7. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1923] 
ae ions. A general description of these “ Four 
Stations ” was given by me in Nature for April 1, | 
y wath, oe 109, p. 410), with a plan (reproduced here- 
with, Fig. 1) drawn to scale and photographs of the 
stones. 
_ The two so-called mounds are of very slight eleva- 
tion, and are scarcely noticeable on the ground : 
each has a sort of hollow or crater in its centre. By 
Petrie’s system the two stones are numbered 91 and 
93, and the corresponding pair of mounds Nos, 92 
and 94. 
_ In the hollow of mound No. 94 Colt Hoare reports 
that he found “a simple interment of burned bones ”’ 
(“ Ancient Wilts,’ i. p. 145). On the strength of 
this discovery it has been assumed that the two 
mounds are Round Barrows, and (based on this 
assumption) it is inferred that Stonehenge was con- 






structed probably near the end of the Bronze Age 
or perhaps even later. 
he advocates of a Bronze Age date for Stone- 
henge specially rely upon this as conclusive evidence 
in support of their theory. Dr. Rice Holmes, for 
aie makes the somewhat positive assertion as 
ollows : 
“The stones [of Stonehenge] were certainly not 
standing when Round Barrows were first erected 
on Salisbury Plain; for one is contained within 
the vallum, which, moreover, encroaches on 
another ”’ (‘‘ Ancient Britain,’’ p. 476). 
In my letter in Nature (April 1, 1922), I gave 
evidence for the opinion that these two earth heaps 
are not the remains of barrows, but are the sites of 
a pair of stones that had been removed. These 
stones, when in position, corresponded exactly with 
the pair of stones which still remain in place. 
In the Antiquaries Journal for October 1922 
(p. 344, footnote), Dr. Rice Holmes, in reference to 
this matter,’ remarks : 
1 Dr. Rice Holmes makes a mistake in his reference, which he gives as 
Natore, April 29, 1922, p. 563. 
NO. 2781, VOL. 111] 
. 
NATURE 

Fic, 1.—Plan of Stonehenge, 
221 

“Round barrows were erected towards the end 
of the Neolithic Age in Scotland, Yorkshire, and 
Derbyshire ; but Mr. Stone is, I believe, the first 
to suggest that a round barrow of that period 
exists at Stonehenge.” 
» But I made no such suggestion—in fact, the special 
' purpose of my communication was to show that the 
»so-called mounds were not barrows. Perhaps Dr. 
‘Rice Holmes will re-read my letter in NATURE of 
s April 1 last. 
The fact that ‘‘a simple interment of burned 
bones ’’ was found by Colt Hoare in the hollow of 
»site No. 94 is, of course, no evidence that the place 
-was a barrow. Similar casual interments of burned 
tbones were also found deposited in the adjacent 
‘ Aubrey Holes,”’ which obviously were not the sites 
sof barrows. 
ra 
The two stones and the two mounds 
are symmetrically placed with reference 
to each other and to the main axis of the 
structure. Their centres are moreover 
all on the same radius, and their centre 
lines make an angle with each other of 
45 degrees. 
Scale —120 feet to 1 inch. 
That these mounds are really positions which were 
once occupied by stones has, however, now been 
placed beyond doubt by the excavations lately 
carried out by Col. Hawley, in the course of which the 
crater or hollow in the middle of one of these sites 
(No. 92) was completely cleared down to the original 
chalk rock. I inspected the bottom of the hole when 
it had just been cleared out, and it was evident that 
it had been dug as the foundation pit for a large 
stone. There was no indication of any barrow having 
ever existed on the site. 
In his report published in the Antiquaries Journal 
for January 1923 (pp. 15-16), Col. Hawley, in reference 
to this, remarks : 
‘‘ Nearly in the middle of the place [No. 92] was 
a large hole. Sir Richard Colt Hoare mentions 
having opened it without result, consequently it 
was in a very disturbed state and afforded nothing 
of interest until it had been emptied. It was then 
seen that it must formerly have contained a large 
stone, perhaps about the size of the one [No. 91] 
lying near the rampart a little way to the east, 
G2 
