No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XV. On the Antiquity of Abury and Stonehenge, by John Rickman, Esq., F.R.S.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2012
Extract
I am sensible that I undertake an unpopular task in endeavouring to restrain within ascertained limits the unknown date of the most revered objects of antiquarian curiosity extant in Great Britain ; but I also know that in the estimation of enlightened minds, truth, or (its near adjunct) probability, is preferable to indefinite wonder; and I shall venture to produce circumstantial evidence, that the antiquity of Stonehenge and even of Abury, falls short of the commencement of the Christian era.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1840
References
page 400 note * “A Gessoriaco de Galliis, Ritupis in portu Britanniarum, Stadia numero CCCCL”;—Pliny says [Lib. iiii. c. 16.] 50 miles, which is not far from the fact.
page 400 note † The name of Rochester is perhaps more nearly connected with this its assumed origin than at first sight appears. The Welch descendants of the Provincial Britons call the City of Rome Caer-Ruffin; and the appellation of the Bishop of Rochester (Roffen'), known to be as ancient as the establishment of Christianity in Kent, still remains in sound the same; so that Roffen-ceaster (Saxon) being translated, is no other than The Roman Fortress.
page 400 note ‡ The Roman road from London to Durobrivis (Rochester) by way of Noviomagus and Vagniacæ, was (according to the 2d iter) 37 miles. The direct road from London to Durobrivis (according to the 3d iter and the 4th iter) was 27 miles.
page 404 note * This kind of precaution is called the fore-ground of a bank in fen drainage.