of the Great Trilifhon, at Stonehenge. 275 



pointed out to me, are " the capital letters V L, with sundry unin- 

 telligible devices. There may be nothing in it, but it is odd that 

 V L should be on the trilithon very much like these in shape." 



Hire was curious matter for speculation ; and it became a question 

 whether those who since the time of Aylett Sammes ^ have very 

 improbably maintained the Phoenician origin of Stonehenge, might 

 not find a fresh argument in favour of their views, in the similarity 

 of the characters on the impost, and those on the monuments found 

 at Carthage. I was hence glad of the opportunity presented by 

 the meeting at Stonehenge, to request the opinion of any learned 

 persons who might be present, as to these characters. Professor 

 Rawlinson favoured us with some observations, denying, as was to 

 have been expected, their claim to be anything else than Eoman. 

 He expressed no decided opinion as to their ancient or modem 

 date ; and said he should at least not think it necessary to conclude 

 that Stonehenge was erected in times subsequent to the Koman 

 invasion. As to the emblem, — a sort of double sickle — ^he said 

 that the sickle was a not uncommon symbol in ancient times. A 

 single sickle was the emblem of the Italian town Arpi ; and three 

 sickles conjoined formed the triquetra, which was the national 

 emblem of the Lycians in Asia Minor. This symbol might have 

 been a sacred character in the British religious system ; and some 

 Boman coming to the spot, might have added his own initials. 

 Mr. O'Callaghan suggested that a Roman soldier from Italy might 

 have added the letters L V, signifying Legio Victrix, the honorary 

 designation of his legion. But after all, he said, some Irish reaper 

 may have cut the figure of his own sickle, and added the initial 

 letters of his name (say Larry Varity,) to record a visit made not 

 many years ago.* 



Had the conclusion as to the antiquity of these incised marks 

 being well-founded, it would have been an object of much importance 



1 " Britannia Antiqua, The Antiquities of Bntain, Derived from the Phoe- 

 nicians," 1676, Stonehenge, p. 395 — 402. 



* This report of the discussion on the incised marks, has been compiled from 

 several reports; viz. those in the Wilts Coimty Mirror, Sept. 28, 1864; Bath 

 Chronicle Report of the Meeting of the British Association at Bath, 8vo, p. 271 ; 

 Reader, Oct. 8, Id, 22, 1864 ; and from my own MS. notes. 



