The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to a major change in the internal iconography of the Giant since it was first illustrated in 1764. If, as is highly probable, that illustration was substantially correct, the navel has in the meantime, through the vicissitudes of periods of neglect alternating with renovations from time to time, ceased to have a separate existence and has become added to the penis, increasing the length of the latter by some 5 or 6 feet (1.5-1.8m). If the change did not originate with the renovation of 1887 when the Giant was cleaned by order of General Pitt-Rivers, it was certainly perpetuated under his direction.

Apart from a reference to ‘illustrious Stanengs and his Cangick Giants’ (Gibbons, c. 1670), which is most unlikely to refer to the Cerne Giant, the earliest known definite allusion to this hill-figure was made by Francis Wise (1742, 48), who refrained from describing it in detail because he considered it preferable to leave the task to the Reverend John Hutchins, then working on his History of Dorset (1774 and later editions). The earliest known illustration to date was in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1764 (FIG, I a), accompanying a letter addressed to the editor, ‘Silvanus Urban’, unsigned but apparently not by Hutchins, who had supplied slightly different measurements to William Stukeley in October the previous year (Lukis 1883, 129-33).

One of the most widely-known narratives contained in Judaeo-Christian literature is that of ‘Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood’. The version best known to most English readers is derived from the translation of Genesis VI-VIII contained in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible and its subsequent revisions. According to this account, near the end of the Biblical Deluge, the Ark rested ‘upon the mountains of Ararat’. From this locality, according to the story, the ancestral stock of all terrestrial life, including mankind, left the Ark with the order that they ‘be fruitful and multiply upon the earth’. The Hebrew word which has been transliterated as Ararat in English texts may have been ultimately derived from an expression meaning ‘highlands’, and apparently referred to a region at the headwaters of the Tigris River which lay within the ancient boundaries of the Urartu of Assyrian records (Mellick, 1962).

‘A cairn supported at its edge by large stones may be removed. … The ring which is left looks like a stone circle.’ (Thom, 1967, 65).

Professor A. Thom has surveyed a large number of archaeological sites (Thom, 1967; 1971). These surveys provide the basis from which he deduces the existence of the Megalithic Yard (MY), Megalithic Geometry and Megalithic Astronomy. In considering his evidence for these aspects of ‘megalithic science’ it is pertinent to enquire of each site: Does it date from the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age? Is it correctly identified? Do the stones occupy their original positions? Is the site plan accurate? Has the site already been discussed, or since discussed, in the archaeological literature? The example of Unival, discussed in detail later, shows that here Thom has made a serious error in identifying the site, and very probably made surveying errors. These errors vitiate part of his discussion of an important site. This mis-identification, and similar ones, could have been avoided if the archaeological literature had been consulted.