thus much certainly, but nothing more, and similarly the finding Roman
pottery at Stonehenge is no proof that the Roman people, or their
successors, had any hand whatever in its construction. Possibly it may
have happened, though I admit that we have no evidence to offer on this
point, that the Romano-British ladies were accustomed to have their
picnics at Stonehenge, as we do now, and “as accidents will sometimes
happen” an article or two of their pottery may have been broken, and have
become gradually embedded in the ground, so as to mislead some of the
learned archæologists of the present day. Evidence drawn from objects
found beneath the soil is usually very inconclusive. As in this case,
there may have been diggings at different times; stones we know have been
upset; earth is apt to accumulate in the lapse of time; and objects once
on the surface to sink down and become buried. Time effects many such
changes, and mistakes often arise from not bearing this sufficiently in
mind.
But putting aside for the present the unsatisfactory evidence on which
this theory is based, let us see whether the surrounding barrows have not
something to say on the question before us. These barrows are, as
everyone must have observed, more than usually numerous around
Stonehenge. There are about 300 within a radius of a mile and a-half.
They are, in fact, much more thickly conglomerated hereabouts than
elsewhere on the plain. This, I think I shall be able to show presently,
is no accidental circumstance, but that it has a significant bearing on
the age of this mysterious structure.
First, however, let us take notice of the contents of these particular
barrows, and of the evidence thence deducible as to the era of their
construction. They are unquestionably pre-Roman. They have all been
opened, and nothing Roman, whether coins, or pottery, or ornaments, or
weapons, has been found in any of them. This we know on the authority of
that very able and most careful barrow-opener, Sir R. C. Hoare, _vide_
his “Ancient Wilts.” In saying this, it must be borne in mind that we
are speaking of the barrows which immediately surround Stonehenge. In
other parts of England, and indeed, in other parts of Wiltshire, there
are tumuli of later age; but in this particular district they are all,
without exception, of an era prior to the Roman occupation.
And now I need scarcely say that if only we can satisfactorily connect
these barrows with Stonehenge, we shall be furnished with a clue to its
age of no little value—not, indeed, to its precise or positive age, but
to its age in relation to the period when the Romans occupied Britain.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account