Books, Prehistory, Archaeologia Volume 11 Section IV

Dear Sir,

In travelling some time ago from this place to London, I turned a few miles out of my way to see Kits Coity House. If you should think the observations I made upon the spot, and the thoughts that have occurred to me since, may be acceptable, I beg leave, by your means, to communicate them to our Society.

Mr. Colebrook [a] and Mr. Grofe [b] have fo fully and accurately described this antient monument, that very little can be added to what they have said of it. One thing, however, struck me, when I saw the place, that seems to have escaped the notice of all who have mentioned the subject. The ground between the monument and the single stone spoken of by those gentlemen, and represented in their plates, runs east and west, in a broad ridge, somewhat contracted at each end, giving one an idea of a common turfed grave, with a head and foot-stone, on a large scale. Was this a tumulus, covering the remains of those of one party, who fell in the battle? And might there not have been, originally, a fimilar appendage to the other (lone monument, now worn down in the enclofure of cultivation, covering the remains of the other party? Thefe turfed graves might contain the bodies both of the chiefs and their followers; while the ftone erections themfelves might be raifed to commemorate the two princes; a fepulchral honour, perhaps appropriated at that time to dignified charadters only. I am aware, that much larger tumuli have been raifed over fingle bodies; but I apprehend, if only one corpfe had been placed in this repofitory, the mound would have been circular, and the (tones would have been at the top in the centre.

Note a. Archaeologia, vol. II. p. 107.

Note b. Antiquities of England, &c. vol. II.

Continues.