The examination of the prehistoric hill-fort known as Hollingbury was undertaken during March and April, 1931, by the Brighton and Hove Archaeological Club, with the permission of the Brighton Corporation and with the sanction of Mr. B. H. Maclaren, Superintendent of Parks and Gardens. We also have to express our great gratitude to those Societies and individuals whose generous contributions made the undertaking possible, and to others who rendered valuable help by their own labour.

It has long been understood that if any definite connexion could be proved between Stonehenge and the barrows of admittedly Bronze Age date which surround it, an approximate dating would be possible of Stonehenge itself. The common, first-sight belief that the barrows and the monument represent a necropolis encircling its sanctuary has been opposed on the ground of the irregular grouping and distances of the barrows. It may, however, be suggested in passing that if the Plain was parcelled out among clans or families into territories nearer and further and of varying sizes, and if the known custom obtained of burying the important dead where they had lived, this irregularity is explicable.

In a paper read in May 1924, and subsequently printed in Archaeologia, I discussed the somewhat uncommon representations of the crucified Christ attached to a lily-plant, either directly or through an interjacent cross identified with the plant. In that paper I cited eight such representations—one carved in alabaster, two in other stones, and one in wood; one painted on a wooden panel; and three in glass windows. All of these were clearly English in origin. Since it was published, three further examples of this curious flower of English iconography have come to my notice.

It is generally accepted that the invasion of Britain by the Belgae, alluded to by Caesar, is represented archaeologically by the Aylesford-Swarling-Welwyn type of pedestalled urns and their associated objects. These urns are found in a pretty well defined area of south-eastern England, including the counties of Essex, Kent, Middlesex, Hertford, Buckingham, and parts of Bedford and Cambridge.

The primary object of the work of 1928 was to follow up the discovery in 1927 of the unexpectedly strong and heavy foundation underlying the north-east corner mound. As a result of this year's work it is evident that this corner mound represents some heavy structure which is best explained as a circular corner tower built into the town walls at their northeast angle; but even its foundations were so broken up that it was impossible to discover any outline or recover a complete ground plan. Oh the outside, instead of extending beyond the walls themselves, the circumference of the structure lay flush with the curved external angle of the walls, while on the inside its circumference projected slightly beyond the angle of the walls proper. It was thus rather an internal than an external tower, a fact which it is important to bear in mind.