ANCIENT BRITISH DWELLINGS.
(_Pages_ 1-7.)
We 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_ 112.)
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.