86 Notes on Barrow-diggings. 
longed to Sir Richard’s gang of labourers, told me how the work 
was carried on when he wasa lad. “Sir Richard stopped at the 
great House, and instructed his men to dig down from the top 
until they got nearly to the level of the natural soil, when they 
were to send or wait for him. On his arrival the search was con- 
tinued, and the cist, if any, examined in his presence.” This was 
his usual mode of procedure, and this will account for the frequency 
with which he was disappointed in not finding a cist or interment. 
Had his example been followed in the examination of the group, 
which I am about to describe, the largest barrow would have been 
an enigma, and I should have wondered why so vast a cenotaph 
had been raised. The fact is that the principal interment does not 
always occupy the centre. If Sir Richard had adopted a different 
mode from the first, he would have acquired that very knowledge 
which would have saved him from the error of classifying Wiltshire 
barrows in the way he devised; he would have been able to teach 
us of the present day much that we have been acquiring with 
lengthened toil and observation; and would have helped us to 
compare with greater exactness and interest, the barrows of Wilts 
with those of Dorset and other Counties. 
We are certainly most deeply indebted to this indefatigable an- 
tiquary and his able and intelligent co-adjutors for much that is 
highly interesting and instructive, and I trust I may not be con- 
sidered presumptuous and arrogant in thus freely expressing my 
opinion of their mode of operation, and of the result of their labours. 
But any one who reads “ Ancient Wiltshire” with the hope of 
learning how Wiltshire barrows were erected, and why their forms 
and dimensions are so diversified, will be disappointed. The in- 
vestigation was apparently not pursued with this object in view. 
In many cases we have a difficulty in ascertaining the material of 
their construction; the site of the interment within the barrow is 
frequently only implied, instead of being accurately noted; the 
position of the skeleton, whether on its back, right or left side, is 
often not mentioned; and we are led to the conclusion that the 
chief, if not sole, object in the investigation was the possession of 
the articles which had been deposited with the dead. In proof of 
