{17}
In the year 1852, a fresh and more careful examination of the Cave was made by Mr. Beldam, assisted by his friend, Mr. Edmund Nunn, the honorary curator of the Royston Museum*; and from a manuscript report, afterwards presented to the Antiquarian Society, we select the following particulars.
* This museum was sold and dispersed in June, 1901.
The height of the Cave from the floor to the top of the dome, is about 25½ feet; the length of the aperture leading up to the surface is about 2 feet; making together, with the thickness of the crownwork at the top of the dome, about 28 feet. The bottom is not quite circular; the widest diameter being from east to west. The diameter from north to south is about 17 feet, and from east to west about 17 feet 6 inches, the difference being occasioned by the groove of the eastern shaft, which descends on this side, and has not been accurately worked into the circle.
The broad step, or podium, which surrounds the floor, is octagonal, and is about 8 inches in height, by 3 feet in width, being now carried over the part which Stukeley calls the grave; upon which is now likewise placed an ancient millstone, probably the same that closed the shaft discovered in 1742.
About 8 feet above the floor a cornice runs round the walls, cut in a reticulated or diamond pattern, about 2 feet in breadth, and receding, as it rises, about 6 inches; making the diameter of the lower part of the dome, which springs from it, about 18 feet. The cornice is not, however, continued over the grave, but descends with a curve on one side, leaving the space above it unornamented and in its orginal rude condition. Almost the whole circle between {18} the podium and the cornice has been sculptured in low relief as described by Stukeley, with crucifixes, saints, martyrs, and historical pieces; and many of these, if not all, have been coloured. Vestiges of red, blue, and yellow, are visible in various places; and the relief of the figures has been assisted by a darker pigment. Above the cornice rude figures and heraldic devices are also here and there cut or scratched into the chalk, but none in relief. In different parts of the Cave, both above and below the cornice, deep cavities, or recesses, of various forms and sizes, some of them oblong and others oven-shaped, are irregularly cut into the wall, closely resembling olla-holes, niches, and recesses, usually seen in Roman, Etruscan, and Phenician tombs. One of these cavities above the cornice is about 4 feet 6 inches in length, by about 2 feet 6 inches in height; and another in a similar position, about 2 feet 6 inches in length, with a corresponding height. Besides which, innumerable small crosses, perforations, and unintelligible devices are discernible in all directions.
Immediately above the grave, at the height of about 17 feet appears the masonry, supposed by Stukeley and North to have concealed the original entrance. The two lower courses only of this masonry now remain, formed of blocks of chalk neatly chiselled, and coloured red, giving them the appearance of brickwork. The shaft is seen above them, here impinging on the dome, and still partially filled with earth, which, on examination, was found to be mixed with small fragments of the bones of animals, and a few pieces of mediæval pottery, but no human bones. The perpendicular course of the shaft, proved that it formed no portion of a passage leading to the Priory.
The inspection of this part of the Cave was accomplished by means of ladders and torch-light; and led to the discovery of certain numerical figures, carefully and {19} artistically cut into the end block of the upper course, giving the date of “1347,” which, if genuine as their appearance certainly indicates, may assist in tracing the transition through which Arabic numerals have passed in this country; and furnish evidence of the continued use of the crypt. Below this masonry, the shaft evidently expanded as it descended to the grave; and the chalk in this part of the Cave never having been dressed to correspond with the surrounding surface, exhibits, as already stated, the marks of an extreme and primeval antiquity.
The grave being opened, was found to range exactly with the shouldering of the shaft above. Its length proved to be about 7 feet 6 inches; its depth below the floor about 2 feet; and its width about 3 feet. To a certain depth it had been evidently disturbed, but the bottom had never been moved. It was found to contain a variety of objects, which, had they been seen by Stukeley, must have sadly disconcerted his theory of the origin and use of the place. Among these may be mentioned, first as being nearest the surface, fragments of red bricks, described by him as enclosing the grave, not improbably Norman or Early English; and others somewhat more Roman in their character. Marks of cremation appeared on several of these as well as in other parts of the grave. Secondly, fragments of oak of great thickness, studded with large clout-headed nails, and pieces of iron, apparently the mountings of a small oblong chest. Thirdly, a rude iron instrument, probably used for holding a light, and various pieces of iron much corroded. Fourthly, a large lump of charcoal, powdered with sulphur. Fifthly, intermixed with the above, a large quantity of the bones of animals; but none of them human. Specimens of these being submitted to Professors {20} Owen and Quekett, were pronounced to be of the kind usually found in bone shafts and British graves; such, for instance as bones of the ox, the hog, the hare, and the goat or sheep. In the lowest stratum, which required the pickaxe to move it, were found the bones of a young deer; and the vertebræ of a small fish. There were, moreover, many spherical stones, of the class called “aëtite,” or “eaglestone,” known also to the ancients as the “lapis pregnans,” and believed by them to be endowed with medicinal and magical properties; and, finally, fragments of glass, of leather, of wood, and some other articles of doubtful character.
An attentive consideration of the articles found in the grave, even supposing a few of them to have been subsequently introduced, fully verified the presumption raised by the peculiarly cribbled and time-worn aspect of the wall above, that the so-called grave was nothing more than a continuation below the floor of the ancient eastern shaft; and it consequently furnished a probable clue to the subsequent formation and original design of the whole. It seemed clear that this shaft, in connexion with that on the northern side of the Cave, discovered in 1742, and of which the traces downward are visible as low as the floor, was the original excavation, and that from one or both of these, by the same, or by successive operations, one or more primitive chambers were horizontally opened, which at length assumed the form of the present Cave. It might be reasonably inferred that this process began from the eastern shaft, with the upper part of the dome, and, judging from the large and deep niches cut in this part, it might be also presumed that the floor of the first excavation was but a little {21} below them. The lower half of the Cave, on this supposition, with its numerous niches and recesses, was sunk at a later period. A method similar to this may be observed in the shafts and sepulchral chambers recently discovered at Stone.
The subject, however, of ancient shafts and subterranean chambers deserves a little further consideration.
The formation of shafts seems common to all ages and countries. They were opened for mining, for sanitary, for ceremonial, and for sepulchral purposes. Man seems to have been always a burrowing animal. But their most common use was, probably, always sepulchral; either for the purpose of actual interment, or as a means of access to chambers intended for that object. Thus the Egyptians often buried their dead in shafts. The tombs of the Scythians, as recent discoveries in the Crimea have shown, and likewise those of the old Etruscans, were commonly approached by means of shafts. The interment of the poor at Rome in shafts or wells, called “puticoli,” gave an historical celebrity to the Esquiline Hill. And even when not designed to contain the ashes of the dead, they seem to have been frequently employed to deposit the embers of the funereal fire, the bones of the funereal feast, the pottery used and broken on these and other sacred occasions; and sometimes, also, for the ornaments and relics of the departed.
Allusion has been already made to the existence of ancient shafts at Royston; and many others have been discovered in different parts of the kingdom. Among them may be specially mentioned those at Ewell in Surrey, at Boxmoor in Hertfordshire, at Stone in Buckinghamshire, at Chadwell in Essex, at Crayford in Kent, and numbers more recently opened by the late Lord Braybrooke at Chesterford. The contents of most of them seem clearly {22} to prove a Romano-British origin, and a sepulchral or religious purpose. But the indications at Royston are not so decisive, though of a similar kind. The objects found in the shaft at the Cave create some uncertainty also, as to its original design, and make it doubtful whether its first purpose was a place of deposit or a means of access only to the chamber beyond; for if the latter, we must conclude that it was afterwards accommodated to the ulterior purpose of the Cave. What that purpose was has yet to be considered.
Excavated chambers of this kind appear to have been as common and as various in their use as the ancient shafts. They were adapted to the habits, customs, and necessities of the different countries where they are found. In our own country, and among its earliest inhabitants, we learn from the ancient historians that they were most commonly used, either as places of refuge and concealment, or for the deposit of grain and other stores; but it was not the ordinary practice of the Celts and Scandinavians to bury in them. Any sepulchral application, therefore, must be presumed to have occurred in a Romano-British period. In most other countries, however, their principal object appears to have been always sepulchral; and they were so used, either with or without the accompaniment of the shaft. Both kinds abound in Egypt, in Palestine, in the Crimea, in Etruria, and in most other parts of the Roman Empire.
Hence the original purpose of the Royston Cave, if of purely British origin, could scarcely have been sepulchral. It bears, indeed, a strong resemblance, in form and dimension, to the ancient British habitation; and certain marks and decorations in its oldest parts, such as indentations and punctures, giving a diapered appearance to the surface, are very similar to what is seen in confessedly Druidical and {23} Phenician structures. But this by no means militates against the probability of its subsequent appropriation to the use of a Roman sepulchre.
The Roman underground sepulchres, it is true, were not generally of a conical form, but nothing was more common, with them than to appropriate the designs and devices of a conquered people. Mr. Akerman, the present learned Secretary of the Antiquarian Society, in a recent paper in Archæologia, vol. xxxiv., p. 27, on the Roman remains at Stone,—and which contains references to most of the other shafts to be met with in this country,—expresses a firm conviction that the Royston Cave was at one time a Roman sepulchre. He quotes also an instance of a similar sepulchre, discovered many years since on the Aventine hill at Rome; the only difference of form, in that case, being that the shaft entered at the top of the dome, instead of at the side. Few persons, indeed, who have a fresh recollection of the old Tombs of Italy, with their niches and recesses for urns, and cists and lamps, and votive offerings—their ornamented cornices, and benches for the repose of the dead,—will fail to discover in the Royston Cave marks of similar design and similar uses. Nor will the disappearance of the many funereal objects it may once have contained in any considerable degree lessen the probability, after so long a dedication to the purposes of Christian worship.
Admitting this general resemblance, however, it must still be confessed, that among the ancient sepulchres of Europe, there are none which correspond exactly with the Royston Cave; and whether its present form existed in Roman times, or is the result of more recent modifications, {24} we are led to conclude that its precise model was, most probably, derived from the East; a conclusion which need not at all disturb our belief in its early Roman occupation.
It is certain that ancient caves do exist in Palestine, which, in form and circumstance, and to some extent also in decoration, approximate so nearly to the Royston Cave, that if any historical connexion could be established between them, it would scarcely seem doubtful that the one is a copy of the other. Such a connexion we shall now endeavour to show, possibly even in Roman times, but more certainly at a later period.
The caves in question are fully described by Professor Robinson of America, in his Biblical Researches, vol. ii., p. 353 et seq. He there states, that in the vicinity of Deir Dubban, at no great distance from Gaza and Askelon, where the soil scarcely covers the chalky rock, he visited certain caves, excavated into the form of tall domes or bell-shaped apartments, ranging in height from 20 to 30 feet; and in diameter from 10 or 12 to 20 or 30 feet or more. The top of these domes usually terminates in a small circular opening for the admission of light and air. These dome-shaped caverns, he adds, are mostly in clusters, three or four together. They are all hewn regularly. Some of them are ornamented, either near the bottom or high up, or both, with rows of small holes or niches, like pigeon holes, extending quite round. And in one of the caves he observed crosses cut into the walls. In like manner, at Beit Jibrin, he saw numerous caves of a similar form, cut into the same chalky soil. In one cave he also remarked a line of ornamental work about io feet above the floor, resembling a sort of cornice; and the whole hill appeared to have been perforated with caves of a similar kind. They seemed, he says, to be innumerable in that neighbourhood. It must be borne in mind, that Dr. Robinson, in describing {25} these caves, could scarcely have known of the existence of that at Royston. He does not pretend to decide on their age or use. His acquaintance with such subjects appears, indeed, from other parts of his work, to have been limited; but he suggests that they may have been inhabited by a colony of Edomites, from the resemblance they bear to some excavations at Petra. It is, at least, certain that the descendants of Esau did occupy this district several centuries before the Christian era; and Herod the Great was born at Askelon.
But any historical connexion with the Royston Cave must be sought for at a later period. It may possibly be found in the circumstance that these caves were in the vicinity of the ancient city of Eleutheropolis, and that after the Roman Conquest they were almost certainly used as columbaria or cemeteries by the inhabitants. This city is known to have been one of those most highly favoured by the Emperor Severus, during his successful administration of the East. The Empress Julia was also a native of that part of the empire. Assuming, then, that the form of the Royston Cave has undergone no change since Roman times, it does not seem wholly improbable, that, as this emperor spent so much of his after life in Britain, the Royston Cave may owe its existence to the officers of some veteran legion, who may have accompanied him to this country, and may have been quartered at one of the military posts in this neighbourhood. At any rate, numerous coins of this emperor and his family, as well as moulds for coining, found in this vicinity, show how closely the country was occupied by the Romans at that period.
If, on the other hand, we conclude that the form of the Royston Cave has undergone some change since those imperial times, we shall be able to find other and still stronger probabilities of its connexion with the Oriental {26} caves at a later period. Perhaps no stronger argument can be advanced, than the fact, that the district in which these caves abound, was one of the great battle fields of the early Crusaders. It was here that they built their famous fortresses of El Hasi and Blanche Garde; and the country all around was the scene of the adventures and triumphs of Richard Cœur de Lion, and his puissant chivalry. Again, whatever may have been the former purpose of these caves, they must, at a period subsequent to the Christian era,—when Palestine swarmed with anchorites,—have become, in all probability, like most other grottos and tombs in that country,—the abode of hermits and recluses; and, as such, must have been known and respected by the Christian leaders. It seems most natural, therefore, to trace this singular correspondence of form to the piety of some distinguished Crusader, anxious on his return to his own country to perpetuate the memory of former exploits, and to exhibit his devotion in a manner most accordant with the ideas and superstitions of his age.
However we may decide on these points, it is certain that a time did arrive when the Cave became appropriated to Christian worship; and it is to the period of the early Crusades that this change may be most reasonably referred. In that age, the attention of all Europe was directed towards the East. Everything was deemed sacred which came from that region. The ecclesiastical structures and practices of the day borrowed largely from eastern models; and no greater act of piety could then be imagined than the founding and endowing oratories and hermitages, resembling those which had been devoutly visited and venerated in the Holy Land.
{27} Now, among the Christian knights who fought most gallantly on the plains of Askelon and Gaza, were some of the descendants and near connections of Eudo Dapifer, Lord of the Manor of Newsells.
With this period, also, most nearly agrees the style of its principal decorations. And the greater part of its sculptures, so far as we can understand them, appears to belong to the same age.
Connecting these circumstances together, a strong presumption appears to be raised, that the ultimate design and ornamentation are due to some noble member of the early Newsells family; and though we are obliged to reject Dr. Stukeley’s visionary notion of Lady Rosia’s personal share in this business, there is some reason to believe that the work may be mainly ascribed to the devotion and liberality of one of her sons, probably William de Magnaville, her favourite son, a companion in the exploits of King Richard, and one of his most gallant comrades in the wars of Palestine. But the story of Lady Rosia’s subsequent retirement to this oratory, and of the execution of the sculpture with her own hand, is purely imaginary; and the fiction of her interment in this place is contradicted by the best historical evidence.
It has already been stated that the entire space between the cornice and the floor, with the exception of the part down which the eastern shaft descends, has been decorated with sculptures, representing crucifixes, saints, martyrs, and historical personages. These do not seem to have been all executed by the same person, nor, probably, at precisely the same time; but all of them, notwithstanding their rude and inartificial manner, produce a striking effect. And most, if {28} not all of them, have been coloured, though perhaps at a later period. The only sculptures in this country that can be compared to them, are certain effigies carved into the chalk walls of the castle at Guildford, in Surrey, which are likely to have been of the same period.
Before we proceed to describe the principal groups, we shall offer a few preliminary remarks on their probable age, under the head of Costumes, Armour, Architectural Designs, and Heraldic Devices.
1. On the subject of Costumes, particularly the head- dresses of the ladies, Stukeley and Parkin disagree: the former assigning them, as we think correctly, to the twelfth century; the latter to the fourteenth or fifteenth. It must be admitted that similar costumes prevailed at both periods, and the question must, therefore, be rather decided by the probable import of the stories to which they belong. In like manner, the helmets in general, and the coiffures of the men afford no certain criterion; though several of them are certainly of a Crusading age. The crowns, coronets, and mitres of Royal personages and prelates, are of a very antique form; but they may have been somewhat modified by the fancy of the artist.
2. The Armour in general seems antecedent to the period when the whole person was cased in steel; and together with the absence of beards, appears to indicate the fashion of the twelfth or thirteenth century.
3. The Architectural Designs, which are few, are of the Norman and Early English character.
4. The Heraldic Devices, in the opinion of competent judges of the Heralds’ College, to whom they have been submitted, belong to an age anterior to the general use of family badges, and may consequently be assigned to the eleventh or twelfth century. The kite-shaped and small circular shields can hardly belong to a later period.
{29} Before we quit this head, we must, however, advert to a particular shield, which became the subject of hot dispute between Stukeley and Parkin; the former claiming it for a Beauchamp, the father of Lady Rosia’s second husband, the latter, for a much later member of the same family. The old story of the battle of the shield was here revived; but, in this case, instead of both knights being in the right, both were in the wrong, both evidently mistaking the device about which they quarrelled. There is, perhaps, more excuse for Parkin, who, for aught we can gather, never entered the Cave. The fact, however, is, that the six cross crosslets. in dispute appear to be simply two letters, “H.K.,” above the fess, with a Calvary cross beneath it.
The general result of this preliminary survey—admitting the possible existence of some later interpolations—appears strongly to favour the conclusion above stated, that the principal sculptures are of the age of Henry II. and Richard I.