52 STONEHENGE. 



has, indeed, been urged that if Stonehenge had existed in the 

 time of Csesar, we should find it mentioned by ancient writers. 

 Hecatseus, however, does allude to a magnificent circular 

 temple, in the island of the Hyperboreans, over against Cel- 

 tica, and many archaeologists have confidently assumed that 

 this refers to Stonehenge. But why should we expect to 

 find it described, if it was, as we suppose, even at that time 

 a ruin, more perfect no doubt than at this day, but still a 

 ruin ? The Caledonian Wall was a most important fortifi- 

 cation, constructed by the Romans themselves, and yet, as 

 Dr. Wilson tells us,* only one of the Roman historians makes 

 the least allusion to its erection. 



It is evident, that Stonehenge was at one time a spot of 

 great sanctity. A glance at the ordnance map will show, 

 that tumuli cluster in great numbers round, and within sight 

 of it ; within a radius of three miles, there are about three 

 hundred burial mounds, while the rest of the country is ' ) 

 comparatively free from them. If, then, we could determine i c* f 

 the date of these tumuli, we should be justified, I think, ^ 

 in referring the Great Temple itself to the same period. 

 Now, of these barrows, Sir Richard Colt Hoare examined 

 a great number, 151 of which had not been previously 

 opened. Of these, the great majority contained inter- 

 ments by cremation, in the manner usual during the Bronze 

 age. Only two contained any iron weapons, and these were 

 both secondary interments ; that is to say, the owners of the 

 iron weapons were not the original occupiers of the tumuli. 

 Of the other burial mounds, no less than 39 contained objects 

 of bronze, and one of them, in which were found a spear- 

 head, and pin of bronze, was still more connected with the 

 temple by the presence of fragments, not only of Sarcen 

 stones, but also of the blue stones which form the inner circle 

 at Stonehenge ; and which, according to Sir R. C. Hoare, 



* Pre-historic Ann. of Scot. vol. ii. p. 39. 



