W. Bateman, in 1825, was "placed in a meadow called Larks Lowe, and near the rivulet called the Bradford." The derivation of Arbor is extremely uncertain, and assuredly cannot be the Latin word. Locally, the place is known as Arbelow. Most probably it is from the same root as Abury or Arbury. Variations of the latter as place-names will be found all over England. There is an Arbour-low-close in Staffordshire. It is noteworthy that Dr. Pegge designates the great stone circle as temple," whereas he restricts the term " Arbor Lows" (or "Arbelows") to the two barrows adjacent to it. All later writers have, however, transferred the latter name to the former structure; and T. Wright appears to rely upon this application of the term "Low to prove it could not have been a temple.

"the

The structure consists of an encircling vallum or rampart, composed of earth and stones. This is customarily described as being of circular form, whereas it is in reality slightly elliptical, the long axis being almost north and south. With one exception, all the ground plans, commencing with the earliest that of Dr. Pegge-show it to be a true circle, the exception being one that accompanies a paper on this subject by Sir J. G. Wilkinson (in Journal of British Archæological Association, xvi, pl. 9, p. 115).3

1 Another example is recorded by Dr. Pegge, situated between Metham Bridge and Hope.

2 In a letter printed in the Antiquary of November 1899, Mr. H. Harrison affirms "Arbury" to be "a syncopated dialectical form of Anglo-Saxon eorthburh" earthworks.

3 Authorities Quoted :

1. "A Disquisition on the Lows or Barrows . . . of Derbyshire by the Rev. Mr. Pegge." Archæologia, vii (1785), pp. 131-148, with plate showing ground plan, sections, and view of Arbor Low.

2. A View of the Present State of Derbyshire, by J. Pilkington. Two vols (1789). Plan and description of Arbor Low (ed. of 1803), pp. 88, 459-462.

3. History of Derbyshire, by S. Glover. Two vols. (1829). Description of Arbor Low, with plan, i, pp. 275, 6. Reprinted in Bateman's Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire (1848), pp. 109-111, with view from No. 4.

4. "On the Ancient Circular Temple of Arbor-lowe," by the Rev. S. Isaacson. Winchester volume of British Archæological

Owing to weathering, and perhaps to some portion of the earth having been removed to be distributed on the adjoining land, it varies greatly in height, but at the present time averages about 16 ft. above the surrounding level. It encloses a slightly elliptical flat area, with a diameter varying between 160 and 170 feet, and is separated from the vallum by a fosse, or ditch, averaging 18 feet in width at the top, the bottom being raised considerably owing to the amount of earth washed into it from the vallum and sides of the area. As the vallum has evidently been formed by the material dug out of the fosse, it is from 6 to 8 feet deeper on the inside; and, moreover, according to Wilkinson, it has the "counterscarp, towards the ditch, fronted with stone."

The fosse as well as the vallum is interrupted on two opposite sides by the entrances: formed, apparently, by the natural ground being left undisturbed. Each is about 27 feet wide; their direction is respectively nearly south-east and north-west, and, as pointed out by Wilkinson, "do not accord with the centre of the circle."

Near the circumference of the area are a number of slabs of limestone, all more or less recumbent, much weathered, extremely irregular in form and dimensions, and showing no marks of tooling. Of the latter, there is at first sight an apparent exception, as the bases of a few are flat; but this is really due to a natural fault in the limestone bed. Some slabs near the centre of the area will be noticed presently.

Their number has been variously estimated according to Pegge, thirty-two; Glover and Isaacson, about thirty;

Association (1846), pp. 197-204, with view of Arbor Low and woodcuts.

5. "The Rock Basins of Dartmoor, and some British Remains in England," by Sir J. G. Wilkinson. Journal of British Archæological Association, xvi (1860), pp. 115-117, with large ground plan of Arbor Low.

6. Rude Stone Monuments, by J. Ferguson (1872). "Arbor Low," pp. 139-142; plan and woodcuts.

7. "Arbor Low," by Sir J. Lubbock. Reliquary, xx (1879) pp. 81-85; view and woodcuts.

Pilkington states, "about thirty large ones," and adds, in a later paragraph, "about fourteen smaller ones intermixed with them;" Lubbock, thirty to forty; and Wilkinson, forty to fifty. The last-named attributes it to the circumstance of some of the slabs being much broken and the pieces widely separated from each other, so that it "requires some attention in observing and numbering them." This is corroborated by the following Table of measurements, made by William Fowler and Benjamin Sellars, two inhabitants of Ashford-in-theWater, on September 27th, 1823:

(This Table is affixed to a plan where the position of each slab is numbered.)

Of this Table the following is a summary :

13 slabs from 10 ft. to 14 ft. each in length.

Owing to the irregular surface of the slabs, it is diffi

cult to give anything but a general idea as to their average thickness; the majority are about 15 ins. or 16 ins., but some measure 1 ft. 10 ins., and others as little. as 6 ins. or 7 ins. The measurements given in the Table are approximately correct at the present time, and are very different from those noted by some authors. Thus, Glover reports them to be "from six to eight feet in length, and three or four broad at the widest part;" and this is repeated by Lubbock. It is scarcely possible they could have been inspected by Pilkington, who affirms them to be "for the most part about five feet long," and in his plan shows thirty stones in the circumference, and all of equal size.

Writers disagree as to whether they were originally fixed in an upright position, or lay flat on the ground from the first. Isaacson asserts emphatically, "these stones were never placed in an erect position, but laid on the bare surface of the rock at regular intervals, although now much displaced." Lubbock, with more caution, states: "It is doubtful whether they were ever upright." On the other hand, Wilkinson declares: "It is evident that they originally stood upright," and "lie in the direction in which they have fallen." According to Pegge, "the stones formerly stood on end. . . some of them being "much broken by their fall." This was written in 1783, at which time he cites as a witness a man aged sixty, who "testified that some of the stones were standing in his memory." Six years later, while Pilkington gave his opinion of their original position being " uncertain" (and so regarded by Glover), qualified it by an eye-witness who remembered, "when he was a boy, to have seen them standing obliquely upon one end." To his description Pegge adds that they originally stood "two and two together," a statement scarcely borne out by a personal examination. One point tells strongly in favour of their erect position originally, and one apparently unnoticed by writers on the subject. A reference to the foregoing Table shows that several of the stones are recorded to be "set edgeway" that is, are fixed vertically in the ground; but, being broken off low down, easily escape observation. Their importance is increased by the cir

cumstance that, as they all occupy nearly the same relative distance from the edge of the central area when perfect, they point out the probable position of all the stones in the circumference at the period of its first construction.

As far as we know at present, all stones of large size connected with barrows and temples, or single memorial ones, erected during the prehistoric period, were invariably fixed in an erect position; and there is little reason to doubt that these now under notice formed no exception to this rule.

At whatever period they may have been thrown down, and whether by accident or design-the latter being probable-some fell more or less towards the centre, and a few the reverse way. One of the largest size on the west side has its base tilted slightly upwards.

That the circumferential stones formed a single circle is fairly certain.

Those situated near the centre of the area are recumbent; they are three in number, and, with perhaps one exception, are larger and heavier than any of those in the circumference. One is so much broken up, and deficient of some portions, that no proper estimate of its original dimensions is obtainable: the largest fragment is 6 ft. 9 ins. long by 3 ft. wide. The other two are situated a little to the east of the centre of the area, and somewhat below it. A straight line drawn through them would point north-north-west, the end of one being distant 8 ft. from that of the other. The accompanying sketch is from an accurate plan kindly made for me by Mr. G. S. Ramsey, and is drawn to scale. No. 1 measures 13 ft. 9 ins. long, and is 8 ft. 7 ins. in its greatest width. No. 2 is 14 ft. long and 5 ft. 5 ins. wide immediately below the projection.

(While endeavouring to ascertain the thickness of the slabs by removing the grass which encumbered their sides, Mr. Ramsey found beneath No. 1 a few rats' bones and some small chippings of flint. As a rule, these are usually regarded as indications of an interment being within a short distance, but were probably due in the present instance to the rats making a home for them