In the County of Gloucester, and north-west of Wilts, particularly in the district of the Cotswold hills, and some neighbouring parts of Somerset, are several sepulchral tumuli of peculiar character, which have hitherto attracted but little attention, and which, so far as we know, are nearly confined, at least in their most fully developed forms, to this part of England. These tumuli are cairns or barrows (in the language of the district tumps) composed chiefly of loose stones, of long or oval form, varying from about 120 to 180 feet in length, ranging nearly from west to east, and having the broadest and highest part towards the east. Internally they are found to contain, in some cases, chambers walled in with stone, which open into a gallery, evidently intended to be entered from one end, the east; in others, cells or cists, which, when used for the purpose of interment, must have been opened from above. In some instances, from their ruinous condition, or from the imperfect descriptions given of them, it is almost impossible to decide those of the first class, or those which of these classes they belong. containing chambers, the best examples are at Uley [Map] in Gloucestershire, and at Stoney Littleton [Map] in Somersetshire. Of those containing one or more cists or cistvaens, as it is usual to call them, Duntesford Abbots in Gloucestershire, and Littleton Drew [Map] in Wiltshire, now to be described, present well-marked instances. In the long barrow at Avening [Map], there seems to have been both a chamber and cists; whilst as regards those at Lanhill [Map], Luckington [Map], and Shurdington², there is more or less doubt to which form the contained structures must be referred. There is however sufficient similarity in their character, notwithstanding this variety of internal structure, to lead us to refer all these barrows to the same period and people. This conclusion is confirmed by the mode of interment, which, so far as they have been examined, is common to all of them. In the chambers, and also in the cists, are found entire human skeletons, in a contracted posture, and frequently crowded together in groups. With these only very trivial objects of art have been discovered; but, so far as appears, these are confined to stone implements, such as flint flakes, knives, or arrow-heads, and stone axes; and with these, bones and teeth of the lower animals, for instance, of oxen, horns of the red deer, and tusks and other teeth of boars. In several instances, fragments of pottery and other objects have been met with, chiefly near the surface; but these are evidently of a later, and generally of the Roman, period, and must have been deposited in these spots, either by those who have resorted to them for superstitious or funereal purposes, or who have dug into and rifled them, in search of treasure.

Note 1. Archæologia, vol. 19. p. 43. Archæological Journal, 1854, vol. XI. p. 315.

Note 2. For the Lanhill barrow, see ante, page 67; for that at Luckington, Sir R. C. Hoare's Ancient Wilts," vol. II. p. 101; and for that at Shurdington, the Journal of the British Archayological Association," vol. I. p. 153; vol III. p. 64; aud Wright's "Celt, Roman, and Saxon," p. 53, may be consulted.

Both Aubrey and Sir Richard C. Hoare appear to connect the barrow with Littleton Drew rather than Nettleton; and the latter, in particular, insists on its neighbourhood to Littleton Dru or Drer, a name evidently of druidical antiquity." There is perhaps no difficulty, in the fact of its position beyond the boundary of the parish of Littleton, in connecting it with this place rather than with Nettleton; there being much reason for concluding that the existing parochial divisions, in many cases at least, do not ascend beyond Norman times. Whether, however, the epithet Drew had in its origin any reference to the Druids, may admit of enquiry. There are at least three other places, where are remarkable remains commonly called druidical, into the name of which this epithet enters. These are Stanton Drew in Somersetshire, where are the well known megalithic circles of unhewn stones, inferior only in Bize and number to those of Abury; Drews' Teignton, Dartmoor, Devon, where is one of the best preserved cromlechs in England; and Trer Drew in Anglesea, near the spot where the Romans are believed to have landed, and where are many remains of cromlechs and other early British monuments. Here, not improbably, were the groves devoted to superstition and barbarous rites, with altars dedicated to human sacrifices, which, Tacitus tells us, were destroyed by the Romans¹ In all these cases, topographical writers to the present time, have not failed to connect the epithet Drew with a supposed Druidical origin. This has however been contested by some, who suppose this name to be derived from that of families who have lived near, or possessed lands at, these places. Aubrey himself in his "Collections" for North Wilts, has preserved a deed, probably of the 12th century, to which "Walterus Drew, Dominus de Littletone" is the principal party.² The question certainly admits of discussion, though the evidence seems to be in favour of the druidical derivation of the name; and in this instance there appear grounds for Dr. Stukeley's opinion, who, in writing of Stanton Drew, says, "I make no doubt but the name of Stanton Drue is derived from our monument, Stanton from the stones, and Drue from the Druids. It moves not me that some of the name of Drew might have lived here formerly, for such a family might take the denomination of the town, and leaving out the first part retain only that of Drew. It is sufficient conviction that there are so many other [places] in England and elsewhere that have preserved this name, and all remarkable for monuments of [this] nature.³

Note 1. Stukely. "Itin. Cur." vol. 11, p. 91, plate. Camden, Britannia," vol. III. p. 197. Pennant's Wales," 1810, vol. II. p. 229; vol. III. p, 11. Rowland's. Mona Antiqua." p. 88—236. Compare Tacitus, "Annales," Lib. 14. xxx. Mr. Herbert. "Cyclops Christ." p. 30 maintains that the Welsh word here should he written "Dryw,", - "Tre'r Dryw," meaning the house of the wren." He himself however quotes a passage Taliesin, which at least that in the mystical system of the bard", the Druids were sometimes called wrens,

"Wyv dwr, wyv dryw; I am water. am wren,

Wyv saer, wyv wyw." I a builder. I am wise."

According indced to Welsh lexicographers, the words Derwyd and Dryw both signify a Druid, the latter having the additional meaning of a wren. See Owen, 1805, and Spurrell, 1848.

Note 2. "Collections for Wilts," part I. 1821, p. 125. The family of Drew of Littleton Drew, appear to have been lords here for several centuries, and the family to have ended in the female line, by marriage with the family of Mompesson. Ibid. p. 56.

Note 3. Stukeley's "Itin. Cur." 1776, vol. II. p. 177. Some further remarks on the topographical question, as to the name of Drew, will be found in a supplementary note.

These stones are placed somewhat on the slope of the barrow, about thirty feet from its base. The two uprights, which are six and a half feet apart, are of a flattened pyramidal form, about two feet thick and four wide. That to the south is six and a half feet in height, that to the north, from which part of the top seems to have been broken, is a foot lower. From recent excavations, made by Mr. Scrope, it is found that these stones are sunk upwards of four feet below the surface. Resting on the ground, and leaning against the western edges of these uprights, is the large table stone, measuring about twelve feet in length, by six in breadth. There can be no doubt, whatever was their intention, that this large table stone was originally supported by the two uprights, aided perhaps by a third, or, as Aubrey thought, by two others. The stones are altogether rough and unhewn, and are richly covered with time-stains and lichens. Their first inspection suggested the idea that they were the remains of a chamber, such as exists at Stoney Littleton [Map] and Uley, but a consideration of their size, and the great height of the uprights above the highest part of the barrow, is sufficient to refute such an opinion. Sir R. C. Hoare concludes the account he gives of his examination of the tumulus, by stating that he had no doubt the primary interment was placed "beneath the huge superimpending stones at the east end." This view, however, has been fully disproved, by examinations made in the summer of 1854, and again in September 1855, when the space between the two uprights was excavated down to the base of the stones, and a considerable trench dug in front of them, by which the red clay of the natural surface was uncovered. A similar excavation was made on the western side of the stones. No traces whatever of human remains were met with; and the only objects found were some trifling fragments of black Roman pottery, a foot or two from the surface; and at a greater depth, in part mixed with the natural soil, a few fragments of bones, tusks and teeth of boars, with one or two rude flakes of black flint. It is not probable that these stones had been at any time buried beneath the cairn, as would have been the case had they formed part of a sepulchral chamber, of which, it has been shewn, there is no proof. The only likely view which remains is that they had in reality formed an external structure, such as the French term a dolmen and the English a cromlech, in all probability devoted to pagan sacrificial rites.

In the spring of 1854, the existence of a rude cist on the south side and near the centre of the barrow, containing several skeletons, was brought to light by the plough. Subsequently to this, the proprietor of the field, G. P. Scrope, Esq., M.P., has made a very complete examination, by which a series of four such cists has been discovered.¹ Their position is shewn on the ground-plan. They vary a little in form and size, but on the average, are about ten feet in length, by four in width, and two in depth. Their shape is an irregular oblong, and they are formed of large rough flat stones set on edge: there were no covering stones, (though it is possible that such may have formerly existed, and been removed when the barrow was first subjected to the plough), the cists being filled with stone rubble carelessly thrown in; whilst in the spaces between the cists and elsewhere, the stones forming the barrow had evidently been heaped up by hand. The largest cist nearest to the east is within a few feet of the south-west angle of the cromlech, and has its long axis placed east and west. The three other cists range north and south, and lie somewhat nearer to the edge of the barrow and nearly equidistant from each other. In three of these cists, were nine, seven, and ten skeletons respectively, there being, apparently, some distinction of sex and age, as to the cists in which they were found. 'The bodies must have been packed closely together, in a crouched or sitting posture, and were particularly crowded near the angles of the cists. Their being buried in rough stone rubble, made it difficult to ascertain their precise position, or to remove the bones in an entire state. No relics of any other kind were found in the cists; but in the course of the general excavations, a flake or two, and a round worked disc, of black flint were met with. Cist A. - This, it is said, contained seven skeletons; we examined five, all of which appeared to be of women or children, of the ages of about 1, 2, 5, 15, and 50 years of age. Cist B. - This appears either never to have been used, or to have been rifled at some period of its contents, not even a fragment of bone being found in it. Cist C. - This contained nine skeletons, all apparently males, and of adult age, about 20, 25, 30, 45, 50, and 55 years; two others were those of aged persons. There were the fragments of a ninth skull, the fractured edges of which were very sharp and clean, suggesting the idea of having been cleft during life, but they may possibly have been broken after interment, by the falling-in of one of the side-stones of the cist. Cist D.—In this were ten skeletons, eight of which we examined; four were those of adults, two possibly of each sex, and four of children, of about 3, 4, 7, and 17 years. It may here be briefly stated that the crania from these cists are almost uniformly of a somewhat lengthened oval or dolichocephalic form. The facial bones are generally smooth and little indented; the alveolar edge of the superior maxillary, upright and rather short; the lower jaws narrow; the crowns of the teeth generally very much worn. The only thigh-bone which could be obtained for measurement was 18 inches and a half in length.

Note 1. Two of the cists were opened at the time of the Meeting of the Wilts Archaeological and Natural History Society at Chippenham, in September, 1855; on which occasion Mr, Scrope, the President of the Society, entertained a large party of the Members at Castle Combe. Mr. Scrope kindly contributes the lithographic illustrations.

As in early English, Drogo and Drew appear synonymous, so in the Norman-French of the same period, are Drogo and Dreux. This last name Dreux, that of a place in France near Chartres, so called, as conjectured, from the Druids, is supposed to have been the site of the "locus consecratus," or temple "in finibus Carnutum," alluded to by Cesar, where was held the annual assembly of the Druids for the whole of Gaul.¹ That the name was in common use among the Normans, as a personal appellation, a reference to the Anglo-Norman history of Ordericus Vitalis is sufficient to shew. Ordericus refers to at least four persons of the name of Drogo. The first is Drogo, Archbishop of Metz, the son of the Emperor Charlemagne, who is mentioned under the year 840.² The next is Drogo, also called Dreux, Count of the Vexin, who died about 1035, whilst on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and who was likewise descended from Charlemagne.³ A third Drogo, otherwise Dreux, was of the celebrated Norman family of Hauteville, one of the twelve sons of Tancred de Hauteville, who conquered the south of Italy in the early part of the 11th century; this conquest, under the fourth brother, Robert Guiscard, embracing at a subsequent period the whole of Sicily. The eldest brother William had assumed the title of Count of Apulia in 1043, in which he was succeeded by his brother Drogo or Dreux in 1046.⁴ The fourth of the name is Drogo, called indiscriminately Dreux, the son of a Norman baron, Geoffrey de Neuf-marché, who became a monk and had great influence, in ecclesiastical affairs, at the court of William, about the time of the conquest.⁵

Note 1. B. G. 1.6, c. 13.

Note 2 Ordericus, Lib. 1, c. 14.

Note 3. Ibid, Lib. 3, c. 8. Lib. 7, c. 14.

Note 4. Ibid, Lib. 3, c. 3. Lib. 8, c.7. See Gibbon, Chapter 56,

Note 5. Ordericus, Lib. 5, cap. 12, Lib. 6, c. 4. Lib. 6, c. 4, and 8.

To return, however, to England; in Doomsday, Drogo, the son of Ponz, is named as holding Seagry and other places, with half a messuage in Malmesbury. Drogo or Drugo de Buerer, a Fleming, married a niece of William the Conqueror; he was the first Earl of Holderness, and is said to have built the Castle of Skipsea. In the following century, we find mention of another Drogo, the chamberlain of the Empress Matilda, who was possibly the father of that "Drogo the Younger," from whom the Montacutes, four of whom were Earls of Salisbury, are said to have descended. Risdon, in his survey of Devon, "writing of Drew's Teignton, says expressly that in its name it "honours" that of "its ancient landlord Drogo de Teign, by time's continuance mollified into Drew. In the reign of Richard the First, Drogo granted one farthing of land to Parisius Arlecheston."¹ Collinson, speaking of Stanton Drew, says that at the time of Doomsday, and some time later, this place in great part belonged to a family who derived their name from it, among whom he instances Roger, William and Hugh de Stanton, and a Geffrey de Stanton, as late as the time of Henry the Third. One of this family, he says, bore the appellation of Drogo or Drew de Stanton, and gave the place his name, by way of distinction from other Stantons in the neighbourhood. The descendants of this family, as he states, were chiefly settled here and at Littleton Drew in Wiltshire. He goes on to say that, 12 Edward III., Walter Drew was certified to hold half a knight's fee in Stanton, which William de Stanton formerly held; and that, 10 Henry IV., the same moiety, late the property of Roger Drew, was held by John de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. Collinson adds that these Drews were closely allied to the Dinhams of Buckland and Corton.² Aubrey, in his collections for North Wilts, as we have shewn, (ante p. 168), has preserved a deed probably of the 12th century, to which "Walterus Drew dominus de Littletone" is the principal party. We have had no opportunity of tracing the documentary evidence, on which the statements of Risdon, as regards Drew's Teignton, and those of Collinson, with respect to Stanton Drew, rest; but the argument which derives the name of the places from that of the persons seems neither satisfactory nor conclusive - the reverse indeed appears more probable. It would certainly be a curious circum- stance, if three places, in as many counties of the west of England, all remarkable for ancient British, and probably Druidical, remains, should each have been the property, in the 12th or 13th century, of persons or families of the name of Drew or Drogo, unless indeed they derived their names from the localities.

Note 1. "Survey of Devon," ed. 1811, p. 127,

Note 2. Collinson's "Somerset," vol. II., p. 432,

The name of Thomas Drewe, occurs in a list preserved by Fuller, of the gentry of Wiltshire in the twelfth year of Henry VI. (1483)¹, whether of the same family with that settled at Devizes, for at least two centuries from Henry VII. to the close of the reign of Charles II., is not clear. Robert Drew represented Devizes in several of the parliaments of Elizabeth and James the First; and different members of this family are commemorated by monumental tablets in the old church at Westbury, and in those at Devizes of St. John and St. James’, Southbroom.? This family was possessed of the Southbroom² estate, which they parted with about the year 1680. Drew’s pond was included in this property, and indeed continued to be so down to its last change of ownership, about the year 1826. There are title-deeds, and other old documents, preserved in the office of the Town Clerk of Devizes, shewing that in the time of Henry the Seventh, this family bore the name of Trewe; among which is a lease from the Bishop of Salisbury to John Trewe, bearing date the twenty-fifth year of this reign. That this is not a mere clerical error is proved, by a deed of the 20th of November of the 25th Elizabeth, in which are found the names of "John Drewe alias Trewe," and of "Robert Drewe alias Trewe his son and heir apparent".³

Note 1. "Worthies of England," ed. 1840, p. 339.

Note 2. See R. C. Hoare "Modern Wilts, Westbury;" and Waylen "Chronicle of Devizes, 1839, pp. 292. 307. 313.

Note 3. There is a pedigree of this family of Drew in the "Visitation of 1623," and a continuation in the possession of the family of the late William Hughes, Esq., of Devizes and Poulshot; whose father, by marriage with a female descendant of the Drews, (Elizabeth Marsh the daughter of Elizabeth Drew, of Lacock), became the representative of the Drew family, which seems to have become extinet, except in the female line, by the death in 1728, of Robert Drew the younger, and in 1729, of Joseph Drew, both the sons of Robert Drew of Lacock.