391 
This was perhaps not made on the wheel, but the smaller 
vessels about 6in. high although rude and ill-baked seem mostly 
to have been so formed. Dr. Thurnam told me he believed the 
form of the smaller vessels to be unique. Probably they may 
have been employed to hold water, and most likely for cooking, 
as the mark of fire and smoke may clearly be seen, especially on 
the large one. Certainly none were here employed as cinerary 
urns or for any sepulchral purpose. 
Three of the smaller vessels are engraved in the Somerset 
Arch. and Nat. Hist. Society's Proceedings for 1852. One is rudely 
ornamented outside on the upper part with curved and zig-zag lines. 
Several other relics are also there engraved from my drawings. 
The original sketches I now submit to your inspection. 
In 1852 broken Roman pottery was found on the surface under 
the grass “sufficient to fill 13 or 14 large baskets,” and with it 
several large iron nails, a large number of late Roman coins, and 
a good many curious glass beads, red, greenish, black, grey, and 
white in colour, mostly of the tubular kind called bugles. 
Of course all these, the only Roman remains except perhaps the 
iron weapons, must be kept quite clear in our minds from the 
contents of the pits. 
And now I will venture to say a few we on the interesting 
question of successive dates suggested by the discoveries at 
Worlebury. 
The great stronghold appears in its complicated and ingenious 
details of structure unique among all that have yet been described. 
In the “ Archzological Journal” for 1872 p. 314 is a very inter- 
esting description of a primeval fortress called Ar Castel Coz on 
the coast of Brittany, which has been compared with Worlebury. 
It seems to me, however, to be probably of later date, although 
presenting in important points much similarity. 
That so much ingenuity and skill should be shown at Worlebury 
by builders who used no cutting tool and no mortar is no argu- 
ment of late, but rather perhaps of early, date. 
