156 Congress of British Archaeological Association at Devizes. 



believed Sir John Lubbock concurred. He thought it very similar 

 in character to the temples frequently mentioned in the Old Testa- 

 ment, consisting of uncovered pillars erected in the open air. 

 Stones were the simplest materials, and circles the simplest form in 

 which to arrange them ; and these circles were the memorials of great 

 events, the meeting-jilaces of armies, the burial-places of chieftains, 

 and were regarded as sacred spots. The stones here were arranged 

 exactly as those described by the Jews. Its appearance proclaimed 

 the antiquity of Stonehenge, but its magnitude and grandeur declared 

 that the people who first raised the ponderous blocks of stone of which 

 it was composed were not so rude and un-educated as had been asserted. 



Mr. Myers, F.S.A., urged the higher antiquity of Abury over 

 Stonehenge, from its greater rudeness. Stonehenge could not have 

 been, as Mr. Morgan suggested, a group of unearthed cromlechs : 

 none of those in Brittany, Cornwall, or Ireland had any approxi- 

 mation to this : neither could it be compared in any way to Baalbec,^ 

 which was one of the most beautiful and refined examples of classic 

 work, and far surpassed anything in Rome. 



Professor Rupert Jones, Lord Nelson, and others having dis- 

 cussed the possible derivation of the name — as to which it appeared 

 that no theory found acceptance by any other than the propounder— 

 Mr. J. A. PicTON, F.S.A., said the coincidence between the position 

 of the Friar^s Heel and the altar-stone, and the position of the sun 

 at the summer solstice was so marked that it might be taken as an 

 accepted theory that the object of this erection was sun-worship. 

 He would try to deal with Stonehenge without any pre-conceived 

 theory, and discarding all traditions, would simply examine the 

 facts. He saw before him certain phenomena and facts, and asked 

 to what inference did they lead ? Before him were parts of two 



' It should, however, be recollected that the comparison with Baalbec has no 

 reference to the richly-oi-namented temples, which were erected in a later age ; 

 but to the huge foundation-stones, probably of Phcenician workmanship, of which 

 the architects of those highly-finished temples availed themselves, and which are 

 the largest stones known in the world, as shaped by masons, and moved into 

 position. The weight of each of them is calculated to be above 900 tous ! and 

 besides these the stones of Stonehenge appear of insignificant proportions, as not 

 one of them exceeds 60 tons. See Magazine, vol. x., p. 58. [Ed.] 



