148 Stonehenge: the Petrology of its Stones. 
from which it might be deemed likely or possible for them to have 
been transported. 
I shall therefore, on the present occasion, confine my enquiry to 
the point referred to me a few weeks ago by Mr. Cunnington, that, 
namely, of the proper designation of those of the Stonehenge stones 
which are foreign to the locality: the other and more interesting 
side of the problem, that, namely, which deals with the original site 
of these stones, and is in fact the sequel to the former, I shall hope 
yet to grapple with at another time, when I may have collected 
more complete materials from which to draw a conclusion. 
The present is not the first time that the question of the source 
of these stones or their true petrological character has been raised. 
The late Dean Conybeare, in a notice in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 
in 1833, p 458, drew attention to the ancient tradition handed down 
by Walter de Mapes and Geoffrey of Monmouth, according to which 
the Stonehenge stones—presumably therefore only the small obeliskoid 
ones—once stood at Cilara in Ireland (Kildare according to Giraldus) , 
and were known far and wide for their mystical virtues. This 
Cr y Cawri, or circle of giants, was however carried off by the 
Britons, the prize and trophy of a hard-won victory over the “ King 
of the country,” and erected on Salisbury Plain. The guardian 
monoliths of sarsen stone, were the legend true, would thus have 
been raised to give grandeur to the place in which this sacred circle 
was enshrined. 
Dean Conybeare suggests this explanation, and attaches the more 
importance to the old tale in that the mountains that rise from the 
bog of Allen are, he says, composed of this very “mineral.” The 
Dean however does not give any exact description either of the | 
stones or of the rocks with which he compares them. 
Such a description has, so far as I know, never yet been given of 
these stones, although general opinions on their nature have been 
hazarded by persons of some authority, such as the late Mr. Sowerby, 
whose eye was an experienced one, and my late friend and colleague, 
Professor Phillips, whose scientific knowledge and whose judgment 
on such a point were perhaps the best in England during his 
lifetime. And Professor Ramsay has expressed his opinion on the 
