10 The Twenty-third General Meeting. 
opinion as to its date or origin. In the same century, Geoffrey of 
Monmouth, who, in the words of Dr. Guest, “is everywhere found 
darkening the pure light of our early history,” gave to the world 
that which some call an historical account of Stonehenge, viz., that: 
it was erected in the fifth century, to commemorate the treacherous 
murder of the British by Hengist. The stones are said to have 
come from Africa, whence they were transported by giants to the 
plains of Kildare; and from thence by the enchantments of Merlin 
carried to Salisbury Plain. The question has been well discussed 
by one of our members, Mr. Long, in his recent work on “ Stonehenge 
and its Barrows,” in which he has usefully brought together our 
present information on the subject, and I will therefore only add 
that, for my own part, I look upon the account given by Geoffrey 
as altogether mythical. It is remarkable that the source of the 
small inner stones, which, as Stukeley first pointed out, are of a 
different material from the others, is still uncertain, but the large 
ones are certainly “ Sarsen” stones, such as are still shown in many 
places on the Plain. The best evidence as to the age of Stonehenge 
seems to me derivable from the contents of the tumuli surrounding 
it. Within a radius of three miles round Stonehenge there are no 
less than three hundred tumuli; which is, I need not say, a much 
larger number than are found anywhere else within an equal area. 
We can hardly doubt, I think, that these tumuli cluster round the 
great monument, or, at least, that the same circumstances which led 
to the erection of Stonehenge on its present site, either directly or 
“indirectly, led to the remarkable assemblage of tumuli round it. 
Now, two hundred and fifty of these tumuli were opened by our 
great antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, and are described in his 
“ Ancient Wiltshire.” If these belonged to the past Roman period 
we should naturally expect to find iron weapons, and, especially 
knives, coins, well-burnt pottery, and other relics characteristic of 
the period. Is this so? Not atall. The primary interment was 
not in any case accompanied by objects of iron, while in no less than 
thirty-nine cases bronze was present. We have then, I think, strong 
grounds for referring these monuments to the Bronze Age; and 
if this be true of Stonehenge, it probably is the case with Abury 
