^{page 285 note a} Archæologia, xlii. 161—244.

^{page 285 note b} Some may have been botontini. Archæologia, xlii. 143—156. Yorks. Arch. Journ. ii. 75.

^{page 286 note a} Vit. Agric. c. xxi.

^{page 286 note b} The six Anglo-Saxon barrows are described in Ancient Wilts, i. 46, 48, 174 (barrow levelled), 234, 235 ; vol. ii. Roman Æra, p. 26 (skeleton not found).

^{page 286 note c} The three possibly Romano-British barrows are described i. 65, 78, 243.

^{page 286 note d} These five secondary Anglo-Saxon interments are described i. 79, 100, 113, 194, 236. Sir R. C. Hoare did not recognise these interments as Anglo-Saxon, though he discriminated them from those of the more ancient British, and speaks of them as “of a much later period,” being disposed to assign them to the “Belgic or Romanised Britons” (p. 235). Elsewhere (p. 101) he says their era “cannot be satisfactorily ascertained.” Douglas, in his Nenia Britannica (1793), as Hoare was himself aware (Ancient Wilts, i. 47), had attributed similar barrows to the Saxons, an attribution which has been fully confirmed by the researches of antiquaries of the present century. In one passage Sir Richard doubts Douglas's attribution, but this is an error from which his own researches in this field were not numerous enough to protect him, and as to which all that can be said is that he was not in advance of his time.

It has been the fashion to insist too much on this mistake, and to decry Sir Richard Hoare's researches, as having classified the barrows “according to their outward forms ” (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. ii. 50 ; Wright's Celt, Roman, and Saxon, 1st ed. p. 50). His main conclusions, however, are founded on their internal contents, and are, I believe, quite correct. He considered the long barrows to be more ancient than the circular ; whilst these latter were regarded by him as the sepulchral memorials of those he terms the Celtic and first colonists, some being referred to the subsequent colony of the Belgæ. He believed that few, if any, of the barrows he examined were of the period subsequent to the Roman invasion, when he thought burial in tumuli, at least in this part of Britain, ceased. The barrows so numerous in Kent, described by Douglas as Saxon, were recognised by Hoare as belonging to a much later period than those of Wiltshire, and sound reasons were assigned by him for this opinion. Ancient Wilts, i. 28; ii. 112.

^{page 286 note e} Archæologia, xlii. 196. The Anglo-Saxon interment, two feet from the summit of the “colossal barrow ” at Winterslow Hut, opened by the Rev. A. B. Hutchins, was similarly accompanied by shield and bucket. Hoare, Modern Wilts, v. 209.

^{page 287 note a} Since Sir R. C. Hoare's researches very few Anglo-Saxon interments have been found in the county. There is, however, the barrow on Roundway Down (described in Pagan Saxondom, p. 1, Wilts Arch, and Nat. Hist. Mag. vi. 164), and the extensive cemetery at Harnham explored by Mr. J. Y. Akerman in 1853. Archæologia, xxxv. 259. The rarity of sepulchral traces of the Roman period in the same county is equally remarkable. One or two Boman coffins of stone have been found at North Wraxall; but the cemeteries of Sorbiodunum, Cunetio, and Verlucio remain to be discovered.

^{page 287 note b} In a table of interments from Sir R. C. Hoare's Ancient Wiltshire, given in Prehistoric Times, p. 101, Sir John Lubbock enumerates eleven with iron implements, in seven of which the skeleton was extended, and in four the position uncertain. There is some little discrepancy here between Sir John's and my own analysis of the same data; but in general these eleven interments correspond with the nine barrows and five secondary interments, with iron implements or weapons, which I class as Anglo-Saxon or Roman, and exclude from further consideration.

^{page 288 note a} In this number are included a considerable number of tumuli excavated by Mr. Cunnington before he was associated with Sir Richard Hoare; some explored by the late Rev. Edward Duke; as well as a few examined in the last century by Lord Pembroke and Dr. Stukeley, the details of nearly all of which are given in the great work of the Wiltshire Baronet. With the exception of a group of tumuli, thirty-three in number, at Woodyates, just beyond the borders of the county (Ancient Wilts, i. 236), all are in Wiltshire. Even as to these last, they seem to belong in character to Wiltshire and the Belgæ, rather than to Dorset and the Durotriges.

^{page 288 note b} Prehistoric Times, p. 101.

^{page 288 note c} The exact number is not certain; for, although the Anglo-Saxon barrows are included in Sir John Lubbock's analysis, it is doubtful whether the Long Barrows are so or not. It is, moreover, uncertain whether secondary interments are included. In my tables, with slight exception, what may probably be regarded as primary interments are alone taken.

^{page 288 note d} Tables 1 and 2, relating to Long Barrows, will be found in the previous communication.

^{page 290 note a} The number classed as “bowl-shaped ” (278) is the maximum number, and may err to some extent on the side of excess. Not to insist on other sources of error, it is far from improbable that some of the larger barrows so classed may originally have been of bell-shape, and have lost their campaniform character in the course of agricultural operations. As, however, the great majority are on the unbrolgsn downs, this cause cannot have operated to any great extent.

^{page 291 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 124 (²⁵); 162 (³¹).

^{page 291 note b} MS. letter to the Eev. B. Richardson, of Farley, dated 1803, preserved in the library at Stourhead. “Collections for Wilts. Castles and Camps,” p. 1. The barrow especially in Cunnington's mind was no doubt that at Upton Lovel, described by him, Archæologia, xv. 123. Dr. Stukeley also believed the low and less elevated tumuli to be the most ancient, and speaks of them as “flat old-fashioned barrows.” Stonehenge, p. 46. Abury, p. 45. See also his sketches of the forms of barrows in the former memoir. Archæologia, xlii. 164. Plates xi. and xii.

^{page 292 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 118 (⁷), 122 (¹⁵, ¹⁶), 165 (⁵¹), 201 (¹⁵⁵), 202 (¹⁵⁶), 209 (¹⁸) ; ii. 90 (³, ⁴). Archæologia, xv. 126, Plate xv. where is a figure of “the great” bell-barrow of Upton Lovell.

^{page 292 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 162 (³⁰), 205 (¹⁶⁴). “The two largest barrows “in Wiltshire appear to be those near Winterslow Hut; one called “colossal,” by Mr. Hutchins. Hoare, Ancient Wilts, i. 217 ; Modern Wilts, v. 209, 211.

^{page 292 note c} Abury, p. 41.

^{page 292 note d} Ancient Wilts, ii. 110.

^{page 293 note a} Of the thirty bell-shaped barrows 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 quœ vivis cordi fuisse arbitrantur,” (Cæsar, B.G. vi. 19,) declined as the Britons advanced in civilisation; and that, in place thereof, they bestowed more pains on the form of the monumental tumulus.

^{page 293 note b} This is the more to be regretted, as Sir Richard says he retained the name merely for distinction sake, and not from the faintest supposition that these mounds were appropriated to the Druids. He adds, “I have strong reason for supposing they were the tombs of females, as we generally find beads and other small ornaments in them.” Ancient Wilts, i. 21; ii. 110; Tumuli Wiltunenses, p. 6; Comp. Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 332.

^{page 293 note c} One on Pound Down, near Shepherd's Shore, is about fifty feet in diameter. One at West Everley, opened by me in 1854, measures 120 feet; that near Beckhampton, encroached upon by the Roman road between Cunetio and Verlucio, 150 feet. One, still larger, at Woodyates, has a diameter of more than 190 feet; and another, at Idmiston, reaches 194 feet. For these two last see Ancient Wilts, i. 217, 238 (⁸).

^{page 294 note a} In four instances only, out of thirty-six, were there unequivocal signs of urn-burial in the place of primary interment. Hoare himself notices the extreme rarity of cinerary urns in the disc-shaped barrows (Ancient Wilts, i. 173). This passage has been wrested from its meaning by Dr. Hibbert (Arch. Scot. iii. 49 ; comp. Arch. Journ. xxiv. 261). Sir Eichard is speaking solely of disc-shaped barrows, and nowhere asserts that urns with the remains of females are rare.

^{page 294 note b} The remaining (thirty-sixth) barrow is said to have contained “a skeleton” (Ancient Wilts, i. 243(²⁸)); but the primary deposit may have been overlooked, and this may have been a secondary interment of a later age, as was clearly the case in another disc-shaped barrow (i. 113 (¹), in which the burnt bones had been disturbed to make room for an Anglo-Saxon interment of an entire body having an iron knife near the feet. In a subsidiary mound within the area of another barrow of this form (i. 208 (⁷), were “the relics of the skeleton of a youth and fragments of a drinking cup;” but, as to this disturbed interment, the evidence is inconclusive.

^{page 294 note c} Sir Eichard Hoare (Ancient Wilts, i. 166 bis, 207), speaks of these objects as the heads of lances ; they are more probably the blades of two-edged knives, worn in sheaths appended to the waist. A fourth still smaller blade he describes and figures (Ancient Wilts, i. 238, plate xxxii. fig. 1) as an “arrow-head” of bronze. It closely resembles one modern form of desk-knife used for erasures.

^{page 295 note a} This view has been recently maintained, with great ingenuity, by the Rev. W. C. Lukis, F.S.A. (See Wilts Arch. and Nat. Hist. Mag. x. 98, where a plate of disc-shaped barrows in section is given.) It is possible that the second and third varieties of disc-shaped barrow have originated from a precedent tumulus of the first simple form; but bowl and bell-barrows can hardly have resulted from accretions to a discshaped tumulus.

^{page 295 note b} The disc-shaped barrows opened by myself are nine in number, viz., one on West Kennet Down, and one on West Everley Down, both with central mounds, but unproductive, so far as my excavations went (Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 331, 332); one on Milton Down, with two central mounds, one of these affording an interment of burnt bones in a small circular cist; and six on Beckhampton Down (not shown on any map), two of which, having central mounds, were productive of interments after cremation, and four, two with and two without central mounds, unproductive ; all six had been previously disturbed.

^{page 295 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 162 (³³).

^{page 295 note d} See Tabular Classification of Barrows in the former paper, Archæologia, xlii. 168.

^{page 296 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 22. It is his last and twelfth form of tumulus. “XII. Long Barrow, No. 2.”

^{page 296 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 241 (¹⁰); 242 (²²). Other examples occur at i. 41 (⁴), 168 (¹¹²), and 191 (¹²). Out of Wiltshire, the only oval barrow I have seen is in the well-known group called the Seven Barrows, at Lambourn, Berkshire. Wise calls this a long barrow. Letter to Dr. Mead, 1738, p. 39.

^{page 296 note c} Another oval tumulus on Draycot Hill, North Wilts, is correctly described by Sir Richard Hoare (vol. ii. p. 11) as having three depressions at equal distances, indicating as many places of interment. This was opened by me, August 20, 1863, when two simple deposits of burnt bones were found in cists in the chalk rock, corresponding to the eastern and central depressions. If any corresponded to the western depression it was not reached by our excavations. There were no ornaments or other relics.

^{page 296 note d} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 162. Barrow No. 6 on map, Cran. Brit. pl. 43, xxxi. p. (2).

^{page 297 note a} Proc. Soc. Antiq. 1864, 2 S. ii. 427. Reprinted in Wilts Arch. Mag. xi. 40. The barrow is No. 49 of “Map of Stonehenge and its Environs,” and Ancient Wilts, i. 165.

In the paper here referred to I classed as oval that called “Kill-barrow,” near Tilshead, opened by me in 1865. Though of much larger size (170 feet long), it resembles, both as to its external and internal features, a barrow on Shrewton Down, near Stonehenge, described by Hoare. (Ancient Wilts, i. 117(³). In both the broader end is directed to the east, and both when excavated at this end yielded deposits of burnt bones covered and intermixed with a substance resembling mortar; many of the bones being tinged of a green colour. At Kill-barrow it was clear that several bodies had been burnt very imperfectly, some of the bones being merely charred. Others were stained of so brilliant a green and blue, that it was thought objects of bronze had been burnt or buried with them; but none were found, and the chemical tests applied yielded no traces of copper. Under a pile of a white friable substance, like half-dried shelly mortar, were curious masses of a sort of ossiferous breccia; the burnt human bones, black, white, blue and green, being closely cemented by calcareous matter. No interment could be found near the west end ; and there was none in the Shrewton tumulus in this situation. I am now convinced that both are long barrows, and not oval ones as I had supposed. 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. They must clearly be added to the list of explored long barrows, which is thus raised from thirty-one to thirty-three, whilst the number presenting imperfect cremation is increased from three to five. (See previous memoir, “Unchambered Long Barrows,” Archæologia, xlii. 180, 191—3. Reprints, p. 20,31—34.) A specimen of the breccia from Killbarrow has been added to the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury.

^{page 297 note b} In the diagrams the dots in the centre of the circles will represent so many places of primary sepulture.

^{page 298 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 22, “VII. Twin Barrow.”

^{page 298 note b} See Archæologia, xlii. 164, plate xi.

^{page 298 note c} Stonehenge, p. 44, and plate xxxv. This twin barrow I believe to be that depicted in Stukeley's sketches of barrows in the preceding memoir, plate xi. No. 20 : comp. plate xii. Nos. 7, 12, 13. It is No. 29 of Sir Kichard Hoare's large “Map of Stonehenge and its Environs,” and is described, Ancient Wilts, i. 161. Another instance of confluent twin barrow, if my notes and memory do not deceive me, is to be found in the fine group called “The Seven Barrows,” on Lambourn Down, near the White Horse, Berkshire.

^{page 299 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 161 (²⁹), 185 (²⁴), 193 (⁷), 200 (147), 211 (^14,15), Plate of “Barrows on Lake Down.” Another twin barrow is that near Winterslow Hut, Modern Wilts., v. 209.

^{page 299 note b} Wilts Arch. Mag. 1860, vi. 317, 330.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note c} The triple barrow at Shepherd's Shore is described by Mr. R. Falkner in Archæologia, xxxii. 457. The bank of earth by which the apices of the three tumuli are connected is probably nothing more than a modern boundary dyke, which stretches for some distance over the down to the north. This triplet seems to have been excavated by Sir R. C. Hoare and Mr. Cunnington, but the description is rather vague. (Ancient Wilts, ii. 92. Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 317.) If so, it is probably referred to by Hoare as “a small tumulus placed in the centre between two of much larger dimensions.”

^{page 299 note d} That on Milton Down differs from the two others, in the small central mound not being included within the ditches which respectively surround the two principal bell-shaped barrows. The three evidently form an associated sepulchre, but scarcely constitute a true triplet as defined above.

^{page 299 note e} Archæologia, xlii. 165, plate xii.

^{page 300 note a} Ancient Wilts, ii. 90. Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 330. The polyandry of the Britons described by Caesar is not the mere monstrous calumny sometimes supposed, and cannot with probability be denied. See McLennan, Primitive Marriage, 1865, p. 181, 195, et passim.

^{page 300 note b} See Archæologia, xlii. p. 165, plate xii. fig. 1.

Ibid. plate xi. figs. 1,2.

The same applies to the separate graves in the composite oval barrows.

^{page 300 note d} It appears to be that called “Bard's” in Stukeley's sketches, Archæologia, xlii. 164, plate xi. fig 3.

^{page 301 note a} Stukeley, indeed, in his sketches (Archæologia, xlii. plate xii. fig. 11, “King's later”) shows a tumulus of the bell form with a bank outside the inclosing ditch, as in the disc-barrow. Not having seen such myself, I suspect an error; but, if the view alluded to in the text were correct, we ought to find many barrows combining the characters of these two distinct types. The nearest approach to such a tumulus I know of is described, Ancient Wilts, i. 65. It is essential to discriminate modern alterations in the form of tumuli. Three conspicuous bell or ditched—bowl barrows-Bush-barrow, near Stonehenge, Culliford-tree barrow, Dorset, and one of the Seven-barrows at Lambourn, Berks—having been planted with trees, have been inclosed by a bank within the ditch, being the reverse of the position of the original bank and ditch in disc-barrows.

^{page 301 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 121, plate. See the revised copy of this plate in the former paper, Part I. Long Barrows, Archæologia, xlii. 171, plate xiii. Deducting one long barrow, and two so-called “pond barrows,” this group consists of twenty-four circular tumuli. Of these seventeen are bowl-, two bell-, and five disc-shaped.

^{page 302 note a} Bateman, Vestiges, 1848, p. 45; Ten Years' Diggings, 1861, p. 128, 133, 165. Mr. Bateman informed me that with one exception (Elk Low) these exceptionally formed mounds were Anglo-Saxon. This statement seems at variance with the published details. The only instance of a bell-shaped barrow instanced to me by Mr. Bateman is that called Gib Hill, (Vestiges, p. 31 ; Ten Tears' Diggings, p. 17,) a very questionable example. The Derbyshire barrows seem almost without exception to be of the bowlshape, though some are more and some less conoid than others. The same applies to those in the adjoining corner of Staffordshire opened by Mr. S. Carrington of Wetton, and included in Mr. Bateman's series. This mountain-limestone district may be said to belong geologically to Derbyshire, and, no less than that county, fell probably within the limits of the Coritavi.

^{page 302 note b} The barrows in the two Ridings are laid down on a “Map of the Roman Roads upon the Yorkshire Wolds,” in Archæologia, xxvii. 404. In a privately-printed map of part of the same district, likewise by the late John Walker, Esq, entitled “Ancient Military Remains,” the “form of the Tumuli” in this district is represented, and is seen to be bowl-shaped. The highest are said to be “about nine feet, largest diameter sixty feet. Only two or three with a trench round them.” The late Mr. Jabez Allies speaks of a “bell-barrow” near Scarborough. (Archæologia, xxx. 462.) But this I think an error. The nearest approach in Yorkshire to the disc-shaped barrows are the small circles on or near Baildon Common, in the West Riding. (Archæologia, xxxi. 301.) These are about fifty feet in diameter, and are surrounded by banks of earth and stone, but have no trenches like the disc-shaped barrows of Wiltshire. Two being opened at the centre, interments of burnt bones, in one case collected into an urn, were met with. Similar are, I believe, some “circles” excavated by the Rev W. Greenwell in Northumberland, and two or three in the North Riding of Yorkshire, explored by the Rev. J. C. Atkinson. (Gent. Mag. May 1861, p. 498 ; April 1863, p. 440.) The group of circular trenches at Stanlake, Oxon (in each case unaccompanied by a vallum, as in the true disc-barrow), described by Messrs. J. Y. Akerman and Stone (Archæologia, xxxvii. 362), present, perhaps, a variety of this form of tumulus. It is unfortunate that the central part of the inclosed areas, which vary from about 50 to 120 feet in diameter, was not more generally examined. Real disc-shaped barrows, though apparently rare, do. however, occur in Oxfordshire, as at Rollrich. (Stukeley, Abury, p. 12.) I have not observed any in my visits to the Cotswolds, in the adjoining county of Gloucester.

^{page 303 note a} Prehistoric Annals, p. 55.

^{page 303 note b} Archæologia, xxxiv. 91, 106. The celebrated Maes Howe, as shown in Mr. James Farrer's beautifully illustrated volume devoted to that fine chambered tumulus, is on a spacious platform, surrounded by a ditch, giving it considerable resemblance to a bell-shaped tumulus.

^{page 303 note c} Bircham Barrows, 1843, p. 11.

^{page 303 note d} Gent. Mag. lxii. part ii. p. 593 plate; Arch. Journ. x. 355.

^{page 303 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 21. Comp. ii. Roman Æ, p. 42, Arch. Journ. xvi. 150. The four “circles,” or “castles,” near Priddy, are not disc-shaped tumuli, being each 500 feet in diameter, and without ditches. Comp. Collinson's Somerset, ii. 20. They are probably of the same character as the three “circles” or “camps,” of about the same size, at Thornborough, N. E. Yorks. Both have barrows immediately adjacent. Phillips, Rivers, &c. of Yorkshire, p. 63, 291, plate xxxv.; W. C. Lukis, Yorks. Arch, and Topog. Journ. i. 118, plate i.

^{page 304 note a} Tumuli Wiltunenses, 1829, p. 5.

^{page 304 note b} Archæologia, xxx. 328. In his recent work, The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, 1866, Mr. Charles Warne, F.S.A., says “the prevailing form of the tumuli is bowl-shaped, frequently surrounded by a shallow fosse.” (Introduction, p. 8).

^{page 304 note c} The fine group of tumuli at Lambourn in Berkshire, called “The Seven Barrows,” though really much exceeding that number, are so near the borders of Wiltshire, that, like those at Woodyates, Dorset, they may have perhaps fallen within the territory of the Belgæ. In this group there are two very fine discshaped barrows, and nearly every other type and sub-type, as the ditched bowl, oval, and twin, are represented, but not the true bell-shaped. Several of this group were examined by Dr, J. Wilson and Mr. E. M. Atkins, F.S.A., and the objects exhumed are now in the British Museum. See Arch. Journ. vii. 386—391. Cran. Brit. Description of Skull No. 51, p. (1).

^{page 304 note d} According to the important researches of 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 Belgæ. Arch. Journ. viii. 151.

^{page 304 note e} Forty-fourth Report of Royal Institution of Cornwall, 1862, p. 27 ; where is a plan of that on Boskenwyn Down.

^{page 305 note a} Here, according to Prof. Verelius, are as many as 669 tumuli. (Laing, Kings of Norway, i. 89.) Olaf Rudbeck in his time, however, reckoned the number at 12,370. (Atlantica, i. c. vi. § xi.; c. vii. § v.) By M. Bertrand, the tumuli in three or four of the eastern provinces of France (one at least, Alsace, since March, 1871, French no longer), are estimated at more than 140,000. (Revue Archéolog. 1863, N.S. vii. 228.) Many of these, however, must be of Germanic, not Celtic, origin.

^{page 305 note b} Stonehenge, p. 45.

^{page 305 note c} The map referred to (Ancient Wilts, i. 170) has an area of about sixteen squares miles, but the barrows comprised within it do not extend over more than twelve. Within it are contained, not only the Stonehenge group proper, but also the lesser adjoining ones of Winterbourn Stoke (three groups), Lake, Wilsford, and the two sets of “Seven Barrows,” improperly called “Old and New Kings' Barrows,” by Stukeley. Most of these, excepting the “Seven Barrows,” were opened by Hoare. Their external form is still, for the most part, capable of being ascertained.

^{page 305 note d} Arrian, De Exp. Alexandr. vii. 22.

^{page 305 note e} Loftus, Travels in Chaldæa, 1857, p. 198; Trans. Royal Soc. Lit. vi. 39, 62. Warkais described as “the site of a necropolis whose character and immense extent indicate the extraordinary sanctity attached to the locality for many centuries.” “The custom of conveying the dead from a great distance to be buried at a holy shrine prevails at the present day among the Persians.” Comp. Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. 339, Essay x. 592.

^{page 306 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 144. “Ground Plan of Stonehenge.” Sir Richard Hoare says, “I scarcely know how we can separate the sera of the one from the other.”

^{page 306 note b} Ibid. i. 127 (¹⁶). Stukeley (Stonehenge, p. 46), believed this barrow was contemporary with Stonehenge, and, mare suo, suggests that “the interred was one of the builders.”

^{page 306 note c} The area alluded to, deviating a little from the cardinal points, extends about five miles from west to east, and about three and a-quarter from north to south. It is embraced, 1, by a line passing from the village of Yatesbury, which it includes, southwards (S.S.W.) through the eighty-third milestone on the Calne road, to a point on the Devizes road near Shepherd's Shore, midway between the eighty-third and eighty-fourth milestones ; 2, by a line from this point, extending eastwards to Old Shaw Farm ; 3, by a line extending thence northwards to Manton Down, half a mile east of Wroughton Copse ; and 4, by a line passing westward, north of “Windmill Hill, to the point first named, at Yatesbury.

^{page 306 note d} “Hi (Druides) certo anni tempore ‥‥ considunt in loco consecrate” (Cæsar, B. G. vi 13.) What was true of Gaul in this respect probably applied still more decidedly to Britain, where, according to Cæsar, the Druidical institute had its origin and was best understood. It has become a fashion to question our knowledge of the Druids ; but surely what contemporary writers of the first rank, such as Cæsar, Diodorus, and Tacitus, concur in telling us cannot lightly be set aside. Professor Max Müller (Chips from a German Workshop, iii. 250), says “Cæsar most likely never conversed with a Druid,” forgetting that Divitiacus the Druid was for long his camp companion, 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.

^{page 307 note a} Nine so called “pond barrows,” previously shown not to be barrows at all, (Archæolugia, xlii. 166), but which are laid down as such on Sir R. C. Hoare's map, are not reckoned in this comparison. The long barrows, six in number, are also deducted.

^{page 307 note b} The number of disc-shaped barrows in the Avebury district has been materially enhanced (more than doubled) by my discovery, already glanced at (p. 11, foot note ^b), of a group of six such tumuli, laid down on no map and before undescribed, situated on the down about one mile due south of Beckhampton. I was kindly directed to them by one of the tenant-farmers, and had the opportunity of opening all. In No. 1, lying most to the S.W., within the limits of All Cannings parish, we found a deposit of burnt bones in a slight cist scooped out in the chalk, and with these a highly decorated red fictile incense cup and a small bronze pin. In No. 3, lying near the former, towards the north, but in Avebury parish, were traces of a similar sepulchral deposit, also accompanied by an incense cup of liver-coloured earth, curiously decorated with an arrow-leaved pattern. Both cups are described and figured further on. The other four barrows were unproductive.

^{page 308 note a} Archæologia, xlii. 165, plate xii. fig. 10. See also in plate xi. figs. 15, 16, and 17.

^{page 308 note b} See Dr. Guest's paper already quoted, Arch. Journ. viii. 151. We have archæological evidence that of the barrows which surround Stonehenge some were anterior and some posterior to its completion.

^{page 308 note c} M. de Caumont refers particularly to Hoare, and writes (Cours d'Antiq. Monument. 1830, i. 122), “Ce cue Ton sait de plus précis relativement à ces éminences (tumuli), est du aux recherches et aux explorations des antiquaires Anglais.”

^{page 309 note a} Stonehenge, p. 44.

^{page 309 note b} The Rev. E. Duke (Ant. and Topog. Cabinet, vol. v.) says, this rule is so invariable “that a perpendicular shaft sunk from the apex, of a size proportionate to that of the barrow, rarely fails of bringing to light its contents.” Hoare, however, notices barrows (e.g. Ancient Wilts, i. 52 (¹), in which the interments were more or less remote from the centre ; and the Rev. W. C. Lukis has opened one, noticed further on (see Fig, 12) in which the discrepancy between the geometric and organic centres was very considerable.

^{page 309 note c} 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.)

^{page 310 note a} My own successful explorations in the round barrows of Wiltshire are forty in number, and of these not more than seven were of the unburnt body, there being five cases of cremation to one of simple burial.

^{page 310 note b} Prehistoric Times, p. 101. I omit the twenty-six interments with which iron objects were found, as Anglo-Saxon.

^{page 310 note c} Ibid. 2nd ed. p. 138. The analysis is my own.

^{page 311 note a} Archæologia, xl. 501, 507.

^{page 311 note b} B.G. lib. vi. c. 19.

^{page 311 note c} Mela (iii. 2) seems to follow Cæsar, but gives a few additional touches : “Itaque cum mortuis cremant ac defodiunt apta viventibus olim. Negotiorum ratio etiam et exactio crediti deferebatur ad inferos; erantque qui se in rogos suorum, velut una victuri, libenter immiterent.” (Comp. Diod. Sic. v. 28 ; Valer. Max. lib. ii. c. 6, § 10.) The mention of the magnificent funeral of Boadicea, by Dion, leaves us in doubt whether cremation was practised or not. Dion, ap. Xiph., lxii. § 12. Of the burial of the unburnt body, whether by the Gauls or Britons, nothing is to be learnt from classical authorities.

^{page 311 note d} These two barrows, Nos. 15 and 16 in the Winterbourn Stoke group, are shown in the bird's-eye view in the paper on Long Barrows, Archæologia, xlii. 171, Plate xiii. Their exploration is described in Ancient Wilts, i. 121—123, Plates xiv. xv., where the objects found are figured. Several of the richest “finds” in the Wiltshire barrows (as in that called Bush Barrow, Ancient Wilts, i. 202 (¹⁵⁸)), have been with interments of the unburnt body. Just as at Rome was the case with certain great houses, so in Britain, individual chiefs and families appear to have contemned the growing custom of cremation, and to have adhered to the earlier method of burial. In India, at the present day, some tribes burn their dead if regarded as good men, and bury them if the reverse, perhaps however explained by the greater cost of cremation. Ethnol. Journ. n.s. 1869, i. 115.

^{page 312 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 123 (¹⁹), 125 (²⁵), 125 (²⁷), 168 (93), 211 (24), 238 (9). In nearly all these 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 belonged to nearly the same epoch as the primary ones.

^{page 312 note b} Crania Britannica, Plate 31, IX. p. (1).

^{page 312 note c} B.G. lib. vi. c. 19. “Igni atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas interficiunt.” According to the account in Strabo, (xv. 1, § 30), it was precisely in this manner that suttee originated among the Cathæan Indians. Archæologia, xlii. 189. For this practice in primeval Europe, we have the testimony of Servius (Virgil, Æneid, v. 95, in loco.) “Fuit enim hæc majorum consuetudo, sicut hodieque apud Indos est, ut quoties reges moriebantur, cum his dilecti equi vel servi, et una de uxoribus clarior, circa rogum occisi incenderentur.” As shown by Mr. E. B. Tylor, “The souls of these, and even (Mr. Tylor thinks) the souls of inanimate objects, arms, clothing, and ornaments, were sent to follow the soul of their possessor.” Anthrop. Rev. v. 309. Trans. Congress Prehistoric Archæology, 1868, p, 21. I have not had the opportunity of studying the elaborate memoir on Human Sacrifices and Anthropophagism by Schaaffhausen, Herr H., Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1871, iv. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 119 (⁹), 123 (¹⁹), 125 (²⁷), 168 (⁹³), 210 (⁶). The most remarkable example is perhaps the barrow at Winterslow opened by the Rev. A. B. Hutchins, often referred to in these pages.

^{page 313 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 115 (⁷), 118 (⁶), 199 (¹³⁰). In each case the barrow seems to have been a family sepulchre. The Exquimaux infants, if unfortunate enough to lose their mothers, are buried with them, alive. The practice of infanticide as well as suttee in Britain is regarded as proved by Bateman, (Vestiges, p. 14; Ten Years' Diggings, p. 83) ; and Sir John Lubbock supports the statement, from “the numerous cases in which the bones of an infant and a woman have been found together “in the same barrow. Prehistoric Times, p. 116, 409.

^{page 313 note c} Pliny, vii. 15. “Hominem priusquam genito dente cremari mos gentium non est.” Comp. Juvenal, xv. 139. Those killed by thunder were also buried without being burnt. Pliny, ii. 55. Comp. Arch. Journ. vi. 21.

^{page 313 note d} A good example of such a family tomb is that described in Ancient Wilts, i. 163 (³⁹), in which it is probable that the skeletons of a man, his wife, and son were found, lying the one over the other. Another instance is referred to in a prior note (ibid. i. 118 (⁵) ) ; and another is pointed out by Hoare, i. 78 (¹).

^{page 314 note a} “ By the word ‘ cist ’ I mean an excavation cut in the soil or chalk, for the reception of the skeleton, ashes or sepulchral urn.” Ancient Wilts, i. 42. The term is objectionable, the more so as with Scottish antiquaries it always means a stone-lined grave.

^{page 314 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 163 (³⁶), 174, 205 (¹⁶¹), 208 (¹²), 236 (¹) ; the first three six feet, the last two ten feet deep. Another example of a grave six feet deep, below a Wiltshire tumulus, is that at Roundway near Devizes, excavated by Mr. W. Cunnington, F.G.S., and described Crania Britannica, Plate 42, xxxii. At Knowle, in the Isle of Purbeck, one explored by Rev. J. H. Austen, was nine and a half feet deep. Purbeck Papers, 1857, i. 112.

^{page 314 note c} Skins of ox, goat, and deer, have been found to form such coverings. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vii. 115, 118; Trans. Congr. Prehistoric Archæology, 1868, p. 27, 29 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 273 ; Cran. Brit. Plate 52, x. p. (2) ; Hutchins, Dorset, 1774, i. 25.

^{page 314 note d} Archæologia, xxxiv. 255. Bateman (Arch. Journ. vii. 219 ; Ten Years' Diggings, 123) found no traces of textile bodies in the British barrows of Derbyshire, but only in those of the Anglo-Saxons. These “interiores Britanni ” were, for the most part, as Caesar tells us, “pellibus vestiti.”

^{page 315 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 122 (¹⁶), 124 (²⁶), 205 (¹⁶⁴); ii. 90 (¹). See also Crania Britannica, Plate 11, xxiii. p. (6). In one of these, the tree is positively stated to have been elm ; in another it is said that “the knots and bark still adhering to the tree,” it was possible “to ascertain with certainty its distinct species.” See also Rev. W. C. Lukis, Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. 91 (⁸).

^{page 315 note b} Crania Britannica, Plate 52, x. In addition to the two cases named in the text, coffins of hollowed oaks have been found by Mr. Greenwell and others in ancient British barrows in Yorkshire; and one at Hove, Sussex. Arch. Journ. xiii. 183, xxii. 253; Reliquary 1865, v. 1. See also Rev.Lukis, W. C., Yorks. Arch, and Topogr. Journ. i. 119, pl. v. fig. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note c} Norfolk Archæology, iii. 1 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 456.

^{page 315 note d} Ten Years' Diggings, 34, 123 ; Brit. Arch. Journ. vii. 217, Plate XIX. fig. 2. In this there was a bronze celt bearing on one side impressions of the fern leaves, and on the other of the hairy surface of a dark red skin in which the body had been wrapped.

^{page 316 note a} The degree of contraction varies a good deal in different instances. (See sketches in Bateman, Ten Tears' Diggings.) In some, the body has scarcely been more flexed than is common during quiet sleep. In others, it reminds us of that adopted by the Thibetans, who, when about to sleep, are said to have their knees close up to their heads, and rest on their knees and elbows, pressing the thighs, for warmth, against the abdomen. The example of the contracted skeleton (fig. 7), is from Cran. Brit. Plate 42, xxxii. For the use of this cut, as well as of not a few others, the Society of Antiquaries is indebted to Dr. J. Barnard Davis, F.E.S., F.S.A.

^{page 316 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 24 ; ii. 110. In one place Sir Richard speaks of an interment which he refers to the later era, when the custom of gathering up the legs had ceased, and when the use of iron was more generally adopted ; for in the early tumuli none of that metal has ever been found “(i. 174). In another place he names a barrow containing “a skeleton extended at full length, contrary to the general custom,” but which the iron nails found with it “proved to be of a much later date than the other barrows in the same group.” (ibid. 78.) See on this subject, likewise, Mr. Bateman's experience, Ten Tears' Diggings, p. 27, 85.

^{page 316 note c} In certain exceptional cases, contracted skeletons are met with in Anglo-Saxon burials. None such however, were found in those described by Sir Eichard Hoare, and out of sixty-four interments in the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Harnham in Wiltshire, only one skeleton was “doubled up ;” and Mr. Akerman thought this might have been owing to some unintentional dislocation after burial. (Archæologia, xxxv. 264—5.) In the great cemetery at Long Wittenham, in the adjoining county of Berkshire, there was not a single example of a contracted skeleton, out of a total of 127. (Archcælogia, xxxviii. 327.) Recently, however, the Rev. W. Greenwell found in an Anglo-Saxon barrow at Kirby-under-Dale, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, as many as sixty-two out of seventy skeletons in the contracted position. This was a most exceptional circumstance, as reference to Douglas' Nenia, the Inventoriwn Sepulchrale, and Neville's Saxon Obsequies will show.

^{page 317 note a} “Eighty tumuli.” At a preceding page, I make the numbers eighty-two. Perfect exactitude in the analysis is hardly attainable, nor will the difference between eighty and eighty-two essentially affect our inferences. It is better to let eighty-two stand, as regards the proportion which cremation bears to inhumation, and in this place, to omit two cases as to which there is some doubt.

^{page 317 note b} I am glad to observe that this number of “fifteen” corresponds exactly with the total of contracted skeletons given by Sir John Lubbock, in his tabular statement of the interments in Ancient Wilts. I have not been able to make my analysis agree in other respects with that in Prehistoric Times (1st ed. p. 101), and in particular, as stated in the text, do not find any primary interment in which the corpse had been extended, excepting only those evidently Anglo-Saxon, with which there were objects of iron. It is much to be regretted that these last were not kept apart in an analysis given in a work of reference so much consulted as Prehistoric Times.

^{page 318 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 116, 237, 239; ii. 90, 93.

^{page 318 note b} Purbeck Papers, i. 161. Cran. Brit. Pl. 45, xxxiii. p. (4).

^{page 318 note c} Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 2nd ed. p. 138.

^{page 318 note d} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 206. The accuracy of this description is confirmed by a section sent to me at the time by a friend who seems to have witnessed the excavation. (See fig. 8).

^{page 318 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 75. Archæologia, xv. 123. Mr. Cunnington suggests that the skeleton in the sitting position may have belonged to a secondary interment; but this is by no means clear, and on the whole improbable. For a skeleton in the “erect posture ” in a barrow near Muckleford, see Hutchins's Dorset, ii. 140.

^{page 319 note a} Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 346, et seq. Morton, Crania Americana, passim. Bancroft, History of United States, p. 300. Squier and Davis, Ancient Monuments of Mississipi Valley, 1847, 172. Troyon, Habitat. Lacustr. p. 386. It is very doubtful whether in practice the doubled up and sitting postures can often be discriminated.

^{page 319 note b} It is assumed by Sir Gardner “Wilkinson, and others, that the general practice of the Britons was to deposit the body on the left side. (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xviii. 42). It is to be regretted that in only eight cases Sir Richard Hoare notes whether the skeleton was found on the right side (2 cases), the left side (3), or on the back (3); so that nothing as to this question can be decided from his observations. Mr. Bateman, however, gives numerous observations for the barrows of Derbyshire. These have been abstracted by the Rev. W. C. Lukis (Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 101), who finds that out of 149 skeletons, 101 were lying on the left side, and only 25 on the right. There were 23 on the back, but these were, for the most part, Anglo-Saxon, associated with iron implements, and stretched at length. Even if very usually on the left side, a doubt must still remain whether this was intentional, or whether it has not arisen from some peculiarity in the mode of carrying out and depositing the dead.

^{page 319 note c} The grave in Parcelly Hay Low is described as “too narrow to admit of reclination,” so that the seated posture does not seem to have been designed. Cran. Brit, plate 2, xviii. Ten Years' Diggings, p. 22.

^{page 320 note a} On Long Barrows, Archæologia, xlii. 189. Twenty-five centuries since, those who died among the Nasamones were not allowed to expire in peace, but were carefully raised from the supine to a sitting posture. The dying Bechuana of the present day is even more cruelly treated. A skin or mat is thrown over him and the ends drawn together until he is forced into a crouching posture, the chin resting on the knees. Wood, Natural History of Man, pp. 334, 348. Among the Damaras, immediately after death, to facilitate the same object, the backbone is broken with a stone. Anderson, Lake Ngami. Mr. Austen thought there were traces of this last practice in the skeletons found by him in the barrows of South Dorset. Purbeck Papers, 1857, i. 111, 160. Comp. Cran. Brit. Plate 45, xxxiii. p. (4).

^{page 321 note a} See Shelden's account of the funerals of the Caribs. Nilsson (Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, p. 102,) suggests a similar explanation of the position of the skeletons in the chambered tombs of Scandinavia.

^{page 321 note b} André Thévet, Cosmograph. 1575.

^{page 321 note c} Troyon, Habitat. Lacustr. 1860, p. 386. The strange custom, prevailing among some North American Indian tribes, and down to the present century in some parts of the Canton de Vaud, of the mothers shedding their milk on the tombs of the newly buried, is adduced by M. Troyon as a further symbolical expression of the same belief as that implied by the doubled-up posture of the body.

^{page 321 note d} See Mr. Cunnington's MS. letter to the Rev. Mr. Richardson, dated February, 1803, in which, when he says, “the head to the north is the most ancient position,” he is no doubt contrasting British interments with those of the Anglo-Saxons. See also his paper in Archæologia, xv. 343, dated Sept. 1804, where he tells us “in primary interments at a great depth the head generally lies to the north, or nearly so.” Sir Richard Hoare uniformly speaks of the head as “generally directed towards the north.” Ancient Wilts, i. 24, 78, 102. Tumuli Wiltun. p. 40.

^{page 321 note e} In four out of the five undisturbed primary interments in the round barrows of Wiltshire explored by myself, which yielded skeletons, the head was directed to the north; as also in the barrow at Winterslow, the section of which is shown in Fig. 10.

^{page 322 note a} There is a little vagueness of expression as to twelve of the thirty-five cases. In twenty-three the “head ” is expressly stated as directed “to the north.” In the remaining twelve, the “skeleton” is spoken of as lying “north and south,” or “from north to south.” Looking at other passages, there can scarcely be a doubt as to what is intended. More convincing results would doubtless be obtained if we had compass-observations of the accuracy of which, and of the corrections for the “magnetic deviation,” we could be assured.

^{page 322 note b} The only cases in Ancient Wilts in which skeletons in circular barrows, not obviously of the Anglo-Saxon period, are described as having the head towards the south, and therefore a boreal aspect, appear to have been secondary interments. There are but four such. See vol. i. 42 (¹), 68, 115 (⁷), 119 (⁹). Mr. Lukis's analysis of the orientations recorded by Sir Richard Hoare (Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. 101) must not only include secondary interments, the age of many of which is doubtful, but likewise those accompanied by iron objects, unequivocally Anglo-Saxon. He is in this way able to show as many as thirteen out of 102 interments in which the head was directed to the south. In the same paper Mr. Lukis gives an analysis of the position of skeletons in the barrows of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Yorkshire, from Mr. Bateman's Ten Years' Diggings, but without eliminating the secondary and the Anglo-Saxon interments.

^{page 323 note a} This view, mutatis mutandis, is the same as that adopted by Dr. Rolleston, to explain the deviations from orientation in the burials of Christianized Anglo-Saxons. Archæologia, xlii. 420.

^{page 323 note b} The Wiltshire example is that in the barrow on Kennet Hill, described in Crania Britannica, plate 11, xxiii. ; that in Yorkshire was in one of the Acklam barrows, described in the same work, plate 31, ix.

^{page 323 note c} Cymbeline, Act iv. sc. 2. Shakespeare, though no authority in antiquarian questions, often preserves old traditions and curious points of learning. The islanders of Samoa still bury their dead with the head to the rising of the sun, and the feet, and consequently the face, to the west. (Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 230.) The Athenians, in old times, did the same. (Plutarch, Vit. Solon, c. x.) In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, “the most ancient sacred book in the world,” (chapter “The Orientation,” 162), the coffin is directed to be “so placed that the four winds (S. N. “W. and E.) may blow on the four sides of it.” (S. Birch, LL.D. P.S.A. in Bunsen, Egypt's Place, v. 110, 155, 317.) From this it is not clear whether it was placed lengthwise in the meridian line, or E. and W.

^{page 323 note d} Proc. Geol. and Polyt. Soc. W. R. Yorhsh. 1867, p, 536. In the plans of the Derbyshire barrows, in Ten Years' Diggings, the skeletons are seen to lie in all directions.

^{page 323 note e} Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, 204—241, analysed.

^{page 323 note f} Cran. Brit. pl. 6, xii. p. (1). The aspect of the skeletons in the cemetery, probably of the same period, near Plymouth, is unfortunately not stated. They were, however, doubled up, or “in the sitting posture.” Archæologia, xl. 507.

^{page 324 note a} Archæologia, xxxvii. 459 ; Grimm, quoted by Wylie, Burning and Burial of the Dead. See Neville, Saxon Obsequies, 1852, p. 9. Archæologia, xxxiii. 329, plan. That the pagan Anglo-Saxons were interred for the most part with a boreal aspect is likewise probable from Mr. Akerman's researches in the Long Wittenham cemetery (Archæologia, xxxviii. 331 et seq. ; xxxix. 135), allowance being made for the deviation from the northern direction due to the greater mortality of winter, when the sun rises to the south of east.

^{page 324 note b} Livingstone, Zambesi, p. 381. Several South African tribes bury in the meridian line, the Bechuanas taking great pains to place the body “exactly facing the north;” but it is not always clear whether the head or the feet are directed towards the north. Wood, Natural History of Man, p. 334, 348, 398.

^{page 324 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 78 (⁴).

^{page 324 note d} Ibid. i. 193.

^{page 324 note e} Ibid i. 241 (¹⁴). Sir Richard Hoare likewise thought the barxow was on the site of the pile in No. 7, p. 70.

^{page 325 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 167 (⁷⁴), 169 (¹¹⁴, ¹¹⁵.)

^{page 325 note b} Ibid. i. 162 (³⁰), 165 (⁵⁴), 167 (⁸², ⁹¹), 168 (¹⁰⁷), 191 (¹²), 242 (²¹), 243. In five other instances the ashes had not been collected into cists, but were found scattered or in heaps on the floor of the tumulus. (Ibid. i. 70 (¹), 79 (⁶), 98, 100, 241 (¹⁷.)

^{page 325 note c} Ibid. i. 41 (²), 45, and plate i.

^{page 325 note d} Ibid. i. 76 (⁵).

^{page 325 note e} Ibid. i. 183 (⁹) ; 238 (⁸).

^{page 326 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 113 (³) ; 168 (¹⁰²).

^{page 326 note b} Ibid. i. 24, 25 ; ii. 110. Hoare's statement on this point, though correct, is not justified by the facts so far as recorded by him. The position of the urns is only named in thirty instances, and of these fourteen were erect and sixteen inverted. The absence of exact details is, as here, often to be regretted.

^{page 326 note c} As at Porth Dafarch, Holyhead. Arch. Journ. vi. 233. This usage has not been traced in the Wiltshire barrows.

^{page 326 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 113 (²), 114 (¹⁰), 168 (¹¹²), 233 (²), 241 (¹⁷), 242 (²⁰). In one case (241 (¹⁷), Sir R. C. Hoare describes the “decayed linen, of a reddish-brown colour, lying like cobwebs on the calcined bones ;” in another (242 (²⁰), he says “the filaments of the linen cloth appeared like hair.” In the bell-barrow at Winterslow Hut, Wilts., opened by the Rev. A. B. Hutchins in 1814, “linen, similar to a veil of fine lace, of a mahogany tint, was seen hanging from the mouth of the urn.” Hoare, Modern Wilts (Alderbury) v. 211. Arch. Journ. i. 156.

^{page 326 note e} Lord Braybrooke, Arch. Journ. ix. 228.

^{page 327 note a} Iliad, xxiii. 254, xxiv. 796. The fabric of the cloth is not described in the last passage, but the words πορΦνρέ πέπλοισι may imply that some of the crimson garments of the royal household were employed.

^{page 327 note b} On Homeric Tumuli. By F. A. Paley, M.A. Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. xi. part ii. 1867.

^{page 327 note c} Archæologia, xxx. 60.

^{page 327 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 221.

^{page 327 note e} Wilts. Arch. Journ. vi. 26.

^{page 327 note f} J. Y. Simpson, Archaic Sculpturings, p. 33, pl. xi. xii. xiii.; Ord. Cleveland, p. 110; Arch. Journ. i. 412; Warne, ubi supra, i. p. 37. No such sculptured stones have been found in the Wiltshire tumuli.

^{page 327 note g} Ancient Wilts, i. 126 (¹⁴), 183 (⁶), 185 (²⁴), 207 (¹⁸²), 210 (⁸). In one of the barrows near Avebury, opened by Dean Merewether, the hollowed tree containing the burnt bones had for a cover a piece of the cleft wood, supposed to be oak. Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 97. In one. of the Collingbourn group Mr. Lukis found part of a tree, with the bark adherent, hollowed out as a receptacle for the calcined remains. Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 96.

^{page 327 note h} Ibid. i. 121 (¹⁵). It is stated that “the wood appeared to be elm,” though “pieces of oak were also found.” The ulmaceous character of the wood was not ascertained, as would now be done, by the microscope. It has been supposed that the elm is of comparatively modern introduction into England, but these discoveries in the barrows (in addition to those on a preceding page) are opposed to such a conclusion.

^{page 328 note a} Hoare, Turn. Wiltun. p. 6. Duke, Antiq. and Topog. Cabinet, 1809, vol. v.

^{page 328 note b} A few of these may possibly have been Anglo-Saxon, undistinguished by ornaments or weapons,—but if so, very few, as many of the skeletons were accompanied by “drinking cups ” of the usual British sort, and several others are noted as being in the doubled-up posture.

^{page 329 note a} Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. 92. The plan of this barrow, as well as the two which follow, are copied from his paper by permission of Mr. Lukis. Numerous secondary interments of urns are named, Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (²), 77 (¹).

^{page 330 note a} Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. p. 85. These tumuli were explored by the Rev. W. C. Lukis, aided by the present Bishop of Grafton, in 1855—1861. In 1863, Dr. Turner and the Rev. W. Greenwell were present at some excavations conducted by the writer in the Winterbourn Stoke group. (Archæologia, xlii. 172, plate xiii.) The former gentleman, relying on his CoUingbourn experience, thought we should find secondary interments in the skirts of some of these tumuli, and superintended some diggings made on the south side of No. 22. Nothing, however, was met with. In No. 23, “unproductive ” to Hoare, I found a simple deposit of burnt bones in a shallow cist in the chalk, a little to the S.E. of the centre. An attempt on No. 24 confirmed the old report—“unproductive.” It is of trivial elevation, and may not be sepulchral.

^{page 332 note a} Tylor, Trans. Internat. Congress, 1868, p. 16. Sir Richard Hoare long ago stated that the urns and other vessels from the barrows were made “before the use of the turner's lathe was known (to the Britons).” Ancient Wilts, i. 26 ; Catalogue Mus. p. 4. It has been maintained by others that the Britons possessed some “simple approximation towards the potter's wheel.” D. Wilson, Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 2 ed. i. 413; Prehistoric Man, 2 ed. 348. See, however, E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 419.

^{page 332 note b} Tibullus, Eleg. 1. i. 39.

^{page 332 note c} Hoare, Turn. Wiltun. p. 9 ; Wilson, Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 1851, p. 280; Wilde, Catal. Mus. R. I. Acad. i. 173 ; Comp. Boucher de Perthes, Antiq. Celtiq. pp. 82, 84. Our fictile vessels could never have been merely sun-dried, as Sir Richard Hoare and many since him have supposed. All pottery must be fire-baked-terra-cotta.

^{page 332 note d} Mém. Hist, sur la Louisiane, 1753, ii. 271 ; quoted by Mr. Charles Rau in a paper on Indian pottery, Report Smithsonian Inst. 1866, p. 346 ; Flint Chips, 251 ; Wood, Natural History of Man, i. 232, and passim, plates ; Compare, Figuier, Primitive Man, Eng. ed. p. 309. Humboldt (Travels, chaps, vi. xxi.) says that in South America the natives are not acquainted with ovens, and bake their pottery in fires in the open air. Catlin, however, describes the Mandan women as using “kilns made for the purpose.” North American Indians, Letter 16.

^{page 333 note a} Rau, l.c.; who quotes Bartram, Travels, 1793, p. 6 ; Hunter, Indians West of Mississippi, 1823, p. 296.

^{page 333 note b} Martial, xiv. 99 ; Juvenal names bascaudœ among the furniture of a luxurious table, in immediate connection with dishes for meats:—

Adde et bascaudas et mille escaria. (xii. 46).

These canistra Britannica may have been devoted to the dry foods, bread or fruit, or to the flowers and garlands used at Roman feasts.

^{page 333 note c} French, Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xv. 68, 69, pl. 8.

^{page 333 note d} Phillips, Rivers and Mountains of Yorkshire, p. 220 ; Tylor, , Early History of Mankind, 2nd ed. p. 275Google Scholar; Comp. Newton, C. T., Guide to First Vase Boom, 1868, p. 7Google Scholar; Vaux, Handbook to British Museum, p. 471.

^{page 333 note e} Birch, Ancient Pottery, ii. 381, 384, 385. I am supported in the opinion that the notion adverted to in the text is untenable, by Mr. Albert Way, whose Hydriotaphia Cambrensis, in this part of my subject, I have constantly referred to. See Arch. Cambrens. 3 S. xiv. 277 (page 61 of the separate issue).

^{page 334 note a} Archæologia, xxx. 61 ; xxxvii. 367, 368, pl. viii. There are drawings of the Iffins Wood urns in the library of the Society of Antiquaries. The Stanlake urns are in the Ashmolean Museum.

^{page 334 note b} Miles, Deverell Barrow, p. 26 ; Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, ii. 5, 15, 23, iii. 73 ; Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. 89, note ; Comp. Boucher de Perthes, Antiq. Celtiq. p. 86. Certain rude scorings in trellis-shaped patterns may perhaps have been given by the finger-nail, as supposed by the late Lord Braybrooke. Archæologia, xxxii. 357, 359. Sepulchr. Expos, p. 22.

^{page 334 note c} Martin, Western Islands, 1716, p. 2.

^{page 334 note d} Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. i. 175.

^{page 334 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 26 ; Turn. Wiltun. p. 10, 21, 46 ; Catal. Stourh. Mus. pp. 4, 10.

^{page 334 note f} As on the large urn from Oldbury, Wilts, in the collection of the Wilts Archaeological Society. Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 73. (Pl. XXX. fig. 3).

^{page 335 note a} For examples of ornamentation on fictile fragments from West Kennet, Wilts, probably of the Round-barrow period, see Archæologia, xxxviii. 418, figs. 14—17. Two of these figures are reproduced above.

^{page 335 note b} Travels, chap. xxi. See figures of the principal designs on pottery during the Bronze Period in Figuier, Primitive Man, Eng, ed. p. 264, fig. 206 ; and for primeval pottery in its different stages, p. 53, fig. 17 ; p. 259, figs. 198—202.

^{page 335 note c} As on an incense-cup from a barrow near Beckhampton, described and figured further on.

^{page 335 note d} Proc. Kilkenny Arch. Soc. 1852, ii. 298, pl. i. fig. 3.

^{page 336 note a} Cat. Mus. Arch. Inst. at Edinburgh, 1856, p. 18 ; Wilson, Prehistoric Archæology, 2 ed. i. 412.

^{page 336 note b} Pembrokeshire, p. 579, pl. ii. fig. 5. The Irish style of urns in this locality may suggest, with other circumstances, some connection or intercourse between this part of Wales and Ireland in very early times.

This classification, I observe, accords with that proposed in 1845, for Gaulish pottery, by M. le Dr Ravin. “1. La poterie usuelle ou ménagère ; 2. La poterie funeraire.” Boucher de Perthes, Antiq-Celtiq. pp. 82, 507.

^{page 336 note d} Ancient Wilts, 1812, i. 25 ; Bateman, Catalogue of Antiquities, 1855, p. 79; Ten Years' Diggings, 1861, p. 279.

^{page 338 note a} The view in the text differs from that of Mr. Greenwell, who thinks the pottery in the barrows “was all specially manufactured for the purposes of burial” (Arch. Journ. xxii. 99) ; and also from that of Mr. Albert Way, who suggests that these sepulchral vessels were “without exception fabricated for the ordinary purposes of daily life” (Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 291).

^{page 338 note b} Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, i. 28, pl. i. fig. 1; 34, pl. iii. fig. 4; iii. 45, pl. viii. fig. 1; Archcœlogia, xxx. 330, pl. xvii. fig. 1. The. two first seem to have taken the place of cinerary urns, and the last, (copied in bur Plate XXIX. fig. 1,) found with the skeleton of a child, that of a food vase or drinking cup. Varying only in having a knob (“ escutcheon ”) on each side, is another Dorset vessel. Warne, op. cit. i. 33, pl. ii. fig. 3.

^{page 339 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 122, pl. xv. fig. 1.

^{page 339 note b} Arch. Journ. xxv. 50. It is suggested that the loops were to attach some covering, by which the mouth might be closed.

^{page 339 note c} Arch. Journ. vi. 230; Hydriotaph. Cambr. p. 10, fig. 5. (Reprinted from Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 226.) For the use of the wood-blocks in the text, and several more, the Society of Antiquaries is indebted to the Central Council of the Royal Archseological Institute, and to A. W. Franks, Esq. V.P.S.A.

^{page 339 note d} Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc. 1852, iii. 9, where three of these vessels are figured. Though somewhat differing in form and having a rather narrow base, the “large urn of very coarse material,” 12 × 13 in., from one of the Dorset tumuli, is best classed here. Archæologia, xxx. 331, pl. xvii. fig. 6 ; Warne, l. c. pl. viii. fig. 6. It had “a rim, but no ornament.”

^{page 340 note a} Archæologia, xxx. 331, pl. xvii. fig. 6 ; Warne, l. c. i. 42, pl. viii. fig. 6.

^{page 340 note b} Figured also in Arch. Journ. ix. 11.

^{page 340 note c} Archæologia, xxx. 330, pl. xvii. fig. 3 (reproduced in Plate XXIX. fig. 6) ; Warne, l. c. pl. i. fig. 18 (this is without bosses or handles); ii. fig. 2 ; viii. fig. 3.

^{page 340 note d} I have the fragments of a large vessel of this sort, from a barrow near Oldbury, North Wilts. ( Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 319). The greater part of another, from a tumulus near Preshaw, Winchester, was sent to me by my friend William Long, Esq. F.S.A.

^{page 340 note e} See Plate XXIX. fig. 7, from Ancient Wilts, i. 45, pl. i. The vessel is in the museum at Stourhead. Above the ears there is a very slight chevron ornament.

^{page 341 note a} Warne, op. cit. i. 52, pl. i. fig. 17. It appears to be six and a half inches high. One, with two such pierced handles, “in the form of a bowl,” was obtained by the Rev. J. H. Austen, from another of the Dorsetshire barrows. Warne, op. cit. ii. 21. A vessel, 5½ in. high, from one of the Lake or Durnford barrows, at Lake House, Wilts, with two handles pierced vertically, has a slight ornamentation round the mouth, and may not be culinary. Very similar must have been the two-handled vessels from the cranuoges of Ireland, e. g. Ballydoolough, near Enniskillen, though these have horizontally perforated handles, and a peculiar impressed angular ornamentation at the neck and rim. (Journ. Kilkenny Arch. Soc. 1871, 4 S. i. 363, 506). They belong, however, though not lathe-made, to a much later (iron) period than the pottery from the barrows.

^{page 341 note b} Arch. Journ. xxii. 246, fig. 10.

^{page 341 note c} In the Ashmolean Museum.

^{page 341 note d} Vestiges, 77; Ten Years' Diggings, 158, 282; Catalogue, 59T, 118c. Bateman's opinion that these vessels are post-Roman is not probable.

^{page 341 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 237 (⁴), pl. xxxii. fig. 2, where it is shown on a very small scale. It measures 3⅝ by 4⅝ in. It has the peculiarity of four square feet, with the bottom between the feet round and swelling. Vases with four feet have been found by Mr. Greenwell and others in the barrows of the East Hiding. They seem however to have been surface-ornamented, and not merely culinary, but perhaps food-vases.

^{page 342 note a} Wilts. Arch. Mag. x. 90 (¹²), fig.

^{page 342 note b} Purbeck Papers, i. 159, fig. 2 ; Warne, C. Tumuli of Dorset, iii. 71. Mr. Austen tells us that this vessel was “burnt red both inside and out,” and that “the bottom was much decomposed.” One apparently very small, from Dorsetshire, is figured by Mr. Jewitt. Grave Mounds, p. 106, fig. 120. Another plain handled cup, not however of the pipkin shape, from a barrow in Dorsetshire, is figured, Gent. Mag. 1827, xcvii. 2, 99. It was from an interment at Wynford Eagle. Warne, iii. 36. See also the little “one-handled cup,” from the Isle of Portland, Arch. Journ. xxv. 49.

^{page 342 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 182 (⁴), pl. xxii.

^{page 342 note d} Warne, op. cit. i, 35, pl. iii. fig. 3. Another Dorset example is figured in Beport Cambridge Antiq. Soc. 1855, v. 142, pl. iii. fig. 2.

^{page 342 note e} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 34, fig.

^{page 342 note f} Greenwell, Trans. Berwick Nat. Club, v. 198, pl. xiii. fig. 3. A Yorkshire example is figured, Bowman, Beliq. Antiq. Ebor. p. 38, fig. 2.

^{page 342 note g} Ancient Wilts, ii. 91 (⁷). Like nearly all these small cups, with a burnt body.

^{page 342 note h} Warne, op. cit. ii. 18 ; iii. 11. One was from the Culliford Tree barrow; the other, from a tumulus at Lulworth, “the size of the cup-part of an ordinary wine-glass,” was found empty and covered with a limpet shell, with an unbumt body ; it perhaps had served as a child's drinking cup.

^{page 343 note a} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 39 ; Catalogue, p. 81 ; Bowman, Beliq. Antiq. Ebor. p. 8, pl. i. fig. 1. A similar vessel, 4½ inches high, and with three pairs of holes at the edge, is in Mr. Green well's collection.

^{page 343 note b} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. iv. 142 ; xix. 91, fig.

^{page 343 note c} Wilts. Arch. Mag. xii. 122, 125, pl. i. fig. 1. The Rev, Canon Ingram maintains that the small vessels known as “incense cups,” are really pigment pots for painting the body. Opposed to this perhaps is the fact that the traces of colouring-matter with two such cups were not blue but red.

^{page 343 note d} Archæologia, xxxviii. 415, fig. 9. There is a perforation in the side of each fragment, but whether on opposite sides of each vessel cannot be asserted.

^{page 343 note e} Urns of a capacity of half or three-quarters of a bushel are not very uncommon. (Ancient Wilts, i. 76 (⁵). One in Mr. Durden's collection (Pl. XXX., fig. 5,) holds more than a bushel and a-half, viz., six and a-half pecks. Mr. Atkinson, writing of one of the largest urns I am acquainted with (24 in. high), says, “the contained burnt bones occupied scarcely more space than what a feed of corn might do in a bushel measure.” Proc. Geol. and Polytech. Soc, W. B. Torks., 1864, p. 329.

^{page 344 note a} The Wiltshire urn is in the Blackmore Museum, and was exhumed at Bishopstone ; it measures 24½ inches. (Fig. 28). For the Dorset urn, see Warne, op. cit. i. 39 (¹⁸) ; for that from Iffins Wood, Kent (25 inches), Archæologia, xxx. 59. Four other urns found with it were each 18 inches : unpublished drawings are in the library of the Society of Antiquaries. For the Yorkshire urn, see Atkinson, l.c. Mr. J. Sydenham (Archælogia, xxx. 335), speaks of urns “upwards of two feet high,” but does not cite any example. A height of “nearly three feet” supposed to be indicated by the fragments of a very large urn from Cronllwyn, Pembrokeshire, can scarcely be admitted ; Fenton, Pembrokeshire, p. 580.; Arch. Cambrensis, 1851, N.S. ii. 334.

^{page 344 note b} Ancient Wilts, ii. 126 (¹⁴), pl. xvi. The urn figured on the Title-page is 16 inches high. Ibid. i. 237 (¹³).

^{page 344 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 41 (⁴), 238 (⁶), 241 (¹⁷), 243 (⁵). Mr. Warne describes five urns from Dorsetshire, about the same dimensions (18,19, and 21 inches), l.c. ii. 2, 13, 15, 23, figs. p. 27.

^{page 344 note d} Franks, Horæ Ferales, p. 214, pl. xxix. fig. 5. One of the same type, from Barrington Down, Sussex, measured 21 inches in height and 13 in diameter. Sussex Arch. Collect, i. 55, fig.: comp, ii. 270.

^{page 344 note e} Wise, New Forest, 1863, p. 196.

^{page 344 note f} Arch. Journ. xvii. 116, fig. 4.

^{page 344 note g} Wilde, Catalogue, p. 192, No. 31.

^{page 345 note a} Report Cambridge Antiq. Soc. 1860, pp. 7, 10. With the urn was a thick imperforate incense cup, 1¾ inch high. Smaller and quite miniature urns of this type occasionally occur. Hoare (Ancient Wilts, i. 195) names one 5 inches high, and there are one or two others at Stourhead. See also that still smaller, from Abingdon, Berks, in the British Museum. Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. ii. 248.

^{page 345 note b} Turn. Wiltun. p. 9.

^{page 345 note c} Arch. Journ. xxii. 260.

^{page 345 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 81, pl. viii ; 237 (³), Title-page.

^{page 345 note e} Duke, Antiq. and Top. Cabinet, 1809, v. pl. i. It was found in a barrow on Lake Down, near Stonehenge. Ancient Wilts, i. 213. It is 16 inches high (the rim 4 inches), and 11 inches in diameter.

^{page 346 note a} Rutter, North-West Somerset, 1829, p. 329. This urn, 16½ inches high, is now in the possession of Mr. Saxty of Bath, to whom 1 owe a photograph. In Phelps's Somerset, i. 117, 126, are “vignettes” of cinerary urns. If either of those from “the Beacon, Mendip,” be intended for this urn, the representation is unfaithful

^{page 346 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 241 (¹⁷). The urn at Stourhead is without a label, but is identified by Sir Richard Hoare's remark that it “is rather of an oval form ”—the mouth having this shape. He states that it is “the largest he had found except the Stonehenge urn;” meaning, as shown by the statement on the opposite page, that with this exception it was the largest he had been able to preserve entire.

^{page 347 note a} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxi. 159, pl. 7, figs. 1—6 ; one latley acquired has a height of 14 inches. Ibid. vi. 1, pl. i. figs. 2, 3, 4; where one 15 inches high, from Hackness, N. E. Yorkshire, is described. The urns found at Wavertree, Lancashire, are of the same type. Arch. Cambr. 3 S. 1868, xiv. 206, fig. 1, 2.

^{page 347 note b} For photographs of these urns and of the accompanying “incense cups,” I am indebted to Dr. T. S. Clouston, of the County Asylum, at Garlands.

^{page 347 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 164 (⁴²), pl. xvi.

^{page 348 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 114 (⁸), pl. xiii. ; 164 (⁴²), pl. xvi. ; 207 (⁵), pl. xxviii. fig. 1. The last is richly ornamented.

^{page 348 note b} Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, pl. vi.; “Urns from Sturminster Marshall.” An urn of this type, of rather small size, from Summer Hill, Canterbury, is figured in Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc xxii. 107, 241, pl. xiv. fig. 3

^{page 348 note c} Purbeck Papers, 1855, i. 38, fig. vii. The figure however is unworthy of the urn. Wame, op. cit. iii. 58 (⁸⁷).

^{page 348 note d} Arch. Journ. vi. 229. Arch. Cambrens. 3 S. xiv. 222—225, fig. iv.; which shows the restored urn.

^{page 348 note e} Oliver. Beverley. Plate, fig. 6.

^{page 348 note f} For the use of this and other cuts, the Society is indebted to the Hon. W. O. Stanley. See Arch. Journ. xxvii. 163, pl. ix. fig. 1.

^{page 349 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 66. It is figured in the unpublished plates, “Tumuli. Imber,” fig. v. Culinary vessels with vertically pierced handles are described above. An “urn ” of about the same size and somewhat similar style, though without a handle, from a cairn at Crakraig, Sutherland, had a stain on the inside, leading to the conclusion that it was a large food vase. Archæologia, xix. 411, pl. xliii.

^{page 349 note b} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 73. The urn is 16 inches high and 14 inches in diameter, the border 5 inches broad. An urn of this type, the border without ornament, is figured in the unpublished plates to Ancient Wilts, “Tumuli, XXIII. B.”

^{page 349 note c} For photographs of the Hutchins urns in the Ashmolean Museum, I am indebted to Professor J. Phillips ; for plaster casts of the rim and of one of the handles of this particular urn to the sub-curator, Mr. G. A. Rowell. The impressed ornament is very peculiar, and is spoken of by Mr. Hutchins as “a victor's laurel pattern.” At first I thought it might have been produced by the impression of the spikes of some grass or cereal ; none of the impressions much exceed two inches in length. It is not certain whether they could have been produced by any double plaiting of cord or thong. (Arch. Journ. xxviii. 70, fig.)

^{page 350 note a} A portion of another very large handled urn of this description, from a north Wiltshire barrow (near Avebury), is not very accurately figured by Dean Merewether. Proc. Arch. Inst. at Salisbury, 1849, 109, fig. 11. It was in the possession of the late Mrs. Brown of Aldbourn.

^{page 350 note b} Warne, op. cit. i. 29, 47, pl. ii. 2 ; iv. 14. These figures seem to lack verisimilitude.

^{page 350 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 121 (³).

^{page 350 note d} In his letter to Sir R. C. Hoare (Modern Wilts, Alderbury, v. 208), Mr. Hutchins describes that from Bulford as “the horse-shoe urn,” and that from Winterslow Hut as having “plain indentures round the neck and false handles.” An inspection of paintings of the Winterslow Hut finds, now in the possession of A. B. Heath, Esq. of East Woodhay, near Newbury, enables me to indentify these two urns.

^{page 351 note a} Warne. op. cit. i. 47; ii. 3. pl. iv. figs. 12, 13.

^{page 352 note a} Mr. W. C. Borlase, in Arch. Cambr. 1869, 3 S. xv. 32, has engraved two, one from Tredinney barrow, with four small bowed handles or “cleats,” the other, a mere fragment, from Morvah Hill barrow, with four “embossed” semicircular handles. Others, in the Museum at Penzance, are figured by Mr. J. T. Blight, Week at Land's End, 1861. An urn from St. Austel Down, 13½ inches high, also with “four little ears or handles,” is figured in Philos. Trans. 1744, xli. 469, pl. ii. fig. 3.

^{page 352 note b} Rolfe and Lukis, Bircham Barrows, 1843, plate.

^{page 352 note c} LI. Jewitt, The Reliquary, 1864, iv. 205, pl. xxii.; about 10½ in. high.

^{page 352 note d} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. i. 243. In the figure of the urn from Cairn Thierna, co. Cork (Arch. Journ. vi. 191), there is likewise perhaps some error. As represented it appears to have a cover, but of such an accessory there is no mention.

^{page 352 note e} Pembrokeshire, p. 349, pl. i. fig. 1; Arch. Cambr. 1853, 2 S. iv. 85. The figure is perhaps not strictly accurate, as the urn was in many fragments. Mr. Fenton found in the varied ornament, not only a “snakeshaped band,” but “a regal crown.”

^{page 353 note a} Warne, op. cit. pl. v.; where the three largest are of this type ; pl. vii. fig. 7. Two others, each 19 inches high, with vertical ribs, are figured, ii. 23, 27; they have some analogy with the large urn next referred to, from near Stonehenge, as likewise that from Woodyates, Dorset, exhumed by Mr. Chaffers. (C. R. Smith, Collect. Antiq. i. 96, fig. That on the preceding page, from an adjoining barrow, belongs to our Type γ.)

^{page 353 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 126 (¹⁴), pl. xvi. distinguished by Sir R. C. Hoare as “The Stonehenge Urn.”

^{page 353 note c} From a tumulus of very slight elevation overlooked by Hoare, within a mile of Stonehenge, and a little to the north-east of No. 27 of the Winterbourn Stoke group. Archæologia, xlii. 171, pl. xiii.

^{page 354 note a} Archæologia, xxxvii. 361, pl. viii. The urns are in the Ashmolean Museum.

^{page 354 note b} Miles, Deverell Harrow, pl. ii. 2 ; v. 3, 11 ; vi, 12. Two are copied by Mr. Warne, op. cit. pl. ix.

^{page 354 note c} Ord, Cleveland, p. 108, note.

^{page 354 note d} Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, p. 84.

^{page 354 note e} F. C. Lukis, Archæologia, xxxv. 255. Arch. Journ. i. 228.

^{page 354 note f} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 325. Miles, op. cit. p. 25. Warne, op. cit. ii. 15; where a large urn, the form of which does not appear, is described by Dr. Wake Smart, as having “in its sides two holes, probably for securing a fracture by the insertion of a ligature.” Hoare once names a rude cinerary urn, with “two perforations on its sides.” Ancient Wilts, i. 46.

^{page 354 note g} Miles, op. cit. p. 20, pl. v. nos. 15, 22. (That given in our plate from a photograph is No. 15.) Warne, op. cit. ii. 25, pl. ix. It appears from a volume of Stukeley's Miscellaneous Collections (1718, p 12), in

the library of the Society of Antiquaries, that an urn of this type and another of flower-pot shape, with, if we may trust the sketch, four semicircular handles, were found at Sunbury Common, Middlesex, in 1719 ; and, curiously, during the present winter, 1871—72, among the numerous urns brought to light on this spot, there was one, of the same type and very large size, with four such semicircular appendages.

^{page 355 note a} The Deverell barrow urns were supposed to have been “safely deposited and carefully preserved “in the Museum of the Bristol Institution. It is, however, to be regretted that they are falling to pieces, and in danger of being quite lost. That above given, from a photograph (fig. 33), is 11 in. high, and is Miles' No. 17, pl. iii As these pages are being printed, 1871, globular urns have been found in barrows at Dewlish, by Mr. James Brown, and at Plush, by the Rev. C. W. Bingham, both in the same central part of Dorset as the Deverell barrow. One of those from Plush, shown to me by Professor Rolleston, has the loops at the neck filled in with an imitation fictile cord. See Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. v. 112.

^{page 355 note b} Warne, op. cit. ii. 5, pl. vi. Two from Whitchurch. Two other globular Dorset urns are figured in The Barrow Diggers, 1839, p. 91, pl. viii., Tigs. 2, 3. One of these, from Charlton Marshall, is referred to in Archæologia, xvii. 332, and there is a drawing of it in the collections of the Society. Cf. Warne, op. cit. iii. 24.

^{page 356 note a} Bateman (Ten Years' Diggings, p. 282), speaks of globular British urns, imitations of those of the Romano-British period, pretty well baked, with narrowed mouths, and some with the peculiarity of a couple of holes (for reparation), about an inch apart, at the side. These however have been shown above to be in all probability culinary.

^{page 356 note b} The Rev. J. H. Austen informs me (Feb. 1871), that the broken urn, 21 in. high, had ribs extending from the broad border to the bottom, something like Sir R. C. Hoare's “Stonehenge Urn “(var. δ supra). These ribs, however, are oblique, not vertical. At the bottom, inside, was a four-armed cross in slight relief (⅛ inch), figured on the next page.

^{page 356 note c} All eight are from the counties of Sussex, Dorset, and Devon. The five examples already known were collected by Albert Way, Esq., F.S.A. Hydriotaphia Cambrens. p. 63 ; Arch. Camb. 3 S. xiv. 279. In 1852, I examined the bottom of one of the large urns from the cavern at Berry Head, near Brixham, and supposed it to have been a domestic and not sepulchral vessel (Cran. Brit. v. 107), an inference corrected by the description of a second found at the same place. For the urn from Worgret, Dorset, with the cross “partly raised and partly grooved,” see Warne, op. cit. iii. 29.

^{page 356 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 243. I have examined the bottoms of all the larger urns in the museum at Stourhead, without finding any ornament except on the fine urn from Woodyates, described under our first type. The barrows at this place, though in Dorset, are only a mile or two beyond the present Wiltshire border, and are more like the tumuli of this latter than of the former county. They are indeed probably Belgic.

^{page 357 note a} Le Signe de la Groix avant le Christianisme, pp. 126, 173. The figure of the chi-rho monogram, given by M. de Mortillet (figs. 59, 116) is misleading ; it can have no reference to the markings on the Golasecca and other vases described by him.

^{page 357 note b} Two are stated to have been found with unburnt skeletons, Ancient Wilts, i. 124 (²⁵), 202 (15⁶). In the former barrow, however, there was a burnt as well as an unburnt body ; and it is possible that the second is not accurately, or at least not fully, reported.

^{page 358 note a} Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset (vignette to title), iii. 43, pl. i. fig. 20* ; 55, pl. vii. figs. 2, 3. Arch. Journ. iii. 350, 351 ; xii. 193. This last is at Cambridge. (See fig. 42, infra.) The two incense cups given by Mr. Warne from Hoare (op. cit. iii. 16,17, pl. 2. Woodyates) have been reckoned among the Wiltshire examples, this Woodyates group of barrows, as more than once stated, appearing to belong to the Belgic district.

^{page 358 note b} In the Bateman collection there are seven, apparently from Derbyshire or Staffordshire, and fifteen from the Ruddock diggings in Yorkshire. From the last-named county Mr. Atkinson has about ten and Mr. Greenwell nearly the same number of incense cups. The cinerary urn and incense cup from Derbyshire, figured above, with the relative sizes preserved, were found together. Reliquary, iv. 205, pl. xxii. Mr. LI. Jewitt has kindly allowed these blocks (from Reliquary, iv. pl. xxii.) and several others to be employed for the illustration of the present paper.

^{page 359 note a} One, quite plain, is figured by Sir W. Wilde, Cat. R. Irish Acad. p. 177, fig. 124 ; also one of much beauty, p. 179, fig. 129. Fig. 49 postea. Two more had been added to the collection prior to my visit in 1870. In the Catalogue of Antiquities exhibited at Belfast in 1852, there is mention of what appear to be incense cups, one of them “pierced with two holes on each side,” pp. 5, 51, app. p. 6. In the museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland are about twelve of these small vessels.

^{page 359 note b} Archæologia, xxxv. 255, where are figures of saucer-like cups, pierced at each side.

^{page 359 note c} For such a cup from a barrow near Stonehenge, see Ancient Wilts, i. 199 (132), pl. xxiv. This simplest form is common in the barrows of Yorkshire and Derbyshire; see Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 106. figs. 117, 118, 119, 121 ; Bowman, Beliq. Antiq. Ebor. pp. 26, 38, fig. 2 ; Arch. Journ. i. p. 412, rig. 3; Young, Whitby, ii. 660, fig. 2 ; C. R. Smith, Collect. Antiq. i. 60, pl. xxi. fig. 2 ; i. 34, pl. xv. fig. 3. The last is from a barrow at Brandon, Warwickshire. Bloxam, Fragment. Sepulch. pp. 21, 25.

^{page 360 note a} Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi, 323 (¹⁰) ; Arch. Journ. xxviii. 70. A very similar cup, labelled “Barrow at Abury,” six miles north of Roughridge Hill (Ancient Wilts, ii. 90 (²), is at Stourhead.

^{page 360 note b} Trans. Internat. Congress Prehist. Archæology, 1868, p. 381, pl. v., vi. A somewhat similar, but ruder, cup was afterwards obtained from a barrow at Upton Pyne, in the same county (Trans. Devon Assoc. 1871, iv. 644), and is here reproduced (fig. 39), by Mr. Kirwan's permission. See also that found at Cauld Chapel, Lanark. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xvii. 111, pl. 12, fig. 3, 4. Comp. x. 8, pl. 3, fig. 6.

^{page 360 note c} See that on four feet, from near Pickering, N. R. Yorks, Ten Years' Diggings, p. 238. Another, but without feet, is in the collection of Mr. Atkinson, at Danby, N. E. Yorks.

^{page 361 note a} Mr. Hutchins terms it a “small offering vessel, or lachrymatory.” Hoare, Modern Wilts, Alderbury, v. 211: Antiq. Year Book, 1845, p. 23. I have been able to identify the cup by aid of the painting at East Woodhay, Berks, previously referred to.

^{page 361 note b} I take it to be the “small round plain cup,” found with a burnt body, in a barrow at Cholderton, by Mr. Hutchins. Hoare, Modern Wilts, v. 210.

^{page 361 note c} Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 106, figs. 114, 115, 116, 122 ; Bateman, Vestiges, p. 28; see that from Cronllwyn, Pembroke ; Fenton, Pembrokeshire, p. 580, pl. ii. fig 7 ; Arch. Cambr. 1851, 2 S. ii. 334.

There were two others of the same sort, with an urn said to be nearly three feet high.

^{page 361 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 114 (⁹), pl. xiii. The little cup of our Type I., figured Ancient Wilts, i. 213 (²¹), pl. xxxi., is at Lake House, and seems to me to have been double.

^{page 361 note e} Arch. Journ. vii. 66; x. 3. The remains of this are in the British Museum. The cup from Bincombe, Dorset (fig. 42), in the museum of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society (Report, 1855, No. V. p. 144 ; Arch. Journ. xii. 193 ; Cran. Brit. pl. 57, xxiv.) is a less characteristic example.

^{page 362 note a} Hydriotaphia Cambrens. pl. 4. The figures are reproduced from Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. iii. 485; v. 13. There are two good examples in the museum at Belfast, one of them doubly pierced at the side.

^{page 362 note b} Archæologia, ix. 191, pl. ix. 4. This cup has been presented by Mr. J. J. Eogers to the National Collection. One from Wath, near Ripon, figured by the Rev. W. C. Lukis ( Yorks. Arch, and Topog. Journ. 1870, i. 121, pl. ii. figs. 2, 3), is very similar. It is curious that the two holes, which as usual passed through the vessel, had been obliterated on the inside before baking, by a thin coating of clay smeared over them in this condition. There were two or three cups of this type with the large find of urns at Garlands, near Carlisle.

^{page 363 note a} A cup from Malvern, Worcestershire (Arch. Journ. vii. 67. Allies, Worcestershire, 2 ed. p. 165), might at first, be taken to be of this type. It differs however both in form and fabric, being very thick and clumsy, and having impressed cord ornaments. It is rather of our Type I. with a wider mouth than usual.

^{page 363 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 174, pl. xviii.; 238 (B), pl. xxxiii. fig. 3. The first is much warped and cracked “by the heat of the funereal pile.” Though not shewn in the engraving, there are two perforations one-third of an inch apart. The base is ornamented at the edge as described above.

^{page 363 note c} Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc. viii. 44 ; Proc. Arch. Inst. at Bristol, 1851, lix. This cup, a hair-pin, and a dagger-blade, both of bronze, and a perforated whetstone (all figured in this memoir), accompanied an interment after cremation in a barrow at Wall Mead, Camerton. The objects are preserved in the museum at Bristol. There was a bronze awl with one of my Beckhampton expanded cups (fig. 44). Of the twenty-six incense cups found by Hoare, two were accompanied by bronze blades and four by bronze awls.

^{page 364 note a} Archæologia, xv. 129; Ancient Wilts, i. 99.

^{page 364 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 99, pl. xi.; 199 (¹³³), pl. xxiv.; 202 (¹⁵⁶). This last, the finest, has not been figured, but has been copied in Wedgwood ware and in burnt clay It is sub-globular, with a narrow mouth and thin lip. The others have moulded mouths with impressed cord pattern. The fourth is described as “of singular form and pattern, and perforated in several places.” Ancient Wilts, i. 124 (²⁵); unpublished plates, “Tumulus XV. Winterbourn Stoke.”

^{page 364 note c} Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, pp, 93, 108, figs. 2, 3. The second, that from Monkton Hill, Avebury, given in our fig. 47, though not so represented by the Dean, has two perforations 1¼. apart, deviating from the horizontal, and separated by three of the knobs of the third row. It belonged to the late Mrs. Brown, of Aldbourn, through whose kindness it is here figured.

^{page 365 note a} Proc. Arch. Inst. Bristol, p. lix; Arch. Journ. xvi. 149. This cup is oval, with a slightly convex bottom, and with knobs like thick square nail-heads. It seems to have been distorted in the baking.

^{page 365 note b} The nearest approach to such a cup beyond the Belgic limits is in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries. It is of flower-pot shape, quite plain, excepting a row of eight or nine knobs, like nail-heads, at the middle. Proc. Soc. Ant. i. 67 ; 2 S. i. 84 (¹⁷).

^{page 365 note c} Bateman, Vestiges, 23; Ten Years' Diggings, 281.

^{page 365 note d} Archæologia, xxxii. 360; Sepulchra Exposita, 1848, pp. 19, 23; Arch. Journ. v. 236. We owe the use of the cut to the kindness of the present Lord Braybrooke.

^{page 365 note e} xiii. 404, pl. xxvi. fig. 6.

^{page 365 note f} No. “45, 2454,” from Cabinteely, near Dublin.

^{page 365 note g} Arch. Journ. iii. 351; Warne, l. c. iii. 55, pl. vii. fig. 2.

^{page 366 note a} Ll. Jewitt, The Reliquary, 1864, iv. 205, pl. xxii.; Grave Hounds, p. 107, fig. 125.

^{page 366 note b} Wilde, Cat. R. I. Acad. pp. 175, 179, 188; Proc. R. I. Acad. iv. 35; v. 131. The form of the cup from Castlecomer, Kilkenny, is very similar, but it has no handle. (Arch. Journ. viii. 200 ; Journ. Kilkenny Arch. Assoc. i. 136.) Each is about two inches high, and stands on a very narrow base. They have both been compared with the classical rhyton, it being supposed that they “could not stand erect,” but this, on inspection and after inquiry, I find is a mistake.

^{page 366 note c} Arch. Journ. vi. 319, not very well figured; xxiv. 24. With it were two bronze pins. Another cup from one of the barrows at Bulford is in the Audley End Museum; it is of our second contracted type and imperforate.

^{page 366 note d} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxii. 450.

^{page 367 note a} Archæologia, viii. 59, pl. i.; Douglas, Nenia, 155, 165, figs. 3. 4.

^{page 367 note b} One of these is named, Catalogue of Antiquities, exhibited at Belfast, 1852, p. 5; comp. App. p. 6 ; it is doubtless that from a cairn at Killuoken, co. Tyrone, rudely figured in Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. i. 244.

^{page 367 note c} Arch. Journ. xxiv. 22; Hydriotaph. Cambr. p. 40, fig. 18, 20. The last figure is inaccurate, as it does not show that the openings “admit light to the interior.” (Arch. Cambr. 1860, 3 S, vi. 32.) Basket cups, more or less resembling those of Britain, are found in the tombs of Cyprus, described by Dr. Sand-with, in a paper read May 4th, 1871, before the Society of Antiquaries. One, in the possession of J. W. Flower, Esq., F.G.S., has six triangular perforations, three on each side.

Ancient Wilts, i. 201 (155), pl. xxv. See also that from Llandyssilio, Pembrokeshire, figured from memory by Mr. Fenton as “resembling a miniature Stonehenge.” It is not clear as to this last, whether there were openings in the sides, or only recessed panels. Arch. Camb. 1860, vi. 32; Hydriotaph. Cambr. p. 41, fig. 22.

^{page 368 note a} Warne, Celtic Tumuli, vignette to title. Encircling this cup are two rows of twenty-three incisions each ; of these, six penetrate the sides in. the top row and only one in the lower. This vessel is again poorly engraved in Miss Meteyard's Life of Wedgewood, 1865, i. 5, fig. 1.

^{page 368 note b} Horsfield, Lewes, p. 43 ; Sussex Arch. Coll. viii. 285, fig.; Arch. Journ. xix. 185.

^{page 368 note c} Archæologia, xxx. 458, fig.; comp. Arch. Journ. xiii. 85. This cup, if not a forgery, is a variety of Type I.

^{page 368 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (2), pl. xxx.

^{page 368 note e} W. Procter, M.D. Proc. Yorks. Phil. Soc. i. 185 ; Bowman, Reliq. Antiq. Ebor. 38, fig.

^{page 368 note f} An Eastern incense or perhaps pastile cup, of red terra-cotta, shown me by Mr. Syer Cuming (not very accurately described Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxi. 161), has five holes in the convex bottom, which fits into a cup-formed stand with open stem, apparently intended to allow of a current of air reaching the burning substance in the cup.

^{page 369 note a} Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, 227, 238 (⁶). For details as to the other Yorkshire incense-cups, I am indebted to Mr. Greenwell and Mr. Atkinson.

^{page 370 note a} Kirwan, Trans. Internat. Congress Prehistoric Archæology, 379, pl. vi. fig. 1 ; Trans. Devon Assoc. for Science, 1869, ii. 634.

^{page 370 note b} Yorks. Arch, and Topog. Journ. 1870, i. 121, pl. ii. fig. 3. The cruciform ornament takes the form of “four quadrants, two of which have a different ornamentation, the opposite quadrants being alike.”

^{page 370 note c} In this, now in the British Museum, the quadrants formed by the cross likewise alternately correspond.

^{page 370 note d} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xvii. 111, pl. xii. figs. 3, 4.

^{page 370 note e} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. v. 13, fig. 1. (Fig. 43, supra). For a sketch of the ornament I am indebted to Mr. John Anderson, the curator of the museum.

^{page 370 note f} Hydriotaphia Cambrens. pp. 40, 44, figs. 19, 21, 24 ; Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 256 ; Arch. Journ. xxiv. 22.

^{page 371 note a} Both in the Museum in Edinburgh. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. iii. 485, fig. 2 ; v. 13, fig. 1.

^{page 371 note b} Proc. Hist. Soc. of Lancashire, 1852, iv. 130, fig. 1 ; Arch. Camb. 1853, N.S. iv. 159. This cup was larger than usual; it was “perforated with four holes;” they are not shown in the figure, and it is not certain that they were in pairs, though this is probable.

^{page 371 note c} Archæologia, viii. 62, pl. i. figs. 2, 4. It is not perfectly certain that the cup had “two similar holes on the other side.” The plain cup from Galley Lowe (Bateman, Vestiges, p. 39) with two holes at each side has been classified above as culinary. The Yorkshire specimen, with one hole at each side (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vi. 1, pl. i. fig. 1), is less clearly such. On the same plate, fig. 5, is a cup with the usual pair of holes at one side.

^{page 371 note d} The first is the compressed cup already given (fig. 48). There are seven holes, though of the three shown in the figure that to the right is very indistinctly represented. For those from near Pickering and Eyam Moor, Derbyshire, see Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, 238 (⁰⁶), 248. The latter had nine holes. The two from Wales (one from Glamorganshire and the other from Anglesey,) are in the British Museum, see Arch. Journ. xxiv. 19, fig. 7a ; xxvii. 155, 163, pl. ix. fig. 2. The former has eight, the latter seven holes, and is coarse, plain, and of a red brick colour, in form like the nave of a wheel. Figures of both are reproduced above, through the kindness of Mr. A. Way and the Hon. W. O. Stanley, F.S.A.

^{page 372 note a} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 28 ; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 130, 205. The last is from near Pickering, Yorkshire. The preceding references give many examples from all parts of Great Britain and Ireland, with the usual pair of holes.

^{page 372 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 25, 209. The argument in favour of suspension from the decoration on the bottoms of some of these cups, which it is said would be lost to view unless they were hung up above the level of the eye (Hydriotaph. Carnbr. p. 4, 43, 63, Journ. Ethnol. Soc. ii. 319), is of less weight when we find that a large proportion of food-vessels, as to which evidence for suspension can scarcely be assigned, are likewise decorated in this situation.

^{page 372 note c} Ellesmere, Guide to Northern Arch. p. 42 ; Worsaae, Primeval Antiq. Eng. ed. p. 20 ; Nilsson, Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, Eng. ed. p. 85, pl. x. fig. 209, where the method of affixing a thong is described. These vessels have covers, are larger than our incense-cups, holding about a pint, and, as Prof. Nilsson supposes, were designed for “raising and carrying water for drinking.” Madsen, Afbildninger, pl. 43, figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.

^{page 373 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 241. Sir Richard merely speaks of it as “an elegant little incense-cup.”

^{page 373 note b} It is No. 45, 2454. and was found with burnt bones, in a small stone-covered grave. A little cup with two holes at each side was in the collection of Mr. A. C. Welsh, of Dromore, co. Down. (See Catal. Antiq. at Belfast, 1852, p. 51, app. p. 6.) It is suggested that the holes were for suspending it within the large urn in which it was found.

^{page 374 note a} Archæologia, ix. 192. Another cup, likewise with lateral holes, was brought under the notice of the Society of Antiquaries by Dr. Pegge, who emphatically remarks on this peculiar feature as “astonishing and unaccountable,” op. cit. viii. 62.

^{page 374 note b} Mr. Skinner seems to have regarded them as drinking cups, and, as he supposed, the two holes were “to let out any liquor employed at the interment, by way of libation.” Proc. Somerset. Arch. Soc viii. 44.

^{page 374 note c} Birch, Ancient Pottery, ii. 380. Dr. D. Wilson agrees in this opinion. Prehistoric Annals, 2 ed. i. 424. This was a suggestion of the eighteenth century (Archæologia, xiii. 404), and revived by the late Lord Braybrooke. Sepulchra Expos. 1848, p. 19.

^{page 374 note d} Archæologia, viii. 62, pl. i. fig. 4.

^{page 374 note e} Ll. Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 105 ; Kirwan, Trans. Internat. Congr. Prehistoric Archæology, p. 383 ; Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 180 ; Hon. W. O. Stanley, Arch. Journ. vi. 229, 231; Hydriotaphia Cambr. p. 12 ; Horœ Ferales, p. 213; Arch. Journ. xxviii. 68. In Mr. Kirwan's case, the bones in the cup have not been examined; in Mr. Stanley's, so far as appears, the small bones may have been fœtal and burct in utero ; the vessel containing them however was a food-vase, not an incense-cup.

^{page 375 note a} Wilson in Ten Years' Diggings, p. 249. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxvii, 361.

^{page 375 note b} Hon. W. O. Stanley, Arch. Journ. xxvii. 155, 163. Mr. Albert Way objects to this view; Hydriotaph. Cambr. p. 73.

^{page 375 note c} Vessels for embers and incense, as well as for holy water, were often buried with the dead. Durandus, in an often-quoted passage, writes:— “In quibusdam locis ponitur in spelunca aqua benedicta et prunæ cum thure. Aqua benedicta ne dæmones ad corpus accedant; thus propter fœtorem corporis removendum ; seu ad ostendendum quod defunctis prosit auxilium orationis.” Be Divin. Offic. vii. 35. The Abbé Cochet found several vessels in a cemetery near Dieppe, some, as he believed, for lustral water, the others for embers and incense. The last were about four inches high, and pierced with four or five holes at the side, as supposed for evaporation Archæologia, xxxv. 301; xxxvi. 258, pl. xxi. fig. 6; xxxvii. 416, pl. xi. figs. 1—5; Proc. Soc. Ant. iii. 207; 2 S. v. 161 ; Cochet, Archéologie Céramique, 1863, pp. 16, 17, figs. Similar vases were found with a Christian interment at Montrose. (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 460, fig.) The holes in these have likewise been roughly bored ex tempore.

^{page 375 note d} It seems undesirable to apply to these vessels the names of thurible and censer, associated as these term are with medieval church ceremonies. Our incense cups appear, further, to have little analogy with either the thuribulum or alabastrum (Mark, xiv. 3), of antiquity. It may come nearer to the batillum, or pan for incense, “prunes batillum,” Hor. Sat. i. 5, 36. The term thurible appears to have been adopted by Hoare from Iuigo Jones, who records the finding of the cover of what he calls a Roman thuribulum of stone within the area of Stonehenge. Jones, Stonehenge, p. 76 ; Webb, Stonehenge, pp. 50, 123, fig. ; Ancient Wilts, i. 150 ; Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 182.

^{page 376 note a} 2 Chron. xvi. 14 ; xxi. 19; Jerem. xxxiv. 5,—“ Thou shalt die in peace, and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings, which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee.” As to Modern Egypt, see Lane, 5th ed. p. 148, 519, where is the figure of an earthen incense-pot, with a hole at one side.

^{page 376 note b} The use of incense at funerals was forbidden by the laws of the Twelve Tables. (Cicero, De Legg. ii. 24). See as to the degeneracy of his own times in this respect, and as to the use of perfumed unguents, Pliny, xii. 41 ; xiii. 1—5.

^{page 376 note c} Odyss. xxiv. 67, 73. Sweet ointment, as well as wine, was poured over the burnt bones of Achilles when placed in the urn. Iliad xxiii. 170. See F. A. Paley, On Homeric Tumuli.

^{page 376 note d} Hydriotaphia Cambrens. p. 72 ; Arch. Cambrens. 3 S. xiv. 288 ; Arch. Journ. xxiv. 32.

^{page 376 note e} As the Ethiopians of Cerne. Scylax, Peripl. 111, in Kenrick, Phœnicia, p. 226.

^{page 376 note f} Kingsborough, quoted by Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 306 ; C. W. King, Precious Stones, p. 330 ; Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii., 348.

^{page 377 note a} Boece, Scotorum Hist. 1575, Cosmogr. xv. p. 10 ; Engl. by Bellenden, in Holinshed's Chronicle, 1587, ii. 19.

^{page 377 note b} In 1849, Proc. Yorks. Phil. Soc. i. 178 ; Cran. Brit. chap. v. p. 82.

^{page 377 note c} And in England, even in the eighteenth century. Wilts. Arch. Mag. xii. 268.

^{page 377 note d} “ Abundat et abiete silvositas Hiberniæ, thuris et incensi mater.” Topog. Hibern. iii. 10. In an Anglo-Saxon grave, at Kingston, Kent, Faussett found “a piece of resinous substance, not much unlike black resin,” which being burnt gave forth “a strong, but by no means unpleasant, smell.” Inventorium Sepulch. 1856, p. 68.

^{page 377 note e} Morris, Jason, v. 116.

^{page 378 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 74, pl. ix, “above the nippers ; ” 163 (³⁹), 195 (²). The last with projecting rim, 5 inches high, is to be seen at Stourhead.

^{page 378 note b} Scarcely a single example occurs in the. excavations made by Mr. C. Warne, F.S.A. or Mr. J. Sydenham. Among the urns figured by the latter, two were perhaps food vessels. Archæologia, xxx. 327, pl. xvii. figs. 5, 7. One or two, found by Mr. Austen in the Badbury barrow, seem also to have been of this description. Warne, op. cit. iii. 52, pl. vii. figs. 5, 6.

^{page 378 note c} In this are displayed about fifty food vessels; but nearly half are from Yorkshire and belong to the Ruddock collection.

^{page 378 note d} In the Catalogue (p. 57), food vessels and drinking cups are not distinguished from each other.

^{page 378 note e} A probable estimate, notwithstanding that some are said to have been found with burnt bones and are regarded as cinerary urns. The finds however were generally casual, and the descriptions are often vague. In the Catalogue, all sepulchral fictilia are classed as “urns.”

^{page 378 note f} Mem. Anthrop. Soc. i. 141, fig. 5, reproduced in the text ; Archæologia, xlii. 197.

^{page 379 note a} Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 93. It was at the feet of the skeleton of a child, in the grave near the centre of the mound, a plan of which has been given (see fig. 12).

^{page 379 note b} No. 10. Presented by Professor John Phillips, F.R.S. Another in the same collection, No. 11, from Brismire, near Oddington, Oxon, is sub-globular and decorated all over.

^{page 389 note c} Cran. Brit. pl. 31, ix. p. 2; Arch. Journ. xiii. 95; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 438. The first from Acklam, in the East, the second from Fylingdales in the North Riding. Others from near Scarborough were figured by the late Lord Londesborough. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. iv. 101. Two of these are reproduced on the next page. The former (fig. 70) is a food vase of our third variety, with four stop-ridges in each of two hollowed mouldings. One from the Scottish isle of Cumbrae, in the Museum at Paisley, is figured in The Graphic, Feb 26, 1870.

^{page 380 note a} No. 104 C. It is inadequately figured, Cran. Brit. pl. 12, xiv. p. 2 ; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 139, 285. The handles are exaggerated and the beauty of the surface ornament is quite missed in the figure.

^{page 381 note a} Arch. Journ. xxvi. 288, figs., In Mr. Greenwell's collection are two food vessels, each with four feet, but these are not confluent.

^{page 381 note b} Archæologia, xxxviii. 418, figs. 14, 15. Mr. Albert Way believes this tomb had become “a dwelling-place for the living,” (Arch. Carnbr. 3 S. xiv. 284, Hydriot. Cambr. p. 68,) which, if the case, the fictile fragments prove must have been before the close of the round-barrow period.

^{page 381 note c} The great majority of the fictilia from the Irish tumuli hitherto described are food vessels of our third or fourth types, and more elaborately ornamented than those of England. They may indeed be distinguished by their style. The history is generally imperfect and they are vaguely termed “urns.” The circumstances of discovery, more accurately reported by such early writers as Molyneux (Natural History of Ireland, 1726, p. 201, fig. 6) and Harris (Ware's Ireland, 1764, ii. 146, pl. ii. fig. 3), than by their successors, sufficiently show that the vases found at Stillorgan and Powerscourt were really food vessels. See also the remarkable discovery in 1786, at Mount Stewart, near Grey Abbey, co. Down, referred to in the note below. Under a cairn were more than fifty stone cists containing burnt bones, and in the northwest angle of each an earthen vase of the capacity of about one quart, containing a little “blackish granulated earth.”

^{page 382 note a} Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 5. At the bottom is a cruciform ornament in punctured lines, figured further on. One specimen of this depressed Irish type is in the British Museum.

^{page 382 note b} Several from Ballon Hill, co. Carlow, are figured, (Proc. Kilkenny Arch. Soc. 1852, ii. 295, pls i., ii., iii., Arch. Journ. xi. 73); one from Ballybit, in the same county, (ibid. 1862, 2 S. iv. 12) ; one from Macrackens, co. Tyrone, with five pierced knobs, (ibid. 1870, 4 S. i. 29; comp. 1864, 2 S. iv. 304, Arch. Journ. xxvii. 222) ; one from Altegarron, near Belfast, (ibid. 4 S. i. 506); and one from Trillick, co. Tyrone, (ibid. 583). Figures of two of these vessels are reproduced above (figs. 74, 75), by the kind permission of the Rev. James Graves and K. Malcomson, Esq. Four from the cairn near Grey Abbey, co. Down, are figured, Ulster Journ. of Archaeology, ix. 111 (comp. Dublin Penny Journal, 1832, i. 108); several others are collected in an unpublished plate by Sir E. C. Hoare, a copy of which is in the library of the Society ; figs 1—5 are Irish, 6—8 Welsh, after Fenton.

^{page 383 note a} For excellent photographs of this and other Irish food vessels I have to thank Mr. Geoghegan.

^{page 383 note b} Proc. Yorks. Phil. Soc. 1849, p. 177 ; Gran. Brit. pl. 31, ix. The food vessel, but not the cover, is figured by Professor J. Phillips, F.R.S. Rivers and Mountains of Yorkshire, 206, 290, pl. 33.

^{page 384 note a} Arch. Journ. xxv. 52, fig. The cover is 5 inches in diameter. It is not stated to be from a tumulus.

^{page 384 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 221. The “cover or lid” and a fragment of the vessel are at Lake House. For the opportunity of figuring the former I am indebted to the Rev. E. Duke.

^{page 384 note c} A “cup with a cover “from co. Kilkenny, Ireland, seen by the Rev. James Graves, has, he informs me, been lost.

^{page 384 note d} Archæologia, xxxiv. 258, pl. xx. fig. 10. The food vessel is figured by Lord Londesborough, but not the design at the bottom. The cross is formed of two double rows of dots.

^{page 384 note e} Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, 212, 285. The vessel was exhumed by Mr. Ruddock from a barrow at Newton upon Rawcliff, North Riding of Yorkshire. A broad cross is formed by the decussation of two triple rows of punctured dots, twelve or thirteen in a row.

^{page 385 note a} The Irish “urn,” from a barrow at Stackallen, with a cross at the bottom, named by Mr. Albert Way (Arch. Cambr. 1868, 3 S. xiv. 281), on the authority of Mr. Du Noyer, is probably also a food vase. Two of the four Irish food vases in the British Museum are partially decorated at the bottom, but not cross-wise.

^{page 385 note b} This vessel is the subject of the second figure in plate i. Ulster Journ. Archaœology, ix. 112. For a rubbing and sketch of the ornament at the bottom I am indebted to the present owner, Mr. D. MacCance, of Clifden, Belfast.

^{page 385 note c} Wilde, Catalogue Mus. Royal Irish Academy, p. 188, No. 16. For this and other sketches I am indebted to the pencil of my nephew, F. H. Longfield, Esq.

^{page 385 note d} A food vessel from a stone cist in a barrow near Scarborough “was more than half-filled with a dry coarse powder, of a dark reddish-brown colour,” which, on analysis, proved to be of vegetable origin, highly carbonized, as thought from the long continued action- of water. With the powder were numerous small fragments of branches, the fibre only slightly altered. A small proportion of resin was detected. (W. Travis, M.D., Letter to Sir J. V. B. Johnstone, Bart. 1836, p. 7, pl. ii. fig. 3.) A food vase from a cist at Kinaldie, Aberdeenshire, contained a black greasy deposit of animal matter, no doubt the remains of food. Gran. Brit. pl. 25, v. In vases from other cists in this county, Mr. Alexander Watts reports “a whiteish mealy substance “at the bottom. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 232.

^{page 386 note a} Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 230.

^{page 386 note b} Iliad, xxiii. 218 ; Odyss. x. 519 ; xi. 27. In Archæologia, xlii. 237, the libations and offering to the manes are described, chiefly after Virgil.

^{page 386 note c} Ponitur exiguâ feralis cœna patellâ. Juv. Sat. v. 85. Vitruvius witnesses to the custom among the Greeks, of interring drinking cups with the dead—” poculis quibus ea viva delectabatur,” iv. 1. s. 9.

^{page 386 note d} Archmæologia, xxvi. 368.

^{page 386 note e} Pliny, xviii. 8—19. Maize porridge is the substitute for bread with the American tribes. E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, pp. 542, 545. According to Fynes Moryson, the common Irish, as late as the seventeenth century, had no bread, but only oats, coarsely prepared. See the curious account of the manners of the Irish. Ten Years' Travel, 1617, part iii. b. 3, c. v. p. 156.

^{page 386 note f} See the illustration of the party at dinner, in Lane, Modern Egyptians, where three different methods of eating are shown. Further on (fig. 87), we find that the Northern Britons had spoons of horn, like the Dacotahs of North America. Longfellow, Hiawatha, xi. 17.

^{page 387 note a} Pliny, xviii. 44. This hardy cereal was probably cultivated in the North of Europe long before wheat. This is confirmed by the story of the Oönœ, islanders of the furthest North, whose food consisted of the eggs of birds and oats. Pliny, iv. 27 ; Mela, iii. 6. The Celtic peoples also made extensive use of spelt and beans, from both of which they made pottage. Pliny, xviii. 10; xxii. 61.

^{page 387 note b} Prolog. Comm. in Hierem. i. iii. Saint Jerome tells Cœlestius the Scot (Irishman), that he stuffed himself too much with Scotch porridge, Scotorum pultibus.

^{page 387 note c} Their well-known gloss on the line in Virgil's first Eclogue, “Tenui musam meditamur avena.” Sydney Smith, Works, preface. Life and Times of Lord Brougham, i. 246.

^{page 387 note d} Rich, Companion to Diet, and Lexicon, p. 117 ; Cran. Brit. v. 75.

^{page 387 note e} Posidon, ap. Athen. Deipn. iv. 26 ; Cran. Brit. l.e. pp. 74, 107. This mention of a Greek drinking vessel reminds us of Strabo's statement, that earthen vessels were among the goods with which the Phoenicians traded to the Cassiterides. This is the more probable, as Scylax says that Greek pottery was one of the articles which the same people bartered for the ivory of Africa. Periplus, iii. ; Kenrick, Phœnicia, p. 226. It does not appear that any pottery yet found in the barrows has a claim to be regarded as exotic.

^{page 388 note a} Archæologia, xxxv. 301; xxxvi. 258, 271 ; xxxviii. 330, 336, 352 ; xxxix. 136 ; xlii. 431. I am not aware of any direct evidence of the use of holy water by the Ancient Britons. See, however, the verses by the Rev. J. Skinner, in Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 322.

^{page 388 note b} The small cup of our first type from Grind Low, Derbyshire, (Reliquary, 1863, iii. 206,) measuring 4½ inches, may have a capacity of about one pint (fig. 81) ; that of our second type from Boyton, Wilts (Archæologia, xv. 343, pl. xvii. fig. 2), 3¼ inches high, can scarcely have exceeded half a pint. Two coarse drinking cups, each holding a pint or more, are in the museum at Audley End. The ornament on the smaller one seems to have been produced by an impressed twisted cord, or finely notched twig or stick. The other has a punctured ornament, in a Vandyke pattern.

^{page 387 note c} Hoare records eight near the head and twelve near the feet. Three others, in the barrows at Winterslow Hut, East Kennet, and Roundway, were all near the feet; one exhumed by myself was at the head, two at the feet. These give twenty-six cases, 17 to 9, or about two to one.

^{page 387 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 121 (⁸), 199 (¹³²), 115 (⁷) ; the last ambiguous. In one case, 234 (²), a grave contained a drinking cup, but no human remains burnt or unburnt.

^{page 389 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 44, pl. ii; 205 (¹⁶⁴) ; 238 (⁹), pl. xxxiv. The three other barrows are those enumerated by locality in note^bsupra. In barrows as far north as that at Kellythorpe, E. R. Yorksh. There was a bronze knife and a drinking cup, with the primary interment. Archæologia, xxxiv. 254, pl. xx. Drinking cups found with, secondary interments, there being bronze objects with the primary ones below, are equally opposed to Mr. Bateman's view. For such see Ancient Wilts, i. 164 (⁴³), 199 (¹³⁰), 238 (⁹).

^{page 389 note b} Eight are figured, Ancient Wilts, i. pl. ix. xiv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xxviii. figs. 3, 8 (both doubtful or not well drawn); ii. pl. xxxv. Three others in the Devizes Museum are figured, Cran. Brit. pl. 42, xxxii. (²)r pl. 58, xxviii. (2), Of three in my own collection, one of small size is from an oval barrow, Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 429, and two are figured, Archæologia, xlii. 196.

^{page 389 note c} Warne, op. cit. i. 48 ; ii. 9 ; 19, pl. vii. fig, 1 ; iii. 16, 23. Ancient Wilts, i. 234 (²), 238 (⁹). That from Dewlish, of a pale red colour, is described by Mr. Warne, as “the most beautiful fictile specimen it had been his lot to excavate” (i. 48). It is remarkable as being nearly a counterpart of that from East Kennet, “Wilts, given in fig. 83. So great a degree of correspondence in two objects from barrows is most rare.

^{page 390 note a} Seven or eight from Derbyshire and Staffordshire are figured, several of them in more than one place. Bateman, Vestiges, pp. 59, 87. Cran. Brit. pl. 41, xxi.; 60, xx. Bowman, Reliq. Ant. Ebor. p. 8, pl. i. fig. 2. Jewitt, Reliquary, ii. 69 ; iii. 206 ; viii. 87. Grave Mounds, pp. 101—105. Arch. Journ. xviii. 415, where “from Green Low, Alsop Moor,” read from Bee Low.

^{page 390 note b} Arch. Journ. xxii. 261. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, 2 ed. p. 138. Since the publication of this table in 1869, Mr. Greenwell, in a single barrow at Rudstone, found as many as five such vessels with a like number of interments. One or two are, I think, ornamented within the lip ; two contained a notable quantity of dark-coloured matter at the bottom, and two were found with burnt bodies. Arch. Journ. xxvii. 71. Several were also found in other barrows of the same group in 1870.

^{page 390 note c} One fine Yorkshire cup, from a barrow near Fimber, is in Mr. Mortimer's collection, where I saw three or four others. Reliquary, 1868, ix. 68.

^{page 391 note a} Cups of the English form very rarely occur north of the friths of Forth and Clyde. One Scottish one is that from Juniper Green, Midlothian. Cran. Brit. pl. 15, vi. (²) ; another from Crinan, Argyleshire, is figured, Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vi. 336, 351, pl. xx. fig. 2.

^{page 391 note b} There are none in the collections in Dublin or at Belfast, or in the Bell collection ; and, the Rev. James Graves informs me, none in that at Kilkenny. The only exception I know of is not without doubt. What looks however like a drinking cup of our second type is figured in the Dublin Penny Journal (1832, i. 108), as found with eleven other “urns,” in the cairn at Mount Stewart, near Grey Abbey, co. Down (Ulster Journal of Archæology, ix. 111, pl. i. ii.), already referred to as containing so many food vessels.

^{page 391 note c} Archæologia, xxxv. 254 ; Arch. Journ. i. 228, 229 (upper vase at the top). Six with horizontal bands are figured, Archæologia, xxxv. 256. In the original drawing preserved in the library of the Society, the largest of these “bell-shaped funereal urns “is said to be from Herm ; the three next in size from De Tus in Guernsey.

^{page 392 note a} The figure of a cup from Horncastle, Lincolnshire, has the unique features of a projecting foot, and a distinctly bevelled shoulder. It seems however to have been engraved from a drawing the accuracy of which may be doubted. Arch. Journ. xiii. 86.

^{page 393 note a} Archæologia, xv. 343, pl. xvii. figs. 1, 2 ; Ancient Wilts, i. 102. The cup, holding nearly four pints, was 9 inches high. It was accompanied by one of the same type, of miniature proportions, with a capacity of not more than half a pint, and only 3½ inches high.

^{page 393 note b} Cran. Brit. pl. 42 xxxii. (²). 6¼ inches high.

^{page 393 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (³), pl. ix. Another of the same type is in the unpublished plate; “Tumuli, Imber,” fig. 6. This must be the “drinking cup of red pottery” of Ancient Wilts, i. 86. In both figures, the mouth appears to be drawn too narrow: one of the two is at Stourhead.

^{page 393 note d} Proc. Arch. Inst. at Salisbury, 105, aa ; 109, No. 9.

^{page 393 note e} Kirwan, , Trans. Devon. Assoc. Science, 1868, ii. 644Google Scholar; Trans. Congress Prehistoric Archaeology, 1868, p. 392, pl. viiiGoogle Scholar. It is described as a “food vessel.” The simple decoration is like that from Drayton, Oxfordshire, referred to in a succeeding note.

^{page 393 note f} Borlase, Cornwall, 286, pl. xvi. fig. 6. Thought by Borlase to be Roman ; as in later days one found near York has been so figured in Wellbeloved's Eburacum, p. 122, pl. xv. fig. 15. This likewise is of our second type.

^{page 393 note g} Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 204. Of this there is a drawing in the library of the Society. The cup is simply decorated, with parallel impressed horizontal lines.

^{page 394 note a} Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, 41, 285 ; where a second cup partially ornamented in the same fashion is referred to.

^{page 394 note b} Capt. F. D. Lukis, Reliquary, viii. 87 ; Grave Mounds, p. 105, fig. 113.

^{page 394 note c} Archæologia, xxxiv. 255. pl. xx. fig. 6.

^{page 394 note d} Hydriotaphia Cambrens. p. 52, fig. 30; Arch. Camb. 3 S. xiv. 268. Mr. Way adduces the cup from Savock, Aberdeenshire, as presenting some “features of resemblance,” but the figure of this last appears scarcely exact, and it is probably of the low-brimmed type usual in Scotland.

^{page 394 note e} Proc. Berwick Nat. Club, iv. 428, pl. xiii. figs. 3, 4. From cist at North Sunderland.

^{page 395 note a} Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, pp. 283, 287 ; 2 ed. i. 423, pl. vi. fig. 78. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. i. 205 ; vii. 116, 561; 269, 521, pl. lxiv. In one of these, given above, was a curious spoon or ladle made of ox-horn. Cran. Brit. pl. 16, iv. (s); some errors in outline are pointed out in a note. Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. At Edinburgh, p. 11, figs. 2, 3 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. x. 7 ; xvii. 111, pl. xii. fig. 1. This last seems to be a Scottish drinking cup, though said to have contained burnt bones. One, not so tall, but apparently resembling our English Type a, from near Jedburgh, is figured in The Graphic, Jan. 14, 1871, p. 41.

^{page 395 note b} Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 396. The Nairn cup was presented by Lord Cawdor, those from Aberdeenshire by C. E. Dalrymple, Esq.

^{page 395 note c} Catalogue Antiq. of Soc. of Antiq. p. 17. It was found in 1806, and measures only 4 inches in height.

^{page 395 note d} Trans. Powysland Club, iii. 426. I am informed by Mr. Jones that there is no ornament on the inside of the rim or at the bottom.

^{page 396 note a} Sculptured Stones, 1867, ii. 54, pl. c. With the cup was a bronze blade 4½ inches in length.

^{page 396 note b} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vii. 269, fig. 2.

^{page 396 note c} Museum of Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. D. 22^*.

^{page 396 note d} Ibid. vii. 521, pl. lxiv.

^{page 396 note e} See that from Amble in the latter county. Arch. Journ xiv. 281. In at least one from Yorkshire, in the Greenwell collection, there is a band of ornament within the lip.

^{page 396 note f} Ll. Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 103, figs. 110, 111.

^{page 396 note g} Vestiges, p. 43; Ten Years' Diggings, p. 286.

^{page 396 note h} Arch. Journ. xix. 364, 365, fig. The Appledore cup must have been about 7 inches high ; those from March and Pickering are each 5½ inches.

^{page 396 note i} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 209. Mr. Bateman also refers to a cup from near Whitby, Yorkshire, “with the addition of a handle.” Catalogue of Antiq. p. 95.

^{page 397 note a} Since the last sheet was struck off, I have seen this little vessel in the collection of Mr. J. F. Lucas, and doubt whether it has been correctly described as a drinking-cup, and is not rather a food-vessel.

^{page 398 note a} I was shown by Mr. Franks, at the British Museum, a small ancient German cup from Senftenberg, in the Klemm collection (No. 1,536), having an incised cross at the base. On a small Roman vessel found with an unburnt body (crouched), at Wyke Regis, Dorset, a well-defined cross is seen at the bottom. Arch. Journ. xvi. 201. With pre-Roman antiquities, must be reckoned the “double ring, with a crucial pattern in its centre,” on one of the stones in the chambered tumulus at Dowth, Ireland. Sir J. Y. Simpson, British Archaic Sculpturings, p. 76, pi. xxix. fig. 8.

^{page 398 note b} Pigorini and Lubbock, Archceologia, xlii. 123.

^{page 399 note a} De Mortillet, Le signe de la Croix avant le Christianisme, figs. 54, 55, 57, 63, 106, 107. The cross is found both on the urns (ossuaries), and the “accessory (food) rases,” and on the covers of the latter. Several of these crosses are copied in Mr. Baring-Gould's work cited below ; figs. 22—27. De Mortillet assigns a reverence for this symbol,— “le culte de la Croix ”—to the people of the bronze period of Lombardy (p. 173). Probably these crosses are no more than rude ornaments. See also Virchow, über das Zeichen des Kreuzes auf alten Tσpfen, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1871, p. 27, taf. iii.; also J. Brent, F.S.A., Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 124.

^{page 399 note b} Baring-Gould, Myths of Middle Ages, 2 S. “Legend of the Cross.” p. 83.

^{page 399 note c} Kenrick, Ancient Egypt, i. 294, 303; ii. 32. Baring-Gould, l. c. pp. 90, 92, 98. Wilkinson, The Egyptians, p. 131. Ancient Egypt, 1847, v. 283. Sir Gardner Wilkinson says there is “no evidence ” that the tau is “of a phallic character,” but does not altogether repudiate such a connection.

^{page 399 note d} Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, iii. 467 ; Sir J. Y. Simpson, Archaic Sculpturing's, p. 158, figs. 5, 6, 14, 15, 16 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot, app^x vol. vi.

^{page 399 note e} Baring-Gould, l. c. pp. 92, 93, 371. The ithyphallic theory is maintained with a great array of facts by Inman, in Ancient Faiths, and Ancient Pagan and Christian Symbolism, 1869, pl. xi. xii. pp. 24, 36, 47. The same appears in the article, “the Prehistoric Cross,” in the Edinburgh Review, for January, 1870. In Archaic Sculpturings, pp. 93, 160, Sir J. Y. Simpson refers to such views as “without due foundation.” Comp. T. Jessop, D.D., On the Symbolical Character of Aleph and Tau. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vi. 68.

^{page 399 note f} In the symbolical language of the gospels, the word cross has a subjective meaning, in that of the epistles an objective one. As to visible crosses, Minucius Felix, in his Octavius (c. xxix.), says “Cruces etiam nee colimus, nee optamus.” There is, however, reason for believing that the error of confounding the symbol of the cross with the idea which it represented, gained entrance into the Church as early as the third century (Neander, Church History, Eng. ed. i. 406). Quite as soon as this, as the context of the passage quoted from Minucius shows, it had become the fashion to find the cross everywhere;—

In things of sense,

Earth, sea, or sky, live form, or human face.

The same view has been revived by modern poets of the Oxford school, and Isaac Williams has several other allusions to it, beside that here quoted.

The origin of the symbol on works of art is not free from doubt. Commonly believed to refer directly to the instrument of crucifixion, the patibulum itself, it is now frequently traced to the Greek letter chi, X, which, combined with the iota, , is supposed to be the earliest form of the sacred monogram for Іησοῦς Хριστός. With the adoption on the labarum of Constantine of the later form of the monogram, that formed from the first two letters of the latter name, the sign of the cross came into more common use, and its form underwent so many modifications that its origin in the form of two Greek letters was gradually lost sight of. See important observations by the Rev. J. G. Joyce, F.S.A., Arch. Journ. xxvii. 276; Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, Arch. Cambr. 4 S. ii. 143—149 ; De Mortillet, op. cit. p. 126 ; H. Dana Ward, History of the Cross, 1871 ; though this last book is too polemical. The cross is seen in some Roman tesselated pavements in this country, as on that at Thruxton, Hants; and on others in the south of France, adduced by Mr. Baring-Gould. On that at Frampton, Dorset, we have the Christian monogram, the chi-rho symbol itself. Lysons, Beliq. Brit. Rom. pt. iii. p. 3, pi. v.

^{page 400 note a} Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, iii. 3.

^{page 400 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 113 (⁵). With a necklace described further on, from a barrow at Upton Pyne, Devon, formed chiefly of small discs of shale, there was likewise a bead of red clay of a double cone shape.

^{page 400 note c} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxii. 450.

^{page 401 note a} The record of Sir Richard Hoare's excavations does not in every instance enable us to distinguish primary interments from secondary. In our analysis a few which are secondary have, perhaps, been classed with the primary. Here, however, we are dealing with primary and secondary interments belonging to the same epoch.

^{page 401 note b} This and the succeeding tables are given in more detail on a previous page,—preceding our account of Fictile Vessels.

^{page 402 note a} Bone. All trivial objects; tweezers in 4, pins in 9, so-called arrow-heads in 3 barrows.

^{page 402 note b} Stone. These comprise perforated hammers or hammer-axes in 7, flint celts (4 in number) in 2, chipped arrow-heads (mostly barbed) in 6, chipped dagger-blades (also of flint) in 3 barrows. (N.B. Whetstones and gorgets not counted here.)

^{page 402 note c} Stone and Bronze. In these 5 barrows important implements of stone and bronze were combined. Those of stone are reckoned in the last note. The bronze objects consisted of 1 awl, 1 celt, and 3 blades of knives or daggers.

^{page 402 note d} Bronze. The bronze implements comprised 22 awls (without other implements), 4 celts, and about 50 blades of knives or daggers; sometimes 2, in one case 3, with the same interment.

^{page 403 note a} Nothing scarcely can be clearer than that the Bound barrows of the South of England belong to a bronze period, with survival or overlapping of the use of polished and finely chipped flint and stone implements. Excluding the Long barrows, it is extremely doubtful whether any tumuli in this country belong to a merely stone age or one in which bronze was not more or less in use.

^{page 403 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 76. The remarks of Sir Richard Hoare in this place appear to be founded on those of his colleague in the 15th volume of the Archæologia, p. 126, which show that as early as 1802 Mr. Cunnington had arrived at a general idea of this three-fold classification, and of epochs when implements and weapons were made of stone, bronze, and iron respectively. Both, however, were anticipated by Douglas, Nenia Brit. 1793, pp. 150, 154, note.

^{page 404 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 27. By Sir Richard Hoare the alloy bronze is termed “brass;” this I everywhere correct. As to the late introduction of iron, comp. Ancient Wilts, i. 174.

^{page 404 note b} Antiquitates Wiltunenses, 1828; Museum Wiltunense : British Antiquities in the Museum at Stourhead, described by Sir R. C. Hoare, ed. 1840, p. 4. This little work is reprinted in the Catalogue of the Library at Stourhead.

I must not omit the expression of my obligations to the late Sir Hugh Hoare, the immediate successor of the Wiltshire antiquary, and especially to Sir Henry Hoare, the present Baronet, for the facilities afforded me for the examination of the objects from the barrows, which are preserved as an heir-loom, at Stourhead. On the occasion of my visits in 1865, 1869, 1870 and 1871, all these were permitted to pass through my hands, and I had the opportunity of verifying the descriptions of them, and of taking outline drawings, as I did with scarcely an exception.

^{page 405 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴), plates v. vi. Compare Mr. Cunnington's descriptions of these celts in Archæologia, xv. 124, plate iv, where all three are figured. In the museum they each bear the inscription “Upton Barrow, 9.” There is also a fourth broken flint of celt-like form, inscribed “Upton Barrow, 10.” This interment, so often referred to, was perhaps that of a manufacturer of stone and bone implements, and his wife.

^{page 405 note b} The type of palæolithic implements referred to is the first in Mr. Evans's classification, Archæologia, xxxviii. 291, 293. The specimen under consideration bears out the further remark of this acute palæontologist, that “where, either from having been left accidentally unfinished or from never having been intended to be ground, the weapons of the stone (neolithic) period have remained in their rough-hewn state, it will be observed that they are chipped out with a greater nicety and accuracy, and with a nearer approach to an even surface, than those from the drift, and point to a higher degree of civilisation.”

^{page 406 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 85, plate ix. There was no distinct tumulus, and the finding of a glass bead of Roman form, at a distance of a few feet, may leave the attribution of the interment, as British, not absolutely free from doubt.

^{page 406 note b} This celt is not the same as that engraved in Modern Wilts (Ambresbury), ii. 57, whieh is contrasted with one of exotic (American) origin. The other objects of this description at Stourhead are “half a stone celt, ” (not flint,) from a barrow at Woodyates, though not with the interment (Ancient Wilts, i. 239 (⁹), “a broken flint celt,” inscribed 19, and “a stone celt,” perhaps that inscribed 11, both dug up near the entrance to Scratchbury camp. (Ibid. i. 70.)

^{page 406 note c} Archæologia, xv. 125, plate iv. fig. 5. The piece of “granite or moor-stone” (plate iii. fig. 1) may have been intended for the fabrication of perforated hammer-axes. Comp. Ancient Wilts, i. 206 (¹⁷¹).

^{page 406 note d} It was formerly in the Leverian Museum, and is now in the possession of the Rev. W. 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. (This important work has appeared after these pages were in type, but I have added some references to it in the notes.) There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the attribution of a second rather rudely-chipped flint celt, also in Mr. Winwood's collection, which is ground at the broad end, and measures 5 by 2½ inches. It bears the label,—“ Found in a druids' (disc-shaped) barrow at Warminster (Wilts), 1821.”

^{page 407 note a} Figured in Reliquary, viii. 86. Other celts from barrows in Derbyshire are named by Bateman, Vestiges, p. 42, 49, 53, and from Yorkshire, Ten Years' Diggings, p. 216, 221, 222. Two of flint, very rude and unfinished, from a barrow at Alfriston, Sussex, are in the British Mus. Horsfield, Lewes, i. plate 3, fig. 7.

^{page 407 note b} The former is from Liff's Lowe, Derbyshire (Bateman, Vestiges, p. 42); the latter from a barrow at Seamer, near Scarborough. (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. iv. 105, figs.) One, stated to be from a barrow in Hampshire, in the British Museum, differs from these in not being polished at the end. It is called “a chisel” by Mr. Franks. With it was a flint celt of the usual form. (Archæologia, xvii. 222, plate xiv. ; Horœ Ferales, p. 136, plate ii. figs. 10, 36.) In the MS. catalogue of the Payne Knight Collection these objects are stated to have been “found in a barrow in Hampshire.” See a long narrow flint celt, from Panshanger, Herts, figured in Arch. Journ. xx. 192. A celt from the Solway, but not from a barrow, with remains of the wooden handle attached, now in the British Museum, though not chisel-like, is of the narrower form. (Fig. 93.) Proc. Soc. Antiq. iv. 112.

^{page 408 note a} note a Cran. Brit, plate 58, xxviii. 2.

^{page 408 note b} Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 97.

^{page 408 note c} Archæologia, xv. 125, plate iii. fig. 4; Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (4), plate vi. Similar stones were found in hut-circles in Holyhead Island. Arch. Journ. xxvi. 320, fig. 15; xxvii. 161, 162, plates v. vi.

^{page 408 note d} Warne, Celtic Tumuli, 52 (⁴²), plate i. fig. A. With such oval stones from our barrows, compare the so-called casse-têtes of polished silex, inches long, from a subterranean chamber at La Tourelle, Britany. Arch. Cambrens. 3 S. xiv. 303, fig. iv.

^{page 409 note a} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 29; C. R. Smith, Collect. Antiq. i. 55, plate xx. fig. 4, An oval stone, perhaps to be classed here, from a barrow at Fin Cop, Derbyshire, is given in Archæologia, xii. 329, plate xlix. fig. f. Major Rooke regarded it as an amulet.

^{page 409 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴), 174 (²), 202 (¹⁵⁸), 209 (¹⁸). These were with unburnt bodies ; the following with burnt: i. 39 (¹) 79 (⁶), 79 ⁸). Six are figured, in plates i. v. viii. xx. xxvii.; the seventh, from Wilsford, a maul or hammer, is represented in the unpublished plate xix B and is figured below. (Fig. 97.)

^{page 409 note c} No two are exactly alike, and altogether we are unable to concur with the opinion of Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S., that they have been “imported from abroad.” Journ. Anthrop. Inst. 1872, i. 290, 291.

^{page 409 note d} The “fragment of another,” at Stourhead, probably that from Upton Lovel (Archæologia, xv. 125, plate v. fig. 2), is ornamented with two shallow grooves round the margin.

^{page 409 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. plates i. xxvii. On the subject of drilling holes in stone, see Wilde, Cat. R. I. Acad. pp. 82, 83; E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 211 ; Evans, Ancient Stone Implements, p. 42—48.

^{page 409 note f} Nilson, (Stone Age, p. 71, plate viii. figs. 173, 174), who terms them Amazonian axes. By others they are compared with the classical bipennis. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xx. 103.

^{page 409 note g} Sussex Collections, ix. 119 ; Arch. Journ. xv. 90. Evans, op. cit. fig. 119. With this were a bronze blade, a hone-stone, and amber cup, accompanying an interment in an oak coffin.

^{page 410 note a} With an unburnt body (fig. 6, ante.) Deposited with it were likewise a fine drinking-cup and a bronze blade, all, by the kind permission of the Hon. Mrs. Denison, figured in these pages (fig. 83). A hammeraxe of similar but ruder form, from a barrow near Avebury, (figured Proc. Arch. Inst. at Salisbury, p. 108, fig. 4), was shown to me in 1870, by the late Mrs. Brown of Aldbourn.

^{page 410 note b} The finest hammer-head from a British interment is perhaps that from Crichie, Aberdeenshire, in the museum at Edinburgh. (Catal. Mus. Arch. Inst. Edinb. 1856, p. 18 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 306.) It is bilobed and ornamented with triple grooves round the margin. (See fig. 98.)

^{page 410 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 202 (158), plate xxvii. fig. 3. The haft-hole can scarcely have been “a natural perforation.” Mr. E. T. Stevens thinks the stone is flint, “a fossil sponge.” Flint Chips, p. 97 ; Evans, op. cit. p. 203, fig. 154.

^{page 411 note a} Archæol. xiv. 281, pi. lv. fig. 5; Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 80, fig. 62; Horœ Ferales, p. 139, pl. iii. fig. 8.

^{page 411 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (⁸). The figure given above completes published illustrations of all the objects of this sort at Stourhead.

^{page 411 note c} Catalogue Christy Coll. 1862, p. 14; Franks, Guide to Christy Coll. p. 8; Horœ Ferales, p. 139; Comp. plate iii. fig. 3 ; Evans, op. cit. p. 179, 189. Details of both these finds are wanting ; the former fine specimen, probably a battle-axe, is said to have been in the Leverian Museum ; the latter is coarse and rude, like a mining-tool, or implement for common domestic use.

^{page 411 note d} Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, pp. 56, 63. The interment was by cremation.

^{page 411 note e} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 29, 63, fig.; Ten Tears' Diggings, pp. 24, 155. The last, described as “doubleedged,” was with a large bronze awl, two others with bronze dagger-blades. A fifth Derbyshire example from Stand Low was exhumed in 1869, by Mr. J. F. Lucas. It is 5¾ inches long, less elegant, but of the same type as that from East Kennet (fig. 96), and, like it, was accompanied by. a bronze dagger-blade.

^{page 411 note f} Mr. Greenwell also describes one from Northumberland. (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 60.) Of those from Yorkshire one was accompanied by a bronze knife.

^{page 412 note a} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 227. Comp. p. 231, 237. Another supposed Yorkshire example, a “double axe,” six inches long, was in the Huxtable collection. Gloucester Vol. Brit, Arch. Assoc. 1848, plate vii. fig. 1. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xx. 104, plate vii. fig. 4 ; Evans, op. cit. p. 165. A rudely perforated hammer is that from the barrow at Weapon-ness, near Scarborough, made apparently from a slightly worked pebble. It has been figured by Dr. Travis, loc. cit. plate ii. fig. 5. Comp. Archæologia, xxx. 461; Evans, op. cit. p. 199.

^{page 412 note b} Arch. Journ. iii. 67. It is doubtful whether it was obtained from a barrow. Another Welsh specimen, 2⅞ inches in length, from a tumulus at Castell Hafod, was, I think improbably, regarded by its discoverer as “too small for a weapon, and most likely an amulet or ornament.” Fenton, Pembrokeshire, p. 33, plate i. fig. 3.

^{page 412 note c} Arch. Cambr. 3 S. iii. 307; Arch. Journ. xix. 92.

^{page 412 note d} None are described by Wilde, and one only is figured in Horœ Ferales, p. 137, plate ii. fig. 27,—from the Thames. One, 6¼ inches long, deeply notched on each side, is in the museum at Audley End.

^{page 413 note e} Nilsson, Stone Age, pp. 38, 94, gives good reasons for regarding them as weapons of the chase, but says it is not always possible to decide whether they were spears or knives. We think they are too brittle to have been used as spears. Our English dagger-blades differ from the Scandinavian in their greater relative breadth, and in never having a handle chipped out at the proximal end.

^{page 413 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 163 (³⁹), plate xvii. 172, plate xix. That from Lambourn has been figured by Mr. Evans, op. cit. p. 312, fig. 264.

^{page 413 note b} Bateman's Vestiges, p. 59; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 51. 167; (this last with a burnt body.) Cran. Brit., plate 41, xxi. p. 3, fig. Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 117, fig. 155. Evans op. cit. p. 315, fig. 267. This, from Arbor Low, was found in ploughing, hard by that megalithic circle. Like a dagger-blade from the Thames (Horce Ferales, p. 137, plate ii. fig. 27), it is truncated at the proximal end.

^{page 413 note c} Arch. Cambr. 4 S. ii. 327. A second fine dagger-blade, short and broad, and with deep lateral notches, was found by Mr. Mortimer in a barrow at Wetwang, E. R. Yorks., in 1872.

^{page 413 note d} The only exception is a flint of leaf shape, 3 inches long and 1 broad, rough and unfinished at the base, in the museum at Stourhead. It is numbered 76, and may be that described as “intended for a dagger or spear” (Ancient Wilts, i. 118 (⁵)); the two “finger-biscuit stones,” from this tumulus at Winterbourn Stoke, being each numbered 72.

^{page 414 note a} Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 427; Wilts Arch. Mag. xi. 40. For the use of the woodcuts of three of these objects, figured in his Ancient Stone Implements, p. 330, figs. 273–275, as well as for several other cuts, the Society is indebted to John Evans, Esq. F.R.S.

^{page 415 note a} Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, ii. 16, 27. The rude figures (errata, p. 15) give no idea of the originals; one of which (No. 2), lent to me by Dr. Wake Smart, and figured above (fig. 102), is as exact a counterpart as may be of the smallest of those from Winterbourn Stoke. Our group of four figures, on the last page, may indeed be taken as representative of the complete set found at Winterbourn Stoke.

^{page 415 note b} Reliquary, vi. 185, plate xvi.; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 324. There were traces of a bow of wood, about three feet long.

^{page 416 note a} Longfellow, Hiawatha, iv. x. Catlin, Manners and Customs, passim. E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 561.

^{page 416 note b} See such, javelin-heads described by Mr Evans, Archæologia, xli. 403, pi. xviii. fig. 3. A “spearhead ” of this sort, figured by Dr. Travis (Letter to Sir J. V. B. Johnstone, Bart., 1836, plate ii. fig. 6), is 2¾ inches long ; another, from a barrow at Broughton, Lincolnshire, now in the British Museum, is 2¾ inches by 1 inch. See Arch. Journ. viii. 343, fig.

^{page 416 note c} Arch. Cambr. N. S. ii. 219 ; 3 S. xiv. 248.

^{page 416 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 104. Three other arrow-heads are named by Hoare (i. 209 (¹⁶), 242 (¹⁹) ), as to which we have no means of determining the form. The two last are termed “very small.”

^{page 416 note e} Archæologia, xlii. 194, 230.

^{page 417 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 183 (¹⁷), plate xxii.; 211 (²¹), plate, xxx. fig. 5 ; 238 (⁹), plate xxxiv.; and titlepage. I only find seven of these beautiful objects at Stourhead.

^{page 417 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (¹⁶); Modern Wilts (Ambresbury), 1825, ii. 57, plate, fig. 1.

^{page 417 note c} Barbed arrowheads of this coarse description, very much resembling the American, are perhaps of more common occurrence in Ireland than in England. Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 21, figs. 17, 18 ; Horæ Ferales, p. 138, plate ii. figs. 43, 44. Three fine English examples are figured by Mr. Evans, op. cit. p. 339–340, figs. 304, 305, 306.

^{page 417 note d} Antiq. and Arch. Year Boole, 1844, p. 26 ; Arch. Journ. i. 157. They are shown in Mr. Guest's painting of the contents of the Winterslow barrow; but, singularly, are not named in the letter to Sir Richard Hoare, Modern Wilts (Alderbury), v. 209), written twenty years before the above papers, in which, however, a white flint arrow-head “with one wing deficient,” is referred to a barrow at Cholderton.

^{page 417 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 211 (²¹), plate xxx. fig. 5.

^{page 417 note f} Cran. Brit., plate 42, xxxii. p. 3.

^{page 418 note a} Proc. Arch. Inst. at Salisbury, pp. 83, 94, 105, figs. d. r, bb. The last belongs rather to the broad type.

^{page 418 note b} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi, 319. With a burnt body and fine flint-knife.

^{page 418 note c} From the Eidgeway. (The Barrow Diggers, 1839, p. 75, plate ii. figs. 5, 6, 7.) Mr. Warne names arrow-heads as found in three barrows (o. c. i. 39, 52; ii. 25), but from the figure of one (plate i. B) these “rudely chipped” objects seem to have been mere flakes. One figured by Mr. Austen, (Purbeck Papers, p. 41, fig. 11; Warne, o. c. iii. 61), is of the same character, as I believe is that from the Ulwell barrow (Purbeck Papers, p. 157; Warne, o. c. iii. 70). Two finely-barbed arrow-heads, of my first type, from a barrow at Botrea, near Land's End, are figured by Cotton (Cromlechs of West Cornwall, 1827, pp. 39, 45). Two, of varying forms, are given by Sir Gardner Wilkinson (Collect. Archœlog. ii. 240, plate xxxiv.), the finer (fig. 1) from near Longnor, Staffordshire.

^{page 419 note a} Arch. Journ. xxvii, 74. Evans, op. cit. p. 343, fig. 318.

^{page 419 note b} Three from Green Low are figured (Vestiges, p. 59; Cran. Brit., plate 41, xxi. p. (3), on too small a scale to bring out the more delicate characteristics. There is also a set of four from Mouse Low, and one of three from Ribden Low, Staffordshire, all of this type. Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 116, 127.

^{page 419 note c} In addition to those in the text, see Lord Londesborough's find of five in a barrow near Scarborough. (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. iv. 105.) Fifteen barbed arrow-heads from the site of destroyed barrows near Pickering, N. R. Yorkshire, some “extremely beautiful,” are in the Bateman Collection. Ten Year,' Diggings, p. 239; Cat. Bateman Mus. p. 43.

^{page 419 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 238 (⁹) plate xxxiv. This combination of barbed flint arrow-heads with a bronze weapon is the only instance known to me.

^{page 420 note a} Modern Wilts (Ambresbury) ii. 57, plate, fig. 5. There is another large triangular knife at Stourhead, reddish brown, measuring by inches. It is carefully chipped at the two edges and on the obverse side; the reverse is left concave, as flaked off.

^{page 420 note b} Figured, Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 106, fig. ff.

^{page 420 note c} Archæologia, xxxviii, 416, fig. 13.

^{page 420 note d} Cran. Brit, plate 58, xxviii. p. (2).

^{page 420 note e} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 319. One of the arrow-heads is that given in fig. 108.

^{page 421 note a} Mem. Anthrop. Soc. i. 142; Archæologia, xlii. 197.

^{page 421 note b} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxii. 450.

^{page 421 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 68, 168 (⁹³), 193 (⁷), 195 (²), 211 (²¹), 238 (⁹). In the two last, the frustra of flint accompanied barbed arrow-heads already described. In the manuscript notes of diggings, by the Rev. E. Duke (Ancient Wilts, i. 212, 213), kindly communicated to me by his son, there is mention of a large barrow at Lake (No. 8), in which was an unburnt body, accompanied by a bronze dagger-blade, and by “a great quantity of flints struck out into thin pieces, almost evidently for the purpose of being shapen into arrow-heads.” (1806.) Colonel A. Lane Fox tells us that on a small tumulus close to Stonehenge. which had been scored by the plough, he picked up as many as twenty worked flints. Journ. Ethnol. Soc. 1870, ii. 3. Two small circular objects, figured by Hoare (op. cit. i. 172, plate xix.), and described by him “as buttons of chalk or marl,” are perhaps discoidal scrapers of flint. Evans, op. cit. p. 278.

^{page 422 note a} Douce, Illustrations of Shakespeare, 1807, ii. 224. For Mr. Greenwell's suggestion, see Arch. Journ. xxii. 117. Where Shakespeare obtained his knowledge of the custom referred to has not, I think, been shown by the commentators. His reference to it does not prove that it had survived to his own times, as Mr. Fergusson appears to believe (Rude Stone Monuments, p. 286), but only that he thought it applicable to the period, many centuries earlier, in which he would seem to place Hamlet.

^{page 422 note b} Rolleston, Arcœologia, xlii. 428.

^{page 422 note c} Archæologia, xxxviii. 414–417; xlii. 232; Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 284.

^{page 422 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 195 (²).

^{page 423 note a} Pliny, xxxvi. 30. “Pyrites qui altero lapide percussi, scintillas edunt.” With the ancients, iron pyrites and pebbles of flint or agate both shared the name of fire-stone, πνρίτης. (Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 246). At the purification of the Temple by Judas Maccabæus, fresh fire for the sacrifices was obtained by “striking stones.” 2 Mace. x. 3. “The Fuegians still procure fire by rubbing iron pyrites and a flinty stone together, catching the sparks in a dry substance resembling moss, which is quickly ignited.” Weddell's Voyage, 1822, p. 167, quoted by Dr. D. Wilson, Prehistoric Man, i. 134. Comp. Virg. Æneid. i. 178–180.

^{page 423 note b} Figured by Mr. Evans, (op. cit. p. 284, fig. 223), by whom this subject is fully treated.

^{page 423 note c} Archæologia, xv. 125, plate iii. fig. 1; Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴). Compare Nilsson, Stone Age, pp. 16, 18.

^{page 423 note d} Archæologia, l.c. plate iii. fig. 3; Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴), plate vi. 182 (²), 209 (¹⁸); unpublished plate, xix. B. Sir Kichard Hoare (Tumuli Wiltun. 1829, pp. 10, 46), says he found the bone-pins fitted the grooves of these whetstones exactly.

^{page 423 note e} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 163. One of these, slightly grooved, 5¾ inches long, is the largest I have seen.

^{page 424 note a} The “cotes aquariœ” of Pliny, xxxvi. 38, 47, where he names the whetstones called passernices, from the Celtic countries beyond the Alps. De Belloguet, Ethnog. Gaul. s. v. p. 81. Our hone-stones, next described, would come under the class of oil-whetstones, “cotes oleares ” of Pliny, xxxiv. 41.

^{page 424 note b} Whetstones are named as found in three or four of the Derbyshire barrows (Bateman, Vestiges, pp. 37, 44, 45; Ten Years' Diggings, p. 83), but their form and character are not described. The intention of certain sandstones, with cavities worked in them, is not clear from the description. (Ibid. pp. 193, 267, 230.)

^{page 424 note c} Archæologia, xlii. 180.

^{page 424 note d} Reliq. Aquitan. p. 132, plate A. XXX. figs. 2–5 An object of the same sort was found in a hut-circle near Holyhead. Arch. Journ. xxvi. 321, fig. 19.

^{page 424 note e} One only, of ecxeptional form, is engraved, Ancient Wilts, i. 199 (¹³⁹) plate xxiv. The others seem to be referred to at pp. 166 (⁵⁷), 182 (²), 194 (two specimens), 210 (⁸). The “singular whetstone,” referred to at p. 176, is merely a perforated hone, worn down to a stump.

^{page 425 note a} Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, p. 50 (³⁷); Purbeck Papers, ii. 56. The first, accompanied by a bronze blade, is short and stumpy ; the latter (fig. 116), is of longer proportions, and measures 3½ by ½ inches, and ½ an inch thick. It tapers considerably to the perforated end, and bears marks of attrition.

^{page 425 note b} Somerset Arch. Journ. viii. 45; Arch. Journ. xv. 90, x. 355–6; Sussex Arch. Coll. ix. These objects have considerable resemblance to the perforated “whetstones ” from Scandinavia and Greenland, figured by Nilsson. (Stone Age, pp. 19–20, plate ii. figs. 18–22.) Perforated hone-stones of the Esquimaux are in the collection of Sir Edward Belcher and in the British Museum.

^{page 425 note c} One, accompanied by a bronze blade, a perforated stone hammer-axe, and some instruments of bone, was found in an urn in Craven, Yorkshire, in 1675. It was “a blueish grey hone, only ½ an inch in thickness, three long and nearly one broad, in all its parts equal,” and with a hole bored through it. Thoresby. Ducat. Leodiens, Antiq. p. 114.

^{page 425 note d} Catalogue of Museum, p. 39, B. 266, 266*, 267*. The smallest is attached to a ring of bronze or copper. With our whetstones compare those from Hallstadt, one with a clip of iron, another mounted with tin, Von Sacken, Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt, p. 90, taf. xix. 22–26.

^{page 425 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 164 (³⁹), plate xvii. ; 172, plate xix. ; 209 (¹⁶), plate xxviii. figs. 4, 5.

^{page 425 note f} As to burnishers and touchstones, see Wilde, Catalogue Mus. R. I. Acad. pp. 89, 90; Nilsson, Stone Age, p. 19. A stone from the Upton Lovel barrow (Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴), plate vi.; Archæologia, xv. 124, plate iii. fig, 2) is perhaps a touchstone. It does not seem to have been polished, is of purplish brown colour, and is streaked with gold.

^{page 425 note g} Ancient Wilts, i. 118 (⁵), plate xiv. Each is inscribed with the number 72. One, a little longer than the other, is slightly bowed from end to end. A portion of an object of this sort, of fine micaceous sandstone, precisely agreeing with the stone of the large flat slab in the centre of Stonehenge, was obtained by me from a barrow on the plain (No. 170), about a mile from “The Stones.” For that from Rudstone, see Evans, op. cit. p. 239, fig. 182, reproduced on this page. (Fig. 118.)

^{page 426 note a} Archæologia, viii. 429, plate xxx. fig. 6. One of the wrist-guards from this interment was perhaps given to Sir Richard Hoare. As there were several of these objects with this interment, the skeleton was possibly that of a dealer in or maker of such articles, the form of which was not inaptly compared by the late Dr. Lukis to a surgical “splint.”

^{page 426 note b} Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, pp. 51, 157. For careful sketches of this specimen I am indebted to Mr. D. Fraser, Hon. Curator of the Arbuthnot Museum, Peterhead. By the account already in print, the actual form was left uncertain.

^{page 426 note c} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vi. 233. It was in a short cist, with a skeleton and drinking-cup, and is in the Museum at Edinburgh, B. 275*. It has been figured by Mr. Evans (op. cit. p. 381, fig. 354); in connection with that of square type from the Isle of Skye.

^{page 427 note a} Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 109, plate vi. The figure is not exact, not showing the narrower dimensions in the middle. It was found in a gravel-pit, with three quern-stones; all the others were with unburnt bodies, and, excepting that from Tring, in barrows.

^{page 427 note b} Archæologia, xxxiv. 254, plate xx. fig. 7. Catalogue of Collection of Bings and Personal Ornaments made for Lady Londesborough, 1853, p. 65. If the position in reference to the skeleton be correctly described, the wearer in this case must have been left-handed. In the Archæologia, the object is styled “an armlet of bone ;” in the Catalogue, less inaccurately, an “arm-brace or armlet” of “bone or stone.” In a barrow at Thwing, East Eiding of Yorkshire, Mr. Green well found traces of a leathern or wooden armlet on the left wrist of a skeleton, with which were three barbed flint arrow-heads. Leather-covered braces or guards are worn on the left wrist by our modern toxophilites.

^{page 428 note a} Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, p. 157, fig. It is in the Edinburgh Museum, B. 267, and has been rudely figured of full size, in Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 212, pi. vii. fig. 1.

^{page 428 note b} Rev. A. H. W. Ingram, F.G.S. Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 109. A long narrow polished stone, 5½ inches by 1, flat on one side, convex on the other, in the collection of the Rev. John O'Laverty, P.P., Holywood, Belfast, is perhaps a wrist-guard. It has a perforation at each end, counter-sunk on the flat side, and has traces of transverse grooving (from a bow-string?) near one end.

^{page 428 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 182, plate xxi. The fragment of a second bone article of this description is also to be seen at Stourhead.

^{page 428 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 44, plate ii. (Mere Down); 103, plate xii. (Sutton).

^{page 428 note e} In the Catalogue of the Ashmolean Museum, p. 9, said to be of “hone-stone.” (Modern Wilts. Alderbury, v. 208; Arch. Journ. i. 156.) “Two holes,” in the former account, is an error. A fragment of a tablet with three holes at one end was found by Mr. C. E. Dalrymple within the standing stones of Rayne, Aberdeenshire. (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 429.) It is described as a “whet-stone or burnisher of indurated clay slate of a light-green colour.” (Cat. Edin. Mus. Arch. Inst. 1856, p. 20.) The object of greenstone, from Sundridge, Worcestershire (Arch. Journ. vi. 409, fig.), with two perforations and indications of a third at one end, differs in some respects from those under consideration.

^{page 429 note a} Cran. Brit, plate 42, xxxii. p. 3 ; Wilts Arch. Mag. iii. 185. A fifth, like that from Mere Down, with one hole at each end, was found with burnt remains in a barrow at Bulford, Wilts. Arch. Journ. vi. 319.

^{page 429 note b} The interments had other features in common. Three were in deep graves, and all four were accompanied by drinking-cups. With the smaller tablet from Mere Down, were two circular ornaments of gold.

^{page 429 note c} It is numbered “232.”

^{page 429 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 44, plate ii. With this may be compared the stone tablet from Skye, 3½ inches in length and nearly 1 inch in breadth, tapering to about half-an-inch at either end, where a small hole has been drilled. Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, p. 157. Evans, op. cit. p. 382, fig. 356. It is just possible that the narrower of all these tablets may have been wrist-guards, but the difference in the rule as to the counter-sinking is opposed to such a view.

^{page 429 note e} Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 99, Nos. 31, 32.

^{page 430 note a} Evans, op. cit. p. 382. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 272.

^{page 430 note b} Diod. Sic. v. 27.

^{page 430 note c} Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions, 1847, i. 236. More than twenty are figured. E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, p. 476, figs 82–88.

^{page 430 note d} Catalogue of Christy Collection, 1862, p. 34. Franks, Guide to Christy Collection, 1868, p. 19, Room iv. cases 13—16, p. 39. “Amulets pierced for suspension,” or perhaps for being sewn to the garments.

^{page 430 note e} Pliny, xxxvii. § 73, and lib. xxxvi. xxxvii. passim.

^{page 430 note f} Ancient Wilts, i. 165 (⁴⁸, 183 (¹⁷), plate xxii. A bead of stone, neatly grooved round the edges, was found in one of the barrows at Lake. Ibid. i. 211 (¹⁴), plate xxx. fig. 7.

^{page 430 note g} Ibid. i. 123 (¹⁹). It bears the number 9, and is figured in Unpublished Plate xv B. Such amulets are of the nature of fetishes. See E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 132, 145.

^{page 431 note a} Ancient Wilts i. 124 (²⁵). With them were “a piece of stalactite and a flat pebble.” One of the fossils is figured in the Unpublished Plates, xv c.

^{page 431 note b} Archæologia, xv. 124–5, plate ii. fig. 3; Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴). Some of these ætites are at Stourhead. Both ætites and fossil echini are found in the tumuli of North Germany. Arch. Journ. xiii. 413.

^{page 431 note c} Pliny, x. 4; xxx. 44; xxxvi. 39; Marbodi, Liber Lapid. § 25, 1. 369 ; Hill, Materia Med. 1751; Quincy, London Dispensatory, 1761; F. Adams, Comrn. ad Paul. Æginet. 1847, iii. 227. Dr. Adams regrets that this mode of acting on the imagination had, in modern times, given place to more dangerous methods.

^{page 432 note a} Sixty of this number were with a single interment.

^{page 432 note b} One from a barrow at Acklam, E. E. Yorkshire, is figured in Cran. Brit., plate 31, ix. p. 2. See Nilsson, Stone Age, p. 91; Bateman, Ten Tears' Diggings, pp. 143, 155.

^{page 432 note c} Just as, Tacitus says, the old Germans used a thorn for the same purpose, “sagum spina consejtum.” Germ. c. 17; comp. Cæsar, B.G. iv. 1; v. 14; vi. 21.

^{page 432 note d} Proc. Soc. Antiq. 2 S. iv. 273; Reliquary, 1869, ix. 180, figs. May they not really have been bonetipped javelins and not mere pins ?

^{page 433 note a} The more important notices of bone pins by Bateman are in Vestiges, pp. 37 (Catalogue, p. 1), 59 fig. ; 65, fig.; 73, 89 (Catal. p. 10); Ten Tears' Diggings, pp. 60, 75, 112, 114, 143, 155; Gran. Brit, plate 41, xxi. p. (³).

^{page 433 note b} Mr. Ruddock reports three bone pins from the barrows of Yorkshire. Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 206, 211,219.

^{page 434 note a} W. C. Lukis, Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 103. This pin is very similar in form to that shown in a sculpture from Apt, in France. (Smith, Dict. Class. Antiq. p. 14.) Two handsome pins of the same type, from barrows in Dorset, are in the Durden Collection. (Warne, op. cit. ii. 11.) That with the crutchhead (fig. 128), is referred to, ibid. i. 50 (³⁷).

^{page 434 note b} “Scratchbury.” Ancient Wilts, i. 70 (²). Other well-finished pins are also given in the unpublished drawings, plate xix. D (Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (¹⁸), Wilsford (fig. 124) ; 237 (²). One, from a barrow at Winterbourn Stoke, was “bent in a semicircular form.” Ibid. i. 121 (¹¹). A bone pin from a barrow at St. Aldhelm's Head, Dorset (Arch. Journ. vii. 385; Purbeck Papers, i. 37), is, I think, of the Roman period.

^{page 434 note c} Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, i. 50 (37). It is stained with ærugo, from the accompanying bronze blade ; as is likewise that from Priddy, Somerset (fig. 127), from the same cause. Arch. Journ. xvi. 153.

^{page 434 note d} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 330.

^{page 434 note e} Cran. Brit. pl. 31, ix.

^{page 434 note f} Cunnington, however, particularizes three delicate needles from the barrow at Upton Lovel, so rich in implements of bone. Archæologia, xv. 124, note b.

^{page 435 note a} Archæologia, xv. 124, note b, plate ii.; Ancient Wilts, i. 75 (⁴), plate vii.; 182 (²), plate xxi.; 209 (¹⁸), 242 (²⁰); Unpublished Plate, xxxiv. D. Sir Richard Hoare describes three or four interments as accompanied by “arrow-heads of bone;” (Ibid. i. 70 (²), 79 (⁸), 115 (⁵), 242 (²⁰); but there are no bone spicuta at Stourhead to which such a purpose can be assigned. In one of the Lake barrows (No. 5 of MS.), Mr. Duke found four “bone instruments” (pins) at the head of an unburnt body, the finest 3½ inches long, perforated. Antiq. and Topog. Cabinet, 1809, plate iii. Figures of two rude pins, from a short cist near Cawdor Castle, Nairn, are here reproduced from Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 397.

^{page 435 note b} Vestiges, pp. 83, 95, 106; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 21, 44, 79,80,131; and (Yorkshire), 215. Catalogue, List G.

^{page 435 note c} Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 323 (¹²).

^{page 435 note d} A. W. Franks, Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 162, figs. 1, 2; Horœ Ferales, p. 132, plate i. figs. 17, 18. Comp. Syer Cuming, Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxii, 89, plate viii. figs. 1–8. Wilde, Catal. R. I. Acad. p. 257.

^{page 436 note a} “Sola in sagittis spes, quas inopia ferri ossibus asperant.” Germ. 46. See also the bone-tipped javelins and arrows of the Huns (Amm. Marc. xxxi. 2, ix.) ; and those of a third European people, the Sarmatæ. (Pausanias, i. xxi. 5.)

^{page 436 note b} Mus. Wiltun. 1828, reprint, p. 10. In another little work, Sir Richard alludes to these “rude instruments of bone, pointed at one end like a skewer, with which the Britons indented the decorations of their urns.” (Tumuli Wiltun. 1829, pp. 10, 21, 46). We have examples, Bateman thought, of such modelling tools in the objects described and figured by him, Vestiges, p. 59, and in Cran. Brit, plate 41, xxi. (³) ; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 21, 116, 135.

^{page 436 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 44 (¹), plate ii.; 70 (²).

^{page 436 note d} It bears the number “35.” The upper edge is the natural smooth surface of the bone, probably a rib; the lower has been ground and displays the cancellated structure.

^{page 437 note a} Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 163. A small bronze blade, a barbed flint arrow-head, and other bone objects and whetstones, were found with the interment. Similar objects of bone, two perforated at one end, from a Dorsetshire barrow, are figured, Arch. Journ. v. 322. Several from Derbyshire are described by Bateman, one 12 inches in length, (Vestiges, p. 59, Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 103, 107, 116, 127), who, however, speaks of them alternatively as netting-rules or modelling tools of the potter. There was an object of this sort (7¾ by 1¼ in.) in the remarkable deposit of the bronze period, in the cave at Heathery Burn, Durham. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 131 (⁶), fig.

^{page 437 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 182 (²), plate xxi Stourhead Museum, No. 95. This haft bears much resemblance to that from Wychwood Forest (Arch. Journ. xiv. 82 ; xxi. 57, fig. 1), which is perforated in the centre.

^{page 437 note c} Wilts. Arch. Mag. vi. 163.

^{page 437 note d} Perhaps the “instruments of stag's horn ” named in Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (^{16, 18}). One of the specimens at Stourhead bears the mark “11, Wilsford.”

^{page 438 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 242 (¹⁸), plate xxxii. Though smaller, it bears some analogy to the “picks of deerhorn,” found by Mr. Greenwell in the flint-workings of Grime's Graves, and in barrows at Rudstone, E. E. Yorkshire. In these, the pick was formed by the brow-tine, the handle by the stem of the horn, which was not perforated. Journ. Ethnol. Soc. 1870, ii. 426, 428, plate xxix. fig. 2.

^{page 438 note b} Horæ Ferales, p. 131, plate i. figs. 3, 5, 7. One such seems to have been found by Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, p. 122.

^{page 438 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 68. An object of this kind, about 4 inches long, with a hole 1⅛ inch in diameter, is at Stourhead. It is probably that referred to above, from a barrow at Cop Head Hill.

^{page 438 note d} Wilts Arch. Mag. x. 96, plate iii. fig. 4. A neatly-made implement of bone, perhaps an axe-head, 5 inches long, not perforated, but bevelled at the narrow end, from one of the same barrows, is also at Devizes.

^{page 438 note e} Vestiges, pp. 42, 43, fig. Evans, op. cit. p. 389. With these hammer-heads from the barrows should be compared the beautiful one of elk or deer's horn in Arch. Journ. xxi. 58, fig. 2 ; also those from the bed of the Thames, found in proximity with objects of the late bronze, or early iron, period. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 269 ; Guide to Christy Coll. p. 9.

^{page 439 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 199 (¹³⁹). This specimen, now in three pieces, is marked “121, from barrow 140;” meaning, no doubt, barrow 139. The bone, 3 inches long, “perforated in three places,” from a barrow near Avebury (Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 82, fig.), was perhaps hollow, and to be classed here Comp. Wilde. Catal. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 343, fig. 225.

^{page 439 note b} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 155.

^{page 439 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 209 (¹⁸). Figured in Unpublished Plate, xix B. [The dotted lines at the narrow end are not in the original drawing : the mistake was noticed too late to be corrected.] It is, perhaps, of the same class as the object of deer's horn from Worle Hill (Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc. 1852, p. 9, fig.), though this may be of a later (Roman ?) period.

^{page 439 note d} Objects made from the tines of deer-horns, though with varying intentions, are those from a barrow at Arras, E.E. Yorkshire (Cran. Brit, plate 6, xii. p. (2), fig. 8) ; the “whistles” from Thor's Cave, Staffordshire, (Reliquary, vi. 209); and implements from a crannoge near Enniskillen. Journ, Kilkenny Arch. Soc. 4 S. i. 309, figs.

^{page 440 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 212 (²⁰), plate xxxi. figs. 1–4, bis.

^{page 440 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 46, plate iii.; 74 (¹), plate ix.; 122 (¹⁵), 128(²³), 166 (⁵⁷), 207 (¹⁸²), 242 (²²).

^{page 440 note c} Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, p. 50 (³⁷); ii. 13, errata. This last is in Mr. Durden's collection, at Blandford. The “tweezers of bone ” from a Derbyshire tumulus (Ten Years' Diggings, p. 170, fig.), are quite different.

^{page 440 note d} An implement very similar was made for me by my son, aged 17, out of the tibia of a common fowl.

^{page 440 note e} Archæologia, xv. 125, plate iv. fig. 4, Ancient Wilts, i. 76 (⁴); 124 (²⁵), Unpublished Plate xv. c. Winterbourn Stoke; 162 (²⁹); 237 (²).

^{page 441 note a} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 323 (¹⁰). Archæologia, 330, plate xvii. fig. d.

^{page 441 note b} Trans. Devon. Assoc. 1870, iv. 301, plate ii. fig. 2. A bone bead, of much larger size, with a spiral pattern, from a. barrow on Westerdale Moors, N. K. Yorkshire, has also a lateral perforation. Atkinson, Proc. Geol. and Polytechn. Soc. W. R. Yorks. 1864.

^{page 441 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 208 (⁹). There was likewise an “ivory pin” and a small bronze celt.

^{page 441 note d} Bateman, Ten Tears' Diggings, p. 74, Cran. Brit, plate xx. 60, p. (²) fig.

^{page 441 note e} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 89. Jewitt, Grave Mounds, p. 124. fig. 172.

^{page 442 note a} Prehistoric Times, p. 101.

^{page 443 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 182 (²), 202 (¹⁵⁸), 208 (⁹), 209 (¹⁸) ; ii. 90 (¹). The four first are figured in plates xxi, xxvi, xxviii, and xxix. I have a drawing of the fifth from the barrow on Overton Hill. It is about the same size as that in plate xxix., but the stem for insertion into the handle is narrower. This specimen is not at Stourhead. There is, however, a second miniature celt, an inch in length, much corroded. If this be from a Wiltshire barrow, the number will be increased to six.

^{page 443 note b} Arch. Æliana, iv. 105, plate; Bateman, Catalogue, p. 78 ; Arch. Journ. iv. 335, plate vi. figs. 1, 2. Cat. Edin. Mus. Arch. Inst. 1856, p. 50, figs.; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 34, figs.; Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 91, 392, figs. 72, 307. The first of these Irish moulds shows that the two types of celt, the simple wedged and the palstave, were in use at the same time. In the Durden Collection is a great block of sandstone from a barrow at Badbury, Dorset, on which are excavated matrices for, as would seem, two wedge-shaped celts and two spear-heads. Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, iii. 57, note. See also the stone from a cist at Kilmartin, Argyllshire, with what seem to be moulds for several wedge-shaped celt. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 512, fig.; Journ. Ethnol. Soc. N. S. ii. 341, fig.

^{page 444 note a} The figure in Ancient Wilts, plate xxvi. is very inaccurate. It is shown much too thick in the centre, and the flanges which exist are not given. It corresponds very closely with several of the celts, all of this type, found at Oreston, Devon. It has not, however, the peculiarity of a groove at the edge of the narrow end which is noted by Mr. Albert Way, Arch. Journ. xxvi. 346, figs. 1, 2. A celt in the British Museum, said by Lort to have been “found in a long barrow at Stonehenge,” (Archæologia, v. 115, plate viii. fig. 14), may possibly be that referred to by Stukeley (Stonehenge, p. 46), as from Knighton Longbarrow. According to Stukeley, it was of the improbable length of thirteen inches. This is only five and-aquarter inches long, and in the Sloane MS. Catalogue is said to be from Yorkshire. There may, however, be a double error, as the specimen is of similar form with that from Bush Barrow. It is ornamented with scorings, like one of those from Arreton Down; and is figured in Horœ Ferales, p. 144, plate iv. fig. 6.

A figure of one of the celts from Arreton, not found in a barrow, but of the same general type as that from Bush Barrow, is reproduced in fig. 148, from Archæologia, xxxvi. 329.

^{page 444 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 203, note. Elsewhere he says, “I think these instruments were the most ancient of those bearing the general name of celts.” Mus. Wiltun. p. 7.

^{page 445 note a} Vestiges, pp. 48, 68; Ten Years' Diggings, p. 34 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vii. 217, plate xix. fig. 2; LI. Jewitt, Grave Mounds, 129, fig. 187. The diminutive celt, two inches long, is from Borther Low.

^{page 445 note b} Stukeley gives a fancy picture of a British Druid (Stonehenge, p. 39, tab. 1), with a celt at his girdle, and in his hand a staff with a slit at the end for its insertion. Such a use of this implement, though not the principal one, is not improbable, and is, perhaps, confirmed by the position in the grave of one of those found by Bateman. Vestiges, p. 68.

^{page 446 note a} This three-fold classification of celts, the best proposed, is that adopted by Wilde (Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 362), and by Sir John Lubbock (Prehistoric Times, p. 13). The papers by Du Noyer, Yates, Hugo, and Cuming on this subject are well known. The suggestion of Rickman (Archæologia, xxviii. 418), as to the use of the loop, deserves attention.

^{page 446 note b} Reported cases of this sort should be strictly scrutinized. A socketed celt and palstave at Lake House have been described as “from tumuli;” but there is no evidence of this in the Duke MS. Another, reported as from a Dorset barrow (The Barrow Diggers, p. 74, plate ii., fig. 4), rests, probably, on no better foundation. A fine socketed bronze spear-head in the Ashmolean Museum is catalogued “from a barrow opened at Ashbury, Berks, 1850.” I am informed by H. Hippisley, Esq., the donor, that it was found in digging near the canal at Sparsholt, not in a barrow.

^{page 446 note c} Proc. Arch. Inst. York, p. 27, fig. ; Cran. Brit, plate 6, xii. p. (2), fig. 6. The glass bead on the loop of this celt does not prove it to have been a mere ornament, as is shown by the large celt found at Tadcaster, with a bead attached to it by a bronze armlet. Archæologia, xvi. 362, plate liv. fig. 2; Arch. Journ. iv. p. 6, fig. L.

^{page 446 note d} Archæologia, xvi. 348, plate L. Nos. 3, 5; Horæ Ferales, p. 179.

^{page 446 note e} Arch. Journ. xxv. 246, fig.; Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 259.

^{page 447 note a} Evans, British Coins, p. 102.

^{page 447 note b} Kirwan, Trans. Devon Assoc. 1870, iv. 300, plate ii. fig. 1. Mr. Kirwan wrote to me “there was every reason to suppose that the celt was deposited where found at the time of the original interment.”

^{page 447 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 208 (⁵) One of the Wilsford barrows, near Stonehenge ; in a grave with burnt bones.

^{page 447 note d} As that at Beckhampton, of which I have a cast. Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 110, fig. 20. One of similarly small size, from Fenton, Yorkshire, is in the British Museum. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 89. That found at Cilhaul, Montgomeryshire, is larger, but of the same type. Trans. Powys Land Club, iii. 432, fig. A spear-head, differing a little in form, is recorded as found in a cist under a cairn at Crawford, Lanark; with it an urn, burnt bones, and fine bronze armlet. Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. x. 7; xvii. 110, plate xi. fig. 3 ; xii. figs. 1, 2.

^{page 448 note a} Arch. Journ. xvi. 152. The Rev. J. Skinner sent a sketch of the spear-head to his correspondent the Rev. James Douglas, author of Nenia Britannica, but unfortunately this is not reproduced in the copy of the letters at Bath. The description, however, is explicit.

^{page 448 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 121 (¹⁵), 122 (¹⁶), 199 (¹³⁹), 205 (¹⁶⁴), 207 (¹⁶²).

^{page 448 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 67 (²), 202 (¹⁵⁸),—the rich “Bush Barrow,” near Stonehenge.

^{page 448 note d} In the Ashmolean Museum (4), in the Devizes (3), in the Blackmore (2), in the British Museum (1), and in the Hon. Mrs. Denison's and my own collection (each 1).

^{page 448 note e} The four from Somersetshire are two from Priddy, in the Bristol Museum; two from West Cranmore, in Mr. J. W. Flower's collection. The two from Lambourn, Berkshire, from the Seven Barrows, just over the Wiltshire border, are in the British Museum.

^{page 448 note i} Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, plate “Bronze Daggers.” The measurements of two of these blades are given, Archæologia, xxx. 332. Bronze dagger-blades are rare in the tumuli of Dorsetshire, the total number known to me not exceeding twelve. With two or three exceptions, they were with burnt bodies.

^{page 449 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 44, plate ii.

^{page 450 note a} Wilts Arch. Mag. iii. 186 ; Cran. Brit, plate 42, xxxii. p. (3). It weighs 5¼ oz. av.

^{page 450 note b} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 163. A narrow tanged blade, from the neighbourhood of Cawthorne Camps, E. R. Yorkshire, termed “a spear-head of primitive form,” is also in the Bateman Collection, l. c. p. 219, Catalogue, p. 21. Another, obtained by Mr. Ruddock from the same part of Yorkshire, is in the Kendall Collection, at Pickering. One from Keswick, Cumberland, 3½ inches long, has been lately added to the British Museum; also one of double that size, from Sutton Courtenay, near Abingdon. That from Winwick, Lancashire, is imperfectly figured, Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xvi. 295, plate xxv. fig. 9. A much finer specimen from Newbury, Berks, is given ibid. p. 322, plate xxvi. fig. 1. The tanged blades from Arreton, in the Isle of Wight, classed as spear-heads, are admitted by Mr. Franks to be possibly daggers. Archæologia, xxxvi. 327, plate xxv. figs. 1, 4 ; Horœ Ferales, p. 152, 154, plate vi. figs. 24, 25.

^{page 450 note c} The label “Barrow near Robin Hood's Ball,” shows it to be the so-called “dart or arrow-head ” named, Ancient Wilts, i. 176, (²).

^{page 450 note d} See Prof. Worsaae, by M. Ch. G. A. Gosch, Arch. Journ. xxiii. 37.

^{page 451 note a} Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 549, fig. 433; Horæ Ferales, p. 153, plate vi. fig. 10; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. v. 84; vi. 357 ; Arch. Journ. xxii. 74, fig. Arch. Cambr. 3 s. xii, 100. (Plate xxxii. fig. 7.) A similar bilboed blade, with central perforation, from Heathery Burn Cave, Durham, is in Mr. Greenwell's collection.

^{page 451 note b} Arch. Journ. xvi. 151. It has a rivet-hole in the tang, and weighs a little more than a quarter of an ounce, being quite plain, and smaller than that from Winterslow.

^{page 451 note c} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vii. 475, fig. See a ruder sort of bronze razor, from Cottle, Berkshire, Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. ii. 301, fig.

^{page 451 note d} B. G. v. 14.

^{page 452 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. plates xxiii. xxxiv. Compare these with that in Wilde's Catalogue, p. 451, fig. 327.

^{page 452 note b} They measure 4¼ and 3¾ inches in length, and are respectively numbered 122 and 128.

^{page 452 note c} Arch. Journ. v. 282, fig. 293 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xvi. 249.

^{page 452 note d} Proc. Soc. Ant. iv. 329 ; Horœ Ferales, p. 158, plate vii. fig. 21. It was found with a skeleton lying north and south. A blade of similar type and size, from one of the Derbyshire barrows, has likewise a brilliant silvered appearance (Vestiges, p. 90). Here also belongs the blade with two rivets, 4⅛ inches long and 1½ inch broad, from a barrow with burnt remains at Yatesbury, North Wilts, figured by Dean Merewether (Proc. Arch. Inst. at Salisbury, p. 97, fig. T). A very broad and coarse blade about 4½ inches long, labelled in the handwriting of Dr. Webb, late Master of Clare Hall, “found in a tumulus,” is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. It has three holes at the base, but no rivets, and, the edges being unground, appears unfinished.

^{page 453 note a} In a broad triangular blade from a barrow at Teddington, Middlesex (plate xxxv. fig. 3), measuring 7 inches long and 2⅛ broad, the midrib is trilobed. It weighs 4⅝ oz. av. Trans. Surrey Arch. Soc. i. 74 ; Archæologia, xxxvi. 175 ; Arch. Journ. xiii. 305, fig.

^{page 453 note b} Proc. Arch, Soc. Somerset, viii. 44. A very similarly ornamented dagger-blade from a barrow at Cranmore, likewise in East Somerset, is given in Pl. xxxv, fig. 2, by the kindness of Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S. It weighs 3¾ oz.; that from Camerton, 3½ oz. nearly. The barrow at Cranmore was of the bell form, and covered a burnt interment. With it were a second smaller bronze blade and some flint scrapers.

^{page 453 note c} The large leaf-shaped and triangular blades figured by Hoare are in plates xiv. xv. 1, 2; xxviii. 7 ; and in Unpublished Plates xxii B, xxvii., xxxiv D, and “Tumuli—Imber,” 4. With scarcely an exception, they are from barrows in the immediate neighbourhood of Stonehenge. Two of these are stippled or pounced; and a third, labelled “Barrow No. 120,” is also decorated in the same way.

^{page 454 note a} Horæ Ferales, p. 158, plate vii. fig. 19 ; Bowman, Reliq. Ebor. 39, fig.; D. Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, p. 264, fig. The same ornament occurs on wedge-shaped celts, such as are found in the barrows, but not on any certainly so derived.

^{page 454 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 202 (¹⁵⁸), Unpublished Plate xxvii. The large leaf-shaped blade, from Cressingham, Norfolk, inches long, has like-wise had three pairs of rivets, those on the outside ¼ inch long, those on each side of the centre ¾ inch. It is figured above (fig. 158), and is remarkable for the deep furrow on each side of the broad central midrib, outside which furrows are two lateral ribs. (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 456.) The dagger-blade, 9 inches long, from Came, Dorset (Warne, op. cit. i. 35 (¹⁰), fig. f), of which I have a full-sized drawing, must also have had six rivets. (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 456.)

^{page 454 note c} Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, iii. 7 ; MS. Minutes Soc. Antiq. 1784, p. 51.

^{page 454 note d} Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 57, 113, 160.

^{page 454 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 41 (⁶), 239, (⁹); comp. 182 (⁴); Mus. Wiltun. p. 7.

^{page 455 note a} “A bronze instrument (dagger?), 7 inches in length, and the surface highly gilt” (Fig. 157 ante.) Proc. Arch. Soc. Somerset, viii. 44; Archæologia, xxx. 332, plate xvii. fig. 8; Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, iii. 46.

^{page 455 note b} Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. p. 374, comp. 360, 395.

^{page 455 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 185 (²⁴). Sir Richard did not altogether relinquish the idea that some were the heads of spears. In Mus. Wiltun. (1828), he names spears and daggers of bronze ; and in Tumuli Wiltun. (1829), p. 10, daggers and lances.

^{page 455 note d} Ancient Wilts, pp. 44 (¹), 122 (¹⁶), 202 (¹⁵⁸), 238 (⁹). In the second there were two, and in the third three blades at or near the waist. The ancient Assyrians often wore two daggers in the girdle. (Horæ Ferales, p. 156). In two interments, the blades were found “near the head.” (Ancient Wilts, i. 205 (¹⁶⁴); ii. 90 (¹).

^{page 455 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 70 (¹), 99, 124 (²⁶), 161 (²⁸). Three others were in disc-shaped barrows, supposed to be those of women. (Ibid. p. 166, note, 207 (³). The burnt body at Upton Pyne with which was a blade three inches long, a bronze awl or gimlet, and a necklace of shale or lignite, &c., figured under “Ornaments,” appears likewise to have been that of a woman. Trans. Devon. Assoc. for Science, iv. 643, fig. 1.

^{page 456 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 122 (¹⁶), plate xv. 203 (¹⁵⁸). Sir Richard discriminated the two blades as spear and dagger in these interments. I find the distinctions are most strongly marked in the last, in which the spear-head, if such, (13 inches long) weighs 12 oz., the dagger (10½ inches) 8½ oz. (Pl. xxxv. fig. 1.) Other possible spear-heads are those in plates xiv. (¹⁵) (8 oz.); xxviii. (⁷), and in Unpublished Plate “Imber ;” also those at Stourhead marked “Wilsford, 170” (7½ oz.) ; “110 from barrow 120 ” (5¼ oz.) ; and “125 from barrow 140” (9¼ oz.) This last, broad and handsome, is nearly eight inches long, has six rivets, and a large thick midrib, and is relatively the heaviest in the collection.

^{page 456 note b} Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 164. It is called a handle, but, if a foot in length, could not have been the haft of a dagger. Mr. Cunnington speaks confidently of the decayed wood having a defined form of about this length.

^{page 456 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 67 (²), 176 (²), 238 (⁸), plate xxxii. fig. 1. All three were with burnt bodies.

^{page 456 note d} Bronze arrow-heads fastened to the shafts by rivets are, I believe, unknown to archæology. None are described by Du Noyer, Arch. Journ. vii. 281, or Wilde, Catalogue, p. 503, or in Horæ Ferales, p. 151, plate vi.

^{page 457 note a} Arch. Journ. viii. 346 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 438, where Mr. Franks regards it as an arrow-head. Comp. Arch. Journ. vii. 281, fig. 1, 2 ; Wilde, Catalogue, p. 503, fig. 388.

^{page 457 note b} Cran. Brit. plate 42, xxxii. p. (3). Comp. Arch. Journ. xviii. 160, where it is described as “the tang of a knife or small weapon of which the blade has wasted away.” Other supposed bronze arrow-heads are reported, Arch. Journ. xvi. 148, 151 ; xviii. 71 ; Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 259. The last was a small riveted knife-blade, as my sketch of it shows.

^{page 457 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 39 (1), 194 (“apparently willow”), ii. 94. With two blades from barrows at Priddy, Somerset, there were also decayed wooden sheaths. Arch. Journ. xvi. 149. That of a dagger found in Dorsetshire is stated to have been of leather (Warne, op. cit. i. 51 (³⁸); also some of those from the barrows of Stafford and Derby. Ten Years' Diggings, p. 160.

^{page 457 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 122 (¹⁶), 185 (²⁴), 205 (¹⁶⁴), 207 (¹⁸²), 238 (⁹) ; Mus. Wiltun. p. 7. There were remains of a sheath and handle of wood with a bronze blade in the tumulus at Kellythorpe, E. R. Yorkshire. Archæologia, xxxiv. 255, plate xx. fig. 8.

^{page 457 note e} Iliad, xix 387.

^{page 457 note f} Ancient Wilts, i. 242 (²⁰). Figured in Unpublished Plate xxxiv. d.

^{page 458 note a} Ibid. i. 114 (⁸), 195, plate xxiii. That figured in Unpublished Plate, Scratchbury, is probably a button. A bone pommel was found with the Gristhorpe interment, Cran. Brit. plate 52, x. p. (2), fig. 4. Others from barrows in Derbyshire are in the Bateman Collection (Vestiges, pp. 39, 98, Catalogue, p. 1, 12) ; and others from Yorkshire are seen in the Bateman, Greenwell, Mortimer, and Kendall collections. Comp. Ten Tears' Diggings, p. 226 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xvi. 288, plate xxv. figs. 5, 6.

^{page 458 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 124 (²⁶). The pommel, though not described as such by Hoare, is figured in Unpublished Plate xv b., and will be given as a wood-cut, under “Amber.” Possibly the oblong amber “solitaire ” from the barrow at Winterslow formed the pommel of the handle of the fluted tanged blade (razor ?) found near it. The four diamond-shaped amber studs were, perhaps, ornaments of the sheath or belt. (Modern Wilts (Alderbury), v. 210.)

^{page 458 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 201 (¹⁵⁵), plate xxv. fig. 4.

^{page 458 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 195, note, plate xxiii. This dagger was found in a barrow at Brigmilston.

^{page 458 note e} Bateman, Vestiges, p. 68. This blade measures 6½ inches long and 2¾ inches broad.

^{page 459 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 202 (¹⁵⁸), plate xxvii. 2. Impressions of the gold pins are visible in the ærugo and decayed wood on the handle-plate of the blade. The British chevron in this handle, the same as that on so many of the fictile vessels, is almost conclusive as to the indigenous origin of the dagger. The fragment of bronze, 2¾ inches long, ornamented with zigzags and dots, from a barrow in Dorset, opened by Colonel Drax in 1784, appears to have been the finish to the top of the handle of a broad, thin, bronze dagger, with the blade of which, 8½ inches long, it was found. (Douglas, Nenia, p. 153, plate xxxiii. figs. 1, 3; Warne, p. cit. iii. 7.

^{page 459 note b} The particulars of this discovery are here accurately given for the first time. See Proc. Soc. Ant. i. 75 ; Journ. Brit Arch. Assoc ii. 98. It is there figured, and less inadequately in Warne, op. cit. ii. 17. Plate of Bronze Daggers a. There is a coloured drawing of in the Library of the Society.

^{page 460 note a} Vestiges, pp. 51 (fig.), 61, 63 (fig.), 66, 68, 90, 96 (fig.) ; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 21, 24, 34, 39, 57, 91, 113, 115, 119, 148, 160, 163; Arch. Journ. i. 247 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vii. 217, fig. 1 ; Cran. Brit. plate 13, xxii. p. (2). The further we go north the more seldom are bronze blades found with burnt bodies.

^{page 460 note b} Opened by Sir John Harpur Crewe, in 1851, in the presence of Sir Gardner Wilkinson, to whose kindness I owe a drawing of the blade. (Ten Years' Diggings, p. 245 ; Journ Brit. Arch. Assoc. xviii. 42).

^{page 460 note c} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 148.

^{page 461 note a} Arch. Journ. xi. 414, fig. ; xii. 193; Horæ Ferales, pp. 162, 164, plate x. fig. 7 ; Wilde, Catalogue R. I. Acad. p. 489 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 403, 430, pl. ii. fig. 5. The large and fine heavy blade from near Stranraer, Wigtonshire, in the Museum at Edinburgh (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vii. 423), is, I suspect, of the same description.

^{page 461 note b} Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 206, 226, from the Ruddock excavations.

^{page 461 note c} Arch. Journ. xxii. 243, fig. 6. This blade is decayed, but has been about 7 inches long.

^{page 462 note a} Evans, Archæologia, xxxviii. 291, plate xv. fig. 2.

^{page 462 note b} Cran. Brit. plate 52, x. p. 3, fig. 5 ; Archæologia, xxxiv. 255, plate xx. fig. 8.

^{page 462 note c} Catalogue Mus. Soc. Ant. Scot. p. 73, Nos. 152, 157. Mr. John Stuart figures a bronze dagger-blade (4½ inches), from a cairn at Linlathen, Forfar (Sculptured Stones, ii. 54, plate c.) ; another (5¾ inches), from a cist at Carluke, Lanark, is described (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. vii. 440); both with unburnt bodies. Mr. Stuart likewise names two bronze knives in an urn with burnt bones from St. Andrews ; also part of a dagger from a cist at Bishopmill, Elgin (op. cit. ii. lix. xcvi.)

^{page 463 note a} Franks, Horæ Ferales, p. 155.

^{page 463 note b} Wilde, Cat. Mus. R. I. Acad. pp. 447, 448, figs. 323, 324, 325.

^{page 463 note c} Bronze swords may yet be found in our barrows ; they undoubtedly occur in tumuli of the same bronze period in Denmark. Arch. Journ. xxiii. 32, 34.

^{page 463 note d} The fragment resembles the blade in Horæ Ferales, plate vii. fig. 15, and measures about 12 inches, inclusive of the bronze handle. Leaf-shaped bronze swords are said to have been found in the barrows of North Britain. (Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, pp. 265, 287, 434; 2nd ed. i. 394.) On inquiry, however, I learn, through the kindness of Dr. J. A. Smith, that neither of these cases warrants the inferences deduced. At Memsie, the interment was comparatively modern and the sword iron ; and at Carlochan, though a bronze sword was found in removing a cairn, it is not stated to have been within or near the cist. The absence from the barrows examined by him of the “more artificially formed palstaves, celts, spears, and swords ” of bronze, is dwelt on by Mr. Bateman. (Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vii. 217.)

^{page 463 note e} Athenæus, iv. 36. This implement, μαχαιία μικῶ, Posidonius says, was carried in its own sheath, beside the scabbard of the sword ; just as Homer says a similar implement was by the ancient Greeks (see that of Agamemnon quoted below). Posidonius does not state of what material the Gaulish knife was formed.

^{page 464 note a} Dr. Johnson (Journey to the Western Isles, 1774) writes, “Thirty years ago the Highlander wore his knife as a companion to his dirk or dagger, and, when the company sat down to meat, the men who had knives cut the flesh into small pieces for the women.”

^{page 464 note b} Iliad, iii. 271. The Greek machæra at the time in question was no doubt of bronze, like the rest of the weapons. Comp. Iliad, v. 699 ; vi. 3; xiii. 612 ; xix. 363, 372 ; Odyss. xi. 40, 531, et passim; Plutarch, Vit. Thesei, c. 36 ; Athenæus, vi. 21.

^{page 464 note c} Mus. Wiltun. p. 5. Comp. Ancient Wilts, i. 27.

^{page 464 note d} Franks, Horæ Ferales, p. 141.

^{page 464 note e} Akerman, J. Y., Archæologia, xxxiv. 173Google Scholar; Prof.Phillips, J., Proc. Yorks. Phil. Soc. 1848, p. 87Google Scholar; Arch. Journ. xvi. 16 ; D. Wilson, Prehistoric Annals, p. 236 ; J. M. Kemble, Horæ Ferales, p. 70 ; Howorth, Trans. Ethnol. Soc. vi. 91.

^{page 464 note f} Two or three are at Lake House. In our national collection of antiquities these insignificant objects are scarcely found, and we derive no aid towards their elucidation from the labours of a Franks, a Wilson, or a Wilde.

^{page 464 note g} This opinion is repeatedly expressed, Ancient Wilts, i. 24, 114, ii. 110 ; Mus. Wiltun. p. 7 ; Tum. Wiltun. pp. 7, 8. These pins average about one and a-half inch in length.

^{page 465 note a} Stonehenge, p. 45, plate xxxii. and quoted Ancient Wilts, i. 161. The lady's implement for piercing, often carried in a chatelaine or needle-case, is now known as a stiletto.

^{page 465 note b} Ancient Wilts, i. 103, plate xii.; Archæologia, xv. 125, plate iv. fig. 5.

^{page 465 note c} Arch. Journ. vi. 319. Mr. Way has favoured me with full-sized photographs of these pins. A small pin of the same type, from a burnt interment at Storrington, Sussex, is figured, Sussex Arch. Coll. i. 54.

^{page 465 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 99, plate xi. ( inches) ; 210 (⁷), plate xxx. fig. ( inches).

^{page 465 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 99, plate xi.; Bateman, Vestiges, pp. 41, 82 ; Ten Years' Diggings, p. 85.

^{page 465 note f} Ancient Wilts, i. 164 (⁴²), plate xvii.

^{page 465 note g} Ibid. 122 (¹⁶), plate xv. fig. 3. The handle is described as “ivory.” Two large bronze blades show the interment to have been that of a man.

^{page 466 note a} Vestiges, p. 105 ; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 67, 72, 107, 155, 171. One, with a waist, is figured, C. R. Smith, Collect. Antiq. i. 60, plate xxi. fig. 3. There is great variety in the size and form of these awls from the Derbyshire barrows.

^{page 466 note b} Mr. Mortimer figures a small “pricker ” of bronze from a barrow near Fimber, E. R. Yorkshire, described as having “a short wooden haft.” Reliquary, ix. 67, plate x. fig. 5.

^{page 466 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 70 (¹). Two were in a collection now dispersed ; the figure of one of which, given above, is taken from Unpublished Plate “Scratchbury.” (Fig. 167.) There are traces of a spiral screw on a pin from a barrow at Upton Pyne, figured by the Rev. R. Kirwan, F.S.A. Trans. Devon Assoc. for Science, &c. iv. 643, fig. 3 ; Arch. Journ. xxix. 153. The end of this pin has become attached to a piece of burnt bone —the head of a small (female ?) radius.

^{page 467 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 194, plate xxiii.; 199 (¹³⁹), plate xxiv. ; ii. 90 (¹). A drawing, perhaps not very exact, made at the time of its discovery, sent to me a few years since, shows that this “long pin with a handle,” from a barrow on Kennet, otherwise Overton, Hill, was a screw, five inches in length, with a crutch-like head. (Fig. 168.) Like most of the objects found in the barrows of North Wilts (Ancient Wilts, ii.) it is not in the Stourhead Collection. It is referred to, Arch. Journ. xvi. 153.

^{page 467 note b} Arch. Journ. xxvi. 350, fig. 5.

^{page 467 note c} Ancient Wilts, i. 185 (²⁴), plate xxiii.

^{page 467 note d} Ibid. i. 209 (¹⁸), plate xxix. The stone hammer and bone tube are figured in these pages. (Figs. 97, 138.)

^{page 467 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 70 (¹). Unpublished Plate “Scratchbury.”

^{page 467 note f} Proc. Somerset Arch. Soc. viii. 43. See figs. 45, 117, and 157, in these pages.

^{page 468 note a} Horsfield, , Lewes, i. 48, plate iii. fig. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note b} Archæologia, xii. 414, plate li. This pin was twelve inches long, the head set with amber.

^{page 468 note c} Arch. Journ. ix. 7, where the pin, twenty inches in length, is figured. It was found with a sword, socketed spear-head, and palstave, all of bronze. A bronze pin, 10⅛ inches long, was found with similar objects in the Isle of Skye. (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. iii. 102.) See also the fine pin found near Brighton (Sussex Arch. Coll. ii. 265, fig. 1; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. i. 148, fig.) In this, likewise, there was a perforation in the upper part of the stem. The bronze armlets found with it were of the type of those found at Hollingbury, in the same county. (Arch. Journ. v. 325,) The fine bronze pin, nearly fourteen inches long, from Rushall Down, Salisbury Plain, is of late Celtic type. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 469; iv. 69.

^{page 469 note a} Arch. Journ. xxv. 246, Arch. Cambr. 3 S. xiv. 259, fig. Of this description may have been the “pin, six inches long, with a double head,” from a barrow at Muckleford, Dorset. Warne, Celtic Tumuli, iii. 37 (⁶¹).

^{page 469 note b} Sussex Arch. Coll. ii. 265, fig. 3.

^{page 469 note c} Arch. Journ. ix. 106, fig.

^{page 469 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 160 (²⁷), figured above from Unpublished Plate xxvii. A similar ornament was found in Thor's Cave, Staffordshire, Reliquary, vi. 211, plate xx. fig. 1 ; also one, of a narrower ribbon of metal, in a barrow at Castern, in the same county. Ten Years' Diggings, p. 167.

^{page 470 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 126 (¹²). The other bronze armlets at Stourhead are apparently Anglo-Saxon. Ancient Wilts, i. 174, plate xx.

^{page 470 note b} Bronze armlets found with sepulchral antiquities, probably Ancient British, are figured, Arch. Journ. xx. 200 ; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. x. 8; xvii. 111, plate xii. fig. 2 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. ii. 277. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 406.

^{page 470 note c} Cran. Brit. plates 6, 7, xii. pp. 1, 4, figs. 2, 3, 4 (armlets), 5 (bangle), 20 (pin). The two finest enamelled armlets, now in the York Museum, are not given in this plate, but one of them is figured further on (fig. 174). In the Cowlam barrows, Mr. Greenwell found two fine armlets and a fibula, the acus of the latter broken off and replaced by one of iron. Fibulse of the same type were found by Mr. E. Tindall in a tumulus (sepulchral ?) near Bridlington. Wright, Essays on Archæology, i. 24, figs. These fibute, in the collection of John Evans, Esq. F.R.S., agree in style with some of those in Horæ Ferales, plate xxi.

^{page 470 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 86. A bronze buckle from Tosson, Northumberland, is figured, Cran. Brit. plate 54, vii. p. (2), but, like the iron spear-head, is possibly Anglo-Saxon. Another, described as “double,” from a barrow at Royston, is at Audley End. Archæologia, xxx. 360.

^{page 470 note e} A bronze bead from a barrow in Dorset is in the Durden collection. It is tubular, and 1¼ inch long. That called a “bead ” by Sir Richard Hoare (Ancient Wilts, i. 243 (²) was, I suspect, the bulbous head broken off from the “pin,” with which it was found, and which must have been of the same class as that from the Camerton tumulus (fig. 170). A hollow cup-like nodule in the collection, with a large hole at the top, and a small one at the bottom, is probably the object in question.

^{page 470 note f} Archæologia, xxxvii. 368 ; Horsfield, Lewes, plate iii. fig. 5. The ring figured in Horæ Ferales, plate xxv. fig. 4, is not from a tumulus.

^{page 471 note a} Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 61.

^{page 471 note b} Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. viii. 30, fig. reproduced under “Ornaments;” Wilde, Catal. Antiq. of Gold, p. 40, fig. 570.

^{page 471 note c} Ten Years' Diggings, p. 80.

^{page 471 note d} Mr. Fergusson (Rude Stone Monuments, p. 289,) speaks of these secondary interments with incredulity, as “a convenient fiction;” but he can hardly have examined the evidence, or would not regard a supposed a priori improbability a sufficient refutation.

^{page 471 note e} Ancient Wilts, i. 174 ; comp. p. 24.

^{page 471 note f} Ancient Wilts, i. 65 (¹), 78 (³), 243 (²⁷). It is not certain that the primary interment in the first was reached ; only a “few black ashes ” being noticed, and the spear-head of iron and the halves of two horse-shoes perhaps belonged to an intrusive secondary burial. The second is shown, by the extended skeleton, to be Anglo-Saxon or Romano-British. The third, at Woodyates, over the Dorset border, with burnt bones and large-headed nails in an irregular cist, belongs to a group containing undoubted Anglo-Saxon burials, found both by Sir Richard Hoare and by a later explorer, Mr. Chaffers, quoted further on. In the cairn near Mold, Flintshire, in which was the celebrated gold corslet, there was “what was apparently iron completely decayed,” thought to be the remains of small nails. Archæologia, xxvi. 425.

^{page 472 note a} Ancient Wilts, i. 93. Silver Barrow has some resemblance to a long barrow ; but the objects found in it make it doubtful whether it is not of an entirely different character.

^{page 472 note b} Cran. Brit. plate 43, xxxi. ; Wilts Arch. Mag. vi. 159–161. The skull must be perhaps referred to the Anglo- Saxon rather than the British series.

^{page 472 note c} None of these objects are preserved at Stourhead.

^{page 472 note d} The fifth decade of Crania Britannica was issued in July 1862, but this description (plate 43, xxxi.) was printed in 1861, before Mr. Bateman's Ten Years' Diggings, in which the barrow at New Inns is described (at p. 463), had been received.

^{page 472 note e} That with ornaments of garnets set in gold, and a situla of wood mounted with brass. The skeleton was in a wooden cist bound with iron. (Proc. Arch. Inst. Salisbury, p. 111, fig. 36; Akerman, Pagan Saxondom, p. 1, plate i.; Proc. Soc. Ant. i. 12.)

^{page 472 note f} Bone draftsmen, as found in barrows in this country, are perhaps always Anglo-Saxon; as at Keythorpe, Leicestershire (Arch. Journ. xviii. 76), and Faversham and Sarr, Kent, with both of which there were double sets. (Collect. Ant. vi. 138 ; Arch. Cant. vi. 157, fig. vii. 308.)

^{page 472 note g} Arch. Journ. 1845, i. 156 ; Antiq. and Architect. Year Booh, 1845, p. 23. These reports, which present various inconsistencies, were drawn up thirty years after the explorations. But for that in Modern Wilts, the preservation of the objects themselves, and of the oil-paintings in which these are represented, the investigation might better never have been made.

^{page 473 note a} Modern Wilts (Alderbury), v. 208–212.

^{page 473 note b} Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. ii. 100. At p. 98 they are stated to have been of bronze, as was the fact. Mr. Shipp, of Blandford, regrets the error made nearly a quarter of a century ago, which is, unfortunately, reproduced by Mr. Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, ii. 16, Synopsis, p. 5.

^{page 473 note c} Warne, Celtic Tumuli, Synopsis, 10; iii. 40; Archæologia, xxx. 547.

^{page 473 note d} Ancient Wilts, i. 234, 235, 236 (¹). This last, at least, was a secondary interment; for the objects see plates xxxi b. xxxii. xxxiii. Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, iii. 13, 22, 23.

^{page 473 note e} C. R. Smith, Coll. Antiq. i. 95.

^{page 473 note f} Vestiges, pp. 74, 76, 93; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. vii. 218; Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 28, 45, 48, 50, 54, 69, 105, 181.

^{page 473 note g} Trans. Ethnol. Soc. 2 S. iii. 311, 312. With this admission, it is, I think, to be regretted that Sir John Lubbock has given these iron finds a place in his table in Prehistoric Times, p. 101.

^{page 474 note a} Cran. Brit. plate 54, vii.; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. iv. 58, 61, where is a small figure of the spear or javelin head. It was 6 inches long, and resembles those known as Anglo-Saxon.

^{page 474 note b} Dr. S. Birch, F.S.A. Arch. Journ. iii. 28.

^{page 474 note c} See the Rev. E. Stillingfleet's graphic description, which might have been more complete if not so long delayed (Proc. Arch. Inst. York. p. 26 ; Cran. Brit. plates 6, 7, xii.), where figures of the more important objects are given. Bronze rings of the same Early Iron or Late Celtic type, parts apparently of horse-trappings, have been found with interments as far north as Aberdeenshire, e.g., at Towie (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. v. 341, figs.), and, as would appear, in another cairn, at Inverury. The latter, accompanied by four large jet knobs with iron pins, are in the British Museum.

^{page 475 note a} The bracelets from Arras were exhibited at a meeting of the Society, May 16, 1872, and are here figured, by the kind permission of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society. An armilla very similar to that from Arras (fag. 174), but with the enamel fallen out of place, is in the Museum at Zurich. Lindenschmit, Die Alterthυmer, &c., 1870, ii. (v.) Taf. 3, No. 3.

^{page 475 note b} Reliquary, ix. 180; where the interment is described as Anglo-Saxon. Dr. Barnard Davis sub-sequently assigned it accurately to the “late Celtic ” period (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iv. 273). Though no barrow was observed, there may once have been one of low elevation, like those at Arras. Other graves may exist, and ought to be searched for at and near Grimthorpe. These objects are now in Mr. Greenwell's collection.

^{page 475 note c} Horæ Ferales, p. 174 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 263.

^{page 476 note a} Op. et Dies, i. 150. Hesiod's age differs from that of Homer, in that “iron, as compared with copper, had come to be the inferior, that is to say, the cheaper metal;” and the poet “looks back from his iron age with an admiring envy on the heroic period.” (Gladstone, Juventus Mundi, pp. 26, 415.) Among Latin authors, the existence of an aereum seculum is implied or asserted by Lucretius, v. 1286; Ovid, Metam. xv. 260 ; Horace, Epod. xvi. 65 ; and Servius, ad Virgil. Æneid. i. 452.

^{page 476 note b} Cran. Brit. plates 6, 7, xii. p. (4–7).

^{page 476 note c} Archæologia, xlii. 52. It is doubtful whether the settlement of the Parisii could have occurred subsequent to the Roman conquest of Gaul. The suggestion in the text may hereafter be refuted by the discovery of interments like those of the East Riding in other districts; and the general view, on a subsequent page, as to the introduction of the Gallic weapons and armour, may, perhaps, satisfy us.

^{page 476 note d} Those then known were collected by me, in 1858. (Cran. Brit. Dec. iii. chap. v. p. 91.) In the Horæ Ferales, all known up to 1863 are figured or described, p. 172, plates xiv–xviii.

^{page 476 note e} Such, for instance, as the battle described by Dion (lx. 20), in the campaign of Aulus Plautius, and which, by Dr. Guest (Arch. Journ. xxiii. 173–178), has been shown to have been at Wallingford; hard by which, at Wittenham, in the bed of the Thames, a circular bronze shield was found. (Archæologia, xxvii. 298 ; Worsaae, Primeval Antiq. p. 32 ; Horæ Feral, p. 167, Pl. xi. fig. 2 ; Journ. Kilkenny Arch. Soc. 4 S. ii. 118.)

^{page 477 note a} Coll. Antiq. iii. 67, 68; Proc. Soc. Ant. ii. 199. Proc. Arch. Inst. Lincoln, pp. xxviii. xxxi. xxxii. Among other “finds” in the beds of rivers of mingled bronze and iron weapons is that at Kingston-on-Thames, the objects from which are in the collection of this Society (Archceologia, xxx. 490; Arch. Journ. v. 325, plates ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 82); and that at Kew, the knowledge of which we owe to Mr. T. Layton, F.S.A. The bronze and iron swords from this last locality are both very numerous, one of the former of the narrow rapier type. One iron dagger is in a curious bronze sheath (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. iii. 269, where we miss, with regret, Mr. Franks's description). After two examinations of these objects, I incline to concur with Mr. Boyd Dawkins, that they “indicate the site of a battle between the Kelts (Britons) and the Roman legions.” Trans. Internat. Congr. 1868, p. 271. Portions of both bronze and iron swords were found together in a chamber within the Gaulish oppidum of Castle Coz, Brittany. Arch. Journ. xxix. 324.

^{page 477 note b} Von Sacken, Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt, 1868 ; Simony, Die Alterthümer von Hallstätter Salzberg, 1851. For access to a magnificent unpublished volume of coloured drawings, executed for the explorer of this cemetery, Herr Kamsauer (Abbildungen der bei den Alterthumsgräbern zu Hallstatt aufgefundenen Antiquitäten, with accompanying Beschreibung), I am indebted to the liberality of Sir John Lubbock, P. S. A., for whose observations on the Hallstatt antiquities see Prehistoric Times, 2 ed. p. 22 ; Arch.. Journ. xxiii. 203 ; and Introduction to Nilsson, Stone Age, The age of these graves is, I think, placed too early by Mr. Evans. Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 394, 419.

^{page 477 note c} For figures of these weapons, see Von Sacken, op. cit. taf, v. vi. vii.; where, however, we miss the colouring of the plates in the Ramsauer Album.

^{page 478 note a} The contents of these two graves, Nos. 607, 608, are beautifully contrasted in the Album, tab. ii B. The bronze sword is that in Von Sacken, taf. v. fig. 1.

^{page 478 note b} “Ferri exigua est copia ; sere utuntur importato * * * * *, Utuntur [taleis (var. lectt. annulis, laminis) ferreis, ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo.” B. G. v. 12. In Belgic Gaul, Ctesar refers to the “nulla ferramentorum copia.” B. G. v. 42. Mr. Boyd Dawkins adduces evidence in favour of the iron mines of Sussex having been worked before the landing of Cæsar, as on other grounds is very probable. Trans. Internat. Congress, 1868, p. 189.

^{page 478 note c} Britain is a country of copper as well as tin, so that bronze has been regarded as “a strange article of import.” (Latham, Smith's Diet. G. and B. Geography, i. 435.) Others have even supposed it was the spot whence “bronze was diffused over the whole of Europe.” (Worsaae, Primeval Antiq. Eng. ed. p. 5.) There is no proof, however, that the copper-mines of this country were worked by the pre-Roman Britons. Nearly every other metal known to the ancients is stated to have been produced in the island, but no Greek or Roman writer makes any mention of copper. The copper-mines of Cornwall were not worked before the 15th century ; but there is proof that those of North Wales were worked by the Romans. It has been supposed that some old workings near Llandudno may have been those of Ordovician Britons, but the piece of bronze found in them, taken for “a mining implement or pick,” is now identified as the “tip of a small ingot.” (Arch. Journ. vii. 68 ; xxiv. 240.) Mr. Franks has a piece of a long narrow ingot of bronze found in the Thames. Several ingots of copper, slightly alloyed, were found in a barrow near Royston. (Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. i. 306 ; Arch. Journ. xviii. 86.) Round cakes of bronze, but oftener of “pure copper,” convex on one side, are often found with hoards of broken socketed celts and spear-heads and leaf-shaped swords. (Cran. Brit. chap. v. p. 103.) Some of these last may be of an early Roman period, in favour of which is the fact that in some instances lead has been found to enter into their composition Mr. Franks suggests that the tin necessary for forming bronze may have been mixed in as required (Arch. Journ. xi. 24 ; Hor, Feral, p. 141 ; Proc. Soc. Ant. 2 S. v. 418. Comp. Evans, ibid. p. 408–411) ; but hitherto, I think, no lumps of this metal have been found with these hoards. “We may believe that the chief export of Britain was its tin ; the chief imports copper and bronze ; their own tin coming back to the Britons in a manufactured state from Gaul. (Crawfurd, Cœsar's Account of Britain, in Trans. Ethnol. Soc. N.S. v. 211.) We see no reason for doubting the main features of what Strabo (iii. 5, 11) tells, of a similar trade, at an earlier period, carried on by the Phœnicians of Gades, who bartered their bronze goods for the tin, lead, and peltry of Britain. With Sir John Lubbock (Address on Primeval Antiquities, 1866), we believe that “the knowledge of bronze was introduced into, not discovered in, Europe ;” with Dr. Latham (Ethnology of British Islands, p. 34), that the art of working in this metal was “exotic, and subsequent to the rise of the Phoenician commerce.” At first, perhaps, the tools and weapons themselves, afterwards the metal or alloy from which they were made, seem to have formed the staple of exchange. Professor Nilsson's opinion (Die Ureinwohner des Scandinavischen Nordens, 1863), that the bronze weapons themselves were from first to last derived from the Phoenicians, is not probable.