b o o k fome o f thofe which are .delineated in Borlaie’s Antiquities
vm' . of Cornwall; and that circular range in Cumberland, of
which Mr. Pennant * has given an .engraving in his '1 our to
Scotland, feem to approach neareft in their general appearance
to thofe which I obferved in Sweden and Denmark.
I cannot, however, but add, thatOlaus Wormius, and other
authors, highly exaggerate when they deduce any refem-
blance between the ftupendous fabrick o f Stone Henge, and
thefe trifiing, though genuine,'remains o f high antiquity;
and ftill more erroneous in concluding, from that fanciful
refemblance, thatStone Henget wasconftruitedby our .A r.glo-
Saxon anceftors, who migrated from thefe Northern parts.
Endlefs controverfies h.ave arifen among the learned concerning
their origin and deftination ; and each author maint
a i n s that they were raifed by that particular nation, or fe£t;
as beft fuits his favourite hypothefis. Thus they are ftyled
* T o u r into S cotlan d , and annexed plate.' * much le a rn in g , the opinion o f D r . C h a r le to n ,
+ I t is c u r i o u s , to .tra ce th e different fy f- . bu t fails in re-eftab lilh in g th e f y f t em b f In igo
terns which ha ve been framed concernin g Jones, Some fuppofe it to have been e re fted
the origin o f Stone H en g e ; and to dbferve in memory o f 460 Britons maflacred b y H en -
npon w h a t v agu e and uncertain principles gift ; a ch imerical n o tion , a riiing .m e r e ly
ea ch au th or has founded his h y p o th e fis , i . from a fimilarity o f th e words H en g e and
T h e ' ce lebrated a r c h ite f t, In igo Jones, in H en g ift ; oth ers th a t it w as raifed in honour
a w o rk en t it le d , “ Stone H en g e reftored,” o f A u re liu s Am b ro fiu s , the laft B r i t ii lik in g ;
end ea vou rs to afce rta in, bu t w ith ou t fu ifi- and a f e w , th a t it was a fep u lch ra l monument
p ro o fs , th a t it was a Roman temple men t o f Bond uca, b y th e O ld Britons,
confec rated to Coelum, an d co iift ru fled b e- D r . S tu k e le y , in his elabora te treStife on
twe en th e t im e s o f A g r ic o la and Con ftan tin e Stone H en g e , has am p ly overtu rned all thefe
th e G r e a t . D r . C h a r le to n , on the con - fyftems of- form e r w r ite r s ; but is n o t e q u a lly
t r a r y , in his “ Stone H en g e reftored to the fu c c efs fu l in eftab lifliing his favou rite -pol'i-
“ D a n e s ,” en tire ly o vertu rns the fyftem o f tion, that it was a D ruidica l tem p le. *
In ig o -Jo n e s ; and contend s, w ith more in - In a w o rd , all that can be collected from
g e r iu ity th an a rgum en t, th a t it was b u ilt in a diligent examination o f the feveral fyftems,
th e beg in n in g o f A lf r e d ’ s reign b y th e.D an e s , is , that it is a monument o f very high anti-
w h o .o v e r ran grea t p a r t o f E n g la n d , as a q u ity , fa r beyond the rea ch o f h iftory o r
pla c e fo r th e election o f th e ir k in g s . tradition ; and that th ere are no fufficient
John W eb b , E fq ; in “ A V in d ic a tio n o f da ta b y w h ich an y ce rta in opinion can b e
*‘ S ton e Hen g e reftored,” re fu te s , w ith formed o f its .o r ig in .
by
C I R C U L A R R A N G E S O F S T O N E S . ¡99
by different authors, Celtick, Cambrian, Gothick, Danifh
Saxon, Piitick ; • and by others have been folely attributed to|— ,— >
the Druids, a favourite order o f men, under whom we are too
apt to fhelter our ignorance.
Although thefe rude monuments are undoubtedly of fuch.
high antiquity as almoftfo baffle our inquiries ; yet we may
infer, from hiftorical evidence, that they do not all appear to
have had the fame original deftination ". fome weie tailed as
memorials of material events; others a.s fepulchres , but the
greateft part were probably places, or objects t, of facred wor-
ihip.
In the earlier ages o f the world we find that ftones were
ereited for all thefe purpofes, and by different nations; but
as it would be tedious to enumerate the feveral proofs o f the
affertion, 1 mull refer the reader to Borlafe’s Diflertations
upon fimilar monuments exifting in our own country, as
the moil able writing upon this fubjeft. How can we poffibly
confine to any particular nation, or religion, cuftoms ufed
indifcriminately by all in remote periods ; or how can we
affign their epoch, fince moll of them were either raifed before
the Chriftian sera, or preceded the introduction of the Gol-
pel into thofe parts, when no certain tradition or literary
records were extant, to afcertain their origin I.
* O iau s W orm iu s , in the tru e fpirit o f known from ftory.
national prejudice, fuppofes all thefe moini- -f - M an y inftanpes o f the worffiipping o f
■ ments to have been ere ited by the D an e s , ftones o c cu r among th e an t ien t Pagans ;
b ecau fe great numbers are found in D en - , and it appears th a t fome w e re held no le ft
m a r k ; upon which affettion, S tu k e le y o b - , facred in thefe N o r th e rn .region s. Am o n g
fcrves that th eir b ein g in Denmark does o th e r proofs is the fo llow in g o f o n e , which,
not p rove them to , have been founded by; was .worfliipped at G ilia , in Ice land, before
the Dan e s, as they exifted in. th at co u n try th e introduction o f C h r ift ian ity .
long b efo re any mention is made in hiftory, “ In G ilia lapis, quean majores eorum
o f “h e .D a n e s ; .b u t th e v mu fti have b een “ religiofe co lu e ran r , u tp o te a .gemp fun.
railed before th a t people occupied, th e “■ tutela r; in h ab ita r i t ra d en te s .” K-riftnh
N o rth e rn ilies, b y the C im b r ian s , 'or G o th s S ag a , p. r 3 ,
o f o ld ; and i f not b y th em , b y whom is not,
. . . A P P E N D I X .