By the Rev. A. C. Smith. 



149 



the appearance of far greater steepness than in reality it possesses, 

 has caused some to doubt the accuracy of their own measurements, 

 and led them to trust. to their eye rather than the tape ; though by 

 standing at some distance and holding up a stick obliquely between 

 the eye and the slope of the hill, any one may easily satisfy himself 

 that the angle of elevation is far lower than he would at first sight 

 have imagined. I proceed now to compare the measurements of 

 Stukeley who surveyed it circa A.D. 1720 ; ^ Sir Richard Hoare 

 about A.D. 1812; 2 Mr. Blandford in 1849, and my own of the 

 present year, as regards Perpendicular Height ; Circumference of 

 the base ; Diameter of the base ; Diameter of the top ; Slope of the 

 side; and Angle of elevation :^ first remarking that with the single 

 exception of the comparatively immaterial measurement of the 

 Diameter of the top, Mr. Blandford's figures coincide very nearly 

 with my own, though we both differ widely from those of the 

 above-named eminent Antiquarians.* 





Perpendicular 

 Height. 



Diameter of 

 Base. 



Circumference 

 of Base. 



Sloi^e of side. 



Diameter of 

 Top. 



Angle of 

 Elevation. 



stukeley. 



173 



519 



1557 



270 



105 



40" 



Sir R. Hoare. 



170 



675 



2027 



316 



120 



32° 



Blandford. 



125 



555 



1665 



250 



120 



30° 



A. C. Smith, N. 



130 



552 



1657 



249 



104 



30° 



E.S.E. 



122 







242 



102 





W.S.W. 









238 







With regard to the slope of the side, and the diameter of the 



^ Stukeley's Abury, p. 43. 

 2 Sir R. Hoare's Ancient Wilts, ii., 82. 



3 Rickman, (in the 28th vol. of Archseologia,) gives 2300 feet as the circum- 

 ference of the base ; 105 as the diameter of the top ; and 130 as the perpendicular 

 height, the two latter figures agreeing with my own : but the former (if correct), 

 would produce an area of 10 acres and 538 yards, whereas Rickman says, it 

 covers only 4^ acres, wherefore there is a manifest discrepancy in his figures. 



*In taking the present measurements, I have not only been very much 

 assisted by my friend the Rev. "W. C. Lukis: but his name is a further guarantee 

 that no mistake has been made : and in working out the figures, and calculating 

 the contents of the hill, I desire to record my obligations to Mr. Richard Falkner 

 of Devizes, who has kindly come to my aid, and has also given me much valu- 

 able information on many points connected with my subject. 



