vi. J ADDRESS. 177 



subject ; and I will therefore only add that, for my 

 own part, I look upon the account given by Geoffrey 

 as altogether mythical. 



It is remarkable that the source of the small inner 

 stones, which, as Stukely first pointed out, are of a dif- 

 ferent material from the others, is still uncertain, 1 but 

 the large ones are certainly " Sarcen " stones, such as 

 are still shown in many places on the Plain. The best 

 evidence as to the age of Stonehenge seems to me deriv- 

 able from the contents of the tumuli surrounding it. 

 Within a radius of three miles round Stonehenge there 

 are no less than 300 tumuli ; which is, I need not say, 

 a much larger number than are found anywhere else 

 within an equal area. We can hardly doubt, I think, 

 that these tumuli cluster round the great monument ; 

 or, at least, that the same circumstances which induced the 

 erection of Stonehenge on its present site, led also, either 

 directly or indirectly, to the remarkable assemblage of 

 tumuli round it. Now, 250 of these tumuli were opened 

 by our great Antiquary, Sir Eichard Colt Hoare, and 

 are described in his Ancient Wiltshire If these be- 

 longed to the post Roman period, we should naturally 

 expect to find iron weapons, and, especially knives, coins, 



1 There are, in fact, four kinds of stones in Stonehenge. The 

 great outer circle and the trilithons are "Sarcen" stones, that is to 

 say, they are formed from the sandstone blocks of the neighbour- 

 hood. The majority of the small pillars forming the inner circle 

 consist of an igneous rock known as Diabase, but four stones of 

 this series are scbistoid, and resemble some of the Silurian and 

 Cambrian rocks of North Wales and Cumberland. Lastly, the so- 

 called altar-stone is grey sandstone, resembling some of the Devonian 

 and Cambrian rocks. — Maskelyne, Wilts. Arch, and If at. Hist. 

 Magazine, Oct. 1877. 



N 



