PARISH OF UPPER SWELL; GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 521 



Parish of Upper Swell, Gloucestershire. Ord. Maji. xliv. n.e. 



CCXXXI. In the description of this barrow and its contents I 

 have made free use of Professor Rolleston's paper before referred to, 

 at the same time having" recourse to my own notes and what my 

 recollection suggests. It was larger than the two as yet described, 

 being 173 ft. in its extreme length, and 158 ft. from the apex of 

 the centi'al concavity of the ' horns ' to the west end. Its greatest 

 width, which occurs at a point about 20 ft. west of a line drawn 

 across the ends of the ' horns,^ is 57 ft., and the narrowest part is 

 at the extreme west end, where it is 32 ft. across. The height, 

 probably almost the original one, is from 8|^ ft. to 6 ft., the greatest 

 elevation being towards the east end. Its direction is east-by- 

 north and west-by-south. The barrow, which is made of oolitic 

 rubble and slabs, is surrounded by a wall or facing, wdiich at the 

 east end reached to a height of 5 ft., where it assumed the same 

 ' horned ' form as in the barrow last described ; the southern ' horn ' 

 being wider and longer than the northern. The wall or facing has 

 been made of thin oolitic slates very carefully arranged ; this being 

 especially noticeable at the east end in the concavity within the 

 ' horns/ where it has been most beautifully constructed and had a 

 very imposing appearance when it was first exposed to view. This 

 is the more remarkable as it is evident that it was not intended to 

 be seen after it was made, for it had been encased by a backing of 

 fine small stones for a thickness of 2 ft. and beyond that by larger 

 stones, the whole intentionally arranged, and not caused by the 

 disintegration of the mound itself. Before the barrow was opened, 

 the east end presented an ordinary rounded form, there being no 

 indication of the enclosing wall with its ' horns,' It is not pos- 

 sible to decide positively whether the wall also on the sides of the 

 barrow had been encased at first in the w^ay in which we found it 

 to be, or whether the outlying material at that part had merely 

 accumulated by the falling down of the mound. On the whole I 

 think it more probable that there w^as originally a casing to the 

 wall, for otherwise the frost of even two or three winters would 

 have broken it up more than it was found to be when uncovered. 

 The barrow itself was carefully constructed, and was full of what 

 may be called walls, which, occurring as they did in one case at least 

 in the form of a passage, at first induced us to hope that we had 

 found the entrance into a chamber near to the east end. Further 



