theses, and, for reasons which appear satisfactory, rejects them. He is inclined to fix the round temple far more to the eastward, than would suit the views either of our own or of the Swedish antiquaries; and whether we agree with him or not, the criticism which identifies Stonehenge with this temple of the Hyperboreans, rests, I think, on grounds much too questionable to secure the assent of any cautious inquirer. The opinion which assigns to Stonehenge, and indeed to all our Druidical structures, .a date posterior to the Roman conquest, is the one most generally entertained at the present day. It has been elaborately maintained by Mr. J. Rickman. He objects to an earlier date for Avebury, because it adjoins to a Roman road; because it resembles a Roman amphitheatre; because its dimensions seem to be adjusted to the measure of a Roman mile; and lastly, because the engineer, who made the Roman road, did not avail himself of the deep ditch round Silbury, to lessen the steepness of the ascent; whence we may conclude that such ditch was not in existence when the road was made. His attempts to support the second and third of these positions appear to the writer to be most unsatisfactory; and with respect to the first, it might be answered, that the Roman road from Silchester to Bath was, in all probability, preceded by a British trackway, and that the point where the Ickneld road crossed such trackway, was well suited for the site of a great national temple; while the fact that the Roman engineers did not avail themselves of the lower level afforded them by the ditch, might be owing to their unwillingness to wound the national prejudices by violating unnecessarily a national monument. Rickman maintains, that tools of mixed metal, such as are found in the barrows of the early Britons, would have been unequal to the "respectable workmanship," which he observed on the tenons and mortices of the Stonehenge

3 Archæologia, Vol. 28.

The avenue which stretched south-east from the main temple, was intersected by the Roman road, and, according to Rickman, the distance of Silbury both from the point of intersection and from the centre of the Avebury circle, was a Roman mile. I can only say, that according to my measurement, Silbury hill is distant from the centre of the circle more than a Roman mile, and from the point of intersection very considerably less. But even were

the measurement correct, how could the symmetry of the structure be anyway dependent on the distance of Silbury from the point, where the road cut through the avenue? The proper inference seems to be, that the Romans would not allow a great public road to be diverted out of its course, in order to spare the mere adjuncts of a building, whose hold upon the respect and reverence of the people had probably been for some time declining.

trilithons; and that stone so hard could only have been worked after the introduction of steel tools. As we know that "the maritime states" produced iron in the time of Cæsar, it is clear that any hypothesis which does not carry back the origin of Stonehenge more than a century or two before the Christian era, will not be affected by the difficulty here suggested.

Mr. Herbert's theory may be considered, in one point of view, as a modification of Rickman's. He supposes that Stonehenge, Avebury, and our other "megalithic monuments" were erected after the Romans had left the island; and he has exhibited no small acuteness and learning, in support of this startling hypothesis. According to his theory, the bards and other favourers of the old superstition returned from Ireland, whither they had been driven by the influence of Roman civilisation, and of Christianity; heathenism, for a while, regained its ascendancy, and the enthusiasm awakened by the return to old habits and feelings, and by a sense of recovered independence, led to the erection of these mighty structures. Mr. Herbert skilfully avails himself of Rickman's arguments, and presses upon us the additional one, that the so-called Druidical temples, and other similar erections, are only to be found in Britain, or in countries closely connected with it, as Brittany; and therefore must have been the results of causes operating partially, and not the general expression -the necessary outward manifestation of a religion so widely diffused as the Druidical. Every candid reader will admit, that there is considerable weight in the argument last referred to. Do the following considerations supply us with a sufficient answer to it?

We know from Cæsar, that Britain was looked upon by the Gauls, both as the great centre of Druidism, and as the country in which its peculiar doctrines originated; “disciplina in Britanniâ reperta, atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur; et nunc qui diligentius eam rem cognoscere volunt, plerumque illo discendi causâ proficiscuntur."-B. G. 16. We might therefore expect to find in Britain, and such countries as were intimately connected with it, more marked traces of the peculiar structures which characterised this system, than are to be met with elsewhere. It seems also to be a fact, that, with the exception of Stonehenge, to which I shall shortly advert more particularly, all the larger Druidical

temples are situated in places where the blocks of stone, commonly called Sarsen stones, abound, or, at least, are known at one time to have abounded; and that the geological conditions which distinguish such localities, occur more frequently in England than in the interior of France. I think, therefore, we may account for the unfrequent occurrence of these structures in such parts of Gaul as are remote from its western coast, without being driven to the conclusion which Mr. Herbert would bring us to.

There is one argument against the theory, which assigns to Stonehenge, and the other Druidical structures, a date subsequent to the Roman occupation of the island, which the members of an Archaeological society are peculiarly fitted to appreciate. We all know-the principles on which our "Gothic buildings" were so long constructed, sufficiently teach us-how difficult it is for an architect to compose in a new style of architecture, and at the same time to keep his mind unswayed by the forms to which he has been long accustomed. Now I do not forget, that Inigo Jones started the hypothesis, that Stonehenge was "a hypæethral temple ;" but in his day the fundamental principles, which distinguish the different systems of architectural construction, had been but little studied, and the researches of modern times have placed us on a vantage-ground that enables us to estimate at its proper value, a theory, which, coming from a man so eminent, might otherwise occasion us some difficulty. After thus much of preface, I would ask the archaeological reader, whether he thinks it comes within the limits of a reasonable probability, that men who had, for centuries, been familiarised with the forms of Roman architecture, could have built Stonehenge?

The

If we suppose Stonehenge to have been erected after the Southern Belgæ had pushed their frontier to the Wansdike, and not long before Divitiacus obtained his imperium over the other Belgic races, every difficulty vanishes. manufacture of iron was probably known in Britain at that period, though it seems to have been only lately introduced, as Cæsar tells us, not many years afterwards, that the metal was not abundant,5 "ejus exigua est copia ;" and

5 Iron appears to have been scarce, at least in the remoter parts of Britain, as late as the beginning of the third century. Herodian informs us, that the tribes who opposed Severus decked their loins and

necks with this metal (i. e. I suppose, made their torcs of iron, and covered their girdles with it), and esteemed it not only as an ornament but also as a proof of wealth.

we are accordingly able to account for "the respectable workmanship," which Rickman observed at Stonehenge, and which certainly presents difficulties in the way of the hypothesis, that assigns to Stonehenge the remote antiquity sometimes given to it. Again, our geologists seem to be agreed, that the huge blocks of sandstone, which form the trilithons at Stonehenge, must have come from the neighbourhood of the Vale of Pewsey. Now the amount of physical power equal to the transport of such large masses, would exhaust the whole resources of the district; and we may safely conclude that the builders of Stonehenge, whoever they were, must also have been lords of the fertile vale, so celebrated in the annals of agriculture. If the Belgae were the builders, it follows necessarily that this temple was erected after the vale became Belgic territory, or as we may otherwise phrase it, after the Wansdike had been raised. That Stonehenge had some peculiar relation to the Belgic province, may be inferred from its central position within it. The capital towns of the Celtic races were often on the confines of their territories; as Winchester and Ilchester, near the borders of the Belgæ; and Silchester near those of the Attrebates. The facilities which such positions afforded for the defence of the frontier, may have been the reasons why they were selected. But we may gather from the passage already quoted, relative to the Gaulish temple, that a central situation was thought most suitable for the "locus consecratus," where justice was administered, and the national assemblies held. That Stonehenge was such ❝locus consecratus" is admitted by all, who regard it as a Celtic structure; and the enormous labour which was expended in transporting the materials to the spot, proves that the spot on which it stands was thought peculiarly eligible. I can point to no circumstances which could have made it so, save those which have been suggested.

The peculiarities which distinguish the structure of Stonehenge, seem to afford us additional arguments in support of the conclusions we have come to. Most of our Celtic temples are surrounded by a circular ditch. Now at Avebury, and in other cases, the mound or agger is on the outside of the ditch, while at Stonehenge it is within it. This new arrangement seems to indicate the usages of a new people; while the general style of the building, the more artistic plan, the

use of imposts, the well-executed tenons and mortices, and the worked surfaces of the uprights, all seem to point to a later age, and a more advanced civilisation. I think therefore we may fairly conclude, that Stonehenge is of later date than Avebury and the other structures of unwrought stone; that it could not have been built much later than the year 100, B. C., and in all probability was not built more than a century or two earlier. As to the antiquity of Avebury, I dare offer no conjecture. If the reader be more venturesome, and should fix its erection some eight or ten centuries before our era, it would be difficult to advance any critical reasons against his hypothesis.

NOTICE TO THE READER.-Portions of the map which is attached to this paper are coloured yellow. They are intended to represent the district, that were retained by the Britons after the conclusion of the treaty of the Mons Badonicus, A.D. 520. The boundary lines, which, in certain localities, mark out the frontier, are supposed to have been constructed—or, it may be, in some cases, adopted-by the Britons upon that occasion.

NOTICE OF INSCRIPTIONS AND ANTIQUITIES, DISCOVERED AT CAERLEON.

COMMUNICATED BY JOHN EDWARD LEE, ESQ.

NUMEROUS are the vestiges of interest, connected with the history of Roman occupation in the ancient district of the Silures, which have repaid the researches of archaeologists in that part of the kingdom. Some of the discoveries recently made at Caerleon are not unknown to the readers of the Journal, whose attention may have been invited to the memorials of the antiquities and of an extensive villa there brought to light, noticed in previous volumes. The publications to which we refer will show the variety of these remains, and especially the value of the accession to the history of Roman times in Britain, as illustrated by inscribed monuments, derived from investigations of late years at Isca Silurum. Upwards of twenty inedited inscriptions have