Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu/225

 ANGLO-SAXOX REMAINS IN IVER CHURCH, BUCKS. 149 dow, in the internal face of the wall, there is a sort of set-off, rendering the thickness of the upper part of the wall some- what less than the lower. This was evidently intended as a rude substitute for a string-course, and it runs along the whole wall, interrupted only by the two Norman arches, which are as palpably cut through it as in any case I have ever seen of a string-course interrupted by a later insertion. Now, this same set-off occurs also on the south side, both to the east and west of the arcade ; but the greater height of the piers on this side hinders it from appearing, as in the opposite range, between the arches. This seems incon- testably to prove that the original nave walls are of a date anterior to the Norman arches on the north side, and that both those and the Perpendicular ones opposite to them were simply cut through at their respective periods without any entire destruction and rebuilding of the original fabric. In connexion with these must be taken the quoins of Roman (or other very thin) bricks at the east end of the nave. These are alluded to by Mr. Scott in another portion of his Report. They are found on both sides in a sort of buttress against the east wall of the nave, outside the north and south walls of the chancel. A small portion of the same material is also built up in the north wall of the latter. The quoin is very conspicuous on this side, on account of the north aisle not being prolonged so far east as the chancel- arch. These remains would, of course, not suffice of them- selves to prove a Saxon date ; but taken in connexion with the other more certain evidence, they certainly look the same way. I could not discover anything else at either of the other angles of the nave, either inside or out, nor have I any evidence whether the east and west walls of the nave are of the same date, the Early English chancel and belfry arches being cut through them, or whether they were rebuilt at the time when the latter were inserted. But d priori I should decidedly incline to this last view, as Romanesque arches, both Saxon and Norman, were so much more fre- quently spared by later architects in those positions than in any others. Nor could I quite satisfy myself whether the bricks in the chancel had been simply worked up again during the Early English re-construction, or whether a small portion of the masonry adjoining the nave was not of the same