I

QOXE ? S TRAVELS IK DENMARK. 349

it wag another mound, on the top of which another large ftone was placed in a fimilarmanner on four others. I remarked veftiges of trenches j but as the place was coveredwith underwood, and night approached, I could not trace their direction.”

lo our inquiries in feveral parts of Sweden , concerning the origin of thefe ancientrelics, the peafants generally anfwered, that they were erected by a race of giants for-merly inhabiting thefe countries. We have many fimilar monuments in our ifland, andparticularly that of theRol-rich ftones, near Burford irrOxfordlhire, the Snake’s Hgadof Overton Temple, as defcribed by Stukeley * ; fome of thofe which are delineated inRorlafe’s Antiquities of Cornwall , and that circular range in Cumberland, of which Mr.Pennant f has given art engraving in his Tour to Scotland , feem molt to referable tholewhich I obferved in Sweden and Denmark. I cannot, however, but add, that OlausWormius , and other authors, highly exaggerate when they deduce any refemblance be-tween the ftupendous fabric of Stone Henge , and thefe trifling, though genuine, remaii sof high antiquity, and (till more erroneoufly conclude from that fanciful refemblance,that Stone Henge J was conftru&ed by our Anglo-Saxon anceltors, who migrated fromthefe northern parts.

Endlefs controverfies have arifen among the learned concerning their origin anddeftination ; and each author maintains that they were raifed by that particular nation,or fe&, which bed fuits his favourite hypothefis. Thus they are ftyled by different au-thors, Celtic , Gothic, Daniih §, Saxon, Picticand by others have been folely attri-buted to the Druids, a favourite order of men, under whom v/e are too apt to fhelterour ignorance. Although thefe rude monuments are undoubtedly of luch high anti-quity as almoft to baffle our inquiries, yet we may infer, fropi hiftorical evidence, thatthey had not all the fame original deftination $ fome were raifed as memorials of ma-

* Stukeley'* Abury, p, 4. tab, iii. p, 40. and tab. xxi.

f Tour into Scotland , and annexed plate.

% It is curious to trace the different fyftems which have been framed concerning the origin of StoneHenge : and to obferve upon what vague and uncertain principles each author has founded his hypo-thefis.

The celebrated arclfftedt, Inigo Jones , in a work entitled “ Stone Henge reftored,” endeavours to af-certain, but without fufficient proof, that it was a Roman temple, confeerated to Coelum, and conftrudtedbetween the times of Agricola and Conftantiue the Great. Dr. Charleton, on the contrary, in his “ StoneHenge reftored to the Danes,” entirely overturns the fyftem of Inigo Jones ; and contends, with more in-genuity than argument, that it was built in the beginning of Alfred’s reign by the Danes, who over-rangreat part of England, as a place for the eledion of their king*.

John Webb, Efq. irt <( A Vindication of Stone Henge reftored,” refutes, with much learning, the opi-nion of Dr. Charleton, but fails in re eftabliffring the fyftem of Inigo Jones . . Some fuppofe it to havebeen created in memory of four hundred and fixty Britons maffacred by Hengift; a chimerical notion,ar >iing merely from the ffmilarity of the words Henge and Hengift ; others, that it was raifed in honour ofAurelius Ambrolius, the laft Britiih king ; and a few that it was a fepulchral monument of Bonduca, by

Old Britons. > . 7

Hr, Stukeley, in his elaborate treatife on Stone Henge , has completely overturned all thefefyftems of former writers; but is not equally fucccfsful in eftabliihing his favourite pofition, that it was aHruidical temple.

In a word, all that can be collected, from a diligent examination of the feveral fyftems, is, that it is aR'onument of very high antiquity, far beyond the reach of hiftory or tradition ; and that there 3re not fuf*Resent data by which any certain opinion can be formed of its origin.

§ Olaus Wormius , in the true fpirit of national prejudice, fuppofes all thefe monuments to have beenby the Danes, becaufe great numbers are found in Denmark, upon which affertion Stukeley ob-wrves, their being in Denmark does not prove them to have been founded by the Danes, as they exifted i‘»bhat country long before any mention is made in hiftory of the Danes; but they muft have been raifed be-t '°? t P co pk occupied the northern ifies, by the Cimbrians , or Gotha of old j and if not by them, byw hom is not known from ftory.

tern}