ORIGIN OF THE NAME. 127 



erected ? The plan also of Stonehenge seems to be a suffi- 

 cient reason for not referring it to post-Eoman times. It 

 has, indeed, been urged that if Stonehenge had existed in 

 the time of Caesar, we should find it mentioned by ancient 

 writers. Hecataeus, however, does allude to a magnificent 

 circular temple in the island of the Hyperboreans, over 

 against Celtica, and many archaeologists have confidently 

 assumed that this refers to Stonehenge. But why should we 

 expect to find it described, if it was, as we suppose, even at 

 that time a ruin, more perfect, no doubt, than at this day, 

 but still a ruin ? The Caledonian Wall was a most impor- 

 tant fortification constructed by the Eomans themselves, and 

 yet, as Dr. Wilson tells us,* only one of the Koman historians 

 makes the least allusion to its erection, nor is Abury itself 

 mentioned by any mediaeval author. 



It is evident that Stonehenge was at one time a spot of 

 great sanctity. A glance at the Ordnance map will show 

 that tumuli cluster in great numbers round and within sight 

 of it; within a radius of three miles, there are about three 

 hundred burial mounds, while the rest of the country is com- 

 paratively free from them. If, then, we could determine the 

 date of these tumuli, we should be justified, I think, in refer- 

 ring the Great Temple itself to the same period. ISTow, of 

 these barrows, Sir Eichard Colt Hoare examined a great 

 number, 151 of which had not been previously opened. Of 

 these the great majority contained interments by cremation, 

 in the manner usual during the Bronze Age. Only two con- 

 tained any iron weapons, and these were both secondary 

 interments ; that is to say, the owners of the iron weapons 

 were not the original occupiers of the tumuli. Of the other 

 burial mounds, no less than 39 contained objects of bronze, 

 and one of them, in which were found a spear-head and pin 

 of bronze, was still more connected with the temple by the 

 * Pre-historic Ann. of Scot. vol. ii. p. 39. 



