Page images
PDF
EPUB

A very slight rise, in the centre of the camp, O., Pl. I., produced as many as two hundred and one fragments of coarse British pottery, quality No. 1. It may have been a tumulus, but no bones—either burnt or unburnt-were discovered in it, and it is difficult to say whether it was of the period of the camp, or earlier. My impression is that the place was occupied before the camp was constructed, on account of the large number of fragments of coarse British pottery found in the rampart. Most of these must have been on the ground before the ditch was cut, and must have been thrown up with the earth but probably the same pottery continued to be used in the camp afterwards. An area to the south and west, outside the camp, R.R., Pl. I., was trenched, to see whether pottery could be found outside the camp also, but only three fragments of coarse British pottery were discovered, and these on the side nearest the camp.

As to the small lozenge-shaped form of the camp ; in endeavouring to compare it with others, I am not aware of any other camp having been dug over so completely as to prove it to be of the Bronze Age. The only other camp of squarish form that I ever examined, was that of Highdown, in Sussex, in which I found a bronze socketted knife, as recorded in "Archæologia," vol. xlii., p. 27-76, but it was not thoroughly explored, and Saxon remains have since been found there. There are several small camps near Rushmore, a model of one of which was exhibited, which will be explored hereafter. We shall then see whether the square form of camp can be further associated with the Britons of the Bronze Age in this locality. As yet, notwithstanding the number of Bronze Age tumuli which have been opened by Sir Richard Hoare, Dr. Thurnam, and others, no residence of the bronze people, except this one, has been examined in this neighbourhood.

I have since had the South Lodge Camp completely restored, by throwing the silting, excavated from the ditch, into the rampart, and planting it with mahonia, ivy, and other shrubs to preserve it, so that it probably very much resembles what it was at the time it was in use.

Since this paper was read two other ditches in this locality, of the Bronze Age, have been explored in the same manner and with similar

results, the Roman pottery having been found only at the top of the silting, and in one of them, bronze implements and pottery below. So that there are grounds for hope that, by a similar method of exploration, evidence may ultimately be obtained which will throw light on the interval, if any, which existed in this neighbourhood between the Bronze and Roman Ages.

[This paper was illustrated by two models of the camp, one done before excavation-showing the features of the ground, before it was entirely destroyed by being excavated-and the other after excavation, showing the ditch, with pins marking the exact position of the relics found. These models have been made for my Museum at Farnham, in which there are one hundred and eight models of prehistoric monuments and earthworks of different kinds. Photographs were also exhibited, showing the condition of the excavations at the time each object was discovered, with diagrams, tables, and a map of the position.]

THE FOLLOWING IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF POTTERY REFERRED TO IN THIS PAPER.

BRITISH POTTERY.

No. 1.-COARSE BRITISH. This contains large fragments of flint, shell, or chalk in its composition, but no sand. Most of the cinerary urns are made of this quality. It is generally badly baked and hand-made; frequently ornamented.

No. 2.-SOFT BRITISH. This much resembles No. 1, but has no grains in its composition. It is badly baked, and frequently red on the outside and black on the inside, or in the interior of the substance. It cannot always be distinguished from No. 1, as parts of the vessels of No.1 quality have fewer grains than others. It is always hand-made. No. 3.-FINE BRITISH. This is generally thinner than the preceding qualities; red, and without large grains of flint or quartz or sand. It is often ornamented with incised lines, and is the quality of which the so-called drinking vessels, found with the crouched interments of the Bronze Age are composed. It is hand-made.

No. 4.-HARD BRITISH. This is generally thicker than the last,

and of a brownish colour, and contains no large grains of quartz, flint, or chalk, but the clay is mixed with coarse sand of quartz and other materials. Only one possible fragment of this quality was found in the South Lodge Camp, and it is not included in the table,' Plate II., but this quality was found in an adjoining pit, and has frequently been found elsewhere in association with relics of the Bronze Age. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the Romano-British pottery. It is hand-made.

ROMAN AND ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY. ROMANO-BRITISH.-This is generally black or brown in colour, thin, and generally without much sand, though it has occasionally grains of quartz sand in its composition, but never large grains of quartz or flint, or chalk. It is mostly lathe-turned, and often tooled over on the outside. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the fourth quality of British, but never has the same amount of sand. This quality appears probably to have been fabricated in the kilns at Bagber.

THIN GREY.-This is both thick and thin, hard and well baked; lathe-turned, and of grey colour. It has no sand in its composition, and never large grains of any kind.

OTHER ROMAN POTTERY.-This is of several kinds. The hard New Forest ware is a kind of thin stone ware, generally of dark brown colour, and has fluted sides. It has no sand or grains in its composition, and is well baked; quite a superior quality of pottery to the Romano-British. Other fragments are softer, cream-coloured, and sometimes painted red or black. It was fabricated in the New Forest, where the kilns have been found.

RED SAMIAN. This is the well-known glazed red pottery, that was introduced from abroad and not fabricated in England. The older quality of it is the finer, and of a deeper red colour. Imitations of it were fabricated in England, but they are coarser and thicker and of a lighter red. Imitation Samian passes into a kind of red pottery, of which, however, no fragments were found in this camp. The several qualities vary in different parts of the country, and the same table will not, therefore suffice for all localities.

1 See note, p. 213.

Plea for the Further Investigation of the
Architectural History of Longleat.

By C. H. TALbot.

[Read before the Society at Warminster, July 26th, 1893.1]

T must be understood that what I have undertaken to read to-night is not a paper on the architectural history of Longleat, but simply a plea for the further investigation of that subject.

I shall have continually, in the course of it, to mention a name that is still very fresh in our memories and which has come to be intimately associated with Longleat, that of the late Canon Jackson, to whose labours this Society owes so much, from whose writings I have continually drawn information, and whose personal friendship I shall always feel it a very great privilege to have enjoyed.

I have long intended to make some necessary corrections of the architectural notes on Longleat, which I published in the Society's Magazine, in March, 1878. The present occasion of the Meeting of the Society, at Warminster, seems to be a suitable opportunity for doing so.

It is necessary first to explain how I came to be led into statements which I afterwards found to be only partly tenable. Before I ever saw Longleat, I had read Canon Jackson's first paper on the subject, published in the Society's Magazine in 1857,3 containing views,

1 The paper is printed, as read, with the omission of one passage containing a suggestion which did not appear to be tenable. On visiting Longleat, next day, a few Members of the Society examined the building critically, and were, I think, satisfied that there is earlier and later work of the sixteenth century, which is the main point for which I contended.

2 Vol. xvii., p. 358.

3 Vol. iii., p. 281.

however, out of which he had probably already grown, when I first read it, though I was not aware of the fact, and which he ultimately altogether abandoned. That paper appears to be biassed by what Horace Walpole had said, in his Anecdotes of Painting, first published in 1761. Walpole collected a great deal of curious and interesting matter, but I think also a good many erroneous impressions owe their origin to him, from the tendency of later writers to treat his statements as of undoubted authority. How far he could go wrong, may be seen from a passage, in which he says:— "I am persuaded that what we call Gothic architecture was confined solely to religious buildings, and never entered into the decoration of private houses," which is, of course, the direct reverse of the truth.

I cannot proceed far, with my subject, without alluding to that somewhat unfortunate individual, known as John of Padua, whose misfortune it has been to have been, at one time, praised as a very great Renaissance architect, and, at another time, represented as hardly an architect at all, but mainly a musician. I will, however, clear the ground, at once, by saying that there is no evidence of his having had anything to do with Longleat. The popular notion, that he designed the house, which still continues to be repeated, though it ought to be known to be unfounded, seems to be derived from Walpole, though Walpole does not exactly say so. Speaking of the change of style in architecture, in the time of Henry the Eighth, he says:-" Henry had actually an Italian architect in his service, to whom I should without scruple assign the introduction of regular architecture, if it was clear that he arrived here near so early as Holbein. He was called John of Padua, and his very office seems to intimate something noble in his practice. He was termed 'Devizor of his majesty's buildings."" I am inclined to think that Walpole was mistaken in supposing that this designation was something very exceptional, but it does, at any rate, show that he designed buildings.

Then he goes on to say:-" In one of the office books which I have quoted, there is a payment to him of £36 10s. Od. In the same place is the payment of the same sum to Laurence Bradshaw, surveyor, with a fee of two shillings per diem. To the clerk of the

« PreviousContinue »