Having proceeded thus far it is well, however, not to insist too strongly on the "Sun Temple" theory, on the lines already sketched out. It should be always remembered that the "Hele Stone" is an unworked stone, which stands without the circle, and does not form a symmetrical integer in the structure. Being unwrought it may have been erected at an earlier date, and might belong to an earlier culture. It is possible that Stonehenge may have been a later addition to the Hele Stone. Many of the arguments relating to the "wise men" and the observation of sunrise are matters of analogy rather than direct proof, and though coincidences are ever suggestive and fascinating, they cannot always be entirely accepted as proof. While it is quite possible that the Hele Stone was erected to mark the Solstice and to afford a definite means of determining the year, this may not justify the theory that the entire structure was an astronomical observatory and dedicated entirely to sun worship, with elaborate ramifications, and "observation" mounds for celestial phenomena. Weighing, therefore, the archaeologist's and astronomer's evidence, it is fairly safe to conclude that Stonehenge can be dated at about B.C. 1700, and that its use was religious; probably a temple, in which the sun may have been adored in some way. As yet, however, the actual nature of that worship is a matter for speculation. It is of the utmost importance in dealing with a question like this, to observe the greatest caution and to maintain a strictly detached position. The astronomer, archaeologist, geologist, and anthropologist have each their share in the solution of the problem, but each also has the bias due to his own special science. The mineralogist solves the problem of the Foreign Stones by suggesting a "glacial drift" without reference to the geologist, who will tell him that the local gravels contain no pebbles which belong to those classes of stones known as Foreign Stones. The astronomer, in his quest for alignments, will convert barrows into observation mounds, without reference to their uses and contents, and without allowing for the ignorance of the period, while the anthropologist often allows his imagination to carry him beyond the limits of actual fact. Time, and constant careful investigation, will pierce some of the mists which must always shroud the origin of Stonehenge, but the true solution will be for the field archaeologist, rather than to the weaver of theories or the student in his library.