By William Gowland, F.S.A., F.I.C. 



41 



No object of bronze, iron, or other metal occurred in the excava- 

 tions except in the superficial layers. 



The Koman coins were found at but small depths below the 

 surface, and with one exception, the doubtful coin or Anglo-Saxon 

 ornament, not deeper than the modern coins. 



But at the south-east end of Excavation V., 7 feet below the 

 datum line, there was found a rectangular slab of sarsen, to which 

 allusion has already been made, the upper surface of which is 

 tooled, and having on its lower side a small green stain, or more 

 correctly a green incrustation. The incrustation, which is of 

 extreme thinness, occurs in the form of two small patches of 

 irregular shape. A minute portion of it was analysed and found 

 to consist of carbonate of copper. Now this incrustation can only 

 have been produced by prolonged contact with some very small 

 object of copper or bronze or some material containing copper. 

 What the object or material can have been it is difficult to say as 

 it had completely perished ; for it was not found, notwithstanding 

 that it was specially sought for, and anything larger than J inch 

 could not have escaped observation. It may perhaps have been 

 an ornament, but cannot possibly have been an implement. 



Both Eoman and British pottery were obtained at several points, 

 but only in small fragments, all much too small for the determina- 

 tion of the shapes of the vessels to which they belonged. None 

 were found along with the stone implements or under other con- 

 ditions from which any useful deductions could be drawn. As 

 regards the discovery of Roman pottery after the fall of the trilithon 

 in 1797, Mr. William Cunnington gives the important information 

 contained in the footnote. 1 



1 "In the 'Beauties of Wiltshire,' vol. ii., p. 131, it is stated that 'pottery 

 of Roman manufacture was discovered after the fall of the large stones in 

 1797, in the soil which served for their foundation' 



" This statement having been the cause of some misapprehension, I have 

 been requested to publish the following information. 



" The late Mr. Cunnington, of Heytesbury, first mentioned the subject to 

 I Mr. Britton, but the most important point connected with it seems to have 

 been misunderstood. He consequently addressed a letter to Mr. Britton, in 

 which he explained the matter fully. It is dated Heytesbury, October 22nd, 



