APPENDIX.

ANCIENT BRITISH DWELLINGS.

(Pages 1-7.)

e have, says Sir Richard Colt Hoare, in his Ancient Wiltshire, "undoubted proof from history, and from existing remains, that the earliest habitations were pits, or slight excavations in the ground, covered and protected from the inclemency of the weather by boughs of trees or sods of turf." These dwellings usually formed villages, conveniently situated near streams or rivers, the habitations of the lords of the soil before the Roman occupation. Amongst the moorlands and wilds of Yorkshire, in spots where the spade and plough have not been in operation, upwards of forty British villages were described and inspected by Dr. Young, of Whitby. Many early dwellings are likewise to be met with in other parts of England; some sunk in the chalk, where cultivation has not entirely obliterated them, which is the case in the eastern counties. The large tumuli and barrows which remain, pertain to a much later era of our history; generally to the Roman and Saxon periods, when the use of bronze and iron became known.[87]

At a recent meeting of the Norwich Archæological Society, the members made an excursion to Brandon and neighbourhood, and at Grime's Graves Mr. Manning read a paper on the Graves, in which he maintained that this irregularly-shaped cluster of holes are ancient British dwellings, forming the remains of an ancient town. Each hole was lined with a layer of stones, and, when inhabited, roofed over with boughs or grass. The term "graves" means pits or holes, and the name "Grime's" was probably derived from "Græme," the Saxon for witch, or rather for anything supernatural. Thus the term "Grime's Graves" meant "Witches' Work." After leaving Grime's Graves, the party examined the Devil's Dyke, a long and extensive fosse and bank, supposed to have been made by the Ancient Britons for military purposes.

THE SAXON HALL.

(Page 48.)

The Saxon Hall for feeding retainers was mostly built of wood and thatched with reeds, or roofed with wooden shingles. The fire was kindled in the centre, and the lord and "hearth-men" sat by while the meal was cooked.

ABURY AND STONEHENGE.

(Page 14.)

The late Mr. Rickman, the antiquary, was of opinion that Abury and Stonehenge cannot reasonably be carried back to a period antecedent to the Christian era. In an Essay communicated by him to the Society of Antiquaries in 1839, after tracing the Roman road from Dover and Canterbury, through Noviomagus and London, to the West of England, Mr. Rickman notices that Silbury is situated immediately upon that road; and that the avenues of Abury extend up to it, whilst their course is referable to the radius of a Roman mile. From these and other circumstances, he argues that Abury and Silbury are not anterior to the road, nor can we well conceive how such gigantic works could be accomplished until Roman civilization had furnished such a system of providing and storing food as could supply a vast multitude of people. Mr. Rickman further remarks, that the temple of Abury is completely in the form of a Roman amphitheatre, which would accommodate about 48,000 Roman spectators, or half the number contained in the Colosseum at Rome. Again, the stones of Stonehenge have exhibited, when their tenons and mortices have been first exposed, the working of a well-directed steel point, beyond the workmanship of barbarous nations. Stonehenge is not mentioned by Cæsar or Ptolemy, and its historical records commence in the fifth century. On the whole, Mr. Rickman is induced to conclude that the era of Abury is the third century, and that of Stonehenge the fourth, or before the departure of the Romans from Britain; and that both are examples of the general practice of the Roman conquerors to tolerate the worship of their subjugated provinces, at the same time associating them with their own superstitions and favourite public games.