འ -1824.] Observation on Stonehenge, and on the Druids. hardly break them; and those of the Persians so soft, that you might break or pierce them through with the greatest ease imaginable. Of course, either nation (Persian or Egyptian) could with great ease have interred these bodies, had the so doing been reckoned of any material consequence; -that they did not do it, is an argument against their having buried those which were lost in the desert. And are we then to suppose that the Ammonii, against whom the expedition was undertaken, thus carefully covered up their enemies' bones? No, surely. Nor were any other agents besides the wind and the sand necessary. Suppose this army to have marched in small companies (which they would probably do, to avoid putting in motion too great a body of sand) of about 100 men each, drawn up five deep; a sudden sand-storm overwhelming them (Herodotus, Thalia, ch. 26*), would form of each company a parallelogramatic tumulus, much about the length mentioned by Mr. Belzoni. These tumuli would become firm in the course of time;-may vary in the altitude, according to the force of the winds and the quantity of sand agitated by them; and as they have hitherto retained their form, so will they retain it, in all probability, for many successive ages. R. SHEPPARD. Lake House, Ames- to you on the 23d of May last, and tures usually denominated Druidical Temples, are ever found in the most open and campaign countries." The * Herodotus says, this catastrophe happened whilst they were at dinner; which makes no material difference, as they would probably take their food in their ranks,-at any rate the companies would continue sepa rate. The above fact disclosed, it seems, by the Ammonii, proves that they knew what became of the army. Perhaps all did not perish, but some few might survive to tell the dreadful tale! 311 foregoing passage has been since con- It is for the purpose of defending the above passage, and in the hope of refuting their arguments, that I now address you. As the Letter of D. N.H. is prior in time, I will first reply to his general arguments. Although it may be true that the Romans (whether correctly or not) apprehended they had cause to hold the religion of the Druids in horror, yet I confidently call upon D. N. H. to produce from any classical author (not from the unauthorized assertion of a mere commentator) a single passage asserting that it was the usage of the Romans to cut down the Druidical groves; the record of their so doing, as given us by Tacitus in his Annals, XIV. 30, stands I believe singly, and from one instance alone we have no right (however we may infer) to establish an usage. Cæsar asserts the religion of the Druids to be prevalent throughout Gaul, and if so, although we may suppose that their general influence was great, and that their rites were practised throughout the several states of that country, yet it is very remarkable, that, during his numerous wars related in so interesting and circumstantial a manner in his invaluable Commentaries, either interfered with him politically, or that he ever found these priests exercising in the numerous woods with which Gaul abounded, their (as alleged by the Romans) horrid rites; he nowhere says, that on this account he he nowhere states that the Druids laid prostrate their woods and their groves; when he did destroy the woods it was for the purpose alone of dislodging his enemy from their retreats, and enabling his own army to cope with them on more equal terms; thus indeed he did with the Morini and MeCæs. Comm. lib. 3. 29, 30. must now direct the attention of your readers to those arguments, and, prima facie, strong facts adduced against the above passage, more especially in their application to Stone napii. henge 312 Observation on Stonehenge, and on the Druids. henge by H. W. I certainly did mean to imply, that the structures usually denominated Druidical were, ab origine, placed in the most open and campaign countries; in this implication I as certainly did mean to include Stonehenge. This venerable monument, Mr. Urban, I firmly believe, was, when first raised, surrounded as at present, by open plains, and that it never was encircled with groves but in the mind of the visionary antiquary. I will now advance my arguments in support of the above assertion, and then endeavour to reconcile the appa rent difficulties stated by H. W. The first argument I derive from the structure itself; it is well known that Stonehenge consists of two circles, and two ovals, respectively concentric; the stones of the outer circle were thirty in number, of a similar height, and bearing on them the same number of transverse stones, or imposts, so that the latter meeting in the centre of the head of each upright, formed a continuous circle, or corona; the outer oval was formed by five pair of uprights, the several pairs standing detachedly from each other, and all surmounted by separate and large transverse stones, or imposts; this was the most massive part of the temple. The several trilithons (as thus elegantly denominated by Stukeley) of this outer oval, with their weighty imposts, were considerably higher than the outer circle, and, although an interior part, it was clearly meant that the trilithons composing it should be conspicuous objects; that they should be freely seen even from a distance by all approaching this interesting edifice. Surrounding woods and groves would then have greatly in terfered with, if not destroyed this evident intent. I will now proceed to consider Stonehenge as connected with the surrounding tumuli, and also those tumuli as connected with each other, by relative position. That Stonehenge was at all events a religious temple, and that the numerous surrounding tumuli were the sepultures of those (probably their chieftains, priests, and families,) who worshipped at Stonehenge, there can be little doubt. Now, Mr. Urban, from my accurate knowledge of the several grouped or more scattered barrows, I state with much confidence, there can be no doubt, that the tumuli were so purposely placed as to be cou [April, spicuously seen from each other, and that those tumuli and the temple should be likewise mutually in view the effect then of this apparent plan would be thus also destroyed by the intervention of woods and groves. ever As I am now incidentally speaking of tumuli, you will allow me to press into my service a collateral argument, which arises from their subject. Hav ing advanced, that the structures usually denominated Druidical were placed in the most open and campaign countries, I must add, they are almost invariably found with tumuli, but although thus accompanied, yet tumuli are often seen both in groups and detachedly, without such structures or temples, and that, when so met with, they are likewise found in the most open and campaign countries. The next argument in disproof of the existence of woods and groves around Stonehenge, arises from a geological view of the soil, and of its fitness or unfitness for the production of the oak, the favourite tree, as alledged, of the Druids. The soil best adapted for oak is a strong and deep loam; it will also thrive well in a clay or sandy soil; but a more unlikely or unfit spot for an oaken grove could no where be found than the ground surrounding Stonehenge, where the vegetable stratum is but a few inches thick, and the substratum a very compact chalk ; this is the case with by far the greater part of the plains, except that in partial and comparatively small portions the more elevated grounds occasionally possess some clay in their superior stratum; these spots are provincially termed wood sour ground, and, although they produce a few scattered thorns, there is no well-grounded reason to believe they were ever the sites of thriving woods and groves of oak. This tree not only delights in a deep soil, but, as physiologists know well, it has a deep descending root called a tap root, which, if impeded in its course, causes the tree to become stunted and injured in its growth. Ethereas, tantum radice in Tartara tendit.” quæ quantum vertice ad auras VIRG. GEORG. Lib. 2. Now then I must come ad experimentum crucis. If the environs of Stonehenge were anciently covered with oaken woods and groves, it follows, that their roots must have more or or less permeated the chalky substratum, the superior vegetable stratum being of the thickness only of a few inches, they must have divided and subdivided that substratum to the depth of from two to four feet or upwards, and, whether those roots were grubbed up or fell into decay beneath the soil, by the gradual operations of Nature, yet they must have necessarily left the before compact chalk, in both a loosened and discoloured state; now, if H. W. will have any spot around Stonehenge opened with spade and pick-axe, he may readily convince himself, not only that the substratum has been unmoved by the hand of man, but also from its solidity and purity of colour, that it has never been transpierced by the expansive power of vegetable matter, or its substance discoloured by its decay; indeed, I will go farther, if this chalky substratum had been perforated by the roots of large woods and groves, and those roots left to their natural decay, it is by no means improbable (however singular the assertion may appear from the immense lapse of years) that at least their partial existence might still be found in the fissures of the compact chalk. I say this, judging from the wonderful preservative power I have occasionally seen in this soil. Repeated instances have occurred, when tumuli have been opened by my friend Sir Richard Hoare, and at the investigation of which I have been present, that the remains of wood have been found attached to the different articles deposited, or in which they have been enclosed. These instances have occurred of course only when the deposit has been found in a cist or grave sunk at the bottom of the tumulus into the inferior soil; such cist or grave, when originally dug, having been again filled in with the pure chalk unmixed with earth. Indeed, in this situation where skeletons have been, though but rarely, -found, they have always been discovered in the most perfect state which it is possible to conceive. I have at such times seen the skull, not only with every tooth, but even each of them preserving its entire enamel,a strong proof both of the preservative quality of pure chalk, and of a far different use of food from that of modern days. 313 To H. W.) so apparently adverse to my assertion, that Stonehenge was never surrounded by woods and groves. do this clearly and satisfactorily, you will allow me, Mr. Urban, to lay before your readers the passage from Domesday Book (to which he refers) relative to the manor of Amesbury, and its accompanying translation, both extracted from the transcript and translation of that book, so far as it relates to Wilts, and published some years since by the late H. P. Wyndham, Esq. of Salisbury. "Rex tenet Amblesberie. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Nunquam geldavit, nec hidata fuit. Terra est 40 carucatæ. In dominio sunt 16 carucatæ et 55 servi, et 2 coliberti. Ibi quatuor viginti et 5 villani et 56 bordarii habentes 23 carucatas. Ibi 8 molini reddunt 4 libras et 10 solidos, et 70 acre prati. Pastura 4 leuca longa, et 3 leuca lata. Sylva 6 leuca longæ et 4 leucæ late. Hoc manerium," &c.. Edward held it. It was never assessed nor "The King holds Amblesberie. King hided. There are 40 plough-lands; 16 of which, with 55 servants and 2 coliberts, are in demesne. Eighty-five villagers and 56 borderers occupy 23 plough-lands. Eight mills pay 4 pounds and 10 shillings. Here are 70 acres of meadow. The pasture is 6 miles long, and 4 miles and a half broad. The wood is 9 miles long and 6 broad. This manor," &c. I must now also request the favour that you will insert the following extracts from the letter of H. W. "If any one looks into Domesday Book for Amesbury, he will find a wood there described, attached to the manor of Amesbury, nine miles long, and six miles wide." "If he looks into Rymer's Fœdera, he will find a grant conferred by Edward II. (1307) of 40 oak trees annually to his sister Mary, for fire-wood, for her own use. In the same monastery at that time resided Eleanor, the widow of Henry III.; her grand-mother, who of course had a grant of ter, and where could this annual consumpfire-wood equal to that of her grand-daughtion of fire-wood be supplied, if not from the wood still remaining of that described in Domesday." that such a wood as H. W. refers to, is By the above extracts it is evident to be found in Domesday Book; but your readers will perhaps be surprised to hear, that extensive woods well stocked with oak, descending with, and attached to the manor of Amesbury, are to be found eight miles disthat from that place, in the parish of West West Grimstead; they are called Bentley woods. I always thought they were a portion of that manor, and in this opinion I am most fully confirmed by the result of a conversation with the steward on the subject; that gentleman not only stated to me that such was his own opinion, but obligingly shewed me a Court Roll of the date of 1721, in which they are minutely described, and entitled "Bently woods, parcell of the manour of Amesbury Earls;" and in the same document is a memorandum of the leasing on lives by copy of Court Roll, of a tenement there known by the name of the Keeper's Lodge. These woods are now extensive, and is it not probable they may have been more so, as a portion of them might have been alienated ages since, as other woods adjoin them? With regard to the grant cited by H. W. from Rymer's Foedera, by Edward II. of 40 oak-trees to his sister Mary, for her own use, the distance of Bentley woods from Amesbury will form no argument against the supposition of their being procured from thence, since yearly in this neighbourhood the supply of wood for fuel is often fetched from great, and even greater distances. In all probability the demesnes of the manor (which in Domesday Book, so far as relates to the arable, were 16 plough-lands) were in the hands of the Abbess, and the ordinary supply of fuel was probably procured from the rough thickets, &c. of the then less cultivated low lands, and there is little doubt that the above grant was made by Edward II. for the comfort of his relatives, who were inmates in the Abbey. As they resided, however, under the same roof, there are no grounds for concluding that a separate provision was ever necessary for his grandmother. The allowance of 40 oak-trees every year, it will readily be admitted, was almost a ruinous substraction from woods of even great extent; and does not this furnish another argument why it is not probable that double that number should be thus unnecessarily sacrificed. I have thus placed H. W.'s wood eight miles off, and it now behoves me to spread the supposed scite with Nature's verdant carpet; in other words, to cover it with turf, to prove, that Stonehenge was then surrounded with plain land, or what we provincially jerm downs, and I propose to do this [April, from the record to which he himself refers us, Domesday Book. On a reference to the transcript from that book, it may be seen, that after the quantity of the arable has been given, three other sorts of land are mentioned under the terms pratum, pastura, and sylva (irrigated meadow is wholly out of the question), and I agree with Mr. Wyndham, that pratum is synonimous with our present word pasture, and that pastura is here referable to plain or down land; that pratum and pastura are used in contra-distinction as the mowing and feeding ground. Of the sylva I have already disposed. We will now consider the " 70 acre prati ;” this, I think, refers alone to the pastures bordering on a river. On an inspection of the transcript relative to the whole county, such lands are always described, whenever a manor is so situated. We come now to the pastura," Pastura 4 leuca longa et 3 leuce lata." "The pasture is 6 miles long, and 4 miles and a half broad." That pastura means plain or down land, is self-evident from the great extent here mentioned, an extent amply sufficient to environ the temple of Stonehenge, and to exclude the probability of the supposed woods and groves. I am most fully borne out in this signification of pastura, by referring to the account of the several manors surrounding the plains of both North and South Wiltshire. I there find that in the manors of Amesbury, Boscombe, Cholderton, Chevrell, Chalke, Clatford, Durnford, Ebbesbourne, Enford, Figheldeam, Fittleton, Idmistone, Lavington, Milstone, Ogbourn, Orcheston, Rushall, Stapleford, Wanborough, Winterborne, Wily, &c. large tracts of pastura are mentioned; but that, vice versá in the several manors remote from these plains, such as Aldrington, Brinkworth, Bromham, Bremhill, Burbage, Cadenham, Christian-malford, Crudwell, Dantsey, Hardenhuish, Hullavington, Lacock, Lackham, Kemble, Nettleton, Purton, Rowde, Shalborne, Sherstone, Somerford, Westwood, &c. &c. there is in general none, and in any of them very little pastura. The word leuca in the foregoing extract, is, I presume, an error of Mr. Wyndham's transcriber, as by Kelham's Illustration of Domesday Book, it appears, I think, that it should have been leu or leua; it has been generally translated 'translated a mile. Mr. Wyndham considers it as equal to a mile and a half. Blomefield, in his Norfolk, makes it equal to two miles, whilst by others it is supposed to be much less than either of those measures. It is utterly impossible to assimilate the measures of Domesday Book with our own. We have not only no point of comparison, but in that record they even vary much in different counties, and often in the same county. The leuca, as applied by Mr. Wyndham both to the sylva and pastura of the above extract, is evidently too great, whilst in most other manors it appears by far too short of the presumed real quantities of land. The acra, as applied to the land denominated pratum, appears throughout the translation of Mr. Wyndham to be very deficient in measure, as compared with our modern acre. Having thus fully given my reasons for my credence in the assertion, that Stonehenge was, ab origine, surrounded by down, not by woods and groves, I will not trespass farther on your useful pages than to say, that in the present state of the question in discussion, whenever the contrary hypothesis is advanced, I cannot but exclaim credat Judæus Apella, non ego! yet I am not so devoted to my own opinions, as to close my eyes against the light, or pertinaciously to contend against the truth. So far from this being the case, I can assure you, Mr. Urban, I shall at all times peruse with pleasure the sentiments of your Correspondents on this interesting subject; but as yet your Readers will permit me again to repeat, that "the ancient authors certainly represent the Druids as resorting to woods and groves, and I must confess I know not how to reconcile such representations with the fact, that the structures of stone, usually denominated Druidical Temples, are ever found in the most open and campaign countries." EDWARD DUKE. 315 greedily devoured his observations. But how shall I express to you my disappointment? Instead of the information which my imagination anticipated, I perceived only a feeble attempt to uphold and maintain the antiquated and exploded notion of Druidical groves. It is, indeed, true, as Mr. Duke justly observes, that the ancient authors represent the Druids as resorting to woods and groves." But were those ancient authors possessed of the necessary qualifications to enable them to form a decisive judgment upon this point of controversy? A primary and indispensable qualification for this purpose seems to be a complete knowledge of the Druidical language, and a thorough acquaintance with the Bardic productions of Britain. Did they possess these qualifications? No. Not one of them understood the Druidical language. In that language, the places of Druidical assembly are denominated, not Coedau and Llwynau, that is, woods and groves, but Cerrig, Carnau, and Cromlechau, that is, stones, and stone-structures. Nor were these stonestructures ever environed with groves of trees, for the purpose, as your Correspondent insinuates, of veiling them from the eyes of the profane vulgar. On the contrary, they were open to the view of thousands of spectators; and the rites performed therein were all done in "the face of the sun, and in the eye of light," as the British bards emphatically describe the celebration of them. Tacitus, indeed, the Roman historian, mentions the sacri luci of the Druids, and is cited by your correspondent D. N. H. in confirmation of his hypothesis. But is he not aware that the genuineness of the word Luci is not only doubted, but also deemed untenable, and that analogy requires the substitution of Loci. For then it would correspond and be synonimous with the Loco of Cæsar (Lib. VI. Com.), and with the Kuxλw λiwr of Homer (Lib. 18 Il.). The proper translation of the sacri of Tacitus is not religious, the version of your Correspondent, but consecrated; for the stone-structures of the Druids were applied to other purposes besides acts of religion. The knowledge of these and many * Much more ancient authors than Tacitus. other |