Page:The New Forest - its history and its scenery.djvu/254

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
The New Forest: its History and its Scenery.

Long after this the Isle of Wight was altogether separated by the Solent from the mainland, but still ages before the historic period. The various traditions, as to the former depth of the channel, how Sir Bevis, of Southampton, waded across it, how, too, the carts brought the Binstead stone for building Beaulieu Abbey over the dry bed at low water, have been previously given. The passage, too, in Diodorus Siculus has been already examined,[1] and there can be no doubt, notwithstanding his also making it, like the traditions, a peninsula at low water, that his Ictis is the Isle of Wight and not St. Michael's Mount. The mere local evidence of the mass of tin, the British road—more like a deep trench than a road—still plainly traceable across the Forest, the names along it corresponding with that of its continuation in the Island, would alone, most assuredly, show that this was the place whence the first traders, and, in after-times, the Romans, exported their tin. We must, however, remember that the channel of the Solent was caused by depression rather than by excavation; and that at this moment an alteration in the levels, as noticed by Mr. Austen,[2] is going on eastward of Hurst Castle.

The drift, which spreads over the whole of the New Forest, is not very interesting. No elephants' tusks, or elks' horns, so far as I know, have ever been discovered. A few species of Terebratula and Pecten, some flint knives, and the os inominatum, of probably Bos longifrons, mentioned farther on, are the only


  1. See chap, v., pp. 57, 58. It is just possible that by his "τὰς πλησίον νήσους," Diodorus may mean the Shingle Islands, which we have described in chapter xiv. p. 151, and whose sudden appearance and disappearance would lead to the most extravagant reports.
  2. "On the Newer Deposits of the Sussex Coast:" Geological Journal, vol. xiii. pp. 64, 65.
236