lOb MOST RECENT DISCOVERIES IN REPTON CHURCH. 



with those at Wing and Brixworth. " The Crypts at Wing 

 and at Repton, and what there is of that at Brixworth, differ 

 considerably in form, but have much in common, and I think 

 they cannot be far apart in date, which the last-named (Brix- 

 worth) seems to fix in the seventh century. Each has had 

 arcosolia or arched chambers intended to receive tombs 

 of these there were three — towards the east, north, and south — 

 at Repton and Wing; and two — towards the north-east and 

 south-east — at Brixworth." The recesses at Brixworth are only 

 in the thickness of the wall, those at Repton and Wing extend 

 some distance outside. It was in order to find how far they 

 extended at Repton, and what they might contain, that I made 

 excavations in the month of September, 1898. A trench, eight 

 feet deep, was dug on the south side of the Chancel. Starting 

 about three feet from it, the trench was continued in a south- 

 westerly direction for some yards ; several skeletons were dis- 

 covered, but nothing else. Then the earth was excavated 

 towards the Chancel wall. 2 ft. 2 in. from it, 2 ft. 3 in. 

 below the surface of the ground, two blocks of stone 

 were discovered (see plan) measuring respectively (i) 



1 ft. 10 in. long, I ft. 5 in. broad, and i ft. 5 in. deep; 

 (2) 2 ft. long, I ft. 4 in. broad, and i ft. 9 in. deep. Both 

 are champered off on the inside. Between them is an opening 



2 ft. 2 in. wide. These blocks were the foundations on which 

 were built " triangular arches " — traces of which are to be seen 

 on the surface of the three sides of the Chancel — which served 

 as roofs to the recesses and buttresses to the walls, as at 

 Barnack and Brigstock churches. The two blocks, with the 

 opening between them, extend 6 ft. 2 in. They are supported 

 by a slab of stone. On a level with this stone are two other 

 stones (3) under whicli was a skeleton ; the two stones had 

 originally been one, which had probably been broken when 

 someone had raised it up to see what was underneath it. 

 Nothing was found with the skeleton ; perhaps the person who 

 inspected the remains removed what might have been there ? 

 Might this have been the remains of the Saxon Prince referred 

 to in Mr. Irvine's article ? 



