must
not be forgotten either, that the Sarsens occur naturally in tabular
blocks, well adapted to the purpose of the builders. The surface of
these blocks is often soft, and sugary, while the body of the stone
is dense. The nature of their composition is such that no two stones
are quite alike in hardness, some can be disintegrated easily, even
with the fingers, while others are dense, and will resist blows with a
hammer and chisel.

But in any case the natural structure of the stone made it an ideal
material for the Trilithons, or, it may be, that the Trilithons were
the natural outcome of the physical peculiarities of the rock. The
preliminary dressing may very possibly have been effected by lighting
small fires along the proposed line of fracture, and heating the
stone, and then by pouring cold water upon it, which would originate a
cleavage in the grain, which would readily break away under blows from
the heavy mauls referred to in Class V. of the Implements. Sides and
ends could thus be roughly squared.

The next point was the transportation of the rough ashlar to the site.
Here the problem is not so formidable as it appears, when it is
remembered that time was no object to the builders, that labour was
abundant, and that in all probability the work was undertaken under
the stimulus of religion.

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