Page:Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries.djvu/464

 Of Dartmoor and its Borderland, 91 of the correctness of this derivation, than of the punning origin of the name as recorded by Risdon. For years the exact site of the tomb of Childe the Hunter ivas unknown, for the soil having partially covered the scanty remains of it, and filled the stone sarcophagus, there was little by which it might be distinguished. When by dint of careful search I discovered it about twenty years ago, a small mound and some half-buried stones were all that was to be seen. Examination, however, soon convinced me that the lost tomb was found, and that something still remained of that which may certainly be regarded as one of the most interesting among the objects of antiquity on Dartmoor. The tomb itself I found to be a large kistvaen, of which one of the end-stones and the cover-stone had been removed. It was situated on a little mound, and there were appearances which seemed to indicate that this had been surrounded by a circle of upright stones, such as are often found enclosing kistvaens on the moor. This moimd was apparently about fifteen feet in diameter, but it was not possible to take a correct measurement, as it had been nearly destroyed by the despoilers of the tomb. One side and one end of the kistvaen were found to be intact. The side consisted of a large block, five feet six inches long by two feet five inches in depth, and having a thickness of about ten inches. The stone which formed the other side was lying at the bottom of the kist, and was not quite so long as its fellow. The end- stone measured two feet eight inches across, the depth of it being about the same as the large one. The stones appeared to have been artificially shaped, the kistvaen not being of such rude construction as the examples generally found. On this account it would appear to be of less antiquity, though in plan precisely similar. Lying near the mound were three stones which had been hewn into shape, and one of them I found to be rudely sculptured. Unfortunately it had been broken, and one portion was missing. It was the base in which the cross was once fixed, the socket sunk in it still remaining in part. There was much more design about it than is shown in the vignette
 * ^ildhali of Tavistock ; " * and there is much more probability
 * Notices of Tavistock and its Abbey ^ p. 17.