Summary

Edward Duke The Age of Stonehenge

I need not point out the satisfactory evidence which all this brings to bear on the question before us. The surrounding barrows are all pre-Roman, and therefore, for the reasons alleged, Stonehenge must be pre-Roman also, as being older, possibly much older, than the majority of the barrows themselves.
And now what shall we say more? The grand old temple pleads for itself. To assign to it the later origin would be to deprive it of its well-founded claim to take rank among the most interesting of all the relics of the ancient heathen world which have come down to us.
Source: Gutenberg

Edward Duke The Age of Stonehenge

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.
Source: Gutenberg

Edward Duke The Age of Stonehenge

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.
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature