By Mrs. M. E. Cunnington. 11 



trustworthy man who has worked for Mr. B. H. Cunnington in excavations, 

 also remembers the fall of the stone, and he says that he noticed that it was 

 leaning badly in the morning as he went to work, and that it fell before he 

 passed it again on his way home, in the evening. He is sure that it was in 

 the month of February, but in what year he cannot say. He believes that 

 the stone now set up again is the stone which then fell. Mr. Butler, of 

 Kennett, and Mr. George Brown, of Avebury, and others, all say that they 

 perfectly well recollect the fall of one of the stones here, and they believe that 

 it was the one now re-erected. 



The two stones as they now stand form a pair. It may not be irrelevant 

 to the question to observe that the under side of the stone now re-erected 

 presents a very clean, unweathered, sharp surface, quite distinct from the 

 surface of the upper side which was continuously exposed to the weather. 



On the other hand Mrs. Cunnington noted that whilst all the other 

 prostrate stones have deepish hollows worn round them, by the treading of 

 sheep, (fcc, and have every appearance of having fallen long ago, this stone 

 had little or no hollow round it, and the line of weathering on the butt 

 showing the point up to which it had been buried in the ground was clearly 

 to be seen. But perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in favour of the 

 identity of the stone recently raised with that which fell in the eighties, is 

 the fact that on the ground plan referred to above ( W.A.M., iv., 329) Long 

 gives 53ft. as the distance between this stone (x) and the one opposite (y) 

 which has always remained upright. Mr. and Mrs. Cunnington have care- 

 fully tested his measurements of the other stones and find them correct, 

 assuming that he measured from the nearest points of the stones to each 

 other. Bat the distance from the top of the stone x, as it lay prostrate, to 

 the base of y was 44ft., whilst the distance between their bases as both now 

 stand upright is 56ft., a difference of 3ft. only from Long's measurement, 

 and this might be accounted for by the difficulty of knowing within a foot 

 or so where its base had actually stood. In any case the measurements 

 are decidedly in favour of the view that when they were taken both stones 

 were still standing. 



It has seemed worth while thus to set out at some length all the evidence 

 at present available, both pro and con. I should be glad to hear of any 

 further light which can be thrown on the matter. 



The Rev. W. C. Lukis, whose plans of the Avebury circles are now in 

 the Library of the Society of Antiquaries, did not plan the remains of the 

 Kennet Avenue. He says in Proc. Soc. Ant., IX., 153, " When I had com- 

 pleted the survey of the circles, the weather changed and continued stormy 

 and wet for some time, and I was unable to plan the avenue, which I greatly 

 regret, for I cannot bring myself to think there is any truth in Stukeley's 

 notion that it commenced on Overton Hill, at a monument, of which not a 

 vestige remains." There seems, indeed, a fate against the plans of these 

 stones, for Mr. B. H. Cunnington, who has lately had an opportunity of 

 examining the early editions of the 6-inch Ordnance Map, finds that only 

 six stones on the road side of the avenue at this point are shown, instead 

 of seven, a mistake which has apparently been copied in subsequent 

 editions. E. H. Goddard. ,. 



