Labour, tree trunks, and stout ropes of twisted hide would have proved sufficient. It is only necessary to consider very briefly the megalithic monuments in Egypt, Assyria, and elsewhere, to see that such tasks were well within the capacities of a race emerging from comparative savagery. There exists on the wall of a tomb at El Bersheh in Egypt a very characteristic illustration of the transport of a Colossus; such as are to be seen _in situ_ in Egypt to-day. The approximate date of this is B.C. 2700-2500, and prior to Stonehenge by about 1000 years. Arrived at the site, the more skilled work of final dressing was completed. A close examination of the face of some of the fallen stones reveals several shallow grooves on the face with a rib or projection between them. It has been suggested that the rough stone was violently pounded with the heavy mauls until the surface was broken up and reduced to sand for a considerable depth, and the _debris_ brushed away. The projecting ridge resulting from this could then be cut away by hammer and stone chisel, or even by the hammer alone. TENONS AND MORTICES Hitherto no word has been said as to the arrangement of mortice and tenon, by which the Trilithons are keyed together. This has been done purposely, in order that the constructional questions relating to Stonehenge should, as far as possible, be dealt with together, and in due order. In the outer circle of Trilithons each upright had two tenons worked on its apex, to bear the two lintels or horizontal stones which rested upon it. Corresponding mortices were sunk in those stones to admit the tenons. In the case of the Trilithons of the Inner Horseshoe, only one tenon on each upright was necessary. Further, the ends of the lintels of the outer circle were shaped so as to dovetail into one another, and form what is known as a "toggle" joint. This can easily be seen to-day, in the group of three Trilithons which lie between the Altar Stone and the Hele Stone. This careful arrangement, of mortice, tenon, and toggle, has doubtless very much to do with the comparative stability of Stonehenge at the present day. Had these simple but effective measures not been taken, it would not be exceeding the bounds of possibility to say that to-day the ruin would have presented a mass of fallen stones, and the task of their reconstruction would be well-nigh impossible. [Illustration]