192 



Coudusiou. 



■^HE writer, in conclusion, would venture to express his own 

 deliberate conviction : first, that Stonehenge and the barrows 

 which surround it, are part and parcel of the same system, and that they 

 are inseparably connected ; and secondly, that the histoiy of Stone- 

 henge must be read by such light as the contents of these barrows 

 afford. The result would, of course, be to throw back the erection of 

 Stonehenge to a pre-Christian period. He would fain hope, that ere 

 long. Antiquaries will come to be of one accord as to the propriety 

 of abandoning the theories which would ascribe it to the Romans, 

 to the Roman-British, to the Saxons, or to the Danes. There is at 

 present, much dissipation of Archaeological power, and much profit- 

 less " beating of the air " in the endeavour to maintain positions 

 which the writer humbly believes to be utterly untenable. It would 

 be a great gain if, by common consent, the stand-point of the 

 Christian era were adopted, and if the solution of the difficulty 

 were sought for in the times which preceded it. The result of 

 ethnological, linguistic, and archaeological researches into this 

 higher period might be to favour the idea that a Phoenician or some 

 other external influence of a very early date had been associated 

 with the erection of the megalithic structures of the West of 

 England. Tdl then, the writer is content to consider the Belgic 

 theory regarding Stonehenge, originated by Mr. Warner, and so 

 ably supported by Dr. Guest, as by far the most rational which has 

 yet been propounded. 



