[Footnote 124: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 154.] [Footnote 125: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 150.] [Footnote 126: Nennius, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 69.] [Footnote 127: Jeffrey, viii. c. 9.] [Footnote 128: "Fuit antiquis temporibus in Hiberniâ lapidum congeries admiranda, quæ et Chorea gigantum dicta fuit, quia gigantes eam ab ultimis Africæ partibus in Hiberniam attulerunt et in Kildarienes planicie non procul a Castro Nasensi, tam ingenii quam virium opere mirabiliter erexerunt. Unde et ibidem lapides quidam aliis simillimi similique modo erecti usque in hodiernum conspiciuntur. Mirum qualiter tanti lapides tot etiam et tam magni unquam in unum locum vel congesti fuerint vel erecti: quantoque artificiis lapidibus tam magnis et altis alii superpositi sint non minores; qui sic in pendulo et tanquam in inani suspendi videntur ut potius artificum studio quam suppositorum podio inniti videantur. Juxta Britannicam historiam lapides istos rex Britonum Aurelius Ambrosius divina Merlini diligentia de Hiberniâ in Britanniam advehi procuravit; et ut tanti facinoris egregium aliquod memoriale relinqueret eodem ordine et arte qua prius in loco constituit ubi occultis Saxonum cultris Britanniæ flos occidit et sub pacis obtentu nequitiæ telis male tecta regni juventus occubuit."--_Topogr. Hiberniæ_, vol. ii. ch. xviii. If we could trust Ware, they still existed in the beginning of the last century. He speaks of "Saxa illæ in gentia et rudia quæ in planitie non longe a Naasa in agro Kildariensi et alibi visuntur."--_Hist. Hib._, xxiv. 103.] [Footnote 129: 'Hist. Brit.' viii. ch. xvi.] [Footnote 130: 'Hist. Brit.' xi. ch. iv.] [Footnote 131: This is the principal argument of Herbert's 'Cyclops Christianus.'] [Footnote 132: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 158. See also woodcut No. 26, p. 102. The dotted part of the smaller cursus is a restoration of my own.] [Footnote 133: _Vide ante_, p. 107.] CHAPTER IV. MINOR ENGLISH ANTIQUITIES. AYLESFORD. The detailed examination of these groups at Avebury and Stonehenge will probably be deemed sufficient to establish at least a _prima facie_ case in favour of the hypothesis that these monuments were sepulchral--that at least some of them marked battle-fields, and lastly, that their antiquity was not altogether prehistoric. If this is so, it will not be necessary to repeat the same evidence in treating of those monuments or groups we are about to describe. Incidentally the latter will, if I am not mistaken, afford many confirmations of those propositions, but it will not be necessary to insist or enlarge on them to the same extent as has been done in the previous pages. [Illustration: 27. Countless Stones, Aylesford. From a drawing by Stukeley.]