The Mystery Of Stonehenge. TO THE EDITOR OF THE TLIMES. Sir,-As a student of Stonehenge and its problems, I have read with great interest the articles in The Tim of yesterday and of Wednesday by your Special Investigator. The discoveries connected with the depressions just within the Vallum undoubtedly shed light on the life of the period. I feel, however, that statements appear in the articles which are not convincing, particularly those connected with the supposed removal of the " foreign" stones and the use to which the Cursus was put. The Investigator apparently accepts the sun- worship theory of the temple and must be aware of the fact that the circle and horseshoe formation of foreign stones is not concentric with the circle and horseshoe of the later " Sarsen stones," the centre point of the former association being slightly to the south- east by east of the centre point of the latter stones. This gives the foreign stones an axis pointing to the June azimuth of an earlier and not later date. Since the mounds wlhich exist on the north-west and south-east sides of the structure and the Hele Stone and the so-called MSlaughter Stone have the same centre and axis as the foreign stones, I am inclined to the view that the existing foreign stones are in siu, and that other stones have been removed from the depressions at a later date and possibly destroyed. Moreover, among the foreign stones there is one remains of a trilithon (of syenite), the capping-stone having fallen. This is in such a position that it appears to have been used on an alinement from the Altar Stone to the sun on the longest day. It would appear to be superfluous for this purpose after the erection of the Sarsen circle of capped stones, through one of the arches of which observation to this day is rnade of the Midsummer Day sunrise over the Hele Stone. As to the avenue leading from the temple to the Cursus, traceable at one time far beyond the great Cursus, as Sir Norman Lockyer has pointed out, there is strong evidence of a religious purpose. It is fairly accurately oriented not only with the axis of the temple, but also with Silbury Hill at a distance of eight miles. True, Silbury Hill is not visible now from Stonehenge, but it must have suffered degradation, especially when we consider that its apex is undoubtedly artificial. The azimuth of the avenue at a point near the temple is N. 49? 38' 48 E., and further on N. 49? 32' 54V E. The azimuth of Silbury Hill from tho temple N. 49"34' 18' E., and that of the axis of the actual temple approximately the same. As is generally known, this orienta- tion coincides with the azimuth of the Mid- sunmmer sunrise about 1800 to 1600 n.c., a date corresponding to that inferred from the rate of decay of the stones of the temple. Does this not point to the avenue having been constructed for and used by the worshippers at the great festival of MEdsummer Day? The number of the pilgrims was probably very great. Is there any evidence of the use of the greater of the two Cursus as a racecourse other than that derived from its present name, always a deceptive aregment ? Is it not significant that its azimuth N. 820 E. corresponds with that of the Pleiades, at the Stonehenge period. an alinement so common among the stone avenues of Cornwall and Dartmoor, suggesting star worship? WVith regard to the numerous flint flakes -ound recently, may these not have had their origin in the manufacture of flints used in dres- sing the Sarsens? Numbers of worn flint imple- ments were found under the quondam leaning stone when it was replaced in its upright posi- tion in 1901. Enormous numbers must have been used to produce the smooth surface shown below the earth level on those stones which have been moved. Surely for hunting and general purposes bronze must have supervened at this period. Yours faithfullv. AL1'RED E. LEE. The Iall, Mildenhall, Siaolk, June 10. TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir,-In your edition of June 8 a Special Investi- gator propounds a theory of the origin of Stonebenge which hardly seems to be in accordance vwith the known facts about the building of megalithic monu- ments. The writer is at pains to show that two distinct races of people must have been involved in the building of Stonehenge. The earlier group brought with them from elsewhere stones of a kind not found on or near Salisbury Plain, and with them con- structed a stone circle, a typical megalithic monu- ment. Then came another race which built the Stone- henge that we know, making it of local stone, and incorporating in the monument the foreign stones of the previous group of people. That is the theory. How does the ;writer support it ? In speaking of these foreign stones, he says: They would not have been fetched bv natives of the Plain, such as the race w;hich erected Stonehenge Jor it was the invariable cuistom of megalithic people to employ local materials for their Constructoon The Stonehenge builders did use local stones, the Sarseus, for their own design; the foreign stones bad been brought to the Plain at a very much earlier period, and were incorporated in the great monument." Two assumptions are made: that the builders of the second stone circle were natives of Salisbury Plain; and that megalith builders alvwas used local stone. But who were the builders of the circle of foreign stones if they were not Megalithic people ? They presumably were not natives of the Plain, for the used stones from some unknown place. They made a stone circle, which is a megalithic monument. Since the foreign stones are quite big enough to be called megalithic the writer seems to have made distinctions which do not exist, unless he be prepared to assert that the first. stone circle was not a mega- lithic monument. If he does not make that claim it would seem that on his own showing, Mlegalithic people do transport stones from place to place. Apart from this internal evidence it is. surprising to find the assertion that megalith builders invariably used local stone. I quote some examples to show that they have often brought stones over considerable distances to the place that they had chosen, and that they did not use stone because it happened to be lying about. A good excample is that of Ponape in the Carolinas, where are some of the finest megalithic ruins in the world. The story goes that these ruins were made by people from the iland of Yap who were driven out by warlike invaders. They went across the sea, taking with them large stones that Swam on the water, an they madthehe great artifcial Venice of Ponape where these stones stranded on the reefs. g. Percy Smith, in the Inst volume of the Jeunial of the Polynesian Societyv, quotes the case of a stone taken from the megalithic pyramidal monmnent of Opoa in Ra'iatla Island to form the foundation-stone of the Mahal-atea monument in Tahiti, and of another stone taken irom the samne Island to IMdoorea Island. In my work on "The Megalithic Cul- ture of Indonesia," I hav given several examples of the transportation of stones by Mfealithic people. A striking examngle was that of the is and of Little Kel, just west of New Guinea. It is of coral formation and on it is a large sacred stone of igneous rock, which must have been transported over the sea. Several stone circles exist in the baoin of the Gambia River in West Africa in the country of the Mandingo. We are told that the stones of these circles must have been brought for aone miles InL order to bc pu t in position. Trhe same hs said of the megalithic blocks along the banlks of the Abakan tributary of the Upper Yenisdi in Siberia. Thee e uazples show that the builders of megalithic monument9 often took with themn eome stones which werer incorporated in the new monument; alBo that they did not heditato to transport stones for considerablo ditances. So in bringuig stones to Salisbury. Plan the builder6 of the supposed first circle were ac in. accordance with the custom of Megalithic peole. It is there- fore possible that they were responsible for the whole construction. The fact that megalthic monuments are often found far from sources of stone shows tbat their builders had good reason for placing them wherethey did. In all probability Avebury and Stonehenge were in the middle of a centre of manufature of tlint implements that were exported to all parts of the country. The other regions occupied by mega- iths are mining regions where the builders found gold, tin, couper; lead, silver, and so forth These men probably were not indigenow tribes of the country, but foreies from t.he Mediterranean bent on ex- ploiting the wealth oS Britain. A map of the die- trlbntloa of msegalti moniimesa shows this clearly. I am yours, &c.. W. J. PERRY. fine Vnlvermty, Manchester, June 1I. TILE MYSTERY OF STONEHENGE. A MIDSUMMER DAY FESTIVAL. ERECTION OF FOREIGN STONES. Q