10 The Re-erection of Two Fallen Stones at Avebury. 



and nine stumps of stones," a curious expression which seems to point to 

 two stones, then standing, as distinguished from nine lying prostrate, though 

 why these latter should be called " stumps " when they are entire stones does 

 not appear. This plan is reproduced by the Rev. A. C. Smith on page 146 

 of his " Guide to the British and Roman Antiquities of the N. Wiltshire 

 Downs" published in 1884, and he quotes the description of the stones 

 given by Long and only adds " All these stones mentioned by Mr. Long are 

 still in existence," thereby apparently accepting the fact that only one of 

 the eleven stones was standing at the time he wrote. 



The ground plan given by both Long and Smith is unfortunately so 

 dubiously drawn that it may be equally claimed as evidence that the stone 

 in question [the third in the line on the East or road side of the avenue as 

 you come from Avebury], was intended to be represented as still standing, 

 or as lying prostrate across the avenue, as it lay before it was recently set 

 up. It is to be noted, too, that it was the only stone of the eleven lying in 

 this position across the avenue. 



Both Long and Smith, however, assert in so many words that there was 

 only one stone of this group of eleven standing in 1858 and 1884, when they 

 respectively published their accounts of Avebury, and it is difficult to believe 

 that two writers generally so accurate could have made a mistake of this 

 kind, if two stones were actually then standing. Mr. Smith, especially, had 

 a very extensive and accurate knowledge of Avebury and its surroundings. 

 It is true that he only quotes Long's previous words, but that he should 

 have accepted the statement that one stone only was standing if as a matter 

 of fact, two were still standing, seems very unlikely. 



On the other hand there is direct evidence that a second stone was 

 standing until some time in the later eighties of the nineteenth century and 

 that it then fell. Stukeley, in his Abury, p. 42, Tab. xxii., gives a " Prospect 

 of Kennet Avenue from the Druid's Tumulus on Hackpen hill, May 15th, 

 1724." In this he shows eleven stones, of which four are standing, in the 

 group under " Windmill Ball." Although, however, the total (eleven) is the 

 same, the distribution of the stones (five on the East, and six on the West 

 side of the avenue) does not agree with the distribution of the existing 

 stones, so that this view is of little use as evidence. It is, however, to be 

 noted for what it is worth that the only pair of stones shown as standing are 

 apparently intended for the two actually now standing, viz., the one standing 

 that has not fallen and the one re-erected in 1912. Hoare, in Ancient Wilts, 

 Vol. II., p. 70, published in 1819, gives a plan of "Avebury and Silbury," 

 Plate X. (reproduced in Long's "Avebury," W.A.M., iv., 309), showing the 

 pair of stones, No. 3 on the East and No. 2 on the West side of the avenue 

 (from the Avebury end) as shaded whilst all the other stones of this group 

 are unshaded. This seems clearly to show that both these stones were 

 standing in 1819. Again, Mr. C. E. Ponting, F.S.A., of Marlborough, has a 

 clear recollection of driving past the stones one morning some time in the 

 later " eighties " when the second stone was standing, and noticing when he 

 returned past them at night that it had fallen. He recollects, also, speaking 

 of the matter to Mr. Kemm, of Avebury. He is, however, unable to say 

 with any certainty which of the stones it was that fell, though he thinks it 

 was the one recently raised. William Coleman, a labourer of Avebury, a 



