I 



By W. Jerome Harrison, F.G.S. 85 



This admirable work must long remain the best general guide to the subject 

 of which it treats. It is, indeed, a mine of information ; and is well 

 illustrated. Mr. Long considers that the monument and the surround- 

 ing barrows are " inseparably connected," and he believes that its 

 erection was the woi-k of Belgic tribes ; being therefore pre-Roman in date. 



Lucas, Rev. C. 1795. Serpentine Temple at Avebury: a 

 Poem ; 4to., 39 pp. ; illustrated : Marlborough. 

 Includes some notes ; and an etymology. 



Lukis, Dr. P. C 1853. Celtic Megaliths : Channel Isles. 



Archceologia, XXXV., 232—258. 



An elaborate classification of the early stone monuments is given. Stone- 

 henge is styled a " Cyclotrilith " ; and is classed as " Pseudo-Celtic or 

 Transition " ; while Abury is placed in the more ancient or " Celtic '' 

 division. Abury is a " Cyclolith " plus two " Paralleliths." 



Lukis, Rev. W. C. [1817 — 1892]: AnUqtiary. 

 1864 Danish Cromlechs, etc. Wilts Mag., VIII., 145—169 ; 

 with 16 plates. 

 Abury and Stonehenge are the work of the Celts in pre-Eoman times. 



1867. Barrow-Diggings at Collingbourne Ducis [eleven 



miles N.E. of Stonehenge]. Wilts Mag., X., 85 — 103 ; illustrated. 

 The mounds were often family burial-places. Eemarks that Sir R. C. 



Hoare's barrow-diggings were not well managed. 



1872. Avenues of Carnac. Wilts Mag., XIII., 78—91 ; 



with five folding plans. 



These monuments belong to " the prehistoric age ... of polished stone 

 implements." They are oriented ; and may be connected with funeral 

 rites. Compares them with Avebury (p. 88) ; but thinks Carnac the older 

 of the two. 



— 1875. Prevailing Errors on Eude Stone Monuments, 



I 



etc., refuted ; 8vo. : Eipon. 

 — 1877. Stonehenge. Proc. Soc. Antiq., 2 ser., VII., 268 — 



271. 



Believes that stones belonging to avenues which once led up to Stonehenge 

 have been removed — perhaps by the " Amesbury masons." 



— 1883. Eeport on Stonehenge and Avebury. Proc Soc. 

 Antiq., 2 ser., IX., 141—157. 



