[3418] The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xciv.
[3419] B. G., vii, 69, § 2.
[3420] Inventorium Sepulchrale, ed. C. Roach Smith, 1856, p. 35. Faussett goes on to say (p. 36) that, ‘as a proof of this Aylesbourne [the Little Stour at Kingston] having been much deeper and broader than it ever now is, I myself saw the shells of muscles (sic) turned plentifully out of the ground in digging a hole for a post, at the distance of at least ten rods from the present channel, and at the perpendicular height of at least three feet above its usual level.’ But this argument is irrelevant. No geologist would deny that the Little Stour, when it was cutting out its channel, was ‘broader than it ever now is’. But when? Perhaps at the inconceivably remote epoch when the Thames was depositing gravel at a height of 100 feet above its present level.
[3421] Villare Cantianum, 1776, p. 62.
[3422] B. G., iv, 38, §2; v, 24, §1.
[3423] Ib., 9, §3.
[3424] See Addenda, p. 742.
[3425] Caesar in Kent, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 165-8. I should not notice this work if it had not been quoted even by antiquaries of repute, and included by Mr. Gross in his generally valuable bibliography.
[3426] Caesar in Kent, p. 163.
[3427] Bryan Faussett, Inventorium Sepulchrale, p. 39, n. 2. See also pp. 36, n. 1, 37, 144-59. ‘That these tumuli,’ says Roach Smith (ib., p. 37), ‘were not cast up in consequence of any battle fought on the spot, is evident from ... their containing the remains not only of men ... but also of women and children.’