Miscellaneous Notes on Deneholes. 
103 
chambers Nos. 1 and 2, which then seemed out of harmony 
with the apparent nature of the original design. But on 
glancing at the plan the object of the connecting galleries 
becomes at once evident, while the want of equality between 
the angles at which the chambers radiate is seen to be the 
really abnormal feature. For the lengthening of the short 
chamber to equality with the others would doubtless have 
been the mode by which any increase of size would have been 
attained, had not development been arrested at the point at 
which we now see it. 
Appendix I. 
Critical Notes. 
Many members of the Essex Field Club may have seen the 
correspondence hi the ‘Essex Times’ of July 13tli and 20tli 
bearing on our proposed Deneliole exploration. For the 
benefit of those who have not, it may be well to state that a 
certain “ J. W.” began the discussion by stating that Mr. C. 
Boacli Smith, the well-known antiquary, was much shocked 
at the way in which we were wasting our time, and proposing 
to waste our money over Deneholes. In a letter to “ J. W.” 
Mr. Smith had thus expressed himself:— 
“ I am particularly thankful for the paper you sent me on 
the Dene or rather Daneholes, for it has fallen to my lot to 
explain them, which the explorers in Essex and in Kent fail 
to do. In p. 57 of my ‘ Retrospections ’ you will see I refer 
to what I printed in vol. vi., ‘ Collectanea Antiqua.’ It would 
only be an act of charity were you to refer the Editor of the 
‘ Express ’ to this (pp. 243 to 247). They go on in the same 
innocent way in Kent in making parties to these pits; they 
descend and describe, go home to prepare for a future descent, 
but no more ; they intimate a belief in the monstrous absurdity 
of their having been places for refuge and storing corn.” 
J. W. accordingly advised us to save our money, and buy a 
copy of vol. vi. of the ‘ Collectanea Antiqua’ instead. Letters 
from Mr. W. Cole, Mr. F. C. J. Spurred, and myself appeared 
in the ‘ Essex Times ’ of July 20tli vindicating our “innocent ” 
way of considering investigation necessary to the attainment 
of sound conclusions on the subject of Deneholes, and ex¬ 
pressing our opinion that Mr. Smith’s explanation not only 
did not explain them, but was decidedly contrary to the 
evidence already available. J. W., however, again referred 
us to the “settlement” of the question in vol. vi. of the 
