26 NATURE 
Dealing with Mr. Long’s memoir first, it may be 
stated that it includes important extracts from notices of 
Stonehenge from the time of Henry of Huntingdon to 
Hoare (1812), and that all extant information was given 
touching on the questions by whom the stones were 
erected, whence they came and what was the object of 
the structure. The barrows on Salisbury Plain are 
next carefully described, and the information to be 
obtained from them discussed in a most masterly way. 
It is a very great pity that a book so full of facts of great 
interest along so many lines has no general index. 
Many who have followed the recent work on the 
monuments will be glad to have beside them for ready 
reference so many extracts from the publications of those 
who have attempted to solve its mysteries in the past. 
Thus we learn (p. 44) that in 1771 Dr. John Smith, ina 
work entitled ‘Choir Gawr, the Grand Orrery of the 
Ancient Druids, called Stonehenge, Astronomically Ex- 
plained, and proved to be a Temple for Observing the 
Motions of the Heavenly Bodies,” wrote as follows :— 
“From many and repeated visits I conceived it to be 
an astronomical temple ; and from what I could recollect 
to have read of it, no author had as yet investigated its 
uses. Without an instrument or any assistance what- 
ever, but White’s ‘Ephemeris,’ 1 began my survey. I 
suspected the stone called Zhe Friars Heel to be the 
index that would disclose the uses of this structure ; nor 
was I deceived. This stone stands in a right line with 
the centre of the temple, pointing to the north-east. 
I first drew a circle round the vallum of the ditch and 
divided it into 360 equal parts; and then a right line 
through the body of the temple to the Friar’s Heel ; 
at the intersection of these lines I reckoned the sun’s 
greatest amplitude at the summer solstice, in this latitude, 
to be about 60 degrees, and fixed the eastern points 
accordingly. Pursuing this plan, I soon discovered the 
uses of all the detached stones, as well as those that 
formed the body of the temple.” 
With regard to this “Choir Gawr,” translated Chorea 
Gigantum, Leland’s opinion is quoted (p. 51) that we 
should read Choir vawr, the equivalent of which is Chorea 
nobilis or magna. 
That the slaughter stone was once upright is rendered 
probable by a reference to Mr. Cunnington’s digging 
in 1803 (p. 56). Mr. Long adds :— 
“Mr. William Cunnington, F.G.S., informs the writer 
that if this stone stood erec?, it must have entirely con- 
cealed the ‘gnomon’ from persons standing in front of 
the ‘altar.’ ‘It would have been impossible,’ he says, 
“to see the sun rise over the “gnomon” from the exact 
centre of the building. It is nevertheless a fact that 
the gnomon does occupy this critical position, as to the 
sunrise at the solstice.’” 
But as we now know that from the axis of the sarsen 
stones the sun did zof rise over the “‘gnomon,” that is 
the Friar’s Heel, this reasoning is not conclusive. 
Again, there is the question of the roof. In our paper 
communicated to the Royal Society, Mr. Penrose and 
myself gave reasons why the Naos, that is the space 
included in the horseshoe of trilithons, was covered. 
This suggestion, however, I now find is not new, the 
view having been held by no less an authority than Dr. 
Thurnham (p. 67), who apparently was led to it by the 
representations of the Scandinavian temples as covered 
and enclosed structures. 
On pp. 71 e¢ sgg. I find a very interesting extract from 
NO. 1697, VOL. 66] 
[May 8, 1902 
a paper by Mr. Cunnington on the “Geology of Stone- 
henge.” He points out the origin of the sarsens accord- 
ing to Prestwich :— 
“Among the Lower Tertiaries (the Eocene of Sir Charles 
Lyell), are certain sands and mottled clays, named by 
Mr. Prestwich the Woolwich and Reading beds, from 
their being largely developed at these places, and from 
these he proves the sarsens to have been derived ; although 
they are seldom found zz situ, owing to the destruction 
of the stratum to which they belonged. They are large 
masses of sand concreted together by a silicious cement, 
and when the looser portions of the stratum were washed 
away, the blocks of sandy rocks were left scattered over 
the surface of the ground. 
“At Standen, near Hungerford, large masses of sarsen 
are found, consisting almost ev//re/y of flints, formed into 
conglomerate with the sand. Flints are also common in 
some of the large stones forming the ancient temple of 
Avebury. 
“The abundance of these remains, especially in some of 
the valleys of North Wilts, is very remarkable. Few 
persons who have not seen them can form an adequate 
idea of the extraordinary scene presented to the eye of 
the spectator, who standing on the brow of one of the 
hills near Clatford, sees stretching for miles before him, 
countless numbers of these enormous stones, occupying 
the middle of the valley, and winding like a mighty 
stream towards the south.” 
Mr. Cunnington displayed great acumen in dealing 
with the smaller stones not sarsens. 
“ The most important consideration connected with the 
smaller stones, and one which in its archeological 
bearing has been too much overlooked, is the fact of 
their having been brought from a great distance. I 
expressed an opinion on this subject in a lecture de- 
livered at Devizes more than eighteen years ago, and I 
have been increasingly impressed with it since. I believe 
that these stones would not have been brought from such 
a distance to a spot where an abundance of building 
stones equally suitable in every respect already existed, 
unless some special or religious value had been attached 
to them. This goes far to prove that Stonehenge was 
originally a temple, and neither a monument raised to 
the memory of the dead, nor an astronomical calendar or 
almanac. 
“It has been suggested that they were Danams, or the 
offerings of successive votaries. Would there in such 
case have been such uniformity of design or would they 
have been all alike of foreign materials? I would make 
one remark about the small impost of a trilithon of 
syenite, now lying prostrate within the circle. One 
writer has followed another in taking it for granted that 
there must have been a second, corresponding with it, 
on the opposite side. Of this there is neither proof nor 
record, not a trace of one having been seen by any 
person who has written on the subject. This small im- 
post, not being of sarsen, but syenite, must have belonged 
to the original old circle; it may even have suggested 
to the builders of the present Stonehenge the idea of the 
large imposts and trilithons, with their tenons and 
mortices.” 
There are several references throughout Mr. Long’s 
memoir to the tradition of the slaughter of Britons by 
the Saxons at Stonehenge, known as “‘ The Treachery of 
the Long Knives”; according to some accounts, 460 
British chieftains were killed while attending a banquet 
and conference. But one important item is omitted. ‘I 
have gathered from Guest’s “‘ Mabinogion,” vol. ii. p. 433, 
and Davies’ “ Mythology of the British Druids,” p. 333, 
that the banquet took place on May eve “ Meinvethydd.” 
1 
; 
l 
— 
