. be a Tuscan temple of Celum or Terminus, built by the Romans (Stonehenge 1 Re-engraved for the writer by Mr. Bidgood, of Taunton. By William Long, Esq. 47 restored, Lon. 1655, fol.); as if the rudest monuments of this people were not more regular than this; and as Aubrey well observes ‘ while he pleases himself with retrieving a piece of archi- tecture out of Vitruvius, he abuses the reader with a false scheme of the whole work.’ His son-in-law,[?] Charlton, (‘ Chorea Gigantum, Lond., 1663, 4to.) contended for its being Danish, and came nearer the probability of its being the work of some Northern people. The attentive though credulous Aubrey first hit on the notion of its being a Druid temple. With this notion Mr. Toland concurred, and Dr. Stukeley by accurate admeasurements confirmed it (‘Stonehenge, 1740, fol.). Mr. Wood, of Bath, supported this opinion, with this additional idea, that it had an astronomical as well as theological use, and was, like that at Stanton Dru, in Somersetshire, a temple of the moon. _(‘ Choir Gawr, 1747, 8vo.) This has been illustrated in a brief and comprehensive manner by Dr. Smith (‘Choir Gawr, the grand Orrery of the Druids. Salisb. 1770, 4to.), who shews that the outer circle of 30 stones multiplied by twelve within for the twelve signs of the Zodiac, represents the antient solar year of 360 days; its inner circle is the lunar month of 29 days, 12 hours represented by 30 more stones, of which six at the upper end of this circle exhibit the hunter’s and harvest moon rising six nights together with little variation. Next to this circle is a great ellipse composed of seven pair of pillars with an impost on each pair for the seven planets whose influence may be alluded to by these compages of stones. Within these forming a concentric ellipse are 12 smaller single stones for the 12 signs of the Zodiac with a 13th at the upper end for the arch-druid’s seat before the altar. The centre of this temple Dr. Smith finds to be 51°11% and that it could not be erected in this form in any other parallel of latitude. A great stone 210 feet from the body of the structure called the Friar’s heel, from a vulgar tradition that the Devil threw _ it at a friar whose heel brushed by it made an impression in it, is _ the index that discloses these astronomical uses. Three others and probably a fourth lie on the bank that surrounds the whole with _ some variations from the cardinal points, and directly north and i south just within the bank is an appearance of circular holes sur- 48 Stonehenge and its Barrows. rounded with a bank of earth which may have been a meridian line. “Stonehenge stands in the middle of a fine flat area, near the summit of a hill, and is inclosed with a circular double bank (Wood, p- 42,) and ditch near 30 feet broad, the vallum inwards, after crossing which we ascend 30 yards before we reach the work. The whole forms a circle of about 108 feet diameter from out to out, consisting, when intire, of 60 stones, 30 uprights and 30 imposts, of which remain only 24 uprights, 17 standing and 7 down, three feet and a half asunder, and 8 imposts. Eleven uprights have their 5 imposts on them by the grand entrance. These stones are from 13 to 20 feet high. The lesser circle is somewhat more than eight feet from the inside of the outer one, and consisted of 40 lesser stones (the highest six feet) of which only 19 remain, and only 11 standing ; the walk between these two circles is 300 feet in cireum- ferance. The Adytum or Cell is an oval formed of 10 stones (from 16 to 22 feet high, Wood, p. 57,) in pairs with imposts which Dr. Stukeley calls Trilithons and above 30 feet high, the imposts of these and the others Camden’s print calls Coronets. A MS. in Benet College Library ascribed to Bede and marked N. xxx says, ‘ Apud Stanhenges lapides mire magnitudinis in modum portarum elevate sunt ut porte arcis subposite videantur’ rising in height as they, go round and each pair separate, and not connected as the outer pair, the highest eight feet (Wood, p. 57. Stukeley).'| Within these are 19 more smaller single stones; of which only six are standing. At the upper end of the Adytum is the altar, a large slab of blue coarse marble, 20 inches thick, 16 feet long, and 4 broad ; (Hales. Stukeley move) pressed down by the weight of the vast stones that have fallen upon it. ‘ George duke of Buckingham 1The different ground plans of Wood, Jones, Smith, and Stukeley are given by Gough. The numbers of stones, as laid down by each of them, are as follows: Wood Jones. Smith. Stukeley. Uprights of outer Circle 30 30 30 30 5 inner ,, 29 30 30 40 Uprights of outer Ellipse 10 12 10 10 and 4 small ones. > inner ,, 19 18 13 9 - And each has the so-called altar-stone. By William Long, Esq. 49 in the reign of James I. caused the middle of Stonehenge to be dug, where remains a cavity as big as two saw-pits. This occasioned the falling down or inclination of a stone 21 feet long. There were found heads and horns of stags and oxen, charcoal, arrowheads, rusty armour and rotten bones, but whether of men or beasts uncertain. (Aubrey, Mon. Brit.) The whole number of stones, uprights, im- posts, and altar is exactly 140. The stones are far from being artificial, but were most probably brought from those called the Grey Weathers on Marlborough Downs, 15 or 16 miles off, and if tried with a tool they appear of the same hardness, grain, and colour, generally reddish. (Mr. Aubrey says, ‘on the downs one may dis- cern whence the great stones both of Abury and Stonehenge were brought. Some not big enough for the purpose lie still at the brink of the pit. Some were left by the way. One lies in the water at Fighelden. Another on the downs resting on three low stones in order to be carried away. This was between Rockley and Marl- borough.’) The heads of oxen, deer, and other beasts have been found on digging in and about Stonehenge: but the human bones our author speaks of only in the cireumjacent barrows. Dr. Stukeley, 1723, dug on the inside of the altar to a bed of solid chalk mixed with flints. In the reign of Henry VIII. was found here a plate of tin, inscribed with many letters, but in so strange a character that neither Sir Thomas Elliot, a learned antiquary, nor Mr. Lilly, Master of St. Paul’s School, could make them out. This plate to the great loss of the learned world was soon after lost. (Holland, Stukeley.) Two stone pillars appear at the foot of the bank next the area in which the building stands, and these are answered by two spherical pits at foot of the said bank, one with a single bank of earth about it, and the other with a double bank separated by a ditch (Wood, p. 43). There are three entrances from the plain to this structure, the most considerable of which is from the north-east, and at each of them were raised on the outside of the trench two huge stones with two smaller within parallel to them. The avenue to Stonehenge was first observed by Mr. Aubrey. Dr. Stukeley found that it extended more than 1700 feet down to the bottom of the valley, and was raised a little above the downs between two VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. E 50 Stonehenge and its Barrows. ditches. At the bottom it turns off to the right or east with a circular sweep, and then in a straight line goes up the hill between two groups of seven barrows each, called the King’s Graves (Stuk. Stoneh., 35, 36). The other branch points north-west and enters the Cursus. This is half a mile north from Stonehenge, 10,000 feet or two miles long, included by two ditches 350 feet asunder, a bank or long-barrow for the judges seat at the east end: the west end curved and two or three obscure barrows as if to run round (Stuk., 41). In the road from Amesbury to Radfin (which last place the Doctor supposes the seat of an Archdruid} are seven barrows to- gether, one great and six little ones, probably a family burial place (Stuk. p. 38). The disposition and form of the barrows on these downs prove them the single sepulchres of kings and great per- sonages buried during a considerable space of time and in peace, and not the tumultuary burials of the slain. The Doctor after wading through an ocean of conjectures with his usual ingenuity, fixes the date of the erection of Stonehenge 460 years before Christ, and the enjoyment of it by the original inhabitants of these parts to about 360 years, in which time, reckoning with Sir Isaac Newton 19 years to a reign, there will have been 19 kings in this country, and so many royal barrows the Doctor fancied about this place (Stuk. 65,66). “ A very large one called King Barrow near Lord Pembroke’s park wall at Wilton he supposes the tomb of Carvilius one of the four Kings of Kent, who fought with Julius Cesar. On opening some of these barrows they are found to consist of a coat of turf, a layer of chalk two feet thick, then another of fine mould, and under it three feet from the surface a layer of flints two feet thick, and last of all a second layer of mould a foot thick, inclosing human skele- tons or rude unbaked urns containing burnt human bones: some- times spear-heads, glass and amber beads, wood ashes, bones of horses and other beasts, a large poleaxe, a sword, a celt, and even fragments of such stones as compose Stonehenge; which last par- ticulars Dr. Stukeley supposed characterised one of its builders. The other barrows he assigns to Druids, chiefs, and private persons of all ages and both sexes. “The name of Stonehenge is evidently Saxon, q. d. the hanging By William Long, Esq. 51 stones, and the authority of the Abingdon Chronicle cited by Dugdale Mon. Aug. i., p. 97, calling it Stanhengest from Hengist is of no weight. Leland’s opinion that Choir Gawr should not be translated Chorea Gigantum, but Chorea nobilis or magna, putting gawr for vawr is probable enough.” King, in his “ Munimenta Antiqua,” i., p. 189, 1799, says of Stonehenge: ‘Such as were Balaam’s altars, such in some degree were the altars at Stonehenge, only more vast and magnificent : being constructed by a people who were at the time more at leisure : and who erected the altars with more additional appendages for the purposes of more grross superstitious rite introduced in the later, and still more corrupted ages of the world. . . . It ought just to be added: that it has been observed (Gent. Mag., Ixi., p. 108) that its very British name Cor Gawr points out an Asiatic origin; and leads us to conclude, that it was some kind of resemblance of some- thing derived from the East.” To our old Wiltshire antiquary, John Britton (see “ Beauties of Wiltshire, vol. ii., 129—180, 1801), it clearly appeared, “that Stonehenge was the work of the Romanized Britons, about the latter end of the fifth century.” The Rev. Edward Davies, in his “ Celtic Researches,” (1804) says: * When the Romans acquired a footing in Britain, they found the country possessed by two nations, the Belge, originally Celte, but somewhat intermixed with strangers, and an indigenous race, who declared they were born in the island. Amongst these pure des- “ eendants of the Celtz, the Druidism of Britain was in his highest repute. The principal seat of the order was found in Mona, an interior recess of that ancient race, which was born in the island. Into that sequestered scene, the Druids, who detested warfare, had gradually retired, after the irruption of the Belge, and the further encroachments of the Romans. They had retired from their ancient magnificent seat at Abury, and from their circular uncovered temple on Salisbury Plain, in which the Hyperborean sages had once chaunted their hymns to Apollo or Plenyz.” The Rev. James Ingram, Professor of Anglo-Saxon in the E2 52 Stonehenge and its Barrows. University of Oxford (afterwards President of Trinity College), in his inaugural lecture on the utility of Anglo-Saxon Literature (Oxford, 1807), speaks of Stonehenge as “the Heathen burial-place, with its Hippodrome, &e.. on Salisbury plain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, a corruption of Stone-ridge” (p. 13). He afterwards says (p. 87) : ** As I have ventured to give a new interpretation of that Wonder of the World, Stonehenge, though whole volumes might be written with the pompous title of Stonehenge restored, and with fairer claims to public attention than those of Inigo Jones and others, yet at present I shall content myself with reprinting the following document, extracted from Dugdale’s Monasticon, vol. iii., p. 857. It is a grant of lands from King Athelstan to Wilton Abbey, ex- tending from the banks of the Nadder along the Pile of Stones to Burbage, Savernak Forest, Oare, and Wansdike to the North, and beyond Westbury along the Old Bath Road to the West. The whole deserves the attention of the future Historian of Wiltshire.” In a disquisition on a passage in Athelstan’s grant to the Abbey of Wilton communicated by William Hamper Esq., F.S.A., in a letter to Henry Ellis, F.R.S., Secretary (Archelogia, xxii., 398), it is shown that, topographically regarded, the ‘“ Stone-ridge” of the Chartulary of the Abbey of Wilton, could not, by any possibility, be Stonehenge. . Sir Richard Colt Hoare published his magnificent volumes on Ancient Wiltshire in 1812 and 1819. In the first he has treated fully of Stonehenge, and has illustrated his description by beaatifully executed engravings from the plans and drawings of Crocker. For the ready and courteous loan of three of the copper-plates of these plans for the illustration of this paper, the writer begs to ex- press his grateful thanks to Mr. Bruce Nichols. His father, Mr. Gough Nichols, had, in the same kind manner, allowed the writer to have some of the plates of Abury copied in lithography in 1857. Sir Richard Hoare attributed the erection of Stonehenge to the “Celts (from Celtic Gaul) our earliest inhabitants, who naturally introduced with them their own buildings, customs, rites and religious ceremonies.” The plates in his splendid volumes are invaluable to the student of Wiltshire archeology. By Witham Long, Esq. 53 The more important notices of Stonehenge having now been given, at great length,and the history of opinion respecting it having been brought down to the time of the publication of Sir R. C. Hoare’s great work, it will be desirable to defer the notice of more recent theories until after the description of the present state of Stonehenge, and the discussion of the problems to which this remarkable struc- ture has given rise. 54 Part EH. Aescription of Stonehenge. SS O95 who would make clear to another the relative positions of a EN; the circles and ellipses, and of the stones which compose them, should bear in mind the Horatian maxim :— ‘* Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem Quam quz sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.” and should call to his aid plans of Stonehenge as it was supposed to have been set up, and of Stonehenge as it is. Those with which Canon Jackson kindly supplied the writer, with the stones coloured according to the portions of the structure to which they belonged, have been reproduced in chromolithography, and will do more to make the details of Stonehenge intelligible than any verbal ex- planation or written description, however lucid and accurate. It will be seen that this stone structure stands in the centre of a circular boundary, which is 300 feet in diameter, and which has been formed by the throwing up of a slight vallum from a slight ditch on the outside. This vallum is about 100 feet from the outer circle of stones. The vallum cuts through the boundary ring of a low barrow on the N.W. side (in which Sir Richard Hoare found merely burnt bones), and it embraces another low barrow on the opposite side. From this treatment of the former tumulus, it is clear that it was in existence before the ditch was dug. In the other tumulus on the south-east side nothing was found. Two stones are to be seen on the edge of the embankment, and within it; that on the south-east side is nearly nine feet high, that on the north-west side is not quite four feet high. There are no indications of other stones having been similarly placed on the margin of this earthen ring. The circumference of the ditch is*369 yards. The entrance faces the north-east, and is marked by a bank and ‘PUOYSPUNs snoKWMINU eu eo - 'ALSADE B4TY SIP rl Stonehenge as tt appears to have been. ‘BYP ANAM AA wag gapuahks B ama hk LJ ‘QUOYS UBSADS AATY IVY, i Stonehenge writs present state, A.D.1875. W. West & Co. ith. ; x ? « n . ' r _ 2 < > r 4 ~ é oy E - ‘ . ‘ . : al cs - ee, W. West 4 Ct amp GROUND PLAN OF STONEHENGE. Transfered to Stone, from the Original Copper Plates, ky the kind. = permission of I Bruce Nichole Esq" By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 55 ditch forming an avenue which leads directly into it. Immediately within the entrance a large stone lies prostrate. It is 21 feet long, and 6 feet 10 inches wide. People of the Stukeleian turn of mind, who see Druids and Archdruids everywhere, and would fain believe that within Stonehenge the wicker basket! with its burning victims 2 Tt is the sacrificial altar, fed With living men,—how deep the groans! the view Of those that crowd the giant wicker thrills The monumental hillocks.’’ Wardsworth’s ‘' Prelude,’? Book xiii, And *€ Pile of Stonehenge! so proud to hint yet keep Thy secrets, thou that lov’st to stand and hear The Plain resounding to the whirlwind’s sweep, Inmate of lonesome Nature’s endless year ; Even if thou saw’st the giant wicker rear For sacrifice its throngs of living men, Before thy face did ever wretch appear, WEo in his heart had groaned with deadlier pain Than he wbo now at nightfall treads thy bare domain!” Wordsworth’s ‘* Guilt and Sorrow.” Of the Druids, Dr. Thurnam writes as follows in one of the notes to his valu- able paper on British Barrows in the Archzologia, vol. xliii., p. 306; ‘ It has become a fashion to question our knowledge of the Druids; but surely what contemporary writers of the first rank, such as Cesar, Diodorus, and Tacitus, concur in telling us cannot lightly be set aside. Professor Max Miiller (Chips JSrom a German Workshop, iii., 250), says: ‘ Ceesar most likely never conversed with a Druid,’ forgetting that Divitiacus the Druid was for long his camp com- panion, held by him in great esteem, and likewise was the guest of Cicero at Rome. B. G., i., 16, 19, 20,;et passim. Cicero, De Divin, i., 41.”” Whatever importance ought to be attached to the mention made of the Druids by Cesar and other Latin writers, it is clear to Mr. Nash, the author of ‘‘ Taliesin, or the Bards and Druids of Britain,” 1858, who has carefully studied the remains of the earliest Welsh Bards, that ‘‘ we have no allusion in the old Welsh compositions to any of the celebrated symbols of the Druidiec priesthood, nor the slightest testimony in support of the fables promulgated as to the character, institutions, rites, and ceremonies of this famous hierarchy.” (p. 335.) ‘‘ Whoever may have been the authors of the documents from which Geoffrey of Monmouth drew up his British History (and it is clear that they were derived from British sources, even if through a Bretonic channel) they knew nothing, at least have related nothing, of the Druids or Druidic worship in Britain. In the passage where Cassibelaunus, elated by his victory over Julius Caesar, assembles all the nobility of Britain with their wives at London, ‘in order to perform solemn sacrifices to their tutelary Gods,’ at which solemnity they sacrificed 40,000 cows, 100,000 sheep, and 30,000 wild beasts, besides fowls without number, we hear nothing of the celebrated Druids, In the time of Lucius, the first convert to Christianity, Geoffrey of Monmouth knows only of Flamens and Arch-Flamens as the priests of idolaters; and neither he nor 56 Stonehenge and its Barrows. was set up, call this the “slaughtering stone: ” but there is reason to believe that it was originally erect. Mr. Cunnington, F.S.A., writing to Mr. Britton from Heytesbury, April 12, 1803, says “I will pledge myself to prove that Mr. King’s ‘slaughtermg stone’ stood erect . . . To ascertain whether the ‘slaughtering stone’ stood erect, I dug round it, and also into the the compilers of the Brut Tusilio has anything to say about the Druids, whose privileges were transferred to the Christian Church. Mr. Herbert, struck with this silence of the chronicler on the subject of the Druid hierarchy, thought there was a systematic concealment of the truth; but the inference is plain, that the Druid extinguished by Paulinus, in A.D. 58, had not been resuscitated in the the tenth century,” (p. 332.) ‘‘If we find in the oldest compositions in the Welsh language no traces of the Druids, or of a pagan mythology, still less do we find evidence of the existence of any peculiar philosophical or theological doctrines, such as it has been the fashion to represent as lying concealed in these compositions under the somewhat vague title of Bardic mysteries. The whole tenor of the result of an investigation into the supposed evidences of this mystery leads to the conclusion that the Welsh Bards neither of the sixth nor twelfth century had any mysteries to conceal, beyond the secrets, such as they were, of their profession,’ (p. 339.) With one more extract upon this im- portant fact of the non-existence of any traces of the Druids in the oldest British writings, the subject shall be dismissed: ‘‘The Welsh minstrelsy, instead of dating from a time beyond the limits of history, or deriving its materials from a source hidden in the obscurity of a pre-historic age, enters the circle of the romantic literature of Europe during the tenth and succeeding centuries, and will probably be found to have received more from, than it communicated to its continental neighbours. It is, however, no small merit which must be conceded to the Welsh romance-writers, that what they borrowed from others they stamped with the impress of their own genius, and gave currency, under their own peculiar form, to the treasures derived from the mines of the stranger. In the hands of the Welsh, every tradition, every legend, no matter from what source became Welsh,—the events localized in Wales, and the heroes admitted into the cycle of the Welsh heroic genealogies ; and it is probably to this process of naturalization that we owe the preservation of the Welsh romances. The Welsh poems, such as we find them in the Myvyrian collection, we have shown to be replete with reference to the extant tales, and to others of a similar nature not known to exist; but of any other mysteries than such as can be explained by reference to the current religious philosophy of the age, or to these romantic tales, not a particle of evidence can be discovered. Wherever such evidence has hitherto been supposed to have been discovered, investigation has demonstrated it to be a fallacy, originating in an erroneous conception of the meaning of the passages produced, or derived from documents tainted with the suspicion of modern forgery or fraud.” p. 340—1.) By William Long, Esq. 57 excavation where it originally stood when erect. This stone is in form like the annexed figure. By digging I found the excavation in which the end A was placed. At B., on the east side, you may see similar irregularities as you must have noticed on the butt ends of the upright stones of the fallen trilithon. Let any persons who have doubt, examine the stone, and they will be convineed.” [See the copy of Mr. Cunnington’s sketch of this stone]. Mr. William Cunnington, F.G.S., informs the writer that if this stone stood erect, it must have entirely concealed the “ gnomon” from persons standing in front of the “altar.” “It would have been impossible,” he says, “to see the sun rise over the “ gnomon” from “the exact centre of the building. It is nevertheless a fact that the gnomon does occupy this critical position, as to the sunrise at the solstice.” Before we go inside to view the remains of the circles and ellipses we will walk down the avenue for 98 feet, until we come to the large stone, 16 feet high, which is somewhat on the incline. This is a stone of much importance in connection with Stonehenge, since it has been found that, viewed from the exact centre of the building, at the summer solstice, the sun rises immediately over the top of it.} On Midsummer Day of the year 1858, Dr. Thurnam found this to be the case; and in 1868, four members of the Bath Field Club left Amesbury between 2 and 3 a.m., on the 25th of June to see if it were so: “As the long-looked-for moment arrived, one stationed himself at the outer circle, the others on the ‘altar-stone,’ and awaited the first indication of the rising of the sun. Just as hopes were beginning to fail, and the minutes dragged wearily along, an exclamation of surprise burst from all as the sun gradually rose, a globe of fire, immediately behind the ‘ Friar’s Heel,’ and no sooner had its first beams touched the top of the gnomon than they fell right athwart the ‘altar-stone’—a glorious and long-to-be-re- 1 On the importance which Dr. Smith attached to this stone in this point of view, see page 43,47. He,a hundred years ago, had come to the conclusion that the sun, at the summer solstice, would be seen to rise over the summit of the “ Friar’s Heel.” 58 Stonehenge and its Barrows. membered sight!”! Mr. Cunnington states that Mr. Purser, of Dublin, verified the same fact some years before (about 1844). . This stone acquired the name of the “ Friar’s Heel’? from the following circumstance, which must, of course, be received with implicit belief: “The stones of which Stonehenge was composed were standing on the premises of an old woman in Ireland; and Merlin sent the Devil to buy them of her. He bought them for as much money as she could count during the time of their removal ;- which in effect was none at all, for their removal was instantaneous. They were then erected in due order upon Mount Ambre; and the Devil boasted, that nobody would ever be able to tell how the fabric, or any of the parts of which it is composed, came there. Buta friar, who had been concealed near the building, overheard the Devil, and replied, ‘That is more than thee can tell;’ which so enraged the evil spirit, that he snatched up a pillar and hurled it at the friar, but it only reached his heel and struck him on it. Therefore a mark, visible on the stone, is to this day called the Friar’s Heel.” Returning to the great structure we observe the group of upright stones with their imposts, over the entrance. Itis, with reason, sup- posed that thirty upright stones and thirty imposts, similarly arranged, constituted the outer circle of Stonehenge. It was, doubtless, in- tended that, in so far as possible, the uprights should be so shaped and hewn as to be of the same height and size, the transoms of the same dimensions, and the intervening spaces of the same extent. This, however, could not be rigidly carried out, and accordingly we find that neither the heights, nor breadths, nor interstices, are always the same. The average height of the external uprights is 12 feet 6 inches, with an average interval of 4 feet. The imposts were secured to the uprights not only by their own weight, but by mor- tices, which, when filled by the tenons at the top of the uprights, ought to have been able to defywind or weather, and to a certain extent, the destructive hand of man. The diameter of this outer circle is 106 feet. Of this outer circle seventeen uprights and six imposts retain their original position. 1 Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, No. 2, p. 73.—See ‘ Notes and Queries,” Fifth Series, vol., xiv., p. 83. % ~ ee ee Sa — ath ™ MMM er lag SN RE Manny } ON: Surveyed m the Year 1810 Transfered to St permission of J. Bruce Nichols Esq ne, from the Oriqunal Copper Plates, by the kuna By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 59 Within this outer circle, and at an average distance of 9 feet from it was an inner circle, composed of thirty or forty pillars of syenite and other primitive rocks, each about 4 feet in height, and one foot in breadth. These stones, of which more will be said presently, were of a different geological character from that of the stones composing the outer circle, and those composing the five trilithons (or groups of three stones) which formed the “adytum,” or more important portion of the entire structure. Of this circle there remain but few stones standing upright, and they are rude and irregular in shape, and ap- parently unwrought. Within this circle again was a group of grand trilithons, five in number, arranged in horse-shoe form ; one, the highest, immediately behind what is called the “altar-stone,” and two on either side, those more distant from the central trilithon being of a lesser height. The standing stone of the lower trilithon of this group, on the right-hand side of the entrance, is 16 feet 8 inches high, 7 feet 6 inches wide, and 3 feet 10 inches thick. This stone seems to have been much honeycombed at its base by the weather. The Duke of Buckingham, ¢emp. James I., appears to have wrought the down- fall of the most important group, of which the parts are now either reclining, or prostrate upon the “ altar-stone,” which they have broken in their fall. The reclining stone is 22 feet 6 inches in height; the once associated upright, now broken and recumbent, was 2] feet high above ground, and had 4 feet in addition, which formed its basement and kept it upright. The impost is 143 feet long and 4 feet 8 inches thick. The uprights of the tri- lithon which the gipsies helped to overthrow, are each about 21 feet 6 inches long, and about 7 feet 6 inches wide, and 3 feet 6.inches in depth. The transom is 15 feet 9 inches long, and 5 feet in width. Allowing 24 feet for the part imbedded in the ground, the average height of these grand trilithons must have been, without the im- posts, about 18 feet, and with the imposts, about 22 feet. The innermost ellipse of stones consisted of about 15 or 19 stones of an average height of 8 feet, and of syenitesimilar to some of thoseof the inner circle. They are, as Sir R. C. Hoare says, much smoother and taller than those of the inner circle of small stones, and incline to 60 Stonehenge and its Barrows. the pyramidal form. One of them, No 26 in Sir R, Hoare’s plan, has a groove cut down its side, but for what reason is not apparent. The so-called “ altar-stone,”! is, or rather, was, when entire, 15 feet long by 3 wide. Of this innermost group of stones a few only remain. On the left hand as one enters the circle of stones from the avenue, is a recumbent syenite stone of 7 feet 6 inches in length with two mortises on its lower side. It appears to have been an impost, but its original situation does not clearly appear. The writer gladly supplements his own account of Stonehenge with that of Sir Henry James, the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey, as the measurements made under his direction would be taken, probably, with greater accuracy than his own: “ The structure, when complete, consisted of an outer circle of thirty large stones, upon which other large stones were laid horizontally so as to form a perfect continuous circle. This circle is 100 feet in diameter within the stones. “The stones in the uprights have each two tenons on their upper surface, which fit into mortises cut into the under surface of the horizontal stones; by this mode of construction, the whole circle was braced together. The average dimensions of the uprights in this circle are 12 feet 7 inches out of the ground, 6 feet broad, and 3 feet 6 inches in thickness. Those in the circle resting on the uprights are about 10 feet long, 3 feet 6 inches wide, and 2 feet 8 inches deep. “‘ Within this circle are five stupendously large trilithons, each con- sisting of two uprights with tenons on them, supporting a large horizontal lintel, in which two mortices are cut to receive the tenons. “These trilithons, are arranged in the form of a horse-shoe, so that one of them is central as regards the other four. The horizontal stone called the altar stone, lies in front of the central trilithon, and we see that the axial line of the structure is from N.E. to S.W.., or on the line of the two stones G.H. The five trilithons 10n altars in connexion with Druidical worship, see ‘‘ Herbert’s Cyclops Christianus,” p. 23. By William Long, Esq. 61 are arranged very symmetrically within the outer circle, and nearly at the distance of half the radius from the centre. “The dimensions of the trilithons are nearly as follows :— ft. in. ft. in. ft. in A. Height of upright out of ground 22 65 breadth 7 6 thickness 4 0 Central trilithon. Lintel, length 15 0 a 4 6 ‘“ 3 6 B. Height of upright out of ground 17 2 4 7 0 Pe 4 0 Lintel, length 15 9 . 4 0 ee 3.7 C. Height of upright out of ground 16 6 oy 7 9 nr 4 0 lintel, length 17 0 5 4 0 Ps 2 8 D. Height of upright out of ground 22 0 ‘ 8 3 A 4 3 Lintel, length 16 0 “ 4 0 “5 3 6 E. Height of upright above ground 16 6 3 vO 4 0 The Altar stone F. is 17 feet long and 3 feet 6 inches wide. “Tn addition to these there was formerly a complete circle of thirty smaller upright stones about 6 feet high, which was intermediate in position between the outer circle and the five trilithons. Within the trilithons there was a row of smaller stones about 7 feet 6 in- ches high, parallel to the trilithons. “Only seventeen of the thirty upright stones of the outer circle are now standing, and only six of the thirty lintels are now in their places. Of the trilithons only two (B. and C.) are perfect; the lintel and one of the uprights of A. has fallen and lies broken upon the altar stone _ F., whilst the other upright is in an inclined position, and supported only by one of the smaller stones which stood in front of it; this fell in 1620. D. lies prostrate, having fallen outward with its _ capstone on the 3rd of January, 1797. One of the uprights of E. _ has fallen inwards and is broken into three parts, and its lintel also is broken into three parts. “Of the circle of smaller stones very few remain standing; the “4 small lintel on the left of the central entrance is all that remains to “indicate that there were probably some lintels on this circle, as - there may also have been on the inner row of stones. “The structure is surrounded by a circular enclosure of earth, ~ about 300 feet in diameter, with a shallow ditch outside it.” 3 Sir Philip Sidney gave utterance to the popular notion when he wv : 62 - Stonehenge and its Barrows. wrote “that neither any eie can count them just.” Such an idea still prevails. King Charles the Second, however, when he rode up from Heale House with Colonel Robert Philips,! after the battle of Worcester, appears to have overcome the difficulty. It was upon the top of the trilithon, immediately to the left of the altar stone, to one entering from the avenue, that “ my Lord Winchilsea and Dr. Stukeley took a considerable walk,” but, the latter adds, “it was a frightful situation.” Two young men, however, who with their bicycles, paid a moonlight visit to Stonehenge in 1870, seem to have found it otherwise. With the aid of a rope-ladder they got to the top, and “ found the situation anything but frightful, for the lintel itself measures 15 feet 3 inches in length, and is 5 feet wide, so that one has really space enough, if not to take a ‘considerable walk,’ yet to move about freely, with no fear of top- pling over. From this eminence we obtained what we had long desired, viz: a view of the original design of Stonehenge, such as cannot be gained in wandering amongst the ruins below.” Other young men might not, however, find this “ situation” so pleasant; and broken necks or collar-bones might be the consequence of their little adventure. Mr. Ferguson, Q.C., of Dublin, perplexed by Henry of Hunting- don’s expression “ita ut porte portis superposite videantur,” and Stowe’s words,“ every couple sustaineth a third stone lying overthwart, gatewise,” after seeing that the impost of the great trilithon had cavities on its upper surface corresponding to the mortices on its under surface, and which suggested to him the idea that they had served as sockets for the reception of uprights supporting a second impost, read a paper on the subject before the Royal Irish Academy, January 9th, 1865. Bearing this in mind, Dr. Thurnam, on the occasion of the visit of the Wilts Archzological and Natural History Society, to Stonehenge, in September, 1865, “ obtained a ladder at Lake and took it to Stonehenge on the summit of the omnibus, and had it placed against the large trilithons. Several of 1 Colonel Philips said that ‘‘ the King’s arithmetic gave the lie to the fabulous tale that these stones cannot be told alike twice together.” By William Long, Esq. 63 those present mounted it, including Mr. Alexander, J. P., and Mr. Stallard, the son of the incumbent of West Grafton. I was assured by all that the surface was quite plain and had no hollows.” Dr. Thurnam adds, “it is curious that on the upper surface of the im- post of the largest trilithon there are two superficial round holes as if incipient mortices. I take this to have been commenced as the under surface, and the mortices afterwards formed in the present lower surface or at least that finally adopted, as being the most level and suitable for the purpose.” Any one who would understand the meaning of Henry of Huntingdon’s expression, should walk for a little distance outside the vallum in a south-easterly direction, and he would see the inner trilithons towering over the outer circle and giving the idea of “ porte portis superposite.” As the inner circle and ellipse are of a different kind of stone to the large external and internal trilithons, questions have arisen respecting the periods at which these several groups of stones have been erected ; some supposing that the smaller groups were the first set up, and that the larger stones were arranged around them at a subsequent period; while others have maintained that the larger groups of stone were placed in their positions before the smaller ones had been brought from Wales or Cornwall. Mr. Cunnington, _ (of Heytesbury,) was led to suppose that the original work consisted of the outward circle, and its imposts, and the inner oval or large trilithons; and that the smaller circle, and oval of inferior stones, _ were raised at a ater period, for they add nothing to the grandeur . of the temple, but rather give a littleness to the whole. The Rev. _ W. Lisle Bowles considered that the very reverse of Mr. Cunning- ton’s conclusions would be the most natural, namely, that the inner ; circles were the jirst work, and the outward, more elaborate, the last work, and this opinion was also that of the Rev. Mr. Leman, ‘Sir Richard Hoare’s friend. But Mr. Bowles would not give up the idea that the monument was Druidical although he held that it ‘was in part the work of the Belge; “No! I consider it originally Druidical, Druidical in its early state;” “and that “the last, more lofty and more elaborate circle, accords, not only with a later period, but with the idea that this part, and this part only, was the work of : 64 Stonehenge and its Barrows. the Belgians, as if they had said ‘you have a monument to Teut, he is your great God; you have also, on the ground, which your own God, the Deity, next in name and power to Teutates, could not preserve to yourselves and children, a temple to the Sun. The Sun is our own God; the Fire is our God; we will show you how to build a temple to the Sun, through whom we have conquered your country; and we will surround your rude altars with a work worthy the great deity of light.’”?! It might be thought to have been almost impossible to set up the large stones of the outer circle and inner ellipse without utterly crushing and destroying the stones of the smaller circle and smaller ellipse. Mr. Herbert says, “ If this structure were built at different epochs, the grey stones were surely erected the first, since the hoisting of the triliths over the green stones would be a strange supposition.” ? The fact that chippings from the stones of both kinds have been found intermingled in two of the adjoining barrows should be borne in mind in discussing this question. Sir R.C. Hoare says: “No. 16isa mutilated flat barrow, 76 feet in diameter and only 3 feet in elevation. This appears to have been one of those opened by Dr. Stukeley, and is thus spoken of by him in his account of Stonehenge: ‘and in a very great and old-fashioned barrow, west from Stonehenge, among such matters, I found bits of red and blue marble chippings of the stones of the temple; so that probably, the interred was one of the builders.’ During our researches in this twmulus, we perceived that a long section had been made, and found the bones of two skeletons which had been interred on the floor, also several pieces of stag’s horns, animal bones, &c., as well as some fragments of sarsen stones, similar to those which form the great trilithons of Stonehenge. On clearing out the earth from this section, we observed a small heap of whiter soil, which, having removed,, we came to the primary interment of burned bones within a fine circular cist, and found a spear head of brass in fine preservation, and a pin of the same metal. It is somewhat singular, that these burned bones (a more 1 Hermes Britannicus, p. 125. *Cyclops Christianus, p. 120. , | i : : 5 ry ‘ S : By William Long, Esq. 65 than usual quantity) should have laid unmolested in a barrow where there were a hundred rabbit holes. On removing the earth from over the cist, we found a large piece of one of the blue stones of Stone- henge, which Sowerby the naturalist calls a horn stone, which, with the sarsen stone, is a very singular occurence, and decidedly proves that the adjoining temple was erected previous to the ¢wmulus. Some persons acquainted with the soil in this part of Wiltshire, might think the finding of sarsen stones no uncommon event, and I should perhaps have thought the same, had these specimens been rounded by attrition; but the stones found within this barrow are pieces chipped off, (I am sorry to say) like those now daily knocked off from the great fallen trilithon. With regard to the blue stone, we are certain this species is not to be found in the southern district of Wiltshire. In opening the fine bell-shaped barrow N.E. of Stonehenge, we also found one or two pieces of the chippings of these stones, as well as in the waggon tracks round the area of the temple. These circumstances tend to give a much higher era of antiquity to our celebrated building, than some antiquaries would be willing to allow, and evidently prove that at the period when the éwmuli adjoming Stonehenge were raised, the plain was covered with the chippings of the stones that had been employed in the formation of the stone circle.” } Mr. Cunnington, F.G.S., has kindly furnished the writer with the following remarks upon these findings of chippings in the neighbour- ing barrows: “ No doubt the stones were worked at or near the spot where they now stand, and the surface of the downs around must have been strewed with the chippings.? These in course of time would sink through the turf and soil, till they reached the chalk below; owing mainly to the action of the earth-worms, which are continually throwing up the earth to the surface, and in a less de- | _ gree, to the growth of the ordinary vegetation. 1 Arcient Wilts, i., p, 127. 2Note by Mr. Cunnington.—Mr. H. L. Long in his ‘Survey of the Early _ Geography of Western Europe,” (1859,) p. 109, mentions the fact that ata newly-erected farm a little westward of Stonehenge, cultivation has levelled _ two barrow-like mounds,which were in a great measure formed of the chip- ings and fragments of the stones of Stonehenge. " VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. K 7 66 Stonehenge and its Barrows. “Men who are employed in digging for flints on the downs, always find the coins and various objects of antiquity at the bottom of the soil. An interesting example of this occurred when the late Mr. Waite invited me (now many years ago) to a Roman coin-hunt on Broad Hinton down. We found eighteen good Roman coins in. the course of the morning. The process was a very simple one— the men turned over the turf and adhering soil (in this case about nine inches in depth), and we found the coins on the under side, or on the chalk rubble below. “Chippings of the ‘ blue stones,’ 7.¢., of the stones of the inner circle, have been found in three of the barrows near Stonehenge, viz., in No. 16, No. ...,! and in No. 42.2 They have also been found, as stated by Sir R. C. Hoare, in the waggon-tracks round the area of the temple.® “ Could it be clearly proved that these were associated in a barrow with the original interment, no doubt would remain that Stonehenge was older than the barrow.* Sir R. C. Hoare evidently considered ~ this to have been the case with regard to barrow No. 16, and Mr. Cunnington, of Heytesbury, was of the same opinion, as is shewn by the quotation from one of his letters, of which you have a copy. [‘I showed you,’ writes Mr. Cunnington, F.S.A., in 1802, ‘a great variety of stones found in a large oblong barrow near Stonehenge, that are of the same kind as several of those in the building.’] It is much to be regretted that the details as to the finding of these fragments were not more explicitly stated. It should have been distinctly noted whether they were found with the primary inter- ment, as it is possible they may have reached the spot where they 1Note by Mr. Cunnington.— The fine bell-shaped barrow N.E. of Stone- henge.”-—Hoare’s Ancient Wilts, p. 127. [? No. 30.—W.L.] 2 Note by Mr. Cunnington.—Barrow No. 42 is nearly a mile in a straight line from Stonehenge. [The discovery of blue stone chippings in No. 42 was made by Mr. H. Cunnington. —W.L.] 5 Ancient Wilts, vol. i, p. 127. 4Note by Mr. Cunnington.—The barrow itself would be classified by Dr. Thurnam with the round barrows—the ‘‘ bronze period.” Stukeley, wko describes it as ‘‘a very great and old-fashioned barrow,” found in it, he says, ‘‘ fragments of the red and blue stones.” By William Tiong, Esq. 67 were found, accidentally, or by natural causes, such as are mentioned above. ‘A little more accuracy of observation might have settled the question for ever.’ ” The finding of these different ‘alld of chips together makes it appear probable that these different kinds of stones were worked on the ground at or about the same time; but it does not settle the question. There may have been an interval of time, greater or less, and the chips may yet have become mixed, and have been carried away, together, with the earth or chalk of which some of the bar- rows were composed. The chips found in these three barrows would go far to prove the superior antiquity of Stonehenge to that of these particular tumuli.' One more theory in connection with the construction of Stone- henge must yet be mentioned. Four or five years ago the writer was astonished at hearing his friend Dr. Thurnam give utterance to what he then considered, and still considers to be, a rank archzolo- gical heresy; viz., that Stonehenge was at one time covered with a roof. He said nothing in proof or support of this opinion, and the writer thought it might have been a passing fancy, and that it was not based on any serious considerations. As however the writer finds the following in Lieut. Oliver’s paper on the Prehistoric Re- mains in Brittany, read to the Ethnological Society, January 10th, 1871, he cannot but suppose that the Doctor really attached impor- _ tance to this view, and had propounded it to others: “ Dr. Thurnam has given up the ophite or dracontium theory as untenable, but con- “siders that some of the circles, Stonehenge, for instance, may have been covered in with a roof, as the Scandinavian temples are repre- _ sented as covered and enclosed structures. A similar idea occurred to a gentleman, who, on looking at Mr. Lukis’ plans of the circles and lines, suggested that the avenue might have been covered in with timber and earth, and formed long chambers for the tribe to live in, the chieftains occupying the western circular chamber.” J _ 'Dr. Thurnam mentions in a note to p. 425 of ‘ Archeologia,” vol. 43, hat a stone ‘‘of fine micaceous sandstone, precisely agreeing with the stone of the large flat slab in the centre of Stonehenge” was obtained by him from barrow (No. 170), about a mile from ‘‘ the stones.” ¥ 2 ‘ + 4 + ; 68 Stonehenge and its Barrows. That one so cautious, so careful, and so painstaking in the examina- tion of the theories of others, should have committed himself to such an opinion as this, is, to the writer, strange indeed. Tur GerotoeicaL CHARACTER OF THE STONEHENGE STONES. Dr. Stukeley appears to have been the first to notice the difference between the character of the stones composing the inner and outer circles and ellipses at Stonehenge. He says of the stones of the smaller oval that they are of a much harder sort than those of the lesser circle ; and were brought somewhere from the West; and of the (so-called) altar-stone, that “’tis a kind of blue coarse marble such as comes from Derbyshire, and laid upon tombs in our churches and churchyards.” Before Aubrey’s time there appears to have been a prevalent ”1 To those who were not opinion that the stones were “ factitious. acquainted with the valleys in the neighbourhood of Marlborough, these stones would be unlike any with which they were familiar ; and the “composition” of them, where they stand, would get over any difficulty about their transport thither from a distance. The appearance, too, of some of the stones, such as of that which forms an impost of the outer circle towards the north-west, and which in its upper portion was found to consist, for the depth of a few inches, of a conglomerate of flints and sand,’ may have given strength to this opinion. There appear to have been, even recently, according to a paper of Mr. Cunnington’s in 1865, some very curious notions about the sarsen portion of the Stonehenge stones. In 1836, the President of the Architectural Society had discovered, “from recent inspection, 1 The author of a ‘‘ Fool’s Bolt ” strongly asserts their being sara factitia, as ‘¢it was impossible to work them into their several forms. Free-stones may be wrought to any, but these churlish stones to no form in cause of hardness and brittleness.” 2See Wilts Magazine, vol. xi., p. 348. Mr. Cunnington adds to this account, the following statement: ‘‘ Masses of sarsen made up entirely of a similar conglomerate of chalk-flints frequently occur in the neighbourhood of Standen, near Hungerford, but they are not found in the middle or southern districts of Wilts.” ae By William Long, Esq. 69 that the large stones of Stonehenge were in their granular character, closely allied to the marble of Carrara,” and another careful visitor of Stonehenge was of opinion that the stones were artificial. Mr. Sowerby, in 1812, describes the stones thus: The outer circle and the great trilithons, with their imposts, are of sarsen* stone, a fine-grained silicious sandstone. 1In the Addenda and Notes to ‘‘ Abury Illustrated,” the following is given as an explanation of the word ‘‘farsen:” ‘‘ The term Sarsen, or Saresyn, was applied by the Anglo-Saxons, simply in the sense of Pagan, to the stones which they found scattered about the Wiltshire Downs. As all the principal specimens of these mysterious blocks were perceived to be congregated into temples popu- larly attributed to heathen worship, it naturally came to pass that the entire formation acquired the distinctive appellation of Sarsen or Pagan stones. The same epithet of ‘ Saresyn’ the Saxons also applied to their invaders the Danes or Northmen, who, on their coming into this country, were universally pagan. Thus Robert Ricart (quoted in Roberts’ History of Lyme) says, ‘ Duke Rollo Le Fort was a Saresyn come out of Denmark into France;’ and a spot in Guernsey is still designated by the same term from having constituted the tem- porary stronghold of certain Norman freebooters.”—Waylen’s History of _ Marlborough, p. 529. The following is from Mr, Henry Lawes Long’s ‘‘ Survey of the Early Geography of Western Europe:” ‘In addition to the suggestion advanced that our word Sarsen, as applied to the Druid sandstone, is, in fact, a corruption of Saracen, I may add that Sarrasin is the name commonly given on the Continent to ancient objects whether of Celtic or Roman construction, thereby inferring a period anterior to any remains of Christian origin, Roman denarii, which in the north of France still occasionally are current as sous, bear the name of _ Sarrasins. The Roman bridge near Aosta is called the Pont de Sarrasins.” _ And I may add the following extract from the ‘‘ Journal de l’Architecture,” (of Brussels,) 4™°. année, p. 84: ‘ Les traditions locales attribuent la con- _ struction des chaussées romaines aux Sarrasins. Les ruines, les tuiles antiques, les poteries, les médailles, etc., que l’on trouve chaque jour, ne sont connus, f omme on sait, que sous les noms de Masures, de Vases, de Monnaies, ou de ' puits des Sarrasins. Cette dénomination remonte évidemment aux temps des ; Croisades, lorsque les esprits étaient remplis du nom des infidéles. Du reste, les armeés et les populations qui revenaient de Terre-Sainte, en suivant les -ehaussées romaines, n’auront pas peu contribué a répandre aux environs ]’épi- _ thete injurieuse de Sarrasin et de payen, dans laquelle ils auront confondu les - Romaines si, comme il est probable, un faible souvenir a ce grand peuple _ Yiyait encore a cette époque dans le souvenir de nos péres.” Mr. Long quotes the following from Col. Symonds’s Diary, which his cousin, Mr. C. E. Long, edited for the Camden Society: ‘‘ 12t Noy. 1644, Tuesday, though a miserable wett _ windy day, the army moved over the playnes to Marlingsborough, where the King day at the Lord Seymour’s howse, the troopes to Fyfield, two myles distant, a place 70 Stonehenge and its Barrows. “The stones of the smaller circle (except Nos. 9, 11, 17, 19, in Sir. R. Hoare’s plan) are an aggregate of quartz, felspar, chlorite and horn-blende. “ No. 9 is silicious schist. “Nos. 11, 17 19 are hornstone, with small specks of felspar and pyrites. “The altar-stone is a fine-grained micaceous sandstone.” The Rev. W. D. Conybeare, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. | cil., part. 2, p. 452, thus speaks of the small circles: “ Each stone a variety of greenstone rock which occurs nowhere nearer than the environs of Dartmoor in the West, or Charnwocd Forest in Leicester- shire on the North ;—either being a distance of full a hundred miles in a direct line.” Professor Andrew Ramsay, writing to Dr. Thurnam (1859), says: “The greenstone may possibly come from Devonshire, but such rocks are also plentiful in Montgomeryshire, in Caernarvonshire, and in Merionethshire, and around Snowdon. Jn fact from Cader Idris to Moel Hebog, near Bedgellert and Snowdon, and from thence by Carnedd Llewelyn to Conway. They also occur in North Pembroke- shire. My friend, Mr. Perkins, the Vicar of Wootton-under-Edge, considers that these blocks which are quite foreign to the district may have been more easily brought from Brittany, where, I believe, such rocks occur, and I think this is possibly the case.” Mr. Charles Moore, F.G.S., of Bath, in 1865, expressed his belief “that the nearest point at which they could find similar material was Wales, or possibly Shropshire, although he found stones of precisely similar character while exploring the Mendips a few months ago, but the stones could not have been obtained from that spot, for the rock had never been worked.” Professor Phillips’ letter to Dr. Thurnam, giving an account of so full of a grey pibble stone of great bigness as is not usually seene; they breake them, and build their howses of them and walls, laying mosse betweene, the inhabaitants calling them Saracen’s stones, and in this parish a myle and halfe in length, they lye so thick as you may goe upon them all the way. They call that place the Grey-weathers, because a far-off they looke like a flock of sheepe.” By William Long, Esq. 71 his examination of the specimens sent to him of Stonehenge stones is as follows :— “* Oxford, 22nd December, 1858. My Dear Sir, ‘¢ The stones, four in number, are thus to be described :— ‘©1. Marked Stonehenge altar. This is a gray sandstone, composed of quartz sand, silvery mica, and some small dark grains (possibly hornblende). Such a stone might be obtained in the gray Devonian or gray Cambrian rocks—and in other situations (‘ Cos.’ antiq). “2. Greenstone (Anglicé). Composed of slightly quartzose Felspar—horn- blende—a little chlorite? &c., &c. This is an ordinary greenstone of such large grain and such a constitution as to make approach to the green syenite of some writers. If I had better specimens I could perhaps determine the presence of other minerals. Such a rock may ,be found in dykes in Devonshire, in dykes _ and seaming beds in Wales, &c. ‘« 3. Smaller specimen, like the last, but with finer grain. “4, Compact felspar of Mac Culloch: shows no internal crystallization ; base of many dark porphyries—such occur in North Wales, Cumberland, &c. ’ If on the spot, we were to study more carefully the several stones, it might, I think, be possible to identify the greenstones ; but by such little atoms as these only guesses and those very vague can be justified. ‘‘There is nothing like granite in the specimens. This rather points to Wales than to Cornwall—nor is there any ordinary (felspathic) elvan as in Cornwall, but ‘ Elvan’ is a name applied to greenstone dykes not unlike this stone near Dartmoor. But as, no doubt, Merlin brought the stones he might choose a rock now buried in the great depression of Caernarvonshire, where _ Sarn Badrig alone remains to mark his tram-road | f ob.” But upon this subject, there is no one who deserves a hearing, and a more attentive hearing, too, than Mr. Cunningtun, F.G.S., who has devoted so much time and thought to the study of the geological character of the Wiltshire megalithic structures. He says, ina paper “on the geology of Stonehenge,” read at the Salisbury meeting of the Wilts Archxological Society, 1865: ‘ We are in- _ debted to Mr. Prestwich, the treasurer of the Geological Society, for the exact determination of the stratum from which the ‘Sarsens’” & are derived (Vide Journal of the Geological Society). % _ © At the close of the secondary period of geologists, when the ~ Chalk stratum, now forming the downs over which we shall walk E, to-morrow, was at the bottom of the sea, beds of sands, clays, and 72 Stonehenge and its Barrows. gravels, were deposited upon it. These constitute what are now called the tertiary strata. When they were subsequently raised above the bed of the ocean, they were exposed to the powerful de- nuding action of seas, glaciers, and rivers, by which the main portion of them, in the western district (Wiltshire included), was carried away; a few cappings on some of the hills only remaining through the greater part of our county. Such cappings are not uncommon on some of the high hills on the borders of Salisbury Plain, es- pecially to the northward and eastward of Amesbury, and between that town, Bedwyn, and Kingsclere; whilst hills, where no masses of tertaries remain, shew by the presence of numerous tertiary flint pebbles on their summit, the wreck of strata once spread over this area. Among the lower tertiaries (the Eocene of Sir Charles Lyell), are certain sands and mottled clays, named by Mr. Prestwich the Woolwich and Reading beds, from their being largely developed at these places, and from these he proves the sarsens to have been derived; although they are seldom found im situ, owing to the destruction of the stratum to whieh they belonged. They are large masses of sand concreted together by a silicious cement, and when the looser portions of the stratum were washed away, the blocks of sandy rock were left scattered over the surface of the ground. « At Standen, near Hungerford, large masses of sarsen are found, consisting almost entirely of flints, formed into conglomerate with the sand. Flints are also common in some of the large stones forming the ancient temple of Avebury. “ At the cliffs of St. Marguerite, near Dieppe, is a bed of fine white sand, reposing unevenly upon the chalk, and extending for one or two miles in length. It contains blocks of concretionary silicious sandstone, frequently measuring many feet in length. A good example of sarsen stone 7 situ. «The abundance of these remains, especially in some of the valleys of North Wilts, is very remarkable. Few persons who have not seen them can form an adequate idea of the extraordinary scene presented to the eye of the spectator, who standing on the brow of one of the hills near Clatford, sees stretching for miles before him, countless numbers of these enormous stones, occupying the middle By William Long, Esq. 73 of the valley, and winding like a mighty stream towards the south. “Three or four small lateral valleys, containing a similar deposit, and converging to the main valley, add to the impression that almost involuntarily forces itself upon the mind, that it must be a stream of rocks, e’en now flowing onward." “Tn some places, they strew the ground so thickly, that across miles of country, a person might almost leap from stone to stone, without touching the ground on which they lie, and some of them are four or five yards across. Sometimes the masses are formed of unusually fine sand, and the result is a very dense hard rock. In _ this variety are commonly found the remains of what appear to be fucoids or sea weeds. They do not exhibit any very marked structure, but are certainly vegetable. With regard to the origin of the stones composing the small circle and inner oval of Stonehenge our in- formation is less definite. They differ entirely from the sarsens, being all primary or igneous rocks. Professor Tennant, of King’s _ College, has favored me by making a fresh examination of the speci- ¢ mens. With four exceptions, they are of syenite, composed of quartz, _ felspar, and hornblende. One of the exceptions is silicious schist, j and the other three greenstone, containing small crystals of horn- _blende and iron pyrites, the latter partly decomposed, and passing _ into oxide of iron. The altar-stone is a fine-grained micaceous sand- stone. Professor Ramsay, of the Geological Survey, says: ‘They are ; certainly not drifted boulders, and do not resemble the igneous rocks _ of Charnwood Forest; and without asserting that they came from Wales or Shropshire, I may state that they are of the same nature as the igneous rocks of part of the Lower Silurian region of North Pembrokeshire and of Caernarvonshire. _ “Professor Tennant says that Charnwood Forest contains several Kinds of greenstones and syenite, but that he never saw any of them like the stones of Stonehenge. They bear, however, he thinks, a | ‘strong resemblance to those of the Channel Islands, and it has always appeared to him that they were obtained from that source. ? These stonesare now rapidly disappearing ; they are used for building purposes. § 74 Stonehenge and its Barrows. « But the most important consideration connected with the smaller stones, and one which in its archeological bearing has been too much overlooked, is the fact of their having been brought from a great distance. I expressed an opinion on this subject in a lecture delivered at Devizes more than eighteen years ago, and I have been in- creasingly impressed with it since. I believe that these stones would not have been brought from such a distance to a spot where an abundance of building stones equally suitable in every respect already existed, unless some special or religious value had been attached to them. This goes far to prove that Stonehenge was originally a temple, and neither a monument raised to the memory of the dead, nor an astronomical calendar or almanac. In either of these latter cases there would have been no motive for seeking the materials elsewhere. The sarsens would have answered every purpose, with less labour, and with better effect. But, if these were the sacred stones of some early colonists, a superstitious value would have been attached to them, and great care and labour bestowed on their pre- servation. Thus the ancient so-called ‘Stone of Destiny,’ on which our sovereigns are crowned, was preserved with pious care for cen- turies in the Abbey of Scone, and has, to this day, its place in the Coronation Chair at Westminster Abbey. “Tt has been suggested that they were Danams, or the offerings of successive votaries. Would there in such case have been such uniformity of design or would they have been all alike of foreign materials? I would make one remark about the small impost of a trilithon of syenite, now lying prostrate within the circle. One writer has followed another in taking it for granted that there must have been a second, corresponding with it, on the opposite side. Of this there is neither proof nor record, not a trace of one having been seen by any person who has written on the subject. This small im- post, not being of sarsen, but syenite, must have belonged to the original old circle, and it may even have suggested to the builders of the present Stonehenge the idea of the large imposts and trilithons, with their tenons and mortices. “Jt is important to mention that no iron implements have been found in the numerous barrows around Stonehenge.” : | : By William Long, Esq. 15 Destruction or THE Stones oF STONEHENGE. The measurement of many stones, large and small, recently made by the writer, convinced him that the stones composing the different portions of the structure were intended to be, as far as possible, of the same height and size. The small recumbent stones of sarsen, therefore, must be considered as being only frusta of the originals, the remaining portions having been broken up and carried away. We find Inigo Jones complaining of the destruction of these stones, ‘which came under his notice. He says, in 1620: “ Those of the inner circle and lesser hexagon, not only exposed to the fury of all- devouring ages, but to the rage of men likewise, have been more subject to ruine. For being of no extraordinary proportions, they might easily be beaten down or digged up, and at pleasure made use of for other occasions, which I am the rather enduced to believe, because, since my measuring the work, not one fragment of some . then standing are now to be found.”’—Jones’ “Notable Antiquity,” | p. 63. (1655.) Stukeley speaks of the chipping of stones which was ; common in his day,’ but in many cases large portions of stones which __ had fallen must have been carried away. He mentions that he had seen : a stone, as big as any at Stonehenge, in Durrington fields, another _ at Milford, another at Fighelden. “They seem to have been carried _ back to make bridges, mill-dams, or the like, in the river. There _ is another in the London road, east from Amesbury, about a mile from the town. Another in the water at Bulford,? and yet another stands leaning at Preshute farm near the church, as big as those of Stonehenge.” Stukeley seems to have thought that these stones had formed part of a sacellum or little temple upon what he calls Haradon Hill, and where the avenue began. Aubrey 1 pp. 5, 23, 26 of reprint. _ *The common tradition respecting this stone at Bulford is, that as the Devil, who had been employed by Merlin to buy of an old woman in Ireland the Stones for Stonehenge, was bringing them over, bound up in a wyth, the wyth _ Slackened as he was crossing the river Avon at Bulford, and one of them dr opped down into the water, where it lies to this very hour. _ A farmer, with his team of oxen, made an unsuccessful attempt to move this Stone some years since. 76 Stonehenge and its Barrows. had previously recorded, in the “ Monumenta Britannica,” that “the inhabitants about the Amesburies had defaced this monument since his remembrance, sc. one large stone was carried away to make a bridge.” Mr. Kemm, in answer to enquiries made by the Secretaries of the Wiltshire Society, in the Magazine, says (vol. xi., p. 243): * My father resided for twenty-five years in West Amesbury House, and I have often heard him express his conviction, that a considerable quantity of fragments of the stones of Stonehenge were built into its walls. I could myself point out pieces of stone in the garden wall, which appear to be precisely similar in quality to the stones of the outer circle . . . Stonehenge stands on the estate, so that the builder of the house was the owner of the monument.” Mr. Cunnington says (vol. xi., p. 3848): “ Depredations are still perpetrated on Stonehenge by excursionists and other visitors. About two years ago, a mass, which must have weighed nearly 56 pounds, was broken, apparently by means of a sledge hammer, from the hard schist, marked No.9 in Hoare’s plan. The soft stones are frequently much chipped. On the 17th of July last (1868), a party of Goths lighted a fire against one of the stones on the south-east side of the outer circle, by which it was much damaged and disfigured, and several fragments were broken off by the heat.” In Mr. Henry L. Long’s book previously alluded to, is the fol- lowing suggestion respecting the pre-historic injury done to Stone- henge: “There now remain at Stonehenge, upright and prostrate, about ninety-one stones ; originally there must have been about one hundred and thirty. It is to be hoped that the work of destruction is now at an end; and that this unique monument of antiquity may experience no further demolitions. It has suffered most on the southern side—certainly the quarter of the most violent winds ; but we cau hardly suppose that winds would have any appreciable effect upon such mighty and such deeply-fixed masses. Something may have been done by excavators in search of imagined treasures, but I am more inclined to attribute their overthrow to the same cause that inspired their construction, namely, to religious fervour ; for we know that, upon the conversion from paganism to Christianity, | Ee By William Long, Esq. 77 a regular onslaught upon buildings of this description took place, equal to the frenzied assaults of the Scotch Covenanters upon the cathedrals . . . The Saxons remained pagans about one hundred and fifty years, until the arrival of St. Augustine, in 517, What happened to the Druidical worship during that period, we know not; but we cannot suppose it to have revived, even if any Britons had remained to revive it, under the desolation of the Saxon domination, and in defiance of their hostile creed. It seems however likely that the first steps of the British converts to Christianity would have been directed against the symbols of Druidical superstition. We have no record to establish the fact, but what is more likely than that Stonehenge, like similar edifices elsewhere, should have been one of the first objects to experience the wrath of the proselytes against the previous objects of their worship? The partial overthrow of Stone- henge may, perhaps, be referred to some such religious movement, and to about the fourth century of our era.” But for the watchful care of Mr. Henry Browne, who, for so many years, took a loving interest in Stonehenge, and who, “on many occasions, has succeeded in arresting the ravages (worse than those of time) which ruthless hands would have committed,” much more injury would probably have been done during a considerable portion of the present century. In his little book on Stonehenge (p. 19), he “exhorts his readers to the respect and veneration justly due to ‘such unparalleled curiosities, and most earnestly entreats them not to contribute to their demolition by taking those chippings of them which the unheeding shepherds of the plain will be ready to provide them with for the consideration of a few half-pence, but rather to become the protectors of them by discouraging every kind of attempt to injure or mutilate them.” ! 1No paper on Stonehenge could, with justice, omit to make mention of Mr. a. Browne, who, for so many years, was the self-constituted curator of Stone- henge, and, who by his constant watchfulness over this object of his interest and Bifeotion, must have preserved it from much injury and mutilation. Sir oR. C. Hoare in his ‘‘ Modern Wilts,” (Hundred of Amesbury, p. 52,) says of ce that ‘‘no one has investigated Stonehenge so minutely as he has, and, by Po ascending to the summit of the trilithons, he has discovered what was hafine | & “unnoticed, viz., that each stone was fixed to the other by a groove. He also 78 Stonehenge and its Barrows, Tur Inctsep Stone. Since the fact became known that the incision upon the lewer side of the impost of the trilithon which the Duke of Buckingham helped to overthrow, was the work of an itinerant mechanic, all noticed that the small upright stones behind the altar were placed closer to each other than in any other parts of the circle, and that a wider interval was left at the entrance.” Mr. Browne had his craze, which was that Stonehenge was of the ante-diluvian period, and that the traces of the deluge were to be seen in the direction in which the fallen stones are laid. The following account of him was printed in a Wiltshire newspaper: ‘‘ Mr. Browne, the author of a work on Stonehenge, was a man of limited means, but of respectable mental attainments, who had been early struck with the magnificence of the remains on Salisbury Plain, and had imbibed a passion for the temple at Stonehenge as absorbing and as powerful as that felt by the young Parisienne for the Belvidere Apollo, or as any one of the Pygmalion-like instances of which so many are recorded. To this, and to its illustrative remains in this neighbourhood, all his thoughts were devoted. He lived under its shadow, he dreamed of it, he endeavoured to trace out the hidden mystery of its existence, he lectured upon its many wonders, and he published a book about it. When engaged on his lectures to the members of the literary institutions that existed some years since in Salis- bury, he used to bring his drawings and make his arrangements in the the morning, return to Amesbury to dinner, come back with more materials in the afternoon, read his lecture in the evening, and then again walk on his solitary road to Amesbury at night after the conclusion of the meeting, having already walked five-and-twenty miles. But this persevering energy of his character was more particularly exemplified during the construction of his model of Stonehenge. Every stone was modelled on the spot, aud the most minute variations in the original carefully noted in his copy. Day after day, and week after week, was he to be found among those memorials of old time— planning, measuring, modelling, painting, in the prosecution of his self-pre- scribed task,and interrupted only by the neeessity of sometimes visiting Salisbury for materials, which he bore home himself, and on foot. The difficulty of making such a copy would not perhaps be great with proper assistance, but this man worked wholly by himself, and we can imagine his self-gratulation on the completion of bis labours, when he could exclaim, like the victor of Corioli, ‘Alone I did it! I!’ From this model he made others on different scales, and the moulds being preserved, these were afterwards sold by his son, together with some of his own drawings equally accurate, to occasional] visitors. “Mr. Browne, though he had completed his work, had not yet found for it a resting-place, and he determined to present it to the British Museum. It was accepted by the trustees, with thanks, and the author chose to have the pleasure of placing it with his own hands in this great repository of the antiquities of the world. Unwilling to trust the model from his sight, and equally unwilling or unable to bear the expenses of the usual modes of travelling, he resolved to walk with it to London; and mounting his model on a wheel-barrow or hand- By William Long, Esq. 79 interest in the subject has come toanend. In Dr. Thurnam’s paper, in the ninth volume of the Wiltshire Magazine, will be found a detailed account of the whole affair. ~The writer noticed, in October, 1875, that a “ broad arrow” had recently been cut on the large stone behind the leaning stone of the largest trilithon. When this shall have lost its fresh appearance, it might, if previously unnoticed, give rise to similar specula- tions. Toe Fatt or tae Tritiraon In 1797. The “ Archzologia,” vol. xvi., p. 103, contains an account of the _ fall of some of the stones of Stonehenge, in a letter from William _ George Maton, M.B., F.A.S., to Aylmer Bourke Lambert, Esq., } F.R.S., and F.A.S. It was read June 29th, 1797. The following is the most interesting portion of it: “On the third of. the month _ (January) already mentioned, some people employed at the plough, truck he set off across the plain with his charge. After a toilsome and _ almost continuous march of two days and nights (for he only slept for a short time in the day), he arrived on the morning of the third day at the _ British Museum, showed the letter of the trustees to the porter, wheeled his _ load into the court-yard, and saw his model safely deposited in the house. He left without staying to be questioned, and was soon on his way home again; but was detained some days on the road by illness brought on by his exertions.’”” He died at Winchester, April 17th, 1839, aged 70 years, while journeying on foot to deliver a course of lectures at aoe ane wrote, in 1809, a pamphlet entitled ‘The real State of England ;” in _ 1810, “A brief arrangement of the Apocalypse; ”? and in 1830, ‘‘ The Be: state of England at the present tims.” He styles himself ‘‘ Lecturer on History. a _ Mr, Browne, in his little book on Stonehenge and Abury, thus describes the ‘conclusion he came to from his observations as to the manner in which the few ‘Temaining transverse stones of the outer circle had been connected together : “ They were originally connected together throughout the whole circle by thirty es placed upon the tops of them, which were fitted together at their extremi- by corresponding projections and hollows, as shown by Fig. I. in the plate {copied in woodcut) : another Sipumetaeee, I believe, hitherto unnoticed by the investigators of Stonehenge.” The writer regrets having been prevented, hitherto, from verifying, by personal inspection, the foregoing Weer which had approved itself to Sir. R. Hoare. 80 Stonehenge and its Barrows. full half-a-mile distant from Stonehenge, suddenly felt a considerable concussion, or jarring, of the ground, occasioned, as they afterwards perceived, by the fall of two of the largest stones and their impost. This trilithon fell outwards, nearly in a westerly direction, the im- post in its fall striking against one of the stones of the outer circle, which, however, has not been thereby driven very considerably out of its perpendicularity. The lower ends of the two uprights, or sup- porters, being now exposed to view, we are enabled to ascertain the form into which they were hewn. They are not right-angled, but were bevilled off in such a manner that the stone which stood nearest to the upper part of the adytum is 22 feet in length on one side, and not quite 20 on the other; the difference between the corresponding sides of the fellow-supporter is still greater, one having as much as 23, and the other scarcely 19 feet, in length. The breadth of each is (at a medium) 7 feet 9 inches, and the thickness 3 feet. The im- post which is a perfect parallelopipedon, measures 16 feet in length, 4 feet 6 inches in breadth, and 2 feet 6 inches in thickness. This impost is considerably more than 11 tons in weight. It was pro- jected about 2 feet beyond the supporters, made an impression in the ground to the depth of 7 inches or more, and was arrested in its tendency to roll by the stone it struck whilst fallmg . . - One of the supporters fell on a stone belonging to the second circle, which I at first supposed to have been thrown down by it, but which, from recurring to plans of the prior state of the structure, I find to have been long prostrate. The longer of them was not more than 3 feet 6 inches deep (measuring down the middle) in the ground, the other little more than 3 feet. In the cavities left in the ground there were a few fragments of stone of the same nature as that forming the substance of the trilithon, and some masses of chalk. These materials seem to have been placed here with a view to secure the perpendicular position of the supporters. The immediate cause. of this memorable change in the state of Stonehenge must have been the sudden and rapid thaw that began the day before the stones fell, succeeding a very deep snow. In all probability the trilithon was originally perfectly upright, but it had acquired some degree of in- clination long before the time of its fall. This inclination was By William Long, Esq. 81 remarked by Dr. Stukeley, though it was not so considerable, I think, as is represented in his north view of Stonehenge.” + _ Mr. Henry Browne, inhis “ Illustrations of Stonehengeand Abury,” gives some additional information: “I will here take the opportunity of introducing the account which was given me of the fall of this trilithon, by Dr. Maton, of Spring Gardens, London, when I had the pleasure of meeting that gentleman on the spot, and who, at the time of its fall, resided at Salisbury. About twenty years ago it was the habit of persons, waiting the commencement of fairs in this part of Wiltshire, to take up their abode in Stonehenge for some days, as a defence against the inclemency of the weather. In the - autumn preceding the fall of the trilithon, amongst others who availed themselves of this protection were some gipsies, who, not content with a position behind this trilithon on the level ground, made an excavation in the chalk to obtain a lower position. On quitting Stonehenge, the effect produced by this proceeding, was that of causing an extraordinary accumulation of moisture behind : this trilithon, in the rainy and snowy season of autumn and winter. The chalk, in this position and under these circumstances, being _ frozen in the winter, and thawed in the succeeding mild weather, was, in consequence, decomposed. This naturally weakened the - foundation of the trilithon on its outward side, towards the west, and _ it at length, as already stated, fell in that direction, after being ob- served for two or three days to be out of its perpendicular position.” great stones having no artificial support in the ground, and one of them exhibiting an irregular shape of its base, quite unsuitable for stability, as forming the obtuse angle of a rhombus, and that not penetrating more than six feet deep. The accurate juncture of the <_< apper surface of the uprights and the lower side of the transverse ‘stone must have cost much labour, and not less skill than the tenons 27 and mortices: but these surfaces exhibited no mark of tooling.’ e) ‘Tn Inigo Jones’ North Prospect of Stonehenge this trilithon is represented as inclining outwards considerably. 2 See Archeologia, vol. xxviii., 411. VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. G ———$—$—$————$—$—$———————— 82 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Fuint FLAKES FOUND WITHIN THE Stone Crrciss at STONEHENGE. Mr. W. Cunnington, in his “ Stonehenge Notes,” printed at the end of the eleventh volume of the Magazine of the Wilts A. and N. H. Society, 1869, says: “During a visit to Stonehenge in the summer of last year, Mr. Henry Cunnington found in rabbits’ holes round the edge of the altar-stone, and at the edge of the large stone 2 in Hoare’s plan, several flint flakes and a fragment of pottery. The latter is of rude make, slightly burnt, and though evidently very ancient, is not sufficiently distinct tobe of much importance. Most of the flakes are decidedly artificial. ‘The circular piece,’ says Mr, Evans, ‘is of a rare form and belongs to the class to which the name of sling stones has been apphed.’ One flake is undoubtedly ancient, and bears marks of having been well used; but the general appear- ance of the specimens, with this one exception, is so fresh that sus- picions must ve entertained as to their authenticity,” ! Colonel Lane Fox found several worked flints in the rubbish around the trilithons in 1869: “Observing that two or three bare places had been scratched in the soil, apparently by animals, at the foot of the stones, I examined the loose earth carefully, and succeeded in finding the four flints which are exhibited to the meeting [that of the Ethnological Society of London, Nov. 9th, 1869]. ‘Two of these, it will be seen, are perfect flakes, having bulbs of percussion, with — ribs and facets at the back” . . . “ Besides the flakes, I observed numerous small splinters of flint, such as might wel! have resulted from the fracture of flint tools, had such been used in the process of dressing the great blocks.” Colonel Lane Fox found as many as twenty worked flints in one place close to Stonehenge, “ where a small tumulus had been scored by the plough.” * DiGGINGS WITHIN THE PRECINCTS OF STONEHENGE, AND THEIR RESULTS. Mr. Webb, in “Stoneheng Restored,” p. 66, says: “ But the sacrifices anciently offered at Stoneheng (already remembered) were 1 Note by Mr. Cunnington, 1876.—‘‘I believe that all the flakes found in 1869 were purposely placed there. ‘Flint Jack’ is known to have been at Stonehenge about this time.” * Journal of the Ethnological Society, vol. ii., pp. 2, 3. By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 83 Bulls or Oxen, and several sorts of Beasts, as appears by the heads of divers kinds of them, not many years since, there digged up.” The same statement is repeated in his “ Stoneheng, a Roman Work and Temple,” p. 97. Speaking again “of the heads of Bulls or Oxen, of Harts, and other such beasts digged up in or near our Antiquity, which were the relicks of such Beasts as were anciently offered at that Place,” he says, in answer to Dr. Charleton, who had spoken of their having been“ plowed up in the adjacent fields :” ‘Those concern immediately our discovery, that have been found in several ' parts of the Court surrounding Stoneheng its-If, and near about it; for besides the abundance of them which were digged up by Dr. Harvey,' formerly mentioned, Gilbert North, Esquire, brother to the Right Honorable the Lord North, Mr. Jones, and divers other persons, at several other times; when the Right Noble George, late Duke of Buckingham, out of his real affection to antiquity, was at the charge in King James his days, of searching and digging there, great numbers were found also. And as at all the former time, so in like manner at this same time, were great quantities of burnt coals or charcoals digged up likewise ; here lying promiscuously together _ with the heads, there, in pits by themselves apart, here more, there less.” On the next page is an engraving of the cover of the thurib- _ ulum (!), which he considers “a notable testimony for what use our _ Stoneheng was at first erected.” 4 Aubrey, in his “ Monumenta Britannica,” attributes the partial fall of the leaning stone (marked D 2, in Sir R. C. Hoare’s ground 4 plan) to the researches made in the year 1620, by George, Duke of Buckingham, who, when King James the First was at Wilton (the seat of the Earls of Pembroke), “ did cause the middle of Stonehenge _ to be digged, and this under-digging was the cause of the falling _ downe, or recumbency of the great stone there, twenty one foote long. In the process of this digging they found a great many horns © of stags and oxen, charcoal, batterdashers, heads of arrows, some 1 The discoverer of the circulation of the blood. G2 84 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Earl of Pembroke (Lord Chamberlain to King Charles I.) did say “that an altar-stone was found in the middle of the area here, and that it was carried away to St. James’.” ! Stukeley mentions that “Mr. Thomas Hayward, late owner of Stonehenge, dug about it, as he acquainted Lord Winchelsea and myself. He found heads of oxen and other beasts bones and nothing else.” Again he says, “July 5, 17 23. By Lord Pembroke’s di- rection, I dug on the inside of the altar about the middle: 4 foot along the edge of the stone, 6 foot forward toward the middle of the adytum. At a foot deep, we came to the solid chalk mix’d with flints, which had never been stir’d. The altar was exactly a cubit thick, 20 inches and +; but broken in two or three pieces by the ponderous mass of the impost and one upright stone of that trilithon which stood at the upper end of the adytum, being fallen upon it. Hence appears the commodiousness of the foundation for this huge work. They dug holes in the solid chalk, which would of itself keep up the stones, as firm as if a wall was built round them. And no doubt they ramm/’d up the interstices with flints. But I had too much regard to the work to dig anywhere near the stones. I took up an oxe’s tooth, above ground, without the adytum on the right hand of the lowermost trilithon, northward. And this is all the account of what has been found by digging at Stonehenge, which I can give.” ? Mr. Cunnington dug so completely under the large prostrate stone 1Mr. Cunnington, in the Wilts Mag,, vol. xi., p. 349, says ‘as to the stone said to have been carried away to St. James’, in the time of Charles I., we have made some enquiries at St. James’ Palace, and are informed on authority of the clerk of the works, that no such stone now exists there.” It is very improbable that, if such a stone were removed, it was taken ‘‘from the middle of the area” of Stonehenge. Inigo Jones would have seen it, and laid it down upon his plan, had it been in that position, when he drew up his account of Stonehenge ‘‘ by direction of King James, I., in the year 1620.’ The “ Antiquities of Stoneheng on Salisbury Plain restored” was first pub- lished by Mr. John Webb, of Butleigh, Somerset, (who ‘ married Inigo Jones’ kinswoman,”) in a small folio, in 1655 ; but few copies were originally printed, and the greater part of the impression was consumed in the fire of London. Inigo Jones died either in 1651 or 1652. 2Stukeley’s ‘‘ Stonehenge,” page 32, reprint. By William Long, Hsq. 85 adjoining the agger, within the area, “as to be able to examine the undermost side of the stone, where we found fragments of stag’s horns.” ! Further on he says, “In more modern times (since Stukeley’s) we have found, on digging, several fragments of Roman, as well as of coarse British pottery ; parts of the head and horns of deer, and other animals, and a large barbed arrow head of iron. Dr. Stukeley says that he dug close to the altar, and at the depth of one foot came to the solid chalk. Mr. Cunnington also dug about the same place to the depth of nearly six feet, and found the chalk had been moved to that depth; and at about the depth of three feet he found some Roman pottery, and at the depth of six feet, some pieces of sarsen stones, three fragments of coarse half-baked pottery, and some charred wood. After what Stukeley has said of finding the marl solid at the depth of one foot, the above discoveries would naturally lead us to suppose, that some persons, since his time had dug into the same spot; yet after getting down about two feet, there was less and less vegetable mould, till we reached the solid chalk ; some small pieces of bone, a little charred wood, and some fragments of coarse pottery were intermixed with the soil. In digging into the ditch that surrounds the area, Mr. Cunnington found similar remains of antiquity ; and in the waggon tracks, near Stonehenge, you fre- quently meet with chippings of the stones of which the temple was constructed. Soon after the fall of the great trilithon in 1797, Mr. _ Cunnington dug out some of the earth that had fallen into the ex- eavation, and found a fragment of fine black Roman pottery, and since that, another piece in the same spot; but I have no idea that _ this pottery ever lay beneath the stones, but probably in the earth adjoining the trilithon, and after the downfall of the latter, fell with the mouldering earth into the excavation. The only conclusion we ean draw from this circumstance of finding Roman pottery on this ground is, that this work was in existence at the period when that packed __ Species of earthenware was made use of by the Britons in our island.’”? 1See page 56. _ # Ancient Wilts, vol. i., pp. 144, 150, 151. Sir Richard Hoare has spoken in _ the foregoing paragraph about the finding of Roman pottery. Stukeley has the _ following about the finding of Roman coins: ‘‘In 1724, when I was there, 86 Stonehenge and its Barrows. The following extract is from a letter by Mr. Cunnington, F.S.A.. of Heytesbury, dated November, 1802, with which his grandson, Mr Cunnington, F.G.S., has kindly favoured the writer: “ I have during the summer dug in several places in the area! and neighbourhood of Stonehenge and particularly at the front of the altar, where I dug to the depth of 5 feet or more, and found charred wood, animal bones and pottery. Of the latter there were several pieces similar to the rude urns found in the barrows, also some pieces of Roman pottery. In several places I found stags’ horns. ‘The altar-stone is 16 feet 2 inches long, 3 feet 2 inches wide, and 1 foot 9 inches thick. It was completely broken in two by the fall of the impost of the great trilithon. It was neatly chiseled as you may see by digging the earth from the side.” Mr. Joseph Browne gave to Dr. Thurnam the following account of a digging in front of what is called the altar-stone by Captain Beamish, who undertook the exploration in order to satisfy a society in Sweden that there was no interment in the centre of Stonehenge: Richard Hayns, an old man of Ambresbury, whom I employed to dig for mein the barrows, found some little worn-out Roman coins at Stonehenge, among the earth rooted up by the rabbets. He sold one of them for half-a-crown to Mr. Merril, of Golden Square, who came thither whilst J was at the place. The year before, Hayns was one of the workmen employ’d by Lord Carlton to dig clay on Harradon hill, east of Ambresbury, where they found many Roman coins, which I saw. I suspect he pretended to find those at Stonehenge, only for the sake of the reward. My friend the late Dr. Harwood of Doctors Commons, told me he was once at Stonehenge with such sort of Roman coins in his pockets, and that one of his companions would have persuaded him to throw some of them into the rabbit-holes : but the Doctor was more ingenuous, Nevertheless were never so many such coins found in Stonehenge, they would prove nothing more, than that the work was in being, when the Romans were here; and which we are assured of already. I have a brass coin given me by John Collins, Esq., collector of the excise at Stanford. The heads of Julius and Augustus averse : the reverse a crocodile, palm branch and garland, cot. NEM., the colony of Nemansus in France. It was found upon Salisbury plain: and might be lost there before the Roman conquest of Britain under Claudius, by people of France coming hither; or in after ages; no matter which” (p. 32). It thus appears that there were Cotn-Jacks in Stukeley’s time, for the distribution in convenient places, if not for the forgery, of these Roman pieces of money. 1“ Taking care not to go too near the stones.” By William Long, Esq. 87 ‘Some years ago, I do not remember the year, but it was that in which Mr. Antrobus came of age [? 1839], and that there were rejoicings at Amesbury, an officer from Devonport, named Captain Beamish, who was staying at the George Hotel, having obtained the permission of the proprietor, made an excavation somewhere about eight feet square and six feet deep, in front of the altar-stone, digging backward some little distance under it. I remember dis- tinctly the hole being dug through the -chalk rubble and rock. Nothing was found excepting some bits of charcoal, and a considerable quantity of the bones of rabbits. Before the hole was filled up, I buried a bottle, containing a record of the excavation.” It thus appears that there have been already many and extensive diggings within the circles and the vallum, and that the result has been inconsiderable, beyond the throwing down of one of the tri- lithons. It has been recently proposed to examine “ the flat surface within the stone circles,” and perhaps “ the ditch of the earthwork ?>1 Tt would be well, therefore, to consider . surrounding the structure. carefully the incidental notices of what has been already done in this way, and to calculate whether any future examination of the soil would be likely to be attended with more satisfactory results. The == » writer ventures to express his belief that the only important result | would be the determination of the non-sepulchral character of the work. But even the discovery of human remains within the circles _ would no more prove that Stonehenge was constructed to be a burial P place, than the finding of bishops’ and other peoples’ bodies in cathe- _ drals would be decisive that these buildings had not been erected with the primary object of promoting the worship and service of Almighty God. Warton, in his “ Parochial History of Kiddington,” says of Roll- rich, that some years ago, “Its area, which is without a tumulus, _ was examined to a considerable depth by digging, and no marks of _ inhumation appeared ; ” and Stukeley had previously mentioned that Colonel Lane Fox ‘‘on the Proposed Exploration of Stonchenge by a Com- mittee of the British Association.”’—Journal of the Ethnological Society of - London, vol. ii., p. 1, 1869. 4 88 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Ralph Sheldon, Esq., dug in the middle of the circle at Rowlrich, but found nothing. Arbor-lowe, in Derbyshire, contains nothing sepulchral, nor do the Cornish circles of Boscawen-un and Botallack. In 1861 some Edinburgh archzologists made excavations within the great circle known as the “ Stones of Stennis,” in Orkney, but could not find a trace of human sepulture. The same result would probably attend the examination of the area of Stonehenge.' 1TIt is to be hoped that the diggings at Silbury Hill, and within the large circle at Abury, will have set at rest, for ever, the questions relating to the connection of the former with the Roman road, and to tke sepulchral character of the latter. To the writer, when spending some days at and near Abury in 1856 and 1857, the course of the Roman road through the cuitivated fields, was, on sunny afternoons, unmistakeably apparent. From Mr. A, C. Smitb’s interesting account of these investigations, he extracts the following: ‘‘ Al- though we have found no hidden treasures, and made no fresh discoveries, the result of our work was on the whole highly satisfactory to us ; for we considered that we had fairly settled the question mooted by Mr. Fergusson, but which neither of us ever entertained for one moment, that Avebury wasa vast grave- yard, and that human bones would be disinterred, if search were made. ‘We had made excavations in fourteen different spots within the area, some of them of no trifling dimensions, but not one single human bone had we found ; quantities of bones of the sheep, the horse, the ox, we had disinterred, many of which, not far from the surface, were of comparatively recent date: glass and pottery too, near the surface told their tale of modern times; but the fragments of pottery which we brought to light from our deeper cuttings were invariably of the British type. Thus we flatter ourselves that our exer- tions have not been thrown away: we trust we have once for all disposed of the novel theory as tu the great charnel house of the ancient Britons; while on the other hand we have unmistakeably proved the site of several of the most important stones long since broken up and carried away ; and we have probed the great surrounding embankment to its very core, laying bare the original surface, and closely examining all the materials of which it is composed, We also found three stones not mentioned by recent writers. Ten yards to the east of the standing stones, nearest on the left hand side of the south entrance to Avebury, is a stone which is not laid down in Hoare’s map. The dry summer of 1864, and the heat of some part of 1865,‘had killed the turf over the stone, and it now shows above the surface. Twenty yards in a north-westerly direction from the next standing stone (‘m’ in the map) another stone may be found under the turf, and ten yards from this again is yet another.”— Wilts Arch and Nat. Hist. Mag., vol. x., p. 214. There are doubtless many stone circles within which interments have been — found, and it may be that in these the sepulchral character was the first and only character attached to them by their builders; but there are very many others in By William Long, Esq. 89 Tue AVENUES AND CuRSsUs. Neither Webb nor Aubrey appear to have found out the avenues or cursus, and Stukeley might fairly claim to have been the discoverer of them both. As such, he shall describe them: “The avenue of Stonehenge was never observ’d by any who have wrote of it, tho’ a very elegant part of it, and very apparent,” and again, “ About half a mile north of Stonehenge, across the first valley, is the cursus or which have been found no traces of any interment, and it may be fairly believed that they were set up for some object of more general importance. In the very interesting volumes by Mr. E. H. Palmer, entitled the ‘‘ Desert ' of the Exodus,” he tells us of ‘‘ huge stone circles in the neighbourhood of * Mount Sinai, some of them measuring 100 feet in diameter, having a cist in the centre covered with a heap of larger boulders. These are nearly identical in construction with the ‘ Druidical Circles’ of Britain. In the cists we found - human skeletons, the great antiquity of which was proved not only by the decayed state of the bones, but by the fact that the bodies had in every case been doubled up and buried in such a position that the head and knees met. _ There are also small open enclosures in the circles, in which burnt earth and charcoal were found.” (p. 140.) At page 337, we have his account of digging into a stone circle in another part of the desert and finding charcoal and burnt earth ‘‘in what I have before alluded to as the sacrificial area, but nothing at all in the central cairn.” Some of our archeologists are intent upon main- taining that all cromlechs have been at some time or other covered with earth, and that these, and all stone circles, have been sepulchral ; but these exclusive _ and one-sided views are not in harmony either with reason or experience. _ The writer takes this opportunity of saying that a note at page 38 of ‘‘ Abury _ Illustrated,” respecting ‘‘ sacrificial” cromlechs, was inserted at the wish of a _ friend ; but that it is not, and was not, in accordance with his own judgment in _ the matter. __ The mention of Silbury Hill suggests that the following poem, by Southey,should have a place in the Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Magazine :— *‘ INSCRIPTION FOR A TABLET AT SILBURY HILL. This mound in some remote and dateless day Rear’d o’er a Chieftain of the Age of Hills, May here detain thee, Travelier! from thy road Not idly lingering. In his narrow house Some warrior sleeps below, whose gallant deeds Haply at many a solemn festival The Scauld hath sung; but perish’d is the song Of praise, as o’er these bleak and barren downs The wind that passes and is heard no more. Go, Traveller, and remember when the pomp Of Earthly Glory fades, that one good deed, Unseen, unheard, unnoted by mankind Lives in the Eternal register of Heaven. 1796.” 90 Stonehenge and its Barrows. hippodrom, which I discover’d, August 6, 1723." He quotes Macrobius to the effect that “ upon holy days dedicated to the gods, there are sacrifices, feasts, games and festivals. For a sacred so- lemnity is, when sacrifices are offer’d to the gods, or holy feastings celebrated, or games perform’d to their honour, or when holy days, are observ’d.” “ This great work” (the cursus), he continues, “ is included between two ditches running east and west in a parallel, which are 350 foot asunder. The cursus, which is two miles long, has two entrances (as it were): gaps being left in the two little ditches. And these gaps, which are opposite to each other, in the two ditches, are opposite to the straight part of Stonehenge avenue. The east end of the cursus is compos’d of a huge body of earth, a bank or long barrow? thrown up nearly the whole breadth of the cursus. This seems to be the plain of session, for the judges of the prizes and chief of the spectators. The west end of the cursus is curv’d into an arch, like the end of the Roman circus’s, and there probably the chariots ran round, in order to turn again. And there is an obscure barrow or two, round which they return’d, as it were a meta. The cursus is directly north from Stonehenge; so exactly, that the meridian line of Stonehenge passes precisely through the middle of it.” To return from the cursus to the avenue, we must not neglect Stukeley’s description of the latter: “This avenue ex- tends itself, somewhat more than 1700 feet, in a straight-line, down to the bottom of the valley, with a delicate descent. I observe the earth of the ditches is thrown inward, and seemingly some turf on both sides, thrown upon the avenue, to raise it a little above the level of the downs. The two ditches continue perfectly parallel to the bottom, 40 cubits asunder. About midway, there is a pretty depressure, natural, which diversifies it agreeably . . . WhenlI began my inquiries into this noble work, I thought it terminated here, and Mr. Roger Gale and myself measur’d it so far with a chain, Another year I found it extended itself much farther. For at the ‘Page 41, ed. 1740. ; 2 This was examined by Dr, Thurnam unsuccessfully as regards primary, but successfully as regarded secondary, interments. By William Long, Esq. 91 bottom of the valley, it divides into two branches. The eastern branch goes a long way hence, directly east, pointing to an ancient ford of the river Avon. ‘The western branch from this termination at the bottom of the hill 10U0 cubits from the work at Stonehenge, goes off with a similar sweep at first, but then it does not throw itself into a strait line immediately, as the former, but continues eurving along the bottom of the hill, till it meets, what I call, the cursus.” This interesting portion of the Stonehenge system deserves to have the additional light thrown upon it which comes from the careful survey of the Wiltshire baronet, and Mr. Crocker: “The avenue is a narrow strip of land, bounded on each side by a slight agger of earth. On referring to the map of the environs of Stonehenge, _ where its situation and form will be best seen, you will perceive that it issues from the N.E. entrance of the temple!; then crossing the _~ turnpike road, proceeds in a straight line towards a valley, where it q divides into two branches, the one leading in a gentle curve towards - the circus; the other directing its course in a direct line up the hill ; between the two rows of barrows, planted with fir trees. The most : northern group has been called by Stukeley, the old King Barrows; _ the opposite group, the New King Barrows, and under these titles I have distinguished them in my map. The former are lower and _ flatter in their construction than the latter, which increase in height with the ground towards the south. In the eye of the antiquary, _they are much disfigured by the clumps of Scotch firs planted upon them, though at the same time secured from the researches of his spade. More than an usual regularity is preserved in the disposal of these tumuli; and I must here call attention to the map, where ) = 4 _*The writer’s valued friend and pastor, the Rev. Prebendary Scarth, in an address made by him to the members of the British Association for the ad- Vancement of Science, when they visited Stonehenge, from Bath, in 1864, said that ‘‘ an avenue of stones had led up to these circles,” but there are certainly no indications, as far as the writer can judge, of any stones having flanked the present avenue. Aubrey, referring to the pricked lines on his plan from a to a, ays that they ‘‘ signifie the Jmaginarte Walk of stones which was there hereto- 92 Stonehenge and its Barrows. they will be seen ranged in a semi-circular line, and a passage de- cidedly left for the avenue, of which traces are still evident as far as this spot; but it has afterwards been obliterated by tillage in its passage through Amesbury Park. “‘ Here again we have another proof of Stonehenge and its avenue having been formed prior to the surrounding barrows, and we see a rude attempt at symmetry in the seven barrows arranged in two separate lines, which flank the avenue (like wings) on its ascending the summit of the hill. . . . The length of the avenue from the ditch round Stonehenge to the spot where it branches off is 594 yards; and from thence it is visible about 814 yards up the hill. The northern branch appears undoubtedly to lead towards the cursus, though its traces become very faint soon after it has quitted the eastern line up the hill: it seems to have pursued a bending course towards the cursus, but I could not perceive that it pointed to any decided opening in that work. “ The cursus, according to Mr. Crocker’s measurement, is in length 1 mile, 5 furlongs, and 176 yards: its breadth 110 yards. At the distance of 55 yards from the eastern end, which is terminated (as described by Stukeley), you perceive the termination of the course rounded off, as if the horses or chariots made a turn at this spot. At. the distance of 638 yards from this end, are two entrances into the area of the cursus, opposite to each other; and 825 yards further on, the vallum has been much broken down by the continual track of wageons ; and to this spot Dr. Stukeley supposes the northern branch of the avenue from Stonehenge pointed.” Sir R.. Hoare considered that the slight bank running across the cursus at the west end formed a part of the general plan of these places of amusement, as he found a similar one in the smaller adjoining circus. The barrows he did not think had been “metz,”’ as Stukeley supposed, but that they had stood on that ground long before the formation of this course, and that, being between the bank and the end, they could not have im- peded the races. From the similarity of the plan both of the large — and small circus to that of a Roman circus, Sir R. Hoare felt inclined to think that they were not of British origin, but that they had been formed after the settlement of the Romans in our island. By William Long, Esq. 93 — Sy = j ih =S— SS 4 B c iy A) dy | N SS ——————— ee ) — ———_— Tags Copy of the sketch made of the “‘Slaughtering Stone,” by Mr. Cunnington, F.S.A,, 1802.—See page 57. Enlarged copy of Mr. H. Browne’s wood-cut, showing the manner in which the transverse stones at Stonehenge were connected together.—See page 79, note. Norre.—Mr. Cunnington has, since the note at page 67 was printed, examined the specimen found by Dr. Thurnam in barrow No. 170, and which is in the British Museum. He thus describes it :—‘‘It is of fine micaceous sandstone, it is true, and so far resembles the ‘altar’ stone at Stonehenge; but it is of lighter colour, and so does not ‘ precisely agree’ with the altar stone. It is animplement, probably a whetstone, and is moreover entered by Dr. Thurnam as haying been found in a secondary interment in the barrow. No date, even comparative, can be given to it, and for the purpose of our Stonehenge argu- ment, it is useless,” 94 Part WEL. Hy whom were these Stones set np? qe all countries, in the earliest times, the stone or earthen circle ee ABS) appears to have been the mode of expressing the intention to set apart a particular spot as a “ locus consecratus,” either for worship, or sepulture. The circle was the form of the sun and moon in their completeness, and it was suggestive of infinity. The im- pressiveness of the stone circle would of course depend upon the size of the stones which the district produced, but where these were large, they would naturally be made use of in preference to smaller ones. It is not necessary to suppose that the constructors of Abury, Stanton Drew, Rollrich, and the numerous stone circles of Devonshire, and Cornwall,required to be taught this art by foreigners. Just as their daily wants would impel them, in common with all other early races, to shape flints into weapons and instruments, so would their religious instincts suggest to them, as to others, the particular form in which they might best give expression to them. We may safely assume that the indigene of al] countries would spontaneously set up the rude stone circle, without any suggestion from external sources. In the case of Stonehenge, however, there is a considerable artistic advance, which is suggestive to many of a later period of construction, and of foreign influence ; and accordingly its erection has been ascribed to the Phenicians, to the Belgz,to the Romans, to the Romano-British, to the Saxons, and to the Danes.} 1 Jacob Bryant in the 3rd vol. of his ‘‘ Analysis of Antient Mythology,” p. 532—3 (1776), claims for Stonehenge a very high antiquity: ‘‘ We have many instances of this nature [poised stones] in our own country, and they are to be found in other parts of the world; and wherever they occur we may esteem them of the highest antiquity. All such works we generally refer to the Celts, By William Long, Esq. 95 However probable it may be that the Phcenicians carried on a direct trade with the south western portion of Britain, it is not an established historical fact that that they did so,' and any such inter- course would probably have been confined to the sea-coast. If any Pheenician influences reached the interior of Britain it would probably have been through the Veneti, who inhabited Armorican Gaul, the district in which Karnac is found, and who, in the time of Cesar, were carrying on a brisk trade with the British. Aylett Sammes? (inadvertently omitted at page 40), appears to have been the first who broached the opinion that the Phcenicians were connected with Stonehenge. In vol. i., of his “ Britannia Antiqua Tllustrata,” 1676, p. 395, is a treatise of the ancient monument ealled Stonehenge. It is very prosy, and the gist of it is, that he and to the Druids; under the sanction of whose names we shelter ourselves, whenever we are ignorant and bewildered. But they were the operations of a very remote age; probably before the time when the Druids or Celt were first known. I question, whether there be in the world a monument, which is much prior to the celebrated Stone-Henge. There is reason to think that it was erected by a foreign colony ; one of the first which came into the island. Here is extant at this day, one of those rocking stones, of which I have been speaking above. [?] The ancients distinguished stones erected with a religious view by the name of amber; by which was signified anything solar and divine. The Grecians called them ‘ Jlerpar ApBpoorat,’ Petree Ambrosie ; and there are representations of such upon coins. . . . Stonehenge is composed of these amber-stones ; hence the next town is denominated ‘‘ Ambrosbury:”’ not from a Roman Ambrosius; for no such person existed; but from the Ambrosie Petre, in whose vicinity it stands.” 1Mr. C. T. Newton, of the British Museum, concluded a lecture on Phen: cian Art in Britain, given at the Annual Meeting of the Archeological Institute, at Dorchester, in 1865, ‘‘ by reverting to the question whether the Phoenicians had ever landed on the coast of Britain. This question it will be better to consider still in abeyance. What is wanted for its ultimate solution is a dili- gent notation of facts. The examination of barrows in the southern counties should be carried on with the most minute care, and the names of places along the coast should be analyzed by the tests of modern philology; for, if the Pheenicians frequented any portion of the British Coast, it is probable that they would have given names to the more important harbours and promontories, as they did in Africa and Spain.”’— Builder, August 26th, 1865. 2 Aylett Sammes was of Christ’s College, Cambridge, and of the Inner Temple. Wood in his ‘‘ Athenee Oxonienses” states that the real author of the work was Robert Aylett, L.L.D., a master in chancery, who was Sammes’ uncle, and left him his papers. 96 Stonehenge and its Barrows. considers that the Phcenicians were the giants of the “ Chorea Gigantum,” and that the art of erecting these stones, instead of the stones themselves, was brought from the farthermost parts of Africa, the known habitations of the Pheenicians. Sir William Betham (in the “ Gael and Cymbri,” 8vo., Dublin, 1834) has advocated the same opinion, but he considered that the Phcenicians were preceded in the occupation of both Britain and Ireland by the Caledonians, after- wards called the Picts, whom he conceives to have been a people of Scandinavian origin, the Cimbri of antiquity. The Phcenicians he considered to be the same people with the Gael or Celts. Of the Belew, and their probable connection with Stonehenge, the writer will speak presently. Some have supposed that Stonehenge was constructed by the Romans during their occupation of Britain. But the Romans pre- ferred the plains and valleys for their villas and temples to the hill- tops and cold downs. It is perfectly true that there was a continuous Roman occupation of the Mendip Hills, as evidenced by the remains of their amphitheatre, and by the considerable number of coins, fibula, incised stones, etc., which are constantly being found, especially at Charterhouse ; but to such utilitarians as the Romans, it was a matter of importance to occupy these heights, in order that they might derive the full advantage accruing to them from the smelting of lead, and other metals, by the native and subject population. But neither was Salisbury Plain the site which Romans would have selected for the erection of a temple, nor was the style of Stonehenge that which would be adopted by a Roman architect. In Gaul they built such temples as those at Nimes; in the west of Britain they built to Sul Minerva such a temple as that of which the remains may still be seen at Bath. Moreover, the Romans were wont to make their stones “vocal,” as Bolton quaintly puts it, ‘by inscriptions,” or by sculpture. Much stress is often laid upon the silence of Roman writers respecting the megalithic structures of Britain, and Mr. Herbert and others argue from this! that they must therefore be of post-Roman date ; 1¢¢ Humboldt confirms a statement I have often made, that we dare not draw too much from the silence of an author. He refers to three weighty and quite undeniable facts, to which there is no testimony in the very places where we EE By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 97 but the Caledonian Wall of the Romans has ‘received but scanty mention from their own historians; and the megalithic works in Gaul are passed over by them in silence as complete as those in our own island. ‘To the writer, the best reason for the absence of any notice of Stonehenge by the Romans, is this; that to any educated Roman who was familiar with the grand and magnificent works of Rome and the neighbourhood, under the late Republic and early Empire, such a work would appear to be rude in form, puny in effect, and scarcely worthy of any special notice. To Mr. Herbert, however, the rudeness and uncouthness of the Stonehenge structure would cause it to have an especial claim upon the attention of the Romans; “Nothing could be more new and admirable to the eyes of a Greek or Roman than the sight of structures, so rude and uncouth, and yet so stupendous.” ! Mr. Herbert’s theory, as propounded in his “Cyclops Christianus” (1849), is that on the lapse of the Britons into a kind of heathenism after the Romans had left Britain, “ groves of upright stones were substituted by them for the oak-groves of obsolete Druidism (as Carnac was a grove of the Armorican Britons after Christianity and the rows of stones their walks of sacred groves); that when Britain became free from Roman rule, Ambresbury appears to have been the place to which the national councils were summoned by the king, where the independence of the island was celebrated by joyous festivities, and where the rites and orgies of its fanatics were solem- nized. There kings were elected, anointed, and crowned; and there also buried.” But it may be asked whether the Romano-British, after the departure of the Romans, had ever a period of sufficient should most certainly expect it. In the Archives of Barcelona there is no trace of the triumphant entrance received by Columbus there. In Marco Polo there is no mention of the Chinese wall. And in the Archives of Portugal there is nothing about the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci in the service of that crown.” Dr. Luthardt’s ‘‘ St. John the author of the Fourth Gospel,” 1875. ~ 4Mr. Rickman, in ‘ Archeologia,” vol. xxviii, p. 411, considered that Abury was constructed ‘‘ not earlier than the third century of the Christian era, and that the more difficult operations requisite for the formation of Stonehenge may be assigned to the next century, or, (to speak with due caution) that this temple was completed before the final departure of the Romans from Britain.” VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. H 98 Stonehenge and its Barrows. peace and quietness in which to build Stonehenge. Even before the Romans left, the Saxons were ravaging the coasts of Britain. There is reason to believe that, during this period, Britain was torn with civil quarrels, “ while its Pictish enemies strengthened themselves by a league with marauders from Ireland (Scots, as they were then called), whose pirate boats were harrying the western coast of the island, and with a yet more formidable race of pirates who had long been pillaging along the English Channel. These were the English.” ! Under any circumstances, as Dr. Thurnam says, it was scarcely con- ceivable that the Romanised Britons would have erected these rude masses of stone, when they had such examples before them of archi- tectural skill and beauty as existed at Bath and other Roman cities in this country; or, as Dr. Guest puts it, “ I would ask the arche- ological reader whether he thinks it comes within the limits of a reasonable probability that men who had for centuries been fam- iliarized with the forms of Roman architecture, could have built Stonehenge?” ? Had Stonehenge owed its erection to any event connected with the Saxons, we should doubtless have had some mention of it. Dr, Guest? says, “ It has always appeared to the writer most unreasonable to doubt, that from their first arrival in the island, our ancestors had some mode of registering the events of their history. From these rude memorials were probably formed more perfect registers, which gradually swelled into the chronicles we now possess. The oldest extant copy of the Saxon Chronicle was written shortly before the year 900, or at the close of Alfred’s reign; but we know that some of its entries were copied, almost verbatim, from chronicles which must have been in existence before the time of Bede, and there are others which may have been written at a time when Hengest and Ambrosius were yet rivals.” The Saxons would probably have left some record of their con- nection with Stonehenge if they had constructed it, or if any event 1 Green’s ‘‘ History of the English People,” p. 6. 2 Archeological Journal,” 1851, p. 155. 5“¢On the Early English Settlements in South Britain.”—Salisbury Volume of Arch, Institute, p. 46. By William Long, Esq. 99 with which they had been associated had led to its construction. Not to press, however, too far, the absence of written records, we may fairly say, that even if their political position had been favourable to such undertakings, the Saxons would hardly have built a stone temple in the centre of a British necropolis; and that if they had done so,it would have been, to a certain extent, surrounded by Saxon graves, as well as by British; but no traces of Saxon interment are here to be found. It has been urged, too, that they would never have called it by the ignominious name of “ Stone Gallows,” if they had them- selves erected it.’ Of the Danes, as the architects of Stonehenge, it will be enough to say, with Warton,’ that, “‘ during their temporary visits and un- matured establishment, they had not leisure or opportunities for such laborious and lasting structures, however suitable to their rude conceptions,” or, with Mr. Herbert, that “the advocates of the Danes, as the builders of Stonehenge, ascribe to a transitory irruption the performance of some settled government.” % And here it may be as well to notice the opinions of those, who having made Indian Antiquities their study, have come to the 1Stukeley, p. 7, reprint. 2 History of Kiddington, p. 70. 8Qyel. Chr., p. 2. 4Mr. Max Miller, writing about the great resemblance of Indian cromlechs, cairns and kistaeyns, to those of Cornwall, Iveland, and Scotland, and the frequency with which Indian officers speak of them as if they were Celtic or Druidical, says:—‘‘ All these monuments in the South of India are no doubt extremely interesting, but to call them Celtic, Druidical, or Sythic, is unscien- tific, or, at all events, exceedingly premature. There is in all architectural monuments a natural or rational, and a conventional, or it may be, irrational element. A striking agreement in purely conventional features may justify the assumption that monuments so far distant from each other as the cromlechs of Anglesea and the ‘Mori-Munni’ of Shorapoor owe their origin to the same architects, or to the same races, But an agreement in purely natural contrivances goes for nothing, or, at least, for very little. Now there is very little that can be called conventional in a mere stone pillar, or in a cairn, that is, an artificial heap of stones. Even the erection of a cromlech can hardly be claimed as a separate style of architecture. Children, all over the world, if building houses with cards, will build cromlechs; and people, all over the world, if the neighbourhood supplies large slabs of stone, will put three stones together to keep out the sun or wind, and put a fourth stone on the top to keep out the rain. Before monuments like those described by Captain Meadows H 2 100 Stonehenge and its Barrows. conclusion that Stoneheage owes its origin to the Brahmins, and that it was a temple of Boodh.! In the appendix to “ Asiatick Researches,” vol. ii., Calcutta, 1790, p. 488, Mr. Reuben Burrow writes as follows: “ From the aforesaid country (the Bengal district) the Hindoo religion probably spread over the whole earth : there are signs of it in every northern country, and in almost every system of worship: in England it is obvious: Stonehenge is evidently one of the temples of Boodh; and the arithmetic, the astronomy, astrology, the holidays, games, names of the stars, and figures of the constellations; the ancient monuments, laws, and even the languages of the different nations have the strongest mark of the same original. . . . . That the Druids of Britain were Brahmins is beyond the least shadow of a doubt, but that they were all murdered and their science lost, is out of the bounds of probability; it is much more likely that they turned Schoolmasters and Freemasons and Fortune-tellers, and in this way part of their sciences might easily descend to posterity, as we find they have done.” Mr. Maurice, in the sixth volume of his “ Indian Antiquities,” (1801,) discusses at length the resemblance between the doctrines and forms of worship of the Druids and those of the Brahmins, and comes to the conclusion that at some remote pericd, the two orders were united, or at least were educated, in the same grand school with the magi of Persia and the seers of Babylon. “To satisfy ourselves that the race who erected the stupendous circular temple of Stone- henge were a tribe of Brachmans, of the sect of Boodh, we have only to call to mind the peculiar predominant superstition of that tribe, which, according to Lucian, was the adoration of the sun, as a secon- dary deity, in a circular dance, expressive of his supposed revolution : OO. Taylor can be classed as Celtic or Druidical, a possibility, at all events, must be shown that Celts, in the true sense of the word, could ever have inhabited the Dekhan. Till that is done, it is better to leave them anonymous, or to call them by their native names, than to give to them a name whichis apt to mislead the public at large, and to encourage theories which exceed the limits of legiti- mate speculation.” —‘‘ Chips from a German Workshop,” iii., 281—2. 1The Welsh Triads connect the British Isles with Ceylon, which was the great seat of Buddhism.—See Borlase’s History of Cornwall, c. xxii. —————E———— By William Long, Esq. 101 and to attend to the mode after which that sect principally repre- sented their favorite deity.” He quotes from Pliny (Nat. Hist. lib. xxx. cap. i.,) the following: “ Britannia hodie eam (Magiam) attonite celebrat tantis ceremoniis, ut cum Persis dedisse videri possit.” “The famous circular stone monuments of the Druids so numerous in Britain, were, doubtless, intended to be descriptive of astronomical cycles, by a race, who, not having, or politically forbidding, the use of letters, had no other permanent method of instructing their dis- ciples, or handing down their knowledge to posterity. For the most part the stone pillars which compose them are found to be ¢éwelvein number, alluding to the twelve months ; and many to consist of thirty, in reference to the number of years, which, according to the Druids, formed an age or generation, and was one of their favorite cycles, or else to that of the days of which the ancient lunar month consisted.” Mr. Fergusson, in the “ Quarterly Review,” No. 215, gives the following as the summary of his argument for the Buddhist origin of Stonehenge: ‘ There are few chapters in the history of the world at present so dark as that which treats of the doings of the Celtic races of Britain before the advent of the Saxons, and none to which the new science of ethnography is likely to be of more value. All however which concerns us at present is to know that Buddhism, in some shape or other, and under some name that may be lost, did exist in Britain before the conversion of its inhabitants to Christianity. If this has been made clear, a great step has been gained in the elucidation of the antiquities of this illiterate people. If we may venture to turn the lamp of Indian Buddhism on these hitherto mysterious monuments, we see at once what was meant by the inner choir at Stonehenge by comparing it with Sanchee and elsewhere. We are no longer puzzled by the small granite monoliths, standing unsymmetrically between the two original groups, and inside the _ principal, for we can at once assume them to be the danams of suc- ceeding votaries, offered after the temple was finished ; and we can easily see how it came to be a cenotaph, or memorial church, dedi- ‘ eated to those who died and were buried at Amesbury. There is, in fact, no winding in the labyrinth through which this thread might not conduct us in safety, and nothing so mysterious - 102 Stonehenge and its Barrows. that we might not hope by these means to understand it. But to effect this end, explorations must be made afresh, and researches set about in a purpose-like manner, not aimless eropings in the dark, such as alone have yet been undertaken.” Mr. Fergusson is of opinion “ that all the great stone monuments of this country belong to the period that elapsed between the departure of the Romans and the conquest of the country by the Danes and Saxons—to that great Arthurian period to which we owe all that we know of the Celtic race, and which seems to have been their culminating point in the early form of their civilization. In France, where the Saxons never went, the Celts, seem to have retained their old faith and old feelings to a much later period. But even if these propositions are not fully admitted, their rejection does not affect the conclusion that Stone-- henge itself was erected by Aurelius Ambrosius, who reigned from about 464 to 508 A.D., and who raised it as a memorial to those who fell in the Saxon war.” Let us now revert to the Belgz, who, as the known occupants of that portion of Britain in which Stonehenge is found, at the time of Julius Cesar, deserve to have a full and fair consideration. Dr. Guest (whom it would be an impertinence to praise), has paid much attention to the incursions of this people into the south of England, and in his article on the “ Belgic Ditches and the probable date of Stonehenge” (Journal of the Arch. Institute, vol. vili.), has pro- pounded his views as to their gradual acquisition of territory, their ultimate establishment within the country bounded by the Wansdyke, and their erection of Stonehenge as their “ locus consecratus.” Dr. Guest was not, however, the first to broach this opinion with regard to Stonehenge, for the Rev. Richard Warner,’ the historian of Bath, was the person, according to the Rev. W. Lisle Bowles,’ who started 1The Rev. Richard Warner was born 1763, and died at Chelwood, near Bristol, of which place he was rector, at the advanced age of 93, in 1857. He was for twenty-three years Curate of St. James’, Bath, and while resident in that city, he wrote its history in a quarto volume, 1801; ‘‘ A walk through some of the Western Counties of England,” 1800; ‘‘ Excursions from Bath,” 1801; ‘¢ Bath Characters,” 1807 ; and other works. 2 Hermes Britannicus, 1828, p. 123. ee er ows By William Tong, Esq. 103 the idea—in his opinion, a most happy one—that the Belgw, having taken this (the southern) part of the country from the Celts as far as Wansdyke, raised this monument of Stonehenge in rival magni- ficence to that of Abury. According to Stukeley, the Belge, as they gradually expelled the British tribes who preceded them, con- structed successive lines of defencee—Combe Bank, Bokerly Ditch, the ditch immediately north of Old Sarum, and Wansditch. _ Warton supposes that there were not less than seven of theseditches. Dr. Guest considers that as such lines of defence would require an organized body of men to guard them, and the maintenance of such a force would be beyond the means of races only imperfectly civilized, the proper character of these ditches is that of boundary lines; and that the number of them has been exaggerated not only by Warton, but even by Stukeley. “It may be asked,” he says, “ what right have we to assume that the Belg overspread the south of Britain, in successive waves of conquest, such as are pre-supposed in the hypo- thesis we are considering ? The only ground for such a hypothesis that I am aware of, is contained in Cxsar’s statement, ‘ Maritima pars ab iis (incolitur) qui prede, ac belli causé Ex Belgio transierunt, qui omnes fere iis nominibus civitatum adpellantur quibus orti ex civitatibus eo pervenerunt, et bello inlato ibi remanserunt atque agros colere ceperunt.? (B.G. i., 4.) It may perhaps be inferred from this passage, that there was a succession of predatory inroads, some of which were followed by Belgic settlements; and when in the district which we know to have been colonized by the Belg, we find successive lines of boundary evidently made by a people inhabiting the sea-board, to separate themselves from the tribes of the interior, it may, I think be admitted that the hypothesis advanced by Stukeley and accepted by Warton, is, to say the least, not an unreasonable one. If we attempt to trace the progress of Belgic conquest by the light of Welsh tradition, we shall be disappointed. The all but silence of the Triads, with respect to a people who fill such a place in history, is one of the most puzzling circumstances connected with these mysterious records. The Triad, which mentions the three refuge-seeking tribes, tells us the first of these tribes came from Galedin, and had lands allotted to them in the Isle of Wight. Welsh 104 Stonehenge and its Barrows. scholars consider Galedin to mean the Netherlands, and perhaps, we may conclude, that according to Welsh tradition, the Belg came as refugees to this country, and were first located in the Isle of Wight —driven, it may be, from their own country, by some inundation of the sea, an accident which appears to have been the moving cause of several of those great migrations we read of in Roman history. It is clear from Cesar, that for some centuries before Christ, the Belgz were the most energetic and powerful,—and among half- civilized races, this means the most aggressive,—of the Gaulish tribes; and we can have little difficulty in supposing, that the fugitive Belgz, with the aid probably of their continental brethren, might soon change their character of refugees into that of assailants. Of the inlets, opposite the Isle of Wight, by which the mainland could be assailed, Tweon-ea (now Christchurch) at the mouth of the Stour and the Avon, appears to have been one of the most important in the earlier periods of our history.!_ Here, it would seem, the Belge landed. The uplands in the neighbourhood are barren, but the vallies rich, and the Belew, we may presume, were soon in possession of the pastures along the Stour, as far as the neighbourhood of Blandford. This town lies in a kind of defile, over which, at that period, the woodlands of Cranbourne Chase, in all probability, extended. At this wooded gorge the Britons seem to have held their own, and the course of Belgic conquest to have been diverted—in the direction afterwards followed by the Roman road and the modern railway— into the vallies of the Piddle and the Frome. We may now ask, whether there be any earthworks which might serve as boundaries to the district we have thus marked out. In the first place, we observe be- tween Holt Forest and Cranbourne Chase the well-known earthwork called Bokerley-ditch, shutting in from the northward the rich valley drained by the Wymburne-brook. From Bokerley-ditch the boun- dary may have followed the outline of Cranbourne Chase, have crossed the Stour south of Blandford, and then run to the north- westward along Combe-bank. There were also some years back ‘in 'To illustrate this portion of the paper the writer has had recourse to Dr. Guest’s map appended to his paper on the “ Belgic Ditches,” in vol. viii of the “€ Archeological Journal,” and has had it copied, ih ee a i ) a ? aye ce VaR de te) i “ i € eed heer hs pads pire % 4 a7 oo oo ae +". al P 7 i t TYGEAN BURH Lenbury Waren. pore te s i) | DEORHAM ‘ ss oBERAN BYRIG \ = 7 Barb + Mar fiifielat Wiutten, ¢ Borough Walls Hanes, Macs knoll. Camp = Stantonkury Camp “te, SOLIS JBATHAN CEASTER, Gilshead ot yy f \ om ao -€, Loin "are x Goo G@ Andivar) OD — PP British Vliages aI é JBRES BYRIG nok Castle u (2) If Os Heytefoury A J fob u 2 Castle Nodder __Hiiver pune 7 ff Britford® (Radbu IDAN BYRIG | \ 3 2 | ~ = = | jabs A «|| Mynster : er, 5 ! fe 3 DURNOVARIA a | Dorchester WIHTGARA VECTIS Maider Castle \} | | W West 2 O° Litho Copred from D” Guest's map wnrArcheologiual Journal, Vol. Vill By William Long, Esq. 105 the road from Bindon to Weymouth a great ditch, like Wansdike, for several miles.’ Hutchins’ ‘ Dorset,’ i., 217. No such ditch is now visible on this line of road, but, after a long day’s search, I succeeded by an accident in finding its mutilated remains between the Frome and Owre-brook. The bank was to the eastward, and I have little hesitation in regarding this dike as a portion of the western boundary of the first Belgic conquest. What course it took to join Combe-bank, is, at present, only matter for conjecture; but there are reasons for believing, that fragments of it still exist in the neighbourhood of the Piddle river and its tributaries.” } “The second Belgic conquest,” continues Dr. Guest, “may have included the downs of Hants and South Wiltshire. The narrow valleys that intersect the latter meet in the neighbourhood of Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum) which must always have been, what in military language might be termed, the sey of the district. “North of Heytesbury I found an ancient boundary-line—one clearly of British origin, and perhaps anterior to the Roman conquest. I traced it from the west of ‘ Knook Castle’ to within a couple of 1Mr. C. Warne, F.S.A., in his ‘‘ Ancient Dorset,” (p. 4,) says. ‘‘ Of the many great works of early ages in Dorset, none can be said to have retained a more tenacious hold of the surface than this great barrier called Bockley (or Bokerley Dyke); for, while other Celtic works, as Woodbury and similarly entrenched hills, are almost obliterated, this fine old Dyke still stands out in all the freshness of its pristine grandeur,—a wonder of the present, and a monu- ment of a past age, untouched by the hand of time, and but slightly by that ‘of man. This work is so stupendous, and of such a bold aspect as to challenge a parallel in any of the great Dykes which intersect other parts of this kingdom, or exist in other couutries. **Some idea of the magnitude and strength of Bockley may be understood from the fact, that it measures 43, and in in some places 50, feet from the base of the fosse on the Wiltshire side to the apex of the rampart, and from 24 to 30 feet thence to the level of the ground on the Dorset side.” (p. 7.) Mr. Warne, in his valuable work, gives the following extract from Aubrey’s ** Monumenta Britannica,” p. ii., p. 64: ‘Over Blagdon Hill, west of Merton [Martin] there runnesa great crooked ditch, which comes from Cranborne Chase. J. Golden told me it is called Grimsditch, queere, how far it runnes? It parts Dorsetshire from Wiltshire.” ‘Aubrey’s informant, Golden, confounded Bockley Dyke with Grimsditch, the former being the one here described.” See also the interesting paper on the ancient Wiltshire Dykes, by the Rev. Prebendary W. H. Jones, in the fourteenth vol. of the Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society’s Magazine. 106 Stonehenge and its Barrows. miles of Tilshead, when it gradually died away in cultivated land. Ancient roads occasionally entered its ditch, more particularly at the salient angles, and its mound was broken and pierced in all directions by the trackways leading to the two British villages north of Knook Castle; but still, amid all the changes of two thousand years, its crest was seen stretching over the plain, and could be followed with- out the chance of a mistake. The next day I found the ‘ Tilshead Ditch,’! within little more than a mile from the spot where I had lost the former one. It was a ditch with éwo mounds, and these gradually became lower as I traced it to the eastward, a mile or two beyond Tilshead. If this ditch be a continuation of the former one I cannot satisfactorily account for its change of character. I could find no remains of this Belgic boundary—if we may venture to give it such a title—north of Beacon Hill. Even the ‘ unmutilated re- mains of a bank and ditch,’ on Wick-down, turned out to be merely a deep ditch with a low mound on each side of it. But south of the hill, the Amesbury bounds presented appearances which strongly resembled those of an ancient earth-work, and we may be allowed to conjecture that they were once connected with ‘The Devil’s Ditch’ east of Andover, and with the boundary-line, a fragment of which still remains to the south of Walbury. “ According to these speculations, the second Belgic boundary must have included the valleys of South Wiltshire, and then have 1 Dr. Thurnam, in bis work on ‘‘ British Barrows,” (p. 15,) says: ‘* The position of some of the long barrows in relation to the very ancient earthworks known as Belgic dykes is indicative of the superior antiquity of the former. The earthwork (bank and ditch) which stretches across Salisbury Plain from North East to South West, and is laid down on the Ordnance and other maps, as ‘Old Ditch,’ is especially prominent near Tilshead, where is one of the largest of our long barrows, measuring as it does 380 feet in length and 11 feet in height. On reaching the east end of this mound, which is situated on its north side the ditch makes a decided curve in order to avoid the tumulus, ‘ which,” as Sir R. Hoare justly observes, ‘ is a certain proof of the superior date of the barrow.’— (Ancient Wilts, i., 90.) ‘¢ Another example is on the southern border of the county, near the villages of Martin and Tippet, where the course of a branch of Bokerley Ditch has been diverted ‘in order to avoid a long barrow, which,’ as Sir Richard again says, ‘proves the high antiquity of the sepulchral mound.’—(Ancient Wilts, i., 233.)” ——— By William Long, Esq. 107 swept round so as to separate the downs of Hampshire from the woodlands which encircled Scots Poor.’ The hypothesis does not seem an unreasonable one, and I know of no other which can satis- factorily account either for the boundary-line north of Heytesbury, or for the lines which are found in the neighbourhood of Walbury and Andover. It will be seen that the writer differs from Stukeley in considering the first and second of his ditches as forming part of one continuous boundary; and in denying altogether to the ditch which runs immediately north of Old Sarum, the character of a Belgic earthwork. «The general consent of our antiquaries has fixed upon the Wans- dike as the last of the Belgic boundaries. Were it called the last frontier of the Belgic province—understanding by that phrase the district which the Roman geographers assigned to the Belg proper —I should be little disposed to quarrel with the conclusion they have come to. . . . This magnificent earthwork reached from the woodlands of Berkshire to the British Channel. Its remains 1Mr. Jones calls this boundary-line the ‘‘ Old Dyke,” and thus describes it : This is no doubt a very ancient dyke. It can be traced almost across the county from westtoeast. . . . . There can be little doubt as to the Old Dyke being of British origin, and it well may be anterior to the Roman conquest. It hasthe foss to the north, so that we may infer that it was made by a people coming up from the south. All along are remains of British villages and earthworks, to say nothing of numberless tumuli, some of them of large size and of the shape, which, authorities tell us, indicate the greatest antiquity. The most western portion which remains can be traced from Bore- ham down, in the north part of Warminster parish ; thence it runs along till it comes to Knook Castle, the two ancient encampments of Battlesbury and _Scratchbury being about two miles to the south of it. Thence it goes on within a couple miles of Tilshead, and, in its course, turns at right angles to avoid, as it would seem, interfering with what is now called Tilshead Long Barrow. Again you trace it just above what is called Silver Barrow (a name corrupted from Sel-berg, 7.e., great barrow); here it diverges to the north, and you trace it again close by Ell-barrow, (that is Eald-berg, old barrow) and across Compton Down. Again it goes northward, and you meet with it close by _ Chisenbury Camp and Lidbury Camp, and it reaches what are called the Twin - Barrows, close by Combe Hill. It would seem no unlikely conclusion that it then went on to Sidbury, an ancient encampment in the parish of North Tidworth but from this we cannot, as far as I know, trace it, for the Amesbury bounds mentioned by Dr. Guest are clearly too far from it to be GumENder as portions of it.”—(Wilts Mag., vol. xiv.) 108 Stonehenge and its Barrows. have been carefully surveyed by Sir R. C. Hoare. The conquests it was intended to include seem to have been, first, the Vale of Pewsey; secondly, the mineral district of the Mendip Hills; and, thirdly, the country lying between the range and marshes of the Parret. Ptolemy gives us Winchester, Bath, and Ilchester, as the three principal towns of the Belgic Province. If we run a line along the Wansdyke from Berkshire to the Channel, then along the coast to the Parret, then up that river eastward till we strike the southern borders of Wiltshire, and then follow the first Belgie boundary across Dorsetshire to the sea, we shall have defined, with tolerable accuracy, the northern and western boundaries, which Roman geographers assigned to the Belgx proper. It will be seen that the Wansdike bends to the south, as if to avoid Avebury, and approaches close to, but does not include Bath. It seems reasonable to infer, that when the line of demarcation was drawn, the Dobuni insisted on the retention of their ancient temple, and of their hot baths ; and if this inference be a just one, another and a more important one seems naturally to follow. Assuming that the Belge were thus excluded from Avebury, is it not likely that they would provide a ‘Jocus consecratus’ at some central point within their own border— a place for their judicial assemblies, like the Gaulish temple ‘in finibus Carnutum que regio totius Galliz media habetur?’? May not Stonehenge have been the substitute so provided?” Dr. Guest further gives it as his opinion that Stonehenge “ could not have been built much later than the year 100 B.C., and in all probability was not built more than a century or two earlier.” Whenever it was built, it must have been when the builders were at peace amongst themselves, and with their neighbours the Damnonii, if the smaller stones came from Devonshire; and with the Ordovices, if they were brought from North Wales. And if it were asked, How could the Belge procure these stones, which were brought from beyond the Wansdyke, the Belgic limit? it might be supposed (with the Rev. W. L. Bowles), that the great line of Wansdyke was thrown up by mutual consent, and that the Britons, upon the condition that their holy precincts should be undefiled, and their great temple left un- injured, might grant the Belgians the right to convey, to their ——E———— ae By William Long, Esq. 109 own district, the stones to raise the temple to their own God.’ The writer would conclude this section with the words of his deceased friend, Dr. Thurnam, in which he fully concurs: “ The builders of Stonehenge, we believe, in common with the learned Master of Gonvile and Caius College, to have been the Belgz, or possibly a confederacy of the whole of those Belgic tribes, by whom, at a no very long time before our era, a great part-of South Britain was conquered and settled. Whether the invading Belge brought with them from Gaul the fashions of more elaborate forms of tumuli, our knowledge of those in North-Eastern France does not enable us to determine. There have been many important explorations of the chambered barrows and dolmens of France; but it does not appear that any zealous and munificent antiquary has demonstrated the form, the structure, and contents of the barrows of the bronze period of that country, in like manner as our Wiltshire baronet has those of this part of England. In the absence of such information, we incline to the opinion of their indigenous origin, and conclude that the bell and disc-shaped tumuli were invented on the spot by the Belgic builders of Stonehenge, whence their fashion was gradually dis- tributed over those parts of Britain to which Belgic influence and authority extended. The erection of circular barrows over the dis- tinguished dead seems to have been continued as late as the conquest of South Britain under Claudius and his successors ; there being no proof that the islanders were in any material degree Romanized in their customs before the time of Agricola; to which period their adoption of Roman funeral usages may in all likelihood be referred.” WS 1 Hermes Britannicus, p. 126. 2+ Archwologia,”’ vol, xliii., p. 309. 110 How were these Stones brought and set up? se=7-O the visitor of the ruins of Stonehenge who is aware that the Oy stones composing it have been brought from a distance, three interesting questions naturally suggest themselves ; 1, low were the stones brought here? 2, How were they shaped and prepared with their mortises and tenons? 3, How were they raised into their up- right, and transverse positions ? Let us see whence and how they can have been brought here be- fore the use of metal, and the means and appliances with which man in more recent times has been so fully supplied. Having selected a block of proper dimensions from the neighbourhood of Marlborough,} it would then be the work of the party to be employed in its removal to cut down with their flint or horn axes,” poles sufficiently strong and long to serve as levers; then to provide themselves with wooden wedges; and lastly to cut trees, of proper size, into proper lengths, for rollers upon which the stone should run.* Having raised their stone upon the rollers, they would, with their 1“ Many of them [the sarsen, or as he calls them, sarsdon, stones] are mighty great ones, and particularly those in Overton Wood. Of these kind of stones are framed the two stupendous antiquities of Aubury and Stone-heng.”— Aubrey’s Nat. Hist. of Wilts (Britton’s edition, p. 44). Dr. Charleton, too, believed that the Stonehenge stones came “‘ from the fields adjoining Aibury or Rockly,” p. 44. 2 Mr. E. T. Stevens, in his ‘‘ Flint Chips,” at page 68, gives us an interesting account of the modern use of stone tools. ‘‘ Many persons,” he says, ‘are loth to believe that rude stone hatchets have been used for cutting down trees, and still less that planks and boats can have been made with similar tools.” He goes on ‘‘to cite some of the uses to which tools of stone, bone, horn and shell have been applied in modern times. . . . . The axe used formerly by the natives of Vancouver’s Island in felling the largest tree, which they did without the use of fire, was made of elk-horn, and was shaped like a chisel. The natives held it as we use the chisel, and struck the handle with a stone not unlike a dumb-bell, and weighing about two pounds.” 3 Strabo, Geogr., iv., p. 280, says: ‘‘ The Forests (of the Britons) are their towns; for they fence in a spacious circuit with felled trees, and build them- selves huts there, and stables for their cattle, (which they occupy) for no long time.” By William Long, Esq. 111 levers, shove it along, levelling and smoothing the uneven ground before them as best they could, and placing relays of rollers continu- ally in advance. By this means, after much toil and time, they would land their stone at its destination. Let us suppose, however, that in the intercourse with eastern people, trading for tin or otherwise, the builders of Stonehenge had become acquainted with the use of bronze and of the rope, they would then have been at a greater advantage. Perhaps the bronze im- plements might not be able to do much more for them than the flint, but the rope would be an immense assistance, in enabling them to bring so much draught-power of men to their aid, and possibly of beasts, if the dos longifrons and the horse, (whose remains are found in the barrows,) were to be found in sufficient numbers on the downs and their neighbourhood. At Rome, when the writer was there in the winter of 1865-6, it was amusing to see the primitive manner in which the large blocks of Carrara marble were transported from the Tiber to the artists’ studios. Sir George Head, in his “Tour cf many days in Rome,” vol. ii., p. 397, thus describes the slow and clumsy operation: “A sledge of sufficient size and strength having been constructed for the purpose, consisting simply of a low frame- work of stout timber, connected by transverse pieces and supported on wooden runners, such as are used for the transport of heavy mer- chandise over the snow in the roads of North America, the block of marble, divested previously of al] its unnecessary bulk, was laid upon it, which preliminary part of the operation, however, I did not ‘see performed. But the manner of putting the sledge in motion, which I did see, was as follows: in the first place, at the distance of sixty or seventy yards in front of the object a hole was made in the _ ground, and an iron crowbar not less than twelve inches in circum- _ ference, inserted in the hole as a point to haul upon, including a _ massive triangular frame to support a capstan lashed close to the crowbar. A block and pulley having been fixed to the sledge, and another block and pulley to the frame of the capstan, the rope was in the the first instance made fast to the sledge, and finally once more carried forward and rove with a double turn round the shaft 112 Stonehenge and tts Barrows. of the capstan, so that as the shaft revolved the rope was coiled on the ground by a man, who, with the end in his hand, sat upon the capstan-frame below. There were four arms to the windlass, each manned on ordinary occasions, by a couple of men, and by four men, which number I never happened to see exceeded, in case of an acclivity. In order to obtain an uniform surface for the machine to pass over, there were used, instead of rollers, wooden planks, covered with soft soap; and the services of two men were constantly required, one to soap the boards, and the other to remove them from the rear to the front as the sledge proceeded. The operation thus performed by successive removals of the crowbar to a farther distance, so soon as the rope became expended and coiled, occupied no less, with the exclusion of Sundays and saints’ days, than a whole month, and the motion was in fact so slow as to be hardly perceptible.’ The dis- tance from the Marmorata on the banks of the Tiber to the desti- nation of this block of marble in the Via del Babuino, would be under two miles. Herodotus tells us (II., c. 124) that Cheops, when he succeeded to the throne closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and all, in his service (for the erection of his pyramid). Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others received the blocks after they had been con- veyed in boats across the river, and drew them to the range of hills called the Lybian. A hundred thousand men laboured constantly, and were relieved every three months by a fresh lot. In Canon Rawlinson’s translation of Herodotus, and in Sir Gardner Wilkinson’s “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians ” (iii., 328, ed. 1837),! may be seen wood-cuts of the representation of a colossus 1¢‘ The ancient Assyrians and Egyptians have recorded on their walls by paintings and sculpture the method employed in transporting these masses, Apparently the lever was the only mechanical power used, and with unlimited supplies of human labour this would be the most direct and expeditious imple- ment; but it is probable that other mechanical aids were employed where stones such as obelisks had to be lifted. Froma carved slab, moreover, which formed part of the wall panels of the palace of Sardanapalus we learn that the pulley was known in a simple form.”’—Sir John Hawkshaw’s Address delivered before the British Association, at Bristol, Aug, 25th, 1875. By William Long, Esq. 113- which a number of men are employed in dragging with ropes, and which ‘representation was found by Messrs. Irby and Mangles in a grotto behind E’Dayr, a Christian village behind Antinoe and El Bersheh. In this picture we see represented the statue bound upon a sledge with ropes, a man standing on the knees of the colossus beating time with his hands, and giving out the verse of a song, to which the men responded; another man on the sledge at the feet of the colossus, pouring out in front of the sledge a liquid, perhaps grease, from a vase; four rows of men, in pairs, dragging the statue; ; Egyptian soldiers; men carrying water or grease; others carrying implements ; taskmasters; and reliefs of men. In one of the quarries _ at El Maasara, another mode of transporting a stone is represented. “Tt is placed on a sledge, drawn by oxen, and is supposed to be on its way to the inclined plain that led to the river; vestiges of which may still be seen a little to the south of the modern village.” Mr. Samuel Sharpe,' in his account of the mechanical arts, as practised by the Egyptians, says: “ Of the various ways in which the en- gineering difficulties might have been overcome, we may take it for granted that the rudest was that actually used. We know that when a town was to be stormed, the military engineers were often driven _ to the slow and laborious method of raising against it a mound of earth of the same height as the city wall, and from this the besiegers attacked the garrison on equal terms. . . . If an obelisk ninety feet long was to be placed upright, it was probably lifted up by _ means of a mound of earth. which was raised higher and higher, till the stone, which leaned on it, was set up on one end. Ifa huge block was to be placed on the top of a wall, it may have been rolled on rollers up a mound of sand to its place. Such labour will, in time overcome difficulties which yield more quickly to a smaller force when skilfully directed. Of the six simple machines called the Mechanical powers, the Egyptians used the wedge, the lever, and the inclined plane; but seem not to have known the screw, pulley, or the ‘wheel and axle. Though their chariots ran on wheels, they chose to drag a colossal statue on a sledge, rather than to risk the , 7. 1 History of Egypt, i,, 40, Ed., 1839, _ VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. I 114 Stonehenge and its Barrows. unsteadiness of putting rollers under it. Though their sailors pulled up the heavy sail by running a rope through a hole in the top of the mast, they had no moveable pulley fixed to the sail whereby a man can raise more than his own weight.” Mr. Layard, in his “ Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 24, (1867,) gives an interesting account, with illustrations, of the bas-reliefs found by him at Konyunjik which represent the building of an artificial mound, and the process of dragging the colossal figure to its summit. “As some of the largest of these sculptures were full twenty feet square, and must have weighed between forty and fifty tons, this was no easy task when the only mechanical powers possessed by the Assyrian appear to have been the roller and the lever. A sledge was used similar to that already described, and drawn in the same way. In the bas-relief representing the operation, four officers were seen on the bull, the first apparently clapping his hands to make the drawers keep time, the second using the speaking trumpet, the third directing the men who had the care of the rollers, and the fourth kneeling down behind to give orders to those who worked the lever. Two of the groups were preceded by overseers, who turned back to encourage the workmen in their exertions ; and in front of the royal chariot, on the edge of the mound, knelt an officer, probably the chief superintentent, looking towards the king to receive orders direct from him. Behind the monarch were carts bearing the cables wedges, and implements required in moving the sculpture. A long beam or lever was slung by ropes from the shoulders of three men, and one of the great wedges was carried in the same way. In the bas-relief representing the final placing of the colossal bull, the figure no longer lay on its side on the sledge, but was held upright by men with ropes and forked wooden props. It was kept in its erect position by beams, held together by cross-bars and wedges,} and was further supported by blocks of stone or wood. On the sledge, in front of the bull, stood an officer giving directions with out- stretched hands to the workmen. Cables, ropes, rollers, and levers 1Tt may be remarked, that precisely the same kind of framework was used . in the British Museum for moving and placing the great sculptures. a By William Long, Esq. 115 were used by the workmen. . . . When moving the winged bulls and lions, now in the British Museum, from the ruins to the banks of the Tigris, I used almost the same means as the ancient Assyrians, employing, however, a cart instead of a sledge.” Of the power of numbers unaided by artificial contrivance, Dr. Charleton well observes: “ Allowing them to have been as unskilful as you please in such instruments, yet consider how numerous they were, and how strenuously great swarms of them used to join hands together in such attempts; and you have not forgot the old verse, multorum manibus grande levatur onus, many hands make light work. What prodigious matters may be effected by mere strength and hand-force of great multitudes without rules of art, may be discerned from the savage Indians ; who, being destitute of other mathematicks but what nature dictated to them, and wanting the advantage of engines, did yet by their simple toil and indefatigable diligence, re- move stones of incredible greatness : for Acosta (‘ Histor. Indic., lib. 3, cap. 14), relates, that he measured one stone brought to Tiagu- anaco, which was 38 foot long, 18 broad, and 6 thick: and that in their stateliest edifices were many other of much vaster magnitude,””! (“ Stoneheng restored to the Danes,” p. 46.) + “Tn his interesting ‘ Himalayan Journal,’ (vol. ii., p: 276,) Dr. Hooker states that he found the Khasias, a wildish hill-tribe, on the mountain confines of Upper India, still erecting megalithic structures. He remarks that among the Khasias, ‘ funeral ceremonies are the only ones of any importance, and they are often conducted with barbarian pomp and expense; and rude stones, of gigantic proportions, are erected as monuments, singly or in rows, or supporting one another, like those of Stonehenge, which they rival in dimensions and appearance.’ ** In reply to personal enquiries by Sir James Simpson, Dr. Hooker informed him— ‘In answer to your query, Do you remember any recent erection, any arrangement the same as the cromlechs—yiz., two, four, or six upright stones supporting a large mass ?—this is a common erection now in vogue, such as are put up annually during the cold season. The whole country for many square miles was dotted with them and they are annually put up. Some I saw were quite fresh, and others half finished, and had I been there during the dry season, I was told I could have seen the operation. A chief or big man wants _ to put up such a cromlech, to commemorate an event or for any other purpose; _ he summons all the country-side, and feeds them for the time. They pass half the _ time in revelry, the other half in pulling, hauling, pushing and prizing; it is 12 116 Stonehenge and its Barrows. But enough, if not more than enough, upon the transport of stones and colossi in early times with scanty and simple means. Those who would go farther into this interesting subject should turn to the tenth volume of the Wiltshire Archzxological Society’s Magazine, where they will find a paper by Mr. A. C. Smith, in which the method of moving colossal stones as practised by some of the more advanced nations of antiquity, is much more fully discussed than can be done here. And now having, at last, brought our huge block to the place where it is to be set up, the next thing to be done is to “dress” it. With what instrument is this very hard stone to be worked? Our masons have stone hammers and stone chisels, and, it may be, bronze tools besides. But bronze is a rather soft metal for such tough work. Sir Gardner Wilkinson, in a note to ch. 86 of the second book of Herodotus (Rawlinson’s translation), says that in metallurgy the Egyptians possessed some secrets scarcely known to us, for they had the means of enabling copper to cut stone without hardening it by an alloy, and of giving to bronze blades the elasticity of steel with great hardness and sharpness of edge. With the possession of such a secret, we can easily understand how this wonderful people were able to chisel out their great granite statues and obelisks—but it is not likely that our Celtic ancestors had any such means of hardening their bronze. What can be done, however, with flint in cutting stone, is told us by Mr. E. T. Stevens, in his interesting and valuable work, entitled “Flmt Chips,” p. 495: “In the museum at St. Germain,” he writes, ‘‘ There are some blocks of granite, upon which figures resembling those upon the stones of Gavr Inis have been cut with an ancient flint tool within the last two or three years, and Sir James Simpson has proved experimentally that ring and cup-cuttings can be produced upon the Argyleshire schist and hard Aberdeen all done by brute strength and stupidity. They have neither science nor craft, nor any implements of art but the lever. I was told that the ashes of the burnt dead were often deposited under them; but could not make out that this was a general custom. The whole country is studded with stone erections, usually acromlech, witha row of tall stones behind it.’”’—From Col. Sir Henry James’ work on Stonehenge published in connection with the Ordnance Survey- By William Long, Esq. 117 granite, with a flint chisel and a wooden mallet. In the Edinburgh Antiquarian Museum there is a block of grey Aberdeen granite from Kintore : it is one of the ancient sculptured stones of Scotland, and has upon one side two crescents, &. On the back of this hard granite Mr. Robert Paul, the door-keeper of the museum, tried, at Sir James Simpson’s request, the experiment alluded to, and cut in two hours two-thirds of a circle, with a flint and a wooden mallet. The flint used was about three inches in length, an inch in breadth, and about a quarter of an inch in thickness. The circle which was sculptured with it in the granite is seven inches in diameter, and the incision itself is nearly three quarters of an inch in breadth, about a quarter of an inch in depth, and very smooth on its cut surface. In sculpturing the circle, the sharp tips of the flint too] from time to time broke off, but another sharp edge was always immediately ob- tained by merely turning the flint round, This experiment shows conclusively that such sculptures might have been produced during the Stone Age,” and also that, even without metal, all that was done to the sarsen and other stones at Stonehenge might have been effected by flint alone! Dr. Thurnam was of opinion, that, in making the mortises and tenons, the stones, after certain chippings had been made, had been rubbed into form by means of stone mullers, with sand and water.? If we may judge from the feet of the fallen trilithons, the part to be imbedded in the ground was, in some instances, by chipping made smaller and narrower than the part to stand above ground; and it would appear from the statement contained in the following cutting from a Salisbury newspaper of October 3rd, 1863, attested by Mr. 1 Though hundreds of beautiful stone axes and ornaments have been found in the Britanny tumuli, no weapons of metal have yet occured in them. It has been supposed that the carvings on some of the stones could not have been cut without metal. Actual experiments, however, as Messrs. Bertrand and de Mortillet haye shown me, prove that the stone can be cut with flint, while bronze produces no effect on it.”—Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, p. 110, second edition, *The irregular form and size of these mortises and tenons justify the conjec- ture of William Smith, the geologist, that these had been formed by friction with stones and sand.”-—Crania Britannica, 118 Stonehenge and its Barrows. J. Browne, that the hole into which the upright was to be dropt was prepared with a bed of concrete: ‘ It has been a matter of sur- prise to observant persons, that the now wholly prostrate trilithon at Stonehenge should, considering the extreme smallness of its base, ever have stood for ages immemorial. On the 22nd ult., Sir Edmund Antrobus’ under-gamekeeper, Mr. Eli Vockins, of Seven Barrows, when digging deeply for rabbits, proved that the upright had been embedded in a rough strong concrete, the great quantity and tenacious quality of which fully account for their long and otherwise inex- plicable stability. —Joseph Browne, eye-witness.” And now that our stone is prepared, and the hole for its reception has deen dug out and lined with concrete, how is it to be raised, and set up in its place? Mr. R. W. Emerson, who visited Stonehenge with Mr. T. Carlyle, could not see much difficulty in handling and carrying stones of this size: ‘The like is done in all cities, every day, with no other aid than horse-power. I chanced to see a year ago men at work on the substructure of a house, in Bodmin Square, in Boston, swinging a block of granite of the size of the largest of the Stonehenge columns, with an ordinary derrick. The men were common masons, with Paddies to help, nor did they think they were doing anything remarkable. I suppose there were as good men a thousand years ago.”! It is probable that there were as good mena thousand or two thousand years ago, but it is very improbable that the latter had derricks. Mr. Rickman, in the twenty-eighth volume of the “ Archzologia,” gives a plate embodying his ideas of the manner in which the up- rights were raised into their positions. He has assumed, however, that the people of that day had ropes. The Rev. Richard Warner, the historian of Bath, in his “ Walk through some of the Western counties of England,” p. 216, (1500,) says: ‘“ What is there in these Celtic temples that should so greatly excite our admiration? Even in Stonehenge, the most stupendous of them, we see nothing that might not readily be effected by the united efforts of tumultuary numbers. The wondrous stones which compose it would be found 1 English Traits,” 1856. By William Long, Esq. 119 in the neighbourhood of Marlborough, amongst that assemblage of rocky fragments called the Grey Wethers; would be floated down the Lesser Avon to Amesbury ; conveyed to the spot where they now stand with the assistance of rollers; and lifted to their present situ- ation by the inclined plane; operations which seem to include no particular sagacity in their designation, or difficulty in their execution; particularly when it is recollected that the whole strength of the nation was directed to accomplish the work by the irresistable im- pulse of superstition.” Mr. Max Miller, in his interesting paper on “ Cornish Antiquities,” in the third volume of “ Chips from a Ger- man Workshop,” thus treats this question: “ Marvellous as are the remains of that primitive style of architectural art, the only real problem they offer is how such large stones could have been brought together from a distance, and how such enormous weights could have been lifted up. The first question is answered by ropes and rollers, and the mural sculptures of Nineveh show us what can be done by such simple machinery. We there see the whole picture of how these colossal blocks of stone were moved from the quarry on to the place where they were wanted. Given plenty of time, and plenty of men and oxen, and there is no block which could not be brought to its right place by means of ropes and rollers. And that our forefathers did not stint themselves either in time, or in men, or other cattle, when engaged in erecting such monuments, we know even from comparatively modern times. Under Harold Harfagr, two kings spent three whole years in erecting one single tumulus ; and Harold Blatand is said to have employed the whole of his army — and a vast number of oxen in transporting a large stone which he wished to place on his mother’s tomb. (Saxo Grammaticus, ‘ Historia Danica,’ lib. x., p. 167, ed. Francfurt, 1576.) As to the second question, we can readily understand how, after the supporters had once been fixed in the ground, an artificial mound might be raised, which, when the heavy slab had been rolled up on an inclined plane, might be removed again, and thus leave the heavy stone poised in its startling elevation.” The writer is indebted to Weaver’s “Monumenta Antiqua” (Nichols 1840), for the following quotation: “ Bray, in his work on the part 120 Stonehenge and its Barrows. of Devonshire bordering on the Tamar and the Tavy, observing that in India, on the tops of some of the pagodas, there are amazing masses of rock, adds, that to place them in such elevated situations they had recourse to aggeration. They took the laborious method by accumulated earth of forming an easy ascent or inclined plane to the top, by means of levers rolled them to the summit, and then re- moved the mound (Bray, vol. i., p. 228).” 4 : Mr. Tom Smith, sometime master, successively, of the Craven and Hambledon packs of hounds, a good artist and a clever man, had a theory about the manner in which the stones were set up, which is worth giving in the words of his biographer : ? “ Being shortly after on a visit to the Bishop [Denison, his brother-in-law], a party was made up to go to Stonehenge. On their return there was a discussion on that wonderful structure, in which Mr. Smith did not take part. This caused the Bishop to ask if he did not agree with the rest as to the almost superhuman character of the pile, and the inadequacy of any known means for raising it: he replied that he saw nothing so marvellous about it, and that he thought he could point out a way in which it might have been constructed. Pen, ink, and paper were forthwith placed before him, and he was desired to put his ideas in a tangible shape. He at once made a sketch, and the matter fur- nished conversation for the evening. The Bishop, looking at the sketch, allowed that there might be something in the supposition, and next asked where the huge stones of Stonehenge could have come from. Mr. Smith then gave an account of a fox having been run to earth at the Grey Wethers, and explained that these stones are just of the same character; some of them being twenty feet long, seven or eight wide, and three or four thick. He allowed that it would require a great number of men to transport such stones for ‘ten miles over Salisbury Plain: but anyone who looks at the Wans- dyke, which traverses the same district for thirty or forty miles, will 1 One would like to know how the roof of the Mausoleum of Theodoric, at Ravenna, which is formed from a single block of limestone, 36 feet in its internal diameter, and estimated to weigh above 200 tons, was raised to its place. 2 “ Sporting Incidents in the Life of another Tom Smith,” 1867, By William Long, Esq. 121 see that there is no real objection. Whoever they were that dug that wide dyke, and threw up that high bank, must have had abun- dance of labour at command; and though Mr. Goodman’s fourteen horses could not move one of the Grey Wethers, long levers very probably could. As Dr. Johnson says in Rasselas, ‘The master of mechanics laughs at strength ;’ and Archimedes had said long before him, ‘ Give me a place to stand on, and a lever, and I will move the world’ . . . Trunks of oaks bound with iron, and pierced with holes for levers would furnish rollers to propel the stones to very near their ultimate destination. It is also necessary to suppose the site of Stonehenge occupied by a mound, either natural or artificial ; the _ ascent being by an easy incline from the quarter whence these stones were brought. On the top of the mound we must suppose as many holes dug as there were upright stones to be placed. On the arrival of each stone, it would be dropped into its hole; and when all were thus placed, there would only remain the more easy task of laying on the imposts, each end of which evidently has been mortised on to the perpendiculars. The earth would then be dug away, leaving the structure complete; and if this earth must be accounted for, we may think it probable that we see it in the numerous barrows near, that still exist on Salisbury Plain.” ~WI Rn 122 Sor what purpose twere these Stones set up ? Stonehenge, it does not appear impossible to arrive at some- thing like a rational conception of the objects of the founders of Stonehenge. Man, even the most savage and degraded, must have his god or gods. The religious instinct implanted in man, and fostered by the constant realization of his own weakness, and of the existence of powers above him, around him, and independent of him, by which his welfare is more or less affected, must have an outcome. And if he knows not the Creator he will worship the creature. And which of God’s creatures would he be so likely to make the object of his simple-minded adoration, as that great body, which, by its light and heat, would appear to him to exercise the most potent in- fluence over his material good? As the sun simply, or as the sun in connection with the moon and stars, it would be regarded by him as the natural object of his daily worship. ‘ In the East,” says Dr. Déllinger, “ where the stars shine brightly in an ever-cloudless sky, (30 the writer, who believes in the pre-Christian erection of. a) and men more readily receive the influences of these heavenly bodies, astrolatry, or the worship of the stars that illume the earth, developed itself. Above all, it was the sun, the great quickener of nature, adored as the centre and lordly power of the visible universe, as the common source of light and life, by which men felt themselves ir- resistably attracted. For their high, ever-increasing susceptibility of natural impressions, and of the properties of the universe, led them to give themselves up with longing and passion to the sidereal powers, and they felt themselves governed by them as if by magic. The cultus they rendered them, the direction of all their intellectual powers towards them, the sympathy with their phases, their setting, disappearances and re-appearances, the every-where prevalent notion in all antiquity that the heavenly bodies were not dead masses of fire or earth, but living animated beings—all this involved them more Ve _ By William Long, Esq. 123 and more in a service of complete idolatry and worship—religion became astrolatry.”’ ! Dean Milman says, “ Down to the captivity, the Jews of Palestine had been in contact only with the religions of the neighbouring nations, which, however differently modified, appear to have been essentially the same, a sort of Nature-worship, in which the host of heaven, especially the sun and moon, under different names, Baal and Moloch, Astarte and Mylitta, and probably as symbols or represen- tatives of the active and passive powers of nature, no doubt with some distinction of their attributes, were the predominant objects. These religions had long degenerated into cruel or licentious super- stitions; and the Jews, in falling off to the idolatry of their neigh- bours, or introducing foreign rites into their own religious system, not merely offended against the great primal distinction of their faith—the unity of the Godhead—but sunk from the pure, humane, and comparatively civilised institutes of their law-giver, to the loose and sanguinary usages of barbarism.” ? Let us hear, too, what Mr. Tylor (who has made the primitive _ culture of mankind his especial study) says upon solar worship: * Rivalling in power and glory the all-encompassing heaven, the sun moves eminent among the deities of nature, no mere cosmic globe affecting distant material worlds by force in the guise of light and heat and gravity, but a living reigning Lord :— _ £0 Thou, that with surpassing glory crown’d, Looks’t from thy sole dominion like the God Of this new world.’ It is no exaggeration to say, with Sir William Jones, that one 1«¢ The Gentile and the Jew,” vol. i., p. 67. -* History of Christianity, book i., c. 2. Dean Milman refers to Bohlen, (das alte Indien, p. 139 et seq.) who gives a long list of the festivals of the sun; and to Dr. Richard’s valuable work on Egyptian Mythology ; on the Deification of the Active and Passive Powers of Generation; the marriage of the Sun and the Earth, p. 40, and pp. 62—75. ; ' The writer cannot divest himself of the idea that, at Abury, a symbolical representation was intended of the generative and fructifying powers of the Sun in its connection with the earth, the ‘‘ raypirop re yj”? apostrophized by Prometheus, (Prom. Vinctus 90). 124 Stonehenge and its Barrows. great fountain of all idolatry in the four quarters of the globe was the veneration paid by men to the sun: it is no more than an ex- aggeration to say, with Mr. Helps, of the sun-worship in Peru, that it was inevitable. Sun worship is by no means universal among the lower races of mankind, but manifests itself in the upper levels of savage religion in districts far and wide over the earth, often assuming the prominence which it keeps and develops in the faiths of the barbaric world. Why some races are sun-worsbippers and others not, is indeed too hard a question to answer in general terms. Yet one important reason is obvious, that the sun is not so evidently the god of wild hunters and fishers, as of the tillers of the soil, who watch him day by day, giving or taking away their wealth and their very life. On the geographical significance of sun-worship, D’Orbigny has made a remark, suggestive if not altogether sound, connecting the worship of the sun not so much with the torrid regions where his glaring heat oppresses man all day long, and drives him to the shade for refuge, as with climates where his presence is welcomed 271 for its life-giving heat, and nature chills at his departure. 1Tylor’s Primitive Culture, ii., p. 260. Most of us, doubtless, are acquainted with Southey’s sonnet :— “T marvel not, O Sun! that unto Thee In adoration man should bow the knee, And pour his prayer of mingled awe and love; For like a God thou art, and on thy way Of glory sheddest with benignant ray, Beauty, aud life, and joyance from above. No longer let these mists thy radiance shroud, These cold raw mists that chill the comfortless day; But shed thy splendour through the opening cloud And cheer the earth once more, The languid flowers Lie scentless, beaten down with heavy rain; Earth asks thy presence, saturate with showers; O Lord of Light! put forth thy beams again For damp and cheerless are the gloomy hours.’’ The most eloquent writer of English in modern times, says: ‘It may be easy to prove that the ascent of Apollo in his chariot signifies nothing but the rising of the sun.. But what does the sunrise itself signify to us? If only languidreturn to frivolous amusement, or fruitless labour, it will, indeed, not be easy for us to conceive the power, over a Greek, of the name of Apollo. But if, for us also, as for the Greek, the sunrise means daily restora- tion to the sense of passionate gladness and of perfect life—if it means the thrilling of new strength through every nerve,—the shedding over us a better peace than the peace of night, in the power of the dawn,—and the purging of By William Long, Esq. 125 In such a climate as that of Britain, dependent so much on solar influence, for its material prosperity, would it be unreasonable to suppose that the solar cultus would prevail? It can hardly have been an accident that the stone without the circles at Stonehenge should have been so placed that the sun should rise immediately over it at the summer solstice. A remarkable account is given by Mr. W. G. Palgrave of a very similar structure to Stonehenge, which he found in Arabia, where the heavenly bodies were the objects of wor- ship; it is as follows: “ We had halted for a moment on the verge of the uplands, to enjoy the magnificent prospect before us. All along the ridge where we stood, and visible at various distances down the level, rose the tall, cireular watch-towers of Kaseem. But im- mediately before us stood a more remarkable monument, one that fixed the attention and wonder even of our Arab companions them- selves. For hardly had we descended the narrow path where it . winds from ledge to ledge down to the bottom, when we saw before us several huge stones, like enormous boulders, placed endways perpendicularly on the soil, while some of them yet upheld similar masses laid transversely over their summit. They were arranged in a curve, once forming part, it would appear, of a large circle, and many other. like fragments lay rolled on the ground at a moderate distance; the number of them still upright was, to speak from memory, eight or nine. Two, at about ten or twelve feet apart one from the other, and resembling huge gate-posts, yet bore their hori- zontal lintel, a long block laid across them ; a few were deprived of their upper traverse, the rest supported each its head-piece in defiance of time and of the more destructive efforts of man. So nicely- balanced did one of these cross-bars appear, that in hope it might prove a rocking-stone, I guided my camel right under it, and then evil vision and fear by the baptism of its dew ;—if the sun itself is an influence, to us also, of spiritual good—and becomes thus in reality, not in imagination, to us also, a spiritual power,—we may then soon overpass the narrow limit of conception which kept that power impersonal, and rise with the Greek to the thought of an angel, who rejoiced as a strong man to run his course, whose voice, calling to life and to labour, rang round the earth, and whose going forth was to the ends of heaven,’’—Ruskin’s ‘‘ Queen of the ar,” p. 11. 126 Stonehenge and its Barrows. stretching up my riding stick at arm’s length could just manage to touch and push it, but it did not stir. Meanwhile the respective heights of camel, rider, and stick taken together would place the stone in question full fifteen feet from the ground. These blocks seem by their quality, to have been hewn from the neighbouring limestone cliff, and roughly shaped, but present no further trace of art, no groove or cavity of sacrificial import, much less anything in- tended for figure or ornament. The people of the country attribute their erection to Darim, and by his own hands, too, seeing that he was a giant; also for some magical ceremony, since he was a magician. Pointing towards Rass, our companions affirmed that a second and similar stone circle, also of gigantic dimensions, existed there, and lastly they mentioned a third towards the south-west. That the object of these strange constructions was in some measure religions, seems to me hardly doubtful; and if the learned conjectures that would discover a planetary symbolism in Stonehenge and Carnae have any real foundation, this Arabian monument, erected in the land where the heavenly bodies are known to have been once ven- erated by the inhabitants, may make a like claim ; in fact, there is little difference between the stone wonder of Kaseem and that of Wiltshire, except that the one is in Arabia, the other, the more perfect, in England.” * Dr. Thurnam, in his “ Historical Ethnology of Britain ” (chap, vy. of the introduction to the “ Crania Britannica”’) says ; “ Various British coins exhibit symbols of stars, crescents, and suns, which may refer to the ancient astral and elemental worship,” and refers 1 Narrative of a year’s journey through Central and Eastern Arabia, 1862— 63, by William Gifford Palgrave, vol. i, p. 250, 1865. Sir J. Lubbock, re- ferring to Bonstettin, Sur les Dolmens, p. 27, says, ‘‘ that Kohen, a Jesuit Missionary, has recently discovered in Arabia, near Khabb, in the district of Kasim, three large stone circles, described as being extremely like Stonehenge, and consisting of very lofty triliths.””—-p. 122, second edition. Dr. Thurnam has a memorandum to the following effect, from Selden ‘‘de Dis Syris, _ Syntagma ii., c. xv,, acervus Mercurii, &c.”’ Selden is quoting several Jewish . and Talmudic writers, one of them saying: ‘‘ Lapides fani Merkolis sic dis- positi erant, ut unus hine, alter illinc, tertius super utrumque collocaretur ;” and that ‘‘ Merkolis, binis lapidibus, sibi mutuo adjacentibus, tertius lapis imponebatur.” By William Long, Esq. | RR to the engravings of some gold coins found on Farley Heath, Surrey, which are given at p. 304 of the thirteenth volume ol the Arche- ological Journal. The Rev. Prebendary Earle, also argues from these characters on British coins in favour of the solar theory, but this view is not acquiesced in by all numismatists. The writer’s old and valued friend, Mr. W. S. W. Vaux, F.R.S., President of the Numismatic Society, has kindly furnished him with the following communication: “There is no mystery about the origin of the earliest coins of Britain. They are degraded types of Gaulish coins, and these Gaulish coins again are degraded types of those of Philip of Macedon. When the Gauls invaded Macedonia, they brought back, as part of their plunder, gold money of Philip; and as they had none before (so far as we know) they set to work to copy what they had found. The first copies are sufficiently well done to be like their originals. You find @IAITTITOY legible and a victory driving a chariot. Soon the Greek letters are lost, and the victory and chariot become indistinct. Some of these indistinct coins found their way to Britain in the course of trade, and were imitated by the Britons, each imitation being one stage farther off from the original Philip’s, till, at length, all notion of a horse and chariot is lost. The horsé remains, but such a nondescript animal (sometimes with his tail divided into three distinct tails!) that you would hardly guess that it was meant for a horse. Then the chariot departs altogether, and its wheels appear anywhere on the coins—above, before, in front of other objects. Some of the circles alluded to by Dr. Thurnam are probably these wheels. I doubt altogether the existence of any astral or mythic marks, though, of course, a star or a wheel with the spokes crossing will be seized on by some as representing the sun, and so on. These gold British coins may be considered as before or as contemporary with Julius Cesar. After his time we find Roman types on British coins.” Having said so much upon the probable connection of Stonehenge with sun-worship, it will be well to introduce here the opinions which have been broached by antiquaries and others since the publi- cation of Sir Richard Hoare’s volume of “ Ancient Wilts,” in 1812. 128 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Sir Walter Scott, in his edition of Dryden’s works (1818), com- menting upon Dr. Charleton’s work, in which the erection of Stone- henge was attributed to the Danes, and which work had been com- mended by Dryden, says: “The Doctor’s opinion is hypothetical and inconsistent with evidence, for Stonehenge is expressly mentioned by Nennius, who wrote two hundred years before the arrival of the Danes in Britain. If it be true, which is alleged by some writers, that it was anciently called Stanhengist, or indeed, whether that be true or no, the monument seems likely to have been a Saxon creation, during their days of paganism ; for it is neither mentioned by Cxsar nor Tacitus, who were both likely to have noticed a structure of so remarkable an appearance.” Of Dryden’s address to the Doctor the following lines may be given :— ‘‘Such is the healing virtue of your pen, To perfect cures in books as well as men: Nor is this work the least: you well may give To men new vigour, who make stones to live. Through you the Danes (their short dominion lost) A longer conquest than the Saxons boast. Stoneheng, once thought a Temple, you have found A throne, where Kings our earthly Gods were crown’d. Where by their wond’ring subjects they were seen, Joyed with their stature and their princely mien. Our Sovereign here above the rest might stand, Aud here be chose again to rule the Land. These ruins sheltered once His sacred head When he from Wor’sters fatal battle. fled ; Watch’d by the Genius of his royal place, And mighty visions of the Danish race. His Refuge then was for a Temple shown: But, He restor’d, ’tis now become a Throne.” The late Rev. Edward Duke considered Stonehenge “as forming part of a planetarium, in connection with Abury, in the more northern part of the country, and with a series of remains to be traced on the face of the intervening country, the gigantic proportions of which were such that its meridian line was extended no less than two-and- thirty miles.” See this explained at length in “ Druidical Temples of Wilts” (1848), and in Mr. Duke’s letter relative to Stonehenge, in the Salisbury volume of the Archzological Institute. By William Long, Esq. 129 The Rev. John Bathurst Deane (an old and valued friend of the writer, now unhappily deprived of sight), in his work, on the “ Wor- ship of the Serpent” (1833), says that ‘‘the circle and the horse-shoe were both sacred figures in the Druidical religion, as may be seen in Stonehenge, where they are united ; the outer circles enclosing inner horse-shoes. I cannot find any connection between the latter sym- bol and the tenets of the Celtic religion, unless it be intended as a representation of the moon” p. 370. Mr. Henry Lawes Long, in his interesting and learned work on“ the Early Geography of Western Europe,” 1859, writes as follows : ‘ Itis evident from the words of Cesar: ‘The doctrine was discovered in Britain, and imported into Gaul,’! that Druidism must have been the religion of the first inhabitants of Britain, and found there by the more recent settlers ; that is, that it was the religion of the Cymry, and that the Belgic settlers, upon so discovering it, became its converts, and transmitted it to their parent states in Gaul. No doubt this change took place many years before the time of Cesar, his ex- pression ‘existimatur’ implies this, because it evidently relates to a distant event; besides, some considerable time is necessary for — the thorough and universal establishment of Druidism in Gaul. - - . . The Cimbri were a portion of the extended Cymry who occupied the whole of the western coast of Britain from the Clyde, through Cumberland and Wales, to the south-western extremity of Britain, comprising the counties of Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall. It was here, then, that the Western Belgw, the in- habitants of Wilts,whom I believe to have been Ambiani, were brought into contact with the Cymry, and from them they must necessarily have received the Druidical religion, in the place of the superstition, whatever it may have been, which they brought over with them from the continent. The conversion of the Belge to Druidism would naturally have led to the erection of a temple in honour of their new creed. Druidical remains, in the shape of rude circles of 1“ Disciplina hee in Britannia reperta ; atque inde in Galliam translata esse, _ existimatur, et nunc, qui diligentius eam rem cognoscere volunt, pleramque illo, discendi causa, proficiscuntur.”—Ces, de Bell. Gall. lib. iy. VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. K 130 Stonehenge and its Barrows. stones are found in Somersetshire and in various places along the territories of the Cymry, through Wales and in Cumberland, all of them partaking of the same primitive character—huge masses of unhewn stone, arranged in a spherical position. Six or seven miles north of the mounds of Old Sarum, the ancient capital of the Western Belgwe, is that marvel of Britain, which now bears the Saxon appellation of ‘Stonehenge.’” (pp. 100—2.) Mr. J. M. Kemble thought it quite possible that the triliths might have served as gallowses, on some grand occasion ; and that after a defeat some British leaders may have been sacrificed by tying them up to Woden on the same. As long as the Anglo-Saxon language is Anglo-Saxon, Stonehenge can mean nothing but “ The Stone Gallowses.” Notes and Queries, second series, vol. i., p. 2. Mr. J. Y. Akerman, F.S.A., in a letter to Dr. Thurnam, dated November Ist, 1860, writes as follows: ‘ Most of the writers on Stonehenge seem determined to show us how little qualified they are to diseuss such a subject. I think it not unlikely that the pagan Saxons made Stonehenge on some grand occasion their offering place. it should be remembered that when they offered human victims to Woden, they ung them up, and here was a not inappropriate spot.” In Halliwell’s “ Rambles in Western Cornwall,” 1861, is the following : “ With regard to Stonehenge, the theory of its being a temple of the Druids is unsupported by the least evidence, the little there is at all respecting it leading to the belief, that in it we see the remains of a gigantic mausoleum, in the middle of an ancient British cemetery, which continued in use during the Roman sway.” A eritie of Mr. Halliwell’s work (Saturday Review, April 12th, 1862), remarks, that ‘No ancient writer mentions these stone erections, supposed to be Druidical works, in connection with Druidical rites ; and much might be said to show that they were of much older date than the Druids, and probably of Pheenician origin. Certain it is, that the Israelites, in common with ancient nations, erected monuments of single stones; and it would appear stone- circles, as the tokens of some great national achievement or national victory. The Book of Joshua furnishes evidence of the first usage; and the latter will, if we mistake not, be found referred to in a book By William Tong, Esq. 131 of much later date, where such stones are described as the stones of a crown—literally, ‘circled stones lifted up for an ensign upon the land.’ Zech. ix., 16.” Mr. J. H. Parker, C.B., the energetic explorer and expounder of Roman Antiquities, holds that Stonehenge is a Gilgal, and was erected for the purpose of celebrating holy rites, a place where the army met, and where the chieftains were buried. It might be called a burial place, or a House of Commons. The Rev. Canon Jackson, to whom all members of this Society and readers of its Magazine are so deeply indebted, read a paper on Stonehenge at the Society’s meeting at Marlborough, in 1859. It has never been published, but was briefly reported in the newspapers of the time, together with some observations, in reply, of the veteran Wiltshire antiquary, Mr. Matcham, who was one of the friends and co- adjutors of Sir Richard Colt Hoare,anda member of the Stourhead Anti- quarian Club, of which Mr. Joseph Hunter gives such an interesting account in the Salisbury volume of the Archzological Institute. In this Salisbury volume are “ Remarks on two communications re- specting Stonehenge,” in which Mr. Matcham urges that Stonehenge, like Abury, “is susceptible of an entire astronomical explanation ; and that it displays in its different groups not only the rudiments of a lunar calendar, but according to the Oriental and Metonic system a accurate measurement of the solar year.” Canon Jackson’s paper was (in substance) as follows: “ He said many ingenious theories as to the origin of the structure had been put forward by various writers. We were not obliged to adopt their conclusions, but at the same time we ought to feel indebted to them for their exertions to clear up the mystery that hung over it. His own belief was, that while writers had ransacked the world in search of an explanation of Stonehenge, the real key to the mystery lay all the time at home. The late Mr. Algernon Herbert’s opinion was that it was erected in the fifth cen- tury, shortly after the Romans abandoned Britain, and it was to the 150 years between A.D. 408 and A.D. 552 to which he (Mr. Jackson) wished to call their attention. The first point to be considered was the political and religious state of the country at that time. The Romans, then, were masters of the country, but they did not people K2 132 Stonehenge and its Barrows. it. They only governed it; and in much the same way as England now governed India. After the rebellion of A.D. 408 there was a rush of the British princes to seize the throne. The successful com- petitor was Vortigern, who forced the family of the last Roman king into Brittany, and this fact he wished them to bear in mind, as they would hear of one of that family, Aurelius, again. As to the religious state of the country, matters had run into great ex- travagance—in fact it was full of enthusiastic absurdities. He based his belief that Stonehenge was a work of the fifth century on the references contained in the writings of the bards and chroniclers nearest to the time, and he observed that he could find no historical data whatever corroborative of the statement that the structure was in existence before the Romans came over to this country. True, the compositions of these old British writers contained a good deal that might be fabulous, but those fables, it should be remembered, had come down to them from others. They also used the form of metaphor and fable for telling what they did know. It was.our ignorance of the key to these stories that made them seem incredible. But though a man may write in a strange style, he may be telling the truth. Bearing in mind, therefore, the political and religious condition of the country at that time, they would doubtless be less surprised at hearing him, with Mr. Herbert, assign the erection of Stonehenge to the mysterious Merlin. Merlin (according to Mr. Herbert) was not a man’s name, but an official name for the high- priest of a sect called Ambrosians—a name which he considered to have been adopted from large stones termed Petre Ambrosia by the Latins, Ambres by the British. There was no Azstorical evidence for assigning it to any other period than that which these old British writers afforded. He believed that during the years which followed the expulsion of the Romans, under the advice of those fanatical Ambrosians, the king commenced a new era in British independence, by erecting a new sanctuary, which sanctuary was no other than Stonehenge. There are, it is true, other British accounts of the purpose for which Stonehenge was built; one of them being that it was made by Vortigern’s successor, Aurelius, in memory of certain British princes who were treacherously By William Long, Esq. 133 massacred by Hengist. The writer of this account was probably ashamed of the follies of the previous reign, and so gave this colour to the transaction. This discrepancy does not in the least affect the main point, the period at which Stonehenge was raised. Whether it was in one king’s reign or his successors’, is, so far, quite im- material. If lon account of such variation we are to reject the united evidence as to the period, we must strike out many other facts in history. There is similar confusion about Robin Hood. Sir Walter Scott associates him with Richard I. The Records, on the other hand, gave the date of Edward II. It does not signify: he lived about that time. Make the same allowance for the story of Stonehenge. Although the bards and chroniclers somewhat differed as to the origin of the structure they agree as to the period when it was built—the fifth ceatury. He was therefore disposed to accept this date as the only historical one, and preferred it to vague speculations made without any authority whatsoever. This brings Stonehenge out as what it is most likely to have been, a British work ; erected for British purposes—a strange structure in- deed, but the times and builder were strange. Mr. Jackson then produced some curious circumstantial evidence from the legends and stories relating to Stonehenge, which he traced up to its source: all of which were explained by adopting this period and the substance of the story as told by the old British writers: but which were utterly inexplicable in any other way. He considered the small greenstone obelisks as the key to the history. They were certainly brought from some great distance, and had been a sacred circle of great reputation. Like the Casa Santa at Loreto, a small cottage said to have been the Virgin Mary’s house at Nazareth, but now enshrined in a magnificent church, so these obelisks, possessing some great traditional value, were transported hither, and enshrined in a coronet of the mightiest Grey Wethers that Wiltshire could produce. The central stone, commonly called the altar, he did not believe had ever been used for any purpose.of the kind: but that was merely a station for some important personage during public meetings. It was altogether different from the rest. He then pointed out that the largest stones both at Avebury and Stonehenge 134 Stonehenge and its Barrows. were in point of size, perfectly insignificant compared with the enormous statues and obelisks of Egypt. The statue of Sesostris, at Thebes, weighed 892 tons, being one single block. So that there was no great magic required for moving stones of 40 or 50 tons. It was only a question of so many bullocks or men. The whole story of Stonehenge admitted of a perfectly simple explanation, if people would only be satisfied with the story stripped of the absurd- ities with which time and the want of regular history has invested it. But they had been so long accustomed to think that it must necessarily belong to some unknown period of antiquity, that to call it only 1300 or 1400 years old was not to be endured. The subject was enveloped in obscurity, but, upon the whole, he leaned to the opinion that it was of the fifth century. “ Mr. Matcham said he had no intention of attempting to answer every argument which Mr. Jackson had adduced, but there were one or two observations which had fallen from that gentleman to which he would take the liberty of adverting. With reference to Stone- henge having been the work of the Belge (a suggestion, by the way, not originally made by Dr. Guest, but propounded before he was born), he asked, how the stones forming the outer circle at Stonehenge could have been obtained, supposing Wansdyke to have been the boundary between the Belgz and the ancient Britons? It was pretty well established that they were sarsen stones, which could not have been found in sufficient quantity on the southern side of Wansdyke. Stones of that kind must have existed in considerable quantities, to have enabled the workmen to pick out large uniform blocks like those at Stonehenge. So far with reference to the Belgz having been the authors of Stonehenge. Supposing it, however, to have been built by Vortigern, there was no occasion to enter further into the question, but he (Mr. Matcham) thought there were strong reasons against that supposition. Now as to its erection subsequent to the desertion of this island by the Romans :—everybody who visited Stonehenge must acknowledge it to have been the result of a vast amount of labour—the whole mind and body of the people must have beem brought together for that one purpose. That, he apprehended, could not have been the case at the time of the desertion By William Long, Esq. 135 of Britain by the Romans, for the country was then split into parties, not only political but religious. Now the religion of the southern portion of the county was mainly Christian, although he quite ad- mitted with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Herbert that there was an attempt to infuse into it the spirit of other creeds. If however, a new building was to be raised, and there had been anything like a mixture of religions, there would most probably be the marks of two religions upon that building. Now Stonehenge bore not the slightest mark of Christianity, and this had always been, to his mind, a great ob- jection to the theory of the late Mr. Algernon Herbert. Then again the specimens of pottery which had been found in the neighbourhood were of the rudest description, and evidently belonged, not to the Romans, but to the ancient Britons. Again, the country was, at the time of Vortigern, ravaged by war, and it was not likely that such a period would have been selected for the erection of such a mighty monument as that of Stonehenge. The writings of the Welsh bards simply went to show that the building was standing at that time— indeed, Mr. Davies, the author of ‘ Celtic Researches,’ who well un- derstood the old Welsh poetry, said the opinion of the bards was that Stonehenge had been standing from time immemorial. The only authority for Mr. Herbert’s theory was Geoffrey of Monmouth. He could not suppose that at the time when the country was in- vaded by the Picts and Scots, Vortigern could ever have sent a fleet to Ireland to bring something like thirty stones to the Amesbury Downs. The smaller stones were certainly not from the neighbour- hood, and they might have come from Ireland. . . . . He himself was inclined to the belief that the outer circle of Stonehenge was erected by Pheenician architects. They first settled at the Land’s End, in Cornwall, and having lead and iron mines, in Wales, it was by no means improbable that they drew these stones from different parts of_ the country as emblems of the places whence they derived their wealth. He did not say it was so,. but there was just as much reason for the supposition, as that Merlin brought them from Ireland.” The following are the conclusions to which one of our most thoughtful and Jearned antiquaries, the Rev. John Earle, has come: 136 Stonehenge and its Barrows. first, that Stonehenge was constructed with reference to sun worship, and, secondly, that there might be some truth in the legend which made it asepulchral monument. “As regarded the date he was in- clined to believe it should be resolved into two parts, and that the interior oval and the interior circle were of one and the same age, and were to be classed with other unhewn monuments existing in various parts of the country, and that they were not in a position to form any definite opinion as to their date. With reference to the external circle, the stones composing which had been worked with iron, he was of opinion that it must have been raised after the Romans left this country. The only objection he had ever heard to this view was that the chippings of the two kinds of stones had been found together, but he should like to know the circumstances under which they were found, because it appeared highly improbable that the smaller stones were ever chipped, because they were all of granite or other igneous rock, of which he understood the like was only to be found in Wales or the West of Ireland. In conclusion, he said when they considered that the erection of Stonehenge had left no record behind it, they might naturally reflect how late in the career of the human race written history entered. A large number of monuments in different parts of the world, more or less analogous to Stonehenge, were the only records of a vast period of unwritten antiquity. In them they saw what grand conceptions, what sym- metrical designs, what heavy undertakings, men were capable of before they arrived at the art of even the rudest chronicling. And there is nothing in the execution of those works on which investi- gation had hitherto been able to fasten as a character, whereby they might be arranged in a chronological scale. Those who took their stand upon records and monuments made their way upwards to meet those who, starting in the remote era of geologic time, were striving to connect their researches with the history of man.” The last opinion shall be the brief, but weighty one, of the dis- tinguished writer on ethnological archeology, Sir John Lubbock, who has done so much, by his purchase at Abury, and by his speeches in Parliament, to awaken, and strengthen, an interest in the pre- servation of our ancient monuments. He thinks “it may be By William Long, Esq. 137 regarded as a monument of the Bronze Age, apparently not all erected at one time, the inner circle of small, unwrought blue stones, being, probably, older than the rest ;” and that it was “ used as a Temple.” (“ Pre-Historic Times,” p. 116.) Herbert, in his learned and amusing book, speaks, in his sarcastic vein, of the variety and vanity of the opinions about Stonehenge. Whatever any Member of the Society may think about their vanity, there can be but one opinion as to their variety. 138 Part LY. Salisbury Plain and the Stonehenge Barrows. (0 the lover of our open downs it is refreshing to read of iy Salisbury Plain before it had been encroached upon, as now, by the plough. The Rev. William Gilpin, in his “ Observations on the Western Parts of England, relative especially to Picturesque Beauty,” dedicated to Speaker Addington, 1798, says: “The plain! on which Stonehenge stands, is in the same style of greatness as the temple that adorns it. It extends many miles in all directions, in some not less than fifty. An eye unversed in these objects is filled with astonishment in viewing waste after waste rising out of each new horizon. ‘Such appears the spacious plain Of Sarum, spread like Ocean’s boundless round, Where solitary Stonehenge, grey with moss, Ruin of ages, nods.’ «The ground is spread, indeed, as the poet observes, like the ocean; but it is like the ocean after a storm, it is continually heaving in large swells. Through all this vast district, scarce a cottage or even a bush appears. If you approach within two or three miles of the edge of the plain, you see, like the mariner within soundings, land at a distance, houses, trees, and villages; but all around is waste. Regions, like this, which have come down to us rude and untouched, 1 Stukeley was not insensible to the charms of “this delightful plaix, *Juvat arva videre Non rastris, hominum non ulli obnoxia cure.’— Virgil. Nought can be sweeter than the air that moves o’re this hard and dry chalky soil. Every step you take upon the smooth carpet, (literally) your nose is saluted with the most fragrant smell of serptllum and apium, which with the short grass continually cropt by the flocks of sheep, composes the softest and most verdant turf, extremely easy to walk on, and which rises, as with a spring, under one’s feet.” (p. 9.) By William Long, Esq. Te from the beginning of time, fill the mind with grand conceptions, far beyond the efforts of art and cultivation. Impressed by such views of nature, our ancestors worshipped the god of nature, in these boundless scenes, which gave them the highest conceptions of eternity. . . . All the plain, at least that part of it near Stonehenge, is one vast cemetery. Everywhere, as we passed, we saw tumuli or barrows, as they are called, rising on each hand. These little mounds of earth are more curiously and elegantly shaped than any of the kind I remember elsewhere to have seen. ‘They commonly rise in the form of bells, and each of them hath a neat trench fashioned round its base ; though in their forms, and in the ornamental circles . at their bases, some appear to be of more distinguished workmanship. They are of various sizes, sometimes of thirty, sometimes of forty, or fifty yards in diameter. From many places we counted above an hundred of them at once; sometimes as if huddled together without any design; in other places rising in a kind or order. By the rays of a setting sun, the distant barrows are most conspicuously seen. Every little summit being tipped with a splendid light, while the “plain is in shadow, is at that time easily distinguished. Most of them are placed on the more elevated parts of the plain, and gen- erally in sight of the great temple. That they are mansions of the dead is undoubted ; many of them having been opened, and found to cover the bones both of men and beasts ; the latter of which were probably sacrificed at the funeral. We suppose also that some of them contained the promiscuous ashes of a multitude, as Virgil describes them :— ‘Confuse ingentem cedis acervum, Nec numero, nec honore cremant. Tune undique vasti Certatim crebris collucent ignibus agri. Tertia lux gelidam celo dimoverat umbram ; Merentes altum cinerem, et confusa ruebant Ossa focis ; tepidoque onerabant aggere terre.’ Indeed this mode of burial, as the most honourable, seems to have been dictated by the voice of nature. We meet with it in Homer; we meet with it in Herodotus. The vestiges of it are found on the vast plains of Tartary ; and even among the savages of Guinea. “Though Salisbury Plain in Druid times was probably a very 140 Stonehenge and its Barrows. busy scene, we now find it wholly uninhabited. Here and there we meet a flock of sheep scattered over the side of some rising ground ; and a shepherd with his dog attending them; or perhaps we may descry some solitary waggon winding round a distant hill. But the only resident inhabitant of this vast waste is the bustard. This bird, which is the largest fowl we have in England, is fond of all extensive plains, and is found on several; but these are supposed to be his principal haunt. Here he breeds, and here he spends his summer-day, feeding with his mate on juicy berries, and the large dew-worms of the heath. As winter approaches, he forms into society. Fifty or sixty have been sometimes seen together. As the bustard leads his life in these unfrequented wilds, and studiously avoids the haunts of men, the appearance of anything in motion, though at a considerable distance, alarms him. . . . As he is so noblea prize, his flesh so delicate, and the quantity of it so large, he is of course frequently the object of the fowler’s stratagems. But his caution is generally a protection against them all. The scene he frequents, affords neither tree to shelter, nor hedge to skreen, an enemy; and he is so tall, that when he raises his neck to take a perspective view, his eye circumscribes a very wide horizon. All open attempts, therefore against him are fruitless. The fowler’s most promising statagem is to conceal himself ina waggon. The west-country waggons, periodically travelling these regions, are ob- jects to which the bustard is most accustomed ; and though he retires at their approach, he retires with less evident signs of alarm, than from anything else. It is possible, therefore, if the fowler lies close in such a concealment, and with a long-barrelled gun can direct a good aim, he may make a lucky shot. Sometimes also he slips from the tail of a waggon a couple of swift greyhounds. They soon come up with the bustard, though he runs well; and if they can contrive to reach him, just as he is on the point to take wing (an operation which he performs with less expedition than is requisite in such critical circumstances) they may perhaps seize him.! 10On the Bustard and its extinction in England, see Wilts Arch. Magazine, vol. ii, p. 212; also the interesting article on this bird, in vol. iii., by our Wiltshire ornithologist, as well as antiquary, the Rey. A.C. Smith. In Sir By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 141 “Some encroachments have been made by the plough, within these few years, upon Salisbury Plain. But these inroads, though considerable in themselves, bear little proportion to the vastness of these downy grounds. The plough is a heavy ,invader; and its perseverence only can produce a visible effect in so vast a scene. “ Another reason also may operate powerfully in preserving these wide domains in a state of nature. The soil is, in most places, very shallow, not above five or six inches above a rock of chalk; and as the tillage of two or three years exhausts it, without more expense than the land will answer, it hath been thought but ill husbandry to destroy a good sheep walk for a bad piece of arable land.” APPEARANCE OF STONEHENGE FROM THE PLAIN. Mr. Warner truly says that “the distant effect of Stonehenge is not so striking as the description of its magnitude would lead us to imagine, since being an isolated object, situated in the heart of the plain, without anything around it for a standard of comparison, every impression of its greatness is swallowed up and overwhelmed in that idea of immensity which the prospect on every side presents to the mind. This very circumstance of unaccompanied locality, howevers heightens, perhaps, the effect of the fabric when we approach it, for the mind, not being interrupted or distracted by neighbouring objects, bends its undivided attention to the solitary wonder before it.”1 And Mr. Fergusson justly observes of it that “when viewed from a distance the vastness of the open tract in which Stonehenge stands takes considerably from its impressiveness, put when the observer gets close to its great monolithic masses the solitary situation lends it a grandeur which scarce any other building of its class can be said to possess.” ® Richard Hoare’s Ancient Wilts, i., 94, is a very curious account of two bustards having attacked men on horseback, near Tilshead, in June, 1801 In the Times newspaper of March 2nd, 1876, was a letter from the Rev. F. 0. Morris, the well-known ornithologist, in which he stated that he had heard recently from a friend that a great bustard had taken up its quarters in the fens of Cambridgeshire, and he claimed for it the protection given by the recent Act of Parliament. It is vain to hope that the poor bird will be allowed to live at peace in England. ? Warner’s ‘‘ Excursions from Bath,” 1801, p. 172. * Quarterly Review, No, 215, p. 202, 142 Stonehenge and tts Barrows. On THE Barrows! surrounpine SToNEHENGE. To the sanctity attaching to Stonehenge, the numerous and im- portant “monumental hillocks” on the adjoining plain bear testimony , but no one who looked carefully at them, could, for a moment, en- tertain the idea that these were the graves of slaughtered heroes whom survivors had “ buried darkly at the dead of night.” They carry with them unmistakeable indications of having been leisurely and carefully made by a people who were living in peace and safety upon and around the neighbouring down. From the great size of many of them and their commanding positions on the more elevated portions of the plain, they are very striking objects, and greatly enhance the interest awakened by the stone circles, and their sacred precincts. Leland describes those near Stonehenge as “ monticuli illi ex egesta terra conglobati ;” * and Camden, writing of Wiltshire, says: * Many such artificial hills both round and pointed are to be seen in these parts, and are called burrowes or barrowes, probably thrown up in memory of soldiers slain thereabouts. Bones are found in them.” From the chapter on barrows in the “ Monumenta Britannica” of Aubrey, part ii., and which has for its motto the following from Seneca, de Consolatione ad Polyb: ‘‘ Que per constructionem lapidum, et marmoreas moles, aut ¢errenos tumulos in magnam eductos altitudinem constant, non propagabant longam diem, quippe et ips intereunt,” the writer has extracted the following notices of barrows in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge: “In the Farme of West : Amesbury (within which is that famous Antiquity of Stoneheng) is - a place called the King’s Graves (which is now the Sheep-penning of West Amesbury) where doe appeare five small Barrows, or Tumuli, 1 Called ‘¢ Lowes,” in Derbyshire; ‘‘ Howes,” in Yorkshire. ‘* The raising of mounds of earth or stone over the remains of the dead, is a practice,” says Mr. Akerman, ‘‘ which may be traced in all countries to the remotest times.” Dr. Wilson adds that ‘‘their origin is to be sought for in the little heap of earth displaced by interment, which still to thousands suffices as the most touching memorial of the dead.” 2Comment de Script. Britann. De Ambrosio Merlino Cambro, 1709, p, 44. By William Long, Esq. 143 at one corner of the Penning.! At the end of these graves were stones, which the people of late yeares, sc. since 1640, have fetcht away : for in these parts, stones (except flint stones) are very scarce. Mrs. Trotman of Bishopstone, wife of Anth: Trotman, who then lived at the farme (from whom I have these excellent remarques and traditions concerning Stonehenge and these Barrows) told me that there were some lettérs on the stones: but what they were I could not learn. “Near the Penning aforesaid, where the Kings-graves are, is Normanton-ditch, but why so called, no tradition. In the field thereby hath been found, by ploughing, within 30 years last past (se. about 1638 or 1640) as much Pewter as was sold for five pounds. the shephard had pitcht through it in many places in pitching for their Fold. It was pure pewter, here were not any Coines found. “Tn this Farme is Pitt-poole, which is so called from a King, who upon his escape, rideing hastily downe the Sheep-shoot, was then drowned. See the Chronicle de hoc. “ About Stoneheng areSeaven Barrows (called so by the Travellers) one whereof is called Panbarrow. Quere the names of the rest of the barrows. Mrs. Trotman says that one of the Chronicles recites the names of these Barrows, and who are there buried, but I much doubt it. Mrs. Trotman knows a man that sawe the digging, and will enquire of him dates. “ Capt. J. Ryves says, are severall Barrowes that retain Danish or Saxon names, sed non credo.” On the next page is a note to his description of Gawen’s Barrow, in the parish of Broad Chalke, which the writer would like to print: **J never was so sacralegious as to disturb or rob his urne: let his ashes rest in peace: but I have oftentimes wish’t that my corps might be interred by it: but the Lawes ecclesiastick denie it. Our This word ‘‘ Penning ” or ‘‘ Pennings” seems to be in use in other parts of - Wiltshire. Sir R. C. Hoare speaks of a ‘‘Great Penning,” near Tilshead (Ancient Wilts, i., p. 94.) ; and Dean Merewether speaks of a ‘‘ Penning,” near Abury ; ‘‘at Mr. George Brown’s above Beckhampton.” ‘‘ The phrase belongs to a disused enclosure adjoining the farm-yard and fold near at hand. The term ‘ Penning,’ is applied by the husbandmen to other similar enclosures and earthworks.’” (Salisbury Vol. of Arch. Institute, pp. 109, 110.) 144 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Bones, in consecrated ground, never lie quiet: and in London once in ten yeares (or thereabout) the earth is carried to the dung- wharfe.” Stukeley (c. x.) thus speaks of the barrows: “I come in the last place to speak of the barrows, observable in great numbers, round Stonehenge. We may very readily count fifty at a time, in sight from the place : easily distinguishable : but especially in the evening, when the sloping rays of the sun shine on the ground beyond them, These barrows are the artificial ornaments of this vast and open plain. And it is no small entertainment for a curious person to re- mark their beauties, their variety in form and magnitude, their situation. They are generally of a very elegant campaniform shape, and done with great nicety. There is likewise a great variety in their shape and turn, and in their diameters, in their manner; of composition. In general, they are always on elevated ground, and in sight of the temple of Stonehenge. For they all regard it. - This shews they are but superficial inspectors of things, that fancy from hence, great battels on the plain ; and that these are the tumultuary burials of the slain. Quite otherwise, they are assuredly, the single sepulchres of kings and great personages buried during a considerable space of time, and that in peace. ‘There are many groups of them together, and as family burial places ; ; the variety in them, seems to indicate some note of difference in the persons there interr’d, well known in those ages. Most of the barrows have little ditches around, extremely well defin’d. In many is a circular ditch 60 cubits in diameter, with a very small tumulus in the center. 60 or 100 cubits is a very common diameter in the large barrows. Often they are set in rows, and equidistant, so as to produce a regular and pretty appearance, and with some eariialae regard to the parts of the temple, the avenues, or the cursus.’ In 1722 Lord Pembroke opened one of a pair of ies barrows by the east side of the road from Wilton to Stonehenge. -“ On the west side, he made a section from the top to the bottom, an intire segment, from center to circumference. The manner of composition of the barrow was good earth, quite thro’, except a coat of chalk of about two foot thickness, covering it quite over, under | > By William Long, Esq. 145 the turf. Hence it appears, that the method of making these barrows was to dig up the turf for a great space round, till the barrow was brought to its intended bulk. Then with the chalk, dug out of the environing ditch, they powder’d it all over. So that for a considerable time, these barrows must have look’d white: even for some number of years. And the notion of sanctity annex’d to them, forbad people trampling on them, till perfectly settled and turf’d over. Hence the neatness of their form to this day, At the top or center of this barrow, not above three foot under the surface, my Lord found the skeleton of the interr’d, perfect, of a reasonable size, the head lying towards Stonehenge or northward.” The year following he began upon a barrow north of Stonehenge, in that group south of the cursus. “T’is one of the double barrows there; and more easterly.and lower of the two (No. 29 in Sir R. Hoare’s map), likewise somewhat less. It was reasonable to believe this was the sepulture of a man and his wife; and that the lesser was the female; and so it prov’d, at least a daughter. We madea — large cut on the top from east to west. After the turf taken off, we came to the layer of chalk, as before, then fine garden mould. About three foot below the surface, a layer of flints, humoring the convexity of the barrow. These flints are gather’d from the surface of the down in some places, especially where it has been plow’d. _ This being about afoot thick rested on a layer of soft mould another foot: in which was inclosed an urn full of bones. This urn was of unbak’d clay, of a dark reddish colour: crumbled into pieces. It had been rudely wrought with small mouldings round the verge and other circular channels on the outside, with several indentures ____ between, made with a pointed tool. The bones had been burnt, and erowded all together in a little heap, not so much as a hat crown ¢@ would contain. The collar bone and one side of the under jaw are grav d in their true magnitude. It appears to have been a girl of about 14 years old. . . . . Beads of all sorts, and in great number, of glass of divers colours, most yellow, one black, were mix’d with the bones. Many single, many in long pieces, notch’d between, so as to resemble a string of beads, and these were generally of a blue colour. There were many of amber, of all VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. L 146 Stonehenge and its Barrows. shapes and sizes, flat squares, long squares, round oblong, little and great. Likewise many of earth, of different shapes, magnitude and colour, some little and white, wnany large and flattish like a button, others like a pully. But all had holes to run a string thro’, either thro’ their diameter or sides. Many of the button sort seem to have been cover’d with metal, there being a rim work’d im them wherein to turn the edge of the covering. One of these was cover’d with a thin film of pure gold. These were the young lady’s orna- ments, and had all undergone the fire; so that what would easily consume fell to pieces as soon as handled. Much of the amber burnt half thro’. This person was a heroin, for we found the head of her javelin in brass. At bottom are two holes for the pins that fastened it the staff. Besides there was a sharp bodkin, round at one end, square at the other, where it went into a handle. [ These ornaments are engraved in Stukeley’s Stonehenge, plate xxxii.] Then we op’d the next barrow to it enclos’d in the same ditch, which we suppos’d the husband or father of this lady. At fourteen inches deep, the mould beg mixed with chalk, we came to the intire skeleton of a man. The skull and all the bones exceedingly rotten and perish’d through length of time.” On this interesting account of one of the few barrow-openings at Stonehenge before the time of Cunnington and Hoare, the latter says: “Not dissuaded by the external appearances, and convinced by experience that all interments found near the surface were subsequent deposits, Mr. Cunnington, in 1803, ex- plored the second tumulus, by making a section rather to the south of the centre, when at the depth of six feet, he came to the floor of the barrow, which was covered with ashes; and on digging still further to the south he found a fine oblong cist, about eighteen inches deep, fifteen inches wide, and two feet long, and in it a complete inter- ment of burnt bones, and with them six beads apparently of horn, four of which were perforated; the other two were circular, and rather flat, but all appeared as thought they had been burned. Dr. Stukeley made the same observation respecting the articles found in the other barrow; but he must have been mistaken as to the amber, By William Long, Esq. 147 for we know that fire would entirely consume it. Stukeley also opened what he calls a Druid barrow (? No. 169), “next to bush barrow, westward of it.” He found “a squarish hole three- and-a-half feet long, and nearly two broad in the centre of the tumulus. In it were burnt bones.” Te opened besides “ another of these of like dimensions, next to that Lord Pembroke opened, south of Stonehenge. He found a burnt body in a hole in the chalk as before.” He finishes his account as follows: “In some other barrows I open’d, were found large burnt bones of horses and dogs; along with human. Also of other animals, as seem’d: of fowl, hares, boars, deer, goats, and the like. And in a great and very flat old fashion’d barrow, west from Stonehenge, among such matters, I found bits of red and blue marble, chippings of the stones of the temple, so that probably the interr’d was one of the builders. This is the sum of what is most material, that fell within my ob- servation, relating to the barrows about Stonehenge.” In Stukeley’s Common Place Book is the following: “ Forty-five barrows in sight of Stonehenge. A° 1666, one of the 7 barrows being digged up they found coals, goats’ horns and stags horns. [In margin, ‘ Remains of sacrifice at the Briton’s burial.’] Near to the penning is Normanton Ditch, here in ploughing was found A° 1635, very good pewter, sold for £5.”? (This Stukeley must have learnt from the “‘ Monumenta Britannica.’’) Nosless than 300 barrows are laid down on Sir R. C. Hoare’s map of “Stonehenge and its environs,” within an area of no more than twelve square miles. “It can scarcely be doubted that those in- terred under tumuli near this sacred place (locus consecratus) were _ the distinguished dead* brought probably from all parts of the ! Ancient Wilts, i., 162. 2 Wilts Mag., xi., 342. rs 3 The question naturally arises . ‘‘ If these grave-mounds contain the ‘ cerpora _ Clarorum virorum,’ where are the graves of the innumerable members of the 4 ‘ignobile vulgus?’”” They must have been buried where they died. If the _ bodies were burnt, the ashes un-cisted and un-urned, would soon become ming~ led with the surrounding earth; if buried entire, the bodies would be laid but _ afew inches below the surface, and the percolating rain of centuries would f generally cause the bones to crumble and decay. Some years ago the writer L2 148 — Stonehenge and its Barrows territory of the Belge for interment near the place where their great annual assemblies seem to have been held.” The barrows cannot be considered apart from the mysterious stony structure which they surround. Sir R. C. Hoare says: “I scarcely know how we can separate the wra of the one from the other,” and Dr. Thurnam, in his important work on British barrows (Archeologia, vol. xlii), from which the writer proposes to make copious ex- tracts, writes as follows: “That Stonehenge belongs to the same epoch as the barrows by which it is surrounded might be inferred from their relative situation. We might, perhaps, surmise priority in the case of two small tumuli, encroached on and inclosed by the vallum and ditch, which, at the distance of a hundred feet, form the enceinte to the stones; one of which tumuli, on being excavated was found to cover an interment of burnt bones. Two other barrows however, at no great distance, appear to have been contemporary, or at the most, of a date very slightly posterior to that of Stonehenge itself. In digging down to the base of them, chippings and frag- ments not merely of the sarsens were found, but likewise of the blue felspathic horn-stones, foreign to Wiltshire, which assist in the for- mation of this megalithic structure.” By comparison with the number of barrows on a similar area around the circles of Abury, Dr. Thurnam found that those in the latter district were only one hundred and six, little more than one third as many as in the Stonehenge district. The barrows around Stonehenge are of different ages,’ of different found a skeleton in a hut-circle on Walton Down, near Clevedon, Somerset, at a depth of from four to five feet from the surface. A short notice of this was inserted by Mr. Albert Way, in the sixteenth vol. of the Archzological Journal, p. 157. Dr. Thurnam, to whom the writer gave the skull, pronounced it to be that of a young woman. 1«¢The large map of Stonehenge and its environs has an area of about six- teen square miles, but the barrows comprised within do not extend over more than twelve... . . Inno place in the British Isles—perhaps, if we except the plains at old Upsala, not in Europe,—are the tumuli so numerous as around Stonehenge, where they form a great necropolis.” —Dr. Thurnam. 2 By ‘‘ different ages” is here meant that some appear to have been erected before the Stonehenge circles; some when they were in course of construction, and others, after their completion. In no instance, however, have Roman coins Long Barrow. Bowl-shaped Barrow. Bell-shaped Barrow. — By William Long, Esq. 149 sizes, and of different forms. It may be well, therefore, to give the result of Dr. Thurnam’s careful investigations into, and classification of, the barrows in this part of the country (Archeologia, vol. 43). “There is nothing,” he says, “ to object to in Sir R. C. Hoare’s designations of the three first of his primary forms of the long, bowl- and bell-shaped barrow. That of Druid-barrow, which he adopts from Stukeley, and by which he designates his fourth form, is, however, very objectionable; and, as involving a hypothesis without probable basis, ought to be abolished. I have for several years past designated this species of barrow by the term disc-shaped, which appears sufficiently to characterise the form, which is that of a cir- cular shallow dish inverted. Adopting these four primary forms, with their really important modifications, I propose further to classify the barrows of this part of England according to the following scheme :— CLASSIFICATION OF BaRRows. I.—Long Barrows. (Stone Period.) 1. Simple or unchambered long barrows. 2. Chambered long barrows. Il.—Round Barrows. (Bronze Period.) a. Simple bowl-barrows. 6. Trenched. c. Composite bowl or oval barrows. a. Simple bell. 2. Bell-shaped barrows. 6. Twin. ec. Triple. 1. Bowl-shaped barrows. been found in them. This appears to have been the case in a barrow at Morvah, Cornwall, in the stone cist of which, with the urn, were found coins of the Constantine period. (Nsnia Cornub., p. 251.) ‘It was no doubt ” says Dr. Thurnam, ‘in North Britain, beyond the wall, and in the wild and remote districts of Wales and Cornwall, that barrow burial prevailed furthest down into the Roman period.” ‘‘Mr. Whittaker is of opinion,” says Sir Richard Hoare, ‘‘ that the custom of burying under tumuli survived the introduction of Christianity, and continued beyond the departure of the Ronians;” but Sir R. Hoare himself, from the researches he had made, ‘‘ was induced to think that few or any interments in barrows took place after the Roman invasion.” Asa rule, Dr. Thurnam considered, that Roman coins found in tumuli might be 5 in taken to indicate the time when, or subsequent to which, some rifling of the barrow or some secondary interment has taken place. 150 Stonehenge and its Barrows. a. Simple, with flat area. 6. With one, two, or three 3. Disc-shaped barrows. small central tumuli. ec. With one low mound nearly covering the area. “ But though the outer form is important, there can be no satis- factory classification of barrows which does not likewise refer to their internal contents. . . . In none of the first class, or long barrows, whether unchambered or chambered, have objects of metal, either bronze or iron, been found ; and so far as we know, they are of the stone period. In the second class, or round barrows, not only are there objects of stone, but also, and chiefly, those of bronze, and in very rare instances of iron also. They may be regarded, therefore, as belonging to the Bronze Period, and to that of Bronze and Iron transition.” Accepting this classification, let us first see about the long barrows of Wiltshire generally, and of this district in particular. Dr. Thurnam counts as many as sixty of these large grave mounds in Wiltshire, of which eleven in the north of the county are cham- bered.t. “If,” he says, “we estimate the barrows of all sorts in the county at 2000 in number, this will give a proportion of one leng barrow to about thirty-five round barrows. . . . Of the whole number, as many as twenty-four are on that part of Salisbury Plain which lies between the valley of the Salisbury Avon on the east and Warminster on the west, and between the Vale of Pewsey on the north and that of Wily on the south. In no other part of England are long barrows so numerous as on this part of Salisbury Plain, where, in an area of 156 square miles or thereabouts, we have on an average one in every six square miles. . . . It is a very rare circumstance to find two (long barrows) within sight or even within a mile’s distance of each other; and generally they are two or three miles apart. In Wiltshire I know of only one decided exception to this rule, being that in the parish of Milston, on the very confines of Hampshire, where a small but true long barrow is seen to lie 1“ Jn this rough estimate I include the barrows levelled since the explora- tlons of which there is record in ‘ Ancient Wilts.’ ” Be 7 il By William Long, Esq. 151 parallel with another of average proportions, and is only separated from it by an interval of about 100 yards. At Knowl Hill, on the southern border of the county, near Fordingbridge, are two long’ barrows of large size, which I have not myself seen, but which are laid down on the maps much nearer to each other than is at all common. As a rule long barrows occupy the highest points on the downs, in situations commanding extensive views over the adjoining valleys, and so as to be visible at a great distance. Salisbury Plain may be said to be guarded as it were by a series of such long barrows, which look down upon its escarpments like so many watch-towers. Others occupy elevated central spots on the interior of the plain ; and some of these—as Ell-barrow and Knighton-barrow—are well- known landmarks to the hunter and wayfarer over these extensive and (in winter) dreary downs. Several of the clusters of round barrows near Stonehenge are grouped around, or in close proximity to, a single long barrow. On inspecting such a group as that on Winterbourne Stoke Down, where out of twenty-seven tumuli we find a single long barrow, or as that on Lake Down, where to twenty-three circular barrows of various forms we also have one long barrow, it might at first be thought that the long and circular barrows were of the same date, and that the elongated tumulus, as well as the variations in the forms of the round barrows, had its origin merely in the taste or caprice of those by whom it was erected. Knowing, however, as we do, that the examination of the long barrow discloses an entirely different method of sepulture, and indicates a much earlier epoch than does that of the round bar- tows, we come rather to regard them as the burial places of an earlier race, probably the original possessors of the soil, around which the tombs of a later and more cultivated people were afterwards erected. As a rule, these tumuli stand apart from those of circular form. - + In by far the greater proportion of long barrows, the mound is placed east and west, or nearly so, with the east end somewhat higher and broader that the other. Under this more prominent and elevated extremity the sepulchral deposit is usually found at or near the natural level of the ground; but although this is the general rule, a certain proportion depart decidedly from such a system of i 152 Stonehenge and its Barrows. orientation, being placed pretty nearly north and south, and this is an arrangement which I find obtains in about one out of six of our Wiltshire long barrows. In this case, as I have found by excavations, sometimes the south and sometimes the north end is the higher and broader of the two, and covers the sepulchral deposit. They vary in size from one or two hundred to three and even nearly four hundred feet in length, from thirty to fifty feet in breadth or upwards, and from three to ten or even twelve feet in elevation. Along each side of the whole length of the tumulus is a somewhat deep and wide trench or ditch, from which trenches no doubt a great part, or some- times even the whole, of the material of the mound was dug, but which it is very remarkable are not continued round the ends of the barrow. “The absence of chambered long barrows inSouth Wiltshire appears to be due to the fact that in those chalk regions there is an absence of stone suitable for the construction of chambers. In North Wilts the case is different; and sarsen stones of large dimensions and in great numbers are found in the hollows of the higher chalk downs. Of the chambered barrows of Wiltshire, which inclusive of Way- land’s Smithy, just over the border are twelve in number, nine, all in the chalk district, have, the chambers formed of the hard silicious or sarsen stones.” Usually the human remains in the long barrows comprise numerous skeletons, which are described by Sir R. C. Hoare as “strangely huddled ” or “ thrown promiscuously together,” or “as lying in a con- fused and irregular manner.” In a large proportion of the long barrows opened by Dr. Thurnam, many of the skulls exhumed have been found to be cleft, apparently by a blunt weapon, such as a club or stone axe. From a minute examination of the fractures he thinks it evident that the violence was inflicted prior to burial, and in all probability during life. He hence concludes that the skeletons with cleft skulls are those of human victims immolated on the burial of a chief." The body of the chief would be as a rule unmutilated, whilst marks of violence might be expected to be met 1 On the ‘‘ Ossuary ” theory in opposition to the ‘*‘ Human Sacrifice theory” of Dr. Thurnam, see Professor Rolleston’s paper ‘‘ On the People of the Long Barrow Period,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Treland, vol. v., No. ii., pp. 134, 4, 6. —E———————— LC By William Long, Esq. 153 with in the remains of the slaves and retainers slaughtered in his honour. And in accordance with this conclusion it is not unusual, as already stated, to find one of the central skeletons with the skull entire, whilst in all the others it is more or less extensively cleft. The solitary skeleton which formed the primary interment in the Winterbourne Stoke long barrow was entire and unmutilated, and the absence of associated skulls with cleft skulls rendered it probable that the usual funeral rites were in this instance never completed. In the Tilshead Lodge long barrow, in which were two skeletons, the skull of one was cleft, while that of the other was intact. Dr. Thurnam, moreover, considers it very probable that at this period anthropophagism prevailed, and sees “no difficulty in acceding to the conclusion of Mr. Greenwell, that in the disjointed, cleft, and broken condition of the human bones in many of the long barrows, and especially in those examined by him at Scamridge, near Ebberston, and near Rudston, Yorkshire, we have indications of funeral ‘ feasts, where slaves, captives, and others were slain and eaten.’” 1 Dr. Thurnam often found not far from the human remains, though at a somewhat higher level, the bones of oxen, those of the skull and feet being the portions of the skeletons most generally met with. These he found to be of the small short-horned species, the bos longifrons or bos brachyceros. He concludes that oxen were _ slaughtered at the time of the obsequies for the supply of the funeral feast, and that the heads and feet, not being used for food, were thrown on the yet incomplete barrow, as offerings, perhaps, to the manes or other deities. Out of thirty-one long barrows there are three cases in which the burial was attended by the burning of the dead. “The cremation how- ever seems to have been of animperfect and defectivesort,quite different from that of the round barrow period; when, moreover, instead of the burning having been practised at the most in a tithe of the in- stances (in Wilts and the south-west of England), it was decidedly the more usual mode.” According to Dr. Thurnam’s enumeration 1 Archeological Journal, 1865, xxii., 107. 154 Stonehenge and its Barrows. of the circular barrows of Wiltshire, the exploration of which is recorded in the “ Ancient Wiltshire,” of Sir R. C. Hoare, and which he reckoned as three hundred and fifty-four in number, cremation had been practised in not fewer than two hundred and seventy-two instances, or in the proportion of rather more than three to one. In no case whatever has any object of metal been found in the simple long barrows with the primary interment. The rarity of objects of flint and other stone, and those of bone, as well as pottery, is also very remarkable; and leads to the inference that those which have been met with have seldom been deposited intentionally, or as a necessary part of the funeral rites. Mr. Cunnington makes no mention of having found any flint implements or weapons in the long barrows opened by him and Sir R. C. Hoare, but Dr. Thurnam found in the Winterbourne long barrow, close to the right arm of the single skeleton which formed the primary interment a naturally *‘bludgeon-shaped flint about eight inches long, and well adapted for being grasped in the hand. From one end numerous flakes had been knocked off, and it had evidently constituted an object of considerable importance to its owner.” In the Norton Bavant long barrow in which he found the remains of eighteen skeletons, there was a globular ball or nodule of flint, much battered, and weighing three pounds and three-quarters. ‘It lay close to one of the skulls, and had obviously been appropriated to some special purpose. It was possibly the instrument by which so many of the skulls had been fractured.” From Fyfield, Walker’s Hill, and Rodmarton long barrows, Dr. Thurnam and Mr. Lysons procured some very delicate and beautifully-chipped leaf-shaped arrow-heads, of which there are notices in “‘ Proceedings of Society of Antiquaries second series,” ii., 168. Similar leaf-shaped arrow-heads of flint were found by Mr. Bateman in the long barrows of Derbyshire. Neither Sir R. C. Hoare nor Mr. Cunnington appear in any instance to have found earthen vases of any sort, or even fragments of such, with the primary interments. Dr. Thurnam found in the long barrow at Tinhead a fragment or two of rude black pottery of a peculiar character, thin, smooth on the outside, and having the clay of which it is formed mixed with pounded shells, apparently fossil ee RN ee oe a Se By William Long, Esq. 155 shells of the district. At Norton Bavant, imbedded among the human skeletons, he discovered the greater part of a thin curious vase of a wide-mouthed semi-globular form, and which was capable of being partially restored. In both instances there is not the slightest trace of ornamentation, either by the pressure of cords or or thongs or by any other process; in this respect the contrast being great with most of the pottery from the round barrows. It was fortunate that the opening and re-opening of these long barrows was carried out by one who was thoroughly conversant with eraniology, and who was able to turn his scientific examinations to ethnological account. Sir R. C. Hoare and Mr. Cunnington took no note of the character of the skulls they discovered, nor did they preserve them.’ The first skull obtained by Dr. Thurnam from an 1«« The priority of the dolichocephalic skulls from the chambered and other long-barrows of Britain, was maintained by the late Mr. Bateman, who made so large a collection of the most ancient crania, associated implements and other remains, from the barrows excavated by himself and friends, in Derby- shire, Staffordshire, and Yorkshire. Mr. Bateman assigned the chambered barrows to ‘ the most remote antiquity, when the sole material for the spear and arrow was flint.’ After exploring several such mounds (much less remarkable, however, in the size of their chambers than those of the Dobunian district), he says, ‘the interments within the chambers have been many, and apparently continued over some length of time. They are marked by a strongly-defined type of skull, the more obvious feature being excessive elongation, and a laterally compressed appearance, enhanced sometimes by the sagittal suture being elevated into aridge.’ To a later period, he assigned the smaller barrows covering one or two skeletons, accompanied sometimes by objects of bronze in addition to those of flint, the crania from which, he says, are of a short round form.” (Ten Years’ Diggings, 1861, p. 146; Journal Brit. Arch. Assoc., 1862, vol. vii., p. 210.) In the latter paper, Mr. Bateman says, p. 211: ‘* While allowing the hazard of any attempt to generalize from data which are somewhat limited and imperfect, I am still induced to claim some degree of consideration for these observations which are of a classifying tendency, from their being the fruit of nine years’ close examination of tumuli of many kinds, and a careful comparison of between one and two hundred crania derived trom them.” Dr. Wilson, the author of ‘‘ Pre-historic Annals of Scotland,” 1861, appears to have been fully alive to the great difference between these two classes of skulls. According to Dr. J. B. Davis, the coadjutor of Dr. Thurnam, in the ‘‘ Crania_ Britannica,” the first publication which called attention to the long and short skulls derived from ancient barrows, attributing them to different races, was, ‘Om Hovedskallerne og Beenradene i yore gamle Gravhéle, by Professor Esch- richt, Dansk Fokeblad, 1837, p. 109.—‘‘ Cr, Brit.” on Skull from Long Lowe Barrow, Staffordshire. 156 Stonehenge and its Barrows. unchambered long barrow, and which was also the first to be des- cribed, was from that at Winterbourne Stoke, in 1863. (Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London, 1864, i., 144, pl. L.) Since then he had accumulated twenty-seven skulls from the un- chambered long barrows in South Wilts, which are all remarkably long and narrow, and designated dolichocephalic, stenocephalic, and kumbecephalic,’ by modern craniologists. ‘ In Europe, at the present day, there is no people with skulls so long and so narrow; and we have to search for cranial proportions similar to those of the old long barrow folk far away in Africa, India, Australia, or the Me- lanesian Islands. The contrast in form between the long skulls from the long barrows and the short or round skulls, which to say the least, prevail in our Wiltshire circular barrows, is most interesting and remarkable, and suggests an essential distinction of race in the peoples by whom the two forms of tumuli were respectively con- structed.” ’ 1 «Tong-headed,” ‘‘ narrow-headed,” ‘‘ boat-shaped.” 2 The mean stature, derived from 52 measurements was 5 feet 6 inches for the men of the Long Barrows, and 5 feet 9 inches, for those of the Round Barrows.”—Thurnam Mem, Anthrop. Soc., iii, 71. Very different was the stature of some skeletons found at Lundy Island, in the Bristol Channel, a few years ago, of which the writer procured the following account for Dr. Thurnam from the son of Mr. Heaven, the chief resident on the island: ‘‘ The skeletons were found on the top of the island, about 2 feet under ground, in digging foundations for a wall for farm buildings; the ground was slightly mounded ; if artificial, it must have been some time ago, as it was always taken for a natural rise in the land. The number of the more perfect skeletons was seven, lying inarow with the heads to the West. The first in the row, a male, measured 8 feet 5 inches; by the head were placed two upright stones with the head lying in a little hollow, and protected by a third stone. None of the others had any appearance of coffins by them but great numbers of limpet shells. The one measured was measured by my father, by whose orders the remains were buried again, but I am afraid much injured by the workmen in doing so. Some pottery and some beads were found with them. A bout thirty yards from one male skeleton were those of a woman and child. Mr. Etheridge, then curator of the British Institution, showed some of the pottery to a friend of his, an antiquary, I believe, who said it was undoubtedly Ancient British. I believe a slight notice of the discovery appeared in a Bristol paper. The ground was not fully explored.” The writer would have been glad, if he could have met with this newspaper notice. He was informed of the discovery by the late Commander R. W. Hardy, R.N., who was acquainted with Mr. Heaven, and wrote to him for the above information. By William Long, Esq. 157 To make shorter work of this most interesting subject, which ought to be carefully studied in the two papers entitled “ Principal Forms of Ancient British and Gaulish Skulls,” and “ On the Two Forms of Ancient British Skulls,” both contributed by Dr. Thurnam to the Memoirs of the Anthropological Society, the writer will print two extracts from the former paper, which will give a general sketch of Dr. Thurnam’s views respecting the respective occupants of the long and short barrows :— . “The evidence before us appears to favour the conclusion, that whilst in Britain the chambered long barrows were erected by a dolichocephalous race, in Gaul such tombs were raised by a brachy- cephalous as well as by a dolichocephalous one, though especially by the former. Hence the inference, that the two races came into con- tact in Gaul at an earlier period than in Britain. In this country, it has been shown that the evidence is in favour of the dolichocepha- lous race having preceded the brachycephalous; by whom it seems to have been absorbed, or, as is less likely, extirpated. In Britain, the remains of the brachycephalous Celtic race do not distinctly ap- pear except in the circular tumuli, which are generally to be referred to the ago of bronze; whilst the chambered and other long barrows of the stone age, so far as yet examined, always contain skeletons with crania of a dolichocephalic type. . . . . In order to connect the dolichocephalic crania from the megalithic tombs of the stone period in Britain, with those ot the Basques, and, through them, with the ancient Iberians, we require to know the form of the ancient Iberians’ skull, as revealed to us by re- searches in the most ancient tombs of Aquitania and Spain, and es- pecially in the south of the Peninsula. . . . So faras I have been able to ascertain, the form of skull which prevails in the Pen- insula, at the present day, is preponderatingly dolichocephalous, and is thus strongly contrasted with the more cranial form of modern France. . . . That the Iberian’ race extended itself into Gaul, 1Mr. Henry Lawes long, in his work on the ‘‘Early Geography of Western Europe,” (1859, Reeve,) considers from the application of the linguistic test, that no tribe of Iberic origin ever made a settlement in Britain. From the central or Celtic division of Gaul, he thought that we might 158 Stonehenge and its Barrows. at least as far as the Garonne, is on all hands admitted. The limits of its original distribution in that country form a legitimate subject for enquiry. In Britain, many circumstances point to an Iberian source for at least part of the earliest population, especially in the south-west of the island. Tacitus remarks the dark complexion and curly hair, which, in his day, were believed to indicate the Iberian origin of the Silures,’ especially named, perhaps, as representative of the south-western tribes. The description of the Cassiterides preserved in Strabo, is, no doubt, likewise applicable to the Damnon- ian peninsula, also the place of resort of the Phcenicians of Gades. This evidently very ancient notice represents the inhabitants as no- madic and pastoral, and as habited in long tunics covered by black mantles—a garb apparently identical with that of the Iberians, who are likewise described as melanchleni, or dark robed,? and which is in striking contrast with the bright party-coloured dress of the Gauls. Altogether, the doctrine of an Iberian, or Ibero-Pheenician origin of a very early, perhaps the earliest, population of at least part of Britain, though not as yet proved, derives much additional weight from the comparison here instituted of the skulls of the British dolichocephali of the stone period with those of the Basques.” safely infer that some colonies issued and established themselves to a consider- extent in our island, although the fact of their advent has not been so much noticed in history as that of the emigrants from the Belgic states; this he would explain by the circumstance of their arrival having occurred at a much earlier period in history, of their being more barbarous than the Belgie settlers, who by a later immigration probably introduced the improved civilisation of the continent, with which from their maritime situation, they continued to preserve a closer intimacy ; nevertheless, the immigrants from Celtic Gaul, occupying the central parts of Britain, formed a people of great bravery and power, and seem to have attained asupremacy over the other inhabitants, and to have been the foremost in all the opposition which withstood so vigorously the arms of the Romans. 1 Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania, Iberos veteres trajecisse easque sedes occupasse, fidem faciunt.” (Vit. Agric, ¢.xi.) Dionysius, and his paraphraser Priscian, say expressly that the Cassiteri- des were peopled by the Iberians: ‘‘ populus tenuit quas fortis Iberi.” (Dion. Perie, v. 563. Priscan, Perieg, v., 578.) The question of an Iberian origin for an intrusive or pre-Celtic population in Britain is discussed in its historical bearings, in Cran. Brit., chap. v. § 2, pp. 52—58. . 2 Strabo lib. iii., c, 5, § 11: comp. lib. iii., c. 3, § 7: Diod. Sicul. lib, v., ¢. 33, By William Long, Esq. 159 The long barrow at Winterbourne Stoke has led us into a lengthy (but it is hoped, not an uninteresting,) notice of the characteristics of barrows of this description, and of the ethnological theories respecting those interred in them, which have been formed by some of the most careful and scientific of the antiquarians of our age. The account given by Dr. Thurnam of the opening of this barrow (at which the writer was present,) shall be given in a note;’ and 1 About a mile-and-a-half to the west of Stonehenge, on the boundary of the parishes of Winterbourne Stoke and Wilsford, is a cluster of circular barrows, which, as in many other instances, are grouped around an immensely long tumulus. The twenty-six tumuli, which, in addition to the long barrow, form this group, are mostly of the more elegant, and probably less aneient, forms. In five, the interment has not been found; two, however, are those absurdly called ‘ pond barrows,’ and probably not sepulchral. Of the twenty- one, seven have been raised over the entire body, and fourteen over the burnt remains, All are probably of the ‘ bronze period;’ and in three, containing skeletons, and one, burnt bones, there were fine blades or pins of that-metal, one of the last with an ivory handle. Drinking cups, or other earthen vases, were obtained from four of the barrows; and there was a bone pin with another of the deposits after cremation. The tumulus is about 240 feet in length, and nine in height at the north east end, where it has a breadth of about 65 feet; at the other extrewity it is not quite so high or broad. The summit is thrown up almost to an acute ridge, but at the two ends the surface is more rounded. On each side is a trench stretching the whole length of the barrow, but, as usual, not continued round either end. A large excavation at the south- west extremity, disclosed no sepulchral traces; and this immense mound, ~ with an interment only at one end, was no doubt intended as much for a monu- - ment asatomb. At the north-eastern end,, about two feet below the highest _ part of the tumulus were six skeletons, viz; one of a man of about sixty years, one of a young woman under twenty, one of a child about seven, and three of infants of less than two years, the youngest, perhaps, fetal. The skull of the man lay to the north-east, that of the woman to the south-west. Secondary interments of the Anglo-Saxon period have been found near the summit of long _ barrows; but these were obviously British, as shown by the flexed position of the skeletons, by an empty vase of very coarse British pottery, and an oval ftint knife. The male skull is well preserved, and of extremely brachycephalic _ type; the skulls of the woman and children were obtained in a fragmentary condition, but the latter present the same well-marked type, with the oceiput flattened. These interments can hardly have been other than secondary, and of a later date than that for which the tumulus was erected; and it became a question whether, on the primary interments being reached, the skull would prove of the same, or of dolichocephalic type. Continuing the excavation, the ehalk rubble was dug through, to a depth of six feet, into a stratum of black ‘unctuous earth, of which the lower third of the barrow through its entire length ‘seems to have been formed, At a further depth of three feet, the chalk rock 160 Stonehenge and its Barrows. leaving his description of the chambered long barrows of North Wilts and Gloucestershire, the writer will as briefly as possible, give a resumé of the Doctor’s account of the other barrows which encircle Stonehenge. He classifies them as to external form as follows:— 1. Bowl-shaped 278 2. Bell-shaped 40 3. Disc-shaped 36 Total 354 I. The bowl-shaped barrow is the simplest form of tumulus met with throughout the whole of the British Isles. The variety in the shape and size of the bowl-barrow is considerable. The form of the majority may be compared to that of the third of an orange cut horizontally. The prevailing height is from three to five feet. In diameter the usual limits are between twenty and sixty feet, though in rare instances one hundred feet is reached and even exceeded. Dr. Thurnam believes it must be allowed that the bowl-shaped is the primitive form of the circular barrow. Occasionally it is surrounded by a slight ditch. was reached, where were the remains of the original interment ; viz., the skele- ton of a man laid on the right side, with the knees drawn up in a closely-con~ tracted posture, and the head to the south-west. Close to the right arm, lay a natural bludgeon-shaped flint, about 8 inches long, well adapted for being grasped in the hand; from one end of which numerous flakes had been knocked off. The skull was dolichocephalic ; though less decidedly so than many ef the crania from the chambered barrows. Near the back of the head was a round ‘cist’ or hole, scooped out of the chalk rock, about 18 inches wide and the same in depth. Two feet further to the north, were two similar cists of oval form, but somewhat larger, and scarcely so deep. These holes, like others beneath the long barrows of South Wilts, had perhaps been used for deposits of meat and drink, as a viaticum for the dead; or possibly for the blood of human victims, whose mangled remains appear often to have been buried with the body of their chief in this class of tumuli. A few scattered bones of sheep and other animals were found near the summit, and about a yard from the feet of the primary interment, was the symphysis of the ischium of an old horse. The skeleton was that of man of less than middle stature; viz., about 5 feet 6 inches.” (Dr. Thurnam’s paper on “ Principal Forms of Ancient British and Gaulish Skulls,” printed in vol. i. of Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London, 1865.) By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 161 Of the two hundred and seventy-eight bowl-shaped barrows, seventy-one appear to have contained skeletons, and the remainder (two hundred and seven) burnt bones. The “oval” form of the bowl barrow is a diminutive kind of long barrow, and differs from it in having a ditch all round it. An example of this kind of barrow is No. 49. These barrows belong to the same people and epoch as the round barrows, and especially those of the bowl form. 2. The bell-shaped barrow,! an elegant form of tumulus, moulded with much accuracy and symmetry, in a sort of bell-shape. “It is surrounded by a circular ditch, from which part of the material of the mound has been dug, and within this there is a flat circular area on the same level as the surrounding turf. In the centre of this 1In Derbyshire, according to Mr. Bateman, almost all the tumuli are bowl- shaped. In the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire, the barrows, which are numerous, are, with scarcely an exception, of the bowl-shape. In Scotland there are no disc-shaped or bell-shaped barrows. The barrows in the Orkneys are bowl-shaped and conoid. The conoid, few in number, are remarkable from their size and great height in proportion to their base. The barrows near Bircham, in Norfolk, are of the bell-shaped form. In Sussex, near Chichester, are campaniform barrows, and on the Sussex down are disc-shaped barrows. On the Mendip Hills the barrows are bowl-shaped, and on the noble ridge-way between Dorchester and Weymouth hardly any other than bowl-shaped are to be distinguished. Mr. Charles Warne says of the Dorset tumuli thatthe pre- vailing form is bowl-shaped, frequently surrounded by a shallow fosse. Mr, Sydenham observes that ‘‘as the explorer advances in a north-eastern direction towards the adjoining county of Wilts, the barrows present increasing evidence of greater refinement and of a further advance in art.” Dr. Thurnam thinks that he alludes chiefly to the richer character of theobjects found in the barrows of Wiltshire, but may likewise refer to their frequently more elaborate external form. In that very north-eastern corner of Dorsetshire to which Mr. Sydenham refers, is the well-known group of tumuli, at Woodyates, many of bell and disc-shape, which may compete for beauty with those in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge itself. The evidence afforded by the distribution of the different forms of barrows, goes far to prove that the Durotriges were an aboriginal or primeval tribe, whose territory may have been encroached on, but was never - entirely over-run or subjugated by the immigrant Belgs. [According to Dr. Guest, the whole north-eastern angle of Dorsetshire, embracing the district of Woodyates, two miles from the present boundary of Wiltshire, belonged, not to the Durotriges, but to the Belge.] From Mr. J. T. Blight we learn that bell- shaped barrows are rare in Cornwall. (Condensed from Dr. Thurnam’s paper, in the Archeologia, vol. 43.) VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. M 162 Stonehenge and its Barrows. platform stands the tumulus, which is usually of greater size than the bowl-shaped barrow, and varies from about five to fifteen feet in elevation. It is likewise steeper in proportion to its size, and is consequently more conical in outline. Many of the bell-shaped barrows have a diameter approaching one hundred feet, but not a few very considerably exceed this dimension. The two largest and most beautiful bell-barrows ! I am acquainted with are each within half-a- mile of Stonehenge. They respectively measure fifteen and fourteen and a half feet in height and one hundred and thirty one and one hundred and forty five feet in diameter. Aubrey seems to have been the first to recognize this as a peculiar form of tumulus, whilst Stukeley distinguished it by the name which it still bears, and re- garded it as ‘of the newest fashion among the old Britons.’?? The bell-shaped barrow is by far more numerous and of more beautiful form in Wiltshire, and especially on the plain around Stonehenge, than in any other part of England; it is indeed probable that it was first constructed in this part of the island, and that it was thence diffused slowly and partially over_other districts. Out of the forty bell-shaped barrows, the contents of which are described by Sir R. Hoare, thirty yielded deposits of burnt bones, and ten entire skele- tons in the place of the primary interment. Of the thirty with interments after cremation, no fewer than twelve were without ornaments or implements of any description. At first sight it might be thought that the practice of burying such objects with the dead, ‘omnia qua vivis cordi fuisse arbitrantur,; (Cesar, B. G., vi., 19,) declined as the Britons advanced in civilization ; and that, in place thereof, they bestowed more pains on the form of the monumental tumulus.” A good example of the twin bell-barrow is No. 29. It consists of two bell-shaped barrows placed side by side on the same platform, and surrounded by a common ditch, which thus becomes oval in form. See Stukeley’s Stonehenge, xxxv., Ancient Wilts, i., 161. 1Nos. 30 and 164, ‘The two largest barrows” in Wiltshire appears to be those near Winterslow Hut; one called ‘‘ colossal” by Mr. Hutchins: Hoare, — Ancient Wilts, i., 217. 2 Abury, p. 41. a Sa ? 2 Sep era oe By William Long, Esq. 163 8. The disc-shaped barrow. ‘The disc-shaped barrow consists of acircular area, on the same level as the surrounding turf, gen- erally about a hundred feet in diameter, though sometimes much less, and sometimes nearly double this size. The inclosed area is surrounded by a ditch with a bank on the outside, both very regularly formed. In the centre there is usually a small mound of very slight elevation, not more than one foot in height; sometimes there are two, or even three, such mounds, corresponding to so many sepul- chral deposits. So insignificant are these central mounds that they are scarcely recognized as tumuli by the casual observer. These barrows are more common around Stonehenge than in any other part of Wiltshire; and in other parts of England are of very in- frequent occurrence. As compared with the bell-shaped they are probably of more recent invention, being more uniformly connected with the rite of cremation. The interments, with scarcely an ex- ception, consist of the burnt remains, deposited in small dished graves scooped out in the chalk rock, and hardly ever inclosed in urns. Of the thirty-six disc-shaped barrows, of the exploration of which there are details, thirty-five contained interments after cre- mation.? In thirteen of this number there were beads and other ornaments of amber, glass, and jet, often in such profusion as to justify the conclusion of Sir Richard Hoare that they are the burial- places of women ; especially as such objects are rare in the bowl- shaped barrows, and still more so in those of bell-shape. This attribution is confirmed by the uniformly small size of the bronze blades, probably those of two-edged knives, found in at least four of these barrows.” 1One at Woodyates has a diameter of more than 190 feet; and another, at Idmiston, reaches 194 feet. See Ancient Wilts, i., 217, 238. _ In four instances only, out of thirty-six, were there unequivocal signs of urn-burial in the place of primary interment. Whether with or without a cen- tral mound, this form of barrow has often proved unproductive to the exca- vator. _ In No. 33, however, which had no elevation in the centre, Sir R. Hoare’s workmen hit upon the place of interment, and at the depth of two feet found a circular cist, containing a deposit of burnt bones, tegether with beads of glass, stone, and amber. M 2 164 Stonehenge and its Barrows. The following is Dr. Thurnam’s classification of circular barrows in equal areas around Abury and Stonehenge :— Avebury. Stonehenge. ay a No. Per 70° Bowl-shaped 84 191 Bell-shaped a 2 5 a 16 Disc-shaped je os We = Total "106 “100 275 "100 “Tf we look at the relative proportions, it will be seen that in the Stonehenge district half as many more are of the more elaborate forms as in that of Avebury. The invention or introduction of bell- shaped and disc-shaped tumuli must be regarded as a more recent event in the Avebury district than in that of Stonehenge. It is certain also that these types of barrow are of decidedly more elegant form in the last-named district. The bell-shaped barrows, in par- ticular, are higher and more conical, and as a rule, stand on platforms of larger extent. Many of the bowl-shaped barrows near Avebury, as in North Wilts in general, are trenched close to the base, and in this respect show an approximation to the bell-shaped barrow, which to some degree they represent in this district. Altogether, it is probable that the elaborate bell-shaped and disc-shaped grave-mounds were invented by the people who built Stonehenge, and who, in its construction, manifested a great advance in the arts over those aboriginal tribes by whom rude, though gigantic, megalithic circles, like those of Avebury and Arbor Lowe, were most likely erected.” CuHaARacTER OF InTERMENTS IN Rounp Barrows. “Out of the 354 circular barrows, of the more or less successful opening of which there is a record in Sir R. C. Hoare’s volumes, the primary interment in 272 appears to have consisted of burnt, and in 82 of unburnt, bodies. Many observations show that the two prac- tices must often have been strictly contemporary. On the plain, within a mile-and-a-half of Stonehenge, are two fine bell-shaped tumuli of very similar size and proportions, in such close proximity that their surrounding trenches reciprocally intersect, so as to con- stitute them a kind of twin barrow, leaving little doubt of their en By William Tong, Esq. 165 having been erected at the same period.! In both, the primary in- terment was found at the base of the barrow, not less that fourteen feetdeep. In the first, the deposit consisted of burnt bones, inclosed in a coffer of elm wood. In the second, the primary interment was represented by an entire skeleton, lying in a rude coffin, likewise, as believed, formed of the trunk of an elm. The contemporary char- acter of the two tumuli was shown, not merely by their proximity and external form, and the mode of burial in wooden coffers, but also by the almost identical character of the accompanying relics, which comprised unusually fine objects of bronze, the more remark- able being blades of daggers, and perhaps spears.” ”’ Posture oF SKELETONS. “The posture of the skeletons, the remains of primary interments in circular barrows of the ancient British period, is very remarkable. As regards Wiltshire, it may be stated that, without recorded ex- ception, the skeleton has been found in a contracted posture, with the knees drawn up towards the trunk, the legs bent on the thighs, and the arms more or less drawn up towards the chest and face.” In thirty-five out of fifty-five cases in which the position of the skeleton is recorded, the head was directed to the north, six to the north-east, two to the north-west, five to the east, three to the west, three to the south-east, and one to the south-west. Cinzrary Urns. Dr. Thurnam, when analysing the results of Mr. Cunnington’s and Sir R. C. Hoare’s excavations, recorded in “ Ancient Wiltshire,” found that in sixty-eight out of two hundred and seventy-two cases in which the primary interment had been preceded by cremation, the burnt bones were collected into cinerary urns. The urns were sometimes placed upright, at others in an inverted position. Sir R. 1Nos. 15 and 16 in the Winterbourn Stoke group. 2 Ancient Wilts, i., 121, 2, 3, and plate xv. 5*¢ That the contracted posture of the skeleton is universal, or all but universal in ancient British barrows, would likewise appear from the researches of the Rey. W. Greenwell, whose table of fifty-eight unburnt interments in Yorkshire and other northern counties shows no exception.” Archwologia, xliii., 318, and Lubbock, Preh. Times, 2nd edition, p. 138. 166 Stonehenge and its Barrows. C. Hoare is no doubt correct in saying they are much more frequently found inverted. The urns of larger size are indeed almost always in this position. Sometimes the urn had been lined with leaves of fern or bracken (Pleris aquilina) before the burnt bones were placed in it. More often apparently, at least in Wiltshire, they were inclosed in linen cloth, of which fabric Sir R. C. Hoare found traces in at least six instances. Sometimes the mouth of the urn was covered by a large flat stone, as in the barrow on Tan Hill, opened in 1855 ; at other times with flints as in two barrows near Little Durnford ; and with unburnt clay, firmly rammed in!! Very commonly the urn when deposited was protected by being inclosed in a heaped-up pile of flints. In six of the barrows the burnt bones were not inclosed in fictile urns, nor merely in a simple cist or grave, but in a coffer or shell rudely formed out of the unbarked trunk of a tree. In one case a more carefully-made chest of elm wood seems to have been fastened together with rivets and strips of bronze. Oxssects DerposITtED WITH THE DraD. “In the following table the barrows in ‘ Ancient Wiltshire’ are classed according as the interments were accompanied by objects of one sort or other, disregarding occasional and less significant com- binations :— RovunD Barrows. Unburnt Bodies. Burnt Bodies, Total. With urns or other fictile vessels only 17 », implements of bone 2 14 16 bs 5 of stone 7 5 12 Pe = of stone and bronze 4 1 5 5 = of bronze? 14 58 72 » ornaments only Tee) 20 29 With objects 53 165°" "OES Without objects 29 107 136 Total 82 272 354 1 Wilts Arch. Mag., vi., 326; Ancient Wilts, i., 221; Archzologia, xxx., 60. 2The bronze implements comprised twenty-two awls (without other imple- ments), four celts, and about fifty blades of knives or daggers, sometimes two, in one case three, with the same interment. By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 167 The writer has drawn largely upon Dr. Thurnam’s work (which must always be the standard book on Wiltshire barrows) because it seemed of importance to set before those who are interested in Stonehenge the characteristics of those traces which these grave- mounds afford us of the civilization and customs of the builders and frequenters of this sacred place. But it is impossible to follow him far into all the details relating to the pottery, and stone, bone, and bronze implements, discovered in the South Wilts barrows. They can only be touched upon here very cursorily. Porrery. The pottery is all more.or less rude, formed of clay, mixed with minute pebbles, or fragments of broken flint or quartz, or sometimes with pounded chalk or shells, recent or fossil. For the finer vessels the clay has been tempered by the admixture of some sort of grit or sharp sand. All seems to have been hand-made; to have been partly dried by exposure to the air, and then baked, rather than burnt, in the ashes of a fire lighted over and around it. The ornamentation was generally made by the finger or finger-nail, and from the size of the markings Dr. Thurnam is inclined to think that the makers of our British fictilia, like the potters of existing American and African tribes, and lately even in the Hebrides, were of the female sex. Other modes of ornamentation were by means of twisted cord, sticks serrated at the edge, and pieces of wood or bone. Dr. Thurnam arranges these fictile vessels as follows :— I. Culinary vessels. II. Sepulchral vessels. With burnt bodies. With unburnt bodies. 1. Cinerary urns. 3. Food vessels. 2. Incense cups. 4, Drinking cups. 3. Food vessels (rarely). Of the sepulchral pottery three forms were discriminated by Hoare, the cinerary urn, the drinking cup, and incense cup. To these, Mr. Bateman added the food vessel. The true cinerary urn was probably | made to contain ashes, and the incense cup may likewise have been usually designed for funereal rites. The decorated food vase and drinking cup seem, however, to have belonged to what we may term 168 Stonehenge and its Barrows. the table-ware of pre-historic Britain. Rude as many of these latter appear to us, they would be classed with the vessels for honourable use in the households of the period. Though made for the living, they were likewise habitually buried with the dead,and hence pass over into our sepulchral class. These vessels Dr. Thurnam has found in the form of bowls and jars, pans and pannikins, large pots often with perforated ears, cooking pots, pipkins, with handles, small cups, and strainers. Cinerary urns, or urns designed for the reception of burnt bones, are of every size, from the capacity of less than a pint to that of more than a bushel. Urns of nine or ten inches high are medium sized, those from one foot to fifteen inches large, and above this height exceptionally large, and very rare. The largest Dr. Thurnam knew are two feet or very little more in height, of which one from Wiltshire is in the Blackmore Museum. It was exhumed at Bishopstone ; and measures 243 inches. The Stonehenge urn, of which a wood engraving copied from that in Hoare’s “ Tumuli Wiltunenses,” is given, is 224 inches high, and 15 wide. Of the sixty-eight cases in which the burnt bones, as recorded by Hoare, have been collected into urns, there were sixteen or nearly one in four, accompanied by bronze objects ; viz., eight by the blades of knives or daggers, seven by awls, and one by both. Dr. Thurnam sub-divides cinerary urns into those . With overhanging rim: With moulded rim. With border in place of rim. . Barrel-shaped. Almost peculiar to the Cylindrical. Dorsetshire barrows. Globular. SS a VDE Hea . Flower-pot shaped. : For examples of a. see “ Ancient Wilts,” vol. i., title page, and plate viii., and No. 257 in the Stourhead collection. For example of 4. see “ Ancient Wilts,” i., pl. xii.; pl. xvi. ; pl. xxvii, fig. 1. For example of c. see “ Wilts Archeological Magazine,” vi., 73. These urns have sometimes handles. Sepulchral Urn, with overhanging rim, 16 inches in height, 11 in diameter. From group of Barrows, near Woodyates. , The Stonehenge Urn. “Nodulated,” (Thurnam) ; ‘‘a very beautiful and perfect grape Cup,” (Hoare) from Barrow No. 183. “Contracted,” (Thurnam); from Woodyates. INCENSE CUPS. SS. By William Long, Esq. 169 For example of d. see “ Ancient Wilts,” i., pl. xvi., “The Stone- henge urn,” and woodcut of it on opposite page. For an example of e. see Thurnam’s “ Ancient British Barrows,” Archeologia, xlui., plate xxx., fig. 7. For an example of “ see Thurnam’s “ British Barrows,” plate xxx., fig. 8. For an example of g. see Thurnam’s British Barrows,” plate xxx., fig. 9. Incense cups. “The small fictile vessels, first named ‘ Incense Cups,’ by Hoare—a name which, for the present at least, it is ex- pedient to retain—are a rather frequent accompaniment of interments after cremation: about one in eleven of those in the barrows of Wiltshire being so accompanied. Sir Richard registers the discovery of twenty-six, twenty-four of which are in the museum at Stourhead, and twelve figured in vol. i. of Ancient Wilts, Of the whole num- ber four were inclosed with the burnt bones in cinerary urns; the remainder with deposits of the same description in shallow graves, or on the floor of the barrows.” Dr. Thurnam distinguishes them as follows :— I. The simple cup, in which the sides deviate but slightly from the perpendicular. II. The contracted cup, in which the sides are bevelled in to- wards a narrow mouth and base. III. The expanded cup, in which the upper part spreads out into a widely-dilated mouth. The more important varieties of the incense cup are these :— a. The nodulated cup. d. The basket cup. 6. The compressed cup. e. The slashed cup. ce. The handled cup. J. The strainer cup. All these types and varieties are found in the barrows of Wiltshire, and two are almost peculiar to them. Of the nodulated cups seven are known. Three are described by Hoare (i., pl. xi., pl. xxiv.) ; two from barrows near Abury are described by Dean Merewether (Proc. Arch. Inst., Salisbury, pp. 93, 108, fig. 2, 3); and another is in the Bristol Museum, having been found in a barrow at Priddy, 170 Stonehenge and its Barrows. East Somerset. ‘ This part of Somersetshire must have been within the districts of the Belge, beyond whose limits no such cups have been found.” Of the “basket cup,” the sides of which are open and resemble basket-work, the best example was obtained by Mr. Albert Way, from a tumulus at Bulford, four miles from Stonehenge. An engraving of it is to be seen on page 366 of “ Archzologia,” vol. xlii. Of the slashed cup, the sides of which are slashed with vertical openings, distinct from those of basket-work, the best ex- ample is from a Wiltshire barrow near Stonehenge, and is figured on plate xxv. of “ Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. Of the strainer cup from Lake, within sight of Stonehenge, and which is perforated at the bottom with twenty-four holes, like a colander, and with two holes at one side, an engraving is given in plate xxx. of “ Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. A very large proportion of these little vessels are pierced on one side with two holes, from half-an-inch to two inches apart. There are exceptions with a large number of holes, but the rule is to have two holes on one side only. It would have been difficult to suspend these cups with holes so made. If they were used as lamps the side holes might be intended for fastening them by wooden pegs in some safe corner of the building. Embers may have been placed in them, and on these embers incense, as in vessels found in France, with Christian interments of the middle age ; which to complete the analozy with these cups, have holes in the side. ‘On the whole, the view expressed by the designation of incense cup, given to these vessels by Hoare, carries with it much probability ; and the name can scarcely now be changed without clear proof of some different intention.” Food vessels are rare in the barrows of Wiltshire and the south of England. They are usually from four to five inches in height, and of an urn, flowerpot, or bowl-shape, with wide mouth, narrow foot, the shoulders moulded, as also the lip without and within. They are often scarcely to be discriminated from cinerary urns of the second type, except by their size, and by being found empty, or at the most containing traces of organic matters. Dr. Thurnam found four varieties or types of them: a. undecorated urn-shaped ; 4. partially decorated urn-shaped; ¢. decorated bowl-shaped; d. decorated shallow , , . , eS es Oe ) UT) No. 93. from Barrow, king Cup, rin. D size. Half By William Long, Esq. 171 bowl-shaped. A very coarse Wiltshire example of the first variety is that from a secondary interment of the round-barrow period, found near the summit of the long-barrow at Winterbourn Stoke. It is figured on page 379 of “ Archzologia ” vol. xliti. An example of the second, also figured by Dr. Thurnam, which was found in a barrow at Collingbourn is in the museum at Devizes.! “That no food vessels of the third variety have been found in the round bar- rows of Wiltshire is the more remarkable as fragments of such were obtained from the chambered long-barrow at West Kennet, in that county.” The last variety is confined to Ireland. These vessels have probably contained offerings of food and drink such as savage and half-civilized nations still place in the tomb, and seem to have been employed for some pultaceous food or pottage which almost everywhere forms the staple diet of man before, and often for ages after, he adopts the use of bread. The most handsome of the fictile vases of ancient Britain are the drinking cups. They are usually tall vessels of seven or eight inches in height, thin and well-baked, made from clay tempered with sand or finely-pounded stone ; the colour, varying from a light brown to a somewhat bright red. The general capacity is from two to three pints. The ornamentation is profuse; the surface, covered with markings incised or punctured, symmetrically arranged in horizontal bands, which, in the more ornate, alternate with square, oblong, or chequer-shaped compartments, placed vertically or obliquely, and variously filled in. Drinking cups are the accompaniment of un- burnt bodies, and were placed in the grave near the head, or more frequently (in Wiltshire twice as often), near the feet. In two in- stances, however, out of two hundred and seventy-two burnt inter- ments in the Wiltshire barrows, this form of vessel was found, perhaps employed from caprice, or in the absence of others of more appropriate form. Dr. Thurnam distinguishes three principal types _ of drinking cups, chiefly from the character of the brim, two of _ which belong to England and one to Scotland: a. high-brimmed globose cup; 4. ovoid cup with recurved rim; ¢. low-brimmed cup. 1See Wilts Arch. Mag., x., 93. It was at the feet of the skeleton of a child, ‘in the graye near the centre of the mound, 172 Stonehenge and its Barrows. The first is the prevailing type in South Britain, to which four-fifths, probably, of the known examples belong. The body or lower part is more or less globular; the upper, separated from the lower by a constriction, frequently very defined, spreads out somewhat like the calyx of a flower, and forms a brim which almost equals the lower part in height. The sides of this brim, whether more or less erect or sloping, are straight, and not recurved at the tip. The ornamen- tation is profuse and elaborate. Of the second type seven examples have been yielded by the Wiltshire barrows. The cup from the Winterslow Hut barrow is figured by Dr. Thurnam, pl. xxxi., fig, 2. The third form prevails in Scotland. In very rare cases drinking cups have handles, but none have been found in Wiltshire. Of the implements and weapons of stone obtained in Sir R. C. Hoare’s excavations, Dr. Thurnam gives the following table :— IMPLEMENTS AND WEAPONS OF STONE. Unburnt Bodies. Burnt Bodies, Total, Celts of flint, partly polished A dh 4 Hammer-axes, polished and perforated 2 3 5 Hammers 2 2 Dagger-blades of chipped flint 2 2 Javelin-head dt aie 1 Arrow-heads, leaf-shaped, of chipped flint 2 3 5 barbed 5 5 10 Knives and scrapers 3 2 5 Whetstones, grooved 3 an 3 Polished Hone-stones, perforated 1 5 6 B es un-perforated 2 2 4 ne Stones, use doubtful 2 2 “ Wrist- guards < a ae a Gorgets, perforated 2 oe 2 Total 31 20 51 Of stone implements found in the barrows around Stonehenge, mention can only be made of the following: four stone hatchets or wedges, commonly known as czits, were discovered with unburnt bodies; three with the same interment in a barrow at Upton Lovel. All these last were of flint; two being more or less ground or oa aig By William Long, Esq. 173 polished, and at the broader end presenting a fine semi-lunar cutting edge. In the same barrow were as many as sixty rudely-made bone ‘implements, and a perforated stone hammer-axe. “This is the only interment known to me in which stone celts and perforated hammer- axes have been found together. It must belong to the time when the former were in process of being superseded by the latter, or were about to be so superseded. But even this interment, the richest of any in objects of stone and bone, though regarded by both Cunnington and Hoare as of the Stone age, cannot be accepted as strictly of that period. This is proved by the insignificant bronze pin or awl found with the interment, which is figured in ‘ Archeologia’ (xv., 125, pl. iv., fig. 5), though not in ‘ Ancient Wilts.’” One of the most beautiful and elaborately-polished stone celts known to Dr. Thurnam was said to have been derived from a barrow near Stonehenge. It was formerly in the Leverian Museum, and is now in the possession of the Rev. H. H. Winwood, of Bath. It is a dark stone, with delicate golden veins, polished all over, of a regular almond form, sharply pointed at one end, and measures 7 by 3 inches, and not more than 1 inch thick. It is of the rare type described by Mr. John Evans, F.R.S., “ Ancient Stone Implements,” p. 96—98, fig. 52. A stone hammer, found in a barrow (? 18) of the Wilsford group, is engraved at page 411 of the “ Archzologia,” vol. 43. Two perforated axes, the one 83, the other 7 inches long, both stated to be from barrows near Stonehenge, are to be seen, one in the British Museum, the other in the Christy collection. Both are of exceptional size, much larger than any in the Stourhead Museum. The latter is of beautiful greenstone, and finished with a groove at the edges. Dr. Thurnam found four leaf-shaped javelin-heads of flint in an oval » barrow (No. 49) within a few yards of the western end of the low earthwork known as the “smaller cursus,” which are fully described (and two of them figured) in the eleventh volume of the Society’s Magazine. Three of them are engraved in Mr, Evans’ “ Ancient Stone Implements,” p. 330. A flint knife, 24 inches in length, chipped on the convex border, from a secondary interment in the long barrow at Winterbourn Stoke, belongs to the Round Barrow period. It is engraved at page 420 of “ Archxologia,” vol. xliii. 174 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Two long narrow stones, carefully formed and polished all over, and remarkable for their tenuity, being 44 inches long, 34 inch broad, and scarcely more than a } inch thick, flat on one side, and rounded on the other, were found by Sir Richard Hoare in barrow No. 5. He describes them as “two pieces of a dark coloured slaty kind of stone, lying parallel with each other, which are engraved in ‘Tumuli,’ plate xiv.” Dr. Thurnam obtained an object of this sort, of fine micaceous sandstone, precisely agreeing with the stone of the large flat slab in the centre of Stonehenge, from a barrow on the plain (No. 170) abeut a mile from the stones. (See note at page 93.) Dr. Thurnam considered that some of the pebbles and stones found in the tumuli may have been preserved for their rarity and beauty, and others as amulets or fetishes. “It is not possible,” he says, “to decide under which of these categories we must place ‘the kidney-formed pebble of the sardonyx kind,’ of a sea-green colour, curiousiy striated and spotted, or the ‘small red pebble,’ found, the one with a burnt, and the other with an unburnt body.” ! In the following table the implements and other objects of bone obtained during Sir Richard Hoare’s excavations are enumerated, according as they were found with burnt or unburnt bodies :— 1 Ancient Wilts,” i., 165, 183, pl. xxii. A bead of stone, neatly grooved round the edges, was found in one of the Barrows at Lake. (Ib. i., 211., pl, xxx., fig. 7.) Abeautifully-veined stone, polished and perforated, from a burnt interment at Winterbourne Stoke (figured Archeologia, 43, p. 431), may, as Hoare suggests, have been worn ‘‘ suspended as an amulet.” Fossils were also prized; as for instance what Hoare calls ‘a pair of petrified cockle-shells ” found with bronze and ivory relics in a barrow at Winterbourn Stoke (No. 25,) but which, one being stil] preserved at Stourhead, we know were Brachiopods, or lamp-shells (Terebratula or Rhynconella,) several species of which occur in the Wiltshire strata. In the barrow at Upton Lovel, at the legs of the larger skeleton, with several perforated boars’s tusks, and bone and stone implements, were, ‘*a handful of small pebbles of different colours, several not to be found in the neighbourhood,” and as many as five eetites, or eagle-stones, broken in two and forming a rude kind of Cup. Mr. Cunnington, who opened this barrow in 1801, was much puzzled as to the use of these stones, which however were amulets of great reputed virtue. The analogy, such as it is, between a hollow stone, ‘in a manner pregnant, having another stone within, as if in its womb,” led to the notion of its having a wonderful power of retarding or accelerating delivery. Directions for its use are given by Pliny, and it retained its reputation as late as the last century, when it had still a place in the London Dispensatory. I i i i al i i By William Long, Esq. bay. Ossects or Bonn. Unburnt Bodies. Burnt Bodies. Total. Bone pins 6 12 18 »» Weapons ? 63! 1 64 », Mmesh-rules 1 1 2 Ps wrist-guard 1 1 Hafts of deer-horn 3 3 Hammer-head of horn 1 1 Pick of ap 1 ae 1 Pipe of bone, perforated Mi I 1 Tube ] 1 Dice (?) 1 1 Tweezers of bone me 7 7 78 22 100 Pins of various sizes, from one to nine inches in length, formed from the fibulz and splint-bones of the legs of quadrupeds, of which the horse, deer, and goat have been identified, are often found with interments. There are many at Stourhead, of which about one third have had the head perforated as if for suspension or attachment. Many were probably used for fastening the cloak of skins or coarse _ woollen sagum, which formed the clothing. The same which secured 7 the dress of the living may have served to have fastened the skin or _ eloth in which the remains of the dead, burnt or unburnt, were ) wrapped. Single bone pins were found by Hoare with eighteen _ interments, or about once in every twenty graves. Relatively, they were half as frequent again with burnt as with unburnt bodies. One from a barrow at Wilsford is at Stourhead. In one of the _ Lake barrows, Mr Duke found four “ bone instruments ”’ (pins) at the head of an unburnt body, the finest three and a half inches long, perforated. A “ tube of bone” from a barrow (No. 18) of the Wilsford group, was perhaps the mouth-piece of a musical instrument, (figured on p. 439 of Archexologia 43). Four small objects of bone, of the same form and size, viz., about = in. Jong and } inch wide, flat below and convex above, and each marked with a different device, Sixty of this number were with a single interment. 176 Stonehenge and its Barrows. except one which is left blank on both sides, were found with a burnt interment, accompanied by a small bronze blade, at Lake near Stonehenge. Sir Richard Hoare supposed that they were in- tended, like the talus or teser@, for some kind of game, or for casting lots. They are engraved in plate xxxi. Ancient Wilts, i. In bar- row No. 9 of the Wilsford group was a “rude ring of bone” with an “ivory pin” and a small bronze celt. The objects of bronze from the Wiltshire barrows very much ex- ceed in number the objects of stone; those found by Hoare, as shown in the table here given, being twice as numerous :— OsseEcts OF Bronze. Unburnt Bodies. Burnt Bodies, Total. Celts ! 4 1 5 Blades of knives, daggers, &c. 16 4s 60 Awls and drills 5 29 34 Crutch-headed screws 1 2 3 Large pin with rings = 1 1 Prong with rings 1 iT Rivets and pieces of bronze-mounted shield (?) . 1 1 Bracelet 1 hs 1 Buckle 1 1 Bead 1 1 Total 29 79 108 Neither Sir R. Hoare, nor explorers of the Wiltshire barrows subsequent to him, have found in them objects of iron which can be classed as pre-Roman. The statement, a quarter of a century ago, by Dr. S. Birch, F.S.A., that “the evidence of the tumuli and kist- vaens goes far to prove the excessive rarity of iron among the Celts 1§ir Richard Hoare remarks ‘‘ that bronze celts differ in their construction and their antiquity,” and adds, ‘‘I must give the priority of age to those dis- covered in our barrows.’’—Ancient Wilts, i., 203, note. ‘They may,” says Dr. Thurnam. ‘‘ have served various purposes, and according to the form of handle and the method by which it was attached, have been axes, chisels, or even hoes.” : ‘ Li By William Long, Esq. 177 (of Britain) anterior to the Roman dominion,” derives nothing but confirmation from subsequent researches. “The only graves hitherto opened in England, certainly of the Iron age and at the same time pre-Roman, are met with, not as we might have expected, in the southern counties, where the finest objects of the Bronze age are found, but far away to the North of the Humber. A large group of tumuli at Arras and Hessleskew, in the East Riding, yielded the remains of chariot wheels and axles of iron, with bronze and iron trappings for the horses, including four iron bits, two of them plated with bronze. A shield, with a bronze boss, had its rim of iron. The bodies, all unburnt, were in the con- tracted posture, and with them were ornaments of bronze, jet, amber, ivory, and glass, the beads of this last material remarkable for their beauty and size. There was also a fine finger-ring of gold. “So far as researches in the tumuli have gone, they show that the bronze civilization of Britain commenced on its southern shores,! ' According to Sir John Lubbock’s analysis, interments accompanied by stone implements, in Derbyshire barrows, were nearly four times as frequent as those with bronze. Dr. Thurnam hence infers that the southern tribes were better and more early provided with bronze than the northern, and that the use of weapons and implements of this metal commenced on the southern coasts, and was thence gradually spread over the interior and north of the island. (p. 158.) “Tin is the most remarkable of all the metallic products which Phenicia obtained from Tarshish, because it is found in so few parts of the world. Only three countries are known to contain any considerable quantities of it: Spain and Portugal ; Cornwall and the adjacent part of Devonshire ; and the islands of Junk-Ceylon and Banca, in the straits of Malacca. [That tin should have been brought into the countries bordering on the Mediterranean from the remote islands of the Straits of Malacca, at the very early age at which its use is as- eertained, is highly improbable. No such traffic is ever alluded to by ancient writers.] It is so soft a metal that of itself it is of little use ; but it readily combines with others, and particularly with copper, giving it the hardness which is needed for tools and instruments of war. As it is easily fusible, and in all the countries in which it has been found appears on the surface, in frag- ‘ments derived from the detritus of primitive rocks, it would be early discovered and employed. Bronze, which is one of the oldest of the alloys of copper we ‘are acquainted with, contains about ten or twelve per cent. of tin; and it is remarkable that nearlyjthe same proportions result from the analysis of the ‘bronze instruments found in the sepulchral barrows of Europe; of the nails which fastened the plates with which the Treasury of Atreus, at Mycenw, was covered ; of the instruments contained in the tombs of Ancient Egypt; and the VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. N 178 Stonehenge and its Barrows. and attained its highest development among the tribes to the south of the Thames; and suggest, though they do not prove, that the use of iron for weapons originated on the eastern coast, as far north as the present Yorkshire. The commencement of the bronze age in this island is of an uncertain epoch. The introduction of iron, as brought under our eyes in these interments, was certainly very late, not earlier apparently than the first century of our era. : We may not be far wrong in concluding that when Britain was in- vaded by Julius, and perhaps even as late as the conquest under Claudius, some of the tribes were using iron weapons, others were provided with none but bronze, and that others possessed both.” Among the more important of the Bronze objects from the barrows around Stonehenge which Dr. Thurnam has described, is the bronze celt found in Bush Barrow, which is 63 inches long, 23 broad, and only = inch in greatest thickness. It has side-flanges and the centre is slightly thickened. An engraving of it is on page 444 of Archeologia, vol. xliii. A socketed spear or javelin-head, about 34 inches long, with two very small loops at the upper third | of the socket, is engraved at page 447 of Archzologia, vol. xliii. With scarcely an exception the large leaf-shaped and triangular blades figured by Hoare are from barrows in the immediate neigh- bourhood of Stonehenge. Two of these are stippled or pounced ; and a third labelled “ Barrow No. 120,” is also decorated in the same way. A fine bronze bracelet encircling the arm of a skeleton was found in a barrow (No. 27). It is a broad flat band, profusely ornamented with vertical and horizontal lines, and with chevrons at the ends, which overlap. With an interment by cremation there were two pieces of twisted bronze wire, perhaps part ‘of a bracelet. tools of the Mexicans and Peruvians.”—‘‘ Kenrick’s Pheenicia,” p. 213. ‘‘We can have no hesitation in regarding Spain as the source of the tin which was so early in use among the nations bordering on the Mediterranean. How long it was before the Pheenicians discovered tbe far richer supply which the British Islands afford, is altogether uncertain.” (p. 216.) ‘‘It is by no means improbable that tin which came originally from Cornwall, may have returned thither from Gaul or Spain, in the form of those instruments of bronze which are some of the earliest of our British antiquities in metal.” (p. 221.) cape dae Mende inert, er oe —" : ’ on Pr Ss cranes Pe tg te A AT ae Cait Re gre og as TE ee : é * wer Te 21% =: = =< ace ’ ‘ 7 ba . < ca ise : z eee pe =. (a _ ' 5 - ‘3 Se ~ 45 . .s - | . wt : z s ; = * ; z w ‘ cf i : : Nae = Zz a! < ‘ * = pe eg 4 Fy , y Fe ; . 4 ad See eh ep, eee” Ivory Armlet from Barrow No. 25, on Winterbourn Stoke Down. Scale, two-thirds linear. Plates for an amber collar, from Lake. Scale, two thirds linear. By William Long, Esq. 179 PersonaL ORNAMENTS. “ Tn the round barrows opened and described by Sir Richard Hoare personal ornaments were found with about 18 per cent. of the primary interments, though, as the following table shows, proportionately more often with the unburnt bodies :— Unburnt Bodies. Burnt Bodies, Total. 82 272 354 With personal ornaments 19 45 64 Per cent. 23 16 18 “ Many, perhaps most, of the interments accompanied by ornaments were those of women, but many others, especially where the decorations were the richest and most numerous, were doubtless those of men. The articles of this kind met with were for the most part fabricated from a few well-known materials, still prized for the same purpose, viz., ivory, glass, amber, jet, gold, and bronze. ‘To these must be added various mineral and fossil substances, and the bones, teeth, and shells of animals. . . . The three first-named of the materials on our list are expressly named by Strabo as forming, in his day, the principal imports into this country from Gaul, viz., “ivory bracelets and necklaces, articles of amber and glass, and other similar wares of small value.” ! The discovery of objects made of these _ materials in the barrows is a confirmation of the accuracy of Strabo, and affords additional reasons for attributing many of the tumuli of the Bronze period to the Augustan age. As the context of the _ passage proves, this geographer wrote his description of Britain not _ later than early in the reign of Tiberius, and prior to the Roman conquest by about thirty years.” _ The ornaments of ivory found in Wiltshire barrows amount to _ twelve in number, and they were probably made from the tusks of _ the walrus or other marine animal. Another possible source for the * _ ivory of the barrows are the fossilized tusks of the Elephas primigenius, which are sometimes ‘‘so little altered as to be fit for the purposes of manufacture.” See the wood-cut of the ivory armlet found in _ barrow No. 25. 1$trabo, iv., 5, § 3. N2 180 Stonehenge and its Barrows. “The beads of glass found in the barrows of Wiltshire are of coarse material, of a light blue or green colour, long, slender form, and notched all round, so as to resemble several minute beads in one piece. They vary in length from half-an-inch to an inch-and-a- quarter, the notches varying from four or five to ten or twelve in number. They were found in twelve of the tumuli described by Hoare, and in every case with interments after cremation. With one exception they were associated with beads of amber, and in more than half the number with others of jet or shale. A necklace of glass, amber, and jet seems to have been the favourite ornament of the women of this part of Britain. In these mixed necklaces the glass beads are more numerous than those of jet or shale, but less so than those of amber. Glass beads are rarely found in the barrows of North Wilts; but one is named by Dean Merewether, and one ' was obtained by myself from a tumulus on Tan Hill. . . . In the barrows of Wiltshire the ornaments most frequently met with are of amber, and thirty-three interments are recorded by Hoare, six of unburnt and twenty-seven of burnt bodies, with which they were found.” Amber ornaments are of very rare occurence in the barrows of other parts of England.! Those found in Wiltshire appear to have been in most instances necklaces, but rings and studs have also been found. The amber from these barrows is uniformly of the red transparent sort, which as well as the pale sort, is found in England at Cromer, Norfolk, and on the Yorkshire coast. It may however, have been imported and manufactured in England. ‘ Amber has not been found in the ancient sepulchres of Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece, though of frequent occurrence in those of Etruria and Southern Italy. A chain of amber beads, connected by strips of gold, has been found in a sepulchre at Cere (Cervetri), answering very exactly to the Homerie description.” * (Kenrick’s “ Phenicia” p. 221). 1In one of the tumuli opened by the Rev, J. Skinner, at Priddy on the Mendip range, within a cist, containing the primary interment of burnt bones were found four amber beads, and a fifth in the form of a heart. They were of fine rich red or ruby colour, highly polished and transparent when held up to the light, only one of them had a hole made through it, the others were bored on one side, probably for the admission of a pin. A small blue opaque glass bead was found with them, perforated.—Arch. Journal, xvi., p. 148. ? Abeken, Mitt. und Unt. Ital. p. 271, 281. Hom. Od. 6, 460. Mees letpate : De ik. Oa re SORE Oe a Ea ~« “syqunof-aa.yy qnogn ‘ajpag ‘aye Wody ‘eovT_OON oqUy ‘SINGNVNUO G09 “STEM. *HOJALON TPAOT TojdQ Woy TURYyOMG wo, “STEM “SUT TOIUVMION WHOL, ‘TTOAOT Toydy Wor “aun pLryy-auo ‘aypag “OTTUSIILM ‘OXV'T Wlor ‘por0yser sv ‘1oqUY JO IvTTOD By William Long, Esq. ; 181 By the kindness of the Council of the Society of Antiquaries the writer is able to give the cuts which illustrate Dr. Thurnam’s account of the quadrangular tablets of amber found in a barrow of the Lake group, and which appears to have formed a collar. “They occur,” says Dr. Thurnam, “in sets of three,six,and eight. These plates, found with seven interments, five of them burnt, are about a quarter-inch thick, rounded at the upper and lower margins, and vary in size from one to three inches in length, and from three-quarters to one-and-a half-inch in width. In the vertical edges are a series of equidistant perforations, which, according to the size, are four, six, or even ten in number. The perforations mostly pass through from edge to edge, and are bored with great accuracy, propably with a metallic borer, worked most likely with a bow-drill. The plates were always accompanied by beads of the same material, and there can be no doubt that the two have been strung together so as to form sym- metrical ornaments analogous to those of jet found in the barrows of Derbyshire and North Britain. This combination was not realized by Sir Richard Hoare, who was of opinion that the plates were strung together and worn lengthwise on the breast. The MS. notes of the late Rev. E. Duke, kindly lent me by his son, describing the barrow which yielded the set of plates of largest size, eight in number, do not expressly name these tablets, but merely say ‘the skeleton was found with rows of red amber beads around the neck.’ In another of the Lake barrows also about two miles from Stone- henge, opened by Mr, Duke, was ‘a skeleton having on a necklace of amber beads, to which, no doubt, belongs the set of three small plates, with four-fold perforations, still to be seen at Lake House. Through the kind aid of the present owner I have succeeded in constructing models of these two complex collars, in a style which must closely approximate to that of the original ornaments. (See woodcut.) «The perforations in the three plates of the lesser collars, as well as in the four outer plates of the large, run straight through from edge to edge; but in the four larger and more central plates of the latter only the upper and lower perforations run through the plates, whilst the eight which are intermediate go a little way in 182 Stonehenge and its Barrows. and pass out again, each two adjoining perforations communicating right and left by a curvilinear canal. This very ingenious method has probably been contrived to ensure the better set of the large ornaments, as well as for more security; it being obvious that if the through-and-through perforations had been continued from one to the other end of the ornament, the breaking of one or two sets of threads might have resulted in the loss of great part of the whole. “ It is to be observed that this large collar is of most unusual di- mensions. In addition to the eight large dividing plates it appears to have comprised in its construction nearly two hundred beads ; and when arranged in an easy curve, to have measured 15 inches across, and 25 inches in length, in the lower curvature. When worn, it must have extended from shoulder to shoulder, hanging half-way down to the waist, somewhat like a mayor’s chain or collar of SS. None of the dividing-plates in these ornaments present any trace of surface decoration, such as the favorite British chevron, so often . seen on the corresponding pieces of the jet necklaces. “ Buttons of jet or shale occurred thrice with unburnt, and once with burnt bodies. At the back are double perforations for sewing them on to the dress. . . . Britain was celebrated for the abun- dance of its fine jet during Roman times. Kimmeridge shale, cannel coal, and some forms of lignite, seem to have been substituted for jet where this could not be had. “ Ornaments of gold were found in seven of the Wiltshire tumuli, in four with unburnt, and in three, with burnt bodies. In most of ‘these there were several objects of the precious metal, and altogether nineteen golden ornaments or sets of ornaments may be enumerated.” Among these were three varieties of small buttons or beads, made as Sir R. Hoare believed by first modelling in wood, and covering the wooden nucleus with a plate of gold, which was made to overlap, and fastened by indentation. One large doubly-conical bead, made of two such plates, is ornamented with concentric rings and perforated lengthwise. A second, of globular form, doubly perforated on one side, seems intended to have been sewn to the clothing, though it may have been a pendant (Ancient Wilts, plate Serna ¥ ee i el i ll : ie Ky ina Zp y Y Plate of G old, found u pon the breast of a Skeleto mn, in Barro ww No. 158. irds. Size, two-th —_-- ~~ —_ e + ‘ae Btls ll ecellaal Zz pe By William Long, Esq. 183 xxv., figs. 7 and 8). The same may be said of the thirteen “ beads ” from the Upton Lovel barrow. Each is in the shape of a drum and formed of three pieces of gold, two being circular lid-shaped ends. In each are two holes at one side, supposed to be “for the purpose of stringing,” but quite as likely for sewing them as buttons to the front of some vestment. Six or seven “ beads” very similar to those from Normanton, near Stonehenge, some globular and some of a double-cone shape, were found in one of the barrows at Bircham, Norfolk. (See wood-cut.) Small circular discs of gold, of the size of florins, are supposed to have been pendants for the ears. Quadrangular golden plates, of considerable size, occurred with two interments. These are or- namented in parallel lines, zigzags and chequers, and were found in conneetion with thin plates of wood, on which the pattern had been engraved, and over the edges of which the gold was lapped. The gold of the smaller plate, measuring 6 inches by 3, is mere foil, not thicker than writing paper; it is perforated at each of the four angles. The other, much larger (from Bush barrow, half-a-mile south of Stonehenge, the richest of all in gold objects), is a solid and substantial ornament, of lozenge form, 7 by 6 inches in its longest diameters, and perforated at the two angles most distant _ from each other. It is of fine gold, weighing 1 oz., 5 dwts., and lay immediately over the breast of the skeleton. Both these plates had no doubt been attached to the dress, and worn as breast orna- ments.1_ (See wood-cut.) “In addition to this plate and the large 1Dr. Thurnam was of opinion that it was from the gold of Britain that these ornaments were fabricated. Czesar is usually made to say of the Britons ‘‘ Ut- untur aut ere, aut taleis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo ; ” but a beautiful MS. of about the tenth century in the British Museum, reads the passage thus: ‘‘utuntur aut ere aut nummo aureo, &c.” They use either brass money, or gold money, or instead of money, iron rings adjusted toa certain weight. ‘‘It may be therefore safely asserted” says Mr. Hawkins, ‘that previous to the invasion of Julius Cesar, in the year 55 A.C., and before the Roman dominion was generally established in this island, the Britons had a metallic currency of struck coin, formed on a Grecian model. Julius Cesar himself, when correctly read and rightly interpreted, asserts the fact, and the actual discovery of coins in various parts of the island unequivocally confirms it.” The Upton Lovel or “Golden” Barrow was opened for the 184 Stonehenge and its Barrows. hook of gold, there was a small lozenge-shaped plate, not perforated, about an inch in diameter.” (Tumuli, plate xxvii, fig. 5.) Five of the seven barrows yielding objects of gold were on Salis- bury Plain, near Stonehenge, four of them within half-a-mile of that structure, and a sixth on the confines of the plain, at Upton Lovel, in the vale of Wily. The seventh alone was altogether out of this district, at Mere, ten or twelve miles to the west. No objects of precious metal are found in the barrows of North Wilts, and Sir Richard Hoare inferred the “high antiquity of the tumuli near Abury from finding in them ‘no costly ornaments of jet, amber, or gold.’ ” In the Upton Lovel barrow were found several tusks of the wild boar, perforated at the broad end, lying near the feet of the male skeleton. In other barrows were the canine teeth of the wolf and remains of the deer, the ox, the dog, and the horse. Bones of birds were occasionally met with. first time in 1803, by Mr. Cunnington. (See ‘‘ Archeologia,” vol. xv.) At the depth of 2 feet was found a littie pile of burnt bones in a shallow bason-like cist, and at the distance of 1 foot from the bones was a consider: able quantity of ashes with fragments of burnt bones. About 2 feet from the pile of bones were discovered: 1. Thirteen gold beads made in the form . of a drum, having two ends to screw off, and perforated in two places on the sides for the purpose of stringing. 2. A thin plate of the same metal, 6 inches in length, and nearly 3 in width, richly wrought and perforated at the 4 corners. 3. Another ornament in the form of a cone, decorated with circles and zigzags, and fitted closely to a piece of dark wood, like ebony, on which the marks of the pattern still appear impressed; the bottom part of this article is also perforated. The above are all of pure but thin gold, neatly worked, and highly burnished. The large flat plate must have been, like the cone, strengthened by a strip of wood behind; and the whole by their several perforations, are strongly marked as forming the decorative accoutrements of some distinguished British chieftain. There were beside two small articles in gold, resembling little boxes, about an inch in diameter with a top, in the form of acone to take off. (See Tumuli, plate x.) And some large plates of amber, and above one thousand beads of the same substance and different sizes, and a curioas little grape cup. Subsequent researches in 1807, resulted in the discovery of two cups, one plain, the other covered with a pro- fusion of zigzag ornaments, a small lance head and pin of bronze, and on the floor of the barrow, in an oblong cist, about 18 inches deep, a simple interment of burnt bones. 185 Ghe Campy at Amesbury, commonly called Gespasian’s Camp. Wo camp near Amesbury, between Stonehenge and the town, HA: upon elevated ground, was, according to Stukeley, commonly called Vespasian’s, and he endorses the name. Itis locally known as “the ramparts.” Sir R. Hoare considers that this was originally the stronghold of those numerous Britons who inhabited the plains around Stonehenge, an asylum in times of danger, for their wives, children, and cattle ; and that like other camps of the same kind, it was occupied, as occasion or necessity required, by Romans, Saxons, and Danes. “It occupies the apex of a hill, surrounded on two sides, east and south, by the river Avon, and comprehends within its area 39 acres. It extends in length from south to north, and terminates in a narrow rounded angle at the latter point. It was surrounded by a single vallum, which has been much mutilated on the east side in forming the pleasure grounds of Amesbury Park. The ramparts on the western side towards Stonehenge, are very bold and perfect. It appears to have had two entrances, north and south; the former still remains perfect and undoubted. The area is planted and fancifully disposed in avenues, walks, &c., near the principal one of which, and on the highest ground, is the appearance of a barrow, but much disfigured in its form.” The camp is divided by the high road which passes Stonehenge. In Stukeley’s Common-Place Book, is the following mention of it: ** The walls, Vespasian’s camp, as believ’d. The people of Ames- bury say the area of it is 40 acres, single trench, one graff towards Stonehenge.” In his “Stonehenge described,” he describes the camp as “‘ an oblong square, nicely placed upon a flexure of the river, which closes one side and one end of it. ‘There is an old barrow’ inclos’d in it, which doubtless was one of those belonging to this plain, and to the temple of Stonehenge, before this camp was made.” 186 progress of Dofon-Cultivation around Stonehenge, YET is to be hoped that our grand-children will not have to look a for Stonehenge in a field of turnips. The cultivation of the down adjoining Stonehenge is gradually closing in upon it, and on the west side has already resulted in the obliteration of the group of bar- rows numbered from 15 to 22 (inclusive). The large barrow, close to the road, of group No. 14, (which Mr. Edwards, of Amesbury, in- formed the writer had been nearly as large as No. 164,) has been de- liberately degraded to its present low elevation that it may the more easily be ploughed over. The adjoining barrows of this group, from one of which the Stonehenge” urn was taken, will soon have alto- gether disappeared. On the opposite side of the road, a large portion of the down on the slope below Bush Barrow and the adjoining barrows, has been ploughed up. Our iron age, with its steam ploughs, is too strong for the age of stone and bronze. An account of the results of the examination of each barrow on the plain around Stonehenge will be given in an appendix. PEt IGS Neo 187 Part VD. Poctical Alotices of Stonehenge. (Q™=GHE few following poetical notices of Stonehenge may not “Sicy< be unacceptable to the readers of this paper. In the “ Birth of Merlin,” a play ascribed to Shakespeare (first known edition 1662), Merlin addresses his mother thus :— «© And when you die I will erect a monument Upon the verdant plains of Salisbury,— No king shall have so high a sepulchre,— With pendulous stones, that I will hang by art, Where neither lime nor mortar shall be used— A dark enigma to the memory, For none shall have the power to number them; A place that I will hallow for your rest ; Where no night-hag shall walk, nor were-wolf tread, Where Merlin’s mother shall be sepulchred.” Drayton (“ Polyolbion, 1613), calls Stonehenge “ first wonder of the land.” In the following lines Wansdyke resents being called by Stonehenge a “ paltry ditch,’ and shows a strong aptitude for the employment of abusive language :— “ Where she, of all the plains (Salisbury) of Britain that doth bear The name to be the first (renowned everywhere) Hath worthily obtain’d that Stonendge there should stand: She, first of plains; and that, first wonder of the land. She Wansdike also wins, by whom she is embrac’d, That in his aged arms doth gird her ampler waist; Who, (for a mighty mound sith long he did remain 188 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Betwixt the Mercian’s rule and the West Saxons reign, And therefore of his place himself he proudly bare) Had very oft been heard with Stonendge to compare ; Whom for a paltry ditch, when Stonendge pleas’d t’upbraid, The old man taking heart, thus to that trophy said: ‘Dull heap, that thus thy head above the rest dost rear, Precisely yet not know’st who first did place thee there ; But traytor basely turn’d, to Merlin’s skill dost fly, And with his magicks dost thy maker’s truth bely ; Conspirator with time, now grown so mean and poor Comparing these his spirits with those that went before ; Yet rather art content thy builder’s praise to lose, Than passed greatness should thy present wants disclose. Ill did those mighty men to trust thee with their story, That hast forgot their names, who rear’d thee for their glory: For all their wondrous cost, thou hast serv’d them so, What ’tis to trust to tombs, by thee we eas’ly know.’ ” Spenser, in the second book, tenth canto, of the “ Faerie Queene,” speaking of Hengist’s treacherous attack on the three hundred lords “ all setting at his bord,” adds :— “Whose dolefull moniments who list to rew, Th’ eternall marks of treason may at Stoneheng vew; ” and of Aurelius that he “ peaceably did rayne, Till that through poyson stopped was his breath, So now entombed lies at Stoneheng by the heath.” The following sonnet is by Dr. Thomas Warton :— Thou noblest monument of Albion’s isle, Whether by Merlin’s aid, from Scythia’s shore To Amber’s fatal plain, Pendragon bore, Huge frame of giant hands the mighty pile, T’entomb his Britons, slain by Hengist’s guile: Or Druid priests, sprinkled with human gore, By William Long, Esq. 189 Taught ’mid thy massy maze their mystic lore: Or Danish chiefs, enrich’d with savage spoil, To Victory’s idol vast, an unhewn shrine Rear’d the rude heap; or, in thy hallow’d round Repose the king’s of Brutus’ genuine line ; Or here those kings in solemn state were crown’d : Studious to trace thy pond’rous origin, We muse on many an ancient tale renown’d. The Oxford English Verse prize poem for 1823, “On Stonehenge,” was as follows :— Wrapt in the veil of time’s unbroken gloom, Obscure as death, and silent as the tomb, Where cold oblivion holds her dusky reign Frowns the dark pile on Sarum’s lonely plain. Yet think not here with classic eye to trace Corinthian beauty, or Ionian grace: No pillar’d lines with sculptur’d foliage crown’d, No fluted remnants deck the hallow’d ground; Firm, as implanted by some Titan’s might, Each rugged stone uprears its giant height, : Whence the pois’d fragment tottering seems to throw ; A trembling shadow on the plain below. Here oft, when evening sheds her twilight ray, And gilds with fainter beam departing day, With breathless gaze, and cheek with terror pale, The lingering shepherd startles at the tale, How at deep midnight, by the moon’s chill glance, Unearthly forms prolong the viewless dance ; While on each whisp’ring breeze that murmurs by, His busied fancy hears the hollow sigh. ’ Rise from thy haunt, dread genius of the clime, Rise, magic spirit of forgotten time ! Tis thine to burst the mantling clouds of age, 190 Stonehenge and its Barrows. ‘And fling new radiance on “ Tradition’s page”: See! at thy call, from Fable’s varied store, In shadowy train the mingled visions pour; Here the wild Briton, *mid his wilder reign, Spurns the proud yoke, and scorns the oppressor’s chain ; Here wizard Merlin, where the mighty fell, Waves the dark wand, and chaunts the thrilling spell. Hark! ’tis the Bardic lyre, whose harrowing strain Wakes the rude echoes of the slumbering plain ; Lo! ’tis the Druid pomp, whose lengthening line In lowest homage bends before the shrine. He comes—the priest—amid the sullen blaze His snow-white robe in spectral lustre plays; Dim gleam the torches through the circling night, Dark curl the vapours round the altar’s light; O’er the black scene of death, each conscious star, In lurid glory, rolls its silent car. ?Tis gone! E’en now the mystic horrors fade From Sarum’s loneliness, and Mona’s glade; Hush’d is each note of Taliesin’s lyre, Sheath’d the fell blade, and quench’d the fatal fire. On wings of light Hope’s angel form appears, Smiles on the past, and points to happier years: Points, with uplifted hand, and raptur’d eye, To yon pure dawn that floods the opening sky ; And views at length the Sun of Judah pour One cloudless noon o’er Albion’s rescued shore. T. S. Satson, Brasenose College. The following, in English and Latin, are by the writer’s departed friend, the Rev. Francis Kilvert, of Bath :— See rocks Cyclopean, as by giant’s hands . In a rude temple’s form disposed. Amid By William Long, Esq. 191 These masses, by Heaven’s bounties compassed round, Our sires in superstition’s gloom immersed, Grim idols, terror’s offering, with the blood Of human victims and with rites impure, Adored.—Such ills would false religion breed ! Those shades are fled. The Sun of Righteousness Risen on the earth, with healing in His wings, Hath chased the darkness, and with Gospel light Illumined all the land. Lit by its rays May we, the progeny of pagan sires, Whilst Fancy waving her mysterious wand Evokes these long-past shadows, with glad hearts And pious breathings, gratefully enjoy Our “sober certainty of waking bliss.” Idem Latine redditum. Saxa vides Cyclopea Giganteis quasi manibus In templi speciem disposita. Has inter moles Dei benefici muneribus circum undique septi, Majores nostri, Superstitionis mersi caligine, Impus cruentisque ritibus Numinum terricula piavant. Tantum malorum Religio prava suadere poterat! Diffugere he tenebre, Justitiz sole salutaribus radiis exorto: Affulsit lux Evangelii, Cujus illustrati lumine, Preteriti temporis umbras evanidas, Gratis animis, piis suspiriis, Posteri contemplemur. 192 Conclusion. (4e=3HE writer, in conclusion, would venture to express his own 13 ‘ deliberate conviction : first, that Stonehenge and the barrows which surround it, are part and parcel of the same system, and that they are inseparably connected ; and secondly, that the history of Stone- henge must be read by such light as the contents of these barrows afford. The result would, of course, be to throw back the erection of Stonehenge to a pre-Christian period. He would fain hope, that ere long, Antiquaries will come to be of one accord as to the propriety of abandoning the theories which would ascribe it to the Romans, to the Roman-British, to the Saxons, or to the Danes. There is at present, much dissipation of Archzological power,and much profit- less “ beating of the air” in the endeavour to maintain positions which the writer humbly believes to be utterly untenable. It would be a great gain if, by common consent, the stand-point of the Christian era were adopted, and if the solution of the difficulty _ were sought for in the times which preceded it. The result of ethnological, linguistic, and archeological researches into this higher period might be to favour the idea that a Phcenician or some other external influence of a very early date had been associated with the erection of the megalithic structures of the West of — England. Till then, the writer is content to consider the Belgic theory regarding Stonehenge, originated by Mr. Warner, and so ably supported by Dr. Guest, as by far the most rational which has yet been propounded. Kf . VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. oO 193 Appendix. =2HE writer believes that the following account of the examina- SFicjt tion of the Stonehenge barrows will be found interesting and useful. It is fuller than Sir R. Hoare’s own analysis in the “Tumuli Wiltunenses.” The barrows of the Lake, Wilsford, and Winter- bourn groups, will be found to have been numbered on the large map of “Stonehenge and its environs” according to the enumera- tion of them in the smaller plans in vol. i. of Ancient Wilts, and in that of the Winterbourn Stoke group (which adjoins the long barrow), in Dr. Thurnam’s account of the Wiltshire Barrows, (vol. xlii. of the “Archzologia.”) Two or three barrows which had been marked as belonging to the Winterbourn and Lake groups in the large map, and which were not to be found in the smaller plans, have been erased. WIntTeRBouRN Stoke Grovp. 1. Long barrow, not opened by Sir R. Hoare. See Dr. Thurnam’s account of the opening of it, page 159. 2. Ninety-three feet in diameter and 8 in elevation. Burnt bones, with a small urn. 3. Partly intersected in forming the turnpike road. Primary interment missed, but an urn enclosing burnt bones near the top. 4, 5, 6. Produced simple interments by cremation. _ 7%. Primary interment, an adult skeleton, lying N. and 8. with a drinking cup at his feet. Four feet above was the skeleton of a child, with a bason-like urn. 8. A heap of burnt bones in an oval cist, 44 feet long and 2 feet wide. At the distance of a foot, a fine drinking cup, richly orna- mented, but broken in removal. 9. Simple interment of burnt bones. 10. Nothing found. 194: Stonehenge and its Barrows. 11. Deposit of burnt bones, a small cup of thick and ornamented pottery, and a bone pin bent into a circular form, and perforated at the head. 12. Simple interment by cremation. 13. Nothing found. 14, A “pond barrow.” 15, 16. These, the finest tumuli of the Winterbourn group, are so contiguous to each other, that their circumvallations somewhat interfere. No. 15, is 89 feet in base diameter, and 14 in elevation. The burnt bones of the deceased were found deposited in a box or coffin of wood about 5} feet long, by 2 feet wide, placed upon the native turf, and covered with a coat of blueish clay. On removing the clay and mouldering fragments of the wood, two small pieces of ivory were discovered, with bronze rivets through each; and afterwards a beautiful spear-head of bronze, the most perfect and largest Sir Richard Hoare and Mr. Cunnington had yet found. Close to this was another lance-head, unfortunately broken ; it lay above a foot from the bones, near which was a long pin of ivory, neatly polished and pointed at the thinnest end. The workmen found the remains of five or more skeletons at a short depth beneath the surface of the sepulchral mound. No. 16 is 112 feet in its base diameter, and about 15 feet high. The original interment was a skeleton, in a shallow oblong cist which had been deposited within the rude trunk of an elm tree, with its head lying to the north-east. On the left side of the head, a beautiful, but crushed urn, in tint resembling red Samian pottery, but not more than half baked, like those of British manufacture. (Tumuli, plate xv., No. 1.) A bronze dagger, which had been guarded by a case of box wood, part of which had been gilt, was near the breast. Besides these were a bronze pin, with an ivory handle, another spear-head of bronze, moulded, and another article of ivory. (Tumuli, plate xv., Nos. 2, 3, 4.) 17. A simple interment of burnt bones. 18. Contains within its area threé small tumuli, in each of which, at the depth of 12 inches, were interments of burnt bones. In the largest, which is in the centre, was a small urn, and two or three large beads of amber. In ee a © i oN , > ij ' + * By William Long, Esq. 195 the second, two or three beads, and in the third, only burnt bones. 18. Ninety-seven feet in diameter, and 7 high. Primary inter- ment, a skeleton, with head toward the west, at a depth of 7 feet. At a depth of nearly 3 feet a sepulchral urn covering a little pile of burnt bones, and almost immediately under them a skeleton. Before coming to the urn were found two interments of burnt bones in the east and west corners of their sections. A perforated pebble stone, about 2 inches long, and very neatly polished, which had apparently been burnt. 20. Is, what Sir R. Hoare called a “pond barrow.” 21, from the fragments of burnt bones promiscuously dispersed about the soil, gave proof of a prior opening. 22. The body appeared to have been placed on the chalk, and a large conical pile of flints raised over it. “ From finding some of the bones above the floor, and amongst the flints, we might almost be led to suppose that the Briton here interred, had suffered a similar ‘death to that of Achan.” The skeleton was laid from north to south, and from the size of the bones, appeared to be that of a young person, ora female. 23! and 24. Unproductive. 25. A large and rude bowl-shaped barrow, 107 feet in diameter, and 6 in elevation. On the floor a skeleton (which had been originally interred from north to south) with a more recent interment of burnt bones de- posited near its feet. Two small earthen cups, a ring or bracelet of z bone or ivory, two oblong beads made from bone, and two whetstones and a bronze pin, were found near. 26. A fine bowl-shaped barrow, 97 feet in diameter, and 9} in elevation. In an oblong cist, a skeleton lying from north to south, _ within a shallow case of wood, of a boat-like form. Round its neck were found a great variety of amber and jet beads, a Jance-head and _ pin of bronze, with a little urn of a very neat form, which was _ broken to pieces. 27. About 90 feet in base diameter, and 7 in height. On the 1Dr. Thurnam opened No. 23, and found a simple deposit of burnt bones, in _ a shallow cist, in the chalk, a little to the S.E. of the centre. He opened No. 24, but found it aiiproductive, 02 196 Stonehenge and its Barrows. floor of the barrow was a large oblong cist, 5 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 24 deep, neatly cut in the chalk, and in it a skeleton, with an inverted urn containing burnt bones, in its lap. “On removing the urn and the skeleton, we found five more skeletons lying almost side by side, two of which were young persons; and when we reached the floor of the cist we found, what I consider to be the primary interment, viz., two skeletons lying by the side of each other, with their heads to the north, and both extremely well-preserved. One of them was atall and stout man. At their head was placed a drinking cup. We had here positive proof that the two different modes of burial had been practised in this barrow at different periods, and that the urn was deposited at a period subsequent to all the other in- terments, and was the third deposit.” To the north of this group are two very small mounds, scarcely elevated above the surface, which produced nothing worthy of notice. The first barrow that occurs on leaving the British villages, and which is No. 1 on Sir Richard Hoare’s map of “ Stonehenge and its environs,” contained a very large interment of burnt bones. No. 2 had been previously opened. No. 3 is a long or rather triangular barrow, east and west, the broad end towards the east ; 1t measures 104 feet in length, 64 in width at the large end, 45 at the small end, and does not exceed 3 or 4 feet in elevation. Shepherds had ex- cavated the eastern end by making huts for shelter. A second section at the west end produced two or three fragments of burnt bones. “We next observed a rude conical pile of large flints, imbedded in a kind of mortar made of the marly chalk dug near the spot. This rude pile was 4 or 5 feet in the base, and about 2 feet high, and was raised upon a floor, on which had been an intense fire, so as to make it red like brick. At first we conceived that this pile might have been raised over an interment, but after much labour in removing the greater part of it, we very unexpectedly found the remains of the Briton below, and were much astonished at seeing several pieces of burnt bones intermixed with the great masses of mortar.” Sir R. Hoare left some of the mortar containing the burnt bones near the top of the barrow, to satisfy the curiosity of any person who might wish to examine it. On exploring this barrow farther to the east, By William Long, Esq. 197 two deep cists were found, containing an immense quantity of wood ashes, and large pieces of charred wood, but no other signs of in- terment. No. 4 had been opened before. No. 5 is 5 feet high, and 110 feet in base diameter. The primary interment in the large cist consisted of the head of a skeleton, but no vertebra or ribs ; further on were the thigh-bones, legs, ete. At the feet a little rude drinking cup, and two pieces of a dark-coloured slaty kind of stone. (PI. xiv.) Above the primary interment, was, at the depth of 2 feet on the . south side of the cist, the skeleton of an infant; and at a foot above the floor of the barrow was found the skeleton of a young person, and upon the same level on the south side, was an interment of burnt bones. This tumulus, Sir R. Hoare thought, might prove yet more productive, if more carefully examined. No 6 had been previously explored. In No. 7, a fine bell-shaped barrow, 122 feet in diameter, and 9 feet high, the interment was missed, but the fragment of a very large urn and a few burnt bones led Sir R. Hoare to think that the barrow might have been opened before. No. 8. This barrow, rather inclined to the bell-shape, is 82 feet in diameter, and 74 in elevation. It contained within a shallow oblong cist the burnt bones (as conceived) of two persons, piled together, but without arms or trinkets. A whetstone and a piece of squared stone were also found in it. No. 9, 16 inches high, produced between the horns of two stags, a rudely-made, yet in outline an elegant, urn, inverted over a pile of burnt bones. (Pl. xvi.) Beneath was the skeleton of an adult, and at a depth of 4 feet below, was another skeleton with its head placed towards the north. No. 10. In this small tumulus was an oblong cist, and in the further part of it a few fragments of burnt bones, and a large glass bead, which has two circular lines of opaque sky-blue and white, which seem to represent a serpent in- 4wined round a centre which is perforated. “This was certainly one of the Glain Neidyr of the Britons, derived from Glain, what is pure and holy, and neidyr, a snake.” ‘This is engraved in “ Tumuli,” pl. xiv. No. 11 is a “ pond barrow.” Leaving the Winterbourn Stoke group, and proceeding in a line towards Stonehenge, we find but few barrows, until we approach the precincts of that monument. 198 Stonehenge and its Barrows. No. 12. A group of small tumuli, in one of which was a very rude urn, badly baked, and containing ashes, burnt bones, and two pieces of twisted bronze wire, which probably once formed a ring; this urn was not inverted. 13. A simple interment of bones. 14. A group consisting of eight barrows of different sizes, and close to the road leading to Amesbury. “The tumulus nearest that place produced the largest sepulchral urn we have ever yet found, measuring 15 inches in diameter at the top, and being 224 inches high. It contained an interment of burnt bones, which was protected by a large triangular stone placed over the mouth of the urn.” (Pl. xvi.) This is the urn, called, par ex- cellence, the “ Stonehenge Urn.” Two of this group of barrows are large ; that nearest the road is bow]l-shaped, 80 feet in base diameter and 83 in elevation. The interment was met with at 83 feet, ina shallow oblong cist, where the burnt bones had been interred in a box of wood. In the adjoining large tumulus was an interment by cremation, which had in former times been disturbed by rabbits. Of the others two had been opened before ; in one other was found a bronze spear-head, and in this and the remainder were deposits of burnt bones.1. In No. 15 was a deposit of burnt bones within a cist. Some scattered fragments of bone led to the belief that a skeleton had been found when it had been opened before. No. 16. A mutilated flat barrow, 76 feet in diameter, and only 3 in elevation. In this barrow were found chippings of the Stonehenge stones. (See pp. 64, 65.) No. 17. A long barrow, in which nothing was discovered. No. 18. Is injured by rabbits. No. 19. Seems to have been one of those opened either by Lord Pembroke or Dr. Stukeley, who had found the interment in an oblong cist. No. 20. Had been opened before and contained the interment of a skeleton. Nos. 21 and %2 were unproductive. No. 23 had been opened without result by Mr. 1 The smaller barrows in this group have been nearly obliterated by a farmer, who has ploughed up this part of the down nearly to the stone circles. The large tumulus nearest to the road has been deliberately degraded to its present low condition. All traces of the group adjoining Stonehenge (Nos. 15 to 22 inclusive) have disappeared. A slight elevation above the surrounding soil just indicates where the highest of them had been. a By William Tong, Esq. 199 Cunnington, but just below where he had left off Sir R. Hoare dis- covered a large rude sepulchral urn inverted over a pile of burnt bones, amongst which was an elegant pair of ivory tweezers. No. 24 is a very flat barrow, and contained the skeletons of an adult and a child in a very shallow cist. It had been previously disturbed. No. 25. A wide bow]-shaped barrow, contained, within a narrow cist, a skeleton with its head towards the north, with a drinking cup by its right side, and near it a neatly-formed pin or needle of bone. No. 26, produced a large interment of burnt bones on the floor, with a cone of jet, two oblong beads of the same substance, eighteen of amber, and a very small cone of thesame. No. 27. Previously opened, appeared to have contained originally the skeletons of two adults and two children. Round the arm of one of the adults was an ornamented bracelet of bronze, now in the Stourhead Museum. On approaching the Cursus, we find a numerous continuation of barrows, flanking the southern side of it; the first of these, No. 28, was opened by Lord Pembroke, in the year 1722 ; as well as No. 29, in 1723. Stukeley gives a description of the opening of the latter. An urn, full of burnt bones, of unbaked clay, was found. The collar bone, and one side of the under jaw, make it likely that they had be- longed toa girl about 14 years of age. A great number of female ornaments were mixed with the bones. They consisted of beads of glass, yellow, blue, and black ; many of amber, of all shapes and sizes, and many of earth, of different shapes, size, and colour. One of the button sort was covered with a thin film of pure gold. (SeeStukeley’s “Stonehenge,” p. 44, or “ Ancient Wilts,” i., 161, 162.) “Then we opened the next barrow to it, enclosed in the same ditch, and found at 14 inches deep the skeleton of a man.” Convinced by ex- perience that all interments found near the surface were subsequent deposits, Mr. Cunnington, im 1803, explored the second tumulus. At the depth of 6 feet he came to the floor of the barrow, which was covered with ashes; and on digging still further to the south, he found a fine oblong cist, 18 inches deep, 15 inches wide, and 2 feet long; and in it a complete interment of burnt bones, and with them six beads, apparently of horn, two of which were circular and four perforated. No.30. A beautiful bell-shaped barrow, and the largest of 200 Stonehenge and its Barrows. this group. It measures from ditch to ditch 131 feet,andis15 feethigh. A‘ the depth of 15 feet was found only a simple interment of burnt bones. No. 31, a bowl-shaped barrow, 104 feet in base diameter, had on its floor an interment of burnt bones, with a small spear- head. No. 382, a fine bell-shaped barrow, contained only a simple interment of burnt bones. No. 33. Seventy-eight feet in diameter, surrounded by a fine vallum without the ditch, but having no elevation, as usual, in the centre. At the depth of 2 feet wasa circular cist containing a deposit of burnt bones, together with beads of glass, amber, and stone, with one of a horn-like substance. No. 34 had been opened before, and No. 35 was not successfully explored. No. 36, produced three skeletons, one over the other ; the first about 2 feet deep; the second on a level with the adjoining soil. Close to the right side of the head of this last skeleton was a drinking cup, and with it a considerable quantity of something that appeared like decayed leather. Six feet lower lay the third, with which was found a drinking cup. Sir Richard Hoare was surprised to find the bones and teeth so well preserved when deposited deep in the chalk, but “the most remarkable circumstance,” he says, was finding a piece of the skull, about 5 inches broad, that had been apparently sawn off, for he did not think that any knife could have cut it off in the manner in which this was done. No. 87 contained a large oblong cist, full of black ashes, and a few burnt bones. In No. 38, after much labour, the interment was missed. No. 39 is described as a bowl-shaped tumulus, adjoining the south side of the Cursus, 78 feet in diameter, and nearly 7 high, although it had been some years under tillage. A skeleton, with a drinking cup, had been previously found. Another skeleton was found on the floor, of a female, with a large quantity of beads near the neck. Close to the head was a kind of bason, broken, but neatly ornamented round the edge. “ On removing the head, we were much surprised to find that it rested upon a drinking cup, that had been placed at the feet of another skeleton, and which was interred in an oblong cist 2 feet deep, and lying also from north to south. With the drinking cup was a spear- head of flint, and a singular stone.” (Plate xvii.) This stone is very neatly polished, feels silky, and, at first sight, looks something —— a a By William Long, Esq. 201 like fossil wood. (See plate xvii., “ Ancient Wilts,” vol. i.) No. 40 “may be ealled ‘the monarch of the plain,’ being the largest barrow upon it.” On the floor were perceived symptoms of cre- mation, in charred wood, ete., yet-“‘we could not discover the primary interment.” No. 41. An interment of burnt bones. No, 42, sixty- six feet in diameter, and 6 feet high, was opened in 1803, and pro- duced, within a circular cist, an interment of burnt bones, and a bronze pin with part of its handle, deposited in a neat and perfect urn. (Plate xvi.) Nos. 43 and 44 are included within the bound- aries of the Cursus, and very near the western end of it. In the first -of these, at the depth of 3 feet, was the skeleton of an adult, with a drinking cup, and on the floor of the barrow, another of a child. We afterwards, in a shallow cist, found the third skeleton, of a man, with a curious pebble of a sea-green colour when dipped in water, and under the left hand a dagger of bronze. No. 44 contained only a simple interment of burnt bones. Nos. 45 and 47 yielded simple interments of burnt bones; No. 46, arude urn with cremation. No. 48 an interment of burnt bones with a bronze pin. No. 49 isa long barrow.! No. 50. Under a regular stratum of flints, intermixed 1No. 49 is not a long barrow. It is an oval barrow, coeval with the round barrows of the bronze period, and differing from the long barrow in having the ditch all round it and being much smaller. These oval barrows cover inter- _ ments sometimes by simple inhumation, but more generally after cremation. Dr. Thurnam opened this barrow on May Sth, 1864. Near to the east end, at the depth of about 13 feet, was the skeleton of a person of middle stature, closely doubled up, and with the head to the north. Close to the back of the skull was a small drinking cup of richly decorated red pottery, such as is found _ with skeletons in the later round barrows. Like the brachy cephalic skeleton _ with which it was found, it was much decayed and broken. The centre of the - mound was searched for a second interment, but unsuccessfully, although a small cup of coarse thick pottery was found. A third opening was made near the west end of the barrow, and at,a depth of from 1 to 2 feet, was the skeleton of a tall man, of a stature of 6 feet. This was likewise doubled up, but the head was directed to the west. Close to the remains of the skull were four very beautiful javelin heads of flint. They were close together, and had probably been deposited with their shafts entire. These are the only objects of this description which have been found in the Wiltshire barrows, but four of the same kind, but smaller, were found in an oval barrow on Pistle Down, Dorset, near the junction of the three counties of Wilts, Dorset and Hants.—See engravings of them in ‘ Archeologia,” 1873; ‘ Proceedings of Soc. Ant. ,” 202 Stonehenge and its Barrows. with black vegetable mould, at the depth of 5 feet, was the cist, at the floor of the barrow containing a skeleton, lying from north to south; and near it, a large branch of a stag’s horn. No. 51. A fine bell-shaped barrow, 95 feet in diameter, and 7 feet in elevation. At the depth of 44 feet in the native soil, viz., 114 from the summit, were found two skeletons, with their heads laid towards the north ; the one, an adult, the other, a young person of about twelve years of age. No..52. In this was perceived earth, quite black, and some burnt to a brick-colour. In 53, near the centre, was found a circular cist containing only ashes, with a quantity of small bones, probably of birds, dispersed about the barrow. No. 54. A fine bell-shaped barrow, 80 feet in diameter, and 7 in height, produced, on the floor, and near the centre, a circular cist, 18 inches wide, and 1 foot deep, full of wood ashes, and a few fragments of burnt bones. About 2 feet to the north of the above was another cist, of an oblong form, much larger and deeper than the other, which contained an interment of burnt bones, piled up in a heap in the centre of the cist. No. . 55 produced only a simple interment of burnt bones. In No. 56a cist was discovered, which had been previously investigated, but, on opening it, the workmen found an arrow-head of flint near the top.! The barrows numbered from 57 to 65 were opened by Mr. Cunnington.? Five of them are circular, and four dise-shaped, bar- rows. The latter had been partially opened; in one he found an interment, with a broken dart or lance of bronze, and in another the 2S., ii., 427; Evans’ ‘‘ Ancient Stone Implements,” figs 273—275; ‘‘ Wilts Arch. Mag.,” xi., 40. ‘‘The repeated discovery of simple leaf-shaped flint arrow-heads in the long barrows; ’’ is regarded by Dr. Thurnam, as “‘ some- thing more than a coincidence.” ‘‘ It seems to indicate the concurrence of the earliest type of finished flint weapon with probably the earliest form of sepul- chral tumulus in this part of the world. The more advanced and complex barbed flint arrow-heads, which are not unfrequently found in the circular barrows of the age of bronze and of burning the dead, have never been found, in the long barrows.” (Wilts Arch., Mag., xi., 48.) 1 Adjoining this group of barrows there are evident remains of another cursus, apparently unfinished, which has not been noticed by the former writers on Stonehenge.” (Tumuli Wiltunenses, p. 26.) 2**No regular account was kept of these discoveries.”—Sir R, C. Hoare. By William Long, Esq. ; 203 scattered fragments of burnt bones, a few small amber rings, beads of the same, and of jet, with the point of a bronze dart. In the large barrow, No. 57, he found, in a cist, at the depth of 12 feet from the surface, the remainder, as he thought of the brass dart, and with it a curious whetstone, some ivory tweezers, and some de- cayed articles of bone. No. 66 is a low barrow, in which were fragments of a human skull, of a large sepulchral urn, and a drinking cup. No. 67 appeared to have been previously opened. No. 68 is what Sir R. Hoare calls a “pond barrow.”” No.69 had been previously opened by Mr. Cunnington. No. 70 had an interment of burnt bones, deposited in an irregular cist. No. 71 produced the skeleton of a child, near the surface, and lower down, two rude sepulchral urns, the one above the other, each containing burnt bones. No. 72 had been opened by Mr. Cunnington, and produced a sepulchral urn. No. 73 had, near the surface, a skeleton, with four wooden beads near its neck ; and it appeared that another interment of burnt bones had been taken out. No. 74 produced a cinerarium, and ashes in acist. Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79 had been opened before, and appear to have been robbed of their contents. No. 80 is not sepul- ebhral. In No. 81 was a large rude urn, containing an interment of burnt bones. No 82 had a cinerarium, and two simple interments of burnt bones, just under the surface. No. 83 contained a sepulchral urn, with a small bronze pin. To the south of No. 80, on the opposite hill, is a disc-barrow, not inserted in the plan, which produced a rude urn without an interment. No. 84, the largest - barrow in this group, had been ploughed over. In making our Ls ee ee ”ClU Ce section, we found pieces of stags’ horns, pottery, and the remains of a skeleton and drinking cup and two knives; but the primary in- terment was a skeleton, with its legs gathered up, and hands placed _ under its head. No. 85 contained originally an interment of burnt eer << ‘ 4 i . bones, within a cist, but had been opened, No. 86 had also been opened ; it had a circular cist and a cinerarium. No. 87 contained fragments of an urn and burnt bones, in a shallow circular cist. No. _ 88 produced, just under the turf, fragments of a rude urn and burnt bones, and lower down, a sepulchral urn reversed over a deposit of burnt bones. No. 89 had been in tillage; it contained a skeleton 204 Stonehenge and its Barrows. in a cist, with its head towards the north. No. 90, in tillage, pro- duced a large urn rudely ornamented, and inverted over a deposit of burnt bones. No. 91 contained an interment of burnt bones, de- posited on the floor of the barrow: and beneath it was a deep cist containg abundance of ashes and charred wood, intermixed with particles of bone. No. 92. On the floor of this barrow were found the remains of a skeleton, with fragments of a funeral urn, burnt bones, and some enormous pieces of stags’ horns. Within a cist, excavated beneath the floor, lay a skeleton with its legs gathered up, and head placed towards the north. No. 93 had, near the top, an interment of burnt bones, in a rude broken urn, with a small cup; also the remains of a skeleton, charred wood, stags’ horns, and flint apparently prepared for warlike purposes. The primary deposit was a skeleton, with its head placed towards the south-east, accompanied by a fine drinking cup, richly ornamented, and in the highest state of preservation.! (Plate xviii.) No. 94 was not investigated. Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99 contained chiefly interments of burnt bones. No. 100 contained a simple interment of burnt bones within a circular cist. No. 101 a similar interment accompanied with two black rings of some bituminous substance, and one pully (?) bead. No. 102. An interment of burnt bones in a cist, with remnants of the cloth in which they had been enveloped. No. 103. A deep circular cist, with ashes. No. 104. A large flat circular barrow, had been previously opened, but yielded the bones of several skeletons, fragments of urns, and a rude instrument made from a stag’s horn ; there was also a large and deep cist. Nos. 105 and 106 had been opened by others. No. 107 produced a small interment of burnt bones, with a pin of bone at top, and under ita pile of ashes in a cist. No. 108. A “pond” barrow. Nos. 109, 110, and 111 had been investigated. No. 112 is a double barrow, rising towards the east, and somewhat resembling a long barrow, but ditched all round, 1In nearly all the barrows described in Ancient Wilts, i., 123 (19), 125 (25), 125 (27), 168 (93), 211 (24), 238 (9), the burnt bones and associated skeletons, formed secondary interments, with primary interments of unburnt bodies below. But, though secondary,the later interments seem in every instance to have Betoniged to nearly the same epoch as the primary ones. By William Long, Esq. 205 The lowest part had been opened, and contained an interment of burnt bones. In the other mound was an interment of burnt bones, secured by a linen cloth under a rude urn. No. 113, although pre- viously examined, yielded fragments of an urn and skeleton. No. 114 contained a deposit of burnt bones and ashes, in a deep cist. No. 115 the same, but had been opened before. No 116 had been opened. No. 117 contained a small rude urn, with an interment of burnt bones. No. 118. A small long barrow, and produced a de- posit of burnt bones and black ashes in a neat circular cist. No. 119 had an interment of burnt bones in a small cist. No. 120 isa “pond” barrow. No. 121 produced a rude urn reversed over a deposit of burnt bones. On the south side of Durrington Walls is an elevated mound, having the appearance of a barrow, No. 122, but, after digging to the depth of 11 feet, no sepulchral traces were found. No. 123, mutilated. No. 124, appearing like three barrows rising from one large base, but certainly a long barrow. It stands from south-west to north-east, and has its wide end towards the west. _ On the small end, and also on the centre, are mounds resembling two circular barrows Sir Richard opened that on the small end, and found only a few ashes and charred wood ; but in the central mound we discovered, near the top, a skeleton and a drinking cup, both of which had been disturbed. On reaching the floor of the long barrowwe found a circular cist like a little well, but it contained no interment. From this well-like cist, a tunnel, like a chimney, ascended nearly to the top. “I imagine that, as in most of our long barrows, the primary interment would be at the broad end. In this tumulus we _ have rather a singular instance of a circular barrow being raised upon a long barrow.” Nos. 125, 126, and 127 being in tillage, _ were not opened. Nos. 128 and 129 had been previously opened, but the cist of the latter, containing an interment of burnt bones, | with a lance-head of bronze,! had escaped unnoticed. No. 130 had _ 1 The bronze blades from the barrows are by Hoare variously described as ki ‘those of daggers, spears, lances, and arrows. The great majority were probably * daggers ov knives for hunting, or for every day purposes. No other tumuli _ have been so productive in such implements as those of Wiltshire ; nor have so ‘many of such large proportions and beautiful workmanship been found in any other district.” (Thurnam’s Anc. Brit. Barrows, ‘ Archwol.,” xliii., 448. ) Be 4 Fi 206 Stonehenge and its Barrows. been partially opened, but some of the interments remained perfect, aud were attended with some novel and singular circumstances. At the depth of about a foot and a half from the surface was a skeleton with a drinking cup, and lower down a deposit of burnt bones. On the east side of the barrow lay the skeletons of two infants, one with its head towards the east, the other towards the west, each placed over the head of a cow, which from fragments of the horns, appeared to have been of small size. We afterwards found a cist nearly four feet deep in the chalk, which contained the primary interment, viz:, the skeleton of a man; but these relics had been disturbed, and some bronze articles, with which the bones were tinged, had been removed. No. 131 had been opened. No. 132. In a deep cist were found an unusually large quantity of burnt bones, two drinking cups, two incense cups, and two bronze pins. The quantity of bones and the duplicate articles led Sir R. Hoare to suppose that this mound had been raised over two persons. (Plate xxiv.) No. 133 is a very high barrow, but the plough had made very considerable encroachments round its base. It contained, within a deep cist, a pile of burnt bones, and a very beautiful and perfect grape cup (engraved in plate xxiv. of “Ancient Wilts”). Nos. 134, 135, 136, and 137 bore marks of prior openings. No. 138 had been opened. No. 139, a mean barrow, composed entirely of vegetable earth, produced, within a shallow cist, a pile of burnt bones, and with them two fine daggers of bronze, a long pin of the same metal in the form of a crutch, a whetstone, and a small pipe of bone, about 7 or 8 inches long, and | more than a quarter of an inch in diameter at the small, and half an inch at the large end (plate xxiv) ; it is thin, and neatly polished, and has a perforation near the centre. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143, previously explored by the neighbouring farmers. No. 144, a wide bowl-shaped barrow, composed entirely of vegetable earth, contained the remains of a skeleton within an oblong cist, with head towards the north and with a small lance-head of bronze. No. 145, pre- viously explored, but in the cist was discovered a piece of ivory resembling the handle of a cup, and a large black pebble. No. 146° appears to have been the barrow opened by Dr. Stukeley, and marked B. in table ix., of his work. No. 147. One of these barrows, By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 207 enclosed within the same ditch, was opened by the Earl of Pem- broke, in the year 1722, and is marked A. in table ix., of Stukeley, and described at page 44 of his “Stonehenge.” He had found the deposit of a skeleton three feet under the surface, with its head placed in a northerly direction towards Stonehenge. Sir R. Hoare found the cist, which contained an interment of burnt bones, and with it two articles of ivory in high preservation. The one resembled a small lance-head, the other is like the handle of acup. (See Hoare’s Ancient Wilts, plate xxiv.) Dr. Stukeley had cleared a part of the floor of the small barrow, and left two half-pence covered with stones. Mr. Cunnington, however, continuing his researches, soon perceived the well-known line of chalk which led them to a cist at the east end of the barrow, and to an interment of burnt bones, with which were deposited four amber beads, two of jet with convoluted stripes, and a little broken cup. No. 148 was unproductive. No. 149 had been opened. In No. 150 the interment was missed. No. 151 isa small long barrow; and Nos. 152, 153 and 154 had been opened before. No. 155, a fine bell-shaped barrow, 92 feet in diameter, and 11 high. On the floor was found a large quantity of burned bones, and with them an earthen cup of a peculiar pattern, a cone of gold similar to that discovered in the golden barrow at Upton Lovel, five other articles of gold and several _ eurious ornaments of amber. (See plate xxv., of Ancient Wilts, vol. i.) The cone of gold is ornamented at intervals with four ; circular indentations, which are all dotted with a pointed instrument in the same manner as the lines on British pottery. The base of the | cone is covered with a plate, which is also ornamented with indented ¢ireular lines, and is made to overlap the lower edge of the cone to _ which it is fastened 3 it is perforated at bottom in two places for the ; ‘purpose of suspension. The two circular trinkets are extremely 7 beautiful, and in high preservation ; they are composed of red amber set round with gold, and are also perforated for suspension. They _ resemble the articles found by Dr. Stukeley in a barrow, of which : there is an engraving in his Tab. xxxii. “No barrow that we __ have yet opened has ever produced such a variety of singular and elegant articles, for except the cone of gold, all are novelties, both © a r z” 208 Stonehenge and its Barrows. in pattern and design.” No. 156, a fine bell-shaped barrow, 102 feet in base diameter, and 10 feet in height, contained within a very shallow cist, the remains of a skeleton, and a deposit of various elegant little trinkets, the most remarkable of which are two gold beads (engraved in plate xxv.). Besides these beads of amber, jet, and stone, was a beautiful little grape cup, and at the feet of skeleton, a drinking cup. No. 157 had a prior opening. No. 158 called by Stukeley, Bush Barrow, was not opened by him. Mr. Cunnington’s attempts were at first unsuccessful, but in 1808, on reaching the floor of the barrow, he and Sir R. Hoare discovered the skeleton of a stout and tall man lying from 8S. to N., the extreme length of his thigh bone was 20 inches. About 18 inches south of the head, we found several bronze rivets intermixed with wood, and some thin bits of bronze, nearly decomposed. These articles covered a space of 12 inches or more; it is probable therefore that they were the mouldered remains of a shield. Near the shoulders lay a fine celt (plate xxvi). Near the right arm was a large dagger of bronze, and a spear-head of the same metal, full 13 inches long, and the largest Sir R. Hoare had found. A curious article of gold had probably decorated the case of this dagger. The handle of wood belonging to this instrument (engraved in plate xxvii), had been formed, with a labour and exactness almost unaccountable, by thousands of gold rivets smaller than the smallest pin. Beneath the fingers of the right hand lay a lance-head of bronze. Imme- diately over the breast of the skeleton was a large plate of gold in the form of a lozenge, measuring 7 inches by 6. It was fixed to a thin piece of wood, over the edges of which the gold was lapped : it is perforated at top and bottom, for the purpose, probably, of fastening it to the dress as a breast-plate. The even surface of this noble ornament is relieved by indented lines, chequers, and zig-zags, following the shape of the outline, and forming lozenge within lozenge, diminishing gradually towards the centre. On the right — side of the skeleton, was a very curious perforated stone, with some wrought articles of bone, many small rings of the same material, and another article of gold. No. 159 had been opened by Lord Pembroke or Dr. Stukeley. No. 160 produced within a small By William Long, Esq. 209 circular cist, an interment of burnt bones, and with it a great variety of amber, jet, and glass beads. In No. 161, a low barrow, was a skeleton with a drinking cup, the head towards the south- east; and eighteen inches lower down was another, lying on its left side, with the head towards the east. Beneath this again in a cist nearly 6 feet deep, cut in the chalk, was the primary interment, a young man with a drinking cup close to his right hand, the head. lying towards the north. No. 162 had been opened before. No. - 163 contained an interment of burnt bones, deposited in a shallow oval cist, with the fragments of a small cup, and a bone pin. No. 164 may be considered as the most beautiful bell-shaped barrow in the plains of Stonehenge. Its base diameter is 145 feet, and its elevation 145 feet. It contained, within a very shallow cist, the skeleton of a man, with his head deposited towards the north-east, upon a plank of elm wood; on the left side of the head was a fine dagger of bronze, and a small lance-head of the same metal, the former of which had been guarded by a wooden case: at the feet of the skeleton was a richly-ornamented drinking cup. Some stags’ _ horns were at the head and feet of the skeleton. Large pieces of petrified wood were found in holes extending from the top to the bottom of the barrow. No. 165! is a small oblong barrow, and was opened at the broad end, but the sepulchral deposit was not found. No. 166 contained the remains of a skeleton, with a drinking cup and stags’ horns. No. 167 is a“ pond” barrow.” No. 168 produced 1In ‘*Tumuli Wiltunenses,”’ 165 is described as a small oblong barrow, in - which we found interments, as usual, at the broad end.” p. 41. This was opened by Dr. Thurnam. Three skeletons were found, and secondary inter- ments.” 2‘ Pond barrow, a misnomer introduced by Sir R. C. Hoare, it not being a barrow at all, but a circular excavation in the surface, similar to what might be “made fora pond. Thename ‘barrow’ necessarily involves the idea of a mound _or heap, and, as applied to sepulchral monuments, implies a grave-mound ; it is entirely inapplicable to such hollows as are here referred to. These circular ex- Cavations are often found among or adjacent to the barrows of Wiltshire, but the area within has scarcely ever yielded traces of interment. Sir R. Hoare and the Rey. E. Duke excavated the centre of three without finding sepulchral or other remains; in a fourth, however, in a hole in the chalk, there was a de- posit of burnt bones. Dean Merewether opened others in North Wilts, and the _ VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. P 210 Stonehenge and its Barrows. an interment of burnt bones and No. 169 did not prove sepulchral.' No. 170? is a long barrow, not opened. No. 171 denotes a group of various tumuli of different sizes, the largest of which produced a rude urn, some jet beads, and a brass pin. In another, which had been opened before, was found the fragments of a large urn, and a piece of granite similar to one found in a barrow at Upton Lovel. Nearly all the smaller barrows in this group contained simple in- terments of burnt bones. In No. 172 was at first discovered a circular cist, containing a vast quantity of black ashes, with a few fragments of burnt bones; but the interment was placed on the floor, by the side of the cist. With the bones was a large ring and Rev. J. H. Austen one in Purbeck, Dorset, and found nothing. I have also dug into two or three (including that marked No. 14 on Winterbourn Stoke Down) with the same negative result ; save only that in one (94 or 97 ‘Ancient Wilts,’ i., 168), a mile to the north of Stonehenge, I found the skull and bones of the right arm of a woman in situ. The absence of the left arm and of the lower part of the skeleton was remarkable, and showed that the body had been dismembered before burial, which was probably long subsequently to the formation of the cavity. Stukeley opened one near Stonehenge (p. 45), and found nothing but a bit of red pottery. He speaks of them as ‘ circular dish- like cavities dug in the chalk, like a barrow reversed ;’ and elsewhere calls them ‘barrows inverted.’ (‘Abury,’ p. 12.) His view of their use as ‘ places for sacrificing and feasting in memory of the dead’ is not unlikely. The earth and chalk excavated from them would be employed, we may suppose, in the completion of one or more of the adjacent barrows.” Dr. Thurnam, ‘* Archeologia,” xlii., p. 167. 1 “The primary interments are sometimes at a not inconsiderable dis- tance from the centre of the tumulus. Such an irregularity may be inferred to be accidental, dependent probably on the carelessness of those who raised the sepulchral mound. In one barrow near Collingbourn, the Rey. W. C. Lukis found the grave containing the prnicipal interment as much as 12 feet to the south of the centre. As the deviation is as likely to be in one direction as the other, the difficulty of finding the interment is immensely increased. Hence may be explained the fact that of the barrows explored by Hoare and Cunnington, nearly one-fifth (eighty-six out of four hundred and sixty-five) were ‘unproductive ;’ not that, unless in rare instances, they were mere cenotaphs, but that zeal failed in what seemed a hopeless search.” Dr, Thurnam, ‘‘ Archeologia,”’ xliii., p. 330. 2No. 170 was opened by Dr. Thurnam, but not successfully. There were important secondary interments. In this barrow Dr. Thurnam obtained the piece of stone spoken of in note at p. 93 of this paper. By William Long, Esq. 211 several beads of a dark olive brown colour, made from some bitu- minized substance. No. 173 isalong barrow. In making a section at the broad end, a skeleton was discovered at the depth of 18 inches from the surface, and on reaching the floor of the barrow, four other skeletons were found strangely huddled together, and yet there was | no appearance of a previous disturbance of the barrow. The bones were in a high state of preservation, and one of the persons here in- terred seems to have had no forehead, the sockets of his eyes appearing to have been on the top of his head, and the final termination of the vertebre turned up so much “ that we almost fancied we had found the remains of one of Lord Monboddo’s animals.” No. 174 had been opened before. No. 175 contained a simple deposit of burnt bones, and in the small tumulus attached to it, and which had been investi- gated, we found fragments of another interment. In No. 176,a fine bell-shaped barrow, was found a skeleton, lying on the floor with _ its head towards the north, but this barrow was not very minutely investigated. No. 177 was only the base of a large circular barrow, _ the earth having been removed for agricultural purposes; yet the spot where the deposit of burnt bones was made was discovered, and with them a fine spear head of bronze. No. 178 contained a simple interment of burnt bones; and Nos. 179, and 180, had been opened by the neighbouring farmers. No. 181 is a group consisting of _ several mean barrows, which appeared to have been previously opened. _ No. 182 produced an interment of burnt bones, deposited within a wooden box on the floor, and with them the head of a bronze dagger, which had been secured by a sheath of wood lined with linen eloth, a small lance-head, a pair of ivory nippers, and an ivory pin. In P 2 212 Stonehenge and its Barrows. found only the cinerarium containing the ashes, but the interment was missed. No. 5, a flat bowl-shaped barrow, produced, on the floor, a single interment of burnt bones, placed by the side of a cirealar cist, which contained another deposit of burnt bones within a beautiful sepulchral urn (engraved in plate xxviii.). Close to this urn was another oval cist, containing a similar deposit, together with a spear-head of bronze, which appeared to have been almost melted into a rude lump by the heat of the funeral pile. No. 6 had been opened. No. 7 has three sepulchral mounds within its area; in one were found the relics of the skeleton of a youth, and fragments of a drinking cup ; in the central tump was a simple interment of burnt bones, with a small bronze pin; and the third seemed to have been opened. No. 8 had also been examined. No. 9, a large and almost bowl-shaped barrow, 8 feet high. Within a cist, 2 feet deep, was a little pile of burnt bones, and with them an ivory pin, a rude ring of bone, and a small bronze celt. (Plate xxviii.) The cist was protected by a thick covering of flints, and immediately over it was the skeleton of a dog. No. 10 is a “pond” barrow. Nos. 11 and 12 adjoin each other, and are wide and low barrows. The former had been opened, and its scattered relics seem to indicate two in- terments having taken place within it, cremation and the skeleton. The latter proved a singular, though not a productive barrow. From the small elevation of the mound it was expected that the interment would have been soon met with, but “ we were obliged to dig 10 feet below the level, when we discovered a skeleton, with its head laid towards the east.” In No. 13, a large bowl-shaped barrow, was the skeleton of a young and stout man, deposited in shallow cist, with the head towards the south-east, and near it a large and rude drinking cup. (Plate xxviii.) No. ]4 had been previously opened. In No. 15 no interment could be found. No. 16, a bowl-shaped barrow, produced, at a foot beneath the surface, an interment of burnt bones, and some instruments made of stags’ horns, some whet- stones, an arrow-head of flint, another in an unfinished state, and a small spear-head. At a greater depth was the primary interment, of a skeleton, with its head laid towards the north-west. No. 17 had been opened. No. 18 isa large bell-shaped barrow, 121 feet in By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 213 diameter, and 11 in elevation, “the monarch of this group.” On the floor was the skeleton of a very tall man, lying on his right side, with his head towards the south-east. At his feet were laid a massive hammer, of a dark-coloured stone, a bronze celt, a tube of bone, a whetstone with a groove in the centre, and several other articles of bone, amongst which is the enormous tusk of a wild boar, but the most curious article found was one of twisted bronze, of which Sir Richard Hoare could not divine the use. It is engraved in plate xxix. of “ Ancient Wilts,” vol. i. Lake Grovpr. ; No. 1, a long barrow, not opened. The diminutive barrew, No. _ 2, produced, just under the surface, a rude but perfect little cup (engraved plate xxx.), which is perforated at the bottom like a colander, and has holes on the sides for suspension. ‘This cup ac- companied an interment of burnt bones. Nos. 3 and 4 had been previously opened. In No. 5 was an interment of burnt bones, with _ twenty or thirty small black beads, which appeared to have been composed of earth or wood, and to have passed the fire. No. 6, one of the finest barrows in this group is 13 feet 9 inches high. Within one foot of the surface a large sepulchral urn, rudely formed and baked, 15 inches high and 13 wide, had been placed with its mouth downwards over a large pile of burnt bones, amongst which was a fine ivory bodkin. At a further depth of 5 feet were the remains of — two skeletons ; and at the bottom of the barrow, and total depth of 13 feet 9 inches, was an oblong cist, five feet deep, and seven feet _ long, cut in the chalk, containing the skeleton of a child, apparently not more than two or three years old, accompanied by a drinking cup. No. 7 is a large bell-shaped barrow, composed entirely of vegetable earth. It contained, within a cist, a little pile of burnt _ bones, with which had been deposited a very fine bronze pin, a large stone bead which had been stained red, a bead of ivory, and a lance- head of bronze. (Pl. xxx.) No. 8, a very wide and flat barrow, about 6 feet high, and 48 in diameter, from which the French Prophets are supposed to have preached in 1710 (see Stukeley). At the depth of 2 feet a pile of marl was reached, which increased in 214 Stonehenge and its Barrows. size as the floor was approached. On the north side of the section was found the cist from whence this marl had been thrown out ; it was 84 feet long, and above 2 wide, and contained a pile of burnt human bones, which had been enclosed within a box of woud. Near the bones lay a fine spear-head and a whetstone. (Pl. xxvii.) No. 9, a fine bell-shaped barrow, 10 feet high, produced only a simple interment of burnt bones on the floor. In No. 10 nothing was found but the skeleton of a dog and the head of a deer. Nos. 11 and 12 had been previously opened. No. 13 contained a simple interment of burnt bones. In No. 14 and 15 we see a kind of double barrow, the smallest end of which had been opened before. The floor of the larger mound was strewed with an immense quantity of wood ashes, and in a small oblong cist was an interment of burnt bones, together with four glass pully beads, one of stone, two of amber, and a bronze pin. On the north side of the adjoining inclosure, but not within it, are a few smail barrows, scarcely elevated above the soil, which were more productive than their size seemed to promise. No. 21 had been opened before, but amongst the earth and scattered bones were some fragments of a fine drinking cup, some chipped flints and one perfect arrow-head of flint. No. 22 had been partially opened, but amongst the unburnt bones which had been moved were found 1Dr, Thurnam says (page 25 of ‘‘ Ancient British Barrows,” part 1i.): “IT have myself successfully re-opened tumuli, ‘unproductive’ under the hands of Hoare and Cunnington, whose explorations had yielded ‘ no signs of interment.’ Fifty or sixty years after these unsuccessful attempts, I was, in the case of four barrows, rewarded by the discovery of interments of burnt bodies, eccentrically deposited. One was on Lake Down (Ancient Wilts, i., 211 (10), on which Cunnington had made two trials. The others were on Winterbourn Stoke Down (Ibid, i,, 121 (10), 124 (23), the fourth being one of two or three very small mounds, about a quarter of a mile to the north, not distinguished by numbers. (Ibid, i, 126.) In three of the number the burnt bones were con- tained in shallow graves, whilst in the fourth they were collected into a large upright urn, with the rim in close proximity to the ploughed surface of the very low burial mound.” Dr. Thurnam opened besides, barrows not examined by Sir R. Hoare, at Lake, Amesbury ‘‘ Seven Barrows,” North, ‘‘ King Barrow,” and Winterbourn Stoke (p. 5 of Ancient British Barrows, ii.); but, with the exception of the information that the last was unsuccessfu), and that thé examination of two of the five barrows at Winterbourn Stoke had been des- cribed in ‘‘ Proc. Ant. Soc.” 2nd series, ii, 427—429, he has not published details respecting them. By William Long, Esq. * 215 the remains of two neatly-ornamented drinking cups; and on digging towards the south-east was discovered the skeleton of a child, and over it a drinking cup. (Pl. xviii.) No. 23 contained a simple in- terment of burnt bones within a cist, made in the form of a cone, and No. 24 produced a similar interment, immediately under the turf, with fragments of a drinking cup. Two feet lower down was another deposit of burnt bones immediately over the head of a skeleton; and beneath this was a second skeleton, lying with its head to the north-west, and several large pieces of stags’ horns by its side. The barrows, Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, were opened by their owner, the Rev. Edward Duke, in 1806. Nos. 16,17, and 18 had each an interment of burnt bones, and a small lance-head of bronze. No. 20, besides a lance-head contained four little articles of bone, intermixed with the ashes and burnt bones. Sir Richard Hoare thought they might have been used, like tessere, for some kind of game. (Pl. xxxi.) No. 21, a wide and low tumulus, ploughed over for many years. The mode of interment was here varied, and the very rich and numerous trinkets discovered in this barrow seem to announce the skeleton to have been that of some very distinguished British female. The most remarkable of these _ Was an ornament of amber, 10 inches in height, and above 3 in breadth. It is formed of eight distinct tablets, and by being strung together, formed one ornament, as may be distinctly seen by the _ perforations at top and bottom. SBesides the above were numerous beads of amber of much larger proportions than usual,and varying _ in their patterns, four articles of gold perforated, perhaps for earrings, and two small earthen cups, the one about 7 or 8 inches deep, the other little above an inch. The largest of the beads, the gold or- _naments and the fragment of the smallest cup are engraved of their full size in plate xxxi. Barrows at WINTERBOURN STOKE. These are situated at a short distance from the village, on a gentle | eminence, and are twelve in number. Nine of them are surrounded by a ditch and vallum enclosing an area of about four acres, but certainly of a period subsequent to the barrows within it. All, but 216 Stonehenge and its Barrows. one, were opened in 1809, with the following results: No. 1 a large and wide dise barrow,in which it appeared that the primary interment had been moved to make room for the subsequent deposit of a skele- ton, which also had been disturbed at some still later period. The examination of the cist which contained the skeleton showed that the feet had not been displaced ; near them was an iron knife; and at the bottom of the cist were several fragments of burnt bones, belonging to the remains of the original interment. No. 2 is much mutilated, and of large diameter, but not more than 4 feet in elevation. It contained an interment of burnt bones secured within a very large brown urn, rudely ornamented. A considerable quantity of linen cloth was perceptible among the bones. No. 3, a flat barrow, mutilated, contained, within an oval cist, a simple interment of burnt bones, and shreds of linen cloth. No. 4 afforded no sepulchral re- mains, and probably was not intended for a barrow. No. 5,a circular flat. barrow, contained a double cist, the smallest of which produced a little dagger of bronze, and a variety of beads (about four dozen in number, neatly made of clay), amongst which were two joints of the vertebral column of petrified encrinus. Besides, the above were a great quantity of curious little shells, in shape like the Hirlas horn used by the Britons, which were perforated lengthways, and formed probably the necklace of some female. The large cist contained only the bones of a sheep. In No. 6, a flat circular barrow, was found an oval cist, containing burnt bones, and a rude little cup, resembling a saucer. No. 7 is asmall “pond” barrow. No. 8, a very irregular flat barrow, 8 feet high, produced, near the centre, a large urn, standing upright within a circular cist, and containing, amongst an interment of burnt bones, a small bronze dagger, with a bone top to it, neatly finished, with five holes on the side for so many rivets, by which it was fastened to a wooden handle. The urn was very large, and elegantly formed; it contained a few black beads that had undergone the action of fire. No. 9, a flat circular barrow, contained two small round cists, in each of which was de- posited an interment of burnt bones; in one was a curious little double cup. No. 10 was opened by Mr. Cunnington, in 1804. It contained an urn inverted over the burnt bones, which had been By William Long, Esq. 217 wrapped up in a linen cloth to protect them; and with the bones were found a small bronze pin, employed probably for fastening the cloth, five rings of a dark brown colour, one of which was perforated for suspension, a small cone of the same materials perforated also for the same purpose, and several pully beads of glass, with one of jet, and another of amber. No. 11 contained, within an oblong cist, a simple interment of burnt bones. No. 12 contained a very large rude urn, 163 inches deep, inverted over an interment of burnt bones, and within it a smaller vase. Within them were found two ' dark rings, a large amber bead perforated, four pully beads and three of a black colour. . On the eastern side of the valley, and nearly opposite to the cluster of barrows just described, is another group situated on the southern declivity of a projecting point of the downs. They are enclosed in an area of about seven acres, within an oval earthen work, surrounded by a bank and ditch of slight elevation, and are eleven in number. Cremation had been practised in Nos. 1 and 2. Nos. 3 and 4 had been opened by shepherds, and contained inter- ments of burnt bones. In the former was a little cup, which Mr. Cunnington purchased. No. 5 contained an um very imperfectly baked, and within it an interment of burnt bones, and a very small _ arrow-head of bone. In No. 6 cremation had been adopted. No. 17, a large barrow, produced three interments. At the depth of 42 feet was the skeleton of an infant; and immediately beneath it a _ deposit of burnt bones, and a drinking cup. At the depth of 8 feet, _ and in the native bed of chalk, was the primary interment, viz., the _ skeleton of a man, lying from north to south, with his legs gathered _ up according to the primitive custom. On his right side, and about a foot or more above the bones was an enormous stag’s horn. No. 8a large old-fashioned bowl-shaped barrow, with a base diameter of nearly 100 feet, contained a skeleton lying on the floor with its head to the north. The other three barrows, 9, 10, and 11, afforded, _ 01 opening, no one appearance of sepulchral remains. 218 Addenda and fotes. (pp. 14 and 20.) $unr2 "3 ROM Dr. Philemon Holland’s translation of Camden’s “ Britannia,” 1610, p. 253 :— XO “Our countrie-men recken this for one of our wonders and miracles. And much they marvaile from whence such huge stones were brought, considering that in all those quarters bordering there- upon, there is hardly to be found any common stone at all for build- ding; as also by what meanes they were set up. For mine own part, about these points I am not curiously to argue and dispute, but rather to lament with much griefe that the authors of so notable a monument are thus buried in oblivion. Yet some there are, that thinke them to be no naturall stones heawen out of the rocke, but artificially made of pure sand, and by some glewie and unctuous matter knit and incorporate together, like as those ancient trophees or monuments of victorie which I have seene in Yorkshire. And what marvaile? Read we not I pray you in Plinie, that the sand or dust of Puteoli being covered over with water, becometh forthwith a very stone: that the cesternes in Rome of sand digged out of the ground, and the strongest kind of lime wrought together grow so hard, that they seeme stones indeed? and that statues and images of marble chippings and small grit grow together so compact and firme, that they are deemed entier and solide marble. The common saying is that Ambrosius Aurelianus, or his brother Uther did reare them up by the art of Merline that great mathematician, in memorie of those Britons who by the treachery of Saxons were there slaine at a parley. Whereupon Alexander Necham, a poet of no great antiquitie, in a poeticall fit, but with no speciall grace and favour of Apollo, having his instructions out Geffrey’s British historie, come out of these verses :— By William Long, Esq. 219 ‘The Giants’ Daunce, a famous stone-worke stands, Art did her best in bringing it to passe, Vaine prating fame, reports by Merlin’s hand, In maner strange this work effected was. The stones (men say) in that land first did lie * Scythia. Whence * Cranes + in flockes so many use to ftie. + Palamedis aves. From thence conveied, as things of charie price, The Irish soil received them with joy. For why? their vertue in a wondrous wise, Oft cures the griefe that doth sicke folke annoy. For waters cast and sprinkled on these stones Their vertue take, and heale the grieved ones, The noble Uther that Pendragon hight, Them over seas to Ambresburie brought ; Returning thence, where he by martiall might Had guel’d his foes in battell fiercely fought. O worthy wights, how many on that plaine, Of you lie dead by Hengist’s treason slaine! The Britons brave, that race of noble blood, Entrapt by little heed and too much trust, Were kild alas, in parley as they stood, Through faithless fraud of enemies unjust. But Eldol Earle his manhood excellent Then shewed, to death who seventie persons sent. Auprey’s “ Monumenta Britannica.” (Page 32.) - Aubrey’s sketch of Stonehenge in the “ Monumenta Britannica ” _ is interesting, hut not worth the expense of reproduction. So much of the “Templa Druidum™” (the more important portion of the 1 work) has now been printed by the Society that it might be desirable, in some future number or numbers of the Magazine, to print the re- maining portion, together with a selection of the more interesting notices from the other portions of the “ Monumenta.” _ By the courtesy of Mr. Allnutt, of the Bodleian Library, the writer was shown the printed prospectus for the publication of the © Monumenta.” It is amongst Antony & Wood’s collections (658 -£.811). It is as follows :— “PROPOSALS for perintinc Mlonumenta Britannica, written by Mr. Joun Avsrery, Fellow of the Royat Socrry, Containing Four Parts, viz. . 220 Stonehenge and its Barrows. “J. 1. Templa Druidum. 2.A Review. 3. Religion and Manners of the Druids. II. 1. Camps. 2. Castles. 3. Military Architecture of the Old Times. 4. Roman Towns. 5. Pits. 6. Horns. III. 1. Barrows. 2. Vrnes. 8. Sepulchres. 4. Ditches. 5. Highways. 6. Roman Pavements. 7. Coines. 8. Embanking and Draining. “To which is Annexed, 3 zgwWara, sive MISCELLANEA. “ Containing Discourses Chronological, e.g., 1. Architectonical. 2. Of Scutcheons. 3. Hand-writings. 4. Habits. Also 5. Of Weights. 6. Prices of Corn. 7%. Of Diversities of Standards, and the Value of Money. 8. Noiiuelles. 9. The Proportion of the Languages, Ingredients of our present English. “The whole Work will consist of about 160 Sheets, and will be Printed in Yolio with abundance of Cuts. “ The Book to be Printed on a very good Paper. Every Subscriber to pay Eighteen Shillings in Quires, that is to say, Nine Shillings down in hand at the time of the Subscription, and the other Nine at the delivery of it. «That the price to any other than a Subscriber to be One Pound Four Shillings in Sheets: And there are so few Printed, that care will be taken that none shall be under-sold. “That the Books will be printed by Cand/emas next, and will be delivered at the Shops of these Booksellers following, viz., Mr. Clavel at the Peacock m St. Paul’s Church-yard, Mr. Smith at the Feathers in St. Paul’s Church-yard, Mr. Bennet at the HalfMoon in St. Paul’s Church-yard. Mr. Nott in the Pall-Mall. Mr. Hensman in Westminster-Hall. Mr. Hindmarsh at the Black Bull in Cornhill. Mr. Sam. Crouch over against the Royal Exchange. Mr. Horne at the entrance into the Royal Exchange. Mr. Wilkinson at the Black Boy in Fleet-street. Mr. Henry Clements Bookseller in Ozford. Mr. Henry Dickenson Bookseller in Cambridge. «¢ AJ] Gentlemen who subscribe, will have their Names, Titles, and Places of Abode Printed in a sheet. “ Monumenta Britannica. [Specimen page.] 25. “Templa Druidum. “In the Declension of the Roman Empire the Britains being By William Long, Esq. 221 drawn away to defend other Provinces, their own country lay open to the Incursion of the Invaders: In that miserable state of things, the Learned Men fled for Refuge into Jredand ; upon which oceasion Learning did flourish there a long time; but the Memory of things here became obliterated. Books perish’d, and Tradition was forgot. The Saxon Conquerors ascribed Works great and strange to the Devil, or some Giants, and handed down to us only Fables. This Incursion of the Goths puts Monsieur Balzae into a Cholerique Rhetorication. Se. Toutee qui s’escrit mesme, nes pas assuré de de- meurer, & les Liures perissent, comme la Tradition s’oublie. Le temps qui vient & bout du fer & des marbres, ne manque pas de force contra des matieres plus fragiles: & les Peuples du Septentrion, qui sembloient estre venus pour haster le Temps, & pour precipiter le fin du Monde, declarerent une guerre si particulariere aux chosses escrites, qui na pas tenu & eux que Alphabet mesme ne soit aboly. ‘The Northern People who seemed to come to hasten Time, and precipitate the end of the World, declared so particular a War to written things, that it was not wanting in them, but that even the Alphabet had been abolished’ *Twas in that Deluge of History, the Account of these British Monuments utterly perished ; the Discovery whereof I do here endeavour (for want of written Record) to work out and restore after a kind of Algebraical Method, by comparing them that I have seen, one with another, and reducing them to a kind of Aiqua- tion: so (being but an ill Orator my self) to make the Stones give Evidence for themselves. 7 . “T shall proceed gradually, a notioribus ad minis nota; that is to say, from the Remains of Antiquity less imperfect, to the more im- perfect and ruinated ; wherefore I must first touch at that vast and ancient Monument called Audury, in Wiltshire. «¢ AVBURY. « Avbury is Four Miles West from Marlborough in Wiltshire, and is peradventure the most eminent and most entire Monument of this this kind in the Isle of Great Britain. It is very strange, that so eminent an Antiquity should lie so long unregarded by our Choro- graphers. Mr. Camden only names it. 222 Stonehenge and its Barrows. “Tt is environed with an extraordinary great Va//um [or Rampart] as great and as high as that at Winchester, (which is the greatest Bulwark that I have seen), within which is a Graffe of a Depth and Breadth proportionable to it: Wherefore it could not be designed for a Fortification, for then the Graffe would have been on the out-side of the Rampart. * From the Port a, to the Port 8, is sixty Perches. From the Port y, to that of 3 the same distance, and the breadth of the Rampart is Four Perches, and the breadth of the Graffe the same distance. Round about the Graffe (sci/. on the edge or border of it) are pitched on end huge Stones, as big, or rather bigger than those at Stoneheng; but rude and unhewn DrawinG OF STONEHENGE IN THE “Scata Munpt.” (Page 46.) Through the intervention of his friend, the Rev. Prebendary Scarth, the writer has been able to procure a further account of the plan of Stonehenge in the library of Corpus Christi College (formerly Benet College), Cambridge. The Rev. S. 8. Lewis, F.S.A., a Fellow and Librarian of the College, has most kindly sent him a fac-simile of the drawing in “Scala Mundi.” This “Scala Mundi” is in the Parker MS. (No. 194). At the end of it is written, na style not much later than the time of Edward II., “ Hospitium beate Marie extra bishopsgate hune vendicat librum.” “It is a Chronological Table or Fasti from Anno Mundi I., down to 1338, in handwriting of the time of Edward I., thence to the year 1451, in a somewhat later hand: the skeleton is complete to the year 1619. The lunar cycles of nineteen years and the solar cycles of twenty-eight years are duly marked, but there are fifty lines (7.e., fifty years) in each page instead of one clear cycle of nineteen only, as is the case when twenty-eight leaves of such pages complete a combination of the lunar and solar cycles. The manuscript is a small folio 11} inches long by 7} wide.” The notice of Stonehenge occurs on page 57. In the quadrangular space between the stones is written “ Stonehenges juxta Ambresbury in Anglia sita” in red ink. A.D. 491 is the year to which the notice of Stonehenge is By William Long, Esq. 223 appended, and the British King then reigning is Aurelius Ambrosius. The print in Gough’s Camden, from which the woodeut at page 46 was taken, is not faithfully copied; but as the generally rude and inaccurate character of the original sketch is sufficiently shown, it seems to be hardly worth while to have it re-engraved. Tue STONES OF THE INNER CircLe AND InneR ELLIPSE. (Page 59.) The great puzzle about Stonehenge is in connection with these smaller stones, which are foreign to the neighbourhood. We cannot be far wrong in believing that the entire structure was intended to serve as-a temple for religious worship ; and we know whence the large stones came, and how “ with much ado and pains” they could be set up; but we are in perplexity about these primitive stones from Wales or Cornwall. Were they brought here, in the first instance, in ignorance of the existence of the sarsen stones in the neighbourhood? ‘This is not likely. Were they brought here to decorate the interior of the temple, as we should employ rare and costly marble from a distance to adorn the interior of a church? This again is not likely, as although by shaping and polishing they might be rendered more comely, they are at present in no way - ornamental. _ For the merely structural purposes of making a circle and ellipse, _sarsen stones of the same height and size would have been equally serviceable. We are forced to believe that some special religious value was attached to stones of this particular kind, and that no other stones could have supplied their place in a building of this character. That medicinal and other virtues were believed to be the property of particular stones we know from Pliny (Book xxxvi.) and others ; and Aubrey tells us (p. 35) that pieces of these stones were put into wells _ “to drive away theToades.” It is not unlikely that enquiries into the superstitious value, which has at different times and in different places, become associated with particular stones, will render it almost certain to us that these smaller Stonehenge stones were held in such high regard as to make the trouble of bringing them from a great 224 Stonehenge and its Barrows. distance a matter of no concern in comparison with the importance of having them there, as an integral portion of the sacred fane. THE worD “ SaRrasin.” (Page 69.) Dr. Stukeley says (p. 63 of reprint) that: “the Cornish men universally suppose that the Jews are the people who first work’t in their rocks for tin; and in old neglected tin-works they find some of their tools. The workmen call them atta/ sarazin, the Jews’ cast off works in their Hebrew speech, says Norden.” On the Jews in Cornwall, see Mr. Max Miiller’s “ Chips from a German Workshop,” vol. 11. ; Destruction or Stones at STONEHENGE. (Page 77.) Lord Herbert (then the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert) stated in his speech at the Society’s meeting, at Salisbury, in 1855, that he believed “that some years ago, a portion of Stonehenge was con- sumed in the reparation of the roads.” (See “ Wilts Arch. § Nat. Hist. Mag,” ii., 6.) This can hardly have been the case since 1812, as the plans of Stonehenge which served for the illustration of Sir Richard Hoare’s description of it in “ Ancient Wilts,” require no alteration for the illustration of the present paper, although at an interval of sixty years. There must have been some misapprehension about the stone from which West Amesbury House was built (see page 76), as Mr. Edwards, of Amesbury, in a letter which he has kindly communicated to the writer (dated April 8th, 1876), says, “I have been to West Amesbury, and have carefully examined the stones used in building the house as well as the garden wall, but have not discovered any stones similar to those at Stonehenge. . . . I likewise ex- amined the walls of the old farm-house, on which there is a date of 1680, the old portion of which is partly built with similar stones to that of the house before mentioned.” Mr. Edwards mentions the curious fact that the Stonehenge circles and the Friar’s Heel are in different Hundreds, the former being in the Hundred of Underditch, and the latter in the Hundred of Amesbury. ———— a — Loo = By Wiiliam Long, Esq. 225 RE-ERECTION OF THE TRILITHON WHICH FELL IN 1797. (Page 81.) For more than twenty years there has been discussion about the propriety of re-erecting the stones of the trilithon which last fell down. It appears, however, that at a very early period in the pre- sent century the same idea had been entertained, but had come to nought. Mr. Britton, in his memoir of Mr. Hatcher, says “ that a sum of fifty pounds, which had been subscribed to raise the fallen trilithon at Stonehenge, was, in 1802, employed in exploring some of the numerous barrows of Salisbury Plain.” DIGGING AROUND THE “ SLAUGHTERING STONE.’ (Page 85.) There seems to have been some confusion in Sir R. Hoare’s mind about this digging around the “ Slaughtering Stone,” as it appears that it was done by Mr. Cunnington, in 1802, two or three years before his connection with Sir Richard commenced. For “ he,” in the next line, read ‘‘ Sir R. Hoare.” Ture Cursvs. (Page 90.) Any one who would visit the west end of the Cursus should go along the road to Shrewton, as far as barrow No. 42, and then cross - the road, At a distance of about 300 yards he will come upon this : end of the Cursus. One of the barrows upon it is on the down, the other inside the plantation. It will be useless to attempt to trace its eriaries through the plantation. Ansexce or AncLo-Saxon Barrows FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF STONEHENGE. . (Page 99.) “Tt is further to be remarked that the few Anglo-Saxon tumuli which have been found in Wiltshire were in the outlying districts valleys, and not one of them on the barrow-covered hills and ‘VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVI. Q _ 226 Stonehenge and its Barrows. plains around Avebury and Stonehenge, the sacred places of an elder race.”’—Dr. Thurnam, “ Archeologia,” vol. xlii., p. 287.1 Tur Bexetc Dircues, as described by Dr. T. Wharton, in his “ History of Kiddington,” pp. 72, 73, 74, [1815.] (Page 103.) “ Petty barbarian states, intent only on repelling their neighbours or enlarging their territories, unfurnished with arts or letters, and from their natural ferocity cherishing the most violent jealousies, and destitute of the principles of mutual confidence, possessed no— other mode of adjusting their differences and securing their frontiers, than to construct these inartificial bulwarks, serving at once for division and defence, planned on the simplest mechanism, and ex- ecuted by the mere strength of tumultuary multitudes. “They must be esteemed stupendous operations, not only if we consider their solidity and extent, but the inconveniencies of ground, and impracticabilities of country, over which they were conducted, with a sort of blind but unbaffled perseverance, by the devious and eccentric hand of savage conquest. There is often a kind of barbaric capriciousness even in the irregularities of their course. It frequently happened, that a boundary raised with infinite labour, soon became superfluous, and as new spaces of country gradually fell a prey to the progression of prosperous arms, was included by another on a more comprehensive scale and wider compass. A straight line drawn — northward, from the southern coast of England about Dorsetshire and Hampshire, only thirty miles into land, would cut through the curve of no fewer than seven of these boundaries, successively circulating one beyond the other, and which I believe to have been reared by the Belge, a formidable colony of the Celts from Gaul, as they gradually extended their victories, and propagated their . 2The six grave-mounds belonging to Ancient Wiltshire, which have been proved upon examination to be Anglo-Saxon, are described in Hoare’s ‘‘ Ancient Wilts,” i., 46, 48, 174 (barrow levelled), 234, 285; vol. ii. ‘‘ Roman Aira,” 4 p. 26. The five secondary Anglo-Saxon interments are described in i., 79, 100, ? 113, 194, 236. By William Long, Esq. 227 acquisitions, over Dorsetshire, Wiltshire, and Hampshire. All these seven valla describe the most desultory track, but proceed in windings nearly parallel—a proof of their reference to each other, and that the aboriginal Britons did not suffer the invaders to advance with any degree of precipitation. * “The most perfect is that near Woodyates, in Dorsetshire: and which originating, as I presume, from the river Stour, or the sea- shore, about Christchurch; in Hampshire, appears conspicuous, like the elliptic on one of the hemispheres of a globe, over the long and broad declivity of Bladon Hill, above Marton, in Wiltshire, and in- tersecting, with a prodigious ridge and foss in almost original pre- servation, the Roman road called the Ikenild Street, within a furlong of Woodyates, pushes through the woody tracts of Cranbourne Chase, and seems to terminate at Grovely Wood, within five miles of Salisbury. This very remarkable rampart is unquestionably Celtic, being evidently antecedent to the Romans; for at the intersection above-mentioned, the substance of the Ikenild, that most dubious and unintelligible of the Pretorian ways, yet here retaining the genuine and massy remains ofa pebbly and flinty stratum cemented with chalk, is continued in a line across or through it, as was plainly per- ceptible when the London turnpike-road was lately made. Had the rampart and dyke been posterior, the Roman materials would have _ been torn up and destroyed. And I must add that near Woodyates _ Lane the Roman road penetrates the centre of a barrow, one of a - numerous group. These barrows, apparently connected with the rampart, are as indisputably Celtic, and not Roman ; because the - Romans, more pious than modern Christians, would not have suffered such a profanation to have been committed on a sepulchre of their ‘ancestors. Nor, in after times, would the Saxons or Danes have formed a barrow on a public way. Wansdyke or Gwhahan-Dyke, ‘the ditch of division, which also interferes with a probable Roman road at Hedington, and in the midst of which is situated the town of Devizes, anciently a Celtic station, is the last frontier of the en- eroachments of the Belgz northward. Here a stand was made between the contending barbarians : and as Wansdyke runs between - Stonehenge and Abury, probably those two mysterious monuments, Q 2 228 Stonehenge and its Barrows. if not sepulchral, were intended to perpetuate the final triumph of the Southern Britons, and the limitation of the Belgic dominion. The boundaries of which I am now speaking, are for the most part extant on the steeper and northern sides of hills, the foss, or excavation, lying on the North, because people, pressing forward from the south, were opposing the resistance of a northern adversary.” Tur Bustarp. (Page 140.) The re-appearance of several bustards in Wiltshire in the winter of 1871, when the two, which, as stuffed specimens, are to be seen in the Salisbury Museum, were killed, would seem to indicate that if this bird had a chance of living a quiet life on the downs, it would again be found occupying its former haunts. The rapid conversion of the downs into corn and root-producing land would, however, effectually prevent any re-settlement of this bird near Stonehenge, even if it could ensure an unmolested existence. Tue Ossuary THEORY. (Page 152.) Dr. Thurnam did not think that the provisional interment of bodies during the formation of the mound which was to be their ultimate destination would satisfactorily account for the remarkable appearance presented by so many of these bodies when discovered in the long barrows. He says “ It is highly probable that, during the time the large and honorary grave-mound was in process of formation, the bodies of the dead and of those slaughtered in their honour were deposited in some temporary grave, and subsequently disinterred for final interment in the complete, or nearly complete, long barrow. I am, however, satisfied, by repeated and minute ex- aminations of the bones, that the very peculiar appearances which they present cannot be entirely explained in this way; but that they are due to the manner in which those who were sacrificed in the course of the funeral ceremonies were slaughtered, and who seem to have been literally ‘ brained’ by the blows of a club or stone axe.” “ Archeologia,” xlu., p. 191, ‘7 se &? ce By William Long, £sq. 229 Cremation iv Wirtsnire Lone Barrows. (Page 153.) Dr. Thurnam saw reason, subsequently, to add to this list of three long barrows presenting imperfect cremation, two, which he had previously considered to be oval barrows. They are “ Kill-Barrow,” near Tilshead, and No. 3 on Shrewton Down (p. 196). “ Both, when excavated at the east and broader end, yielded deposits of burnt bones, covered and intermixed with a substance resembling mortar, many of the bones being tinged of a green colour. . . . In both the skirts of the mounds are more or less mutilated, so that the lateral ditches of the true long barrow are not apparent.” (“Archeologia,” xlii., 297, note.) The three long barrows, described in “‘ Archzologia, xlii., 191, in which the remains of the dead found in them had been burnt, were Knook Long Barrow, Tilshead Old Ditch Barrow, and that in the centre of Bratton Camp. In Knook Long Barrow, in the year 1801, in the usual situation, and instead of the usual pile of skeletons, Mr. Cunnington found a “ large quantity of burnt bones.” This barrow was re-opened by Dr. Thurnam, in 1806, “ when, in digging at the north-east end of the barrow we came to traces of the burnt bones and many scattered brittle flints, some of a red and others of a blackish-grey colour, as if scorched by heat. Though no pains were spared in clearing out the base of the barrow, no trace whatever was met with of any unburnt skeleton or skeletons.” In 1865 Dr. Thurnam opened the Tilshead Ditch Barrow (perhaps the largest long barrow of Wiltshire) , and found beneath a pile of large flints, and on a sort of pavement of similar flints, a large pile of burnt bones, being those apparently of one full-grown adult individual. It was observed that the fragments of bone were much larger than those so common in _ the circular barrows, and that they were far from being so completely incinerated. The skeleton of a small female was found about two feet to the north-west of the burnt bones, closely doubled up, and crouched. The skull presented indisputable marks of having been violently cleft before burial, and no doubt during life. “In this in- _ stance the skeleton appears clearly to have been that of a slaughtered _ female victim, and the burnt bones those probably of the chief in 230 Stonehenge and its Barrows. whose honour the barrow was erected.” In August, 1866, Dr. Thurnam opened the barrow at Bratton Castle, and in the more westerly of two large openings made at the extreme east end, he found, on the natural level, at a depth of 83 feet, a heap of im- perfectly-burnt, or rather charred, human bones, as many, perhaps, as would be left by the incineration of one or two adult bodies. Care- ful search was made for an entire unburnt skeleton or skeletons, but without success. Dr. Thurnam gathered from the results of the examination of some long barrows in Yorkshire by Canon Greenwell that in that part of the north of England “ cremation was the rule of the long barrows, but cremation after a singular and imperfect fashion.” Posture or Boprzs in cases oF INHUMATION. (Page 165.) Had Dr. Thurnam lived to write his paper on Stonehenge, he -would doubtless have condensed for it his two valuable papers in vols. xlii. and xlii. of the “ Archexologia,” and have done it in a more systematic manner than the writer has done. The latter, anxious not _— extend his paper to an undue length, has touched very lightly on some very interesting matters connected with the barrow-burial around Stonehenge, and amongst others, upon the position of bodies in cases of inhumation. He gladly takes advantage of this printing of “ Addenda ”’ to give some more information upon this subject than the slight mention of it made at page 165. Sir R. Hoare says “ Ancient Wilts,” 1., 24) :— “The second mode of burying the body entire is evidently proved to be of a much later period, by the position of the head and body, and by the articles deposited with them. In this case we find the body extended at full length, the heads placed at random in a variety of — directions, and instruments of iron accompanying them. “Two modes of cremation seem also to have been adopted; at first the body was burnt, the ashes and bones collected, and deposited on the floor of the barrow, or in a cist excavated in the native chalk. This being the most simple, was probably the most primitive custom practised by the Ancient Britons. The funeral urn, in which By William Long, Esq. 231 the ashes of the dead were secured, was the refinement of a later age. The bones, when burnt, were collected and placed within the urn, which was deposited with its mouth downwards, in a cist cut in the chalk. Sometimes we have found them with their mouth upwards, but these instances are not very common: we have also found remains of the linen cloth which enveloped the bones, and a little brass pin which secured them. “ Of these different modes of interment, I am of opinion that the one of burying the body entire, with the legs gathered up, was the most ancient: that the custom of cremation succeeded, and prevailed with the former; and that the mode of burying the body entire, and extended at full length, was of the latest adoption.” “The crouched position of the skeleton,’ says Dr. Thurnam, “with the knees drawn up more or less closely to the breast, is not confined to the long barrows, er to tombs of the stone age; but is also observed, almost, if not quite, to the exclusion of the extended posture, in the circular barrows of the bronze age. It is a very singular, though well-known circumstance, that this contracted or crouched position of the remains is by no means peculiar to ancient British tombs, but is found to have been and still to be very generally resorted to by primitive and barbarous peoples in both hemispheres and in all the quarters of the globe. The earliest notice of it seems to be in Herodotus, who tells us (iv., 190) that the Nasamones of Lybia buried their dead in a sitting posture, watching when one is about to expire, that they may set him up, _ that he may not die supine.” The secondary interments found by _ Mr. W. Cunnington, Sir R. C. Hoare, and Dr. Thurnam, near the _ summits of barrows, with iron weapons accompanying them of an Baniplo-Saxon character, were all in a extended position. In a 4 barrow opened in 1802 by Mr. Cunnington, the contracted position 4 is described more specifically as the “sitting posture.” Such a _ posture, and more rarely a kneeling and standing one, have occasion- ally been pointed out in other British barrows. Most of the devia- tions, however, from a simple crouched position are probably the result of accidental circumstances. We may infer, from the example , of numerous barbarous and savage peoples at the present day amongst : it ‘ “) P 232 Stonehenge and its Barrows. whom American Indians, Esquimaux, Australians, New Zealanders, Feejeeans, and Andaman Islanders may all be named, that the custom which obtained with the ancient Britons was the same as now practised, viz., that of swathing the body more or less closely in skins or cloth, in a posture sometimes described as a sitting one, and sometimes as simply doubled up. When a corpse is thus prepared and deposited, for burial, it is obvious that it must be very uncertain, whether, in fillmg up the grave, the body shall ultimately lie on the nght or the left side; or be somewhat tilted up and left in the sitting or squatting posture. . . . . What may have been, and what may still be, the reasonefor this practice has been much argued. It must be remembered that death usually leaves the body with the limbs more or less bent and contracted, or in the condition known as rigor mortis. Henct, in laying out the corpse it is generally needful to employ slight force, in order to extend, and as it is said, compose the limbs. In rude states of society we may readily understand that superstitious feelings may operate so as to prevent any interference with nature, whose apparent indications in such a matter would be likely to be carried further rather than contravened. It may likewise have been the object to inter the dead as much as possible in the same posture, as that which the living were accustomed to occupy when at rest, crouching rather than sitting round the fire or low table, with the elbows on the knees, and the hands resting against the cheek. . . . . According to M. Troyon, this doubled-up posture, none other than that of the unborn infant, was imposed on the body of the dead, when about to re-enter the bosom of the universal mother, as the symbol of a belief, not only in a life to come, but likewise in that of the resurrection of the body. The bodies of the Britons of this period, and in this part ef the island were, for the most part, deposited in the meridian line, with the head to the north, and consequently with a south aspect. This was found to be the general practice by Sir R. Hoare, Mr. Cunnington, and Dr. Thurnam, 233 Stonehenge Aotes made in April, 1856. . BZTNCN the 7th of April, 1876, the writer, with his son, Captain V0) Long, Mr. William Cunnington, and Mr. Edwards of Amesbury, visited Stonehenge, with the view of making a careful examination of the circles and ellipses. Mr. Cunnington found that the small stone in the outer circle, opposite to Nos. 5 and 6 on Sir R. Hoare’s plan, is not a sarsen, but a syenite, and that it had, probably, been originally a portion of No. 6. This stone should therefore, have been coloured green, instead of yellow. The stone numbered 3 in Hoare’s plan has also been incorrectly coloured due instead of green in the chromolithograph. These alterations can easily be made by hand. The writer observed a stone which appears hitherto to have escaped notice. It is the stump of that stone of the inner ellipse (behind the altar-stone) , which the large upright D 1 in falling, struck ; and, by striking, became broken into two parts. It is under the south corner of the upper fragment, 3 feet from No. 25, as No. 25 is 3 feet from No. 24. It has, hitherto, been the general opinion that the stones of the inner circle had been unhewn ; and Mr. Henry Browne, who must have been very familiar with their appearance, describes them in his little work as being “ wholly unhewn;” but it is difficult to believe that Nos. 7 and 4 (for instance) have never been touched by flint or metal. The opinion arrived at by the party was, that the syenites had been more or less wrought, but that the horn-stones (so-called) 17, 19, 9, and 11, had not been worked. It is, however, not easy _to form a judgment upon this matter, for these stones, being much more brittle than the syenites, would be more subject to the wanton injury of visitors, and having been more sought after for “ toade charms,” ete. (p. 35), may, perhaps, have been more injured than any of the others. 234 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Mr. Henry Browne was of opinion that the transverse stones of the outer circle “had been fitted together, at their extremities, by corresponding projections and hollows.” It was evident to all the party that the ends of those stones which are “in situ” had not been cut down straight as is the case with the transom stones of the trilithons, but that they had had vertical ridges and corresponding grooves, and that some system of dovetailing had been adopted by the builders of Stonehenge. That these projections and grooves should have been considerably “weathered” away is not to be wondered at. The two stones in front of the stone marked F 1 are evidently fragments of that stone. The remains of the tenon are still visible on the innermost fragment. The three fragments adjoining are, doubtless, those of the transom stone to F 1 and F 2. The following measurements may be of use and interest. The width of the eritrance between A 1 and A 2 is 4 feet 4 inches. The interval between them widens considerably towards the top. Be- tween A 2 and the adjoining stone the width is 3 feet 1 inch; between the latter and the stone next to it, 3 feet 3 inches; and between the two next standing stones, 2 feet 4 inches. On the other side of A 1 the first interval is 8 feet in width; the second, 3 feet 6 inches; the third, 4 feet; the fourth, 3 feet; the fifth, 3 feet 9 inches; and the sixth and last, 2 feet 8 inches. The interval between No. 7 and the nearest corner of C 2 is 7 feet; between No. 5 and C 1, 13 feet 4 inches ; between B 1 and No. 4 (which is 5 feet 4 inches high and 1 foot wide) the interval is 10 feet 5 inches; and between No. 4 and the stone on the opposite side the interval is 9 feet. The large unnumbered prostrate stone next to No. 7 is 17 feet 2 inches long, 5 feet 7 inches wide, and 1 foot in depth above ground; No. 12 is 7 feet 6 inches long; No. 27 is 9 feet 6 inches high; No. 28 is 8 feet 10 inches high; and No. 29 is 7 feet 9 inches high. No, 23 is 7 feet high; No. 22 is 6 feet 9 inches high, and the interval be- tween them is 3 feet 4 inches. The “ Altar-stone ” was carefully measured both on the inner and outer edges. Its length on the in- side is 15 feet 5 inches, and on the outside is 16 feet 2 inches. The space between No. 3 and No. 1 measures 14 feet, and between No. By William Tiong, Esq. 235 ‘1 and No. 20, 5 feet. - These two stones (each about 6 feet in height) form the inner entrance. The extra distance between these two ‘stones, their peculiar flattened forms and rounded tops, so different from those of the other obelisks, would seem to indicate the regard for effect which those who erected these stones had in this particular ‘portion of the smaller circle. The distance between No. 20 and No. 19 is 2 feet 4 inches; between No. 19 and No. 18, 2 feet 4 ‘inches ; and between Nos. 18 and 17 the same. The syenite stone, No. 15, which is of very fine grain, is 7 feet long ; the interval be- tween the syenites, Nos. 13 and 14, is 9 feet 8 inches, and between Nos. 14 and 16, 11 feet. The stone of the outer circle, opposite to the small syenite transom (7 feet 6 inches long), next to No. 8, is, on the inside, 13 feet 4 inches high, 5 feet 10 inches wide, and 4 feet in thickness. The upright stone of the outer circle, opposite to No. 6, and adjoining the fragment of syenite belonging to that ‘stone, is 12 feet 6 inches high. The standing stone of the outer ‘eircle behind No. 11, (upon which the broad arrow has been cut), is ‘14 feet bigh, 7 feet wide, and 4 feet 5 inches thick. The measure- ments taken of stone F 2, by the writer and his son, in the autumn of 1875, were: height, 16 feet 8 inches; breadth, 7 feet 6 inches; and thickness, 3 feet 10 inches. From the difference between these measurements of that stone and those of Sir Henry James, it may be seen how difficult it is to make the most careful measurements tally. The allowance made by some persons for loss by the rounding ‘off of edges (which weather or violence may have occasioned) will often make a difference of 2 or 3 inches. The stone on the north-west portion of the vallum is 4 feet high, and 3 feet 6 inches wide at the broadest part. On the occasion of our visit on the 7th of April last, Mr. “Cunnington found, in the ruts of a waggon-track close to Stone- henge, splinters of the syenite-like stone, of the horn-stone (so- “ealled), and of the sarsen stone; and also a small but well-formed _ chipped flint celt. These specimens were all picked out of the earth _ just below the turf, where it had been cut through by the wheels. He also picked up, under the large stone resting on No. 9, and under _ the great sloping stone of the large central trilith, as many as nine | 236 Stonehenge and its Barrows. fragments of various stones of the inner circle. These had probably been broken off by visitors. The writer was under the impression that exposure to the weather on the north side had produced the peculiar appearance of decay on that side in stone F 2 (page 59), but Mr. Cunnington considers that the decayed portions must have been originally of a softer character than that of the body of the stone. On the arable land adjoining Stonehenge, where the group of barrows 16—22 had been, two chips of sarsen stone were picked up. The site of the “ barrow-like” mounds (note, p. 65) was not ascertained. Mr. Edwards, of Amesbury, has given the following interesting information. In reply to the writer’s wish to know how much of the Cursus on the Amesbury side is under cultivation, and when it was first ploughed up, he says: ‘ The piece of down land which was broken up, commencing at the top of the hill, where the Cursus terminates, towards Amesbury, and which extends from thence into the bottom, is fifty acres, and was-ploughed up about twenty-five or twenty-six years ago. It commences at the top of the hill, in a line with the two Seven Barrows, and consists of the hanging or slope of the hill down into the bottom called Stonehenge Bottom, and full in our view when we were returning along the line of the Cursus.” To the writer’s enquiry when the barrows 15 to 22 (inclusive) were levelled, Mr. Edwards answers: “ This was done 28 years ago, and my informant stated that, after it was done, when ploughing there, it was his aim, as well as that of others, to see which could pick up the most chippings. Some of them were granite and others sand stone, Of the granite no use whatever could be made when they took them home, but the sand stone they used for whetting or sharpening reaping-hooks. As to when the farm building adjoining the field in question were erected? That was built 29 years ago.” Mr. Edwards has also most kindly gathered for the writer the following information respecting the successive owners of Stonehenge during the last 250 years :— By William Long, Esq. 237 Owners OF STONEHENGE. 1. In 1620. Mr. Newdick. 2. In— Dawbony. 8. In 1639. Sir Laurence Washington, knight. 4, In 1643. Laurence Washington, Esq. 5. In 1655. Robert Lord Ferrars, of Chartley. 6. In 1723. Thomas Hayward, Esq. 7. In 1724. Rev. Mr. Hayward. 8. In 1771. Charles Duke of Queensberry and Dover. 9. In 1778. William Duke of Queensberry. 10. In 1810. Archibald Lord Douglas. ll. In 1824. Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart. 12. In 1826. Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart. 13. In 1870. Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart. Authorities for the above. 1. In 1620. Mr. Newdick—Refer to Sir Richard Colt Hoare’s “ History of Ancient Wiltshire,” vol. i., pp. 153, 154, and 155. As George Duke of Buckingham made his researches at Stonehenge in the year 1620 and from the information Mr. Aubrey received from Mrs. Trotman that the Duke of Buckingham would have given to Mr. Newdick (the owner of this place) “any rate for it, but he would not accept it,” it might be presumed that it belonged to him at the time when the Duke of Buckingham made those researches. ee 2... In: Dawbony or Dowbeny.—In the printed particulars of the Amesbury Estate, drawn up when it was for sale in 1824, men- tion is made of the Manor of Dawhbneys, and from the following it will appear that West Amesbury Estate is the manor that bore that Dame, on which Stonehenge stands. The name of Dowbeny still exists in the name of a meadow in the parish of Amesbury, situated on the West Amesbury Estate, commonly called Bony Mead, mean- ing no doubt Dawbony’s Mead. In the following remarks there is still further evidence to prove that West Amesbury belonged to Mr. Dawbony. 3. In 1639. Sir Laurence Washington, knight.—In the boun- daries of the Manor of Amesbury Earls examined on Monday, the 238 Stonehenge and its Barrows. 5th day of August, in the fifteenth year of the reign of King Charles, 1539, mention is made of the several fishings of Sir Laurence Washington lately called Mr. Dawbony’s Mill Pond. And further on mention is made of Stonage down, parcell of West Amesbury, Sir Laurence Washington’s Hold. In the boundaries of the Manor of Amesbury Priory mention is again made of the Mill Pond or several water called now Sir Laurence Washington’s (late Mr. Dowbeny’s Mill Pond). The foregoing goes to prove two things, that the West Amesbury Estate did belong to Sir Laurence Washington ; and, lastly, that it belonged to M. Dawbony, previous to Sir Laurence Washington. The said Sir Laurence Washington, knight, was Chief Register of the Chancery, ancestor of the first President of the United States of America. He died at Oxford, May 4th, 1643, aged 64, and was buried in the church of Garsdon, Wilts, where there is a monument to his memory. Refer to Britton’s “ Beauties of Wiltshire,” vol. iii., p. 66. The Manor of ‘Garsdon, which belonged to him, passed to his son of the same name, and West Amesbury, with Stonehenge, descended in the same way. 4, In 1643. Laurence Washington, Esq., who is mentioned by Inigo Jones, in his work, entitled “The most notable Antiquity of Great Britain, vulgarly called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, 1665,” as being at that time proprietor of the site of that ancient monu- ment. Page 107 speaks of him “as his honored Friend Laurence Washington, Esq., on whose demesnes this antiquity stands.” 5. In 1665 Stonehenge is spoken of by Aubrey in his “ Monu- menta Britannica,” as being part of the inheritance of the wife of Lord Ferrars of Chartley, who was daughter of Laurence Washington, Esq., and which is referred to in Sir Richard Colt Hoare’s “ History of Ancient Wiltshire,” vol. i., pp. 153 and 154. 6. In 1723. Thomas Hayward, Esq.—Refer to the “ Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Magazine,” vol. xiv., p. 229: «Thomas Hayward gen: owner of Stonehenge 4 Jul. 1723.” It appears that he died in 1724. The above in the autograph of Dr. Stukeley and written in a copy of his work “ Stonehenge and Abury.” 7. In 1724. Rev. Mr. Hayward—Refer to the “ Wiltshire Arch- eological and Natural History Magazine,” vol. xiv., No. 41, page By William Long, Esq. 239 228: “The precise spot of ground where Stonehenge stands is in the lordship of West or Little Ambresbury the possession of the Rev. Mr. Hayward who at present may be called the Arch-Druid of the Island.” The above likewise written in the same book “ Ston- henge and Abury,” by the Rev. Dr. Stukeley. 8. In 1771. Charles, Duke of Queensberry and Dover. The writer is not at all aware as to when Stonehenge came into the possession of His Grace, nor from whom, but it certainly was his property at the time when Dr. John Smith wrote his work in 1771, entitled “Choir Gaur, the Grand Orrery of the Ancient Druids, commonly called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain,” as the said work is dedicated to him as the owner of Stonehenge. 9. In 1778, William, Duke of Queensberry, on the death of his cousin, succeeded him as the owner of the estate, consequently of Stonehenge. 10. In 1810, Archibald, Lord Douglas, next became the owner of Stonehenge and the Amesbury property, on the death of William, Duke of Queensberry. 11. In 1824 Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart., purchased the said property, of Archibald Lord Douglas. He died, February, 6th, 1826. 12. In 1826 Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart., nephew of the above, succeeded him in the Amesbury property. He died, May 4th, 1870. 13. In 1870 Sir Edmund Antrobus, Bart., son of the above, succeeded his father in the estate and baronetcy, as third baronet. CSAS 24.0 THE BUSTARD. 241 Andex of Alames of Persons. Acosta, 115. Akerman, Mr. J. Y., 130, 142, Alexander, Mr., 63. Alfred of Beverley, 9 Allnutt, Mr., 219 Antrobus, Mr., 87. Antrobus, Sir E., 237, 239. Aubrey, John, 5, 31, 89, 110, 142, 219. Augustine St., 77. Aurelius Ambrosius, 9, 12, 218. Austen, Rey. J. H., 210. Bailie, Dr. R., 23. Bateman, Mr., 154, 155, 161, 167, Baynhan, Mr., 34. Beamish, Capt., 86, Bede, 7, 48, Betham, Sir W., 96. Bidgood, Mr., 45. Birch, Dr. 8., 176. Blight, Mr. J. T., 161. Bohlen, 123. é Bolton, 23, 96. Borde, Dr. Andrew, 17.. Borlase, Dr., 100. Bowles, Rev. W. L., 44, 63, 102, 108. _ Britton, John, 31, 51, 225. _ Browne, Mr, H., 77, 81, 234, _ Browne, Mr. J., 86, 118. Conybeare, Rev. W. D,, 70. Conyers, Mr., 38. Cooke, Rev. W., 43. Crocker, Mr. P., 52, 91, 92. Cukelyn the Bald, 12. Cunnington, Mr. H., 82. Cunnington, Mr., F.S.A., 56, 63, 66, 82, 84, 85, 154, 155, 165, 174, 225, Cunnington, Mr. W., F.G.S., 56, 65, 68, 71, 76, 93, 233, 235, 236. Daniel, Samuel, 27. Davis, Dr. J. B., 155. Davies, Rev. E., 51, 135. Dawbony, Mr., 237. Deane, Rey. J. B., 129. Déllinger, Dr., 122. D’Orbigny, 124. Douglas, Lord Archibald, 239. Drayton, M., 34, 187. Dryden, 128. Duke, Rey. E., 128, 175, 181, 209, 215. Earle, Rev. Prebendary, 1, 127, 1365. Edwards, Mr, Job, 186, 224, 233. Eitol, 12. Eliot, Sir T., 36, 49. Ellis, Mr. G., 9. Emerson, Mr., 118, Evans, Mr., 82, 173. Evelyn, John, 28. Ferguson, Mr., Q.C., 62. Fergusson, Mr., 88, 101, 141. Ferrars, Lord, 34, 237, 288. Fox, Col. Lane, 82, 87. Faller, Thomas, 25, Gale, Mr. Roger, 90. Geoffrey of Monmouth, 5, 8, 13, 55. Gibbons, bir. John, 40. _ Bryant, Jacob, 94. _ Buckingham, George, Duke of, 33, 36, 37, 39, 48, 59, 83, d Burrow, Mr. ee 100. Burton, Richard, 40, Cesar, Julius, 27, 55. Camden, 7, 20, 31, 37, 44, 45, 46, 142. Carlyle, Mr. T., 118. Caxton, W., 34, ~ Charles ‘Kings II., 62. Charleton, Dr., 30, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 88, 110, 115. 9, 10, 242 Gibson, Bishop, 7, 31, 46. Gildas, 7. Gillomanius, 10. Gilpin, Rev. W., 138. Giraldus Cambrensis, 13. Gloucester, Earl of, 9. Gloucester, Robert of, 15. Gough, Richard, 45. Greenwell, Rev. W., 153, 165. Guest, Dr., 2, 11, 98, 102, 103, 105, 161, 192. Haddan, Rev. A. W., 13. Hakewell, Dr., 37. Halliwell, Mr., 129. Hamper, Mr. W., 52. Hardy, Commander R.W., R.N., 156. Hardyng, John, 17, Harvey, Dr. William, 83. Harwood, Dr., 86. Hawkins, Mr. E., 183. Hawkshaw, Sir J., 112, Hayward, Mr, Thomas, 84, 238. Hayward, Rey. Mr., 238. Head, Sir George, 111. Hearne, T., 6. Heaven, Mr. 156. Hecateus, 6. Helps, Mr. 124. Hengist, 9, 10, 12, 16. Henry of Huntingdon, 7, 8, 39, 46, 62, 63. Herbert, Rt. Hon. Sidney, 224. Herbert, Mr., 2, 7, 40, 56, 60, 64, 96, 97, 99, 131, 135, 137. Herodotus, 112, 116, Higden, 15. - Hoare, Sir R. C., 6, 10, 39, 52, 54, 64, 66, 92, 148, 149, 152, 155, 166, 174, 176, 179, 185, 225. Holland, Dr. Philemon, 49, 218. Hooker, Dr., 115. Howes, Edmund, 24, Humboldt, 96. Hume, 11. Hunter, Mr. Joseph, 131. Hutchins, Rey. Mr., 105, 162. Ingram, Rey. Dr., 52. Irby, Honble. Capt., 113. Stonehenge and its Barrows. Jackson, Rey. Canon, 18, 19, 31, 36, 54, 131. James, King, I., 26, 33, 36, 49, 83. James, Col. Sir Henry, 60, 116, 235. Jay, Mr., 40. Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 44. Jones, Inigo, 26, 29, 82, 36, 37, 41, 43, 48, 75, 84. Jones, Sir William, 123. Jones, Rey. Prebendary W. H., 105, 107. Kemble,-Mr. J. M., 130. Kemm, Mr., 76. Kenrick, Rey. J., 178. ' Keysler, 41. Kilvert, Rev. F,, 190. King, Mr., 51. Lambert, Mr. A. B., 79. Lappenberg, 11. Layamon, 8, 14. Layard, Mr., 114. Leigh, Edward, 31. Leland, 13, 18, 34, 47, 51, 142. Leman, Rey. T., 63. Le Roux de Lincy, 13. Lewis, Rev. S..8., 222. Lilly, 35, 49. Tlwyd, 9. Long, Mr. Henry Lawes, 65, 69, 76, 129, 157. Long, Mr. Charles Edward, 60. Long, Captain, 233. Lubbock, Sir John, 2, 117, 126, 137, ilyfefe Lukis, Rev. W. C., 210. Lysons, Rey. Mr., 154. Macrobius, ‘90. Madden, Sir F., 8, 10, 14. Malone, 6. Mangles, Mr., 113. Matcham, Mr. G., 131, 184. Maton, Dr., 79, 81. Maurice, Rey. T., 100, Merewether, Dean, 169, 180. Merlin, 9, 10, 11, 16, ’ By William Long, Fsq. Milman, Dean, 16, 123. Morris, Rey. F. O., 141. Moore, Mr. Charles, F.G.S., 70. Miiller, Professor Max, 27, 55, 99, 119, 224. Nash, Mr. D. W., 27, 55. Neckham, 14, 218. Nennius, 7, 9. Newdich, Mr., 36, 237. Newnton, Mr. C. T., 95. Nichols, Mr. J. Gough, 52. Nichols, Mr. J. Bruce, 52, North, Mr. Gilbert, 83. Olaus Wormius, 48. Oliver, Lieut., 67. Palgrave, Sir F., 11. Palyrave, Mr. W. G., 125. Palmer, Mr. E. H., 89. Paris, Matthew, 39. Parker, Mr. J. H., C.B., 181. Paschal, Mr., 40. Paul, Mr. Robert, 117. Pembroke, Philip, Earl of, 36, 84, 144. Pepys, Samuel, 28, 29, Perkins, Rey. Mr., 70, Philips, Col. R., 62. Phillips, Professor, 70. Pliny, 27, 35, 101, 218. Plot, Dr., 37. Polydore Vergil, 20. Prestwich, Professor, 71. Purser, Mr., 58. Queensberry and Dover, Charles, Duke of, 237, 239. Queensberry, William, Duke of, 237, 239. Ramsay, Professor Andrew, 70, 78. Richard, Dr, 123. Rickman, Mr., 81, 97, 118. Robert of Brunne, 8. Robert of Gloucester, 8. Rolleston, Professor, 16, 152. Ruskin, Mr., 125. Ryves, Capt. J., 143, . 245 Salmon, Mr. J. 8., 190. Sammes, Aylett, 95. Saxo Grammaticus, 119. Scarth, Rev. Prebendary, 91, 222. Scott, Sir Walter, 128. Selden, J., 34, 126, Seneca, 142. Shakespeare, W., 183. Sharpe, Mr. S., 113. Sheldon, Mr. Ralph, 88. Sidney, Sir P., 34, 60. Simpson, Sir J., 115, 116. Skinner, Rey. J. 180. Smith, Rev. A. C., 88, 116, 140. Smith, Mr. Tom, 120. Smith, Dr. John, 43, 47, 48, 57, Southey, Robert, 89, 124, Sowerby, Mr. 65, 69. Speed, J. M.D., 23 Speed, J., 2), 22. Spencer, E., 188. Stallard, Mr., 63. Stevens, Mr. E. T., 110, 116. Stillingfleet, 11. Stow, John, 24. Stukeley, Dr., 5, 6, 48, 49, 62, 64, 68, 75, 84, 138, 144, 146, 147, 185, 284, Sydenham, Mr., 161. Symon of Durham, 39. Taylor, Capt. Meadows, 100. Tennant, Professor, 73. Theobald, Archbishop, 8. Thurnam, Dr. 3, 55, 57, 62, 67, 79, 86, 93 98, 106, 109, 117, 126, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 183, 226. Toland, 6, 47. Trotman, Mica 6, 36, 39, 143. Tryon, Mons., 232. Tylor, Mr. E., 123. Uther Pendragon, 8, 110, 218. Vaux, Mr. W. 8. W., 127, Verney, Lady, 26. Vertue, Mr. G., 42. Vockins, Mr, Eli, 118, 244 Stonehenge and its Barrows. Wace, 8, 13, 14. Waylen, Mr. James, 69. Wallis, Sampford, 43. Webb, John, 28, 29, 32, 82, 84. Warburton, Bishop, 6. Whitaker, Mr., 149. Warinus Brito, 8. Wilkinson, Sir G., 116. Warne, Mr. C., 105, 161. Wilson, Dr., 142, 155. Warner, Rev. R., 102, 118, 141, 192. | Winchelsea, Lord, 62. Warton, Dr. T., 87, 99, 103, 188, 226.| Winwood, Rev. H. H., 173. Washington, Mr. Laurence, 34, 38, 238.] Wood, John, 43, 47, 48. Washington, Sir Laurence, 237, 238. Wood, Antony 4, 23, 219. Way, Mr. Albert, 148, 170. Wordsworth, W., 55. ERRATA. Page 4, note, for ‘ Proceedings of Society of Antiquaries,” read ‘the ‘ Archeologia’ of the Society of Antiquaries.” 13, for ‘Le Roux de Liney,” read “ Le Roux de Lincy.” 29, for “ Virtruvius,” read ‘ Vitruvius.” 34, note, for -* Encomum,” read “‘ Encomium.” 60, line 3, for 15,” read ‘16. 2 72, line 11, for ‘‘ tertaries,” read ‘‘ tertiaries.” 85, line 2, for ‘the,” read “ Sir RK. Hoare.” 149, for ‘ Whittaker,” reat ‘¢ Whitaker.” 157, for ‘‘ ago,” read ‘‘ age,’ 158, for ‘ Prisean,” read ‘* Priecian.” 162, for ‘‘ appears,” read ‘ eppen,” 196 for “ tesere,” read ‘ tessere.” H, F. & E. BULL, Printers and Publisheis, Saint John Strect, Devizes. THE WILTSHIRE Archeelogival ak Batural Wistory MAGAZINE, No. XLVIII. DECEMBER, 1876. Vout. XVI. Contents, PAGE. Porrerne: By the Rev. Canon W. H. Jones, M.A., F.S.A....... 245 On THE Otp Porcn House aT PoTTERNE: By the Rey. A. C. MEET tees Misia det Sa iicas wines wvacsi secsccan evaken 287 On Some Curtiosiries aND STATIsTICs oF PartsH ReGistERS; By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath BPMs Davila wie's arere's z Spierere eta ac eeeVee 301 “ WILTSHIRE Nonsurors,” &, .....6. a diol pate ictete aia unin yanmuctaiete 337 SRCRORE TON TH EM MDE US Bde tarsjelelala ci cicistcle sess 4 c.av vc ole See ware ne we-s 339 Memore oF Mr. SotHeRoN Estcourt AND Mr. PovLett ScroPe.. 340 Trust-DrEED oF THE Saxon CuuRCH oF Sr. Laurence, BRADFORD- on-Avon: By the Rey. Canon Jones ........ yavestees 345 On AN AGREEMENT FOR BUILDING A CHAPEL AT abage By C. RMS KUNG eiviay tajais eintele is at wl as'afsvais. «i.e, < isles 56.0 Sie’ ee Ne eer 350 GENERAL INDEX TO THE WILTSHIRE Magazine, Vots. IX. To XVI. Rves oF THE Soctety, &e. ..... i, ILLUSTRATIONS. Pedigree of the Longs of Semington .............. 269 The Market Cross, Devizes ............. aise, sjslecerms ee Photograph of Potterne Church ...........e.eeeee 274 Ancient Font at Potterne .........cccc0 wees ceeeee 281 Photograph of the Old Porch House at Potterne.... 292 DEVIZES: H. F. & E. Bout, 4, Saint Jonn Street. da Neath gic eit Vay a, > Spiess E pubit ‘ae } Pag te ¥ V4, Le? : j oe es Be ati AW a 4 By p So aie ae VBS ae ees ee ee - 2 beat so winaineD i pens eee yer. giaul A note oft tie 5 fe A 0K wr cit wasnt’! ts 2ay0 b Yo Pees hel ie phe : : ot 48 «eilerat % wei a't * erie? a ae 3 {96 44s paweeeadgee>** to ea Oe ae dines Ht . - te6 coda dimbcee nye tc Te oe alate ae we = ezi snenset Fey gs sect ganar tanvne tie" , oes 02s. gtoses TINA \ oe a a ah. 40" rere. Mere wcrot Gye eanigs Li ae es gl) ace TT ATO ad f Gao: Pe ah b «at bo« ey « “ ~ . H x ae : focass PAraeTaR A Se seri i) Ga pane nega Pavinssse 2 & a WL oe CAE ater 2 = ' 2 = ; . egestas e® weer? ) SS Rowen . P F “id . . * * : a) é ‘ , to td .e4 | CY: bee | * Se ey teat - .* Mt ue ue 62> See s nam. Pap ee —T. | Pre. Fn AD e “~ as au see “RAN icecurane’ wane Tt .t yee pamattot ie basalt tae jy < f 4 : 7 < Cen oN Ee ; i Po a oe = ne, y ; ees tna be a Su auntde 4 some trot Ted bie < : ™ =" of 4 — a vas 4 wv omen i i " y hee Wes NS Te we ek eds WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE. ‘€ MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS.”— Ovid, Potterne. By the Rev. Canon W. H. Jonus, M.A., F.S.A., Vicar of Bradford-on-Avon. SOTTERNE is the name of a parish—of a rural deanery—of { a hundred. As a parish or manor, it formed from time immemorial a portion of the possessions of the Bishops of Wiltshire, the Bishop of Salisbury being to this very day a Canon of the cathedral church in the prebend of Potterne, and as such, according to Dean Pierce, entitled to vote as one of the Chapter, Indeed Jocelin de Bohun, who held the see from 1]42—1184, in a charter respecting -a virgate of land, the profits from which were given for the “correction of the books of the church,” recites that he had assigned it to Philip de Sancto Edwardo, the Chancellor of his cathedral (to whose office such duties appertained) as “ clerico nostro et concanonico nostro,” thus shewing that he reckoned him- self among the Canons of Sarum.' As a rural deanery, Potterne comprises a large number of parishes in what may be called the west- central part of Wilts, extending from Bradford in the west to Wilsford and Manningford on the east, and reaching as far north as Monkton 1 Dean Pierce in his ‘‘ Vindication of the King’s Sovereign Rights” (e. 1680) Says (p.12): ‘‘ The Bishop of Sarum is indeed one of the Chapter as he is Preben- dary of Pottern,” and (at p. 49) ‘‘ The voice and place which the Bishop has in Chapter (common to him with all the 52 Canons) he has as Prebendary of Pottern.”” He adds (at p. 70) that the ‘‘ Bishop as Prebendary of Pottern was bound to residence at first,’”? as were indeed all the Canons. He gives a re- _ ference to the Statutes of the Dean and Chapter promulgated in 1214, when Richard Poore (afterwards Bishop of Sarum) was Dean, which were afterwards confirmed by Bishop Roger Mortival (1315—1330). VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVIII. R 24.6 Potterne. Farleigh and Melksham, and south to Edington, Imber, and Nether- avon—an extent in round numbers of some 20 miles long by about 12 miles broad, or an area of some 240 square miles. Asa hundred, so deemed and constituted since the middle of the fourteenth cen- tury, it is joined with Cannings, and comprises not only the two parishes from which it takes its name but also those of Bromham, West Lavington, and Rowde. Of such a place one would naturally suppose that materials would be tolerably abundant out of which to weave a connected history. I will guarantee from personal experience that any one who feels inclined to make a topographical venture in this direction will soon discover on what a meagre stock he has to draw. It is, I think, Thucydides who says that the greatest honor of a good woman is not to be talked about; let us hope that Potterne was, under the fatherly rule of so many successive Bishops, so quiet and well- ordered a daughter of the see of Sarum, that she earned this praise, and so in a small degree confirmed the truth of the old saying— “* Happy are the people who have no annals.” A strange illustration, from a somewhat strange quarter, may be quoted in passing. Southey, in the “ Doctor” (p. 311), says— “ Who was old Ross of Potterne that lived till all the world was weary of him? All the world has forgotten him now.”—It is true; —lI have asked every one who might be able to throw light on the history of old Ross—I have ferretted out the oldest:inhabitant, or- dinarily the parish oracle—but in vain. All the world certainly is not yet weary of Potterne, but its history at all events seems like old Ross to have been forgotten. Most topographers have in fact simply given. Potterne the go-by, in apparent unconsciousness of its existence. Leland, who came to these parts about 1541, though he speaks of “The Vyes” (Devizes) and its Castle, does not mention Potterne. John Aubrey also is silent about it, unless indeed his notings concerning it be in that “ Liber B” which has been so long missing, despite of our good friend Canon Jackson’s hue and ery after it, and which seems to have been borrowed from the Ashmolean Library but never returned to it. Cox, in his “ Magna Britannia,” a book written in the early part of the eighteenth century, has a Derivation of the Name. 247 few words about it, which for the value of them might as well have been left unsaid— Pottern is only remarkable for giving name to the hundred, which shews that anciently it was the most noted town in it, how mean so ever it be now.”—John Britton, though he dilates on “ The Devizes,” says not one word about Potterne. There is just a passing notice of it in Mrs. Gaskell’s “ Sylvia’s Lovers” (p. 399), in which it is described as “‘a quiet little village, far inland, nestled beneath the stretches of Salisbury Plain ;” but descriptions, however pretty, furnish few materials to the topographer. And first of all, as to the Namz, and its probable, or, I should rather say, its possible, derivation. It.is not confined to Wilts, for Hutchins tells us that a small manor in Verwood, a tithing and -hamlet in Up-Wimborn Hundred, was called Pottern, or Wim- born Pottern. A suggestion has been made that it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon putfe (though I only find the word as py¢ in the dictionary), which means a we//, and the termination @rn (as in Col-erne, Chit-terne, &c.), which signifies a dwelling, so that the whole word might mean a “ dwelling by the well.” But this does not carry any conviction to my mind. The Anglo-Saxon word is certainly never spelt yoé, and can only mean at best an arézficial well, its original signification being a p2t or hole. In a place that may be des- cribed as a “ land of springs” such an artificial well would not only be unnecessary, but also most unlikely to give a name to a large tract of country. Besides its numerous welds or springs (for such _ Was the meaning of weld in olden time), give names to divers _ places already, and it is hardly possible to imagine the introduction _ of another word, with a similar signification, providing the name of Potterne. Thus we have East-well, Frog-well, Butter-well, Sugar- well, Bottomless-well. Of the last, as we are on etymologies, I eannot help giving you an interpretation derived from a genuine ‘Wiltshireman. Speaking of the field through which it flows, he said — “Thick field be dll zaft (=soft), an’ in the zummer it be all so ‘peiity-like that it do zeem ill on a quike, jest as if he’d got no bottom to ?un.” But another derivation that has been suggested to me traces the . _ to a Celtic source. Certainly in the neighbourhood there is a 7 R 2 | 24.8 Potterne. good sprinkling of the Celtic element in local names, and in casting my eye over the terrier of Potterne I saw not a few that were evident corruptions of oid Welsh names. Possibly therefore the former element in this word (which is always in old documents spelt Poterne) may be the same as that contained in Pow-dar, the name of a hundred in Cornwall, and which means “ oak-country.” Pou- ghill in Cornwall, and Po-wys in Wales, contain the same element. Terne seems likely enough to be the Welsh ¢eyrn (=King) ; ¢.9., Tin-¢ern means the King’s Castle. Po-derne, thus interpreted, would signify the King’s land, or country. No doubt it was a grant from the crown to the early Bishops of Wiltshire. There is in the name of another Wiltshire Hundred, viz., Frustfield, formerly Ferstes-feld, that is most probably the “ field of the Prince or Chieftain,” in some sort a parallel instance, which may give a little colour to the conjecture. I give it, not because I fully believe in it myself, but because I have no better to offer.! I have spoken of Potterne as the name of a Hundred. It was not so originally. At the time of Domesday there was a large hundred called Rige-derg, including a number of places in this neighbourhood. In the Exon Domesday we find Canynges named as a separate hun- dred. That of Rige-berg was subsequently divided into two, the one called RucEBere-Rueis of which the King was lord, comprising the Cheverells, East Lavington, and Imber; the other, called Rucesrre-Episcori, comprising Potterne, Rowde, West Lavington, and Tilshead, the lordship of which was vested in the Bishop.? The name Ldge-berg means literally “rough or hoar hill,” or, it may be, “ barrow or tumulus.” In Anglo-Saxon nomenclature the 1 After all it is possible that the former syllable in the word Poé-ern, and in that of Pot-ton, in Bedfordshire, is the abbreviated or corrupt form of some personal name, and so denotes the dwelling (ern), or village (tén) of an old owner or occupier whose precise designation is lost. Thus Gopsbury, near Collingbourn Kingston, is in the Hyde Chartulary (Rolls Series, p. 107) Guthre- des-berg, i.e., Guthred’s hill (or barrow). The name Putra, of which the well known Porr may possibly be a modern equivalent, is that of a Bishop of Rochester in the year 669. But this is simple conjecture. * Nomina Villarum for Wilts.—See Wilts Mag., xii., 17. EE { q 7% Pe oe ia Extent of the Parish. 249 epithet Rige (or Rih), the equivalent to our modern word rough,} was applied to such places as were rugged, wild, or uncultivated— thus we meet in the charters with Ruan-leah, or Ruge-leah, which is represented by the Wiltshire ‘“ Row-ley ” and by the Staffordshire “ Ruge-ley.” This hundred may have derived its name from some particular ¢wmudus, or possibly from a group of sepulchral barrows. Its name exists in a modern form in “‘ Rough-bridge” Hill, a de- signation. given to a portion of the down near Wansdyke just on the border of the hundred, and ‘‘ Rawbridge” Lease, in the tithing of Worton, may be another form of it. The whole of that part of the down is in fact covered with barrows, and an account of the opening and examination of several of them by Mr. Cunnington and the late Dr. Thurnam is to be found in the pages of our Magazine (vol. vi., 317). I should not be surprised if the name Round-way was a corruption of a not uncommon expression in charters, Rugan- wege, 1.e., the rugged or hoar way. At all events it seems to me to be as probable a derivation as any of the others that have been suggested. The parish of Potterne consists of three tithings or townships. (1) Porrerne proper, containing 3142 acres; (2) Worton, containing 923 acres; (3) Marston, containing 881 acres :—the entire parish ‘thus comprising no less than 4956 acres. There is some ground also for thinking that PoutsHor was at the time of Domesday included in it, unless indeed it was reckoned as a part of Melksham. Poulshot is not named separately in the Domesday record, which implies that at that time it was deemed a portion of some larger manor. Marston means the fown or village on the meer or boundary. Worton was I imagine originally Ufer-tun, changed in time to Ucer-ton and Wor-ton, a transition natural enough when you recollect that there was but one character in early writing forv andw. A similar change has taken place in the name now spelt Wroucuron, _ 1Thus in Pottern Terrier we meet with RuE-moore (No. 731) and Rover ~Grounp (Nos. 657, 658). The strange corruption RacE-Watten, which is given as the name of lands close to Poulshot (No. 729—736) is possibly Rough- wood-lands. I should not be surprised if the former part of the name Rooxy Marsa (No. 676) was not originally from a similar source. 250 Potterne. which, like Worton, was originally Uver-téin, meaning the upper town or village. Overton is another form of the same word. Porrerne, there can be no doubt, was amongst the earliest endow- ments of the Bishops of Wiltshire. The entries in Domesday Book imply that it belonged to that bishopric in the days of the Confessor, that is, while its see was at Ramsbury,! for the Bishops did not remove to Old Sarum till A.D. 1075. Ifa conjecture might be hazarded, in the absence of any known charters or documents giving information, I should be much inelined to believe that beth Cannings and Potterne were endowments of the see when it was first founded in 909 in the time of Edward the Elder. In the Hundred Rolls ? of Henry III. (c. 1225), Cannings is said to have belonged to the Bishop of Sarum from an ancient grant (ex antiquo feoffamento or “ner antiquum usum”’), but the jurors could give no more definite information. Though Potterne is not mentioned in that document, yet it is always so intimately joined with Cannings that I can hardly doubt that the same statements might be made respecting it. We meet with the earliest detailed notice of this manor in the Domesday Record. There are the following entries respecting it. It will be seen in a foot-note that of two of the entries we have, in another part of the record, accounts more in detail of what had been included as subordinate manors in the general statement. ‘‘The Brsnop of Sarum holds Porerne. In the time of King Edward it paid geld for 52 hides. Of this land 10 hides are in demesne, and there are 6 carucates, and 4 serfs, and 5 coliberts. There are 29 villans and 40 bordars with 30 carucates. There are 6 mills paying 43 shillings and 4 pence, and 40 acres of meadow. The pasture is 2 miles-and-a-half long, and 1 mile and 3 furlongs broad. The wood is 1 mile long and 10 furlongs broad. The demesne of the Bishop is and was worth £60. 1 Ramsbury isin the north-east of Wilts. The original name was ‘‘ Hreefenes- byrig” (=Ravens-bury), and its Bishops are usually styled ‘‘ Episcopi Corvi- nensis Ecclesiz.” The Diocese would seem to have included Berks as well as nearly the whole of Wilts. Florence of Worcester calls these early Bishops ‘« Episcopi Sunnungenses ;” they had an estate at Sunning in Berks, as had also their successors, the Bishops of Sarum, till a comparatively recent period. See Jones’ ‘‘ Early Annals of the Episcopate in Wilts, &e.” p. 25. ? Hund. Rolls (Henry ILI), ii., 231. Notices in Domesday Book. 251 “Of the land of this Manor Two Englishmen hold 6 hides and 1 virgate of land. One of them holds by military tenure at the command of the King, and was a nephew of Bishop Herman. And Alward holds three hides which Ulward in the time of King Edward bought of Bishop Herman but only for his own life, so that they should afterwards revert to the Bishop’s manor because they were part of the demense of the Bishop. These Thanes have there 4 carucates with 2 serfs and 9 bordars. They are worth £7. What the Priesr of this manor holds is worth forty shillings. “Of the land of this same manor ErnvutF DE Hesprne holds 3 hides and one virgate of land of the King. The Bishop however claims them, because he who held them in the time of King Edward could not be separated from the Bishop.”* The results of an examination of these entries seem to me on several accounts to be very interesting. First of all, we are told that there were in all some forty carucates, or plough-lands; that is, I suppose, about 160U acres of land under the plongh. Considering the large extent of wood! at these times, this reckoning shows an excellent state of things as regards the farming’, and proves that Bishops did not make bad landlords, or at all events that they managed to get good lessees and tenants. The average extent of land under the plough in Wiltshire was about oze jifth ;—on the supposition that we are only dealing with what is now included in Potterne, the above reckoning would return one third as arable land. This among other things leads me to think that the 1500 acres of Poulshot were reckoned with Potterne, and this would give about one fourth as arable, a large proportion even *“* Wilts Domesday,” pp. 21, 22. Of the land held by Alward, one of the ‘‘ Two Englishmen ”” we have this further account, at p. 132, under the head of Lands of the King’s Thanes :—‘‘ Alward holds 3 hides in Porerne. In the time of King Edward it paid geld with the Manor of the Bishop. The land is 3 carucates. One is in demesne: and there are 3 yvillans and 4 bordars with " 2carucates. The wood (2) is 4 furlongs long and 2 furlongs broad. The estate is worth 70 shillings, Bishop Oxm:nd claims it.’’—And at p. 74 we find a detailed account of the last holding: ‘‘ Ernulf de Hesding holds 3 hides and 1 virgate of land in Porrrne which paid geld with Poterne, the manor of the Bishop of Sarum, in the time ot King Edward. Bishop Osmund claims this land. Algar _ who held this land in the time of King Edward could not be separated from the Church. Robert “holds it of Ernulf, - The land is 2 carucates, and they are in demesne, and one villan has there a half carucate, and there are 6 serfs, and 3 bordars. ‘There is a mill, paying 7 shillings and 6 pence and 14 acres of meadow. ‘The wood (?) is 3 furlongs long, and one furlong broad. It was worth _ £4; it isnow worth £5.” ‘ 1 This will appear from the names that still remain: thus (@d-ley (=Wood- leigh), and Kit-more (=great wood), are from the old Celtie coed (in the Cornish dialect cuit) which means wood. Poulshot, was originally ‘‘ Paules-holt”’ the _ latter portion of the word meaning wood. 252 Potterne. then, though we know that the estates belonging to the church were more highly cultivated than others. Then the demesne of the Bishop is represented as being some ten hides, or I suppose some 1500 acres, kept in his own hands. This, or at all events a portion of it, would constitute his prebendal manor. Of other tenants in chief there were first of all “two English- men,” (duo Angli), holding 6% hides, or possibly some 900—L000 acres, shewing us that at all events the Conqueror respected the rights of the church and of those who held under it. One of these two Englishmen was Bishop Herman’s nephew, holding no doubt a beneficial lease under his benevolent uncle,—shewing us, as ill- natured folks might remark, an early example of nepotism ! Then there was one Alward, who held three hides which in the time of the Confessor had belonged to Ulward, he having purchased a life interest in the same from the Bishop. Over the name Ulward? in the original record is written in very small letters “ albus” (= White) ;—in fact his English name was “ Ulward White,” a very interesting instance of a surname, in these early days very uncommon. You will observe moreover a proof of how ancient a date was the custom of granting out lands for one or more lives. It is a custom that has been perhaps rightly found fault with, but I cannot doubt that, on the principle of its being “ an ill wind that blows nobody any good,” we owe to it the preservation of many a manor from the spoiler’s hands, on account of the complicated interests involved in it. Then the priest of the manor is said to have held land—his glebe in fact—to the value of forty shillmgs per annum—a proof by the way of there having been a church here in very early days. Then lastly, of the tenants in chief was Ernutr pe HEspine, who held 33 hides under the King, but which said estate was claimed by the Bishop as inalienable from his manor, having been held under the see by one Algar in the days of the Confessor. In another ‘The name ULwarp Wir appears also in the Domesday for Dorset (fol. 82 a). Notices in Domesday Book. 253 part of the record, as will be seen from the extracts given in the foot-note on the preceding page, we have this holding again referred to, and the name of the tenant holding under Ernulf de Hesding was one Rozert. Now it so happens that the immediately adjoining estate of Lavington (West) was held by Robertus M/avus, that is (as the Normans would say) Robert le Blond (=the fair). This name became afterwards in plain English, “ Robert Blount.” Entries can be produced from various records shewing how for many centuries the “ Blount’ family were connected with Potterne, Etchilhampton, and Lavington.! I congratulate my friend Mr. Stancomb on shewing himself so appreciative an archeologist, in perpetuating in his newly-built mansion the name Biount’s Court, which connects it so closely with an old holder who lived in this neighbourhood some 800 years ago. One word more about the Domesday entry—there were on this manor some twenty-nine vidlani (or villans), that is what we should now call “yeomen or copyholders,” each with (say) some 30 or 40 acres of arable land, to which was annexed in every instance a cer- tain quantity of pasture, meadow, and wood. Altogether it was a well-tilled estate, and if a rough guess might be made of probable population one might say, that as there are some ninety persons mentioned as tenants or dependents, and these may represent heads of families, there was a population here in these early days of be- tween four hundred and five hundred persons. But we must pass on now to the days when Bishop Osmund be- came in virtue of his office the owner of the manor of Potterne. Indeed, the early history of this manor derives much of its interest from being, so to speak, intertwined with that of its Bishops. Before however we speak of Bishop Osmund, a passing notice must be made of a memorial of these early days, which still remains. 1Thus in Testa de Nevil we have at pp. 141, 153, the record of one Knight’s _ fee held at “‘ Lavinton” by Roger Gernon ‘‘de Willelmo Blundo.” The fee ‘was still as at the time of Domesday held by William Blount of the King as chief lord. In the Inquis. Nonar. (1340) we have ‘‘Galfridus le Blount” ‘among the jurors in the account of the prebends of Potterne and Lavington _ Episcopi.—Jones’ ‘* Domesday for Wilts,” p. 126. 254 Potterne I have told you of a priest “ passing rich ” on a glebe worth forty shillings by the year, and helped also it is to be hoped by the offerings of a grateful people. So too there was a church; and there is still to be seen the font which, as I believe, belonged to it. I shall have occasion to speak more hereafter of this interesting relic of the past; all that I will say at present is, that it is certainly not later than the tenth century. (A.D. 1000-1100). We are now to tell how Porrsrne fared in the days of St. Osmunp. This great and good man was a nephew of William the Conqueror. It was through his exertions that the cathedral at Old Sarum was completed. Among his liberal benefactions to the cathedral, with the sanction of King William, were estates in various parts of Wilts and elsewhere, together with the churches of Potterne, Wivelsford, Lavington, Ramsbury, and Bedwin. The Potterne Manor, either in whole or in part, constituted the “prebend” (or provision,) of the canonry in the cathedral church, which was and still is appurtenant to the bishopric. In virtue of the said canonry (so endowed) the Bishop always presented to the vicarage of Potterne. On the principle I presume that direct access to the landlord rendered unnecessary the intervention of any inferior officer, however venerable or dignified, we find the authori- ties announcing that “The Archdeacon of Wilts hath no jurisdiction in Potterne.””! The Bishop, we may charitably presume, provided for the spiritual interests of the people here by the appointment of a fit and competent priest, and no doubt also took sufficient care of the temporalities of his manor, so that he did not need his “ eye” (the “ocudus Episcopi,”) in the shape of an Archdeacon, to look to matters here. Happily now, though all such peculiars have been abolished, there will be no danger, we will hope for some years to come, of any personal collision between the Vicar of Potterne and the Archdeacon of Wilts. In these early days I hardly think it likely that there was any 1Tbe other Peculiars in Wilts over which the Archdeacon formerly had no authority, and which were visited by the Bishop’s Vicar General twice every year, were Marlborough, Preshute, Devizes, Lavington Episcopi, Stert, Trow- bridge, and Berwick St. James.—Bacon’s ‘‘ Liber Regis,” p. 869. Earliest Episcopal Lords of the Manor. 255 episcopal residence at Potterne, or that the Bishop often honoured his tenants with a visit. Bishops, in the eleventh and following centuries, were so often engaged in high offices of state, as really to have had little time for their especial duties, and many of these were performed by means of Suffragans who were, so to speak, Bishops in “sole charge.” The number of such Suffragan Bishops employed in Wiltshire from time to time was larger than is commonly imagined. Of some of these we may hereafter have occasion to say a few words. (A.D. 1100-1200).— Bishop Roger, who succeeded St. Osmund at Sarum in 1107, must have had quite enough upon his hands, in his successive offices of Lord Chief Justice, Lord Treasurer, and Lord Chancellor, to give him much spare time for his diocese. It was he that as a priest at Caen in Normandy attracted the notice of Prince Henry (afterwards Henry I.), the son of the Conqueror, by the speed with which he sung mass. Charmed with the priest’s rapid monotone, he made him his chaplain. Promotion rapidly followed, and never was there a favourite more loaded with benefactions. Amongst other accomplishments Bishop Roger seems to have ~ been one of the best architects of his day, and so, to gratify alike his taste and his ambition, he built castles on four different estates belonging to his see, viz., at Old Sarum, at Sherborne, at Malmes- bury, and at Devizes. It was on this last that he lavished great and almost incalculable sums. Ordericus Vitalis tells us that there ‘was not a more splendid fortress in Europe. In. order to obtain a site for this last-named castle, Bishop men took a slice out of each of the two large manors that belonged to him (the eastern portion from Cannings, and the western from " Potterne), and it so happening that the King’s manor of Rowde "met the other two at about the same point, the castle which he built was called “Castrum ad Divisas,” i.e., the castle at the “ points of boundary.”! This is why this place in which we are now assembled = ordinarily called, till a comparatively recent period, “ The ¥ " 1See Wilts Mag., ix., 41. 256 Potterne. Devizes.” For by degrees the town grew up round the castle, and what is now included in this borough was formerly a castle and its demesne. But Bishop Roger’s ambition, or as some will have it his faith- lessness, brought him like others to ruin. Having pledged his allegiance to Matilda Empress of Germany, daughter of Henry I., he quickly transferred it to Stephen, who by a bold stroke usurped the throne of England on his uncle’s decease. Differences afterwards ensued which ended in the arrest and imprisonment of Bishop Roger and the beseiging of his castle at Devizes. All his castles—at Sarum, Malmesbury, Sherborne, and Devizes—fell into the hands of the King, together with much of the property belonging to his church. The Bishop died, almost immediately afterwards, broken- hearted—like Wolsey, some four hundred years subsequently, “left naked to his enemies.” That goodly slice of Potterne and Cannings which was thus taken to form the castle and its demesne was lost to the see for ever. Indeed for some eighteen years the manors of Cannings and Potterne were held by the crown. In the year 1157 a final settlement was made, by which most of the property was restored to the Bishop Jocelin de Bohun, but the castle and lordship of Devizes were irrecoverably detached from the see. In one of the deeds relating to this transfer, there is a clause which incidentally throws light on the meaning of a local name, about which not a few have been somewhat exercised.’ There is a piece of rising ground of pasture land close by Eastwell, called «« Barborne,” though in a survey of 1656 spelt “ Barberen.” In the instrument to which I refer, which is a deed of restitution dated April 1149, we have the following clauses :—“ Excepting the five hides of the said manor occupied by Robert Fitz-Ralph,” and inter alia “half a hide which Barleben the porter holds.” I have little doubt of the said worthy porter Barleben having bequeathed his name to what is to this day called ‘‘ Barbons.” (A.D. 1200-1300). For the next fifty or sixty years little can 1See Waylen’s ‘‘ Devizes,” pp. 51, 52. Early Owners or Holders of Lands. 257 ‘be told about Potterne. In the beginning of this period flourished Richard of Devizes,! a Benedictine Monk of Winchester, the author of “ Tempora Regis Ricardi I.” and “ Epitome Rerum Britani- carum,” extending from Brute to Stephen. About the same time also lived William of Poterne, who seems to have been in a post of some authority, inasmuch as he was applied to by Richard, Prior of Bath (1198-1223), to examine the record of Domesday to ascer- tain the terms in which the town of Bath was described, It was no doubt the same ecclesiastic who held the Prebend of Twyford as Canon of St. Paul’s London, at the timne.? His letter is published in Ellis’ “ Original Letters,”* from the old royal collection in the British Museum, (6 e. xi,) and consists simply of a summary of the entries from the Domesday Book for Somerset respecting Bath. It is written in the hand of the early part of the thirteenth century, on a leaf of an ancient volume of the letters of St. Jerome and St. Augustine. A little later on, the names of Ranulf de Lovethorpe, William Nigel, and Roger Fitz-Everard occur, amongst others, as those of holders under the manor, and mention is made of Mimberie, Maserige, Thorp, and Poterne Wike. Meanwhile “The Devizes,” was rising daily in importance, throwing into the shade the older manors of Potterne and Cannings. Not a year passes but King John comes to his castle at “The Devizes,” which is made in short a provincial treasury. Thus on July 5th, 1215, the King was here and received “a golden cabinet, set with stones and other precious gifts.” The following day he acknowledges the receipt of a more substantial present, in the shape of “66 sacks of money.” ‘Then in the < 7 ] v : ‘ 27 following year, on June 9th, the entry runs,—“ We received in our chamber at ‘The Devizes,’ 60 marks, &c.” No wonder that thus basking in the sunshine of royal favour, the inhabitants of this town waxed bold in asking favors, and sometimes it must be con- fessed with but a slender regard for their neighbour’s interests. 1See Waylen’s ‘‘ Devizes,” p* 16. 2See Le Neve’s Fasti, ii., 441. 3 Ellis’s ‘* Original Letters,” i.; 26. 258 Potterne. Thus amongst other grants which they obtained was one which forbad any market to be held infra septem leucas, that is, within seven miles (equal by the way to about ten-and-a-half of our present miles) of their town: an effectual means of extinguishing the privileges of the more ancient manor, and exalting themselves at the expense and inconvenience of others.! Little help moreover I imagine did its episcopal lords render to Potterne. As for Bishop Jocelin de Bohun, he did not enjoy the manor at all for the first fifteen years of his episcopate, for it was not restored to the see till A.D. 1175. Moreover he seems to have per- formed his duties, in part at least, by means of a suffragan, one Geoffrey Bishop of St. Asaph, who, leaving his own sheep upon the mountains of Wales, somehow found time to look after Jocelin’s flock in Wiltshire. Then the three successive bishops, Herbert and Richard Poore, and Robert Bingham, must have had their hands quite full in carrying out the building of the present glorious cathedral at Salisbury, to have found much time for Potterne or her needs. With a solitary exception we know nothing about the good folks at Potterne in the thirteenth century except the names of a few of them. William de Cotes held two knight’s fees, or some 1500 to 2000 acres, in Potterne.? Then among the jurors of the hundred in 1255, oceurs the name of Radulfus de Flore, who in more modern times would have been called Ralph Flower, shewing us a greater antiquity than some perhaps suspected for the name of “ Flower” in Potterne. Again there was Galfridus de Blund (=Blount), who held besides lands in the hamlet of Etchilbampton, half a knight’s fee in Potterne, and to whom we are indebted for the name « Blount’s Court.” A short account of some of the descendants of this worthy will be found in an account of Etchilhampton in the Wiltshire Archeological Magazine.’ One distinguished man must have a more particular though still but a passing mention, viz., James of Porrerne, the “ Justiciary,” 1See Waylen’s ‘ Devizes,” p. 81. 2 Waylen’s “‘ Devizes,’”’ p. 78. 36 Wilts Arch. Mag., xi., p. 104, ee Building of Church and Manor House. 259 who in the days of King John held in trust for the King the entire county of Wilts. He appears first of all as one of the puisne judges on circuit in 1203 at Reading and Winchester. He held one knight’s fee (or perhaps some 800 to 90U acres) at Thorneycroft, a name still to be seen in the terrier of the parish. In the early part of John’s reign he also served as Under Sheriff of York to Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, and was an active agent in the despoiling of the Archbishop’s lands and goods, when that prelate refused to pay certain exactions levied by the crown, for which act James of Potterne was formally ex- communicated by the Archbishop. A short time afterwards the county of Wilts was placed under his charge. He seems to have had a difficult part to play, for an entry in the close rolls relating to the proposed grant of an estate at Wallop, which was however to be withheld, “ s7 /acohus de Poterna non sit ad servicium nostrum,” i.e., in plain English, unless he could be trusted, seems to throw a passing cloud over his loyalty.!_ He seems however to have tided over the difficulty, like many others in those difficult times, for the | estate was certainly in his possession a few years afterwards, and early in the reign of Henry III. he was filling important and re- _ sponsible offices. One most important work must have been carried out during the _ thirteenth century—viz., the building of the present church, a fit _ daughter for the singulary beautiful mother church at Sarum, and, | like it, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. To whose zeal we are in- debted for this beautiful structure we know not: perhaps in part to James of Potterne, who would seem to have been living in 1255, and in part to the Bishop of the time, who rightly made his pre- _bendal church at Potterne in some degree a reflection of his cathedral church at Salisbury. Possibly also during this century a manor house was built as a residence for the Bishops, for a mandate was issued by Henry IIL., dated from Potterne, on July 12th, 1255, ordering the Sheriff of Wilts to make a “chimney in the Queen’s Chamber in the Castle 1 Waylen’s *‘ Devizes,” p. 61. 260 Potterne. of The Devizes.”1 This dating from Potterne would seem fairly to imply that Henry III. was at the time the guest of the Bishop, William of York, who was one of his most trusted friends and ad- visers. Though every trace of this episcopal mansion has passed away, literally not one stone of it standing upon another, its site is well known. It was just below where the original church stood, which was some 100 yards south-west from the knoll on which the present church is built. It would seem to have been standing as late as 1656, for in a survey of the parish for that year we have the entry “One dwelling-house, being the manor house, one chapple, and one great barn with the courts, &c., thereunto adjoining.” (A.D. 1300-1400).—Very little can I tell you about Potterne in the fourteenth century. Durmg that period William de Montacute Earl of Salisbury, one of the founders by the way of the Order of | the Garter, appears for some service or other to have had a grant of 206 marks annually from the Manor of Potterne. And a little later on (in 1367) Sir Thomas Hungerford was lessee of the manor. In the Nonal Inquisitions moreover we meet with the name of | Alfred Blount as that of a juror, and it was reported in that enquiry that there was then (1340) “ no merchant who lived on his merchan- dize” in Potterne.® In 1330 Ropert Wyvit_E became Bishop of Sarum, having been consecrated at Woodstock by the Bishop of Lincoln and two other bishops with special authority from the Pope. He had held the canonry and prebend of Gretton at Lincoln Cathedral. In 1329 King Edward III. had recommended him to the Pope for the see of Bath and Wells, but his Holiness nominated him the next year to Salisbury instead. He owed his appointment to the influence with the Pope of Philippa of Hainault, wife of Edward III., who held the Castle of “The Devizes” as part of what had now become the usual dowry of the Queen Consort. Had his Holiness, it is said, previously “ glimpsed” Robert Wyville, he never would have made him a bishop. Fuller says of him, “ It is hard to say whether our 1 Waylen’s ‘‘ Devizes,” p. 65. Inguis. Nonar, p. 175. Potterne in the Fourteenth Century. 261 prelate were more dunce or dwarf, more unlearned or unhandsome.' However he had plenty of money, and that compensated no doubt for many defects both mental and personal. And he spent his money liberally on the various churches of his diocese. Neither was he afraid of asserting his rights—it is quite a romantic chapter in his episcopate, the way in which he recovered Sherborne after it had been lost for more than two hundred years to his see.? Very shortly after his appointment Bishop Wyville obtained what is called “ licentia crenellandi ; ” leave, that is, to crenellate, or fortify with strong walls his mansions at Sarum, Woodford, Poterne, and other places, together with one at Fleet Street, London. Few people, I suppose, when they turn up Salisbury Court in Fleet Street, are aware of the name being a traditionary remembrance of the Bishop’s *‘crenellated mansion” on the banks of the Thames. The renewed licence to “crenellate his mansions,” granted to BisHor Ercuum, in 1375, seems to imply that his predecessor had not quite finished his work. We know little of this Bishop save _ that he was a foreigner appointed by the Pope. His Holiness, for some reason or other, quietly set aside the claims of John de Wormen- hale, a Canon of Sarum, who had not only been elected by the Chapter, but approved by the King. As a natural consequence, 5 Bishop Erghum had differences with his Chapter. He appointed a namesake, John Erghum, whom we may without uncharitableness presume to have been a kinsman, to the living of Potterne. The entries in the Bishop’s registers are indeed suggestive of a little = _ }Fuller’s authority was from the Chronicles, Thus the author of the Chron- eon Angliw, 1328—88 (Rolls Edit.), says ‘‘Hoc anno (1330) obiit Rogerus Mortivaus, Epis. Sar., cui successit Robertus Wyville per provisionem, vir utique competenter illiteratus et minime personatus, quem si Papa cognovisset nun- am, ut creditur, ad tantum apicem promovisset.’”” Adam Murimuth and alsingham make similar statements. pp. 14—18. Bishop Wyville died at Sherborne, but his remains were interred in Salisbury Cathedral ‘in the midst of the choir.” In 1684, this portion of the building having been newly-paved with chequered marble, tbe slab con- g his brass was removed to the eastern transept where it is still to be ; OL. XVI.—NO. XLVIII, s 262 Potterne. friendly arrangement, shewing that, though not on terms with his Chapter, he did not fall out with his family. Thus in 1384 one Richard Durant is appointed to the living of Potterne. In the same year John Erghum, the Bishop’s name-sake, appears as Vicar. The air of Potterne did not seem to suit him—if indeed he ever came there—for a few months afterwards he exchanges with one Henry Chapel, but whence the one came, or whither the other went, I can- not tell you. Then in a little more than twelve months the first- named Richard Durant again turns up as Vicar, in his turn once more to be speedily superseded by William Codyer, showing himself for the secqnd time an accommodating locum tenens, and thus mani- festing, it may be, canonical obedience to his diocesan. However the translation of Bishop Erghum, in 1388, to the see of Bath and Wells, stopped alike the quarrels at Sarum (about which there was at length an appeal to Rome), and any further friendly arrangements touching the Vicarage of Potterne. Bisuop Watraam, his successor at Sarum, held the see only for seven years: moreover he held at the same time the high office of Lord Treasurer, having been previously Master of the Rolls and Keeper of the Privy Seal. He could have found very little leisure for his episcopal duties, and naturally enough committed them to the - eare of suffragans, two of whom were Robert Hyrtlesham, with the title of Bishop of Sevastopolis (Sebastopol), and John “ Sodorensis Episcopus,” 7.e., Bishop of Sodor. His knowledge of law, and the influence of his high position, seem one or both to have secured — special privileges for his three manors of Lavington, Potterne, and Woodford! After this time we hear of the Hundred of Potterne and Cannings. ’ It has been thought by some that an important addition was during the fourteenth century, made to the tower of the church, the second stage of it seeming to be more of the early decorated period, than the lower one, which, I presume to be of the same date as the rest of the church, viz., Early English. They would place the latter at about 1250, and the former about one hundred years later. If so, 1Cal, Rot. Chart., i., 192. Owners or Tenants in the Fifteenth Century. 263 it was probably the work of either Bishop Wyvill or Bishop Erghum, unless indeed the Earl of Salisbury or Sir Thomas Hungerford helped them. It is to be hoped they did, for the two Bishops must have had quite enough on their hands in “crenellating” their mansions. Anyhow there is in the Tower of the Church what may fairly be deemed a memorial of this century in a very ancient bell, which has an inscription round it that hitherto has puzzled every one. A copy of this inscription will be found at the foot of an engraving of the ancient Font. The bell itself is the second in the peal, and would weigh about 8 ewt. Mr. Lukis considers that it may be of the date of about A.D. 1400. The inscription looks very like a foreign one. It is just a possible conjecture that it may have been the gift of Bishop Erghum, who was, I have already intimated, himself a foreigner and was consecrated at Bruges by Archbishop Sudbury and two French Bishops. If so, it is possible that the supposed elevation of the Tower at this period was for the purpose of receiving this bell. : (A.D. 1400-1500.)—During the fifteenth century we meet with © several well-known names as those of holders of estates in Potterne. In 1407, John Lovell died possessed of lands in Poulshot, Marston and Potterne. ‘Then we have various members in succession of the families of Stourton and Frampton. And in 1449 the Jnquisitiones post mortem record the decease of Wm. Ryngebourne, described as « Armiger”’ (esquire) a title then but charily given, who took his _ name from Ryngebourne (now ealled Rangebourne Mill) which he ; seems to have held. Sir Edmund Hungerford, Knight, a grandson : of Sir Thomas Hungerford, who held a lease of the Manor of _ Potterne in 1367, was Constable of Devizes Castle in 1455, and : may fairly be presumed to have taken some interest in a manor which + had belonged to his family. There can be no doubt of the Manor House at Potterne having Deen occupied by one at least of its episcopal lords during this cen- tory. Bishop Mitford died there in 1407. According to some authorities he was the last who kept up the Mansion House at - Potterne. pas s2 264 Potterne. From some of their bishops in this century the good folks resident on this manor could have had but secant attention. Bishop Hatiam, afterwards advanced to the high rank of Cardinal, died whilst at- tending the Council of Constance in 1417. Judging from the number of Suffragans employed by them, during their short tenure of the see of Salisbury, Bishops CaanpLer and NEviL1E both pre- ferred to do their episcopal work in Wiltshire by deputy.! And their successor, WiLi1am AtscouGH, paid a terrible penalty for being so constant an absentee from his diocese. For in the year 1450, when at Edington, he was suddenly attacked, and killed ‘a suis diocesanis, co quod non residebat in episcopatu suo, ut dicebatur,” 1.e., “by men of his diocese, because, as it was alleged, he was a non-resi- dent bishop.” A more detailed account of this murder (for such it was) is given to us in the following words: “ Some of the bishop’s tenants of the meaner sort that lived in his farms came to Edendon, where the bishop was, when they found him at the service of God. They took him out in his bishop’s vestments, and, dragging him from the altar, carried him by force to a neighbouring hill, and while he was kneeling struck out his brains, leaving his body naked, stript of all his clothing. This was done on June 29th, 1450, before which day they had rifled his baggage at Salisbury, and taken away 10,000 marks of ready money.” Magna Brit. (Wiltshire) p.173. It is to be hoped that the bishop’s tenants in Worton and Marston, who must have been within two or three miles of the scene of this oc- currence, were not in that fray—anyhow they could not have re- garded with unconcern so terrible a deed, committed so near their own borders. For their credit, it may be added, that the ringleader was not from Potterne, but, as was reported, a brewer from Salisbury. There was no great temptation after this for a bishop to venture 1 Within some fifty or sixty years from 1407-1466 we meet with the names of some fourteen suffragan bishops engaged in the diocese of Sarum. Amongst them were not only several bearing titles taken from foreign countries, but also some Welsh and Irish Bishops. Amongst the latter were Nicholas Ashby, Bishop of Llandaff, and the Bishops, for the time being, of Tuam, Enaghdun, Achonry, Connor, and Ardagh. The personal services rendered by the Bishops of Sarum must haye been but small. The Grubbe family in Potterne. 265 too near Edington. Still the two immediate successors of Bishop Ayscough had good reason to take interest in Potterne. The one, Ricuarp Bwravucuamp, brother to the Sheriff of Wilts for 1436, held the castle of “The Devizes” in 1461; the other, Lionex Woopvittz, was brother to the Queen of Edward IV., who as such had enjoyed the castle and demesne of “The Devizes” as her royal dowry. It is during this century that we first meet with a name that now for a long series of years has been well known in Potterne; for GrusseE is the name of a vicar who was probably appointed about 1474 or 1475. The episcopal registers for those two years are missing, and I have not been able to find out from other sources the said vicar’s Christian name. I may add that the name Grubbe is no doubt a Flemish name; like others common enough in these parts, such as Kemp, Gouty, Clutterbuck, Derrick ; and seems to tell us of the trade in wool and cloth, for success in which we were so _ much indebted to foreign workmen. By this time we know that “©The Devizes” was benefitting by this new branch of industry. And, once more to quote the witty Thomas Fuller, “ Happy the yeoman’s house into which one of these Dutchmen did enter, bringing industry and wealth along with them. Such as éame in strangers within their doors soon after went out bridegrooms, and returned sons-in-law, having married the daughters of their - landlords who first entertained them. Yea, those yeomen, in whose houses they harboured, soon proceeded gentlemen, gaining great estates to themselves, arms and worship to their estates.”—Church ‘History, i., 419. - No doubt it was to some one or other of these thriving men of business that we owe the last addition to the Tower, the battlemented parapet of which is in the perpendicular style and of the date of about 1490; and also that singularly interesting old timbered-house, now _ ordinarily called the “ Porch House,” of which some time ago a _ photographic engraving was given in our Magazine (vol. x.1). As _ amore detailed notice will appear of this interesting building in the pages of this Magazine, I will only say that the original design of this house looks much as though it were intended for what is some- ES OU.hCUVPCUC CC UCC 266 Potterne. times called a “ Church House ”—a public building in which, before the days of rating, meetings were held for raising funds for the repair of the church, the relief of the poor, the mending of the roads, &c. On the principle of “ business first, pleasure afterwards,”’ as soon as they had attended to the wants of others they had a little care for themselves and had their church ales, and other festivities. (See Wilts Magazine, ii., 191, on “‘ Ancient Ales in the county of Wilts.”) One such house at Bradford, called by Leland “a goodly large chirch house,” and said by him to have been built by Horton, a wealthy clothier, has, I rejoice to say, been permanently secured within the last two years, and conveyed to the Trustees of an old endowed school. Potterne is also happy in having the friendly help of one whom she may well be pleased to reckon among her people even though as a wayfarer, whose intuitive love of the beautiful, and reverence for the ancient, has led him to purchase this relic of former days, and, with generous unstinted outlay, to restore it to its pristine beauty. 1t may be mentioned that the old timbered-house was used many years since as an inn bearing the sign of ““‘The White Horse.” There was also at the front-door an “ upping-stock ” (or steps for mounting a horse) cut out of a single block of oak, a very usual appendage to country inns, and especially useful when travellers carried their ap- parel and goods in ponderous saddle-bags. As we have spoken of bishops suffragan in Wilts, we may mention in passing that in 1479 one bearing the title of ‘ Episcopus Tinensis,” that is I presume “ Bishop of Tenos,” was Rector of Devizes. (A.D. 1500-1600.)—At the commencement of the sixteenth cen- tury many stirring events occurred at “The Devizes,” but the farmers and villagers of Potterne went on quietly tilling their fields, and enjoying, perhaps from their very obscurity, an immunity from the troubles which overtook their more aspiring neighbours. Indeed to this obscurity I really believe many of our villages owed the pre- servation of interesting memorials of the past. And so, whilst between the years 1520 and 1530, certain persons named Maundrel and Spicer and Coberley, who seem to have come from Rowde or Keevil, and John Bent, a simple tailor of Erchfont, were martyred ~ Potterne in the Sixteenth Century. 267 at the stake, the first three at Salisbury and the last at The Devizes, for their refusing to accept the teachings of Rome, the fires of per- secution did not reach Potterne. Almost about the same time, in fact, they seem to have found means to effect some repairs in this church, for there is the date 1528 still to be seen beneath the belfry floor. Some years later John Beare, Rector of Devizes from 1566-1570, seems to have been deprived of his living for some cause or other, but his contemporary at Potterne, John Bower, was undisturbed in his less ambitious and certainly more peaceful post. Still there were at times occasional disturbances at Potterne. Thus in a Longleat MS., among the Protector Somerset’s accounts kept by a steward we have this entry: “1542. Paid to William Hunt the 4th June with letters to London to my Lord concerning the Rising and Uproar at Potterne in Wiltshire the space of three days, four shillings.” We have no clue to the cause of this excitement. _ One fact may be noticed in connection with this period, viz., that the manor seems henceforth to have been regularly leased to a lord farmer (as people used to call him)—the Mirmarius, as he is styled in old deeds, or person who held the estate ad _firmam, or on farm. At times the Lessee made appointments to the living. Thus in 1558 John Bower was nominated to the vicarage by one bearing the same ___ name, his father possibly, who held the manor under the bishop. The Valor Ecclesiasticus returns the net value of the manor in 1540 at £139 4s. 103d., and of the prebendal estate at £26. The vicarage was estimated at £20 6s. 8d. Wal. Eccl. ii., 145. In 1553 (Edward VI.) the Commissioners appointed for the survey of church goods, who for Wilts were Sir A. Hungerford, Sir W. Sherrington, and Sir W. Wroughton, made due enquiry at Potterne. ‘They returned “four bells and a sanctus bell,” but make no entry of communion plate at all. (Wilts Mag., xii., 365.) Did the good folks at Potterne borrow a hint from their neighbours at Cannings (for to them I believe the tale about the moon-rakers and their _ feigned simpleness is generally attributed) and hide the plate from _ the too curious eyes of the commissioners in some pond or elsewhere, be duly produced again when Sir Anthony and his friends were 268 Potterne. fairly off the premises? What became of the “ Sanctus” bell or where it hung I cannot quite tell you—anyhow the other four bells were left to the parishioners, and no plate was “ secured te the King’s use.” } During this century the leading people seem to have been members of the Gruppe family—it is now also that we first meet with the name of Loner in connection with Potterne. Of the antiquity of the name Flower in the parish mention has already been made. As regards the Grussu family, I may say, that they probably succeeded that of Bower as lessees of the manor. In 1571 we have Henry Grubbe, M.P. for The Devizes. Mr. Waylen prints an amusing document in which the Corporation of The Devizes make humble application on 29th April, 1578, to the Court of Chaneery, over which then presided Sir Nicholas Bacon, praying that the said Henry Grubbe might be commanded to appear before “ his good Lordship,” to shew cause why he should not leave off a suit for the recovery of “ wages” for serving the Borough in Parliament. The plaintiffs alleged that ‘on account of the poverty and small ability of the town of The Devizes the said defendant Henry Grubbe and one George Reynolds did faithfully promise and take upon them that they would serve as burgesses in the said Parliament for the said town without any wages, fee, reward, or allowance taking there- for.” The defendant in answer pleaded, that the promise of free service was only for one session of Parliament, whereas he had served for two sessions, and it was for his work in the latter that he wanted to be paid. How the suit ended Mr. Waylen does not tell us—most likely in a compromise. No doubt the good burgesses were very angry with the said Henry Grubbe. Anyhow they did not again honor him with their confidence, by electing him a second time as their representative in Parliament.? A little later in this century we find “ our trusty and well-beloved Thomas Grubbe of The Devizes” called upon to lend Her Majesty 1§ee Wilts Mag., xiv., 327. 2 Some seventy years afterwards (in 1641) we find a record in the Corporation Book of the payment of twenty pounds to Mr. Nicholas as a gratuity for his pains and expenses in Parliament as member for Devizes. Waylen’s Devizes, 138, r " ae a PEDIGREE OF THE LONGS Mun, Wauren Lowo, of Preshaw, in a memorandum, says:— “ Dates from lower parts of Pedigree reckoned upwords would sult exactly for Thomas of Semington to be the son of Richard, son of Robert, of Wraxall and Draycot (died 1448), who had the manor of Semington, OF SEMINGTON. Thowming theié connection uth Potterne and its Neighkaurhaad, =Thomas Long, of Semington, in the Parish of Steeple Ashton, Wilts, Will, p. 1509, Desires to be buried in the Chapel of St, George, Semington. Appoints his brother Willisms and/ Kis woul Harty, oyeresera’s Hia'snndohniex= ecutor; his son Thomas ‘*to haye an Estate and term of years in a house at Lyttleton, in the parish of Steeple Keo, as well as Weasxall. It is presumed that he, Michard, survived over Ashton.” 1490 and that he was provided for by Ms father, Robert, and brother, | ae =| res | i Me es 1 Lat Monnet Aiea | Tong. Beaten cf Wilts, 1509. By his fath m in the manor of Semington, by lands for lives a Y Margaret Burley, Edit mag, iliam Long, of=| ysse. Henry Long, of Trowbridge. John Long,—Christian. 3. 'is=Thomas Long, Senior, of Potterno, Wilts, \—1535. jis father’s Henry Lang, in the manor of Semington, by lands for lives pads naued by bet named ta Freshford. Will, Will; 1535.’ Names his bro- Sen. Will, eater taf rls Huei tart estat nal TeoeetC years in a enact Lyttleton, and sons, three lives renewable. After the dissolution of monasteries we brother William, her fother’s 1528, Names ther, Thomas Long. Henry 1041. have amoi- | in the parish of Steeple Ashton, Will, p. 1550. Ho desires John find a Court Roll under Sir Thomas Seymour, Lord Sudley. 1542, reciting will, 1509, his sister, Mar- is ancestor of the Longs of ety of her | Flower, Senior, to receive the money duo to him from Mr, Doctor grants in Semington manor in favour of Thomas Long, and Johanne, garet Barley. Whaddon, Monkton, Steeple husband's | Tregonel, the then lay Rector of Potterne. His son William, his diher widowhood, and\one af Kerisons, Wey 40." Ashton, Beckington, A effects, wife Alys, exeoutrix, (2) Fits se ah Mea Bt Nf a (2 Edw. VL. John, Bishop of Sarum, leases tho manor of Potterne to John Tregonel, of Middleton, Dorsot, Esq. Registry at Sarum.) 1 I Hilly Long, of Lyttleton.=Fmma, daughter of Thomas Long, of Potterne. Will,=Tsabel, daughter =John Long, of Worton, in the witthm Long, of Potterne.=Margarot. Will, 1557. To be buried | Richard Adlam. 1567; p. 1570. He names his son | of John Flower, parish of Potterne, 1565—1567. Will, 1565; p. 1567. Ho in the Chapel of St. George, William, exor. John and Ambrose | Sen., of Worton, Overseer to the will of his bro- names his brother John Long at Semington. Thomas Long, Long, sons of bis son William, | in the parish of ther William, 1565, and named overseer to his will. His of Trowbridge, his overseer. Jobn Long the son of John Long, | Potterne, in the willof Thomas Long, of father loft to him the moiety Witoesses, Thomas Long and of Worton, Joan Burley, 2 John Second wife, Potterne, 1567, His lands in of his effeots, 1650. Wit- William Long and George Merewethers, John Flower, of Chit- | Maud, daughter Worton were inherited and ness to tho will of Henry Silverthorne, Ho was in the terne, and requests him to receive | of .... Barrett, afterwards bequeathed by his Long, his brother, of Lyttle- ocoupation of the Manor and money due to him. John Mere- son, John. ton, 1567. Rectory of Potterne in 1556. wether and William Barret, over- See indenture of that date, seers, Witness to will of Henry 1655, _(8) Long, 1657, | | ] Thomas. Richard. John. John Long, Sen., of Marston,=Praxide, daughter Witlam Long,=Anno, daugh- Anne, datghter o a Long, of Marston, Jun., held Jands in Worton, 1657. 1667. 1657. had the manor and rectory of | of Adhelm Lambe, of Potterne. | ter of -. John Merewether, | Bulkington, Potterno, Marston, and elsewhere, Will, Potterne on hismarriage. Will, | of Colston, Wilts, Exor. to his | Bristowe. verell, | p, 1597. In tho will of Thomas Long, of Pottern 1601, He left the rectory, &c,, | in. m. 1555. (4) father, Will, Wilts. Buried at | 1667, he is named as John, the son of John Long, of to his daughter Agnes, by his 1591, Names Little Cheverell, | Worton. He left his lease of Worton to his sun second or third wife. Agnes his brother 1626, Jobo, whom with Edward Long, of Monkton, and died, unmarried, before 162: John, Richard Burley, of Potterne, ho appointed overseer. His other estates he left to his iP >I 1 | His exors., his wife Anno, and his son Thomas, to two grandsons, John and Acabroaetae Richard faedT Homan eee dare eee De | whom (Thomas) ho left his lands in Marston aod William. (5) younger son Potterno “that lyeth most part upon Wallens,”’ | | ; ail | | Mary.=John Flowor, William Long, of Bulkington,=Julian, daughter Christopher Long, bapt. 1575. His father=,... ‘Thomas Long, of Little Cheverell,exor. to his= ,... daughter Job Long.=... Elizabeth Long. Shedied=John Long, Richard Long. Will, 1602, At, =Snrah William Edward Long.=Franoos - of Worton, dicd vith patris, Will proved, ) of .... Archarde. left to him a sum of money lent to Sir father. Sheriff for Wilts, 1663. Willp. 1654. | of Floyer, of Overseerto 1644, Inwillnames"her of Marston, 86. Of Worton and Bulkington, Long, of of Loa in Cla Maundrell. 1001, 1623, 1697. Nioholas Archarde and | Exeoutrix to her William Brounker, and Potterne Wood, Estates at Melksham, Marston, and Potterne. | Deyon. his father’s beloved brothers, Thomas who died John Long, and Thomas Long, Marston, yorton,b,1689, Had two John Flower to be his overseers. | husband's will. leases, &c., whioh Christopher conveyed to Buried at Little Cheverell. Baptised at Pot- | will, in Long,of Little Cheverell, 1642. Gent., his beloved kinsmen, to be y. 1614. d.1616,loaves daughters, John Long, Sen., one of tho bis son Kobert,and Christopher in succession terne, 1679. He left his estate at Wallens to | 1597. and Richard Long, of overseers of his will. His wife to the poor at Anne an witnesses. | in 1610, his son Thomas Long, of Devizes. Worton.” Sarah’s will, 1666, Marston bywill. Martha, — —E ~)— ; i T 1 il ‘ | i] | sin Long, o| on, =Wlianboth Long, d oof Jobn William Long, of Pottorne=Mary .... Christopher=Rebecoa.... Robert Long.=Susan, John Long, of Lincoln's Inn, in 1645, Richard Long of=Elizabeth, dju- Thomas Long, of=Margery, William Long, of Littlo=Elizabeth Thomas Long.=Mary of William Long,=Buathshoba Roger Lon toh Reema TE aN ere MER tT Tong.” “His only bros j daughter Of Little’ Cheverell and Melksham, Lincoln's Tou, in | ghter of Bde Devizes, — Will, daughter Sutton. HisbrotberJohn Danvers, Will p, 11d, Sonerloy, of Powarns, | Draw. ied 10S, of his grandfather, John | Thomas Long, of Little Cheyerell. 1866, Had lands in Pot- therChristopber| of .... Sheriff for Wilts, 1668. Purchased the 1645. OfColling- | ward,andsister 1671. At, 54. | of Kich- leftto his male heirs tho of West S.P. Eslatos Inta of Baptined 1626, Second wifo, Long,Sonior, hoinhorited | Will, 1644, Hor two daughters, terno and Marlbro’,from his Long.” Haryest, estate of Bainton of John Danvers of bourn Kingston, | to Henry Long, Born 1617, buried | ard Flo- Bainton estate. (An- Laving- at Bulkington Worton, died 1700, Mo- Anno Thor- his lauds at Marston, Sarah and Elizaboth, hor legatees. grandfather JohnLong,Sen. Bainton. John Flower, of Worton, Wilts. Died,1669 | of RoodAshton. in St. John's, | wer of cestor of Longs of Bain- ton. passed to Hich- numentol in- nor. overseer to his will, 1676. Died s,p. buried at Colling- | Re-married...... Devizes, Devizes, ton.) ard (below). soription in Pot- Deyised his estates amongst the sons bourn. Eyre, Will, ternoe Churoh. ofhis brothers, all of whom he had 1691. survived ae al ee l ] i 8 enn Kistol, Blistboth Thomas.=Mary. W , living award =Mary John=Catharine Guisford, Richard Susan Long, Henry Long,=Anne, sister Richard Long, of Rood Ashton=Blizabeth, daughter Richard Long=Alice, daughter William Long,=Elizaboth....... ine Long, Elisabeth Long.=Sta hen Gaisford, Long. 1644-1650. Long,1044 d.1686. 1664, d.’ ap. Still,d, Long. of Bulkington. Dau. Long, d d. sp. of Melksham, | of Hope (by will of his maternal unclo), | of Thomas Long, of (third ton), of | of Ivie, b. of Potterne, Jun., d. 1664, of Bulkington. (6) 1650. “ Joint lease of Eustwell House, in 1690, 1654. of Jolinand Rebecca sp. Wilts, d.1686, | Long, Esq., d. 1730. He married secondly | Rowden, formerly of New Sarum, d. | 1658, m. 1679, Jun.,bapt.1688, vith patris, Pottorne, from Thomas Grubbo, to Gaisford bur. at South | of South Grace, daughter of John Stile- | Monkton, Wilts 1724,born 1656, | d. 1734, 4.1721, Monu- Thomas and William Long.” The two brothers, John and Richard, Wraxholl. Wraxhall, man, relict of John Martyn, of buried in St. mental inscrip- sold their estate to Thomas Grubbe, of 4.1705, mt. Hinton, in Steeple Ashton, d Edmund's Cb., tion in Potterne Potterne, in 1€58, as per lease for a 48. 1746, ‘Shoriff for Wilts, 1703. Sarum, Church. year before tho conveyance, ; : | mall | Henry Long, of Melksham,=Ellon, daughter of Richard Long, of=Anne, daughter and (1)Mary,daughter of=Walter, of New Sarum, and=(2)Pbillippa,daughter of John Blackall, John Long, of the Close, Sarum, He pur- Richard Long, of Potterne and Bulkington. Mury Long.=.,,, Rooke. only © son, posthumous, | William Trenchard, Rood Arhton, d. | heir ofJobu Martyn Robert Morley, of ) Preshaw, Sheriff for Wilts, , of London, m. 1727, d. 1798, wt. 90. chased Muchelney and Preshaw,and leftthem Will, 1753, bapt, 1713, died S.P. Left his buried at North Bradley. | of Cutteridge. 1760, wt. 70. and Grace Stileman, Hu Hants, in | 1746,d. 1769, D.L. Wilts, b. | Her mother was wile of Edward Miobel, to his brother Walter, for life, and to his sons estates to his sister, Mary Rooke, for life, d. 1768, wt. 71. 171 7 St. Thomas, Sarum and daughter of Charles Danvers, of after (Walter and John). Died s.p. then to her son Francis Rooke, | Henry Long, E ! T WilliamLong, Jobn I n, 00-heir of=John Thresher, ——__| | Baynton. | Richard Long, d =Meliora, daughter of.... Jobn Long,D.D., of All Walter Long, ll of Lincoln's Inn, Judge of Sheriff's Court, Jobn Long, of Preshaw,—Ellen, daughter of Robert Hip- | Samuel Long, i of William Long, of Marwell=Alice, daughter of d. ap, 1773. ob.17) d. 1739, bur, William Long, | of Bradford, d. 1787, boried at | Lambe, of Colston, relict Souls College, Oxford, & in London, 40 years, d. 1807, mt. 84, s.p., buried in Salisbury Hants, b 1728, d.1797, pes y Trenchard, Esq., of Ab- Now Sarum, d. Hall, Hants, b, 1748, d. Edmund Dawson, bur. at North Omonths, ot North d.1763, wt. 42, | 1741, wt. 52 Whaddon, mt. 69. | of Jos:Poulden, of Imber, Rector of Chelsfield, Cathedral, His half brother, William, his immediate heir ond m. 1779, bur. at Cor- | bot’s Leigh, Cutteridge, &., , wt. 75, 8p, 1818, 6p. buried inSalis- of Lancashire, d. Bradley Tirndley: bur.atBradford Of Rood Ashton. | d. 1506, mt. 80. Kent, d. 1797, s.p. executor, thence hisestates in Somerset to his nephew, Walter humpton, Hants, relict of John Avbfordby, of buried , at Bt, bury Cathedral. F.R.S., » buried in a aaa Tecevop erent? Cheshunt, d. 1788. Thomas’, forum, F.8.A. Salisbury Cathed. l I l 1 ; - MaryThresher, Dionysia Thresher, Elizaheth—Robert Colbroke, EllenThresher.=SirBourchierWrey, Richard Godolphin Long, of Rood Ashton,—Florentina, dau. of Sir Bourobier Walter Long, born 1788,M.A., Oriel=Lady Mary Carnegie, eldest daughter of d, 1816. d. 1806, wt. 70, Esq, Bt,, of Tayistook, Sheriff for Wilts, 1799, M.P. for Wilts, d. | Wrey, Bt,, by Ellen Thresher, d. College,Oxford,J.P. and D.L.of Hants, | William, Karl of Northesk, G.C.B., Adiniral Devon 1836, buried at Steeple Ashton, 1846, buried at Steeple Ashton. Sheriff of Hants, 1824, d. 1871. of the Ked, &e,, m, Fob, 12, 1810, d, 1876, a well agen ee eRe al Toe Sir Bourchier Wrey, Bart. Tho Rov. W.B. Wrey, Florentina Wrey,d.1835,=Ricbard Godolphin Long, Walter Long, of Rood Ashton,=Mary Anne, daughter of Rt. Richard, Ellen.=J. Walmesley, Esq. Florentina, Anne Catharine, Dionysia Meliora.=Rev. Joseph Medlicott, Walter Jervis. William. John, George. Six daughters. heir to Mrs. Thresher, in Esq., of Rood Ashton, d. M.P. for Wilts, died 1867, buried’) Hon Archibald Colquhoun, d. ap. : 4, wom dunm. "4. 1860, VE SIT, tho Melksham estate. 1836, at West Ashton, | Lord Register of Scotland. raltl i D TT Ti a I FP Walter Long,=Avarina, daughter Richard Penruddocke Long,=Charlotte Anna, daughter Henry William, Catharine. Walter,and William, John and George bdward, d.sp.,1847. of... Herbert,Esq. of Rood Ashton, M.P. for | of W. W. F. Hume, Esq., d. s.p. Flora Henrietta. two other ond an-twoother and another son. of Dolforgan. Wilts, died 1875, MP. for Wicklow. Graney Apnea? cr other son. sons, Walter Hume. Walter William Vansittart, Edward, (1) Margaret Borier is named, as well aster daughter Joanne, in (2) This oe e Herald's Colleges -— the ‘ill of it Thowas Long. of tr ae Sah Sex Tome, in| {3) Zhi) Pedigran' lata) ths: Hexald\w Collages 2) indenture third and fourth Philip and Mary. between Adhelm _(4)Indentare second and third Filip and Mary. between Sir John (5) A decd dated 1623 recites certain life estates created forthe (6) Proof of the above three descents :— joanne is named by Thomas Long of Potterne . t) be, of Colston, and Jobn Long and Praxide tis wife, da onnell, o! op, Co. Dor Kt, ani elm Lambe, of tere of Jol . Senior, above, who died 1601, and who - ‘and Eliza , of ad Sean ot Draesta ia IG. The ie ene oars ie cesta Jone Lome ed reside ie Geek rene a nt ea a ee ane er a at edhe 300. Tndentare betwen, Sarah Kise and Eliabeth 20h Worton, in Potterne. cieration of ‘marriage between them, devised to them and their &e., from Sir Jobu Tregonnell to Adbelm Lambe,and his amigixof — \ife interest to the two grandsons, Jobn and William, and freed {he Ye che part. and Roger Lang: Senior. Wil, 1546, gine the manor. prebend, reetory, and parsonage, andadvowson, the manor and rectory of Fotterne; and reciting the demlse tobim estate. Oth April, 1650, und glebe lands th. [ T John Flower, Senior, of Chitterne, Jolin Flower, Thomas Long,=lIsabel Flower, Potterne, Damed a» Senior in tbe will of J Thomas Long, Senior, 1530. junior. of of Wortos. Bowkymeth lease, t oll whieh premises $28 ate ia that 0 ‘shop of Sarum. (Eziracted from Mr tearion of Mr. Matcham, by the The By In his 1 “well-beloved friend i Christ,” John the late Robert Benson, Exq.) leetory was occupied by Henry Long, 1535, He died erein, and a close of pasture in Potterne, called then in the oeenpation of Jobn Flower the elder, are now (1553) in the oceupation of Henry Long, f Henry Bainton, by leases from John Capon, Grubbe's desds im the por in 2 Edward V1., from Joho, Bishop of Sarum, of the same rectory, glebe, &e., &e. (From Mr. Grubbe's deeds with Mr. Matcham,) 1397. All 1€01, the above John Long, Senjor,of Marston, mentions ior, hy ‘Lambe, John Long, deceased, of Marsto E510 palu by Roger Long, Gent, the aa Yeyed to him the said estate in Marston, ‘ogalnet o}i claims under John, the faths 4nd Joba Long, the great grandfather of Sarah Kisiel, ani Long, (Exiracted from Mr. Grubbe’s deeds in poss Aatcham, of New House, by the tale Robert Bensom, Beg.» °f Sarum, made in the presence of the weriler, Walter 145, Indentare between Toomas Long, of Marin, azafler. Parish of Potterno (and Margery, bis now ‘Eaqul Wards of Devizes, and John Long and Richard Long, Kea) ane eu Lincoln's Inn, brothers of him, the sald Thomas Long, tn oritt fe levy a fino of certain premises, This to show that brothers were of Lincoln's Inn, ia 1645, tho grandfather, Elizabeth ligaboth, doughtor of John Mero- wethor, The Long family in Potterne. 269 Queen Elizabeth the sum of twenty pounds for the space of one _ year. This, I imagine, must have been a brother of the ex-member, who sued the unhappy burgesses for his “ one session’s wages.” He need not have been so urgent, for, as the writ testifies, “special choice hath been made of such of our loving subjects as are known to be of ability,” for the purposes of this loan. The “accommodation” ~ was loyally rendered at the Crown Inn in The Devizes on July 26, 1597, a due receipt having been given for it by Edward Hungerford, appointed to be the receiver of the same. A word or two must be said about the Lone family in Potterne. The first known settler here was Thomas Long who died in 1566, and whose first wife was Isabel daughter of John Flower of Potterne. _ Itis from him that the late Mr. Charles Edward Long (than whom no one knew more of the wide-spreading and well-treasured pedi- grees of his family) traced the direct paternal descent of the Longs, both of Preshaw in Hants, and of Rood Ashton. It would be in- deed venturesome, not to say irrelevant, to attempt to find a way through the labyrinth of the Long pedigree, Thus much however, I may say, that this same Tuomas Lone of Potterne, was believed by Mr. C. E. Long to have been a son of Thomas Long of Semington, who died in 1509, and was buried in the chapel of St. George there, and who gave his said son a house and property at Littleton, a ham- let of Steeple Ashton. He considered it probable moreover that *«Thomas of Semington” was a near kinsman, probably a nephew of Robert Long of Wraxall, the Rodolph of their race, though the actual proof was wanting. “The descendants of Thomas of Potterne,” i= <6 to use Mr. C. E. Long’s words written to me but a few weeks before his lamented decease, “gradually distributed themselves all along the river, in one:parish after another—at Keevil, Bulkington, Marston, Worton, Cheverell, and Potterne—all using the same water for their woollens, whilst some were fighting themselves into knights.” (1600-1700.)—As far as the principal gentry were concerned the Grubbes, the Rookes, and the Flowers were the leading persons in 1 Jackson’s Aubrey, 337. 270 Potterne. the seventeenth century in Potterne. In 1629 John Northey was appointed to the vicarage by John Grubbe, who was the lessee of | the manor, and who in 1638 served as Sheriff of the county. The. deed is still to be seen by which King Charles I. called on the said John Grubbe for a loan of £200, pledging himself on his honor as a king to return the same, a pledge fairly enough redeemed by the bestowal of the manor of Easterton on his family. In 1639 we meet with the name of Thomas Grubbe, Serjeant, as the largest contributor to the subsidy-rolls of East Kennet.! And then some- what later in the century we have Walter Grubbe M.P. for The Devizes, who, like many aspirants for Parliamentary honors in our own days, got petitioned against, but unlike them was fortunate enough to retain its seat. The following names of persons connected with Potterne and its dependencies appear in a list of freeholders for 1638: Henry Bull, Marston ; John Flower, Worton ; Thomas Grubbe (armiger), Potterne; Philip Harvest, Whistley ; William Hunt, Potiterne ; William Lye, Potterne; Roger Long, Marston ; John Mereweather, Worton; William May, Marston; John Ranger, Potterne ; Francis Rooke, Potterne; Richard Rooke, Potterne ; Philip Smith, Potterne. Of course great and stirring events happened during this century. I do not mean to dwell on them, because much that I should say is already printed in Waylen’s Devizes, and in a number of communi- cations made by him to a local journal under the title of “ Wiltshire during the Civil Wars.” I may mention however, that during the siege of Devizes, Waller is said to have disposed of his dragoons, some 500 in number, on the Potterne side,? and no doubt billetted them on the good folks in the village. And further, that when the storm, which had been raging against all persons and things ecclesi- astical, reached the Bishop of Sarum, the court leet and royalties of Potterne were sold July 12, 1648, to Thomas Barton for £43 17s. 4d. and the lordship of Potterne to Gregory Clement for £8226 7s, 2d. There is a traditionary tale in the village, that when the said Gregory 1 See the whole account in Waylen’s Devizes, 352. 2 Waylen’s Devizes, 166. ; Persecutions of the Seventeenth Century. 271 Clement, on or about May 29th, 1660, was complacently viewing his acquired property, he suddenly heard the bells of St. John’s, Devizes, strike out a merry peal, and then quickly disappeared from Potterne, and was never afterwards seen there. Those joyous sounds told him that England was welcoming her king back again, and that Gregory Clement had certainly lost his money, and most probably his credit also. The “'Tryers” appointed by the Commonwealth came round in ‘due course, about 1649, when John Northey was Vicar of Potterne, to test the efficiency of the various parochial ministers, and then many an one being judged to be inefficient and “ no godly man or sufficient preacher,” was superseded by another, who though he might have had a more fluent tongue had probably a far less sensitive conscience. . But John Northey, for aught I have been able to learn, lived on undisturbed through all the troublous times of the Commonwealth. His contemporary at Devizes, one “ Master John Shepherd,” was roughly handled, and as it would appear, unfairly accused by some of the Parliamentary generals or officers. ! A word in passing must also be said of the persecution that was carried on against a class of religionists, who, as we think, from their quiet and inoffensive ways, might have hoped for immunity. These were the Quakers, who, as we know, flourished much in this vicinity. Mr. Waylen?® gives us many details of the proceedings taken against them, and the fines and imprisonment inflicted on them.. The amusing part too in the legal arrangements of those days was this, that these inoffensive Quakers were condemned under a law which dealt with them as “ reputed Papists”’ or “ Popish recusants!””? Of those immediately from Potterne who were thus persecuted, we hear (in 1678) of Roger Wheeler, a blacksmith of Potterne,® and Richard Joyner of Worton; and in 1683, Mary and Martha Underwood of Potterne, were informed against as Quakers and condemned to eight weeks’ imprisonment. The spirit of persecution is the same 1 See Wilts Mag., ii., 329. 2 Waylen’s, Devizes, 343, 8 Ibid, 346, 272 Potterne. whether under King or Protector, under Monarchy or Commonwealth. (A.D. 1700-1874).—A very few words more are necessary to bring down our narrative to the present time. At the commence- ment of the eighteenth century we find the lordship of the manor in the hands of Edward Nicholas, of the Roundway family, who held it under Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury. Amongst worthies of this century, I may mention Dr. Kent, an eccentric but large-hearted clergyman, who lived at Whistley. The interest attaching to his memory consists not a little in the fact of his having been the friend of one who, though then in complete obscurity, rose afterwards to great eminence, I mean Sir Thomas Laurence. The father of the future President of the Royal Academy kept the Bear Inn, in Devizes. He shewed Dr. Kent on one occasion a sketch, on a wall in his son’s bed-room, of the ‘ Doctor” himself on a favorite white horse which he always rode. The sketch so pleased Dr. Kent, that he at once presented young Laurence with a box of colors, the first he ever possessed, and always afterwards be- friended him. In truth he was the means of giving him that first start in life, which enabled him to persevere successfully till he found himself at the very head of his honorable profession. It would be wrong to pass over without one word the well-known story of Ruth Pierce of Potterne, whose sudden death in the Market Place of Devizes in the very act of telling a lie, is held forth as a solemn warning of the dangers of untruthfulness by an inscription on a stone pillar recording the circumstances. The circumstances, as stated on the east panel of the market cross, were as follows: “On Thursday, the 25th of January, 1753, Ruth Pierce, of Potterne, in this county, agreed with three other women to buy a sack of wheat in the market, each paying her due proportion towards the same. One of these women, in collecting the several quotas of money, discovering a deficiency, demanded of Ruth Pierce the sum which was wanting to make good the amount. Rrth Pierce protested that she had paid her share, and said she ‘ wished she might drop down dead if she had not.’ She rashly repeated this awful wish ; when, to the consterna- tion and terror of the surrounding multitude, she instantly fell down and expired, having the money concealed in her hand.” Story of Ruth Pierce of Potterne. 273 THE MARKET CROSS, DEVIZES. This inscription was by order of the authorities, recorded on a tablet and hung up in the Market House, a row of sheds near the eross. When that building was taken down it was transferred to the pediment of a couple of pillars which stood opposite the Bear Inn, supporting the sign of that house. No long time afterwards Lord Sidmouth presented to the town the new Market Cross, and the authorities then availed themselves of a panel in the new struc- ture, to use their own language, “to transmit to future times a record of an awful event which occured in this Market Place, in the year 1753, hoping that such a record may serve as a salutary warning against the danger of impiously invoking divine vengeance, or of ealling on the Holy Name of God to conceal the devices of falsehood - and fraud. A small tract based on this occurrence entitled “‘ Ruth Pierce or the evil consequence of Lying,” and also a short handbill headed “The Lie Punished,” were published many years since by the Re- ligious Tract Society. A religious tale, founded also on the same materials, in which the whole circumstances are graphically described, will be found in the first volume of Sunday Evening Readings, by F the Rev. H. C. Adams. ; The original inquisition on Ruth Pierce of Potterne, bearing date 27 4 Potterne. January 26th, 1753, was presented a short time ago to the Society by Lt.-Col. Perry Keene, and is preserved in the Museum. A copy of the same was given in this Magazine (vol. xii., 256). Little more remains to be told. The history of Potterne for the last hundred years is but that of an ordinary Wiltshire village, having no stirring incidents to relate, and happily no persecutions to chronicle. Our good friends of the Devizes Gazette used a few years ago to head paragraphs now and then with the words “ The Potterne Lambs again,” and tell us how sundry of them were brought into the vicinity of the Market Place, to be cured by a little whole- some bleeding, prescribed by the talented and witty Recorder or some of his brother justices, for the complaints of giddiness in the head, or unsteadiness in the gait, and especially too loud and dis- orderly bleating. But these are now happily things of the past. We can only hope that any chronicler who in days to come may fill up the gaps in our sketch, or continue it to the days of some future generation, though he may no longer be able to tell of episcopal lords, or “crenellated’? manor houses, will nevertheless have to record in Potterne the honest industry, and successful progress, of peace-loving, law-abiding Wiltshiremen. It will be no inapproriate mode of closing our account of Potterne to dwell a little in detail on the PartsH Cuurcn, and on matters more or less closely connected with it. Our notice will include a list of the Vicars from the earliest period of which we have any records to present time. Tur Parish CuurcuH. We have already mentioned that there was a church at Potterne at as early a date as some time in the tenth century. It was not on the site of the present church, but on lower ground near the mill. The site is now used as garden-ground, but is still called the “ Old Churchyard.” For many centuries the site was parish property but it has now passed into private hands. Some ancient fragments, possibly from this early church, or, if not, from a second church earlier in date than the present church, are still to be seen carefully preserved in the vicarage garden, wD Te Ny * D H H H q t l] iy | Raw. kite, anastar, y mi Wilemese: 2 lapaccereanis Ly TSA \= = As The Parish Church. 275 The present church is one of singular beauty. Situated ona rising knoll of ground, and approached by flights of steps, the words of Holy Writ almost instinctively occur to you as you look at it: * Beautiful for situation is Mount Sion ;”—“ Hither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord.” The church as will be seen from the ground-plan, of which an engraving is given, is cruciform, having a central tower with a north and south transept on either side. The whole body of the church, and also the lower portion of the tower, were built about the middle of the thirteenth century, possibly during the episcopate of William of York, who, as we have already noticed, had a residence at Potterne, and was one of the trusted advisers of Henry III., and belongs to what is called the first-pointed or Early English style of architecture. An engraving of one of the buttresses is given in the Glossary of Architecture (Plate 39), and a conjectural date of c. 1250 assigned to it. The following architectural sketch of the Church, kindly drawn up by Mr. C. W. Purday, who was associated with Mr. Christian in carrying out the work of restoration a few years ago, will, we are sure, be read with pleasure :— _ “The present Church of Potterne was built during the first half of the thirteenth century, and is a cruciform structure, con- sisting of nave without aisles, chancel, central tower, and short transepts. The nave hasa north porch of the same date, and a south porch added in the fifteenth century. The nave, chancel, and transepts are all of equal width, about 22 feet 4 inches inside the walls. The total length inside is about 106 feet, and the length across the transepts, about 65 feet. The tower occupies the whole square of the crossing, measuring 28 feet 6 inches outside, and its piers are so arranged, with plain chamfered orders, as to offer little obstruction on the inside. “The great feature of the plan is its extreme simplicity and regularity, and the same characteristics mark the architecture, sculpture being entirely absent, and mouldings being used only in _@ very sparing manner; but the want of elaboration is amply compensated by good proportion and refinement of detail. 276 Potterne. “ Light is abundantly poured into the building by thirty-four lancet windows, grouped as follows: the nave has eleven, four on each side and a triplet in the west gable; the chancel has nine, three on each side and a triplet at the east end; each of the tran- septs has seven, two long lancets in each gable, two shorter ones on the west side, and a group of three to the east, over the chantry altars. “A moulded string runs all round the inside walls below the window sills. The lancet windows have all chamfered scoinson arches, with a hood mould above, which is connected from window to window by a second string mould running horizontally just below the springing of the arches. The western triplet is plain, but at the east end of the chancel the architect has given us a beautiful composition, in an arcade of five bays rising to the centre with detached marble shafts, and delicately moulded arches, caps and bases. The three central bays are pierced to form a triplet window, while the two outer bays are left solid, as blank panels. The four great arches carrying the tower are rather sharply pointed, with the double chamfered orders of the jambs carried round, and simply bound together at the springing by the moulded string which runs round the building, without capitals, and finished above by a moulded label or hood. In the east and west gables, a small double window opens above the collars of the roof. “ The roofs are all of equal height and steep-pitch, and are of the form most common in the thirteenth century—known as trussed rafter roofs. “The tower space has a flat panelled ceiling of wood under the ringers’ floor. “Externally, the church has the same simplicity of detail which marks the interior. The windows are finished with plain splays with a moulded label and connecting horizontal string at the springing, but none under the sills. “ The walls are of rubble stone with solid well designed buttresses of masonry at the angles, and the gables are finished with stone copings and crosses. “The north porch and doorway are of very simple character, The Parish Church. 277 _ eoeval with the church. The south porch, of somewhat more ornate but less refined character, is one of the few features of later date, : _ having been added in the fifteenth century. “The roofs are covered externally with the stone slates or tiles of the district. | “The Tower was at first carried up only to the string above the point of the church roofs, and then probably allowed to rest for twenty or thirty years—possibly more—when the bold and beautiful belfry stage was erected, but still left incomplete at the top. During this interval a great change was taking place in the architecture of the period, and the early forms of tracery were being developed by grouping two or more lancets under an arch, and piercing the spandrell or tympanum above, by circles or other geometrical forms. ‘This belfry stage has buttresses of ashlar at the angles, and on each face between these two large and bold windows, each con- sisting of two plain lights under a pointed arch, with a quatrefoil _ tower a triple attached shaft runs up between the windows. A stone . spiral staircase runs up in an octagonal turret or buttress attached to the south-east angle of the tower. “There is nothing to show exactly how the tower was intended at this date to be finished, but judging from what remains, and from what was done in similar cases in other parts of the country about the same time, it is probable that a low stone spire, with a corbel course just above the great windows, would have been erected, had the original design been fully carried out. “Tt may be doubted, however, whether the spire would have been more effective, or more suited to the position of the church, than the Tich coronet of panelling and pinnacles set upon the tower in the fifteenth century, and which now forms such a pleasing finish. At the time this was done, the tower was raised a few feet, as is clearly seen by the difference in the walling. A plain stone cornice runs all round, and above this is a battlemented parapet with sunk tracery panels on the face, and crocketted pinnacles at the angles, and in the centre of each side of the tower. The staircase turret is carried ‘up and finished with a plain pinnacle top, and a weather vane. ‘VoL. XVI.—NO, XLVI. T — : piercing in a circle above them. In the centre of each face of the 278 Potterne. “In the fifteenth century also the wide open lights of the belfry windows were built up with masonry, to keep out the weather, open tracery piercings being introduced to allow the sound of the bells to pass out freely. “The tower has a flat leaded roof behind the parapets. “ We have now briefly described the main structure, but a few details require notice. “The Church contains portions of three fonts of different dates. That now in use has a base and stem of the thirteenth century, while the bow] is of late fourteenth century work, but neither are very re- markable as to design. The most curious of the three, and indeed in an antiquarian sense the most interesting object in the whole Church, is the large tub-shaped font now placed at the west end of the nave. This is undoubtedly of great antiquity, and very probably dates from before the Norman Conquest. The surface (excepting the upper rim round which is cut in well-formed and legible characters a text) appears to have been chiselled over at a period much later than its first erection. It seems probable that the builders of the thirteenth century, wishing to preserve so sacred an object in their new Church, and finding it broken and injured, endeavoured to render it more sightly by dressing it over—carefully preserving however its one feature of interest, the text. The attempt appears not to have been satisfactory, for a new font was made and the ancient one rever- ently preserved by being buried beneath it, and there it remained until, during the recent restorations, it was discovered and exhumed. “The internal walls were from the first plastered in the usual way and decorated in a very beautiful manner, the surfaces being lined out in what is generally known as the masonry pattern, simple in the nave, and with sprigs and flowers in the chancel, while the” horizontal string was marked out by a band of richer work. The east wall of the chancel was further enriched by a beautiful cross, placed midway between the altar and the window sill on a ground of lattice pattern with flowers. Fragments of this decoration were discovered in almost every part of the Church, but the plaster was in so decayed a state that none could be preserved. That on the east — wall had been coloured over and re-done in the fifteenth century, ~_ The Parish Church. 279 keeping the general idea, but in a much coarser and less refined manner both as to drawing and colours. “The old oak pulpit of the fifteenth century, a portion of which still exists, is of good design and execution. It has tracery panels finished with ogee crocketted canopies, and small detached pinnacled buttresses at the angles. Traces of the original colouring still show themselves in the hollows and less exposed parts. “Tn modern times the Church was suffered, like most others, to fall into a very unseemly condition, and such works as were from time to time carried out only tended to obscure its beauties. The tran- septs and west end of the nave were choked with galleries. The east _ window was partly concealed behind a costly but cumbrous and in- j congruous ‘classic’ reredos of wood, and one light of the west win- dow was blocked up to form a flue for the stove. The tie-beams had been cut out of the roofs, causing the decayed timbers to spread _ and do damage to the walls. “The masonry, thanks to the lasting nature of the stone, suffered _ little, but the stone copings were removed from the gables, leaving only the apex stones set on the tiling. “ A better time at length dawned, and in 1871 the restoration of the Church was commenced under the superintendence of Mr. Christian, _ the chancel being repaired at the cost of the Ecclesiastical Com- misioners for England, and the remainder by subscriptions. Com- _ mencing with clearing out and improving the interior, the work soon _ grew to larger dimensions, including amongst other structural _ repairs the entire renewal of the nave, chancel, and north transept _ roofs, the timbers of which were found to be in a state which rendered repair impossible. These were renewed on the old lines as far as - possible. “Tt is not necessary to describe minutely the work of restoration ; suffice it to say, that, so far as ancient features were concerned, it _ was carried out in a strictly conservative spirit; the work of the / original builders being considered far more precious than new, and not removed unless so far decayed as to have lost all interest, or to _ endanger the stability of adjoining portions. In this course happily _ the architect had the sympathy of those most concerned in the work. T2 280 Potterne. “In the case of the internal decoration the preservation of the old was impossible, owing to its fragmentary condition and the bad state of the plastering ; but the greatest care was taken to ascertain the exact colours employed and the general arrangement of the patterns, and what has already been done in the chancel may be taken as a faithful reproduction, as far as possible, of the original design. The decoration will be extended to other parts of the church as soon as funds for its execution are available. “The want most felt in the interior is for a little more colour. The windows were no doubt originally all filled with stained glass of more or less richness, which tended to tone down the abundant light. Some are again filled with coloured glass, notably the east windows of the chancel and north transept, in which, though the colouring is good, the lines are perhaps a little too hard to suit the ancient work. The stained glass for the west window, which is soon expected, will, if successful, add very much to the internal effect of the building.” There is a PrscinA and an Ampry in the chancel, and also a Piscina in the north transept. The latter would seem to imply a chantry founded in that part of the Church, but no records relating to it have as yet been discovered. The Church itself, like the Cathe- dral at Salisbury, is dedicated to St. Mary the Virgin. The annual dedication feast takes place on Sept. 19th, which corresponds with Sept. 8th (old style) and is marked in our calendars as the fes- tival of the “ Nativity of the Virgin Mary.” There are still to be seen faint traces of the ancient Roop-Lort. In the tower staircase the doorway is still traceable which must have opened on to the rood-loft. There is still a traditional remembrance in the parish of a Roop Screen which was of oak and extended across the chancel arch. It was taken down not long after the be- ginning of the present century, and appropriated to secular and very common uses. Of the AnctEent Font, alluded to above,which was discovered during the restoration carried out in 1872, buried under the site on which the present font is placed, we must speak more particularly. It is probably of the date of the tenth century, and was, we may reasonably Inscription on Ancient Bell: - JL HA HV 40 NA Ancient Font, and Inscription’: - +XICVT CERVVS OESIOERAT ‘AO FONTES AQVARVM ITA —_OESIOERAT ANIMA MEA _ AO TE OS AMEN. —— The Parish Church. 281 suppose, the font which belonged to the earliest church that was built for Potterne. It is made of stone, circular in form, and of simple, almost rude, workmanship. An engraving of this most in- teresting relic is given, from which our readers may be able to form a fair idea of it. Its dimensions are as follows :— Height, outside ae 2 feet 24in. Depth, He eae Vy es Diameter, outside 5 vey ee Diameter, inside ae 2a eo es Circumference, at top noe ge", 2 as Circumference, at bottom ... tips 1 Ota Round the upper rim of the font is a Latin inscription, cut in antique characters: ‘‘ SICUT CERVUS DESIDERAT AD FONTES AQUARUM ITA DESIDERAT ANIMA MEA AD TE DEUS. AMEN.” | Like as the hart desireth the water-brooks, so longeth my Soul after thee, O God. Psalm xlii., 1]. Though it helps us little in our enquiry as to the precise date of the font, it is a matter of some interest that the quo- tation is not from the Vulgate, but from an alternative reading in a version of St. Jerome. The following remarks by Mr. Christian, the architect under whose direction the recent restoration was carried out, will be read with interest. ‘This font,’ he writes, “is of very early date, and much older than the existing church. Its general form and outline is quite different to anything I have ever seen of the work of the thirteenth century, but is quite in accordance with that of Saxon times. The inscription, as far as my experience goes, is unique, and is written in characters which so far as I know have not been in use since theConquest. Those most nearly resembling them are to befound ina copy of St. Cuthbert’s Gospels in the British Museum, the date of which is given as the beginning of the eighth century. My theory is, that, when the ancient Church in the valley was abandoned and the new one built in the thirteenth century, the ancient font was re- moved, andthat afterwards in the fifteenth century, when, as the tower clearly shews, a good deal of work was done at the Church, a new font was made, and the old one buried beneath the floor. The men of the © 282 : - Potterne. thirteenth century would certainly not have used in the construction of the new building any of the architectural features of a former age, but they might well be content to utilize the furniture, as it might be called, of earlier times, and would not be likely willingly to destroy such a font. Out of many hundred fonts which I have seen I have never met with the like of Potterne, with a text of Holy Scripture inscribed round its rim. Those who are better acquainted with ancient psalters than I am may be able to adduce additional evidence on the subject, but so far as form and lettering enable me to form a judgment, I should without hesitation assign the date of its execution to early Saxon times.” The BzEtts are six in number; and two ot shame the third and sizth, would seem to have been put up, or re-cast, in 1624. 1. This bell is 463 inches in diameter, and weighs about 17 ewt. It has the inscription : “‘ The gift of the Rev. George Edmonstone, Vicar, 1820. Rt. Watts and Jos. Glass, Churchwardens. James Wells fecit.” 2. A very ancient bell, probably of the fourteenth century, with an illegible inscription. (See plate 3.) 3. i Anno Domini 1624.” 4. “Mr. John Gaisford and John More C. W. 1713. W. C.” 5. “R. Wells, of Aldbourne, fecit. 1771.” 6. ‘% Drawe near to God. Anno Domini 1624. I.M.: R. B.” The Reeisrers of the parish extend back to the year 1557. The oldest is written on parchment. Some of the earliest entries, in consequence of the leaves being decayed, are not very easy to deci- pher. The following notice is to be read at the commencement of the book containing the earliest entries: “The ancient Register of Potterne hereto annexed, when in a confused state and fast de- eaying, was thus arranged and as far as possible transcribed gratu- itously for the benefit of the Parish by and under the immediate inspection of Robert Benson, Esq., M.A., and Barrister-at-law, Middle Temple, London, A.D. 1823-4.” Of Monuments there are several relating to the TANNER family, connections more or less intimate no doubt of Bishop Tanner, who was a native of Wilts and promoted to the see of St. Asaph in The Parish Church. 283 1732, and of whom a brief notice will be found in an earlier number of this Magazine.! Other monuments relate to the Grubbe family, and there is a small brass in the north transept to the memory of Susanna Grubbe, daughter of Thomas Grubbe, Esq., who died in 1684. Others relate to the families of FLowmr, Bartey, Sppartne, Kent, and Wray. The latter monument records the fact of the deprivation of the Rev. Robert Byng, D.D. (an ancestor of the Wray family), from the Rectory of All Cannings, for his loyalty to King Charles II., and his decease and burial, before the Teens at St. John’s Sanh, Devizes. There are several stained glass windows in the church. The east windows were placed in memory of the late Vicar, the Rev. Joseph Medlicott. Others have been inserted as memorials of various members of the families of Grubbe, Oldfield, and Olivier. The head of the last-named family was the late Colonel Olivier, who became connected with Potterne in 1830, and who for some thirty years was the lessee under the Bishop, and so, for the time being, Lord of the Manor of Potterne. It was he that, at the time of the machine- burning riots, organized a troop of yeomanry cavalry known as the “ Potterne Troop,” to act as mounted police—a troop that was dis- banded in 1836. For a portion of the time that he resided at Potterne he was churchwarden of the parish, and seconded the vicar, the Rev. G. Edmonstone, in his efforts for the providing educational and other advantages for the people of his charge. He was also for a short time the possessor of the Porch House, now in course of restoration, and so indirectly the means of preserving it: for at _ that time it was being utilised, and converted into sundry tene- ments, and ruthlessly treated, to provide for the tenants’ supposed» needs. Colonel Olivier was the first Treasurer moreover of the Wilts Archzological Society, and so well deserves this passing men- tion at our hands. On his decease in 1864, the property belonging to him was sold, and the connexion of his family with the parish ' terminated. : » . 1 Wilts Mag., xiii., 59. 284 Potterne. The following list of Vicars of Potterne from the beginning of the fourteenth century has been compiled from Sir Thomas Phillipp’s “ Wiltshire Institutions ” and other sources :— Vicars oF PorrerNe. ewes seme Patron, Bishop Stmon or GHENT. The same. Bp. Roger pe Mortivat. The same. Bishop Ropert WYvILL. The same. Bishop Ratpx Erenvum. The same. The same. The same. The same. Bishop Joun WatrHam. The same. Bp. Ricuarp Mirrorp. Bishop Rospert NeEvItxe. Bp. Witiiam AtscoueH. Bishop JoHN BLYTHE. Bishop Epmunp AUDLEY. The same. Bp. Nicnotas SHaxton. INCUMBENT. RicuHarp DE HeEspINe. GILBERT DE WyTHAM. WILLIAM DE AsTON. WIiLiiAM DE LavyNTON. ALAN AVENEL. Joun Doytiy, Rector of Ewelm, Oxon, by exchange with Alan Avenel. See Kennet’s Paroch. Antiq., i1., 3877. Rozsert Dupine. RicuarD Durant. JoHn ErcGuum. Henry Cuare1, by exchange with John Erghum. Ricuarp Durant. Wiiiam Copyer. Apam Uskz, by exchange with William Codyer. Wituam Bayton. Henry Pake. Joun Go.pz, by resignation of Henry Pake. Tuomas Ryze. Joun Ewyas, by exchange with Thomas Ryle. GRUBBE. Watrter Brown, by resignation of Grubbe. NicHo.as INGULSENTE, on decease of Walter Brown. He was Rector of Poulshot in 1498. Witi1am CapMay, on resignation of Nicholas Ingulsente. J oHNCLERK,on decease of William Cadman. Tuomas Bours (as Lessee Jonn Bourg, on decease of John of the Manor under Bishop Capon). | Clerk. Vicars of Potterne. 285 A.D. PATRON. INCUMBENT, = eee Nicnoias STRANGWIDGE. 1629 | Joun Grupse,Esq.,Lessee| Joun Nortuty, on the decease of the Manor. of Nicholas Strangwidge. ode oe Joun Craia, Preb. of Durnford, 1708, Gillingham, 1726. 1696 | Bishop Gitperr Burner.| Cuartes Tuzorurtus Moret (on cession of John Craig), Preb. of Chute,1698,Husborne,1701. 1711 | The same. Francis Fox (on decease of C. T. Mutel), Preb. of Stratton, 1738. 1726 | BishopBensaminHoapiey, Davip Scartock, on cession of Francis Fox. 1768 | Bishop Jonn Hume. Joun Hunn (on decease of David Searlock), Preb. of Combe, 1779. 1770 | The same. James Hume Spry (on resigna- tion of John Hume), Preb. of Minor Pars Altaris, 1774. 1781 | The same. ArrHor Conam (on decease of J.H. Spry), Preb. of Fording- ton, 1772. Archdeacon of Wilts, 1779. 1793 | Bishop Jonn Dovetas. | Arruur JoHn Couam (on resig- nation of Arthur Coham). 1799 | The same. Wuu1am Dovetas (on decease of ' A. J. Coham), Archdeacon of , Wilts, 1799. _ 1807 | The same. Gzorce Epmonston (on resig- nation of W. Douglas. 1837 | Bishop Epwarp Denison.| Joseph Mepticorr (on resigna- tion of George Edmonston). 1871 | BishopGzorceMosertey.| Tuomas Boueuton BucHanan(on decease of Joseph Medlicott), Rector of Wishford Magna, 1863, Archdeacon of Wilts, ‘i 1874. The above is probably a tolerably complete list of the Vicars of | _ Potterne from the year 1307 downwards. It will be observed that | among them are several bearing surnames, the same as those of their _ respective patrons and bishops ; showing that if “ providing for their | own” was a Zest, the diocesans were orthodox enough. Two of them 286 Potterne. held names now well known in the religious world, Ryt# and CapMaNn. Several held the office of Archdeacon, and not a few held prebendal stalls in the Cathedral at Sarum. We know very little about them. One, by name Davin Scartock, who held the living from 1726 to 1768, wrote several works, amongst others one that might possibly be read with advantage even now, entitled “ A caution against speaking evil of Governors.” Another, his immediate predecessor, Francis Fox, seems, from the careful way in which he enters in the baptismal registers the names of sponsors, to have been a diligent and conscien- tious pastor. He held a prebendal stall at Sarum and was’ chaplain to Lord Cadogan. He was an author: amongst other works he published one in 1723 entitled “The New Testament explained,” and in 1727 a tract on the “ Duty of Public Worship,” still on the catalogue of the Christian Knowledge Society. In 1726 he became Vicar of St. Mary’s, Reading, and died there in 1738. Of one other Vicar, who passed away but little more than twenty years ago at the patriarchal age of ninety-one, I will say a few closing words. In 1807 Gxorce Epmonston became Vicar of Potterne. He resigned his charge after thirty years’ incumbency, but still lived amongst his old parishioners. It was his happiness to welcome as his successor one whom he had at first associated with himself as Curate, and afterwards as contentedly looked up to as Vicar. lLarge-hearted, and open-handed, his memory is still affectionately cherished in Potterne. Numerous were his gifts to the parish—to the Church—to the poor. To the last he not only left liberal bequests by will, but during his lifetime built and endowed schools for the education of their children, And now both GroreE Epmonston and JosrpH Mep.icortr, successive Vicars of Potterne, “ lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death not divided,” sleep peacefully together in that peaceful churchyard, till they shall awake to a friendship yet more real, because purer—uninterrupted —never-ending. Bradford-on-Avon, August, 1876. W. H. Jonss. Canon Ordinary of Sarum, and Vicar of Bradford-on-Avon. ila bie, 287 On the Old Porch-Honse at Potterne. By the Rey. A. C. Smirn, M.A. (Read before the Society at the Annual Meeting, at Devizes, September, 1874.] * SSEFORE I enter upon a short account of the old Porch- House at Potterne, it may perhaps serve to open up the subject and facilitate my description and prepare in some degree { for a better examination of this most interesting specimen of domestic architecture of a bygone age, if I make a few preliminary observations on timber buildings in England generally, and touch upon the more common arrangement and detail of an English house from three to four hundred years ago. I do not think it is sufficiently considered that up to a comparatively late period (say within the last two hundred years) most of our houses were built of timber. But I will go farther than that, and say that up to the period of the Norman Conquest, the great majority even of our Churches were built of timber. Why is it that instances of Saxon Churches are so extremely rare with us, while specimens of Norman work are so abundant? This is not, I will venture to say, solely due to the inferior, and therefore less durable, character, of Saxon work and Saxon materials; for the thickness of Saxon walls (where a specimen exists,) is remarkable. But it is because, when the country was in great measure covered with forests and marshes, and roads of communication were few and often im- passable, the carriage of stone was too formidable and too costly a . q business, while the supply of timber was so ample and so ready at hand, that Churches, as well as less important buildings, were gene- _ rally made of wood: as for the same causes they are to this day in Norway, where I have seen specimens of wooden Churches bearing a *The writer of the following paper desires to express his personal obligations to the spirited owner of the Old Porch House, at Potterne, (George Richmond, Esq., R.A.,) not only for his courtesy in _ pointing out all the principal points of interest in the building, but also for supplying the details, to _ which this imperfect sketch owes any interest it may possess. 288 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. recognized date of no less than five or six, and in one instance seven, centuries. It was these wooden Churches of our forefathers which, the Saxon Chronicles so often tell us, were burnt by the Danes; and it would seem that it was not until after their repeated demolition by fire, that our ancestors awoke to the fact that it was advisable to employ a more durable, if more expensive, material for their chief buildings. As a notorious exception to this, doubtless the very perfect Saxon Church of Bradford rises before our minds, which dating back (as is believed on good authority) from the eighth century, seems to contradict the ‘statement I have just made. But if we remember that Bradford is situated in the heart of some of the best stone- quarries in England, we shall understand that stone would, in that particular district, be as well the more natural as the cheaper material for building; and the “Ecclesiola” of Bradford, as it has been happily called, would be an exceptional case among its own contem- porary Churches: and on that account I claim for it now an additional title, to the respect and reverence (and let me add contribution to- wards its preservation) of all true archzologists, in that it is not only an almost unique specimen of its age which remains to us, but that it probably never had many compeers of its time of like build and material. I crave the indulgence of my readers for this digression on stone Churches, to which I have been led by the few remarks I have made on timber Churches; and I return to the timber houses of which I was speaking. . Long after ecclesiastical buildings began, in the words of an old writer, to “ become petrified,” and even after they had attained per- fection, those of a secular character continued to be formed of wood. Indeed I may say that for the several succeeding centuries, (even up to two hundred years ago,) timber was the material generally adopted, not only for the cottage of the peasant, but for the hall of the knight or noble. Doubtless this was in great degree owing to the causes I have already mentioned, the profusion of timber and the difficulty of carting stone. To some extent also it may be attributed to fashion, and the reluctance to change, which seems to have been as natural By the Bev. A. C. Smith. 289 to our forefathers as it is unnatural to us: but perhaps more than all (in the better examples at least) to the desire of obtaining many beautiful features which were peculiar to the timber edifices, and which could be produced by this material alone : “ projecting stories, windows with delicate tracery, elegant oriels, carved gable boards, pendants, and so forth. These, together with a profusion of en- richment on their chequered walls, impart to these buildings a charm which cannot be surpassed by any other style.””! “These timber buildings of England were generally constructed of oak, possessing extreme durability ; the superiority of which over that procured at present is said to arise from the trees having been _ felled in winter, and not in spring, as at present, for the sake of the bark.” ® There was no stint of timber employed: massive beams were used in every part of the construction : indeed it has repeatedly been urged that there has been an unnecessary consumption of wood in these buildings; but this objection does not appear to be well substantiated; for any excess of strength in the first instance has _ been more than amply repaid by the additional number of years they have lasted: their existence for three or four centuries in a sound state _ being one of the best proofs of the skill displayed in their construc- tion. The walls were generally formed of timbers disposed in various patterns, though sometimes simple squares, and were filled in with plaster set in stout oak laths: this plaster was a mud-clay well mixed with straw, which was afterwards whitewashed,® and was a material resembling the Devonshire cod of the present time. The principal timbers of the roof were generally built up in squares in the same manner as the walls, and were covered with stone tiles. 1a Ancient timber edifices of England,” by John Clayton, Architect, 1846. 2 Clayton’s ‘* Ancient timber edifices of England.” - 3In London, the citizens were compelled to whitewash even the thatch of their houses, as a precaution against fire, and so the ‘‘ Londoners objected to sea-borne coal for fuel, that the smoke from it blackened the white walls of their buildings. The appearance of the city presented the aspect of a mass of low whitewashed tenements.”—Hudson Turner’s Domestic Architecture of England from the Conquest to the end of the thirteenth century, vol. ii, p. 26, and vol. i., p. 115. 290 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. These roofs of open timber-work were often richly ornamented, and sometimes pierced wood-work resembling the tracery of windows was introduced under the arches. King-posts and tie-beams were also characteristic features of these massive roofs. The foundations were generally of stone, as were the fire-places and chimney shafts, where they existed. The construction of the projecting stories and several other portions displayed great ingenuity: these overhanging upper stories were generally carried on corbels: the timbers in front were often ornamented with panelling, either entirely carved on wood, or the spaces between the timbers were filled with plaster, and the timbers were left projecting. Moreover it would seem probable, from the appearance of the timbers in many of these buildings, that their surfaces were originally protected by a description of paint of a rich brown colour : it is however extremely uncertain whether the practice of blackening them, as is usually done in the present day, can be traced to an ancient origin. As regards the interiors of these timber houses, perhaps we of this more luxurious age should scarcely be satistied with the ac- commodation which met all the requirements of our ancestors, and we might pronounce the rooms they generally contained, few in number, and diminutive in size. Neither should we be content to dwell in a hall without a chimney, and with windows guiltless of glass, but which ably fulfilled their duties of letting in the air, and letting out the smoke. Yet such were the simple manners of the good old times that these arrangements were universally adopted. Moreover the majority of houses consisted of no more than a ground floor, and of this the “ 4a//” was the chief apartment; the general living room of the family; into which the principal door opened ; which in the case of the less pretentious dwellings, served for cooking, eating, receiving visitors, and in short for almost all the ordinary usages of domestic life. Adjacent to this, and oftentimes on the same level, was the “ chamber,’ the family bedroom, which was also the private apartment of the lord and his family, and the resort of the female part of the household by day. In addition to this were the “ cellar,’ and on the side opposite the chamber, the “ stable,” which was considered a necessary appendage, because at this period / By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 291 householders were in the habit of giving lodgings to travellers, who generally came on horseback.! This was the ordinary arrangement of apartments in the house of a gentleman of moderate fortune during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; and the dwellings of the more wealthy differed only in having an upper floor, called the “ so/er,” ? which could only be en- tered by one door, and was therefore more easily defended, and so was considered the place of greater security ; a “chapel” of very small dimensions, and a “ kitchen,’ detached from the rest of the buildings, generally vaulted and open to the roof, and as distinct as possible from the rest of the house, as a security against fire. And such continued to be the general style of domestic architecture in England until the sixteenth century, by which time it may be said to have reached its highest degree of perfection, combining (as it then did) much internal comfort and convenience, with very con- siderable external beauty of decoration. At this period, the interiors of the better-class houses presented many peculiar and attractive features, both with regard to arrangement and decoration. They were often lined with panelled wainscotting, had carved chimney pieces of an elaborate character, and even emblazoned windows. Moreover, in addition to the principal apartments mentioned above, there was sometimes added a state bedroom, and sometimes even a drawing room. At this period which has been called “ the truly Augustan age of | Elizabeth,” the science of construction of timber-framed houses was _ thoroughly understood; and as the supply of material seemed still __ 1 Everybody who could afford it, travelled on horseback. There were com- _ panies of hackney men who provided horses for travellers at a fixed rate per stage, and cooks accompanied them who provided for the culinary necessities of _wayfarers.” In the middle of the fifteenth century, ‘‘ hackneys were usually hired at four-pence a day, equal to about seven shillings of our money, “‘ ffor cariage the porter hors schall hyre ffoure pens a pece withinne the shyre.’” [Turner’s Domestic Architecture, vol, iii., p. 47.” , 2 Solarium, probably from so/. There was also sometimes, above the gateway, little room, called the soleret, the diminutive of soler; a term still retained ~ in France in the suite of rooms just above the ground floor, universally known as the entre-sol. 292 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. abundant and almost inexhaustible, possibly the prevailing fashion of wooden houses might have been prolonged to a much later date, had not the Great Fire of London! in 1666 (of which the well-known Monument is the memorial) put a sudden stop to the practice, and caused the substitution of a less perishable material: for immediately after the Fire of London a proclamation? (which by many was deemed arbitrary and unjustifiable) was made, enjoining the Lord Mayor and other city magistrates to take care that no houses of timber should be erected for the future.? And this new, though enforced, fashion of stone and brick houses in London very soon spread through the country, to the utter abandonment of the mode of building, which, till then, had monopolized the attention of archi- tects and builders. With these preliminary remarks on the general subject of timber houses in England, and wherein I have gleaned from the writings of some of our best archeologists, to wit, Mr Hudson Turner, Mr. John Henry Parker, Mr. Albert Way, Mr. Clayton and others; I come now the more readily to the very excellent specimen of an old timber house in our own county, which it is my present purpose to describe. In the parish of Potterne, and in the very middle of the village, abutting on the main street, stands an old old house, which, though it has long attracted the notice of the archzologist and the 1 As some slight precaution against fire, so deservedly dreaded by those who dwelt in streets of wooden houses, an old law had long since enacted that “* before every house there should be a tub full of water, either of wood or stone ; ”” tbe like of which may be seen, rigidly enforced at the present day, in the towns of Bergen, Trondbjem, &c.,in Norway, where the majority of houses are of timber. 2 Long before this, even in the reign of King John, a decree was made that every alderman should, under penalty of fine, provide himself with a hook and cord, whereby to demolish the wooden houses of the citizens in case of fire, and nothing can give us a better notion what mean and flimsy hovels the citi- zens of London were then contented with, if a hook and cord were implements sufficient for pulling them down. 3 Hallam’s History of England, vol. iii., p. 6. qa,8901S34 sv “G4st =H mB fASNOH HOdOd fANY3SL10d “SIUM POOA tg nlp . rt a ‘ > By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 293 artist, has been, for some generations at least, passed by the many without admiration or remark. Now and then its timbered walls, its old-fashioned windows, and its overhanging roof might have _ arrested the momentary notice of the traveller, as he wended his way through the village street, but it was forgotten almost as soon as seen.’ Occasionally its picturesque outline might have tempted the sketcher’s pencil, or invited the photographer to halt; but by the great majority of passers by, I will venture to say, it was wholly unnoticed. - 1 And yet on examination this was no ordinary house, such as the other houses all around it were. Its formation, its material, its open porch, its gables, its bay window, its barge boards, its projecting story, all proclaimed it the work of a former age: while if one en- tered it and peeped behind the plaster and ceilings which concealed _ them, beautiful tracery of windows and fine open roofs rewarded the _ zeal of the curious, and invited to further research. And thus unheeded, or at least unrecognized, it might have _ remained to this moment, gradually succumbing to neglect and the wear and tear of ages, had it not attracted the artistic eye of a gentleman, to whom to see was to admire, and to admire was to purchase, with a view to its restoration: and to whose loving carefulness and reverent regard for antiquity, : scrupulous adherence to the most rigid laws of preservation, and de- termination to admit of no renovation, which was not (presumptively at least) warranted by precedent; we of this county and neighbour- hood, and above all the Members of the Wiltshire Archeological nate at three hundred, and not improbably at near four hundred years, or perhaps more. _ Waiving however for the moment the important question whether 1 An excellent illustration of the Old House, as it stood about eight years ago, may be seen in the frontispiece of the eleventh volume of the Magazine. VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVIII. U 294 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. actual condition as it appeared two years ago. As regards its oc- cupation during the years of its decline, it has suffered almost more than the wonted vicissitudes of old houses, and has indeed been put to strange uses ; for it seems to have served successively as a brewery, as a bakehouse, as a barrack, as a public-house (bearing the sign of the “ Pack-horse”) ; and finally, and only too fatally to many portions of it, it was divided into four or five tenements. To fit it for these several uses, and especially for its last unfortunate occupation as the abode of several families, it was deemed necessary to make many disastrous alterations. Thus the fine old porch, which has given its name to the house, was stopped up in front, and opened at the sides: two new doors were made and opened to the street : at the back two new doors were made opening into the hall: windows were blocked up with wattle and plaster: others were opened: three or four stair- cases were made: small rooms were made less by means of thin partitions: fire-places were constructed where none had previously existed: and ceilings everywhere hid the fine open roofs, and the oak joists, on which the original flooring rested. One huge chimney, having two flues in it, and of about two hundred years’ standing, took up a great part of the hall, and in great degree spoilt its pro- portions. While more recently the pendants from the roof with tracery were ruthlessly cut away to make head room for the upper floor: indeed one of the workmen, now engaged in the restoration, who lived in these rooms for several years, acknowledges that he assisted in cutting away the grand old pendants and tracery, which he says reached down to within two or three feet of the upper floor, | so that they must have lost 2 feet 6 inches or 3 feet in length by the operation. Notwithstanding however all these destructive alterations, and that considerable injuries were done, under the plea of restoration, the structure itself happily remains, and pretty much the same in — general aspect as it was several centuries ago. Let me now pass on to mention shortly how the work of restoration has been-conducted, and what has been done. In the first place it was felt that where a single mistake might be fatal, and one false’ move, through lack of the required care and caution, might ruin’ By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 295 everything, it was absolutely essential to secure success that the work should be placed in the hands of a competent architect, one whose discretion and carefulness, as well as knowledge and ex- perience could be relied upon: and who more fitting than the well- known Mr. Christian, who chanced to be engaged in restoring Potterne Church at the time? To him therefore, and to his head assistant, Mr. Purday, who devoted much attention to the work, are we indebted, next to the owner, for the admirable manner in which this restoration has been conducted. Possibly some few mistakes may have been made, but these are comparatively trifling, and may be attributed, partly to the unavoidable absence of the owner, for when able to spare the time, he not only superintended the progress of the work himself, but assisted the workmen in no slight degree with his own hands; and partly to the prolonged illness of Mr. Christian, who was thus hindered from giving it that constant per- _ sonal attention which so tender a patient required. I repeat, however, that so far as I can form an opinion, the mistakes are few and trifling, _ while the restoration is thoroughly successful, as it is likely to be, and as it certainly deserves to be, when conducted on such admirable _ principles (which cannot be too highly commended by antiquarians) of extreme care and even horror of demolishing anything that is old, and an equal shrinking from the introduction of anything that is new, for which there is no absolute warrant of precedent. _ Carried out on these principles, the restoration of the old Porch- House at Potterne has been most carefully conducted. Wherever oak was originally used, there oak has again been supplied : elm has been used for elm: and there is no pine in the building. There was but one chimney, the massive one alluded to just now, and but one fi e-place, in the north parlour: these however formed no part of the orig inal buildings, but were added about the time of Charles IT. reluctance. When pulling it down, it was found to be composed of ak and wattle, a material which was discovered to be fire-proof by those who built it two hundred years ago, but a piece of practical knowledge which had been lost to us from that period. _ v2 296 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. The porch door, remembered by many old inhabitants, with its wicket, is described as covered with iron, like a prison door; and it is not a little remarkable that the present owner, with a firm pre- sentiment that it must be in existence somewhere, and with a no less confident persuasion that it would be found (if at all) in a pig-sty, offered a reward for its recovery; and sure enough, before long, half of the identical wicket, with some of the iron fittings upon it, was discovered doing duty as a part of the floor of a pig-sty, at a mile’s distance. It will, I am sure, rejoice the heart of every true archzo- logist to learn that the wood of the wicket having proved to be still sound, only somewhat richly pickled, it is to be worked up again into the door, and restored to its former position. Besides this, no other original door remains: the only one of any antiquity, which may be a sixteenth century door, is now placed in the end building at the north-east. It has been suggested that perhaps the hall itself is of elder date than the other buildings on either side of it, and that it was re- moved from its original site and rebuilt here, when possibly the porch may have been added.' Certain it is that nothing would have been easier than to do this, for the whole framework of the building is mortised together, and fixed by oak pegs through the tenons, and all the uprights are numbered for their respective places, 1., il., Ul., iv., v., Vi., and so on, as any one may still see for himself. It should however be remembered that this argument for its easy removal is by no means conclusive; for the practice of putting together timber framework by means of pegs, prior to its permanent erection, was not only a general custom of builders then, but is still the time- honoured practice of carpenters: indeed roofs of barns and farm buildings are generally so constructed on the ground previous to erection. Between the oak uprights, short thick horizontal oak laths fit into grooves, and these formed the foundation for the plaster, but in the larger spaces wattle was used instead of laths. Of the two quaint windows on the east wall of the hall, the 1Tf however the porch was an addition, Mr. Purday gives it as his decided opinion, based on structural details, that it was an addition made immediately after the hall had been placed here. By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 297 southernmost alone remained ; though the other has been opened in the restoration. There was no evidence that these windows have ever been glazed, but there were indications of shutters, and these indications remain. It is presumed that (as in other old houses of similar construction and date) they were for the admission of air, and for the exit of smoke, for as there was originally no fire-place in the hall, a fire must have been kindled upon the floor, and the smoke must have found its way out as it could: and indeed that this was the case, the blackening of the purlines and rafters, is corroborative, if not (as I almost venture to say) conclusive. Those purlines and rafters are of elm, but the framing of the roofs is wholly of oak, as are all the uprights throughout the whole group of buildings, which, though apparently one, are in fact four. Of the three upper windows looking towards the street, one only with transomes may be of the time of James I., but it has been thought advisable that these should be carefully repaired and retained, although there is evidence that the original windows were different to these, and probably carried tracery: no portion however of these remains for an example; and with a wise discretion, which we shall appreciate and applaud, no conjectural restoration of them was to be entertained for a moment. As regards the pavement, the oldest portion was composed of un- equal-sized flag-stones, but they were certainly not original, nor have we any trace of the materials of which the floor was composed. In general however it was nothing more than the natural soil well rammed down, and upon this was strewn the dried rushes in winter, and the green leaves in summer, which did duty for carpets. I should mention here that very lovely tracery was found in a little blocked-up window in the upper room of the North wing, and also fragments of tracery in the oriel window, and that from these 4 patterns all the restorations have been made. In the same upper ‘room of the north wing, there is a round hole through one of the __ upright timbers, directed downwards, which it is surmised may have a 1 Every traveller in Scandinavia will recollect the juniper and pine branches, F With which the floors of the rooms are very generally strewn at this day. 298 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. been intended to facilitate the throwing down stones or other missiles on the heads of assailants, in case of attack; or perhaps more pro- bably for the pouring of water on the faggots, if they attempted to set fire to the building. Whether such was the object of this per- foration I cannot say, though the provision of such holes and for such purposes was well understood by our forefathers. In Ireland, such an opening was appropriately called “ the murthering hole.” During the progress of the work the following objects of interest were discovered. Of coins, many half-pence of the Georges ; two of William and Muary; one of George and Caroline; and one of Washington. Three tradesmens’ tokens, one of them German ; one Roman coin of Constantine, cast at Treves; and best of all, in a mortice hole of the northern wing, three golden écws of France, wrapped in a small portion of fine linen: two of these are of Louis XI., the other of Charles VIII., of France. They appear to have been placed in the hole for security, and then it seems they dropped down out of reach; but how these foreign coins came to be deposited there, and what was the story of their being so concealed and then abandoned, notwithstanding their value, are interesting speculations, on which we may weave what romances we please, and which none can dispute, for we shall never know the truth of the story, con- jecture and search as we may. In the roof were found one or two leathern articles, a coin of George I., and a tiler’s measure; while the great chimney yielded up a portion of a carved stone, and a fowl, prepared without doubt for dinner, but somehow forgotten and left a mummy ! And now I come to the critical question as to the probable date of this interesting old building. I am happy to say that we are not without documentary evidence with regard to @ very old manor house at Potterne: for as in those lawless days, when roving thieves lurked in the forests, and plundered where they could find booty ; every manor house and every knight’s house was protected by crenellated or embattled inclosure walls (indeed it was contrary to law in those disturbed times to build any house of any size or im- portance without some such fortification) ; and as no one was allowed to put battlements (crened/es) on his house without a license from the By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 299 crown,! we have most valuable testimony regarding the houses which _ were so crenellated, and which must have included all the principal houses in the land, in the catalogues of licences granted for the purpose during the reigns of the several sovereigns of that period. A complete list of these licenses to crenellate was printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1856 in chronological order, carefully ex- tracted from the Rolls themselves, under the direction of Mr. Duffus Hardy, the Assistant Keeper of the Rolls : and I have the authority of the author of the “ Glossary of Architecture,” for saying that “the licenses to erenel/ate or fortify a mansion may generally be relied on as fixing the date of it, because every house of any im- portance was obliged to be fortified;” and in another part of his book he says in still more distinct terms, “ the licenses to crenellate give us the exact date of each house within a very few years.” Now in the list of licenses for the eleventh year of Edward III. (A.D. 1338) we find licenses granted to Robert Bishop of Salisbury to crenellate his manor houses at Poterne, Wilts, Canynyges, Wilts, and at Remmesbury, Wilts. For some reasons which we cannot ex- plain, though it was by no means an uncommon occurrence, these licenses were not immediately acted on; and consequently at the beginning of the next reign, the first of Richard II. (A.D. 1377) we find a ratification of the licenses formerly granted in the eleventh of the Edward III., under the Privy Seal; viz. to Ralph, the then Bishop of Salisbury, and his successors to crenellate his several manor houses of Poterne, Canynge, and Remmesbury aforesaid ; * 1 «Some curious instances occur of pardons granted to persons for having ven- tured to fortify their houses without a licence, and others of licences renewed at the beginning of a new reign, where the original intention had not been earried out. These exceptional cases would suffice to clearly prove the general custom and law upon the subject, if there were any doubt about it.”—Turner’s Domestic Architecture in England, vol. iv., p. 201. 2 Anno Regni Edw: III., 11. Robertus Episcopus Sarum posstt kernellare mansum manertt, . . . . Poterne, Wilts. . . . . mansum manerit. Birds « - . Cannyngg, Wilts. . . . . mansum manerii. Remmesbury, Wilts.” 5** Anno Regni Rich: II., 1. Radulphus Episcopus Saresburiensis, et suc- " cessores Rigs wt . UNErInM «ts... } Potterme; _manerium Canynge . . . . manerium Rammesbury.” 300 On the Old Porch-House at Potterne. and we may conclude, as the licenses were not again ratified in the succeeding reign, that they were then acted upon. That the Porch-House at Potterne is that identical manor house, for the fortification of which a license was finally granted by the crown in 1377, I do not think any one is rash enough to conjecture. That episcopal residence in all probability soon fell into decay ; for it appears that the bishops’ ancient manor house ceased to be kept up circa 1450; though that it was at times at least occupied by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury in person while it existed, we have evidence, in that Bishop Richard Mitford (or Metford) died at Potterne in 1407, That however this fine old timber house, of too noble a character to be an ordinary residence, might have been one of the many ec- clesiastical residences, after the Bishop ceased to keep up his own manor house, for either the person renting the titles and manor, as agent for the Bishop, or as Vicar for the time being, is a suggestion which has been put forward with no little show of probability. That such may have been the case is by no means unlikely, but in the absence of any proof in support of it, the archzologist can only look upon it as conjecture. Others have broached the opinion that it was a Church house, where Church ales were held, and other business or festivities in connection with the Church were carried on: but here again we are simply hazarding a guess, for which we have no positive foundation, while the superior character and elaborate details of the building seem, in my judgment at least, to militate ——— such a ' supposition. With regard to the actual date of the building, there is the in- ternal evidence of construction and detail, and the external evidence, of style; and some of our best architects have given it as their opinion that it may be attributed to the close of the fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth centuries, from 1490 to 1510, or during the reign of Henry VII., while others again affirm it to be Elizabethan, and this is the view taken by the author of the “ Glossary of Archi- tecture,” who says, “ Nothing remains at Potterne earlier than the time of Elizabeth, of which period there is a very good and pictu- resque timber house with carved barge-boards and panelling, and On some Curiosities and Statistics.of Parish Registers. 801 the projecting upper story.” On this point however let everyone __use his own judgment, after due examination: for myself, though I _ searcely venture to offer any opinion, I incline to the earlier date, to which I am led not only by many of the details given above, but still more by the authority of those in whose judgment I am in- _ clined to place confidence. It is however a question open to opinion, and may well exercise the careful consideration of those who are most conversant with such matters. But certain I am, that when __ thus carefully examined, whether it be pronounced fifteenth, sixteenth, _ or even seventeenth century work, all will unite in one voice of ad- _ miration at the beauty of the building, and in no less hearty a tribute of gratitude to the worthy owner, who is carrying out the work of restoration in so reverent, so careful, so truly archeological, a spirit, and who has done his utmost to preserve in its integrity so fine a specimen of the old timber houses of England. -_ ON SOME Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Aegisters. g By the Rey. W. C. PLENDERLEATH. OME years ago I undertook the task of indexing the registers of the little Wiltshire village of which I am rector. In the course of that work, which occupied my spare time for more than two years, I came across a nnmber of facts, and was led into _ some enquiries, which interested me greatly. It was not that the _ Cherhill registers contained any historic names, or were interspersed with any curious remarks, such, for example, as that at Chaddle- worth, Bucks, where a friend told me he once read the followmg P.S. to an entry of burial :—“This is the man who met one of ‘Cromwell’s Ironsides in Hangmanstone Lane, and was never well 302 On some Curiosities .and Statistics of Parish Registers: afterwards!” Nothing of this sort do I find at Cherhill. England has suffered many a convulsion, both in Church and State. Dr. Sacheverell preached, and was imprisoned, and came out of prison, a hero, and a martyr—in the eyes of his own party at any rate: the Bill of Rights and the Test and Corporation Act was passed : the Treaty of Utrecht was signed. But the good folk at Cherhill eared for none of these things. The prospects of ‘‘turmuts ” or ‘wuts,’ to-year,—such was their measure of public interests : and the domestic fortunes of Cleare, Betsey, or Dan’I, the staple of gossip on Sunday mornings at the corner of the village road. I was talking a few winters ago toaclass of fourteen young men, all of whom were well instructed in the three Rs, some of them remarkably so, and I found that not one of the fourteen had ever heard of the Zimes newspaper, and only one of Stonehenge, which is distant from our village about eighteen miles as the crow flies! One is therefere quite prepared to find that the ancestors of these lads were not sufficiently interested in current events to break out irrepressibly in such entries as I have given a specimen of above, and as we find in many places where fragments of the history of the Empire have been interspersed among the “homely annals of the poor,” and the progress of the Reformation has been recorded al- ternately with the churchwardens’ payments for the destruction of polecats and sparrows, and their charges for washing the parish surplice. But notwithstanding the absence of any entries such as these, I found a good many things in the Cherhill registers which appeared — to me worthy of being brought under the notice of the Society, and this they accordingly were in a paper which I read at our annual meeting, at Swindon, in 1878. And my attention being thus called to the subject, I pursued my enquiries somewhat further. And after — examining the registers of a good many other parishes and obtaining transcripts and extracts from a good many more, I jotted down a few memoranda on the subject which I read at the annual meeting at Devizes the following year. It is the substance of these two papers, with some further additions, that will be found in the following pages. . By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 803 And first with regard to the origin of registers. Now some sort of system of general registration appears to have existed from the very earliest. period among almost all civilized nations. And by general registration I mean such a system as would include, if not the whole, yet at any rate the main part, of the nation (with the exception of the proletarian class), independantly of any profession or official position. In the third chapter of the book of Nehemiah, vy. 5, the prophet mentions his having “found a register of the genealogy of them which came up ”’ out of the captivity. And that this register had been carefully kept, and was supposed to be an exhaustive one, we may gather from his subsequent statement, with regard to certain persons who claimed to belong to the priestly family, that ‘These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found, therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.” Jdzd, v. 64. Among the Greeks an almost perfect system of registration ex- isted in connexion with the Apaturian festival, the origin of which is placed by Baehr as early as B.C. 1190. This festival was held at Athens in the autumn of every year, and lasted three days, the third day being devoted to the enrolment of the children of citizens, who were there registered each in the phratry of his father.! See Schol. Ar. Pac. 890. Nor was this observance confined to Athens. Herodotus says that it was common to the whole Ionian nation with the exception of the inhabitants of the cities who had given up the celebration “‘on mere pretence of a murder.” (Herod. i., 147.) - And Grote says “It was the characteristic festival of the Ionic race, 1 Potter in his ‘‘ Archzologia Greca,” (i., 369,) gives two derivations for the name of this festival, either of which would connect it with the ceremony of registration. They do not however, I admit, appear to me to be very probable. “ Apaturia, quasi apatoria t.e., homopatoria, because upon this festival children accompanied their fathers, to have their names entered into the publick register. . . . . Others will have Apaturia to be so named, because the children were till that time apatores, i.e., without fathers, in a civil sense; for that it was not till then publickly recorded whose they were. For a like reason, Melchisedec is by some thought to be called apator, ametor, i.e., without father, without mother; viz: because his parentage was omitted in the sacred genealogies.” 804 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. bringing together the citizens in their primitive unions of family, &c. . marriages were then enrolled, and acts of adoption certified.” This enrolment took place either immediately after birth, or at the age of three or four years—very rarely later than the seventh year. There was a subsequent registration in the lexiarchic list which took place at the age of twenty, and which was necessary for the full enjoyment of the rights of citizenship: but this is perhaps less cog- 7 nate with our subject. (See the voyage du jeune Anacharsis, chapter 26, for a most interesting account of both these festivities and comp. also Schomann, Comit. Athen. 379.) With regard to the Egyptians I can find no distinct account of © anything in the nature of general registration, though from the statements of the priests recorded by Herodotus in his Book II., it is evident that very careful lists and memorials were preserved of per- sons who had occupied any official position or dignity. See Herod. IT., 100, 142, 143. ~ With the Romans we come upon firmer ground. From the time of Servius Tullius the people had been accustomed to a quinquennial ~ enumeration at which their names and ages, together with those of their wives and children were taken down and inscribed in the Acta Publica, the ceremony being concluded with the great purificatory sacrifice in the Campus Martius called the Lustrum. (The lustrum was sometimes, though rarely, omitted. See Livy, ii., 22.) This enumeration, was made, first by the kings, then by the consuls, and after the year 310 by persons called censors, who were appointed for ~ that purpose. (Adam’s Rom. Antiq. sub “ Comitia.”) The object of this census however seems to have been more fiscal than statistical, — and in the corresponding festival of the Paganalia (Dionys. iv., 15) in the country villages (which was held every year) I can find no mention of a record of either names or numbers being kept: nor do — I see anything about any notice taken of deaths, except that the — writer before named (Dionys., iv., 791) says that for every person that died a piece of money had to be paid to Venus Libitina. It was not until the time of Marcus Aurelius, (one of the wisest statesmen that ever occupied the Imperial throne,) that we meet with what we may describe as a fully-developed system of registration throughout: By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 305 the Empire. By an edict issued in A.D. 170 he directed all Roman citizens to report the birth of their children within thirty days to the “prefectus (rarii,’” the record of which was preserved in the temple of Saturn. And public officers called “ Tabularii” were ap- pointed for the same purpose in the provinces. (See Capitol. M. Anton. Phil. cap. 9.) These officers were afterwards known as “commentarienses.” (Paulus Dig., B. 49., Tit. xiv., d. 45.) Of foreign medieval registers I have been able to learn scarcely anything, save that there are some to be met with as early as 1308 in France, and that in Spain Cardinal Ximenes ordered registers to be kept in every parish as early as 1497.1 At Florence it is stated by a writer in the Quarterly Review, vol. lxxiii., p. 561, that a sort of rude annual record of the number of baptisms used to be kept by putting into a bag a white bean for every girl baptized, and a black bean for every boy, and counting them over at the end of the year. _ This was at the Church of St. John, where all baptisms in the city _ then took (and in fact, still take) place, and if true, would appear to exclude the probability of any nominal registration. : But to come to England. Now the origin of parochial registers in this country is no further back than the thirtieth year of Henry VIII., when we find an iajunction issued by Lord Cromwell, in his capacity of Vicar-General, directing a book to be kept for every parish in a coffer with two keys, one of which keys is to remain in the possession of the parson, and one in that of the churchwardens. Entries are to be made by the parson on Sundays of such functions as he had performed during the previous week, in presence of the _ehurchwardens. These injunctions were issued in September, 1538, and I see no reason to doubt but that they were pretty generally ob- served, though in many cases probably with no great good-will. I have come across a curious letter, preserved among the records of oe Spain is one of the few European countries which has not adopted the pro- yisions of the Code Napoleon in respect of registration. The old system is still - : . : . n force, and appears to be very effectively carried out, it being compulsory on the parochial clergy to add an alphabetical index to each volume as it is com- Pleted. 306 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. Exeter Cathedral, which was addressed by Sir Piers Edgecombe to Lord Cromwell on this subject. It runs thus :— “ Plesse it yovr goode Lordeshyp to be advertyssed that the Kynng’s Majesty hath commandyd me at my beynge in hys gracious presens, that in casse I par- ceyvyd any grugge or myscontentacyon amangge hys sojectes, I shulde ther off advertyssey our Lordeschypp by my wrytinge. Hyt ysnow comme to my knolegge this 20 day of Apryll by a ryght trew honest man a servant of myn, that ther is moche secrett and severall communycacyons amongges the kyngges sojettes and that off them in sundry placess with in the schires of Cornwall and Devonsher be in greate feer and mystrust what the Kyngges Hyghness and hys Conseyll schulde meane to give in commaundment to the parsons and vycars of every parisse that they shulde make a booke, and surely to be kept wher in to be specysfy-yd the namys off as many as be wedded and the namys off them that be buryyd, and off all those that be crysteyned. ‘Now ye may perceyve the myndes off many what ys to be don to avoyde ther unserteyn conjecturys, and to contynue and stablysse ther hartes in trew naturall loff accordynge ther dewties, I referr to yovr wysdom. Ther mystrust ys that somme charges more than hath byn in tymys past shall growe to theym by this occacyon off regesstrynge of thes thynges; wher in ytt hyt schall please the Kyngges Majeste to put them youte off dowte, in my poor mynde © schall encresse moche harty loff. And I besseche our Lorde preserve yow ever to his pleasser. 20" daye off Apryll. Scrybelyd in hast. P. Ec@ecoms.” Thus far Sir Piers Edgecombe, but Sir Cuthbert Sharp, in his Chronicon Mirabile, does not give us at all the like account of the reception accorded to the injunctions. He says:— “Cromwell, who sternly governed poop and helm, Bade registers be kept throught the realm. Then each incumbent gat him grey goose quill And ‘boke of Pergamene,’ and wrote his fill.” Prologue iy. And in fact in no less than forty parishes there are entries dating to an even earlier period, copied no doubt from still older books which have perished. Of the books begun in the year 1538 in obedience to the injunctions, as many as eight hundred and twelve are still extant, among which are to be reckoned those of Ogbourne St. Andrew and Calne, while the Heddington books begin only one year later,— as early, very probably, as there was anything to record. The best preserved of these original books that I have come across, is in the church of St. Michael’s Bassishaw, London, where the old leaves were in 1872 skilfully embedded in margins of toned paper, and — By the Rev, W. C. Plenderleatt. 307 bound in Russia leather, the whole being then enclosed in a strong ease. At Charlton Kings also, near Cheltenham, the books are per- fect from 1538 to the present date, with the exception of one leaf (1557-8) which has been torn out. But that the number of the 1538 books still extant represents but a very small proportion of those which were then begun, there is abundant testimony to prove. In Bell’s His- tory of the Huntingdon Peerage, p. 295, he says “ In making the ex- tracts necessary for my purpose, I found that the early registers of this parish (Christchurch, Hants) had been destroyed, as I was informed, by the late curate’s wife, who made kettle holders of them, and would most likely have consumed the whole parish archives in this homely way, but that the fortunate and timely interference of the present clerk rescued what remains from destruction.” Again, in the “ Parochial Histories”’ of the diocese which were collected some years ago under the auspices of the late Bishop, I find the following report from Tilshead: “ About forty years ago I saw a long parch- ment book on a shelf in the village shop. I requested it to be taken down for my inspection. To my surprize I found it was an old register. Many of the leaves were cut diagonally as with a pen- knife—others were loose and transposed. I asked how the book came into the possession of the old woman. The answer was, ‘My uncle who kept the boarding school here, was churchwarden, and a clever writer. He made a fresh register; therefore there was no use keeping the badly-written one.’ Both the original (which I claimed) and the copy, begin in 1654.” And here I venture to digress for one moment in order to hint to anyone concerned, to _ whom these presents may come, the great regret with which an _archzologist sees the paucity of these parochial history returns. Besides the original papers of questions, many reminders I know _ have been sent out by the indefatigable Secretary for Wiltshire, Mr. A.C. Smith. But from the majority of the parishes has come as yet no sign. Yet year by year traditional lore of all sorts and _ kinds must be dying out which it needs only the work of a few spare | _ half-hours to search out and record, and the loss of which will be irreparable. I know that in my parish there have died during the time that I have been resident there—1. an old man who gave me 308 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. a full account of the cutting of the White Horse, which happened only a few years before his birth, and which he remembers to have heard about when the memory of it was yet fresh; 2. an old woman who used several curious local words that I do not see in Ackerman ; 8. an old man who remembered the making, at the end of the last century, of some shallow pits which would inevitably have been taken some day for “Early British Habitations,” had I not been able to put upon record the testimony of one who “kenned the bigging on’t.”” No one of these pieces of information could possibly have been recovered by my successor, had they been suffered to be lost now. But to return to my registers. In Notes and Queries (2, i1., 152) a book is spoken of as having been discovered “in a tattered state behind some old drawers in the curate’s back kitchen.” Another is mentioned which was rescued from among a quantity of waste paper ina cheesemonger’s shop. And the parish clerk of South Otterington, Yorkshire, is stated to have used all the registers dating from before the eighteenth century for waste paper, “a considerable portion going to singe a goose.” Again (Jéid, 2. ili., 321) in a parish in Northamptonshire, the leaves of a register were sewed together to serve as the covering of a tester bed, and in another parish the clergyman used to cut them up for labels wherewith to direct the pheasants that he sent away to his friends. In 1764 Bigland speaks of a parish clerk who was a tailor and had used nineteen pages of registers to make measures of; and in 1848 Mr. Bruce found that at Lincoln the parchment transcripts were cut up by the registrar for binding modern wills. Again Thoresby,in his History of Leices- tershire seems to infer that he had met with similar instances of destructiveness, as he says with regard to the parish of Scraptoft, “I saw here the best preserved and I believe the oldest register in the county. It has not been a plaything for young pointers. It — has not occupied a bacon-seratch or a bread-and-cheese cupboard. — It has not been scribbled on within and without, but it has been treasured ever since 1588 to the honour of a succession of worthy clergymen.” iq At Birchingtonin Kentthere is a serious charge of damage been 4 —— oe By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 809 : against a person unmentioned: “ Here endeth the Ist boke of the Register of Birchingtown. The 2nd boke called the black boke was spoiled by an ignorant woman.” On the other hand, at Barkstone, in Leicestershire, is a gratifymg instance of conscientiousness on the part of the clergyman, who, after recording the baptism of one Ellen Dun, adds, “ Lord pardon me if I am guilty of any errour in registering Ellen Dun’s name.” This gentleman would have been sorely scandalized had he chanced to fall in with the Rector of Tunstall in Kent (A.D. 1567) who after recording the birth and baptism of one Mary Pottman in April, of another in June, and the burial of a third in September, added in disgust at so large an expenditure of ink, “ From henceforws, I omitt the Pottmans.” i I may conclude this portion of my subject by stating that it was ‘given in evidence before a committee of the House of Commons in 1833, that “out of seventy or eighty parishes for which Bridges made collections a century since, thirteen of the old registers have been lost, and three accidentally burnt. On a comparison of the dates of the Sussex registers seen by Sir W. Burrell between 1770 and 1780 and of those returned as the earliest in the population returns of 1431, the old registers in no less than twenty-nine parishes _ had in the interval disappeared ; while during the same half-century, nineteen old registers had found their way back to the proper re- pository. On searching the MS. in Skelton Castle, in Cleveland, a few years ago, the first register of the parish was discovered, and hhas since been restored.” And in another part of the same evidence it is stated by a witness that only the previous year a gentleman of the Heralds’ College had written to a clergyman for copies of certain registers, and the latter, instead of making copies, cut out the original pages and forwarded them to his correspondent, saying that he himself “could make nothing of them! ” _ But even where the books have always been duly kept, the leaves not torn out, and “the Pottmans” not intentionally omitted, it by . no means follows that the registers are all that can be desired. I have already stated that the direction given in Cromwell’s injunctions is the duties of each week are all to be entered upon the following _ VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVIIL. x 310 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. Sunday, and even up to the first year of the present reign it is not at all uncommon to find traces of this practice being continued—the notes of the several functions being generally kept in a private book of the clerk’s. At Broad Hinton the registration appears to have been left at one time entirely to the clerk, as is testified by the following entry: “Through the omission of Edward Greenaway, clerk of this parish, there was no register regularly kept from the year 1742 to the year 1757, which great neglect was unknown to the minister until Ed. Greenaway left Broad Hinton, Feb. y* 20th, 1757.” At Cherhill, on the other hand, I not infrequently find double entries—up to the year 1813, when printed forms were sup- plied in accordance with the Act of Parliament passed the preceding sessions. These double entries (which contain generally some dis- crepancy in spelling) I account for thus. The parson or curate, who had ridden over from a distance to perform a baptism or a funeral, entered it in the first book that came to hand. If this happened to be the wrong one, the clerk, finding no entry on the following Sunday, gave notice to the officiating clergyman; and he, if he had not been himself the person to perform the service, entered it again, with ~ variations. - Sometimes this discrepancy is considerable, as in a case at Cherhill of two several entries in different books, of what is evidently, intended for the same marriage, although the names of both bride and bridegroom are differently spelled and a different date is given. It is almost like the well-known pocket-knife, which had had both of its blades replaced by new ones, and had also had a new handle—but — still it was the same knife! Again there is a case of a man who is ~ recorded in one of my books to have married a certain Elizabeth Smythe on the 27th of September, 1780, but is by another book stated to have been wedded on that day to Betty Moss. Elizabeth — and Betty are I need scarcely say different forms of the same name, And as to the variation in the surname, it is not at all uncommon to find large families who are called with perfect indifference by either of two surnames—there is more than one family in Cherhill at the present moment with regard to whom this is the case. Nor has the same thing been always entirely unknown among persons of a higher station in life than my parishioners. I find in Dale’s Wiltshire By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. —68ll Descents, compiled from the Visitations of 1626, two examples of aliases amongst families possessed of some property in the county, the Richmonds alias Webbs of Draycot, and the Weares alias Brownes of Poulton. ‘To neither of these families is more than one erest or other heraldic bearing attributed, though the second name is no doubt that of a heiress who has at some time married into the family. In Spain at the present time these two names are in such cases borne together with the copula between them, ¢.g., “ Mar- tinos y Campos.” We can however go beyond two surnames in Cherhill, for a few years ago there was a woman in the village whom some of her neighbours called by one name, others by a second, and others again by a third! In this case, her deceased husband’s grandfather had been illegitimate, and the family had borne in- differently the name of their father or of their mother. And she - herself, on the decease of her husband without issue, had partly reverted to the use of her maiden name, in accordance with a wide- spread impression (which in Scotland at least has I believe some legal ground), that although by marriage a woman obtains a right to a new name, she does not lose her right to that which she pre- viously bore. The case of this woman was I remember capped, when I mentioned it in my paper at Swindon, by the Vicar of Hilmarton,who said that he remembered one Christopher Rivers of that parish having married a woman of the name of Ann Heath, but that she had thenceforth always borne the name, not of Ann Rivers, but of Ann Christopher! He confirmed also my statement of the retention of the maiden name by women after marriage, of which __ he gave examples from his own experience. But the fact is that the variations of surnames are absolutely hopeless. I myself remember having pointed out to me an itinerant trader of some sort who was popularly called Billy Berkshire, because his home was situate in that county; and it is of course from soubriquets that a very large number of our surnames arise. And _ Bigland quotes from Camden the pedigree of one William Belward, — Lord of Malpas, whose sons were respectively known as David le Clerk and Richard de Belward; their sons as William de Malpasse, Philip Gogh, David Golborne, Thomas de Cotgrave, William de xX 2 312 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. Overton, and Richard Little; while the sons of some of these gentle- men again appear under the surnames of Egerton, Goodman, Ken- clarke, and Richardson. There is one curious case in the Cherhill registers of a surname attributed sometimes to a husband and some- times to his wife. Joseph and Martha Manners were blessed with a very numerous family from 1803 and downwards, in the several entries of which the name of Hillier is sometimes given as a second Christian name to the husband (which it really was), and sometimes (two Christian names being then very uncommon in the parish) it is attributed to the wife, under the impression no doubt that it was her maiden name. With regard to the use of a second Christian name, the earliest example of it in parochial registers with which I am acquainted is at Merborough, in Yorkshire, where “ Robert Browne Lillie” was baptized in 1592. In my own registers I do not find it occur at all before 1775, and after this only at rare in- tervals until a recent period. In fact out of one thousand seven hundred and twenty-two baptisms recorded, I see only one hundred and seventy-five children to whom two names were given, and seven who have been favoured with three. At Burbage, on the other hand, I find the following entry as early as 1781: “ Ap. 29. Bap- tized Charles Caractacus Ostorious Maximilian Gustavus Adolphus, son of Charles Stone, tailor, and Jenny his wife.” But the practice of giving a plurality of names is so largely on the increase that I should not be suprized if some afternoon I were required to baptize a child as “ Albert Edward Victor Christian George Frederick Ernest Alexander John Charles,” after the Prince of Wales and the whole of his interesting male offspring. It is royal personages, I may add, who appear to have been the originators of this custom, of which an example is to be met with as early as 1028 in the person of Urrace Teresa, Queen of Leon. And again towards the end of this same century we find the name of Mary Isabella, as Queen of Castile and Leon. This lady appears to have chosen her two names herself, having been of Moorish origin, and baptized as a preliminary to her marriage with King Alfonso VI. I am not aware of any man who bore more than one baptismal name until two centuries after this, when we find Andronicus Guidon Comnenus spoken of as By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 313 having succeeded Alexis the Great in the Empire of Trebizond. This is however I fear a somewhat wide digression from my im- mediate subject. In the reign following that of Henry VIII. another attempt was made to secure the keeping, of a register by associating the parish- ioners generally in its guardianship, the direction of Edward the Sixth’s injunction in 1547 being to the “ parson, vicar, or curate, and parishioners.’ This was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the first year of Elizabeth, the only alteration then made being in the disposal of the fine of 3s. 4d. which was attached to neglect of the duty of registration. This had been allotted by Cromwell’s in- junctions to the repairs of the church. Those of Edward VI. how- ever transferred it to the poor box, and the Act of Queen Elizabeth divided it between the two. In 1562 an attempt was made to consolidate the system of re- gistration by the establishment of diocesan registries under Par- liamentary authority, but the energetic opposition of the clergy caused the scheme to be abandoned. Nor did a proposal of Lord 7 . _Burghley’s, in 1590, for a general office to embrace the whole king- dom, fare better, and at the earnest entreaty of Archbishop Whitgift, this was also withdrawn. The clergymen, having had their attention thus called to the subject, did for themselves in 1597 what they would not allow Parliament to do for them, and by a canon which passed both Houses of the Convocations of Canterbury, copies of the parochial registers of each parish were ordered to be sent to the diocesan registry within one month after Easter in each year. This brings us down to the date of the present book of canons (1603), when we find it ordered by canon Ixx. that “ In every parish Church and Chapel within this realm, shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial which has been in that parish since the time that the law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be procured.” This book is to be kept in a coffer with three locks and keys, and entries to be made only on Sunday by the clergyman in presence of the two churchwardens. Not a few of these coffers are still in existence, 314 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. but their books are mostly gone, and they are now much oftener the receptacles of old candle-ends than of books or parochial documents. Thus matters stood until the reign of Charles I., towards the close of which the growing disaffection and disunion existing in the kingdom began to show upon the registers. In the books of St. Helen’s Church, Auckland, Durham, I find, under date 1633, that “Mr. John Vaux, our minister was suspended. . . . Mr. John Cowper, of Durham, served in his place, and left out divers christen- ings unrecorded and registered others disorderly.” And at Gaineford in the same county, is this note: “Courteous reader, this is to let thee understand that many children were left unrecorded or un- registered, but the reason and cause was thus :—Some would and some would not, being of a fickle condition as the time was then : this being their end and aim, to save a groate from the poor clarke, so they would rather have them unredgestered. Butnow . . . it is their design to have them redgestered.” There is a sort of Tommy Goodchild air of piety about this excellent resolution on the part of the inhabitants of Gainford which we will hope was justified by their subsequent action. At Fittleton in this county we find one of these books headed: “Ann. D™. 1663, Marriages in the parish of Fittleton and Haxton since my coming to bee Rector, there being no just register kept before. Steph. Jay, Rector.” At Chart in Kent. “ Marye the daughter of John Smith, Esq., was baptized on the 183th day of January in 1660, by John Case, Vicar. The first that hath been baptized at the font since it has been re-erected by the appoynmt. of the said Mr. Smith, being full sixteen years paste. One Thomas Scoone, an elder, having out of his blinde zeale defaced and pulled it downe, wt. other ornaments belonging to the churche.” Again, at Lowestoft, in Suffolk, “ For some time following, there was in this towne neither minister nor Clarke, but the mhabitants were inforced to procure now one and then another to baptize their children, by which means there was no register kept, only those few hereafter mentioned were by myself baptized in those intervals when I enjoyed my freedom.” At Stain- drop, Durham, under date “1644. From this time to 1646 through want of a minister and carelessness of the cleark, during the wars, By the Rev. W.C. Plenderleath. 315 much of the registers is lost, only here and there a name registered » . . 1652. June 14. From this time till August there was noe minister, soe that the children were carried to other parishes to be baptized.” These irregular functions were of course registered in the books of the parishes where they took place. The Rector of St. Dionis, Backechurch, London, informs me that there are an unusual number of marriages registered in the books of that parish during the re- bellion—owing evidently to the fact that the clergyman who hap- pened to be in possesion of the living at the time was not turned out by the Presbyterians, as were most of his neighbours, and that those persons therefore who adhered to the old path flocked from all sides to his ministrations. Nor were these extra-parochial services always free from danger. In the register book at Hexham, North- umberland, is the following: “Note. That Mr. Will. Lister, Minister of St. John Lees in those distracted times, did both marry and baptize all that made their applications to him, for w®. he was sometimes severely threatened by the souldiers, and once had a cockt pistoll held to his breast, so that its no wond' yt y° registers for these _ times are so imperfect, and besides they are so extremely confused.” In August, 1653 an act was passed, called, after its author, “ the Barebones Act,” by which the custody of the parish books was transferred from the clergy aud churchwardens to an official called the Parish Register, who was sworn into his office by a justice of the peace, and when any entry was to be made had to produce the book before a justice and to attest by his signature the writing of that magistrate, for which he was paid a fee of 12d. on each marriage, and 4. on each birth and death. Numerous instances of the appointment of these “Registers” occur. At Broad Hinton _ is an entry to the effect that “John Grinaway chosen by the in- _ habitants to be their pish. Register is approved of and sworn there- unto before me on the seven and twentieth day of March in the year of our Lord God 1654. Wm. Sadler.” In the Bremhill book Edward Carpenter describes himself as “ Clark and Register ” in the _ year 1667, and at Allington, near Amesbury, Stephen Rutt is re- corded to have been sworn to the office of “ Regestor” on May 31, 316 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. 1655. Amongst the duties of this official was the publishing the banns of marriage, a thing which had to be done for three consecutive Sundays, as heretofore, after which the parties could be married by any justice of the peace, the Register attending as one of the wit- nesses. The following is a record of one of these marriages, extracted from the books at Idmiston, near Salisbury: “The 8th of May, 1654, Wiliam Butler of Borecombe in this county shepherd about the age of 24 years was married the day and year above written unto Dennis Bevis of Bulford, being about 27 years of age. And so declared (according to the Act of Parliament in that behalf made and provided) by John Rede of Porton, Esq. one of the justices of the peace for the county of Wilts and in the presence of John Butler father of the said William and Robert Rivers and Thomas Bevis brother of the said Dennis and others. The certificate from John Smith, Register of Bulford was there produced and the Parish Register of Borecombe was then and there present, affirming that the said parties were published three times by himself at Borecombe, as it is required by the said act. Andrew London, Parish Register.” It is noticable that ages are often given in the inexact way in which they appear in this document during the period of the Great Rebellion—though on the other hand, in the baptismal book it is often the date of birth and not that of baptism which is recorded. This is the case at Southbroom from 1653 to 1657. And at Fifield Bavant it would seem as if births were registered even in cases where no baptism was administered. I find at Broad Hinton a curiously strong expression of opinion with regard to the ecclesiastical polity of these times. Appended to the registry of the burial of one Mr. William Glanvill in 1680 is the following: “ N.B. He was the son of Sr. John Glanvill, Kt. Sergeant at law and Speaker to the House of Commons in the year 1640 in the days of that blessed martyr King Charles the First that glorious Defender of the Church of England against cursed pres- bytery.” To a period not long removed from this belong also three curious entries of deaths for which I am indebted to an article in the (now deceased) Home and Foreign Review :— ‘By the Rev. W.-C. Plenderleath: 317 —— * Bursted, Sussex, 1666. Richard Bassett, the old clarke of this parish, who had continued in the office of clarke and sexton for the space of 43 years, whose melody tumbled forth as if he had been thumped on the back with a stone, was buried the 20th Sept.” “ Kyloe, Northumberland. 1696. Buried, Dec. 7. Henry, the son of Henry Watson of Fenwick, who lived to the age of 36 years and was so great a fool that he never could put on his own close, nor never went a 7 mile off y* house in all this space.” “Bp. Middleton, Durham. A poor maide of Cornforth having a decease in a legge buried Maii 20, 1674.” I never before heard of a decease in the leg, but I have heard re- peatedly in my own village of an absence in the same, or some other, ~ part of the body. I will add here a most charming inscription from the Melton ~ Mowbray book, dated 1670, and written after the fashion dear to lawyers, viz., without a single stop :— _ “ Here is a Bill of Burton Lazars of the people which was buried and which was and married above 10 years old for because the clark _ was dead and therefore they were not set down according as they was _ But they are all set down sure on nough one among another here in this place.” ! I must not omit to add that these irregularities in the registration during the time of the Great Rebellion, although very general, were ‘not universal. It is mentioned by Mr. Methuen, in his valuable and exhaustive paper upon the history of All Cannings in the Magazine of our Society (vol. xi., p. 189), that the books were regularly kept _and the entries appear to have been made contemporaneously during -1The English of this gentlemen can be well capped by a piece of Latin occuring on a monumental slab in Cherhill Church. There are commemorated. on this slab the virtues of a certain good woman who died in her fifty-third year “ 7Btatis sue.” But when her husband came to die, he, being a man, is recorded on the same slab to have departed in the seventy-third year “ Atatis sui.” To persons who do not understand Latin, (in case my paper should chance _ to fall into the hands of any such) it would be impossible to explain by trans- lation the exquisite absurdity of this piece of grammar. I can only parallel it by saying that it is as if a groom should equip his steed with a man’s saddle ora addle, not according to the sex of the person about to ride, but according 318 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. the whole of this period at the chapelry of Etchilhampton in that parish. At the Restoration, the register books returned naturally to the care of the clergy, where they have ever since remained. The Cherhill books begin in 1690—one year after the accession of William and Mary. From this date until 1754 we have only one book used at a time, made of vellum, with baptisms and marriages at one end and burials at the other, until they met in the middie and a new book had to be begun. In the books of Broad Hinton, however, of this period (and in fact from the time of their com- mencement in 1611) the three entries appear to have been kept in parallel columns, the baptisms generally taking up more than one half of the page, the burials a smaller portion, and the marriages being inserted vertically between them. The most curious thing that I find in the Cherhill books of this time is a horoscope, or what I suppose to be such. This occurs opposite to the entry of the baptism of one Hesther Smith in February, 17% ,! and is as follows: 502 Ut Fas 71118 Lil 78675 What the connection is between the zodiacal signs and the figures placed beneath them, or what is the nature of the calculation, I have been unable to discover, and should feel greatly beholden to anyone who could inform me. The only other apparent reference to astrology with which I am acquainted is one mentioned by Burns, - in his History of Parochial Registers. This is at St. Edmund’s, » 1 This fractional-looking way of writing dates in the first three months of the year, arising from the beginning of the ecclesiastical year on March 25th, and of the legal year on January Ist, although of frequent occurence, is by no means universal. This ‘‘ ecclesiastical” year is of course not to be confused with the spiritual year, often called ecclesiastical, which begins in Advent. In an old Prayer Book in my possession, printed at Oxford in 1740, is a ‘* Note, that the Supputation of the year of our Lord in the Church of England — neth the 5th and 20th day of March.” By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 819 Dudley, where, under date of 1539 we are informed that Samuell, son of William Smithe, Clarke, Vicare of Duddly, was born on _ Friday morning at 4 of the clock, being the xxviij day of February. _ The sign of that day was the middle of Aquarius 2, the sign of _ the month x, the plenet of the day ?, plenet of the same ower % _ and the morrow day. Whose name hath continued in Duddly from the conqueste.” _ To the same valuable and scarce work I am indebted for the fact (on which the author is a good authority, he having been in the office of the Registrar-General) ,that the best preserved of the register books of the kingdom are those of marriage; next, those of burial ; and worst, those of baptism (pp. 100, 144). And furthermore for ' the following curious saying, which he states to be an old English proverb: “The marriage of a young woman and a young man is of - God’s making, as Adam and Eve: of an old man and a young woman of our Lady’s making, as Mary and Joseph: but of an old woman and a young man by the Author of Evil” (p. 165.) The handwriting in these old books is remarkably good and careful —much better than what I find a century later. It is curious to see the German form of the letter ¢ gradually passing through the form (very similar to an 0) which held its ground for so long a time into that in which it appears in modern manuscript. The two latter forms are not uncommonly found together in the same word. And ‘im the same way I see an instance of the German and the modern ‘English 7 occurring together in the name of Elizabeth Preter, in 1723. The gradual transformation of the ff into F may also be traced, the second stroke getting smaller and smaller until it dis- appears in the detached a stroke which is at present used. 320 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. doubt be referred by a casual observer who was unacquainted with its real history, to a scriptural origin. Similarly the now not un- common Wiltshire name of Amor has nothing whatever to do with the widespread influence which is denoted by that word in Latin, but is simply a corruption of Aylmer, as traceable in the registers of St. Katharine’s, Savernake. Spelling is, I need scarcely say, a matter of the most perfect indifference up to a very short while ago. There are repeated instances in the Cherhill books of the same name being spelled differently in the same entry ; and in successive entries the variety is infinite. Haley, Ealy, Elly, Ely, and Hely all occur within the space of one generation for the same family. So Hazel, Hazell, Hasel, Heasel, and Hezel. And this list I,might multiply almost indefinitely.‘ In Christian names the great crux appears to have been the name of Rebecca, which occurs in almost every imaginable spelling, the most curious perhaps being Rebakko, in 1716, and Rabacko, in 1725. In the name of Elizabeth the only question appears to have been whether to assign the a to the second syllable and the e to the last, or vice versa. Hester appears in the curious form of Zaster, in — 1724, and Martha in that of Mattha (as it is even now often pro= — nounced), five years later. Sarah similarly becomes Sary, in 1734, and Saro on a subsequent occasion; Alice, H/iis, in 1756, and Lice, in 1721; while we get at different times such strange, yet clearly- recognizable designations as Meriah, Georog, Edwan, Meery, and Edument. One Lucy Alexander has been unfortunate in the spelling of both her names, appearing as Lusy Elxander in 1739. Three Christains appear to one Christian: eight Hannahs spell their name with one z against fourteen who enjoy the usual number: and al- though we have one Winifred, the balance of testimony is largely in favour of Wineford. An Orford, baptized in 1833, I strongly suspect to have been named, not after the noble house of Walpole, 1 So in the records of my own family, the last syllable of our name is spelled in no less than five different ways. And I actually find one of my ancesto inscribed on the Scottish Parliamentary Roll with one spelling in 1670, and hi brother appointed Commissioner of Supply for the county with another spellin in 1615, while they were both of them making contemporaneous entries in our family Bible with a third! By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 821 but after the cake-burning king. In 1798 I find an entry (written in so clear a hand that not one of the letters is mistakeable) of the burial of “ Besepty, Daughter of Eristper Bromham.” This means of course Bessy, daughter of Christopher, and occurs in a hand quite different from that of any of the entries either before or after. My idea is that for some reason or other the churchwarden or clerk took upon himself to enter it, and not being able to read the memorandum made by the clergyman, put it in this curious form. And from the initial letter of Christopher being taken for an Z, we learn no doubt that the less educated people still wrote that vowel in the German way, which had long been abandoned by the more educated. Letitia _ appears as Lettisha, in 1752, and at a later period as Lettechia. In _ the first of these entries it was originally written in a large bold hand Purtishah, but through this the pen has been passed, and Lettisha written twice above it. This spelling is however sometimes _ even now a matter of deliberate choice. 1 have myself been obliged to write Millicent in the registers with an s intruded between the second and third syllables, despite my protest; and nothing will disabuse some of my parishioners of the idea that they are right in _ compelling me to enter Winifred as “ Wineford,” however much I i may wince under the operation. Among other curious names in the ee ee , ~ Cherhill registers I may mention Israel as a girl’s baptismal name in 1751, and Francis as that of a woman whose marriage is recorded in 1722. The common name of Dyke is metamorphosed into Diyck; and the current pronunciation of Rawlings is shewn by its being spelled “ Rollings,” even as the entry of “ Piteryealy ”’ accuses the shortened penultimate and preposed y customary in these two names; and, as I fear, that of “ John Arris” at Newington Butts, in 1689, shews an indifference to aspirates which is not without a parallel even in the present day. In 1598 I find the name of Hugh spelled “Hewge ” in the records of St. Matthew’s, Friday Street, London, And (to add here a few more curious names which I have extracted from the registers of this parish, and also from those of St. Peter’s Cheap,) the following appear as Christian names of males, Hanniball, Stylas, Armynger, All Santis (All Saints), Bowlas, Galfrid, Zurai- iia zaday, and Purifie. Of females, Adlyn, Armenelle, Eriphine, Alse, 322 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. Brillanaa, Mertila, Reabocka, and Althemire. The modern “ Minye” occurs (thus spelled) as early as the sixteenth century, and Maryana similarly anticipates her appearance in the moated grange. The names of Harrye and Jehoyda are given to girls, and Affabell to a boy. But the most curious thing in the baptismal register of St. Peter’s Cheap, is that in the case of foundlings they are almost in- variably baptized by the name of Peter—the name of the street or lane in which they were found being given asa surname. In St. Matthew’s, on the other hand that name is generally given as a surname, the Christian name varying. One however in the last century, found on a Monday, appears in the register as Matthew Monday—following the precedent set by Robinson Crusoe. Apropos of the man Friday, the following names occur in the register of — _ Golden Grove Church, Jamaica, as having been bestowed during the last century on some of that distinguished person’s fellow country- men. Girls: Penina Almona, Francena Aramanda, Margaret Abijah, and Caroline Celeste Celestina Minima Constantina. Anda boy, John Hezekiah Barjona Thomas ! Careless and eccentric spelling is, I need scarcely say, very com- mon in old registers. I find one child at Cherhill “ paptized ” in 1732, and to restore the balance of duty between the two letters, another is “ Babtized” ten years later. An entry in 1794 is dated the 83rd day of Junly; and “his wife” is spelled “is wfife” in 1795. The most unintelligible name that I find is that. of Dillaziver, for a girl, in 1776; and the most incredible statement, that a girl was born on the 28th September, 1799, aged four-and-a-half years : which reminds me of the answer to an enquiry as to when the late Mr. O’Sullivan died, that “if he had lived till to-morrow, he would have been dead a month!” Men are always stated in the Cherhill register to have married their wives, except in one instance, where the wife is recorded in 1811 as having married her husband. This entry is moreover in an entirely different handwriting to that in which any of the other entries for several years before and after are made; so that the only supposition must be that the grey mar got at the books and expressed her own will and intention. No subsequent records of this family are, I regret to say, handec By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 323 down by tradition for the instruction or warning of posterity. It is time however that I should return to my historical sketch of the progress of registration. In the year 1754 occurs an attempt to relieve, by the addition of a separate book for marriages, the chaos of entries which had before been bound up between one pair of covers. This book consisted of printed forms in which were first recorded the publication of the banns, and then the performance of the marriage. Being however only of paper, this book did not entirely supersede the vellum book, and I find a good many marriages be- tween this date and 1813 entered in both books, with the usual results of numerous discrepancies in spelling. During this time the only thing of particular interest that I note at Cherhill is the des- _ eription of one Richard Bush as a “scribbler,” a designation with which I may cap that of Richard Michels of St. Giles, Cripplegate, in 1607, as an “aquavityman,” and of Brian Pearson of St. Mary- lebone, Durham, in 1722 as “the Abbey Dog-Whipper.” The Westbury and Dilton books of this period are rich in curious entries, made by a Vicar of the name of Hewitt, who held the living for between forty and fifty years, and deceased in the year 1793. I copy a few of them from transcripts with which the present Vicar, the _ Rev. H. Duke; has kindly favored me, indicating the names by initials only :-— ‘ WESTBURY. «K. H., a kind of Cannibal man had eat some horseflesh raw, and was never well afterwards: he died soon upon it: his father was hanged some years ago _ for the murder of one B. of Westbury—I say buried E. H., October 27, 1766,” _ “F. P., widow, found dead at her door. She had been drinking drams, &c., all day: so suffocated with strong liquors. Buried March 15, 1767.” _ J,§., aged 63, who sold the Vicar’s house next the millpond to J. M. which I sued for in Chancery, and the parish put me into possession of it September, 1759. Buried Feb. 11, 1769.” _ M.N., widow, aunt to J. H., who rents of Thos. Phipps, Esq.. of Leigh, four Farms, viz: two Dilton Farms, Grant’s Farm on the hill, and Colton’s Croft, near £500 a year: and £500 a year or nearly of W. Bennett, Esq. of Norton Bavant. Yet he and his cousin J. H., called Bacon H., let their poor au nt M. N. starve, though both rich men, and to be kept by the parish, and to be buried out of Westbury Workhouse, May 5, 1774, at the parish expense,” 324 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. “J. Bs of the Weavers’ Arms, in a desponding condition hanged himself in his own house, but lies buried in Westbury Church with his Father, R. N., of the Bell. I was and Family at this time at Nantwich in Cheshire, to see my sister and friends: so he had no Burial Service read over him nor ought to have it; notwithstanding tho Coroner’s warrant left for that purpose. He and his last wife followed the Methodists for years. I prayed with him just before my journey to Cheshire began, 31 July last, and he told me then he had attempted and should hang himself. He turned of a black melancholy countenance, and seldom came to church. Buried Sept. 7, 1775.” ‘EK. B., widow of J. B. She hanged herself. It was said she sold herself to the Devil some years ago. The Jury brought her in a Lunatick, so she was buried in the churchyard, June 21, 1776.” ‘“*M. B. Widow, aged 73 years, of Westbury Leigh. She had the Great Bell rung out at 6 in the morning and until 9 o’clock and after she was buried—which was March 16, 1777.” “© §., wife of J. V., died of a fright from her husband who threatened to beat out her brains. Buried Oct. 17, 1785.” ‘cE. M., widow, aged 103 years, a dirty squalled person, eat up with filth : been kept by the parish these 40 years and by begging. Buried Oct. 8, 1786.” “J. K.P. Intoxicated with Rum Toddy by washing out a Rum Puncheon with boiling water of J. M. which was put in the barn in Marriage Orchard— tumbled headlong in Gibbe’s Close on plain ground and broke his neck. Buried Feb, 10,1787. He was a Drunkard.” ‘cW., an unbaptized son of E. C. and E. his wife, aged 6 weeks, which B. N., deputy sexton, buried, Noy. 3, 1787, in the Vestry Room in R. E. alias G.’s Brick Grave, without my consent or asking reason or giving me the least notice: — tho’ J told him and sent E. C. word that 6s. 8d. I would have for the future for every person of his family that was buried in that Grave, since he had refused to pay me for his son W., who was buried in the same Brick Grave.” ‘‘ Mr. J. H., aged 52 years, died of a mortification : would have no Christian burial read over him, and desired me not to attend : he had left the Established Church, turned Independent, then left their meeting and turned Anabaptist, and was attended to his Grave, which is near the Communion Table, by two Anabaptist teachers and some others of that sect, and carried to the Grave by six men of that sect. He lived, the people said, like a Hog, and was buried like a Dog. Certainly he was an Epicurean. Was buried Oct. 24, 1788.” ‘“R. T. Publican of the Angel, of a most drunken character. Aged 69 years. He died drunk. J.M. alwaies supplied this drunken House and Fellow with Gin. I record not this because he was a Presbyterian, but because he was a most vicious and vile Fellow, and tried all I could to put him down. Buried August 12, 1790,” By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 325 DILTon. **J., son of W. D., a soldier, married one E. H., of Dilton, daughter of J. H., of Dilton Dye-house, who was transported to North America for stealing dye-stuff from Messrs James and Nicholas Codell, of Chapmanslade, some years ago. The said E. D. above, mother of this son J., I buried the 7th of April, 1777, as above in Dilton Chapel on the mother’s promise of paying me what she owed me, or 6s. 8d. for the fee. The old grandmother of the boy has only paid me one shilling towards her daughter E.’s fee, though they both died in West- bury Leigh, and none of the family of Hs ever buried at Dilton at all: for old R. H., the dyer, I buried at Westbury ia the Churchyard: his widow died at Longleat, and was. buried in the church at Horningsham, Corsley, or the new church in the Woodlands. J. H., their son, transported, died in America, R. H., son of J. the transport, I buried in Dilton Chapel, April 1st, 1776, on the promise of the mother paying my fee of 6s. 8d., of which she paid me since 2s. And now the boy J. D. is buried in Dilton Sita by J. G., my sexton, without my knowledge or privity.” “Never a D. or H. in the World ever were buried i in any of the Churches of this parish, nor none of the Hs. J. H., the transport, in Mr. Wroughton’s time _ erowded an infant into Dilton Chapel OEE to him: and so forsooth every- body of this Grand Folks must do as they please, who are near being kept by the parish. I have threatened J. G., sexton, to prosecute him, but he has promised to see me paid 6s. 8d. from S. D., or H., the boy’s uncle.” « §. B., widow, aged 103 years, died of adropsy. Buried March 24th, 1786.”* We come now to a curious and abortive attempt on the part of a distressed Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise a Zucellum, not only from the lighting of the torch of life, but out of its extinction also. In the year 1783, the national resources having been heavily drained by the war with France, and still further also by the payment of nearly ten millions sterling to the American loyalists,as an indemnity _ for their losses during the War of Independence, a stamp duty of 3d. was imposed upon the entry of every “ burial, marriage, birth, and christening,” the tax to commence on October Ist. Two years later -* Various interesting extracts from other Wiltshire registers are to be found in Nichols’s ** Col« lectanea.” I append a list of the parishes to which they belong :— Vol. v., p. 28—Great Bedwyn. Vol. vi., p. 227—Malmesbury. >» 36 and pre Bedwyn. »» Vii, ,, 72—Collingbourn Ducis. “3, My 39—Easton. .» 175- Collingbourn Kingston. 9» 9» 260—SS. Peter and Paul, Marlborough, eo fn 180—Burbage. 99 9x 268—St. Mary, Marlborough. » y 188—Tidcombe. 99 ~—-»», 346 -—Preshute. yy Viil., ,, 190—Chute. } 39 93 300—Mildenhall. mM ove 201—Market Lavington. », 308—Ogbourne St. Andrew, », 308-—Ogbourne St. George. Portions of the registers of Durnford, Stratton St. Margaret, South Marston, and some other fishes were also privately printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps, about the year 1822. Wemuch want of these books in our Devizes Library. : VoL. XVI.—NO. XLVIU. x 326 Ou some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. this was extended to Dissenters’ registrations, but the whole was repealed in 1794, after having lasted only eleven years.! The tax was collected by means of impressed stamps, and in the books of Bremhill parish I find each entry during this period written upon a stamp, with the exception of such as related to paupers, which were ' kept in a separate book, and unstamped. Obedience to this law seems however to have been far from universal. I find no trace of these stamps either in my own books, or in the great majority of such as I have been able to examine. This may however possibly be éxplained by the fact that the sixth section of the Act empowers H. M. Commissioners to grant licenses of ex- emption in certain cases—or I should perhaps rather say, in wucertain cases, for there would seem to have been no restriction whatever upon their powers. In the register book of the parish of Wath, in the county of York, one Thomas Hattersley, Curate, describes him- self as being “licensed to register baptisms, marriages, and burials in books without stamps.’’ 1It was subsequently re-enacted in a modified form together with an impost upon all bachelors and widows ; and we not infrequently meet with the record of these payments mixed up with the entries which belong more properly to my present subject. *The wording of the section is as follows: ‘‘ Providing always and be it further enacted, that no parson, vicar, curate, or other person shall be subject to any the penalties or forfeitures in this act mentioned for entering or causing to be entered any burial, marriage, birth, or christening in any parish register without any marks or stamps therein, where a license under the hands of three of the Commissioners for the time being, appointed to put this Act into execu- tion, or any; officer or officers by them impowered, shall have been granted, signifying their or his leave or approbation that the entry of any burial, marriage, birth, or christening be written without any marks or stamps thereon, so as the person or persons having the custody of such registers do from time to time when and as often as he or they shall be thereto required, permit the said Com- missioners, or any of them, or any officer or agent by them or the major part of them for that purpose appointed, to inspect and view such registers, and do also from time to time when and as often as he or they shall be thereto required by the said Commissioners or the major part of them, or any other by them or the major part of them authorized, pay unto the Receiver-General, for the time being, of such duties or such officer or person as the said Commissioners or the major part of them shall appoint to receive the same, all such sum and sums of money which according to the true intent and meaning of this Act ought to be - paid in respect of all and every such entry and entries as shall be written in such registers, anything herein contained to the contrary thereof notwithstanding,” By the Reo. W. C. Plenderleath. 327 _ This was however not the first time, I may mention, that the revenue officers had taken an interest in the affairs of domestic life, for the same three offices of the church had been laid under taxation by William III. in 1695, the duty being proportioned to the rank and means of the person taxed. As the collection of this however was not connected in any way with registration, it scarcely falls within the compass of my subject. The only reference to it that I haye anywhere met with is in the Avebury register, where I find, under date 1698, “ Henry, the son of John Smith, who was assess’d for £600, was baptized Sept. 8.” What is perhaps more akin to the matter in hand is that in the time of this same sovereign, the elergy were deprived of their fees for the search of the register books, to which (by 6 and 7 Wm. III., cap. 6) they were bound to allow access without fee or reward. Nor was this most inequitable pro- vision repealed, so far as I have been able to discover, until the passing of Sir George Rose’s Act, in 1812, though the very following year (1695) the sum of sixpence was allowed to the clergy for each entry that they made in the register. In 1813 the whole system of registration was changed, in accor- dance with the Act of the previous year. Forms similar to those now in use were supplied in paper for baptisms and burials, while the marriages were continued in very much the same form as before. The record of the banns was transferred to another book, and the words “by consent of” were added, this blank intended of course to be filled up with the word “ parents,” or “ guardians,” as the case might | be, when the bride was under age. But one wise clergyman has made it read (in 1824) “ With consent of the parties,” forgetting that such consent was orally given in every case during the ceremony in facie ecclesi@. In 1837 occurred the last change, when the shape ' of the marriage books was altered, and two volumes were provided, one to be sent, when filled up, to the Registrar of the diocese, and the other to remain permanently in the custody of the Incumbent | (6 and 7, Will. IV., c. 36). The books for baptisms and burials - remained unaltered. I may mention in passing ‘that besides the parochial registers _ which form the subject of this paper, there exist a considerable oe 328 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. number of similar records belonging to various dissenting bodies, lists and descriptions of which are comprised in the report of a Com- mission on the subject which was appointed in 1836, and which reported the following year. ‘The earliest ‘of these registers are those of the French Protestants in London and Canterbury, which go back as faras 1567. The Baptist community come next in point of antiquity: their registers begin in the reign of CharlesI. See Parliamentary Papers, vol. xxviii. There are some singular entries in the marriage registers of Shapwick Church, Dorsetshire, occurring at intervals from 1695 to 1722, and running thus, “ Marryed else- where,” or else “ Marryed, or pretended, at a lawless church.” I imagine that these must refer to a chapel of the Nonjurors, though the Vicar of the parish tells me that he has not been able to obtain any evidence of the existence of such in the neighbourhood. He says however that there were a large number of Royalists in Shap- wick at the time of the Great Rebellion, and he thinks it not at all unlikely that their children would be led by the principles in which they had been brought up to espouse the cause of the Nonjurors in the next generation. Modern foreign registration does not of course come within the scope of our investigation as an archeological society ; but for the benefit of anyone who may be curious in such matters I may say that there is a considerable amount of information on the subject derivable from the report of the Commission of 1832. See Parlia- mentary Papers, vol. xiv. In the same volume I see a very remarkable statement by one witness to the effect that “ At the last York Assizes . . . upon Mr. Serjeant Jones stating that an obliteration appeared in a register which was produced, Mr. Justice Alderson, who tried the cause, observed ‘Are you surprised at that, Brother Jones? . I am not at all surprised. I have had much experience, and I never saw a parish register book in my life that was not falsified in one way or other, and I do not believe that there is one that is not.’”” (Page 64.) I cannot help thinking that this was by far too sweeping a statement of the learned and distinguished Judge’s; although unquestionably in the very careless and un-business-like way in which registers were too often kept, there were great opportunities of falsification, of which advantage is known to have been sometimes taken. The only instance of this which has come to my own knowledge occurred at the Church of St. Peter, Cornhill, and for the following account of it I am indebted to the Rev. Richard Whittington, Rector of the parish, and I believe a collateral descendant of the well-known Lord . Mayor of that name. “In 1829,” he says, “a Chancery suit was pending, the issue of which turned upon an entry in the register, and two persons came to see the books in company with the parish clerk. They afterwards induced him to retire to spend the evening at one of the taverns in the parish, and then, after making him drunk, as the evidence sworn before the Lord Mayor would seem to show, he delivered up the keys of the church and registers, that they might search them (as they said) early the next mornmg. They paid an early visit, it would seem, to the church, erased the original entry, and in a very clumsy manner inserted another and then de- : By the Rev. W. €. Plenderleath. 329 camped.” 1 have already incidentally given several examples from burial records of epithets or descriptions attaching to the persons whose decease is recorded. I proceed toaddafew more. At St. Oswald’s, Durham, “ Lyonel Martine, a very honest man, aged Ixxxxvii. years, bur. 23 July, 1616.” And in the same book, “ Mrs. Margaret Pudsay, and old maid, papist.” At Great Staughton, Hunts, in 1618, “Sepulta est Jana Poole, anicula.” At Teddington, Mid- dlesex, “ James Parsons, who had often eat a shoulder of mutton, or a peck of hasty pudding at a time, which caused his death, buried March 7, 1743, aged 36.” At Norton in Cheshire, was buried in 1743 a gentleman who is lauded in the register book almost as much as he might have been on his tombstone: ‘‘ Comeliness and cheerful- ness shone brightly in him: his expressions were handsome, facetious, and mild: to all easy and just : to his friends particularly respectful ;” and so on. In the marriage registers I have only come across one descriptive entry, and that is at Sea Salter, in Kent, where is the following: © John Housden, widower, a gape mouthed lazy fellow, and Hannah _ Matthews, an old toothless hag, both of Faversham, were trammelled 330 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. by license at the Cathedral of Sea Salter, June 6, 1744. A Caspian bowl of well acidulated glumigrim.” At Eltham, in the same county, on the other hand, is an entry of marriage wherein the description errs by defect, “ Johannes Layton, duxit in uxorem Letissiman Puellam,”’ Oct. 18, 1640. And still more shortly at Hoddon, in Northumberland: “ Twizzels, man and maid was married on Lady Day, 1706.” There is one curious superstition with regard to marriages, of which not a few old register books preserve the record, viz., that a woman who is in debt at the time of marriage may avoid saddling her husband with her liabilities if she appear at the altar clad in one garment only, and that of the lightest. At Chilterne All Saints, in this county, I find “ John Prideaux and Ann Selwood were mar- ried Oct. 17,1714. The aforesaid Ann Selwood was married in her smock without any cloathes or head gear on.” So also at Broad Hinton, “ John Farmer and Ann Stagg were married November the 17th, 1718. N.B. She was married in nothing but her shift.” The theory of this curious custom is thus explained by Burns: The husband is liable for the wife’s debts, therefore he acquires an absolute interest in the personal estate of the wife. And therefore again he concludes that if the wife has no estate, the husband is not lable. The fallacy of which reasoning scarcely requires to be pointed out. And so, pursues the author, “ with more care than refinement he (the husband) lets the world know that the bride brings him nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.” For this singular statement the writer claims the authority of Bacon’s abridgement. But I, on the contrary, having carefully examined that work, can find no other information bearing on the subject than the absolute and unexceptioned state- ment: “The husband is liable for the wife’s debts, contracted before marriage, whether he had any portion with her or not.” Vol. i., p. 708. Compare also Brand’s “ Popular Antiquities,” i1., 305. I will now proceed to give a few examples of curious inscriptions which I have met with in parish registers. At Rodmarton, in Glouces- tershire, is the following good advice: “ If you will have this book last, bee sure to aire it at the fire or in the sunne thrice or foure times a yeare—els it will grow dankish and rott, therefore look to By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 331 it. Itwill not bee amiss when you find it dankish, to wipe over the leaves with a dry wollen cloath. This place is very much subject to dankishness, therefore I say looke to it.” At Cherry Hinton, Caxnbhitecelitney is the following table of contents :— ‘‘Hio puer wtatem, hic vir sponsalia noscat; Hic decessorum funera quisque sciat.” This is rather truistic. A better preface runs as follows [I find it jotted down in my note-book, but have accidentally omitted to mark where I got it] :— _ “Janua baptismus: medio stat teda jugalis. Utroque ex felix, mors pia si sequitur,” I see given in Notes and Queries (I., vii., 257) as existing at Ruyton, in Shropshire, what sounds very much like a translation of the above :— ‘No flattery here, where to be born and die Of rich and poor is all the history. Enough if virtue filled the space between Proved by the ends of being to have been.” ' At Norton, in the county of Durham, there occurs the following preface to the register of marriages, according to Sir Cuthbert Sharpe, _ from whose Chronicon Mirabile I quote it: “ Marriage comes in on the 13th of January, and at Septuagesima Sunday it is out again _ until Low Sunday, at which time it comes in again, and goes not out till Rogation Sunday: thence it is unforbidden until Trinity Sunday, from thence it is forbidden until Advent Sunday and comes not in again till the 13th of January.” This note bears date 1745. _ At Fittleton in this county: “Wee are borne crying, wee live laughing, wee dye sighing.” This inscription is signed by the same . gentleman to whom I have already referred—* Ste. Jay,” and ap- t peeens to have been written about 1650. _ Of colophons of any sort or description I have met with not a single instance. And now, leaving the wide pastures in which, note-book in hand, 832 On some Curiosities aud Statistics of Parish Registers. I have been roaming, I will return to my own village, and give a few statistics—to be taken for as much as they are worth. It has been stated by a high authority that “in seareely any country in the world is there so great similarity of surname as in England,” and if this means (as I believe it is intended to do) so Jew surnames, the records of Cherhill certainly bear out the statement. There is one name (and that a very uncommon one—in fact I had never heard it in my life until I came to Cherhill) which belongs to eighty out of the one thousand six hundred and thirty-six persons whose baptisms are here registered ; and adding the thirteen times in which it appears with slightly varied spelling, the number of times in which it occurs in the register would be no less than ninety-three ; 7.é., once in every seventeen-and-a-half entries. Nine surnames occur more than forty times each, and together take up more than one fifth of the whole number. Twenty-three surnames occur more than twenty times each. One hundred and seventeen surnames occur more than once. And of one hundred and nineteen surnames there is only a single entry. The whole number of different sur- names recorded is two hundred and fifty-nine. Of Christian names in the same entries there are one hundred and sixty-four, viz.: male names proper, sixty-one; surnames given as Christian names, twenty-one; total eighty-two. The number of females, curiously enough, is exactly equal, viz.: Christian names proper, seventy-two ; surnames given as Christian names, ten ; total, eighty-two. And what is more curious still is that the number of the two sexes is exactly equal in these entries, viz.: eight hundred and eighteen of each.! With regard to the number of times that each name appears in the Cherhill books, John leads the way among 1 This is, I need scarcely say, not the ordinary proportion, which is in Great Britain one hundred and four males to every hundred females, And in every other country in Europe, with the single exception of Sweden, the disproportion is still greater. (See Ansell’s Statistics of Families, and Hendrik’s Vital Statis- tics of Sweden.) On the other hand, the Florentine bean register, which J have before mentioned, gave in 1835, shortly before its abolition, a proportion of one hundred and thirteen females to one hundred males, This must however I think have been attributable to some special local circumstances interfering with the registration of the male children. ee —— By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 833 males with one hundred and forty occurrences, or one in every 5.7 entries. Then came William and Will, one hundred and twenty- two, or one in 6.7. Then Thomas and Tom, sixty-nine, or one in 12.9. Then Henry, Harry, Henery, Hennery, or Henrie, fifty-nine, or one in 13.5. Then Robert and James, forty-one each, or one in 19.9. And so on down to fifteen names which appear but once each. ' Of female names, the first is Ann, who under the varying forms of Ann, Anne, Annie, Anna, Nanny, and Nanney, appears one hundred and sixty-one times, or one in every five entries. Then comes Mary, Maria, Meriah, and Mariah, one hundred and fifty-two, or one in 5.4. Then Elizabeth, Elisabeth, Elizebath, Bety, Betty. Betsey, Besepty, and Lizzey, one hundred and ten, or one in 7.4. Then Sarah, Sarak, or Sary, ninety-five, or one in 8.6. Then Jane, eighty five, or one in 9.6. The Rebecca, Rebekah, Rebekak, Rebeckh, Rebekkah, Rebeckah, Rabacco, and Rebeca, forty-three, or one in 10.9. And so on down to eighteen names which occur only once each. With regard to age at marriage I get little or no information from the registers until the time of my own appointment in 1860, the columns having been in almost every case filled up simply with “full age,” or “ minor,”—an evil practice which, as I see from a recent report of the Registrar-General, prevails in about two-fifths of all the returns made to him. I have however myself, when re- gistering a marriage, invariably asked for age, explaining that I did so simply with a view of adding to the value of the record both - for statistical purposes and also for those of identification. And I _ have never in any one instance met with the least hesitation to furnish me with a proper return. Out of the thirty-five marriages thus recorded, I find the average age of the husbands to be twenty- nine years and two hundred and ninety-six days; and of the wives, twenty-seven years and one hundred and twenty-nine days. Nine ‘wives appear to have been older than their husbands, or more than one fourth of the whole number. 1 This is less than the average of difference in age throughout England, which is stated by Ansell (Vital Statistics, p. 46) to be about four-and-a-half years, and to be still on the increase. 334 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. Of the duration of life in the parish we get perhaps an approximate idea from the fact that the average age of recorded deaths is thirty- seven years, three hundred and forty-six days. The lowest average is in the first decade, viz., from 1813 (before which year age was not registered) to 1823, when it amounts to thirty-two years, fifty days. And the highest average occurs in the last decade, from 1863 to 1873, when it rises to forty-four years, one hundred and fifty-four days. But the trustworthiness of the earlier at least of these records is probably affected by two causes, one that when there was no resident clergyman some children may have died unbaptized, and their interments consequently not been recorded. And another possible source of error might be the uncertainty of poor people generally as to their exact ages, and their well-known tendency when very old to imagine themselves yet more so than they really are. I find however no remarkable instances of longevity on record at Cherhill. Eighty-nine, which occurs three times, is the highest figure. The healthiness of our high Wiltshire downs is however I think strongly attested by the fact that the two ages between which most deaths appear to have occurred at Cherhill are under two years, and between seventy and eighty years. An analysis of the whole record gives the following figures :— . Between 1 and 2 years old the deaths were 16.4 per cent. 3) 70 2) 80 33 3) 15.9 2? Under 1 year a5 5 12.6 ‘a Between 60 and 70 s i 10.7 e » 80 ,, 90 ” » 94 865 » 20 ,, 30 » » 8.7 4 3) 10 2 20 pel 3) 8.5 3) 3) 40 3) 50 33 3) 7.4 +3 33 50 3) 60 PP) 2 5.2 3) Over 90 years 38 bs A ms With regard to the seasons in the year least favourable to human life, it will I think surprize some persons to hear that the month in which I find the smallest number of funerals recorded is “ chill — October,’ while that which shews the highest figure (with the By the Rev. W. C. Plenderleath. 335 exception of January) is “the merry month of May.” Then April, © Mensis Veneris Marine.” The whole list runs as follows :— January 10.2 per cent. May AD PY ee April $0 Boe March ox eee June August } st shia: July September } 12» November 71 December : 9 February sa a October BP! Tg _ Perhaps the most curious point is the sudden drop from January, which heads the list, to February, which all but finishes it. _ And now just one word in conclusion with regard to statistics generally, which it is rather the fashion now, I think, to decry. A writer in a recent number of “ Blackwood” pompously remarks, “ There is an extraordinary virtue in averages: When life has been robbed of its romance and death of its mystery: when the King of Terrors is turned into vulgar fractions and Providence reduced to a decimal, the accountant lays down his pen with a gratified glow and feels that Society is his debtor.” It appears to me that this gentleman has completely misunderstood the position, and misap- symmetery, Then comes Heraldry, gorgeous of attire, yet not meretricious, for she knows not aught but the purest colour and 836 On some Curiosities and Statistics of Parish Registers. yet as “ Vos non vobis mellificatis,” so it is not for herself that she does so, and her work, valueless in itself, may be turhed, we know not when, to profit. So I venture to despise the sneer of this anony- mous writer, even as I lament the prejudice of a late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who once said in a speech before some “ Working Men’s Mutual Laudation Society,” that there was utility in every branch of human knowledge except Heraldry. So clever a man as the ex-member for Calne ought not to have said so foolish a thing. I have only in conclusion to express my thanks to my friend the Rev. J. P. Hardy, of Wadham College, Oxford, for much valuable help in the preparation of this paper: to the Rectors of St. Peter’s, Cornhill and of St. Matthew’s, Friday Street, and to the Vicar of Westbury, all of whom I have already referred to by name, for - several most interesting papers and transcripts: and to the incum- bents of the various churches which I have myself visited with a view to search, for the permission which they have in every case kindly accorded me. I need scarcely add that although perhaps not even the humblest addition to contemporary local history is absolutely without value yet I do not of course attribute any sort of importance to the statistics of so small a population as those with which I am concerned, and which, rather with a view of eliciting information of more moment, and of encouraging researches in more fruitful fields, I have ventured to lay before the Society. q ‘‘Cest peu, tres-pen, que j’aggrandis la domaine: D’autres un jour lui traceront des lois.” W. Oe 337 “Giltshive Aonjnvors,” €e.’ Extracted from a book entitled: “The names of the Roman Catholics, Nonjurors, and others who refused to take the oaths to his late Majesty King George (1st) , London, printed for J. Robinson, Ludgate Street. 1745.” “To THE PUBLIC.” “The following Tid of Estates, which was collected by Authority in the year _ 1715, is published, at this Time, with no other View, but to assist the Magis- trates, and other Officers, who shall happen to be intrusted with the Execution of such Orders of Government, as either have already been, or may hereafter be issued, for suppressing the Growth, and unhappy Effects, of the present re- bellious Insurrection in the North; which, its hoped, will caution the Possessors of such Estates, at this Juncture, carefully to keep within the Bounds, of their known Duty, to our Gracious Sovereign King George, and his Rightful Govern- ‘ment over them; unto which, it is conceived, they will find themselves more especially obligated, if they only please to observe, that many of them (who in the said year neglected to give in such a particular account of the value of their respective Estates,as was then under Severe Penalties required of them by Law) were never, as yet, called upon to answer for such neglect, but gently permitted bo go on quietly, and to partake equally with their Fellow- Subjects, of all that the Biter tient at that Time. _ “The names of the Roman Catholics, Nonjurors, and others, who refused to take the Oaths to his late Majesty King George :— Wilts. £8 d. John Hussey, of Maryhall, in Com’ Dorset, Esq. 2 65 0 James Morgan, of St. Gile’s: Annuity out of the Mansion of Ansty 20 0 0 Richard Branning, of Winchester, Gent 516 8 ‘William Estcourt, of Brunham, Esq. 224 9 0 Mary Watson, of Bestford, in Com’ Worcester, Spinster 20 0 0 Katherine Watson, of ditto 100 0 0 _ John Horton, of Woolverton, in Com’ Somerset, Gent 0 5 4 _ Francis Cottington, of Fonthill Gifford, Esq. 795 4 8 William Moore, of St. Giles, in Com. Middlesex :— 1The following interesting document is kindly contributed by George atcham, Esq., a name held in high honour in this Society, as throughout the bunty, and a zealous Archwologist of many years’ standing. [Ep.] 3338 « Wiltshire Nonjurors,” §c. Estate at Hedington, in Possession of Anthony £ 8. d. Brook 130 2 6 Gaynor Cruse, of Wootton Basset, Widow 64 0 0 Elizabeth, Countess Dowager of Castlehaven 537 12 10 Edward Cary, of Torr Abbey, in Com, Devon, Esq. 564 12 6 Mary Anne, of Sutton Mandeville, spinster 410 0 John Doncastle, of Binfield, in Com’ Berks, Gent. 94 0 0 Susannah Kennion, of Barth, in Com’ Somerset, Widow 20 0 0 Francis Carne, of ditto, Gent 115 s0020 Anne Cruse, of Greenhill, Widow 30 0 0 Edward Farnhill, of Fonthill-Gifford, Gent. 28 0 0 Anne Perkins :—Estate at Cheesgrove, in possession of William Green 710 0 Charles Woolmer, of Fonthill-Gifford, Gent. 15 10 0 Thomas Wells, of Bambridge, in Com’ Southton, Gent. 200 0 0 John Wright, of Keldenhall, in Com’ Essex, Esq. 1210 6 Bartholomew Smith, of Winchester, Esq. 12 0 0 Mary Coffin, of Stourton, Widow 50 0 O Mary Jenkins, of Wardour-Castle, Spinster 19 0 0O- John King, of Warblington, in Com’ Southton, yeoman 10 0 0 Simeon White, of Wardour-Castle 20 0 0 Jeffrey Lodge, of Stower-provost, in Com’ Dorset, Yeoman 30 0 0 Thomas Knype, of Sembly 24 0 0 George Brockman, of Anstey, Yeoman or Weaver 112 0 John Haylock, of Tisbury 20 0 0 Matthew Haylock, of Bridzor 15 10 0 ] Mary Butt, of ditto 3.0 0 Cecil Wilson, of ditto 52 10 0 Richard Lee, of Hasledon 6110 0 : Henry, Lord Arundell 1186 8 0 Thomas Pippin, of Bridzor, Yeoman 13 15 0 Eleanor Wilson, of ditto, Widow 12 0 0 Sir John Webb, of Great Canford, in Com’ Dorset, Bart. 403 17 2 John Cottington,of Goodmanstone, in Com’ Somerset Esq. 110 0 0 Abigal Kingsmill, of Juckpen,* in Com. Berks,Widow 100 0 0 George Knype, of Semley 380 0 0 Sir George Brown, of London, Bart., of Coldridge Coppice, in Lurgershall, Thomas Champion, of Sutton-Mandeville, Leather cutter 616 0 £4990 7 2 * In all probability Inkpen. The names of several places are incorrectly given in the book from which this extract is taken; but it is not deemed advisable to substitute the real orthography, more especially as their identity is in most instances generally known. (ED.) 339 Lo the Editor of the Wiltshire Magazine. West Hay, Wrington, August 18th. Deaz Mr. Smita, 4 You will, I am sure, kindly help me in the public correction of an _ error into which I have been drawn by assuming the accuracy of a report given _ in one of the Wiltshire papers of a speech made by Mr. Matcham in reply to _ Canon Jackson’s paper on Stonehenge, read at Marlborough, at the Society’s _ meeting, in 1859. That report states ‘* That the Phoonicians having lead and _ iron mines in Wales, it was by no means improbable they drew these stones _ from different parts of the country as emblems of the places whence they derived _ their wealth.” Mr, Matcham writes to me in his kind and courteous way that ; “such a notion never entered my head. I only expressed my opinion that t Phoenician architects were employed by the people who had determined on the _ erection or enlargement of the temple—to transport the outer stones from the _ site, and to erect them in the way they now appear, and I think this suggestion _ susceptible of something very like proof.” You would oblige me very much if _ you would, at the meeting next week, and (if necessary) in the next number of _ the Journal, give the correction of this error as wide a circulation as the error — itself. I sincerely hope that you will not separate next week until you have had a thoroughly good discussion of the Stonehenge questions. If we cannot yet go | far in advance, we can at least get rid of some of the rubbish which has been _ for so long a period accumulating about that place and its history. ‘With Sir John Lubbock as President, you ought not to disperse without having Cleared the ground and opened a way to something more satisfactory than the popular opinions of past years. Very sincerely yours, W. Lone. _ * The following note was read by the Rev. A. C. Smith at the Annual Meeting 6 Salisbury, on the 23rd August, and would rightly appear in the forthcoming ecount of those proceedings: but is printed here, in order that no time may @ lost in rectifying the mistake made, and also in order that the correction may ceur in the same volume which contains the mis-statement. [Ep.] 340 Alle. Sotheron Gstcourt and Ar. Poulet Sevope. N the present year our Society has suffered a loss to be really &) felt, in the deaths of two of its original founders and steady supporters, the Rt. Hon. Thomas H. S. Sotheron Estcourt and George Poulett Scrope, Esq. Our readers will not consider a few pages of our Magazine misapplied, if to each of those names, familiar among us for so many years, it says ‘‘ Non ego te meis Chartis inornatum silebo.” Tue Rr. Hon. Tuomas Hunry Surron Sorumron Estcourt was born 4th April, 1801, and was the eldest son of Thomas Grimston Bucknall Estcourt, Esq. (many years M.P. for the University of Oxford), by Eleanor, daughter and co-heir of James Sutton, Esq., of New Park (now Roundway Park), near Devizes. The Estcourt familyis of very great antiquity both in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. The last male heir of the elder branch dying in 1684, some of the existing property passed to a junior branch, the Estcourts of Cam, from which Mr, Sotheron Estcourt descended. He was educated at Harrow and Oriel College, Oxford, where, at Michaelmas, 1822, he took First Class in Classical honours. He graduated M.A., 1826, and was made Honorary D.C.L. in 1857. In 1830 he married Lucy Sarah, only child of Admiral Frank Sotheron, of Kirklington, Co. Notts, who died in 1870. He had assumed her name only in 1839, but reverted to his own patronymic, Estcourt, by Royal license in 1855. He was returned to Parliament in the Conservative interest for Marlborough, in 1829 until 1832, From November, 1835, until 1844, he sat for Devizes, and in the latter year succeeded Sir Francis Burdett as one of the Members for North Wilts, his colleague being the © late Walter Long, Esq., of Rood Ashton. In March, 1858, he was — appointed (by the late Earl of Derby) President of the Poor Law — Board, being at the same time sworn of the Privy Council: and in March, 1859, on the resignation of Mr, Walpole, Secretary of State Memoir of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt. 341 for the Home Department: which office he retained until the change of Ministry in June following. He retired from Parliament in 1865. Though belonging, as most men of position do, to a party, he was not a blind partizan: neither obstinately opposed to all changes, nor wishing to adopt them unless well-considered. For political life however he had less affection than for quiet service to the county of Wilts, in which, both North and South, by persevering work and unvarying kindness and courtesy of manner, he became, certainly one of its most popular men to the day of his death. Besides, as a magistrate, taking a leading part in arranging financial affairs, the settlement of the County Rate, the Constabulary and other matters requiring close and continual personal exertion, he succeeded, after much difficulty, in establishing—his greatest glory—the Wiltshire Friendly Society. With this, his name it is _ hoped may long continue to be associated : for not until the working- people of Wiltshire shall cease to feel the benefits to themselves and their families, of habits of prudence and self-reliance, can they look with indifference upon the Society’s Medal, which bears the effigy of the amiable gentleman who laboured so long and so earnestly for the improvement of cottage homes and lives. » With respect to our own Society, it is recollected with pleasure that he was our President at the Annual Meeting at Swindon, in August, 1860, and again at Shaftesbury, in August, 1861. At Malmesbury, in 1863, he was unable to attend from ill-health. It was not his habit to render literary assistance, but of his desire to preserve from neglect the Antiquities for which the county is so famous, he gave substantial proof, as mentioned in the Report for 1876. Hearing that part of the ground on which stands the mutilated remains of Avepury was for sale, he immediately sent to one of the Secretaries of the Society an unlimited order to _ secure it for him: but in this laudable attempt to save one of the most curious monuments in the world from injury by future barbarians he had been anticipated by our present President, Sir John Lubbock. Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was an excellent scholar and delighted in literature, but though for amusement among his various occupations, he would now and then exercise his pencil, as for instance in the VOL. XVI.—NO. XLVIII. Y 342 Memoir of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt. illustration of the “Travels in Portugal” of his friend, Mr. Latouche, it. is not known that he ever published any production of his pen. It may therefore be not uninteresting to his friends and our readers in general if we preserve a tew lines composed by him, when on his own sick-bed, to accompany a circular that was issued for raising a memorial to his intimate and valued friend, the 3 Sidney, Lord Herbert of Lea :— Linges on THE Deatu or Lorp Hersert. By the Rt. Hon. T. H.S. Sotheron Estcourt, October, 1861, ‘‘Let Glory with her golden chaplet crown Those who in battle for their Country die ; England, dear HerBert, with a like renown Enrols Thy name amongst her chivalry, Though Thou on peaceful bed didst close Thine eye: Thee as a modei, bids her children take, And learn to hazard life, as Thou didst, for Her sake. See how in youth, by careful Mother led, Upward His thoughts, with steady gaze, He turned, Enticing scenes foreswore: hard work instead He courted, and the charms of pleasure spurned: And so an early grave by Labour earned : Whilst at stern duty’s call, the path He trod Which guides by painful steps the soul from Earth to God. *¢ Mourn, soldier, Thou hast lost a thoughtful friend, Thy health, thy comfort, were his constant care, He taught thee how to save, and what to spend, On thy sick bed He breathed a purer air: — Lo! Angels, at His word to camps repair, Smooth the rough pillow, where the wounded lie, And turn to brighter Scenes the dying Veteran’s eye. “Ye too, before whose presence Sin should flee, Tell how his layish hand was wont to raise Your modest School, your costly Sanctuary, For man’s instruction and his Maker’s praise: Point to the Spot, where gild the sun’s warm rays A Temple, worthy of a Poet’s tongue, In strains, such as of old another HERBERT sung. ‘¢ How shall we miss the bright engaging Smile, That banished strife; to all a welcome brought; The ready speech, a Senate might beguile ; The playful Wit; the rich inventive Thought; The Spirit that false Counsels set at nought: Each action charming by its native grace, } And, Heayen’s best gift, His mind, reflected in his Face. By the Rev. Canon J. B. Jackson. 343° ‘* What though no more that Silvery Voice we hear, Like distant music still its echoes swell, E’en, from the grave, it bids us check the tear, Nor grieve for one, who fought his fight so well: That voice, Dear Herserr, should a lesson tell, Count not the worth of Life by length of days, His Thread is fully spun, whom all unite to praise.” Mr. Sotheron Estcourt resided at the family seat, Estcourt, in the parish of Shipton Moyne, on the very borders of Gloucestershire, but in Wiltshire he was owner of Long Newnton and Ashley in that neighbourhood: and near Devizes he held by inheritance from his mother’s family, the Suttons, a lease of the Episcopal manor of Bishops Cannings, his interest in which, owing to some difficulties in the renewal, he sold to the Crown in 1858. In Yorkshire a large estate at Goole, on the Humber, and at Darrington, near Pontefract, came to him from his wife’s family, the Sotherons. He died at Estcourt House, on Friday, January 6th, 1876, and _ was buried at Shipton Moyne, where he had a few years ago restored the Parish Church. A more extended notice of him appeared in the Devizes Gazette on 13th January following. Grorce Pouterr Scrorz, Esq., was born in London, in 1797, and was the second son of Mr. J. Poulett Thomson, of Austin Friars, Roehampton, and Waverley Abbey, Co. Surrey, head of the eminent mercantile firm of Thomson, Bonar, & Co.: his elder brother being Charles Poulett Thomson, the Governor-General of Canada, who was created Lord Sydenham during Lord Melbourne’s Ministry. He was educated at Harrow and St. John’s College, Cambridge. He is well remembered as a leading reformer in his day, and as a _ very accomplished, polished and courteous gentleman, In 1821] he assumed the ancient Wiltshire name of Scrope, on his marriage with Emma, sole daughter and heiress of William Scrope, Esq., of Castle Combe, the author of the well-known volumes on “ Deer Stalking,” and “Salmon Fishing.”* He entered Parliament as Member for Stroud in May, 1833, and sat for that borough thirty-five years, retiring from public life in 1868. He was the writer of a great number of pamphlets and small works on a variety of subjects, as eurrency, banking, the poor laws, political and social economy, &e., x2 844 Memoir of Mr. G. Poulett Scrope. and also of a biography of his brother, Lord Sydenham:, but his principal, as it was his earliest, study, was geology. When quite a youth, happening to be at Naples, he was much struck with the phenomena of Mount Vesuvius ; and being led to follow up the study of them he afterwards examined the region of extinct voleanoes in Central France and other countries, collecting materials for a work which he then published, and which has been generally received as the best authority on the subject. For this, in 1867, he received from the Geological Society the Woollaston Gold Medal, the highest honour at the disposal of that Body. Of his labours in geology including various occasional papers which appeared in different scientific perodicals, a detailed account (with a portrait of him taken late in life) is given in the “ Geological Magazine,” vol. vii. (1870). Towards the topography of Wiltshire he made a very valuable contribution by the “ History of the Parish of Castle Combe,” com- piled chiefly from the records of the Scrope family in his custody. This work was privately printed in 4to, 1852, and is already a scarce volume. It was very favourably noticed in the Quarterly Review, vol, xcii., p. 275, as supplying from original and authentic sources— the most proper and useful to an antiquary—a curious account of the mode of local government in a township during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He was the author of an article on “ Wilt- shire ” in the Quarterly Review, vol. ciii., p. 108 (1858). Of our Society he was the first President, and his opening address upon that occasion at Devizes, in 1853, is printed in vol. i. of this Magazine. Several subsequent communications from his pen will be found by reference to the index. After the death of his wife, by whose will the ancient estate of her family, held by them in North Wiltshire without interruption for five hundred years, was placed at his absolute disposal. Mr. Poulett Scrope sold Castle Combe to E. C. Lowndes, Esq., and left Wiltshire altogether, having bought a house at Fairlawn, near Cobham, in Surrey, where he died 18th January, 1876, aged 79. The fine old Church of Castle Combe had been thoroughly restored by him some years before his death. J. E. J. . : : 345 Grust-Deed of the Saxon Church of St. Haucence, Bradford-on-Aoon. By the Rev. Canon W. H. Jonzs. SZHE Wiltshire Archwological Society having from the first Ge ai taken deep interest in the recovery of this precious relic of the eighth century, it is thought well, as in some sort a report of progress, to print a copy of the deed by which it has been conveyed to Trustees with a view to its permanent preservation. The few words printed in italics will shew the special trusts under which it is held. It may be stated that between £800 and £900 have been raised and expended in the purchase, conveyance, and partial restoration, of this “ Ecclesiola.” The latter work has consisted wholly of what may termed re-habilitation—the replacing, exactly as they were originally, several of the more mutilated features of the building. Everything has been done under the direction of Mr, Irvine, who was the principal superintendent of the works both at the Abbey of - Bath and the Cathedral at Wells under Sir Gilbert Scott, and who is an experienced and practical architect, and withal no mean archeol- ogist. To his pen we are indebted for a careful essay on the Ca- thedral at Wells, printed in the Proceedings of the Somersetshire _ Archeological Society about two years ago. It may be added that a visit was paid to the “ Ecclesiola” a few months ago by Sir Gilbert Scott, who fully approved all that had been done, and added a recommendation or two which have since _ been carried out. The little Church having been made wind and water-tight, is now used for daily prayer each morning at nine o’clock. The fittings, stoves, seats, &c., have been supplied by private and special j offerings from the parishioners of Bradford-on-Avon. A simple yet handsome lectern and prayer desk have been given as a memorial 346 Trust-Deed of the Saxon Church of St. Laurence. of a former curate, whose name and disinterested labours are still remembered gratefully in the parish. The Chancel is as yet wholly unfurnished. There is much need of money to provide a good yet simple altar-table, and other fittings for the chancel. It would be very desirable also to proceed with further repairs to the roofs and walls, and especially to restore at all events the lower portion of the west front, which has been so sadly mutilated by the insertion of modern windows. At least £500 more is needed to do all that is desirabler About twenty-five copies are left of a privately-printed account of this little Church, and the Treasurer will have pleasure in forwarding one to any subscriber of one guinea or upwards, W. H. Jonss, M.A., F.S.A., The Vicarage, Treasurer. Bradford-on-Avon. Trust DEEp. ‘‘Tu1s INDENTURE made the twenty-fifth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, between the Rey. William Henry Jones, M.A., F.S.A., Vicar of Bradford, in the county of Wilts, of the first part, the Right Honorable Horatio, Earl Nelson, of the second part, and the said Earl Nelson, the Venerable Archdeacon Thomas Boughton Buchanan, of Potterne in the county of Wilts, M.A., Sir Charles Parry Hobhouse, of Monkton Farleigh, in the county of Wilts, Baronet, Sir John Wither Awdry, of Notton in the parish of Lacock in the county of Wilts, Knight, John Henry Parker, of the Ashmolean, Oxford, ~ Esquire, C. Be F.S.A., Edward Augustus Freeman, of Somerleaze, Wells, in the county of Bounce, ature? D.C. cn , the Reverend Edward Lowry, Barnwell, © of Melksham, in the county of Wilts, M.A.,and the said William Henry Jones, of the third part :—Whereas in the town te Bradford-on-Avon, in the county of Wilts, there is a Saxon Church, or Chapel, of great antiquity, which for many years was disused as a place of religious worship, the chancel-arch having been walled-up, the chancel and nave having been treated as separate buildings and belonging to different owners, the chancel having been con-. verted: into a cottage, and the nave into a charity school, so that the original nature of the building was lost sight of and forgotten until recently discovered by the said William Henry Jones, and whereas it was thought desirable, and an object of public utility, that the said Church should be purchased and restored to its original state, and preserved for the benefit of the parish of Bradford-on-Avon or other public use, and for that purpose a subscripton was opened and sumsof money were raised, with which the said Church and the site thereof were purchased in fee simple by the said William Henry Jona and conveyed to him by the two Indentures hereinafter recited (namely) :— First.—By indenture dated the eighteenth day of January, one- thousand | By the Rev. Canon Jones. 347 ‘eight hundred and seventy-two, made between Frederick Ezekiel Edmonds of the one part, and the suid William Henry Jones of the other part, in consideration of the sum of sixty pounds to the said Frederick Ezekiel Ed- monds, paid by the said William Henry Jones, he, the said Frederick Ezekiel Edmonds, granted and confirmed unto the said William Henry Jones and his heirs, all that outhouse or shed formerly used as a sizing house, together with the small piece of land or ground on the west thereof, bounded as therein mentioned, and also all that messuage or tenement with the garden land or ground belonging thereto adjoining to the last described premises, then in the occupation of William Meade, together also with the Yard adjoining!and belong- ing thereto, and the shed being then thereon in ruins, which said last described premises were bounded as therein described: all which said messuage, sheds, land and other hereditaments and premises thereinbefore described and thereby granted or intended so to be, were situate near the Church Walk, in the town and parish of Bradford, in the county of Wilts, and were more particularly delineated in the plan thereof drawn in the margin of the Indenture now in recital, and therein coloured red, together with all the houses, ways, and appur- tenances thereto belonging, and particularly a right of way for all purposes whatsoever to and for the said William Henry Jones, his heirs and assigns, to and from the said messuage, sheds, land, and hereditaments thereinbefore described through the gates between the Free School and the glebe properties, as the same had been always and was then enjoyed, but the wall separating the said hereditaments thereinbefore described from the other property of the said Frederick Ezekiel Edmonds, called the Abbey, as shewn on the said plan by a _ dotted line from the points A to B, to be for ever thereafter a party wall, to hold the said premises thereinbefore described, unto and to the use of the said William Henry Jones, his heirs and assigns, for ever. And Second.—By Indenture dated the eighteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy three, and made between Thomas Bush Saunders, John Alderton Bush, and Stephen Moulton of the first part, the said Sir Charles Parry Hobhouse of the second part, and the said William Henry Jones of the third part, in con- _ sideration of a conveyance from the said William Henry Jones to the said Thomas Bush Saunders and others, of certain premises therein mentioned, they the said Thomas Bush Saunders, John Alderton Bush, and Stephen Moulton, as the surviving trustees of the Bradford Free School, and in whom the premises thereinafter assigned were then vested for the residue of a term of one thousand years granted thereof by an Indenture of Lease dated the eighth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, and made between the _ parties therein mentioned, with the consent of the Board of Charity Com- missioners for England and Wales, granted, assigned and transferred unto the said William Henry Jones, his executors, administrators and assigns, the _ messuage and premises comprised and described in the first schedule thereunder written, to hold the same unto the said William Henry Jones his executors, administrators, and assigns, for all the residue then unexpired of the said term of one thousand years, and the said Sir Charles Parry Hobhouse, in whom the reversion and inheritance in fee simple, expectant upon the expiration or other ooner determination of the said term was then vested did thereby grant and slease unto the said William Henry Jones, his heirs and assigns, all that the 348 Trust-Deed of the Saxon Church of St. Laurence. reversion and inheritance in fee simple, expectant upon the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term of one thousand years of and in the said premises contained in the first schedule thereunder written, to hold the same premises unto and to the use of the said William Henry Jones, his heirs and assigns for ever so that the term of one thousand years might become merged and extinguished in the freehold and inheritance thereof, and the first schedule referred to in the Indenture now in recital, comprised a messuage, edifice, or building with the appurtenances situate in or near to the Churchyard, in the town and parish of Bradford aforesaid, formerly called or known by the name of the Skull House, many years since converted into and used as a School House, and bounded on or towards the north, south, and east by premises recently purchased by the said William Henry Jones, and numbered on the Tythe Map of the parish of Bradford, with the number 149, and in the book of reference thereto described as house containing three perches and then in the occupation of John Thornton Butt, and used as a school charity, called the ‘* Bradford Free School,” and whereas it is desired that the several premises conveyed by the said Indentures and which together comprise the said Church and the site thereof with the yard thereto adjoining, shall be conveyed to and vested in the parties hereto of the third part, upon and for the trusts and pur- poses hereinafter expressed :—Now this Indenture witnesseth, that, in order to effectuate the said desired conveyance, he, the said William Henry Jones doth hereby grant and assure unto the said Earl Nelson, his heirs and assigns, all and singular the buildings, messuages, school-house cottages, out-houses, pieces of land, hereditaments, and premises described in the said several hereinbefore recited Indentures, and thereby granted, assigned, and conveyed, or intended so to be, together with the said right of way, and all other ways, and all lights, drains, easements, and appurtenances thereto belonging, or reputed to belong, and all the estate, right, and title, both legal and equitable of the said William Henry Jones therein, to hold the hereditaments and premises hereby granted and assured unto the said Earl Nelson, his heirs and assigns, to the use of the said Earl Nelson, Thomas Boughton Buchanan, Sir Charles Parry Hobhouse, Sir John Wither Awdry, John Henry Parker, Edward Augustus Freeman, Edward Lowry Barnwell, and William Henry Jones, their heirs and assigns for ever, upon and for the trusts and purposes hereinafter expressed (that is to say) the trustees for the time being acting under these presents (hereinafter called ‘‘ the Trustees’’) shall when and as they shall have funds at their disposal for the purpose, from time to time restore the said Church, and the site thereof, to their original state, or from time to time restore or alter the same to such state as the Trustees, or the majority of them, shall in their dis- cretion think proper, and shall for ever hold and, so far as they shall have funds at their disposal for the purpose, keep and preserve the said Church, and the site thereof, in their restored or altered state, as a memorial of past ages, and Sor public benefit, and instruction with a due regard always to the object Sor which the said Church was originally erected, namely, as a place dedi- cated to the worship and service of Almighty God, for which purpose the Trustees shall permit the same to be used by or by the direction of the Vicar, Sor the time being, of the Church of the Holy Trinity, at Bradford-on- Avon, jor such permanent or temporary purposes in connection with the By the Rev. Canon Jones. 849 parish of Bradford-on-Avon, as the Trustees, or the majority of them, shall from time to time approve of, or shall permit the same to be used for such other public or quasi public purposes, whether permanent or temporary, as the Trustees, or the majority of them shall from time to time sanction, and in every case, (whether of parochial or other use,) subject to such regulations as the Trustees or the majority of them shall prescribe, provided always, and it is hereby declared, that when and so often as the persons hereby constituted Trustees or any of them or any person or persons hereafter appointed Trustees or a Trustee hereof by virtue of this power, or any statutory power, or by any Court of Law or Equity, or otherwise shall die or become incapable to act in, or desire to retire from the trusts hereof, it shall be lawful for the surviving or continuing Trustees or Trustee, for the time being hereof, (and for the purpose of this power, if there be no other surviving or continuing Trustee, every retiring Trustee willing to act herein shall be considered a continuing Trustee) or, if there be no other donee of this power willing and capable to act herein, for the Archdeacon for the time being of the Archdeaconry of Wilts, and the Vicar, for the time being, of the Church of the Holy Trinity, at Bradford-on- Avon, orin the event of either of them being incapable or unwilling to act, or of their being a vacancy in either office, for one of them to appoint by writing any persons or person being bona-fide members, or a bona-fide member of the Church of England, to be new Trustees or a new Trustee hereof, in the place of the person or persons so dying or being incapable to act, or desiring to retire, and further, that whenever an appointment of new Trustees or of a new Trustee shall be made, the number of Trustees shall be filled up to not less than seven nor more than nine, or as near thereto as can conveniently be done, and further, that the Archdeacon for the time being of the Archdeaconry of Wilts, and the Vicar for the time being of the Church of the Holy Trinity, at Bradford- on-Avon, and each of them shall always be ex-officio Trustees, or an ex-officio Trustee, under these presents, and shall from time to time, as and when it can conveniently be done, be appointed Trustees or a Trustee hereof, under the foregoing power, and in the meantime shall have all the rights and powers of Trustees or a Trustee hereof, although such formal appointment may not have been made nor the trust properly vested in them or him respectively. In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals,” 350 On an Agreement, ' BETWEEN THE ABBESS JOHANNA DE MONTEFORT, AND THE CONVENT OP LACOCK, AND SIR JOHN BLUET, LORD OF LACKHAM, CONCERNING THE ERECTION OF A CHAPEL OF OUR LADY ADJOINING THE ABBEY CHURCH oF Lacock, A.D. 1315. By C. H. Tarsot, Esq. (=a HROUGH the courtesy of Mr. Job Edwards, of Amesbury, } \ icys the possessor of the original, I am enabled to lay before the 1 readers of the Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Maga- zine a very interesting document relating to the Abbey of Lacock. — _ It is an agreement between the abbess Johanna de Montefort and — the convent of Lacock and Sir John Bluet lord of the manor of Lackham in the same parish, whereby the former bind themselves to erect a chapel of Our Lady adjoining the abbey church. It is dated in the last week of August, 1315. It is probable that the building of this chapel was consequent on the appropriation to the Abbey of Bluet’s interest in the rectory of Lacock, in 1310 or 1311. Originally, the two lords of Lacock and Lackham had the alternate presentation to the rectory, and the parish appears practically to have been formed by the coalescence of those manors. The foundress of the Abbey, Ela Countess of Salisbury bestowed her advowson or alternate right of presentation on the Abbey. The probability is that this chapel contained the tomb of Sir John Bluet. The fol- lowing item occurs among the Annual and perpetual Rents, and Burdens paid annually of the Abbey contained in the “ Valor Ec- clesiasticus” (survey of 1535) :— ‘For 30 lb. of wax, bought for the maintenance of four candles daily about the tomb of Sir John Blewett, Knt. generally costing 7d. a lb. £0 17s. 6d.” 1'Vide Annals and Antiquities of Lacock Abbey, by the Rey. W. L. Bowles and John Gough Nichols, pp. 287, 288, 299 and 300. Agreement for Building a Chapel at Lacock. 351 ' And among the Yearly Alms :— “To the poor in money on the feast of Saint Petronilla the Virgin, from the foundation of Sir John Blewett, Knut. on the appropriation of the rectory of Lacock £2 1s, 8d.” The original document is in good condition and clearly written, in Norman French. [I at first supposed that it must have been at one time among the records at Lackham House; but it has been pointed out to me that this copy, sealed by Sir John Bluet, would have been the one retained by the abbess and convent. I cannot feel confident that I have deciphered the whole beyond a doubt; but, with the exception of the endorsement, I have been able to compare my copy cearelully with the original a second time,! and have made it as ac- curate as possible. The contractions of the original are printed at length. I have to express my obligation to the Rev. Canon Jackson and the Rev. Canon Jones for assistance in ascertaining the meaning of some words that were not familiar to me. Before treating of the chapel itself, it will be desirable to give some account of what is known about the abbey church? to which it was attached. The existing remains of the Abbey of Lacock consist of the domestic buildings lying to the north of the church; and, as the latter has been removed, the only traces of it that remain are found i in the south wall of the present house. The church was a work of the thirteenth century, vaulted with stone. Its west wall was in a line with the west side of the cloister court; and from this point it extended eastward at least as far as the eastern wall of the sacristy and chapter-house, in which distance there were six bays, and it is very likely that it projected beyond that line by one bay. It is obvious that it was not cruciform ; but the structural evidence would leave it an open question whether or no it had a south aisle. 1 When the document was exhibited in the temporary museum, at the late necting at Salisbury. As it was under glass I could not re-examine the en- dorsement, which was not visible. The latter is not very clearly written, and ; probably of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It will be noticed that the name Bluet is there spelled Blewett, as in the Valor Ecclesiasticus, 21 have given a short description of it in this Magazine (vol. xii., p. 228) in i paper on Lacock Abbey. The description here given contains facts not then scertained. 352 Agreement for Building a Chapel at Lacock. I infer from the document which is the subject of this paper that it probably had an aisle.1_ This however must be considered a doubtful point. It is evident also, from Aubrey’s statement, that at the time of the dissolution the abbey had bells; * and this implies a belfry, but its site is not known, nor whether it formed part of the original plan or was a subsequent addition. On the north side of the church, in the four westernmost bays, there were lancet windows, one in each bay, by which light was admitted over the roof of the original cloister. In the second bay from the west there was an original doorway from the cloisters, which must have been closed when the present cloister was built;* and the window above it was blocked up,* probably at the same time. In the fourth bay from the west there was an arched doorway, but of what date is not known, which must 11f this was the case, the plan may have borne some resemblance to the con- temporary church of the Hospital of St. Nicholas, at Harnham, which was also a foundation of Ela, Countess of Salisbury. The latter is not vaulted, and ap- pears to have consisted of a main building without any structural distinction of nave and choir, with a western porch, and a continuous north aisle of which the eastern end formed a chapel. I am aware that the arrangement has been supposed to be different. 2 Aubrey says ‘‘ Here was a good ring of bells, which Sir [William] Sharington sold, when he built Rea-bridge to divert the travelling by his house.”” (See Jackson’s Aubrey, p. 90.) Sir William can only have re-builé Ray-bridge, as it is on or very near the site of the bridge of Lacock, mentioned in a grant of the Empress Maud and her son Henry to the monastery de Dro- gonis Fonte, afterwards Stanley Abbey. (See Bowles’ History of Bremhill, p.96.) 3A vaulting shaft of the cloister comes against this doorway. The actual shaft is modern, but copied from the old one, for which it was substituted when the present doorway was made. The Perpendicular builders apparently left no communication with the church at this point. To the west of the jamb of the modern doorway the remains of the original one can be traced, having a seg- mental arch on its inner side, above which a string-course, to be noticed later, appears to have been carried as a hood-moulding. 4 As this is the only one of the four windows that still remains, it is fortunate that during the past year I was able to examine the head of it. It proved to bea rather sharp lancet without external mouldings. It had a centre joint, and one side had settled a little. It was certainly walled up during the existence of the church, for a stone water-pipe which conveyed water from the church roof had been carried down the face of the wall by which it was closed. These curious pipes are thus shown to have been a late addition to the church. The external hood-moulding had been cut off, and portions of it were found amongst the m terial which filled up the window. By C. H. Talbot, Esq. 853 have communicated with the cloister ; and, immediately to the east of it in the same bay, a square-headed doorway which may have communicated with a staircase to the dormitory. In the sixth bay from the west, close to Sherington’s! tower, there is a doorway of the fifteenth century * with a four-centred arch walled up, which communicated with the sacristy. There appears to have been a _ string-course,> running along the wall internally, just below the _ windows, and continued throughout the six bays. There were prob- ably vaulting shafts, which may have been detached, as I cannot see any marks such as might have been left if attached shafts had been cut away. _ The evidence on which these statements about the north wall are ‘made is as follows. The south side of the house was altered in the year 1827. Before that date the north wall of the church remained, from its west end as far as the octagonal tower built by Sir William Sherington. In the course of the alterations a portion of the old wall was taken down, to the level of the cloisters, the lower part being left; and a rectangular projection was built out, with a large oriel window and a buttress, for the purpose of gaining more room in the gallery over the cloister. Near the west end of this gallery an oriel of smaller size was inserted, and between these two points a doorway was made, opening into the cloister, with a shallow oriel over. Another buttress was built between this and the last-men- tioned oriel. Thus the traces of the abbey church are by no means 1 This name was usually spelled Sharington in old times, but it may at the ‘same time have been pronounced Sherington. It is Sheringtone on Sir William’s monument in Lacock Church. It was derived from Sharrington in Norfolk, and I think that familiarity with the name Sherrington in this county may have had an influence in changing the pronunciation. 2 Tt must, however, have succeeded an earlier one, asthe corresponding door- way in the sacristy is Early English. If the church was only six bays long, this doorway must have been inconveniently near the high altar, supposing the latter to have been at the extreme east end. I think, therefore, we have here an argument in favour of there having been at least seven bays. 8The evidence consists of two horizontal courses of freestone, of which the upper and narrower is that from which the projecting string has been cut away. The remains of the westernmost window show that it ran just below the splay of the sill. 354 Agreement for Building a Chapel at Lacock. ; so evident now as they were before these alterations. Fortunately however we have evidence which enables us to supply those features which have disappeared. . Before the alterations were begun, a set of drawings of the whole house were made by the late Mr. John Darley ! of Chippenham, which are valuable as indicating what then existed. They are very neatly executed, but it is evident that many of the details were not drawn out from actual measurement. They therefore must be re- ceived with caution and carefully checked. The drawing of the south | side of the house shows clearly the six bays of vaulting, the four lancet windows, the position of the string-course, the doorway in the second and the two doorways in the fourth bay from the west; but every one of the arches is drawn as four-centred, which would give a totally erroneous idea of the character and date of the church, if we did not know it to be a mistake. The real proportions of the vaulting can be seen in the two bays next Sherington’s tower. When it was taken down, the wall-rib which was bonded into the wall was not removed; but, as it was not intended to be seen, its — projecting part was cut away, and the stones shaved down to the general surface of the wall. Nevertheless, on inspection, their arched outline is plainly visible. All the other features above enu- merated are traceable in different places throughout the wall, with the exception of the arched doorway in the fourth bay from the west, shown in Darley’s drawing, which is not now accessible.” 1T have, by an unfortunate mistake (vol. xii., p. 228, of this Magazine), attributed these drawings to Mr. Harrison, who was the architect employed for the alterations, The drawings are not signed, in accordance with the usual practice, and I was not aware at the time that any had been made by Mr. Darley. 2 It is concealed on the south side by the projecting modern building. Future’ investigation in the cloisters may probably bring it to light. It appears to correspond in position with the east walk of the latter; and, whatever its date, © it must have formed the principal entrance to the church, from the north, after their erection. Of the adjoining square-headed doorway one jamb can be seen, It was opened at the time of the alterations, having previously been walled up, and found to lead into a room which had no other entrance, in which was found only an ash pole, sound in appearance, but which broke on being touched. This room is now inaccessible, but evidently lies within the thick western wall of the sacristy, and I conjecture that it contained a staircase from the dormitor, to the church. (See Mag., vol. xii., p. 224.) By C. H. Talbot, Esq. 355 ‘The north wall of the church is about four feet thick, as was also the west wall, of which a small portion remains,! disguised under the form of a buttress. Internally, the building was more than thirty feet high to the crown of the vaulting; and, as each bay oc- cupied about twenty feet, the whole must have been one hundred and twenty feet long at least, and probably longer. Externally, it is probable that originally at any rate it had ahigh roof. The corbel- table? remains on the north side, and at the north-west angle there has been an octagonal pinnacle.® I now come to the Lady Chapel. Such chapels were frequently added at the east end of a church, forming a prolongation of the main building. In other cases they were placed on one side of the choir. It is evident that this chapel was built on the south side of the church; probably near its eastern end. It was to be fifty-nine feet long by twenty-five and a half feet wide. There were to be four windows, one in each end gable, and two on the south side. When this agreement was written the chapel had been begun. Two of the windows were finished, namely that in one of the gables, and one of those in the side wall, and the two others were begun. The adjacent _ 1 The south face of this buttress, at first sight, appears to be unaltered Early English work ; but, on inspection, it will be seen that the string-courses, &c., are found on its west and south, but not east sides. The explanation is this, the west and east sides are unaltered, being the external and internal faces of of the church wall, and the Early English work on its south face consists of ex- ternal facing-stones, taken from the demolished part, and re-used here to form a finish to the ragged section of the wall. We have thus a slight indication of .e external design, in the west face of this fragment and a buttress niched in the angle adjoining, with the remains of the pinnacle above. This bit of wall may have been left as a precaution, to avoid depriving the adjacent buildings of eir old abutment. 20Qn the south side the corbel-table from the south side of the church has een re-used. Several cf the corbels are evidently original. The balustrade erected above these corbel-tables was probably the work of Sir William herington. The base remains. The engraving by S. and N. Buck, dated 1732, shows t when they sketched the house this pinnacle retained its pyramidal top.. the engraving however may have been made some time after the sketch, and is sry inaccurate, showing lancet windows in all six bays, the modern windows /on one level, and an arched door out of its proper position. 356 Agreement for Building a Chapel at Lacock. old south wall of the church was still standing. In this wall it is probable that there was a single lancet window in each bay, whose point reached close up to the vaulting. Provision is made for the removal of this wall, as high as the points of the windows, and as low as the string-course below their sills, for the purpose of intro- ducing two arches, as wide as possible between the buttresses ; and, apparently to gain greater height in the jambs, they meant to cut part of the old vaulting. I think from this that they were dealing with the low vault of an aisle, and not the main vault of the church. If it had been the latter they surely would have been content with the height available without interfering with the vaulting. The roof was to be of timber, covered with lead, and ceiled and painted internally. Although the chapel was longer than two bays of the abbey church, it was evidently open to the latter for the space of two bays only, about forty feet. The whole chapel was to be finished in twelve years’ time, two-thirds of it in the first eight, and the remaining third in the four following years. The date of the erection of this chapel shows that its character | must have been what we call Decorated, of which period it happens that there is very little work remaining among the abbey buildings. It must have been demolished together with the abbey church, and this was probably done by Sir William Sherington, on his commencing the conversion of the former monastery into a manor house. I have not found any documentary evidence of the fact; but the erection of the tower by him is in itself evidence enough, for the eastern part of the church must first have been removed. Probably its stones were re-used for his new work throughout the house. TExT OF THE AGREEMENT. “Ceo est le covenaunt feat entre Dame Johanne de mounfort abbesse de lacoke e covent de mesme le lyu dune part E monsire sire Johan Bluet seigneur de lacham dautrepart Ceo est asavoir ge les avauntdites abbesse e covent o lour successeres frount feare e parfeare une chapele de nostre Dame en lour abbeye de lacoke Quele chapele se joynt a lour haut Eglise de mesme labbeye E si serra La chapele de la longure de cynkaunte e neof pez e de la largesce de vynt @ cynke e demi E serront en lavauntdite chapele quatre fenestres Ceo est asavoir en chescun gable une fenestre si large com la une est feate e chevie e lautre com elle est comencee serra bien feat e finie e en Le forein costee de layauntdite By C. H. Talbot, Esq. 857 chapele la une soit telle com elle est feat e cheyie e lautre si large com elle est eomencee serra feat e finie de bone overaigue e covenable E serront les ayaunt- dites fenestres covenablement ferrees e verrees E serra le veul mur abatuz de la poynte des deus fenestres qe furent e parerent le jour de la fesaunce de cest escript en le mur avauntdit taunke a la renge table* prochein de soutz les bas de memes les fenestres E serront deus arches feates la ou le mur issi serra abatuz si large ceo est asavoir com bien e enseurement purra estre soeffers entre les deus rachemenz t issi ge la veille voute purra estre sawne sanz peril E frount les avauntditz abbesse e covent o lour successeres feare le comble de mesme la chapele de bon merym J e covenable overaygue E de tel manere coumble com- menuz plerra al avauntditz abbesse e covent o lour successeres E serra lavauntdite chapele ceo est asavoir le comble covert de plum bien e covenablement E serra le coumble de denz lavauntdite chapele tot bien laumbresche e depeynt E serra les deus parties de lavauntdite chapele feate e parfeate en totes overaigues com sus est dit Del jour de seynt michel en lan du regne le roy Edward filz au roi Edward neofyme de denz Jes vst§ aunz procheinz ensuvaunt pleinementz soient acompliez E la terce partie de la chapele avauntdite serra enseure~ ment feate e parfeate de denz les quatre annz procheinz apres les vst annz avauntditz pleinementz soient acompliez en chescune manere de overaigue com sus est dit E si lavauntdite chapele ne soit feate e parfeate e en totes over- aigues chevye e finie bien e covenablement en touz poynz com sus est dit ge dieux defende aydunge serra les avauntditz abbesse e covent o lour successeres tenuz alavauntdit monsire sire Johan ou a ses excecutours en deus cent mares -dargent Des queux deus cent mares les ayauntditz abbesse e covent ount feat e livere a monsire sire Johan Bluet de ceo un obligacion E si le overaigue avaunt- dite soit feate e parfeate en totes manere choses chevies e finies denz le tenps avauntdit serra labesse e covent e lour successeres quites e assoutz des deus cent mares avauntditz compiert || en une lettre al ayauntditz abbesse e covent par layauntdit monsire sire Johan de ceo feat E lavauntdit monsire sire Johan Bluet veult e graunte pur luy e pur ses heirs e pur ses excecutours ge ehescune manere de covenaunt feat ayaunt le jour de la fesaunce de cest eseript tochaunt chescune manere de overaigue de lavaunt nomee chapele soit esteynt e tenuz pur nul [E enseurement un obligacion des deus cent mares ge lavauntditz abbesse e covent avoient feat a monsire sire Johan Blnet avaunt la fesaunce de cest escript soit veoud e a totes gentz tenuz pur nul] E pur ceo ge les avauntdites parties voelent dunepart e dautre ge les avauntditz covenaunz en totes choses susdites soient fermes e estables A cest escript endente entrechaunjablement ** ount mys lour seals par iceaux . ® Renge table, range table, probably what we call a string-course, +Rachemenz. The sense requires some such word as buttress. I findin the Concise Glossary of Architecture ‘* Ratchements of a herse, a kind of flying buttresses which spring from the corner - principals and meet against the central or chief principal.” + This is an altered form of the Latin materiamen, maremium, or meremium (old French merrien, marren, &c.), signifying timber fit for building houses, (Glossarium manuale, Du Fresne, Du Cange, &c. s. v. materia.) 2Judging from the dates given in the attached writing (see below) this word should mean eight. !| Equivalent to the Latin compertus. { The words enclosed in brackets are erased in the original. ** This word is written, and might have been printed, entreehauniablement : jour also is written dour which form occurs in early printing. I am uncertain how joynt is written, not being able to refer to the original, so have printed in all cases. 358 Agreement for Building a Chapel at Lacock. tesmoignes Sire Wauter de pavely Sire Johan de hales sire Johan de la mare Chivalers Johan tourpyn Johan de stodleghe Johan percehaye Johan de Bour- leghe e autres Done a Lacoke le Jeody procheyn apres la feste seynt bartolomeu * lan du regne le roi Edward filz au roi Edward neofyme.”’ Appended is a seal which is slightly imjured, and on it is a shield bearing the arms of Bluet, a two-headed eagle, with the legend (SIGI)LLVM . JOHIS . BLV(ET), and two dragons filling the space between the seal and the legend. There is the following endorsement :— ‘‘Indentura convencionis facte inter Blewett et Abbatissam de lacok pro nova construcione Capelle beate marie intra monasterium predictum.” The following writing is attached :— ‘Fait assavoir ge le temps qe remenit uncore a parfaire la chapele nostre dame amounte de la feste seint michel prochein passe Lan de la Incarnacion nostre seigneur mil . ccc . xxj. taunge a sys annz prochein suvyauntz e de mesmes la feste seint michel taunge la feste de la translacion seint Thomas le martir apres les sys annz + Tachez ceste escroucite al escrit ge touche mesme la matire.” TRANSLATION. This is the covenant made between the Lady Johanna de Mounfort abbess of Lacoke and the convent of the same place of the one part, and Sir John Bluet lord of Lacham of the other part: That is to say that the aforesaid abbess and convent or their successors will cause to be made and perfected a chapel of Our Lady in their abbey of Lacoke, which chapel adjoins their high church of the same abbey ; And thus shall the chapel be, of the length of fifty- nine feet and of the breadth of twenty-five and a half ; And there shall be in the aforesaid chapel four windows, that is to say in each gable one window so large as the one is made and finished, and the other asit is begun shall be well made and finished, and in the further side of the aforesaid chapel let the one be such as it is made and finished, and the other so large as it is begun shall be made and finished of good and suitable work; And the aforesaid windows shall be suitably fitted with iron and glass; And the old wall shall be beaten down from the point of the two windows which were and appeared on the day of the making of this writing in the aforesaid wall as far as the range table next below the bases of the same windows ; And two arches shall be made where the wall shall be beaten down so large that is to say as well and surely can be allowed between the two buttresses where the old vault can be sawn without danger; And the aforesaid abbess and convent or their successors shall cause the roof of the same chapel to be made of good timber and suitable work and a *The feast of St. Bartholomew was the 24th of August. This, in the ninth year of Edward II., gives the date 1315. +The time which was left for finishing the chapel, when this was written, ran from September 29th, 1321, to July 7th, 1328, (the feast of the translation of St. Thomas 4 Becket next afte Michaelmas, 1327.) ; By C. H. Talbot, Esq. 359 roof of such kind as shall please the aforesaid abbess and convent or their successors; And the aforesaid chapel, that is to say the roof, shall be covered with lead well and suitably ; And the roof within the aforesaid chapel shall be all well ceiled and painted ; And the two parts of the aforesaid chapel shall be made and perfected in all works as is above said from the day of Saint Michael in the ninth year of the reign of king Edward son of king Edward, within the eight years next following fully to be accomplished ; And the third part of the aforesaid chapel shall be surely made and perfected within the four years next after the eight years aforesaid fully to be accomplished, in every kind of work as is abovesaid; And if the aforesaid chapel shall not be made and perfected and in all works completed and finished well and suitably in all points as is abovesaid, which God forbid, then the aforesaid abbess and convent or their successors shall be bound to the aforesaid Sir John or to his executors in two hundred marks of silver, of which two hundred marks the aforesaid abbess and convent have made and delivered to Sir John Bluet a bond; And if the aforesaid work sball be made and perfected in all manner of things completed and finished in the time aforesaid the abbess and convent and their successors shall be quit and released from the two hundred marks aforesaid stipulated in a writing made about this by the aforesaid Sir John Bluet to the aforesaid ‘abbess and convent; And the aforesaid Sir John Bluet wills and grants for himself and for his heirs and for his executors that every kind of agreement made before the day of the making of this writing touching every kind of work of the abovenamed chapel shall be extinguished and held for nothing. [And certainly a bond of the two hundred marks which the aforesaid abbess and ‘eonvent had made to Sir John Bluet before the making of this writing shall be void and to all persons held for nothing.]* And, because the aforesaid parties will on the one part and on the other that the aforesaid covenants in all matters abovesaid may be firm and stable, they have interchangeably set their seals to this indenture by these witnesses, Sir Walter de Pavely, Sir John de Hales, Sir John de La Mare, knights, John Tourpyn, John de Stodleghe, John Percehaye, John de Bourleghe, and others. Given at Lacoke, the Thursday next after the feast of Saint Bartholomew, in the ninth year of the reign of king Edward son of king Edward. Endorsement :— Indenture of an agreement made between Blewett and the Abbess of Lacok for the new construction of a Chapel of the Blessed Mary within the aforesaid monastery. Writing attached :— Done to let it be known that the time that remains yet to perfect the chapel of Our Lady amounts from the feast of Saint Michael last past, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord mcccxxr, as far as six years next following ; and from the same feast of Saint Michael as far as the feast of the translation of Saint Thomas the martyr, after the six years. Fasten this writing to the writing that touches the same matter. * The words enclosed in brackets are erased in the original, F agyaustire Stebel & Tater . ie SOCIETY. Oty er ——_—_—_—__——F ——— 1876. Patron: Tur Most HonovrasteE THE Marauis or LaNsDOWNE. Presivent : Sim Jonn Luszock, Barr., M.P., F.R.S., &c., &c. Uiee-Presivents : The Most Hon. the Marguis oF The Rev. Canon Jackson. AILESBURY. j Sir Joun Neexp, Bart. Sir Jonn WitHer AwDRY. The Right Hon. the Earn Nezson, Wittram Brackmore, Esq. R. Parry Nisset, Esq. Wittram Cunnineton, Esq. CHARLES PENRUDDOCKE, Esq. Gaxsriet Goitpney, Esq., M.P. W. H. Poynner, Esq. > General Wonorary Secretaries ; The Rev. A. C. Smrru, Yatesbury Rectory, Calne. Cuarxtes H. Tatsot, Esq., Lacock Abbey, Chippenham. E. T. Stevens, Esq., Salisbury. ; Committee : T. B. Anstre, Esq., Devizes. Rev.CanonJonss, Bradford-on-Avon. H. Brown, Esq., Blacklands Park. H. E. Mepuicorr, Esq., Sandfield, RoserrT Crakk, Esq., Devizes. Potterne. W. Hrtrrer, Esq., Devizes. ALexaNDER MEEK, Esq., Devizes. Rey. C. W. Hony, Bishops Cannings. | H. A. MerzweTuer, Esq., Bowden JosePH Jackson, Esq., Devizes. Hill. Rev. H. A. OxiviER, Poulshot Rectory. ie Curators of Henry Cunnineton, Esq,, Devizes. Museum. Local Wonorary Hecretaries : ; G. ALEXANDER, Esq., Highworth. J. E. NreHTrncaLEr, Esq., Wilton. H. E. Astiry,jEsq., Hungerford. J. Nores, Esq., Chippenham. W. Forrester, Esq., Malmesbury. The Rev. W. C. PLENDERLEATH, N. J. Hienmorr, Esq., M.D., Brad- Cherhill. ‘ Sord-on-Avon. The Rev. T. A. Preston, Marl- H. Kinnetrr, Esq., Swindon. borough. The Rev. G. S. Master, West Dean, J. Fartey Rurter, Esq., Mere. Salisbury. J. R. SHopranD, Esq., Purton. _ W. F. Morean, Esq., Warminster. H. J. F. Swayne, Esq., Wilton. Financial Secretary: : Mr. Wri11am Nort, 15, High Street, Devizes. Tue Society was established in 1853, for the collection. of information relating to the Archeology and Natural History of Wiltshire, with a view to the completion of a history of the county. A General Meeting is held in a different part of the county each year. A Magazine has been established as a medium of intercourse, and 16 volumes (comprising 48 numbers) have been issued, in addition to Canon Jackson’s edition of Aubrey’s Wiltshire Collections, and a Report of the Plackmore Museum. Premises in Long Street, Devizes, have been purchased by the Society, and fitted up as a Museum and Library for the reception and preservation of objects of Natural History, Antiquity, Drawings, Models, MSS., Works of Reference, &c., &c., and there the Society’s present Collections are, and any future additions thereto will be, available to its Members. The General Meetings have all been very numeronsly attended ; the fol- lowing being the localities which have been visited :— DevyizEs, 1853. Swinpon, 1860, CHIPPENHAM, 1869, SALISBURY, 1854. SHAFTESBURY, 1861. Witton, 1870. CHIPPENHAM, 1855. Matmessoury, 1862. TROWBRIDGE, 1872, WakMInsTER, 1856. Devizes, 1863. Swinpon, 1873. _Braprorp, 1857. SaLIsBuRY, 1865. Devizes, 1874. MaxzBoroues, 1859. HUNGERFORD, 1867. SaLIsBuRY, 1876. The Terms of Membership are: ' £8. d. For Dire MEMBERS) "so joc cs esc ccde seed eeecd, LO MOG For AnnvuaL Susscrisers.,.Annual Subscription 010 6 Ditto A Bos 482 Entrance Fee 010 6 Members, from the time of their admission, are supplied with the Magazine gratis ; while to Non-Members it is charged 5s. 6d. per Number. The names of intending new Members will be received by the General Honorary Secretaries, or by the Financial Secretary, Mr. Witt1am Nort, Devizes, of whom any information as to the objects or rules of the Society may be obtained, WN iltshire FALrchwolagicnl ant Watural Ker istory Suriety. RUGES. I.—This Society shall be called “ The Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society.” Its object shall be 1. To collect and publish information— On the Antiquities of Wiltshire; including Ancient Monuments, Architecture, Manorial History, Ecclesiastical History and Endowments, Records; and all other matters usually comprised under the name of Archeology. On the Natural History of the County; its Geology, Botany, Ornithology, &c. 2. To preserve, by the formation of a Library and Museum, illustrations of its History; viz., published works, manuscripts, drawings, models, and specimens, &c. ' II.—The Society shall consist of a Patron; a President, elected for three years; Vice-Presidents ; general and district or local Secretaries; and a Treasurer elected at each Anniversary Meeting ; with a Committee of twelve, six of whom shall go out annually by rotation, but may be re-elected, a person shall be elected on the Committee until he shall have been six months a Member of the ciety, IlI.—Anniversary General Meetings shall be held for the purpose of electing the Officers, of re- ceiving the report of the Committee for the past year, of reading papers and reports, and of transacting all other necessary business, at such time and place as the Committee shall appoint, of which meeting a fortnight’s notice shall be given to the Members. IV.—Members shall have the privilege of introducing friends to all Meetings of the Society, in such numbers and on such terms as the Committee for the time being may fix at a preliminary meeting. V.—The Committee is empowered to call Special General Meetings of the Society, upon receiving a requisition signed by ten Members. Three weeks’ notice of such Special Meeting, and its object shall be given to each Member. Vi.—The property of the Society shall be deposited at Devizes, and shall be vested in thirteen Trustees, in trust, for the purposes of the Society ; and shall not be disposed of or made applicable for any other purpose, except with the consent of five-sixths of the subscribers; and shall not be disposed of or severed, so long as any Society exists in the county, having in view objects similar to those of this Society; and whenever the number of the Trustees shall be reduced to five, the vacancies shall be supplied at a general meeting. VII.—The affairs of the Suciety shall be directed by the Committee (of which the Officers shall be ex-officio members), who shall haye the management and application of the funds of the Society ; aud meetings of the Committee shall be held monthly, or quarterly, as may be found expedient, for receiving reports from the Secretaries and Sub-Committees, and for transacting other necessary business: three of the Committee shall be a quorum; Members may attend the Committee Meetings after the official business has been transacted. VIII.—The Chairman at Meetings of the Society shall have a casting vote, in addition to his vote as a Member. IX.—One (at least) of the Secretaries shall attend each Meeting, and shall keep a record of its proceedings All manuscripts and communications, and the other property of the Society, shall be under the charge of the Secretaries. X.—Candidates tor admission as Members, shall be proposed by two Members at any of the General or Committee Meetings, and the election shall be determined by ballot at the next Com- mittee or General Meeting ; three-fourths of the Members present, balloting, shall elect. The Rules of the Society shall be subseribed by every person becoming a Member. XI.—Ladies shall be eligible as Members of the Society, without ballot, being proposed by two Members, and approved by the majority of the Meeting. XII.—Each Member shall pay Ten Shillings and Sixpence on admission to the Society; and Ten Shillings and Sixpence as an Annual Subscription, which shall become due on the first of January in each year, and shall be paid in advance. XIII.—Donors of Ten Guineas, or upwards, shall be Members for Life. XIV.—At General Meetings of the Society, the Committee may recommend persons eminent for preix literary, or scientific acquirements, to be balloted for as Honorary, or Corresponding Mem- Ts. XV.—When any office shall become vacant, or any appointment shall be requisite, the Committee shall have power to fill up the same; such appointments shall remain in force only to the next General Meeting, when they shall be either confirmed or annulled. XVI.—The Treasurer shall receive all subscriptions and donations made to the Society, and shall pay all accounts passed by the Committee: he shall keep a book of receipts and payments, which e shall produce whenever the Committee shall require it: the accounts shall be audited previously tothe Anniversary Meeting, by two Members of the Committee chosen for that purpose, and an abstract of them shall be read at the Meeting. XVII.—No change shall be madein the laws of the Society, except at a General or Special Meeting, at which twelve Members, at least, shall be present Of the proposed change a month’s notice shall be given to the Secretaries, who shall communicate the same to each Member three weeks before the Meeting. XVIII.—Papers read at Meetings of the Society, and considered by the Committee of sufficient interest for publication, will be printed (with the author’s consent), in such manner as shall be deter- mined by the Committee to be the best for the purpose, for gratutious distribution, or otherwise, to the Members of the Society ; and for such price to the public as may be agreed upon. XIX —No religious or political discussions shall be permitted at Meetings of the Society; nor any topics of a similar nature admitted into the Society’s publications. XX.—That any person contributing books, or specimens, to the Museum, shall be at liberty to re- sume possession of them, in the event of the property of the Society ever being cold, or transferred, otherwise than to any similar society in the county Also persons shall have liberty to deposit books, or specimens, for a specific time only. EE ee WILTSHIRE ARCHAOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY. Account of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Society, from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1875, both days inclusive. DR. CR. RECEIPTS. £s a DISBURSEMENTS, £&s. ad, 1875. To balance brought from last account ............ 240 14 8 1875, By sundry payments, including Postage, Carriage, », Cash, Entrance Fees and Subscriptions received Advertising; KOs) sccsisacscinseeesesewsovelny > 10 Mane from Members.........ccececccsescccsecse 164 6 8 » Ditto Printing and Stationery ................ 8318 0 » Ditto received for sale of Magazines .......... 1716 7 », Cash paid for Books ..........e.c0ccecccsece 00 0 » Ditto for Jackson’s Aubrey ........cecceccece 210 0 »» Ditto Printing, Engraving, &c., on », Ditto Net proceeds Devizes Meeting 1874, in account of Magazine Nos, 41 to 44, addition to lls. 6d. credited on last account.. 20 7 0 balance ...sesccccces cxsseoes 6119 @ » Ditto received for admissions to Museum ...... 815 6 » Ditto ditto No. 45...... 46 2 10 108 2 6 », Furniture and Fittings at Museum., 8 9 3 », Miscellaneous Expenses at ditto.... 2 9 6 », Attendant at ditto 53 weeks.... ... 1811 0 Gr cPRMPBHUES .onisn ge soca dasivesede a: Gaal! », Land and Property Tax............ 1 2 2 30°15 6 yy Commission, &c. .....cececccveccesesecesees 18 4 8 » Balance in hand * .....ccseccseccccncsscees 208 2 2 £449 10 0 £449 10 0 * There is a balance of £184 5s. 0d. due to the Treasurer on the Museum Building Ac t, ; Eve WILLIAM NOTT, Financial Secretary. os Jo nee se ee SY 23 Soh ES is ert