195 



of the mortise into which its tenon, still visible when Stnkeley wrote 

 in 1780, formerly fitted. The lintel in its descent has also been canted 

 over, so that it lies on edge, presenting what was formerly its under 

 surface obliquely towards the spectator entering the circle from the main 

 avenue, and at once arresting attention by the well-defined sockets or 

 mortises cnt in that under surface. These are indicated in the perspec- 

 tive by Inigo Jones in his " Stonehenge Eestored," copied into Charl- 

 ton's u Stonehenge Eestored to the Danes;" and are shown in plates 

 18, 21, and 22 of Stukeley's " Stonehenge Eestored to the British 

 Druids;" and again are conspicuous in the ichnographic plan of the 

 monument given by Sir Eichard Colt Hoare in his elaborate illustration 

 of this part of Wiltshire, copied into the " Celtic Druids" of Godfrey 

 Higgins ; and, finally, I may observe that they, as well as the mortises 

 on the under surface of the lintel constituting part of the trilithon to 

 the right, which fell in January, 1797, are accurately indicated in the 

 bird's-eye view given in the " Illustration of Stonehenge and Abury" 

 of Mr. Joseph Browne of Amesbury, the attending illustrator of the 

 monument. Notwithstanding the great amount of attention given to 

 this central impost, the fact appears to have escaped remark until ob- 

 served on the occasion I have referred to, that on its upper surface, 

 opposite to, and corresponding in position with the well-known mor- 

 tises on its under surfaces, there exist cavities which, though shallow, 

 and less regular in form, appear also as if part of the design, and, inde- 

 pendently of the language of Henry, suggest the idea of having served 

 as sockets for some kind of superstructure. 



Such was the impression vividly conveyed to my mind on observing 

 the cavities in question in 1863. I have recently, and since giving 

 notice of this communication, had an opportunity of making a renewed 

 and very careful inspection of the monument ; and the result is that I 

 cannot with certainty affirm these cavities to be artificial. Neither, 

 on the other hand, can any one with safety affirm them to be natural. If 

 artificial, and if their purpose was to receive the bases of other pillars, 

 supporting a second cross-piece, as the language of Henry would imply, 

 it is certain that such superstructure was confined to this one central 

 trilithon, for there are no corresponding cavities on the upper surfaces 

 of the adjoining trilithons to the left and right. In the mortises of the 

 impost which fell in 1797 the tool-marks (apparently made by a pick- 

 ing instrument) are plainly visible ; they are also distinguishable, 

 though the traces are fainter, in those on the under surface of the central 

 impost ; but the hollows of the cavities here in question are smooth to 

 the eye and touch, save in one spot, where there exist some traces of 

 tooling apparently recent. Add to this the fact that the siliceous sand- 

 stone of which the trilithons are composed has a tendency to disinte- 

 grate into bowl-shaped hollows, as seen on this and several of the ad- 

 joining blocks.; and there arises a considerable probability of those ca- 

 vities being natural. 



On the other hand, some considerations present themselves, for the 



