23 
He, in conjunction with Mr. Boyd Dawkins, gives his reasons. 
for this opinion. (1) 
I have argued that because no Elm was found in the lake 
dwellings, therefore no Elm existed in the neighbourhood. 
It is true that no wood of any kind of fir was found, although 
it is certain that the Scotch pine was then existing in this Country, 
but the Elm was the most suitable of all woods for many of the 
purposes above named, as it lasts in wet ground longer than any 
other. 
Elms flourish now in that neighbourhood, as the splendid 
specimens near Glastonbury Abbey testify, while the Fir is 
confined to the hilly ground about six miles from the village. 
If therefore Elm then existed it would have been probably 
close at hand and readily obtained, while having to bring Fir six 
miles in the absence of roads would sufficiently account for its not 
being used. 
We may therefore, I think, assume that at the time of the 
occupation of England by the Romans, the English Elm did not 
exist here. 
The inhabitants of the Lake Village would certainly not have 
used Hazel for their roads through the peat if they could have 
obtained Elm. 
The following is an extract from Aubrey :—“ I never did see an 
Elme that grew spontaneously in a wood as oakes, ashes, beeches, 
&c., which consideration made me reflect that they are exotique ; 
but by whom were they brought into the Island? Not the 
Saxons ; for upon enquiry I am informed that there are none in 
Saxony nor in Denmark, nor yet in France spontaneous ; but in 
Italy they are naturall e.g. in Lombardie, &c. Wherefore I am 
induced to believe that they were brought out of Italy by the 
Romans. The Saxons understood not nor cared for such 
improvement nor yet had hardly leisure if they would.” (2) 
(1) Vol. 40, ‘‘ Proceedings of the Som. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc.,” for 
1894, p. 150. 
(2) ‘*Aubrey’s Wiltshire,” Cap. 9, as quoted in ‘‘ Lindley’s Treasury of 
Botany,” p. 1188. . 
