By William Lang, Esq., M.A. 339 



while the space covered by the hill ia 5 acres and 34 perches. Dean 

 Merewether has stated that he saw sarsens set round the base of the 

 hill and that he counted eight of them. A close examination, with 

 a friend, has, however, convinced me that the Dean was in error, 

 unless there has been a removal of stones since his sojourn at 

 Beckhampton, which we have no reason to suppose has been the 

 case. We found one or two under the turf, entirely covered, and 

 another small one above the turf, but these are clearly insufficient 

 to bear out the Dean's assertion.^ 



Stukeley considered Silbury to be the tomb of some Royal Foun- 

 der of Abury, and tells us that the royal remains were dug up on 

 the top of the hill in 1723, together with the King's bridle, of 

 which he gives an engraving in his 36th plate. That the hill, 

 however, was not a sepulchral mound"^ has been proved, to the sat- 

 isfaction of many, by the searching examinations of the interior 

 which were made by workmen employed by the Duke of Northum- 

 berland and Colonel Drax in 1777, when a shaft was sunk from the 

 top to the bottom; and by Mr. Blandford, for the Archasological 

 Institute, in 1849,^ when a tunnel was bored at the natural level of 

 the ground upon which the mound had been raised. Of those who 

 with Sir Richard Hoare, discountenanced the idea of its being a 

 gigantic tumulus, some have entertained the belief that it was a 

 component part of the temple of Abury ; others have considered it 

 to have been constructed for a secular purpose, such as the solemn 

 promulgation of laws to the people, as is now done in the Isle of 



•The Dean's enumeration of the stones remaining in 1849 of the cii'cles within 

 the vallum, (p, 89, Salisbury volume of the Arch. Institute,) is far from correct, 

 and must not be quoted hereafter as giving a true account of the state of the 

 temple in that year. Had he lived to superintend the publication of his paper, 

 he would doubtless have detected and corrected the errors. He gave the num- 

 ber of stones in the outer circle then erect to be 7, prostrate 5. The niunber 

 erect in the present year (1857) is 10, prostrate 8. Again, he says that of the in- 

 ner circle of the northern temple, there arc 2 prostrate stones. This was a mis- 

 take, as neither in 1819 or 1857 were any stones remaining of this circle. 



^ Twining supports his statement that Silbury Hill was a monument to Titus 

 Vespasian l)y the fact of the stile leading to it, as he was " credibly informed, 

 being called Titus's style to this day." (§ .'j.3.) 



' A full account of this exauiiuutiou of the hill is given in the Salisbiu-y 

 volume of the Archaiological inslitute. 



