The above catalogue of stones may not convey very much to the ordinary
visitor, and has only been inserted for the sake of completeness; or
for the information of geologists who may be concerned with this
aspect of the history of the monument. The conclusions to be drawn
from such a list, however, are not without interest to the general
reader. From the varied fragments found, it is apparent that some six,
or perhaps seven, different classes of stone were used for the small
uprights, but that only the harder and more durable rocks (the
diabase, rhyolite, etc.) have survived. The softer rocks (basic tuffs,
grey wackes, flagstones, and slates), being more easily broken, have
fallen victims to the souvenir hunter, and to the action of the
weather, rain, and frost. Originally, as has already been stated, the
foreign stones numbered forty-five, disposed as follows: thirty in the
outer circle, and fifteen in the inner horseshoe. To-day only nineteen
exist in the outer circle, and eleven in the inner horseshoe.
A very striking proof that many of these foreign stones have
disappeared, is to be found in the wide gaps which exist to-day in
certain parts of the circle. That such gaps were originally filled by
standing stones is beyond question, indeed, the base of a "schistose"
stone (see Class 3 in the Lithology above) was actually discovered by
Mr. Cunnington in the course of his investigations into the nature of
the rocks composing Stonehenge. It is highly probable that careful and
scientific excavation may add greatly to our knowledge in this
direction.
There is yet one other point of interest in connection with these
foreign stones. On entering the circle from the north-east (the usual
path taken by visitors) a recumbent foreign stone will be noticed on
the left-hand side, which has two cavities worked in it. This is the
only worked foreign stone in the whole monument, and at first sight
these cavities may possibly suggest themselves as "mortise holes"
similar to those on the Sarsen trilithons, to be described later. It
has even been suggested that the small uprights once carried imposts,
or lintel stones similar to the trilithons, on the evidence of this
one stone. Such a theory, however attractive, should be accepted with
due caution, for the cavities on the stone are far from the ends, and
situated too close together to justify a comparison with the existing
Sarsen trilithons of the outer circle. This stone has never yet been
explained and its position defined, consequently it is omitted from
the frontispiece.
THE STONES WITHOUT THE CIRCLE
Outside the circle of Trilithons stand three stones which have not as
yet been described in detail, since they do not fall within the
geometrical arrangement of the circle. They are, however, of the
highest importance, as it is from them, and from their position, that
it is possible to gather some conclusions as to one use to which the
structure may have been put.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account