the sixth century must have been, if the common opinion of the Saxon invasion be correct. The destruction of a race implies such suffering on the one side, and such barbarity on the other, that funerals like these could not have taken place. Still there were the coins of the fifth and sixth centuries, which Faussett ignores, and the crosses, which Mr. Smith can only receive as personal ornaments, not as Christian symbols; besides the strong probability that the Saxons on the continent, at that period, used cremation; and there are, moreover, certain admissions by both gentlemen, which we shall use to show that the whole truth does not rest with either.

Since the publication of the INVENTORIUM SEPULCRALE, we have had a review of it by the learned and eloquent author of "The Saxons in England." Mr. Kemble's views are altogether different. He says, "it is impossible to doubt that the elaborate ornaments, the improved pottery, the buried skeletons of the Kentish grave-yards, mark a much more advanced development of culture, and probably a much later period of time than the rude evidences of cremation in Norfolk and Suffolk. * * * The Kentish deposits remind us rather of the settled districts under Frankish rule, and the Merovingian culture of North France, Germanic, indeed, but modified by Roman models, and the adoption of the Christian Faith. * There is in fact nothing in these interments inconsistent with the supposition that they belong to the period extending from the commencement of the seventh till at least the first half of the ninth centuries."*

*

*

Mr. Smith speaks of the intimate connection of the Roman and Saxon graves, forgetting the British or Celtic of the first half of the fifth century; and Mr. Kemble puts aside not only these, but the Heathen Saxons of the fifth and sixth centuries, and starts at once from the Christian period; so that we must suppose the Christian Saxons of the seventh century again went back to cemeteries, which had been disused for at least two hundred years. It may be supposed, that as most of the bodies are laid east and west, they must have been Christian; but, from the numerous exceptions, we cannot place much reliance on this circumstance. In a cemetery, too, which has lately been discovered at Hartlepool, and supposed to be of the seventh century, the bodies are laid north and south, but the grave-stones are sculptured with Christian emblems.t

Arch. Journ. Sept., 1856, p. 299. + Arch. Journ. vi., 136.

In fact, that these graves were not those of a Christian population is evident from the want of the marks and symbols which exist in every Christian cemetery, and from the repugnance which the faithful, at that period, had to rest in ground which must, in their eyes, have been especially devoted to the devil. We know that very soon after the arrival of St. Augustine, churchyards were common burial places; and if the old cemeteries were anywhere in use, we may be sure that if churches were not built upon them, crosses would be erected; nor, indeed, is it at all probable that the memory of a Christian burial ground would ever have been lost. But when Mr. Kemble asserts the resemblance between the Kentish relics and the Frankish under Merovingian rule, he puts the question on its right basis. The Saxons in England had then as settled a government as North France, and Roman influence was acting upon the former as much as on the latter; perhaps one nation was as much Christian as the other.

The agreement of these three archæologists, that the graves belonged to one race, and to a civilized and settled community, is important, as enabling us to start from a sure point, and with something to guide us on our way. For, except a few coins, nothing has been found that gives us any clue to the chronology of the deposits; and hence the remarkable difference between the three gentlemen; Mr. Faussett assigning the second, third, and fourth centuries; Mr. Smith the fifth and sixth; and Mr. Kemble the seventh, eighth, and the first half of the ninth, for the period in question.

It will be well to observe that the terms Roman occupation, Roman interment, and such like, are used with great latitude, and it is desirable that the reason or fact upon which the name is assigned should be clearly given. The graves at Crundale are (many of them at least) by universal consent said to be Roman, but that the bodies there deposited were those of actual Romans, or even Italians, there is nothing to show. The number of Roman soldiers, officials, and settlers here must have been, comparatively, very small. The Legions, if always kept to their full complement, would not have been more than 18,000 men, which were principally distributed in the north; and it must be remembered that a large proportion of these, though Roman citizens, were really provincials, from many parts of their great empire. Where a Legionary was buried, however, we find the fact recorded on inscribed stones, wherever Roman garrisons were

established. Besides those natives who obtained the citizenship, we have also the civil officers employed by the government in the collection of taxes, the superintendence of the post stations, and other departments, who were scattered over the country; and it would probably be through these last classes that the Imperial civilization would chiefly be promoted. Kent is always named as the most advanced part of England, and this would naturally follow from its continual intercourse with the continent and with the Roman officials. It had, from a very early period, two or three garrisons, though of no great extent, and there were other towns connected with the post stations, which may have been centres of trade and manufactures. Still, the body of the people were of the genuine Kentish stock; they were, to use Faussett's expression, Romanized Britons; they adopted the manners of their conquerors, used their pottery (a great advance in civilization), copied their personal ornaments, and had similar modes of burying the dead. But as far as Mr. Faussett's researches go, and indeed the later ones too, there is no direct proof, even at Crundale, that a single Roman was ever interred in any of these cemeteries. Not an inscription nor symbol, nor sign of any sort has been found, to identify any remains as those of a veritable Roman man or woman, while everything tends to show that the mass of the people had become, in certain respects, Romanized.*

The influence of Roman art on everything that has any character at all, is confessed on all hands; but when we consider that according to the received history, the Romans had left the country fifty years before the arrival of the Saxons, the influence would be in fact that of the original inhabitants, and as the conquerors must have set about their work of extermination immediately, I must confess I can see neither time nor

We are here especially referring to the researches that have been made in Kent, by Mr. Faussett and others, but there is one relic in the Museum, of the discovery of which, unfortunately, we have no account, but which is said to have come from Norfolk. This is a genuine Roman cinerary urn, of a tasteless shape, badly made of coarse clay, with a very rude ornamentation; in fact, it would be classed, at first sight perhaps, as very late and poor Saxon. But this urn has an inscription upon it, to the manes of Melia Rufina, who lived thirteen years, three months, and six days. The letters are without ligatures or contractions, and apparently of a much earlier date than the urn itself would indicate, if we did not take into account that both coarse and fine pottery would be made and used at the same time, and that when the poverty of a family did not allow it to get the more costly, it had to make use of the commoner and cheaper ware. The antiquity of this inscription has been doubted, but the late Mr. Kemble expressed his belief in its being genuine, and intended to have written an account of it.

opportunity for any such influence showing itself at all. It could only have been exercised during the period when the Roman power was in existence and in active operation. After a few generations we look in vain for traces of it in the coins, in the buildings, or in the personal ornaments. Even the pottery, almost a necessary of life, seems to have gradually become more rude and useless, and to have been no longer made for domestic purposes. This fact defines pretty nearly the period of one part of the interments, while the others are limited by the absence of Christian memorials.

But another point of great importance is also undisputed, viz., that these interments took place in a country which was peaceful and settled. That generation followed generation is evident, not merely from the extent of the burial-grounds, but from the fact that the custom of cremation had actually ceased during the period. When this took place I am unable to say, but most likely burials had been growing more prevalent in the second and third centuries. There can be no question, however, that few bodies were burnt after the empire became Christian, under Constantine, and not the least proof or probability that the Kentish men re-adopted it when they regained their independence.*

The epoch of 449, the so-called arrival of the Saxons, is in the way of both Mr. Faussett and Mr. Smith; one takes the anterior, the other prefers the century that follows; while both allow that interments have taken place out of the period which each assigns as definitive in his own hypothesis. Mr. Kemble's views are quite in another direction, but his position is altogether untenable, and has no support from any investigations that have been made; indeed, as I have already shown, it is at variance with all the facts that have been brought to light. That these cemeteries should have been the work of the Christians of the seventh and eighth centuries, and neither symbol, nor inscription, nor tradition remain in any one of the many localities, is quite at variance with all that we know of the state of Christianity as then existing.

The pottery which has been found in many graves was probably used in the funeral ceremonies, and consequently dedicated to the gods of the tomb; no sure inference can be drawn from its pattern or material as to

* Urendi corpora defunctorum usus nostro sæculo nullus fit. Macrobius, Saturn. 7, 7. It would seem that it had ceased in the time of Apuleius, in the second century, amongst the common people.

the date of the interment. We must bear in mind that common pottery retains its form and character through many ages, and that the brown ware of the present day is coeval with the richest and most delicate porcelain. The ancient manufacture in this kingdom was of a very simple kind, and may be classed under two heads; 1st, that bearing more or less a classical character; and, 2nd, that where there is no characteristic of any kind. A vessel of clay was wanted, and it was made with a wide mouth, or a narrow neck, and a round, or flat, or conical base, with patterns showing more or less skill (or more correctly, various degrees of unskilfulness) indented on the soft clay, and indifferently baked. Where the Roman influence prevailed, however, we have more graceful forms and in greater variety; good mouldings, well burnt ware, and a sort of glaze, which has stood well for many centuries. But it would be hardly safe to assign a date, even in approximation, on the strength of these differences, as undoubtedly all kinds would be in use at the same time, marking, as they do now, the com parative wealth of the several owners. One thing we may believe certain ; pottery, for domestic purposes, was exclusively a Roman introduction; with them it came, with them it went; and as, probably, a good deal of the finer sorts was imported, we have evidence of extensive commercial intercourse. As to that made in the kingdom, the clay would vary according to the locality, and particular fashions and modes of workmanship would no doubt prevail in different places; but the original rudeness and simplicity continued as long as the manufacture lasted; which, indeed, does not seem to have long survived the departure of the Romans. Whether we possess any made after the sixth century it is difficult to say. The cups, before the conquest, were of wood, horn, shell, and metals, and if there were any utensils of glass or pottery, they must have been extremely rare.

The coins discovered have been few (Faussett names fourteen Roman, two Merovingian, and a few Saxon), and though of little value as evidence in any individual case, still, as a rule, I think we may presume that a coin found in a grave is to be taken as marking within a few years the date of the grave. There is more uncertainty in some of Mr. Faussett's examples, as in several cases a previous urn-burial was found to have been disturbed by the later deposit of a body unburned, and there is a doubt to which interment the coin belonged. It is possible, too, that the coin might be strung with beads or worn as an ornament. Still, on the whole, I am inclined to believe that they were not only of the period of the burial, but