By J. U. Powell, M.A. 113 
_ practically, the North-ton and the South-ton. It would be expected 
that at Norton the invaders would occupy the ground of the Roman 
settlers, and this appears to be likely. For the rising ground to 
the south, at the eastern end of Pitmead, the only high ground 
near, bears in the tithe map the name of Mote, or Moot Hill, while 
- the mill that stood near was called Mount Mill. This is probably 
a corruption of Mote, for “mount” is found as an alternative to 
“mote” in Scotland! So it is likely that the original settlement 
at Norton was on the south side of the river, but there are no 
_ traces now of any ditch or rampart. Mote Hill certainly has traces 
of a mound at the top; it may very likely have been a burial mound, 
but owing to the brushwood it is hard to make out. At all events, 
we may be sure of seging before us traces of three settlements on 
the same land :—the early inhabitants, whose burial mounds remain 
in the meadow, the Roman, and the English. The advance was 
_ probably not along the valley, for the way would be more difficult. 
Similarly, the invasion of the upper Deverill valley would take 
place from the ring of hills between Brixton and Mere Down. 
Here all the -ton names have not the same value as evidence, 
because Kings-ton and Monk-ton are plainly later, and point to later 
c wners. But Brictric had his ton at Brixton,?and Ubba at Upington, 
1 Moated Mounds: article in A ntiquary for August and September, 1902. 
2Tt will be well to settle the derivation of Brixton once for all, since a 
demonstrably false derivation has been the cause of an error in the history 
of Alfred, which is still repeated by Mr. Plummer in his recent life of Alfred. 
Sir R. Hoare was the first to suggest that Egbert’s stone, at which Alfred 
was met by ‘all the men of Somerset and the men of Wiltshire” before he 
eated the Danes at Ethandun, was Brixton. Now Hoare, with all his 
Banstry, is not strong on philology, and his derivation is mere guess-work. 
it is practically certain that Brixton is contracted from Brictrics-tun, Brictric 
b ine the lord of the manor in the time of Edward the Confessor, as given in 
nesday Book. Three out of the five Deverills are named from their early 
ers. And, to take the argument from philology, if Ecgbright was cor- 
ed at all, it is not the accented syllable, ‘‘ Ecg,” that would disappear, 
the wnaccented, “bright,” and the name Ecgbright's-stane would 
ecome something like Exston, or Egston, not Brixton. 
Bie, it has been demonstrated by the Rev. C. W. Whistler with great 
probability that Ecgbright’s stane is White Sheet Hill, in Stourton (Antiquary 
June and July, 1901)—although the ghost of the false derivation still 
wants his pages, in some measuring-lines that he gives. 
3 It further proof of the old form of the name is needed, the name is spelt 


























