233 



Stoiuljenge Jotf^ tnak in ^pvil, 1876. 



SSN the 7th of April, 1876, the writer, with his son. Captain 

 tL-Mk ^°^S> Mr. William Cunnington, and Mr. Edwards o£ 

 Amesbury, visited Stouehenge, with the view of making a careful 

 examination of the circles and ellipses. Mr. Cunnington found that 

 the small stone in the outer circle, opposite to Nos. 5 and 6 on Sir 

 R. Hoare^s plan, is not a sarsen, but a syenite, and that it had, 

 probably, been originally a portion of No. 6. This stone should 

 therefore, have been coloured ffreen, instead of yelloio. The stone 

 numbered 3 in Hoare^s plan has also been incorrectly coloured Hue 

 instead of green in the chromolithograph. These alterations can 

 easily be made by hand. 



The writer observed a stone which appears hitherto to have escaped 

 notice. It is the stump of that stone of the inner ellipse (behind 

 the altar-stone), which the large upright D 1 in falling, struck ; and, 

 by striking, became broken into two parts. It is under the south 

 corner of the upper fragment, 3 feet from No. 25, as No. 25 is 3 

 feet from No. 24. 



It has, hitherto, been the general opinion that the stones of the 

 inner circle had been unhewn ; and Mr. Henry Browne, who must have 

 been very familiar with their appearance, describes them in his little 

 work as being " wholly unhewn ; " but it is difficult to believe that 

 Nos. 7 and 4 (for instance) have never been touched by flint or 

 metal. The opinion arrived at by the party was, that the syenites 

 had been more or less wrought, but that the horn- stones (so-called) 

 17, 19, 9, and 11, had not been worked. It is, however, not easy 

 to form a judgment upon this matter, for these stones, being much 

 more brittle than the syenites, would be more subject to the wanton 

 injury of visitors, and having been more sought after for " toade 

 charms," etc. (p. 35), may, perhaps, have been more injured than any 

 of the others. 



