![with 4,000 men, when the Earl of Essex came to its relief. Corfe
Castle and Sherborne Castle were each besieged twice. Abbotsbury
was taken by Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper in September, 1644.
Wareham, also, was more than once the scene of fighting. In the
north of Dorset a band of about 5,000 rustics, known as “Clubmen,”
assembled. These men knew little and cared less for the rival causes
of King and Parliament which divided the rest of England; but one
thing they did know and greatly cared for: they found that ever and
again bands of armed horsemen came riding through the villages,
some singing rollicking songs and with oaths on their lips, others
chanting psalms and quoting the Bible, but all alike treading down
their crops, demanding food, and sometimes their horses, often
forgetting to pay for them; so they resolved to arm themselves and
keep off Cavaliers and Roundheads alike. At one time they
encamped at Shaftesbury, but could not keep the Roundheads from
occupying the Hill Town; so they, to the number of 4,000, betook
themselves to the old Celtic camp of Hambledon, some seven or
eight miles to the south. Cromwell himself, in a letter to Fairfax,
dated August 4th, 1645, tells what befell them there:
We marched on to Shaftesbury, when we heard a great
body of them was drawn up together about Hambledon
Hill. I sent up a forlorn hope of about 50 horse, who
coming very civilly to them, they fired upon them; and ours
desiring some of them to come to me were refused with
disdain. They were drawn into one of the old camps upon
a very high hill. They refused to submit, and fired at us. I
sent a second time to let them know that if they would lay
down their arms no wrong should be done them. They still
—through the animation of their leaders, and especially
two vile ministers[1]—refused. When we came near they
let fly at us, killed about two of our men, and at least four
horses. The passage not being for above three abreast
kept us out, whereupon Major Desborow wheeled about,
got in the rear of them, beat them from the work, and did
some small execution upon them, I believe killed not
twelve of them, but cut very many, and put them all to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-30-320.jpg)
![who approved of none of these things, set off to rouse the West in
the King’s favour, and from Honiton sent a letter giving information of
the landing. On June 14th, the first blood was shed in a skirmish
near Bridport (it was not a decisive engagement). Monmouth’s men,
however, came back to Lyme, the infantry in good order, the cavalry
helter-skelter; and little wonder, seeing that the horses, most of them
taken from the plough, had never before heard the sound of
firearms.
Then Monmouth and his men pass off our stage. It is not for the
local Dorset historian to trace his marches up and down Somerset,
or to describe the battle that was fought in the early hours of the
morning of July 6th under the light of the full moon, amid the sheet of
thick mist, which clung like a pall over the swampy surface of the
level stretch of Sedgemoor. Once again Dorset received Monmouth,
no longer at the head of an enthusiastic and brave, though a badly
armed and undisciplined multitude, but a lonely, hungry, haggard,
heartbroken fugitive. On the morning of July 8th he was found in a
field near Horton, which still bears the name of Monmouth’s Close,
hiding in a ditch. He was brought before Anthony Etricke of Holt, the
Recorder of Poole, and by him sent under escort to London, there to
meet his ghastly end on Tower Hill, and to be laid to rest in what
Macaulay calls the saddest spot on earth, St. Peter’s in the Tower,
the last resting-place of the unsuccessfully ambitious, of those guilty
of treason, and also of some whose only fault it was that they were
too near akin to a fallen dynasty, and so roused the fears and
jealousy of the reigning monarch.
Everyone has heard of the Bloody Assize which followed, but the
names and the number of those who perished were not accurately
known till a manuscript of forty-seven pages, of folio size, was
offered for sale among a mass of waste paper in an auction room at
Dorchester, December, 1875.[2] It was bought by Mr. W. B. Barrett,
and he found that it was a copy of the presentment of rebels at the
Autumn Assizes of 1685, probably made for the use of some official
of the Assize Court, as no doubt the list that Jeffreys had would have
been written on parchment, and this was on paper. It gives the
names of 2,611 persons presented at Dorchester, Exeter, and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-34-320.jpg)
![And we heard the drub of Dead-man’s Bay, where bones of
thousands are,
(But) knew not what that day had done for us at Trafalgar.[3]
The isolation of Dorset, which has been before spoken of, has had
much to do with preserving from extinction the old dialect spoken in
the days of the Wessex kings. Within its boundaries, especially in
“outstep placen,” as the people call them, the old speech may be
heard in comparative purity. Let it not be supposed that Dorset is an
illiterate corruption of literary English. It is an older form of English; it
possesses many words that elsewhere have become obsolete, and
a grammar with rules as precise as those of any recognised
language. No one not to the manner born can successfully imitate
the speech of the rustics who, from father to son, through many
generations have lived in the same village. A stranger may pick up a
few Dorset words, only, in all probability, to use them incorrectly. For
instance, he may hear the expression “thic tree” for “that tree,” and
go away with the idea that “thic” is the Dorset equivalent of “that,”
and so say “thic grass”—an expression which no true son of the
Dorset soil would use; for, as the late William Barnes pointed out,
things in Dorset are of two classes: (1) The personal class of formed
things, as a man, a tree, a boot; (2) the impersonal class of
unformed quantities of things, as a quantity of hair, or wood, or
water. “He” is the personal pronoun for class (1); “it” for class (2).
Similarly, “thëase” and “thic” are the demonstratives of class (1);
“this” and “that” of class (2). A book is “he”; some water is “it.” We
say in Dorset: “Thëase tree by this water,” “Thic cow in that grass.”
Again, a curious distinction is made in the infinitive mood: when it is
not followed by an object, it ends in “y”; when an object follows, the
“y” is omitted:—“Can you mowy?” but “Can you mow this grass for
me?” The common use of “do” and “did” as auxiliary verbs, and not
only when emphasis is intended, is noteworthy (the “o” of the “do”
being faintly heard). “How do you manage about threading your
needles?” asked a lady of an old woman engaged in sewing, whose
sight was very dim from cataract. The answer came: “Oh, he” (her
husband) “dô dread ’em for me.” In Dorset we say not only “to-day”
and “to-morrow,” but also “to-week,” “to-year.” “Tar’ble” is often used](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-36-320.jpg)
![rain, when the freshly-turned-up flints have been washed clear of
earth.
In discussing different periods, we must never lose sight of the fact
that there is much overlapping; and although it is known that the
long-barrow men had long heads and were a short race, averaging 5
ft. 4 in. in height, and that the round-barrow men had round heads
and averaged 5 ft. 8 in.,[4] we sometimes find fairly long-shaped
skulls in the round barrows, showing that the physical peculiarities of
the two races became blended.
Long barrows are not common in Dorset, and little has been done
in examining their contents. This is probably due to their large size,
and the consequent difficulty in opening them. They are generally
found inland, and singly, with their long diameter east and west; and
the primary interments, at any rate in Dorset, are unburnt, and
usually placed nearer the east end. Some are chambered, especially
where large flat stones were easily obtainable, but more often they
are simply formed of mould and chalk rubble. Their great size cannot
fail to impress us, and we may well wonder how such huge mounds
were constructed with the primitive implements at the disposal of
Neolithic man. One near Pimperne, measured by Mr. Charles Warne,
is 110 yards long, and there are others near Bere Regis, Cranborne,
Gussage, and Kingston Russell; and within a couple of miles of the
latter place, besides the huge long barrow, are dozens of round
barrows, the remains of British villages, hut circles, stone circles, and
a monolith.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-39-320.jpg)
![PLATE II. Figs. 1 3 2 4
Bronze Age Objects from Dorset Round Barrows
(IN THE DORSET COUNTY MUSEUM).
⅕ Scale.
The late Lieut.-General Pitt-Rivers, in 1893, removed the whole of
Wor Barrow, on Handley Down,[5] and made a very exhaustive
examination of its contents, which presented many features of
peculiar interest. This barrow, with ditch, was about 175 feet long,
125 feet wide, and 13½ feet high; inside the mound on the ground
level was an oblong space, 93 ft. by 34 ft., surrounded by a trench
filled with flints. The earth above the trench bore traces of wooden
piles, which were, no doubt, originally stuck into the trench with the
flints packed around to keep them in place, thus forming a palisade;
the wooden piles in this case taking the place of the stone slabs
found in the stone-chambered long barrows of Gloucestershire and
elsewhere.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-41-320.jpg)
![The inhumed bodies are nearly always found in a contracted
posture, with the knees drawn up towards the chin; and a larger
number face either east, south or west, than north. In the case of an
inhumation, when the body was deposited below the old surface
level, the grave was often neatly hewn and sometimes lined with
slabs of stone, and it was the common custom to pile a heap of flints
over it, affording a protection from wild animals; above the flints was
heaped the main portion of the mound, which consisted of mould
and chalk rubble.
A ditch, with or without a causeway,[6] usually surrounds each
barrow, but is so often silted up that no trace of it can be seen on the
surface; it probably helped to supply the chalk rubble of the barrow.
Bronze Age sepulchral pottery, which is hand-made, often
imperfectly baked and unglazed, has been divided into four classes:
the beaker or drinking vessel, the food vessel, the incense cup, and
the cinerary urn. The two former are usually associated with
inhumations; the two latter with cremations.
As a type of prehistoric ceramic art in Britain, the Hon. J.
Abercromby says that the beaker is the earliest, and the cinerary urn
the latest.[7]
Plate II., fig. 2, is a typical drinking vessel or beaker which was
found in the hands of a skeleton during alterations to the Masonic
Hall at Dorchester. It is made of thin, reddish, well-baked pottery, and
from the stains inside it evidently contained food or liquid at some
time. The beaker is more often met with than the food vessel, being
found on the Continent as well as in England. The food vessel, on
the other hand, is a type unrepresented outside the British Isles, and
is entirely wanting in Wiltshire,[8] although common in the North of
England, Scotland, and Ireland. In the Dorset County Museum at
Dorchester there are several fine examples found in the county, and
Plate I., fig. 1, represents one taken from a barrow near
Martinstown.[9] It is of unusual interest, as one-handled food-vessels
are rare. In this inhumed primary interment the vessel was lying in](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-43-320.jpg)
![the arms of the skeleton, whilst close by was another and much
smaller vessel, with the remains of three infants.
The terms “drinking-vessel” and “food-vessel” may possibly be
accurate, as these vessels may have held liquids or food; but there
is no evidence to show that the so-called “incense cups” had
anything to do with incense. The more feasible idea seems to be that
they were used to hold embers with which to fire the funeral pile, and
the holes with which they are generally perforated would have been
most useful for admitting air to keep the embers alight.[10] These
small vessels are usually very much ornamented, even on their
bases, with horizontal lines, zigzags, chevrons, and the like, and
occasionally a grape-like pattern. They are seldom more than three
inches in height, but vary much in shape, and often are found
broken, with the fragments widely separated, as if they had been
smashed purposely at the time of the burial. Plate II., figs. 3 and 4,
are from specimens in the Dorset County Museum, which also
contains several other Dorset examples.
There can be no doubt as to the use of the cinerary urn, which
always either contains or covers cremated remains. The urn (Plate
II., fig. 1) is from the celebrated Deverel Barrow, which was opened
in 1825 by Mr. W. A. Miles. The shape of this urn is particularly
common in Dorset, as well as another variety which has handles, or,
rather, perforated projections or knobs. A third and prettier variety is
also met with, having a small base, and a thick overhanging rim or
band at the mouth, generally ornamented.
It is rare to find curved lines in the ornamentation of Bronze Age
pottery, but sometimes concentric circles and spiral ornaments are
met with on rock-surfaces and sculptured stones. Mr. Charles Warne
found in tumulus 12, Came Down, Dorchester, two flat stones
covering two cairns with incised concentric circles cut on their
surfaces.[11]
There is no clear evidence of iron having been found in the round
barrows of Dorset in connection with a Bronze Age interment; but of
gold several examples may be seen in the County Museum, and](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-44-320.jpg)
![one, which was found in Clandon Barrow, near Martinstown, with a
jet head of a sceptre with gold studs, is shown in Plate I., fig 2.
Others were discovered in Mayo’s Barrow and Culliford Tree.[12]
Bronze, which is an alloy of copper and tin, is the only other metal
found with primary interments in our Dorset round barrows.
The County Museum possesses some excellent celts and
palstaves; a set of six socketed celts came from a barrow near
Agger-Dun, and look as if they had just come from the mould. They
are ornamented with slender ridges, ending in tiny knobs, and have
never been sharpened (two of them are figured in Plate I., figs. 3 and
4); another celt, from a barrow in the Ridgeway, is interesting as
having a fragment of cloth adhering to it. Daggers are found,
generally, with cremated remains, and are usually ornamented with a
line or lines, which, beginning just below the point, run down the
blade parallel with the cutting edges. The rivets which fastened the
blade to the handle are often in position with fragments of the
original wooden handle and sheath.[13] These daggers seem to be
more common in Dorset than in the northern counties, and many
examples may be seen in the County Museum, and two are
illustrated in Plate I., figs. 5 and 6.
Bronze pins, glass beads, amber and Kimmeridge shell objects,
bone tweezers and pins, slingstones and whetstones, are
occasionally met with; but by far the most common objects are the
flint and stone implements, weapons, and flakes.
In making a trench through a barrow near Martinstown,[14] more
than 1,200 flakes or chips of flints were found, besides some
beautifully-formed scrapers, a fabricator, a flint saw, most skilfully
notched, and a borer with a gimlet-like point.
Arrow-heads are not common in Dorset, but six were found in a
barrow in Fordington Field, Dorchester. They are beautiful
specimens, barbed and tongued; the heaviest only weighs twenty-
five grains, and the lightest sixteen grains. Mr. Warne mentions the
finding of arrow-heads, and also (a rare find in Dorset) a stone
battle-axe, from a barrow on Steepleton Down.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/8491-250309184124-55bf0ba2/85/Transgenesis-Techniques-Principles-and-Protocols-3rd-Edition-Leonie-Ringrose-Auth-45-320.jpg)
Transgenesis Techniques Principles and Protocols 3rd Edition Leonie Ringrose (Auth.)
- 1. Visit ebookfinal.com to download the full version and explore more ebooks or textbooks Transgenesis Techniques Principles and Protocols 3rd Edition Leonie Ringrose (Auth.) _____ Click the link below to download _____ https://ebookfinal.com/download/transgenesis-techniques- principles-and-protocols-3rd-edition-leonie-ringrose-auth/ Explore and download more ebooks or textbook at ebookfinal.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 3rd Edition Diane Larsen-Freeman https://ebookfinal.com/download/techniques-and-principles-in-language- teaching-3rd-edition-diane-larsen-freeman/ Vagabond Vol 29 29 Inoue https://ebookfinal.com/download/vagabond-vol-29-29-inoue/ fMRI Techniques and Protocols 2nd ed. 2016 Edition Massimo Filippi https://ebookfinal.com/download/fmri-techniques-and-protocols-2nd- ed-2016-edition-massimo-filippi/ Transgenesis and the Management of Vector Borne Disease Serap Aksoy https://ebookfinal.com/download/transgenesis-and-the-management-of- vector-borne-disease-serap-aksoy/
- 3. Protein Misfolding and Disease Principles and Protocols 1st Edition Niels Gregersen https://ebookfinal.com/download/protein-misfolding-and-disease- principles-and-protocols-1st-edition-niels-gregersen/ Compilers Principles Techniques Tools 2nd Edition Alfred Aho https://ebookfinal.com/download/compilers-principles-techniques- tools-2nd-edition-alfred-aho/ Web Application Architecture Principles Protocols and Practices 1st Edition Leon Shklar https://ebookfinal.com/download/web-application-architecture- principles-protocols-and-practices-1st-edition-leon-shklar/ Immunocytochemical Methods and Protocols 3rd Edition Constance Oliver https://ebookfinal.com/download/immunocytochemical-methods-and- protocols-3rd-edition-constance-oliver/ Modern Communications Jamming Principles and Techniques 2nd Edition Richard A. Poisel https://ebookfinal.com/download/modern-communications-jamming- principles-and-techniques-2nd-edition-richard-a-poisel/
- 5. Transgenesis Techniques Principles and Protocols 3rd Edition Leonie Ringrose (Auth.) Digital Instant Download Author(s): Leonie Ringrose (auth.), Elizabeth J. Cartwright (eds.) ISBN(s): 9781603270182, 1603270183 Edition: 3 File Details: PDF, 4.85 MB Year: 2009 Language: english
- 7. ME T H O D S I N MO L E C U L A R BI O L O G Y ™ Series Editor John M. Walker School of Life Sciences University of Hertfordshire Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK For other titles published in this series, go to www.springer.com/series/7651
- 8. i i i Transgenesis Techniques Principles and Protocols Third Edition Edited by Elizabeth J. Cartwright CardiovascularMedicine,UniversityofManchester,Manchester,UK
- 9. iv ISSN: 1064-3745 e-ISSN: 1940-6029 ISBN: 978-1-60327-018-2 e-ISBN: 978-1-60327-019-9 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60327-019-9 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2009929336 © Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Humana Press, c/o Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Editor Elizabeth J. Cartwright Cardiovascular Medicine University of Manchester Manchester UK
- 10. v To Dan, Edward and William with love.
- 11. Preface One of the major challenges currently facing the scientific community is to understand the function of the 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes that were revealed when the human genome was fully sequenced. This book details the transgenic techniques that are currently used to modify the genome in order to extend our understanding of the in vivo function of these genes. Since the advent of transgenic technologies, the mouse has become by far the most popular model in which to study mammalian gene function. This is due to not only its genetic similarity to humans but also its physiological and, to a certain extent, its anatomical similarities. Whilst a large proportion of this book is dedicated to the use of the mouse in transgenesis, the mouse is certainly not the only model to provide essential information regarding gene function. A number of other valuable models are used in transgenic studies including Drosophila, C. elegans, Xenopus, zebrafish, and rat. For each of these species, a chapter in this book is dedicated to highlighting how each is particularly suited, for example, to the study of embryonic development, physiological function of genes and to study orthologs of human disease genes. These chapters give detailed practical descriptions of animal production, construct design, and gene transfer techniques; recently developed methods will be described along with highly established classical techniques. A number of chapters in this book are dedicated to the generation of genetically modified mice by the present classic techniques of injection of exogenous DNA into the pronuclei of fertilised eggs and by gene targeting using homologous recombination in embryonic stem cells. These chapters, as with all the others in the book, have been specifically written for this edition of Transgenesis and so contain up-to-date details of the practices in the field. Chapters are included describing optimal transgene and construct design, in-depth technical details for pronuclear microinjection of transgenes and associated surgical techniques, details for the optimal conditions in which to culture embryonic stem cells in order to maintain their pluripotent state, and methods for targeting these cells. A combination of chapters (Chaps. 13–15) describe how to generate chimaeras by microinjection of targeted ES cells into blastocysts or by morula aggregation, and the surgical techniques required to transfer the resulting embryos. For a number of years, the use of Cre/loxP and flp/frt recombination systems has gained in popularity; Chap. 16 describes their use and introduces other state-of-the-art site- specific recombination systems that can be used to manipulate the mouse genome. The generation and use of Cre-expressing transgenic lines are described in Chap. 17. One chapter of the book highlights the large-scale international efforts that are being made to systematically knockout every gene in the genome. The remaining chapters detail the breeding and husbandry skills required to successfully propagate a transgenic line and the increasingly essential methods for cryopreserving a mouse line and recovering lines from frozen stocks. This book is a comprehensive practical guide to the generation of transgenic animals and is packed full of handy hints and tips from the experts who use these techniques on a vii
- 12. viii Preface day-to-day basis. It is designed to become an invaluable source of information in any lab currently involved in transgenic techniques, as well as for researchers who are newcomers to the field. This book also provides essential background information for scientists who work with these models but have not been involved in their generation. On a personal note, it has been a great pleasure to edit this latest edition of Transgenesis. Firstly, I learnt many of my skills from reading earlier editions of the book and I hope that this edition will help and inspire many others. Secondly, I have been privileged to work with the exceptionally talented researchers in the transgenesis field who have contributed to this book. Manchester, UK Elizabeth J. Cartwright
- 13. ix Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi PART I TRANSGENESIS IN VARIOUS MODEL SYSTEMS 1. Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Leonie Ringrose 2. Transgenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Matthias Rieckher, Nikos Kourtis, Angela Pasparaki, and Nektarios Tavernarakis 3. Transgenesis in Zebrafish with the Tol2 Transposon System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Maximiliano L. Suster, Hiroshi Kikuta, Akihiro Urasaki, Kazuhide Asakawa, and Koichi Kawakami 4. Generation of Transgenic Frogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Jana Loeber, Fong Cheng Pan, and Tomas Pieler 5. Pronuclear DNA Injection for the Production of Transgenic Rats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Jean Cozzi, Ignacio Anegon, Valérie Braun, Anne-Catherine Gross, Christel Merrouche, and Yacine Cherifi PART II TRANSGENESIS IN THE MOUSE 6. Cell-Type-Specific Transgenesis in the Mouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 James Gulick and Jeffrey Robbins 7. Transgene Design and Delivery into the Mouse Genome: Keys to Success . . . . . . 105 Lydia Teboul 8. Overexpression Transgenesis in Mouse: Pronuclear Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Wendy J.K. Gardiner and Lydia Teboul 9. Gene-Targeting Vectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 J. Simon C. Arthur and Victoria A. McGuire 10. Gene Trap: Knockout on the Fast Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Melanie Ullrich and Kai Schuh 11. Culture of Murine Embryonic Stem Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Ivana Barbaric and T. Neil Dear 12. Targeting Embryonic Stem Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Roland H. Friedel 13. Generation of Chimeras by Microinjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Anne Plück and Christian Klasen
- 14. x Contents 14. Generation of Chimeras by Morula Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Anne Plück and Christian Klasen 15. Surgical Techniques for the Generation of Mutant Mice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Anne Plück and Christian Klasen 16. Site-Specific Recombinases for Manipulation of the Mouse Genome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Marie-Christine Birling, Françoise Gofflot, and Xavier Warot 17. Cre Transgenic Mouse Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Xin Wang 18. Large-Scale Mouse Mutagenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Elizabeth J. Cartwright 19. Dedicated Mouse Production and Husbandry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Lucie Vizor and Sara Wells 20. Biological Methods for Archiving and Maintaining Mutant Laboratory Mice. Part I: Conserving Mutant Strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Martin D. Fray 21. Biological Methods for Archiving and Maintaining Mutant Laboratory Mice. Part II: Recovery and Distribution of Conserved Mutant Strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Martin D. Fray Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
- 15. Contributors IGNACIO ANEGON • INSERM – Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Nantes, France J. SIMON C. ARTHUR • MRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK KAZUHIDE ASAKAWA • Division of Molecular and Developmental Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan IVANA BARBARIC • Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK MARIE-CHRISTINE BIRLING • Institut Clinique de la Souris – Mouse Clinical Institute (ICS-MCI), Illkirch, France VALÉRIE BRAUN • genOway SA, Lyon, France ELIZABETH J. CARTWRIGHT • Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK YACINE CHERIFI • genOway SA, Lyon, France JEAN COZZI • genOway SA, Lyon, France T. NEIL DEAR • Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK MARTIN FRAY • Frozen Embryo & Sperm Archive (FESA), Medical Research Council, Mammalian Genetics Unit, Harwell, UK ROLAND H. FRIEDEL • Institute of Developmental Genetics, Helmholtz Center Munich, Neuherberg, Germany WENDY J.K. GARDINER • Mary Lyon Centre, Medical Research Council, Harwell, UK FRANÇOISE GOFFLOT • Institut Clinique de la Souris – Mouse Clinical Institute (ICS-MCI), Illkirch, France ANNE-CATHERINE GROSS • genOway SA, Lyon, France JAMES GULICK • Molecular Cardiovascular Biology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA KOICHI KAWAKAMI • Division of Molecular and Developmental Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan HIROSHI KIKUTA • Division of Molecular and Developmental Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan CHRISTIAN KLASEN • Transgenic Service, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany NIKOS KOURTIS • Foundation for Research and Technology, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece JANA LOEBER • Department of Developmental Biochemistry, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany xi
- 16. VICTORIA A. MCGUIRE • MRC Protein Phosphorylation Unit, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK CHRISTEL MERROUCHE • genOway SA, Lyon, France FONG CHENG PAN • Vanderbilt University Program in Developmental Biology and Department of Cell and Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA ANGELA PASPARAKI • Foundation for Research and Technology, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece TOMAS PIELER • Department of Developmental Biochemistry, University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany ANNE PLÜCK • Centre for Mouse Genetics, Institute for Genetics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany MATTHIAS RIECKHER • Foundation for Research and Technology, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece LEONIE RINGROSE • IMBA – Institute of Molecular Biotechnology GmbH, Vienna, Austria JEFFREY ROBBINS • Molecular Cardiovascular Biology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA KAI SCHUH • Institute of Physiology I, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany MAXIMILIANO L. SUSTER • Division of Molecular and Developmental Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan NEKTARIOS TAVERNARAKIS • Foundation for Research and Technology, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece LYDIA TEBOUL • Mary Lyon Centre, Medical Research Council, Harwell, UK MELANIE ULLRICH • Institute of Physiology I, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany AKIHIRO URASAKI • Division of Molecular and Developmental Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan LUCIE VIZOR • Medical Research Council, Harwell, UK XIN WANG • Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK XAVIER WAROT • EPFL FSV – École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland SARA WELLS • Medical Research Council, Harwell, UK xii xii Contributors
- 17. Chapter 1 Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster Leonie Ringrose Summary Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster relies upon direct microinjection of embryos and subsequent crossing of surviving adults. The necessity of crossing single flies to screen for transgenic events limits the range of useful transgenesis techniques to those that have a very high frequency of integration, so that about 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 surviving adult flies carry a transgene. Until recently, only random P-element transgenesis fulfilled these criteria. However, recent advances have brought homologous recombination and site-directed integration up to and beyond this level of efficiency. For all transgenesis techniques in Drosophila melanogaster, microinjection of embryos is the central procedure. This chapter gives a detailed protocol for microinjection, and aims to enable the reader to use it for both site-directed inte- gration and for P-element transgenesis. Key words: Drosophila melanogaster, Embryo, Microinjection, Transgenic, Recombination, Inte- gration, Homologous recombination, phiC31/integrase, Site-directed integration, P-element Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster has undergone something of a revolution in the last few years. The classical technique of random P-element-mediated transgenesis has recently been sup- plemented by two novel technologies: homologous recombi- nation and ΦC31 integration (for reviews, see (1) and (2)). In P-element transgenesis (3), a modified transposon vector is used in combination with transient expression of the P transposase enzyme to generate several fly lines with different insertion sites in the genome. These insertions are subsequently mapped and characterised. P-element insertions have been invaluable for mutagenesis screens, but until recently, this was also the only 1. Introduction Elizabeth J. Cartwright (ed.), Transgenesis Techniques, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 561 DOI 10.1007/978-1-60327-019-9_1, © Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 3
- 18. 4 Ringrose method available for introducing a transgene of choice into the Drosophila genome. The random nature of P-element insertions has several drawbacks for transgene analysis. Mapping of inser- tion sites is time consuming, and transgene expression levels are subject to genomic position effects, making it difficult to draw comparisons between different constructs. A recently developed alternative to random insertion is homologous recombination (4, 5). This involves inserting a donor construct at random into the genome by P-element trans- genesis, and in subsequent generations, mobilising the donor construct to the correct locus by homologous recombination. This technique had long been lacking to Drosophilists, but has not replaced P-element transgenesis as the method of choice for routine transgene analysis, because both the cloning of donor constructs and the generation of homologous recombinants are more time consuming than for P-element transgenesis. Recently, ΦC31 integration has been developed (6). This technique allows rapid and efficient generation of site-specific integrants, and relies upon ‘docking site’ fly lines, which carry a single recognition site (attP) for the phage ΦC31 integrase enzyme, previously introduced into the genome by P-element transgenesis. A donor plasmid carrying a second recognition site (attB) and a source of integrase enzyme is used to generate flies in which the donor plasmid docks to the genomic site. Integration events are highly specific, as the attP site is 39 bp long and does not occur at random in the Drosophila genome. Many mapped and characterised docking site lines are now available (see Note 1), and ΦC31 integration is rapidly becoming widely used for many transgenic applications. All these transgenic techniques rely upon microinjection of embryos as a first step. In early Drosophila embryogenesis, the nuclei share a common cytoplasm for the first nine divisions. Directly after the tenth division, the first cells to become sep- arated are the pole cells, which will later form the adult germ line. Transgenic animals are made by microinjecting DNA and a source of enzyme (P-transposase or ΦC31 integrase, see Note 2) into the posterior of the embryo where the pole cells will form, at an early stage before they have become separated from the common cytoplasm. DNA can enter the nuclei and is integrated into the genome of some cells. Embryos are allowed to mature and the adults are outcrossed to screen for transgenic flies in the next generation. This chapter gives a detailed description of microinjection, from preparing DNA to screening for transformants. The main protocol deals with ΦC31 integration as we perform it in our laboratory. Alternatives for both ΦC31 and P element transgen- esis are given in the notes.
- 19. Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster 5 1. Donor plasmid containing attB site and transgene of interest (see Note 3). 2. Helper plasmid expressing ΦC31 integrase (see Note 2). Midi- or miniprep kit for preparation of plasmid DNA (Qiagen). 3. Absolute ethanol. 4. 3 M NaOAc, pH 5.2. 5. Sterile distilled water. 1. Capillaries: borosilicate glass capillaries, 1.2 mm × 0.94 mm 2. Needle puller: P-97 micropipette puller (Sutter instruments). 3. Needle grinder: Narishige microgrinder EG-400. 1. Fly line containing genomic attP site (see Note 1). 2. Fly bottles. 3. Fresh yeast paste: cubes of fresh baker’s yeast cubes are obtain- able from large supermarkets. They can be frozen and stored at −20°C for several months. Thaw at room temperature and mix with a little water to give a thick paste. 4. Dried yeast: Mix instant yeast granules with water to give a thick paste. Both fresh and dried yeast paste can be kept at 4°C for up to a week. Do not seal the container tightly, as the paste will expand. 5. Fly cages: PVC plastic tubing of either 50 mm or 90 mm diameter is cut into 100–150 mm sections and sealed at one end with nylon or metal mesh. The other end fits onto to a 50-mm or 90-mm agar plate, which is taped in place for egg collection. 6. Agar plates: Add 18 g agar to 600 mL tap water and bring to boiling point by microwaving. Dissolve 10 g sucrose in 300 mL tap water, heating a little if necessary. Add the sucrose solution to the agar, add 3.5 mL 100% acetic acid and mix well. Pour into petri dishes (90 mm or 50 mm) and allow to cool. Store for 1 day at room temperature to dry before using. Plates can be stored wrapped in plastic at 4°C for several weeks. About 16–20 plates per day of injection are required per cage (see Note 5). 1. Filtration apparatus consisting of glass funnel, filter support, stopper, sidearm flask, and clamp, suitable for 50-mm mem- brane filters. Attach the apparatus to water tap as shown in Fig. 1. 2. Materials 2.1. Preparation of DNA 2.2. Preparation of Injection Needles (see Note 4) 2.3. Preparation of Flies for Egg Laying 2.4. Dechorionation and Dessication of Embryos
- 20. 6 Ringrose 2. Bleach solution: mix 50 mL household bleach (2.8% hypochlorite) with 50 mL sterile distilled water. Make fresh every day. Wear a lab coat and gloves when handling bleach, as it bleaches clothes upon contact and is harmful to skin. 3. Membrane filters: mixed cellulose ester membrane filters, black with white grid marking. Circular, 50-mm diameter, 0.6-μm pore size (Schleicher and Schuell, type ME 26/31 ST). 4. Binocular dissection microscope. 5. Fine stiff paintbrush with nylon hairs: cut away hairs until only a few remain, for use in aligning embryos. 6. Dissection needle. 7. Forceps. 8. Microscope slides: use slides with frosted part for labelling, such as Superfrost plus (Fisher). 9. Coverslips: 24 × 24 mm. 10. Embryo glue: Make three balls of 2.5-m Scotch tape Magic 810 (3 M). Add these to 30 mL heptane in a 50-mL falcon tube. Shake vigorously at 28°C for 24 h. Cut a hole in the bottom of the falcon tube and drain solution into a small glass bottle. This glue keeps for several months at room tem- perature (see Note 6). 11. Drying chamber: 150-mm petri dish containing orange self- indicating silica gel granules: check that the silica gel gran- ules are orange; if they are not then they are saturated and no longer effective for drying embryos. Change to fresh granules. 12. Halocarbon oil: Voltalef 10S halocarbon oil, or halocarbon 700 oil (Sigma). Fig. 1. Filtration apparatus.
- 21. Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster 7 1. Microscope: Either a compound or inverted microscope is suitable for injection. We use a Zeiss Axiovert 200 inverted microscope with ×10 objective and ×10 oculars. 2. Micromanipulator and needle holder (Narishige). 3. Microinjection system: Femtojet 5247 programmable microin- jector with integrated pressure supply (Eppendorf) (see Note 7). 4. Microloader pipette tips (Eppendorf). 1. Humid box: sealable plastic sandwich box containing damp paper towels. 2. 50-mm Petri dishes. 3. 18 mm × 18 mm cover slips. 4. Flies for crossing to surviving adults: w- or appropriate bal- ancer lines. 5. Fly vials. 1. Prepare donor and helper plasmids in advance. Use midi- or miniprep (Qiagen quality) DNA. Do not elute the DNA in the buffer provided, as it contains Tris buffer, which is harmful to embryos. Instead, elute in sterile distilled water (see Note 8). 2. Check the concentration of eluted DNA. If the concentration is sufficient, make an injection mix at 250 ng/μL of donor vector plus 600 ng/μL of helper, in sterile distilled water (see Note 9). 3. If the DNA concentration is too low, precipitate the DNA: Add 0.1 volume of 3 M NaOAc, pH 5.2, and two volumes of abso- lute ethanol. Incubate at –20°C overnight. Centrifuge at 4°C for 10 min at 14,000 × g. Remove the supernatant, add 70% ethanol to the pellet, and centrifuge at 4°C for 5 min at 14,000 × g. Air dry the pellet and resuspend in sterile distilled water. 4. Plasmids and injection mixes can be stored indefinitely at −20°C. For DNA stored in water, however, the absence of a buffering agent may lead to degradation upon repeated freez- ing and thawing (see Note 8). 1. Before beginning to inject, prepare a supply of needles. We use a needle puller (P-97, Sutter instruments) with the follow- ing settings: Heat = 595; Pull = 70; Vel = 80). Insert a glass capillary into the needle puller, close the lid, and press ‘pull’. This makes two needles from each capillary that are closed at the tapered end (see Note 4). 2.5. Microinjection of Embryos 2.6. Further Handling and Screening for Transgenics 3. Methods 3.1. Preparation of DNA 3.2. Preparation of Injection Needles
- 22. 8 Ringrose 2. Open the needles by grinding in the needle grinder. Insert the needle into the holder at an angle of 40° to the grind- stone. Keeping a constant flow of water over the grindstone, lower the needle onto the grindstone till the tip bends very slightly and water rises up into the needle. Immediately the water enters; stop moving the needle and allow to grind for 20 s (see Note 9). 1. Expand the fly line that is to be injected to give six bottles. Flip all six each week if large-scale injections are planned. Use flies that are 1-week old and well fed for the best egg laying. 2. One week before injection: flip adult flies every 2 days into bottles with fresh yeast paste. This feeds them optimally, so females lay a lot of eggs. Keep these bottles at 18°C. 3. Two days before injection: transfer flies to cages (use 4–6 bot- tles per 90-mm-diameter cage). Add a little dried yeast paste on a small square of paper (this facilitates later removal) onto the plates and place the cages at 25°C. Change the plates every 24 h and discard them. This acclimatises flies to the cage envi- ronment. 4. On the day of injection: Ensure that plates are at room tem- perature. Change the overnight plate, and wipe the inner rim of the cage to remove any first instar larvae. Add a very small spot of yeast paste on a square of paper to the centre of each new plate. Change the first plate after 1 h, and discard it. This is because females may keep fertilised eggs for some time before laying them. Use the subsequent plates for collections. 5. Change the plates every 30 min to ensure that embryos can be collected, prepared, and injected before the germ cells form. For an optimal injection workflow, flies should be laying about 200 eggs every 30 min. 1. Change the plate after 30 min laying, and remove the yeast and paper square. Set a timer for 2 min. Add bleach solution directly onto the plate and incubate for 2 min. Wear a lab coat to protect clothing from bleach. 2. Assemble the filtration apparatus with a fresh membrane filter as shown in Fig. 1. Clamp the apparatus together. Add water and filter through to wet the membrane. Start the tap and open the screw on the sidearm flask. After exactly 2 min, tip the bleach from the plates onto the filter. Close the screw just until the liquid goes through, and then open it again, to avoid damaging embryos. 3. Add water to the plates and filter in the same way. Add water to the filter and filter through. Always be aware that too much suction will damage embryos: open the screw on the sidearm flask as soon as the liquid goes through the membrane. Remove 3.3. Preparation of Flies for Egg Laying 3.4. Dechorionation, Lining Up, and Dessi- cation of Embryos
- 23. Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster 9 the filter holder and filter from the apparatus; dry excess liquid with paper from underneath. Wash the glass cup to remove embryos sticking to the sides, so that they do not get collected the next time around (see Note 10). 4. Line up embryos. Use a fine paintbrush with a few hairs or a dissection needle to line up embryos in rows in the same anterior-posterior orientation. Leave a small space between embryos as shown in Fig. 2a. Aim for a regular line. The neater the line, the smoother and faster the subsequent injec- tion. Each row can be up to 20 mm long, to fit on a coverslip. Do not line up for longer than 20 min, to ensure that embryos are not too old. With practice, it should be possible to line up 100–200 embryos in 20 min, making several rows of about 60–80 embryos each. 5. Make a line of embryo glue on the edge of a coverslip with a Pasteur pipette and allow to dry for 30 s. Using forceps, very gently touch the line of embryos with the glued edge to pick them up. Take care not to damage the embryos at this step (see Note 6). Turn the cover slip and put it on a glass slide with a drop of water to stick the coverslip to the slide as shown in Fig. 2b. Fig. 2. (a) Line of embryos. (b) Embryos on slide. Place the cover slip with the line of embryos perpendicular to the long edge of the slide as shown.A drop of water between slide and cover slip is sufficient to prevent movement during injection.
- 24. 10 Ringrose 6. Dry the embryos by placing the slide in a large (150 mm) closed petri dish containing self-indicating orange silica gel. The silica gel crystals must be orange. If they are not, replace them with fresh ones. Incubate at 18°C for 15–20 min. The drying time is critical (see Note 11). After drying, cover the line of embryos with Halocarbon oil. This prevents further drying but allows exchange of air. Begin injection. Make sure the needle is mounted and the injection apparatus is ready to start injection immediately after drying (see Subheading 3.5). 1. Switch on the femtojet and allow to warm up (about 5 min). Set the pressure (pi) to 500 hPa, and injection time to 0.5 s. 2. Mount the needle: Remove the needle holder from the micro- manipulator and remove the old needle if necessary. Using a microloader tip, load 2–3 mL of DNA into the new needle, taking care to avoid air bubbles. Mount the new needle into the holder. Mount the holder into the micromanipulator (see Note 12). 3. Place the slide with embryos onto the microscope stage, and use the micromanipulator to position the needle so it is in the centre of the field. Check that the posterior ends of the embryos are facing the needle. If not, raise the needle and turn the slide around, taking care not to damage the needle. 4. Move the embryos away from the needle. Clean the needle and check that a bubble of liquid of the correct size comes out, as shown in Fig. 3a. If the bubble is too small, increase the pressure (pi) but do not exceed 1,000 hPa. If the bubble is still too small, change the needle. 3.5. Microinjection of Embryos Fig. 3. (a) Testing the needle. Position the needle close to, but not touching, the row of embryos. Press the ‘clean’ button. A bubble of approximately the size shown should emerge. Note, when pressing the ‘inject’ button, the bubble will be almost undetectable. (b) Injecting. Insert the needle into the embryo as shown. Press ‘inject’.A small transient movement should be visible.
- 25. Transgenesis in Drosophila melanogaster 11 5. Position embryos and needle. In most setups, the needle is brought to a suitable position using the micromanipulator and is then fixed at that position. The embryos are injected by moving the microscope stage. Use the micromanipulator to position the needle so that it is in the centre of the field of view. Now move the embryos until the needle touches the posterior end of an embryo at its outermost point. This can be tricky and requires some practice. Focus sharply on the outermost posterior point of one embryo and use the micro- manipulator to bring the tip of the needle into the same focal plane. The needle should be perpendicular to the point of penetration. From this point on, the needle should no longer be moved. Now by moving the microscope stage, insert the needle into the outer membrane and through, so it just enters the inner membrane, as shown in Fig. 3b. A short sharp movement works best. 6. Inject. The drop of injected liquid should be visible as a very small movement, like a small pale cloud transiently appearing in the cytoplasm (see Fig. 3b). If a large pale spot remains, decrease the injection pressure. Note the desiccation state of the embryos: If they are too dry they will deform under the pressure of the needle. If they are insufficiently dried, they will leak cytoplasm. Adjust the drying time in the next round if necessary (see Note 13). Inject the row of embryos, clean- ing the needle regularly. Inject only embryos that have not yet formed pole cells, as shown in Fig. 4. Leave out embryos that are too old (see Note 14). Inject 50–100 embryos per Fig. 4. Age of embryos (see Note 14).
- 26. Discovering Diverse Content Through Random Scribd Documents
- 27. that it was known by in the seventh century. It is also interesting to observe that Dorset has been Christian from the days of the conversion of the Roman Empire, that no altars smoked on Dorset soil to Woden, no temples were built in honour of Thunder, no prayers were offered to Freya; but it is also worth notice that the Celtic Christian Church was not ready to amalgamate with the Wessex Church, which had derived its Christianity from Papal Rome. However, the Church of the Conquerors prevailed, and Dorset became not only part of the West Saxon kingdom, but also of the West Saxon diocese, under the supervision of a bishop, who at first had his bishop-stool at Dorchester, not the Dorset town, but one of the same name on the Thames, not far from Abingdon. In 705, when Ine was King, it received a bishop of its own in the person of St. Ealdhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, who on his appointment placed his bishop-stool at Sherborne: he did not live to hold this office long, for he died in 709. But a line of twenty-five bishops ruled at Sherborne, the last of whom—Herman, a Fleming brought over by Eadward the Confessor—transferred his see in 1075 to Old Sarum, as it is now called; whereupon the church of Sherborne lost its cathedral rank. The southern part of Dorset, especially in the neighbourhood of Poole Harbour, suffered much during the time that the Danes were harrying the coast of England. There were fights at sea in Swanage Bay, there were fights on land round the walls of Wareham, there were burnings of religious houses at Wimborne and Wareham. Then followed the victories of Ælfred, and for a time Dorset had rest. But after Eadward was murdered at “Corfes-geat” by his stepmother Ælfthryth’s order, and the weak King Æthelred was crowned, the Danes gave trouble again. The King first bribed them to land alone; and afterwards, when, trusting to a treaty he had made with them, many Danes had settled peacefully in the country, he gave orders for a general massacre—men, women and children—on St. Brice’s Day (November 13th), 1002. Among those who perished was a sister of Swegen, the Danish King, Christian though she was. This treacherous and cruel deed brought the old Dane across the seas in hot haste to take terrible vengeance on the perpetrator of the dastardly outrage. All southern England, including Dorset, was soon
- 28. ablaze with burning towns. The walls of Dorchester were demolished, the Abbey of Cerne was pillaged and destroyed, Wareham was reduced to ashes. Swegen became King, but reigned only a short time, and his greater son, Cnut, succeeded him. When he had been recognised as King by the English, and had got rid of all probable rivals, he governed well and justly, and the land had rest. Dorset had peace until Harold had fallen on the hill of Battle, and the south-eastern and southern parts of England had acknowledged William as King. The men of the west still remained independent, Exeter being the chief city to assert its independence. In 1088 William resolved to set about to subdue these western rebels, as he called them. He demanded that they should accept him as King, take oaths of allegiance to him, and receive him within their walls. To this the men of Exeter made answer that they would pay tribute to him as overlord of England as they had paid to the previous King, but that they would not take oaths of allegiance, nor would they allow him to enter the city. William’s answer was an immediate march westward. Professor Freeman says that there is no record of the details of his march; but naturally it would lie through Dorset, the towns of which were in sympathy with Exeter. Knowing what harsh and cruel things William could do when it suited his purpose, we cannot for a moment doubt that he fearfully harried all the Dorset towns on the line of his march, seeking by severity to them to overawe the city of Exeter. In the wars between Stephen and Maud, Dorset was often the battle-ground of the rival claimants for the throne. Wareham, unfortunate then, as usual, was taken and re-taken more than once, first by one party, then by the other; but lack of space prevents the telling of this piece of local history. King John evidently had a liking for Dorset. He often visited it, having houses of his own at Bere Regis, Canford, Corfe, Cranborne, Gillingham, and Dorchester. In the sixteenth year of his reign he put strong garrisons into Corfe Castle and Wareham as a defence against his discontented barons. In the wars between his son, Henry III., and the Barons there was fighting again in Dorset, especially at Corfe. Dorset, among other
- 29. sea-side counties, supplied ships and sailors to Edward III. and Henry V. for their expeditions against France. The Wars of the Roses seem hardly to have touched the county; but one incident must be mentioned: On April 14th, 1471, Margaret, wife of Henry VI., landed at Weymouth with her son Edward and a small band of Frenchmen; but she soon heard that on the very day of her landing her great supporter, though once he had been her bitterest enemy, Warwick the King-maker, had been defeated and slain at Barnet. This led her to seek sanctuary in the Abbey at Cerne, about sixteen miles to the north of Weymouth; but her restless spirit would not allow her long to stay in this secluded spot, and she started with young Edward, gathering supporters as she went, till on May 4th her army was defeated at Tewkesbury, and there her last hopes were extinguished when King Edward IV. smote her son, who had been taken prisoner, with gauntleted hand upon the mouth, and the daggers of Clarence and Gloucester ended the poor boy’s life. We hear nothing of resistance on the part of Dorset to the Earl of Richmond when he came to overthrow Richard III. Probably, as the Lancastrian family of the Beauforts were large landowners in Dorset, Dorset sympathy was enlisted on the side of the son of the Lady Margaret, great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt. Like all the rest of England, Dorset had to see its religious houses suppressed and despoiled; its abbots and abbesses, with all their subordinate officers, as well as their monks and nuns, turned out of their old homes, though let it in fairness be stated, not unprovided for, for all those who surrendered their ecclesiastical property to the King received pensions sufficient to keep them in moderate comfort, if not in affluence. Dorset accepted the dissolution of the monasteries and the new services without any manifest dissatisfaction. There was no rioting or fighting as in the neighbouring county of Devon. Dorset did not escape so easily in the days of the Civil War. Lyme, holden for the Parliament by Governor Creely and some 500 men, held out from April 20th to June 16th, 1644, against Prince Maurice
- 30. with 4,000 men, when the Earl of Essex came to its relief. Corfe Castle and Sherborne Castle were each besieged twice. Abbotsbury was taken by Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper in September, 1644. Wareham, also, was more than once the scene of fighting. In the north of Dorset a band of about 5,000 rustics, known as “Clubmen,” assembled. These men knew little and cared less for the rival causes of King and Parliament which divided the rest of England; but one thing they did know and greatly cared for: they found that ever and again bands of armed horsemen came riding through the villages, some singing rollicking songs and with oaths on their lips, others chanting psalms and quoting the Bible, but all alike treading down their crops, demanding food, and sometimes their horses, often forgetting to pay for them; so they resolved to arm themselves and keep off Cavaliers and Roundheads alike. At one time they encamped at Shaftesbury, but could not keep the Roundheads from occupying the Hill Town; so they, to the number of 4,000, betook themselves to the old Celtic camp of Hambledon, some seven or eight miles to the south. Cromwell himself, in a letter to Fairfax, dated August 4th, 1645, tells what befell them there: We marched on to Shaftesbury, when we heard a great body of them was drawn up together about Hambledon Hill. I sent up a forlorn hope of about 50 horse, who coming very civilly to them, they fired upon them; and ours desiring some of them to come to me were refused with disdain. They were drawn into one of the old camps upon a very high hill. They refused to submit, and fired at us. I sent a second time to let them know that if they would lay down their arms no wrong should be done them. They still —through the animation of their leaders, and especially two vile ministers[1]—refused. When we came near they let fly at us, killed about two of our men, and at least four horses. The passage not being for above three abreast kept us out, whereupon Major Desborow wheeled about, got in the rear of them, beat them from the work, and did some small execution upon them, I believe killed not twelve of them, but cut very many, and put them all to
- 31. flight. We have taken about 300, many of whom are poor silly creatures, whom, if you please to let me send home, they promise to be very dutiful for time to come, and will be hanged before they come out again. From which we see that “Grim old Oliver,” who could be severe enough when policy demanded it, yet could show mercy at times, for throughout this episode his dealings with the Clubmen were marked with much forbearance. Charles II., after his defeat at Worcester, September 3rd, 1651, during his romantic wanderings and hidings before he could get safe to sea, spent nearly three weeks in what is now Dorset, though most of the time he was in concealment at the Manor House at Trent, which was then within the boundaries of Somerset, having only recently been transferred to Dorset. This manor house belonged to Colonel Francis Wyndham. Hither on Wednesday, September 17th, came Jane Lane, sister of Colonel Lane, from whose house at Bentley, Worcestershire, she had ridden on a pillion behind one who passed as her groom, really Charles in disguise, with one attendant, Cornet Lassels. Jane and the Cornet left Trent the next day on their return journey, and Charles was stowed away in Lady Wyndham’s room, from which there was access to a hiding-place between two floors. His object was to effect his escape from one of the small Dorset ports. Colonel Wyndham rode next day to Melbury Sampford, where lived Sir John Strangways, to see if either of his sons could manage to hire a boat at Lyme, Weymouth, or Poole, which would take Charles to France. He failed in this, but brought back one hundred pounds, the gift of Sir John Strangways. Colonel Wyndham then went to Lyme to see one Captain Ellesdon, to whom he said that Lord Wilmot wanted to be taken across to France. Arrangements were then made with Stephen Limbrey, the skipper of a coasting vessel, to take a party of three or four royalist gentlemen to France from Charmouth. Lord Wilmot was described as a Mr. Payne, a bankrupt merchant running away from his creditors, and taking his servant (Charles) with him. It was agreed that Limbrey should have a rowing-boat ready on Charmouth beach on the night of September 22nd, when the tide was high, to convey the party to
- 32. his ship and carry them safe to France, for which service he was to receive £60. September 22nd was “fair day” at Lyme, and as many people would probably be about, it was necessary that the party should find some safe lodging where they could wait quietly till the tide was in, about midnight. Rooms were secured, as for a runaway couple, at a small inn at Charmouth. At this inn on Monday morning arrived Colonel Wyndham, who acted as guide, and his wife and niece, a Mrs. Juliana Coningsby (the supposed eloping damsel), riding behind her groom (Charles). Lord Wilmot, the supposed bridegroom, with Colonel Wyndham’s confidential servant, Peters, followed. Towards midnight Wyndham and Peters went down to the beach, Wilmot and Charles waiting at the inn ready to be called as soon as the boat should come. But no signs of the boat appeared throughout the whole night. It seems that Mrs. Limbrey had seen posted up at Lyme a notice about the heavy penalty that anyone would incur who helped Charles Stuart to escape, and suspecting that the mysterious enterprise on which her husband was engaged might have something to do with helping in such an escape, she, when he came back in the evening to get some things he had need of for the voyage, locked him in his room and would not let him out; and he dared not break out lest the noise and his wife’s violent words might attract attention and the matter get noised abroad. Charles, by Wyndham’s advice, rode off to Bridport the next morning with Mistress Coningsby, as before, the Colonel going with them; Wilmot stayed behind. His horse cast a shoe, and Peters took it to the smith to have another put on; and the smith, examining the horse’s feet, said: “These three remaining shoes were put on in three different counties, and one looks like a Worcester shoe.” When the shoe was fixed, the smith went to a Puritan minister, one Bartholomew Wesley, and told him what he suspected. Wesley went to the landlady of the inn: “Why, Margaret,” said he, “you are now a maid of honour.” “What do you mean by that, Mr. Parson?” said she. “Why, Charles Stuart lay at your house last night, and kissed you at his departure, so that you cannot now but be a maid of honour.” Whereupon the hostess waxed wroth, and told Wesley that he was an ill-conditioned man to try and bring her and her house into trouble; but, with a touch of female vanity, she added: “If I thought it
- 33. was the King, as you say it was, I should think the better of my lips all the days of my life. So, Mr. Parson, get you out of my house, or I’ll get those who shall kick you out.” However, the matter soon got abroad, and a pursuit began. Meanwhile, Charles and his party had pressed on into Bridport, which happened to be full of soldiers mustering there before joining a projected expedition to capture the Channel Islands for the Parliament. Charles’s presence of mind saved him. He pushed through the crowd into the inn yard, groomed the horse, chatted with the soldiers, who had no suspicion that he was other than he seemed, and then said that he must go and serve his mistress at table. By this time Wilmot and Peters had arrived, and they told him of the incident at the shoeing forge; so, losing no time, the party started on the Dorchester road, but, turning off into a by-lane, got safe to Broadwinsor, and thence once more to Trent, which they reached on September 24th. On October 5th Wilmot and Charles left Trent and made their way to Shoreham in Sussex. But they had not quite done with Dorset yet; for it was a Dorset skipper, one Tattersal, whose business it was to sail a collier brig, The Surprise, between Poole and Shoreham, who carried Charles Stuart and Lord Wilmot from Shoreham to Fécamp, and received the £60 that poor Limbrey might have had save for his wife’s interference. Dorset was the stage on which were acted the first and one of the concluding scenes of the Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion in 1685. On June 11th the inhabitants of Lyme Regis were sorely perplexed when they saw three foreign-looking ships, which bore no colours, at anchor in the bay; and their anxiety was not lessened when they saw the custom house officers, who had rowed out, as their habit was, to overhaul the cargo of any vessel arriving at the port, reach the vessels but return not again. Then from seven boats landed some eighty armed men, whose leader knelt down on the shore to offer up thanksgiving for his safe voyage, and to pray for God’s blessing on his enterprise. When it was known that this leader was the Duke of Monmouth the people welcomed him, his blue flag was set up in the market place, and Monmouth’s undignified Declaration—the composition of Ferguson—was read. That same evening the Mayor,
- 34. who approved of none of these things, set off to rouse the West in the King’s favour, and from Honiton sent a letter giving information of the landing. On June 14th, the first blood was shed in a skirmish near Bridport (it was not a decisive engagement). Monmouth’s men, however, came back to Lyme, the infantry in good order, the cavalry helter-skelter; and little wonder, seeing that the horses, most of them taken from the plough, had never before heard the sound of firearms. Then Monmouth and his men pass off our stage. It is not for the local Dorset historian to trace his marches up and down Somerset, or to describe the battle that was fought in the early hours of the morning of July 6th under the light of the full moon, amid the sheet of thick mist, which clung like a pall over the swampy surface of the level stretch of Sedgemoor. Once again Dorset received Monmouth, no longer at the head of an enthusiastic and brave, though a badly armed and undisciplined multitude, but a lonely, hungry, haggard, heartbroken fugitive. On the morning of July 8th he was found in a field near Horton, which still bears the name of Monmouth’s Close, hiding in a ditch. He was brought before Anthony Etricke of Holt, the Recorder of Poole, and by him sent under escort to London, there to meet his ghastly end on Tower Hill, and to be laid to rest in what Macaulay calls the saddest spot on earth, St. Peter’s in the Tower, the last resting-place of the unsuccessfully ambitious, of those guilty of treason, and also of some whose only fault it was that they were too near akin to a fallen dynasty, and so roused the fears and jealousy of the reigning monarch. Everyone has heard of the Bloody Assize which followed, but the names and the number of those who perished were not accurately known till a manuscript of forty-seven pages, of folio size, was offered for sale among a mass of waste paper in an auction room at Dorchester, December, 1875.[2] It was bought by Mr. W. B. Barrett, and he found that it was a copy of the presentment of rebels at the Autumn Assizes of 1685, probably made for the use of some official of the Assize Court, as no doubt the list that Jeffreys had would have been written on parchment, and this was on paper. It gives the names of 2,611 persons presented at Dorchester, Exeter, and
- 35. Taunton, as having been implicated in the rebellion, the parishes where they lived, and the nature of their callings. Of these, 312 were charged at Dorchester, and only about one-sixth escaped punishment. Seventy-four were executed, 175 were transported, nine were whipped or fined, and 54 were acquitted or were not captured. It is worth notice that the percentage of those punished at Exeter and Taunton was far less than at Dorchester. Out of 488 charged at Exeter, 455 escaped; and at Taunton, out of 1,811, 1,378 did not suffer. It is possible that the Devon and Somerset rebels, having heard of Jeffreys’ severity at Dorchester, found means of escape. No doubt many of the country folk who had not sympathized with the rebellion would yet help to conceal those who were suspected, when they knew (from what had happened at Dorchester) that if they were taken they would in all probability be condemned to death or slavery—for those “transported” were really handed over to Court favourites as slaves for work on their West Indian plantations. It is gratifying to know that it has been discovered, since Macaulay’s time, that such of the transported as were living when William and Mary came to the throne were pardoned and set at liberty on the application of Sir William Young. Monmouth was the last invader to land in Dorset; but there was in the early part of the nineteenth century very great fear among the Dorset folk that a far more formidable enemy might choose some spot, probably Weymouth, on the Dorset coast for landing his army. Along the heights of the Dorset downs they built beacons of dry stubs and furze, with guards in attendance, ready to flash the news of Napoleon’s landing, should he land. The general excitement that prevailed, the false rumours that from time to time made the peaceable inhabitants, women and children, flee inland, and sent the men capable of bearing arms flocking seaward, are well described in Mr. Hardy’s Trumpet Major. But Napoleon never came, and the dread of invasion passed away for ever in 1805. In the wild October night time, when the wind raved round the land, And the back-sea met the front-sea, and our doors were blocked with sand,
- 36. And we heard the drub of Dead-man’s Bay, where bones of thousands are, (But) knew not what that day had done for us at Trafalgar.[3] The isolation of Dorset, which has been before spoken of, has had much to do with preserving from extinction the old dialect spoken in the days of the Wessex kings. Within its boundaries, especially in “outstep placen,” as the people call them, the old speech may be heard in comparative purity. Let it not be supposed that Dorset is an illiterate corruption of literary English. It is an older form of English; it possesses many words that elsewhere have become obsolete, and a grammar with rules as precise as those of any recognised language. No one not to the manner born can successfully imitate the speech of the rustics who, from father to son, through many generations have lived in the same village. A stranger may pick up a few Dorset words, only, in all probability, to use them incorrectly. For instance, he may hear the expression “thic tree” for “that tree,” and go away with the idea that “thic” is the Dorset equivalent of “that,” and so say “thic grass”—an expression which no true son of the Dorset soil would use; for, as the late William Barnes pointed out, things in Dorset are of two classes: (1) The personal class of formed things, as a man, a tree, a boot; (2) the impersonal class of unformed quantities of things, as a quantity of hair, or wood, or water. “He” is the personal pronoun for class (1); “it” for class (2). Similarly, “thëase” and “thic” are the demonstratives of class (1); “this” and “that” of class (2). A book is “he”; some water is “it.” We say in Dorset: “Thëase tree by this water,” “Thic cow in that grass.” Again, a curious distinction is made in the infinitive mood: when it is not followed by an object, it ends in “y”; when an object follows, the “y” is omitted:—“Can you mowy?” but “Can you mow this grass for me?” The common use of “do” and “did” as auxiliary verbs, and not only when emphasis is intended, is noteworthy (the “o” of the “do” being faintly heard). “How do you manage about threading your needles?” asked a lady of an old woman engaged in sewing, whose sight was very dim from cataract. The answer came: “Oh, he” (her husband) “dô dread ’em for me.” In Dorset we say not only “to-day” and “to-morrow,” but also “to-week,” “to-year.” “Tar’ble” is often used
- 37. for “very,” in a good as well as a bad sense. There are many words bearing no resemblance to English in Dorset speech. What modern Englishman would recognise a “mole hill” in a “wont-heave,” or “cantankerous” in “thirtover”? But too much space would be occupied were this fascinating subject to be pursued further. National schools, however, are corrupting Wessex speech, and the niceties of Wessex grammar are often neglected by the children. Probably the true Dorset will soon be a thing of the past. William Barnes’ poems and Thomas Hardy’s Wessex novels, especially the latter, will then become invaluable to the philologist. In some instances Mr. Barnes’ spelling seems hardly to represent the sound of words as they are uttered by Dorset, or, as they say here, “Darset” lips.
- 38. THE BARROWS OF DORSET By C. S. Prideaux HE County of Dorset is exceedingly rich in the prehistoric burial-places commonly called barrows. At the present time considerably over a thousand are marked on the one-inch Ordnance Map, and, considering the numbers which have been destroyed, we may surely claim that Dorset was a populous centre in prehistoric times, owing probably to its proximity to the Continent and its safe harbours, as well as to its high and dry downs and wooded valleys. The long barrow is the earliest form of sepulchral mound, being the burial-place of the people of the Neolithic or Late Stone Age, a period when men were quite ignorant of the use of metals, with the possible exception of gold, using flint or stone weapons and implements, but who cultivated cereals, domesticated animals, and manufactured a rude kind of hand-made pottery. Previous to this, stone implements and weapons were of a rather rude type; but now not only were they more finely chipped, but often polished. The round barrows are the burial-places of the Goidels, a branch of the Celtic family, who were taller than the Neolithic men and had rounder heads. They belong to the Bronze Age, a period when that metal was first introduced into Britain; and although comparatively little is found in the round barrows of Dorset, still less has been discovered in the North of England, probably owing to the greater distance from the Continent. Hand-made pottery abounds, artistically decorated with diagonal lines and dots, which are combined to form such a variety of patterns that probably no two vessels are found alike. Stone and flint implements were still in common use, and may be found almost anywhere in Dorset, especially on ploughed uplands after a storm of
- 39. rain, when the freshly-turned-up flints have been washed clear of earth. In discussing different periods, we must never lose sight of the fact that there is much overlapping; and although it is known that the long-barrow men had long heads and were a short race, averaging 5 ft. 4 in. in height, and that the round-barrow men had round heads and averaged 5 ft. 8 in.,[4] we sometimes find fairly long-shaped skulls in the round barrows, showing that the physical peculiarities of the two races became blended. Long barrows are not common in Dorset, and little has been done in examining their contents. This is probably due to their large size, and the consequent difficulty in opening them. They are generally found inland, and singly, with their long diameter east and west; and the primary interments, at any rate in Dorset, are unburnt, and usually placed nearer the east end. Some are chambered, especially where large flat stones were easily obtainable, but more often they are simply formed of mould and chalk rubble. Their great size cannot fail to impress us, and we may well wonder how such huge mounds were constructed with the primitive implements at the disposal of Neolithic man. One near Pimperne, measured by Mr. Charles Warne, is 110 yards long, and there are others near Bere Regis, Cranborne, Gussage, and Kingston Russell; and within a couple of miles of the latter place, besides the huge long barrow, are dozens of round barrows, the remains of British villages, hut circles, stone circles, and a monolith.
- 40. PLATE I. Figs. 1 3 2 4 6 5 Bronze Age Objects from Dorset Round Barrows (IN THE DORSET COUNTY MUSEUM). ⅕ Scale.
- 41. PLATE II. Figs. 1 3 2 4 Bronze Age Objects from Dorset Round Barrows (IN THE DORSET COUNTY MUSEUM). ⅕ Scale. The late Lieut.-General Pitt-Rivers, in 1893, removed the whole of Wor Barrow, on Handley Down,[5] and made a very exhaustive examination of its contents, which presented many features of peculiar interest. This barrow, with ditch, was about 175 feet long, 125 feet wide, and 13½ feet high; inside the mound on the ground level was an oblong space, 93 ft. by 34 ft., surrounded by a trench filled with flints. The earth above the trench bore traces of wooden piles, which were, no doubt, originally stuck into the trench with the flints packed around to keep them in place, thus forming a palisade; the wooden piles in this case taking the place of the stone slabs found in the stone-chambered long barrows of Gloucestershire and elsewhere.
- 42. Six primary interments by inhumation were discovered at the south-east part of the enclosure, with a fragment of coarse British pottery. Three of the bodies were in a crouched position. The remaining three had been deposited as bones, not in sequence, the long bones being laid out by the side of the skulls; and careful measurement of these bones shows that their owners were the short people of the long-headed or Neolithic race, which confirms the first part of Dr. Thurnam’s axiom: “Long barrows long skulls, round barrows round skulls.” Nineteen secondary interments of a later date were found in the upper part of the barrow and in the surrounding ditch, with numerous pieces of pottery, flint implements, fragments of bronze and iron, and coins, proving that the barrow was used as a place of burial down to Roman times. In Dorset the round barrows are generally found on the summits of the hills which run through the county, more particularly on the Ridgeway, which roughly follows the coast line from near Bridport to Swanage, where may be seen some hundreds of all sizes, from huge barrows over 100 feet in diameter and 15 feet in height to small mounds, so little raised above the surface that only the tell-tale shadows cast by the rising or setting sun show where a former inhabitant lies buried. In the western part of the county they may be traced from Kingston Russell to Agger-Dun, through Sydling and Cerne Abbas to Bulbarrow, and in the east, from Swanage Bay to Bere Regis; and also near Dorchester, Wimborne, Blandford, and other places. In the Bronze Age cremation and inhumation were both practised; but in Dorset burials by cremation are the more common. The cremated remains were sometimes placed in a hole or on the surface line, with nothing to protect them from the weight of the barrow above; at other times they were covered by flat slabs of stone, built in the form of a small closed chamber or cist. Often they were placed on a flat piece of stone, and covered with an inverted urn, or put in an urn, with a covering slab over them; and they have been found wrapped in an animal’s skin, or in a bag of some woven material, or even in a wooden coffin.
- 43. The inhumed bodies are nearly always found in a contracted posture, with the knees drawn up towards the chin; and a larger number face either east, south or west, than north. In the case of an inhumation, when the body was deposited below the old surface level, the grave was often neatly hewn and sometimes lined with slabs of stone, and it was the common custom to pile a heap of flints over it, affording a protection from wild animals; above the flints was heaped the main portion of the mound, which consisted of mould and chalk rubble. A ditch, with or without a causeway,[6] usually surrounds each barrow, but is so often silted up that no trace of it can be seen on the surface; it probably helped to supply the chalk rubble of the barrow. Bronze Age sepulchral pottery, which is hand-made, often imperfectly baked and unglazed, has been divided into four classes: the beaker or drinking vessel, the food vessel, the incense cup, and the cinerary urn. The two former are usually associated with inhumations; the two latter with cremations. As a type of prehistoric ceramic art in Britain, the Hon. J. Abercromby says that the beaker is the earliest, and the cinerary urn the latest.[7] Plate II., fig. 2, is a typical drinking vessel or beaker which was found in the hands of a skeleton during alterations to the Masonic Hall at Dorchester. It is made of thin, reddish, well-baked pottery, and from the stains inside it evidently contained food or liquid at some time. The beaker is more often met with than the food vessel, being found on the Continent as well as in England. The food vessel, on the other hand, is a type unrepresented outside the British Isles, and is entirely wanting in Wiltshire,[8] although common in the North of England, Scotland, and Ireland. In the Dorset County Museum at Dorchester there are several fine examples found in the county, and Plate I., fig. 1, represents one taken from a barrow near Martinstown.[9] It is of unusual interest, as one-handled food-vessels are rare. In this inhumed primary interment the vessel was lying in
- 44. the arms of the skeleton, whilst close by was another and much smaller vessel, with the remains of three infants. The terms “drinking-vessel” and “food-vessel” may possibly be accurate, as these vessels may have held liquids or food; but there is no evidence to show that the so-called “incense cups” had anything to do with incense. The more feasible idea seems to be that they were used to hold embers with which to fire the funeral pile, and the holes with which they are generally perforated would have been most useful for admitting air to keep the embers alight.[10] These small vessels are usually very much ornamented, even on their bases, with horizontal lines, zigzags, chevrons, and the like, and occasionally a grape-like pattern. They are seldom more than three inches in height, but vary much in shape, and often are found broken, with the fragments widely separated, as if they had been smashed purposely at the time of the burial. Plate II., figs. 3 and 4, are from specimens in the Dorset County Museum, which also contains several other Dorset examples. There can be no doubt as to the use of the cinerary urn, which always either contains or covers cremated remains. The urn (Plate II., fig. 1) is from the celebrated Deverel Barrow, which was opened in 1825 by Mr. W. A. Miles. The shape of this urn is particularly common in Dorset, as well as another variety which has handles, or, rather, perforated projections or knobs. A third and prettier variety is also met with, having a small base, and a thick overhanging rim or band at the mouth, generally ornamented. It is rare to find curved lines in the ornamentation of Bronze Age pottery, but sometimes concentric circles and spiral ornaments are met with on rock-surfaces and sculptured stones. Mr. Charles Warne found in tumulus 12, Came Down, Dorchester, two flat stones covering two cairns with incised concentric circles cut on their surfaces.[11] There is no clear evidence of iron having been found in the round barrows of Dorset in connection with a Bronze Age interment; but of gold several examples may be seen in the County Museum, and
- 45. one, which was found in Clandon Barrow, near Martinstown, with a jet head of a sceptre with gold studs, is shown in Plate I., fig 2. Others were discovered in Mayo’s Barrow and Culliford Tree.[12] Bronze, which is an alloy of copper and tin, is the only other metal found with primary interments in our Dorset round barrows. The County Museum possesses some excellent celts and palstaves; a set of six socketed celts came from a barrow near Agger-Dun, and look as if they had just come from the mould. They are ornamented with slender ridges, ending in tiny knobs, and have never been sharpened (two of them are figured in Plate I., figs. 3 and 4); another celt, from a barrow in the Ridgeway, is interesting as having a fragment of cloth adhering to it. Daggers are found, generally, with cremated remains, and are usually ornamented with a line or lines, which, beginning just below the point, run down the blade parallel with the cutting edges. The rivets which fastened the blade to the handle are often in position with fragments of the original wooden handle and sheath.[13] These daggers seem to be more common in Dorset than in the northern counties, and many examples may be seen in the County Museum, and two are illustrated in Plate I., figs. 5 and 6. Bronze pins, glass beads, amber and Kimmeridge shell objects, bone tweezers and pins, slingstones and whetstones, are occasionally met with; but by far the most common objects are the flint and stone implements, weapons, and flakes. In making a trench through a barrow near Martinstown,[14] more than 1,200 flakes or chips of flints were found, besides some beautifully-formed scrapers, a fabricator, a flint saw, most skilfully notched, and a borer with a gimlet-like point. Arrow-heads are not common in Dorset, but six were found in a barrow in Fordington Field, Dorchester. They are beautiful specimens, barbed and tongued; the heaviest only weighs twenty- five grains, and the lightest sixteen grains. Mr. Warne mentions the finding of arrow-heads, and also (a rare find in Dorset) a stone battle-axe, from a barrow on Steepleton Down.
- 46. Charred wood is a conspicuous feature, and animal bones are also met with in the county, and in such positions as to prove that they were placed there at the time of the primary interment. Stags’ horns, often with the tips worn as though they had been used as picks, are found, both in the barrows and in the ditches. So far only objects belonging to the Bronze Age have been mentioned; but as later races used these burial-places, objects of a later date are common. Bronze and iron objects and pottery, and coins of every period, are often found above the original interment and in the ditches. This makes it difficult for an investigator to settle with certainty the different positions in which the objects were deposited; and unless he is most careful he will get the relics from various periods mixed. Therefore, the practice of digging a hole into one of these burial-mounds, for the sake of a possible find, cannot be too heartily condemned. Anyone who is ambitious to open a barrow should carefully read those wonderful books on Excavations in Cranborne Chase, by the late Lieut.-General Pitt-Rivers, before he puts a spade into the ground; for a careless dig means evidence destroyed for those that come after. Most Dorset people will remember the late curator of the County Museum, Mr. Henry Moule, and perhaps some may have heard him tell this story, but it will bear repeating. A labourer had brought a piece of pottery to the Museum, and Mr. Moule explained to him that it not only came from a barrow, but that it was most interesting, and that he would like to keep it for the Museum. The man looked surprised, and said, “Well, Meäster, I’ve a-knocked up scores o’ theäsem things. I used to level them there hipes (or heäps) an’ drawed awaÿ the vlints vor to mend the roads; an’ I must ha’ broke up dozens o’ theäse here wold pots; but they niver had no cwoins inzide ’em.” Those who knew Mr. Moule can imagine his horror. Much more remains to be done by Dorset people in investigating these most interesting relics of the past, for we know little of the builders of these mounds; and, as Mr. Warne says in his introduction to The Celtic Tumuli of Dorset:—
- 47. Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookfinal.com