Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:31:52.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III.—Recent Excavations at Stonehenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2011

William Gowland  and
J. W. Judd
Get access

Extract

The fall of two of the stones of the outer circle of Stonehenge, No. 22 and its lintel No. 122, on the last day of the century, directed the attention of the public, and especially of archæologists, in a very forcible manner to the insecure position of other stones in this venerable monument. At a meeting of the Council of this Society soon afterwards a resolution was passed and sent to Sir Edmund Antrobus, the owner of Stonehenge, expressing their desire to co-operate with him in any operations which might be advisable for its preservation. Sir Edmund accepted the offer, declined any pecuniary aid, and invited the Society to form, together with the Wiltshire Archæological Society, and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, a small committee to advise him as to the work required for the conservation of the monument and the order in which it should be carried out.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , 1902 , pp. 37 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1902

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 37 note a See General Plan, Plate VII. This plan is based partly on that given in Professor Petrie's, W. M. FlindersStonehenge: Plant, Descriptions, and Theories (London, 1880),Google Scholar and partly on my own surveys made after the “leaning stone” had been set upright.

page 38 note a Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 27, and Plate IV., by the kind permission of Miss Clarisse Miles, are taken from her excellent series of photographs of Stonehenge.

page 45 note a I am indebted to the kindness of my friend Professor Judd. Dean of the Royal College of Science, for the identification of the specimens of rock found in the excavations. The above is merely a rough summary of the more important kinds. For a complete account of them the reader is referred to Professor Judd's note (post).

page 46 note a Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxi. 141–149Google Scholar.

page 54 note a See fig. 12, in which the position of No. 56 is indicated by a dotted outline.

page 56 note a In a paper, “Stonehenge: an Enquiry respecting the Fall of the Trilithons,” in Man, 1902, No. 97,Google Scholar Mr. A. L. Lewis adduces evidence to show that the trilithon, of which the “leaning stone” is one of the piers, had fallen before this date.

page 63 note a I am indebted to the courtesy of my friend our Secretary, Mr. C. H. Read, Keeper of.British and Medieval Antiquities in the British Museum, for permission to make the photographs from which these figures are taken.

page 63 note b Archaeologia, xlii. 53Google Scholaret seq.

page 63 note c Journal of the Ethnological Society of London, 2nd series, ii. 419et seq.Google Scholar

page 64 note a Sussex Archæological Collections, xix. 53Google Scholar, plate, fig. 1.

page 64 note b Op. cit. Pl;. xxviii. figs. 4 and 5.

page 72 note a I am indebted to my friend Mr. H. A. Grueber, F.S.A., of the British Museum, for the identification and description of these coins.

page 74 note a Copied by permission of the Egypt Exploration Fund from Memoir III. of the Archæological Survey of Egypt, El Bersheh, pt. i. pl. xv.

page 74 note b Kii no Kuni Meisho Zu-e, 1851, iv.Google Scholar

page 76 note a It may be mentioned incidentally that the same curved surfaces are found on the internal faces of the huge megalithic blocks of which the dolmens in Japan are constructed whenever these are of hewn stone. See Archaeologia, lv. 464Google Scholar.

page 85 note a “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 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, 1801, and is now in my possession. He writes as follows: ‘I think you should correct the statement respecting the Roman pottery found at Stonehenge. Your paragraph conveys what I never meant it to convey, namely, that the pottery was deposited before the erection of the stones. I conceive it to have been in the earth surrounding the stones, and after the fall of the trilithon the earth containing these fragments would naturally moulder into the hollows, for in this loose earth recently fallen into the cavity, the bits of pottery were found.’” —Wiltshire Archœological and Natural History Magazine, xxi. 149Google Scholar.

page 86 note a Sir Hoare, Richard Colt, Ancient History of South Wiltshire (London, 1812), 127Google Scholar; Stukeley, W., Stonehenge (London, 1740), 46Google Scholar.

page 88 note a Greenwell, W., British Barrows, 26.Google Scholar

page 102 note a The occurrence of this modern article at so great a depth shows how absolutely necessary it is that the nature of the ground in excavations should always be recorded; and that, without this, a mere statement of the depth only at which an object is found may be of no scientific value whatever.

page 106 note a Sir Hoare, R. H., Ancient History of South Wiltshire, 149, 150.Google Scholar Cf. Wiltshire Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xvi. 69, 70Google Scholar.

page 106 note b Gentleman's Magazine, ciii. pt. ii. 452–454Google Scholar.

page 106 note c See letter from Professor Phillips to Dr. Thurnam quoted in Long's, “Stonehenge and its Barrows,” Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xvi. (1876), 71.Google Scholar

page 106 note d Phillips, John, Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames (1871), 447.Google Scholar

page 107 note a Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xvii. (1877), 147–160,Google Scholar with plate. See also Proceedings of the Geological Association, vii. 138–140Google Scholar.

page 107 note b “Stonehenge Notes: The Fragments,” by Cunnington, W., Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxi. (1883), 141–149Google Scholar.

page 108 note a “Notes on Sections of Stonehenge Rocks belonging to Mr. W. Cunnington,” by Teall, J. J. H., Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxvii. (1894), 66–68Google Scholar.

page 108 note b Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxxii. (1901), 1–169.Google Scholar

page 109 note a “History of the Sarsens” by_Professor Jones, T. Rupert, Part I., Wilts Archæologinal and Natural History Magazine, xxiii. (1886), 122–154;Google Scholar Part II. Geological Magazine, Dec. IV. viii. (1901), 54–59 and 115-125Google Scholar.

page 109 note b Prestwich, , Geology of Oxford and the Thames Valley (1871), 447.Google Scholar

page 109 note c “Note on the Structure of Sarsens,” Geological Magazine, Dec. IV. viii. (1901), 1.Google Scholar

page 110 note a Geological Magazine, Dec. IV. v. (1888), 299.Google Scholar

page 111 note a Wiltshire Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxi. 142Google Scholar.

page 116 note a Memoirs of the Geological Survey of England and Wales. Geology of part of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire (sheet 34) (1858), 43.

page 116 note b Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xvii. (1877), 157.Google Scholar

page 116 note c Wilts Archæological and Natural History Magazine, xxvii, (1894), 67.Google Scholar