Chapter III: Avebury and Stonehenge (3)

That these alignments were once race-courses, appears to me one of the most improbable of the various conjectures which have been hazarded with regard even to Stonehenge. No Roman race-course, that we know of, omitted to provide for the horses returning at least once past the place they started from, and no course was even a mile, much less a mile and three-quarters long. What sort of horse-races the British indulged in before the Conquest I don't know, nor will I hazard an opinion on the subject; but if they wanted the races to be seen, there are several beautiful and appropriate spots close at hand where they could have laid out a longer course along one of the bottoms, where tens of thousands might conveniently have witnessed the sport from the sloping banks on either hand, whereas here only the front rank could have seen the race at all, and that imperfectly. It may also be remarked that the east end of the cursus is closed by a mound which must have been a singularly awkward position for the judges, though that is the place assigned to them by Sir Richard; and the west end is cut off also by an embankment, behind which are several tumuli on the course, which seems a very unlikely racing arrangement.

But if not race-courses, what were they? If any one will turn back to woodcut No. 12, p. 55, representing the alignments at Merivale bridge, and compare them with the cursus as shown in woodcut No. 26, p. 102, representing the ground about Stonehenge, I think he must perceive that the two cursus, if complete, would occupy exactly the same relative position with regard to Stonehenge--on a much larger scale of course--as those at Dartmoor do to the circle there. The arrangements are so similar that the purposes can hardly be different. At first sight this seems to tell against the battle theory. We know of no battle fought on Salisbury Plain. This, however, is the merest negative assumption possible. We know that the massacre at Amesbury was followed by a four years' war, between Ambrosius and the Saxons.[133] Battles there must have been, and many, and what so likely as that the crowning victory should have been fought in the immediate proximity of the capital of one of the contending parties. If these cursus do mark the battle-field, it will at once account for the somewhat anomalous position of Stonehenge. What is so likely as that the victor should have chosen the field of his final victory to erect there a monument to the memory of those whose treacherous slaughter had been the cause of the war? Of course this is only an hypothesis, and it is only put forward as such, but it seems to me infinitely nearer the truth than that of the gratuitous suggestion of a race-course, and looks like one of the coincidences sure to occur when the investigation is on the right path towards the true solution.

* * * * *

The first impression that the narrative of the preceding pages will convey to most readers, will probably be that there must be something more to be said on the subject, or that something important is left out. If, it may be argued, the case is so clear as here stated, it could never have been doubted, and must have been accepted long ago. All I can say in answer is, that if anything is omitted I am not aware of it. Everything I know of has been stated as fully and as fairly as seemed necessary for its being clearly understood. In this instance it must be remembered that the usual arguments drawn from the division into stone, bronze, and iron ages hardly come into play. Nothing has been found inside Stonehenge but iron and Roman pottery. Even admitting the barrows in the immediate proximity of Stonehenge to be coeval, before their testimony can be of any avail, it must be ascertained when men ceased to be buried in barrows, and when a man might not wish a bronze spear-head to be entombed with him as a relic, even if he did not fight with it in his lifetime. Even then, however, the evidence would be too indistinct to outweigh that of the finds inside the circle.

If, after what has been said above, any one still maintains that Stonehenge is a temple, and not sepulchral, we have no common ground from which to reason, and need not attempt it. Or if any one as familiar with the locality as I am personally, or who has studied the Ordnance maps with the same care, likes to argue that the barrows came to Stonehenge, and not Stonehenge to the barrows, we see things with such different eyes that we equally want a common basis for argument.

In a case like the present, however, the great difficulty to be overcome is not so much cool argument and close reasoning, as a certain undefined feeling that a monument must be old because we know so little about it. "Omne ignotum pro antiquo" is a matter of faith with many who will listen to no argument to the contrary, and in the case of Stonehenge the false notion has been so fostered by nearly all those who have written about it since the time of James I., that it will be very difficult now to overthrow it. Those who adhere to it, however, hardly realize how dark the ages were between the departure of the Romans and the time of Alfred the Great, and how much may have been done in that time without any record of it coming down to our day. Even if we give them all the megalithic monuments we possess, it is very little indeed for so large a population in so long a time.

Even at a much later period of English history than we are now occupied with, it is wonderful how little we should know of our monuments if we depended on the "litera scripta" for our information. Any one who is familiar with the guide-books of the last, or beginning of the present century, will see what dire confusion of dates existed with regard to the erection of our greatest cathedrals and mediæval monuments. Saxon and Norman were confounded everywhere, and the distinction of any of the styles between Early English and Perpendicular was not appreciated, and frequently the dates were reversed. In fact, it was not till Rickman took the matter in hand that order emerged out of chaos, and he succeeded because his constructive knowledge enabled him to perceive progressive developments which formed true sequences, and he was thus able to supply the want of written information. Every tyro now can fix a date to every moulding in any of our mediæval buildings, but if we had only written history to depend upon, in nine cases out of ten he could not prove that the building was not erected by the Romans or the Phœnicians, or anybody else. If this is the case in an age when writing was so common as between the Conquest and the Reformation, should we be surprised if we find matters so much darker between the departure of the Romans and Alfred, when written history hardly helps us at all? But Rickman's method will, when applied to Stonehenge and similar monuments, if I am not very much mistaken, render their dates nearly as clear as those of our mediæval monuments have been rendered by the same method.

None but those who have had occasion specially to study the subject can be aware how devoid of all literary records the period is of which we are now treating. So meagre and so scarce are they, that many well-informed persons doubt whether such a person as King Arthur ever lived; and scarcely one of his great actions is established by anything like satisfactory contemporary testimony. Yet, in all ages, and in all countries where histories either written or oral exist, they are filled with the exploits of favourite national heroes--as Arthur was--which, even where they are fullest and most diffuse, it is the rarest possible thing to find in them a record of the building of any temple or tomb. From the building of the Parthenon to the completion of Henry VIII.'s Chapel, the notices of buildings in general histories are as few and meagre as may be, and are comprised in a few paragraphs scattered through many hundred volumes. No one, I am convinced, who has thought twice on the subject, would expect to find any notice of buildings in the few pages which are all we possess of history between the departure of the Romans and the time of the Venerable Bede; yet the absence of record is the argument which, if I am not mistaken, has had more influence on the popular mind than almost any other. Too generally it is assumed that, as we know nothing about them, they must be old. To me, on the contrary, nothing appears so extremely improbable as that the builders, while leaving no record of their exploits, should have left any written account of the erection of the Rude Stone Monuments.

One other point seems worth alluding to before concluding this chapter, which is that nothing has been advanced, so far as I know, that would lead us to suppose that the people of this island were, before the time of the Romans, either more numerous or more powerful, and consequently more capable of erecting such monuments as Stonehenge and Avebury, than they were after that people had resided for four centuries among them. All our existing knowledge seems to tend to a diametrically opposite conclusion, and now that the day for vague declamation and _à priori_ reasoning is past, if any proof to the contrary can be brought forward, it would be well that it were now adduced, for otherwise judgment may go by default. If we mistake not, the case must be strong and clear that is to outweigh the evidence just brought forward in reference to the two monuments the use and age of which we have just been discussing.

[Footnote 77: These particulars are taken from a careful survey
made by Sir R. Colt Hoare, in 1812, and published in his 'Ancient
Wilts,' vol. ii. pl. xiii. p. 70 _et seq._]

[Footnote 78: 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' p. 34.]

[Footnote 79: Haca, or Haco, according to Kemble, was some mythical
person with a very Danish name which is found in Hampshire and
Berkshire, as well as here. Pen seems to mean merely enclosure, as
it does now in English. See Kemble, in 'Journal Arch. Inst.' xiv.
p. 134.]

[Footnote 80: 'Bell. Gall.' vi. 17.]

[Footnote 81: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. xli.]

[Footnote 82: Thurnam, 'Crania Britannica;' London, 1856 to 1865.]

[Footnote 83: 'Codex diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici,' v. p. 238, No.
1120.]

[Footnote 84: Stukeley, 'Stonehenge and Abury,' p. 27.]

[Footnote 85: The particulars are taken from a pamphlet entitled
'Excavations at Avebury, under the direction of the Secretary of
the Wiltshire Archæol. and Nat. Hist. Society,' printed at Devizes,
but, so far as I know, not yet published.]

[Footnote 86: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' vol. i. introd. p.
xx.]

[Footnote 87: A plan of it was published about Stukeley's time by
a Mr. Twining, in a pamphlet, which was written to prove that this
group of monuments was erected by Agricola, to represent a map of
England! A plan accompanies it, which shows all the avenues as
straight; but what weight can possibly be attached to any evidence
coming from a man with such a theory as this?]

[Footnote 88: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 63.]

[Footnote 89: Camden, 'Britannia,' 127.]

[Footnote 90: 'Archæologia,' xxviii. p. 399 _et seq._]

[Footnote 91: 'Journal Wiltshire Archæol. and Nat. Hist. Society,'
vii. p. 1861.]

[Footnote 92: Curiously enough these dimensions are almost
identical with those of the mound erected by the Belgic-Dutch, to
commemorate the part they did not take in the battle of Waterloo.
Its dimensions are 130 feet high, 544 feet in diameter, and 1632
feet in circumference. The angle of the slope of the sides is
lower, being 27½ degrees, owing to the smaller diameter of the
flat top, which is only 40 feet.]

[Footnote 93: Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 161. See also Salisbury
volume of the Archæological Institute, p. 74.]

[Footnote 94: 'Journal Royal Asiatic Soc.' xiii. p. 164; and Major
Skinner's plan of Anurajapura.]

[Footnote 95: Wilson, 'Ariana Antiqua,' p. 41; and Masson's
'Memoir,' _passim_.]

[Footnote 96: Sir R. C. Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. pl. ii. fig.
8.]

[Footnote 97: Ibid. i. p. 191.]

[Footnote 98: 'Archæologia,' xxx. p. 300 _et seq._]

[Footnote 99: 'Arch. Journ.,' xxiv. pp. 92 and 319.]

[Footnote 100: Ibid. p. 100.]

[Footnote 101: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. 5. Unfortunately there
is no scale attached to the plan of the Marden Circle, and no
dimensions quoted in the text.]

[Footnote 102: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' p. 7.]

[Footnote 103: I adopt Dr. Guest's dates for this part of the
subject, not only because I think them most probable, but because I
think, from his knowledge and the special attention he has bestowed
on the subject, he is most likely to be right. See _Salisbury
Volume Arch. Journal_, p. 62.]

[Footnote 104: 'Athenæum Journal,' Dec. 13, 1865.]

[Footnote 105: 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.]

[Footnote 106: 'Salisbury Vol.' p. 63.]

[Footnote 107: 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.]

[Footnote 108: Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 22.]

[Footnote 109: Saxon Chronicle, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 304.]

[Footnote 110: 'Jeffrey of Monmouth,' ix. p. 4.]

[Footnote 111: The history of the plan given on page 92, and from
which all the dimensions in the text are quoted, is this. When I
was staying with my friend, Mr. Hawkshaw, the eminent engineer,
at Eversley, I was complaining of the incorrectness of all the
published plans, when he said, "I have a man in my office whose
plans are the very essence of minute accuracy. I will send him
down to make one for you." He did so, and his plan--to a scale of
10 feet to 1 inch, is before me. I afterwards took this plan to
Stonehenge, and identified the position and character of every
stone marked upon it.]

[Footnote 112: I am almost afraid to allude to it even in a note,
lest some one should accuse me of founding any theory upon it,
like Piazzi Smyth's British inches in the Pyramids, but it is a
curious coincidence that nearly all the British circles are set
out in two dimensions. The smaller class are 100 feet, the larger
are 100 metres in diameter. They are all more than 100 yards. The
latter measure is at all events certainly accidental, so far as
we at present know, but as a nomenclature and "memoria technica,"
the employment of the terms may be useful, provided it is clearly
understood that no theory is based upon it.]

[Footnote 113: 'Historia,' in 'Mon. Brit.' 694.]

[Footnote 114: 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' by the author, plates
iii. _et seq._]

[Footnote 115: Twenty Chinese coolies would carry any one of them
up in a week.]

[Footnote 116: 'Serie Centrale' by Comte Melchior de Vogüé. Though
this work was commenced some ten years ago, and subscriptions
obtained, it is still incomplete. No text has yet been published,
and no maps, which makes the identification of the places
singularly difficult.]

[Footnote 117: Vide _ante_, footnote, p. 15.]

[Footnote 118: 'Topography of Jerusalem,' by the Author, p. 58.]

[Footnote 119: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 178, plan vi.]

[Footnote 120: Sir John Lubbock, 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 116.]

[Footnote 121: Sir R. Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 145.]

[Footnote 122: The name is written as Sidbury in the Ordnance maps.]

[Footnote 123: 'Archæologia,' vii. pp. 132-134.]

[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.]