Miscellaneous Notes on Deneholes. 103
chambers Nos. 1 and 2, which then seemed out of harmony
with the apparent nature of the original design. But on
glancing at the plan the object of the connecting galleries
becomes at once evident, while the want of equality between
the angles at which the chambers radiate is seen to be the
really abnormal feature. For the lengthening of the short
chamber to equality with the others would doubtless have
been the mode by which any increase of size would have been
attained, had not development been arrested at the point at
which we now see it.
Appendix I.
Critical Notes.
Many members of the Essex Field Club may have seen the
correspondence in the 'Essex Times' of July 13th and 20th
bearing on our proposed Denehole exploration. For the
benefit of those who have not, it may be well to state that a
certain "J. W." began the discussion by stating that Mr. C.
Roach Smith, the well-known antiquary, was much shocked
at the way in which we were wasting our time, and proposing
to waste our money over Deneholes. In a letter to "J. W."
Mr. Smith had thus expressed himself:—
"I am particularly thankful for the paper you sent me on
the Dene or rather Daneholes, for it has fallen to my lot to
explain them, which the explorers in Essex and in Kent fail
to do. In p. 57 of my 'Retrospections' you will see I refer
to what I printed in vol. vi., 'Collectanea Antiqua.' It would
only be an act of charity were you to refer the Editor of the
'Express' to this (pp. 243 to 247). They go on in the same
innocent way in Kent in making parties to these pits; they
descend and describe, go home to prepare for a future descent,
but no more ; they intimate a belief in the monstrous absurdity
of their having been places for refuge and storing corn."
J. W. accordingly advised us to save our money, and buy a
copy of vol. vi. of the 'Collectanea Antiqua' instead. Letters
from Mr. W. Cole, Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell, and myself appeared
in the 'Essex Times' of July 20th vindicating our "innocent"
way of considering investigation necessary to the attainment
of sound conclusions on the subject of Deneholes, and ex-
pressing our opinion that Mr. Smith's explanation not only
did not explain them, but was decidedly contrary to the
evidence already available. J. W., however, again referred
us to the "settlement" of the question in vol. vi. of the