ROMAN REMAINS AT LITTLE CHESTER. 163 



both surfaces with some conical instrument until the two holes 

 met, the result being that while it is about i| in. diameter at the 

 surfaces, it is reduced to g in. in the middle. 



There can be little doubt that these are the lower stones of two 

 querns, and that the pins that carried the upper stones were 

 inserted in the above mentioned holes, the only difficulty being 

 the awkward shape of that of the smaller stone. The boss of 

 the smaller one, described above, suggests a corresponding hole 

 or depression in the missing upper stone ; the long use that thrs 

 lower stone shows signs of having undergone having worn down 

 the rest of its surface to its present condition. 



The question naturally suggests itself, why are the upper stones 

 of these two querns, and of so many others that have been 

 discovered, missing ? Was it" not a frequent custom to use some 

 hard non-gritty stone for the upper stones ? If so, one upper 

 stone might wear out many lower ones, which would then be 

 discarded, and found in greater abundance. 



The quern fragment from Haddon Fields (Plate II. of this 

 volume) is of a ruder and more lumpy character than those of the 

 Roman station at Little Chester.* 



* In Sainter's Rambles Round Macclesfield is a lithograph and brief de- 

 scription of a quern found at Danes Moss. It resembles the Little Chester 

 examples in lightness of appearance.' 



