21 JULY 1906, Page 16

STONEHENGE.

[To THZ EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOILl

Sin,—The assertion in your article, "Astronomy and History," of July 14th that Stonehenge was "certainly a solar temple and observatory" is much too positive. Sir Norman Lockyees reputation and the completeness with which he has worked out his by no means new proposition are persuasive, but it must be remembered that his whole argument rests on the large assumption that a very un- altar-like stone is an " altar " and the terminal of a hypothetical axis of the building. It is open to doubt whether Neolithic man, especially in Britain, had temples, altars, and observatories, or the conception of such things,— and Stonehenge has been proved to be Neolithic by the 1901 excavations. Most serious antiquaries still prefer the simpler explanation that the stones are the original enclosure, perhaps with later accretions, of a sepulchral site. To enlarge upon this is beyond the scope of a short letter, but I may add that some twenty years ago I accompanied a scientist to Stone- henge to measure the change in orientation.—I am, Sir,

G. H. ENGLEHEART, F.S.A.