Miscellaneous Notes on Deneholes. 89
But the most interesting point about No. 5 was the fact
that the partition between it and No. 6 had been broken
through, so that we thus obtained admission to a shaft-closed
pit (No. 6). The shaft of No. 6 appears to be that nearly due
east of No. 5, about twenty yards away, on the other side of
the parish boundary. No. 6 may consist of either four or six
chambers, but, in consequence of the tumbling-in of the shaft,
only two of them could be entered. The floor of No. 6 was
apparently somewhat higher than that of No. 5, the level of
the roof remaining the same ; its height therefore was rather
less. The two chambers entered were alike in shape, and at
one time resembled, in all probability, those of the other pits.
But on each side of their semicircular ends the sides of the
chambers were indented by recesses of similar shape, but
slightly smaller in size, the beginnings of passages intended
to join the chambers together, leaving but pillars between
their mouths. One of the two chambers of No. 6 was, as
nearly as could be measured, 29 ft. 6 in. long from the centre
of the shaft; the other, that adjoining No. 5, about 28 ft.
As to the cause of the entrance from No. 5 to No. 6, due to
the breaking-through of the partition between them, the
evidence seems to me to point towards the conclusion that it
is of ancient date, and was made when these Deneholes were
in their prime. The proprietors of these two adjoining pits
would seem to have recognised their nearness to each other,
and to have planned so as, if possible, to avoid communication.
The testimony to this in the case of No. 5 is the unusual
shortness of the chamber nearest No. 6, though one of the
two which are usually the longest. In No. 6 also the chamber
adjoining No. 5 is somewhat shorter than the other one
entered, though not markedly so. But as, judging from
appearances, it seems just as likely that the entrance was
accidentally made when rounding off the chamber belonging
to No. 5, as in finishing that of No. 6, it seems worth while
considering by whom the burglarious entrance was probably
effected. The verdict, I think, must be against No. 6. For
the facts that the No. 5 people had reduced their floor to a
level below that of No. 6, and had made up for unusual