ON THfi AGE OF STONE CIRCLES. 37S 



distance of about 15 feet, and the ditch loses itself in what appears to be 

 the ancient entrance or approach to the central area. 



With regard to the southern half of the enclosure, a rampart exists, 

 averaging 1 • 5 foot in height, very irregular and ill-defined ; but from 

 superficial appearances no ditch can be said to exist on the S.W. and S., 

 although slight traces of one are observable around Stone XVII, and to 

 the JST.E. of it nearly as far as the S.E. wall. On the S. and S.S.W. the 

 rampart is little more than 0*5 foot high, and a modern cart-track, 8 feet 

 wide, on the S.S.E. entirely obliterates the bank. 



The approximate diameter of the crest of the vallum is 224 feet, 

 estimated from a centre 2| feet to the N.W. of the N.W. corner of the 

 central monolith (No. I). The crest of the vallum deviates very slightly 

 from the true circle, except on the N.N.E., where it bulges out a little. 

 The ditch at the Stripple Stones is more irregular than at Arbor Low. 

 Describing a circle from a point 5 feet S.S.W. of the N.W. corner of the 

 central stone, we get an approximate diameter of 197 feet for the ditch. 



The monoliths comprising the Stripple Stones were found to be 

 arranged in relative positions approximating to a true circle, having a 

 diameter of 146^ feet, the centre occurring 2-5 feet to the W.N.W. of the 

 N. point of the central prostrate stone. Mr. Lukis gave the diameter of 

 the circle as 148^ feet, but Mr. Lewis has already pointed out that 'it is 

 doubtful from his own (Lukis's) plan whether it is not 2 feet less.' The 

 Fernacre Circle is, according to the measurements of others, of precisely 

 the same diameter as the Stripple Stones, viz., 146^ feet. Whether this 

 was the result of accident or intention on the part of the constructors we 

 liave no positive means of ascertaining. 



Of the four stones still standing at the Stripple Stones, viz., Nos. IV, 

 VII, X, and XIII, all fall in the line of the true circle except No. VII, 

 which, like No. II in the case of the Leaze Circle, is placed a foot or two 

 on the outside. The monument was undoubtedly intended to have a 

 true circular form, but the modes of measuring adopted by the early 

 constructors were probably of a primitive and inexact kind. Although 

 the recumbent stones do not all now fall on the periphery of the circle, 

 there is no reason to suppose that any of thera, when in their original 

 erect positions,^ were misplaced even as much as standing- stone No. VII, 

 viz., 2 feet. Taking the present position of the remaining stones into 

 consideration, and the gap existing between Stones II and XVI, it may 

 safely be stated that the circle originally consisted of twenty- eight 

 standing-stones, placed at an average distance of 16^ feet apart. Of 

 stones in their relative positions in the true circle there are at the present 

 time four standing, one (No. XVI) almost recumbent, eight recumbent, 

 and one (No. V) which may not have been a stone of the circle, but 

 merely a modern introduction when the wall was built. In Mr. Lukis's 

 plan (1879) we get five standing stones and ten prostrate stones falling 

 in the line of the circle, which shows that during the last three decades 

 the Stripple Stones have altered much from pillage. 



The standing and recumbent stones rest in depressions, but those of 

 the former, as one would expect, are more pronounced than the latter. 

 Needless to say, cattle and other domestic animals constantly u^e the 

 standing-stones for rubbing against, the operation increasing the depth 

 of these hollows, which in wet seasons are filled with water. 



' Stones VIII, XVII, and XVIII are, of course, not under consideration in this 

 respect. 



