





























By William Gowland, FSA. FIC. 41 
No object of bronze, iron, or other metal occurred in the excava- 
tions except in the superficial layers. 
The Roman coins were found at but small depths below the 
surface, and with one exception, the doubtful coin or Anglo-Saxon 
ornament, not deeper than the modern coins. 
But at the south-east end of Excavation V., 7 feet below the 
datum line, there was found a rectangular slab of sarsen, to which 
allusion has already been made, the upper surface of which is 
tooled, and having on its lower side a small green stain, or more 
correctly a green incrustation. The incrustation, which is of 
extreme thinness, occurs in the form of two small patches of 
irregular shape. A minute portion of it was analysed and found 
to consist of carbonate of copper. Now this incrustation can only 
have been produced by prolonged contact with some very small 
object of copper or bronze or some material containing copper. 
What the object or material can have been it is difficult to say as 
it had completely perished ; for it was not found, notwithstanding 
that it was specially sought for, and anything larger than 4 inch 
could not have escaped observation. It may perhaps have been 
an ornament, but cannot possibly have been an implement. 
Both Roman and British pottery were obtained at several points, 
but only in small fragments, all much too small for the determina- 
tion of the shapes of the vessels to which they belonged. None 
were found along with the stone implements or under other con- 
ditions from which any useful deductions could be drawn. As 
regards the discovery of Roman pottery after the fall of the trilithon 
in 1797, Mr. William Cunnington gives the important information 
contained in the footnote. 

_1Tn the ‘Beauties of Wiltshire,’ vol. ii.,.p. 181, itis stated that ‘ pottery 
of Roman manufacture was discovered after the fall of the large stones in 
1797, in the soil which served for their foundation.’ 
“This statement having been the cause of some misapprehension, I have 
been requested to publish the following information. 
“The late Mr. Cunnington, of Heytesbury, first mentioned the subject to 
Mr. Britton, but the most important point connected with it seems to have 
been misunderstood. He consequently addressed a letter to Mr. Britton, in 
which he explained the matter fully. It is dated Heytesbury, October 22nd, 
