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 Eoman 

 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. 1 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 seeing before us traces of three settlements on 

 the same land : — the early inhabitants, whose burial mounds remain 

 in the meadow, the Eoman, 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 

 owners. But Brictric had his ton at Brixton, 2 and Ubba at Upington, 



1 Moated Mounds: article in Antiquary for August and September, 1902. 



2 It 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 E. 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 

 defeated the Danes at Ethandun, was Brixton. Now Hoare, with all his 

 industry, is not strong on philology, and his derivation is mere guess-work. 

 It is practically certain that Brixton is contracted from Brictrics-tun, Brictric 

 being the lord of the manor in the time of Edward the Confessor, as given in 

 Domesday Book. Three out of the five Deverills are named from their early 

 owners. And, to take the argument from philology, if Ecgbright was cor- 

 rupted at all, it is not the accented syllable, " Ecg," that would disappear, 

 but the unaccented, "bright," and the name Ecgbright's-stane would 

 become something like Exston, or Egston, not Brixton. 



Again, it has been demonstrated by the Rev. C. W. Whistler with great 

 probability that JEcgbright's stane is White Sheet Hill, in Stourton (Antiquary 

 for June and July, 1901) — although the ghost of the false derivation still 

 haunts his pages, in some measuring-lines that he gives. 



If further proof of the old form of the name is needed, the name is spelt 



