450 GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 



discovery, and judging by that and from what I have learned 

 from persons who saw it, it is probable that in size, shape, and 

 manner of construction it was almost a counterpart of the chamber 

 now under consideration. Was it then originally intended as a 

 dwelling-place ? I think an answer in the negative must be given. 

 The size is too small to fulfil even the humblest requirements of 

 habitation ; and though the marks of fire on the side and the 

 charcoal on the floor might seem to favour such a view, that 

 occurrence is probably to be explained by the fact that the persons 

 who in modern times had access to it had lighted a fire there. 

 The extent of discolouration on the side consequent on the action 

 of burning was too trifling to imply more than what might have 

 resulted from the kindling of even a single fire. The bee-hive 

 houses, examples of which still exist in Cornwall, the Western 

 Islands of Scotland, and Ireland, are very similar in form and 

 mode of construction to this, but they are of larger size and 

 not buried under a mound of stones or earth. The position it 

 occupied, between two ordinary sepulchral mounds, is more in 

 favour of its having been made to contain the dead than to 

 afford a habitation for the living, though it is very possible that 

 it was in shape and some other respects a copy of a dwelling- 

 place. On the whole, this chamber appears to me to have been made 

 to contain the interment of one or more bodies, and those probably 

 such as had not undergone cremation. Had the bodies been burnt, 

 it is almost certain that some remains of the bones would have 

 been met with on the floor, or between the stones with which 

 part of the bottom was laid, whereas if the chamber was accessible 

 and resorted to from time to time, as indeed the articles found 

 in it seem to indicate, it is probable that any remains of unburnt 

 bones would have either gone to decay in consequence of the 

 free admission of air, or would have been removed by those who 

 frequented it. Supposing then that it was a place of sepulture, 

 it appears to form a link between the earlier and the later 

 class of barrows, as they exist in this part of Britain. I here 

 assume it as granted (for reasons that are stated elsewhere in 

 this book) that the long barrow is the earliest form of sepulchral 

 mound, so far at all events as is implied in the statement that 

 in the later pre-historic times' that class of barrow was not in 

 use except where an earlier mound may have been taken advantage 

 of for the interment of later burials. At the same time it may 

 be stated that in some districts of Britain, as for instance Caithness, 



