The uniformity observed in the barrows I have described, in shape, situation, apparent antiquity, and, to a certain degree, in contents, seems to argue that these at least were the work of one and the same people. Who these were, remains now to be considered. I think it is plain they could not have been the Romans; for though these were in the practice both of burying and burning their dead intire, as appears from the Twelve Tables, and from other monuments, yet the rudeness of the present urns, so unlike the neat, polished ones, I discovered last year near this city, together with the true Roman fibule, coins, &c. and which have been honoured with a place in the Vetusta Monumenta of the Society of Antiquaries; the situation of these sepulchres on lofty mountains, and sequestered downs, whereas the Romans affected to bury near cities, and close to highways; add to this, there being no sepulchral lamps, lacrymatories, coins, or other tokens of Roman sepulture; all these circumstances, I say, point out Barbarians, and not Romans, as the constructors of these barrows. We must therefore ascribe them to one of the three following nations, viz. the Britons, the Saxons, or the Danes; and we must attribute these works to one of them previously to its conversion to Christianity, as, wherever the Christian religion prevailed, it immediately banished the Pagan rite of burning the dead, as appears from many Canons of Councils to this effect, and introduced the use of common cemeteries consecrated to this purpose. Of the above-mentioned nations, the Danes seem to have the weakest claim to these numerous barrows, as (independently of other arguments that will occur below) they never seem to have been stationary in this part of the kingdom for any considerable time, till their princes and the nation in general professed themselves Christians; whereas in the above-mentioned barrows there is even some appearance of family sepulchres. It remains then to consider whether it is more reasonable to attribute these ancient monuments to the Britons, previously to their adopting the manners of their conquerors the Romans, or to the more fatal enemies, our Saxon ancestors. For my part, I think there are more and stronger arguments for ascribing them to the former than to the latter people. For though both the Celts or Gauls, of whom the Britons were evidently a tribe, as appears from the uniformity of their language and of their civil and religious rites, and the Germans, of whom the Saxons formed an illustrious portion, were both in the practice of at least occasionally using funeral piles, barrows, and urns; as Montfaucon has discovered

in regard to the Gauls, and Gronovius with other German antiquaries, in respect to their forefathers; yet there is this striking difference between the two people, that the former, according to Cæsar, were fond of the pomp of funerals, sacrificing various animals as well as men on the occasion, and burying with the dead whatever they had that was most precious: whereas the latter, according to Tacitus, despised the fruitless ambition, as they considered it, of magnificent funerals; and it was only on some extraordinary occasion that the warrior's horse was buried with his master. Morton adds, that the Saxons had laid aside the custom of burning their dead previously to their invasion of this island; but whether the last-mentioned assertion rests upon sufficient proof, or not, I think the evident consequences to be deduced from what has been alleged above, when considered with respect to the contents of the barrows in question, likewise the very great antiquity of these barrows, manifest by the condition of the metal, bones, and urns, found in them. Again, the coarseness and rudeness of these urns, which, in my opinion, rather bespeak the manufacture of the savage Britons, than of the Saxons, who by their very piracies upon civilized nations were a polished people at their conquest of this island, compared with the former six hundred years before; and, above all, the conformity between these barrows and those opened by Dr. Stukeley and others in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge; all these circumstances, I say, considered together, induce me to attribute the barrows I have described to the Aborigines of this island, the Britons, rather than to the Saxons, or any later people. With respect to the argument I have drawn from the conformity between these barrows and those near Stonehenge, I take it for granted that this stupendous pile of Barbaric magnificence is allowed to have been a Druidical temple; and that the barrows with which it is surrounded had some relation with it, and belonged to the same people by whom it was constructed.

A very great difficulty, however, remains to be explained, which is, that some of these barrows contained nothing but urns full of burnt bones, while others contained entire skeletons, with urns placed upon them, and with burnt human bones, charcoal, and ashes, scattered throughout the tumulus. To account for this, I must refer to the authorities adduced by the learned and ingenious author of the "History of Manchester," to prove that the Ancient Britons were in the habit of using both rites of funeral, that of burning, and that of burying entire. It is probable that, at Hambury Toote,

and such other barrows as contain vestiges of both practices, the captives, slaves, and animals, destined to appease the manes of the deceased chieftain, or to accompany his departed spirit, were killed and burnt on the spot, and that afterwards a barrow was raised over their ashes, near the summit of which the body of the chieftain himself was buried entire. The urn placed on the breast of the corpse probably contained ointments, or valuable articles belonging to the deceased, in conformity with Cæsar's account of the British funerals. This conjecture is confirmed, in my opinion, by the diminutive size of the small urn covered with a limpet shell, mentioned above, as it appears too small to have answered any other purpose we are acquainted with. It is possible that one of those horrid sacrifices, which the author, just quoted, describes, might have made part of the funeral rite performed at some of these barrows, in which a considerable number of human victims were inclosed in a kind of cage made of basket-work, and burnt alive, in order to render propitious the blood-thirsty deities of the Druids. 1790, Oct.

JOHN MILNER.

CXXIII. Parliament Oak in Welbeck Park,

MR. URBAN,

AS, by favour of the excellent author of the work, I am be come possessed of a copy of that elegant tract, Mr. Rooke's "Descriptions and Sketches of some remarkable Oaks in the Park at Welbeck," &c. wherein the drawings by Mr. Rooke, and the engravings by Mr. Ellis, are very fine; I beg leave to send you a brief and friendly remark upon one passage in it. He observes, p. 12, "There is a very old oak in Clipston Park, which the common people call the Parliament Oak, from an idea that a parliament was once. held under it. I have not found any good authority for this fact; but it is certain that a parliament was held by Edw. I. anno 1290, at Clipston palace," &c. Now, Sir, as there was a palace at this place, and a parliament was held there anno 1290, as here stated, I, for my part, have no objection to the vulgar and current opinion, that this oak was the place of the assembly's meeting. There is a hundred in Derbyshire, stiled Appletree hundred, from some large tree of the kind being probably the place of the rendezvous or

hundred court; and on the confines of the parishes of Godmersham and Chilham, in Kent, a place is to this day called Hundred-beech, from some large beech, no doubt, there formerly growing, and where the hundred court was usually kept. The famous Augustine's Ac, or oak, mentioned by Venerable Bede, lib. ii. c. 2, where the Saxons had the conference with the Britons, will certainly occur to the learned reader on this occasion; and other instances of the same kind will probably be recollected by your readers; so that the name of the Parliament Oak, in my opinion, stands upon a plausible, reasonable, and analogical foundation; though it be only supported by tradition, and may be taken, consequently, for a proper appellation, grounded on real matter of fact.

1791, June.

Yours, &c.

L. E.

CXXIV. Conjecture on the Etymology of London.

Clement's-lane, Dec. 8.

MR. URBAN, So many able antiquaries have attempted to find the true etymology of the name of my native city, London, that it may appear presumptuous to offer any thing farther on the subject; yet, as a conjecture has occurred to me, which I think both new and plausible, I am induced to lay it before the public by means of your entertaining Magazine.

Mr. Pennant, who, I believe, is the latest author who has published an account of London, says (p. 16 of the first edition) The Surry side was, in all probability, a great expanse of water, a lake, a llyn, as the Welch call it, which an ingenious countryman of mine, not without reason, thinks might have given a name to our capital; llyn din, or the city on the lake."

But I cannot think this derivation satisfactory, because Mr. P. allows (p. 34) that " in St. George's-fields have been found remains of tessellated pavements, coins, and an urn full of bones, possibly the site of a summer camp of the Romans. In this place it could have been no other. It was too wet for a residentiary station. Its neighbour, Lambethmarsh, was, in the last century, overflowed with water; but St. George's-fields might, from their distance from the river, admit of a temporary encampment."

But the city itself, in my opinion, is clearly described by

its ancient name, if the following etymology is the true

one,

I learn, by Lhuyd's Archæologia, that the British word for a valley is glynn; and it is well known that the initial g in that language is often omitted in construction.

That the surface of the ground which London occupies was very uneven when the Romans took possession of it is evident; the remains of Roman buildings, found at very different depths in many parts of it, and the rivulets of Walbrook and Fleet, favour this opinion.

I conjecture then that the original British name of this city was Glynn Dyn, or, in construction, Lynn Dyn; and, if this be allowed, it is very strikingly characteristic of the place; and, from the last name, the Romans might easily learn to call and write it Londinum.

place

Perhaps it may be objected to me, that the Welch spell it with ll, which my derivation does not seem to authorize. In answer to this I say, that some nations now pronounce the letter g very soft: the modern Greeks (and I believe the Germans in some cases) do so. This soft g is to the English hard g as the Welch ch is to k, or as th in this is to d. The sound of this soft g, and I, following it, is so similar to the Welch ll, that I think it strengthens my argument, by shewing that the British name of the city of London probably began with the soft g (which for several reasons, I am persuaded was used by the ancients ;) and is a good reason why the Welch write it with ll, though Roman authors spell the Latinized name, Londinum, with a single l.

I shall conclude by observing, that the fact on which I rest my conjecture, whether that conjecture be true or not, is undeniable, namely, that the British city was a Glynn Dyn, a town containing valleys and rising grounds; and that I agree with Mr. Pennant, that it is probable that it existed before the time of Julius Cæsar, as well as many more in this island, which have names clearly Welch, but which the Romans afterwards seized, colonized, and fortified.

1792, Suppl.

Yours, &c.

JOHN JACKSON.

For, though the Roman wall does not include the river Fleet, the West. ern bank of it might be a part of the earlier British town, or settlement.