178 ADDRESS. [LECT. 



well-burnt pottery, and other relics, characteristic of the 

 period. Is this so ? Not at all. The primary inter- 

 ment 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 also, 

 which seems decidedly more archaic, the stones, for 

 instance, being rough, while those of Stonehenge are 

 hewn. 



Now when was the Bronze Age ? And what do archaeo- 

 logists mean by the Bronze Age ? I ask this question 

 because, though it has been repeatedly answered, there 

 is still a great misapprehension even in the minds of 

 some who have written on the subject. 



By the Bronze Age, then, we mean a period when the 

 weapons were made almost entirely, and ornaments prin- 

 cipally, of Bronze ; that is to say, of Copper and Tin ; 

 Gold being rare, Iron and Silver still more so, or even 

 unknown, as was also the case with Coins and Glass. 



Some archaeologists, indeed, have considered the Bronze 

 swords and daggers which characterise the Bronze Age 

 to be really Roman. This question has been much dis- 

 cussed, and I will not now enlarge on it, but will only 

 say, that in my judgment these arms are not found 

 with Eoman remains, and that the Roman weapons were 

 made of iron, the word " ferrum " being synonymous with 

 a sword. On this point, I have taken some pains to 

 ascertain the opinions of Italian archaeologists. Bronze 

 swords, daggers, &c., occur south of the Alps, the very 

 patterns being in some places identical with those of 



