within the area some Roman pottery. [4]  From this Mr. Fergusson infers that “the building must have been erected after the Romans had settled in this island.”  But what does the fact, assuming it to be a fact, that Roman pottery was found at Stonehenge, prove?  Not that the Romans, or their successors, were the builders, but simply what no one will question, that the Romans during their stay in Britain, occupied this part of the country, and visited Stonehenge.  He omits in his argument, it should be observed, to take any notice of the fact that “ancient British pottery” was found at the same time with Roman within the temple.  Does not such an omission detract much from the fairness and force of his reasoning?  Moreover we find that Sir R. C. Hoare in his “Ancient Wilts” repeatedly mentions that in digging within what were undoubtedly ancient British camps in South Wilts, he met with Roman pottery as well as British.  What does this indicate?  Simply that while these earthworks had been originally constructed by our Celtic forefathers they were afterwards occupied, and in many instances re-formed, by the Romans.  It indicates 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,