diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/54620-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/54620-0.txt | 23770 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 23770 deletions
diff --git a/old/54620-0.txt b/old/54620-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index b9146f4..0000000 --- a/old/54620-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,23770 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries, by -James Fergusson - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries - Their Age and Uses - - -Author: James Fergusson - - - -Release Date: April 28, 2017 [eBook #54620] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RUDE STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL -COUNTRIES*** - - -E-text prepared by Sonya Schermann, Brian Wilsden, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images -generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the 234 original illustrations. - See 54620-h.htm or 54620-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54620/54620-h/54620-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54620/54620-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/rudestonemonumen00ferg - - -Transcriber's note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - The caret symbol (^) indicates that the following character - is superscripted. (e.g., vig^t). - - - - - -[Illustration: THE STANDING STONES OF STENNIS. From an original drawing -in the possession of the Author. FRONTISPIECE] - - -RUDE STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL COUNTRIES; - -Their Age and Uses. - -by - -JAMES FERGUSSON, D.C.L., F.R.S., -V.P.R.A.S., F.R.I.B.A., &c. - -[Illustration: Demi-Dolmen, Kerland.] - -With Two Hundred and Thirty-Four Illustrations. - - - - - - -London: -John Murray, Albemarle Street. -1872. - -The right of Translation is reserved. - -London: -Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, -and Charing Cross. - - - - -PREFACE - - -When, in the year 1854, I was arranging the scheme for the 'Handbook -of Architecture,' one chapter of about fifty pages was allotted to -the Rude Stone Monuments then known. When, however, I came seriously -to consult the authorities I had marked out, and to arrange my ideas -preparatory to writing it, I found the whole subject in such a state -of confusion and uncertainty as to be wholly unsuited for introduction -into a work, the main object of which was to give a clear but succinct -account of what was known and admitted with regard to the architectural -styles of the world. Again, ten years afterwards, while engaged in -re-writing this 'Handbook' as a 'History of Architecture,' the same -difficulties presented themselves. It is true that in the interval -the Druids, with their Dracontia, had lost much of the hold they -possessed on the mind of the public; but, to a great extent, they had -been replaced by prehistoric myths, which, though free from their -absurdity, were hardly less perplexing. The consequence was that then, -as in the first instance, it would have been necessary to argue every -point and defend every position. Nothing could be taken for granted, -and no narrative was possible. The matter was, therefore, a second -time allowed quietly to drop without being noticed. I never, however, -lost sight of the subject, and I hoped some time or other to be able -to treat of it with the fulness its interest deserves; and in order -to forward this project, in July, 1860, I wrote an article in the -'Quarterly Review,' entitled 'Stonehenge,' in which I stated the views -I had then formed on the subject; and again, ten years afterwards, in -April of last year, another article, entitled 'Non-Historic Times' in -the same journal, in which I added such new facts and arguments as I -had gathered in the interval. The principal object it was sought to -attain in writing these articles, was to raise a discussion on the moot -points which I hoped would have tended towards settling them. If any -competent archæologist had come forward, and could have pointed out the -weak point in the argument, he would have rendered a service to the -cause; or if any leading authority had endorsed the views advocated in -these articles, the public might have felt some confidence in their -correctness. This expectation has not been fulfilled, but they have -probably not been without their use in preparing the minds of others -for the views advanced in them, while, as no refutation has appeared, -and no valid objection has been urged against them, either in public -or in private, I may fairly consider myself justified in feeling -considerable confidence in their general correctness. - -Till antiquaries are agreed whether the circles are temples or tombs -or observatories, whether the dolmens are monuments of the dead or -altars for sacrificing living men, and whether the mounds are tombs -or law courts, it seems impossible, without arguing every point, to -write anything that will be generally accepted. Still more, till it -is decided whether they are really prehistoric or were erected at -the periods where tradition and history place them, it seems in vain -to attempt to explain in a simple narrative form either their age or -uses. As a necessary consequence of all this confusion, it is scarcely -practicable at present to compile a work which shall be merely a -Historical and Statistical account of the Rude Stone Monuments in all -parts of the world; but till something is settled and agreed upon, we -must be content with one which to a certain extent, at least, takes the -form of an argument. Many of its pages which would have been better -employed in describing and classifying, are occupied with arguments -against some untenable theory or date, or in trying to substitute -for those usually accepted, some more reasonable proposition. -Notwithstanding this, however, it is hoped that this work will be -found to contain a greater number of new facts regarding Rude Stone -Monuments, and of carefully selected illustrations extending over a -larger area, than have yet been put together in a volume of the same -extent. - - * * * * * - -It may fairly be asked, and no doubt will, how I dare to set up my -opinions with regard to these monuments in opposition to those of -the best informed antiquaries, not only in this country but on the -Continent? The answer I would venture to suggest is, that no other -antiquary, so far as I am aware, has gone so carefully and fully into -the whole subject, or has faced all the difficulties with which the -questions are everywhere perplexed. The books that have hitherto been -written are either the work of speculative dreamers, like Stukeley, -Higgins, or Vallancey, who having evolved a baseless theory out of -their own inner consciousness, seek everywhere for materials to prop -it up, and are by no means particular as to the inferences they draw -from very obscure or slender hints: or they are, on the other hand, -the works of local antiquaries, whose opinions are influenced mainly -by what they find in their own researches. The works of such men are -invaluable as contributions to the general stock of knowledge, but -their theories must be received with caution, as based on too narrow -a foundation either of facts or inferences; for it need hardly be -insisted upon that no amount of local experience can qualify any one -to write on such a subject as this. It does not even seem sufficient -that an author should be familiar with all the varieties of megalithic -remains. Unless he has also mastered the other forms of architectural -art, and knows in what manner and from what motives the styles of one -people are adopted from or influenced by that of another race, he will -hardly be able to unravel the various tangled problems that meet him at -every step in such an investigation. When looked at, however, from the -same point of view, and judged by the same laws as other styles, that -of the dolmen builders does not appear either mythical or mysterious. -They seem to be the works of a race of men actuated by the same motives -and feelings as ourselves, and the phenomena of their arts do not seem -difficult of explanation. - -It is because I have spent the greater part of my life in studying -the architecture of all nations, and through all ages, that I believe -myself entitled to express an opinion on the perplexed questions -connected with megalithic remains, though it differs widely from that -generally received, and that I dare to face the objection which is sure -to be raised that my work is based on too narrow an induction, and that -I have overlooked the evidences of primæval man which exist everywhere. -It is not, however, that I have neglected either the evidence from -the drift, or from the caves, but that I have rejected them as -irrelevant, and because I can hardly trace any connexion between -them and the megalithic remains, to the investigation of which this -work is specially devoted. I have also purposely put on one side all -reference to hut circles, Picts' houses, brochs, and other buildings -composed of smaller stones, which are generally mixed up with the big -stone monuments. I have done this, not because I doubt that many of -these may be coeval, but because their age being doubtful also, it -would only confuse and complicate the argument to introduce them, and -because, whenever the age of the great stones is determined these minor -monuments will easily fit into their proper places. At present, neither -their age or use throws any light either for or against that of the -great stones. - -It need hardly be remarked, to anyone who knows anything about the -subject, that the difficulties in the way of writing such a book as -this are enormous, and I do not believe any one could, in a first -edition at all events, avoid all the pitfalls that surround his path. -The necessary information has to be picked up in fragments from some -hundreds of volumes of travels, or the Transactions and Journals of -learned Societies, none of which are specially devoted to the subject, -and very few of which are indexed, or have any general résumé of their -contents. Add to this that the older works are all untrustworthy, -either from the theories they are twisted to support, or from bad -drawing or imperfect knowledge; and too many of the modern examples are -carelessly sketched and still more carelessly engraved. Another source -of difficulty is, that it is rare with readers of papers and writers in -journals to quote references, and sometimes when these are given they -are wrong. I have thus been forced to limit the field from which my -information is taken very considerably. I have tried hard to introduce -no illustration I could not thoroughly depend upon, and I have not -intentionally quoted a single reference I had not verified from the -original authorities. - -In one respect I cannot but feel that I may have laid myself open to -hostile criticism. On many minor points I have offered suggestions -which I do not feel sure that I could prove if challenged, and which, -consequently, a more prudent man would have left alone. I have done -this because it often happens that such suggestions turn the attention -of others to points which would otherwise be overlooked, and may lead -to discoveries of great importance; while if disproved, they are only -so much rubbish swept out of the path of truth, and their detection can -do no harm to any one but their author. Whatever my shortcomings, I am -too much in earnest to look forward with any feelings of dismay to such -a contingency. - -Besides the usual motives which prompt the publication of such a work -as this, there are two which seem to render its appearance at this time -particularly desirable. The first is to promote enquiry by exciting -interest in the subject; the second is to give precision to future -researches. So long as everything is vague and mythical, explorers do -not know what to observe or record: this work, however, presents a -distinct and positive view of the age or use of the megalithic remains, -and every new fact must tend either to upset or confirm the theory it -seeks to establish. With this view, I need hardly add that I shall -be extremely grateful for any new facts or additional sources of -information which may be communicated to me, either through the public -press or privately. Numerous persons having local experience must know -many things which may have escaped me. It is very probable that these -may induce me to modify some of the details of this work; but so much -is now known, and the field from which my inductions are gathered is so -wide, that I have no fear that they will touch the main arguments on -which the theory of this work is founded.[1] - -However this may be, I trust that this work may lay claim to being, in -one respect at least, a contribution to the cause of truth regarding -the much-disputed age and use of these Rude Stone Monuments. It states -distinctly and without reserve one view of the mooted question, and so -openly that any one who knows better can at once pull away the prop -from my house of cards and level it with the ground. If one thing comes -out more clearly than another in the course of this investigation, it -is that the style of architecture to which these monuments belong is a -style, like Gothic, Grecian, Egyptian, Buddhist, or any other. It has -a beginning, a middle, and an end; and though we cannot yet make out -the sequence in all its details, this at least seems clear--that there -is no great hiatus; nor is it that one part is prehistoric, while the -other belongs to historic times. All belong to the one epoch or to the -other. Either it is that Stonehenge and Avebury and all such are the -temples of a race so ancient as to be beyond the ken of mortal man, -or they are the sepulchral monuments of a people who lived so nearly -within the limits of the true historic times that their story can -easily be recovered. If this latter view is adopted, the whole, it -appears to me, hangs so perfectly together, and presents so complete -and so rational an account of all the local or historical facts which -are at present known concerning these remains, that I feel great -confidence that it must eventually be adopted as the true explanation -of the phenomena. If it is it will have this further advantage, that -when any serious attempt is made to investigate either the history or -the manners and customs of these ancient peoples, it is probable that -these megalithic remains will be found to be the best and surest guide. - -From the circumstances above detailed, this work would have been a -much more meagre production than it is hoped it will be found, had -it not been for the kindness of many friends who have assisted me in -my undertaking. My chapter on Ireland, for instance, would have been -much less full had not Sir W. Wilde, Mr. Eugene Conwell, and Mr. Moore -assisted me with illustrations and information; and for my knowledge of -Scotch antiquities I owe much to my friend John Stuart, of Edinburgh, -while Sir Henry Dryden's invaluable collections have been of the utmost -service to me both as regards Scotland and Brittany. Professor Säve -and Mr. Hildebrand have materially aided me in Sweden, and M. Riaño -in Spain; but the post apparently suppresses any correspondence on -archæological subjects with France and Denmark. Without the kindness -of Sir Bartle Frere and his elder brother in lending me drawings, or -Colonel Collinson in procuring information, my account of the Maltese -antiquities would have been very much less satisfactory than it is; and -I also owe my best thanks to Mr. Walhouse, of the Madras Civil Service, -and Mr. Burgess, of Bombay, for their assistance in respect to Indian -antiquities. I have tried in the text to acknowledge my obligations to -these and all other parties who have assisted me. If I have omitted -any, I trust they will believe it has not been intentionally, but -through inadvertence. - -For myself, I hope I may be allowed to plead that I have spared no -pains in investigating the materials placed at my disposal, and no -haste in forming my conclusions; and I may also add, they are by no -means those of predilection or that I wished to arrive at. When I -first took up the subject, I hoped that the rude stone monuments would -prove to be old,--so old, indeed, as to form the "incunabula" of other -styles, and that we might thus, by a simple process, arrive at the -genesis of styles. Bit by bit that theory has crumbled to pieces as my -knowledge increased, and most reluctantly have I been forced to adopt -the more prosaic conclusions of the present volume. If, however, this -represents the truth, that must be allowed to be an ample compensation -for the loss of any poetry which has hitherto hung round the mystery of -the Rude Stone Monuments. - -_Langham Place, Dec. 1, 1871._ - - [Footnote 1: What is really wanted now is, a "Megalithic Monument - Publication Society." After the meeting of the Prehistoric Congress - at Norwich, a committee for this purpose was formed in conjunction - with the Ethnological Society. After several meetings everything - was arranged and settled, but, alas! there were no funds to meet - the necessary expenses, or, at least, risk of publication, and - the whole thing fell through. To do what is wanted on a really - efficient scale a payment or a guarantee of 1000_l._ would be - necessary, and that is far beyond what is attainable in this poor - country. If it could be obtained, the materials are abundant. - Sir Henry Dryden alone could fill a volume with the materials he - already possesses; and Lieut. Oliver, Mr. Conwell, and others, have - drawings sufficient to keep the society at work for a long time.] - - - - -CONTENTS. - - PAGE - INTRODUCTORY 1 - - - CHAPTER II. - - PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. Tumuli--Dolmens--Circles--Avenues - --Menhirs 29 - - - CHAPTER III. - - ENGLAND. Avebury and Stonehenge 61 - - - CHAPTER IV. - - MINOR ENGLISH ANTIQUITIES. Aylesford--Ashdown-- - Rollright--Penrith--Derbyshire--Stanton Drew--Smaller - Circles--Dolmens 116 - - - CHAPTER V. - - IRELAND. Moytura--Cemeteries--Boyne--Lough - Crew--Clover Hill--Dolmens 175 - - - CHAPTER VI. - - SCOTLAND. Orkney Stone Circles--Orkney Barrows-- - Maes-Howe Dragon and Serpent-Knot--Holed Stone of - Stennis--Callernish--Aberdeenshire Circles--Fiddes - Hill--Clava Mounds--Stone at Aberlemmo--Sculptured - Stones--Crosses in Isle of Man 239 - - - CHAPTER VII. - - SCANDINAVIA AND NORTH GERMANY. Introductory-- - Battle-fields--Harald Hildetand's Tomb--Long Barrows-- - Tumuli--Dolmens--Drenthe: Hunebeds 275 - - - CHAPTER VIII. - - FRANCE. Introductory--Distribution of Dolmens--Age of - Dolmens--Grottes des Fées--Demi-Dolmens--Rocking Stones-- - Carnac--Locmariaker--Alignments at Crozon--Age of - the Monuments--What are these Monuments?--They must - be Trophies--Time of the Fight--M. Bertrand's List of - Dolmens in Thirty-one Departments of France 325 - - - CHAPTER IX. - - SPAIN, PORTUGAL, AND ITALY. Introductory--Dolmens-- - Portugal--Italy 377 - - - CHAPTER X. - - ALGERIA AND TRIPOLI. Introductory--Bazinas and Chouchas-- - Free-Standing Dolmens--Age of Dolmens--Circle near Bona-- - The Nasamones--Origin of African Dolmen-builders--Tripoli: - Trilithons--Buddhist Monument at Bangkok 395 - - - CHAPTER XI. - - MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS. Malta--Sardinia--Balearic Islands 415 - - - CHAPTER XII. - - WESTERN ASIA. Palestine--Sinai--Arabia--Asia Minor-- - Circassia--The Steppes--Cabul 438 - - - CHAPTER XIII. - - INDIA. Introductory--Eastern India--Khassia--Western - India--Geographical Distribution--Age of the Stone - Monuments--Comparison of Dolmens--Buddhism in the West 455 - - - CHAPTER XIV. - - AMERICA. North America--Central America--Peru 510 - - - APPENDIX A.--Glens Columbkille and Malin 520 - - " B.--Oden's Howe, &c., Upsala 526 - - " C.--Antiquities of Caithness 527 - - INDEX 533 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. - - -FRONTISPIECE.--Standing Stones of Stennis. VIGNETTE.--Demi-Dolmen at -Kerland. - - - NO. PAGE - - 1. Section of Tomb of Alyattes 31 - - 2. Elevation of Tumulus at Tantalais 32 - - 3. Plan and Section of Chamber in Tumulus at Tantalais 32 - - 4. Section and Plan of Tomb of Atreus at Mycenæ 33 - - 5. View of Cocumella, Vulci 33 - - 6. View of principal Chamber in Regulini Galeassi Tomb 34 - - 7. Dolmen in Castle Wellan, Ireland 46 - - 8. Dolmen de Bousquet 46 - - 9. Tee cut in the Rock on a Dagoba at Ajunta 47 - - 10. Nine Ladies, Stanton Moor 49 - - 11. Chambered Tumulus, Jersey 51 - - 12. Avenues, Circles, and Cromlech, near Merivale Bridge, - Dartmoor 55 - - 13. Lochcrist Menhir 60 - - 14. View of Avebury restored 62 - - 15. Plan of Avebury Circle and Kennet Avenue 63 - - 16. Circle on Hakpen Hill 76 - - 17. Section of Silbury Hill 78 - - 18. Iron Bit of Bridle, Silbury Hill 81 - - 19. Plan of Avebury 81 - - 20. Elevation of the Bartlow Hills 83 - - 21. Marden Circle 85 - - 22. General Plan of Stonehenge 90 - - 23. Stonehenge as at present existing 92 - - 24. Plan of Stonehenge restored 93 - - 25. Tomb of Isidorus, at Khatoura 100 - - 26. Country around Stonehenge 102 - - 27. Countless Stones, Aylesford 116 - - 28. The Sarsen Stones at Ashdown 122 - - 29. Sketch Plan of King Arthur's Round Table, with the - side, obliterated by the road, restored 128 - - 30. Arbor Low 140 - - 31. Vases and Bronze Pin found in Arbor Low 141 - - 32. Section of Gib Hill 141 - - 33. Summit of Minning Low, as it appeared in 1786 142 - - 34. Plan of Chambers in Minning Low 142 - - 35. Fragment of Drinking Cup from Benty Grange 145 - - 36. Fragment of Helmet from Benty Grange 145 - - 37. Circles at Stanton Drew 149 - - 38. View of the Circles at Stanton Drew 150 - - 39. Rose Hill Tumulus 154 - - 40. Snaffle-Bit found at Aspatria 156 - - 41. Side Stone, Aspatria Cist 157 - - 42. Mule Hill, Isle of Man, View of Cists 157 - - 43. Circle of Cists at Mule Hill 157 - - 44. Circles on Burn Moor, in Cumberland 160 - - 45. Boscawen Circles 161 - - 46. Park Cwn Tumulus 163 - - 47. Tumulus, Plas Newydd 166 - - 48. Entrance to Dolmen, in Tumulus, Plas Newydd 166 - - 49. Dolmen at Pentre Ifan 168 - - 50. Dolmen at Plas Newydd 169 - - 51. Arthur's Quoit, Gower 170 - - 52. Plan of Arthur's Quoit 171 - - 53. Hob Hurst's House, on Baslow Moor, Derbyshire 172 - - 54. Circle on Battle-field of Southern Moytura 177 - - 55. Cairn on Battle-field of Southern Moytura 177 - - 56. The Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura 179 - - 57. Urn in the Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura 179 - - 58. Battle-field of Northern Moytura 181 - - 59. Sketch Plan of Circle 27, Northern Moytura 182 - - 60. View of Circle 27, Northern Moytura 183 - - 61. Dolmen, with Circle, No. 7, Northern Moytura 183 - - 62. Rath na Riog, or, Cathair of Cormac, at Tara 194 - - 63. View of Mound at New Grange 201 - - 64. New Grange, near Drogheda 203 - - 65, 66. Ornaments at New Grange 205 - - 67. Branch at New Grange 207 - - 68. Sculptured mark at New Grange, of undecided - character 207 - - 69. Chambers in Mound at Dowth 208 - - 70, 71. Ornaments in Dowth 210 - - 72. Cairn T, at Lough Crew 214 - - 73. The Hag's Chair, Lough Crew 215 - - 74. Two Stones in Cairn T, Lough Crew 216 - - 75. Cell in Cairn L, at Lough Crew 217 - - 76. Stone in Cairn T, Lough Crew 222 - - 77. Stones in Sculptured Graves, Clover Hill 223 - - 78. Dolmen at Knockeen 229 - - 79. Plan of Dolmen at Knockeen 230 - - 80. Calliagh Birra's House, north end of Parish of - Monasterboice 230 - - 81. Plan and Section of Chamber in Greenmount Tumulus 232 - - 82. Dolmen of the Four Maols, Ballina 233 - - 83. Sketch-Plan of Monument in the Deer Park, Sligo 234 - - 84. Circle at Stennis 242 - - 85. Dragon in Maes-Howe 245 - - 86. Wurm-Knot, Maes-Howe 245 - - 87. Plan and Section of Maes-Howe 246 - - 88. View of Chamber in Maes-Howe 247 - - 89. Monument at Callernish 259 - - 90. Circle at Fiddes Hill 264 - - 91. Plan of Clava Mounds 266 - - 92. View of Clava Mounds 266 - - 93. Stone at Coilsfield 267 - - 94. Front of Stone at Aberlemmo, with Cross 269 - - 95. Back of Stone at Aberlemmo 269 - - 96. Cat Stone, Kirkliston 271 - - 97, 98. Crosses in Isle of Man, bearing Runic - Inscriptions 273 - - 99. View of Battle-field at Kongsbacka 279 - - 100. Part of the Battle-field of Braavalla Heath 281 - - 101. Harald Hildetand's Tomb at Lethra 282 - - 102. Long Barrow, Kennet, restored by Dr. Thurnam 284 - - 103. Long Barrow at Wiskehärad, in Halland 288 - - 104. Battle-field at Freyrsö 292 - - 105. Dragon on King Gorm's Stone, Jellinge 296 - - 106. Dolmen at Herrestrup 303 - - 107. Dolmen at Halskov 304 - - 108. Dolmen at Oroust 306 - - 109. Diagram from Sjöborg 307 - - 110. Dolmen near Lüneburg 308 - - 111. Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards 309 - - 112. Plan of Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards 309 - - 113. Triple Dolmen, Höbisch 309 - - 114. View of Interior of Chamber at Uby 311 - - 115. Plan of Chamber at Uby 311 - - 116. Dolmen at Axevalla 313 - - 117. Head-stone of Kivik Grave 314 - - 118. Graves at Hjortehammer 316 - - 119. Circles at Aschenrade 317 - - 120. Plan of Hunebed near Emmen 320 - - 121. Dolmen at Ballo 321 - - 122. Dolmen at Sauclières 334 - - 123. Dolmen at Confolens 337 - - 124. Plan of Dolmen at Confolens 337 - - 125. Dolmen near Mettray 342 - - 126. Dolmen at Krukenho 342 - - 127. Holed Dolmen, at Trie 344 - - 128. Dolmen of Grandmont 344 - - 129. Demi-dolmen, Morbihan 344 - - 130. Demi-dolmen, near Poitiers 347 - - 131. Demi-dolmen at Kerland 347 - - 132. Pierre Martine 347 - - 133. Pierre Martine, end view 348 - - 134. Pierre Branlante, near Huelgoat, in Brittany 348 - - 135. Map of Celtic Antiquities, near Carnac 352 - - 136. Carnac Antiquities, on enlarged Scale 353 - - 137. Head of Column at St.-Barbe 355 - - 138. Long Barrow at Kerlescant 356 - - 139. Hole between Two Stones at Kerlescant 357 - - 140. Entrance to Cell, Rodmarton 357 - - 141. Vases found at Kerlescant 357 - - 142. Plan of Moustoir-Carnac 358 - - 143. Section of Moustoir-Carnac 358 - - 144. Section of Chamber of Moustoir-Carnac 359 - - 145. 146. Sculptures at Mané Lud 361 - - 147. View of Dol ar Marchant 361 - - 148. End Stone, Dol ar Marchant 362 - - 149. Hatchet in Roof of Dol ar Marchant 362 - - 150. Stone found inside Chamber at Mané er H'roëk 364 - - 151. Plan of Gavr Innis 364 - - 152. Sculptures at Gavr Innis 364 - - 153. Holed Stone, Gavr Innis 364 - - 154. Alignments at Crozon 367 - - 155. View of the Interior of Dolmen at Antequera 383 - - 156. Plan of Dolmen called Cueva de Menga, near - Antequera 384 - - 157. Dolmen del Tio Cogolleros 385 - - 158. Sepultura Grande 386 - - 159. Plan of Dolmen at Eguilar 387 - - 160. Plan of Dolmen at Cangas de Onis 387 - - 161. Dolmen of San Miguel, at Arrichinaga 387 - - 162. Dolmen at Arroyolos 389 - - 163. Dolmen at Saturnia 392 - - 164. Bazina 397 - - 165. Choucha 398 - - 166. Dolmen on Steps 398 - - 167. Tumuli, with Intermediate Lines of Stones 399 - - 168. Group of Sepulchral Monuments, Algeria 399 - - 169. Plan and Elevation of African Tumulus 400 - - 170. Dolmen with Two Circles of Stones 401 - - 171. Dolmens on the Road from Bona to Constantine 402 - - 172. Four Cairns enclosed in Squares 402 - - 173. Tombs near Djidjeli 404 - - 174. Circle near Bona 405 - - 175. Trilithon at Ksaea 411 - - 176. Trilithon at Elkeb 412 - - 177. Buddhist Monument at Bangkok 413 - - 178. Giants' Tower at Gozo 417 - - 179. Plan of Monument of Mnaidra 419 - - 180. Section through Lower Pair of Chambers, Mnaidra 419 - - 181. Entrance to Chamber B, Mnaidra, showing Table inside 420 - - 182. North End of Left-hand Outer Chamber at Mnaidra 421 - - 183. Plan of Hagiar Khem, partially restored 423 - - 184. View of Madracen 424 - - 185. Nurhag 428 - - 186. Nurhag of Santa Barbara 428 - - 187. Section and Ground-plan of Nurhag of Santa Barbara 429 - - 188. Map of La Giara 430 - - 189. Talyot at Trepucò, Minorca 435 - - 190. Talyot at Alajor, Minorca 435 - - 191. Dolmens at Kafr er Wâl 441 - - 192. Holed Dolmen 447 - - 193. Holed Dolmen, Circassia 447 - - 194. Baba 448 - - 195. Four-cornered Grave 448 - - 196. Tumulus at Alexandropol 450 - - 197. Uncovered Base of a Tumulus at Nikolajew 451 - - 198. Circle near Peshawur 452 - - 199. Circle at Deh Ayeh, near Darabgerd 453 - - 200. View in Khassia Hills 462 - - 201. Khassia Funereal Seats 463 - - 202. Menhirs and Tables 464 - - 203. Turban Stone, with Stone Table 464 - - 204. Trilithon 464 - - 205. Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468 - - 206. Plan of Open Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468 - - 207. Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468 - - 208. View of Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468 - - 209. Arrangement of Dolmens at Rajunkoloor 470 - - 210. Cairns at Jewurgi 472 - - 211, 212. Sections of Cairn at Jewurgi 472 - - 213. Double Dolmen, Coorg 473 - - 214. Tomb, Nilgiri Hills 473 - - 215. Sepulchral Circles at Amravati 474 - - 216. Iron Pillar at the Kutub, Delhi 481 - - 217. Sculpture on under side of cap-stone of Nilgiri - Dolmen 483 - - 218. Dolmen at Iwullee 484 - - 219. Plan of Stone Monuments at Shahpoor 485 - - 220. Cross at Katapur 486 - - 221. Dolmen at Katapur 487 - - 222. Dolmen with Cross in Nirmul Jungle 487 - - 223. Lanka Ramayana Dagoba 490 - - 224. Dolmen at Pullicondah 491 - - 225. Rail at Sanchi, near Bhilsa 492 - - 226. View of the Senbya Pagoda, Burmah 497 - - 227. Enclosure in Newark Works, North America 511 - - 228. Plan of Uprights, Cromlech D I., Columbkille 521 - - 229. Position of Stones of D III. 522 - - 230. Plan of D VI. 522 - - 231. Plan of Cromlechs of Group E. 523 - - 232. Horned Cairn, Caithness 528 - - 233. Dolmen near Bona, Algeria 532 - - -DIRECTION TO BINDER. - -The MAP illustrating the distribution of Dolmens to be placed -at the end of the Volume. - - - - -RUDE STONE MONUMENTS. - -INTRODUCTORY. - - -SO great and so successful has been the industry recently applied -to subjects of archæological research that few of the many problems -in that science which fifty years ago seemed hopelessly mysterious -now remain unsolved. Little more than forty years have elapsed since -Champollion's discoveries enabled us to classify and understand -the wonderful monuments of the Nile Valley. The deciphering of the -cuneiform characters has in like manner enabled us to arrange and affix -dates to the temples and palaces of Babylon and Nineveh. Everything -that was built by the Greeks and the Romans has been surveyed and -illustrated; and all the mediæval styles that arose out of them have -been reduced to intelligible sequences. The rock-cut temples of India, -and her still more mysterious dagobas, have been brought within the -domain of history, and, like those of Burmah, Cambodia, or China, shown -to be of comparatively modern date. The monuments of Mexico and Peru -may be said still to defy those who are endeavouring to wrest their -secrets from them; but even for these a fairly approximate date has -been obtained. But amidst all these triumphs of well-directed research -there still remains a great group of monuments at our own doors, -regarding whose uses or dates opinions are nearly as much divided as -they were in the days of rampant empiricism in the last century. It is -true that men of science do not now pretend to see Druids sacrificing -their bleeding victims on the altar at Stonehenge, nor to be able to -trace the folds of the divine serpent through miles of upright stones -at Carnac or at Avebury; but all they have yet achieved is simple -unbelief in the popular fallacies, nor have they hitherto ventured -to supply anything better to take their places. They still call the -circles temples, but without being able to suggest to what god they -were dedicated, or for what rites they were appropriate, and, when -asked as to the age in which they were erected, can only reply in the -words of the song, that it was "long long ago." - -This state of affairs is eminently unsatisfactory, but at the same time -to a great extent excusable. Indeed it is not at first sight easy to -see how it is to be remedied. The builders of the megalithic remains -were utterly illiterate, and have left no written records of their -erection; nor are there any legible inscriptions on the more important -monuments which would afford any hints to the enquirer. What is even -more disheartening is that in almost every instance they are composed -of rough unhewn stones, not only without any chisel marks, but even -without any architectural mouldings capable of being compared with -those of other monuments, or, by their state of preservation, of giving -a hint as to their relative age. - - "They stand, but stand in silent and uncommunicative majesty." - -So silent, indeed, that it is hardly to be wondered at that fanciful -antiquaries have supplied them with voices most discordantly and -absurdly various, or, on the other hand, that the better class of -enquirers have shrunk from the long patient investigations and -thoughtful ponderings which are necessary to elicit even a modicum of -truth from their stolid reticence. - -If the investigation into the age and uses of the megalithic remains -were a new subject which had for the first time been taken up some -thirty or forty years ago, it is probable that a solution might have -been obtained before now, or at all events would not be far off. When, -however, an investigation gets into a thoroughly vicious groove, as -this one has done, it is very difficult to rescue it from its false -position. The careless are willing to accept any empirical solutions -that are offered, however absurd they may be, and the thoughtful are -deterred from meddling with an enquiry which has hitherto led only to -such irrational conclusions. - -The first of those who, in this country at least, led off the wild -dance was the celebrated Inigo Jones, the architect of Whitehall. It -seems that when King James I. was on a visit to the Earl of Pembroke -at Wilton, he was taken to see Stonehenge, and was so struck with its -majesty and mystery that he ordered his architect to find out by whom -it was built, and for what purpose. Whether the treatise containing the -result of his enquiries was ever submitted to the King is not clear. It -certainly was not published till after its author's death, and though -it shows a very creditable amount of learning and research, the results -he arrived at were very startling. After a detailed statement of the -premises, his conclusions--as condensed in the Life prefixed to his -treatise--were "That it was a Roman temple, inscribed to Cœlus, the -senior of the heathen gods, and built after the Tuscan order." - -This theory was attacked by Dr. Charleton, one of the physicians of -Charles II. He had corresponded for some time with Olaus Wormius, the -celebrated Danish antiquary, and struck with the similarity in form and -of construction that existed between the monuments in Denmark and those -of this country, he came to the conclusion that Stonehenge and other -similar monuments were erected by the Danes, and consequently after -the departure of the Romans. This attack on the theory of Inigo Jones -raised the wrath of a Mr. Webb, by marriage a relative, who replied in -a very angry treatise, in which he reiterates all Jones's arguments, -and then, adding a considerable number of his own, he concludes by -triumphantly--as he supposes--restoring Stonehenge to the Romans.[2] - -So far no great harm was done; but Dr. Stukeley, who next appeared -in the controversy, was one of the most imaginative of men and one -of the wildest of theorists. His studies had made him familiar with -the Druids, whom classical authorities describe as the all-powerful -priests of the Celtic race, but who had no temples; on the other hand, -his travels made him acquainted with Stonehenge and Avebury, to the -latter of which attention had just been called by the researches of his -friend Aubrey. Here, then, were temples without priests. What could -be so natural as to join these two, though in most unholy matrimony. -Our stone circles must be temples of the Druids! But there was still -one difficulty. What divinities did they worship therein? Cæsar tells -us that the Celts or Celtic Druids principally worshipped Mercury -and some other Roman gods whom he named;[3] but no images of these -gods are found in these temples, nor anything that would indicate a -dedication to their worship. Unfortunately, however, Pliny[4] tells -a very silly tale, how in Gaul the snakes meet together on a certain -day and manufacture from their spittle an egg (_Anguinum_), which, -when complete, they throw aloft, and if any one wants it, he must -catch it in a blanket before it falls to the ground, and ride off with -it on a fleet horse, for if the snakes catch him before he crosses a -running stream, a worse fate than Tam o' Shanter's may befall him! He -then goes on to add that this egg was considered as a charm by the -Druids. From this last hint Dr. Stukeley concluded that the Druids -were serpent-worshippers, and consequently that Stonehenge, Avebury, -&c., were serpent temples--Dracontia, as he calls them, daringly -assuming that a word, which in the singular was only the name of a -plant, was actually applied by the ancients to serpent temples, of the -form of which, however, they were as ignorant as the Doctor himself. -Having advanced so far, it only remained to adapt the English circles -to this newly discovered form of worship, and Avebury was chosen as -the principal illustration. There was a small circle on Hakpen Hill, -which had a stone avenue formed by six or eight stones running east -and west; between West Kennet and Avebury there was another avenue -leading to the circles, but trending north and south. By introducing -a curved piece between these fragments, Hakpen became the head of the -snake, the avenue its body; Avebury a convoluted part of it, and then -a tail was added, a mile long, on the authority of two stones in the -village, and a dolmen, called Long Stone Cove, about halfway between -Avebury and the end of the tail! Stanton Drew and other circles were -treated in the same way; curved avenues, for which there is not a -shadow of authority, except in the Doctor's imagination, were added -wherever required, and serpents manufactured wherever wanted. It never -seems even to have occurred to the Doctor or his contemporaries to ask -whether, in any time or place, any temple was ever built in the form of -the gods to be worshipped therein or thereat, or how any human being -could discover the form of the serpent in rows of stones stretching -over hills and valleys, crossing streams, and hid occasionally by -mounds and earthworks. On a map, with the missing parts supplied, this -is easy enough; but there were no maps in those days, and in the open -country it would puzzle even the most experienced surveyors to detect -the serpent's form. - -Had so silly a fabrication been put forward in the present day, -it probably would have met with the contempt it deserves; but the -strangest part of the whole is that it was then accepted as a -revelation. Even so steady and so well informed an antiquary as Sir -Richard Colt Hoare adopts Dr. Stukeley's views without enquiry. His -magnificent works on 'Ancient and Modern Wiltshire,' which are not only -the most splendid, but the most valuable works of their class which -this country owes to the liberality and industry of any individual, -are throughout disfigured by this one great blemish. He sees Druids -and their Dragons everywhere, and never thinks of enquiring on what -authority their existence rests. - -It is not of course for one moment meant to contend that there were -not Druids in Europe in ancient days. Cæsar's testimony on this point -is too distinct, and his knowledge was too accurate to admit of any -doubt on this point. It is true, however, that the description of them -given by Diodorus,[5] and Strabo,[6] who mix them up with the bards -and soothsayers, detracts somewhat from the pre-eminence he assigns to -them: but this is of minor importance. The Druids were certainly the -priests of the Celts, and had their principal seat in the country of -the Carnutes, near Chartres, where, however, megalithic remains are -few and far between. Neither Cæsar, however, nor any one else, ever -pretended to have seen a Druid in England. Suetonius met 'Druidæ' -in the Island of Anglesea (Mona),[7] but none were ever heard of in -Wiltshire, or Derbyshire, or Cumberland, where the principal monuments -are situated; nor in the Western Islands, or in Scandinavia. Still -less are they known in Algeria or India, where these megalithic remains -abound. According to the Welsh bards and Irish annalists, there were -Druids in Wales and Ireland before the introduction of Christianity. -But, even admitting this, it does not help us much; as even there they -are nowhere connected with the class of monuments of which we are now -treating. Indeed, it has been contended lately, and with a considerable -show of reason, that the Celts themselves, even in France, had nothing -to do with these monuments, and that they belong to an entirely -different race of people.[8] It is not, in short, at all necessary -to deny either the existence of the Druids or their power. The real -difficulty is to connect them in any way, directly or indirectly, with -the stone monuments: and it seems still more difficult to prove that -the Celts ever worshipped the serpent in any shape or form.[9] - -Notwithstanding all this, in the present century, an educated gentleman -and a clergyman of the Church of England, the Rev. Bathurst Deane, -adopts unhesitatingly all that Stukeley and his school had put forward. -He took the trouble of going to Brittany, accompanied by a competent -surveyor, and made a careful plan of the alignments of Carnac.[10] Like -the avenues at Avebury, they certainly bore no resemblance to serpent -forms, to eyes profane, but looked rather like two straight lines -running nearly parallel to one another at a distance of about two miles -apart. But may not an intermediate curvilinear piece some three miles -long have existed in the gap and so joined the head to the tail? It is -in vain to urge that no trace of it now exists, or to ask how any human -being could trace the forms of serpents seven or eight miles long in an -undulating country, and how or in what manner, or to what part of this -strange deity or monster, he was to address his prayers. - -It would be incorrect, however, to represent all antiquaries as -adopting the Ophite heresy. Another group have argued stoutly that -Stonehenge was an observatory of the British Druids. This theory was -apparently suggested by views published by Daniell and others of the -observatories erected by Jey Sing of Jeypore at Delhi, Ougein, Benares, -and elsewhere in India. All these, it is true, possess great circles, -but each of all these circles contains a gnomon, which is as essential -a part of such an astronomical instrument as it is of a sun-dial, and -no trace of such a feature, it need hardly be said, occurs in any -British circle. One antiquary, who ought to be better informed,[11] -concluded that Stonehenge was an observatory, because, sitting on a -stone called the Altar on a Midsummer morning, he saw the sun rise -behind a stone called the Friar's Heel. This is the only recorded -observation ever made there, so far as I know; and if this is all, it -is evident that any two stones would have answered the purpose equally -well, and as the Altar stone is sixteen feet long, it allows a latitude -of observation that augurs ill for the Druidical knowledge of the exact -sciences. Neither Mr. Ellis, however, nor Dr. Smith, nor the Rev. Mr. -Duke,[12] nor indeed any of those who have taken up the astronomical -theory, have yet pointed out one single observation that could be made -by these circles that could not be made as well or better without -them. Or, if they were orreries, as is sometimes pretended, no one has -explained what they record or represent in any manner that would be -intelligible to any one else. Till some practical astronomer will come -forward and tell us in intelligible language what observations could be -performed with the aid of the circles of Stonehenge, we may be at least -allowed to pause. Even, however, in that case, unless his theory will -apply to Avebury, Stanton Drew, and other circles so irregular as to be -almost unmeasurable, it will add little to our knowledge. - -It might be an amusing, though it certainly must be a profitless, -task to enlarge on these and all the other guesses which have from -time to time been made with regard to these mysterious remains. It -is not, however, probable that theories so utterly groundless will -be put forward again, or, if promulgated, that they will be listened -to in future. The one excuse for them hitherto has been that their -authors have been deprived of all their usual sources of information -in this matter. It is not too much to assert that there is not one -single passage in any classical author which can be construed as -alluding directly or indirectly to the megalithic remains on these -isles or on the continent. With all their learning and industry, the -antiquaries of the last century could only find one passage which, with -all their misapplied ingenuity, they could pervert to their purposes. -It was this--in his second book, Diodorus, quoting from Hecatæus, -mentions that in an island, not less in size than Sicily, and opposite -to Celtica, there existed among the Hyperboreans a circular temple -magnificently adorned.[13] Stukeley and his followers immediately -jumped to the conclusion that the island not less than Sicily and -opposite Gaul must be England, and the circular temple Stonehenge, -which was consequently dedicated to Apollo and the serpent Python, and -our forefathers were the Hyperboreans, and our intercourse with Greece -clear and frequent. It is marvellous what a superstructure was raised -on such a basis. But against it may be urged that the whole of the -second book of Diodorus is dedicated solely to a description of Asia. -In the preceding chapter he describes the Amazons, who, if they ever -existed, certainly lived in that quarter of the globe. In the following -chapters he describes Arabia, and even in this one (xlvii.) he speaks -of the Hyperboreans as inhabiting the northern parts of Asia. By the -utmost latitude of interpretation we might assume this island to have -been in the Baltic--Œsel probably, Gothland possibly, but certainly -not further west. It is impossible Diodorus could be mistaken in the -matter, for in his fifth book he describes the British Isles in their -proper place, and with a very considerable degree of accuracy.[14] But, -after all, what does it amount to? In this island there was a circular -temple. We are not told whether it was of wood or of stone, whether -hypæthral, or roofed, or vaulted, and certainly there is not a shadow -of a hint that it was composed of a circle of rude stones like those in -this country with which the antiquaries of the last century tried to -assimilate it. - - * * * * * - -It is little to be wondered at if all this rashness of speculation -and carelessness in quotation should have produced a belief that the -solution of the problem was impossible from any literary or historical -data, or if consequently our modern antiquaries should have grasped -with avidity at a scheme, first proposed by the Danes, which seemed -at all events to place the question on a scientific basis. No country -could well be more favourably situated for an enquiry of this sort than -Denmark. It is rich in megalithic remains of all sorts. Its tumuli and -tombs seem generally to have been undisturbed; and it was exceptionally -fortunate in having a government with sufficient common sense to enact -a law of treasure-trove, so just and, at the same time, so liberal as -to prevent all metal articles from finding their way to the melting -pot, and governors so intelligent as fully to appreciate the scientific -value of these early remains. In consequence of all this, the museums -at Copenhagen were soon filled with one of the richest collections of -antiquities of this sort that was ever collected, and when brought -together it was not difficult to perceive the leading features that -connected them in one continuous sequence. - -First it appeared that there was an age extending into far prehistoric -times, when men used only implements of stone and bone, and were -ignorant of the use of any of the metals; then that an age had -succeeded to this when the use of bronze was known, and also probably -that of gold; and, lastly, that there was a third age, when iron had -been introduced and had superseded the use of all other metals for -weapons of war and utilitarian purposes. - -The Danish antiquaries were somewhat divided in opinion as to the exact -period when bronze was first introduced, some carrying it back as far -as 2000 B.C., others doubting whether it was known in Denmark -more than 1000 or 1200 years B.C.; but all agreed that iron -was introduced about the Christian era. Having satisfied themselves on -these points, the Danish antiquaries proceeded at once to apply this -system to the monuments of their country. Any tomb or tumulus which was -devoid of any trace of metal was dated at once at least 1000, probably -2000, years before Christ, and might be 10,000, or 20,000 years old, or -even still older. Any tomb containing bronze was at once set down as -dating between the war of Troy and the Christian era; and if a trace -of iron was detected, it was treated as subsequent to the last-named -epoch, but still as anterior to the introduction of Christianity, which -in Denmark dates about the year 1000 A.D. - -This system seemed so reasonable and philosophical, compared with the -wild theories of the British antiquaries of the last century, that it -was instantly adopted both in the country of its birth and in England -and France; and the succession of the three ages--stone, bronze, and -iron--was generally looked upon as firmly established as any fact in -chronology. Gradually, however, it has been perceived that the hard and -fast line at first drawn between them cannot be maintained. At the last -meeting of the International Archæological Congress, held at Copenhagen -in the autumn of 1869, it was admitted on all hands that there was -a considerable overlap between each of the three ages. Men did not -immediately cease to use stone implements when bronze was introduced; -and bronze continued to be employed for many purposes after the use of -iron was well known.[15] Antiquaries have not yet made up their minds -to what extent the overlap took place; but on its determination depends -the whole value of the scheme as a chronometric scale. - -If the Danes, instead of breaking up their "finds" and distributing -them in cases according to a pre-conceived system, had kept and -published a careful record of the places where the contents of their -museums were found, and in what juxtaposition, we should not probably -be in our present difficulty. Under the circumstances, it is perhaps -fortunate that we had no central museum, but that our antiquaries have -published careful narratives of their proceedings. Sir Richard Colt -Hoare's great works are models of their class, but are scarcely to be -depended upon in the present instance, as the importance of flint -and flint implements was not appreciated in his time to the extent -it now is.[16] The explorations of the Messrs. Bateman in Derbyshire -are more completely up to the mark of the science of the present day. -A few extracts from one of their works will show how various and how -mixed the contents of even a single group of tombs are, and will prove -consequently how little dependence can be placed on any one class of -objects to fix the age of these monuments. - -In his 'Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire,' published in 1848 -by Thomas Bateman, we find the following among other interesting facts, -taking them as they are found arranged in his volume, without any -attempt at classification:-- - -On Winster Moor (p. 20), a gold Greek cross--undoubtedly Christian, -with a fibula of the same metal richly ornamented, and a quantity of -glass and metal ornaments. - -Pegges Barrow (p. 24). Several Anglo-Saxon ornaments, most probably of -the seventh or eighth century. - -In a barrow at Long Roods (p. 28) were found two urns, with calcined -bones and a brass coin of Constantine, of the type "Gloria exercitus." - -In Haddon Field Barrow (p. 30) were found 82 brass coins: among them -Constantine 9, Constans 17, Constantius II. 9, family of Constantine 3, -Urbs Roma 1, Constantinopolis 2, Valentinian 5, Valens 12, Gratian 3. -The remainder illegible. - -At Gib Hill, near Arbor Low (p. 31), of which more hereafter, there -were found a flint arrow-head 2½ inches long, and a fragment of a -basaltic celt; also a small iron fibula, and another piece of iron of -indeterminable form. - -On Cross Flatts (p. 35) the weapons found with the skeleton were an -iron knife, the blade 5 inches long; a piece of roughly chipped flint, -probably a spear-head; and a natural piece of stone of remarkable form. -A similar iron knife and a stone celt were afterwards found within a -few yards of the barrow, probably thrown out and overlooked when first -opened. - -In Galley Lowe (p. 37), a very beautiful gold necklace set with -garnets, and a coin of Honorius; but towards the outer edge of the -Lowe, and consequently, as far as position goes, probably later, -another interment, accompanied with rude pottery, a small arrow-head of -grey flint, and a piece of ironstone. - -In the great barrow at Minning Lowe (p. 39) were found coins of -Claudius Gothicus, Constantine the Great, Constantine Junior, and -Valentinian. - -In a smaller barrow close by were found fragments of a coarse, -dark-coloured urn, a flint arrow-head, a small piece of iron, part of a -bridle-bit, and several horses' teeth; lower down, a cist with an iron -knife, with an iron sheath; and on the outer edge another interment, -accompanied by a highly ornamented drinking-cup, a small brass or -copper pin, and a rude spear or arrow-head of dark grey flint. - -In Borther Lowe (p. 48) were found a flint arrow-head much burnt and a -diminutive bronze celt. - -In Rolley Lowe (p. 55) were found a brass coin of Constantine, and -a brass pin 2-3/4 inches long; and lower down a rude but highly -ornamented urn, and with it two very neat arrow-heads of flint of -uncommon forms; and in another part of the barrow a spear-head of -coarse flint, with the fragments of an ornamented drinking-cup. - -In a barrow on Ashford Moor (p. 57) were found, scattered in different -parts, a small iron arrow-head and five instruments of flint. - -In Carder Lowe (p. 63) were found several instruments of flint, amongst -the latter a neatly formed barbed arrow-head; and lower down, with the -primary interment, a splendid brass or bronze dagger; a few inches -lower down a beautiful axe hammer-head of basalt. In another part of -the barrow another interment was discovered, accompanied by an iron -knife and three hones of sandstone. - -A barrow was opened at New Inns (p. 66), where, along with the -principal interment, was found a beautiful brass dagger, with smaller -rivets than usual; and in another part a skeleton, with two instruments -of flint, and some animal teeth. - -In Net Lowe (p. 68), close to the right arm of the principal interment, -a large dagger of brass, with the decorations of its handle, consisting -of thirty brass rivets; two studs of Kimmeridge coal. With the -above-mentioned articles were numerous fragments of calcined flint, and -amongst the soil of the barrow two rude instruments of flint. - -At Castern (p. 73), in one part of the mound, an instrument was -found, with a fine spear-head of flint, and a small arrow-head of the -same. In other parts, but in apparently undisturbed earth, a circular -instrument, and various chippings of flint, and the handle of a knife -of stag's horn, riveted in the usual way on to the steel. A similar one -is figured in Douglas's 'Nenia Britannica,' plate 19, fig. 4, as found -with an interment in one of the barrows on Chartham Downs, Kent. - -In Stand Lowe (p. 74), on digging towards the centre, numerous flint -chippings and six rude instruments were found, and above the same place -a broken whetstone. The centre being gained, an iron knife was found -of the kind generally attributed to the Saxons. This was immediately -followed by a bronze box and a number of buckles, fibulæ, and articles -of iron, silver, and glass, all showing the principal interment to have -been of very late date. Mr. Bateman adds--"the finding of instruments -of flint with an interment of this comparatively modern description is -rather remarkable, but by no means unprecedented." - -In a barrow midway between Wetton and Ilam (p. 79) with the interment -were found three implements of flint of no great interest, some -fragments of an ornamented urn, and an iron pin, similar to the awl -used by saddlers at the present day. Mr. Bateman adds--"one precisely -similar was found in a barrow on Middleton Moor in 1824." - -In a second barrow near the same place were found the remains of a -coarse and rudely ornamented urn with its deposit of burnt bones. A -third brass coin of Constantine the Great was also found on the summit, -just under the surface. - -In Come Lowe (p. 95), with an interment of a very late period, were -found gold and iron ornaments and glass beads, as well as the usual -chippings of flint and rats' bones. - -In Dowe Lowe (p. 96) the most remote interment consisted of two much -decayed skeletons lying on the floor of the barrow about two yards from -its centre; one was accompanied by a fluted brass dagger placed near -the upper bone of the arm, and an amulet of iron ore with a large flint -implement, which had seen good service, lying near the pelvis. - -The other tumuli examined by this indefatigable explorer either -contained objects generally of the same class or nothing that was of -interest as marking their age. If his other works, or those of others, -were abstracted in the same way, numerous examples of the same sort -might be adduced. The above, however, are probably sufficient to show -how little reliance can be placed on the hard and fast distinction -between the flint, bronze, and iron ages which have hitherto been -supposed to govern every determination of age in this science. If in a -hundred short pages of one man's work so many instances of overlapping, -and, indeed, of reversal of the usual order of things, can be found, it -is easy to understand how many might be added if other works were also -examined. All, however, that is wanted here is to show that the Danish -system is neither perfect nor final, and that we must look for some -other means of ascertaining the age of these monuments if we are to -come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding them. - -The fact is that, though a tomb containing only stone and bone -implements may be 10,000 or 20,000 years old, unless it can also be -shown that stone and bone were no longer used after the Christian era, -it may also be as modern, or more so, than that epoch. Unless, also, -it can be proved that stone implements were never used after iron was -introduced, or that bronze was never employed down to a late period, -this system is of no avail; and after the examples just quoted from the -Bateman diggings, it seems the merest empiricism to assume that the -use of each class of implements ceased on the introduction of another; -and till it can be shown at what date their use did really cease, -any argument based on their presence is of very little value. This, -however, is a task to which no antiquary has yet applied himself; all -have been content to fix the age of the monuments from the assumed age -of their contents, empirically determined. It is a far more difficult -task, however, to ascertain the age of the contents from that of the -monument in which they are found; it is a task that requires an -investigation into the history and circumstances of each particular -example. With the scant materials that exist, this is by no means easy; -but as it seems the only mode by which truth can be arrived at, it is -the task to which we propose to devote the following pages; should it -prove impossible, we may indeed despair. - -It is curious to observe how different would have been the fate of this -science, had the Scandinavians followed up the line of investigation -commenced by their writers in the sixteenth century. Olaus Magnus, -for instance, Archbishop of Upsala, writing in 1555, describes the -megalithic remains of Sweden with the sobriety and precision with which -a man in the present day might give an account of the cemeteries of -Kensal-green or of Scutari. Some, he tells us, marked battle-fields, -some family sepulchres, others the graves of greatly distinguished -men.[17] In like manner, Olaus Wormius, in 1643, describes the tombs -of the kings of Denmark as a writer in the present day might the -Plantagenet sepulchres in Westminster Abbey.[18] Neither have any -doubt or hesitation about the matter, and though Dr. Charleton was -hasty in following this author too implicitly in applying his data to -this country, still, so far as I can form an opinion, if that line of -research had been steadily followed out, there would now have been as -little doubt about the age of Stonehenge, as there is about that of -Salisbury Cathedral. Stukeley, however, cut the vessel adrift from the -moorings of common sense, and she has since been a derelict tossed -about by the winds and waves of every passing fancy, till recently, -when an attempt has been made to tow the wreck into the misty haven of -prehistoric antiquity. If ever she reaches that nebulous region, she -may as well be broken up in despair, as she can be of no further use -for human purposes. - - * * * * * - -Whether this will or will not be her fate must depend on the result -of the new impulse which has within the last ten or twelve years been -given to the enquiry. Hitherto it seems certainly to be in a direction -which, it is to be feared, is not likely to lead to any greater degree -of precision in the enquiry. While the Danish "savans" were arranging -their collections in the museums at Copenhagen, M. Boucher de Perthes -was quietly forming a collection of flint implements from the drift -gravels of the valley of the Somme, which far exceeded all hitherto -found in antiquity. For many years his discoveries were ridiculed and -laughed at, till in 1858 the late Hugh Falconer visited his museum at -Abbeville, and being then fresh from his investigations at Kent's Hole -and the Gower Caves,[19] he at once saw their value and proclaimed -it to the world. Since then it has not been disputed that the flint -implements found in the valley of the Somme are the works of man, and -that from the position in which they are found their fabricators must -have lived at a period on the edge of the glacial epoch, and when -the configuration of the continent differed from what it now is, and -when probably the British isles were still joined to France. Similar -implements have before and since been found in Suffolk,[20] and other -parts of England in analogous circumstances, and all allied with a -fauna which was extinct in these parts before historic times.[21] If -you ask a geologist how long ago the circumstances of the globe were -such as these conditions represent, he will answer at once not less -than a million of years! But they deal in large figures, and it is not -necessary to investigate them now. It was a very long time ago. - -Even more interesting than these for our present purposes was the -discovery a few years later of human remains in the valleys of the -Dordogne and other rivers of the south of France. Here geology does not -help us, but climatology does. At that time the climate of the south -of France was so cold that the inhabitants of these caves had all the -habits of people now dwelling in the Arctic regions. Their principal -domestic animal was the reindeer, but they were familiar with the -woolly-haired mammoth, the cave bear, and the aurochs. The climate was -so cold that they could throw on one side the débris of their feasts, -and floor their dwelling with marrow bones and offal without dreading -pestilence or even suffering inconvenience. They were, in fact, in -every respect, so far as we have the means of judging, identical with -the Esquimaux of the present day, and must have inhabited a climate -nearly similar to that of Arctic North America. How long ago was this? -We know from the pictures in the tombs near the pyramids that the -climate of Egypt was the same 5000 or 6000 years ago as it is now, and -we have no reason to suppose that, while that of the southern shores of -the Mediterranean remained unchanged, the northern would vary in any -very different ratio. Clearing of forests may have done something, but -never could have accounted for such a change as this. If we take 50,000 -or 60,000 years instead of 5000 or 6000, it will not suffice for such a -revolution, though geologists will be wroth if we assume only 100,000; -as a convenient number this will answer our present purposes. - -Having at least this space of time at their disposal, the tendency of -modern antiquaries has been to sweep everything into this great gulf. -Why, they ask, may not Stonehenge and Avebury be 10,000, 20,000, or -50,000 years old? Man then existed, and why may he not have erected -such monuments as these? Of course he might, but there is no proof -that he did, and as no single tangible reason has yet been adduced -for supposing them so old, the mere presumption that they might be so -cannot count for much. - -To my mind the force of argument seems to tend the other way. If a race -of men lived on the face of the globe for 100,000 years so utterly -unprogressive as these cave men, incapable of discovering the use of -metals for themselves during that long period, or even of adopting them -from Egypt and the East, where bronze certainly, and most probably -iron, were known at least 6000 or 7000 years ago; if this people -used flint and bone during all this period, is it likely that they -would adopt new-fangled implements and new customs the first time they -were presented to them? The Esquimaux have been familiar with the -Danish settlers in Greenland for some centuries, and could easily have -procured improved implements and many of the advantages of civilization -had they been so inclined. They have not been changed a hair's-breadth -by the influence of the stranger. The red man of North America has been -in contact with the white man for centuries now. Has he changed, or -can he change? In Alaska, and to the northward of Vancouver's Island, -there is a race of savages, called Hydahs, with all the artistic tastes -and faculties of the men of the Dordogne caves, and with about the -same degree of civilization.[22] All these are dying out, and may soon -disappear, but they present at this day exactly the same phenomenon as -we see in the south of France, say 10,000 years ago. They have been -exterminated in all the civilized parts of Europe by the progressive -Aryan races who have usurped their places; and it seems only too -certain that, like them, their American kindred must perish before the -growing influence of the white man, but they cannot change. In so far -as we can judge from such facts as are before us, if any family of this -old people still lurked among our hills or on any rocky island, their -habits, or customs, and their implements, would be as like those of -the cave men as those of the Esquimaux or Alaska savages are at the -present day. It appears most unphilosophical to apply to those people -the principles of progress that are found among the higher races of -mankind, and to represent them as eagerly seizing on any improvement -offered them, and abandoning their old faith and their old habits at -the bidding of any wandering navigator that visited their shores. - -This is not the place to enter on such an enquiry, but so far as can at -present be seen, it seems that mankind has progressed not so much by -advance within the limits of certain races as by the superposition of -more highly organized races over those of an inferior class. Thus we -have those stone men of the caves who possessed the world for 100,000 -or a million of years, and made no more progress in that period than -the animals they were associated with. Even the progress from a chipped -to a polished stone implement seems to have been taught them by a -foreign bronze-using people. We have then such races as the Egyptian, -the Chinese, or the Mexican, who can progress to a certain point, but -stop and cannot go beyond; and, lastly, we have the Aryans, the last -to appear in the field, but the most energetic, and the only truly -progressive race. Our great error in reasoning with regard to the older -races seems to be that we insist on applying to them the reasoning and -principles which guide us, but which are wholly inapplicable to the -less progressive races of mankind. - -All this will be plainer in the sequel; but in the meanwhile it may -safely be asserted that, up to this time, no royal road has been -discovered that leads to an explanation of our megalithic antiquities. -No one has yet been able so to classify the contents of cognate -monuments as to construct a chronometric scale which is applicable for -the elucidation of their dates; and no _à priori_ reasoning has been -hit upon that is of the smallest use in explaining either their age or -their peculiarities. The one path that seems open to us is a careful -examination of each individual monument, accompanied by a judicial -sifting of all or any traditions that may attach to it, and aided by a -comparison with similar monuments in other countries. By this means we -have a chance of arriving at a fair proximate degree of certainty; for, -though no one monument will tell its own tale directly, a multitude of -whispers from a great number may swell into a voice that is clear and -distinct and be audible to every one; while no system yet invented, -and no _à priori_ reasoning, can lead to anything but deepening the -ignorance that now prevails on the subject. This is especially true -with regard to the great megalithic circles in this country. With the -rarest possible exceptions, no flint and no bronze or iron implements -have been found within their precincts. They cannot be older than the -invention of flint implements, and iron has been in continuous use -since the art of smelting its ores was first discovered. If, therefore, -they have no written or traditional history which can be relied upon, -their age must for ever remain a mystery. The conviction, however, -under which this book is written is that such a history does exist; -that, when all the traditions attached to the monuments are sifted -and weighed, they amount to such a mass of circumstantial evidence as -suffices to prove the case and to establish the main facts of their -history and use, wholly independently of any system or of any external -testimony. - -Direct literary evidence, in the sense in which the term is usually -understood, cannot be said to exist. As before mentioned, no classical -author alludes, either directly or indirectly, to these megalithic -structures; yet they could not have been ignorant of them if they -existed. When Cæsar and his army witnessed the fight between his -galleys and the fleet of the Veneti in the Morbihan, he must have -stood--if he occupied the best place--on Mont St. Michel, if it then -existed, and among the stone avenues of Carnac. Is it likely that such -an artist would have omitted the chance of heightening his picture by -an allusion to the "standing stones" of Dariorigum? The Romans occupied -Old Sarum probably during the whole time they remained in this island, -and the Via Badonica passed so immediately under Silbury Hill that they -could not have been ignorant of either Stonehenge or Avebury. Nor in -France could they possibly have missed seeing the numerous dolmens with -which the country is covered. Notwithstanding all this, the silence is -absolute. The circular temple of the Hyperboreans is the only thing any -one has ever pretended to quote against this; and that, for reasons -given above being inadmissible, any argument based on it falls to the -ground. - -Neither Cæsar nor Tacitus, though describing the religious observances -of our forefathers, make any mention of temples; nor, indeed, does -any other classical author. Tacitus[23] tells us that the Germans -worshipped only in groves; and though this is hardly to the point, his -relations with Agricola were so intimate that had the Gauls and Britons -had temples of stone, he could hardly have avoided alluding to them. -The inference from Cæsar and all the other authors is the same, but -there is no direct evidence either way. - -There is no passage in any classical authors which connects the Druids, -either directly or indirectly, with any stone temples or stones of any -sort. Dracontia are wholly the creation of Dr. Stukeley's very fertile -imagination. - -So far, therefore, as negative evidence goes, it is complete in showing -that our megalithic circles did not exist in the time of the Romans, -and that they were not temples. Unfortunately, however, no amount of -negative evidence is sufficient to prove an affirmative, though it may -suffice to establish a strong presumption in favour of a particular -view, and, at all events, clears the way for the production of any -direct evidence which we may have. The direct written evidence that has -been adduced is, however, of the most shadowy character. It amounts -to little more than this:--that every allusion to these monuments in -mediæval authors, every local tradition, every scrap of intelligence -we have regarding them, points to a post-Roman origin. No writer, of -any age or country, suggested their being prehistoric or even pre-Roman -before the age of Stukeley,--say 1700. - -There is, so far as I know, only one paragraph in any classical -author which mentions a French or British temple; but it belonged to -so exceptional a community that it would hardly be safe to base an -argument upon it. A "hieron," Strabo tells us, existed at the mouth -of the Loire, inhabited by a colony of women who lived apart from -their husbands, but the roof or thatch of the roof of whose temple -was renewed annually:[24] a fact that shows, in the first place, that -it had a roof, and in the second, that it was not a very dignified or -permanent structure. - -It would add very much to the clearness of our conception on this -subject if the early Christian writers had left us some descriptions -of the temples of the Britons when the missionaries first came among -them. Though not quite so silent on the subject as the classical -authors, their direct evidence is far from being so complete as -might be wished. One of the passages most distinctly bearing on this -question is found in a letter which Pope Gregory the Great addressed -to the Abbot Millitus, then on a mission to England. In this letter he -instructs him by no means to destroy the temples of the idols belonging -to the English, but only the idols which are found in them; and adds, -"Let holy water be made, and sprinkled over them. Let altars be -constructed, and relics placed on them; insomuch as if these temples -are well constructed, it is necessary that they should be converted -from the worship of dæmons to the service of the true God. So that the -people, seeing their temples are not destroyed, may put away errors -from their hearts, and, acknowledging the true God and adoring Him, may -the more willingly assemble in the places where they were accustomed -to meet."[25] A little further on he adds, in order that no apparent -change may be made, "that on great festivals the people may erect huts -of boughs around those churches which have been converted (commutatæ) -from temples." - -The fair inference from this paragraph seems to be that there was so -little difference between the temples of the Pagans and the churches -of the Christians that a little holy water and a few relics--as much -esteemed in the West as in the East in those days--were all that was -required to convert the one into the other. - -We gather the same impression from another transaction which took -place at Canterbury about the same time. After taking possession of -the Cathedral, built of old by the Romans,[26] St. Augustine obtained -from the recently converted King Ethelbert the cession of the temple in -which he had been accustomed to worship his idols, and without more ado -dedicated it to St. Pancras, and appropriated it as a burying place for -himself and his successors from the circumstance of its being outside -the walls.[27] We further learn from Gervaise[28] that it was so used -till Cuthbert, the second archbishop, got permission to allow burials -within the walls, and then erected the baptistry of St. John for this -purpose, where apparently Becket's crown now stands. Afterwards the -monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, now St. Augustine's, was erected "in -fundo Templi"--whatever that may mean--but at that time St. Augustine -seems to have accepted the Pagan temples as perfectly appropriate to -Christian rites. - -In like manner when King Redwald, after his conversion to Christianity -was persuaded by his wife not rashly to forsake the faith of his -forefathers, he set up two altars side by side in his temple (in fano), -and dedicated the one to Christ, the other to the "victims of the -dæmons."[29] The temple, apparently, was equally appropriate to either. - -A still more instructive example is the description of the destruction -of the church at Godmundingham by Coifi--the heathen priest--on his -conversion to Christianity. He first desecrated it by throwing a spear -into it--whether by the door or window we are not told--and then -ordered his people to burn it to the ground with all its enclosures. -These, therefore, must all have been in wood or some equally -combustible material.[30] - -All this is not much nor very distinct, but by these passages, and -every hint we have on the subject, it would appear that the temples -of the Pagans, between the departure of the Romans and the time of -Alfred, were at least very similar to those of the Christians. Both -were derived from the same model, which was the temple or basilica of -the Romans, and both were apparently very rude, and generally, we may -infer, constructed of wood. The word circular does not occur in any -description of any Pagan temple yet brought to light, nor the word -stone; nothing, in fact, that would in the remotest degree lead us to -suppose that Bede, or any one else, was speaking or thinking of the -megalithic monuments with which we are now concerned. - -Although the classical authorities are silent regarding these rude -stone monuments, and contemporary records help us very little in -trying to understand the form of the temples in which our forefathers -worshipped, till they were converted to Christianity, still the Decrees -of the Councils render it quite certain that Rude Stone Monuments were -objects of veneration--certainly in France, and, by implication, in -England--down to the times of Charlemagne and Alfred, at least. - -One often-quoted decree of a Council, held at Nantes, exhorts "Bishops -and their servants to dig up, and remove, and hide in places where they -cannot be found, those stones which in remote and woody places are -still worshipped, and where vows are still made."[31] Unfortunately -the date of this Council is not certain; but Richard places it in -658, which is probably at least nearly correct.[32] This, however, -is of comparatively little consequence, as in 452 a Council at Arles -decreed that "if, in any diocese, any infidel either lighted torches -or worshipped Trees, Fountains, or Stones, or neglected to destroy -them, he should be found guilty of sacrilege;"[33] and about a century -later (567), a Council at Tours exhorts the clergy to excommunicate -those who, at certain Stones or Trees or Fountains, perpetrate things -contrary to the ordinances of the Church.[34] - -Still another century further on (681), a Council held at Toledo -admonishes those who worship Idols or venerate Stones, those who light -torches or worship Fountains or Trees, that they are sacrificing -to the devil, and subject themselves to various penalties, &c.[35] -Another Council held in the same city, in the year 692, enumerates -almost in the same words the various heresies which were condemned by -the preceding Council.[36] A Council at Rouen, about the same time, -denounces all who offer vows to Trees or Fountains or Stones as they -would at altars, or offer candles or gifts, as if any divinity resided -there capable of conferring good or evil.[37] - -Lastly, a decree of Charlemagne, dated Aix-la-Chapelle in 789, utterly -condemns and execrates before God Trees, Stones, and Fountains, which -foolish people worship.[38] - -Even as late as in the time of Canute the Great, there is a statute -forbidding the barbarous adoration of the Sun and Moon, Fire, -Fountains, Stones, and all kinds of Trees and Wood.[39] - -The above which are taken from Keysler[40] are not all he quotes, -nor certainly all that could be added, if it were worth while, from -other sources; but they are sufficient to show that, from Toledo to -Aix-la-Chapelle--and from the departure of the Romans till the tenth, -or probably the eleventh century--the Christian priesthood waged a -continuous but apparently ineffectual warfare against the worship of -Stones, Trees, and Fountains. The priests do not condescend to tell -us what the forms of the Stones were which these benighted people -worshipped, whether simple menhirs or dolmens, or "grottes des fées," -nor why they worshipped them; whether they considered them emblems -of some unnamed and unknown God, or memorials of deceased ancestors, -in whose honour they lighted candles, and whom they propitiated with -offerings. Nor do they tell us what the form of that worship was; -they did not care, and perhaps did not know. Nor do we; for, except -an extreme veneration for their dead, and a consequent ancestral -worship,[41] mixed with a strange adoration of Stones, Trees, and -Fountains, we do not know now what the religion was of these rude -people. The testimony of these edicts is, therefore, not quite so -distinct as we might wish, and does not enable us to assert that the -Rude Stone Monuments, whose age and uses we are trying to ascertain, -were those alluded to in the preceding paragraphs. But what it -does seem to prove is, that down to the 11th century the Christian -Priesthood waged a continuous warfare against the veneration of some -class of Rude Stone Monuments, to which the pagan population clung with -remarkable tenacity, and many, if not most of which may consequently -have been erected during that period. This is, at all events, -infinitely more clear and positive than anything that has been brought -forward in favour of their prehistoric antiquity. If, like the other -branches of the written argument, this is not sufficient to prove, by -itself, that the monuments were generally or even frequently erected -after the Christian era, it certainly entitles that assertion to a fair -_locus standi_ in the argument we are attempting to develop. - - * * * * * - -If, however, the pen has been reticent and hesitating in its testimony, -the spade has been not only prolific but distinct. It is probably -not an exaggeration to say that three-fourths of the megalithic -monuments--including the dolmens, of course--have yielded sepulchral -deposits to the explorer, and, including the tumuli, probably -nine-tenths have been proved to be burial places. Still, at the present -stage of the enquiry, it would be at least premature to assume that -the remaining tenth of the whole, or the remaining fourth of the stone -section, must necessarily be sepulchral. Some may have been cenotaphic, -or simply monuments, such as we erect to our great men--not necessarily -where the bodies are laid. Some stones and some tumuli may have been -erected to commemorate events, and some mounds certainly were erected -as "Motes" or "Things"--places of judgment or assembly. In like manner -some circles may have been originally, or may afterwards have been -used as places of assembly, or may have been what may more properly be -called temples of the dead, than tombs. These, however, certainly are -the exceptions. The ruling idea throughout is still of a sepulchre, -with what exceptions, and at what age erected, is the thesis which we -now propose to investigate. - -At present these are mere assertions, and it is not pretended that -they are more, and they are only brought forward in this place in order -to enunciate the propositions it is hoped we may be able to prove as we -advance in this enquiry. These are,-- - -First, that the Rude Stone Monuments with which we are concerned are -generally sepulchral, or connected directly, or indirectly, with the -rites of the dead. - -Secondly, that they are not temples in any usual or appropriate -sense of the term, and, Lastly,--that they were generally erected by -partially civilized races after they had come in contact with the -Romans, and most of them may be considered as belonging to the first -ten centuries of the Christian Era. - -In stating these three propositions so broadly, it must be borne in -mind, that the evidence on which their proof or disproof rests is -eminently cumulative in its character; not perhaps with regard to the -use to which the monuments were applied, that probably will be admitted -as settled, as so large a proportion of the tumuli can be shown to have -a fair title to a sepulchral character, and most of the stone monuments -can equally lay claim to being erected for the same purpose to which -one-half of them have been certainly proved to have been dedicated. -This is the more clear, as, on the other hand, in spite of every -surmise or conjecture, no one monument of the class we are treating of -can be proved to have been erected as a temple, or as intended for any -civic or civil purpose. - -With regard to their age, the case is not quite so easily settled. -Except such monuments as those of Gorm and Thyra, and one or two -others, to be mentioned hereafter, few can produce such proof of their -age as would stand investigation in a court of law. But when all the -traditions, all the analogies, and all the probabilities of the case -are examined, they seem to make up such an accumulation of evidence -as is irresistible; and the whole appears to present an unbroken and -intelligible sequence which explains everything. The proof of all this, -however, does not rest on the evidence of two or three, or even of a -dozen, of instances, but is based upon the multiplication of a great -number of coincidences derived from a large number of instances, which -taken together in the cumulative form, make up a stronger body of -proof than could be obtained from the direct testimony of one or two -cases. To appreciate this, however, the whole must be taken together. -To try to invalidate it by selecting one or two prominent cases, where -the proof is manifestly insufficient when taken by itself, is to -misunderstand and misrepresent the whole force of the argument. - -One point, I fancy, there will be very little difficulty in proving, -which is, that the whole form one continuous group, extending in an -unbroken series, from the earliest to the latest. There is no hiatus -or break anywhere; and if some can be proved to belong to the 10th -century, it is only a question how far you can, by extenuating the -thread, extend it backwards. It can hardly be much beyond the Christian -era. It seems that such a date satisfies all the known conditions of -the problem, in so far as the Stone Monuments at least are concerned. -There is, so far as I know at present, absolutely no evidence on the -other side, except what is derived from the Danish system of the three -ages: if that is established as a rule of law, _cadit questio_, there -is no more to be said on the subject. But this is exactly what does not -appear to have yet been established on any sufficient or satisfactory -basis. There need be no difficulty in granting that men used stone and -bone for implements, before they were acquainted with the use of the -metals. It may also be admitted, that they used bronze before they -learned the art of extracting iron from its ores. But what is denied -is, that they abandoned the use of these primitive implements on the -introduction of the metals; and it is contended that they employed -stone and bone simultaneously with bronze and iron, down to a very late -period. The real fact of the case seems to be, that the people on the -shores of the Baltic and the North Sea, were as remote from the centres -of civilization on the Mediterranean and to the eastward of it in the -earlier centuries of our era, and were as little influenced by them, -as the inhabitants of the islands in the Pacific and Arctic America -were by Europe in the last century. In the remote corners of the world, -a stone and bone age exists at the present day, only modified by the -use of such metal implements as they can obtain by barter or exchange: -and this appears to have been the state of northern Europe, till, with -their conversion to Christianity, the new civilization was domesticated -among its inhabitants. - - - [Footnote 2: Those three treatises were afterwards republished in - one volume, small folio, with all the plates, &c., in London, 1725. - It is from this volume that the above is abstracted.] - - [Footnote 3: Cæsar, 'De Bell. Gal.' vi 13-20.] - - [Footnote 4: 'Hist. Nat.' xxix. 3.] - - [Footnote 5: 'Historia,' v. 31.] - - [Footnote 6: 'Geographica,' iv. 273.] - - [Footnote 7: Tacitus, 'Ann.' xiv. 29.] - - [Footnote 8: See controversy between M. Bertrand and M. Henri - Martin, in volume of 'Congrès préhistorique' (Paris, 1867), 193, - 207, &c. See also 'Revue archéologique,' août, 1864, 144.] - - [Footnote 9: For further information on the subject, the reader is - referred to 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' by the author, p. 26 _et - seq._, where the subject is treated of at length.] - - [Footnote 10: 'Archæologia,' xxv. 188 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 11: Mr. Ellis, 'Gent. Mag.' 4th series, ii. 317.] - - [Footnote 12: 'Proceedings of the Archæological Institute, - Salisbury,' volume 113.] - - [Footnote 13: Diodorus, ii. 47.] - - [Footnote 14: Ibid. v. 21 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 15: The volume containing the account of the proceedings - of the congress has not yet been published; so those who were not - present cannot feel sure to what extent these modifications were - carried or admitted. A short account of the Congress was published - by Gen. Lefroy, in the 'Journal of the Archæological Institute,' - Nov. 1869, p. 58 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 16: "According to an analysis made by Sir John Lubbock, - of the contents of 250 tumuli described by Sir Richard Colt Hoare, - in the first volume of his 'Ancient Wiltshire,' 18 only had any - implements of stone, only 31 of bone, 67 of bronze, and 11 of iron, - while one-half of them contained nothing to indicate their age; but - whether those that contained nothing are earlier or more modern is - by no means clear."--_Prehistoric Times_, 2nd edit. p. 131.] - - [Footnote 17: "Veterum Gothorum et Suevorum antiquissimus mos - est ut ubi acriores in campis seu montibus instituissent et - perfecissent pugnas, illic erectos lapides quasi Egyptiacas - pyramides collocare soliti sunt ... Habent itaque hæc saxa in - pluribus locis erecta longitudine x. vel xv. XX. aut xxx. et - amplius et latitudine iv. vel vi, pedum, mirabili situ sed - mirabiliori ordine et mirabilissimo charactere, ob plurimas - rationes collocata literato, rectoque et longo ordine videlicet - pugilarum certamina, quadrato, turmas bellantium, et spherico - familiarum designantia sepulturas ac cuneato equestrium et - pedestrium acies ibidem vel prope fortunatum triumphasse," &c. - &c.--_De Gentibus Septentrionalibus_, &c. p. 48. - - Or again:--"Quos humi recondere placuit honorabiles statuas lapidum - excelsorum prout hodie cernuntur mira compagine in modum altissimæ - et latissimæ januæ, sursum transversumque viribus gigantum - erecta."--_Ibid._ 49.] - - [Footnote 18: 'Danicorum Monumentorum,' libri sex, 22 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 19: 'Memoirs of Hugh Falconer,' by Dr. Murchison, ii. p. - 596.] - - [Footnote 20: In 1797, Mr. John Frere found flint implements - identical with those at Abbeville, and published an account of - them, with engravings, in vol. xiii. of the 'Archæologia,' in 1800.] - - [Footnote 21: In the first years of the last century a flint - implement, together with some bones of the _Elephas primigenus_, - were found in an excavation in Gray's Inn Lane. An engraving of - it was published in 1715, and the implement itself is now in the - British Museum.] - - [Footnote 22: For the last, and one of the best, accounts of the - Hydahs, see 'Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society,' vol. - xiii. No. V. p. 386 _et seq._, by Mr. Brown.] - - [Footnote 23: 'Germania,' 9.] - - [Footnote 24: Strabo, iv. p. 198.] - - [Footnote 25: Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' i. 30.] - - [Footnote 26: "Inibi antiquo Romanorum fidelium opere factam," - Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' i. 32.] - - [Footnote 27: Thorn, 'Dec. Script. Col.' 1760:--"Erat autem non - longe ab ipsa civitate ad orientem quasi medio itinere inter - ecclesiam Sti. Martini et muros civitatis Phanum sive ydolum situm - ubi rex Ethelbertus secundus ritum gentis suæ solebat orare et - cum nobilibus suis dæmoniis et non deo sacrificare. Quod Phanum - Augustinus ab iniquinamentis et sordibus gentilium purgavit et - simulacro quod in eo erat infracto, synagogam mutavit in ecclesiam, - et eam in nomine Sti. Pancratii martyris dedicavit." - - Of this "Fane" we further learn from Godselinus ('Leland Collect.' - vol. iv. p. 8), that "extat adhuc condita ex longissimis et - latissimis lateribus more Britannico ut facile est videre in muris - Verolamiensibus," and may now be seen in this very church at - Canterbury. "Basilica Sti. Pancratii nunc est ubi olim Ethelbertus - idolum suum coluit. Opus exiguum structum tamen de more veterum - Britannorum."] - - [Footnote 28: Gervaise, 'Acc. Pont. Cant.' p. 1640.] - - [Footnote 29: Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' ii. 15.] - - [Footnote 30: "Succendere fanum cum omnibus septis suis," Bede, - 'Hist. Eccles.' ii. 13.] - - [Footnote 31: Summo decertare debent studio episcopi et eorum - ministri ut--_Lapides_ quoque, quos in ruinosis locis et - silvestribus, demonum ludificationibus decepti venerantur ubi et - vota vovent et deferunt, funditus effodiantur, atque in tali loco - projiciantur ubi nunquam a cultoribus suis inveniri possint et - omnibus annunciatur quantum scelus est idolatria.--Labbeum, t. ix. - 474.] - - [Footnote 32: Richard, 'Analyse des Conciles,' i. 646.] - - [Footnote 33: Si in alicujus episcopi territorio infideles, aut - faculas accendunt, aut arbores, fontes vel _Saxa_ venerentur si hoc - eruere neglexerit, sacrilegii reum se esset cognoscat.--Labb., iv. - 1013.] - - [Footnote 34: Contestamur illam solicitudinem tam pastores quam - presbyteros, gerere ut quemcunque in hac fatuitate persistere - viderint, vel ad nescio quas _petras_ aut arbores vel fontes, - designata loca gentilium perpetrare, quæ ad ecclesiæ rationem non - pertinent eos ab ecclesia sancta auctoritate repellant.--Baluz, i. - 518.] - - [Footnote 35: Cultores idolorum, veneratores _Lapidum_, accensores - facularum excolentes sacra fontium vel arborum admonemus, - &c.--Baluz, vi. 1234.] - - [Footnote 36: Illi diversis suadelis decepti cultores idolorum - efficiuntur, veneratores _Lapidum_, accensores facularum, - excolentes sacra fontium vel arborum, &c.--Baluz, vi. 1337.] - - [Footnote 37: Si aliquis vota ad arbores, vel fontes, vel ad - _Lapides_ quosdam, quasi ad altaria, faciat aut ibi candelam, seu - quolibet munus deferet velut ibi quoddam Numen sit quod bonum aut - malum possit inferre.--Baluz, 1. 2, p. 210.] - - [Footnote 38: Item de arboribus vel _Petris_ vel fontibus ubi - aliqui stulti luminaria vel aliquas observationes faciunt omnino - mandamus, ut iste pessimus usus et deo execrabilis ubicunque - invenitur tolletur et distruatur.--Baluz, t. i. p. 235.] - - [Footnote 39: Barbara est autem adoratio, sive quas idola (puta - gentium divos), Solem, Lunam, Ignem, Profluentem, Fontes, _Saxa_, - cujusque generis arbores lignam coluerunt.--Keysler, 'Antiquitates - Septemtrion.' (Hanoveræ, 1720), p. 18. He quotes also a canon of - Edgar (967) to the same effect.] - - [Footnote 40: 'Ant. Sept.' chap. ii.] - - [Footnote 41: Laing in his wrath seems to have, by accident, very - nearly guessed the truth, when, refuting the authenticity of - Ossian, he accuses Macpherson of "having rendered the Highlanders a - race of unheard-of infidels, who believed in no Gods but the ghosts - of their fathers."] - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. - - -Before attempting to examine or describe particular instances--in -which, however, the main interest of the work must eventually be -centred--it would add very much to the clearness of what follows if -a classification could be hit upon, which would correctly represent -the sequence of forms. In the present state of our knowledge such an -arrangement is hardly possible, still the following 5 groups, with -their sub-divisions, are sufficiently distinct to enable them to be -treated separately, and are so arranged as roughly to represent what we -know of their sequence, with immense overlappings, however, on every -joint. - - I.--TUMULI _a._ Or barrows of earth only. - _b._ With small stone chambers or cists. - _c._ With megalithic chambers or dolmens. - _d._ With external access to chambers. - - II.--DOLMENS _a._ Free standing dolmens without tumuli. - _b._ Dolmens upon the outside of tumuli. - - III.--CIRCLES _a._ Circles surrounding tumuli. - _b._ Circles surrounding dolmens. - _c._ Circles without tumuli or dolmens. - - IV.--AVENUES _a._ Avenues attached to circles. - _b._ Avenues with or without circles or dolmens. - - V.--MENHIRS _a._ Single or in groups. - _b._ With oghams, sculptures, or runes. - - -TUMULI. - -The first three of the sub-divisions of the first class are so -mixed together that it is almost impossible in the present state of -our knowledge to separate them with precision either as to date or -locality, while, as they hardly belong to the main subject of this -book, it will not be worth while to attempt it here. - -Without being too speculative, perhaps, it may be assumed that the -earliest mode in which mankind disposed of the bodies of their deceased -relatives or neighbours was by simple inhumation. They dug a hole in -the earth, and, having laid the body therein, simply replaced the -earth upon it, and to mark the spot, if the person so buried was of -sufficient importance to merit such care, they raised a mound over the -grave. It is difficult, however, to believe that mankind were long -content with so simple a mode of sepulture. To heap earth or stones on -the body of the beloved departed so as to crush and deface it, must -have seemed rude and harsh, and some sort of coffin was probably early -devised for the protection of the corpse,--in well-wooded countries, -this would be of wood, which, if the mound is old, has perished long -ago--in stony countries, as probably of stone, forming the rude cists -so commonly found in early graves. That these should expand into -chambers seems also natural as civilization advanced, and as man's -ideas of a future state and the wants and necessities of such a future -became more developed. - -The last stage would seem to be when access was retained to the -sepulchral chamber, in order that the descendants of the deceased might -bring offerings, or supply the wants of their relative during the -intermediate state which some nations assumed must elapse before the -translation of the body to another world. - -It is probable that some such stages as these were passed through by -all the burying races of mankind, though at very various intervals -and with very different details, while fortunately for our present -subject it seems that the earliest races were those most addicted to -this mode of honouring their dead. All mankind, it is true, bury their -dead either in the flesh or their ashes after cremation. It is one of -those peculiarities which, like speech, distinguish mankind from the -lower animals, and which are so strangely overlooked by the advocates -of the fashionable theory of our ape descent. All mankind, however, -do not reverence their dead to the same extent. The peculiarity is -most characteristic of the earlier underlying races, whom we have -generally been in the habit of designating as the Turanian races of -mankind. But if that term is objected to, the tomb-building races may -be specified--beginning from the East--as the Chinese; the Monguls in -Tartary, or Mogols, as they were called, in India; the Tartars in -their own country, or in Persia; the ancient Pelasgi in Greece; the -Etrurians in Italy; and the races, whoever they were, who preceded the -Celts in Europe. But the tomb-building people, _par excellence_, in the -old world were the Egyptians. Not only were the funereal rites the most -important element in the religious life of the people, but they began -at an age earlier than the history or tradition of any other nation -carries us back to. The great Pyramid of Gizeh was erected certainly as -early as 3000 years before Christ; yet it must be the lineal descendant -of a rude-chambered tumulus or cairn, with external access to the -chambers, and it seems difficult to calculate how many thousands of -years it must have required before such rude sepulchres as those our -ancestors erected--many probably after the Christian era--could have -been elaborated into the most perfect and most gigantic specimens of -masonry which the world has yet seen. The phenomenon of anything so -perfect as the Pyramids starting up at once, absolutely without any -previous examples being known, is so unique[42] in the world's history, -that it is impossible to form any conjecture how long before this -period the Egyptians tried to protect their bodies from decay during -the probationary 3000 years.[43] - -[Illustration: 1. Section of Tomb of Alyattes. From Spiegelthal. No -scale.] - -Outside Egypt the oldest tumulus we know of, with an absolutely -authentic date, is that which Alyattes, the father of Crœsus, -king of Lydia, erected for his own resting-place before the year 561 -B.C. It was described by Herodotus,[44] and has of late years -been thoroughly explored by Dr. Olfers.[45] Its dimensions are very -considerable, and very nearly those given by the father of history. It -is 1180 feet in diameter, or about twice as much as Silbury Hill, and -200 feet in height, as against 130 of that boasted monument. The upper -part, like many of our own mounds, is composed of alternate layers of -clay, loam, and a kind of rubble concrete. These support a mass of -brickwork, surmounted by a platform of masonry; on this still lies one -of Steles, described by Herodotus, and another of the smaller ones was -found close by. - -[Illustration: 2. Elevation of Tumulus at Tantalais. From Texier's -'Asie Mineure.' 100 ft. to 1 in.] - -[Illustration: 3. Plan and Section of Chamber in Tumulus at Tantalais.] - -There is another group of tombs, called those of Tantalais, found near -Smyrna, which are considerably older than those of Sardis, though their -date cannot be fixed with such certainty as that last described. Still -there seems no good reason for doubting that the one here represented -may be as old as the eleventh or twelfth century B.C., nor -does it seem reasonable to doubt but these tumuli which still stand on -the plain of Troy do cover the remains of the heroes who perished in -that remarkable siege.[46] - -A still more interesting group, however, is that at Mycenæ, known -as the tombs or treasuries of the Atridæ, and described as such by -Pausanias.[47] The principal, or at least the best preserved of these, -is a circular chamber, 48 feet 6 inches in diameter, covered by a -horizontal vault, and having a sepulchral chamber on one side. Dodwell -discovered three others of the five mentioned by Pausanias,[48] and -he also explored the sepulchre of Minyas at Orchomenos, which had a -diameter of 65 feet. - -[Illustration: 4. Section and Plan of Tomb of Atreus at Mycenæ. Scale -of plan 100 ft. to 1 in.] - -[Illustration: 5. View of Cocumella, Vulci.] - -Another group of tombs, contemporary or nearly so with these, are -found in the older cemeteries of the Etrurians at Cœre, Vulci, and -elsewhere. One of the largest of these is one called Cocumella, at -Vulci, which is 240 feet in diameter, and must originally have been -115 to 120 feet in height. Near the centre rise two steles, but so -unsymmetrically that it is impossible to understand why they were -so placed and how they could have been grouped into anything like a -complete design. The sepulchre, too, is placed on one side. - -A still richer and more remarkable tomb is that known as the Regulini -Galeassi Tomb at Cœre, the chamber of which is represented in the -annexed woodcut. - -[Illustration: 6. View of principal Chamber in Regulini Galeassi Tomb.] - -It is filled, as may be seen, with vessels and furniture, principally -of bronze and of the most elaborate workmanship. The patterns on these -vessels are so archaic, and resemble so much some of the older ones -found at Nineveh, whose dates are at least approximately known, that we -may safely refer the tomb to an age not later than the tenth century -B.C.[49] - -We have thus around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean a group of -circular sepulchral tumuli of well defined age. Some, certainly, are as -old as the thirteenth century B.C., others extend downwards -to, say 500 B.C. All have a podium of stone. Some are wholly -of that material, but in most of them the cone is composed of earth, -and all have sepulchral chambers built with stones in horizontal -layers, not so megalithic as those found in our tumuli, but of a more -polished and artistic form of construction. - -The age, too, in which these monuments were erected was essentially -the age of bronze; not only are the ornaments and furniture found in -the Etruscan tombs generally of that metal, but the tombs at Mycenæ -and Orchomenos were wholly lined with it. The holes into which the -bronze nails were inserted still exist everywhere, and some of the -nails themselves are in the British Museum. It was also the age in -which Solomon furnished his temple with all those implements and -ornaments in brass--properly bronze--described in the Bible,[50] and -the brazen house of Priam and fifty such expressions show how common -the metal was in that day. All this, however, does not prove that iron -also was not known then. In the Egyptian paintings iron is generally -represented as a blue metal, bronze as red, and throughout they are -carefully distinguished by these colours. Now, in the tombs around the -pyramids, and of an age contemporary with them, there are numerous -representations of blue swords as there are of red spear-heads, and -there seems no reason for doubting that iron was known to the Greeks -before the war of Troy, to the Israelites before they left Egypt (1320 -B.C.), or to the Etruscans when they first settled in Italy. -Hesiod's assertion that brass was known before iron may or may not be -true.[51] In so far as his evidence is concerned we learn from it that -iron was certainly in use long before his time (800 B.C.); so -long indeed that he does not pretend to know when or by whom it was -invented, and the modes of manufacturing steel--ἀδάμασ--seem also -to have been perfectly known in his day. - -In India, too, as we shall see when we come to speak of that country, -the extraction of iron from its ores was known from the earliest ages, -and in the third or fourth century of our era reached a degree of -perfection which has hardly since been surpassed. The celebrated iron -pillar at the Kutub, near Delhi, which is of that age, may probably -still boast of being the largest mass of forged iron that the world yet -possesses, and attests a wonderful amount of skill on the part of those -who made it. - -When from these comparatively civilized modes of sepulture we turn to -the forms employed in our own country, as described by Thurnam[52] -or Bateman,[53] we are startled to find how like they are, but, at -the same time, how infinitely more rude. They are either long barrows -covering the remains of a race of dolicocephalic savages laid in -rudely-framed cists, with implements of flint and bone and the coarsest -possible pottery, but without one vestige of metal of any sort, or -circular tumuli of a brachycephalic race shown to have been slightly -more advanced by their remains being occasionally incinerated, and -ornaments of bronze and spear-heads of that metal being also sometimes -found buried in their tombs. - -According to the usual mode of reasoning on these subjects, the -long-headed people are older than the broad-pated race, the one -superseding the other, and both must have been anterior to the people -on the shores of the Mediterranean, for these were familiar with the -use of both metals, and fabricated pottery which we cannot now equal -for perfection of texture and beauty of design. - -The first defect that strikes one in this argument is that if it proves -anything it proves too much. We certainly have sepulchral barrows in -this country of the Roman period, the Bartlow hills, for instance--of -which more hereafter--and Saxon grave mounds everywhere; but according -to this theory not one sepulchre of any sort between the year 1200 -B.C. and the Christian era. All our sepulchres are ruder, and -betoken a less advanced stage of civilization than the earliest of -those in Greece or Etruria, and therefore, according to the usually -accepted dogma, must be earlier. - -It may be argued, however, that several are older than the Argive -examples. That the Jersey tomb (woodcut No. 11), notwithstanding the -coin of Claudius, is older, because more rude, than the Treasury at -Mycenæ (woodcut No. 4); but that the Bartlow hills and the Derbyshire -dolmens and tumuli above alluded to (page 11 et seq.), containing -coins of Valentinian and the Roman Emperors, are more modern. Such an -hypothesis as this involves the supposition that there is a great gap -in the series, and that after discontinuing the practice for a 1000 -or 1500 years, our forefathers returned to their old habits, but with -ruder forms than they had used before, and after continuing them for -five or six centuries, finally abandoned them. This is possible, of -course, but there is absolutely no proof of it that I know. On the -contrary, so far as our knowledge of them at present extends, the -whole of the megalithic rude stone monuments group together as one -style as essentially as the Classical or Gothic or any other style -of architecture. No solution of continuity can be detected anywhere. -All are--it may be--prehistoric; or all, as I believe to be the case, -belong to historic times. The choice seems to be between these two -categories; any hypothesis based on the separation into a historic and -a prehistoric group, distinct in characteristics as in age, appears to -be utterly untenable. - -The argument derived from the absence of iron in all our sepulchres -also proves more than is desirable. The Danish antiquaries all admit -that iron was not known in that country before the Christian era. Our -antiquaries, from the testimony of Cæsar as to its use in war by the -Britons, are forced to admit an earlier date, but it is hardly, if -ever, found in graves. It is, on the other hand, perhaps correct to -assume that its use was known in Egypt 3000 years before Christ; even -if this is disputed, it certainly was known in the 18th dynasty, 15 -centuries B.C., and generally in the Mediterranean shortly -afterwards. If, then, the knowledge of the most useful of metals took -3000 or even 1500 years to travel across the continent of Europe, it -seems impossible to base any argument on the influence these people -exercised on one another, or on the knowledge they may have had of each -others' ways. - -Or to take the argument in a form nearer home. When Cæsar warred -against the Veneti in the Morbihan, he found them in possession of -vessels larger and stronger than the Roman galleys, capable of being -manœuvred by their sails alone, without the use of oars. Not only -were these vessels fastened by iron nails, but they were moored by -chain cables of iron. To manufacture such chains, the Veneti must -have had access to large mines of the ore, and had long familiarity -with its manufacture, and they used it not only for purposes on shore -like the Britons, but in vessels capable of trading between Brest and -Penzance--no gentle sea--and quite equal to voyages to the Baltic or -other northern ports, which they no doubt made; it is asserted that, in -50 B.C., the Scandinavians were ignorant of the use of iron, -though their country possessed the richest mines and the best ores of -Europe. - -The truth of the matter appears to be that, a century or so before -Christ, England and Denmark were as little known to Greece and Italy, -and as little influenced by their arts or civilization, as Borneo or -New Zealand were by those of modern Europe at the beginning of the last -century. Even now, with all our colonization and civilizing power, we -have had marvellously little real influence on the native races, and -were our power removed, all traces would rapidly disappear, and the -people revert at once to what they were, and act as they were wont to -do, before they knew us. - -In like manner the North American Indians have been very little -influenced by the residence of some millions of proselytizing Europeans -among them for 200 years, and while this is so, it seems most -groundless to argue because a few Phœnician traders may have visited -this island to purchase tin, that, therefore, they introduced their -manners and customs among its inhabitants; or because a traveller like -Pytheas may have visited the Cimbrian Chersonese, or even penetrated -nearly to the Arctic Circle, that his visit had, or could have, any -influence on the civilization of these countries.[54] Civilization, as -far as we can see, was only advanced in northern and western Europe -by the extermination of the ruder races. Had this rude but effective -method not been resorted to, we should probably have a stone-using -people among us at the present day. - -We may not know much of what happened in northern Europe before the -time of the Romans, but we feel tolerably safe in asserting that -none of the civilized nations around the Mediterranean basin ever -colonized and settled sufficiently long in northern Europe to influence -perceptibly the manners or usages of the natives. What progress was -made was effected by migrations among themselves, the more civilized -tribes taking the place of those less advanced, and bringing their -higher civilization with them. - -If these views are at all correct, it seems hopeless by any empirical -theories founded on what we believe ought to have happened or on -any analogies drawn from what occurred in other countries to arrive -at satisfactory conclusions on the subject. It is at best reasoning -from the unknown towards what we fancy may be found out. A much more -satisfactory process would be to reason from the known backwards so far -as we have a sure footing, and we may feel certain that by degrees as -our knowledge advances we shall get further and further forward in the -true track, and may eventually be able to attach at least approximative -dates to all our monuments. - -From this point of view, what concerns us most, in the first instance -at least, is to know how late, rather than how early, our ancestors -buried in tumuli. We have, for instance, certainly, the Bartlow -Hills, just alluded to, which are sepulchres of the Roman period, -probably of Hadrian's time; and we have in Denmark the tumuli in which -King Gorm and his English wife, Queen Thyra Danebode, were buried -in A.D. 950. We probably also may be able to fill in a few -others between these two dates, and add some after even the last. -Thus, therefore, we have a firm basis from which to start, and working -backwards from it may clear up some difficulties that now appear -insuperable. - - -DOLMENS. - -The monuments alluded to in the last section were either the rude -barrows of our savage ancestors, with the ruder cists, or the chambered -tumuli of a people who, when we first became acquainted with them, -had attained nearly as high a degree of civilization as any Turanian -people are capable of attaining. The people who erected such buildings -as the Tombs of Mycenæ or Orchomenos must have reached a respectable -degree of organization. They possessed a perfect knowledge of the use -of metals, and great wealth in bronze at least, and had attained to -considerable skill in construction. Yet it is not difficult to trace -back--in imagination, at least--the various steps by which a small rude -chamber in a circular mound, just capable of protecting a single body, -may by degrees have grown into a richly-ornamented brazen chamber, 50 -or 60 feet in diameter and of equal height. Nor is it more difficult -to foresee what this buried chamber would have become, had not the -Aryan occupation of Greece--figured under the myth of the return of -the Heracleidæ--put a stop to the tomb-building propensities of the -people. Before long it must have burst from its chrysalis state, -and assumed a form of external beauty. It must have emerged from its -earthen envelope, and taken a form which it did take in Africa[55] a -thousand years afterwards,--a richly-ornamented podium, surmounted by a -stepped cone and crowned by a stele. In Greece it went no further, and -its history and its use were alike strange to the people who afterwards -occupied the country. - -In Italy its history was somewhat different. The more mixed people of -Rome eagerly adopted the funereal magnificence of the Etruscans, and -their tumuli under the Empire became magnified into such monuments as -the Tomb of Augustus in the Campus Martius, or the still more gorgeous -mausoleum of Hadrian, at the foot of the Vatican hill. - -In like manner, it would not be difficult by the same process to trace -the steps by which the rude tepés of the Tartar steppes bloomed at last -into the wondrous domes of the Patan and Mogol Emperors of Delhi or -the other Mahomedan principalities in the East. To do all this would -form a most interesting chapter in the history of architecture, more -interesting, perhaps, than the one we are about to attempt; but it is -not the same, though both spring from the same origin. The people or -peoples who eventually elaborated these wonderful mausoleums or domed -structures affected, at the very earliest periods at which we become -acquainted with them, what may be called Microlithic architecture. In -other words, they used as small stones as they could use, consistently -with their constructive necessities. These stones were always squared -or hewn, and they always sought to attain their ends by construction, -not by the exhibition of mere force. On the other hand, the people -whose works now occupy us always affected the employment of the largest -masses of stone they could find or move. With the rarest possible -exceptions, they preferred their being untouched by a chisel, and as -rarely were they ever used in any properly constructive sense. In -almost every instance it was sought to attain the wished-for end by -mass and the expression of power. No two styles of architecture can -well be more different, either in their forms or motives, than these -two. All that they have in common is that they both spring from the -same origin in the chambered tumulus, and both were devoted throughout -to sepulchral purposes, but in form and essence they diverged at a very -early period. Long before we become acquainted with either; and, having -once separated, they only came together again when both were on the -point of expiring. - -The Buddhist Dagobas are another offshoot from the same source, which -it would be quite as interesting to follow as the tombs of the kings or -emperors; for our present purposes, perhaps, more so, as they retained -throughout a religious character, and being consequently freed from the -ever-varying influence of individual caprice, they bear the impress of -their origin distinctly marked upon them to the present day. - -In India, where Buddhism, as we now know it, first arose, the prevalent -custom--at least among the civilized races--was cremation. We do -not know when they buried their dead; but in the earliest times of -Buddhism they adopted at once what was certainly a sepulchral tumulus, -and converted it into a relic shrine: just as in the early ages of -Christianity the stone sarcophagus became the altar in the basilica, -and was made to contain the relics of the saint or saints to whom -the church was dedicated. The earliest monuments of this class which -we now know are those erected by the King Asoka, about the year 250 -B.C.; but there does not seem much reason for doubting that -when the body of Buddha was burnt, and his relics distributed among -eight different places,[56] Dagobas or Stupas may not then have -been erected for their reception. None of these have, however, been -identified; and of the 84,000 traditionally said to have been erected -by Asoka, that at Sanchi[57] is the only one we can feel quite sure -belongs to his age; but, from that date to the present day, in India as -well as in Ceylon, Burmah, Siam, and elsewhere, examples exist without -number. - -All these are microlithic, evidently the work of a civilized and -refined people, though probably copies of the rude forms of more -primitive races. Many of them have stone enclosures; but, like that at -Sanchi, erected between 250 B.C. and 1 A.D., so evidently derived from -carpentry that we feel it was copied directly, like all the Buddhist -architecture of that age, from wooden originals. Whether it was from -the fashion of erecting stone circles round tumuli, or from what other -cause, it is impossible now to say; but as time went on the form of the -rail became more and more essentially lithic, and throughout the middle -ages the Buddhist tope, with its circle or circles of stones, bore much -more analogy to the megalithic monuments of our own country than did -the tombs just alluded to; and we are often startled by similarities -which, however, seem to have no other cause than their having a common -parent, being, in fact, derived from one primæval original. There -is nothing in all this, at all events, that would lead us to the -conclusion that the polished stone monuments of India were either older -or more modern than the rude stone structures of the West. Each, in -fact, must be judged by its own standard, and by that alone. - -For the proper understanding of what is to follow the distinctions just -pointed out should always be borne in mind, as none are more important. -Half indeed of the confusion that exists on the subject arises from -their having been hitherto neglected. There is no doubt that occasional -similarities can be detected between these various styles, but they -amount to nothing more than should be expected from family likenesses -consequent upon their having a common origin and analogous purposes. -But, except to this extent, these styles seem absolutely distinct -throughout their whole course, though running parallel to one another -during the whole period in which they are practised. If this is so, -any hypothesis based on the idea that the microlithic architecture -either preceded or succeeded to the megalithic at once falls to the -ground. Nor, if these distinctions are maintained, will it any longer -be possible to determine any dates in succession in megalithic art from -analogies drawn from what may have happened at any period or place -among the builders of microlithic structures. The fact which we have -got to deal with seems to be that the megalithic rude stone art of our -forefathers is a thing by itself--a peculiar form of art arising either -from its being adopted by a peculiar race or peculiar group of races -among mankind, or from its having been practised by people at a certain -stage of civilization, or under peculiar circumstances, and this it is -our business to try to find out and define. But to do this, the first -thing that seems requisite is to put aside all previously conceived -notions on the subject, and to treat it as one entirely new, and as -depending for its elucidation wholly on what can be gathered from its -own form and its own utterances, however indistinct they may at first -appear to be. - -Bearing this in mind, we have no difficulty in beginning our history -of megalithic remains with the rude stone cists, generally called -kistvaens, which are found in sepulchral tumuli. Sometimes these -consist of only four, but generally of six or more stones set edgeways, -and covered by a cap-stone, so as to protect the body from being -crushed. By degrees this kistvaen became magnified into a chamber, the -side stones increasing from 1 or 2 feet in height to 4 or 5 feet, and -the cap-stone becoming a really megalithic feature 6 or 10 feet long, -by 4 or 5 feet wide, and also of considerable thickness. Many of these -contained more than one funeral deposit, and they consequently could -not have been covered up by the tumuli till the last deposit was placed -in them. This seems to have been felt as an inconvenience, as it led to -the third step, namely, of a passage communicating with the outer air, -and formed like the chambers of upright stones, and roofed by flat ones -extending across from side to side. The most perfect example of this -class is perhaps that in the tumulus of Gavr Innis in the Morbihan. -Here is a gallery 42 feet long and from 4 to 5 feet wide, leading to a -chamber 8 feet square, the whole being covered with sculptures of the -most elaborate character. - -A fourth stage is well illustrated by the chambers of New Grange, in -Ireland, where a similar passage leads to a compound or cruciform -chamber rudely roofed by converging stones. Another beautiful example -of the same class is that of Maeshow in the Orkneys, which, owing to -the peculiarity of the stone with which it is built, comes more nearly -to the character of microlithic art than any other example. It is -probably among the last if not the very latest of the class erected in -these isles, and by a curious concatenation of circumstances brings the -megalithic form of art very nearly up to the stage where we left its -microlithic sister at Mycenæ some two thousand years before its time. - -All this will be made clearer in the sequel, but meanwhile there are -one or two points which must be cleared up before we can go further. -Many antiquaries insist that all the dolmens[58] or cromlechs,[59] -which we now see standing free, were once covered up and buried in -tumuli.[60] That all the earlier ones were so, is more than probable, -and it may since have been originally intended also to cover up many of -those which now stand free; but it seems impossible to believe that the -bulk of those we now see were ever hidden by any earthen covering. - -Probably at least one hundred uncovered dolmens in these islands could -be enumerated, which have not now a trace of any such envelope. Some -are situated on uncultivated heaths, some on headlands, and most of -them in waste places. Yet it is contended that improving farmers at -some remote age not only levelled the mounds, but actually carted -the whole away and spread it so evenly over the surface that it is -impossible now to detect its previous existence. If this had taken -place in this century when land has become so valuable and labour -so skilled we might not wonder, but no trace of any such operation -occurs in any living memory. Take for instance Kits Cotty House, it is -exactly now where it was when Stukeley drew it in 1715,[61] and there -was no tradition then of any mound ever having covered it. Yet it is -contended that at some earlier age when the site was probably only a -sheep-walk, some one carried away the mound for some unknown purpose, -and spread it out so evenly that we cannot now find a trace of it. -Or take another instance, that at Clatford Bottom,[62] also drawn by -Stukeley. It stands as a chalky flat to which cultivation is only now -extending, and which certainly was a sheep-walk in Stukeley's time, -and why, therefore, any one should have taken the trouble or been at -the expense of denuding it is very difficult to understand, and so -it is with nine-tenths of the rest of them. In the earlier days when -a feeling for the seclusion of the tomb was strong, burying them in -the recesses of a tumulus may have been the universal practice, but -when men learned to move such masses as they afterwards did, and to -poise them so delicately in the air, they may well have preferred the -exhibition of their art to concealing it in a heap which had no beauty -of form and exhibited no skill. Can any one for instance conceive that -such a dolmen as that at Castle Wellan in Ireland ever formed a chamber -in barrow, or that any Irish farmer would ever have made such a level -sweep of its envelope if it ever had one? So in fact it is with almost -all we know. When a dolmen was intended to be buried in a tumulus the -stones supporting the roof were placed as closely to one another as -possible, so as to form walls and prevent the earth penetrating between -them and filling the chambers, which was easily accomplished by filling -in the interstices with small stones as was very generally done. These -tripod dolmens, however, like that at Castle Wellan, just quoted, never -had, or could have had walls. The cap-stone is there poised on three -points, and is a studied exhibition of a _tour de force_. No traces of -walls exist, and if earth had been heaped upon it the intervals would -have been the first part filled, and the roof an absurdity, as no -chamber could have existed. These tripod dolmens are very numerous, and -well worth distinguishing, as it is probable that they will turn out to -be more modern than the walled variety of the same class. But with our -present limited knowledge it is hardly safe to insist on this, however -probable it seems at first sight. - -[Illustration: 7. Dolmen in Castle Wellan, Ireland. From a drawing by -Sir Henry James.] - -[Illustration: 8. Dolmen de Bousquet. From a drawing by E. Cartailhac.] - -The question, however, fortunately, hardly requires to be argued, -inasmuch as in Ireland, in Denmark,[63] and more especially in France, -we have numerous examples of dolmens on the top of tumuli, where it is -impossible they should ever have been covered with earth. One example -for the present will explain what is meant. In the Dolmen de Bousquet -in the Aveyron[64] the chamber is placed on the top of a tumulus, -which from the three circles of stone that surround it, and other -indications, never could have been higher or larger than it now is. - -So far as I know, none of these dolmen-crowned tumuli have been dug -into, which is to be regretted, as it would be curious to know whether -the external dolmen is the real or only a simulated tomb. My own -impression would be in favour of the latter hypothesis, inasmuch as a -true and a false tomb are characteristic of all similar monuments. In -the pyramids of Egypt they coexisted. In every Buddhist tope, without -exception, there is a Tee, which is in every case we know only a -simulated relic-casket. Originally it may have been the place where -the relic was deposited, and as we know of instances where relics -were exposed to the crowd on certain festivals, it is difficult to -understand where they were kept, except in some external case like -this. In every instance, however, in which a relic has been found it -has been in the centre of the Tope and never in the Tee. A still more -apposite illustration, however, is found in the tombs around Agra and -Delhi. In all those of any pretension the body is buried in the earth -in a vault below the floor of the tomb and a gravestone laid over it, -but on the floor of the chamber, under the dome, there is always a -simulated sarcophagus, which is the only one seen by visitors. This -is carried even further in the tomb of the Great Akbar (1556, 1605). -Over the vault is raised a pyramid surrounded, not like this tumulus by -three rows of stones, but by three rows of pavilions, and on the top, -exposed to the air, is a simulated tomb placed exactly as this dolmen -is. No two buildings could well seem more different at first sight, but -their common parentage and purpose can hardly be mistaken, and it must -be curious to know whether the likeness extends to the double tomb also. - -[Illustration: 9. Tee cut in the Rock on Dagoba at Ajunta.] - -This, like many other questions, must be left to the spade to -determine, but, unless attention is turned to the analogy above alluded -to, the purpose of the double tomb may be misunderstood, even when -found, and frequently, I suspect, has already been mistaken for a -secondary interment. - - -CIRCLES. - -Circles form another group of the monuments we are about to treat of, -in this country more important than the dolmens to which the last -section was devoted. In France, however, they are hardly known, though -in Algeria they are very frequent. In Denmark and Sweden they are both -numerous and important, but it is in the British Islands that circles -attained their greatest development, and assumed the importance they -maintain in all the works of our antiquaries which treat of megalithic -art. - -The cognate examples in the microlithic styles afford us very little -assistance in determining either the origin or use of this class of -monument. It might, nay has been suggested, that the podium which -surmounts such a tumulus, for instance, that of the Cocumella (woodcut -No. 5) would, if the mound were removed, suggest, or be suggested, -by the stone circles of our forefathers. This podium, however, seems -always to have been a purely constructive expedient, without any mystic -or religious significance, for unless the base of an earthen mound is -confined by a revêtement of this sort it is apt to spread, and then the -whole monument loses that definition which is requisite to dignity. - -The Rails of the Indian Buddhists at first sight seem to offer a more -plausible suggestion of origin, but it is one on which it would be -dangerous in the present state of our knowledge to rely too much; if -for no other reason, for the one just given, that up to the time of -Asoka, B.C. 250, they, like all the architecture of India, -were in wood and wood only. Stone as a building material, either rude -or hewn, was unknown in that country till apparently it was suggested -to them by the Bactrian Greeks. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to -admit that all our stone circles are subsequent, by a considerable -interval of time, to the epoch of Asoka, they were not derived from -India. My own impression is that all may ultimately prove to have been -erected subsequently to the Christian Era, but till that is established -we must look elsewhere than to India for our original form, and even -then we have only got a possible analogy; and nothing approaching to a -proof that any connexion existed between them. - -The process in this country, so far as I can make out, was different, -though tending to a similar result. The stone circles in Europe appear -to have been introduced in supercession to the circular earthen mounds -which surround the early tumuli of our Downs. These earthen enclosures -still continued to be used, surrounding stone monuments of the latest -ages, but, if I mistake not, they first gave rise to the form itself. -Such a circle, for instance, as that called the Nine Ladies on Stanton -Moor, I take to be a transitional example. The circular mound, which is -38 feet in diameter, enclosed a sepulchral tumulus, as was, no doubt, -the case from time immemorial, but, in this instance, was further -adorned and dignified by the circle of stones erected upon it. A -century or so afterwards, when stone had become more recognized as a -building material, the circular mound may have been disused, and then -the stone circle would alone remain. - -[Illustration: 10. Nine Ladies, Stanton Moor. From a drawing by L. -Jewitt.] - -These stone circles are found enclosing tumuli, as in the Dolmen de -Bousquet (woodcut No. 8), in three rows, and sometimes five or seven -rows are found. They frequently also enclose dolmens, either standing -on the level plain or on tumuli, but often, especially in this country, -they are found enclosing nothing that can be seen above ground. This -has led to the assumption that they are "Things," comitia--or places -of assembly--or, still more commonly, that they are temples, though, -now that the Druidical theory is nearly abandoned, no one has been able -to suggest to what religion they are, or were, dedicated. The spade, -however, is gradually dispelling all these theories. Out of say 200 -stone circles which are found in these islands, at least one-half, on -being dug out, have yielded sepulchral deposits. One-quarter are still -untouched by the excavator, and the remainder which have not yielded up -their secret are mostly the larger circles. Their evidence, however, is -at best only negative, for, till we know exactly where to dig, it would -require that the whole area should be trenched over before we can feel -sure we had not missed the sepulchral deposit. When, as at Avebury, -the circle encloses an area of 28 acres,[65] and the greater part of -it is occupied by a village, no blind digging is likely to lead to any -result, or can be accepted as evidence. - -Still the argument would be neither illegitimate nor illogical if, in -the present state of the evidence, it were contended that all stone -circles, up say to 100 feet diameter, were sepulchral, as nine-tenths -of them have been proved to be, but that the larger circles were -cenotaphic, or, if another expression is preferred, temples dedicated -to the honour or worship of the dead, but in which no bodies were -buried. But to admit--and it cannot now be denied--that all circles up -to 100 feet are sepulchral, yet to assert that above that dimension -they became temples dedicated to the sun, or serpents, or demons, -or Druids, without any other change of plan or design but increased -dimensions, appears a wholly untenable proposition. - -All this will, it is hoped, be made more clear in the sequel when we -come to examine particular examples, regarding which it is more easy to -reason than merely from general principles; but in the meanwhile there -is one other peculiarity which should be pointed out before proceeding -further. It is that where great groups of circles are found, they--so -far as is at present known--never mark cemeteries where successive -generations of kings or chiefs were buried, but battle-fields. The -circles, or dolmens, or cairns grouped in these localities seem always -to have been erected by their comrades, to the memory of those who -on these spots "fiercely fighting, fell," and are monuments as well -of the prowess of the survivors as of those who were less fortunate. -The proof of this also must depend on individual examples to be -brought forward in the following pages. It does not, however, seem to -present much difficulty, the principal point in the argument being -that they are generally found in solitary places far removed from the -centres of population, or are sometimes single and that they show no -progression. Had they been cemeteries or sepulchres of kings, several -would undoubtedly have been found grouped together; progression and -individuality would have been observed; and lastly, they are just such -monuments as an army could erect in a week or a month, but which the -inhabitants of the spot could not erect in years, and could not use for -any conceivable purpose when erected. - - -AVENUES. - -It is somewhat unfortunate that no recognized name has yet been hit -upon for this class of monument. Alignment has been suggested, but the -term is hardly applicable to two rows of stones, for instance, leading -to a circle. Parallellitha is, at best, a barbarous compound, and as -such better avoided. Though therefore, the word avenues can hardly be -called appropriate to rows of stones leading from nowhere to no place, -and between which there is no evidence that anybody ever was intended -to walk, still it seems the least objectionable expression that has yet -been hit upon, and as such it will be used throughout. - -[Illustration: 11. Chambered Tumulus, Jersey.] - -These avenues are of two classes. First, those leading to circles. -About the origin of this class there can be very little hesitation. -They represent externally the passages in tumuli which lead to -the central chamber; take, for instance, this example from a now -destroyed[66] tumulus near St. Helier, in Jersey.[67] The circular -chamber was 24 feet in diameter, and contained originally seven little -cells, each roofed by a single slab of stone. This circular area was -approached by an avenue, 17 feet long at the time of its destruction, -which was roofed throughout the whole length with slabs of stone. The -central chamber never, however, appears to have been vaulted, so that -access to the tombs through this passage could never have been possible -after the mound was finished. The chamber was found filled with earth, -and the whole monument covered up by a tumulus of considerable extent. -It need hardly be observed that it is more unlikely that any people -should cover up such a monument at any subsequent age, than that -they should dig out such monuments and leave them standing without -their envelopes, as is so generally assumed. The tumulus was removed, -because the officer in command of the neighbouring fort wanted a level -parade-ground. As it stood uncovered it was a miniature Avebury, and -the position of its cells may give us a hint where the bodies may be -found there--near the outer circle of stones, where they have not -been looked for. But of this hereafter. It is meanwhile evident that -while these monuments were in course of erection they stood as shown -in the last woodcut, and it is also tolerably clear that when people -became familiar with their aspect in this state, they may have learned -to regret hiding under a heap of earth what we certainly would have -thought more interesting as it was. In like manner, as John Stuart well -remarks, "If the cairns at New Grange were removed, the pillars would -form another Callernish."[68] It is true, however, that if the Jersey -monument is the type of Avebury, the latter must be comparatively -modern, as a coin of Claudius, found in one of the cells at St. -Helier,[69] probably fixes its date. Again, as we expect to be able to -prove that New Grange is subsequent to the Christian era, Callernish -must be more modern also. Be this as it may, I think there can be very -little doubt that these exposed circles, with their avenues, took their -rise, as in the case of dolmens, from people becoming familiar with -their forms before they were covered up, and eventually reconciling -themselves to dispense with the envelope. In the case of the circles, -the new plan was capable of infinitely greater extension than in that -of the dolmens; but the process seems to have been the same in both -instances. - -Before leaving the Jersey circle, if any one will compare it with the -chamber at Mycenæ (woodcut No. 4), they can hardly fail to perceive -the close similarity and probable identity of destination that exists -between them; but as the island example is very much ruder, according -to the usual reasoning it must be the more ancient of the two. This, -however, is the capital fallacy which has pervaded all reasoning on -the subject hitherto. It is true that nothing can be more interesting -or more instructive than to trace the progress of the Classical, the -Mediæval, and the Indian styles through their ever-changing phases, -or to watch the influence which one style had on the other. That -progress was, however, always confined within the limits of a nation, -or community of nations, and the influence limited to such nations -as from similarity of race or constant intercourse were in position -to influence reciprocally not only the architecture, but their arts -and feelings. In order to establish this in the present instance, -we must prove that there was such community of race and frequency -of intercourse between the Channel Islands and Greece 1000 years -B.C., that the latter would copy the other, or rather that -2000 years B.C. the Channel Islanders gave the Greeks those -hints which they were enabled to elaborate, and of which the chambers -at Mycenæ about the time of the Trojan war were the result. Had this -been the case the influence could hardly have ceased as civilization -and intercourse with other countries increased, and we ought to find -Tholoi in great perfection in these islands, and probably temples and -arts in all the perfection to which they were afterwards expanded in -Greece. In fact, we get into such a labyrinth of conjecture, that no -escape seems possible. It would be almost as reasonable to argue that -the images on Easter Island, which we know continued to be carved in -our day, were prehistoric, because they are so much ruder than the -works of Phidias. The truth is, that where we cannot trace community -of race or religion, accompanied by constant and familiar intercourse, -we must take each people as doing what their state of civilization -enabled them to accomplish, wholly irrespective of what was doing or -had been done by any other people in any other part of the world. All -that it is necessary to assume in this case is, that a dead-revering -ancestral-worshipping people wished to do honour to the departed, as -they knew or heard was done by other races of their family of mankind -elsewhere, and that they did it in the best manner the state of the -arts among them admitted of--rudely, if they were in a low state of -civilization, and more perfectly if they had advanced beyond that stage -in which rude forms could be tolerated. - -It is much more difficult to trace the origin of the avenues which are -not attached to circles, and do not lead to any important monuments. -Nothing that is buried at all resembles them in form, and no erections -in the corresponding microlithic style, either in the Mediterranean -countries or in India, afford any hints which would enable us to -suggest their purpose. We are thus left to guess at their uses solely -from the evidence which can be gathered from their own form and -position, and from such traditions as may exist; and these, it seems, -have not hitherto been deemed sufficient to establish even a plausible -hypothesis capable of explaining their intention. - -Take, for instance, such an example as the parallel lines of stones -near Merivale Bridge on Dartmoor. They certainly do not form a temple -in any sense in which that word is understood by any other people or in -any age with which we are acquainted. They are not procession paths, -inasmuch as both ends are blocked up; and, though it is true the sides -are all doors, we cannot conceive any procession moving along their -narrow gangway, hardly three feet in width. The stones that compose -the sides are only two and three feet high; so that, even if placed -side by side, they would not form a barrier, and, being three to six -feet apart, they are useless except to form an "alignment." There is no -place for an image, no sanctuary or cell; nothing, in fact, that can be -connected with any religious ceremonial. - -If the inhabitants of the place had really wanted a temple, in any -sense in which we understand the term, there is a magnificent tor, -a few hundred yards off to the northward, where Nature has disposed -some magnificent granite blocks so as to form niches such as human -hands could with difficulty imitate. All that was wanted was to move -the smaller blocks, lying loose in front of it, a few yards to the -right or left, and dispose them in a semicircle or rectangular form, -and they would have one of the most splendid temples in England in -which to worship the images which Cæsar tells us they possessed.[70] -They, however, did nothing of the kind. They went to a bare piece of -moorland, where there were no stones, and brought those we find there, -and arranged them as shown on the plan; and for what purpose? - -[Illustration: 12. AVENUES, CIRCLES AND CROMLECH, NEAR MERIVALE BRIDGE, -DARTMOOR. From a drawing by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.] - -The only answer to the question that occurs to me is that these -stones are intended to represent an army, or two armies, drawn up in -battle array; most probably the former, as we can hardly understand -the victorious army representing the defeated as so nearly equal to -themselves. But if we consider them as the first and second line, -drawn up to defend the village in their rear--which is an extensive -settlement--the whole seems clear and intelligible. The circle in front -would then represent the grave of a chief; the long stone, 40 yards in -front, the grave of another of the "menu" people; and the circles and -cromlech in front of the first line the burying-places of those who -fell there. - -There is another series of avenues at Cas Tor, on the western edge of -Dartmoor,[71] some 600 yards in length, which is quite as like a battle -array as this, but more complex and varied in plan. It bends round the -brow of the hill, so that neither of the ends can be seen from the -other, or, indeed, from the centre; and it is as unlike a temple or -anything premeditated architecturally as this one at Merivale Bridge. -There are several others on Dartmoor, all of the same character, and -not one from which it seems possible to extract a religious idea. - -When speaking of the great groups of stones in England and France, we -shall frequently have to return to this idea, though then basing it on -traditional and other grounds; but, meanwhile, what is there to be said -against it? It is perhaps not too much to say that in all ages and in -all countries soldiers have been more numerous than priests, and men -have been prouder of their prowess in war than of their proficiency in -faith. They have spent more money for warlike purposes than ever they -devoted to the service of religion, and their pæans in honour of their -heroes have been louder than their hymns in praise of their gods. Yet -how was a rude, illiterate people, who could neither read nor write, -to hand down to posterity a record of its victories? A mound, such as -was erected at Marathon or at Waterloo, is at best a dumb witness. It -may be a sepulchre, as Silbury Hill was supposed to be; it may be the -foundation of a caer, or fort, as many of those in England certainly -were; it may be anything, in short. But a savage might very well -argue: "When any one sees how and where our men were drawn up when we -slaughtered our enemies, can he be so stupid as not to perceive that -here we stood and fought and conquered, and there our enemies were -slain or ran?" We, unfortunately, have lost the clue that would tell -us who "we" and "they" were in the instance of the Dartmoor stones at -least; but uncultivated men do not take so mean a view of their own -importance as to fancy this possible. - -This theory has at least the merit of accounting for all the facts -at present known, and of being at variance with none, which is more -than can be said for any other that has hitherto been proposed. Till, -therefore, something better is brought forward, it must be allowed -to stand at least as a basis to reason upon, in order to explain the -monuments we have to describe in the following pages. - - -MENHIRS. - -The Menhirs, or tall stones,[72] form the last of the classes into -which we have thought it necessary for the present, at least, to -divide the remains of which we are now treating. They occur in all the -megalithic districts, but from their very singleness and simplicity, -it is almost more difficult to ascertain their purpose than it is -that of any more complicated monuments; nor do the analogies from -the cognate microlithic styles help us much. The stones mentioned in -the early books of the Old Testament, though often pressed into the -service, were all too small to bear any resemblance to those we are -now concerned with. Neither Greece nor Etruria help us in the matter, -and though it is true that the Buddhists in India, from Asoka's time -downward, were in the habit of setting up Lâts or Stambas, it seems -with them to have been always, or nearly so, for the purpose of bearing -inscriptions, which is certainly not a distinguishing characteristic -of our Menhirs. It is true that we have in Scotland two stones. The -Cat stone near Edinburgh, bearing the name of Vetta, the grandson of -Hengist (who probably was slain in battle there),[73] and the Newton -stone in Garioch, which is still unread. We have also one in France -near Brest,[74] equally illegible, and no doubt others exist. Perhaps -these may be considered as early lispings of an infant, which certainly -are the preludes of perfect speech, and only to be found where that -power of words must afterwards exist. Here the analogy is, to say the -least of it, remote. - -There also are, especially in Ireland, but also in Wales and in -Scotland, a great number of stones with Ogham inscriptions. So far as -these have been made out they seem to be mere head-stones of graves, -intimating that A, the son of B, lies buried there. A custom, it -need hardly be observed, that continues to the present day in every -cemetery in the land. The fact seems to be that so soon as the use of -stone was suggested and men were sufficiently advanced to be able to -engrave Oghams, it was at once perceived that a stone pillar with an -inscription upon it was not only a more durable but a more intelligent -and intelligible record of a man's life or death than a simple mound -of "undistinguishable earth." It in consequence rapidly superseded the -barrow, and has continued in use to the present time, and been adopted -by both Christians and Mahomedans, by all, in fact, who bury, as -contradistinguished from those who burn their dead. - -In Scotland the story of the stones is slightly different. A great -many of these are no doubt cat stones or battle memorials, but as they -have not even Ogham inscriptions, they tell no tale. It is doubtful, -indeed, if an Ogham inscription could describe a battle, or anything -more complex than a genealogy, and still more so if it did whether we -could read it. But without it how can we say what they are? If, for -instance, the battle of Largs had not been fought in historic times, -how could we tell that the tall stone that now marks the spot was -erected in the thirteenth century? Or how, indeed, can we feel sure of -the history of any one? By degrees, however, in Scotland they faded -into those wonderful sculptured stones which form so marked and so -peculiar a feature of Pictland. Whether we shall ever get a key to the -hieroglyphics with which these stones are covered is by no means clear, -but even if we do they probably will not tell us much. They certainly -contain neither names nor dates, but even now their succession can be -made out with tolerable distinctness. The probability seems to be that -the figures on them are tribal marks or symbols of rank, and, as such, -would convey very little information if capable of being read. - -It is easy to trace the perfectly plain obelisk being developed -into such as the Newton stones, which have only one or two Pagan -symbols, but are certainly subsequent to the Christian era. From -these we advance to those on the back of which the Christian cross -timidly appears, and which certainly date after St. Columba's time -(A.D. 563), and from that again to the erection of Sweno's -stone, near Forres, in the first years of the eleventh century, where -the cross occupies the whole of the rear, and an elaborate bas-relief -supersedes the rude symbols in the front. - -In Ireland the rude stones do not appear to have gone through the -"symbol stage," but early to have ripened into the sculptured cross, -for it was not from a timidly engraved cross as in Scotland that -they took their origin. The Irish crosses at once boldly adopted the -cross-arms, surrounded by a glory, with the other characteristics of -that beautiful and original class of Christian monuments. - -In France the menhir was early adopted by the Christians; so early -that it has generally been assumed that those examples which we see -surmounted by a cross were pagan monuments, on which at some subsequent -time Christians have added a cross. This, however, certainly does not -appear to have been always the case. In such a cross, for instance, as -that at Lochcrist, the menhir and the cross are one, and made for one -another, and similar examples occur at Cape St. Matthieu, at Daoulas, -and in other places in Brittany.[75] In France the menhir, after being -adopted by the Christians, does not seem to have passed through the -sculptured stage[76] common to crosses in Scotland and Ireland, but -to have bloomed at once into the Calvary so frequent in Brittany. -Here the cross stands out as a tall tree, and the figures are grouped -round its base, but how early this form was adopted we have no means of -knowing. - -In Denmark the modern history of the Bauta stones, as the grave or -battle stones are there called, is somewhat different. They early -received a Runic as the Irish received an Ogham inscription, but -Denmark was converted at so late an age to Christianity (the eleventh -century) that her menhirs never passed through the early Christian -stage, but from Pagan monuments sank at once into modern gravestones, -with prosaic records of the birth and death of the dead man whose -memory they were erected to preserve. - -[Illustration: 13. Lochcrist Menhir.] - -In all these instances we can trace back the history of the menhirs -from historic Christian times to non-historic regions when these rude -stone pillars, with or without still ruder inscriptions, were gradually -superseding the earthen tumuli as a record of the dead. It is as yet -uncertain whether we can follow back their history with anything like -certainty beyond the Christian era. This, however, is just the task to -which antiquaries should address themselves. Instead of reasoning as -hitherto from the unknown to the known, it would be infinitely more -philosophical to reason from the known backwards. By proceeding in this -manner every step we make is a positive gain, and eventually may lead -us to write with certainty about things that now seem enveloped in mist -and obscurity. - - - [Footnote 42: It is so curious as almost to justify Piazzi Smyth's - wonderful theories on the subject. But there is no reason whatever - to suppose that the progress of art in Egypt differed essentially - from that elsewhere. The previous examples are lost, and that seems - all.] - - [Footnote 43: Herodotus, ii. 123; and Sir Gardner Wilkinson's - 'Ancient Egyptians,' second series, i. 211; ii. 440 _et passim_.] - - [Footnote 44: Herod, i. 93.] - - [Footnote 45: 'Lydische Königsgräber,' Berlin, 1859.] - - [Footnote 46: I am, of course, aware that the now fashionable craze - is to consider Troy a myth. So far, however, as I am capable of - understanding it, it appears to me that the ancient solar myth of - Messrs. Max Müller and Cox is very like mere modern moonshine.] - - [Footnote 47: Paus. ii. ch. 16; 'Dodwell's Pelasgic Remains in - Greece and Italy,' pl. 11.] - - [Footnote 48: Dodwell, 1. c. p. 13.] - - [Footnote 49: More particulars and illustrations of these tombs - will be found in the first volume of my 'History of Architecture,' - and they need not, therefore, be repeated here.] - - [Footnote 50: 1 Kings, vii. 13 _et seq._; 2 Chron. iv. 1 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 51: Hesiod. 'Works and Days,' 1. 150.] - - [Footnote 52: 'Crania Britannica,' _passim_. 'Archæologia,' - xxxviii.] - - [Footnote 53: 'Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire,' 1848. - 'Ten Years' Diggings,' 1861.] - - [Footnote 54: See controversy between Sir George Cornewall Lewis - in his 'Astronomy of the Ancients,' p. 467 _et seq._ and Sir John - Lubbock, in 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 59 _et seq._ with regard to - Pytheas and his discoveries.] - - [Footnote 55: In the Kubber Roumeia, in the Sahil, or the Madracen, - near Blidah.] - - [Footnote 56: See Turnour in 'J. A. S. B.' vii. p. 1013.] - - [Footnote 57: Cunningham, 'Bilsah Topes,' _passim_; and 'Tree and - Serpent Worship,' by the author, p. 87-148.] - - [Footnote 58: Dolmen is derived from the Celtic word _Daul_, a - table--not _Dol_, a hole--and _Men_ or _Maen_, a stone.] - - [Footnote 59: _Crom_, in Celtic, is crooked or curved, and - therefore wholly inapplicable to the monuments in question; and - _lech_, stone.] - - [Footnote 60: The most zealous advocate of this view is the Rev. - W. C. Lukis, who, with his father, has done such good service in - the Channel Islands. His views are embodied in a few very distinct - words in the Norwich volume of the 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. - 218, but had previously been put forward in a paper read to the - Wiltshire Archæological Society in 1861, and afterwards in the - 'Kilkenny Journal,' v. N. S. p. 492 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 61: 'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxii. and xxxiii.] - - [Footnote 62: 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pl. xxxii. xxxiii. and - xxxiv.] - - [Footnote 63: Madsen, 'Antiquités Préhistoriques,' pl. 6, 7, 8, 9, - and 10.] - - [Footnote 64: Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 355, pl. - vi.] - - [Footnote 65: Sir H. Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii, 71.] - - [Footnote 66: The stones of which it was composed were transported - by General Conway to Park Place, near Henley-on-Thames, and - re-erected there.] - - [Footnote 67: 'Archæologia,' viii. p. 384.] - - [Footnote 68: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. Introd. p. 25.] - - [Footnote 69: 'Archæologia,' viii. p. 385.] - - [Footnote 70: Deum maxime Mercurium colunt. Hujus sunt plurima - simulacra. 'Bell. Gal.' vi. 16.] - - [Footnote 71: Sir Gardner Wilkinson in 'Journal, Archæological - Association,' xvi. p. 112, pl. 6 for Cas Tor, and pl. 7 for - Merivale Bridge.] - - [Footnote 72: From _Maen_, as before, stone, and _hir_--high. Minar - is supposed to be the same word. It cannot, at least, be traced to - any root in any Eastern language.] - - [Footnote 73: 'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of - Scotland,' iv. 119 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 74: 'Freminville, Finistère,' pl. iv. p. 248.] - - [Footnote 75: All these, and many others, are to be found - illustrated in Taylor and Nodier's 'Voyage Pittoresque dans - l'ancienne Bretagne;' but as the plates in that work are not - numbered they cannot be referred to.] - - [Footnote 76: I know only one instance of sculptured stone in - France; it occurs near the Chapelle St. Marguerite in Brittany.] - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -AVEBURY AND STONEHENGE. - - -If there existed any acknowledged facts or accepted data with regard to -the megalithic remains we are now treating of, the logical method of -following out the subject would be to describe first their geographical -distribution, and then their uses and dates. While, however, everything -concerning them is considered as uncertain--in fact, as unknown, such -a mode of treatment, though satisfactory to believers, would fail -to carry conviction to the minds of those who doubt. It appears, -therefore, that under the circumstances a preferable mode will be to -take three or four of the principal and best known British groups, -and to subject them to a tolerably exhaustive examination. If it is -possible to dispel the errors that have grown up around them, and to -fix their uses and dates on anything like a reasonable basis, the -rest will be easy; but so long as men believe in Druids or Dragons, -or even think it necessary to relegate these monuments to prehistoric -antiquity, it is useless to reason regarding them. By the process it -is proposed to follow, it is hoped at least to be able to dispel these -mists. Others must judge whether the landscape their dispersion will -reveal is either real, or pleasing to contemplate. - -The first monument we propose selecting for examination is Avebury, -as the largest, and in some respects the most important of the class -in this country. Stonehenge might at first sight seem to have equal -claims to precedence, but it is exceptional. It is the only hewn stone -monument we possess, the only one where trilithons are found with -horizontal architraves, and where the outer circle also possesses -these imposts. It is, in fact, the megalithic monument which exhibits -the most civilized forms, and to prove its age and use would not -necessarily prove those of any rude stone monument found elsewhere. -Avebury, on the contrary, though larger than the others, is constructed -on precisely the same principle. It has the enclosing vallum, with its -ditch inside, like Arborlow, Marden, Arthur's round table, at Penrith, -and others we shall meet with further on, while its circle and avenues -are identical, as far as we can judge, with numerous examples found -elsewhere. - -Before, however, proceeding to reason about Avebury, the first point -is to ascertain what the group really consists of, which is a much -more difficult task than would at first sight appear. Stukeley has -introduced so many of his own fancies into his description of the -place, and they have been so implicitly followed by all who have since -written on the subject, that it is now no easy task to get back to the -original form. - -[Illustration: 14. View of Avebury restored. _a._ Silbury Hill. _b._ -Waden Hill.] - -The principal monument at Avebury consists of a vallum of earth nearly, -but not quite, circular in form, with an average diameter of about -1200 feet. Close on the edge of its internal ditch stood a circle -apparently originally consisting of about 100 stones, with a distance -consequently of about 33 feet from centre to centre. Inside this were -two other double circles, placed not in the axis of the great one, -but on its north-eastern side. The more northern one was apparently -350 feet in diameter, the other 325 feet.[77] In the centre of the -northern one stood what is here called a cove, apparently consisting -of three upright stones supporting a cap-stone--a dolmen, in fact, -such as we shall frequently meet with in the following pages. In the -southern circle there was only one stone obelisk or menhir. These facts -we gather from Stukeley and Colt Hoare, for all is now so completely -ruined and destroyed, that without their description no one could now -make even an approximate plan of the place. The stones that comprise -these inner as well as the outer circle are all the native Sarsens, -which occur everywhere on these downs. In some places, such as Clatford -Bottom, about a mile from Avebury, they lie still in numbers sufficient -to erect a dozen Aveburys, and many are still to be seen in the Bottoms -to the southward, and indeed in every place where they have not been -utilized by modern civilization. No mark of a chisel is to be seen -on any of the stones now standing here. For their effect they depend -wholly on their mass, and that is so great as to produce an impression -of power and grandeur which few of the more elaborate works of men's -hands can rival. - -[Illustration: 15. Plan of Avebury Circle and Kennet Avenue, from Sir -R. Colt Hoare.] - -From the outer vallum a stone avenue extended in a perfectly straight -line for about 1430 yards, in a south-easterly direction. The centre -was apparently drawn from the centre of the great 1200 feet circle, -not from those of the smaller ones. This is called the Kennet -Avenue, from its pointing towards the village of that name. I am -extremely sceptical with regard to the existence of another, called -the Beckhampton Avenue, on which Dr. Stukeley lays so much stress. -Aubrey did not see it, though he saw the Long Stone Cove, the "Devil's -Quoits," as he called them; and Stukeley is obliged to admit that in -his day not one stone was standing.[78] It seems that here, as, indeed, -everywhere over this country, a number of Sarsen stones were lying -about, and his fertile imagination manufactured them into the body of a -snake. None, however, are shown in Sir R. Colt Hoare's survey, and none -exist now; and beyond the Cove even Stukeley admits that he drew the -serpent's tail only because a serpent must have a termination of that -sort. There were no stones to mark its form any more then than now. The -first objection that appears against admitting the existence of the -very hypothetical avenue is, that no curved avenue of any sort is known -to exist anywhere, or attached to any monuments. All the curves of the -Kennet avenue are the Doctor's own, introduced by him to connect the -straight-lined avenues which were drawn from the circle at Avebury, and -that on Hakpen Hill. There are none at Stanton Drew, or other places -where he audaciously drew them. Near the church there are, or were, -two stones placed in the opening like that called the Friar's Heel, -and the prostrate stone at Stonehenge, but these are all that probably -ever existed of the Beckhampton Avenue. The question is not, however, -important. As there were two circles inside the Avebury vallum, there -may have been two avenues. All that is here contended for is, that -there is no proof of the existence of the second. A dolmen, called the -Long Stone Cove, existed near where Stukeley draws its sinuous line, -but there is nothing to show that it ever formed any part of such an -alignment; and around it there were some standing stones, or rather, -even in Stukeley's time, stones which apparently had stood, but there -is nothing to show whether forming part of a circle, or as detached -menhirs, or as parts of an avenue. - -The second member of the Avebury group is the double circle, or rather -double oval, on Hakpen hill--Haca's Pen;[79] this was, according to -Stukeley, 138 feet by 155 feet, and had an avenue 45 feet wide, as -compared with 51 feet which Sir R. C. Hoare gives for those of the -Kennet avenue of Avebury. The avenue is supposed to have extended in -a perfectly straight line for above a quarter of a mile, pointing -directly towards Silbury Hill, which is about one mile and a quarter -distant. - -The third member of the group is the famous Silbury Hill, about a mile -distant due south from Avebury. That these two last named are of the -same age, and part of one design, seems scarcely open to doubt; but it -is quite an open question whether Haca's Pen belongs either to the same -age or the same design. Its stones were very much smaller, its form -different, and its avenue pointing towards Silbury looks as if that -monument existed, and may have long existed before it was built; but of -this hereafter. - -Besides these three there are numerous barrows, both long and round, in -the neighbourhood, and British forts and villages; but these we propose -to pass over at present, confining our attention in the first instance -to the three monuments above enumerated. - -The first question that arises on looking at such a structure as -Avebury, is whether it is a temple at all. It has already been -attempted in the preceding pages to show what the temples of Britain -were in the ages immediately succeeding the Roman occupation; but even -if it is conceded that they were small basilicas, it will be contended -that this is no answer to the question. If Avebury, it will be said, -is a temple, it belonged to a mysterious, mythical, prehistoric people -capable of executing such wonderful works before they came in contact -with the Romans, but who, strange to say, were incapable of doing -anything after the civilizing touch of that great people had left them -feebler, and more ignorant than they were before! - -If this question, What is Avebury? is addressed to one--brought up in -the Druidical faith as most Englishmen have been--he at once answers, -It is a temple of the Druids. If pressed and reminded of the groves -and the oaks these sectaries delighted in, he will perhaps admit -that no soil is so little likely to grow oaks as the chalk downs of -Wiltshire, and that there is no proof that any oaks ever grew in the -neighbourhood. But this is not a complete answer, for it may be -contended that for some reason we cannot comprehend, the Druids may -have dispensed with trees on this occasion. The real difficulty is, as -before mentioned, that no stones or stone structures are ever mentioned -in connection with Druids. - -If an educated man whose mind is free from prejudice or pre-conceived -ideas is asked the question, he runs over in his own mind what he knows -of the temples of other peoples--Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome, in the -ancient or the middle ages. They produced nothing of the sort. Persia, -India, China, or the countries in the Eastern seas are all equally -unsuggestive; nor will Mexico or Peru help him. The first conclusion, -therefore, that he inevitably arrives at is, if these were the temples -of the Britons, they must indeed have been a "Peculiar people," unlike -any other race that lived at any time in any part of the world. - -If they were temples, to what god or gods were they dedicated? It -could hardly have been Mercury, or Apollo, or Mars, Jove, or Minerva, -mentioned by Cæsar,[80] as the gods worshipped by the Druids--and -though perhaps these were only the nearest synonyms of Roman gods -applied to Celtic divinities, still there must have been such -resemblances as to have justified these appellations. We know of what -form the temples of these gods were, and certainly they were not built -after the fashion of the circles at Avebury. Some antiquaries have -timidly suggested a dedication to the Sun. But there is certainly no -passage in any author, classical or mediæval, which would lead us to -suppose that our forefathers were addicted to the worship of a deity so -unlikely to be a favourite in such a climate as ours. But again, what -is a sun temple? Does one exist anywhere? Had the Wiltshire shepherds -attempted it, they probably would have found the same difficulty that -beset the fire-worshipping Persians of old. It is not easy to get the -sun into a temple fashioned by human hands, and his rays are far more -available on high places or on the sea-shore than inside walls or -enclosures of any sort. - -Even putting aside the question to what god it was dedicated, what -kind of worship could be performed in such a place? It could not be -for speaking in. Our largest cathedrals are 600 feet long, and no man -would attempt from the altar of the lady chapel to address a crowd -beyond the west door; still less would he in the open air attempt to -address a crowd in a circle 1200 feet in diameter, and where from the -nature of the arrangements one half of the audience must be behind him. -Still less is it fitted for seeing. The floor of the area is perfectly -flat, and though people talk loosely of the crowd that could stand on -the vallum, or on the berm, or narrow ledge between the internal ditch -and the foot of the rampart, they forget that only one row of persons -could stand on a sharp-pointed mound, and that the berm is on the same -level as the rest of the floor, and is the last place any one would -choose, as 100 great stones were put up in front of it as if especially -designed to obstruct the view. This was, in fact, the case with all the -stones. Assuming the ceremony or action to take place in the centre -of either of the two inner circles, the double row of stones which -surround them is so placed as to obstruct the view in every direction -to the utmost possible extent. It may be suggested that the priest -might climb on to the cap-stone of the cove, in the northern circle, -and there perform his sacrifice in sight of the assembled multitude. It -would be difficult to conceive any place so ill suited for the purpose; -and even then, how would he manage on the point of the obelisk in the -centre of the southern circle? No place, in fact, can be so ill adapted -for either seeing or hearing as Avebury; and those who erected it would -have been below the capacity of ordinary idiots if they designed it for -either purpose. Besides this, it has none of the ordinary adjuncts of a -temple. There is no sanctuary, no altar, no ark, no procession path, no -priests' house, nothing that is found more or less prominently forming -a part of every temple in every part of the world. - -Why so hypæthral? Are we to understand that the climate of the -Wiltshire downs is so perfect and equable that men can afford to -dispense with roofs or the ordinary protection against weather? or are -we to assume that the men who could move these masses of stone and -raise these mounds were such utter savages that they could not erect an -enclosed building of any sort? - -Egypt possesses the finest and most equable climate in the world; -yet all her temples are roofed in a more careful manner and more -stately than our mediæval cathedrals, and so are all those of India -and the Eastern climes where shelter is far less wanted than here. -In all these countries and climes the temples of the gods are the -dwellings or halls of men, enlarged and improved. What they did well -for themselves, they did better for their deities. Are men therefore to -assume that the Wiltshire shepherd slept on the snow in winter, with -no other protection than a circle of widely spaced stones, and had no -idea of a roof? Yet, if he were not hardened by some such process, it -is difficult to see why he should build a temple so exposed to the -inclemency of the weather that no ceremony could be properly performed -in it for one half of the days of the year. - -Another objection to the temple theory that would strike most people, -if they would think about it, is the enormous size of Avebury. Its area -is at least five times that of St. Peter's at Rome; 250,000 people -could easily be seated within its vallum, and half a million could -stand. Men generally try to adapt the size of their buildings to the -amount of accommodation required. But where should such a multitude -as this come from? How could they be fed? How could they be lodged? -There is no reason to suppose that in any ancient time before the -introduction of agriculture, the pastoral population on these downs -could ever have been greater than, or so great as, that which now -exists there. When Doomsday Book was compiled, there were only two -hides of arable land in the manor, and they seem to have belonged to -the church. A fair inference from which seems to be that, but for the -superior knowledge and influence of the priesthood, the inhabitants of -these downs might, in the eleventh century, have remained in the same -state of pastoral barbarity in which there is every reason to believe -they were sunk in pagan times. How a few shepherds, sparsely scattered -over these plains, could have erected or have required such a temple as -this, is the mystery that requires to be explained. A very small parish -church now suffices for their spiritual wants; and if 10,000 pilgrims, -even at the present day, when agriculture has been extended to every -available patch of ground, visited the place for a week, many of them -would be starving before it was over. - -It would be easy to adduce fifty other arguments of this sort. Many -more must indeed occur to any one who will give himself the trouble -to think of the matter; but to those who are accustomed to such -investigations the two most convincing probably are, first, that there -is no evidence whatever of progress in the design of Avebury. It was -built and finished as first designed. The second is, that in it there -is a total absence of ornament. In India, we have temples as big as -Avebury; but their history is written on their faces. The first step in -the process is generally that a small shrine, with a narrow enclosure -and small gateway, becomes from some cause or other, sacred or rich, -and a second enclosure is added to contain halls for the reception of -pilgrims or the ceremonial display on festal occasions. But no god in -that pantheon can live alone. New shrines are added for other deities, -with new halls, new residences for priests, and more accommodation for -all the thousand and one requisites of a great idol establishment. This -requires a third or fourth new enclosure, up even to a seventh, as at -Seringham. But in all this there is progress: 200 or 300 years are -required, and each century--sometimes each decade--leaves its easily -recognised mark as the work progresses. In like manner, the great -temple at Karnac, though covering only one-third the area of Avebury, -took the Egyptians three centuries to build, and every step of its -progress can be easily traced. The works of the earlier Thotmes differ -essentially from those of Manepthah and Rameses, and theirs again from -those of Seshonk; and these again differ essentially from the little -shrine of Osortasen, which was the germ of the whole. - -So it was with all our cathedrals. The small Saxon church was -superseded by the Norman nave with a small apsidal choir. This was -enlarged into the Early English presbytery, and beyond this grew -the lady chapel, and as the ill-built Norman work decayed, it was -replaced by Tudor constructions. But there is nothing of the sort at -Avebury. Had the temple been built or begun by the sparse inhabitants -of these downs, we should have seen something to show where the work -began. They must have brought one stone one year and another the -next, and inevitably they would have employed their leisure hours, -like the inhabitants of Easter Island, in carving these stones either -with ornaments or symbols, or fashioning them into idols. There is -absolutely no instance in the whole world where some evidence of care -and of a desire after ornament of some sort is not to be traced in -the temples of the people. Nothing, however, of the sort occurs here. -Indeed, if there is one thing more evident than another about Avebury, -it is that, as it was begun, so it was ended. There is no hesitation, -no sign of change: the same men, to all appearance, who traced its plan -saw its completion; and as they designed it, so they left it. There is -no sign of any human hand having touched it from that hour henceforward -till the sordid greed of modern farmers set to work to destroy it, -to build with its materials the alehouse and the village which now -occupies a small portion of the enclosure. - -So too with regard to ornament. This structure, we may fairly assume, -if a temple, must have been in use for some centuries; but during that -time, or any shorter time that may be assumed, no man had the skill -or the inclination to adorn the greatest temple of his native land -either with carving or emblems or ornament of any kind. The men who -could conceive the great design--so great and noble--could do nothing -more. Their hands drooped in listless idleness by their sides, and they -were incapable of further exertion! Such a state of affairs, if not -impossible, is certainly unparalleled. No such example exists anywhere -else with reference to any temple, so far as we know, in any part of -the world. Tombs do show these peculiarities at times, temples never. - -If these reasons are sufficient to prove that Avebury was not a temple, -there are more than can be required, to show that it was not a place -of meeting of ancient Britons. Whatever may be thought of the extent -of prehistoric assemblies, it will hardly be contended that it was -necessary to provide accommodation for the 250,000 men who could be -seated in the great circle. Even supposing it were intended only to -accommodate 12,000 or 13,000 lords and as many commons in the two -subordinate rings, they would hardly have arranged an inner circle -of great stones in the middle of each assembly, or placed a spiked -obelisk for a woolsack in the one or a tall dolmen under or behind -the Speaker's chair in the other. Nothing in fact could be conceived -so utterly unsuited for the purpose as these rings, and unless these -primeval men were very differently constituted from ourselves, any -assembly of elder-men who were likely to meet at Avebury would have -preferred a room however rude, and of one-hundredth part of the extent, -for their deliberations to the unsheltered and unsuitable magnificence -of the Big Stones. Of course, among all rude people, and often also -among those more civilized, open-air assemblies of the people will -take place; but then these will always be near the great centres -of population. Men will go into the desert for religious purposes, -but they prefer talking politics nearer home. In some communities a -Campus Martius or a Thing field may be set apart for the purpose; -but the first requisite of such a place of assembly is that it shall -be open and free from encumbrance of any sort. A Mote hill too, like -the terraced Tynwald Mount in the Isle of Man, is an intelligible -arrangement, not for a deliberative assembly, but as a rostrum from -which to proclaim law. We can also understand why Shire courts should -be held on barrows, as seems often to have been the case. For here -the judge occupied a dignified position on the summit. His assessors -stood behind him, and the pleaders and people in front. Instances -are also known in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries where local -courts were summoned to meet at the "standing stones," or in circles, -in Scotland at least;[81] but in all these instances it was apparently -to settle territorial disputes on the spot, and the stones or mounds -were merely indicated as well-known marks and, consequently, convenient -trysting-places. Even if this were not so, it would not be at all to -be wondered at that in the middle ages sepulchral circles or mounds -were habitually used as meeting-places. They were then old enough -to be venerable; and their antiquity must have conferred on them a -dignity suitable to the purpose, whatever their original destination -may have been. But all this is very different from erecting as a place -of assembly so huge and inconvenient a place as Avebury is, and always -must have been. - -It seems needless to follow this line of argument further, for unless -it can be shown that the people who erected Avebury were so differently -constituted from ourselves that no reasoning derived from our -experience can be applied to them, the answer seems inevitable. - -That no such Temple, nor has any such meeting-place, been built or -attempted by any set of men in any part of the world. But is there -any reason for supposing that the inhabitants of these downs differed -so essentially from ourselves? Dr. Thurnam has examined with care -some hundreds of skulls gathered from the grave-mounds in this -neighbourhood, and has published decades on decades of them.[82] -Yet the most learned craniologists cannot detect--except perhaps in -degree--any difference that would lead us to suppose that these ancient -men were not actuated by the same motives and governed by the same -moral influences as ourselves. If this is so, Avebury certainly was not -erected either as a temple or a place of assembly, in any sense of the -word which we can understand, and those who insist that it was either -are bound to explain what the motives or objects could have been which -induced the inhabitants of the Wiltshire downs to act in a manner so -entirely opposed to all we know of the actions or feelings of all other -nations in all other parts of the world. - - * * * * * - -If, therefore, Avebury was neither a temple nor a place of assembly, -what was it? The answer does not seem far to seek. It must have been -a burying-place, but still not a cemetery in the ordinary sense of -the term. The inhabitants of these downs could never have required a -bigger and more magnificent burying-place than any other community in -Great Britain, and must always have been quite unequal to raise such -a monument. But what is more important than this, a cemetery implies -succession in time and gradations in rank, and this is exactly what -is most conspicuously wanting at Avebury. It may be the monument of -one king or two kings, but it is not a collection of the monuments of -individuals of various classes in life, or of a series of individuals -of the same rank, erected at different intervals of time. As before -remarked, it is in one design--"totus teres atque rotundus," erected -with no hesitation and no shadow of change. - -If, however, we assume that Avebury was the burying-place of those who -fell in a great battle fought on the spot, every difficulty seems -at once to vanish. It is now admitted that men did bury in stone -circles or under dolmens, and beside head-stones and within earthen -enclosures, and what we find here differs only in degree from what we -find elsewhere. It seems just such a monument as a victorious army of -say 10,000 men could, with their prisoners, erect in a week. The earth -is light, and could easily be thrown up into the form of the vallum, -and the Sarsen stones lay all over the downs, and all on a higher -level than Avebury, which perhaps for that very reason is placed on -the lowest spot of ground in the neighbourhood. With a few rollers and -ropes, 10,000 men would very soon collect all the stones that ever -stood there, and stick them up on their ends. They probably would have -no skilled labour in their ranks, and no leisure, if they had, to -employ it in ornamentation of any sort. Without this, it is just such a -monument as might and would be raised by an illiterate army wishing to -bury with honour those who had fallen in the fight, and having at the -same time no other means of leaving on the spot a record of their own -victory. - -On theoretical grounds, there seems to be no argument that can be urged -against this view; and during the ten years that it has been constantly -before the public none have been brought forward that deserve notice. -It is urged, however, that the evidence is not complete, and that -nothing written serves to confirm this view. Those who make the -objection forget that one of the first conditions of the problem is -that those who erected such a monument should be illiterate. If they -could have written to any primeval 'Times,' they would not have taken -such pains to lithograph their victory on the spot. Had they been able -either to read or write, an inscription would have done more than the -200 or 300 stones of Avebury; but because they could not write, they -raised them, and, for that reason also, left us the problem of finding -out why they did so. - -We are not, however, wholly without evidence on this subject. Many -years ago Mr. Kemble printed a charter of King Athelstan, dated in 939, -which, describing the boundaries of the manor of Overton, in which -Avebury is situated, makes use of the following expression:--"Then by -Collas barrow, as far as the broad road to Hackpen, thence northward up -along the Stone row, thence to the burying-places."[83] It does not -seem to be a matter of doubt that the stone row here mentioned is the -Kennet Avenue, nor that the burying-places (byrgelsas) are the Avebury -rings; but it may be urged that the Saxon surveyor did not know what -he was talking about; and as, unfortunately, he does not say who were -buried there, and gives no corroborative evidence, all we learn from -this is that they were so considered in the tenth century. - -Something more tangible was nearly obtained shortly before Stukeley's -time, when Lord Stawell levelled the vallum next the church, where -the great barn now stands. The original surface of the ground was -"easily distinguishable by a black stratum of mould on the chalk. Here -they found large quantities of buck-horns, bones, oyster-shells, and -wood-coals. An old man who was employed on the work says there was a -quantity of a cartload of horns, that they were very rotten, and that -there were very many burned bones among them."[84] On the same page, -Dr. Stukeley adds: "Besides some Roman coins accidentally found in and -about Abury, I was informed that a square bit of iron was taken up -under one of the great stones upon pulling it down." Other Roman coins -have, I understand, been found there since, but there is no authentic -record of the fact which can be quoted. This is to be regretted; for -the presence, if ascertained, of these coins would go far to prove that -the erection of the monument was after their date, whatever that may be. - -Unfortunately no scientific man saw these bones, so no one was able -to say whether they were human or not; but the presumption is that -they were, for why should burned bones of animals be placed in such -a situation? The answer to this is that the Wiltshire Archæological -Society have made some excavations at Avebury, and found nothing. In -1865, they tapped the vallum in various places, and dug one trench to -its centre, and, as they found nothing, concluded that nothing was -to be found. But in a mound 4442 feet long, according to Sir R. Colt -Hoare, there must be many vacant spots, especially if the bodies were -burnt; and such negative evidence cannot be considered as conclusive, -nor as sufficient to disprove the evidence acquired in Lord Stawell's -diggings. Stukeley's honesty in recording facts of this sort is hardly -to be suspected, though the inferences he draws from his facts are -generally to be received with the extremest caution. The Society also -dug in the centre of the northern circle, where the dolmen stood, -and penetrated to the original chalk, but found nothing except the -ruins of the stones which had been destroyed by fire, and express -great disappointment at finding "no human bones whatever."[85] If the -bodies were burnt--as we should be led to infer from what Lord Stawell -found under the vallum--what they probably would have found, had the -"Cove" been complete, would have been a vase or urn with ashes. The -barbarians who destroyed the stones are scarcely likely to have spared -so worthless a piece of crockery; and if it were broken at the time, -it would be in vain a hundred years afterwards to look either for it -or for bones that in all probability were never laid there. Nor need -better results have been expected from their trench, 60 feet long. A -man must know very exactly what he is looking for, and where to look -for it, who expects to find an object like an urn, a foot in diameter, -in a 28-acre field. Judging from the experience obtained at Crichie, in -Scotland, where a funereal deposit was obtained at the foot of every -one of a circle of stones that stood inside a ditch like the internal -one at Avebury, it is there we should expect to find the deposit.[86] -That is just where nobody has thought of looking at Avebury, though -nothing would be easier. There are fifty or sixty empty holes, and any -one might without difficulty be enlarged, and if there were a deposit -at the foot of each, it would then inevitably be found. - - * * * * * - -To this we shall return presently. Meanwhile let us see what evidence, -if any, is to be obtained from the circle on Hakpen Hill. - -As before mentioned, this monument consists of two ovals, according to -Dr. Stukeley the outer one was 138 by 155 feet and the inner 45 by 51 -feet. He does not give the dimensions of the stones; but Aubrey calls -them from 4 to 5 feet in height, which is confirmed by the Doctor's -engraving; and, altogether, they do not seem to average one-quarter the -size of those at Avebury. Of the avenue, only four stones are shown in -the plan woodcut (No. 16), and the same number is shown in the view -(plate xxi.). In both instances, the avenue is represented as perfectly -straight, and as trending rather to the southward of Silbury Hill.[87] -It extended, according to Aubrey, a quarter of a mile--say 440 yards. - -[Illustration: 16. Circle on Hakpen Hill. From Stukeley.] - -The most curious circumstance, however, connected with this circle is -that, at the distance of about 80 yards from the outer oval, there were -found two rows of skeletons, laid side by side, with their feet towards -the centre of the circles. In a curious letter, written by a Dr. Toope, -of Oxford, dated 1st December, 1685, addressed to Mr. Aubrey, and -published by Sir R. Colt Hoare,[88] it is said:--"I quickly perceived -them to be human." "Next day dugg up many bushells, with which I made -a noble medicine. The bones are large and nearly rotten, but the teeth -extream and wonderfully white. About 80 yards from where the bones were -found, is a temple 40 yards diameter, with another 15 yards; round -about bones layd so close that scul toucheth scul. Their feet all round -turned towards the temple, 1 foot below the surface of the ground. At -the feet of the first order lay the head of the next row, the feet -always tending towards the temple." Further on Aubrey asserts that a -ditch surrounded the temple, which Stukeley denies; but there seems no -difficulty in reconciling the two statements. The destruction of the -monument had commenced before Aubrey's time. For it is impossible to -conceive bodies lying for even 1000 or 1200 years in so light a soil, -at the depth of 1 foot or even 2 feet, exposed to the influence of rain -and frost, without their being returned to earth. Most probably there -was a ditch, and where there was a ditch there must have been a mound, -and that, if heaped over the bodies, might have protected them. The -vallum had disappeared in Aubrey's time; the ditch was filled up before -Stukeley's, and stones and all had been smoothed over in Sir R. Colt -Hoare's; so that now the site can hardly be defined with certainty. A -trench, however, cut across it, if it can be traced, might lead to some -curious revelations, for there can be no doubt whatever with regard -to the facts stated in Dr. Toope's letter. He was a medical man of -eminence, and knew human bones perfectly, and was too deeply interested -in the diggings, from which he drew "his noble medicine," and to which -he frequently returned, to be mistaken in what he stated. - -Meanwhile, however, what interests us more at this stage of the -enquiry are the differences as well as the similarities of the two -monuments. The circles at Hakpen are on a very much smaller scale both -as to linear dimensions and the size of the stones than the circles -at Avebury; and the difference between burning and burying, which, so -far as the evidence goes, seems to have prevailed in the two places, -is also remarkable. Do they belong to two different ages, and, if so, -which is the elder? The evidence of the tumuli is uniform that the -inhabitants of this island buried before they burnt. But can these -bones be so old as this would force us to admit they were? So far as -the evidence at present goes, it seems impossible to carry the burials -on Hakpen Hill back to the earliest period of prehistoric interments; -the condition of the bones is sufficient to render such an hypothesis -untenable. Unless the phosphates and other component adjuncts remained -in them, they would have been as useless for medicine as for manure, -and the exposed position in which they lay would have reduced these to -dust or mud in a very few centuries. From the descriptions we have, the -bodies certainly were not in the contracted doubled-up position usual -in the so-called bronze age, and there were no traces of the cremations -apparently introduced by the Romans, and practised for some time after -they left. All appear to have been laid out in the extended position -afterwards adopted and continued to the present day. In fact everything -would lead us to suppose that Camden was not far wrong in saying that -these were the bones of the Saxons and Danes slain at the battle of -Kennet in A.D. 1006.[89] Even then, unless there was a mound -over them, they could hardly have lasted 600 years in the state in -which they were found. If we do not adopt this view, but insist that -Hakpen and Avebury are contemporary monuments, and part of one great -plan, the only hypothesis that occurs to me that will at all account -for their peculiarities is that the victorious army burnt and buried -their dead at Avebury, and that the defeated force got permission to -bury their dead more modestly on Hakpen Hill. - -[Illustration: 17. Section of Silbury Hill.] - -Silbury Hill, which forms the third member of our group, is situated -nearly due south from Avebury, at a distance of 1200 yards from the -outside of the ring, of the former, to the foot of the hill, or, as -nearly as may be, one Roman mile from centre to centre. Mr. Rickman[90] -based an argument on the latter fact, as if it proved the post-Roman -origin of the group; and like the many recurring instances of 100 feet -and 100 yards, which run through all the megalithic remains, it may -have some value, but, as a single instance, it can only be looked upon -as a coincidence. - -The dimensions of the hill, as ascertained by the Rev. Mr. Smith, of -Yatesbury,[91] are that it is 130 feet in height, 552 feet in diameter, -and 1657 feet in circumference; that the flat top is 104 feet or 102 -feet across,[92] according to the direction in which it is measured; -this last being another Roman coincidence, as the top has no doubt both -sunk and spread. The angle of the slope of the sides is 30 degrees to -the horizon. - -In the year 1777 a shaft was sunk from the top of the mound to the -base, by order of the then Duke of Northumberland and Colonel Drax, -but no record has been preserved of what they found, or rather did -not find, for had they made any discovery of the least importance, -it certainly would have been communicated to some of the learned -societies of the day. Subsequently, in 1849, a shaft was driven nearly -horizontally from the southern face on the level of the original soil -to the centre, where it met the Duke's shaft; and subsequently a -circular gallery was carried round the centre, but in vain; nothing was -found in these excavations that would show that the mound had ever been -used for sepulchral purposes, or that threw any light whatever on its -history or destination.[93] - -Judging from the analogies gathered from our knowledge of the parallel -Indian series, we ought not to be surprised if this really were the -only result. From the accounts of the Chinese travellers who visited -India in the fifth and seventh centuries, we learn that about one-half -of the topes they saw and described were erected to commemorate -events, and not to contain relics, or as simulated tombs. Wherever -Buddha or any of his followers performed any miracles, or where any -event happened of sufficient importance to make it desirable that the -memory of the locality where it happened should be preserved, there -a Tope was erected. To take an example as bearing more directly than -usual on our present subject. When Dutthagamini, king of Ceylon (161 -B.C.), defeated the usurper Ellala, and restored the true -faith, "he erected near the capital a dagoba in commemoration of his -victory. A stone pillar marks the spot where the action commenced, -and another stone pillar exists there with an inscription to the -effect that it marks the spot rendered sacred by the death and blood -of Ellala."[94] The dagoba is a simple mound of earth, and, so far as -known, has never been opened. In Afghanistan, many of the topes opened -by Messrs. Masson and Honigberger were found to be what they call -"blind topes," but they were not able to detect by any external sign -whether their researches were likely to be rewarded with success or to -end in disappointment.[95] - -Whether these analogies are worth anything or not, nothing appears, at -first sight at least, more probable than that, if the fallen chiefs -of a victorious army are buried at Avebury, the survivors should -have employed their prisoners as slaves to erect a mound on the spot -probably where the chiefs were slain and the battle decided. The -tradition, however, having been lost, the mound stands silent and -uncommunicative, and it is not easy now to read its riddle. - -It is very premature, however, to speculate either on these analogies -or on the negative results of the explorations made into the hill: -these last were undertaken, like the diggings at Avebury, on the -empirical assumption that the principal deposit would be found in the -centre, and at Silbury on the ground level, which is exactly the place -where almost certainly it was not. Supposing that there is a low-level -sepulture at Silbury, it probably will be found within 30 or 40 yards -of the outer face of the mound, on the side looking towards Avebury, -if it is connected with that monument. But the knowledge we have -acquired, as will be afterwards detailed, from the examination of the -Minning Lowe, Arbor Lowe, Rose Hill tumuli, and other monuments of this -class, would lead us to expect to find the principal deposit near the -summit. The bit of a bridle (woodcut No. 18) and the traces of armour -which were found in Stukeley's time, near the summit, mark in all -probability the position of the principal graves, and nothing would -surprise me less than if five or six entombments were found arranged -around the upper plateau at a small depth below the surface. We shall -be in a better position to judge how far this is probable when we have -finished this chapter; but till the evidence is adduced, it is useless -to speculate on its effect. - -[Illustration: 18. Iron Bit of Bridle. Found in Silbury Hill.] - -At one time I hoped that the Roman road might be found to have passed -under the hill, and if this were the case, it would settle the question -as to whether it were pre- or post-Roman. In order to ascertain this, -some excavations were made into the hill in 1867, and simultaneously -on the high ground to the southward of it. As traces which seemed -undoubtedly to mark the existence of the road running past the hill, -at about 50 to 100 yards to the southward, were found there, the -excavations into the hill were discontinued, and the line of the road -considered as established. Owing to various mishaps, no plan of these -discoveries has yet been published, but the annexed woodcut, which is -traced from the Ordnance Survey sheet, will suffice to explain its -bearing on the question. - -[Illustration: 19. Plan of Avebury, from Ordnance Survey. The line of -the Roman road is hatched throughout.] - -Standing on Silbury Hill and looking westward, the road coming from -Bath over the downs seems to come direct at the hill. After passing the -Devizes road, it trends to the southward, and shortly again resumes -its original direction. About a mile before it reaches the hill, it -again resumes its southward direction, and passes it at a distance -of between 50 to 100 yards, making, apparently, for the spot where -the bridge over the Kennet now exists, and may have existed in Roman -times. Those who contend for the pre-Roman antiquity of the hill rest -their case on the assumption that the Romans always made or wished to -make their roads perfectly straight, and that this being deflected to -the south, it was in consequence of the hill being there at the time -the road was made. This, however, is singularly contradicted by the -line of this very road westwards from the Devizes road. According to -the Ordnance Survey, it is set out in a curve for 3½ miles till it -meets the Wandsdyke. Why this was done is not clearer than why the road -should have been curved to the eastward of the Devizes road. But, on -the other hand, supposing the hill to have been where it now stands, -and the Romans wished the road to be straight, nothing in the world was -so easy as for them to set out a line mathematically straight between -the Devizes road and the point where it passes the hill. The country -is and was perfectly open, and quite as flat as any Roman road-maker -could desire, and signals could have been seen throughout with perfect -facility. It is crediting the Roman surveyors with a degree of -stupidity they certainly did not show elsewhere, to say, if they wanted -a straight road, that seeing the hill before their eyes, they first -set out their road towards it, when they knew that before they had -advanced a mile, they must bend it so as to avoid that very obstacle. -Even then they would have tried to make it as straight as possible, -and would have adopted the line of the present coach-road, which runs -inside their line and between it and the hill. At the same time, if -any one will turn to Sir R. Colt Hoare's map of the Roman roads in -this district--"Stations Calne and Swindon"--which includes Avebury, -he will find that all are set out in lines more or less curvilinear, -and sometimes violently so, when any object was to be gained by so -doing. Though, therefore, as a general rule, it is safe to argue on the -presumption of the straightness of Roman roads, it may lead to serious -error to rely on such evidence in every instance. - -The inference drawn from the piece of the Roman road further eastward -on Hakpen Hill is the same. It is perfectly distinct and quite straight -for about a mile, but if it had been continued in that line, it would -have passed the hill at a distance of at least 200 yards to the -southward, and never have joined the other piece till long after it -had passed the Devizes road. It was deflected northward in the village -of Kennet, apparently to reach the bridge, and then to join the piece -coming from Bath. - -The result of all this seems to be, that the evidence of the Roman -road is inconclusive either way and must be withdrawn. Taking the -point where it passes the Devizes road, and the piece which is found -on Hakpen hill as fixed points, to join these it must have passed -considerably to the southward of the hill; whether it did so in a -mathematically straight line or in one slightly curved, was a matter -for the judgment of the surveyor; but till we know his motives, it is -not in our power to found any argument upon them. - -[Illustration: 20. Elevation of the Bartlow Hills. From the -'Archæologia,' xxx.] - -If, however, the Roman road refuses to give evidence in this cause, -the form of the hill offers some indications which are of value. As -before mentioned, it is a truncated straight-lined cone, sloping at an -angle of 30° to the horizon, while all the British barrows known are -domical or, at least, curvilinear in section. In all his experience, -Sir R. Colt Hoare met with only one straight-lined monument of this -class, which consequently he calls the Conical Barrow. Whether it -was truncated or not is not quite clear. There are bushes, or weeds, -growing out of the top, which conceal its form.[96] Nothing was found -in the barrow to indicate its age except a brass (bronze?) spear-head, -but it was attached to a British village, apparently of the Roman -period, inasmuch as iron nails and Roman pottery were found in it.[97] -Be this as it may, there are a range of tumuli at Bartlow, on the -boundary between Essex and Cambridgeshire, which are all truncated -cones, and are undoubtedly of Roman origin. A coin of Hadrian was -found in the chamber of one of them, and Mr. Gage, and the other -archæologists who were present at the opening, were all agreed that all -the four opened were of about the same age.[98] We may therefore feel -assured that they were not earlier than the time of Hadrian, though -from the style of workmanship of the various articles found, I would -feel inclined to consider them somewhat more modern, but that is of -little consequence. The point that interests us most is, that the angle -of the Conical Barrow quoted above is 45° to the horizon, that of the -principal tumuli at Bartlow 37½° and that of Silbury Hill 30°. Here -we certainly have a sequence not long enough to be quite satisfactory, -but still of considerable value, as an indication that Silbury hill was -post-Roman. - -On the other hand, we have undoubted evidence that the truncated -conical form was common in post-Roman times. We have one, for instance, -at Marlborough, close by, and if that place was Merlin's bury, as Sir -R. Colt Hoare would fain persuade us it was, it assists us considerably -in our argument. Without insisting on this, however, Mr. George Clark, -in his most valuable paper on Ancient English Castles,[99] enumerates -ninety truncated cones erected in England, he considers, between the -Roman times and the Norman conquest. "These earthworks," he says, -"may be thus described: First was cast up a truncated cone of earth, -standing at its natural slope from 50 feet to 100 feet in diameter at -the top, and from 20 feet to 50 feet high."[100] Mr. Clark does not -believe that these were ever sepulchral, nor does it occur to him that -they might be memorial. I should, however, be disinclined to accept -the first conclusion as absolute till excavations had been made into -some of them, at least, where I fancy we may find indications rather -tending the other way. Whether they were memorial or not must depend -on traditions that have not hitherto been looked for. Mr. Clark's -contention was that all had at some time or other been used for -residential purposes, and as fortifications, and many are recorded as -having been erected as castles. All this is probably quite correct, but -the point that interests us here is, that there are nearly one hundred -examples of truncated cones of earth thrown up in England after the -Roman times, and not one before. If this is so, the conclusion seems -inevitable that Silbury Hill must belong to the latter age. Whether -this conclusion can be sustained or not, must depend on what follows -from the other monuments we are about to examine. The evidence of the -monument itself, which is all we have hitherto had an opportunity of -bringing forward, may be sufficient to render it probable, but not to -prove the case. Unless other examples can be adduced whose evidence -tends the same way, the case cannot be taken as proved, however strong -a _prima facie_ presumption may be established. - - * * * * * - -[Illustration: 21. Marden Circle. From Sir R. C. Hoare. No Scale.] - -Though a little distant, it may be convenient to include the Marden -circle in the Avebury group. It is situated in a village of that name -seven miles south of Silbury Hill. When Sir R. Colt Hoare surveyed it -fifty years ago, the southern half of the vallum had been so completely -destroyed, that it could not be traced, and he carried it across the -brook, making the whole area about fifty-one acres.[101] My impression -is that this is a mistake, and that the area of the circle was only -about half that extent. The rampart was of about the same section as -Avebury, and the ditch was inside as there. Within this enclosure were -two mounds, situated unsymmetrically, like the circles at Avebury. The -greater one was opened with great difficulty, owing to the friable -nature of the earth of which it was composed; and Mr. Cunnington was -convinced that it was sepulchral, and contained one or more burials -by cremation; but Sir R. Colt Hoare was so imbued with the Druidical -theory as to Avebury, that he could not give up the idea that so -similar a monument must be also a Druidical altar, and the whole a -temple. The second barrow was too much ruined to yield any results, and -on revisiting the spot, it was found to have been cleared away. A great -part of the vallum had also been removed, but in it was found at least -one skeleton of a man who had been buried there.[102] How many more -there may have been it is impossible to say. The destroyers of these -antiquities were not likely to boast of the number of bodies they had -disturbed. - -The great interest of this circle is that it contains in earth the -counterpart of what was found at Avebury in stone; not that this -necessarily betokens either an earlier or a later age. There are no -stones to be found at Marden, which is on the edge of the chalk, while -the country about Avebury was and is covered with Sarsens to this -day. It may, however, be considered as very positive evidence of the -sepulchral nature of that monument, if such were needed, and if it -were thoroughly explored, might perhaps settle the question of the age -of both. In this respect, the Marden monument affords a better field -for the explorer than Avebury. The destruction or disfigurement of its -mound, or vallum, would be no great loss to antiquaries, if a proper -record were kept of their present appearance; while to do anything -tending towards the further dilapidation of Avebury is a sacrilege from -which every one would shrink. - - * * * * * - -Before leaving the neighbourhood it now only remains to try and -determine who the brave men were who were buried at Avebury, and who -the victors who raised the mound at Silbury, assuming that the one is -a burying place, and the other a trophy. Some years ago I suggested -it was those who fell in Arthur's last and greatest battle of Badon -Hill, fought somewhere in this neighbourhood in the year A.D. -520,[103] and nothing that has since occurred has at all shaken my -conviction in the correctness of this determination,[104] but a good -deal has tended to confirm it. - -The authors of the 'Monumenta Britannica' fix the site of this battle -at Banesdown, near Bath, which is the generally received opinion.[105] -Carte, and others, have suggested Baydon Hill, about thirteen miles -west by north from Avebury, while Dr. Guest carries it off to Badbury, -in Dorset,[106] a distance of forty miles. Unfortunately, Gildas, who -is our principal authority on this matter, only gives us in three -words all he has to say of the locality in which it was fought--"Prope -Sabrinum Ostium";[107] and it has been asserted that these words are -an interpolation, because they are not found in all the ancient MSS. -If they are, however, an insertion, they are still of very ancient -date, and would not have been admitted and repeated if they had not -been added by some one who knew or had authority for introducing them. -As the words are generally translated, they are taken to mean near the -mouth of the Severn, a construction at once fatal to the pretensions -of Bath, which it is impossible any one should describe as near that -river, even if any one could say where the mouth of that river is. It -is most difficult to determine where the river ends and the estuary -begins, and to a mediæval geographer, especially, that point must -have been much nearer Gloucester than even Bristol. This, however, -is of little consequence, as the words in the text are not "Sabrinæ -ostium," but "Sabrinum ostium"; and as the river is always spoken of -as feminine, it is not referred to here, and the expression can only -be translated as "near the Welsh gate." Nor does it seem difficult to -determine where the Welsh gate must have been. - -The Wandsdyke always seems to have been regarded as a barrier erected -to stop the incursions of the Welsh into the southern counties, and -that part of it extending from Savernake forest westward, for ten or -twelve miles, seems at some comparatively recent period to have been -raised and strengthened[108] (either by the Belgæ or Saxons) to make -it more effectual for that purpose. According as an army is advancing -northward from Winchester, or Chichester to the Severn valley, or is -marching from Gloucester or Cirencester towards the south, the rampart -either protects or bars the way. In its centre, near the head-waters -of the Kennet, the Saxons advanced in 557 to the siege of Barbury -Castle, and having gained that vantage ground, they again advanced in -577 to Deorham, and fought the battle that gave them possession of -Glewanceaster, Cyrenceaster, and Bathanceaster.[109] What they then -accomplished they seem to have attempted unsuccessfully thirty-seven -years earlier, and to have been stopped in the attempt by Arthur -at Badon Hill. If this is so, there can be very little difficulty -in determining the site of the Welsh gate as that opening through -which the road now passes 2½ miles south of Silbury Hill, in the -very centre of the strengthened part of the Wandsdyke. If this is -so, the Saxons under Cerdic must have passed through the village of -Avebury, supposing it then existed, on their way to Cirencester; and -if we assume that they were attacked on Waden hill by Arthur, the -whole history of the campaign is clear. If we may rely on a nominal -similarity the case may be considered as proved. Waden is the name by -which the hill between Avebury and Silbury is called at the present -day by the people of the country, and it is so called on the Ordnance -survey sheets, and etymologically Waden is more like Badon than Baydon, -or Badbury, or any other name in the neighbourhood. The objection -to this is that Waden Hill is not fortified, and that Gildas speaks -of the "Obsessio Montis Badonici." It is true there is no trace of -any earthworks on it now, but in Stukeley's time there were tumuli -and earthen rings (apparently sepulchral) on its summit, which are -represented in his plates; but no trace of these now remains. The hill -was cultivated in his day, and in a century or so beyond his time all -traces of ramparts may have been obliterated, supposing them to have -existed. The true explanation of the difficulty, however, I believe to -be found in Jeffrey of Monmouth's account of these transactions. He -is a frail reed to rely upon; but occasionally he seems to have had -access to authorities now lost, and their testimony at times throws -considerable light on passages of our history otherwise obscure. -According to him there was both a siege and a battle; and his account -of the battle is so circumstantial and so probable, that it is -difficult to believe it to be a pure invention. If it is not, every -detail of his description would answer perfectly to an attack on an -army posted on Waden Hill.[110] The siege would then probably be that -of Barbury Hill, which Cerdic would be obliged to raise on Arthur's -advance; and retreating towards the shelter of the Wandsdyke, he was -overtaken at this spot and defeated, and so peace was established for -many years between the Brits and the Saxons. It may be true that the -written evidence is not either sufficiently detailed or sufficiently -precise to establish the fact that the battle was fought on this spot. -It must, however, be conceded that nothing in all that is written -contradicts what is here advanced, and when to this we add such a -burying place, Avebury at one end of Waden Hill, and such a monument -as Silbury Hill at the other, the proofs that it was so seem to me to -amount as nearly to certainty as we can now expect to arrive at in such -matters. - -Those who believe, however, that all these monuments are absolutely -prehistoric, will not, of course, be convinced by any argument derived -from a single monument; but if it should turn out that even a more -certain case can be made out for the equally modern age of others, that -point must eventually be conceded. When it is, I feel no doubt that it -will come eventually to be acknowledged that those who fell in Arthur's -twelfth and greatest battle were buried in the ring at Avebury, and -that those who survived raised these stones and the mound at Silbury -in the vain hope that they would convey to their latest posterity the -memory of their prowess. - - -STONEHENGE. - -Although from its exceptional character Stonehenge is not so valuable -as some others for evidence of the age or uses of the rest of the -monuments of this class, it is in some respects even more important -for our argument, inasmuch as it possesses a more complete mediæval -history than almost any other of the series. It must be confessed that -this history is neither so clear nor so complete as might be wished; -but, with the other evidence that can be adduced, it makes up a case so -strong as to leave little to be desired. Before, however, proceeding to -this, it is necessary to ascertain what Stonehenge really is, or rather -was, for strange to say, though numberless restorations of it have -been published, not one is quite satisfactory. There is very little -discrepancy of opinion with regard to the outer circle or the five -great central trilithons, but there is the greatest possible variety of -opinion as to the number and position of the smaller stones inside the -central or between the two great circles. - -[Illustration: 22. General Plan of Stonehenge. From 'Knight's Old -England.'] - -There seems to be no doubt that the outer stone circle originally -consisted of thirty square piers, spaced tolerably equally in the -circle. Though only twenty-six can now be identified, either standing -or lying in fragments on the ground, it seems equally certain that -they were all connected by a continuous stone impost or architrave, -though only six of these are now in _situ_.[111] The diameter of the -circle is generally stated to be about 100 feet, and as this has been -suggested as a reason for its being considered as post-Roman, it is -important to know what its exact dimensions are. It turns out that -from the face of one pier to that of the opposite one, where both are -perpendicular, the distance is 97·6, or exactly 100 Roman feet. The -distance from the outer face of these piers to inside of the earthen -vallum that surrounds the whole is again 100 feet, though that cannot -now be ascertained within a foot or two, or even more; but as this -makes up the 100 yards and the 100 feet which recur so often in these -monuments, these dimensions can hardly be considered accidental, and -"valeant quantum" are an indication of their post-Roman date.[112] - -Inside these outer circles stand the five great trilithons. Since the -publication of Sir R. Colt Hoare's plan, their position and plan may -be considered as settled. According to him, the height of the outer -pair is 16·3, of the intermediate pair 17·2, and of the great central -trilithon as it now stands 21·6. In their simple grandeur they are -perhaps the most effective example of megalithic art that ever was -executed by man. The Egyptians and Romans raised larger stones, but -they destroyed their grandeur by ornament, or by their accompaniments; -but these simple square masses on Salisbury plain are still unrivalled -for magnificence in their own peculiar style. - -All the stones in these two great groups are Sarsens, as they are -locally called, a peculiar class of silicious sandstone that is found -as a local deposit in the bottoms of the valleys between Salisbury and -Swindon. It is the same stone as is used at Avebury, the difference -being that there the stones are used rough in their natural state, -here they are hewn and fitted with very considerable nicety. Each of -the uprights has a tenon on its surface, and the undersides of the -architrave, or horizontal piece, have each a mortice, or rather two -mortices, into which these tenons fit with considerable exactness. - -[Illustration: 23. Stonehenge as at present existing, from Mr. -Hawkshaw's plan.] - -Besides these there are even now eleven stones, some standing, others -thrown down, but still existing, within the inner circle. These are -of a different nature, being all cut from igneous rocks, such as are -not to be found nearer than Cornwall or even Ireland. It has not been -exactly ascertained whence they came; indeed, they seem to be of -various kinds, and consequently must have been brought from different -places. Locally they are called Blue stones, and it may be well to -adopt that short title for the present, as involving no theory, and as -sufficing to distinguish them from the local Sarsens. - -[Illustration: 24. Plan of Stonehenge restored.] - -None of the blue stones are large; one of the finest (23 in Sir R. Colt -Hoare's plan) is 7 feet 6 inches high, 2 feet 3 inches wide at base, -tapering to 1 foot on top. The others are generally smaller. One blue -stone opposite 23 is grooved with a channel from top to bottom, though -for what purpose it is not easy to guess. On the most cursory glance, -it is evident that these stones generally stood in pairs, about 3 feet -apart; but some are so completely overthrown and displaced, that it -is not quite clear whether this can be predicated of all. Entering -the choir on the left hand we find one that seems to stand alone. But -we may infer that this was not always so, from the circumstance that -there lies close by it an impost stone with two mortice holes in it, -only 3 feet 6 inches apart, which must have belonged to a smaller order -of trilithons, and is just such as would fit a pair of blue stones. -The next pair on the left is very distinct, and stands between the two -great trilithons. The next pair is also similarly situated. On the -opposite side there are two pairs, but situated, as far as can be made -out, in front of, and not between the trilithons; and again, there -are two blue stones behind the stone called the Altar stone, but so -displaced by the fall of the great trilithon behind them, that it is -impossible to make out their original position with certainty. - -It will probably be impossible to determine whether all the pairs of -the stones were miniature trilithons or not, till we are able to turn -over all the stones that now strew the ground, and see if there is a -second stone with two mortices 3 or 4 feet apart. In the meanwhile -there is a passage in Henry of Huntingdon's work which may throw some -light on the subject. He describes "Lapides miræ magnitudinis in modum -portarum elevati sunt, ita ut portæ portis superpositæ videantur."[113] -With a very little latitude of translation, this might be taken as -referring to the great trilithons towering over the smaller; but -if we are to adhere to the literal meaning of the words, this is -inadmissible. Another explanation has therefore been suggested. The -impost stone of the great trilithon has apparently mortice holes on -both sides. If those on one side are not mere wearings of the weather, -this must indicate that something stood upon it. If we assume two -cubical blocks, and raise on them the stone now called the Altar stone, -which is of the exact dimensions required, we would have an arrangement -very similar to that of the Sanchi gateway,[114] a cast of which is -now exhibiting at South Kensington, and which would fully justify -Huntingdon's words. If it is objected that it is a long way to go to -Sanchi to look for a type, it may be answered that the Imperial coins -of Cyprus show a very similar construction, and both may be derived -from a common centre. On the whole, however, I am inclined to the first -explanation. There certainly were large and small trilithons, and too -great accuracy of description is not to be expected from a Latin writer -in the middle ages. - -A good deal of astonishment has been expressed at the labour it must -have required to transport these blue stones from Cornwall or Wales -and to set them up here. If we refer them to the pre-Roman times of -our naked blue painted ancestors, the difficulties are, of course, -considerable. But after Roman times, the class of vessels they were in -the habit of building in these islands must have made their transport -by sea easy, even if they came from Ireland, as I believe they did. And -any one who has seen with what facility Chinese coolies carry about -monolithic pillars 10 feet and 12 feet long, and thick in proportion, -will not wonder that twenty or thirty men should transport these from -the head of Southampton water to Stonehenge.[115] With the works the -Romans left, and the modicum of civilization the natives could not fail -to have imbibed from them, the whole was simple, and must have been -easy. - -Still more wonder has been expressed at the mass of the stones -composing the great trilithons themselves, and speculations have been -rife as to how our forefathers could, without machinery, drag these -masses to the spot, and erect them as they now stand. A good deal of -this wonder has been removed, since it was understood that the Sarsens -of which they are composed are a natural deposit, found on the surface -on all the bottoms in the Wiltshire downs. Owing to the progress of -civilization, they have disappeared about Salisbury, but they are still -to be seen in hundreds in Clatford bottom, and all about Avebury, and -in the northern portion of the downs. The distance, therefore, that -the stones of Stonehenge had to be dragged was probably very small; -and over a hard, even surface of chalk down, with a few rollers and -ropes, must have been a task of no great difficulty. Nor would the -process of blocking them up with a temporary mound composed of wood -and chalk be one that would frighten a rude people with whom time was -no object. After all, Stonehenge is only child's play as compared -with the monolithic masses the Egyptians quarried, and carved, and -moved all over their country, long before Stonehenge was thought of, -and without machinery in the sense in which we understand the term. -In India, our grandfathers might have seen far more wonderful things -done before we crushed all feeling and enterprise out of the people. -The great gateway, for instance, at Seringham is 40 feet high, 21 feet -wide, and 100 feet deep. The four door posts are each of a single block -of granite, more, consequently, than 40 feet in length, for they are -partially buried in the earth. The whole is roofed by slabs of granite, -each more than 21 feet long, and raised to the height of 40 feet; -and all of these, though of granite, are elaborately carved. Yet the -building of the gateway was stopped by our quarrel with the French for -the possession of Trichinopoly in the middle of the last century. The -Indians in those days had no machinery, but with plenty of hands and -plenty of leisure mountains may be raised; and it is on this principle -that barbarous nations act and by which they achieve such wonders. The -masses of Stonehenge are not, however, so very great after all, but -they impose by their simplicity. To use an apparent paradox, it is one -of the most artistic buildings in the world from its very want of art. -The 40 feet monoliths of Seringham do not impress as much as the 20 -feet stones of Stonehenge, because the one is covered with sculpture, -the other more nearly in a state of nature, and the effect on the mind -is immensely enhanced by the monolithic simplicity of the whole. - -Strange to say, this very grandeur and apparent difficulty is one of -the most common reasons adduced for its pre-Roman antiquity. Few can -escape from an ill-defined impression that what is great and difficult -must also be ancient, though the probability is, that if the feeling -were analyzed it would be found to have arisen from the learning we -imbibed in the nursery, and which told us of the giants that lived in -the olden time. If, however, we turn from the teachings of nursery -rhymes to the pages of sober history, what we learn is something very -different. Without laying too much stress on the nakedness and blue -paint of our ancestors, all history, and the testimony of the barrows, -would lead us to suppose that the inhabitants of this island, before -the Romans occupied it, were sparse, poor in _physique_, and in a very -low state of civilization. Though their national spirit may have been -knocked out of them, they must have increased in number, in physical -comfort, and in civilization during the four centuries of peaceful -prosperity of the Roman domination, and therefore in so far as that -argument goes, became infinitely more capable of erecting such a -monument as Stonehenge after the departure of the Romans than they had -been before their advent. - -It certainly appears one of the strangest inversions of logic to assume -that the same people erected Stonehenge who, during the hundreds, or -it may be the thousands, of years of their occupation, could attempt -nothing greater than the wretched mole-hills of barrows which they -scraped up all over the Wiltshire downs. Not one of those has even a -circle of stone round its base; nowhere is there a battle stone or a -stone monument of any sort. Though the downs must have been covered -with Sarsens, they had neither sense nor enterprise sufficient even to -set one of those stones on end. Yet we are asked to believe that the -same people, in the same state, erected Stonehenge and Avebury, and -heaped up Silbury Hill. These monuments may be the expression of the -feelings of the same race; but if I am not very much mistaken, in a -very different and much more advanced state of civilization. - - * * * * * - -We shall be in a better position to answer a question which has -frequently been raised, whether or not the blue stones were a part -of the original structure, or were added afterwards, when we have -discussed the materials for the history of its erection; meanwhile -we may pass from these, which are the really interesting part of the -structure, to the circle which is generally supposed to have existed -between the outer circle of Sarsens and the inner choir of great stones. - -With regard to this nothing is certain, except in respect to eight -stones, which stretched across the entrance of the choir, and may -consequently be called the choir screen. Of the four on the right hand -side only one has fallen, but it is still there; on the left hand only -two remain, and only one is standing, but the design is perfectly -clear. The two central stones are 6 feet high, and the stones fall off -by regular gradation right and left to 3 feet at the extremities. They -are rude unhewn Sarsen stones, but there is nothing to indicate whether -they were, or were not, a part of the original design. - -Beyond this, between the two great Sarsen circles, there exist some -nine or ten stones, but whether they are in _situ_ or not, or whether -they were ever more numerous, it seems impossible to determine. On -the left hand, near the centre, are a pair that may have been a -trilithon, but the rest are scattered so unsymmetrically that it -would be dangerous to hazard any conjecture with regard to their -original arrangement. It seems, however, most improbable that while -the choir screen is so nearly entire even now, that this circle, if it -ever existed, should have been so completely destroyed. Had it been -complete, it would probably have consisted of 40 stones (excluding, of -course, the choir screen), and of these only 10, if so many, can be -said to belong to it. These are rude unhewn stones, and of no great -dimensions. - -In addition to these, there are two stones now overthrown lying inside -the vallum, unsymmetrically with one another, or with anything else. -Here again the question arises, were there more? There is nothing on -the spot to guide us to our answer, and as nothing hinges upon it, I -may perhaps be allowed to suggest that each of these marks a secondary -interment. At the foot of each, I fancy urns or bones, or some evidence -of a burial might be found, and if the place had continued for a -century as a burying place, it might have been surrounded by its circle -of stones, like Avebury, or Crichie, or Stanton moor. The place, -however, may have become deserted shortly after these two were erected, -and none have been added since. - -There are still two other stones, one standing, one lying in the short -avenue that leads up to the temple. Their position is exactly that -of the two stones, which are all that is visible of the so-called -Beckhampton avenue, at Avebury. But what their use is it is difficult -to guess. Were either of the places temples, they would have been -placed opposite one another on each side of the avenue, so that the -priests in procession and people might pass between, but being placed -one behind the other in the centre of the roadway, they must have had -some other meaning. What that may have been I am unable to suggest. The -spade may tell us if judiciously applied, but except from the spade I -do not know where to look for a solution of the riddle. - -Those who consider that Stonehenge was a temple have certainly much -better grounds for such a theory than it would be possible to establish -in respect to Avebury. Indeed, looking at the ground plan above, there -is something singularly templar in its arrangement. In the centre is -a choir, in which a dignified service could be performed, and a stone -lies now just in such a position as to entitle it to the appellation it -generally receives of the altar stone. Unfortunately for this theory, -however, it lies flush with the ground, and even if we assume that -the surface has been raised round it, its thickness is not sufficient -to entitle it to be so called, judging from any analogous example we -know of elsewhere. Around the choir is what may fairly be considered -the procession path; and if its walls had only been solid, and there -were any indications that the building had ever been roofed, it would -be difficult to prove that it was not erected as a temple, and for -worship. As, however, it has no walls, and it is impossible to believe -that it was ever intended to be roofed, all the arguments that apply to -Avebury in this respect are equally applicable here, with this one in -addition. Unless its builders were much more pachydermatous, or woolly, -than their degenerate descendants, when they chose this very drafty and -hypæthral style of architecture, they would certainly have selected a -sheltered spot on the banks of the Avon close by, where, with trees -and other devices, they might have provided some shelter from the -inclemency of the weather. They never would have erected their temples -on the highest and most exposed part of an open chalk down, where no -shelter was possible, and no service could be performed except at -irregular intervals, dependent on the weather throughout the year. As, -however, it differs not only in plan but in construction--being hewn -and having imposts--from all the rude stone circles we are acquainted -with elsewhere, no theory will be quite satisfactory that does not -account for this difference. My belief is, that this difference arises -from the fact that alone of all the monuments we know of its class, -it was erected leisurely and in time of peace by a prince retaining a -considerable admixture of Roman blood in his veins. All, or most of the -others, seem to be records of battles erected in haste by soldiers and -unskilled workmen: but of this hereafter. - -Owing to its exceptional character, the usual analogies apply less -directly to Stonehenge than to almost any other monument. - -[Illustration: 25. Tomb of Isidorus, at Khatoura.] - -We shall be better able to judge how far those derived from India -apply, when we have described the monuments of that country. In Europe -the trilithon is certainly exceptional, and its origin not easily -traced. My own impression is, that it is only an improved dolmen, -standing on two legs instead of three, or four; but if that is so, -the intermediate steps are wanting which would enable us to connect -the two in a logical manner. They were not, however, quite unknown in -the Roman world. Several exist in Syria, for instance; three of these -are engraved in De Vogüé's work. One (the tomb of Emilius Reginus, -A.D. 195) consists of two Doric columns, with an impost; -another (woodcut No. 25) is the tomb of a certain Isidorus, and is -dated A.D. 222, and is more like our Salisbury example; both -these last-named are situated near Khatoura.[116] The bearing of such -an example as this on the question of the age of these monuments admits -of a double interpretation. According to the usual and specious mode of -reasoning, the ruder form must be the earliest, and the architectural -one copied from it. But this theory I believe to be entirely at -variance with the facts, as observed. The rudeness or elaboration of a -monument will probably be found in all instances to be an index of the -greater or less civilization of the people who erected it, but seldom -or ever a trustworthy index of time. What interests us more at present -is the knowledge that these Syrian examples are certainly sepulchral, -and their form is thus another argument in favour of the sepulchral -character of Stonehenge, if any were needed. More satisfactory than -this, however, is the testimony of Olaus Magnus, archbishop of Upsala, -quoted above.[117] He describes and figures "the most honourable -monuments of the great of his country as erected with immense stones, -and formed like great gates or trilithons" (in modum altissimæ et -latissimæ januæ sursum transversumque viribus gigantum erecta). There -is no reason for supposing that this author ever saw or even heard of -Stonehenge, yet it would be difficult to describe either the purpose or -the mode of construction of that monument more correctly than he does; -and in so far as such testimony is considered valuable, it is decisive -as to both the age and use of the monument. - -Passing on from this branch of the enquiry to such local indications -as the spot affords, we find nothing very relevant or very important -either for or against our hypothesis. It has been argued, for instance, -that the number of tumuli that stud the downs within a few miles of -Stonehenge, is a proof that this temple stood there before the barrows -were erected, and that they gathered round its sacred precincts. The -first objection to this view is, that it is applying a Christian -precedent to a Pagan people. Except the Jews, who seem to have buried -their kings close to their temples,[118] I do not know of any people in -ancient or modern times except Christians who did so, and we certainly -have no hint that the ancient Britons were an exception to this -universal rule. - -[Illustration: 26. Country around Stonehenge. From Ordnance Survey -maps. Scale 1 inch to 1 mile.] - -Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that this were otherwise, -we should then certainly find the barrows arranged with some reference -to Stonehenge. Either they would have gathered closely around its -precincts, or ranged in rows alongside the roads or avenues leading -to it. Nothing of the sort, however, occurs, as will be seen from the -woodcut in the following page. Within 700 yards of the monument there -is only one very insignificant group, eight in number (15 to 23 of Sir -R. Colt Hoare's plan). Beyond that they become frequent, crowning the -tops of the hills, or clustering in the hollows, but nowhere with the -least apparent reference to Stonehenge. If any one will take the -Ordnance Survey maps, or Sir R. Colt Hoare's plans, he will find the -barrows pretty evenly sown all over the surface of the plain, from -two or three miles south of Stonehenge as far as Chidbury camp, eight -miles north of it. Indeed, if Sir R. Colt Hoare's plans are to be -trusted, they were thicker at the northern end of the plain than at -the southern;[119] but as the Ordnance maps do not bear this out, it -must not be relied upon. Nowhere over this large area (say 10 miles by -5 miles) is there any trace of system as to the mode of placing these -barrows. Indeed, from Dorchester up to Swindon, over a distance of more -than seventy miles, they are scattered either singly or in groups so -completely without order, that the only feasible explanation seems to -be, that each man was buried where he lived; it may possibly have been -in his own garden, but more probably in his own house. The hut circles -of British villages are in grouping and in form so like the barrows, -that it is difficult not to suspect some connexion between them. It may -have been that when the head of a family died, he was buried on his own -hearth, and an earthen mound replaced the hut in which he lived. Be -this as it may, there is one argument that those overlook who contend -that the barrows came to Stonehenge. It is admitted that Stonehenge -belongs to the so-called Bronze age,[120] but one half of the barrows -contain only flint and stone, and consequently were there before -Stonehenge was built. Nor is it by any means the case that the nearest -it were those which contained bronze or iron, it is generally quite the -contrary; with all his knowledge, even Sir R. Colt Hoare never could -venture to predict from the locality whether the interment would be -found to belong to one class or to another, nor can we now. - -One of the most direct proofs that this argument is untenable is found -in the fact, that the builders of Stonehenge had so little respect for -the graves of their predecessors, that they actually destroyed two -barrows in making the vallum round the monument. Sir R. C. Hoare found -an interment in one, and from this he adds, "we may fairly infer that -this sepulchral barrow existed on the plain, I will not venture to say -before the construction of Stonehenge, but probably before the ditch -was thrown up."[121] - -It seems needless, however, to pursue the argument further. Any one who -studies carefully the Ordnance Survey sheet must, I think, perceive -that there is no connexion between the earthen and the stone monuments. -Or if this fail to convince him, if he will ride from Stonehenge over -Westdown to Chidbury camp,[122] he can hardly fail to come to the -conclusion that Stonehenge came to the barrows, not the barrows to -Stonehenge. - -One other indication drawn from the barrows has been thought to throw -some light on the subject. In one of those (No. 16) near Stonehenge, -about 300 yards off, were found chippings of the same blue stones -which form the inner circle of the monuments; but there was nothing -else in this barrow to indicate its age except a spear-head of brass -in fine preservation, and a pin of the same metal, which seemed to -indicate that it belonged to the bronze age. In another (No. 22) -a pair of ivory tweezers were found. From this discovery it was -inferred, and not without some show of reason, that the barrows were -more modern than Stonehenge; and if we are to believe that all barrows -are pre-Christian, as some would try to persuade us, there is an end -of the argument. But is this so? We have just seen that the Bartlow -hills were certainly Roman. We know that the Saxons buried in hows -in the country, down at least to Hubba the Dane,[123] who was slain -in 878, and in Denmark, as we shall presently see, to a much later -period; and we do not know when the Ancient Britons ceased to use -this mode of interment. Whoever they were that built Stonehenge, -they were not Christians; or, at all events, it is certainly not a -Christian building, and we have no reason to assume that those men -who were employed on its erection, and who had for thousands of years -been burying in barrows, changed their mode of sepulture before their -conversion to Christianity. It is infinitely more probable that they -continued the practice very long afterwards; and till we can fix -some time when we feel sure that sepulture in barrows had ceased, -no argument can be drawn from this evidence. That the chief mason -of Stonehenge should be buried in his own house, or own workshop, -appears to us the most natural thing in the world; and that a village -of barrows, if I may use the expression, may be contemporary with the -monument I regard also as probable; but unless from some external -evidence we can fix their age, their existence does not seem to have -any direct bearing on the points we are now discussing. - -The diggings inside the area of Stonehenge throw more light on the -subject of our enquiry than anything found outside, but even they -are not so distinct or satisfactory as might be desired. The first -exploration was undertaken by the Duke of Buckingham, and an account of -it is preserved by Aubrey. He says, "In 1620 the duke, when King James -was at Wilton, did cause the middle of Stonehenge to be digged, and -this underdigging was the cause of the falling down and recumbencie of -the great stone there," meaning evidently the great central trilithon. -In the process of digging they "found a great many bones of stagges -and oxen, charcoal, batter dashes (whatever that may mean), heads of -arrows, and some pieces of armour eaten out with rust. Bones rotten, -but whether of stagges or of men they could not tell."[124] He further -adds "that Philip Earl of Pembroke did say that an altar stone was -found in the middle of the area here, and that it was carried away to -St. James'." What this means it is not easy to discern, for Inigo Jones -distinctly describes as the altar the stone now known by that name, -which measures, as he says, 16 feet by 4. It seems impossible that any -other could have existed without his knowing it, and if it existed it -would have favoured his views too distinctly for him not to mention the -fact. - -As the digging above referred to must have taken place between -what is now called the altar stone and the great trilithon, it is -of considerable interest to us. But strange to say it leaves us in -ignorance whether the bones found there were human or not; one thing, -however, seems tolerably certain, that the arrow-heads and armour were -of iron, from the state of rust they are described as being in, and -this so far is indicative of a post-Roman date. - -Another curious fact is mentioned by Camden. In his plate (page 122), -half plan, half elevation--at a spot marked C outside the vallum, men -are represented as making an excavation, and the reference is "Place -where men's bones are dug up." This is of no great value in so far as -Stonehenge itself is concerned, but it is curious from its analogy with -the place where the bones were found on Hakpen Hill, and may serve as -an indication to the spot where the bones may yet be found in Avebury. -As we shall see further on, there are strong reasons for believing -that the principal interment at least was not inside the circle, but -situated externally on one side. - -In more modern times, Sir R. Colt Hoare adds--"We have found, in -digging (within the circle), several fragments of Roman as well as -coarse British pottery, parts of the head and horns of deer and other -animals, and a large barbed arrow-head of iron," thus confirming what -Aubrey tells us of the Duke of Buckingham's excavation to the fullest -extent. Mr. Cunnington also dug near the altar to a depth of nearly 6 -feet, and found the chalk had been moved to that depth. At about the -depth of 3 feet he found some Roman pottery. Soon after the fall of the -great trilithon, in 1797, he dug out some of the earth that had fallen -into the excavation, and "found fragments of fine black Roman pottery, -and since then another piece on the same spot."[125] - -No excavation in the area has been undertaken since Sir R. Colt Hoare's -day, but as both he and Mr. Cunnington were experienced diggers, and -perfectly faithful recorders of what they found, it seems impossible -to doubt, from the finding of iron armour and Roman pottery in such -places, and at such depths that the building must have been erected -after the Romans settled in this island. As no one now will probably -be found to adopt Inigo Jones' theory that it was built by the Romans -themselves, we must look to some date after their departure to which we -may assign its erection. - - * * * * * - -For the written history of Stonehenge we are unfortunately forced -to rely principally on Jeffrey of Monmouth, who, though a recorder -of historical events, was also a fabulist of the most exuberant -imagination. It is consequently easy to throw discredit on his -testimony, and some consider themselves justified in putting it aside -altogether. If, however, we are to reject every mediæval author who -records miracles, or adorns his tale with fables, we may as well shut -up our books at once, and admit that, between the departure of the -Romans and the arrival of the Normans, the history of England is a mere -confused jumble, in which may be found the names of some persons and -of the battles they fought with one another, but nothing more. It is -an easy process, and may be satisfactory to some minds. The attempt -to separate the wheat from the chaff is a more tedious and laborious -task, surrounded by difficulties, and open to criticism, but it is one -that must be undertaken if truth is to be arrived at. In the present -instance the choice of difficulties seems to be clear. Either we must -reject the history of Jeffrey as entirely fabulous and unworthy of -credit, or admit his principal statement that Stonehenge was erected by -Aurelius Ambrosius as a monument to the memory of the British chiefs -treacherously slain by Hengist. - -The first account we have of the event which led to its erection is -in Nennius, who lived much nearer to the time of the occurrence than -Jeffrey, who copied his narrative. It is as follows:--The Saxons having -been defeated in several actions on the coast of Kent by Vortimir, -were shut up in Thanet and forced to wait till they could summon -succour from home. When these arrived, Hengist, before attempting -open force, had recourse to stratagem, and at a feast held at the -palace or monastery at Amesbury, to which it was agreed all should -come unarmed, three hundred British nobles were treacherously slain by -the followers of Hengist, who had concealed their weapons under their -cloaks. War ensued on this, and lasted apparently for four years, -when Ambrosius, who had succeeded to Vortigern, forced the Saxons to -sue for peace.[126] That being established, Jeffrey represents him -as erecting Stonehenge by the aid of Merlin as a monument to those -who were so treacherously slain by Hengist. The massacre took place -apparently in the year 462, and the erection of Stonehenge consequently -may have been commenced about the year 466, and carried on during the -following years, say down to 470 A.D. If he had been content -to tell the story in as few words as are used here, it probably never -would have been doubted; but Merlin, in the first place, has a bad -character, for he is mixed up with the mediæval romances which made -the story of Arthur famous but fabulous, and the mode in which he -is represented by Jeffrey as bringing the stones from Ireland is -enough to induce incredulity in all sober minds.[127] As I understand -the narrative, it is this--there existed on a mountain in Ireland a -monument something like Stonehenge, which Merlin, when consulted, -advised the King to copy. This certainly is the view taken of the -matter by Geraldus Cambrensis in 1187, inasmuch as he tells us, that -in the spot referred to "similar stones, erected in a similar manner, -were to be seen in his day," though in the same sentence he tells us, -that they, or others like them, were removed to Salisbury Plain by -Merlin.[128] As he probably speaks of what he saw with his own eyes, -his words furnish tolerably clear evidence that Merlin had not removed -what still remained at Kildare so many centuries after his death. It -is also evidence, however, that the design of the monument was brought -from Ireland, and even copied from a circle, the remains of which may -probably still, if looked for, be found. So far as we know there was -nothing like Stonehenge existing in England, nor in France, in the -5th century. But, as we shall presently see, there probably may have -been in Ireland. The only trilithons I know of elsewhere are three in -a monument in the Deer Park near Sligo. They are small and simulate -portals, but they are more like Stonehenge than any else now known. -At the age we are now speaking of Ireland had contrived to nurse her -old traditions uninfluenced by Roman or foreign examples, and had -attained to that stage in art which would enable her to elaborate such -a style of architecture. While in England it is most improbable that -anything so purely original could have been elaborated during the Roman -occupation of the island. Still a monument like this must have had a -prototype, and unless we can prove its existence here before Cæsar's -time, it is to Ireland or some foreign country that we must look -for the model that suggested the design. But, after all, are we not -fighting with a shadow? May it not be that the tradition of a monument -being brought from Ireland applies only to the blue stones? I have been -assured by competent geologists, though I have not seen the fact stated -in any form I can quote, that these belong to rocks not found in Great -Britain, but which are common in Ireland. If this is so, there would -be no greater difficulty in bringing them from the Sister Island than -from Wales or Cornwall. Once on board ship the difference of distance -is nothing. If they did come from Ireland nothing is more likely than -that, after a lapse of eight or ten centuries, the facts belonging -really only to a part should be applied to the whole; and in that case -the aid of Merlin or of some equally powerful magician would certainly -have become indispensable. In that age, at least, I do not know any -other agency that could have accomplished the transference, and I am -not at all surprised, under the circumstances, that Jeffrey arrived at -the same conclusion. - -The true explanation of the mystery seems to be, that the design of -Stonehenge may have come from Ireland, the native style of art having -been in abeyance in England during the Roman occupation, and that the -blue stones most probably came from the Sister Island, which is quite -enough to account for the Merlin myth; but of all this we shall be -better able to judge when we have discussed the Irish antiquities of -the same age. - -To return to our history, however, a little further on Jeffrey asserts -that Aurelius himself was buried "near the convent of Ambrius within -the Giant's Dance (chorea gigantum), which in his lifetime he had -commanded to be made."[129] As far as it goes, this is a distinct -assertion that the place was used for burial, otherwise from the -context we would gather that the Britons slain by Hengist were buried -in the cemetery attached to the monastery, and that Stonehenge was -consequently a cenotaph and not a monument. But again, in recording -the life of Constantine, the nephew and successor of Arthur, after -relating how he defeated the Saxons and took vengeance on the nephews -of Mordred, he goes on to say--"Three years after this he was killed -by Conan, and buried close to Uther Pendragon, within the structure of -stones which was set up with wonderful art, not far from Salisbury, -and called in the English tongue Stonehenge."[130] This last event, -though no date is given, must have occurred some time between 546, or -four years after Arthur's death, and 552, the date of the battle of -Banbury Hill, where Conan his successor commanded. Assuming for the -moment that this may be the case, may it not suffice to explain one of -the mysteries of Stonehenge, the presence of the pairs of blue stones -inside the choir? Why may we not suppose that these were erected in -memory of the kings or others who were buried in front of them? Why -may not Aurelius and Constantine have been buried in front of the two -small pairs at either end of the so-called altar stone? If this were -so, and it appears to me extremely probable that it was, the last -remains of the mist that hangs over the uses of this monument would be -dispersed. - -From the time of Jeffrey (1147) all subsequent mediæval historians -adopt the account of these events given by him, with occasional but -generally slight variations, and even modern critics are inclined to -accept his account of Constantine and Conan, as his narrative can -be checked by that of Gildas, who was cotemporary with these kings. -Similar statements are also found in the triads of the Welsh bards, -which some contend are original and independent authorities.[131] -My own impression is that they may be so, but I do not think their -independence has been so clearly established as to enable us to found -any argument upon it. On the other hand, the incidental allusion of -Jeffrey to the erection of Stonehenge as a cenotaph to the slain -nobles, and the subsequent burial there of the two kings, seems so -likely and natural that it is difficult to see why they should be -considered as inventions. The two last-named events, at all events, do -not add to the greatness or wonder of the kings, or of his narrative, -and are not such things as would be inserted in the page of history, -unless they were currently known, or were recorded somewhere in some -writing to which the historian had access. - -Before quitting Stonehenge there is one other antiquity connected with -it, regarding which it is necessary to say a few words. Both in Sir R. -Colt Hoare's plan and the Ordnance Survey, there are marked two oblong -enclosures called the greater and lesser "Cursus," and along which -the antiquaries of the last century amused themselves by picturing -the chariot races of the Ancient Britons, though as they ascribed the -introduction of races to the Romans, they admitted that they must have -been formed after the subjection of the island by that people.[132] The -greater cursus is about a mile and three-quarters long, by 110 yards -wide. The smaller is so indistinct that only its commencement can be -identified; but even as concerns the larger, I walked twice across it -without perceiving its existence, though I was looking for it, and no -one I fancy would remark it if his attention were not turned to it. -Its boundary mounds never could have been 3 feet high, and now in many -places are very nearly obliterated. - -That these alignments were once race-courses, appears to me one of the -most improbable of the various conjectures which have been hazarded -with regard even to Stonehenge. No Roman race-course, that we know -of, omitted to provide for the horses returning at least once past -the place they started from, and no course was even a mile, much less -a mile and three-quarters long. What sort of horse-races the British -indulged in before the Conquest I don't know, nor will I hazard an -opinion on the subject; but if they wanted the races to be seen, there -are several beautiful and appropriate spots close at hand where they -could have laid out a longer course along one of the bottoms, where -tens of thousands might conveniently have witnessed the sport from -the sloping banks on either hand, whereas here only the front rank -could have seen the race at all, and that imperfectly. It may also be -remarked that the east end of the cursus is closed by a mound which -must have been a singularly awkward position for the judges, though -that is the place assigned to them by Sir Richard; and the west end is -cut off also by an embankment, behind which are several tumuli on the -course, which seems a very unlikely racing arrangement. - -But if not race-courses, what were they? If any one will turn back -to woodcut No. 12, p. 55, representing the alignments at Merivale -bridge, and compare them with the cursus as shown in woodcut No. 26, -p. 102, representing the ground about Stonehenge, I think he must -perceive that the two cursus, if complete, would occupy exactly the -same relative position with regard to Stonehenge--on a much larger -scale of course--as those at Dartmoor do to the circle there. The -arrangements are so similar that the purposes can hardly be different. -At first sight this seems to tell against the battle theory. We know -of no battle fought on Salisbury Plain. This, however, is the merest -negative assumption possible. We know that the massacre at Amesbury was -followed by a four years' war, between Ambrosius and the Saxons.[133] -Battles there must have been, and many, and what so likely as that the -crowning victory should have been fought in the immediate proximity of -the capital of one of the contending parties. If these cursus do mark -the battle-field, it will at once account for the somewhat anomalous -position of Stonehenge. What is so likely as that the victor should -have chosen the field of his final victory to erect there a monument -to the memory of those whose treacherous slaughter had been the cause -of the war? Of course this is only an hypothesis, and it is only put -forward as such, but it seems to me infinitely nearer the truth than -that of the gratuitous suggestion of a race-course, and looks like one -of the coincidences sure to occur when the investigation is on the -right path towards the true solution. - - * * * * * - -The first impression that the narrative of the preceding pages will -convey to most readers, will probably be that there must be something -more to be said on the subject, or that something important is left -out. If, it may be argued, the case is so clear as here stated, it -could never have been doubted, and must have been accepted long ago. -All I can say in answer is, that if anything is omitted I am not aware -of it. Everything I know of has been stated as fully and as fairly as -seemed necessary for its being clearly understood. In this instance it -must be remembered that the usual arguments drawn from the division -into stone, bronze, and iron ages hardly come into play. Nothing has -been found inside Stonehenge but iron and Roman pottery. Even admitting -the barrows in the immediate proximity of Stonehenge to be coeval, -before their testimony can be of any avail, it must be ascertained when -men ceased to be buried in barrows, and when a man might not wish a -bronze spear-head to be entombed with him as a relic, even if he did -not fight with it in his lifetime. Even then, however, the evidence -would be too indistinct to outweigh that of the finds inside the circle. - -If, after what has been said above, any one still maintains that -Stonehenge is a temple, and not sepulchral, we have no common ground -from which to reason, and need not attempt it. Or if any one as -familiar with the locality as I am personally, or who has studied the -Ordnance maps with the same care, likes to argue that the barrows came -to Stonehenge, and not Stonehenge to the barrows, we see things with -such different eyes that we equally want a common basis for argument. - -In a case like the present, however, the great difficulty to be -overcome is not so much cool argument and close reasoning, as a certain -undefined feeling that a monument must be old because we know so little -about it. "Omne ignotum pro antiquo" is a matter of faith with many -who will listen to no argument to the contrary, and in the case of -Stonehenge the false notion has been so fostered by nearly all those -who have written about it since the time of James I., that it will be -very difficult now to overthrow it. Those who adhere to it, however, -hardly realize how dark the ages were between the departure of the -Romans and the time of Alfred the Great, and how much may have been -done in that time without any record of it coming down to our day. Even -if we give them all the megalithic monuments we possess, it is very -little indeed for so large a population in so long a time. - -Even at a much later period of English history than we are now occupied -with, it is wonderful how little we should know of our monuments if we -depended on the "litera scripta" for our information. Any one who is -familiar with the guide-books of the last, or beginning of the present -century, will see what dire confusion of dates existed with regard to -the erection of our greatest cathedrals and mediæval monuments. Saxon -and Norman were confounded everywhere, and the distinction of any of -the styles between Early English and Perpendicular was not appreciated, -and frequently the dates were reversed. In fact, it was not till -Rickman took the matter in hand that order emerged out of chaos, and he -succeeded because his constructive knowledge enabled him to perceive -progressive developments which formed true sequences, and he was thus -able to supply the want of written information. Every tyro now can fix -a date to every moulding in any of our mediæval buildings, but if we -had only written history to depend upon, in nine cases out of ten he -could not prove that the building was not erected by the Romans or the -Phœnicians, or anybody else. If this is the case in an age when -writing was so common as between the Conquest and the Reformation, -should we be surprised if we find matters so much darker between the -departure of the Romans and Alfred, when written history hardly helps -us at all? But Rickman's method will, when applied to Stonehenge and -similar monuments, if I am not very much mistaken, render their dates -nearly as clear as those of our mediæval monuments have been rendered -by the same method. - -None but those who have had occasion specially to study the subject -can be aware how devoid of all literary records the period is of -which we are now treating. So meagre and so scarce are they, that -many well-informed persons doubt whether such a person as King Arthur -ever lived; and scarcely one of his great actions is established by -anything like satisfactory contemporary testimony. Yet, in all ages, -and in all countries where histories either written or oral exist, they -are filled with the exploits of favourite national heroes--as Arthur -was--which, even where they are fullest and most diffuse, it is the -rarest possible thing to find in them a record of the building of any -temple or tomb. From the building of the Parthenon to the completion -of Henry VIII.'s Chapel, the notices of buildings in general histories -are as few and meagre as may be, and are comprised in a few paragraphs -scattered through many hundred volumes. No one, I am convinced, who -has thought twice on the subject, would expect to find any notice of -buildings in the few pages which are all we possess of history between -the departure of the Romans and the time of the Venerable Bede; yet the -absence of record is the argument which, if I am not mistaken, has had -more influence on the popular mind than almost any other. Too generally -it is assumed that, as we know nothing about them, they must be old. To -me, on the contrary, nothing appears so extremely improbable as that -the builders, while leaving no record of their exploits, should have -left any written account of the erection of the Rude Stone Monuments. - -One other point seems worth alluding to before concluding this chapter, -which is that nothing has been advanced, so far as I know, that would -lead us to suppose that the people of this island were, before the time -of the Romans, either more numerous or more powerful, and consequently -more capable of erecting such monuments as Stonehenge and Avebury, -than they were after that people had resided for four centuries among -them. All our existing knowledge seems to tend to a diametrically -opposite conclusion, and now that the day for vague declamation and _à -priori_ reasoning is past, if any proof to the contrary can be brought -forward, it would be well that it were now adduced, for otherwise -judgment may go by default. If we mistake not, the case must be strong -and clear that is to outweigh the evidence just brought forward in -reference to the two monuments the use and age of which we have just -been discussing. - - - [Footnote 77: These particulars are taken from a careful survey - made by Sir R. Colt Hoare, in 1812, and published in his 'Ancient - Wilts,' vol. ii. pl. xiii. p. 70 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 78: 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' p. 34.] - - [Footnote 79: Haca, or Haco, according to Kemble, was some mythical - person with a very Danish name which is found in Hampshire and - Berkshire, as well as here. Pen seems to mean merely enclosure, as - it does now in English. See Kemble, in 'Journal Arch. Inst.' xiv. - p. 134.] - - [Footnote 80: 'Bell. Gall.' vi. 17.] - - [Footnote 81: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. xli.] - - [Footnote 82: Thurnam, 'Crania Britannica;' London, 1856 to 1865.] - - [Footnote 83: 'Codex diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici,' v. p. 238, No. - 1120.] - - [Footnote 84: Stukeley, 'Stonehenge and Abury,' p. 27.] - - [Footnote 85: The particulars are taken from a pamphlet entitled - 'Excavations at Avebury, under the direction of the Secretary of - the Wiltshire Archæol. and Nat. Hist. Society,' printed at Devizes, - but, so far as I know, not yet published.] - - [Footnote 86: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' vol. i. introd. p. - xx.] - - [Footnote 87: A plan of it was published about Stukeley's time by - a Mr. Twining, in a pamphlet, which was written to prove that this - group of monuments was erected by Agricola, to represent a map of - England! A plan accompanies it, which shows all the avenues as - straight; but what weight can possibly be attached to any evidence - coming from a man with such a theory as this?] - - [Footnote 88: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 63.] - - [Footnote 89: Camden, 'Britannia,' 127.] - - [Footnote 90: 'Archæologia,' xxviii. p. 399 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 91: 'Journal Wiltshire Archæol. and Nat. Hist. Society,' - vii. p. 1861.] - - [Footnote 92: Curiously enough these dimensions are almost - identical with those of the mound erected by the Belgic-Dutch, to - commemorate the part they did not take in the battle of Waterloo. - Its dimensions are 130 feet high, 544 feet in diameter, and 1632 - feet in circumference. The angle of the slope of the sides is - lower, being 27½ degrees, owing to the smaller diameter of the - flat top, which is only 40 feet.] - - [Footnote 93: Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 161. See also Salisbury - volume of the Archæological Institute, p. 74.] - - [Footnote 94: 'Journal Royal Asiatic Soc.' xiii. p. 164; and Major - Skinner's plan of Anurajapura.] - - [Footnote 95: Wilson, 'Ariana Antiqua,' p. 41; and Masson's - 'Memoir,' _passim_.] - - [Footnote 96: Sir R. C. Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. pl. ii. fig. - 8.] - - [Footnote 97: Ibid. i. p. 191.] - - [Footnote 98: 'Archæologia,' xxx. p. 300 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 99: 'Arch. Journ.,' xxiv. pp. 92 and 319.] - - [Footnote 100: Ibid. p. 100.] - - [Footnote 101: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. 5. Unfortunately there - is no scale attached to the plan of the Marden Circle, and no - dimensions quoted in the text.] - - [Footnote 102: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' p. 7.] - - [Footnote 103: I adopt Dr. Guest's dates for this part of the - subject, not only because I think them most probable, but because I - think, from his knowledge and the special attention he has bestowed - on the subject, he is most likely to be right. See _Salisbury - Volume Arch. Journal_, p. 62.] - - [Footnote 104: 'Athenæum Journal,' Dec. 13, 1865.] - - [Footnote 105: 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.] - - [Footnote 106: 'Salisbury Vol.' p. 63.] - - [Footnote 107: 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.] - - [Footnote 108: Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 22.] - - [Footnote 109: Saxon Chronicle, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 304.] - - [Footnote 110: 'Jeffrey of Monmouth,' ix. p. 4.] - - [Footnote 111: The history of the plan given on page 92, and from - which all the dimensions in the text are quoted, is this. When I - was staying with my friend, Mr. Hawkshaw, the eminent engineer, - at Eversley, I was complaining of the incorrectness of all the - published plans, when he said, "I have a man in my office whose - plans are the very essence of minute accuracy. I will send him - down to make one for you." He did so, and his plan--to a scale of - 10 feet to 1 inch, is before me. I afterwards took this plan to - Stonehenge, and identified the position and character of every - stone marked upon it.] - - [Footnote 112: I am almost afraid to allude to it even in a note, - lest some one should accuse me of founding any theory upon it, - like Piazzi Smyth's British inches in the Pyramids, but it is a - curious coincidence that nearly all the British circles are set - out in two dimensions. The smaller class are 100 feet, the larger - are 100 metres in diameter. They are all more than 100 yards. The - latter measure is at all events certainly accidental, so far as - we at present know, but as a nomenclature and "memoria technica," - the employment of the terms may be useful, provided it is clearly - understood that no theory is based upon it.] - - [Footnote 113: 'Historia,' in 'Mon. Brit.' 694.] - - [Footnote 114: 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' by the author, plates - iii. _et seq._] - - [Footnote 115: Twenty Chinese coolies would carry any one of them - up in a week.] - - [Footnote 116: 'Serie Centrale' by Comte Melchior de Vogüé. Though - this work was commenced some ten years ago, and subscriptions - obtained, it is still incomplete. No text has yet been published, - and no maps, which makes the identification of the places - singularly difficult.] - - [Footnote 117: Vide _ante_, footnote, p. 15.] - - [Footnote 118: 'Topography of Jerusalem,' by the Author, p. 58.] - - [Footnote 119: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 178, plan vi.] - - [Footnote 120: Sir John Lubbock, 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 116.] - - [Footnote 121: Sir R. Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 145.] - - [Footnote 122: The name is written as Sidbury in the Ordnance maps.] - - [Footnote 123: 'Archæologia,' vii. pp. 132-134.] - - [Footnote 124: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 154.] - - [Footnote 125: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 150.] - - [Footnote 126: Nennius, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 69.] - - [Footnote 127: Jeffrey, viii. c. 9.] - - [Footnote 128: "Fuit antiquis temporibus in Hiberniâ lapidum - congeries admiranda, quæ et Chorea gigantum dicta fuit, quia - gigantes eam ab ultimis Africæ partibus in Hiberniam attulerunt et - in Kildarienes planicie non procul a Castro Nasensi, tam ingenii - quam virium opere mirabiliter erexerunt. Unde et ibidem lapides - quidam aliis simillimi similique modo erecti usque in hodiernum - conspiciuntur. Mirum qualiter tanti lapides tot etiam et tam magni - unquam in unum locum vel congesti fuerint vel erecti: quantoque - artificiis lapidibus tam magnis et altis alii superpositi sint - non minores; qui sic in pendulo et tanquam in inani suspendi - videntur ut potius artificum studio quam suppositorum podio - inniti videantur. Juxta Britannicam historiam lapides istos rex - Britonum Aurelius Ambrosius divina Merlini diligentia de Hiberniâ - in Britanniam advehi procuravit; et ut tanti facinoris egregium - aliquod memoriale relinqueret eodem ordine et arte qua prius in - loco constituit ubi occultis Saxonum cultris Britanniæ flos occidit - et sub pacis obtentu nequitiæ telis male tecta regni juventus - occubuit."--_Topogr. Hiberniæ_, vol. ii. ch. xviii. - - If we could trust Ware, they still existed in the beginning of - the last century. He speaks of "Saxa illæ in gentia et rudia - quæ in planitie non longe a Naasa in agro Kildariensi et alibi - visuntur."--_Hist. Hib._, xxiv. 103.] - - [Footnote 129: 'Hist. Brit.' viii. ch. xvi.] - - [Footnote 130: 'Hist. Brit.' xi. ch. iv.] - - [Footnote 131: This is the principal argument of Herbert's 'Cyclops - Christianus.'] - - [Footnote 132: 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 158. See also woodcut No. - 26, p. 102. The dotted part of the smaller cursus is a restoration - of my own.] - - [Footnote 133: _Vide ante_, p. 107.] - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -MINOR ENGLISH ANTIQUITIES. - - -AYLESFORD. - -The detailed examination of these groups at Avebury and Stonehenge -will probably be deemed sufficient to establish at least a _prima -facie_ case in favour of the hypothesis that these monuments were -sepulchral--that at least some of them marked battle-fields, and -lastly, that their antiquity was not altogether prehistoric. If this is -so, it will not be necessary to repeat the same evidence in treating of -those monuments or groups we are about to describe. Incidentally the -latter will, if I am not mistaken, afford many confirmations of those -propositions, but it will not be necessary to insist or enlarge on them -to the same extent as has been done in the previous pages. - -[Illustration: 27. Countless Stones, Aylesford. From a drawing by -Stukeley.] - -Among the remaining groups of stones in England, one of the most -important is--or rather was--that in front of Aylesford in Kent. The -best known member of this group is that known as Kit's Cotty--or -Coity-house, which has, however, been so often drawn and described -that it is hardly necessary to do much more than refer to it here. -It is a dolmen, composed of four stones, three upright; the two -side stones being about 8 feet square and 2 in thickness, the third -somewhat smaller; these form three sides of a chamber, the fourth -side being--and apparently always having been--left open. These -three support a cap stone measuring 11 feet by 8 feet. If we can -trust Stukeley's drawing,[134] it was an external dolmen standing on -the end of a low long barrow. At the other end of the mound lay an -obelisk, since removed, but in Stukeley's time it was said to mark -"the general's grave." The mound has since been levelled by the -plough, but the whole forms an arrangement so common both in England -and in Scandinavia, that I am inclined to place faith in the drawing. -So little, however, hinges on it here that it is not worth while -insisting on it, but a trench across the site of the barrow might lead -to interesting results. Nearly due south of Kit's Cotty-house, at the -distance of about 500 yards, is another monument of the same class, -popularly known as the Countless Stones, but so ruined--apparently -by searchers after treasure--that its plan cannot now be made out. -In Stukeley's time, however, it was more perfect, and as his pencil -is always more to be trusted than his pen, it may be worth while to -reproduce his drawings,[135] for the arrangement of the stones was -peculiar, but may have analogies elsewhere. Between these two a third -dolmen is said to have existed within the memory of man, but no trace -of it is now to be found. In the rear of these groups, nearer the -village, there exists, or existed, a line of great stones, extending -from a place called Spring Farm, in a north-easterly direction, for -a distance of three-quarters of a mile, to another spot known as -Hale Farm,[136] passing through Tollington, where the greater number -of the stones are now found. In front of the line near the centre -at Tollington lie two obelisks, known to the country people as the -coffin-stones--probably from their shape. They are 12 feet long by 4 to -6 broad, and about 2 or 3 feet thick.[137] They appear to be partially -hewn, or at least shaped, so as to resemble one another. - -Besides these stones, which are all on the right bank of the river, -there are several groups at or near Addington, about five miles to the -westward of Aylesford. Two of these in the park at Addington have long -been known to antiquaries, having been described and figured in the -'Archæologia' in 1773.[138] The first is a small circle, about 11 feet -in diameter, the six stones comprising it being 19 feet high, 7 wide, -and 2 in thickness. Near it is the larger one of oval form, measuring -50 paces by 42 paces. The stones are generally smaller than those of -the other circle. The other groups or detached stones are described -by Mr. Wright,[139] who went over the ground with that excellent and -venerable antiquary the Rev. L. B. Larking. They seem to have adopted -the common opinion that an avenue of such stones existed all the way -from Addington to Aylesford, but it seems to me that there is no -sufficient evidence to justify this conclusion. Many of the stones -seem natural boulders, and in no place is any alignment distinctly -perceptible. - -In addition to these, Mr. Wright found, and attempted to excavate some -smaller monuments of a sepulchral character, near Kit's Cotty House, -but situated on the brow of the hill immediately above it. These -"consist generally of groups of stones buried partly on the ridge of -the hill, but evidently forming, or having formed, small sepulchral -chambers." "Each group," he adds, "is generally surrounded by a circle -of stones."[140] - -There only now remains the question, why were all these stones placed -here, and by whom? Mr. Wright is far too sober and too well-informed -an antiquary to repeat the usual nonsense about such monuments having -been Druid temples or altars. The conclusion at which he arrives (p. -183) is that Kit's Cotty-house, and the cemetery around it, with -that in the parish of Addington, together formed the grand necropolis -of the Belgian settlers in this part of the island. Against this -it must be observed that the Belgians erected no such monuments in -their own country, Gallia Belgica being exactly that part of France -in which no stone monuments are found, and it is very unlikely that -the Belgians should have done here what they did not do at home. But -another objection is, that the theory is wholly gratuitous, no shadow -of tradition, no analogy, and no reason being adduced to show why it -should be so, and, to say the least of it, it is most unlikely. If a -straight line were drawn from the mouth of the Humber to the head of -Southampton Water, this is the only group of this class of monuments -to the eastward of the line, and what possible reason can we have for -supposing that the princes or people of that vast district chose this -place, and this only, for their necropolis? Had it been some vast plain -like Salisbury, or some gloomy valley, or the site of some ancient -sacred city, the choice might have been intelligible, but a more -unromantic, unlikely spot than the valley of the Medway could hardly -have been chosen. It is neither central nor accessible, and neither -history nor tradition lends any countenance to the suggestion. - -Suppose, on the other hand, we assume that these erections are a record -of the battle which, according to the Saxon chronicle,[141] was fought -on this spot between Vortigern and Hengist and Horsa, in the year 455, -and in which Catigren was slain on the side of the British, and the -redoubted Horsa fell on that of the Saxons. This at least has the merit -of accounting for all we see--the line of stones at Tollington is just -such a position as the British army would take up, to cover the ford at -Aylesford against an enemy advancing from Thanet. The two obelisks in -front would represent the position of the two chiefs; Kit's Cotty-house -would become the tomb of Catigren, which tradition always represented -it to be; the circles at Addington would become the graves of chiefs -who were wounded in the battle, and taken to the rear and buried with -due honours, at or near the spot where they died; and lastly the -tumulus at Horstead would also in accordance with ancient tradition be -the grave of Horsa. - -So much depends on this last determination, that last year through the -kindness of Colonel Fisher, R.E., the assistance of a party of sappers -was procured from Chatham, and the mound was thoroughly explored. It -was found that a cremation (it is presumed of a human body) had taken -place on the natural surface of the ground, and that a tumulus had -been raised over it. The chalk was dug down to some depth and found -quite undisturbed, but no ornament or implement was found anywhere. At -first this seemed disappointing; but on Mr. Godfrey Faussett, who was -present at the digging, referring to certain passages in 'Beowulf,' it -appears to be exactly what should have been expected. The poem, in the -first place, is about the best authority we could have, inasmuch as, -according to Kemble, "it gave accounts of exploits not far removed, in -point of time, from the crossing of Hengist and Horsa into Britain, and -the poem was probably brought hither by some of those Anglo-Saxons, -who, in 495, accompanied Cerdic and Cyneric."[142] After Hengist's -conflict with Fin, the body was burnt (l. 2232-2251); but after -Beowulf's death not only cremation is mentioned, but a splendid mound -is raised over the spot where the funeral pile stood, "ad on Eorthen" -(l. 6266), on the surface of the ground. At Beowulf's funeral, vases, -and arms, and jewels of all kinds, were thrown upon the pile and burnt -with him; and no wonder, considering the wealth just rescued from the -guardianship of the "Wurm" by the victorious hero. Poor Horsa died -defeated, and all his friends could expect would be to be allowed to -bury him under a flag of truce, with such rites as would ensure his -proper reception in the next world. Had they attempted to bury any -treasures with him, they probably would have been appropriated by the -victorious Brits. - -Bede's expression that Horsa's tomb was situated in "orientalibus -partibus Cantiæ,"[143] has more than once been quoted to disprove this -identification. But what did Bede mean by "eastern parts"? May it -not have been that in his day the Medway divided Kent into east and -west? Or he may have spoken without sufficient local knowledge. But -that Horsa fell at Aylesford, is as well authenticated as any fact in -that age: he most probably was buried near the battle-field; and the -village where the mound is situated has probably ever since been called -Horstead, as it is at this day. - -All this, it appears to me, makes so strong a case, that I cannot help -thinking it might be accepted till, at least, something is advanced -against it. At present I am not aware of any argument to the contrary -that seems to me entitled to any serious consideration. No flint, or -bronze, or iron implement of any sort, so far as I know, have been -found on the spot--this may be only because they have not been looked -for; but as the case at present stands, the Danish system cannot be -pleaded for or against this view. - -The real difficulty to be feared in obtaining acceptance of this -explanation of the stone at Aylesford, is its extreme simplicity. -After all that has been written about the unfathomable mystery and the -primæval antiquity of this class of monuments, to be told that these -are merely the memorials of a battle fought on the spot in the year -455, is too terribly prosaic to be tolerated, nor ought it perhaps to -be accepted if it stood alone. If, however, it proves to be only one of -many instances, the ultimate admission of the above views can hardly be -doubtful. - - -ASHDOWN. - -In the neighbourhood of Uffington, in Berkshire, there are three -monuments, two at least of which still merit a local habitation and a -name in our history. One of these is the celebrated white horse, which -gives its name to the vale, and the scouring of which is still used by -the inhabitants of the neighbourhood on the occasion of a triennial -festival and games, which have been so graphically described by Mr. -Thomas Hughes. - -[Illustration: 28. The Sarsen Stones at Ashdown. From a drawing by A. -L. Lewis, Esq.] - -The second is a cromlech, known as Wayland Smith's Cave, and -immortalized by the use made of it by Sir Walter Scott in the novel -of 'Kenilworth.' The third is as remarkable as either, but still wants -its poet. The annexed woodcut will give a fair idea of its nature and -extent.[144] It does not pretend to be minutely accurate, and this -in the present instance is fortunately of no great consequence. All -the stones are overthrown: some lie flat on the ground, some on their -edges, and it is only the smallest that can be said to be standing. The -consequence is, that we cannot feel sure that we know exactly where -any of them stood, nor whether they were arranged in lines, like those -at Carnac; nor if so, in how many rows, or whether they always had -the confused appearance they now present. They are spread over an area -of about 1600 feet north and south, and of half that distance east -and west. The gap in the centre was made purposely to clear the view -in front of the house when it was built, and many of the stones it is -feared were employed in the erection. They are the same Sarsens as are -used at Avebury and Stonehenge, and the largest are about 10 feet long -from 6 to 9 wide, and from 3 to 4 feet high (in their present recumbent -position); but there are few so large as this, the majority being from -2 to 4 feet in length and breadth, and from 1 to 3 high.[145] - -No one has yet attempted to give any explanation of the monument -beyond repeating the usual Druidical formulæ. To me it appears almost -incontestable that it is a memorial of the battle fought here between -the Saxons and the Danes in the year 871. From Asser we learn that -the Pagans, advancing from Reading, occupied the higher ground. It is -sometimes supposed that Uffington Castle was thrown up by them on the -occasion, which is by no means impossible. Advancing eastward, they -then attacked the Christians under Alfred, who occupied the lower -ground. This, and the ill-timed fit of devotion on his brother's -part, nearly lost the Christians the day; but Alfred's skill and -intrepidity prevailed, and the victory was complete.[146] This being -so, nothing appears more probable than that the victorious army, either -by themselves or with the assistance of the peasantry, should have -collected together the Sarsens in the neighbourhood, and have arranged -them as Alfred and his army stood, when he first received the shock -of the Pagans. It seems also probable that he would have engraved the -emblem of the white horse on the side of the hill where the Pagans had -encamped the night before the battle, and where probably the fight -ended on the following day. - -The question whether Weyland Smith's Cave belongs to the same group, or -to an earlier date, is not so easily settled. My impression is that it -is older. It is a three-chambered dolmen almost identical in plan with -Petrie's No. 27, Carrowmore, to be described in the next chapter, but -with this difference, that whereas the circle of stones in the Irish -example contained thirty-six or thirty-seven stones, and was 60 feet -in diameter, this one contained probably only twenty-eight, and was -only 50 feet in diameter. This and the fact of the one consisting of -Sarsens--the other of granite blocks--account so completely for all the -difference between them, that I cannot believe that so great a lapse -of time as eight centuries could have taken place between the erection -of the two. I fancy it must have been erected for the entombment of a -local hero in the early centuries of the Christian era; but of this we -will be better able to judge when we are further advanced in our survey -of similar monuments. - - -ROLLRIGHT. - -At Rollright, between Chipping Norton and Long Compton, in Oxfordshire, -there is a circle, which, from what has been written about it, has -assumed an importance in the antiquarian world, which is certainly -not due either to its dimensions or to any traditions that attach to -it. Every antiquary, from Camden down to Bathurst Deane, has thought -it necessary to say something about this splendid temple of the Druid -priesthood, so that the traveller, when he visits it, is sure to -be dreadfully disappointed. It is an ordinary 100-foot circle, the -entrance to which is apparently from the south opposite to the five -largest stones, which are placed in juxtaposition on the north, the -tallest in the centre being about 5 feet in height. The others average -about 3 or 4 feet, but are uneven in height and irregularly spaced, -but with a tendency to form groups of threes, which is a peculiarity -observable-in some similar circles on Dartmoor. - -Across the road, at a distance of about 50 yards, stands a single -obeliscal stone, about 10 feet high, on a mound which appears to be -artificial. If it is so, however, it was raised with the materials -taken out of a pit, which still exists on one side, and not from a -ditch surrounding it, as is usual in such cases. In another direction, -about a quarter of a mile from the circle, stands a dolmen, which is -the finest feature in the group. The cap stone, which has fallen, -measures 8 feet by 9, and is of considerable thickness; and three of -the supporting stones are 7, 8, and 10 feet in height respectively. - -This circle appears to have been examined by Ralph Sheldon, but without -results.[147] The mound, so far as is known, is yet untouched, and the -dolmen could not now be explored without causing its complete ruin; I -presume no one will contest its being sepulchral. It would be difficult -now to bring to the test of experiment the question whether the circle -is so or not, as some forty or fifty years ago, it and the plot round -it were planted with larch trees, whose roots have spread over the -surface and could with difficulty be now got rid of. This is to be -regretted, as from its isolated position the group affords an excellent -opportunity of testing the usual theories regarding these monuments. -If it was a temple, it gives us a very low idea of the religious state -of our ancestors, that for a district of from twenty to thirty miles' -radius they should have possessed only one single small enclosure, -surrounded by a low imperfect wall, 3 or 4 feet high. If any other -had ever existed, traces of it must have been found, or why has this -one remained so complete, for not one stone apparently is missing. It -is also strange that, as in other instances, it should be situated on -the highest and bleakest part of the surrounding country. It is, in -fact, not only the unlikeliest form, but the most inconvenient site -for a temple. It also gives us a very low idea of their civilization. -The circle at Rollright is a sort of monument that the boys of any of -our larger schools could set up in a week, supposing the stones to be -found lying about, at no great distance, which there is little doubt -was the case when it was erected. The dolmen might require a little -contrivance to get the cap stone hoisted; but there is nothing that the -villagers in the neighbourhood could not now complete in a few days, if -so inclined, and certainly nothing that a victorious army, of say even -1000 men, could not complete between sunrise and sunset in a summer's -day. Even if the sepulchral character of the group is admitted, it can -hardly be the burying-ground of a chief, or clan, or family. In that -case, instead of one dolmen there must have been several, smaller -it may be, but in succession. The chief must have had ancestors, or -successors, or relations, and they would not be content that one, and -one only, of their family should possess an honoured tomb, and that -they themselves should rest in undistinguished graves. As in other -cases, unless we are prepared to admit that it marks the site of a -battle, I know of nothing that will explain the situation and the form -of the group; nor do I see why we should reject Camden's explanation of -the circumstances under which it was erected: "These would, I verily -think, to have been the monument of some victory, and haply erected -by Rollo the Dane, who afterwards conquered Normandy." "In what time -he with the Danes troubled England with depredations we read that the -Danes joined battle with the English thereby at Hock Norton, a place -for no one thing more famous in old time than for the woeful slaughter -of the English on that foughten field, under the reign of King Edward -the Elder."[148] This last, however, is apparently a mistake, for it -was Eadward (901-923) who was really the contemporary of Rollo. He was -also the contemporary of Gorm the Old, of Denmark, of whose tumulus and -Pagan habits we shall hear hereafter. - -This again will appear a very prosaic anti-climax to those who are -nursed on ideas of the hoar antiquity and wondrous magnificence of such -monuments as Ashdown and Rollright. A visit to them is sufficient to -dispel one part of that illusion, and a little common-sense applied -to the other will probably show that the more moderate view meets -perfectly all the real exigencies of the case. - - -PENRITH. - -In the neighbourhood of Penrith in Cumberland there is a group, or -perhaps it should be said there are three groups of monuments, of -considerable importance from their form and size, but deficient in -interest from the absence of any tradition to account for their being -where we find them. They extend in a nearly straight line from Little -Salkeld on the north to Shap on the south, a distance of fourteen miles -as the crow flies, Penrith lying a little to the westward of the line, -and nearer to its northern than its southern extremity. - -About half a mile from the first named village is the circle known -popularly as Long Meg and her Daughters, sixty-eight in number, if each -stone represents one. It is about 330 feet (100 metres) in diameter, -but does not form a perfect circle. The stones are unhewn boulders, -and very few of them are now erect. Outside the circle stands Long -Meg herself, of a different class of stone from the others, about -12 feet high, and apparently hewn, or at all events shaped, to some -extent.[149] Inside the circle, Camden reports "the existence of two -cairns of stone, under which they say are dead bodies buried; and -indeed it is probable enough," he adds, "that it has been a monument -erected in honour of some victory."[150] No trace of these cairns now -remains, nor am I aware that the centre has ever been dug into with a -view of looking for interments. My impression, however, is that the -principal interment was outside, and that Long Meg marks either the -head or the foot of the chief's grave. - -Close to Penrith is another circle called Mayborough, of about the -same dimensions--100 metres--as that at Little Salkeld, but of a very -different construction. The vallum or enclosure is entirely composed -of small water-worn stones taken from the beds of the Eamount or Eden -rivers. The stones are wonderfully uniform in size, and just about -what any man could carry without inconvenience. This enclosure mound -is now so mined that it is extremely difficult to guess what were -its dimensions. It may have been from 15 feet to 20 feet high, and -twice that in breadth at its base. The same cause makes it difficult -to determine the dimensions of the internal area. The floor of the -circle I calculated as 290 feet from the foot of one slope to the foot -of the opposite one, and consequently the whole as from 320 feet to -340 feet[151] from crest to crest; but these dimensions must be taken -as only approximative till a more careful survey is made than it was -in my power to execute. Near, but not quite in the centre, stands a -single splendid monolith; it may be 12 feet in height, but is more than -twice the bulk of Long Meg. In Pennant's time there were four stones -still standing in the centre, of which this was one, and probably -there may originally have been several more forming a small circle -in the centre.[152] In his day also he learned that there were four -stones--two pairs--standing in a gap in the vallum looking like the -commencement of an avenue. The place, however, is too near Penrith, and -stone is there too valuable to allow of such things escaping, so that -nothing now remains which would enable us to restore this monument with -certainty. - -Close by this is a third circle known as Arthur's Round Table. - -[Illustration: 29. Sketch Plan of King Arthur's Round Table, with the -side, obliterated by the road, restored.] - -It consists, or consisted, of a vallum of earth, as near as can be -made out, 300 feet from crest to crest; but about one-third of the -circle being cut away to form a road, it is not easy to speak with -certainty. Inside the rampart is a broad berm, then a ditch, and in -the centre a plateau about 170 feet in diameter, slightly raised in -the centre. No stone is visible on the surface, though the rampart -when broken into shows that it is principally composed of them. There -is now only one entrance through the rampart and across the ditch, but -as both entrances existed in Pennant's time (1772), and are figured in -his plan of the monument, I have not hesitated to restore the second -accordingly.[153] The distance between Mayborough and King Arthur's -Round Table is about 110 yards, and at about the same distance from -the last-named monument, a third circle existed in Pennant's time. It -seems, however, to have been in his day at least only a circular ditch, -and has now entirely disappeared. - -Owing to their more ruined state, the remains at Shap are more -difficult to describe. They were, however, visited by Stukeley in 1725, -but he complains it rained all the time that he was there, and rain on -a bleak exposed moor like Shap is singularly inimical to antiquarian -pursuits.[154] The remains were also described by Camden,[155] but -not apparently from personal observation, and others have described -them since, but the destruction has been so rapid, the village being -almost entirely built out of them, that it is now extremely difficult -to ascertain what they really were. All, however, are agreed that the -principal monument was an alignment, according to some of a double -row of stones, of which others can only trace a single row. So far -as I could make out on the spot, it commenced near a spot called -the Thunder-stone, in the north, where there are seven large stones -in a field; six are arranged as a double row; the seventh seems to -commence a single line, from this all the way to a place at the -southern extremity of the village, called Karl Lofts, single stones -may be traced at intervals, in apparently a perfectly straight line -and still beyond this, at a farmyard called Brackenbyr, Mr. Simpson -fancied he could, in 1859, trace the remains of a circle 400 feet in -diameter, with a large obelisk in the centre.[156] I confess I was not -so fortunate in 1869, and I also differ from him as to the position of -the stone row. He seems to fancy, from the description of Stukeley, -that it was situated to the southward of Karl Lofts, though he could -not detect any traces of it. My impression is that it commenced -with the circle at Brackenbyr, immediately south of Karl Lofts, and -proceeded in a north-westerly direction for nearly a mile and a half to -the Thunder-stone, as before mentioned. Rather more than half a mile -due south of Brackenbyr stands a portion of what was once a very fine -circle. It was partially destroyed by the railway, but seems to have -been a hundred-foot circle, and to have stood considerably in advance -of the line of the avenue, in the same relative position to the stone -row as the circle at Merivale Bridge (woodcut No. 12), or as Stonehenge -to its cursus (woodcut No. 26), whether we assume that it was continued -in this direction, or terminated as above indicated. In front of the -circle is a noble tumulus, called Kemp How, in which the body of a man -of gigantic stature is said to have been found.[157] - -According to the popular tradition the stone avenue originally -extended to Muir Divock, a distance of rather more than five miles, -to which it certainly points. Though this is most improbable, it is -not wholly without reason, as on Muir Divock there are five or six -circles of stone and several tumuli. The circles have most of them -been opened recently, and in all instances were found to contain -cists or other evidence of interments.[158] Immediately over the Muir -stands a commanding hill, 1747 feet high, marked on the Ordnance -Survey as Arthur's Pike. Besides these, on the hill behind Shap, to -the eastward, are several stone circles, some single, some double, -but none are of any great size, or composed of stones of very large -dimensions. The whole aspect of the country is that of a district used -as a burying-place to an extent far beyond anything that the usual -inhabitants of the locality could have required, for a bleaker and more -ungenial spot is not inhabited in any part of these islands. - - * * * * * - -So far as I know, no credible tradition attaches to these monuments -so as to connect them with any historical or local incident. We -are, therefore, left almost wholly to their intrinsic forms, or to -analogies, to determine either their history or their purposes. - -No one will now probably be found seriously to maintain that the long -stone row at Shap was a temple either of the Druids or of any one else. -At least if these ancient people thought a single or even a double -row of widely-spaced stones, stretching to a mile and a half across -a bleak moor, was a proper form for a place to worship in, they must -have been differently constituted from ourselves. Unless they possessed -the tails, or at least the long-pointed ears with which Darwin endows -our ancestors, they would have adopted some form of temple more nearly -similar to those used in all other countries of the world. Nor was it a -tomb. Not only have no sepulchral remains been found here, but nowhere -else has any trace of such a purpose been found connected with such -alignments. Even, however, if it is contended that it is sepulchral, -it certainly was not the burying-place of the hamlet of Shap, or of -its neighbourhood, for a more miserable spot for habitation does not -exist in England, and it cannot be that Shap, like Avebury, should -require the most magnificent cemeteries in the island, while nothing of -the sort exists near the great centres of population. Had the country -been as thickly inhabited as China, we might fancy the people seeking -waste uncultivable spots in which to bury their dead, but even at the -present day Woking is the only cemetery that has been selected on this -principle in England, and at any previous time to which we can look -back, the idea appears too absurd to be entertained for a moment. - -If, therefore, the alignment at Shap was sepulchral, it must have -been the burying-place of those that fell in some battle on the spot; -this in fact brings us to the only suggestion I am aware of that seems -at all tenable: that it marks a battle-field like those on Dartmoor -(_ante_, p. 54), and others we shall meet with hereafter. - -Excavations have proved that all the smaller circles which abound in -the neighbourhood are graves, and if those from 60 feet to 100 feet -in diameter are so, all analogy must lead us to the inference that -the 100-metre circles are so also. Direct proof has not, however, yet -been obtained of this, but that may arise first from the difficulty of -excavating so large an area; or it may be that the bodies were buried -outside the circle, as at Hakpen (_ante_, p. 76), or at the foot of the -stones, as at Crichie (_ante_, p. 75) or in those circles which have -no erect stones in a similar position--at the toe of the inner slope -of the rampart--and these are just the places where they have not been -looked for. Meanwhile the cairns in the inside of the circle of Long -Meg's Daughters seem to favour this view of their sepulchral purpose. -But if sepulchres, certainly they were not family or princely tombs. If -that was their destination they would not be found only in two or three -groups in the wildest and most remote parts of the country, but in far -greater numbers, and nearer those places where men most do congregate. -We are in fact driven to Camden's suggestion, that they may have been -made to celebrate some victory; but, if so, what victory? It looks like -riding a hobby very hard to make the same suggestion as was made with -regard to Avebury, but I confess I know no other that can be brought -forward with so much plausibility as that of considering them to be -memorials of Arthur's campaigns against the Saxon invaders. - -The first objection that will naturally be raised to this hypothesis -is, that King Arthur was a myth, and never fought any battles at all. -It was not necessary to examine this when speaking of Avebury. All that -was then required was to know if Waden Hill was Badon Hill. If it was -the site of that famous battle, there was no further enquiry necessary. -Arthur, and he only, commanded there; and if we admit the fact of the -battle being fought, we admit at the same time the existence of him who -commanded there. But with regard to the other eleven battles mentioned -by Nennius[159] the case is not so clear, and according to the present -fashionable school of historical criticism it is thought reasonable to -reject the whole as a myth, because the evidence is not such as would -stand examination in a court of law, and also because the story as it -now stands is so mixed up with incredible fables as to throw discredit -on the whole. It is very much easier to heap ridicule on the silly -miracles which Merlin is said by mediæval minstrels to have performed, -and to laugh at the marvellous exploits of Arthur and the Knights of -his Round Table, than to attempt to glean the few facts which their -wild poetry has left unobscured. But if any one will attempt the -same process with one of the many 'Lhystoires du noble et vaillant -roy Alexandre le grand,' he will find exactly the same difficulties. -Aristotle and his master have been rendered quite as fabulous persons -as Merlin and Arthur, and the miracles of the one and the feats of the -other are equally marvellous. In Alexander's case we fortunately have -Arrian and Curtius, and others, who give us the truth with regard to -him; but Arthur had no contemporary history, and instead of living in -a highly civilized state that continued for ages after him, he was the -last brilliant light of his age and race, and after him all was gloom -for centuries. It was not till after a long eclipse that his name was -seized upon in a poetical and an uncritical age as a peg for bards -whereupon to hang their wild imaginings. - -This is not the place to examine so large a question. It will be -sufficient to state what I believe to be the main facts. Those who -do not admit them need not read further. Arthur, it seems to me, was -born the prince of one of the smaller states in the West of England, -probably Cornwall, and after the death of Ambrosius, in or about the -year 508, took up the struggle the latter had carried on with varying -success against the hordes of Saxons and others who were gradually -pushing the Bryts out of England. My impression is, that even before -the Romans left, Jutes, Angles, and Danes had not only traded with, -but had settled, both on the Saxonicum littus of Kent, and on the -coast of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and the Lothians; and that during -the century that elapsed between the departure of the Romans and the -time of Arthur, they were gradually pushing the British population -behind the range of hills which extends from Carlisle to Derby and -forms the back-bone of England. It was in the plains behind this range -and further south that all Arthur's battles seem to have been fought. -With Cumberland, Wales, and Cornwall behind him, he was not only sure -of support from the native population in his rear, but had a secure -retreat in case of adverse fortune overtaking him. In all this range -of country I do not know any spot so favourable strategically for -a defender of his country to take up as the high land about Shap, -or the open country extending from thence to Salkeld. The ridges at -Shap protected his right against an enemy advancing by Lancaster, the -Caledonian Forest and a very rugged country covered his left, and in -front there was only a wild inhospitable tract by which the invader -from the opposite coast could advance against him, while by a single -day's march to his rear he was among the inaccessible mountains and -lakes of Cumberland. - -I am afraid to lay much stress on the fact of one of the circles at -Penrith and the hill opposite Shap bearing Arthur's name, because in -the last few years we have seen two hard-headed sober-minded Scotchmen -proving, to their own satisfaction, that Arthur was born north of the -Tweed--that all his battles were fought and all his exploits performed -in the northern portion of the island. Even Ganora--the faithless -Guinevere--if not a Scotchwoman, was at all events buried in Miegle -churchyard under a stone, which some pious descendant sculptured some -centuries later.[160] Even here, however, I fancy I can perceive -a difference between the two cases. In the middle ages the Scotch -had historians like Boece and Fordun, who recorded such fables for -the edification of their countrymen, and with proper patriotism -were willing that their country should have as large a share of the -world's greatness or great men as they could well appropriate. They -were followed by an educated class throughout the country, who were -actuated by the same motives, and did exactly what Stukeley and his -followers did with English monuments. They found Druids who had no -temples, and remains which they supposed to be temples with no priests; -so, putting the two together, they made what they fancied was a perfect -whole out of two incongruous halves. So the Scotch, having a rich -repertory of fables on the one hand, and on the other having hills -without names and sculptured stones without owners, joined the two -together, and went on repeating in the same manner their inventions -till, from dire reiteration, they took the likeness of fact. - -The case was, if I mistake not, very different in Cumberland. The boors -of that land had no literature--no learning, and none of that ardent -patriotism which enabled the Scotch poets and pedants to manufacture -a quasi history for themselves out of other people's doings. It is -difficult to fancy the inhabitants of Cumberland troubling themselves -with Arthur and his affairs, and wishing to apply his name to -their hills or antiquities, unless some ancient tradition had made -it probable, and, "valeat quantum," these names may therefore be -considered as suggesting a real connexion between the place and the man. - -Owing to the extreme brevity of the record in Nennius,[161] there are -few things about which greater discrepancy of opinion exists even among -the believers in Arthur than the localities of his battles. Taking -them in the order in which they are mentioned, the first is said to -have been fought on the river Glem of Glein, which the editors of the -'Monumenta Historica Britannica' suggest may be a river of that name -in Northumberland. The river indicated is so small a brook that it is -difficult to fancy its name should be attached to so important an event. - -If we must go so far north, I would rather feel inclined to place it -at Wood Castle, near Lochmaben, in Dumfriesshire, where there is a -circular enclosure identical in plan and dimensions with King Arthur's -Round Table at Penrith.[162] Strategically, it is a much more likely -spot than the exposed east coast of Northumberland; but, except -the plan of Wood Castle, I know of no authority for placing this -battle-field in Annandale. - -There is no indication where the second, third, or fourth battles were -fought; but for the fifth we have this important designation that it -was fought "super aliud flumen quod vocatur Duglas vel Dubglas quod est -in regione Linuis," or in another MS. Linnuis. A marginal note suggests -Lindesay, in Lincolnshire, but for no other reason apparently than from -the first three letters being the same in both. There is a River Duglas -flowing past Wigan, in Lancashire, which Whittaker, in his 'History -of Manchester,' boldly adopts as the place indicated, and others have -been inclined to accept his determination. After going carefully over -the ground, I confess no spot appears to me more unlikely for a great -battle than the banks of this river, nor does any local evidence of -their having been so now remain. One cannot but feel that if Arthur -ever allowed himself to be pushed into such a corner, with nothing but -the sea behind him to retreat upon, he certainly was not the general -that made so successful a stand against the Saxons. I am much more -inclined to believe that Linnuis is only a barbarous latinization of -Linn, which in Gaelic and Irish means sea or lake. In Welsh it is Lyn, -and in Anglo-Saxon Lin, and if this is so, "In regione Linnuis" may -mean "In the Lake Country." - -The name of the river does not appear to me at all an insuperable -difficulty. All the rivers about Penrith, the Lowther, the Eamount, -and the Eden, have names that were certainly given to them by the -Saxons, but they must have had Celtic names before they came; and Dubh -as an adjective is dark or black, and Glas, green or grey, is used -as a substantive to denote the sea, in Irish. Such an epithet would -apply admirably to the Lowther; and if it could be identified with the -river mentioned by Nennius, our difficulties would be at an end. These -speculations, however, must of course be taken for what they are worth. -There is, so far as known, no authority for the name Duglas or Dubhglas -being applied to the Lowther or Eden. - -The sixth battle was on a river called Bassas. It has been suggested -that this means the Bass Rock in the Frith of Forth; but it need hardly -be objected that a rock is not a river, and there is an extreme -improbability that Arthur ever saw the Lothians. In Derbyshire there is -a Bas Lowe[163] in a neighbourhood where, as we shall presently see, -there is reason to believe Arthur fought one or more of his battles, -but I am not aware of any river so called in that neighbourhood. - -The seventh war was in Silva Calidonis, "id est Cat Coit Celidon." -The Cat in the last name is evidently Cat or Cath, "a battle," which -we frequently meet with, and shall again in describing these matters. -Coit, only so far as the dictionaries tell us, means coracle, and would -seem to indicate a struggle in boats. The Caledonian Forest, is what -will really determine the locality. Generally it is understood to be -the forest that extended from Penrith to Carlisle; and, if so, any one -of our Penrith circles might be assumed to mark the site of the seventh -battle. Most probably in that case it would be the Salkeld circle, or -it might be one known as the Grey Yawds, near Cumrew, about eight or -nine miles further north.[164] - -The eighth battle was in Castello Guinnion, or Guin, which, from the -sound of the name, can hardly escape being in Wales or the Welsh -border, unless indeed we assume that these Welsh appellations were -common to the whole country before the Saxons re-named many of the -places. In that case we have nothing to guide us as to where the battle -was fought. - -The ninth battle was "in Urbe Legionis." This may be either Chester -or Caerleon in South Wales. It most probably was the latter, as in -another MS. it is added "quæ Britannice Karlium dicitur," or Cair lin -in another. - -The tenth war was on the shores of a river which was called Ribroit. -Though this is spelt in various MSS. Tribruit, Trathreuroit, and -Trattreuroit, it seems impossible to identify it. But it must have been -a large river, or the expression "in littore" would hardly have been -used. - -The eleventh battle "fuit in Monte quod dicitur Agned Cathregonnon;" -and in different MSS. this is spelt Cathregomion, Cabregonnon, -Catbregonnion, and in one it is added, "in Somersetshire quem nos -Cathbregion appellamus." No such name seems now to be known in that -country; but as we shall presently, I hope, see reason for believing, -the spot is probably that now known as Stanton Drew. - -The twelfth battle was that of Mount Badon, the position of which, -as we have already pointed out, may almost certainly be fixed in the -immediate neighbourhood of Avebury. - -All this is indistinct enough, it must be confessed, and much of it -depends on nominal similarities, which are never very satisfactory; -still the general impression it leaves seems worthy of acceptance. It -would lead us to think that Arthur commenced his struggles with the -invaders in the north of England, probably in the time of Ambrosius, -and fought his way southwards, till after twelve campaigns, or twelve -battles, he reached his crowning victory at Badon Hill, which gave -him peace for the rest of his days. At all events, with respect to -the first seven battles, there seems no reason why we should not -appropriate any of them except perhaps the first--to our Cumberland -circles. The proof of whether or not it is reasonable to do so will of -course depend on the case we can make out for the other circles we have -to examine, and on the general interdependence which the whole series -can be shown to have on one another. - -At present it may be allowed to stand on an hypothesis, which certainly -has the merit of explaining the facts as now known; but the probability -or disproof of which must depend on the facts and arguments to be -adduced hereafter. - - -DERBYSHIRE. - -The next group of monuments with which we have to deal is perhaps as -interesting as any of those hitherto described. As before mentioned, -when speaking of the labours of William and Thomas Bateman, the -north-western portion of the county is crowded with barrows, but none -apparently of so ancient a character as those excavated by Canon -Greenwell in Yorkshire, and most of them containing objects of so -miscellaneous a character as to defy systematic classification. As -these, however, hardly belong to the subject of which we are now -treating, it is not necessary to say more about them at present; and -the less so, that the group which falls directly in with our line of -research is well defined as to locality, and probably also as to age. - -The principal monument of this group is well-known to antiquaries as -Arbe or Arbor Low,[165] and is situated about nine miles south by -east from Buxton, and by a curious coincidence is placed in the same -relative position to the Roman Road as Avebury. So much is this the -case, that in the Ordnance Survey--barring the scale--the one might -be mistaken for the other if cut out from the neighbouring objects. -Minning Low, however, which is the pendant of Silbury Hill in this -group, is four miles off, though still in the line of the Roman road, -instead of only one mile, as in the Wiltshire example. Besides, there -is a most interesting Saxon Low at Benty Grange, about one mile from -Arbor Low. Gib Hill, Kens Low, Ringham Low, End Low, Lean Low, and -probably altogether ten or twelve important mounds covering a space -five miles in one direction, by one and a half to two miles across. - -Arbor Low consists of a circular platform, 167 feet in diameter, -surrounded by a ditch 18 feet broad at bottom, the earth taken from -which has been used to form a rampart about 15 feet to 18 feet high, -and measuring about 820 feet in circumference on the top.[166] The -first thing that strikes us on looking at the plan (woodcut No. 30) is -that, in design and general dimensions, the monument is identical with -that called "Arthur's Round Table," at Penrith. The one difference is -that, in this instance, the section of the ditch, and consequently that -of the rampart, have been increased at the expense of the berm; but the -arrangements of both are the same, and so are the internal and external -dimensions. At Arbor Low there are two entrances across the ditch, as -there was in the Cumberland and Dumfriesshire examples. As mentioned -above, only one is now visible there, the other having been obliterated -by the road, but the two circles are in other respects so similar as to -leave very little doubt as to their true features. - -[Illustration: 30. Arbor Low. From a drawing by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.] - -The Derbyshire example, however, possesses, in addition to its -earthworks, a circle of stones on its inner platform, originally -probably forty or fifty in number; but all now prostrate, except -perhaps some of the smallest, which, being nearly cubical, may still be -in _situ_. In the centre of the platform, also, are several very large -stones, which evidently formed part of a central dolmen. - -There is another very interesting addition at Arbor Low, which is -wanting at Penrith, this is a tumulus attached unsymmetrically to the -outer vallum. This was, after repeated attempts, at last successfully -excavated by the Messrs. Bateman, and found to contain a cist of rather -irregular shape, in which were found among other things two vases[167] -one of singularly elegant shape, the other less so. In themselves -these objects are not sufficient to determine the age of the barrow, -but they suffice to show that it was not very early. One great point -of interest in this discovery is its position with reference to the -circle. It is identical with that of Long Meg with reference to her -daughters, and perhaps some of the stones outside Avebury, supposed to -be the commencement of the avenue, may mark the principal places of -interment. - -[Illustration: 31. Vases and Bronze Pin found in Arbor Low.] - -[Illustration: 32. Section of Gib Hill. No scale.] - -Attached to Arbor Low, at a distance of about 250 yards, is another -tumulus, called Gib Hill, apparently about 70 to 80 feet in -diameter.[168] It was carefully excavated by Mr. T. Bateman in 1848; -but after tunnelling through and through it in every direction on -the ground level and finding nothing, he was surprised at finding, -on removing the timber which supported his galleries, that the side -of the hill fell in, and disclosed the cist very near the summit. -The whole fell down, and the stones composing the cist were removed -and re-erected in the garden of Lumberdale House. It consisted of -four massive blocks of limestone forming the sides of a chamber, 2 -feet by 2 feet 6 inches, and covered by one 4 feet square. The cap -stone was not more than 18 inches below the turf. By the sudden fall -of the side a very pretty vase was crushed, the fragments mingling -with the burnt bones it contained; but though restored, unfortunately -no representation has been given. The only other articles found in -this tumulus were "a battered celt of basaltic stone, a dart or -javelin-point of flint, and a small iron fibula, which had been -enriched with precious stones."[169] - -[Illustration: 33. Summit of Minning Low, as it appeared in 1786. From -Douglas.] - -[Illustration: 34. Plan of Chambers in Minning Low.] - -Though Gib Hill is interesting as the first of the high-level dolmens -which we have met with in this country, Minning Low is a still more -striking example of that class which we hinted at before as common -in Aveyron (_ante_, woodcut No. 8), and which we shall meet with -frequently as we proceed. When it first attracted the attention of -antiquaries in 1786, Minning Low seems to have been a straight-lined -truncated cone, about 300 feet in diameter, and the platform on -its summit measured 80 feet across.[170] Its height could not be -ascertained.[171] It was even then planted over with trees, so that -these dimensions, except the breadth of the platform, are hardly to -be depended upon, and since then the whole mound has been so dug -into and ruined, that they cannot now be verified. On the platform -at the top in 1786 there stood live kistvaens, each capable of -containing-one body; and, so far as can be made out from Douglas' -plates and descriptions, the cap stone of these was flush with the -surface, or possibly, as at Gib Hill, they may have been a few inches -below the surface, and, becoming exposed, may have been rifled as -they were found; but this is hardly probable, because unless always -exposed, it is not likely they would have been either looked for in -such a situation, or found by accident. Below them--at what depth we -are not told--a stone chamber, or rather three chambers, were found by -Mr. Bateman, apparently on the level of the ground on the south side -of the Barrow.[172] To use Mr. Bateman's own words ('Vestiges,' &c., -p. 39): "On the summit of Minning Low Hill, as they now appear from -the soil being removed from them, are two large cromlechs, exactly -of the same construction as the well-known Kit's Cotty-house, near -Maidstone, in Kent. In the cell near which the body lay were found -fragments of five urns, some animal bones, and six brass Roman coins, -viz., one of Claudius Gothicus (270), two of Constantine the Great, two -of Constantine, junior, and one of Valentinian. There is a striking -analogy between this and the great Barrow at New Grange, described by -Dr. Ledwich, of which a more complete investigation of Minning Low -would probably furnish additional proofs." Mr. Bateman was not then -aware that a coin of Valentinian had been found in the New Grange -mound,[173] which is one similarity in addition. - -The fact of these coins being found here fixes a date beyond which -it is impossible to carry back the age of this mound, but not the -date below which it may have been erected. The coins found in British -barrows seem almost always those of the last Emperors who held sway -in Britain, and whose coins may have been preserved and to a certain -extent kept in circulation after all direct connexion with Rome had -ceased, and thus their rarity or antiquity may have made them suitable -for sepulchral deposits. No coin of Augustus or any of the earlier -Emperors was ever found in or on any of these rude tumuli, which must -certainly have been the case had any of them been pre-Roman. This mound -is consequently certainly subsequent to the first half of the fourth -century, and how much more modern it may be remains to be determined. - -Be this as it may, if Mr. Bateman's suggestion that this monument is a -counterpart of Kit's Cotty-house is correct--and no one who is familiar -with the two monuments will probably dispute it--this at once removes -any improbability from the argument that the last-named may be the -grave of Catigren. The one striking difference between the two is, that -Kit's Cotty-house is an external free-standing dolmen, while Minning -Low is buried in a tumulus. This, according to the views adopted in -these pages, from the experience of other monuments, would lead to the -inference that the Kentish example was the more modern of the two. It -is not, however, worth while arguing that point here; for our present -purpose it is sufficient to know that both are post-Roman, and probably -not far distant in date. - -Another barrow belonging to this group is at Benty Grange, about a -mile from Arbor Low, which, though of a different character, may be -connected with the others. One body only was buried in it, of which -no trace, however, remained but the hair.[174] There was apparently -little more than 2 feet of earth over it. The first thing found was a -leather drinking-cup, ornamented in silver with stars and crosses. Two -circular enamels were also there, adorned with that interlacing pattern -found in the earliest Anglo-Saxon or Irish MSS. of the sixth or seventh -centuries, or it may be a little earlier; a helmet also was found, -formed of iron bars, with bronze and silver ornaments, and surmounted -by what Mr. Bateman assures us was a perfectly distinct representation -of a hog. He then quotes from Beowulf several passages, in which the -poet describes: "The boar an ornament to the head, the helmet lofty -in wars" (l. 4299).... "They seemed a boar's form to bear over their -cheeks" (l. 604).... "At the pile was easy to be seen, the mail-shirt -covered with gore, the hog of gold, the boar hard as iron" (l. 2213). -As Beowulf lived, as shown above, probably in the fifth century, the -poem may be taken as describing perfectly the costume of the warriors -of his day; and nothing could answer more completely his description -than the contents of this tomb. - -[Illustration: 35. Fragment of Drinking Cup from Benty Grange.] - -[Illustration: 36. Fragment of Helmet from Benty Grange.] - -In Kenslow Barrow, between Minning Low and Arbor Low, were found a few -implements of flint and bone; but on clearing out the grave in the -rock, which had been examined before in 1821, Mr. S. Bateman found some -portions of the skeleton undisturbed, and with them a small neat bronze -dagger, and a little above these an iron knife of the shape and size -usually deposited in Anglo-Saxon interments.[175] Of course the theory -of successive interments is called on to explain away these disturbing -facts; but there seems nothing here to justify any other inference than -that in this case all the deposits belonged to the same age. This, -therefore, may be added to the examples quoted from the 'Vestiges,' to -show how little the Danish system is really applicable to the class of -monuments of which we are treating. - -On Stanton Moor, four miles east from Kenslow, and about five miles -from Arbor Low and Minning Low respectively, there are many monuments, -both of earth and stone, which, though on a smaller scale, seem to -belong to the same age as those just described. They seem to have been -very much overlooked by the Batemans, but a very detailed account of -them is given by Mr. Rooke in the sixth volume of the 'Archæologia,' -in 1780. One of them, called the Nine Ladies, has been given already -(_ante_, p. 49); but westward of it stands or stood a stone, called the -King Stone, at a distance of 34 yards, thus suggesting a similarity to -the Salkeld circle. Half a mile west from this, nearer Arbor Low, is -another group of nine stones, the tallest 17 feet in height, and 75 -yards southward two stones of smaller dimensions; 200 yards from this -an oval ring, the major axis of which measures 243 feet, the minor 156 -feet. It has what Mr. Rooke calls a double ditch, a rampart outside the -ditch as well as one inside; it is, in fact, a less-developed example -of that form of which Arbor Low and Arthur's Round Table are finished -examples. On the east side of the Moor were three tall isolated stones, -which in Rooke's time the natives still called Cat Stones, showing -clearly that the tradition still remained of a battle fought there, but -when or by whom no tradition lingers on the spot to enlighten us. - -All these monuments and many more which it would be tedious and -uninteresting to particularize, are contained within a circle, which -may be described with a radius of about three miles, the centre being -half way between Henty Grange and Stanton Moor. It would perhaps be too -much to assert that they are all of one age; but there is certainly a -very strong family likeness among them, and they cannot differ much -either in age or purpose. It may also perhaps be conceded that they -are not the tombs or temples of the inhabitants of the moors on which -they stand. The country where they are situated is a bleak inhospitable -tract, only not quite so bad as Shap, but hardly more able to support -a large population, if left only to their own resources, than the -Wiltshire Downs. These three localities could never consequently have -been so much richer in this class of monuments than settlements in the -more fertile parts of the island. Strangers must have erected them, and -to determine who these strangers were, is the task to which antiquaries -have now to apply themselves. - -Whatever may be determined on the point, one thing, I think, must and -will be conceded, which is, that Arthur's Table at Penrith, Arbor Low, -and Avebury, are monuments of the same age, and were dedicated to the -same purposes. The first is a simple earthen monument, of a certain -design and with certain dimensions; the second has the same design and -dimensions, with the addition of a circle of stones and dolmen in the -centre; the third has all the features that the other two possess, with -the addition of increased dimensions, and the internal circles being -doubled. But the internal ditch, the rampart, and the character of the -circle and other features, are so like each other, and so unlike what -are found elsewhere, that they must stand or fall together. If any one -of these belonged to the age of Arthur, all three certainly did. If, on -the other hand, any one of the three can be proved to belong to another -age, the other two will hardly be able to maintain their position. The -circles at Cumrew, Salkeld, and Mayborough, present so many points -of similarity, that they, too, must probably be classed with these -three, though there is not the same evidence to justify their being -classed together. The stone avenue at Shap is also most probably the -counterpart of that at Kennet; but the destruction of the circle at -Brackenbyr, and the limited knowledge we have of it, prevent anything -very definite being predicated regarding it. - -If we may consider Gib Hill as the analogue of Silbury Hill, its place -and position may throw some light on the mystery attaching to the -latter. The relative distances of these satellites to their primaries -is nearly proportional to the diameter of the circles, and they both -present the peculiarity that they have no interment in their base. -The Archæological Institute in 1849 did exactly what the Batemans had -done before them. They tunnelled and explored the base of Gib Hill, -and gave it up in despair, when an accident revealed to them the grave -over their heads, within 18 inches of the surface. The antiquaries were -not so fortunate at Silbury; but judging from the analogy of Gib Hill, -and still more from that of Minning Low, the graves may be expected -to be found arranged around the plateau on the summit, probably six -or seven in number, and as probably within a few feet of the surface. -There was none in the centre of the platform at Minning Low, though -there was in the smaller tumulus of Gib Hill; and this may account for -the Duke of Northumberland's ill-success when he dug into the hill -in 1776. Poor Stukeley was very much laughed at for prizing a very -modern-looking iron bit, belonging to a bridle that was found on the -top of the hill[176] (woodcut No. 18); yet it may turn out to be the -only real fact he brought away from the place. Nothing but an iron -sword was found in the kistvaen, on the top of Minning Low, but it was -nearly perfect;[177] why should not the bridle be found, for we know -that horses were frequently buried with the warriors they had borne in -battle? - -Omitting Cornwall for the present, the circles at Stanton Drew form the -only other group of any importance in England for which it remains to -find a purpose and a name; and I confess I see no reason for separating -them from those just named. There are so many points of similarity, -that they can hardly be of an age far apart, and their purpose -certainly is the same. If there is anything in the arguments adduced -above, they must mark a battle-field. They are certainly not a family -or a princely sepulchre, still less a local cemetery, nor need it now -be added, certainly not a temple. - -[Illustration: 37. Circles at Stanton Drew. From a plan by Sir R. C. -Hoare.] - -[Illustration: 38. View of the Circles at Stanton Drew. From a sketch -by Percy Shelton, Esq.] - -Their arrangement will be understood from the annexed woodcut (No. -37). The group consists of one first-class circle or oval, 378 feet -(?) by 345 feet--100 metres; and two of the second class, one 96 feet, -the other 129; and a dolmen near the church, at a distance of 157 -yards from the last-named.[178] Attached to the two principal circles -are short straight avenues, pointing apparently to two stones very -near to one another--the one at a distance of 300 feet from the large -circle, the other at the distance of about 100 from the smaller one, -or at distances relative to their diameters. There is also a very -large stone, called the King Stone, by the roadside, but beyond the -limits of the plan. This, with the stones to which the avenues point, -are probably the analogues of the detached stone, known as Long Meg, -at Salkeld, or the Ring Stone, which stands 180 feet from one of the -circles at Avebury; perhaps also of the two which are assumed to be the -commencement of the Beckhampton avenue at that place, or of the Friar's -heel at Stonehenge, or of the King Stone at Stanton Moor. In fact, all -these circles seem to have detached stones standing at some little -distance from them outside. It is there that I would look for the -principal interments, rather than in the circles themselves; but this -is one of the questions that the spade, and the spade only, can decide. -There is, however, also attached to the smaller of the two circles -at Stanton Drew a heap of stones which is apparently the ruins of a -dolmen, and these may mark the real place of interment, as does the -tumulus attached to Arbor Low, which corresponds with them in position. - -The only recorded tradition with regard to this monument at Stanton -Drew represents Keyna, a holy virgin in the fifth century, the daughter -apparently of a Welsh prince, obtaining a grant of the land on which -the village of Keynsham now stands from the prince of the country. She -was warned, however, of the insecurity of the gift, in consequence of -the serpents of a deadly species that infested the place. She accepted -the gift notwithstanding, and by her prayers converted the serpents -into the stones we now see there,[179] so at least Stukeley and -Bathurst Dean assure us. - -Such a tradition is only valuable as indicating the date that is -popularly ascribed to the monument. In this instance the fifth century -is suggested, which may be 50 or even 100 years earlier than I would -be inclined to assign it to, but such data are of little consequence. -The date is also shadowed forth in the incident related; for not -only in Ireland, but in France, and frequently also in England, the -early struggles of the first Christian missionaries are represented -as victories over the snakes or snake worshippers. St. Hilda, for -instance, at Whitby signalized the establishment of Christianity in -the seventh century by converting the Yorkshire snakes into Ammonites, -which are still found there in quantities, which in the eyes of the -peasantry are much more like stone snakes than the stones into which -St. Keyna transformed her Somersetshire enemies. - -Whatever the value of these and such like traditions, one thing seems -quite certain, that every local tradition which has yet been quoted -represents these monuments as erected subsequently to Roman times, -and generally as belonging to that transitional age when Christianity -was struggling with Paganism for the mastery. The common people are -generally willing enough to amuse themselves with fables about giants -and demigods, and to wander back into prehistoric times; but with -regard to these monuments they do not seem to have done so. I do not -recollect a single tradition that ascribes any stone circle to the -pre-Roman period. - -If, however, I am correct in assuming that these great groups of -circles belong to the Arthurian age, we have no difficulty in assigning -to this one its proper place in the series of his battles. The ninth, -as we have seen above, was probably fought at Caerleon on the Usk; -which would seem to indicate that, at a certain point in his career, -Arthur was forced back quite out of England into South Wales; but -his return on that hypothesis is easily traced. The tenth battle was -on the shore of some large river, which ought in consequence to be -the Severn, though the name given in the text lends no countenance -to this supposition; the eleventh was "In monte quod dicitur Agned -in Somersetshire," which would answer perfectly, except in name; for -Stanton Drew, in that case, would be in the direct line of advance to -Badon Hill, where the twelfth and crowning victory was fought. - -The name here, as throughout, creates the difficulty, but Stanton on -the Stones, or Stone Town, is simply an epithet applied to all these -groups by the Saxons at some period subsequent to that of which we are -speaking, when the memory of their purpose was lost, or little cared -for by those of a different race, and speaking a different language, -who had succeeded to the Bryts, who had erected them. Unless we assume -that Stonehenge, Stanton Drew, the circles on Stanton Moor, and the -stones at Stennis, and others, were erected by the Saxons themselves, -they must originally have borne Celtic names, and it would be these -names that Nennius would quote, and which consequently could not be -those by which they are now known. - -The expression "in monte" is singularly confirmatory of this -determination, inasmuch as one of the remarkable features of the -locality is the fortified hill known as Maes[180] Knoll, which -literally looks into Stanton Drew, and is the most remarkable feature -seen from it, and a fight on its ridge is as probable an operation as -any likely to be undertaken in this quarter. - - * * * * * - -If the above were all the evidence that could be produced in support -of the hypothesis that all these great circles belonged to the -Arthurian age, it might be admitted to be sufficient to establish not a -conclusion but a fair _prima facie_ case. The reasonableness, however, -of what has been here advanced will, it is hoped, become more and more -apparent as we proceed. Absolute mathematical or logical proof it is to -be feared, in the present state of the evidence, is not available. Till -attention is fairly turned to a certain definite line of argument, the -experiments are not made, and the authorities are not read, which bear -upon it, or if made or read are not understood; but when the arguments -are examined with the earnest desire to prove or disprove them, new -light springs up from every quarter, and before long there may be -grounds for a positive answer. - -Meanwhile it may be well to point out, before going further, that this -class of circles is peculiar to England. They do not exist in France -or in Algeria. The Scandinavian circles are all very different, so too -are the Irish. The one circle out of England that at all resembles them -is that at Stennis, or rather Brogar, in the Orkneys, which will be -described in detail further on. There we have a great 100-metre circle, -with a ditch (but no rampart), a smaller 100-foot circle, with a ruined -dolmen in its stone circle, as at Stanton Drew, and we have the Maes -Knoll for the Maes How. The Stennis group has also the detached stones, -though it wants the rudimentary avenues, and some minor peculiarities, -and it may be more modern, but it is very similar; whereas those in -Cornwall and elsewhere are small and irregular, and totally wanting -in the dignity belonging to those which we have ventured to call -Arthurian. - -The arguments adduced in the preceding pages will probably be deemed -sufficient to make out a strong case to show that these great circles -were erected, at all events, after the departure of the Romans, and if -this is so, it confines the field for discussion within very narrow -limits. Either they must have been erected by the Romanized Britons -before they were so completely Christianized as to be entirely weaned -from their Pagan habits, or they were the works of the Saxons or -Danes. We shall be in a better position to judge how far it is likely -that the latter were the authors, when we have examined the rude -stone monuments of Scandinavia or Friesland, from which countries -the Northmen descended on our shores. When this is done, we shall -probably come to the conclusion that, as they erected Dolmens as -burying-places for their dead, and Menhirs or Bauta Stones and circles -in their battle-fields, there is no improbability of their having done -so also here. The question, however, is, did they erect these great -100-metre circles? These are unique, so far as I know; a class quite by -themselves, and so similar, whether found in Cumberland or Derbyshire, -or in Wilts or Somersetshire, that, with the probable exception of the -Orkney group, they must be the work of one people, and also nearly of -the same age. If, in fact, they do not mark the battle-fields to which -I have attempted to ascribe them, they must mark something nearly -approximating to them in date, and as nearly analogous in intention and -purpose. - - -SMALLER CIRCLES. - -[Illustration: 39. Rose Hill Tumulus. From the 'Archæologia,' vol. x.] - -It would be as tedious as unprofitable to attempt to enumerate all -the smaller circles existing in various parts of England; but there -are two or three which are curious in themselves, and interesting as -illustrating the large circles of which we have just been treating. -The first to be mentioned is one situated in Englewood Forest, near -Rose Hill, and therefore nearly equidistant from Cumrew, Salkeld, and -Carlisle. Locally, therefore, it belongs to the Cumberland group, -described above, and may do so in date also. It is a low platform, -it can hardly be called a tumulus, as it is only 12 feet high. It is -circular, and measures 63 feet across. On the platform stand, or at -least stood in 1787, three bilithons, or groups of two tall stones -standing side by side, like those in the inner circle at Stonehenge. -Mr. Rooke dug in front of one of these, with the intention of seeing -how deep it was in the ground, but to his astonishment he found a cist -formed of six perfectly well fitted hewn stones, but measuring little -more than 2 feet each way. In front of the other outside group he -found a similar cist, but a little larger, 2 feet 10 inches by 2 feet -2 inches, and further removed from the central pair of upright stones, -and nearer the centre of the circle, a third cist, formed equally of -hewn and well fitted stones. In all three of these were found human -bones, fragments of skulls, teeth, &c., but no implements or ornaments -of any sort, only under one head a metallic lump, with apparently -particles of gold in it.[181] This was sent to the Society of -Antiquaries for examination, but with what result is not stated.[182] -According to the plan, it would appear as if there were originally six -interments in the mound. In fact, that it was the counterpart of the -top of Minning Low, with the addition of the pairs of obelisks. Mr. -Rooke was, however, so much puzzled at finding Druids buried six feet -below the floor of their own temple, that he did not seek further. -But if the mound still exists, it would be very interesting to know -if any more cists exist in the mound, or any burial deeper down below -them, as in the Derbyshire example. It might contain coins, and if so, -would be interesting as another example of its date; but meanwhile its -truncated conoidal form and arrangement of graves, and of trilithons, -are sufficient to show that it was cotemporary with Minning Low and -Stonehenge, or at all events not far from their date. - -[Illustration: 40. Snaffle-Bit found at Aspatria.] - -In the same paper in which Mr. Rooke describes the Rose Hill tumulus -he gives an account of an excavation at a place called Aspatria, a -little farther westward, and near St. Bees. They cleared away a barrow -about 90 feet in diameter, and at 3 feet below the original surface -of the ground found a cist in which lay the skeleton of a man of -gigantic stature. As he lay extended, he measured 7 feet from the head -to the ankle. His feet were decayed and rotted off. At his side, near -the shoulder-blade, was an iron sword 4 feet in length, the handle -elegantly ornamented with inlaid silver flowers; a gold fibula or -buckle was also found, with portions of the shield and his battle-axe. -One of the most curious things found was the bit of a snaffle-bridle, -which is so modern-looking that it would not excite interest if seen -on a stall in Seven Dials. The main interest resides in its similarity -to that which Stukeley found at Silbury Hill (woodcut No. 18, p. -81). He cleaned and polished his one carefully. Mr. Rooke had his -engraved with all the rust upon it, so, at first sight, they are not so -similar as they are in reality. The fact of this one being found in an -undoubtedly ancient grave, takes away all _prima facie_ improbability -from the suggested age of the other. From its form, Stukeley's appears -to be the older of the two; but we have no chronometric scale for -bridle-bits. - -All these things make this grave look as if it were very modern; but on -the outside of the stones forming the cist were engraved a variety of -figures which are of interest as a means of comparison with the Irish -and Danish engravings we shall meet with hereafter. They are not very -artistically drawn, and are probably worse engraved; but it is easy to -recognize the cross in the circle. There are the concentric circles -with dots in the centre and straight lines proceeding from them and -other figures found on rocks and elsewhere, which antiquaries have -hitherto been inclined to ascribe to a primæval antiquity, but which -this tomb would bring down at least to the Viking age--of which more -hereafter. - -[Illustration: 41. Side Stone, Aspatria Cist.] - -[Illustration: 42. Mule Hill, View of Cists.] - -[Illustration: 43. Circle of Cists at Mule Hill, Isle of Man.] - -The circle of cists on Mule Hill, in the Isle of Man, are interesting -from another cause; for unfortunately they all have been laid bare -and rifled before any antiquary took cognisance of them, and we have -consequently nothing by which their date can be even guessed at. Their -interest lies in their arrangement, which is that of eight cists -arranged in a circle, with, it would seem, others at right angles at -certain intervals.[183] From simple inspection it is evident that -these cists must at one time have been covered with earth. They are -not dolmens, or anything that would do for self-standing monuments. -If covered with earth, they would form a circular mound 45 feet in -diameter internally, and 65 feet across to the foot of the outer -slope, and, as far as one example can go, would tend to prove that the -circular vallum at Avebury and many other places was a place for the -deposit of bodies. Except in the instance spoken of in describing the -circle at Marden, I am not aware of bodies having been found in England -under these ramparts; but they have not been sought for. Of one thing -we may feel certain, that nothing is unique in these matters, and that -what occurred once, occurred frequently, and will no doubt be found -when looked for. - -Another peculiarity of this circle is worth observing. There are two -gaps or openings in the circle opposite one another, as at Arbor -Low and Penrith. One must not rely too much on this, as the gaps -here may arise from the removal of cists; but the coincidence is at -least curious, and if we restored this monument in the sense just -indicated, and could rely on that restoration, the secret of the -vallum surrounding Avebury and other similar monuments would no longer -be a mystery. To my mind it has not been so for many years past; but -though I dare not yet ask others to follow at once, I trust sufficient -evidence has been accumulated in the preceding pages to render it -probable that they were only continuous tumuli. - -The circle or rather circles, on Burn Moor, near Wast Water, -Cumberland, are described by Mr. Williams as consisting of a 100-foot -circle, formed of forty-four stones, beyond which, at a distance of 25 -feet is an outer circle of fourteen large stones. A niche or square -enclosure on one side of the inner circle contains a cairn 25 feet in -diameter, and within the circle are four others, irregularly spaced, -and measuring 21 to 25 feet in diameter; each like the circle itself, -surrounded by fourteen stones. These, on being opened, were found to -contain a rude chamber formed of five stones, in which were found -remains of burnt bones, horns of stags, and other animals.[184] - -One point of interest in this monument is, that it explains the -existence of a similar square enclosure on one side of a well-known -100-foot circle near Keswick. There is no sign of a cairn there now; -it may have been removed, as those at Salkeld were, or it may be that -the body was interred without this external indication; but that it -lies, or lay, in this enclosure seems certain. The principal reason -for referring to it here is that it is undoubtedly sepulchral. We -shall find many examples equally so further on, but it is well, in the -meanwhile, to illustrate one which certainly was neither a temple nor -place of assembly, and which contains, besides, several peculiarities -to which we shall have occasion to advert hereafter. - -[Illustration: 44. Circles on Burn Moor, Cumberland.] - -It seems almost equally clear that the Boscawen circles, with which -we close our illustrations of English circles for the present, were -neither Temples nor Things. It is very difficult to see how any one -could fancy that anything so confused as the centre of these circles -is, could be a temple, still less a place of assembly. But Borlase, -though generally admitting the sepulchral nature of the circles, -maintains that this one was a temple, and describes the position -of the serving Druids and all the ceremonies down to the minutest -particulars. The circles are small, the largest being only 75 feet in -diameter, and the whole group only 200 feet across, neither are the -stones by any means of imposing dimensions. Another circumstance worthy -of being noticed, is that there are detached stones in front of the -principal circles. Interesting results might be obtained by excavating -at their bases, as, for reasons above stated, it seems as if the -principal interment might be found at their feet. - -[Illustration: 45. Boscawen Circles. From Borlase.] - - -DOLMENS. - -As stated above, England seems to be the native country of the great -circles, no 100-metre circles having yet been found anywhere out -of England, excepting, of course, that at Stennis. France, on the -contrary, seems to be the native country of the dolmens. They exist -there in numbers far beyond anything we can show, and of dimensions -exceeding anything we can boast of. In England proper, when we -have enumerated Kit's Cotty-house, the dolmen in Clatford Bottom, -Wayland Smith's Cave, that at Rollright, and one at Drewsteignton, in -Devonshire, our list is nearly exhausted. There may be heaps of stones -which seem dolmens, or something like them; and chambered tumuli, whose -internal kistvaens, if exposed, might be entitled to rank with dolmens; -but, taking the word in its broad sense, it is difficult to carry our -list beyond the half-dozen. - -In Cornwall the case is different. In the corner to the westward -of Falmouth there are at least twice as many as in all England. In -Wales, I think I could enumerate twice as many as in Cornwall; and -in Anglesea[185] there are certainly as many as in Cornwall, perhaps -more; and in the Isle of Man they are also numerous. It is difficult -to be precise, as the same monument is, sometimes at least, recorded -under two names; but it is not an exaggeration to say that from fifty -to sixty have been described, and most of them figured, as found in -the West country, and I should not be surprised if an industrious -statistician carried the number to 100, including, of course, many that -are now ruinous. - -There are two points of view from which this geographical distribution -of English dolmens may be regarded. The first and most obvious would -be to consider that they were erected by the Britons after they were -driven into the mountain fastnesses of the West, first by the Romans, -and more completely afterwards by the Saxons. The other view would -be that they are the work of a different race, who, we have every -reason to believe, occupied the western country in the time of the -Romans. Tacitus is particularly explicit on this point. He divides -the inhabitants of the country into three classes. The red-haired -Caledonians, resembling the Germans and inhabiting the north; the -Silures, of dark complexion and curling hair, and whom he describes -as living in that part of the country which is opposite Spain, and -he suggests that the ancient Iberians crossed over and occupied -these regions; and he then adds: "Those nearest to Gaul are similar -to the inhabitants of that country."[186] There is so much in the -present aspect of the people of this country to confirm this general -classification that there seems very little reason for doubting its -general correctness; and as all these dolmens are found in the country -of the Silures it may be argued that they belong to them. If he had -joined the Aquitanians to Iberians he would probably have expressed -more completely the whole facts of the case as we now know them. - -Admitting, however, this ethnographic view of the case to the fullest -possible extent--which I am prepared to do, it still leaves the -question of date wholly unsettled. It would be answered if we dared -to assume that the Silures were driven from the fertile parts of the -valley of the Severn, which we have reason to suppose they occupied -in Agricola's time, to the mountain fastnesses, and that it was then -only that they began to repeat in stone what previously they had only -erected in earth. If this could be established, we should get both an -ethnographical and a chronological determination of no small value; but -of this we shall be better able to form an opinion after discussing the -monuments of France. - -Meanwhile there is one point bearing upon the subject to which it may -be as well to draw attention. In Wales and Anglesea, which we may -assume to have been the country of the Silures or that to which they -were driven, there are no circles, but only dolmens. In Cornwall, where -the blood was certainly more mixed, there are both circles and dolmens, -and the same is the case at the other extremity of the western district -in the Isle of Man. - -If it is contended that, being nearer to Spain or Aquitaine than Wales, -Cornwall must have been earliest and most exclusively inhabited by -the dark race, the answer is, that though it may originally have been -so, the races in Cornwall had been mixed with Celtic and other blood -before the age of the stone monuments; while in the Isle of Man we -shall probably see reason for believing that northern blood was infused -into the veins of the people, at a very early age, when few, if any, -monuments of this class existed, and certainly before all had been -completed. - -[Illustration: 46. Park Cwn Tumulus. Scale 16 feet to 1 inch.] - -Even a cursory examination of these West Coast dolmens would, I think, -be sufficient to prove to any one that the theory that all were -originally covered with earthen mounds is utterly untenable. That such -chambered graves as those at Uley in Gloucestershire,[187] or Stoney -Littleton in Somersetshire,[188] were always intended to be so covered -up is clear enough. So was this one at Park Cwn, in the peninsula of -Gower, recently opened and described by Sir John Lubbock.[189] It -is of the same type as Uley and Stoney Littleton, but has only four -chambers arranged on each side of the central passage. One of its most -remarkable characteristics is the beautiful masonry of the retaining -walls on each side of the funnel-shaped passage leading to the cells. -These are so carefully built that it is evident that they were meant -to be seen, and the entrance to be kept open. Indeed, unless we fancy -it was the monument of some fight, which there seems no reason for -supposing, it is evident it must have been kept open till forty -deaths had occurred in the family of the chief to which it served -as sepulchre, as at least that number of bodies were found in the -chambers, but in a dreadfully confused condition, as if the grave had -been rifled before, but no implements or trace of metal were left to -indicate even approximately its age. - -At Uley, in Gloucestershire, half way between Berkeley and Tetbury, -there is a tumulus which, in its internal arrangement, is very similar -to that last described. The entrance is of the same form, and there are -four side-chambers; but those at Uley are grouped more artistically -in the centre, instead of being separated by a passage, as at Park -Cwn. Externally the differences are more apparent; the Gloucestershire -example being oblong, or rather heart-shaped, while that in Gower is -more circular in form. The Uley tumulus was first opened by a Mr. -Baker, in 1821, but subsequently examined with great care by Dr. -Thurnam; and a very careful account, resulting from his own observation -compared with the records of Mr. Baker's, published by him in the -'Archæological Journal.'[190] The bodies in the chambers, which were -numerous, had been disturbed and were lying in disorder, as at Park -Cwn; but among them was found a vessel resembling a Roman lachrymatory, -and some pottery which may have been either Romano-British or Mediæval. -There were also found some fragments of flint implements, apparently -arrow-heads, and outside two stone axes--one of flint. Near the summit -of the mound, exactly over the easternmost chamber, there had been -another interment, and beside the skeleton were found three brass coins -of the sons of Constantine the Great. - -On this evidence, Dr. Thurnam, with the approval probably of every -antiquary in England, comes to the conclusion that the original -erection of the chambered tumulus belongs to the long prehistoric past; -that the pottery, &c., were accidentally introduced; and that the coins -belong to a secondary post-Roman interment. The only evidence for this -being the presence of the flints above mentioned, and the assumptions -based on them; they having become articles of faith with antiquaries -which it is rank heresy to dispute. As I have already stated, till -some one can show at what period flint ceased to be used in any -particular locality, this evidence is worthless. With regard to the -secondary interments, it appears to be inconceivable that, after the -lapse of 500 or 600 years at least, and the civilizing influence of the -Roman occupation, any one should choose the top of one of the mounds -of the long-forgotten pagan savages for a burying-place. If burying -in barrows had been the fashion in Gloucestershire, as it was on the -wolds of Yorkshire or the downs of Wiltshire, something might be said -in favour of such an hypothesis if we could also assume that the races -had been undisturbed in the interval. But there are hardly half-a-dozen -tumuli in the whole county. They, like Uley, Rodmarton,[191] Stoney -Littleton,[192] are all chambered tumuli of one class and apparently of -one age. All too, it may be remarked, are close to Roman stations and -surrounded by evidences of Roman occupation. - -In the previous pages we have already met with several instances -of summit interments, as at Gib Hill, Minning Low, &c., which are -certainly not secondary, and we have reason to suspect that more will -be found when looked for; and the finding of Roman coins on or near -the top of tumuli is too frequent to be accidental, and occurs even in -Ireland, where the Romans never went. - -We shall have occasion to recur to this subject when speaking of the -tomb of King Harald Hildetand at Lethra, and then propose to treat -it more in detail; but meanwhile it seems clear that the evidence of -the coins and the pottery must be allowed to outweigh that of the -flints; and if this is so, not only Uley but all the chamber-tumuli in -Gloucestershire or Somerset belong either to the Romano-British, or -rather to the post-Roman period of British history. - -[Illustration: 47. Tumulus, Plas Newydd.] - -[Illustration: 48. Entrance to Dolmen, in Tumulus, Plas Newydd.] - -Another and even more interesting example of this class has recently -been brought to light by the Hon. W. O. Stanley, at Plas Newydd, not -far from the great dolmen represented on woodcut No. 50.[193] It is -a chamber or cist, 3 feet 3 inches wide by about 7 feet long, and -covered by two slabs. Before being disturbed, the supporting slabs -must have formed nearly perfect walls, thus distinguishing the cist -from those standing on widely-spaced legs. Its principal point of -interest, however, is the widely-splayed avenue of stones leading up to -it, showing that it was always intended to be visited; and still more -curious are the two holes that were pierced in the slab that closed -the entrance. The upper part of this slab is now broken off, but so -much remains that it is easy to see that they were originally circular -and about 10 inches in diameter. Such holed stones are very frequent in -Eastern dolmens, and are also common in Cornwall and elsewhere;[194] -but what their purpose may have been has not yet been explained. -Further on it may be attempted. At present it is the relation of this -form of chambered tumuli to external dolmens that principally interests -us. - -[Illustration: 49. Dolmen at Pentre Ifan. From 'Archæologia -Cambrensis.'] - -Almost all the so-called dolmens in the Channel Islands are of this -class. One has already been given (woodcut No. 11), and it may safely -be asserted that all chambers which were wainscoted with slabs, -so as to form nearly perfect walls, and all that had complicated -quasi-vaulted roofs were, or were intended to be, covered with -mounds--more especially those that had covered passages leading -to them. There is, however, a very wide distinction between these -sepulchral chambers and such a monument as this at Pentre Ifan, in -Pembrokeshire.[195] The top stone is so large that it is said five -persons on horseback have found shelter under it from a shower of -rain. Even allowing that the horses were only Welsh ponies, men do -not raise such masses and poise them on their points for the sake of -hiding them again. Besides that, the supports do not and could not -form a chamber. The earth would have fallen in on all sides, and the -connexion between the roof and the floor been cut off entirely, even -before the whole was completed. Or, to take another example, that at -Plas Newydd, on the shore of the Menai Strait. Here the cap stone is an -enormous block, squared by art, supported on four stone legs, but with -no pretence of forming a chamber. If the cap stone were merely intended -as a roofing stone, one a third or fourth of its weight would have been -equally serviceable and equally effective in an architectural point of -view, if buried. The mode of architectural expression which these Stone -men best understood was the power of mass. At Stonehenge, at Avebury, -and everywhere, as here, they sought to give dignity and expression by -using the largest blocks they could transport or raise--and they were -right; for, in spite of their rudeness, they impress us now; but had -they buried them in mounds, they neither would have impressed us nor -their contemporaries. - -[Illustration: 50. Dolmen at Plas Newydd. From 'Archæologia -Cambrensis.'] - -As before mentioned, however, the great argument against the theory of -their having been always covered up is the impossibility of accounting -for the disappearance of the tumuli. If they had been situated on -fertile plains where the land was valuable for agricultural purposes, -it might be assumed that a civilized people with highly cultivated -antiquarian tastes might have been at the trouble and expense of -removing the tumuli for the sake of the land, and of preserving the -dolmens for their historical value. But that the rude peasantry of -Cornwall and Wales should have done this is inconceivable, more -especially as by far the greater number of these monuments are situated -on bleak moorlands of no agricultural value whatever. Still more -inconceivable is it that they should have done it so neatly and so -carefully that no trace of the mound can now be found either around the -stones or in the neighbourhood. - -If any history were attached to these Western dolmens, or any remains -had been found under them which would enable us to fix their dates, -even approximately, or to arrange them in any intelligible sequence, -it might be worth while recapitulating their names or illustrating -their forms. Nothing of the sort, however, has yet been attempted; -and apparently no materials exist from which any such series could be -elaborated. - -[Illustration: 51. Arthur's Quoit, Gower. From a drawing by Sir Gardner -Wilkinson.] - -[Illustration: 52. Plan of Arthur's Quoit.] - -Only one dolmen in Wales, so far as I know, bears a name; but it is the -illustrious one of King Arthur. The dolmen bearing his name is situated -in the peninsula of Gower, on the northern slopes of the bleak Bryn -Cefn, about ten miles west from Swansea.[196] It forms the centre of a -very extensive group of monuments--eighty cairns, at least, are still -to be counted in an area less than half a mile in length, by a quarter -of a mile in width. These are mostly small, 12 to 15 feet in diameter; -one, 20 feet across, was opened by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, but proved -to contain no interment. The largest is 68 feet in diameter, but has -not been opened. About 350 feet from this is the dolmen. The cap stone -is 14 feet 6 inches in length, 7 feet 5 inches in height, and 6 feet 8 -inches in breadth even now, but a very large piece has been broken off, -and now lies beside it, measuring upwards of 3 feet in thickness; and -another piece seems to have been broken off on the other end, so that -when complete it must have weighed between 35 and 40 tons. It rested -originally on ten or eleven upright stones, two of which, however, -have fallen, and only four now touch the cap stone. Sir Gardner is of -opinion that it once was covered with a tumulus; but this appears -very doubtful. The slight mound, backed up with large stones, that now -surrounds it, with a diameter of 73 to 74 feet, seems an enclosure more -like that of Hob Hurst's House (woodcut No. 53) than the remains of a -tumulus, and till some further evidence is adduced, we must be allowed -to doubt whether any cap stone on legs was ever so treated. Sir Gardner -traced, doubtfully, an avenue, of which, however, only five stones now -remain, extending to about 500 feet in a direction that would have -passed the dolmen on the north, as that at Shap did the circle at its -front, or the lines at Merivale Bridge, the circle still found there; -Sir Gardner also points out some small circular enclosures, which, from -the analogy of those found on Dartmoor, he assumes to be hut-circles. - -[Illustration: 53. Hob Hurst's House, on Baslow Moor, Derbyshire. From -a drawing by Thomas Bateman.[197]] - -What, then, is this group of monuments? Sir Gardner assumes that it -is a cemetery of the ancient Britons; but, if so, why are not other -cemeteries found in the fertile valleys and plains in South Wales? -Why did they choose one of the barest and bleakest hillsides, and one -farthest removed from their habitations as a place in which to bury -their dead? Why did they not, like the inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, -disperse their graves pretty equally over an area of 30 miles by 10? -Why crowd them into less than half-a-mile? Without reverting to my -previous suggestion of a battle-field, I do not see how these questions -can be answered; and if so, I do not think we have far to go to look -for its name? As hinted above, Arthur's eighth battle must have been -fought in Wales. The name of the place is written Guin (Gwyn), Guinon, -Guinnon, Gunnion,[198] which certainly is Welsh; and when we find it -immediately preceding the battle of Caerleon on the Usk, and the -principal monument still bearing Arthur's name, we may fairly, I think, -adopt the suggestion till, at least, a better is offered. - -Be this as it may, I think all antiquaries will agree with Sir Gardner -Wilkinson in assuming that this is the stone of Cetti[199] mentioned -in the Welsh triads. 'The 84th Triad' speaks of the Cor of Emmrys in -Caer Caradawg (another name for Salisbury), and the 88th of the three -mighty achievements of the Isle of Britain, the raising of the stone -of Cetti, the building of the work of Emmrys, and the heaping of the -pile of Cyvragnon.[200] The work of Emmrys (Ambrosius) is generally -admitted to be Stonehenge. If this is the stone of Cetti, which I see -no reason for doubting, it only remains to identify the third. Most -antiquaries suggest Silbury Hill; and, if I am correct in placing these -three monuments so near one another in date, this seems also extremely -probable, and so far as it goes, is a satisfactory confirmation of what -has been advanced above from other sources. - -From my ignorance of the Welsh language I am not in a position to say -what amount of reliance should be placed in the evidence of these -triads. But Herbert and other competent scholars consider it undoubted -that Emmrys is Ambrosius, and the 'Work' referred to certainly -Stonehenge. If this is so, it fixes its date beyond question, and as -the other two are mentioned in the same breath it is probable they -were not distant in date. All this may be, I believe certainly is so, -but the circumstantial evidence adduced above seems to me so much -clearer and so much more to be relied upon, that it derives very little -additional force from the utterance of the Welsh bards. It is, however, -no doubt satisfactory that their evidence coincides with everything -that has been brought forward above, as bearing directly or indirectly -on their age or use. - - * * * * * - -Before proceeding, it may be as well to revert for one moment to Hob -Hurst's House. It is quoted here to show how a tumulus, with a dolmen -on the top of it, may be connected with a low rampart so as not to -conceal it, exactly, I believe, as is the case with Arthur's Quoit. -But the name of the place where it is situated may afford a hint which -may lead to something hereafter. It will be recollected that Arthur's -sixth battle was fought "super flumen quod vocatur Bassas." This mound -is situated on "Bas" Moor, the Low being merely the name of the mound -itself. These nominal similarities are too treacherous to be relied -upon; but the more the whole group is looked at the more does it appear -that there are coincidences of name, or form, or purpose, between -those monuments here called Arthurian, which cannot all be accidental. -Individually they may not be able to resist hostile criticism, but in -their cumulative form they appear to me to make up a very strong case -indeed. - -If any of the other dolmens in the West had even so good a title to -a date as Arthur's Quoit, it might be possible to arrange them in a -series; but as none have even traditional dates, all we can now do is -to suggest that the dolmen at Plas Newydd (woodcut No. 50) is of about -the same age as Arthur's Stone: perhaps something more modern, as it -is more carefully squared; but this may arise from the one being a -battle-stone, the other a peaceful sepulchre. In like manner it would -seem that such an exaggerated form as Pentre Ifan (woodcut No. 49) is -a "tour de force" of a still more modern date; and if we could get -one certainly older than any of these, a tentative scheme could be -constructed which might lead us to satisfactory results. - -I by no means despair of being able eventually to construct such a -scheme of classification, and, even before this Work is concluded, to -make it tolerably clear that the thing is possible, and then it will -only remain, if one or two fixed or probable dates can be ascertained, -to bring the whole within the range of historical investigation. - - - [Footnote 134: 'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxiii.] - - [Footnote 135: 'Iter Curiosum,' p. xxxii.] - - [Footnote 136: When I was there four years ago I was fortunate - enough to find an old man, a stonemason, who had been employed in - his youth in utilizing these stones. He went over the ground with - me, and pointed out the position of those he remembered.] - - [Footnote 137: It is extremely difficult to be precise about the - dimensions. One is almost wholly buried in the earth, and its - dimensions can only be obtained by probing; the other is half - buried.] - - [Footnote 138: 'Archæologia,' ii. 1773, p. 107.] - - [Footnote 139: 'Wanderings of an Antiquary;' London, 1854, p. 175 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 140: _loc. cit._ 175.] - - [Footnote 141: 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 299.] - - [Footnote 142: 'Beowulf: an Anglo-Saxon Poem,' translated by J. W. - Kemble, 1835, preface, p. xix.] - - [Footnote 143: 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 121.] - - [Footnote 144: This woodcut is copied literally from one by Mr. - Lewis published in the 'Norwich Volume of the International - Prehistoric Congress,' and the figures and facts I am about to - quote are mostly taken from the paper that accompanied it. The - inferences, however, are widely different.] - - [Footnote 145: 'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric - Congress,' p. 37.] - - [Footnote 146: Asser, in 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 476.] - - [Footnote 147: Stukeley, 'Avebury,' p. 12; Borlase, p. 210.] - - [Footnote 148: Camden, 'Britannia,' i. p. 285. See also Charleton's - 'Stonehenge restored to the Danes,' p. 36.] - - [Footnote 149: On this stone Sir Gardiner Wilkinson traced one of - those circles of concentric rings which are so common on stones in - the north of England. I did not see it myself, but assuming it to - be true--which I have no doubt it is--it will not help us much till - we know when and by whom these circles were engraved.] - - [Footnote 150: 'Brit.' p. 1021.] - - [Footnote 151: Pennant in his text calls the diameter 88 yards, but - the scale attached to his plan makes it 110 yards nearly.] - - [Footnote 152: 'Tour in Scotland, 1772,' pl. xxxvii. p. 276.] - - [Footnote 153: Near Lochmaben, in Annandale, a circle exists, or - existed, called Wood Castle, which, in so far as the plan and - dimensions are concerned, is identical with this. It is figured in - General Roy's 'Military Antiquities of the Romans,' pl. viii. I - would not hesitate in quoting it as a monument of this class, but - for the view which I distrust excessively, but which makes it look - like a fortification. As I have no means of verifying the facts, I - can only draw attention to them.] - - [Footnote 154: 'Iter Boreale,' p. 42.] - - [Footnote 155: 'Brit.,' Gough edit. iii. p. 401.] - - [Footnote 156: 'Archæological Journal,' xviii. p. 29.] - - [Footnote 157: _Ibid._, xviii. p. 37.] - - [Footnote 158: I am not aware that any account of these diggings - has been published. The facts I ascertained on the spot.] - - [Footnote 159: Here, again, I quote from the copy in the 'Mon. - Hist. Brit.' p. 47 _et seq._, to which it will not be necessary to - refer every time the name is mentioned.] - - [Footnote 160: Stuart Glennie, 'King Arthur.' 1867. L. W. Skene. - 'Ancient Books of Wales,' i. 52 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 161: 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 73.] - - [Footnote 162: General Roy's 'Mil. Ant. of the Romans,' pl. viii.] - - [Footnote 163: Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.] - - [Footnote 164: I have not seen this circle myself, though I made - a long journey on purpose. It is said to consist of eighty-eight - stones, and one larger than the rest, standing outside the circle, - at a distance of about five yards, or exactly as Long Meg stands - with reference to her daughters.] - - [Footnote 165: First described in the 'Archæologia,' vol. viii. p. - 131 _et seq._, by the Rev. S. Pegge, in 1783.] - - [Footnote 166: These dimensions, as well as the plan, are taken - from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's paper in the 'Journal of the - Archæological Association,' xvi. p. 116, and may consequently be - thoroughly depended upon.] - - [Footnote 167: Bateman, 'Vestiges,' p. 65.] - - [Footnote 168: These dimensions are taken from Sir Gardner - Wilkinson's plan. The Batemans, with all their merits, are - singularly careless in quoting dimensions.] - - [Footnote 169: _Ante_, p. 11.] - - [Footnote 170: Douglas, 'Nenia Brittanica,' p. 168, pl. xxxv.] - - [Footnote 171: If we knew its height we might guess its age. If - it was 65 feet high, its angle must be 30 degrees, and its age - probably the same as that of Silbury Hill. If 100 feet, and its - angle above 40 degrees, it must have been older.] - - [Footnote 172: 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 82.] - - [Footnote 173: 'Petrie's Life,' by Stokes, p. 234.] - - [Footnote 174: The complete disappearance of the body of this - undoubted Saxon chief ought to make us cautious in ascribing remote - antiquity to many comparatively fresh bodies we find elsewhere.] - - [Footnote 175: Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 21.] - - [Footnote 176: "In 1723 the workmen dug up the body of a great - king buried there in the centre, a very little below the surface. - The bones were extremely rotten, and, six weeks after, I came - luckily to rescue a great curiosity which they took out there--an - iron chain, as they called it. It was the bridle buried along - with the monarch. There were deer horns and an iron knife, with - a bone handle, too, all excessively rotten, taken up along with - it."--Stukeley's 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pp. 41-12. The bridle is - figured, pl. xxxvi.] - - [Footnote 177: Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 168.] - - [Footnote 178: Nothing can exceed the effrontery with which - Stukeley inserted curved avenues between these circles, so as to - make the whole into a serpent form. Nothing of the kind exists, - nor existed in 1826, when Mr. Croker made, for Sir R. C. Hoare, - the survey from which the woodcut is copied, with Sir Gardner - Wilkinson's corrections.] - - [Footnote 179: 'Archæologia,' xxv. p. 189.] - - [Footnote 180: What is the meaning of the word "Maes"? It is - singular that the Maes How, in Orkney, should bear the same - relative position to the Standing Stones of Stennis, in Orkney, - that Maes Knoll does to the group of circles. I do not know of the - name occurring anywhere else. According to the dictionaries, it - merely means "plain" or "field." In Irish "Magh" pronounced "Moy;" - but that can hardly be the meaning here.] - - [Footnote 181: 'Archæologia,' x. pl. xi. p. 106.] - - [Footnote 182: It probably may have been a piece of iron pyrites, - and may have been used for striking a light.] - - [Footnote 183: 'Archæologia Cambriensis,' third series, vol. xii. - p. 54. A fancy plan of the same circle appears in the same volume, - but is utterly untrustworthy. It is reproduced by Waring, 'Mon.' - &c. pl. xli.] - - [Footnote 184: 'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries,' iii. p. - 225.] - - [Footnote 185: The Hon. W. C. Stanley enumerates by name - twenty-four in Anglesea.--'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series, - vol. i. p. 58.] - - [Footnote 186: Tacitus, 'Vita Agricolæ,' chap. v.] - - [Footnote 187: 'Somerset Archæo. Soc. Proceedings,' viii. p. 51.] - - [Footnote 188: 'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 189: 'Journal of the Ethnological Society,' January, - 1871, p. 416.] - - [Footnote 190: Vol. xi. p. 315 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 191: 'Pro. Soc. Ant.,' second series, ii. 275. Thurnam, - 'Archæologia,' xlii. 217.] - - [Footnote 192: 'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43.] - - [Footnote 193: 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series vol. i. p. - 51 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 194: For Rodmarton, see 'Proceedings Soc. Ant.' _l. s. - c._; for Cornish, see paper by M. Brash, 'Gent. Mag.,' 1864.] - - [Footnote 195: 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' third series, xi. p. 284.] - - [Footnote 196: The following particulars are taken from a paper by - Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in the first volume, fourth series, of - the 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' 1870. It is not only the last, but - the best description which I know, and, being from the pen of so - accurate an observer, I have relied on it exclusively.] - - [Footnote 197: 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.] - - [Footnote 198: Dare one suggest Gower?] - - [Footnote 199: Is this the same word as "Cotty," as applied to - Kit's Cotty-house, in Kent? It looks very like it.--Coity?] - - [Footnote 200: Herbert, 'Cyclops Christianus,' p. 35.] - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -IRELAND. - - -MOYTURA. - -It is probable, after all, that it is from the Irish annals that the -greatest amount of light will be thrown on the history and uses of -the Megalithic monuments. Indeed, had not Lord Melbourne's Ministry -in 1839, in a fit of ill-timed parsimony, abolished the Historical -Commission attached to the Irish Ordnance Survey, we should not now -be groping in the dark. Had they even retained the services of Dr. -Petrie till the time of his death, he would have left very little to -be desired in this respect. But nothing of the sort was done. The -fiat went forth. All the documents and information collected during -fourteen years' labour by a most competent staff of explorers were cast -aside--all the members dismissed on the shortest possible notice, and -our knowledge of the ancient history and antiquities of Ireland thrown -back half a century, at least.[201] - -Meanwhile, however, a certain number of the best works of the Irish -annalists have been carefully translated and edited by John O'Donovan -and others, and are sufficient to enable any one not acquainted with -Irish to check the wild speculations of antiquaries of the Vallancy -and O'Brien class, and also to form an opinion on the value of the -annals themselves, though hardly yet sufficient to enable a stranger -to construct a reliable scheme of chronology or history out of the -heterogeneous materials presented to him. We must wait till some second -Petrie shall arise, who shall possess a sufficient knowledge of the -Irish language and literature, without losing his Saxon coolness of -judgment, before we can hope to possess a reliable and consecutive -account of ancient Ireland. - -When this is done, it will probably be found that the Irish possess a -more copious literature, illustrative of the eocene period of their -early history, than almost any other country of Europe. Ireland may -also boast that, never having been conquered by the Romans, she -retained her native forms, and the people their native customs and -fashions, uninterrupted and uninfluenced by Roman civilization, for a -longer time than the other countries of Europe which were subjected to -its sway. - -As most important and instructive parts of the Irish annals, it is -proposed first to treat of those passages descriptive of the two -battles of Moytura[202] (Magh Tuireadh), both of which occurred -within a period of a very few years. A description of the fields on -which they were fought will probably be sufficient to set at rest the -question as to the uses of cairns and circles; and if we can arrive at -an approximative date, it will go far to clear up the difficulties in -understanding the age of the most important Irish antiquities. - -The narrative which contains an account of the battle of Southern -Moytura, or Moytura Cong, is well known to Irish antiquaries. It -has not yet been published, but a translation from a MS. in Trinity -College, Dublin, was made by John O'Donovan for the Ordnance Survey, -and was obtained from their records above alluded to by Sir William -Wilde. He went over the battle-field repeatedly with the MS. in his -hand, and has published a detailed account of it, with sufficient -extracts to make the whole intelligible.[203] The story is briefly -this:--At a certain period of Irish history a colony of Firbolgs, or -Belgæ, as they are usually called by Irish antiquaries, settled in -Ireland, dispossessing the Fomorians, who are said to have come from -Africa. After possessing the country for thirty-seven years, they -were in their turn attacked by a colony of Tuatha de Dananns coming -from the north, said to be of the same race and speaking a tongue -mutually intelligible. On hearing of the arrival of these strangers, -the Firbolgs advanced from the plains of Meath as far as Cong, situated -between Lough Corrib and Lough Mask, where the first battle was fought, -and, after being fiercely contested for four days, was decided in -favour of the invaders.[204] - -The second battle was fought seven years afterwards, near Sligo, under -circumstances which will be detailed more fully below, and resulted -equally in favour of the Tuatha de Dananns, and they in consequence -obtained possession of the country, which, according to the Four -Masters, they held for 197 years.[205] - -[Illustration: 54. Circle on Battle-field of Southern Moytura. From Sir -W. Wilde.] - -[Illustration: 55. Cairn on Battle-field of Southern Moytura.] - -The field on which the four-days' battle of Southern Moytura was fought -extends from five to six miles north and south. Near the centre of the -space, and nearly opposite the village of Cong, is a group of five -stone circles, one of which, 54 feet in diameter, is represented in -the annexed woodcut (No. 54). Another, very similar, is close by; and -a third, larger but partially ruined, is within a few yards of the -first. The other two can only now be traced, and two more are said to -have existed close by, but have entirely disappeared. On other parts of -the battle-field there are six or seven large cairns of stone, all of -them more or less ruined, the stones having been used to build dykes, -with which every field is surrounded in this country; but none of them -have been scientifically explored. One is represented (woodcut No. 55). -Sir W. Wilde has identified all of these as connected with incidents -in the battle, and there seems no reason to doubt his conclusions. The -most interesting, however, is one connected with an incident in the -battle, which is worth relating, as illustrating the manner in which -the monuments corroborate the history. On the morning of the second day -of the battle, King Eochy retired to a well to refresh himself with -a bath, when three of his enemies looking down, recognised him and -demanded his surrender. While he was parleying with them, they were -attacked by his servant and killed; but the servant died immediately -afterwards of his wounds, and, as the story goes, was interred with -all honours in a cairn close by. In the narrative it is said that the -well where the king had so narrow an escape is the only open one in -the neighbourhood. It is so to the present day; for the peculiarity of -the country is, that the waters from Lough Mask do not flow into Lough -Corrib by channels on the surface, but entirely through chasms in the -rock underground, and it is only when a crack in the rock opens into -one of these that the water is accessible. The well in question is the -only one of these for some distance in which the water is approached -by steps partly cut in the rock, partly constructed. Close by is a -cairn (woodcut No. 56), called to this day the "Cairn of the One Man." -It was opened by Sir W. Wilde, and in its chamber was found one urn, -which is now deposited in the Museum of the Royal Academy at Dublin, -the excavation thus confirming the narrative in the most satisfactory -manner. - -[Illustration: 56. The Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura.] - -[Illustration: 57. Urn in the Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura.] - -"The battle took place on Midsummer day. The Firbolgs were defeated -with great slaughter, and their king, who left the battle-field -with a body-guard of 100 brave men in search of water to allay his -burning thirst, was followed by a party of 150 men, led by the three -sons of Nemedh, who pursued him all the way to the strand, called -Traigh Eothaile, near Ballysadare, in the county of Sligo. Here a -fierce combat ensued, and King Eochy (Eochaidh) fell, as well as the -leaders on the other side, the three sons of Nemedh."[206] A cairn is -still pointed out on a promontory jutting into the bay, about a mile -north-west of the village of Ballysadare, which is said to have been -erected over the remains of the king, and bones are also said to have -been found between high and low water on the strand beneath, supposed -to be those of the combatants who fell in the final struggle. It may -be otherwise, but there is a consistency between the narrative and the -monuments on the spot which can hardly be accidental, and which it will -be very difficult to explain except in the assumption that they refer -to the same events. - -In fact, it would be difficult to conceive anything more satisfactory -and confirmatory of the record than the monuments on the plain; and no -one, I fancy, could go over the field with Sir William's book in his -hand, without feeling the importance of his identifications. Of course -it may be suggested that the book was written by some one familiar with -the spot, to suit the localities. The probability, however, of this -having been done before the ninth century, and done so soberly and so -well, is very remote, and the guess that but one urn would be found -in the cairn of the "One Man," is a greater piece of luck than could -reasonably be expected. Even, however, if the book was written to suit -the localities, it will not invalidate the fact that a great battle was -fought on this spot, and that these cairns and these circles mark the -graves of those who fell in the fight. - -The collection of monuments on the battle-field of Northern Moytura is -even more interesting than that on Moytura Cong, and almost justified -the assertion of Petrie "that, excepting the monuments at Carnac, -in Brittany, it is, even in its present state of ruin, the largest -assemblage of the kind hitherto discovered in the world."[207] They -have also this advantage, that the principal group, consisting of some -sixty or seventy monuments, are situated on an elevated table-land, and -in an area extending not more than a mile in one direction, and about -half a mile in another. The country, too, is much less stony than about -Cong, so that the monuments stand out better and have a more imposing -look. Petrie examined and described sixty-four monuments as situated in -or around this space, and came to the conclusion that originally there -could not have been less than 200.[208] My impression is that there -may have been 100, but hardly more, though, of course, this is only a -guess, and the destruction of them is going on so rapidly that he may -be right after all. - -In the space above described almost every variety of Megalithic -art is to be found. There are stone cairns, with dolmens in their -interiors--dolmens standing alone, but which have been evidently always -exposed; dolmens with single circles; others with two or three circles -of stones around them; and circles without dolmens or anything else in -the centres. The only form we miss is the avenue. Nothing of the sort -can now, at least, be traced, nor does it seem that any of the circles -possessed such appendages. - -[Illustration: 58. Battle-field of Northern Moytura. - -Scale 6 inches to 1 mile.] - -The annexed woodcut (No. 58) will explain the disposition of the -principal group. It is taken from the Ordnance Survey, and is perfectly -correct as far as it goes, but being only on the 6-inch scale, is -too small to show the form of the monuments.[209] In the centre is, -or rather was, a great cairn, called Listoghil. It is marked by -Petrie as No. 51, but having for years been used as a quarry for the -neighbourhood, it is now so mined that it is difficult to make out -either its plan or dimensions. Petrie says it is 150 feet in diameter; -I made it 120. It was surrounded by a circle of great stones, within -which was the cairn, originally, probably, 40 or 50 feet high. All this -has been removed to such an extent as to expose the kistvaen or dolmen -in its centre. Its cap stone is 10 feet square and 2 feet thick, and is -of limestone, as are its supports. All the other monuments are composed -of granite boulders. "Those who first opened it assert that they found -nothing within but burnt wood and human bones. The half-calcined bones -of horses and other animals were and are still found in this cairn in -great quantities" (Petrie, p. 250). In a note it is said that a large -spear-head of stone (flint?) was also found in this cairn. - -[Illustration: 59. Sketch-plan of Circle 27, Northern Moytura.] - -The annexed woodcut (No. 59) will give an idea of the general -disposition of a circle numbered 27 by Petrie.[210] It is of about the -medium size, being 60 feet in diameter. The general dimensions of the -circles are 40, 60, 80, and one (No. 46) is 120 feet in diameter. The -outer circle of No. 27 is composed of large stones, averaging 6 feet in -height, and some 20 feet in circumference. Inside this is a circle of -smaller stones, nearly obliterated by the turf, and in the centre is a -three-chambered dolmen, of which fifteen stones still remain; but all -the cap stones, except that of the central inner chamber, are gone, and -that now stands on its edge in front of its support. - -The general appearance of this circle will be understood from the -annexed view (woodcut No. 60), taken from a photograph. It does not, -however, do justice to its appearance, as the camera was placed too low -and does not look into the circle, as the eye does. In the distance is -seen the hill, called Knock na Rea, surmounted by the so-called Cairn -of Queen Meave, of which more hereafter. - -[Illustration: 60. View of Circle 27, Northern Moytura. From a -photograph.] - -Another of these circles, No. 7, is thus described by Petrie:--"This -circle, with its cromlech, are perfect. Its diameter is 37 feet, and -the number of stones thirty-two. The cromlech is about 8 feet high, the -table-stone resting on six stones of great magnitude: it is 9 feet long -and 23 feet in circumference." Its general appearance will be seen in -the annexed view from a photograph (woodcut No. 61); though this, as in -the last instance, is far from doing justice to its appearance.[211] - -[Illustration: 61. Dolmen, with Circle, No. 7, Northern Moytura. From a -photograph.] - -No. 37 is described by Dr. Petrie (p. 248) as a triple circle. The -inner one 40 feet in diameter. The second of twelve large stones, -and of 80 feet, the third as a circle of 120 feet in diameter. "The -cromlech is of the smallest size, not more than 4 feet in height. The -circumference of the stone table is 16 feet, and it rests on five -supporters." - -Excavations were made into almost all these monuments either by Mr. -Walker, the proprietor of the ground, or by Dr. Petrie, and, with -scarcely one exception, they yielded evidence of sepulchral uses. -Either human bones were found or urns containing ashes. No iron, -apparently, was found in any. A bronze sword is said to have been -found, forty years ago, in 63; but generally there was nothing but -implements of bone or stone. At the time Petrie wrote (1837) these -were not valued, or classified, as they have since been; so we cannot -draw any inference from them as to the age of the monuments, and no -collection, that I am aware of, exists in which these "finds" are now -accessible. Indeed, I am afraid that Petrie and those who worked with -him were too little aware of the importance of these material points of -evidence, to be careful either to collect or to describe the contents -of these graves; and as all or nearly all have been opened, that source -of information may be cut off for ever. - -Besides these monuments on the battle-field, there are two others, -situated nearly equidistant from it, and which seem to belong to the -same group; one known as the Tomb of Misgan Meave, the celebrated -Queen of Connaught, who lived apparently contemporaneously with Cæsar -Augustus, or rather, as the annalists insist, with Jesus Christ;[212] -though, according to the more accurate Tighernach, her death occurred -in the 7th year of Vespasian, in A.D. 75.[213] It is situated -on the top of a high hill known as Knock na Rea (woodcut No. 60), -at a distance of two miles westward from the battle-field. It was -described by the Rt. Hon. William Burton, in 1779, as an enormous heap -of small stones, and is of an oval figure, 650 feet in circumference -at the base, 79 feet slope on one side and 67 feet on the other. The -area on the top is 100 feet in its longest diameter and 85 feet in -its shortest. When Petrie visited it in 1837, it was only 590 feet in -circumference, and the longest diameter on the top only 80 feet. It -had in the interval, in fact, been used as a quarry; and I have no -doubt but that the flat top originally measured the usual 100 feet, -and was circular. "Around its base," says Petrie, "are the remains -of many sepulchral monuments of lesser importance, consisting of -groups of large stones forming circular or oval enclosures. A careful -excavation within these tombs by Mr. Walker resulted in the discovery -not only of human interments, but also of several rude ornaments and -implements of stone of a similar character to those usually found in -sepulchres of this class in Ireland, and which, being unaccompanied by -any others of a metallic nature, identify this group of monuments as -of contemporaneous age with those of Carrowmore, among which no iron -remains are known to have been discovered, and mark them as belonging -to any period of semi-civilized society in Ireland."[214] - -From their situation, it seems hardly possible to doubt that these -smaller tombs are contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Great -Cairn; and if this really were the tomb of Queen Meave, it would throw -some light on our subject. The great cairn has not, however, been dug -into yet; and till that is done the ownership of the tomb cannot be -definitely fixed. There are several reasons, however, for doubting -the tradition. In the first place, we have the direct testimony of a -commentary written by Moelmuiri, that Meave (Meahbh) was buried at -Rathcroghan, which was the proper burying-place of her race; "her body -having been removed by her people from Fert Medhbha; for they deemed it -more honourable to have her interred at Cruachan."[215] As the Book of -the Cemeteries confirms this, there seems no good reason for doubting -the fact, though she may have first been laid in this neighbourhood, -which may have given rise to the tradition. - -If, on the other hand, we may trust Beowulf's description of a -warrior's grave, as it was understood in the 5th century, no tomb in -these islands would answer more perfectly to his ideal than the Cairn -on Knock na Rea:-- - - "Then wrought - The people of the Westerns - A mound over the sea. - It was high and broad, - By the sea-faring man - To be seen afar." - -That an Irish queen should be buried on a mountain-top overlooking the -Western Ocean seems most improbable, and is opposed to the evidence we -have; but that a Viking warrior should be so buried, overlooking the -sea and a battle-field, seems natural; but who he may have been is for -future investigators to discover. - -The other cairn is situated just two miles eastward from the -battle-field, on an eminence overlooking Loch Gill. It is less in -height than the so-called Queen's Tomb, but the top is nearly perfect, -and has a curious saucer-like depression, as nearly as can be measured, -100 feet in diameter. It has never been dug into, nor, so far as I -could learn, does any tradition attach to it. - - * * * * * - -The history of the Battle of Northern Moytura, as told in the Irish -Annals, is briefly as follows:[216]-- - -Nuada, who was king of the Tuatha de Dananns when the battle of -Southern Moytura was fought, lost his arm in the fight. This, however, -some skilled artificers whom he had with him skilfully replaced by one -made of silver; so that he was always afterwards known as Nuada of -the Silver Hand. Whether from this cause or some other not explained, -he resigned the chief sovereignty to Breas, who, though a Fomorian by -birth, held a chief command in the Tuatha de Danann army. Owing to -his penurious habits and domineering disposition, Breas soon rendered -himself very unpopular with the nobles of his Court; and, at a time -when the discontent was at its height, a certain poet and satirist, -Cairbré, the son of the poetess Etan, arrived at his Court. He was -treated by the king in so shabby a manner and with such disrespect, -that he left it in disgust; but, before doing so, he wrote and -published so stinging a satire against the king, as to set the blood -of the nobles boiling with indignation, and they insisted on his -resigning the power he had held for seven years. "To this call the -regent reluctantly acceded; and, having held a council with his mother, -they both determined to retire to the Court of his father Elatha, -at this time the great chief of Fomorian pirates, or Sea Kings, who -then swarmed through all the German Ocean and ruled over the Shetland -Islands and the Hebrides." - -Elatha agreed to provide his son with a fleet to conquer Ireland for -himself from the Tuatha de Danann, if he could; and for this purpose -collected all the men and ships lying from Scandinavia westwards for -the intended invasion, the chief command being entrusted to Balor of -the Evil Eye, conjointly with Breas. Having landed near Sligo, they -pitched their tents on the spot--Carrowmore--where the battle was -afterwards fought. - -Here they were attacked by Nuada of the Silver Hand, accompanied by the -great Daghda, who had taken a prominent part in the previous battle, -and other chiefs of note. The battle took place on the last day of -October, and is eloquently described. The Fomorians were defeated, and -their chief men killed. King Nuada was slain by Balor of the Evil Eye, -but Balor himself fell soon after by a stone flung at him by Lug his -grandson by his daughter Eithlenn. - -After an interval of forty years, according to the 'Annals of the Four -Masters,' the Daghda succeeded to the vacant throne, and reigned eighty -years.[217] - -From the above abstract--all the important passages of which are in the -exact words of the translation--it is evident that the author of the -tract considered the Fomorians and the Tuatha de Danann as the same -people, or at least as two tribes of the same race, the chiefs of which -were closely united to one another by intermarriage. He also identifies -them with the Scandinavian Vikings, who played so important a part in -Irish history down to the Battle of Clontarf, which happened in 1014. - -This may at first sight seem very improbable. We must not, however, -forget the celebrated lines of Claudian:[218] "Maduerunt Saxone fuso -Orcades: incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule: Scotorum cumulos flevit -glacialis Ierne." This, it may be said, was written three or even four -centuries after the events of which we are now speaking; but it was -also written five centuries before the Northmen are generally supposed -to have occupied the Orkneys or to have interfered in the affairs of -Ireland, and does point to an earlier state of affairs, though how much -anterior to the poet's time there is nothing to show. - -It has been frequently proposed to identify the Dananns with the Danes, -from the similarity of their names. Till I visited Sligo, I confess -I always looked on this as one of those random guesses from identity -of mere sound which are generally very deceptive in investigations of -this sort. The monuments, however, on the battle-field correspond so -nearly to those figured by Madsen in his 'Antiquités préhistoriques -du Danemark,'[219] and their disposition is so similar to that of the -Braavalla feld[220] and other battle-fields in Scandinavia, that it -will now require very strong evidence to the contrary to disprove an -obvious and intimate connection between them. - -In concluding his account of the battle, Mr. O'Curry adds: "Cormac Mac -Cullinan, in his celebrated Glossary, quotes this tract in illustration -of the word _Nes_; so that so early as the ninth century it was looked -upon by him as a very ancient historic composition of authority."[221] -If this is so, there seems no good reason for doubting his having -spoken of events and things perfectly within his competence, and so we -may consider the account above given as historical till at least some -good cause is shown to the contrary. - - * * * * * - -It now only remains to try and find out if any means exist by which the -dates of these two battles of Moytura can be fixed with anything like -certainty. If we turn to the 'Annals of the Four Masters,' which is the -favourite authority with Irish antiquaries, we get a startling answer -at once. The battle of Moytura Cong, according to them, took place in -the year of the world 3303, and the second battle twenty-seven years -afterwards.[222] The twenty is a gratuitous interpolation. This is -equivalent to 1896 and 1869 years before Christ. Alphabetical writing -was not, as we shall presently see, introduced into Ireland till after -the Christian Era, the idea therefore that the details of these two -battles should have been preserved orally during 2000 years, and all -the intermediate events forgotten, is simply ridiculous. The truth of -the matter seems to be that the 'Four Masters,' like truly patriotic -Irishmen in the middle of the seventeenth century, thought it necessary -for the honour of their country to carry back its history to the Flood -at least. As the country at the time of the Tuatha de Dananns was -divided into five kingdoms,[223] and at other times into twenty-five, -they had an abundance of names of chiefs at their disposal, and instead -of treating them as cotemporary, they wrote them out consecutively, -till they reached back to Ceasair--not Julius--but a granddaughter -of Noah, who came to Ireland forty days before the Flood, with fifty -girls and three men, who consequently escaped the fate of the rest of -mankind, and peopled the western isle. This is silly enough, but their -treatment of the hero of Moytura is almost as much so. Allowing that -he was thirty years of age when he took so prominent a part in the -second battle, in 3330, he must have been seventy-one when he ascended -the Irish throne, and, after a reign of seventy-nine years, have died -at the ripe old age of 150, from the effects of a poisoned wound he -had received 120 years previously. The 'Four Masters' say eighty -years earlier, but this is only another of their thousand and one -inaccuracies. - -When we turn from these to the far more authentic annals of Tighernach, -who died 1088 A.D., we are met at once by his often quoted -dictum to the effect that "omnia Monumenta Scotorum usque Cimboeth -incerta erant."[224] It would have been more satisfactory if he could -have added that after that time they could be depended upon, but -this seems by no means to have been the case. As, however, Cimboeth -is reported to have founded Armagh, in the year 289 B.C., -it gives us a limit beyond which we cannot certainly proceed without -danger and difficulty. We get on surer ground when we reach the reign -of Crimthann, who, according to Tighernach, died in the year of our -era 85, after a reign of 16 years.[225] The 'Four Masters,' it is true, -make him contemporary with Christ; but even Dr. O'Donovan is obliged -to confess that all these earlier reigns, after the Christian era, -are antedated to about the same extent.[226] Unfortunately for our -purpose, however, Tighernach's early annals are almost wholly devoted -to the chronicles of the kings of Emania or Armagh, and it is only -incidentally that he names the kings of Tara, which was the capital -both of the Firbolgs and Tuatha de Dananns, and he makes no allusion to -the battles of Moytura. Though our annalist, therefore, to a certain -extent deserts us here, there are incidental notices of the Daghda -and his friends in Irish manuscripts referring to other subjects, -which seem sufficient to settle the question. The best of these were -collected together for another purpose by Petrie, in his celebrated -work on the Round Towers, and, as they are easily accessible there, it -will not be necessary to quote them in extenso, but merely the passages -bearing directly on our subject.[227] - -The first extract is from a very celebrated work known as the 'Leabhar -na l'Uidhre,' written apparently before 1106, which is given by the -'Four Masters' as the date of the author's death. Speaking of Cormac, -the son of Art and grandson of Conn of a Hundred Battles:--"Before his -death, which happened in 267, he told his people not to bury him at -Brugh, on the Boyne, where the kings of Tara, his predecessors, were -buried, because he did not adore stones and trees, and did not worship -the same god as those interred at Brugh, for he had faith," adds the -monkish chronicler, "in the one true God according to the law." - -The tract then goes on to say that "the kings of the race of Heremon -were buried at Cruachan until the times of Crimthann, who was the first -king of them that was buried in Brugh." The others, including Queen -Meave, were buried at Cruachan, because they possessed Connaught. -"But they were interred at Brugh from the time of Crimthann to the -time of Leoghaire, the son of Niall (A.D. 428), except three -persons, namely Art the son of Conn, and Cormac the son of Art, and -Niall of the Nine Hostages." A little further on we have the following -paragraph:--"(101.) The nobles of the Tuatha de Danann were used -to bury at Brugh, _i.e._, the Dagdha with his three sons, and also -Lughaidh and Oe, and Ollam and Ogma, and Etan the poetess, and Corpre -the son of Etan, and Crimthann followed them because his wife was one -of the Tuatha Dea, and it was she that solicited him that he should -adopt Brugh as a burying-place for himself and his descendants." - -In the 'Book of Ballymote' (p. 102) it is said, "Of the monument of -Brugh here, viz., The Bed of daughter of Forann. The monument of the -Daghda. The mound of the Morrigan. The Barc of Crimthann in which he -was interred. The Carnail (stone cairn) of Conn of a Hundred Battles," -&c. In a second passage we recognise the following names rather -more in detail: "The Bed of the Dagdha first, the two paps of the -Morrigan, at the place where Cermud Milbhel, the son of the Dagdha -was born[228]--(the monuments of) Cirr and Cuirrell wives of the -Dagdha--there are two hillocks; the grave of Aedh Luirgnech, son of the -Dagdha." Again, in a prose commentary on a poem which Petrie quotes, we -have the following apparently by Moelmuori. "The chiefs of Ulster before -Conchobar (he is said to have died 33[229]) were buried at Talten.... -The nobles of the Tuatha de Dananns, with the exception of seven who -were interred at Talten, were buried in Brugh, _i.e._, Lugh and Oe, son -of Ollamh and Ogma, and Carpre the son of Etan, and Etan (the poetess -herself), and the Daghda and her three sons, and a great many others -`of the Tuatha de Danann, Firbolgs, and others." - -There is no doubt but that many similar passages to these might be -found in Irish MSS., if looked for by competent scholars, but these -extracts probably are sufficient to prove two things. First, that -the celebrated cemetery at Brugh, on the Boyne, six miles west from -Drogheda, was the burying-place of the kings of Tara from Crimthann -(A.D. 84) till the time of St. Patrick (A.D. 432), and that it was -also the burying-place of all those who were concerned--without being -killed--in the battles of Moytura. We are not, unfortunately, able to -identify the grave of each of these heroes, though it may be because -only one has been properly explored, that called New Grange, and that -had been rifled before the first modern explorers in the seventeenth -century found out the entrance. The Hill of Dowth has only partially -been opened. The great cairn of Knowth is untouched, so is the great -cairn known as the Tomb of the Dagdha. Excavations alone can prove -their absolute identity; but this at least is certain, we have on the -banks of the Boyne a group of monuments similar in external appearance -at least with those on the two Moytura battle-fields, and the date of -the greater number of those at Brugh is certainly subsequent to the -Christian era.[230] - -The second point is not capable of such direct proof, but seems equally -clear. It is that the kings of the race of Crimthann immediately -succeeded to the kings of the Tuatha de Danann, who fought at Moytura. -If, indeed, we could trust the assertion that Crimthann was the first -king that was buried at Brugh, we should be obliged to find a place for -the Daghda under some pseudonym afterwards, and it is possible that -may be the case,[231] but for the present it seems more reasonable to -assume that he preceded him at a very short interval. - -According to the 'Four Masters,' the Tuatha de Danann had been extinct -for nearly 2000 years when we find Crimthann marrying a princess of -that race, and one of sufficient influence to induce him to adopt what -appears literally to have been the family burying-place of the Dagdha -for that of himself and his race; and it seems impossible to believe -that when this took place it could have been old, or neglected, or -deserted. - -According to the 'Four Masters,' the Firbolgs reigned thirty-seven -years only, so that they do not in this case seem to err on the side of -exaggeration, and the Tuatha de Danann 196 years. From this, however, -we must deduct the twenty years they unnecessarily interpolated between -the two battles, and we must take something from the eighty years the -Dagdha reigned after he was ninety-one years of age. If we allow, then, -a century, it will place the battles of Moytura 20 to 30 B.C., -and the arrival of the Firbolgs about the middle of the first century -B.C. This, with a small limit of error either way is, I am -convinced, pretty nearly the true date of these events.[232] - -If we turn to the celebrated Hill of Tara, about ten miles off, where -those resided who were buried at Brugh-na-Boinne, we find a great deal -to confirm the views expressed above. When Petrie was attached to the -Ordnance Survey, he had a very careful plan made of the remains on that -hill, and compiled a most elaborate memoir regarding them, which was -published in the eighteenth volume of the 'Transactions of the Royal -Irish Academy.' It concludes with these words (p. 231): "From the -historical allusions deduced it will be seen that, with the exception -of the few last described,[233] they are all nearly contemporaneous -and belong to the third century of the Christian era. The era of the -original Tuatha de Danann Cathair belongs to the remote period of -uncertain tradition. The only other monuments of ascertained date are -those of Conor Mac Nessa and Cuchullim, both of whom flourished in the -first century. These facts are sufficient to prove that before the -time of Cormac Mac Art,[234] Tara had attained to no distinguished -celebrity." - -[Illustration: 62. Rath na Riogh, or, Cathair of Cormac, at Tara.] - -The only difficulty in this passage is the allusion to the Tuatha de -Danann. At the time Petrie wrote it he, like most Irish antiquaries, -had been unable to emancipate himself from the spell of the 'Four -Masters,' and, struck by the pains they had taken, and the general -correctness of their annals after the Christian era, had adopted their -pre-Christian chronology almost without question. The Cathair here -alluded to is only an undistinguishable part of the Rath of Cormac, -to which tradition attaches that name, but neither in plan, nor -materials, nor construction can be separated from it. That the Dananns -had a Cathair on this hill is more than probable if, as I suppose, -they immediately preceded the Crimthann dynasty, who certainly resided -here. It may also well be that they occupied this site, which is the -highest on the hill, and that their palace was afterwards enlarged by -Cormac. The plan of it is worth referring to (woodcut No. 62), from its -curious resemblance to that of Avebury; what was here done in earth was -afterwards done in stone in Wiltshire, and it seems as if, as is so -often the case, the house of the dead was copied from the dwelling of -the living. - -The Dagdha had apparently no residence here. From the context I would -infer that he resided in the great Rath, about 300 feet diameter, at -Dowth, where his son, apparently, was born, and near to which, as above -shown, he also was buried. If, however, he had no residence on the -Royal hill, his so-called spit was one of the most celebrated pieces of -furniture of the palace. It was a most elaborate piece of ironmongery, -and performed a variety of cooking operations in a very astonishing -manner, and shows, at all events, that the smith who made it had no -little skill in the working of iron, of which metal it was principally -composed.[235] - -The Rath of Leoghaire (429-458 A.D.) is interesting to us, -not only as the last erected here, but from the circumstances of its -builder being buried in its ramparts. It seems that, in spite of all -the preaching and persuasions of St. Patrick, who was his contemporary, -Leoghaire refused to be converted to the Christian religion; but like -a grand old Pagan, he ordered that he should be buried standing in his -armour in the rampart of his Rath, and facing the country of the foes -with whom he had contended during life. That this was done is as well -authenticated as any incident of the time, perhaps even better;[236] -and I cannot help fancying from the appearance of the Raths, that some -others of the kings were interred here also. Be that as it may, this -circumstance ought to prevent our feeling any surprise at the actual -discovery of the skeleton of a man under the rampart at Marden (_ante_ -p. 86), or if human bones were still found under the vallum at Avebury, -in spite of the negative evidence of the partial explorations of the -Wiltshire Archæological Society. - -There is still another point of view from which this question may be -regarded, so as to throw some light on the main issue of the age of -the monuments in question. If we can ascertain when the art of writing -was first practised in Ireland, we may obtain an approximate date -before which no detailed history of any events could be expected to -exist. Now all the best antiquaries of Ireland are agreed that no -alphabetic writing was used in Ireland before the reign of Cormac Mac -Art, A.D. 218-266. There seems to be evidence that, as above -mentioned, he was converted to Christianity by some Romish priest; and -though it is unlikely that he himself acquired the art of writing, he -seems to have caused certain tracts to be compiled. None of these, it -is true, now exist, but they are referred to and quoted from an ancient -Irish MS. in a manner that leaves little doubt that some books were -written in Ireland in the third century, but almost certainly there -were none before that time. It is true, however, that Eugene O'Curry -pleads hard for some kind of Ogham writing having existed in Ireland -before that time, and even before the Christian era.[237] But though -we may admit the former proposition, the evidence of the latter is of -the most unsatisfactory description. Even, however, if it could be -established it would prove very little. It would be as difficult to -write a connected history in Ogham as it would be in Exchequer tallies, -and so far as is known, it never was attempted. The utmost Ogham -ever did, or could do, was to record genealogies; and such detailed -histories as we possess of the Moytura battles are quite beyond its -powers. On the other hand, Mr. O'Curry's own account of Senchan's -difficulties in obtaining copies of the celebrated 'Táin Bó Chuailgne,' -or 'Cattle Spoil of Cooley,' after the year 598, shows how little the -art was then practised. No copy of this poem, which contains the life -and adventures of Queen Meave, in the first century, then existed in -Ireland. A mission was consequently sent to Italy to copy one said -to have existed there, and though the missionaries were miraculously -spared the journey,[238] the inference is the same, that no written -copy of their most celebrated work existed in Ireland in the year 600. - -Petrie is equally clear on the subject. In his history of Tara -he states that the Irish were unacquainted with letters till the -introduction of Christianity in the fifth century, with the doubtful -exception of the writings ascribed to Cormac Mac Art. He consequently -believes that the authentic history of Ireland commences only with -Tuathal, A.D. 130, 160, in which he is probably correct.[239] - -But here the question arises--Before the introduction of writing into -a country, how long could so detailed a narrative as that which we -possess of the Battles of Moytura, and one so capable of being verified -by material evidences on the spot, be handed down orally as a plain -prose narrative? Among so rude a people as the Irish avowedly then -were, would this period be one century or two, or how many? Every -one must decide for himself. I do not know an instance of any rude -people preserving orally any such detailed history for a couple of -centuries. With me the great difficulty is to understand how the memory -of the battles was so perfectly preserved, assuming them to have taken -place so long ago as the first century B.C. As it is not -pretended that the narratives were reduced to writing so early as the -time of Cormac, I should, from their internal evidence, be much more -inclined to assume that the battles must have taken place one or two -centuries after the birth of Christ. At all events, it seems absolutely -impossible that the date of these battles can be so remote as the Four -Masters place them, or even as some Irish antiquaries seem inclined to -admit. - -The truth of the matter appears to be that, in the Eocene period -of Irish history or in the one or two centuries that preceded the -introduction of writing, we have a whole group of names so inextricably -mixed together that it is impossible to separate them. We have the -Dagdha and his wives and their sons. We have Etan the poetess and her -ill-conditioned son. There is Queen Meave of the Cattle Raid, and her -husband Conchobhar McNessa. There is Cumbhail, the Fingal of Macpherson -and Cuchullin; and then such semi-historical persons as Tuathal the -Accepted, and Conn of a Hundred Battles. All these lived almost -together in one capital, and were buried in one cemetery, and form a -half-historic, half-mythic group, such as generally precedes written -history in most parts of the world. Many of their dates are known -with fairly approximate certainty, whilst that of others cannot be -fixed. There seems, however, enough to justify us in almost positively -affirming that the Battle of Moytura, which raised the Dagdha to -fame, happened within the fifty years that preceded or the fifty that -followed the birth of Christ. My own impression is in favour of the -former as the more probable date. - -To some this may appear an over-laboured disquisition to prove an -insignificant point. It is not, however, one-tenth part of what might -be advanced on the subject from translated and printed documents, and, -certainly, it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance with -reference to the subject matter of this work. If the two groups of -monuments at Cong and Carrowmore can be proved to be the monuments of -those who fell in the two battles of Southern and Northern Moytura, -we have made an immense step towards a knowledge of the use of these -monuments; and if it can be shown that they date from about the -Christian Era, we gain not only a standpoint for settling the age -of all other Irish antiquities, but a base for our reasoning with -reference to similar remains in other countries. - -No Irish antiquary, nor indeed of any other country, so far as I know, -has ventured to hint a doubt that they mark the battle-fields. Nor, in -the present state of the evidence, do I see any reason for questioning -the fact; and, for the present at least, we may assume it as granted. -The second proposition is more open to question. Irish antiquaries -generally will dissent from so serious a reduction in the antiquity of -these two great battles. But, after the most earnest attention I have -been able to give to all that has been written and said on the subject -and a careful comparison of the monuments on these fields with those -of other countries, I would, on the whole, be inclined to bring them -forward a century or two, if I could find a gap to throw them into, -rather than date them earlier. They look older and more tentative than -the English circles described in the last chapter, but not so much -so as to lead us to expect a difference of four or five centuries. -On the other hand, they are so like those on the Bravalla field, and -other monuments in Scandinavia, to be described hereafter, that it is -puzzling to think that seven or ten centuries elapsed between them. -But, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, -the conclusions above arrived at appear fair and reasonable, and in -conformity, not only to what was said in the last chapter, but to the -facts about to be adduced in the following pages. - - -CEMETERIES. - -Although Irish antiquaries have succeeded in identifying the localities -of a considerable number of the thousand and one battles which, as -might be expected, adorn at every page the annals of a Celtic race; -yet, as none of these are described as marked with circles or cairns, -like those found on the two battle-fields of Moytura, they are of -no use for our present purpose, and our further illustrations must -be drawn from the peaceful burying-places of the Irish, which are, -however, of singular interest. - -In the history of the Cemeteries, eight are enumerated;[240] but -of these only the first three can be identified with anything like -certainty at the present day. But as the antiquities of Ireland have -never yet been systematically explored, others may yet be found, and so -also may many more stone-marked battle-fields. Meanwhile our business -is with - - "The three cemeteries of the idolaters: - The Cemetery of Tailten the select, - The Cemetery of the ever fair Cruachan, - And the Cemetery of Brugh."[241] - -The two last are known with certainty. The first is most probably the -range of mounds at Lough Crew, recently explored by Mr. Conwell; but, -as some doubt this identification, we shall take it last, and speak -first of those regarding which there is more certainty. - -Cruachan, or Rathcrogan, is situated five miles west from -Carrick-on-Shannon, and consists, according to Petrie, of a circular -stone ditch,[242] now nearly obliterated, 300 feet in diameter. Within -this "are small circular mounds, which, when examined, are found to -cover rude sepulchral chambers, formed of stone, without cement of -any kind, and containing unburnt bones." The monument of Dathi (428 -A.D.), which is a small circular mound with a pillar-stone of -Red Sandstone, is situated outside the enclosure, at a short distance -to the east, and may be identified from the following notice of it -by the celebrated antiquary Duald Mac Firbis. "The body of Dathi was -brought to Cruachan, and was interred at Relig na Riogh, where most of -the kings of the race of Heremon were buried, and where to this date -the Red Stone pillar remains on a stone monument over his grave, near -Rath Cruachan, to this time (1666)."[243] - -Here, therefore, we have the familiar 300-foot circle, with the -external burial, as at Arbor Low, and external stone monument as -at Salkeld and elsewhere. The chief distinction between this and -our English battle-circles seems to be the number of cairns, each -containing a chamber, which crowd the circle at Rath Crogan, and it is -possible that if these were opened with great care, a succession might -be discovered among them; but at present we know little or nothing of -their contents. - -At present there are only two names that we can identify with -certainty as those of persons buried here. Queen Meave, who, as before -mentioned, was transferred from Fert Meave--or Meave's Grave, her first -burying-place, to this Rath, about the end of the first century, and -Dathi, at the beginning of the fifth. Whether any other persons were -interred here before the first-named queen seems doubtful. From the -context, it seems as if her being buried in her own Rath had led to its -being consecrated to funereal rites, and continuing to be so used till -Christianity induced men to seek burying-places elsewhere than in the -cemeteries of the idolaters. - - * * * * * - -By far the best known, as well as the most interesting, of Irish -cemeteries is that which extends for about two miles east and west on -the northern bank of the Boyne, about five miles from Drogheda. Within -this space there remain even now some seventeen sepulchral barrows, -three of which are pre-eminent.[244] They are now known by the names -of Knowth for the most westward one, Dowth for that to the east, and -about halfway between these two, that known as New Grange. In front of -the latter, but lower down nearer the river, is a smaller one, still -popularly known as that of the Dagdha, and others bear names with more -or less certainty; but no systematic exploration of the group has yet -been made, so that we are very much in the dark as to their succession, -or who the kings or nobles may be that lie buried within their masses. - -That at Knowth has never been carefully measured, nor, so far as I -know, even described in modern times. At a guess, it is a mound 200 -feet in diameter, and 50 to 60 feet in height, with a flat top not -less than 100 feet across. It is entirely composed of small loose -stones, which have been extensively utilized for road making and farm -buildings, so that the mound has now a very dilapidated appearance, -which makes it difficult to ascertain its original form; and so far as -is known, its interior has not been accessible in modern times. Petrie -identifies it (p. 103) with "the cave of Cnodhba, which was searched -by the Danes on an occasion (A.D. 862), when the three kings, -Amlaff, Imar, and Auisle, were plundering the territories of Flann, the -son of Conaing. If this is so, its entrance ought not to be difficult -to find, but the prospect of the explorers being rewarded by any -treasure or object of value is very small indeed. - -[Illustration: 63. View of Mound at New Grange. From a drawing by -Colonel Forbes Leslie.] - -Less than a mile from this one is the larger and more celebrated mound -of New Grange. It is almost certainly one of the three plundered by -the Danes 1009 years ago. No description of it has anywhere been -discovered, prior to the time when Mr. Llwyd, the keeper of the -Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, mentioned it in a letter dated Sligo, -1699.[245] He describes the entrance, the passage, and the side -chapels, and the three basins as existing then exactly as they do now, -and does not allude to the discovery of the entrance as being at all -of recent occurrence, though Sir Thomas Molyneux, in 1725, says it -was found apparently not long before he wrote, in accidently removing -some stones.[246] The first really detailed account, however, is that -of Governor Pownall, in the second volume of the 'Archæologia' (1770). -He employed a local surveyor of the name of Bouie to measure it for -him, but either he must have been a bungler, or the engraver has -misunderstood his drawings, for it is almost impossible to make out -the form and dimensions of the mound from the plates published. In the -100 years that have elapsed since his survey was made, the process of -destruction has been going on rapidly, and it would now require both -skill and patience to restore the monument to its previous dimensions. -Meanwhile the accompanying cuts, partly from Mr. Bouie's plates, -partly from personal observations, may be sufficient for purposes -of illustration, but they are far from pretending to be perfectly -accurate, or such as one would like to see of so important a monument. - -Its dimensions, so far as I can make out, are as follows: it has a -diameter of 310 to 315 feet for the whole mound, at its junction with -the natural hill, on which it stands. The height is about 70 feet, made -up of 14 feet for the slope of the hill to the floor of the central -chamber, and 56 feet above it. The angle of external slope appears to -be 35 degrees, or 5 degrees steeper than Silbury Hill, and consequently -if there is anything in that argument, it may, at least, be a century -or two older. The platform on the top is about 120 feet across, -the whole being formed of loose stones, with the smallest possible -admixture of earth and rubbish. - -[Illustration: 64. New Grange, near Drogheda.] - -Around its base was a circle of large stone monoliths (woodcut No. -63). They stand, according to Sir W. Wilde, 10 yards apart, on a -circumference of 400 paces, or 1000 feet. If this were so, they were -as nearly as may be 33 feet from centre to centre, and their number -consequently must originally have been thirty, or the same number as -at Stonehenge. From Bouie's plan I make the number thirty-two, but -this is hardly to be depended upon. From this disposition it will be -observed that if the tumulus were removed, or had never been erected, -we should have here exactly such a circle--333 feet in diameter--as we -find at Salkeld or at Stanton Drew, and it seems hardly doubtful but -that such an arrangement as this on the banks of the Boyne gave rise -to those circles which we find on the battle-fields of England two or -three centuries later. Llwyd, in his letter to Rowland, mentions one -smaller stone standing on the summit, but that had disappeared, as well -as twenty of the outer circle, when Mr. Bouie's survey was made. - -At a distance of about 75 feet from the outer edge of the mound, and -at a height of 14 or 15 feet above the level of the stone ring, is the -entrance to the crypt. The threshold stone is 10 feet long by about -18 inches thick, and is richly ornamented by double spirals of a most -elaborate and elegant character;[247] and at a short distance above it -is seen a fragment of a string-course, even more elaborately ornamented -with a pattern more like modern architecture than anything else on -these mounds. The passage into the central chamber is, for about 40 -feet, 6 feet high, by 3 feet in width, though both these dimensions -have been considerably diminished, the first by the accumulation of -earth on the floor, the second by the mass of the mound pressing in the -side walls of the passage, so that it is with difficulty that any one -can crawl through. Advancing inwards, the roof, which is formed of very -large slabs of stone, rapidly becomes higher; and at a distance of 70 -feet from the entrance, rises into a conical dome 20 feet in height, -formed of large masses of stone laid horizontally. The crypt extends -still 20 feet beyond the centre of the dome; and on the east and west -sides are two other recesses, that in the east being considerably -deeper than the one opposite to it. - -In each of these recesses stands a shallow stone basin of oval form 3 -feet by 3 feet 6 or 7 inches across, and 6 to 9 inches deep. They seem -to form an indispensable part of these Irish sepulchres, though what -their use was has not yet been ascertained. - -On one stone in the passage, and on most of those in the inner chamber, -are sculptured ornaments, mostly of the same spiral character as that -on the stone at the threshold, but hardly so elaborately or carefully -executed. One stone on the right hand angle of the inmost chamber -has fallen forward (see plan), so that by creeping behind it, it is -possible to see the reverse of some of the neighbouring stones, and it -is found that several of these are elaborately carved with the same -spiral ornaments as their fronts, though it is quite impossible that, -situated as they are, they could have been seen after the mound was -raised. To account for this, some have asserted that they belonged to -an older building before having been used in this; but it hardly seems -necessary to adopt so violent an hypothesis. It may have been that -the stones were carved before being used, and at a time when no plans -or drawings existed, may have been found unsuited in size or form for -the places for which they were first intended, and consequently either -turned round or used elsewhere. Or it may be that as the crypt must -have been built and tolerably complete before the mound was raised -over it, the king may have had it ornamented externally while in that -state. Labour was of little value in those days, and it is dangerous to -attempt to account for the caprices of kings in such a state of society -as must then have existed. The identity of the style and character -of the ornaments both on the hidden and the visible parts of these -stones excludes the idea that they were the work of different epochs. A -removal from an older building implies a desecration and neglect which -must have been the work of time; and, having regard to their identity, -it is improbable that a time considerable enough would have elapsed -to admit of a building being so desecrated and neglected as that its -stones should be carried away and used elsewhere. - -[Illustration: 65. Ornament at New Grange. From a rubbing.] - -[Illustration: 66. Ornament at New Grange. From a rubbing.] - -The position of the entrance so much within the outline of the Tumulus, -is a peculiarity at first sight much more difficult to account for. -As it now stands, it is situated at a distance of about 50 feet -horizontally within what we have every reason to believe was the -original outline of the mound. Not only is there no reason to believe -that the passage ever extended further, but the ornamented threshold, -and the carved string-course above, and other indications, seem to -point out that the tumulus had what may be called an architectural -façade at this depth. One mode of accounting for this would be to -assume that the original mound was only about 200 feet in diameter at -the floor level, and that the interior was then accessible, but that -after the death of the king who erected it, an envelope 50 feet thick -was added by his successors, forming the broad platform at the top, -and effectually closing and hiding the entrance to the sepulchre. If -this were so, we may easily fancy that many of his family, or of his -followers, were buried in this envelope, and formed the secondary but -nearly contemporary interments which are so frequently found in English -mounds. The experience of Minning Lowe (woodcut No. 33), Rose Hill -(woodcut No. 39), and other English tumuli, goes far to countenance -such an hypothesis; and there is much besides to be said in its -favour, but it is one of those questions which can only be answered -satisfactorily by a careful examination of the mound itself. Meanwhile, -however, I am rather inclined to adopt the hypothesis that the mound -had a funnel-shaped entrance like Park Cwn tumulus (woodcut No. 46), -and that at Plas Newydd (woodcut No. 47), and shown in dotted lines -in the woodcut No. 64. The reason for this will be more apparent when -we come to examine the Lough Crew tumuli, but the apparent ease with -which Amlaff and his brother Danes seem to have robbed these tombs in -the ninth century, seems to indicate that the entrances were not then -difficult to find. - -[Illustration: 67. Branch at New Grange. From a rubbing.] - -[Illustration: 68. Sculptured mark at New Grange, of undecided -character.] - -The ornaments which cover the walls of the chambers at New Grange are -very varied, both in their form and character. The most prevalent -design is that of spirals variously combined, and often of great -beauty. They seem always to have been drawn by the hand, never outlined -with an instrument, and never quite regular either in their form or -combination. The preceding woodcuts from rubbings give a fair idea -of their general appearance, though many are much more complex, and -some more carefully cut. The most extensive, and perhaps also the -most beautiful, is that on the external doorstep.[248] These spirals -are, however, seldom alone, but more frequently are found combined -with zigzag ornaments, as in (woodcut No. 66), and in lozenge-shaped -patterns; in fact, in every conceivable variety that seemed to suit -the fancy of the artist, or the shape of the stone he was employed -upon. In one instance a vegetable form certainly was intended. There -may be others, but this one most undoubtedly represents either a palm -branch or a fern; my impression is that it is the former, though how a -knowledge of the Eastern plant reached New Grange is by no means clear. -One other example of the sculptures is worth quoting, if not for its -beauty, at least for its interest (woodcut No. 68). It is drawn full -size in the second volume of the 'Archæologia,' p. 238, and Governor -Pownall, after a learned disquisition, concludes that the characters -are Phœnician but only numerals (p. 259). General Vallancey and -others have not been so modest; but one thing seems quite clear, that -it is not a character in any alphabet now known. Still it can hardly -be a mere ornament. It must be either a mason's mark, or a recognizable -symbol of some sort, something to mark the position of the stone on -which it is engraved, or its ownership by some person. Similar marks -are found in France, but seem there equally devoid of any recognizable -meaning. - -[Illustration: 69. Chambers in Mound at Dowth. From a MS. plan.] - -The third of these great tumuli on the Boyne is known as that of Dowth. -Dubhad if Petrie is right in identifying it with the third sepulchre -plundered by the Danes in 862. It was dug into by a Committee of the -Royal Irish Academy in 1847, but without any satisfactory results. A -great gash was made in its side to its centre, which has fearfully -disfigured its form,[249] but without any central chamber being -reached; but on the western side a small entrance was discovered -leading to a passage which extended 40 feet 6 inches (from A to D) -towards the interior. At the distance of 28 feet from the entrance it -formed a small domical chamber, with three branches, very like that at -New Grange, but on a smaller scale. In the centre of this apartment was -one large flat basin (L), similar in form, and, no doubt, in purpose, -to the three at New Grange, but far larger, being 5 feet by 3 feet. The -southern branch of the chamber extends to K in a curvilinear form for -about 28 feet, where it is stopped for the present by a large stone, -and another partially obstructs the passage at 8 feet in front of the -terminal stone. - -The Academy have not yet published any account of their diggings, nor -does any plan of the mound exist, so far as I know, anywhere. Even its -dimensions are unknown. Pending these being ascertained, it does look -as if this chamber was in an envelope similar to that just suggested -as having existed at New Grange. In that case the original tumulus was -probably 120 feet in diameter, and with its envelope 200 feet. - -The walls of the chambers of this tomb are even more richly and -elaborately ornamented than those of the chambers at New Grange, and -are in a more delicate style of workmanship. Altogether I should be -inclined to consider it as more modern than its more imposing rival. - -One other small tumulus of the cemetery is open. It is situated in -the grounds of Netterville House. It is, however, only a miniature -repetition of the central chambers of its larger compeers, but without -sculptures or any other marked peculiarity. - -The mound called the Tomb of the Dagdha and the ten or twelve others -which still exist in this cemetery, are all, so far as is known, -untouched, and still remain to reward the industry of the first -explorer. If the three large mounds are those plundered by the Danes, -which seems probable, this is sufficient to account for the absence of -the usual sepulchral treasures, but it by no means follows that the -others would be equally barren of results. On the contrary, there being -no tradition of their having been opened, and no trace of wounds in -their sides, we are led to expect that they may be intact, and that the -bones and armour of the great Dagdha may still be found in his honoured -grave. - -Nothing was found in the great mounds at New Grange and Dowth which -throws much additional light either on their age or the persons to -whom they should be appropriated. Two skeletons are said to have been -discovered at New Grange, but under what circumstances we are not told, -and we do not consequently know whether to consider them as original -or secondary interments. The finding of the coin of Valentinian is -mentioned by Llwyd in 1699, but he merely says that they were found -on the top, or rather, as might be inferred, near the top, when it -was uncovered by the removal of the stones for road-making and such -purposes. Had it been found in the cell, as at Minning Low, it would -have given us a date, beyond which we could not ascend, but when and -under what circumstances the coin of Theodosius was found, does not -appear, nor what has become of either. A more important find was made -by Lord Albert Cunyngham in 1842. Some workmen who were employed to dig -on the mound near the entrance discovered two splendid gold torques, -a brooch, and a gold ring, and with them a gold coin of Geta[250] -(205-212 A.D.). A similar gold ring was found about the same -time in the cell, and is in the possession of Mrs. Caldwell, the wife -of the proprietor. Although we might feel inclined to hesitate about -the value of the conclusions to be drawn from the first discovery of -coins, this additional evidence seems to be conclusive. Three Roman -coins found in different parts, at different times, and with the -torques and rings, are, it seems, quite sufficient to prove that it -cannot have been erected before 380, while the probable date for its -completion may be about 400 A.D. It may, however, have been -begun fifty or sixty years earlier. It is most likely that such a tomb -as this was commenced by the king whose remains it was destined to -contain; but the mound would not be heaped over the chamber till the -king himself, and probably his wives and sons, were laid there, and a -considerable period may consequently have elapsed between the inception -and the completion of such a monument. - -At Dowth there was the usual miscellaneous assortment of things. A -great quantity of globular stone-shot, probably sling-stones; and -in the chamber fragments of burned bones, many of which proved to -be human; glass and amber beads of unique shape, portions of jet -bracelets, a curious stone button, a fibula, bone bodkins, copper pins, -and iron knives and rings. Some years ago a gentleman residing in the -neighbourhood cleared out a portion of the passage, and found a few -iron antiquities, some bones of mammals, and a small stone urn, which -he presented to the Irish Academy.[251] In so far as negative evidence -is of value, it may be remarked that no flint implements and nothing -of bronze--unless the copper pins are so classed--was found in any of -these tumuli. - -[Illustration: 70. Ornament in Dowth. From a rubbing.] - -[Illustration: 71. Ornament in Dowth. From a rubbing.] - -The ornaments found inside the chambers at Dowth are similar in general -character to those at New Grange, but, on the whole, more delicate and -refined. Assuming the progressive nature of Irish art, which I see no -reason for doubting, they would indicate a more modern age, and this, -from other circumstances, seems more than probable. Though spirals are -frequent, the Dowth ornaments assume more of free-traced vegetable -forms. It is not so easy to identify the figures in the annexed woodcut -(No. 70), as in the palm-branch in New Grange (woodcut No. 67), but -there can be little doubt that the intention was to simulate vegetable -nature. At other times forms are introduced which a fanciful antiquary -might suppose were intended for serpents, or writing, or, at all -events, as having some occult meaning. The annexed from a rubbing is -curious, as something very similar occurs on a stone at Coilsfield, -in Ayrshire, and may really be intended to suggest an idea, but of -what nature we are not yet in a position to guess. It is not so like -an alphabetical character as those at New Grange (woodcut No. 68), -and till that is shown to have a meaning, it is hardly worth while -speculating with regard to this one. We shall be in a better position -to judge of the value or importance of these ornaments, in an artistic -or chronometric point of view, when we have examined those at Lough -Crew and elsewhere; but even irrespectively of such considerations, -no one can examine the monuments on the banks of the Boyne without -being struck with the elegance as well as the endless variety of the -ornaments which cover their walls. - -If, however, the material proofs are deficient, the written evidence is -clearer and more satisfactory than with regard to any group of tombs -in the three kingdoms. In the passage above quoted, it is said "that -they"--the kings of Ireland--"were interred at Brugh from the time -of Crimthann (A.D. 76) to the time of Leoghaire, the son of -Niall (A.D. 458), except three persons, namely, Art the son of -Conn, and Cormac the son of Art, and Niall of the nine hostages,"--the -father of Leoghaire. The reason given why Art and Cormac were not -buried here was that they had embraced Christianity. Art was buried at -a place called Treoit; Cormac on the right bank of the Boyne at a place -called Ros-na-righ, opposite Brugh; and Niall at Ochaim. But having -disposed of these three, we have still some twenty-seven kings to find -graves for, and only seventeen mounds can now be traced at Brugh; and, -besides these, we have to find the tombs of the Dagdha, and his three -sons, and Etan the poetess and her son Corpre, and Boinn, the wife of -Nechtan, "who took with her to the tomb her small hound Dabilla," and a -vast number of nobles of Tuatha de Danann and others. It is impossible -to find places for all these persons in the graves now visible, if -each was buried separately. It may be, however, that the great mounds -contained several sepulchres. The form and position of the chambers at -Dowth (woodcut No. 69) perhaps countenances such a supposition; but -many may have been buried under smaller cairns, long since removed to -make way for agricultural improvements, and many may yet be discovered -if the place be carefully and systematically explored, which does not -yet seem to have been done. Before, however, anything like certainty -could be arrived at as to the distribution of these graves, it would -be necessary that the great mounds should be thoroughly explored, and -this, from the nature of their material, will practically involve their -destruction, which would be very much to be regretted. Meanwhile, if -I may be allowed to offer a conjecture, I would say that New Grange -might be the "Cumot or Commensurate grave of Cairbre Lifeachair." He, -according to the Four Masters, reigned from 271 to 288--but probably -fifty or sixty years later--and seems to have been a king deserving of -a right royal sepulchre; and I feel great confidence that the unopened -tumulus near the river may be what tradition says it is--the grave of -the Great Dagdha, the hero of Moytura. With regard to the others, it -would not be safe to hazard any opinion in the present state of our -knowledge. For the present it is sufficient to feel sure that we have a -group of monuments all, or very nearly all of which were erected in the -first four centuries of the Christian era, and from this basis we may -reason with tolerable certainty regarding the other groups which we may -meet with in the course of this enquiry. - - -LOUGH CREW. - -At a distance of twenty-five miles nearly due west from Brugh na -Boinn, and two miles south-east from Oldcastle, is a range of hills, -called on the Ordnance map Slieve na Calliagh--the hags' or witches' -hill. It is upwards of 200 feet above the level of the sea, and the -most conspicuous elevation in that part of the country. On the ridge -of this range, which is about two miles in extent, are situated from -twenty-five to thirty cairns, some of considerable size, being 120 -to 180 feet in diameter; others are much smaller, and some so nearly -obliterated that their dimensions can hardly be now ascertained. Till -seven or eight years ago this cemetery was entirely unknown to Irish -antiquaries, and the positions of the cairns were hardly even indicated -in the Ordnance Survey; but in 1863 they attracted the attention of -Mr. Eugene Conwell, of Trim. In the years 1867-8 he was enabled, with -the assistance and co-operation of the late Mr. Naper, of Lough Crew, -the proprietor of the soil, to excavate and explore the whole of them. -A brief account of the results which he obtained was submitted to the -Royal Irish Academy in 1868, and afterwards printed by him for private -circulation in 1868; but the greater work, with plans and drawings, in -which he intends fully to illustrate the whole, is still in abeyance, -owing to want of encouragement. When completed it will be one of the -most valuable contributions to our archæological knowledge that we have -received of late years. Meanwhile the following meagre particulars are -derived from Mr Conwell's pamphlet and the information I picked up -during a personal visit which I made to the spot in his company in the -Autumn of last year. The illustrations are all from his drawings. - -[Illustration: 72. Cairn T, at Lough Crew.--From a plan by E. Conwell.] - -One of the most perfect of these tumuli is that distinguished by Mr. -Conwell as Cairn T (woodcut No. 72). It stands on the highest point of -the hill, and is consequently the most conspicuous. It is a truncated -cone, 116 feet in diameter at base, and with a sloping side, between 60 -and 70 feet in length. Around its base are thirty-seven stones, laid on -edge, and varying from 6 to 12 feet in length. They are not detached, -as at New Grange, but form a retaining wall to the mound. On the north, -and set about 4 feet back from the circle, is a large stone, 10 feet -long by 6 high, and 2 feet thick, weighing consequently above 10 tons. -The upper part is fashioned as a rude seat, from which it derives its -name of the Hag's Chair (woodcut No. 73), and there can be little doubt -but that it was intended as a seat or throne; but whether by the king -who erected the sepulchre, or for what purpose, it is difficult now to -say. - -[Illustration: 73. The Hag's Chair, Lough Crew.--From a drawing by E. -Conwell.] - -On the eastern side of the mound the stones forming the periphery of -the cairn curve inwards for eight or nine yards on each side of the -spot where the entrance to the chamber commences. It is of the usual -cruciform plan, and 28 feet long from the entrance to the flat stone -closing the innermost cell; the dome, consequently, is not nearly -under the centre of the tumulus, as at New Grange, and lends something -like probability to the notion that the cell at Dowth (woodcut No. -69), was really the principal sepulchre. Twenty-eight of the stones -in the chamber were ornamented with devices of various sorts. Two of -them are represented on the accompanying woodcut (No. 74), which, with -the drawings on the Hag's Chair give a fair idea of their general -character. They are certainly ruder and less artistic than those on -the Boyne, and so far would indicate an earlier age. Nothing was found -in the chambers of this tomb but a quantity of charred human bones, -perfect human teeth, mixed with the bones of animals, apparently stags, -and one bronze pin, 2½ inches long, with a head ornamented and stem -slightly so, and still preserving a beautiful green polish. - -[Illustration: 74. Two Stones in Cairn T, Lough Crew.--E. Conwell.] - -Cairn L (woodcut No. 75), a little further west, is 135 feet in -diameter, and surrounded by forty-two stones, similar to those in -Cairn T. The same curve inwards of these stones marks the entrance -here, which is placed 18 feet from the outward line of the circle. The -chamber here is nearly of the same dimensions as that last described, -being 29 feet deep and 13 across its greatest width. In one of the side -chambers lies the largest of the mysterious flat basins that have yet -been discovered, 5 feet 9 inches long by 3 feet 1 inch broad, the whole -being tooled and picked with as much care and skill as if executed -by a modern mason. This one has a curious nick in its rim, but as it -does not go through, it could hardly be intended as a spout. Till some -unrifled tomb is found, or something analogous in other countries, it -is extremely difficult to say what the exact use of these great stone -saucers may have been. That the body or ashes were laid on them is more -than probable, and they may then have been covered over with a lid like -a dish-cover, such as are found on tombs in Southern Babylonia.[252] -Under this basin were found great quantities of charred human bones -and forty-eight human teeth, besides a perfectly rounded syenite -ball, still preserving its original polish, also some jet and other -ornaments. In other parts were found quantities of charred bones, some -rude pottery and bone implements, but no objects in metal. The woodcut -representing the cell, with large basin, gives a fair idea of the -general style of sculpture in this and the neighbouring cairns. The -parts cross-hatched seem to have been engraved with a sharp metal tool. -The ordinary forms, however, both here and on the Boyne are picked; -but whether they were executed with a hammer, or pick direct, or by a -chisel driven by a hammer, is by no means clear. My own impression is, -that it would be very difficult indeed to execute these patterns with a -hammer of any sort, and that a chisel must have been used, but whether -of flint, bronze, or iron, there is no evidence to show. - -[Illustration: 75. Cell in Cairn L, at Lough Crew.--E. Conwell.] - -Cairn H, though only between 5 and 6 feet in height and 54 feet in -diameter, seems to have been the only one on the hill not previously -rifled, and yielded a most astonishing collection of objects to its -explorer. The cell was of the usual cruciform plan, 24 feet from the -entrance to the rear, and 16 feet across the lateral chambers. In -the passage and crypts of this cairn Mr. Conwell collected some 300 -fragments of human bones, which must have belonged to a considerable -number of separate individuals; 14 fragments of rude pottery, 10 pieces -of flint, 155 sea-shells in a perfect condition, besides pebbles and -small polished stones, in quantities. - -The most remarkable part of the collection consisted of 4884 fragments, -more or less perfect, of bone implements. These are now in the -Dublin Museum, and look like the remains of a paper-knife-maker's -stock-in-trade. Most of them are of a knife shape, and almost all more -or less polished, but without further ornamentation; but 27 fragments -appear to have been stained, 11 perforated, 501 engraved with rows of -fine lines; 13 combs were engraved on both sides, and 91 engraved by -compass with circles and curves of a high order of art. On one, in -cross-hatch lines, is the representation of an antlered stag, the only -attempt to depict a living thing in the collection. - -Besides these, there were found in this cairn seven beads of amber, -three small beads of glass of different colours, two fragments, and -a curious molten drop of glass, 1 inch long, trumpet-shaped at one -end, and tapering towards the other extremity; six perfect and eight -fragments of bronze rings, and seven specimens of iron implements, but -all, as might be expected, very much corroded by rust. One of these -presents all the appearance of being the leg of a compass, with which -the bone implements may have been engraved, and one was an iron punch, -5 inches long, with a chisel-shaped point, bearing evidence of the use -of the mallet at the opposite end. - -Cairn D is the largest and most important monument of the group, being -180 feet in diameter, and though it is very much dilapidated, the -circle of fifty-four stones which originally surrounded it can still -be traced. On its eastern side the stones curve inwards for about -twelve paces, in the form universal in these cairns; but though the -explorers set to work industriously to follow out what they considered -a sure "find," they could not penetrate the mound. The stones fell -in upon them so fast, and the risk they ran was so great, that they -were forced to abandon the idea of tunnelling, and though a large body -of men worked assiduously for a fortnight trying to work down from -above, they failed to penetrate to the central or any other chambers. -It still, therefore, remains a mystery if there is a blind tope, like -many in India, or whether its secret still remains to reward some -more fortunate set of explorers. If it has no central chamber, the -curving inwards of its outer circle of stones is a curious instance of -adherence to a sacred form. - -The other monuments on the hill do not present any features worth -enumerating in a general summary like the present, though they would -be most interesting in a monograph. Though differing greatly in size -and in richness of ornamentation, they all belong to one class, -and apparently to one age. For our present purpose one of the most -interesting peculiarities is that, like the group on the banks of -the Boyne, this is essentially a cemetery. There are no circles, no -alignments, no dolmens, no rude stone monuments, in fact. All are -carefully built, and all more or less ornamented; and there is a -gradation and progression throughout the whole series widely different -in this respect from the simplicity and rudeness of the English -monuments described in the last chapter. - - * * * * * - -It now only remains to try to ascertain who those were who were buried -in these tumuli, and when they were laid there to their rest. So far as -the evidence at present stands it hardly seems to me to admit of doubt -but that this is the cemetery of Talten, so celebrated in Irish legend -and poetry:-- - - "The host of Great Meath are buried - In the middle of the Lordly Brugh; - The Great Ultonians used to bury - At Talten with pomp. - - "The true Ultonians, before Conchobar, - Were ever buried at Talten, - Until the death of that triumphant man, - Through which they lost their glory."[253] - -The distance of the spot from Telltown, the modern representative of -Talten, is twelve miles, which to some might appear an objection, but -it must be remembered that Brugh is ten miles from Tara, where all -the kings resided, who were buried there; and as Dathi and others of -them were buried at Rath Croghan, sixty-five miles off, distance seems -hardly to be an objection. Indeed, among a people who, as evidenced -by their monuments, paid so much attention to funeral rites and -ceremonious honours to their dead, as the Pagan Irish evidently did, -it must have mattered little whether the last resting-place of one of -their kings was a few miles nearer or further from his residence. - -It must not, however, be forgotten, that the proper residence of the -Ultonians, who are said to have been buried at Talten, was Emania or -Armagh, forty-five miles distant as the crow flies. Why they should -choose to be buried in Meath, so near the rival capital of Tara, if -that famed city then existed, is a mystery which it is not easy to -solve; but that it was so, there seems no doubt, if the traditions -or Books of the Irish are at all to be depended upon. If their real -residence was so distant, it seems of trifling consequence whether it -was ten or twelve miles from the place we now know as Telltown. There -must have been some very strong reason for inducing the Ultonians to -bury so far from their homes; but as that reason has not been recorded, -it is idle to attempt to guess what form it took. What would appear -a most reasonable suggestion to a civilized Saxon in the nineteenth -century would in all probability be the direct antithesis of the motive -that would guide an uncivilized Celt in the first century before -Christ, and we may therefore as well give up the attempt. Some other -reason than that of mere proximity to the place of residence governed -the Irish in the choice of the situation of their cemeteries; what that -was we may hereafter be able to find out,--at present, so far as I -know, the materials do not exist for forming an opinion. If, however, -this is not Talten, no graves have been found nearer Telltown, which -would at all answer to the descriptions that remains to us of this -celebrated cemetery; and, till they are found, these Lough Crew mounds -seem certainly entitled to the distinction. I cannot see that the -matter is doubtful. - -If this is so, there is little difficulty in determining who were -buried here. Besides the testimony of the poem just quoted, it is -stated in the Book of the 'Cemeteries'--"At Tailten the kings of Ulster -were used to bury vig^t. Ollamh Fodhla with his descendants down to -Conchobhar, who wished to be carried to a place between Slea and the -sea, with his face to the east, on account of the faith which he had -embraced." This conversion of Conchobhar is one of the most famous -legends in Irish ancient history. He was wounded in the head by a ball -that remained there, and was ordered by his physician to remain quiet -and avoid all excitement as his only chance of surviving. For seven -years he followed this advice; but when he saw the eclipse of the sun, -and felt the great convulsion that came over nature, the day that -Christ was crucified, he turned to his Druid and asked, "What is this?" -To which Bacrach, the Druid, replied: "It is true, indeed, Christ, the -Son of God, is this day crucified by the Jews." "At the recital of -this enormity, Conchobhar felt so indignant that he went nearly mad: -his excitement was so great that the ball burst from his head, and he -died on the very Friday on which the crucifixion took place."[254] All -this may be silly enough, as the electric telegraph was not then in -use, but it is worth quoting here, as it seems that it was to establish -this synchronism that the chronology of the period was falsified to -the extent of half a century at least. Conchobhar and Crimthann were -the two kings of the two great dynasties then reigning in Ireland -whom the annalists strive to synchronize with Christ, and though they -fail in that, they establish beyond much doubt that those kings were -contemporaries. If to this we add the fact so often repeated by the -authorities quoted above, that Conchobhar was the last of his race -buried at Talten, and that Crimthann was the first of his line buried -at Brugh, we obtain a tolerably clear idea of the history of these -cemeteries. Brugh, in fact, succeeded to Talten on the decline of the -Ultonian dynasty and the rise of Tuatha de Danann after the victories -at Moytura had established their supremacy and they had settled -themselves at Tara. - -The character of the sculptures in the two groups of monuments fully -bears out this view. The carvings at Lough Crew are ruder and less -artistic than those at Brugh. They are more disconnected, and oftener -mere cup markings. The three stones represented in the preceding and -following woodcuts (Nos. 75 and 76), are selected from a great many -in the Conwell portfolios as fair average specimens of the style -of sculpture common at Lough Crew, and with the woodcut No. 73, -representing the Hag's Chair, and No. 75, the chamber in cairn L, -will convey a fair notion of the whole. In no one instance does it -seem possible to guess what these figures were meant to represent. -No animal or vegetable form can be recognized, even after allowing -the utmost latitude to the imagination; nor do the circles or waving -lines seem intended to convey any pictorial ideas. Beauty of form, as -a decoration, seems to have been all the old Celt aimed at, and he may -have been thought successful at the time, though it hardly conveys the -same impression to modern minds. The graceful scrolls and spirals and -the foliage of New Grange and Dowth do not occur there, nor anything -in the least approaching to them. Indeed, when Mr. Conwell's book is -published, in which they will all be drawn in more or less detail, I -believe it will be easy to arrange the whole into a progressive series -illustrative of the artistic history of Ireland for five centuries -before the advent of St. Patrick. - -[Illustration: 76. Stone in Cairn T. Lough Crew.--E. Conwell.] - -It would be an extremely dangerous line of argument to apply this law -of progressive development to all countries. In India, especially, it -is very frequently reversed. The rudest art is often much more modern -than the most refined, but in Ireland this apparently never was the -case. From the earliest scratchings on pillar stones, down to the -English conquest, her art seems to have been unfalteringly progressive; -and, beginning with these two cemeteries, which are probably the oldest -incunabula of her art, its history might be written without a gap, or -halt, till it bloomed in those exquisite manuscripts and crosses and -works of gold and metal which still excite such unqualified admiration. - - * * * * * - -[Illustration: 77. Stones in Sculptured Graves, Clover Hill. From a -sketch by the Author.] - -There may be, and no doubt are, many other sculptured graves -in Ireland, but they have not yet been explored, or, at least, -published. One, however, deserves notice; not, certainly, on account -of its magnificence, but for several points of interest which its -peculiarities bring out. It is situated in a field near Clover Hill, -not far from Carrowmore, the battle-field of northern Moytura.[255] -It measures only 7 feet by 5, and is 4½ feet deep. Its cap-stone -was originally flush with the earth, and no cairn or circle of stones -marks it externally, nor is there any tradition of any such ever -having existed. The carvings on the stones forming the chamber are -shallow, and now very indistinct, from being overgrown with lichens -and moss, but their general character will be understood from the -annexed woodcut. Its character is something between the sculptures -of Talten and Brugh, which would agree very well with its date if we -suppose it connected with the battle-field. This, however, is very -doubtful, for there are few things that come out more prominently in -the investigation than the fact that all those monuments which are -directly or indirectly connected with battle-fields are literally rude -and untouched by the chisel, but that all, or nearly all those which -are in cemeteries, or have been erected leisurely by, or for, those who -occupy them, are more or less ornamented. It may, however, be that some -one connected with the battle wished to be buried near his companions -who fell there, and prepared this last resting-place for himself, but -we must know more before such speculations can be of much value. - -One other point is of interest regarding this tomb. If the minor -sepulchres at Brugh were like the one flush with the surface, we cannot -guess how many may yet be there undiscovered, and equally difficult to -say how they are to be disinterred. - - -DOLMENS. - -It is extremely difficult to write anything that will be at all -satisfactory regarding the few standing solitary dolmens of Ireland. -Not that their history could not be, perhaps, easily ascertained, but -simply because every one has hitherto been content to consider them as -prehistoric, and no one has consequently given himself the trouble to -investigate the matter. The first point would be to ascertain whether -any of them exist on any of the battle-fields mentioned in the Irish -annals. My impression is that they do not: but this question can only -be answered satisfactorily by some one more intimately acquainted with -the ancient political geography of Ireland than I can pretend to be. -No connexion has, however, yet been shown to exist between them and -any known battle-fields, and till this is done, we must be content to -consider them as the graves of chiefs or distinguished individuals -whose ashes are contained in the urns which are generally found under -them. - -A still more important question hinges on their geographical -distribution. Nothing can be more unsafe than to found any important -deductions on what is known on this subject at present. If all those -which are described in books and in journals of learned societies -were marked on a map, the conclusion would be that the most of them -are found on the east coast of Ireland; a dozen or so in Waterford -and Wexford; as many in Dublin and Meath, and an equal number in -County Down. But this knowledge may merely mean that the east coast, -possessing roads and towns, has consequently been more frequented by -tourists and antiquaries than the remote or inaccessible west. - -Among the records, however, of the Ordnance survey, and in the Du Noyer -drawings, there are probably sufficient materials for the purpose. Both -are deposited in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy at Dublin; -but any person who would attempt to use these materials for the -purpose of such an investigation, must be not only an enthusiast, but -have his whole time at his disposal. The disarray in which they now -exist renders them utterly useless to any ordinary student of Irish -antiquities. - -The Irish themselves seem to have only one tradition regarding their -dolmens. They call them all "Beds of Diarmid and Graine," and that is -the name applied to them in the sheets of the Ordnance Survey. The -elopement of Diarmid with Graine, the daughter of Cormac Mac Art, -whose date, according to the Four Masters, was A.D. 286, is -one of the most celebrated of Irish legends.[256] The story is, that -being pursued all over Ireland by Finn, the disappointed suitor, they -erected these as places of shelter, or for hiding in. This is, of -course, absurd enough; but it shows that, in the opinion of the Irish -themselves, they belong to the period which elapsed between the birth -of Christ and the conversion of the people to Christianity. There is -no hint in any Irish book that any of them were erected before the -Christian era, nor anything that would lead us to suppose that any are -more modern than the time of St. Columba. - -The most extensive group of free standing dolmens known to exist in -Ireland, is that in or near Glen Columbkille, at the extreme western -point of Donegal. No account of these has been published--so far as I -know--in any book or journal, and I am indebted for all I know about -them to my friend, Mr. Norman Moore, who paid a visit to the spot -this autumn to obtain the information I wanted, and it is from his -descriptions that the following is abstracted.[257] - -The principal groups are situated in Glen Malin More, a small valley -running parallel to that of Columbkille, about two miles to the -southward of it. There are three groups on the north side of this -valley and two on the south, extending from about half a mile from -the sea-shore to about three miles inward. The finest group is that -next the sea on the south side, and consists of six dolmens, situated -nearly in a row, about 50 or 100 feet apart, and is accompanied by -some cairns, but so small as hardly to deserve the name of Tumuli. The -stones of the dolmens range from 6 to 12 feet in height, and their -cap-stones are still there, though some have been displaced. - -The second group, a little way up the glen, consists of ten dolmens -arranged in two parallel rows, but they are neither so large nor so -perfect as those nearer to the sea. - -Nearly opposite the first-named group on the shore, but on the north -side of the stream, are two dolmens so nearly contiguous to each -other that they may almost be considered as one structure. About half -a mile to the east of this is a fourth group, consisting of four -dolmens, accompanied by cairns, and two at least of the former are of -considerable magnificence. The group farthest up the glen consists of -five or six dolmens, but all except one in a ruinous state. - -The number of dolmens in Glen Columbkille is not given by Mr. Moore; -but, from the context, there must be five or six, making up twenty -to thirty for the whole group. So far as can be judged from the -description, the group in Glen Columbkille seems to have better fitted -and more complete chambers; consequently, I should infer it to be more -modern than the others. It would, however, require careful personal -inspection to classify them; though I have no doubt it could be done, -and that, with a little care, these six groups could be arranged into a -consecutive series, whatever the initial or final date may turn out to -be. - -The general construction and appearance of these tombs is that of -the so-called Calliagh Birra's house in Meath, described further on -(woodcut No. 80). From its situation and appearance, there seems little -reason for doubt that the Meath example belongs to the fifth or the -sixth century; and if this is so, as little for doubting that these -dolmens in Donegal are of about the same age, or, in other words, that -this mode of interment continued to be practised in certain parts of -Ireland, especially near the coasts, down to the entire conversion of -the inhabitants to Christianity. - -There are no other traditions, so far as I know, attached to anything -in this glen, except those that relate to St. Columba, who, it is -understood, long resided here, attempting to convert the inhabitants -to Christianity. Whether he was successful or not is not clear. He -certainly left Ireland in disgust, and settled in the first island -whence the shores of his detested native land could not be seen. The -only other tradition that seems to bear on the subject relates to -St. Patrick, who, being unable to convert the "Demons" about Croagh -Patrick, in Mayo, drove them into the sea; but, instead of perishing, -as they ought to have done, when he threw his bell after them, they -reappeared, and settled on this promontory.[258] The meaning of this -fable seems to be, that some tribe--not Celtic, for the Celts accepted -Christianity whenever and wherever it was preached to them, but, it may -be of Iberian origin--refusing to accept the doctrine, was expelled -by force from their seats in Mayo, and sought refuge with kindred -tribes in this remote corner of the island, and here remained till -St. Columba took up his abode among them. If we might assume that -the Columbkille group belongs to a time immediately preceding their -conversion, and that the other five groups in Malin More extended back -to a date two, three, it may be four centuries before St. Columba's -time, and that they belonged to an Iberian or Celtiberian race, we -should have an hypothesis which at least would account for all their -peculiarities. Though in sight of Carrowmore, on the southern side of -Sligo Bay, it is certain that these monuments have no affinity with -them or with the works of any of the Northern circle-building nations. -Spanish or French they must be; and we can hardly hesitate between the -two. In Elizabeth's time, and as far back as history reaches, we have -Spaniards settled in Galway, and on the western coast of Ireland. Such -colonisation, if lasting, is not the work of any sudden impulse or of -a long past time; and the probability is that Iberians, before they -learned to talk Latin, were settled here from a very early age. It -is also probable from what we know of them and their monuments in the -Peninsula, that they would refuse for a longer period than the Celts to -be converted, and that they should use dolmens for their sepulchres in -preference either to tumuli or circles. - -Be this as it may, there are at least two points which we may assume -negatively with regard to these dolmens. The first is, that they do not -mark battle-fields: they have none of the appearance of such monuments. -The second is, that as there is no capital or fertile country in their -neighbourhood, they are not a royal cemetery; they are not, indeed, -claimed, even in the remotest manner, by any of the royal races of -Ireland. They are, so far as we can see, the sepulchres of a foreign -colony settled on this spot. Whether this is probable or not must, -of course, depend on a comparison of these monuments with those in -the countries from which they are supposed to have come. But, in the -meanwhile, it may be assumed, as an hypothesis which at least accounts -for the phenomena as we find them in Ireland, even when judged of by -their own internal evidence alone. - - * * * * * - -One of the most interesting of the Irish dolmens is that known as the -Giant's Grave, near Drumbo, about four miles south from Belfast. The -interest attached to this monument does not, however, arise so much -from the grandeur of the structure itself, though it may be considered -a first-class example and very tolerably perfect, but from its standing -solitary in the centre of the largest circle in these islands, -Avebury only excepted. The circle is about 580 feet in diameter, and -consequently more than six acres in extent, and is formed, not as at -Avebury or Arbor Low, by a ditch dug inside, and the earth so gained -being used to form a rampart, but by the top of a hill being levelled -and the earth removed in so doing being thrown up so as to form a -circular amphitheatre. Although, consequently, the rampart is not so -high outside as at Avebury, the whole surface internally having been -lowered, the internal effect is very much grander.[259] - -What, then, was the object of this great earthwork with one solitary -dolmen in the centre? Was it simply the converse of such a mound as -that at New Grange? Was it that, instead of heaping the earth over the -sepulchral chamber, they cleared it away and arranged it round it, so -as to give it dignity? Or was it that funereal games or ceremonies were -celebrated round the tomb, and that the amphitheatre was prepared to -give dignity to their performance? These are questions that can only -be answered when more of these circles are known and compared with one -another, and the whole subject submitted to a more careful examination -than has yet been the case. My impression is that it is the grave of -a chief, and of him only, and that it is among the most modern of its -class. - -At about the same distance west from Belfast is another dolmen, which, -in itself, is a much finer example than this Grave of the Giant. Its -cap-stone is said to weigh 40 tons, and is supported by five upright -stones of considerable dimensions. It has, however, no circle or -accompaniments. The Celtic name of the district in which it stands was -'Baille clough togal,' _i.e._ the Town of the Stone of the Strangers, -which would seem to indicate that it was not very old, nor its origin -quite forgotten. - -[Illustration: 78. Dolmen at Knockeen.] - -At Knockeen, county Waterford, there is a remarkable dolmen (woodcut -No. 78), though it neither has any surroundings nor any tradition -attached to it.[260] It is interesting, however, as it looks as if -we were approaching the form out of which Stonehenge grew, which, I -have not a doubt, could be found in Ireland if looked for. It is also -interesting as showing in plan (woodcut No. 79), an arrangement which -is peculiar, I believe, to Irish dolmens. The cell is well formed, but -in front of it is a demicell, or ante-chamber, which looks as if it -might have been used for making offerings to the dead after the cell -was closed. - -[Illustration: 79. Plan of Dolmen at Knockeen.] - -[Illustration: 80. Calliagh Birra's House, north end of Parish of -Monasterboice.] - -One other dolmen deserves being illustrated before going further, as it -belongs to a class of monuments common in Brittany, hitherto unknown in -Great Britain. It consists of a cell 12 feet 8 inches long internally, -with a width of 4 feet at the entrance, but diminishing to 3 feet at -its inner end. It is situated near Monasterboice, at the northern limit -of the parish, and not far, consequently, from New Grange, and close -to Greenmount. Locally it is known as the house or tomb of Calliagh -Vera, or Birra,[261] the hag whose chair is illustrated in woodcut No. -73, and whose name is indissolubly connected with the Lough Crew tombs. -According to the traditions collected by Dr. O'Donovan and Mr. Conwell, -she broke her neck before completing the last tumulus, and was buried, -close to where she died,[262] in the parish of Diarmor, where, however, -nothing remains to mark the spot. - -From the mode in which it is constructed, it seems hardly doubtful that -the original intention was to cover it with a tumulus; but probably it -never was occupied. If I am correct in my surmise as to its age, its -builder may have been converted to Christianity before he had occasion -for it. But, be that as it may, its exposed position may serve to -explain how a king or chief who had erected such a structure for his -burying-place might very well have amused himself, if his life were -prolonged, in adorning both the interior and exterior with carvings. -I cannot believe that the internal ornaments were ever executed by -artificial light, and both, therefore, must have been completed before -the chamber was buried. - -Last year, General Lefroy excavated a tumulus at Greenmount, Castle -Bellingham, about five miles north of Calliagh Birra's so-called -house.[263] In it he found a chamber, 21 feet long by about 4 feet wide -and 5 feet high, enclosed by two parallel walls built of small stones, -and closed at each end by similar masonry. - -The roof was formed of slabs in two rows, the lower projecting as -brackets and the upper stretching across beyond the walls on each side. -In plan, therefore, it was identical with the Birra's house, though -longer and larger. But, from the mode in which it was constructed, -it was evidently more modern,--the most modern, in fact, of all the -chambered sepulchral tumuli yet discovered in Ireland. - -[Illustration: 81. Plan and Section of Chamber in Greenmount Tumulus. -From a drawing by General Lefroy.] - -Nothing was found in the chamber: it had been rifled before, but by -whom and at what period there was nothing to show. At 9 or 10 feet -below the summit, but still 6 or 7 feet above the floor of the chamber, -a bronze monument was found with a Runic inscription on it, which, with -the assistance of the Danish antiquaries, the General decides to belong -to the ninth century (852?). The one question is, is it coeval with the -building of the tomb or its destruction? The name Domnal, or Domhnall, -being Irish, and the position in which it was found seem to prove that -it belongs to the period of the raising of the mound, not to that of -its being rifled; and if so, this grave approaches the age to which -Maeshowe in the Orkneys may belong. - -The circumstance, however, which interests us most at present is the -similarity of the Greenmount Chamber to the Lady Birra's tomb. Being -locally so close to one another, and so like in plan, they cannot be -very distant in date, though the more southern is, from its megalithic -character, undoubtedly the more ancient of the two. If we allow two or -three centuries it is a long stretch, though even that takes us far -away from any connexion with the monuments at Lough Crew, and barely -allows of it following very close on those at Brugh na Boinne. - -The similarity of this tomb with those at Glen Columbkille has already -been pointed out, and no doubt others exist in Ireland, and will be -brought to light as soon as attention is directed to the subject. But -meanwhile they seem, so far as we can at present judge, to make up an -extensive group of pagan or semi-pagan monuments, extending from the -time of St. Patrick to that of St. Columba, and, as such, are among -the latest, and certainly among the most interesting, monuments of the -class in Ireland. - -[Illustration: 82. Dolmen of the Four Maols, Ballina.] - -Vague as all this may probably appear, there is one dolmen in Ireland -which seems to have a date. The great grandson of Dathi, whose red -pillar-stone at Rath Croghan, erected A.D. 428, we have -already pointed out, was named Ceallach. He was murdered by his four -foster-brothers through envy about the sovereignty. They were hanged -for their crime at a spot known as Ard-na-Riagh, near Ballina, and were -buried on a hill on the opposite side of the river, where a dolmen -still stands, and is pointed out as the grave of the four Maols, the -murderers. These particulars are related in the Dinnsenchus, in the -Book of Lecan, and in the Annals of the Hy Fiachrach, translated by Dr. -O'Donovan (p. 35), who, in a note, adds that "this evidence, coupled -with the description of the situation on the other side of the Moy, -opposite Ard-na-Riagh, leaves no doubt of its identity." - -The dolmen in question has nothing very remarkable about it. The -cap-stone, which measures 9 feet by 7 feet, is hexagonal in form, and -is supported on three uprights, arranged similarly to those of Kit's -Cotty House. It is perfectly level, and stands about 4 feet above -the level of the soil. The cap-stone may have been fashioned into -its present form by art; but there is no sign of chiselling, and, -altogether there is nothing that would attract especial attention.[264] -The interest rests with its date. If it can be established that it -belongs to the beginning of the sixth century, which I see no more -reason for doubting than Dr. O'Donovan does, it is a point gained in -our investigation, in so far at least as dates are concerned. - -It would be tedious to enumerate the other dolmens in Ireland which -have neither dates nor peculiarities to distinguish them from others -of this class, but there is one monument of a megalithic character in -Ireland which must be described before leaving the country, though it -certainly is not a dolmen, and its date and use are both mysterious at -present. - -[Illustration: 83. Sketch-Plan of Monument in the Deer Park, Sligo. -Scale 40 feet to 1 inch.] - -It stands in the deer park of the Hazlewood domain, about four miles -east of Sligo. It is entered from the south, and consists first -of an enclosure 54 feet by 24 feet. To the westward of this is a -smaller apartment, about 30 feet by 12 feet, divided into two by two -projecting stones. At the east end are two similar apartments side -by side, but smaller, the whole length of the structure measuring -about 115 feet.[265] The three entrances from the central to the side -apartments are trilithons of squared and partially dressed stones, and -would remind us of Stonehenge, were they not so small. They are only -3 feet under the lintel, and you must bow low indeed to pass under -them. Indeed, when speaking of these enclosures as apartments, it -must be borne in mind that one can enter anywhere by passing between -the stones, and stepping over the walls, which are composed of stones -hardly ever touching each other, the highest being only 3 or 4 feet -high. Many of them, though massive, have only half that height. - -What, then, is this curious edifice? It can hardly be a tomb, it is -so unlike any other tomb which we know of. In plan it looks more like -a temple; indeed, it is not unlike the arrangement of some Christian -churches: but a church or temple with walls pervious, as these are, and -so low that the congregation outside can see all that passes inside, -is so anomalous an arrangement, that it does not seem admissible. At -present it is unique; if some similar example could be discovered, -perhaps we might guess its riddle. - -It is situated on the highest plateau of the hill. A little lower -down is a very fine stone Cathair, or circular fort, with an L-shaped -underground apartment of some extent in its centre; and on a -neighbouring eminence are several round tumuli, which, looking like the -burying-places of the "Castellani," increase the improbability of the -upper building being a sepulchre. - - * * * * * - -Before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be as well to allude -to a point which, though not very distinct in itself, may have some -influence with those who are shocked at being told that the rude -stone monuments of Ireland are so modern as from the preceding pages -we should infer they were. It is that every allusion to Ireland, in -any classical author, and every inference from its own annals, lead -us to assume that Ireland, during the centuries that elapsed between -the Christian era and St. Patrick, was in a state of utter and -hopeless barbarism. The testimony of Diodorus[266] and Strabo[267] -that its inhabitants were cannibals is too distinct to be disputed, -and according to the last named authority, they added to this an -ugly habit of eating their fathers and mothers. These accusations -are repeated by St. Jerome[268] in the fourth century with more than -necessary emphasis. All represent the Irish as having all their women -in common, and as more barbarous than the inhabitants of Britain,[269] -indeed, than any other people of Europe. Nor can it be pleaded that -these authors wrote in ignorance of the state of the country, for -Ptolemy's description of the coasts and of the interior, of the cities -and tribes shows an intimate acquaintance with the island which could -only be derived from observation.[270] Their own annals do not, it -is true, repeat these scandals; but nothing we now have can be said -to have been reduced to writing in anything like the form in which -we now possess it before the time of St. Patrick; and even that has -passed through edition after edition at the hands of patriotic Irishmen -before it assumed the form in which we now find it. Even these tell of -nothing but fighting and assassination, and of crimes of every sort -and kind. Even the highest title of one of their greatest kings, Conn -"of a hundred battles," is sufficiently indicative of the life which -he led, and the state of the country he governed. As we have every -reason to believe that the progress of Ireland was steadily and equably -progressive, it is evident that if it was so, a very short time prior -to what we find in the early centuries of Christianity would take us -back to the present state of the natives of Australia, and we should -find a condition of society when any combined effort was impossible. So -evident is this, not only from history, but from every inference that -can be gathered from the state of Ireland in subsequent ages, that the -wonder really is how such a people could have erected such monuments -as those we find on the banks of the Boyne in the early centuries of -our epoch. The answer is, of course, that the idleness of savages -is capable of wonderful efforts. A nation of men who have no higher -ambition than to provide for their daily wants, and who are willing to -submit to any tyrant who will undertake to supply these in order to -gratify his own pride or ambition, may effect wonders. The pyramids -of Egypt and the temples of southern India are examples of what may -be done by similar means. But to effect such things, the people must -be sufficiently organised to combine, and sufficiently disciplined to -submit; and we have no reason to suppose that in Ireland they were -either before the Christian era, and it is even very difficult to -understand how they came to be so far advanced even in the time of St. -Patrick. That they were so their works attest; but if we had to trust -to indications derived from history alone, the inference certainly -would be that the monuments are considerably more modern than the dates -above assigned to them; while it seems barely possible they should be -carried back to any earlier period. - - * * * * * - -There may be other rude stone monuments in Ireland besides those -described or alluded to in the preceding pages, but they can scarcely -be very numerous or very important, or they could hardly have escaped -notice. They are not, consequently, likely to disturb any conclusion -that may be arrived at from the examination of those which are known. -From these, we may safely conclude that all, with perhaps the exception -of the Hazlewood monument, are certainly sepulchral; and all, unless -I am very much mistaken, were erected subsequently to the building of -Emania by Eochaidh Ollamb Fodlha in the third century B.C. -There may be cairns, and even dolmens, belonging to the earlier -Hiberni before the Scoti were driven from the Continent, by the Punic -or Roman wars, to seek refuge and repose in the green island of the -West, but they must be insignificant, and probably must remain for ever -unrecognizable. - -From the date, however, of the founding of Emania we seem to have a -perfectly consecutive and intelligible series commencing with the -smaller and ruder cairns of Lough Crew, and rising at last to the -lordly sepulchres of Brugh na Boinne. Between these two stand the -monuments on the battle-fields of Moytura, and contemporary with the -last are the Raths on the far-famed hill of Tara. Beyond these we seem -to have the tomb of the four Moels, the so-called house of Calliagh -Birra, and the dolmens of Glencolumbkille, all apparently belonging -to the sixth century. The tumulus at Greenmount is later than any of -these, but hardly belongs to our Irish series. - -From these we pass by easy gradations to the beehive cells and -oratories of the early Christians. No such stone dwellings probably -existed before the time of St. Patrick, or we should have found traces -of them at Tara, or Armagh, or Telltown; but as none such existed -in these royal seats of the Scots, we may fairly assume that for -domestic purposes wood and turf alone were used. But as soon as the -use of stone became prevalent for such purposes, as was the case with -the introduction of Christianity, we soon find the round towers, with -their accompanying churches, springing up in every corner of the land, -and Irish architecture progressing steadily in a groove of its own, -till its forms were modified, but not obliterated, by the changes -introduced by the English conquerors. The history of their style from -St. Patrick to the English conquerers has been so well written by -Petrie, that little now remains to be said about that division. But the -history of the preceding seven centuries still remains for some one -with the leisure requisite to explore the country, and with patience -and judgment sufficient to read aright the many enigmas which are -still involved in it, although the main outlines of the story seem -sufficiently clear and intelligible. If it were written out in detail -and fully illustrated, it would prove a most valuable commentary on -the dark period of the history of Ireland before the introduction of -Christianity, and when the concomitant introduction of alphabetic -writing first rendered her annals intelligible and trustworthy. - -In one other respect the study of these early monuments of Ireland -seems to afford a subject of most engrossing interest. It is in Ireland -that we first begin to perceive the threefold division, which, if it -can be established, will lead to the most important ethnographical -determinations. It appears that in this island the stone circles of -the Scandinavians were introduced simultaneously with the dolmens of -the Iberians or Aquitanians, and we can trace the rude barrows of -the Celts growing up between them till they expanded into the great -mounds of the Boyne. That these three forms ever were at any one time -absolutely distinct is most unlikely, and equally so that they should -have long remained so in the same country, even if it could be shown -that at any one time they belonged to three separate races. Generally, -however, it seems hardly doubtful that they do point to ethnographic -peculiarities, which may become most important. Combined with their -history and a knowledge of their uses, these monuments promise to -rescue from oblivion one of the most curious chapters of Irish history, -which without them might remain for ever unwritten. - - - [Footnote 201: Stokes, 'Life of Petrie;' London, 1868, p. 99 _et - seq._] - - [Footnote 202: In the following pages it is proposed to follow the - popular and pronounceable spelling of Irish proper names. One half - of the difficulty of following the Irish annals is the unfamiliar - and uncouth mode in which proper names are spelt, and which we - learn, from Eugene O'Curry's lectures, never represents the mode - in which they are pronounced. In a learned work intended for Irish - scholars, like the 'Annals of the Four Masters,' the scientific - mode of spelling is, of course, the only one that could be adopted, - but in such a work as this it would be only useless and prejudicial - pedantry.] - - [Footnote 203: 'Lough Corrib, its Shores and Islands.' Dublin, - 1867. Sir William possesses a residence on the battle-field, where - I was hospitably entertained for some days when I visited that - neighbourhood last year.] - - [Footnote 204: These, and all the particulars of the battle of - South Moytura, are taken from the eighth chapter of Sir W. Wilde's - book, pp. 211-248, and need not, therefore, be specially referred - to.] - - [Footnote 205: 'Annals of the Four Masters,' translated by J. - O'Donovan, i. p. 23.] - - [Footnote 206: Eugene O'Curry's 'Materials for Ancient Irish - History,' p. 246.] - - [Footnote 207: Stokes, 'Life of Petrie,' p. 253.] - - [Footnote 208: _l. c._ p. 242.] - - [Footnote 209: I regret very much that the state of my health, - and other circumstances, prevented my mapping and drawing these - remains, but I hope some competent person will undertake the task - before long. Carrowmore is more easily accessible than Carnac. - The inns at Sligo are better than those at Auray, the remains are - within three miles of the town, and the scenery near Sligo is far - more beautiful than that of the Morbihan; yet hundreds of our - countrymen rush annually to the French megaliths, and bring home - sketch-books full of views and measurements, but no one thinks of - the Irish monuments, and no views of them exist that are in any way - accessible to the public.] - - [Footnote 210: It is unfortunately only an eye-sketch, hurriedly - taken, and thus not to be implicitly depended upon. The two stones - outside, that look like the rudiments of the avenue, I take to mark - only an external interment.] - - [Footnote 211: These, and several other photographs of the field - and localities near it, were specially made for me by Mr. A. - Sleater, 26, Castle-street, Sligo, who executed my commission both - cheaply and intelligently.] - - [Footnote 212: O'Curry's 'Materials for Ancient Irish History,' - Appendix xxv. p. 41.] - - [Footnote 213: "Meaba Regina occisa est a Furba dio filio Concobari - 7 Vespasiano," ii. p. 23.] - - [Footnote 214: Stokes, 'Life of Petrie,' p. 256.] - - [Footnote 215: Petrie's 'Round Towers,' p. 107.] - - [Footnote 216: It will be found at more length in E. O'Curry's - 'Materials for Ancient Irish History,' pp. 247-250.] - - [Footnote 217: It was, according to the same authorities, "during - this interval that Lugh, the then reigning king, established - the fair at Tailtean, in commemoration of his foster-mother, - the daughter of Magh Mor, king of Spain," "This fair," adds Dr. - O'Donovan, "continued famous down to the time of Roderic O'Conor, - last monarch of Ireland; and the traditions of it are still so - vivid, that Telltown was till recently resorted to by the men of - Meath for hurling, wrestling, and manly sports." It would be a - wonderful instance of the stability of Irish institutions if a - fair, established in a miserable inland village eighteen centuries - before Christ, should flourish through the middle ages, and hardly - now be extinct! It may have been established about the Christian - era, but certainly not before, and thus becomes another piece of - evidence as to the date of the events we are describing.--'Annals - of the Four Masters,' p. 23.] - - [Footnote 218: 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' xcviii.] - - [Footnote 219: Madsen, 'Antiquités préhistoriques du Danemark.' - Copenhagen, 1869.] - - [Footnote 220: Sjöborg Samlingar för Nordens Fornälskare,' i. p. - 12.] - - [Footnote 221: 'Materials for Ancient Irish History,' p. 250.] - - [Footnote 222: 'Annals of the Four Masters,' translated by J. - O'Donovan, i. p. 21.] - - [Footnote 223: O'Curry, 'Materials for Ancient Irish History,' p. - 246.] - - [Footnote 224: O'Connor, ii. p. 1. O'Curry, 'Materials for Ancient - Irish History,' p. 63.] - - [Footnote 225: 'Tighernachi Ann.' O'Connor, p. 11-23.] - - [Footnote 226: 'Annals of the Four Masters,' i. p. 99.] - - [Footnote 227: 'Essay on the Ancient Architecture of Ireland,' by - G. Petrie, pp. 97-109.] - - [Footnote 228: Could this be the great Rath close to the - Netterville domain? See Sir W. Wilde, 'The Boyne and the - Blackwater,' p. 211.] - - [Footnote 229: Tighernach, O'Connor, ii. p. 23, "Carcobarus filius - Nessæ obiit hoc anno--33."] - - [Footnote 230: In the 'Annals of the Four Masters' (i. p. 89) - there is a king called Eochaid Aireamb. "Ideo dictus," says Lynch, - translating Keating, "quod tumulos effodi primus in Hiberniâ - curavit." I have no doubt the etymology is correct, and the fact - also; but it would hardly do to base our argument upon it, though - it accords perfectly with the conclusion I have arrived at from - other circumstances. He lived, according to the 'Four Masters,' - 118 B.C. According to the more correct Tighernach, 45 - B.C.] - - [Footnote 231: The real name of the Daghda was, according to the - 'Four Masters,' Eochaidh Ollathair; and Eochaid, or Eochy, is - one of the most common names in Irish history, and constantly - recurring.] - - [Footnote 232: Since the above was written I have been gratified - to find so eminent an authority as Dr. Henthorn Todd, late - President of the Royal Irish Academy, arriving, by a very different - road, at very nearly the same conclusion:--"The Firbolgs, or - Belgæ," he says, "invaded Ireland, not from France, but from - Britain--Dumnonii, or Devon." "The conquest of Ireland was not much - older than Cæsar's time, if it were not a good bit later, and was - the first influx of civilization rude, indeed, but much superior to - that of the Hiberni."--_Irish Nennius_, translated by J. H. Todd, - D.D., Appendix C.] - - [Footnote 233: The principal one of these is the rath of Queen - Meave, at some distance off. She, according to Tighernach, - was slain by her stepson, in the seventh year of Vespasian, - A.D. 75.] - - [Footnote 234: According to Tighernach, Cormac, the grandson of - Conn of a Hundred Battles, commonly called Cormac Mac Art, reigned - 218-266 A.D.] - - [Footnote 235: 'Hist. and Ant. of Tara Hill.'--'Trans. R. I. A.' - xviii. p. 212.] - - [Footnote 236: _Ibid._ xviii. pp. 81, 137, 170, &c.] - - [Footnote 237: 'Materials for Ancient Irish History,' Appendix ii. - p. 463 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 238: _Ibid._ p. 29 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 239: 'Hist, and Ant. of Tara.'--'Trans. R. I. S.' xviii. - p. 46.] - - [Footnote 240: Petrie, 'Round Towers,' 100 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 241: L. c. 105.] - - [Footnote 242: The Irish use ditch, as the Romans used vallum, or - the Scotch dyke, to designate either a rampart or the hollow from - which it was taken.] - - [Footnote 243: Quotation from 'Book of Geneal,' p. 251. Petrie, - 'Round Towers,' p. 107.] - - [Footnote 244: Sir W. Wilde, 'The Boyne and the Blackwater,' 1849, - p. 188.] - - [Footnote 245: Rowland's 'Mona Antiqua,' p. 314.] - - [Footnote 246: 'Philosophical Transactions,' Nos. 335-336.] - - [Footnote 247: This is well illustrated in Sir W. Wilde's book, p. - 192, by a woodcut by Wakeman.] - - [Footnote 248: Wakeman, 'Handbook of Irish Antiquities,' p. 25.] - - [Footnote 249: In extenuation of this disfigurement, it must be - explained that these Irish cairns are extremely difficult to - explore without destroying them. Being wholly composed of loose - stones, it is almost impossible to tunnel into them, and almost as - difficult to sink shafts through them. The only plan seems to be to - cut into them, and, when this is done, disfigurement is inevitable.] - - [Footnote 250: 'Archæologia,' xxx. pl. xii. p. 137.] - - [Footnote 251: Sir W. Wilde, 'The Boyne and the Blackwater,' p. - 209.] - - [Footnote 252: 'Journal Royal Archæological Society,' xv. p. 270.] - - [Footnote 253: Petrie's 'Round Towers,' p. 105.] - - [Footnote 254: O'Curry's 'Materials for Irish History,' p. 636 _et - seq._ So, too, even Tighernach adds, in the year 33:--"Concobares - filius Nessæ obiit hoc anno."--_Ann._ p. 18.] - - [Footnote 255: 'Petrie's Life,' by Stokes, p. 256.] - - [Footnote 256: Eugene O'Curry, 'Materials,' &c., 314, 597.] - - [Footnote 257: This most valuable contribution, with his - permission, is printed _in extenso_ in Appendix A.] - - [Footnote 258: "Croagh Patrick, a mountain in Mayo, is famous in - legendary records as the scene of St. Patrick's final conflicts - with the demons of Ireland. From its summit he drove them into the - ocean, and completed their discomfiture by flinging his bell among - their retreating ranks. Passing northward they emerged from the - deep, and took up their abode in the savage wilds of Seang Cean, - on the south-west of Donegal. Here they remained unmolested till - our Tirconellian saint (Columba) was directed by an angel to rid - the place of its foul inhabitants. After a violent struggle he - completely routed them. His name was thenceforth associated with - the tract, and the wild parish of Glen Columbkille preserves, in - its topography and traditions, a living commentary on the legend of - St. Columba," &c.--Reeves, _Vita St. Adam._, p. 206.] - - [Footnote 259: I cannot help thinking that the great rath at Dowth - was formed by a similar process. It may not, therefore, after all, - be a residential rath, as suggested above, but we are not yet in a - position to speak positively on such matters.] - - [Footnote 260: 'Journal Kilkenny Archæo. Soc.' v. N. S. p. 479.] - - [Footnote 261: If, instead of this silly legend, we could connect - this tomb with Brendanus Biorro, the founder of the monastery of - Birra, now Parsonstown, it would be a step in the right direction. - His date would accord perfectly with the architectural inferences; - for, according to Tighernach, he died 573.[*] The difficulty is to - believe that a Christian "propheta," as he is called, could have - thought of so pagan a form of sepulchre. It is not easy, however - to eradicate long-established habits, and his countrymen may not, - within a century of St. Patrick's time, have invented and become - reconciled to a new mode of burial. The Danes certainly buried - in howes for centuries after their conversion, and the Irish may - have been equally conservative. It is, however, hardly worth - while arguing the question here, as we have nothing but a nominal - similarity to go upon, which is never much to be relied upon. - - * Reeves, 'Vita Adamnani,' p. 210.] - - [Footnote 262: Eugene Conwell's pamphlet descriptive of the Lough - Crew Tumuli, p. 2.] - - [Footnote 263: The following particulars are taken from a paper by - General Lefroy, in the 'Archæological Journal,' No. 180, 1870, pp. - 281 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 264: My attention was first directed to this monument by - Mr. Samuel Ferguson, Keeper of the Records, Dublin. He considered - it then as the only cromlech in Ireland with an authenticated date; - but, as he has not published this, I must not be considered as - committing him to anything except beyond the desire of putting me - on the scent of an interesting investigation.] - - [Footnote 265: There is a model of this curious structure in the - Royal Academy Museum, Dublin, but not a correct one; and the - woodcut in their catalogue, taken from the model, has still less - pretensions to accuracy.] - - [Footnote 266: Diodorus, v. p. 32.] - - [Footnote 267: 'Geo.' iv. p. 201.] - - [Footnote 268: Ed. Valersii, i. p. 413; ii. p. 335.] - - [Footnote 269: Tacitus, 'Agricola,' p. 24.] - - [Footnote 270: Mercator, 'Geogra.' p. 31.] - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -SCOTLAND. - - -Whatever may be the case as regards Ireland, it is probable that the -megalithic remains of Scotland are all known and have been described -more or less in detail. Such descriptions, however, as exist are -scattered through the pages of ponderous statistical compilations, -or in the transactions of learned societies in England and Scotland, -or in local journals, so that it is extremely difficult to acquire a -connected grasp of the whole subject, or to feel sure you do know all -that is required, and still more difficult to convey to others a clear -view of its outlines. Had any one done for the unsculptured stones -of Scotland what John Stuart has done for those that have devices -in them, the case would be widely different. Except Daniel Wilson's -'Prehistoric Annals of Scotland'--whatever that may mean--no general -account is available, and that work is too brief and too sparsely -illustrated to be of much use. The introductory matter, however, in -Mr. Stuart's two volumes,[271] with Mr. Wilson's book, may suffice for -most purposes; but a complete knowledge can only be obtained by wading -through the volumes of the Scotch and English Archæologias, and the -transactions and proceedings of the various antiquarian societies of -both countries.[272] - -Putting aside for the present the sculptured stones as hardly belonging -to our subject, and the "cat" or battle stones, their predecessors, -though they are numerous, as might be expected among the pugnacious -Celtic races who inhabited the country, the remaining rude stone -monuments are not numerous. The free-standing dolmens are few and far -between, some half-dozen for the whole country, and none of them with -histories or traditions attached to them. The circles, however, are -numerous and important, and to some extent are calculated to throw -light on our investigations. If we exclude the two battle-fields of -Moytura, they are infinitely more numerous than those found in all -Ireland and Wales put together, although there is only one group, that -at Stennis in the Orkneys, that can compare with the great English -examples. - -Their distribution too is interesting. No stone circles exist in -the lowlands or south of the Frith of Forth and Clyde; and dolmens -are rare in these regions, though this may arise from the extent to -which cultivation is carried on there. Until, however, a statistical -account is compiled, accompanied with a map, it is difficult to speak -confidently on such a subject, but the general impression is that the -lowlands are not, and never were, a region of megalithic remains; -and if this is so, it is one of the many proofs that the dolmens are -neither pre-Roman nor Celtic. At least we have no reason to believe -that the Teutonic races who now occupy that country were settled there -in the time of Agricola. But if the Celts or Picts who then inhabited -that land had been in the habit of raising megalithic structures, we -would have been more likely to find traces of them in that densely -inhabited country than in the bleak uplands of Aberdeenshire, or the -bare pastures of the Orkney Islands. - -The district of Scotland where these circles and rude stone monuments -most abound is on either side of a straight line drawn direct from -Inverness to Aberdeen, which is a locality where sculptured stones are -also found in considerable numbers, but the rude stone monuments are -not found in Angus or Fife, where their sculptured successors are most -numerous. The district of the circles _par excellence_ in Scotland, -however, is not on the mainland at all, but in the northern and western -isles. The principal group is in the Orkneys; next in importance are -those in Lewes. They are found in Skye and Kantyre. There are several -in Arran, and thence the transition is easy to the Isle of Man, where -they meet the English group in Cumberland. - - * * * * * - -The larger circles in the Orkneys are four in number; three of these -stand on a long slip of land that divides the loch of Harra from that -of Stennis. The fourth is at some little distance from the others, -and separated from them by a narrow strait connecting the two lochs. -Besides these there are several smaller earthen circles and numerous -tumuli. The largest circle, known as the Ring of Brogar,[273] is 340 -feet (100 metres) in diameter between the stones. These originally were -sixty in number, ranging from 6 and 7 to 15 feet in height; outside the -stones runs a ditch about 30 feet in width, and 6 in depth, but with -no perceptible rampart on either side. Two causeways cross the ditch -as at Penrith or Arbor Low (woodcuts No. 29 and 30) opposite to one -another, but neither square with the axis of the spit of land on which -the circle is situated, nor facing any of the four cardinal points of -the heavens. - -Next in importance to this is the circle at Stennis, about -three-quarters of a mile distant. It consisted originally of twelve -stones 15 to 18 feet in height. Only two are now erect, but a third was -so not many years ago; and the fourth, of which now only a fragment -remains, is represented as standing when the drawing, which forms the -frontispiece to this work, was made.[274] The remains of a dolmen still -exist within the circle, not however in the centre, but close to its -side, one of the stones of the circle apparently acting as head-stone -to it. Beyond the stone circle which measures 104 feet in diameter is -a ditch 50 feet wide, making the whole diameter of the monument to the -outward edge of the surrounding mound about 240 feet. Not far from this -circle, and close to the bridge of Brogar, stands a single monolith 18 -feet in height, which is the finest and highest stone of the group; and -in another direction a lesser one, with a hole through it. Though only -8 feet high, 3 feet broad, and 9 inches thick, this stone has become -more famous than the others, from the use Sir Walter Scott makes of -it in the 'Pirate,' and because, till a very recent period, an oath -taken with hands joined through the hole in the Stone of Woden, was -considered even by the courts in Orkney as more than usually solemn and -binding.[275] - -[Illustration: 84. Circle at Stennis. From Lieutenant Thomas's plan.] - -No excavations, so far as I know, have been attempted in the circle -of Stennis, but its ruined dolmen is probably sufficient to attest -its sepulchral character. Some attempts at exploration were made in -the larger Ring at Brogar, but without success. This is hardly to be -wondered at, for a man must feel very sure where to look, who expects -to find a small deposit in an area of two acres. The diggings are -understood to have been made in the centre. There, however, the ground -looks very like the undisturbed surface of the original moor, and as -if it had never been levelled or used either for interment or any -other human purpose, and slopes away irregularly some 6 feet towards -the loch. My impression is that the deposits, if any exist, will be -found near the outer circumference of the circle, either at the -foot of the stones as at Crichie, or outside the ditch as at Hakpen -or Stonehenge. In the smaller circles the diameter of which does not -exceed 100 feet, the deposit seems either to have been in the centre; -or, if at the sides, the stones were so arranged as to mark its place. -In the larger, or 100-metre circles, we have not yet ascertained where -to look. Accident may some day reveal the proper spot, but till it is -ascertained either scientifically or fortuitously, no argument can be -based on the negative evidence which our ignorance affords. - -In the neighbourhood of these stone circles are several bowl-shaped -barrows similar to those in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge, not only -externally but internally. When opened they were almost all found to -contain interments by cremation and rude half-burnt pottery. It is not -here, however, that these barrows are found in the greatest numbers. -In the neighbouring parish of Sandwick they exist in hundreds, and -scattered exactly as on the Wiltshire downs, here and there, singly or -in pairs, without any apparent arrangement or grouping. It is said that -there are at least 2000 of these mole-hill barrows in the islands.[276] -Here, as there, it would seem, that where a man lived and died there -he was buried, without any reference to anything existing, or that had -existed. None of these barrows have stone circles of any sort attached -to them. Indeed, the only rude stone monuments in Orkney of the class -we are discussing are those just described, and they are all confined -to one remote inhospitable-looking spot. Close to these, however, -Lieutenant Thomas enumerates six or seven conoid barrows, whose form -and contents are of a very different nature. The bodies in them had -been buried entire without cremation, and with their remains were found -silver torques and other ornaments, similar as far as can be made -out--none are engraved--to those found in Skail Bay, along with coins -of Athelstane, 925, and of the Caliphs of Bagdad, of dates from 887 to -945.[277] That these conoid graves here, as well as others found in the -islands, are of Scandinavian origin, can hardly be doubted, and their -juxtaposition to the circles is at least suggestive. If the circles -were monuments of the Celts, whom they despised, and in fact had even -then exterminated, they would hardly choose a burying-place so close to -them. - - * * * * * - -The most important, however, of all the tumuli, not only in this -neighbourhood, but in the islands, is known as the Maes-Howe. It was -opened in 1861, in the presence of a select party of antiquaries from -Edinburgh, who had hoped from its external appearance to find it -intact: in this, however, they were disappointed. It would seem that -men of the same race as those who erected it, but who in the meanwhile -had been converted to Christianity, had apparently in the middle of the -twelfth century broken into this sepulchre of their Pagan forefathers, -and despoiled it of its contents. As some compensation for this, they -have written their names in very legible Runes on the walls of the -tomb, and recorded, in short sentences, what they knew and believed of -its origin.[278] - -From these Runes we learn, in the first place, that the robbers were -Christian pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land--Iorsala Farer--from -which Professor Munch infers that they must have formed part of the -expedition organized for that purpose by Jarl Ragnvald, 1152. Beyond -this it is not possible to lay much stress on what these Runes tell -us. In the first place, because the learned men to whom they have been -submitted differ considerably in their interpretation,[279] and the -record, even in the best of them, is indistinct. In one or two respects -the evidence of the inscriptions may be considered satisfactory. Their -writers all seem to have known so perfectly what the tomb was, and -to whom it belonged, that no one cared to record, except in the most -poetic fashion, what every one on the spot probably knew perfectly -well. At all events, there is no allusion in these inscriptions to any -other or earlier race. Every expression, whether intelligible or not, -bears a northern stamp. Lothbrok, Ingeborg, and all the other names -introduced are Scandinavian, and all the allusions have a Northern -twang. Though this is merely negative evidence, it certainly goes some -way to show that the robbers were aware that the Howe was originally -erected by people of their own race. If, however, the direct evidence -of these inscriptions is inconclusive, there is one engraving on a -pillar facing the entrance which looks as if it were original, both -from its position and character. It represents a dragon (woodcut No. -85) of a peculiar Scandinavian type. A similar one is found on a stone -attached to the tumulus under which King Gorm was buried, at Jellinge, -in Denmark, in the middle of the tenth century. Making allowance for -the difference in drawing, they are so like that they cannot be very -distinct in date. A third animal of this species is found at Hunestadt, -in Scania,[280] and dating about the year 1150, but very different, -and very much more modern-looking than this one. Had the Jerusalem -pilgrims drawn this dragon, it would probably have been much more like -the Hunestadt example. On the other hand, if the one at Maes-Howe is -original, the age of the tomb can hardly be half a century distant -from that of King Gorm's Howe, which in other respects it very much -resembles. It is, however, very unlikely that Christian pilgrims would -draw a dragon like this, and still less that they would accompany it -with a Wurm, or Serpent-Knot, like that found on the same pillar; both -look like Pagan emblems, and seem to belong to the original decorations -of the tomb. - -[Illustration: 85. Dragon in Maes-Howe.] - -[Illustration: 86. Wurm-Knot, Maes-Howe.] - -[Illustration: 87. Plan and Section of Maes-Howe. From Mr. Farrer's -work.] - -Among the inscriptions in Maes-Howe is one which, from its apparent -insignificance, none of the interpreters have condescended to notice. -It will be observed on one of the loose stones lying in the foreground -on woodcut No. 88, it consists of only four letters, and reads either -HIAI or IKIH, according as it is turned one way or another. As it is -impossible to make a recognisable word, much less sense out of such -a combination, it is no wonder it was thrown aside; but it is just -because it is unintelligible that it may turn out to be valuable as an -index to the age of the monument. Nothing is more unlikely than that a -Iorsala Farer would have idly engraved these Runes on a loose stone, -but nothing more likely than that a mason who hewed the stone and -fitted it to close the "loculus" exactly, would have put a mark upon -it to show that it belonged to the right-hand chamber in which A or B -was to be buried. The inscription is on the inner edge of the stone, -where it would be hid when the stone was _in situ_, and most probably -was engraved on the stone before it was originally used to close the -opening. - -This, at least, is an explanation of its meaning better than any other -which has yet been suggested, and if it is the correct one, this -inscription with the Dragon and the Wurm-Knot are among the original -sculptures of the tomb; and, if so, it will be difficult to assign it -to an earlier age than the tenth century, which, from the circumstances -to be mentioned hereafter, seems on the whole the most probable date. - -[Illustration: 88. View of Chamber in Maes-Howe. From a drawing by Mr. -Farrer.] - -The architecture of the tumulus, though offering some indications of -great value, hardly possesses any features sufficiently marked to fix -its date with certainty. Externally it is a truncated cone (woodcut -No. 87), about 92 feet in diameter, by 36 feet in height, and is -surrounded at a distance of about 90 feet by a ditch 40 feet wide, and -6 feet deep, out of which the earth seems to have been taken which was -required to form the mound. Internally it contains a chamber slightly -cruciform in plan, measuring 15 feet 4 inches, by 14 feet 10 inches, -and, when complete, probably 17 feet in height. On each of three sides -of the chamber is a sepulchral loculus, entered by a small opening 3 -feet from the ground. The largest of these, that on the right as you -enter, is 7 feet by 4 feet 6 inches, and the central one 5 feet 6 -inches by 4 feet 6 inches. Each of these was closed by a single stone -carefully squared, so as to fit the opening. The passage leading into -the central chamber was 3 feet wide by 4 feet 6 inches in height, and -originally closed, apparently by a doorway at 2 feet 6 inches from the -chamber. Beyond this it is lined by two slabs 18 feet long, reaching -nearly to a recess, which seems arranged as if to receive the real door -which closed the sepulchre, probably a large stone. Beyond this the -passage still extends some 20 feet to the present entrance, but is of -very inferior class of masonry, and how much of it is modern is not -clear. - -The first thing that strikes any one on examining this mound is that -it certainly is the lineal descendant of the great cairns on the -banks of the Boyne, but separated from them by a very long interval -of time. It is not easy to determine what interval must have elapsed -before the side chambers of those tombs merged into the "loculi" of -this, or how long it must have been before their rude unhewn masses -were refined into the perfectly well-fitted masonry of this one. Some -allowance must, however, be made for the difference of material. The -old red sandstone of the Orkneys splitting easily into self-faced -slabs, offers wonderful facilities for its use, but still the way in -which the angle-buttresses of the chamber were fitted, and the cells -finished, and the great slabs line the entrance, all show a progress in -masonic science that must have required centuries, assuming, of course, -that they were built by the same people. But was this so? So far as -we at present know, these islands, when conquered by Harold Harfagar -in 875, were inhabited by two races called Pape and Peti. The former -were generally assumed to have been colonies of Irish missionaries and -their followers, who settled here after the conversion of the Picts -by St. Columba in the middle of the sixth century. The Peti, it is -also generally assumed, were the Pechts, or Picts.[281] It will not be -easy to ascertain now whether they were so or not, as, according to -Bishop Tulloch, they were so entirely exterminated by the Northmen, -that of their "posteritie there remained nocht." But if the Pape, or -Papas were Irish missionaries, they were Christians, and whatever else -Maes-Howe may be, it certainly is not a place of Christian burial. Nor -is it Pictish. If it were, we certainly should find something like it -in Pictland proper; but nothing that can be at all compared with it -is found in Fife or Forfar, or in any of those countries which were -occupied by the Picts in the days of their greatness; and it is most -improbable that a people who could not, or at least did not, erect any -such sepulchre in the fertile and populous lands which they occupied -on the mainland, would erect such a one as this on a comparatively -barren and sparsely inhabited island. On the other hand, there seems -every reason for believing that the 2000 little barrows above alluded -to are the graves of the Picts, or original inhabitants of the island -before they were exterminated by the Northmen. These barrows, however, -have absolutely no affinity with Maes-Howe. None of them have chambers, -none have circles of stone round them; all are curvilinear, and none, -indeed, show anything to induce the belief that in any length of time -they would be developed into such a sepulchre as that which we have -been describing. It is in fact the story of Stonehenge and its barrows -over again. A race of Giants superseding a nation of Pigmies with which -they certainly had no blood affinities, and erecting among their puny -sepulchres monuments dedicated, it may be, to similar purposes, but as -little like them in reality as the great cathedrals of the middle ages -are to the timber churches of the early Saxons. - -Only one hypothesis seems to remain, which is that it is a tomb of -the northern men who conquered these islands in the ninth century. -This may seem a very prosaic descent from the primæval antiquity some -are inclined to ascribe to these monuments, but it certainly is not -improbable; in the first place, because we have what seems undoubted -testimony that Thorfin, one of the Jarls (940 to 970 A.D.) -"was buried on Ronaldshay under a tumulus, which was then known by -the name of Haugagerdium, and is perhaps the same as that we now call -the How of Hoogsay," or Hoxay.[282] I have not been able to ascertain -whether this is literally true or not, but have reason to believe that -it was not in the How of Hoxay that Thorfin was buried, but in a mound -close by.[283] The fact of his being buried in a Howe is, however, all -that is at present demanded. Another important barrow is mentioned by -Professor Munch,[284] known as Halfdan's Barrow, in Sandy, and raised -by Torf Einar (925 to 936). So that we know of at least two important -barrows belonging to the Norwegian Jarls in the tenth century, though -only one has been identified with absolute certainty. As before -mentioned, it is quite certain that King Gorm (died 950) and Thyra of -Denmark were buried in tumuli in outward appearance very similar to -Maes-Howe. That of Queen Thyra has alone been opened. It is a chamber -tomb, similar to Maes-Howe, except in this, that the chamber in Denmark -is formed with logs of wood, in the Orkneys with slabs of stone, but -the difference is easily accounted for. At Jellinge stone is rare, -and the country was covered with forests. At Stennis self-faced slabs -of stone were to be had for the lifting, and trees were unknown. The -consequence was, that workmen employed the best material available to -carry out their purpose. Be that as it may, the fact that kings of -Denmark and Jarls of Orkney were buried in Howes in the tenth century, -takes away all _à priori_ improbability from the hypothesis that -Maes-Howe may be a sepulchre of one of those Northmen. - -If this is so, our choice of an occupant lies within very narrow -limits. We cannot well go back beyond the time of Harold Harfagar -(876 to 920), who first really took possession of these islands, as -a dependency of Norway, and created Sigurd the elder first Jarl of -Orkney in 920. Nor can we descend below the age of the second Sigurd, -who became Earl in 996, as we know he was converted by Olaus to -Christianity, and was killed at Clontarf in 1014.[285] Within these -seventy-six years that elapsed between 920 and 996 there is only one -name that seems to meet all the exigencies of the case, and in a manner -that can hardly be accidental. Havard "the happy," one of the sons of -Thorfin, who was buried at Hoxay, was slain at Stennis in 970. Havard -had married Raguhilda, the daughter of Eric Blodoxe, prince of Norway, -and widow of his brother Arfin, but she, tired of her second husband, -stirred up one of his nephews against him, and a battle was fought at -Stennis, on a spot, says Barry, "which afterwards bore the name of -Havardztugar, from the event or the slaughter."[286] The same story is -repeated by Professor Wilson as follows, "Olaf Tryguesson, says Havard, -was then at Steinsnes in Rossey. There was meeting and battle about -Havard, and it was not long before the Jarl fell. The place is now -called Havardsteiger. So it was called, and so M. Petrie writes me, it -is still called by the peasantry to the present day."[287] Professor -Munch, of Christiania, who visited the place in 1849, arrived at the -conclusion "that most of the grave mounds grouped around the Brogar -circle are, probably, memorials of this battle, and perhaps one of the -larger that of Havard Earl."[288] In this I have no doubt he is right, -but that larger one I take to be Maes-Howe, which is in sight of the -circle, though not so close to it as those he was speaking of. - -One circumstance which at first sight renders this view of the case -more than probable is, that Maes-Howe is, so far as we at present know, -unique. Thorfin's grave, when found, may be a chambered tumulus, so may -Halfdan's Barrow, when opened, but no others are known in Orkney. If -it had been the tomb of a king or chief of any native dynasty, similar -sepulchres must have been as numerous as they were on the banks of the -Boyne or Blackwater. There must have been a succession of them, some -of greater, some of less magnificence. Nothing of the sort, however, -occurs, and till more are found, the Stennis group cannot be ascribed -to a dynasty that lasted longer than the seventy-six years just quoted. -That brief dynasty must also have been the most splendid and the -most powerful of all that reigned in these islands, as no tomb there -approaches Maes-Howe in magnificence. If such a description suits any -other race than that of the Norwegian Jarls, I do not know where to -look for an account of it. - -Assuming for the present that this is so, we naturally turn to the -Runic inscriptions on the walls of the tomb to see how far they -confirm or refute this view. Unfortunately there is nothing in them -very distinct either one way or the other. The only recognizable names -are those of Lothbrok and Ingiborg. The former, if the Lothbrok of -Northumbrian notoriety, is too early; the Ingiborg, if the wife of -Sigurd the Second, is too late, though, as the first Christian countess -of Orkney, her name may have got mixed up in some way with the tomb -of the last Pagan Jarl. But should we expect to find any sober record -of the date and purposes of the Howe in any of the scribblings on the -walls? The English barbarians who write their names and rhymes on the -walls of the tombs around Delhi and Agra do not say this is the tomb -of Humayoon, or Akbar, or of Etimad Doulah, or Seyed Ahmed. They write -some doggerel about Timour the Tartar, or the Great Mogul, or some -wretched jokes about their own people. The same feeling seems to have -guided the Christian Northmen in their treatment of the tomb of their -Pagan predecessor, and though, consequently, we find nothing that can -fairly be quoted as confirming the view that it is the tomb of Havard, -there is nothing that can be assumed as contradicting it. - -One inscription may, however, be considered as throwing some light on -the subject. In XIX.XX. it is related, though in words so differently -translated by the various experts to whom it was submitted, that it -is difficult to quote them, that "much fee was found in the Orkhow, -and that this treasure was buried to the north west," adding, "happy -is he who may discover this great wealth."[289] A few years ago a -great treasure was found to the north-west of Maes-Howe, in Skail Bay, -just in such a position as a pirate on his way to the Holy Land would -hide it, in the hope, on his return, to dig it up and take it home; -but shipwreck or fever may have prevented his doing this. With this -treasure were found, as mentioned above, coins of Athelstane of the -date of 925, and of the Caliphs of Bagdad, extending to 945, just such -dates as we should expect in a tomb of 970, recent, but not the most -recent coins. Connecting these with the silver torques found in the -conoid barrows around the Ring of Brogar, we seem to have exactly such -a group of monuments as the histories above quoted would lead us to -expect, and which with their contents belong almost certainly to the -age above assigned to them. - -Had Maes-Howe been an old sepulchre of an earlier race, when the -Northmen ravaged the western islands in the early part of the ninth -century, it is most improbable that they would have neglected to break -into the "Orkhow." The treasures which Amlaff and his Danes found in -the mounds on the banks of the Boyne would certainly have stimulated -these explorers to see what was contained in the Orcadian tumulus. -Had they done this, the Jerusalem pilgrims would not, three centuries -later, have been able to record that "much fee" was found in the tomb, -and was buried to the north-west, apparently in Skail Bay. The whole -evidence of the inscriptions, in so far as it goes, tends to prove that -the tomb was intact when broken into in the twelfth century. If this is -so, nothing is so unlikely as that it could have remained unrifled if -existing before the year 861, as a Celtic sepulchre. On the other hand, -nothing seems more probable than that Christian Northmen would have -plundered the grave of one of their Pagan ancestors, whom they knew had -been buried "with much fee" in this tumulus two centuries before their -time. Two hundred years, it must be recollected, is a very long time -among an illiterate people. A long time, indeed, among ourselves, with -all our literary aids; and when we add to this the change of religion -that had taken place among the Northmen in the interval, we need not -be surprised at any amount of ignorance of history or contempt for -the customs of their Pagan forefathers on the part of the Jerusalem -pilgrims. The time, at all events, was sufficiently long fully to -justify Christian robbers in helping themselves to the treasures of -their Pagan forefathers. - -Even assuming, however, that Maes-Howe is the tomb of Havard, or of -some other of the Pagan Norwegian Jarls of Orkney, the question still -remains whether it has any, and, if any, what connexion with the two -circles in the immediate neighbourhood?[290] - -Locally, the Howe and the circles certainly form one group. No such -tumuli, and no such circles exist in other parts of the islands, -and the spot is so inhospitable, so far from any of the centres of -population in the island, that it is difficult to conceive why it -should have been chosen, unless from the accident of being the scene -of some important events. If Havard was slain here, which there seems -no reason for doubting, nothing seems more probable than that one of -his surviving brothers, Liotr or Laudver, should have erected a tumulus -over his grave, meaning it also to be a sepulchre for themselves. On -the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that the six or seven other -tumuli which are admitted to be of Scandinavian origin should have -gathered round the Ring of Brogar if it had been a Pagan fane of the -despised Celts, who preceded them in the possession of the island. It -cannot be necessary here to go over the questions again, whether a -few widely spaced stones stuck up around a circle one hundred metres -in diameter was or was not a temple. It is just such a monument as -1000 victorious soldiers could set up in a week. It is such as the -inhabitants of the district could not set up in years, and would not -attempt, because, when done, it would have been absolutely useless to -them for any purpose either civil or religious; and if it is not, as -before said, a ring in which those who fell in battle were buried, I -know not what it is. The chiefs, in this case, would be buried in the -conoid barrows close around, the Jarl in the neighbouring howe. - -As Stennis is mentioned in the Sagas that give an account of Havard's -death, it probably existed there, and was called by the simple -Scandinavian name which the Northmen gave to all this class of stone -monuments. None, so far as I know, have retained a Celtic denomination. -Assuming it to be earlier, it still can hardly be carried back beyond -the year 800. The earliest date of the appearance of the Northmen in -modern times is in the year 793 in the 'Irish Annals,' where mention -is made of a "vastatio omnium insularum a Gentibus."[291] In 802, -and again in 818, they harried Iona,[292] and from that time forward -seem constantly to have conducted piratical expeditions along these -coasts, until they ended by formally occupying the Orkneys under Harold -Harfagar. Though smaller in diameter, Stennis has a grander and a more -ancient look than Brogar, and may even be a century or two older, and -be a monument of some chief who fell here in some earlier fight. That -it is sepulchral can hardly be a matter of doubt from the dolmen inside -its ring. - -Connected with the circle at Stennis is the holed stone[293] alluded to -above, which seems to be a most distinct and positive testimony to the -nationality of this group of monuments. - -It is quite certain that the oath to Woden or Odin was sworn by persons -joining their hands through the hole in this ring stone, and that an -oath so taken, although by Christians, was deemed solemn and binding. -This ceremony was held so very sacred in those times, that the person -who dared to break the engagement made there was accounted infamous and -excluded from society.[294] Principal Gordon, in his 'Journey to the -Orkney Islands' in 1781, relates the following anecdote:--"The young -man was called before the session, and the elders were particularly -severe. Being asked by the minister the cause of so much severity, they -answered, 'You do not know what a bad man this is; he has broken the -promise of Odin,' and further explained that the contracting parties -had joined hands through the hole in the stone."[295] - -Such a dedication of a stone to Woden seems impossible after their -conversion of the Northmen to Christianity about the year 1000, and -most improbable if the monument was of Celtic origin, and existed -before the conquest of the country 123 years earlier. If the Northmen -had not hated and despised their predecessors they would never have -exterminated them; but while engaged in this work is it likely they -would have adopted one of their monuments as especially sacred, and -followed up one of their customs, supposing this to have been one, -though there is absolutely no proof in a holed stone being used in any -Celtic cemetery for any such purpose? The only solution seems to be -that the monument, with this accompaniment, was erected between the -conquest of the country and the conversion of the conquerors, and, like -many ancient rites, remained unchanged through ages, not as adopted -from the conquered races, but because their forefathers had practised -it from time immemorial in their native land. On any other hypothesis -it seems impossible that so purely Pagan a rite could have survived -through eight centuries of Christianity, and still be considered sacred -by those whose ancestors had worshipped Wodin in the old times many -centuries before these stones were erected in the islands. - -All this seems so clear and consistent, that it may be assumed that -this group of monuments were erected between the year 800 and 1000 -A.D., till, at least, some argument is brought forward leading -to a certain conclusion. At present I know of only one which tends -to make me pause: it is a curious one, and arises from the wonderful -similarity that exists between this and some of the greater English -groups. Take, for instance, Stanton Drew (ante, p. 149). It consists of -a great circle 340 feet in diameter, the same as the Ring of Brogar, -and of a smaller circle within three feet of the dimensions of that -of Stennis (101 against 104), both the latter possess a dolmen, not -in the centre, but on its edge, the only essential difference being -that the great ring at Stanton had twenty-four stones, and the smaller -one eight, as against sixty and twelve in the northern example; this, -however, may arise from the one being in a locality so much more stony -than the other, and it must be confessed the Stanton stones look older, -but this also may arise from the different nature of the rocks from -which they were taken. - -The Ring of Bookan answers to the circle in the orchard; the Watch -or King Stone at Stennis to Hautville's Quoit. Even the names are -the same, "ton" and "ness" being merely descriptive of the townland, -and the long slip of land on which they are respectively situated, -and Maes-Knoll looks down on the one, and Maes-Howe into the other. -The only thing wanted is a ring stone in the Somersetshire example, -but that might easily have disappeared, and there is one at Avebury. -Some of these coincidences may, of course, be accidental, but they -are too numerous and too exact to be wholly so. If at all admitted, -they seem to force us to one of two conclusions: either the time which -elapsed between the ages of the two monuments is less than the previous -reasoning would lead us to suppose, or the persistence in these forms, -when once adopted, was greater than, on other grounds, it seems -reasonable to expect. Three or four centuries seem a long time to have -elapsed between buildings, the style of which is so nearly identical. -If, however, their dates are to be brought nearer to one another, it -seems much more reasonable to bring Stanton Drew down, than to carry -Stennis back. It is much more consistent with what we know, to believe -that Stanton Drew was erected by Hubba and his Danes, than that the -Orkney circles and Maes-Howe could have been the work of the wretched -Pape and Peti, who inhabited the island before the invasion of the -Northmen. - -As this is the last of the great groups containing first-class circles, -which we shall have to deal with in the following pages, it may be -well to try and sum up, in as few words as possible, the points of the -evidence from which we arrive at the conclusion that it may be of the -date above assigned to it:-- - -1. History is absolutely silent either for or against this theory. In -so far as the _litera scripta_ is concerned, it may either have been -erected by the Phœnicians or in the time of the Stuarts. - -2. The Danish theory is of no avail. No flint, bone, or bronze or iron -implements have been found in a position to throw any light on its age. - -3. There are in the islands some thousands of small mole-hill -barrows--insignificant, stoneless, unadorned. - -4. All parts of the Stennis group show design and power, and produce an -effect of magnificence. - -5. It seems evident that the circles and the barrows belong to two -different peoples. - -6. If so, the barrows belong to the Peti and Pape; the large howes and -the stone monuments to the Northmen. - -7. If this is so, the latter belong to the two centuries comprised -between 800 and 1000 A.D. - -8. Maes-Howe, being unique, must have belonged to the shortest, but -most magnificent dynasty in the Island. - -9. With regard to Havard. He was killed on, or close to the spot where -Maes-Howe now stands. - -10. His father, Thorfin, was buried in a howe in Ronaldshay. His -contemporary, Gorm, was buried in a howe at Jellinge. - -11. A dragon and serpent were carved in Gorm's tomb. Similar -representations were found in Maes-Howe. - -12. The four Runic letters on the closing stone of the right-hand -loculus, date probably from its first erection. - -13. All the subsequent inscriptions on the tomb acknowledge it as a -Scandinavian monument. - -14. The mention of treasure being found in it in 1152 goes far to show -that it did not exist in 861, or it would then have been robbed by the -Northmen, as the Irish tombs were. - -15. It is extremely probable that the Skail Bay "find" is part of this -treasure, which is not earlier than 945, and may be twenty or forty -years later. - -16. The torques found in the six large tumuli at Brogar belong to the -same age. - -17. The Holed Stone at Stennis was certainly set up by Northmen and by -them dedicated to Woden, and it certainly forms part of the group. - -18. The name Havard's Steigr, attaching to the place at the present -day, is important. - -Against this, I know of only one argument: _Omne ignotum pro antiquo_; -which, for reasons, given above, I reject. - -If such a case were submitted to anyone, regarding a monument of -which we had never heard before, no one would probably hesitate in -considering the case as proved, till, at least, something more to the -point could be brought forward on the other side. Such, however, is -the effect of education, and so strong the impression on the minds of -most Englishmen with regard to Phœnicians and Druids, that nine -people out of ten will probably reject it; some alleging that it must -be an unfair, others that it is an inconclusive statement. Let them try -and state their view in as few words, and I do not believe it will be -difficult to judge between the two cases. - - -CALLERNISH. - -The next in importance after those of Stennis among the Scottish group -of circles is that at Callernish, in the Isle of Lewis. They are -situated at the inner end of Loch Roag, on the western coast of the -island, and consequently more remote from the routes of traffic or -the centres of Pictish or Celtic civilization than even the Orcadian -groups. The country, too, in their neighbourhood is of the wildest -and most barren description, and never could have been more densely -inhabited than now, which is by a sparse population totally unequal to -such monuments as these. - -[Illustration: 89. Monument at Callernish. From a plan by Sir Henry -James.] - -The group consists of three or four circles, situated near to one -another, at the head of the bay. They are of the ordinary form, 60 -to 100 feet in diameter, and consequently not remarkable for their -dimensions, nor are they for the size of the stones of which they are -composed. One of them, which had been covered up with peat-moss, was -excavated some years ago, and a number of holes were found, filled, -it is said, with charcoal of wood;[296] but the account is by no -means satisfactory. About a mile to the westward of the three, on -the northern shore of Loch Roag, stands the principal monument. This -consists of a circle[297] 42 feet in diameter. In the centre of this is -a tall stone, about 17 feet high, which forms the head-stone of a grave -of a somewhat cruciform plan; but it is in fact only the tricameral -arrangement common in tumuli in Caithness and other parts of the north -of Scotland.[298] It apparently was covered originally by a little -cairn of its own; but this had disappeared, and the tomb emptied of its -contents at some period anterior to the formation of the peat which had -accumulated round the stones, and which was removed a few years ago -by Sir James Matheson when this grave was first discovered. From the -central stone a double avenue extends 294 feet, and from the same point -southward, a single row for 114 feet; making the whole length of the -avenues 408 feet; while two arms extend east and west, measuring 130 -feet across the whole. - -I believe it was John Stuart that first made the remark:--"Remove -the cairn from New Grange, and the pillars would form another -Callernish;"[299] and there seems little doubt but that this is the -true explanation of the peculiar form of the monument. Nor is it -difficult to see why this should be the case; for it must be borne in -mind that the whole of the chambers and the access to them must have -been constructed, and probably stood, naked for some time before they -began to heap the cairn over them. Calliagh Birra's tomb (woodcut No. -80), and the numerous "Grottes des fées" we meet with in France and -elsewhere I look on as chambers, some of which it was intended should -be buried in tumuli, which, however, never were erected: others, -when men had become familiar with the naked forms, were like many -dolmens, never intended to be hidden. It may be a mere fancy; but I -cannot escape from an impression that, in many instances at least, the -chambers were constructed during their lifetime by kings or chiefs -as their own tombs, and that the cairn was not raised over them till -the bodies were deposited in their recesses. This, at least, is the -case in the East, where most of the great tombs were erected by those -who were to lie in them. During their lifetime they used them as -pleasure-houses, and only after their death were the entrances walled -up and the windows obscured, so as to produce the gloom supposed to -be appropriate to the residences of the dead. Another point is worth -observing. It seems most improbable that sculptures, such as are found -in the Irish and French chambered tumuli, could have been executed by -artificial light. Either the stones were sculptured before being put -into their places--which, to say the least of it, is very unlikely; or -they were sculptured while the light could still penetrate through the -interstices of the stones forming the walls. In any case, however, the -naked forms of these chambers must have been perfectly familiar with -those who used them; and there is no difficulty in understanding why, -as at Carrowmore or Callernish, they should have repeated the same -forms which were certainly never intended to be covered up. - -From the occurrence of a similar form at Northern Moytura (woodcut No. -59), used externally also, it may be argued that this may be of the -same age. The Irish example, as explained above, is probably of the -same age as the great chambered tumuli of Meath; but there seems to be -a difference between the two, which would indicate a very different -state of affairs. - -At Moytura, the covering stones, though thrown down, still exist, and -there is every appearance of direct imitation. At Callernish, the -size, the wide spacing, the pointed form of the stones, and the whole -structure exhibit so marked a difference from anything that could be -intended to be covered up, that it certainly appears as if a long time -had passed before the original use of the form could have been so -completely overlooked as it has been in this instance. Everyone must -determine for himself how many centuries he would interpose between -New Grange and Callernish. To me it appears that an interval of very -considerable duration must have elapsed between them. - -At Tormore, on the west coast of the Isle of Arran, there is a third -group of these monuments, more numerous, but not on so large a scale -as those of Stennis or Callernish. These were all carefully examined -by Dr. Bryce, of Glasgow, assisted by a party of archæologists, in -1864, and the results recorded in the 'Proceedings of the Scottish -Antiquaries,'[300] and also in a small work on the Geology of -Arran.[301] All were found to contain sepulchral remains, except one -which had been rifled, but there the cist still remained. The principal -circle is now represented by only three upright stones, from 18 to 20 -feet in height; but they originally formed parts of a circle 60 feet -in diameter. Two other circles can be traced, and two kistvaens of -considerable dimensions, and two obelisks on the high ground, which -apparently formed parts either of circles or of some other groups of -stones. - -Though not so large as the other two groups named above, this one at -Tormore is interesting because it affords fair means of testing whether -these groups were cemeteries, or marked battle-fields. Here the two -principal circles are situated on a peat moss which extends to some -feet, at least, below the bottom of the pillars, and the sepulchral -deposits were found in the peat. Others of these Tormore monuments are -situated where the peat joins the sandy soil, and others are situated -on the summit of the sandy hills, which here extend some way in from -the shore. Now it seems hardly probable that such a diversity of taste -should have existed in any line of princes. If the peat was chosen -as a resting-place for some, it probably would have been for all. -If elevated sandy hillocks were more eligible for that purpose, why -should some have chosen the bog? and if a cemetery, why not all close -together? They extend for about half a mile east and west at a distance -of about a mile from the shore, and on about as desolate a plain as one -could find anywhere. If a battle was fought here against some enemy who -had landed in the bay, and those who were killed in it were interred -where they fell, all the appearances would be easily explained; but -it is difficult to guess who the chiefs or princes could be who were -buried here, if they had leisure to select their last resting-place, or -why they should have been buried in this scrambling fashion. - -There are the remains of two other circles and one obelisk in Brodick -Bay, on the other side of the island, but widely scattered, and with -nothing to indicate their purpose. There are also other circles and -detached standing stones in the Mull of Cantyre, up to the Crinan -Canal; but the published maps of the Ordnance Survey do not extend so -far, and such accounts as have been published are too vague to admit of -any conclusions being drawn from them either as to their age or uses. - -The Aberdeenshire circles, above alluded to, differ in some respects -from those found in other parts of the country, and are thus described -by Colonel Forbes Leslie, in a Paper read to the British Association -this year:--"The principal group of stones in these circles always -contains one stone, larger than the rest, which in different monuments -varies from 11 to 16 feet in length, and from 2 to 6 in breadth. It is -never placed upright; but close at each end of this recumbent monolith -stand two columnar stones; these vary in height from 7 to 10 feet, and -have generally been selected of a pyramidal form. From the face, and -near the ends of the recumbent stone, two stones project about 4 feet -into the circle, and the recess thus formed is occupied by a stone laid -flat on the ground. - -"In several of these circles a raised platform, 5 or 6 feet broad, and -18 or 24 inches high, can be traced. This has been supported on the -outer side by a low wall connecting the columnar stones, which are -disposed at equal distances on the circumference. The inner side of -the platform has been supported by stones little more than its height, -placed near each other. - -"Circles of this sort are found at Aquhorties, Tyrebagger, Balquhain, -Rothiemay, Parkhouse, near Deer, Daviot, New Craig, Dunadeer, &c., -in Aberdeenshire. There is also a circle on the "Candle Hill of Old -Rayne,"[302] within sight of which, on the slope of a ridge about a -mile distant, stood the two sculptured stones now at Newton,--on one -of which is the unique alphabetical inscription; and on the other -a serpent, with the broken sceptre, surmounted by the double disk, -usually called the Spectacle Ornament." - -Their general arrangement will be understood from the woodcut overleaf, -representing one at Fiddes Hill, figured in the fifth volume of -'Archæologia,' which may be taken as a type of the rest. The sepulchral -deposit here, is no doubt, in the raised part, in front of the great -stone, and not in the centre,--a peculiarity we have already had -occasion to remark upon in the smaller circles at Stanton Drew and -Stennis. This, however, does not seem to have been always the case. The -circle, for instance, at Rayne, above alluded to, was excavated under -the superintendence of Mr. Stuart,[303] and found to contain in its -centre a pit, in which were "a quantity of black mould, incinerated -bones, and some bits of charcoal. Fragments of small urns were also -found, and all the usual accompaniments of a sepulchral deposit." -In concluding his account of it, Mr. Stuart says:--"It is worthy of -remark, that on the 2nd of May, 1349, William, Bishop of Aberdeen, held -a court at the Standing Stones of Rayne, at which the King's Justiciar -was present" ('Regst. Episc. Aberd.' vol. i. p. 79, Spald. Club). Thus -clearly proving not only the sepulchral nature of the circles, but the -use that was subsequently made of them. - -[Illustration: 90. Circle at Fiddes Hill, 46 feet in diameter.] - -If we may connect these stones at Rayne with the Newton stones, as -Colonel Forbes Leslie is inclined to do, we obtain a proof of a -post-Christian date for this sepulchral circle, as well as a mediæval -use; and though I have no doubt that all this is correct, the mere -juxtaposition of the sculptured stones and the circle hardly seems -sufficient to rely upon. - -In the Appendix to the Preface of the first volume of the 'Sculptured -Stones,' Mr. Stuart records excavations made in some fourteen circles, -similar, or nearly so, to this one at Rayne; and in all sepulchral -deposits, more or less distinct, were found. In some, as in that of -Crichie, before alluded to, a sepulchral deposit was found at the -foot of each of the six stones which surrounded it. Like many of our -English circles, this last was surrounded by a moat, in this instance -20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, crossed by two entrances, as is Arbor -Low and the Penrith circle, and within the moat stood the stones. As a -general rule, it may be asserted that all the Scotch circles, having -a diameter not exceeding 100 feet, when scientifically explored, have -yielded evidences of sepulchral uses. Such, certainly, is the result -of Mr. Stuart's experience, as detailed above; of Dr. Bryce's, in -Arran; of Mr. Dyce Nicol[304] and others, in Kincardine; and elsewhere. -Colonel Forbes Leslie informs me that he has not been so fortunate -in some of those he mentioned in his lecture, which he either opened -himself or learnt the details of on the spot. Some of these he admits, -however, had been opened before, others disturbed by cultivation; -and altogether his experiences seem to be exceptional, and far from -conclusive. The preponderance of evidence is so overwhelming on the one -side, that we may be perfectly content to wait the explanation of such -exceptional cases as these. - -The Aberdeenshire circles are all found scattered singly, or at most in -pairs, in remote and generally in barren parts of the country; so that -it is evident they neither marked battle-fields nor even cemeteries, -but can only be regarded as the graves of chiefs, or sometimes, it may -be, family sepulchres. There is one group, however, at Clava, about -five miles east from Inverness, which is of more than usual interest, -but regarding which the published accounts are neither so full nor so -satisfactory as could be wished.[305] - -According to Mr. Innes, the ruins of eight or nine cairns can still -be distinguished, though the whole of the little valley or depression -in which they are situated seems strewn with blocks which may have -belonged to others, but which the advancing tide of cultivation has -swept away. The most perfect of those now remaining are three at the -western end of the valley, the two outer and larger cairns stand -about 100 yards apart. They are of stone, about 70 feet in diameter, -surrounded by a circle of upright stones measuring 100 feet across. -The intermediate one is smaller, being only 50 feet, with a circle -80 feet in diameter.[306] The two extreme ones have been opened, and -found to contain circular chambers about 12 feet in diameter, and 9 in -height, with passages leading to them about 15 feet long and 2 feet -wide; and in two or three instances the stones in them were adorned -with cup-marking, though it does not appear that they were otherwise -sculptured.[307] In that to the west two sepulchral urns were found, -just below the level of the original soil. They were broken, however, -in extracting them; and they do not appear to have been put together -again or drawn, so that no conclusions can be deduced from them as to -the age of the cairns. - -[Illustration: 91. Plan of Clava Mounds. From Ordnance Survey. 25 inch -scale.] - -[Illustration: 92. View of Clava Mounds. From a drawing by Mr. Innes.] - -Meagre as this information is, it is sufficient to show that Clava -does not mark a battle-field. Carefully-constructed chambers with -horizontally-vaulted roofs are not such monuments as soldiers erect -in haste over the graves of their fallen chiefs. It evidently is a -cemetery; and, with the knowledge we have acquired from the examination -of those in Ireland, there cannot be much hesitation in ascribing it -to that dynasty which was represented by King Brude, when St. Columba, -in the sixth century, visited him in his "Munitio," on the banks of -the Ness.[308] If King Brude were really converted to Christianity -by Columba, it is by no means improbable that the small square -enclosure at the west end of the "heugh," which is still used as the -burying-place of Pagan, or at least unbaptized babies, marked the spot -where he and his successors were laid after the race had been weaned -from the more noble burial-rites of their forefathers. - -It would be extremely interesting to follow out this inquiry further, -if the materials existed for so doing; as few problems are more -perplexed, and at the same time, of their kind, more important, than -the origin of the Picts, and their relations with the Irish and the -Gaels. Language will not help us here: we know too little of that -spoken by the Picts; but these monuments certainly would, if any -one would take the trouble to investigate the question by a careful -comparison of all those existing in Scotland and Ireland. - -[Illustration: 93. Stone at Coilsfield.] - -In the south of Scotland, for instance, we find such a stone as this -at Coilsfield, on the Ayr,[309] which, taking the difference of -drawing into account, is identical with that represented in woodcut -No. 71. There is the same circle, the same uncertain, wavy line, -and generally the same character. Another was found at Annan-street, -in Roxburghshire, and is so similar in pattern and drawing that if -placed in the chamber in the tumuli of New Grange, or Dowth, no one -would suspect that it was not in the place it was originally designed -for.[310] But no sculptures of that class have yet, at least, been -brought to light in Pictland, or, in other words, north of the Forth, -on the east side of Scotland. - -[Illustration: 94. Front of Stone at Aberlemmo, with Cross.] - -[Illustration: 95. Back of Stone at Aberlemmo.] - -The sculptured stones of the Picts are, however, quite sufficient to -prove a close affinity of race between the two peoples, but always -with a difference, which is evident on even a cursory examination. -To take one instance. There is a very beautiful stone at Aberlemmo, -near Brechin, which is said to have been put up to record the victory -gained over the Danes at Loncarty, in the last years of the tenth -century.[311] Be this as it may, there seems no reason for doubting -that it is a battle-stone, and does belong to the century in which -popular tradition places it. On the front is a cross, but, like all -in Scotland, without breaking the outline of the stone, which still -retains a reminiscence of its Rude form. In Ireland, the arms of the -cross as invariably extend beyond the line of the stone, like those at -Iona, which are Irish, and these are generally joined by a circular -Glory. The ornaments on the cross are the same in both countries, and -generally consist of that curious interlacing basket-work pattern so -common also in the MSS. of that age in both countries, but which exist -nowhere else, that I am aware of, except in Armenia.[312] The so-called -"key" ornament on the horizontal arms of the cross at Aberlemmo seems -also of Eastern origin, as it is found in the Sarnath Tope, near -Benares, and elsewhere, but is common to both countries; as is also the -dragon ornament on the side of the cross, though this looks more like -a Scandinavian ornament than anything that can claim an origin further -east. - -Among the differences it may be remarked that the figure-subjects on -Irish crosses almost invariably refer to the scenes of the Passion, -or are taken from the Bible. On the Scotch stones, they as constantly -refer to battle or hunting incidents, or to what may be considered as -events in civil life. The essential difference, however, is, that, with -scarcely an exception, the Pictish stones bear some of those emblems -which have proved such a puzzle to antiquaries. The so-called broken -sceptre, the brooch, and the altar, are seen in the Aberlemmo stone; -but in earlier examples they are far more important and infinitely -various.[313] It may also be worthy of remark that the only two real -round towers out of Ireland adorn the two Pictish capitals of Brechin -and Abernethy. All this points to a difference that can well make -us understand why St. Columba should have required an interpreter -in speaking to the Picts;[314] but also to a resemblance that would -lead us to understand that the cemetery at Clava was the counterpart -of that on the banks of the Boyne, with the same relative degree of -magnificence as the Kings of Inverness bore to those of Tara; and if -we do not find similar tumuli at Brechin or Abernethy, it must be -that the kings of these provinces--if there were any--were converted -to Christianity before they adopted this mode of burial. It may be -suggested that, as Maes-Howe is certainly the lineal descendant of -the monuments on the Boyne, it too must be a Celtic or Pictish tomb. -For the reasons, however, given above, such a theory seems wholly -untenable; but thus much may be granted, that such a tomb would -probably not have been erected, even by a Northman, in a country where -there was not an underlying Celtic or Pictish population. - -[Illustration: 96. Cat Stone, Kirkliston.] - -Before leaving these sculptured stones, it may be as well to point -out one of those anomalies which meet us so frequently in these -enquiries, and show how little ordinary probabilities suffice to guide -to the true conclusion. Among the sculptured stones of Scotland, -one of the oldest is probably the Newton stone. It has at least an -Oghan inscription on its edge; and most antiquaries will admit that -Oghan engravings on stone were discontinued when alphabetic writing -was introduced and generally understood. It also has an alphabetic -inscription on its face, but the letters are not Roman. They may be -bad Greek, but certainly they appear to be pre-Roman, and therefore -probably the earliest Scotch inscription known. There is another stone -at Kirkliston, near Edinburgh, which has a Latin inscription on it. -It is a "cat" or battle-stone, and records the name of Vetta, the -son of Victis, in good Latin. Whether this Vetta is, or is not, the -grandfather of Hengist and Horsa, as Sir James Simpson contended,[315] -is of no great consequence to our present argument. It is of about -their age, and therefore as old as any of the other stones in Scotland; -and there is also a third at Yarrow,[316] with a later inscription, -which seems about the same age as the Lothian example. Now the curious -part of this matter is, that having begun with alphabetic writing, they -entirely discontinued it, and during the six or seven centuries through -which these sculptured stones certainly extend, it is the rarest -possible thing to find one with an alphabetic inscription; and why this -should be so is by no means clear. Take, for instance, the Aberlemmo -stone just quoted. The people who erected it were Christians,--witness -the cross: the ornaments on it are almost identical with those found in -Irish MSS. of the seventh and eighth centuries.[317] It is thus evident -that the persons who drew these ornaments could write, and being able -to write and carve with such exquisite precision, it seems strange they -never thought of even putting the name of the persons who erected the -stone or some word expressive of its purpose. The Irish probably would -have done so; and the Scandinavians would have covered them with Runes, -as they did those they erected in the Isle of Man, though probably at -a somewhat later date. In the instance of the two crosses illustrated -in the woodcuts, Nos. 97 and 98, the first bears an inscription to -the effect that "Sandulf the Swarthy erected this cross to his wife, -Arnbjörg." From their names, both evidently of Scandinavian origin. The -inscription on the side of the second runs thus: "Mal Lumkun erected -this cross to his foster-father Malmor, or Mal Muru."[318] Both names -of undoubted Gaelic derivation, thus showing that at that age at least -any ethnographic theory that would give these stones exclusively to -either race can hardly be maintained. The two races seem then to have -followed the fashion of the day as they did in ruder times. Except -in the instance of the St. Vigean's stone on which Sir James Simpson -read the name of Drosten,[319] ascribing it with very fair certainty -to the year 729 A.D., none of the 101 stones illustrated in -the splendid volumes of the Spalding Club contains hardly a scrap -of alphabetic writing. Throughout they preferred a strange sort of -Heraldic symbolism, which still defies the ingenuity of our best -antiquaries to interpret. It was a very perverse course to pursue, -but while men did so, probably as late as Sueno's time, A.D. -1008,[320] it is needless to ask why men set up rude stones to -commemorate events or persons when they could have carved or inscribed -them; or why, in fact, as we would insist on doing, they did not avail -themselves of all the resources of the art or the learning which they -possessed? - -[Illustration: 97. Cross in Isle of Man, bearing Runic Inscription.] - -[Illustration: 98. Cross in Isle of Man, bearing Runic Inscription.] - -The other rude-stone monuments of Scotland are neither numerous nor -important. Daniel Wilson enumerates some half-dozen of dolmens as still -existing in the lowlands and in parts of Argyllshire, but none of them -are important from their size, nor do they present any peculiarities -to distinguish them from those of Wales or Ireland; while no tradition -has attached itself to any of them in such a manner as to give a -hint of their age or purpose. Besides these, there are a number of -single stones scattered here and there over the country, but there is -nothing to indicate whether they are cat stones or mark boundaries, -or merely graves, so that to enumerate them would be as tedious as it -would be uninstructive. What little interest may attach to them will -be better appreciated when we have examined those of Scandinavia and -France, which are more numerous, as well as more easily understood. -When, too, we have mastered them in so far as the materials available -enable us to do, we shall be able to appreciate the significance of -much that has just been enunciated. Meanwhile it may be as well to -remark that what we already seem to have gained is a knowledge that -a circle-building race came from the north, touching first at the -Orkneys, and, passing down through the Hebrides, divided themselves on -the north of Ireland--one branch settling on the west coast of that -island, the other landing in Cumberland, and penetrating into England -in a south-easterly direction. - -In like manner we seem to have a dolmen-building race who from the -south first touched in Cornwall, and thence spread northwards, settling -on both sides of St. George's Channel, and leaving traces of their -existence on the south and both coasts of Ireland, as well as in Wales -and the west of England generally. Whether these two opposite currents -were or were not synchronous is a question that must be determined -hereafter. We shall also be in a better position to ascertain what the -races were who thus spread themselves along our coasts, when we have -examined the only countries from which it is probable they could have -issued. - - - [Footnote 271: 'The Sculptured Stones of Scotland.' Two vols. - quarto. Published by the Spalding Club. 1856 and 1867.] - - [Footnote 272: A few years ago the late Mr. Rhind, of Sibster, - left an estate worth more than 400_l._ per annum, to endow a - Professorship of Archæology in Scotland, who was also to act as - curator of the monuments themselves, but unfortunately left it - encumbered by a life interest to a relative. Two years ago an - attempt was made to get the Government to anticipate the falling - in of the life interest, and appointing Mr. Stuart to the office - at once. It was, perhaps, too much to expect so enlightened an act - of liberality from a Government like ours. But their decision is - to be regretted; not only because we may thereby lose altogether - the services of the best qualified man in Scotland for the purpose, - but more so because the monuments are themselves fast disappearing - without any record of them being preserved. Agriculture is very - merciless towards a big stone or a howe that stands in the way of - the plough, and in so improving a country as Scotland, very little - may remain for the next generation to record.] - - [Footnote 273: The account of these monuments is abstracted from a - paper by Lieutenant Thomas, of H. M.'s surveying vessel _Woodlark_. - It is the most detailed and most correct survey we have of any - British group. It was published in the 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 88 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 274: Four stones are represented as standing when - Barry's view of the monument was published in 1807, and four - are represented as standing in a series of etchings made by the - Duchess-Countess of Sutherland from her own drawings, in 1805. If - the elbow in the bridge shown in the drawing in the frontispiece - is not a licence permitted to himself by the artist, my drawing is - earlier than either of these. When I first purchased it I believed - it to be by Daniel. His tour, however, took place in 1815. From the - internal evidence this drawing must be anterior to 1805.] - - [Footnote 275: 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 89.] - - [Footnote 276: 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 90.] - - [Footnote 277: The greater part of this find, with all the coins, - is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries, Edinburgh. The - dates on the coins were kindly copied for me by Mr. Stuart.] - - [Footnote 278: 'Notice on the Runic Inscriptions discovered during - Recent Excavations in the Orkneys.' By James Farrer, M.P. 1862.] - - [Footnote 279: 'Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot.' v. p. 70.] - - [Footnote 280: Olaus Wormius, 'Monumenta Danica,' p. 188, fig. 6.] - - [Footnote 281: Barry's 'History of Orkney,' p. 399. See also - 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 89.] - - [Footnote 282: Barry, 'History of the Orkneys,' p. 124.] - - [Footnote 283: Mr. George Petrie has recently at my request made - some excavations in these mounds, but the results have not been - conclusive. He is of opinion that one of the mounds he explored may - be the grave of Thorfin, but it is too much ruined to afford any - certain indication.] - - [Footnote 284: 'Mémoires des Ant. du Nord,' iii. p. 236.] - - [Footnote 285: These dates are taken from Barry, p. 112 _et seq._, - but they seem undisputed, and are found in all histories.] - - [Footnote 286: 'History of Orkney.' p. 125.] - - [Footnote 287: 'Prehistoric Annals of Scotland,' p. 112. - 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 89.] - - [Footnote 288: 'Mémoires des Antiquaires du Nord,' iii. p. 250.] - - [Footnote 289: Farrer, 'Inscriptions in the Orkneys,' p. 37]. - - [Footnote 290: A few years ago such a question would have been - considered answered as soon as stated; but, as Daniel Wilson writes - in a despairing passage in his Introduction,* "This theory of - the Danish origin of nearly all our native arts, though adopted - without investigation, and fostered in defiance of evidence, has - long ceased to be a mere popular error. It is, moreover," he - adds, "a cumulative error; Pennant, Chambers, Barry, Mac Culloch, - Scott, Hibbert, and a host of other writers might be quoted to - show that theory, like a snow-ball, gathers as it rolls, taking up - indiscriminately whatever chances to be in its erratic course." In - spite of his indignation, however, I suspect it will be found to - have gathered such force, that it will be found very difficult to - discredit it. Since, too, Alexander Bertrand made his onslaught on - the theory, that the Celts had anything to do with the megalithic - monuments, the ground is fast being cut away from under their feet; - and though the proofs are still far from complete, yet according - to present appearances the Celts must resign their claims to any - of the stone circles certainly, and to most of the other stone - monuments we are acquainted with, if not to all. - - *'Prehistoric Annals of Scotland,' p. xv.] - - [Footnote 291: 'Annales Innisfal.' in O'Connor, 'Rerum. Hib. - Scrip.' ii. p. 24. 'Annales Ulton.' _Ibid._ iv. p. 117.] - - [Footnote 292: Duke of Argyll's 'Iona,' p. 100.] - - [Footnote 293: On the left of the view in the Frontispiece.] - - [Footnote 294: 'Archæologia Scot.' iii. p. 119.] - - [Footnote 295: 'Archæologia,' xxxiv. p. 113.] - - [Footnote 296: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. of Scotland,' iii. p. 213.] - - [Footnote 297: These dimensions and the plan are taken from Sir - Henry James's work on 'Stonehenge, Turuschan,' &c.] - - [Footnote 298: Anderson, on horned Tumuli in Caithness, 'Proc. Soc. - Ant. of Scotland,' vi. p. 442 _et seq._, and vii. p. 480 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 299: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. xxv.] - - [Footnote 300: Vol. iv. p. 499.] - - [Footnote 301: Glasgow, 1865, p. 186 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 302: In the 'Archæologia,' vol. xxii. pp. 200 and 202, - are plans and views of six Aberdeenshire circles, and two more are - given in the same volume further on.] - - [Footnote 303: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' vol. i. p. xxi.] - - [Footnote 304: In September, 1858, Mr. Dyce Nicol, with a party - of experienced archæologists, excavated four circles situated in - a row, and extending for nearly a mile, on the road from Aberdeen - to Stonehaven, and about 1½ mile from the sea. The first and - last had been disturbed before, but the second, at King Caussie, - and the third, at Aquhorties, yielded undoubted evidences of their - sepulchral origin. The conclusion these gentlemen arrived at was, - that "whatever other purposes these circles may have served, one - use of them was as a place of burial."--_Proceedings Soc. Ant. - Scot._ v. p. 134.] - - [Footnote 305: I regret much that I have been unable to visit - this place myself. It was, however, carefully surveyed by Captain - Charles Wilson, when he was attached to the Ordnance Survey at - Inverness. He also made detailed plans and sketches of all the - monuments, but, unfortunately, sent them to the Ordnance Office at - Southampton, and they consequently are not accessible nor available - for our present purposes.] - - [Footnote 306: These dimensions are taken partly from the Ordnance - Survey Sheet, 25-inch scale, and partly from Mr. Innes's paper in - 'Proceedings Soc. Ant.' iii. p. 49 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 307: _Ibid._ Appendix, vi. pl. x.] - - [Footnote 308: Reeves, 'Adamnan. Vita St. Columb.' p. 150.] - - [Footnote 309: Wilson's 'Prehistoric Annals,' p. 332.] - - [Footnote 310: An amusing controversy regarding the existence of - this stone will be found in the 'Proceedings Scot. Ant.' iv. p. - 524 _et seq._ It seems absolutely impossible that any man, even - under the inspiration of some primordial whisky, to have drawn - by accident a sculpture so like what his ancestors did fifteen - centuries before his time.] - - [Footnote 311: Gordon, 'Iter Septemtrionale,' p. 151.] - - [Footnote 312: In my 'History of Architecture,' ii. p. 345, I - ventured timidly to hint that this Armenian ornament would be found - identical with that in the Irish and Pictish crosses. Since then I - have seen a series of photographs of Armenian churches, which leave - no doubt in my mind that this similarity is not accidental, but - that the one country borrowed it from the other.] - - [Footnote 313: See Stuart's 'Sculptured Stones,' and Colonel Forbes - Leslie's 'Early Races of Scotland,' _passim_.] - - [Footnote 314: Reeves, 'Adamnan. Vita St. Columb.' pp. 65 and 145.] - - [Footnote 315: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.' iv. p. 119 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 316: _Ibid._ iv. p. 524.] - - [Footnote 317: Westwood, 'Facsimiles of Irish MSS.' plates 4-28.] - - [Footnote 318: These two woodcuts are borrowed from Worsaae, 'The - Danes and Northmen.' London, 1852.] - - [Footnote 319: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. 70.] - - [Footnote 320: Camden, 'Brit.' 1268.] - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -SCANDINAVIA AND NORTH GERMANY. - - -INTRODUCTORY. - -So much has been said by the Danes and their admirers of the services -that they have rendered to the study of prehistoric archæology that it -is rather disappointing to find that, when looked into, almost less is -known regarding their megalithic monuments than regarding those of any -other country in Europe. No work has yet been published giving anything -like a statistical account of them, and no map exists showing their -distribution. What little information can be obtained regarding the -Danish dolmens, and other similar monuments, is scattered through so -many volumes of transactions and detached essays that it is extremely -difficult to arrive at any connected view of them--almost, indeed, -impossible for any one who is not locally familiar with the provinces -in which they are found. The truth seems to be that the Danish -antiquaries have been so busy in arranging their microlithic treasures -in glass cases that they have totally neglected their larger monuments -outside. They have thus collected riches which no other nation -possesses, and have constructed a very perfect grammar and vocabulary -of the science. But a grammar and a dictionary are neither a history -nor a philosophy; and though their labours may eventually be most -useful to future enquirers, they are of very little use for our present -purposes. They have indeed up to this time been rather prejudicial than -otherwise, by leading people to believe that when they can distinguish -between a flint or bronze or iron implement they know the alpha and -omega of the science, and that nothing further is required to determine -the relative date of any given monument. It is as if we were to adopt -the simple chemistry of the ancients, and divide all known substances -into earth, water, fire, and air: a division not only convenient but -practically so true that there is very little to be said against it. It -is not, however, up to the mark of the knowledge of the day, and omits -to take notice of the fact that earths can occasionally be converted -into gases, and airs converted into liquids or solidified. Instead of -their simple system, what is now wanted is something that will take -into account the different races of mankind--some progressive, some -the reverse--and the different accidents of success and prosperity, or -disaster and poverty: the one leading to the aggregation of detached -communities into great centres, and consequent progress; the other -leading to dispersion and stagnation, if not retrocession, in the -arts of life which tend towards what we call civilization. At the -International Congress of Prehistoric Archæology, held at Copenhagen in -the autumn of 1869, it was understood that many of the best Northern -antiquaries were inclined to abandon, to a very considerable extent, -the hard and fast lines of their first system, and to admit not -only that there may be considerable overlapping, but even, in some -instances, that its indications were not in accordance with the facts. -More than two years have elapsed since the Congress was held, but the -volume containing the account of its proceedings is not yet published; -when it is, we may probably be in a position to speak much more -favourably not only of their views but of the extent of their knowledge -of the antiquities in question. - -Under these circumstances, we may congratulate ourselves in possessing -such a work as that of Sjöborg.[321] He wrote, fortunately, before -the Danish system was invented, but, unfortunately, before drawing -and engraving had reached the precision and clearness which now -characterize them. In consequence of the last defect, we cannot always -feel sure of our ground in basing an argument on his drawings; but, -generally speaking, he is so honest, so free from system, that there -is very little danger in this respect. The work has also the merit of -being as free from the speculations about Druids and Serpents which -disfigure the contemporary works of English antiquaries, as it is from -the three ages of the Danes; though, on the other hand, he relegates -all the dolmens and such like monuments to a prehistoric "Joter," or -giant race, who preceded, according to his views, Odin and his true -Scandinavians, to whom he ascribes all the truly historic monuments. - -In addition to the difficulties arising from the paucity of information -regarding the monuments, the Scandinavians have not yet made up -their minds with regard to their early chronology. Even the vast -collections contained in the ponderous tomes of Langebeck and Suhm[322] -are far from sufficing for the purpose; and such authors as Saxo -Grammaticus[323] write with an easy fluency too characteristic of our -own Jeffrey of Monmouth, and others who bury true history under such -a mass of fables as makes it extremely difficult to recover what we -are really seeking for. Patient industry, combined with judicious -criticism, would, no doubt, clear away most of the obscurities which -now disfigure this page of mediæval history; but, meanwhile, the -Scandinavian annals are as obscure as the Irish, and more uncertain -than the contemporary annals of England. - -Of the history of Scandinavia anterior to the Christian era, absolutely -nothing is known. It is now no longer admissible to believe in a -historic Odin, whom all the mediæval historians represent as living in -the first century B.C., and as the founder of those families -who play so important a part in the subsequent histories of our own -as well as of the whole group of Northern nations. The modern school -of Germans has discovered that Odin was a god who lived in the sky -in pre-Adamite times, and never condescended to visit our sublunary -sphere. It is now rank heresy to assume that during the thousand years -which elapsed between his pretended date and that of our earliest MSS. -the wild imaginings of barbarous tribes may not have gathered round the -indistinct form of a national hero, transferred him back to a mythic -age, and endowed him with the attributes and surroundings of a god. As -the Germans have decreed this, it is in vain to dispute it, and not -worth while to attempt it here, as for our present purposes it is of -the least possible consequence. - -About the Christian era there is said to have been a king, called -Frode I., who, as he never was deified, may have had a tomb on earth, -and might, if that could be identified, be allowed to head our list. -Between him and Harald Harfagar, who, in 880, conquered Norway and came -into distinct contact with British history in the Orkneys, we have -several lists of kings, more or less complete, and with dates more or -less certain.[324] That there were kings in those days, no one will -probably dispute, nor perhaps is the succession of the names doubtful; -and if the dates err to the extent of even fifty years or so, it is of -little consequence to our argument. The monuments extend so far down, -and to kings whose dates are so perfectly ascertained, that it is of -no importance whether the earlier ones are assigned to dates forty or -fifty years too early or too late. Their fixation may be left to future -research, as it has no direct bearing on the theory we are now trying -to investigate. - - -BATTLE-FIELDS. - -The chief of the Scandinavian monuments, and the most interesting -for our present object, comprise those groups of stones which mark -battle-fields. Not only are their dates generally known with sufficient -precision to throw considerable light on the question of the antiquity -of such monuments in general, but they also illustrate, if they do -not determine, the use of many of the groups of stones we meet with -in other countries. Sjöborg devotes ten plates in his first volume to -these battle-fields, illustrating twice that number of battles which -occurred between the fifth and the twelfth centuries after Christ. - -[Illustration: 99. View of Battle-field at Kongsbacka. From Sjöborg.] - -The first of these, at Kongsbacka, near the coast in Halland, though -of somewhat uncertain date, is worth quoting from its similarity to -the alignments on Dartmoor, Ashdown, Karnac, and elsewhere, though, -unfortunately, no plan or dimensions are given. On the hills beyond is -a tumulus called the grave of Frode, and on the plain a conspicuous -stone bears his name; but whether this was Frode V. (400) or some -other Frode is not clear. Sjöborg assigns it to a date about 500, and -there seems very little reason to doubt he is at least approximatively -correct.[325] - -The second battle-field illustrated is similar to the last, except -in the form of the stones, which seem to belong to a different -mineralogical formation.[326] They are plainly, however, seen to be -arranged in circles and lines, and are even more like forms with which -we are familiar elsewhere. It is said to represent a battle-field in -which the Swedish king Adil fought the Danish Snio, and in which the -latter with the chiefs Eskil and Alkil were slain. As all these names -are familiarly known in the mediæval history of these countries there -can be no great difficulty in ascribing this battle also to about the -same age as that at Kongsbacka. - -With the third we tread on surer ground. No event in the history of -these lands is better known than the fight on the Braavalla Heath, in -Östergothland, where the blind old king, Harald Hildetand, met his -fate in the year 736, or 750 according to others. As the Saga tells -us, Odin had, when the king was young, taught him a form of tactics -which gave him a superiority in battle over all his enemies; but the -god having withdrawn his favour from him, he fell before the prowess of -his nephew, Sigurd Ring, to whom the god had communicated the secret of -the battle array. It does not appear to admit of doubt that the circles -shown in the cut in the opposite page were erected to commemorate -this event, and that they contain the bodies of those who were slain -in this action; and if this is so, it throws considerable light on -the battle-fields of Moytura, illustrated woodcuts Nos. 54 to 61. The -circles on Braavalla are generally from 20 to 40 feet in diameter, -and consequently are, on the average, smaller than those at Moytura; -they are also more numerous, unless we adopt Petrie's suggestion,[327] -that there must originally have been at least two hundred in the Irish -field; and if so, it is the smaller ones that would certainly be -the first to be cleared away, so that the similarity may originally -have been greater than it now is--so great, indeed, as to render it -difficult to account for the fact that two battle-fields should have -been marked out in a manner so similar when so long a time as seven -centuries had elapsed between them. As it does not appear possible -that the date of the Braavalla fight can be shifted to the extent of -fifty years either way, are we deceiving ourselves about Moytura? Is it -possible that it represents some later descent of Scandinavian Vikings -on the west coast of Ireland, and that the cairn on Knocknarea-- - - "High and broad, - By the sailors over the waves - To be seen afar, - The beacon of the war renowned"[328]-- - -which they built up during ten days--is really the grave of some -Northern hero who fell in some subsequent fight at Carrowmore? That -all these are monuments of the same class, and belong, if not to the -same people, at least to peoples in close contact with one another, -and having similar faiths and feelings, does not appear to admit of -doubt. When, however, we come to look more closely at them, there are -peculiarities about them which may account for even so great a lapse -of time. The Braavalla circles are smaller, and on the whole perhaps, -we may assume, degenerate. There are square and triangular graves, -and other forms, which, so far as we know, are comparatively modern -inventions, and, altogether, there are changes which may account for -that lapse of time; but that more than seven centuries elapsed between -the two seems to be most improbable. - -[Illustration: 100. Part of the Battle-field of Braavalla Heath. From -Sjöborg.] - -[Illustration: 101. Harald Hildetand's Tomb at Lethra.[329]] - -To return, however, to King Hildetand. According to the saga, "After -the battle the conqueror, Sigurd Ring, caused a search to be made for -the body of his uncle. The body when found was washed and placed in the -chariot in which Harald had fought, and transported into the interior -of a tumulus which Sigurd had caused to be raised. Harald's horse was -then killed and buried in the mound with the saddle of Ring, so that -the king might at pleasure proceed to Walhalla either in his chariot -or on horseback. Ring then gave a great funeral feast, and invited all -the nobles and warriors present to throw into the mound great rings -and noble armour, in honour of the king Harald. They then closed up -the mound with care."[330] This mound still exists at Lethra's Harald, -capital in Seeland. It was mentioned by Saxo Grammaticus in 1236,[331] -and described and drawn by Olaus Wormius in 1643;[332] and no one ever -doubted its identity, till recently the Museum authorities caused -excavations to be made. Unfortunately some "wedges of flint" have -been found in the earth which was extracted from the chamber, from -which Worsaae and his brother antiquaries at once concluded that "it is -beyond all doubt merely a common cromlech of the stone period"[333]--a -conclusion that seems to me the reverse of logical. No one, I presume, -doubts that King Hildetand was buried in a tumulus with rings and -arms; and if this tumulus was regarded historically as his, for the -last 600 years, and traditionally so from the time of his death, it is -incumbent upon the antiquaries to show how worthless these traditions -and histories are, and to point out where he really rests. To form -an empirical system and to assert--which they cannot prove--that no -flint implements were used after a certain prehistoric date, and -that consequently all mounds in which flint implements are found are -prehistoric, seems most unreasonable, to say the least of it. It would -be surely far more philosophical to admit that flint may have been -used down to any time till we can find some reason for fixing a date -for its discontinuance. In this instance an "instantia crucis" would -be to dig into some of the circles at Braavalla, and see if any flints -are to be found there. No metal was found at Moytura, though metal -was, if history is to be depended upon, then commonly used, and flint -implements were probably not found because those who opened the tombs -were not aware of its importance. Pending this test, the form of the -grave may give us some indication of its age. It is an oblong barrow, -with an external dolmen at one end, and with a row of ten stones on -each side, the two end ones being taller than the rest. A similar -mound, known as the Kennet long barrow, exists at Avebury,[334] so -similar indeed that if this tomb at Lethra is historical so certainly -is the English example. If, on the other hand, either can be proved to -belong to the long forgotten past, the other must also he consigned to -the same unsatisfactory limbo. - -The barrow at West Kennet was carefully explored in 1859 by Dr. -Thurnam, and the results of his investigation fully detailed in a -paper in the 'Archæologia,' vol. xxxviii., from which the following -particulars are abstracted, together with some others from a second -paper, "On Long Barrows," by the same author, in vol. xlii. of the same -publication. - -Externally it is a mound measuring 336 feet in length by 75 feet at -its broadest part. Originally it was surrounded by what is called a -peristalith of tall stones, between which, it is said, a walling of -smaller stones can still be detected. On its summit, as at Lethra, was -an external dolmen over the principal chamber of the tomb. The chamber -was nearly square in form, measuring 8 feet by 9, and approached by -a passage measuring 15 feet by 3 feet 6 inches in width; and its -arrangement is in fact the same as that of the Jersey tumulus (woodcut -No. 11), and, as Sir John Lubbock remarks, "very closely resembles -that of a tumulus" he had just been describing, of the Stone age, -in the island of Möen, "and, in fact, the plan of passage graves -generally."[335] - -[Illustration: 102. Long Barrow, Kennet, restored by Dr. Thurnam. -'Archæologia,' xlii.] - -When opened, six original interments were found in the chamber, under -a stratum of black, sooty, greasy matter, 3 to 9 inches in thickness, -and which, Dr. Thurnam remarks, "could never have been disturbed since -the original formation of the deposit" (p. 413). Two of these had -their skulls fractured during lifetime; the others were entire. To -account for this, Dr. Thurnam takes considerable pains to prove that -slaves were sometimes sacrificed at the funeral of their masters, but -he fails to find any instance in which they were killed by breaking -their heads; and if they were to serve their master in the next -world, even a savage would be shrewd enough to know that cracking his -skull was not the way to render him useful for service either in this -world or the next. No such mode of sacrifice was ever adopted, so far -as I know.[336] But supposing it was so, all the six burials in this -tomb seem to have been nearly equal, and equally honourable, and why, -therefore, all their skulls were not broken is not clear. If on the -other hand we assume that it is the grave of six persons who were -slain in battle, two by blows on the head, and four by wounds in the -body, this surely would be a simpler way of accounting for the facts -observed. Even, however, if we were to admit that these men with the -broken heads were sacrificed, this would by no means prove the grave to -be prehistoric. Quite the contrary, for we know from the indisputable -authority of a decree of Charlemagne that human sacrifices were -practised by the pagan Saxons as late, certainly, as 789,[337] and were -sufficiently frequent to constitute one of the first crimes against -which he fulminated his edicts. The fact is that neither historians -nor antiquaries seem quite to realise the state of utter barbarism -into which the greater part of Europe was plunged between the collapse -of the Roman Empire and the revival of order under Charlemagne. -Christianity no doubt had taken root in some favoured spots, and some -bright lights shone out of the general darkness, but over the greater -part of Europe pagan rites were still practised to such an extent as -easily to account for any heathen practice or any ancient form of -sepulture which may be found anywhere existing. - -To return, however, to our long barrow. Under a piece of Sarsen stone, -but on the skull of one of the principal persons interred here (No. -4), were found two pieces of black pottery (fig. 8, page 415), which -Dr. Thurnam admits may be of the Roman age. Other fragments of the -same vessel were found in other parts of the tomb, and also fragments -of pottery (figs. 14 to 17), not British, but to which he hesitates to -assign an age. So far as I can judge, it seems just such pottery as the -less experienced British potters would form, on Roman models, after -the departure of that people. But this is immaterial; for beyond the -chamber, and deeper consequently into the tumulus, were found fragments -of undoubted Roman pottery. So far, therefore, everything favours -the view that it was the sepulchre of persons slain in battle, after -the departure of the Romans; for we can hardly believe that a battle -would be fought, and such a tomb raised over the slain, during their -occupation; and if so, as the pottery proves it could not be before, a -choice of a date is fixed within very narrow limits. It may either have -been in 450, immediately after the departure of the Romans, or in 520, -the date of the battle of Badon Hill, which is the time at which, I -believe, it was reared. So far as the general argument is concerned, it -is of no consequence which date is chosen. Against this conclusion we -have to place the following facts. First, no trace of iron or bronze, -or of metal of any sort, was found in the tomb. Secondly, at least 300 -flint fragments were found in it. Some of these were mere chippings, -some cones, but many were fairly formed flint implements (figs. 10 to -13),[338] not belonging to the oldest type, but such as antiquaries are -in the habit of ascribing to the pre-metal Stone age. In addition to -these, the quantity of coarse native pottery was very remarkable. No -whole vessels were found, but broken fragments that would form fifty -vessels were heaped in a corner; and there were corresponding fragments -in another corner. Dr. Thurnam tries to explain this by referring to -the passage in the grave scene in 'Hamlet,' where our great dramatist -speaks of "shards, flints, and pebbles," which should be thrown into -the graves of suicides; the use of which, he adds, "in mediæval times -may be a relic of paganism." It does not, however, seem to occur to him -that, if such a custom was known in the sixteenth century, it would be -likely to have been in full force in the sixth. It is strange enough -that such a custom, even if only referred to suicides, should have -survived a thousand years of such revolutions and changes of religion -as England was subjected to in those days; but that it should be known -to Christians, after 3000 or 4000 years' disuse, seems hardly possible. - -No argument, it appears to me, can be drawn from the different kinds of -pottery found in the tomb. If any one will take the trouble of digging -up the kitchen midden of a villa built within the last ten years, in -a previously uninhabited spot, he will probably find fragments of an -exquisite porcelain vase which the housemaid broke in dusting the -drawing-room chimney-piece. He will certainly find many fragments of -the stoneware used in the dining-room, and with them, probably, some of -the coarser ware used in the dairy, and mixed with these innumerable -"shards" of the flower-pots used in the conservatory. According to -the reasoning customary among antiquaries, this midden must have been -accumulating during 2000 or 3000 years at least, because it would -have taken all that time, or more, before the rude pottery of the -flower-pots could have been developed into the exquisite porcelain -of the drawing-room vase. The argument is, in fact, the same as that -with respect to the flints. It may be taken for granted that men used -implements of bone and stone before they were acquainted with the -use of metal; but what is disputed is that they ceased to use them -immediately after becoming familiar with either bronze or iron. So with -earthenware: men no doubt used coarse, badly formed, and badly burnt -pottery before they could manufacture better; but, even when they could -do so, it is certain that they did not cease the employment of pottery -of a very inferior class; and we have not done so to the present day. -To take one instance among many. There are in the Museum of the Society -of Antiquaries at Edinburgh a series of vessels, hand-made and badly -burnt, and which might easily be mistaken--and often are--for those -found in prehistoric tombs. Yet they were made and used in the Shetland -Islands in the last and even in the present century. - -The truth of the matter seems to be that, as in the case of a find of -coins, it is the date of the last piece that fixes the time of the -deposit. There may be coins in it a hundred or a thousand years older, -but this hoard cannot have been buried before the last piece which it -contains was coined. So it is with this barrow. The presence of Roman -or post-Roman pottery in an avowedly undisturbed sepulchre fixes, -beyond doubt, the age before which the skeletons could not have been -deposited where they were found by Dr. Thurnam. The presence of flints -and coarse pottery only shows, but it does so most convincingly, how -utterly groundless the data are on which antiquaries have hitherto -fixed the age of these monuments. It proves certainly that flints and -shards were deposited in tombs in Roman or post-Roman times; and if -there is no mistake in Dr. Thurnam's data, this one excavation is, by -itself, sufficient to prove that the Danish theory of the three ages -is little better than the "baseless fabric" of--if not "a vision"--at -least of an illusion, which, unless Dr. Thurnam's facts can be -explained away, has no solid foundation to rest upon. - -If any systematic excavations had been undertaken in the Scandinavian -long barrows, it would not, perhaps, be necessary to adduce English -examples to illustrate their age or peculiarities. Several are adduced -by Sjöborg, but none are reported as opened. This one, for instance, -is externally like the long barrow at West Kennet, and, if Sjöborg's -information is to be depended upon, is one of several which mark the -spot where Frode V. (460-494) landed in Sweden, where a battle was -fought, and those who fell in it were buried in these mounds, or where -the Bauta stones mark their graves. If this is so, the form of the -long barrow with its peristalith was certainly not unknown in the -fifth century; and there is no improbability of its being employed in -England also in that age. In settling these questions, however, the -Scandinavians have an immense advantage over us. All their mounds have -names and dates; they may be true or they may be false, but they give a -starting-point and an interest to the enquiry which are wanting in this -country, but which, it is hoped, will one day enable the Northmen to -reconstruct their monumental history on a satisfactory basis. - -[Illustration: 103. Long Barrow at Wiskehärad, in Halland. From a -drawing by Sjöborg.] - -In most cases antiquaries in this country have been content to appeal -to the convenient fiction of secondary interments to account for the -perplexing contradictions in which their system everywhere involves -them. In the instance of the Kennet long barrow there is no excuse -for such a suggestion. All the interments were of one age, and that -undoubtedly the age of the chamber in which they were found, and the -pottery and flints could not have been there before nor introduced -afterwards. Indeed, I do not know a single instance of an undoubtedly -secondary interment, unless it is in the age of Canon Greenwell's -really prehistoric tumuli. When he publishes his researches, we shall -be in a condition to ascertain how far they bear on the theory.[339] -In the chambered tumuli secondary interments seem never to occur; and -nothing is more unlikely than that they should. As Dr. Thurnam himself -states: "In three instances at least Mr. Cunnington and Sir R. C. Hoare -found in long barrows skeletons which, from their extended position and -the character of the iron weapons accompanying them, were evidently -Anglo-Saxon."[340] A simple-minded man would consequently fancy that -they were Anglo-Saxon graves, for what can be more improbable than -that the proud conquering Saxons would be content to bury their dead -in the graves of the hated and despised Celts whom they were busy in -exterminating.[341] - -If the above reasoning is satisfactory and sufficient to prove that -the long barrow at West Kennet is of post-Roman times, it applies also -to Rodmarton, Uley, Stoney Littleton, and all the Gloucestershire long -barrows which, for reasons above given (_ante_, page 164), we ventured -to assign to a post-Roman period; and _à fortiori_ it carries with -it King Hildetand's tomb at Lethra. It is true we have not the same -direct means of judging of its date as we have of our own monuments. -The Danes treat with such supreme contempt any monument that does not -at once fall in with their system, that they will not even condescend -to explore it. So soon as Worsaae found some "flint wedges" in the -tomb, he at once decreed that it was prehistoric, and that it was -no use searching farther; and we are consequently left to this fact -and its external similarities for our identification. Here, again, -is a difficulty. The two drawings above given (woodcuts Nos. 101 and -102) may show them too much alike or exaggerate differences. The -one is an old drawing from nature, the other a modern restoration; -still the essential facts are undoubted. Both are chambered long -barrows, ornamented by rows of tall stones, either partially or wholly -surrounding their base, and both have external dolmens on their summit, -and both contain flint implements. If this is so, the difficulty is -rather to account for so little change having taken place in 230 years -than to feel any surprise at their not being identical. The point upon -which we wish to insist here is that they are both post-Roman, and may -consequently belong to any age between Arthur and Charlemagne. - - * * * * * - -The remaining battle-fields of which representations are given in -Sjöborg are scarcely so interesting as that at Braavalla, which with -the tomb of the king slain there are landmarks in our enquiry. If those -circles on Braavalla Heath do mark the battle-field, and that tomb at -Lethra is the one in which the blind old king was laid--neither of -which facts I see any reason for doubting--all difficulties based on -the assumed improbability of the monuments being so modern as I am -inclined to make them are removed, and each case must stand or fall -according to the evidence that can be adduced for or against its age. -To return, however, to the battle-fields given by Sjöborg. Figures 43 -and 44 represent two groups of circles and Bauta stones near Hwitaby, -in Malmö. These are said to mark two battle-fields, in which Ragnar -Lothbrok gained victories over his rebellious subjects in Scania: -Sjöborg says in 750 and 762, as he adopts a chronology fifty years -earlier than Suhm. But be this as it may, there does not seem any -reason for doubting but that these stones do mark fields where battles -were fought in the eighth century, and that Ragnar Lothbrok took part -in them. These groups are much less extensive than those at Braavalla, -but are so similar that they cannot be distant from them in age. - -At Stiklastad, in Norway, in the province of Drontheim, a battle was -fought, in 1030, between Knut the Great and Olof the Holy; and close -to this is a group of forty-four circles of stones, which Sjöborg -seems, but somewhat doubtfully, to connect with this battle. But about -the next one (fig. 49) there seems no doubt. The Danish prince Magnus -Henricksson killed Erik the Holy, and was slain by Carl Sverkersson, -in the year 1161, at Uppland, in Denmark; and the place is marked -by twenty stone circles and ovals, most of them enclosing mounds -and two square enclosures, 30 to 40 feet in diameter. They are not, -consequently, in themselves very important, but are interesting, if -the adscription is correct, as showing how this heathenish custom -lasted even after Christianity must have been fairly established in the -country. Another group (fig. 51) is said to mark the spot where, in -1150, a Swedish heroine, Blenda, overcame the Danish king Swen Grate, -and the spot is marked by circles and Bauta stones; one, in front of a -tumulus, bears a Runic inscription, though it merely says that Dedrik -and Tunne raised the stone to Rumar the Good. - -Only one other group need be mentioned here. On a spot of land, in the -island of Freyrsö, off the entrance of the Drontheim Fiord, in the year -958, Hakon, the son of Harald Harfagar, overthrew his nephews, the sons -of Erik Blodoxe, in three battles. The first and second of these, as -shown in the plan (woodcut No. 104), are marked by cairns and mounds; -and the third by eight large barrows, three of which are of that shape -known in Scandinavia as ship barrows, and measure from 100 to 140 feet -in length. There are also three tumuli at 4 in the woodcut, in one -of which one of Erik Blodoxe's sons is said to be buried. It is not -clear whether the five large mounds that stud the plain do not cover -the remains of those also who fell in this fight. It does not appear -that any excavations have been made in them. The interest of this -battle-field to us is not so much because it shows the persistence -of this plan of marking battle-fields at so late a date--later ones -have just been quoted--but because all the actors in the scene are -familiar to us from the part they took in the transactions in the -Orkneys in the tenth century. If they, in their own country, adhered -to these old-world practices, we should not be astonished at their -having erected circles or buried in mounds in their new possessions. It -is true that none of these Scandinavian circles can compare in extent -with the Standing Stones of Stennis or the Ring of Brogar, but this -would not be the first time that such a thing has happened. The Greeks -erected larger and, in proportion to the population, more numerous -Doric temples in Sicily than they possessed in their own country; -and the Northmen may have done the same thing in Orcadia, where they -possessed a conquered, probably an enslaved, race to execute these -works. - -[Illustration: 104. Battle-field at Freyrsö. From Sjöborg, vol. i. pl. -16.] - -TUMULI. - -The number of sepulchral mounds in Scandinavia is very great, and -some of them are very important; but, so far as I can ascertain, very -few have been explored, and, until interrogated by the spade, nothing -can well be less communicative than a simple mound of earth. A map of -their distribution might, no doubt, throw considerable light on the -ethnography of the country, and tell us whether the Finns or Lapps -were their original authors, or whether the Slaves or Wends were their -introducers; and, lastly, whether the true Scandinavians brought them -with them from other lands, or merely adopted them from the original -inhabitants, in which case they can only be treated as survivals. -Funereal pomp, or tomb-building of any sort, is so antagonistic to -the habits of any people so essentially Teutonic as the Scandinavians -were and are, that we cannot understand their adopting these forms, or -indeed stone circles or monuments of any class, in a country where they -had not previously existed. If we assume that the modern Scandinavians -were German tribes who conquered the country from the Cimbri or the -earlier Lapps and Finns, and did so as warriors, bringing no women -with them, the case is intelligible enough. Under these circumstances, -they must have intermarried with the natives of the country, and would -eventually, after a few generations, lose much of their individual -nationality, and adopt many of the customs of the people among whom -they settled, using them only in a more vigorous manner and on a larger -scale than their more puny predecessors had been able to adopt.[342] -It is most improbable that the "Northmen," if Germans--as indeed their -language proves them to be--should ever have invented such things as -tumuli, dolmens, circles, or any other such un-Aryan forms, in any -country where they had not existed previously to their occupying it; -but that as immigrants they should adopt the customs of the previous -occupants of the land is only what we find happening everywhere. The -settlement of these points will be extremely interesting for the -ethnography of Northern Europe, and ought not to be difficult whenever -the problem is fairly grappled with. In the meanwhile, all that the -information at present available will enable us to do here is to -refer to some tumuli whose contents bear more or less directly on the -argument which is the principal object of this work. - -The first of these is the triple group at Upsala, now popularly -known as the graves of Thor, Wodin, and Freya. It may illustrate the -difficulty of obtaining correct information regarding these monuments -to state that, even so late as 1869, Sir John Lubbock, who is generally -so well informed, and had such means of obtaining information, did -not know that they had been opened.[343] I was aware of a passage in -Marryatt's travels in Sweden in which, writing on the spot, he asserts -that one of them had been opened, and that "in its 'giant's chamber' -were found the bones of a woman, and, among other things, a piece of a -gold filagree bracelet, richly ornamented in spiral decoration, some -dice, and a chessman, either the king or a knight."[344] Wishing, -however, for further information, I obtained an introduction to Mr. -Hans Hildebrand, who gave me the following information. Subsequently -I received a letter from Professor Carl Säve, of Upsala, who kindly -abstracted for me the only published accounts of the excavations as -they appeared in a local paper at the time. These were forwarded to me -by Professor Geo. Stephens, of Copenhagen, who also was so obliging as -to translate them. They are so interesting that I have printed them, -as they stand, as Appendix B. From these two documents the following -account is compiled, and may be thoroughly depended upon. - -One of the mounds, known as that of Wodin, was opened, in 1846, under -the superintendence of Herr Hildebrand, the royal antiquary of Sweden. -It was soon found that the mounds were situated on a ridge of gravel, -so that the tunnel had to take an upward, direction. At the junction -of the natural with the artificial soil, a cairn was found of closely -compacted stones, each about as large as a man could lift. In the -centre of the cairn the burial urn was found in the grave-chamber, -containing calcined bones, ashes, fragments of bronze ornaments -destroyed by fire, and a fragment of a gold ornament delicately -wrought. Within the cairn, but a little away from the urn, were found -a heap of dogs' bones, equally calcined by fire, and fragments of -two golden bracteates. "The workmanship of the gold ornaments," Herr -Hildebrand adds, "closely resembles that of the gold bracteates of the -fifth or sixth centuries, and, with the fragments of these peculiar -ornaments themselves, settles a date before which these mounds could -not have been raised." How much later they may be, it is not easy -to conjecture, without at least seeing the bracteates, which do not -seem to have been published. With a little local industry, I have -very little doubt, not only that the date of these tombs could be -ascertained, but the names of the royal personages who were therein -buried, probably in the sixth or seventh century of our era. - -"The tombs of Central Sweden," Herr Hildebrand adds, "are generally -constructed in the same way, the urn containing the bones being placed -on the surface of the soil, at the place of cremation or elsewhere, -as the case may be. Generally, nothing is found with them but an -iron nail, or some such trifling object"--a curious and economical -reminiscence of the extravagant customs of their predecessors. -According to him, "almost every village in Sweden, with the exception -of those in some mountain-districts and the most northern provinces, -has a tomb-field quite close to the side of the houses. The antiquities -found in the mounds of these tomb-fields all belong to the Iron age. -The tombs of the earlier ages have no connection with the homesteads of -the present people." - -How far these tombs extend downwards in date cannot be ascertained -without a much more careful examination than they have yet been -subjected to. It may safely, however, be assumed that they continued -to be used till the conversion of the inhabitants to Christianity, and -probably even for some considerable time afterwards, for such a custom -is not easily eradicated. - -It would be as tedious as unprofitable to attempt to enumerate the -various mounds which have been opened, for their contents throw little -or no light on our enquiry; and being distributed in cases in the -museum, not according to their localities or traditions, but according -to their systematic classes, it is almost impossible to restore them -now to their places in history. - -[Illustration: 105. Dragon on King Gorm's Stone, Jellinge. From 'An. -Nord. Oldkund.' xii. 1852.] - -At Jellinge, however, on the east coast of Jutland, there are two -mounds, always known traditionally as those of Gorm the Old and his -queen Thyra Danebod--the Beloved. The date of Gorm's death seems now -to be accepted as 950 A.D.;[345] but it is not clear whether -he erected the tomb himself, or whether it is due to the filial piety -of his son Harald Blaatand, or Blue-Tooth, and in which case its date -would be 968.[346] Saxo Grammaticus at least tells us that he buried -his mother in the tumulus, and then set a whole army of men and oxen -at work to remove from the Jutland shore an immense stone--a little -rock--and bring it to the place where his mother lay inhumed.[347] -That stone still exists, and has sculptured on one side a dragon, -which calls forcibly to our mind that found on Maes-Howe (woodcut No. -85), and on the other side a figure, which is, no doubt, intended to -represent Christ on the cross. On the two sides are Runic inscriptions, -in which he records his affection for his father and mother and his -conversion to the Christian faith. - -So far as I can ascertain, the tomb of King Gorm has not yet been -opened. That of Thyra was explored many years ago--in 1820 apparently; -but no sections or details have been published, so that it is -extremely difficult to ascertain even the dimensions. Engelhardt -reports the height as 43 feet, and the diameter as 240 feet;[348] -Worsaae gives the height as 75 feet, and the diameter as 180 feet, and -he is probably correct.[349] But in Denmark anything that cannot be put -into a glass case in a museum is so completely rejected as valueless -that no one cares to record it. When entered, it was found that it -had been plundered probably in the middle ages, and all that remained -were the following articles:--A small silver goblet, lined with gold -on the inside, and ornamented with interlaced dragons on the exterior; -some fibulæ, tortoise-shaped, and ornamented with fantastic heads of -animals; some buckle-heads, and other objects of no great value. The -chamber in which these objects were found measured 23 feet in length by -8 feet 3 inches in width, and was 5 feet high;[350] the walls and roof, -formed of massive slabs of oak, were originally, it appears, hung with -tapestries, but these had nearly all perished. - -Not only are these monuments of Gorm and Thyra interesting in -themselves, and deserving of much more attention than the Danes have -hitherto bestowed upon them, but they are most important in their -bearing on the general history of monuments of this class. In the -first place, their date and destination are fixed beyond dispute, and -this being so, the only ground is taken away on which any _à priori_ -argument could be based with regard to the age of any mound anterior -to the tenth century. As soon as it is realised that sepulchral mounds -have been erected in the tenth century, it is impossible to argue that -it is unlikely or improbable that Silbury Hill or any other mound in -England may not belong to the sixth or any subsequent century down to -that time. The argument is, however, even more pertinent with reference -to Maes-Howe and other tumuli in the Orkneys. If the Scandinavian kings -were buried in "howes" down to the year 1000--I believe they extend -much beyond that date--it is almost certain that the Orcadian Jarls -were interred in similar mounds down at least to their conversion to -Christianity (A.D. 986). Whether Maes-Howe was erected as -a sepulchre for the sons of Ragnar Lothbrok, as John Stuart seems to -infer from the inscriptions,[351] or of Havard Earl, as I have above -attempted to show, is of little consequence to the general argument. -That it was the grave of a Scandinavian Jarl, erected between 800 and -1000 A.D., seems quite certain, and my own impression is that -it is almost as certainly the tomb of the individual Jarl to whom I -have ventured to ascribe it. - -As before mentioned, no argument against these views can be drawn -from the fact that Thyra's tomb is lined with slabs of oak, while the -chamber at Maes-Howe is formed with stone. The difference of the two -localities is sufficient to account for this. Denmark has always been -famous for its forests, and especially on the shores of the Baltic, at -Jellinge, wood of the noblest dimensions was always available, whereas -the stone of the country was hard and intractable. In the Orkneys, on -the other hand, there is absolutely no timber of natural growth big -enough to afford a good-sized walking-stick, and stone is not only -everywhere abundant, but splits easily into slabs, self-faced, and most -easily worked, so that stone, and stone only, would be the material -employed in the Orkneys for that purpose, as wood would also be the -best and most available material in Denmark. - -If, before leaving this branch of the subject, we turn back for a few -minutes to the Irish monuments, we are now in a position to judge more -correctly of the probabilities of the case than we were. Assuming the -three-chambered tumulus at New Grange to have been erected between the -years 200 and 400, and Maes-Howe and Jellinge between 800 and 1000 -A.D., we have a period of from five to six, it may possibly be seven, -centuries between these monuments. Is this more than is sufficient to -account for the difference between them, or is it too little? It is -not easy to give a categorical answer to such a question, but judging -from the experience gained from other styles, in different parts of the -world, the conclusion generally would be that the time is in excess -of what is required. That there was progress, considerable progress -indeed, made in the interval between the Irish and Scandinavian -monuments, cannot be denied, but that it should have required five -centuries to achieve this advance is hardly what would be expected, and -it would be difficult to quote another example of a progress so slow. -Yet it is hardly possible to bring down New Grange to the age of St. -Patrick (A.D. 436), and as difficult to carry back Maes-Howe -beyond Ragnar Lothbrok (794 at the extreme), and between these dates -there are only 358 years; but we must certainly add something at -either one end or the other; and if we do this, we obtain an amount of -progress so slow that it would be almost unaccountable, but upon the -assumption that they are the works of two different peoples. At the -time the sepulchre on the Boyne was erected, Ireland was energetically -and rapidly progressive, and her arts were more flourishing than might -have been expected from her then state of civilization. When Maes-Howe -was erected, the native population was poor and perishing, and as the -lordly Vikings would hardly condescend to act as masons themselves, -they did the best they could with the means at their disposal. Explain -it, however, as we may, it seems impossible to allow a longer time -between the mounds at Jellinge and Stennis and those on the Boyne than -has been accorded above; and as it seems equally difficult to bring -them nearer to one another, the probability seems to be in favour of -the dates already assigned to them. - -To return, however, from this digression; besides those just mentioned, -Denmark possesses a nearly complete series of royal tombs such as -are not to be found in any other country of Europe. Even Worsaae -acknowledges the existence of that of Frode Frodegode, who lived -about the Christian era, of Amlech, near Wexio--Shakespeare's Hamlet, -of Humble, and Hjarne,[352] besides those of Hildetand, and Gorm -and Thyra, already mentioned. If the Danes would only undertake a -systematic examination of these royal sepulchres, it might settle many -of the disputed points of mediæval archæology. To explore tombs to -which no tradition attaches may add to the treasures of their museums, -but can only by accident elucidate either the history of the country -or the progress of its arts. If ten or twelve tombs with known names -attached to them were opened, one of two things must happen: either -they will show a succession and a progress relative to the age of their -reputed occupants, or no such sequence will be traceable. In the first -case the gain to history and archæology would be enormous, and it is -an opportunity of settling disputed questions such as no other country -affords. If, on the other hand, no such connection can be traced, -there is an end of much of the foundations on which the reasoning of -the previous pages is based, but in either case such an enquiry could -not fail to throw a flood of light on the subject which we were trying -to elucidate. The fear is that all have been rifled. The Northmen -certainly spared none of the tombs in the countries they conquered, and -our experience of Maes-Howe and Thyra's tomb would lead us to fear that -after their conversion to Christianity they were as little inclined to -spare those of their own ancestors. All they however cared for were the -objects composed of precious metals; so enough may still be left for -the less avaricious wants of the antiquary. - - -DOLMENS. - -So far as is at present known, there are not any tumuli of importance -or any battle-fields marked with great stones in the north of Germany; -but the dolmens there are both numerous and interesting, and belong -to all the classes found in Scandinavia, and, so far as can be -ascertained, are nearly identical in form. Nothing, however, would -surprise me less than if it should turn out that both barrows and Bauta -stones were common there, especially in the island of Rügen and along -the shores of the Baltic as far east as Livonia. The Germans have -not yet turned their attention to this class of their antiquities. -They have been too busy sublimating their national heroes into gods -to think of stones that tell no tales. Whenever they do set to work -upon them, they will, no doubt, do it with that thoroughness which -is characteristic of all they attempt. But as the investigation will -probably have to pass through the solar myth stage of philosophy, it -may yet be a long time before their history reaches the regions of -practical common sense. - -No detailed maps having been published, it is extremely difficult -to feel sure of the distribution of these monuments in any part of -the northern dolmen region; but the following, which is abstracted -from Bonstetten's 'Essai sur les Dolmens,' may convey some general -information on the subject, especially when combined with the map (p. -275), which is taken, with very slight modifications, from that which -accompanied his work. - -According to Bonstetten there are no dolmens in Poland, nor in Posen. -They first appear on the Pregel, near Königsberg; but are very rare in -Prussia, only two others being known, one at Marienwerder, the other at -Konitz. In Silesia there is one at Klein-Raden, near Oppeln; another -is found in the district of Liegnitz, and they are very numerous in -the Uckermark, Altmark, in Anhalt, and Prussian Saxony, as well as in -Pomerania and the island of Rügen. They are still more numerous in -Mecklenburg, which is described as peculiarly rich in monuments of this -class. Hanover possesses numerous dolmens, except in the south-eastern -districts, such as Göttingen, Oberharz, and Hildesheim. To make up for -this, however, in the northern districts, Lüneburg, Osnabrück, and -Stade, at least two hundred are found. The grand-duchy of Oldenburg -contains some of the largest dolmens in Germany; one of these, near -Wildesheim, is 23 feet long; another, near Engelmanns-Becke, is -surrounded by an enclosure of stones measuring 37 feet by 23, each -stone being 10 feet in height, while the cap stone of a third is 20 -feet by 10. In Brunswick there were several near Helmstädt, but they -are now destroyed. In Saxony some rare examples are found as far south -as the Erzgebirge, and two were recently destroyed in the environs of -Dresden. Keeping along the northern line, we find them in the three -northern provinces of Holland, Gröningen, Ober-Yssel, and especially in -Drenthe, where they exist in great numbers, but none to the southward -of these provinces, and nowhere do they seem to touch the Rhine or its -bordering lands; but a few are found in the grand-duchy of Luxembourg -as in a sort of oasis, halfway between the southern or French dolmen -region and that of northern Germany. - -From the North German districts they extend through Holstein and -Schleswig into Jutland and the Danish isles, but are most numerous on -the eastern or Baltic side of the Cimbrian peninsula, and they are also -very frequent in the south of Sweden and the adjacent islands. Dolmens -properly so called are not known in Norway, but, as above mentioned, -cairns and monuments of that class, are not wanting there. - -The value of this distribution will be more easily appreciated when we -have ascertained the limits of the French field, but meanwhile it may -be convenient to remark that, unless the dolmens can be traced very -much further eastward, there is a tremendous gulf before we reach the -nearest outlyers of the eastern dolmen field. There is a smaller, but -very distinct, gap in the country occupied by the Belgæ, between it -and the French field, and another, but practically very much smaller -one, between it and the British isles. This is a gap because the -intervening space is occupied by the sea; but as it is evident from -the distribution of all the northern dolmens in the proximity to the -shores and in the islands that the people who erected them were a -sea-faring people, and as we know that they possessed vessels capable -of navigating these seas, it is practically no gap at all. We know -historically how many Jutes, Angles, Frisians, and people of similar -origin, under the generic name of Saxons, flocked to our shores in the -early centuries of the Christian era, and afterwards what an important -part the Danes and Northmen played in our history, and what numbers -of them landed and settled in Great Britain, either as colonists or -conquerors, at different epochs, down to at least the eleventh century. -If, therefore, we admit the dolmens to be historic, or, in other words, -that the erection of megalithic monuments was practised during the -first ten centuries after the Christian era, we have no difficulty -in understanding where our examples came from, or to whom they are -due. If, on the other hand, we assume that they are prehistoric, we -are entirely at sea regarding them or their connection with those on -the continent. The only continental people we know of who settled in -Britain before the Roman times were the Belgæ, and they are the only -people between the Pillars of Hercules and the Gulf of Riga who, having -a sea-board, have also no dolmens or megalithic remains of any sort. -All the others have them more or less, but the Northern nations did -not, so far as we know, colonise this country before the Christian era. - - * * * * * - -As all the Northern antiquaries have made up their minds that these -dolmens generally belong to the mythic period of the Stone age, and -that only a few of them extend down to the semi-historic age of bronze, -it is in vain to expect that they would gather any traditions or record -any names that might connect them with persons known in history. We -are, therefore, wholly without assistance from history or tradition -to guide us either in classifying them or in any attempt to ascertain -their age, while the indications which enable us to connect them with -our own, or with one another, are few and far between. - -[Illustration: 106. Dolmen at Herrestrup.] - -Among the few that give any sure indications of their age, one of the -most interesting is at Herrestrup, in Zeeland, which has recently -been disinterred from the tumulus that once covered it.[353] On it -are engraved some half-dozen representations of ships, such as the -Vikings were in the habit of drawing, and which are found in great -quantities on the west coast of Göttenburg.[354] According to the best -authorities, these representations range from about A.D. 500 -to 900,[355] and some may perhaps be more modern. Those in this dolmen -do not appear to be either among the most ancient or the most modern, -and if we fix on the eighth century as their date, we shall not be very -far wrong. That they are also coeval with the monument seems perfectly -certain. We cannot fancy any Viking engraving these on a deserted -dolmen, say even 100 years old, and then covering it up with a tumulus, -as this one was till recently. Had it never been covered up, any -hypothesis might be proposed, but the mound settles that point. Besides -the ships, however, there are an almost equal number of small circles -with crosses in them, on the cap stone. Whether these are intended to -represent chariot-wheels, or some other object, is not clear, but if -we turn back to woodcut No. 41, representing the side-stone of the -dolmen at Aspatria, we find the identical object represented there, -and in such a manner that, making allowance for the difference of -style in the century that has elapsed between the execution of the two -engravings, they must be assumed to be identical. No engravings--so -far as I know--have been published of the objects found in this Danish -dolmen, but in the English one, as already mentioned, the objects found -belonged to the most modern Iron age; such things, in fact, as will -perfectly agree with the date of the eighth century. Among them, as -will be recollected, was the snaffle-bit, so like, though certainly -more modern than, Stukeley's bit found in Silbury Hill. We have thus -three tumuli which from their engravings or their contents confirm -one another to a most satisfactory extent, and render the dates above -assigned to them, to say the least of it, very probable. If the date -thus obtained for the Aspatria monument is accepted, it is further -interesting as giving that of those mysterious concentric circles, with -a line passing through them from the centre, which have been found in -such numbers on the rocks in the north of England and in Scotland.[356] -These are, so far as I know, the only examples of these circles which -were buried, and were consequently associated with other objects which -assist in fixing their age. - -[Illustration: 107. Dolmen at Halskov. From a drawing by Madsen.] - -As before hinted, many of the monuments engraved by Madsen[357] are so -extremely like those in the field of Northern Moytura that it is almost -impossible to believe that they were erected by a different race of -people, or at any great distance of time. The one, for instance, at -Halskov is so like the dolmen and circle represented in woodcut No. -61 that the one might almost pass for the other, were it not that the -photograph is taken from the wrong side, to bring out the resemblance, -as it is seen on the spot, while in others the resemblance is as great, -or even greater. It is very unsatisfactory, however, picking these -points of similarity from books, some of the engravings in which are -from imperfect drawings. In others, artistic effect has been more aimed -at than truth, and some are taken from photographs, which, though -they give a truthful, generally give an unintelligent representation -of the object. It is only by personal familiarity that all the facts -can be verified and pitfalls avoided. But it is always useful to turn -attention to any forms that may seem novel, and explain peculiarities -in others which but for such means of comparison would remain -unnoticed. Here, for instance, is one from Sjöborg, which resembles -the Countless Stones at Aylesford, as drawn by Dr. Stukeley (woodcut -No. 27). It is found at a place called Oroust, in Böhuslan,[358] and -stands on a low mound encircled by twenty large stones at its base. The -chamber is low, and semicircular in form, and in front of it stands -what the Germans call a sentinel stone. No date is given to this -monument by Sjöborg, for he was so far indoctrinated in modern theories -that he believed all dolmens to be prehistoric, though all the circles -and Bauta stones marking battle-fields were to him as essentially -historic as any monuments in his country. From its appearance, the -dolmen at Oroust may be of the same age as the Countless Stones at -Aylesford, and if other monuments in the two countries could be -compared with anything like precision, their forms and traditions might -mutually throw great light on their real histories. - -[Illustration: 108. Dolmen at Oroust. From Sjöborg.] - -It is not only, however, from the analogies with similar monuments -in this country, or from their bearing on their history, that the -Scandinavian dolmens are interesting to us. They have forms and -peculiarities of their own which are well worth studying. If materials -existed for mastering these differences, their aggregate would make up -a sum which would enable us to separate the Scandinavian group from the -British, as we can our own from the French, and the French from that -of Northern Germany. A great deal more must, however, be published, -and in a more accurate form, before this can be done; but, whenever -it is possible, it promises to afford most satisfactory results to -ethnographical science. The problem is similar to that which was -known to exist in reference to pointed Gothic architecture. That is -now admitted to be a Celtic-French invention, but it was adopted by -the Spaniards and Italians on the one hand, and by the Germans and -ourselves on the other; although always with a difference. No antiquary -would now for an instant hesitate in discriminating between an Italian -and a German or between a Spanish and an English example, though the -difference is so small that it can hardly be expressed in words, and -must be carefully represented in order to be perceived. In like manner, -the rude-stone style of art seems to have been invented by some -pre-Celtic people, but to have been adopted by Celts, by Scandinavian, -by British, and Iberian races--perhaps not always pure in their own -countries, but always with considerable differences, which, when -perceived and classified, will enable us to distinguish between the -works of the several races as clearly as we can between the mediæval -styles that superseded them. - -[Illustration: 109. Diagram from Sjöborg, pl. i. fig. A.] - -Among these peculiarities, the most easily recognised are the square -or oblong enclosures which surround tumuli, and, sometimes, one, at -others two, or even three free-standing dolmens. In order to make the -point clear, I have quoted a diagram from Sjöborg, though it is almost -the only instance in this work in which a woodcut does not represent a -really existing object. I have no doubt, however, that it is correct, -as old Olaus Wormius represents one of two similar ones which in his -day existed near Roeskilde. Both had enclosures 50 paces square, -enclosing one tumulus with a circle of stones round its base, another -halfway up, and, the text says, an altar-dolmen on the top, though the -woodcut does not show it. The other, on the road to Birck, in Zeeland, -enclosed three tumuli in juxtaposition, the one in the centre similar -to that just described, and with a dolmen on its summit; two smaller -mounds are represented in juxtaposition on either side, but with only -a circle of stones round their base.[359] Other varieties no doubt -exist, but modern antiquaries have not favoured us with any drawings of -them. From the diagram and description it will be perceived that in so -far as the mound itself is concerned these Danish tumuli are identical -with those already quoted as existing in Auvergne (woodcut No. 8), but -so far as I know, the square enclosure does not exist in France, nor -does it in this country. These square enclosures seem, however, to -belong to a very modern date, and the stones, consequently, are small, -and may therefore have been removed, which could easily be done; but -still there seems little doubt that many of them may still remain, and -could be found if looked for. - -[Illustration: 110. Dolmen near Lüneburg. From Bonstetten.] - -One of the most striking examples I know of, an oblong rectangular -enclosure, enclosing a single free-standing dolmen, is that near -Lüneburg, figured by Bonstetten[360] (woodcut No. 110); he seldom, -however, indulges in dimensions, and being perfectly convinced that -all are prehistoric, he never speculates as to dates, nor condescends -to notice traditions. What we know of it is therefore confined to the -representation, which after all may be taken from some other work, as -he rarely favours us with references. Two others are represented by von -Estorff as existing near Uelzen, in Hanover.[361] - -A good example of two dolmens in a rectangular enclosure is that at -Valdbygaards, near Soröe, in Zeeland. Here the enclosure is about 70 -feet in one direction by 20 feet in the other--outside measurement. In -this instance, the enclosing stones are smaller in proportion to the -dolmens than is usually the case. On the same plate, Madsen represents -a single dolmen in a much squarer enclosure.[362] It, like that at -Halskov (woodcut No. 107), is represented as standing on a knoll, but -whether dolmens stand so or on the flat, like that at Valdbygaards, it -is quite certain they never were enclosed in tumuli, but always stood -free, as they now do. - -[Illustration: 111. Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards. From Madsen.] - -[Illustration: 112. Plan of Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards.] - -[Illustration: 113. Triple Dolmen, Höbisch. From Keysler.] - -For three dolmens in one square enclosure we are obliged to go back -to old Keysler, though, in this case, the engraving is so good that -there can be very little doubt of its correctness.[363] It is situated -near Höbisch, in Mark Brandenburg, consists of an outer enclosure of -forty-four stones, and is 118 paces in circuit, and in the middle -are twelve stones, of which six bear three large stones, placed -transversely upon them. It is very much to be regretted that no better -illustration of this curious monument exists, as it probably very -closely resembles those in Drenthe, with which, indeed, he compares it; -and as these form one of the most remarkable groups of this class of -monuments on the continent, it would be most desirable to trace their -connection with others farther east. - -A similar monument to that at Höbisch is figured by Sjöborg (vol. i. -pl. 6), but without the enclosure; and a third, Oroust, in Böhuslan -(pl. 3); but in this instance the three long stones are surrounded by -a circular enclosure with two sentinel stones outside; and there are -several others which show similar peculiarities in a greater or less -degree. - -The buried dolmens in Scandinavia are, in some respects, even more -interesting than those which are, and were always intended to be, -exposed, but our knowledge of them is necessarily more limited than of -the other class. Sjöborg deserts us almost entirely here, and Madsen -illustrates only two, while the modern antiquaries have been more -anxious to secure and classify their contents than to illustrate the -chambers from which they were obtained. As a rule, they may be older -than the free-standing examples, but they do not look old, though, -as metal has not generally been found in them, it is assumed they -all belong to the Stone age. One example will suffice to display the -general features of the older group of this class of monuments. The -next two woodcuts present an internal view and plan of one near Uby, -in the district of Holbak, in Zeeland. It was opened in 1845, and -measured then 13 feet in height, and had a circumference of upwards -of 300 feet. The chamber measures 13 feet by 8 feet, and is walled in -by nine great stones, which have been split or hewn, so as to obtain -a flat surface towards the interior, and the interstices are filled -in with smaller stones very neatly fitted. The entrance gallery is 20 -feet in length, and is closed, or capable of being so, by two doors. -From the disposition of the entrance it certainly does not appear that -it was intended to be hid. The whole appearance is that of a dignified -approach to the tomb. Had it been meant to be closed, the chamber -would, no doubt, have been in the centre of the tumulus, instead of -being near one side, as it is. The other monument of the same class, -illustrated by Madsen,[364] is near Smidstrup, in the district of -Fredericksborg. It is very similar in dimensions and details, but has -the peculiarity of having two chambers placed side by side, with two -separate entrances, and the chambers affect a curve more perfectly -elliptical than is attained in that at Uby. - -[Illustration: 114. View of Interior of Chamber at Uby. From Madsen.] - -[Illustration: 115. Plan of Chamber at Uby. From Madsen.] - -These last examples from Madsen's work are further interesting to us -as illustrating the difference between dolmens or chambers always -intended to be buried in tumuli and those which were always meant to be -exposed. In the chambers at Uby and Smidstrup the stones are placed so -closely together that very little packing between them was sufficient -to keep out the earth, and the passages to them and other arrangements -all indicate their original destination. The case, however, is widely -different with the dolmens at Halskov and Valdbygaards, or those -at Lüneburg or Höbisch, which evidently are now on their mounds as -originally designed. With a very little study it seems easy to detect -the original intentions in all these monuments; but there is this -further difference. None of those intended to be exposed were ever -buried, while many which were meant to have been covered up never -received their intended envelope. - -A monument having a considerable affinity to the two last quoted -exists, or perhaps rather existed, at Axevalla, in Westergothland. -It was opened apparently in 1805, and the representations are taken -from drawings then made by a Captain Lindgren, who superintended the -excavation by the king's command. It consists of one apartment 21 feet -long by 8 feet wide and 9 feet high. The sides and roof are composed -of slabs of red granite, which, if the plates are to be depended upon, -were hewn or at least shaped in some mechanical fashion. Instead of the -bodies being laid on the floor of the chamber as was usually the case, -and being found mixed up with _débris_ and utensils of various kinds, -each of the nineteen who occupied this chamber had a little cist to -itself, so small and irregular-shaped, like those at Rose Hill (woodcut -No. 39), that the body had to be doubled up, in a most uncomfortable -position, to be placed in the cist. This was by no means an uncommon -mode of interment in those early ages, but if the skeletons were really -found in the attitudes here represented, their interment must date -from very recent times indeed. I know there is nothing more common -in archæological books than to represent skeletons sitting in most -free and easy attitudes in their boxes.[365] But if all the flesh had -disappeared as completely as these drawings represent, the integuments -must have gone also, and if they were either rotted or reduced to -dust, the skeleton must have collapsed and been found in a heap on the -floor. It would be interesting to know how long, either in very dry -or in moist places, the integuments would last so as to prevent this -collapse before they were disturbed. No qualified person has yet given -an opinion on such a subject, but the time could hardly extend to many -centuries. But does the case really exist? are not all these queer -skeletons merely the imaginings of enthusiastic antiquaries? - -[Illustration: 116. Dolmen at Axevalla. From Sjöborg.] - -Be this as it may, these elliptical and long rectangular dolmens, -with their arrangement of cists and entrances in the centre of the -longer side, seem so distinguished from those generally found in other -countries as to mark another province. It seems scarcely open to doubt -that the oval forms are the older, though what their age may be is not -so clear, nor have any descriptions of their contents been published -which would enable us to form distinct opinion on the subject. Flint -implements have been found in them, but, so far as I can gather, no -bronze. According to the Danish system, therefore, they are all before -the time of Solomon or the siege of Troy. It may be so, but I doubt -it exceedingly. Those who excavated the Axevalla tomb reported that -something like an inscription was found on one of the walls (woodcut -No. 116, fig. A); but whether it was an inscription or a natural -formation is by no means clear--at all events, as we have no copy of -it, it hardly helps us in arriving at a date. - -[Illustration: 117. Head-stone of Kivik Grave. From Sjöborg.] - -In some respects, the Axevalla tomb resembles the grave near Kivik, in -the district of Cimbrisham, near the southern extremity of Sweden. This -is the most celebrated of Swedish graves. It is mentioned as perfect by -Linnæus in 1749, but was shortly afterwards opened, and drawings and -illustrations of it have from time to time been published since, and -given rise to the usual diversity of opinion. Suhm and Sjöborg seem to -agree in connecting it with a battle fought in that neighbourhood by -Ragnar Lothbrok, about the year 750, in which the son of the then king -was slain.[366] This date appears probable; had it been later, there -would almost certainly have been found Runes on some of its stones; if -earlier, the representations of the human figure would hardly have been -so perfect. One stone found elsewhere (woodcut No. 117),[367] which -seems to have been its head-stone, has a curious resemblance to the -head-stone of the Dol ar Marchant, at Locmariaker, illustrated farther -on. The likeness may be accidental, but, as in all these cases, it -is difficult to believe that five or six centuries can have elapsed -between two monuments which show so little progress; for whether this -stone belonged to the Kivik grave or not, it certainly is of the same -age and design, some of the figures on it being identical with those -found in the tomb, and that can hardly be older than the date above -quoted. Another of the stones of this tomb has two of those circles -enclosing crosses which are seen on the Herrestrup dolmen and the -Aspatria stone, all of which probably belong to the eighth century. The -tomb itself is not remarkable for its dimensions, being only 14 feet -long by 3 feet wide, and almost 4 feet in height. It is much too large, -however, for any single warrior's grave, but we are not told whether -it was occupied by a number of small cists like that at Axevalla. The -probability, however, is that this was the case, but 120 years ago men -were not accurate observers of antiquarian phenomena. - -Besides these, there are two other forms of tombs which, so far as is -yet known, are quite peculiar to the Scandinavian province. The first -of these are the so-called ship graves, from their form. They consist -of two segments of a circle joined together at the ends, so as to -represent the deck of a vessel, and are of all sizes, from 20 or 30 -feet to 200 or 300 feet. They are generally found on the sea-shore, and -it seems hardly to be doubted that they mark the graves of Vikings. - -The other form is quite as peculiar, but more difficult to explain. -It is marked by a range of stones forming an equilateral triangle, -sometimes straight-lined, but as frequently the lines curve inwards -so as to restrict the internal space considerably. It is by no means -clear what suggested this form, or what it was intended to represent. -It is, however, found on battle-fields (woodcut No. 118), and solitary -examples are frequent in Sjöborg's plates, sometimes with a Bauta -stone in the centre. The one hypothesis that seems to account for this -form, is that it is the "Cuneatus ordo" of Olaus Magnus, and that it -marked a spot where a combined phalanx of horse and foot fought and -conquered.[368] The probability is that where single it marks the grave -of a particular rank either in the army or in civil life. - -All these forms are shown in the next woodcut, from a group found in -the peninsula of Hjortehammer, in Bleking, in the south of Sweden, but -others are found in the island at Amrom, and in many other places.[369] -It has been disputed whether these represent battle-fields or are the -ordinary graves of the inhabitants of the district in which they are -found. That those found on the shore at Freyrsö (woodcut No. 101) mark -the graves of those who fell in Blodoxe's battle there in the tenth -century seems quite certain, but whether this was always the case -may be open to doubt; but certainly a sandy peninsula, like that of -Hjortehammer, seems a most unlikely place for peaceful men to bury -their dead, especially at a time when not one-tenth part of the land -around could have been under cultivation. - -[Illustration: 118. Graves at Hjortehammer. From Worsaae.] - -For our present purposes it is of no great consequence which opinion -prevails, as these forms have no bearing on those of other countries, -especially as their date does not seem to be doubted. Worsaae places -them all between the years 700 and 1000,[370] or in the second and -latest Iron age, and as no one seems to dispute this, it may be -accepted as an established fact. Their peculiarities of form, and the -smallness of the stones of which most of them are composed, are such -that the date here ascribed to them does not necessarily bring down -that of the true megalithic remains to anything like the same age. It -takes away, however, all improbability from the assertion that these -may be much more modern than was supposed, and this much is certain -that there was no break between the great English and Irish circles -and the Viking graves; or, in other words, men did not cease to mark -their sepulchres with circles and cairns, and then after a lapse of -centuries revive the custom, and begin it again on a smaller scale. -There may be a descent, but there was no solution of continuity, and -any one can consequently form an idea how long a time must have elapsed -before the great Wiltshire circles could have degenerated into those of -Hjortehammer. - -[Illustration: 119. Circles at Aschenrade. From Bähr.] - -There is one other group of monuments it seems worth while to -illustrate before leaving this branch of the subject. They are found -in the extreme east of the province, on the banks of the Dwina, in -Livonia. At a place called Aschenrade, about fifty miles as the crow -flies from Riga, is a group shown in the accompanying woodcut.[371] The -arrangement is unusual in Europe, but is met with in Algeria, and seems -to be only such a combination of the square enclosures of Scandinavia -as we would expect to find in a cemetery, as contradistinguished from a -battle-field. - -In these graves was found enormous wealth of bronze and other metal -and personal ornaments, many of which are engraved in Professor -Bähr's book. They resemble in many respects the celebrated "find" at -Hallstadt, in the Salzkammergut;[372] but mixed with these Livonian -treasures were great numbers of coins and implements of iron of very -modern form. The coins are classified as follows:-- - - German coins, dating from A.D. 936 to 1040. - - Anglo-Saxon coins, dating from " 991 " 1036. - - Byzantine coins, dating from " 911 " 1025. - - Arabic or Kufic coins, dating from " 906 " 999. - -It is curious that the Eastern coins should be so much earlier than the -others, but they are only five in number, and may have been preserved -as curiosities. The dates of the others prove, at all events, that some -of these tombs are not of earlier date than 1040, and all, probably, -are included in the century which preceded that epoch. - -Besides these, however, there are tumuli at a place called Segewolde, -and circles, sometimes with a stone in the centre, at Bajard, and no -doubt other remains of the same class in the district. The purpose, -however, of the only book I know on the subject was not to illustrate -the forms of tombs, but that of the objects found in them, and to trace -the ethnographic relations of the people who possessed them with the -other tribes who at various times inhabited that district. The dates of -the whole, according to their describer, may safely be included between -the eighth and the twelfth century.[373] - - -DRENTHE. - -The most southern group of these monuments belonging to the northern -division is one of the most extensive, though unfortunately one of -the least known. It is situated almost exclusively in the province of -Drenthe, in North Holland, where the Hunebeds--giants' beds or graves, -as they are locally called--are spread over an area extending some -twenty miles north and south, and probably ten or twelve miles in -the opposite direction. This tract of country is a bare open heath, -which even now is only partially cultivated, or indeed capable of -cultivation, and at no time could have supported a population at all in -proportion to so extensive a group of monuments. - -As long ago as 1720, Keysler drew attention to them, and gave -a representation of one in order to show its similarity to -Stonehenge.[374] The engraving, however, is so defective that it is -impossible to make out what it represents, and as no dimensions or -statistics are given, it adds very little to our knowledge. A short -paper on the subject appeared in the 'Journal of the Archæological -Association' in 1870, but unfortunately without any illustrations,[375] -and we are consequently dependent for our knowledge of them almost -entirely to a work published at Utrecht in 1848, by the late Dr. -Janssen, keeper of the antiquities in the museum at Leyden. This work -is in many respects most painstaking and satisfactory; but, though it -is hardly correct to say it, is without illustrations, the Hunebeds -are represented by conventional symbols, which no one would guess -were intended for buildings of any sort without a most careful study -of the book. I have ventured to try to translate one of these into -ordinary forms, in woodcut No. 120, but without at all guaranteeing -its correctness. It is, however, sufficiently accurate to explain the -general nature of the monuments. - -Within the area above described, Janssen measured and described -fifty-one Hunebeds still existing, and they were probably at one time -much more numerous, as he regrets the loss of four which he remembers -in his youth; and several others have been very much ruined in very -recent times. This, fortunately, is not likely to happen again, as, -with a liberality and intelligence not shown by any other government in -Europe, the Dutch have purchased the Hunebeds and the ground on which -they stand, with a right of way to the nearest road, so that, so far as -possible, they will be protected from future depredations. - -Of these fifty-one monuments only one is a dolmen, in the sense in -which we usually understand it, meaning thereby a single cap stone, -supported by three, or, as in this instance, by four uprights. This one -is near Exlo, and is one of the few that formed a chamber in a tumulus. -A few have three cap stones, and from that number they range up to -ten or twelve, with at least double that number of supports. They are -all, in fact, of the class which the French call "allées couvertes," -or "grottes des fées;" Calliagh Birra's house (woodcut No. 80) and -the dolmens at Glen Columbkill are of the same class. But the Drenthe -dolmens have one peculiarity not found either in France or Ireland: -that they are all closed at both ends, and the entrance, where there is -one, is always on the longer side. In this respect they more resemble -the Scandinavian examples, such as the tomb at Axevalla (woodcut No. -116), or that at Uby (woodcut No. 114). - -[Illustration: 120. Plan of Hunebed near Emmen.] - -The annexed attempted restoration of one near Emmen will give a fair -idea of their general arrangements. It is 49 feet long over all, and -internally from 4 to 6 feet in width. It is roofed with nine or ten -stones, some of considerable dimensions. Some of these Hunebeds have -a range of stones round them, not arranged in a circle or oval form, -but, as in this instance, following the lines of the central chamber. -This is the case with another near the same place, which is 125 feet -in length over all. When closely examined, however, it does not seem -to be one Hunebed, but three ranging in a straight line, with a small -space between each. Two have five and one six cap stones. As a rule, -each cap stone stands on two uprights, and though frequently they touch -one another, as often they form really independent trilithons. It was -no doubt this fact that induced Keysler to compare these monuments with -Stonehenge, though in fact no two sets of rude-stone monuments could -well be more dissimilar either in arrangement or construction. As -will be seen from the annexed view of one near Ballo[376] (woodcut No. -121), they are formed of unshaped granite boulders. Sometimes, it may -be, artificially split, but certainly untouched by the chisel. All that -has apparently been done has been to select those most appropriate in -form for the purposes to which they were to be applied, and then rudely -to heap them one upon the other, but in such a manner as to leave wide -gaps everywhere between the stones composing the structure. - -[Illustration: 121. Dolmen at Ballo. From a Photograph.] - - * * * * * - -The first question that arises with regard to these Hunebeds is, were -they originally covered with earth or not? That some of the smaller -ones were and are is clear enough, and some of medium size are still -partially so; but the largest, and many of the smaller, do not show a -vestige of any such covering; and it seems impossible to believe that -on a tract of wretched barren heath, where the fee-simple of the land -is not now worth ten shillings an acre, any one could, at any time, -have taken the trouble to dig down and cart away such enormous mounds -as would have been required to cover these monuments. It seems here -clearer than almost anywhere else that, even if it had been intended -to cover them, that intention, in more than half the cases, was never -carried into effect. - -It may be taken for granted that these Hunebeds were at one time -much more numerous in Drenthe than they now are, but it is a much -more difficult point to ascertain whether they extended into the -neighbouring provinces or not. One is found in Gröningen, and one in -Friesland, and none elsewhere. It may, of course, be that in these more -fertile and thickly inhabited districts they have been utilised, or -removed as incumbrances from the soil, while in Drenthe their component -parts were of no value, and they are useful as sheep-pens and pigstyes; -and to these uses they seem to have been freely applied. It may be, -also, that there are no granite boulders in the neighbouring provinces, -and that they are common in Drenthe. There certainly seem to be none -in Guelderland, a country in which we would expect to find monuments -of this class, as it is the natural line of connection with the German -dolmen region; and unless it is that there were no materials handy for -their construction, it is difficult to understand their absence. - -As these Hunebeds have been open and exposed for centuries at least--if -they were not so originally--and have been used by the peasantry for -every kind of purpose, it is in vain to expect that anything will now -be found in them which can throw much light on their age or use. We -can only hope that an untouched or only partially plundered example -may be found in some of the numerous tumuli which still exist all -over the country. I confess I do not feel sanguine that this will be -the case. I would hope more from the digging up of the floor of those -which are known, and a careful collection of any fragments of pottery -and other objects which may be found in them. Nothing of any intrinsic -value will be found, of course; but what is perfectly worthless for -any other purpose may be most important in an antiquarian sense. -Judging them from a general abstract point of view, they do not seem -of high antiquity, and may range from the Christian era down to the -time when the people of this country were converted to Christianity, -whenever that may have been. This, however, is only inferred from their -similarity to other monuments mentioned in the preceding pages, not -from any special evidence gathered from themselves or from any local -tradition bearing on their antiquity. - -When we have examined the megalithic remains of Brittany and of the -north of France, we shall be in a better position than we now are to -appreciate the importance of the gap that exists between the French -and Scandinavian provinces; but in the meanwhile it may be convenient -to remark even here that it hardly seems doubtful that the Hunebeds -of Drenthe and the Grottes des fées of Brittany are expressions of -the same feeling, and, generally, that the megalithic remains of the -southern and northern divisions of the western parts of the European -continent are the works of similar if not identical races, applied to -the same uses, and probably are of about the same age. - -These two provinces are now separated by the Rhine valley. It is -probably not too broad an assertion to say there are no true Rude-Stone -Monuments in the valleys of the Rhine or Scheldt,[377] or of any of -their tributaries, or, in fact, in any of the countries inhabited by -the Germans and Belgæ. The dolmen-building races were, in fact, cut -in two by the last-named race on their way to colonise Britain. When -that took place, we have no exact means of knowing. According to Cæsar, -shortly before his time, Divitiacus ruled over the Belgæ of Gaul and -Britain as one province;[378] and the inference from all we know--it -is very little--is that the Belgian immigration to this island was of -recent date at that time. Whether it was one thousand or ten thousand -years, the fact that interests us here is that it took place before -the age of the rude-stone monuments. If we admit that the peoples who, -from Cadiz to the Cimbric Chersonese, erected these dolmens were one -race--or, at least, had one religion--and were actuated by one set of -motives in their respect for the dead, it seems impossible to escape -from the conclusion that, whether they came direct from the east, -or migrated from the south northward, or in the opposite direction, -they at one time formed a continuous community of nations all along -the western shores of Europe. They were cut across only in one -place--between Drenthe and Normandy--and that by a comparatively modern -people, the Belgæ. If this is so, the separation took place in the -pre-dolmen period, whenever that may have been. If the original races -in Belgium had been in the habit of erecting dolmens before they were -dispossessed by the intruders, we should find remains at least of them -there now, as we do both north and south of that district. As the case -now stands, the conclusion seems inevitable that it was after their -separation that the northern and southern families, though no longer -in contact, adopted, each in its own peculiar fashion, those more -permanent and megalithic forms which contact with a higher civilization -taught them to aspire to, without abandoning the distinctions which -separated them from the more progressive Celts and the thoroughly -civilized Romans. - - -NOTE. - -The map opposite is compiled partly from the two by M. Bertrand, -mentioned p. 326, and partly from one which accompanies Baron de -Bonstetten's 'Essai sur les Dolmens,' 1864. It has been corrected, -in so far as the scale would allow, from the information since -accumulated; and may be considered as representing fairly our knowledge -of the distribution of dolmens at the present day. Till, however, the -Governments of this country and of Denmark condescend to take up the -subject, such a map must necessarily remain imperfect in its most vital -parts. - - - [Footnote 321: 'Samlingar för Norders Fornälskare,' Stockholm, - 1822-1830.] - - [Footnote 322: 'Scriptures rerum Danicorum medii ævi,' 9 vols. - folio, Hafniæ, 1722 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 323: 'Historic Danicæ,' lib. xvi. Soræ, 1644, in fol.] - - [Footnote 324: The following list of the kings of Denmark, copied - from Dunham's, and giving the dates from Suhm, and Snorro's - 'Heimskringla,' will probably suffice for our present purposes:-- - - Suhm. Snorro. A.D. B.C. - - Frode I. 35 17 - Fridlief 47 -- - Havar 59 -- - Frode II. 87 -- - Wermund 140 -- - Olaf 190 -- - - A.D. - Dan Mykillate 270 170 - Frode III. 310 235? - Halfdan I. 324 290 - Fridlief III. 348 300 - Frode IV. 407 370 - Ingel 436 386 - Halfdan II. 447 " - Frode V. 460 " - Helge and Roe 494 438 - Frode VI. 510 " - Rolf Krake 522 479 - Frode VII. 548 " - Halfdan III. 580 554 - Ruric 588 " - Ivar 647 587 - Harald Hildetand 735 " - Sigurd Ring 750 -- - Rajnar Lothbrog 794 -- - Sigurd Snogoge 803 -- - Herda Canute 850 -- - Eric I. 854 -- - Eric II. 883 -- - Harald Harfagar -- 863 - Gorm the Old (died?) 941 -- - Harald Blatand 991 -- - Sweyn 1014 -- ] - - [Footnote 325: 'Samlingar,' &c. i. plate 11, fig. 38, p. 104.] - - [Footnote 326: _Loc. sup. cit._, fig. 39.] - - [Footnote 327: Stokes, 'Life of Petrie,' p. 260.] - - [Footnote 328: Beowulf, _loc. sup. cit._] - - [Footnote 329: Engelhardt, 'Guide illustré du Musée à Copenhague,' - p. 33.] - - [Footnote 330: The woodcut is copied from a drawing in Sjöborg, ii. - fig. 214. It is repeated by Worsaae, _loc. sup. cit._, both copying - from some original I have not cared to trace.] - - [Footnote 331: 'Historia Danica,' viii. p. 133.] - - [Footnote 332: 'Danicorum Monument,' libri sex, i. p. 12.] - - [Footnote 333: 'Primæval Antiquities of Denmark,' p. 113.] - - [Footnote 334: At one time I was, on the authority of a Saxon - charter, inclined to believe that this tumulus was the grave of - Cissa, Saxon king of Winchester, who was contemporary with Arthur. - I am now informed by the Rev. Mr. Jones, who has carefully gone - into the matter, that the Charter No. 1094, which is taken from - the 'Codex Winton.' fol. 54, refers to Overton in Hants, and not - to Overton in Wilts, because Tadanliage (Tadley) is mentioned as - part of it. As I cannot dispute the competency of so eminent an - authority on such a question, its identification with the tomb of - King Cissa must for the present be withdrawn, but it by no means - follows in consequence that it may not be of his age.] - - [Footnote 335: 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 153.] - - [Footnote 336: The slaves of the Scythian kings were strangled - (Herodotus, iv. 71 and 72).] - - [Footnote 337: "Si quis, hominem diabolo sacrificaverit - et in hostiam more paganorum dæmonibus obtulerit, morte - moriatur."--Balusius, _Capt. Reg. Franc._ i. 253.] - - [Footnote 338: The wood-blocks of these and other illustrations of - Dr. Thurnam's paper were lent to Sir John Lubbock, and used by him - in his 'Prehistoric Times,' Nos. 146-156, where they will be more - accessible to many than in the 'Archæologia.'] - - [Footnote 339: An argument for secondary interments has been - attempted to be founded (Lubbock, 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 156) on - an edict of Charlemagne, in which he says:--"Jubemus ut corpora - Christianorum Saxonum ad cœmeteria ecclesiæ deferantur et non - _ad_ tumulos paganorum (Balusius, 'Cap. Reg. Franc.' i. p. 154). - If the expression had been "_in_ tumulos," there might have been - something in it; but a fair inference from the edict seems to me - to be that even in Charlemagne's time converted Saxons insisted on - being buried--probably in tumuli--near where the tombs of their - fathers were, and probably with pagan rites, in spite of their - nominal conversion.] - - [Footnote 340: 'Archæologia,' xlii. p. 195.] - - [Footnote 341: Nothing would surprise me less than the discovery - of an interment in the upper part of the barrow at West Kennet, - between the roof of the chamber and the dolmen. Many indications in - the West Country long barrows lead us to expect that such might be - the case, but it by no means follows that it would be secondary. On - the contrary, it would probably be, if not the first, at least the - chief burial in the mound.] - - [Footnote 342: I have tried hard to follow Worsaae's argument in - respect to this point ('Zur Alterthumskunde des Nordens,' 1847), - but without success. As he is personally familiar with the country - and its monuments, he may be perfectly correct in what he states, - but as there are neither maps nor illustrations to this part of the - work, it is almost impossible for a stranger to judge; and as, like - all Danes, he is a devout believer in the three-age system, it is - difficult to know how far this may or may not influence his view.] - - [Footnote 343: 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 107.] - - [Footnote 344: 'One Year in Sweden,' ii. p. 183.] - - [Footnote 345: Engelhardt, 'Catalogue illus.' p. 33. Suhm makes - it 991, but this seems more probably to have been the date of the - death of his son Harald Blaatand.] - - [Footnote 346: 'Annalen for Nordk. Oldk.' xii. p. 13.] - - [Footnote 347: 'Hist. danica,' x. p. 167.] - - [Footnote 348: 'Guide ill.' p. 33.] - - [Footnote 349: 'Primæval Ant. Denmark,' p. 104.] - - [Footnote 350: Engelhardt, 'Cat. ill. du Musée,' p. 33.] - - [Footnote 351: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.' v. p. 265. If Ragnar - was taken prisoner by Ella of Northumberland, it must have been in - the latter half of the ninth century. Suhm places his death nearly - a century earlier, 794.] - - [Footnote 352: 'Primæval Ant. of Denmark,' p. 112.] - - [Footnote 353: 'Annalen for Nord. Aldk.' vi. pl. x.] - - [Footnote 354: Holmberg, 'Scandinavien Hallristingar,' p. 3.] - - [Footnote 355: _Ibid._ p. 21. 'Soc. des Ant. du Nord,' ii. pp. 140 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 356: Sir James Simpson, appendix, vol. vi. 'Proc. Soc. - Ant. of Scotland,' _passim_.] - - [Footnote 357: Madsen, 'Antiquités préhistoriques du Danemark,' - 1869.] - - [Footnote 358: 'Samlingar,' i. pl. iii. fig. 6.] - - [Footnote 359: Olaus Wormius, 'Danica Monumenta,' pp. 8 and 35.] - - [Footnote 360: 'Essai sur les Dolmens,' p. 9.] - - [Footnote 361: 'Heidnische Alterthümer von Uelzen,' Hanover, 1846.] - - [Footnote 362: Madsen, 'Antiquités préhist.' pl. 8.] - - [Footnote 363: 'Antiquitates Septentrionales,' pp. 320 and 519, pl. - xvii.] - - [Footnote 364: Madsen, plates 13 and 14.] - - [Footnote 365: Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 23. Lewellyn - Jowett, 'Grave Mounds,' pp. 14 and 15, &c.] - - [Footnote 366: Sjöborg. _loc. sup. cit._] - - [Footnote 367: Now destroyed. Sjöborg, iii. pl. 10, p. 143.] - - [Footnote 368: _Vide ante_, footnote, p. 15.] - - [Footnote 369: The woodcut is reduced from a plate in Worsaae's - 'Alterthumskunde Scandinaviens,' but both it and the Amrom group - are found in the 'English Archæological Journal,' xxiii. p. 187.] - - [Footnote 370: Archæol. Journal,' _loc. sit._ p. 185.] - - [Footnote 371: Bähr, 'Die Gräber der Liven,' Dresden, 1850, pl. i. - Unfortunately, as is too often the case, no scale is engraved on - the plate, and no dimensions are mentioned in the text.] - - [Footnote 372: Not yet published, so far as I know.] - - [Footnote 373: 'Die Gräber der Liven,' p. 51.] - - [Footnote 374: 'Ant. Septent.' p. 5, pl. ii.] - - [Footnote 375: It is by no means clear whether Mr. Sadler, who is - the author of this paper, ever visited the spot, or compiled his - information from Janssen's book, which, however, he never mentions. - Be this as it may, it is the best paper I know of on the subject, - and well worthy of perusal.] - - [Footnote 376: The woodcut is from a photograph kindly lent - me by Mr. Franks. It is sufficient to show the nature of the - construction, but the camera is a singularly unintelligent - interpreter of plan or arrangements.] - - [Footnote 377: There are several dolmens, as before stated, in - rugged mountainous parts of Luxemburg, but they seem to belong to - the old races that in those corners were not swept away by the - Belgian current.] - - [Footnote 378: Cæsar, 'Bell. Gall.' ii. p. 4.] - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -FRANCE. - - -It is only in very recent times that the French have turned their -attention to the study of their Rude-Stone Monuments; but since they -have done so, it has been in so systematic and scientific a manner -that, had it been continued a few years longer, little would have been -left to be desired by the students of that class of antiquities in -France. War and revolution, however, intervened just as the results of -these labours were about to be given to the world, and how long we may -now have to wait for them, no one can tell. The Musée de St.-Germain -was far from being complete in July last, and only the first parts of -the great 'Dictionnaire des Antiquités celtiques' had been published at -that time. We can now hardly hope that the necessary expenditure will -be continued which is indispensable to complete the former, and it is -difficult to foresee in what manner the materials collected for the -dictionary can now be utilised. - -Even when much further advanced towards completion, it is hardly to -be expected that the museums of St.-Germain and Vannes can rival -the royal collections at Copenhagen; and if the French had confined -themselves only to collecting, they would not have advanced our -knowledge very much; but, while doing this, they have also gathered -statistical information, and have been mapping and describing, so that -our knowledge of their monuments is much more complete than of those -of the Danes. To borrow a simile from kindred sciences, it is as if -the Danes had attended exclusively to the mineralogy of the subject: -collecting specimens from all parts, and arranging them according to -their similarities or affinities, wholly irrespective of the localities -from which they came. The French, on the other hand, have founded a -science similar to that of geology on their knowledge of the minerals; -they have carefully noted the distribution of the various classes -of monuments, and, so far as possible, ascertained their relative -superposition. The first is, no doubt, a most useful process, and one -that must to a certain extent precede the other; but unless we map the -various rocks on the surface and ascertain their stratification, it -hardly helps us in studying the formation or history of our globe. - -In 1864 M. Bertrand published in the 'Revue archéologique' a small map -of France, showing the distribution of dolmens as then known; and three -years afterwards another, on a much larger scale, intended to accompany -the 'Dictionnaire des Antiquités celtiques,' and containing all that -was then known. Were a second edition of this map published now, it -would, no doubt, be much more full and complete; but the main outlines -must still be the same, and are sufficient for our present purposes. -From these maps and the text which accompanies them we learn that the -greater number of the rude-stone monuments in France are arranged at no -great distance on either side of a straight line drawn from the shores -of the Mediterranean, somewhere about Montpellier, to Morlaix, in -Brittany. There are none east of the Rhone, none south of the Garonne, -till we come to the Pyrenees, and so few north of the basin or valley -of the Seine that they may be considered as wanderers. - -Referring to the table at the end of this chapter, which is compiled -from that of 1864, we find that thirty departments contain more than -ten monuments. Thirty others, according to M. Bertrand, contain from -one to eight or nine; and the remaining twenty-nine either contain none -at all or these so insignificant as hardly to deserve attention. - -From this table we learn, at least approximately, several facts of -considerable interest to our investigation. The first is that, of -the three divisions into which Cæsar divides Gaul, the northern in -his day belonged to a race who had had no stone monuments. There are -none in Belgium proper, and so few in French Flanders, or indeed in -any part of Gallia Belgica, that we may safely assert that the Belgæ -were not dolmen-builders. In the next place, I cannot help agreeing -with M. Bertrand in his conclusion that the Celts properly so called -have as little claim to the monuments as the Belgæ.[379] We know -something of the provinces occupied by the Celts six hundred years -before Christ from Livy's[380] description of the tribes who, under -Bellevesus, invaded Italy. Their capital was Bruges, and they occupied -the departments immediately around that city; but they had not then -penetrated into Brittany, nor north of the Seine, nor into any part of -Aquitania.[381] But they occupied the whole of the east of Gaul up, -apparently, to the Rhine and the country on the east bank of the Rhone. -According to the French statistics, there are 140,000 barrows or tumuli -in the departments of the Côte-d'Or, Vosges, Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin, -Doubs, Jura, and Ain, but not one single dolmen;[382] and there are -none to the east of the Rhine. As we proceed westward, the tumuli -become rarer, and the dolmens are gradually met with. The Averni, for -instance, were one of the Celtic tribes that accompanied Bellovesus, -and in their country dolmens are found; but perhaps we need only infer -from this that in a hilly country like Auvergne the older people still -remained, and followed their old customs in spite of its partial -occupation by the conquering Celts. We do not know at what period the -Celts first invaded Gaul, but there seems no reason for supposing that -it could not be very long before they first came in contact with the -Romans; and if we may judge from the rate of progress which they made -in subduing the rest of the country in historic times, their first -invasion could hardly have been a thousand years B.C. All the -tumuli in the east of France which have been dug into have yielded -implements of bronze and metal,[383] and if they belonged to the Celts, -this would fairly accord with the conclusions at which archæologists -have arrived from other sources with regard to the Bronze age. It is -not, however, worth while following up the question here; for unless -it could be proved that the dolmens either succeeded or preceded the -tumuli, it has no bearing on our argument. The fact of their occupying -different and distinct districts prevents any conclusion of the sort -being arrived at from geographical or external considerations. Their -contents, if compared, might afford some information, but up to the -present time this has not been done, and all we can at present assume -is that there were two contemporary civilizations, or barbarisms, -co-existing simultaneously on the soil of France. My impression is, -however, that the Celtic barrow-builders were earlier converts to -Christianity, and left off their heathenish mode of burial long before -the less easily converted dolmen-builders of the west ceased to erect -their Rude-Stone Monuments. - -We are thus reduced to the third of the great provinces into which Gaul -was divided in Cæsar's time, to try and find the people who could have -erected the stone monuments of France, and at first sight it seems -extremely probable that they were erected by the Aquitanians. Both -Cæsar[384] and Strabo[385] distinctly assert that the people of the -southern province differed from the Celts in language and institutions -as well as in features, and add that they resembled more the Iberians -of Spain than their northern neighbours. When, however, we come to -look more closely into the matter, we find that the Aquitania of Cæsar -was confined to the country between the Garonne and the Pyrenees, -and where, however, few, if any, dolmens now exist. They are rather -frequent in the Pyrenees[386] and the Asturias, where remnants of the -dolmen-building races may have found shelter and continued to exist -after their congeners were swept from the plains; and there are one or -two on the left bank of the Garonne, but except these there are none -in Aquitania proper. If, however, we apply the term Aquitania to the -province as extended by Augustus up to the left bank of the Loire, we -include the greater part of the provinces where dolmens are found; -but here again, when we look more closely into it, we find that the -northern districts of this great province were, in Augustus' time, -inhabited by Celts, or, at all events, that Celts formed the governing -and influential bodies in the states. Indeed, the fact seems to be -that, during the six centuries which elapsed between the invasions -of Italy by the Gauls and the return invasion of Gaul by the Romans, -the Celts had gradually extended themselves over the whole of central -France from the Garonne to the Seine, and had obliterated the political -status of the people who had previously occupied the country, though -there is no reason to suppose they had then at least attempted to -exterminate them. It must thus be either that the Celts were the -builders of the dolmens, which appears most improbable, or that there -existed in these provinces a prehistoric people to whom they must be -ascribed. - -Without at all wishing, at present at least, to insist upon it, I may -here state that the impression on my mind is every day growing stronger -that the dolmen-builders in France are the lineal descendants of the -Cave men whose remains have recently been detected in such quantities -on the banks of the Dordogne and other rivers in the south of -France.[387] These remains are found in quantities in the Ardèche[388] -and in Poitou.[389] If they have not been found in Brittany, it may be -that they have not been looked for, or that the soil is unfavourable -to their preservation; but they have been found in Picardy, though -possibly not exactly of the same class. It is, of course, dangerous to -found any argument on such local coincidence, as new discoveries may be -made in the east of France or elsewhere; but in the present state of -our knowledge the Cave men and the dolmens seem not only conterminous -but their frequency seems generally to be coincident. - -As we know next to nothing of the languages spoken in the south-west -of France before the introduction of the Romance forms of speech, -philology will hardly assist us in our enquiry. There is, however, one -particle, _ac_, which I cannot help thinking may prove of importance, -when its origin is ascertained. In the table at the end of this -chapter, I have placed the number of the names of the cities having -this termination in each department[390] next to M. Bertrand's number -of dolmens. The coincidence is certainly remarkable, more especially as -it is easy to account for the comparative paucity of names with this -termination in Brittany by taking into account the enormous reflex wave -of Celtic population from England that overwhelmed that country in the -fourth and fifth centuries, and changed the nomenclature of half the -places in the district: still, Carnac and Tumiac, Missilac, and others, -as names of monuments, and Yffignac, as the name attached to the port -which I believe was the place of embarkation for England, with many -others that remain, are sufficient to attest that more previously may -have existed. - -The question remains, what is this particle? The first impulse is -to assume that it is the Basque definite article. The Basques, for -instance, say _Guizon_, "a man," _Guizónac_, "the man," and _Guizónac_, -"the men," besides using it in other cases, while their local -proximity to the dolmen country would render such a connection far -from improbable. Against this, however, it may be urged, that _ac_, -as a terminal syllable, hardly ever occurs in the Basque provinces, -and the names to which it is attached in France hardly seem to belong -to that language. Another suggestion has been made,[391] that it is -equivalent to the Greek word πὁλις, which would be exactly -the signification for which we are looking, though in what language -this occurs is by no means clear. For our present purpose, however, it -is of little consequence what it may or may not be. It is sufficient -to know that its occurrence is, as nearly as may be, coincident with -the existence of dolmens. It does not occur to the eastward of the -Rhone, nor do dolmens, though both are frequent on the right bank of -that river; and it is not to be found in the east of France, in those -countries which we have reason to believe were at the dawn of history -essentially Celtic, and where the tumuli of the Bronze period exist in -such numbers. It does, however, occur in that part of Cornwall south of -Redruth and west of Falmouth,[392] where all the rude-stone monuments -of that province are found, but it is not found anywhere else in Great -Britain or Ireland. - -Nor is it found in the Channel Islands, though dolmens abound there; -but this may be accounted for by the subsequent colonisation of -these islands, as of Brittany in more modern times, by races of a -different origin, who have to a great extent obliterated the original -nomenclature of the country. - -Equally interesting, however, for our purposes is the fact that, though -the _ac_-termination occurs frequently in the departments between the -Garonne and the Pyrenees, no dolmens exist in that region except, as -before mentioned, a few at the roots of the mountains. This, at first -sight, might seem to militate against the universality of the theory; -but I, on the other hand, only take it to express that the _ac_-people -were driven from that country by Ibero-Aquitanians before they had -adopted the fashion of stone monuments. If we knew when Aquitania was -first occupied by the people whom Cæsar and Strabo found there, it -would give us a date before which dolmens could hardly have existed; -but as we have no materials for the purpose, all that can be said is -that, just as the dolmen races were cut in two by the Belgæ before the -use of stone for funereal monuments had been introduced, so here the -same phenomenon occurred, and the people we have to deal with were -driven north of the Garonne, west of the Rhone, and south of the Seine, -before they took to building dolmens--assuming, of course, that they -once had extended beyond those limits; but this, except in the case of -Aquitania proper, does not at present seem capable of being proved. - -Before the Romans came in contact with them, and our first written -accounts describe them, they had ceased to be a nation politically, and -their language also was lost, or, at least, except in the one syllable -_ac_, we now know nothing of it. If, therefore, it may be argued, the -nationality of this people was lost before the Christian era, and their -language had become extinct, these monuments must belong to a long -anterior period. There are, however, certain considerations which would -make us pause before jumping too hastily to this conclusion. There are, -throughout the whole dolmen region of the south of France, a series -of churches whose style is quite distinct from that of central and -northern France. The typical example of this style is the well-known -church of St.-Front, Périgueux. But the churches at Cahors, at -Souillac, at Moissac, Peaussac, Tremolac, St.-Avit-Sénieur, and many -others, are equally characteristic. The cathedral at Angoulême, the -abbey church at Fontevrault, and St.-Maurice at Angers,[393] and the -church at Loches--all these churches are characterized by possessing -domes, and the earlier ones by having pointed arches which look very -much more as if they were derived from the horizontal arches of the -tumuli than from the radiating arches of the Romans, which the Celts -everywhere adopted; and, altogether, the style is so peculiar that no -one the least familiar with it can ever mistake it for a Celtic style. -All belong to the same group, and as distinctly as, or even more so -than, the _ac_-termination, mark out the country as inhabited in the -eleventh and twelfth centuries by a people differing from the Celts. -Though, therefore, both their nationality and their language may have -been superseded by those of the more enterprising and active Celts -before the time of Cæsar, it is evident they retained their old feeling -and a separate internal existence to a period at least a thousand years -later. - -There is still another trait that marks this country as a non-Celtic -country in historical times--it is in the south-west, and there only, -in France that Protestantism ever flourished or took root. To the Celt, -the transition was everywhere easy from the government of the hierarchy -of the Druids to that of the similarly organized priesthood of Rome. -But it required all the cruel power of the Inquisition--the crusades of -Simon de Montfort--the exterminating wars against the Camisards of the -Cevennes---and, in fact, centuries of the most cruel and unrelenting -persecution down to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and, indeed, -to the French Revolution--to exterminate this people and extirpate the -faith and feelings to which they clung. If they have in their veins, -as I fancy they must have, any of the blood of the Cave people, they -belong to one of the least progressive people of the earth, and we -should not therefore be surprised if it required two thousand years -of Celtic aggressiveness, coupled with Celtic ferocity, entirely to -obliterate this race, if, indeed, that is done even now, which I very -much doubt. - - * * * * * - -Before leaving this part of the subject, there is one other question -which it may be as well to allude to here, as these investigations into -the distribution of the rude-stone monuments seem destined to throw a -new and important light upon it. Few questions have been more keenly -debated among the learned than the relationship stated to have existed -between the Cimbri and the Gauls. A great deal has been, and can be, -said on both sides,[394] but the difficulty appears to me to have -arisen principally from the erroneous assumption that on other people -except the Celts existed in France. - -There is no trace of Celts or of a Celtic language in the Cimbric -Chersonese or the north-west corner of Europe, which is generally -assumed to be the country occupied by the Cimbri, and no such people as -the Cimbri are found settled in any part of France in historical times. -If, however, we assume that the relationship may have been between -the Cimbri and the Aquitanians, the case assumes a totally different -aspect. As we do not know what the language of the Aquitanians really -was, no assistance can be obtained from it, but our very ignorance of -it leaves the field open for any other evidence that may be adduced, -and that of the monuments seems clear and distinct. It seems almost -impossible that there should be so much similarity between the -monuments of the two countries without some community of race, and -the great likeness that exists between those on the southern frontier -of the northern dolmen province and those on the northern edge of the -southern dolmen field seems almost to settle the question. - -From history we only know of the existence of this relationship by the -mode in which they fought together against Marius in the late Roman -wars. If they were then geographically separated by the Belgæ and the -Celts having thrust themselves between them, the separation must -have been recent, for a barbarian people could hardly be brought to -acknowledge the ties and duties of relationship after a long interval -of time.[395] - - * * * * * - -As may be gathered from the table, page 376, or the map opposite -page 324, the rude-stone monuments are pretty evenly distributed -over the whole of the area extending from the English Channel to the -Mediterranean Sea. Our knowledge of them is, however, practically -confined to the northern portion of this zone, known as Brittany. The -information which is available regarding those of Languedoc and Guienne -is of the most meagre description. Hundreds of English tourists have -visited Brittany, and many of them have drawn the monuments there and -at least described them intelligibly; but I do not know one English -book that mentions those in the departments of Lot or Dordogne, and -almost the only information regarding them is to be picked up from the -local "Statistiques;" but as these are very rarely illustrated, they do -not suffice. No form of words will convey a correct idea of any unknown -architectural monument except by comparing it with one that is known; -and unless both have some well-defined features of style, it is even -then very difficult, and with rude unshaped stones, almost impossible, -by words to convey what is intended. - -[Illustration: 122. Dolmen at Sauclières.] - -It is to be regretted that we do not know more of the southern -examples,[396] as they are different in several essential features -from those of the north; and it is probable that any one who was -familiar with all could point out a gradation of style which would -aid materially in determining their age. Whatever that may turn out -eventually to be, no one will, I presume, contend that all are of one -age or even of one century. It is far more probable that they extend -over a considerable lapse of time, probably a thousand years, and -if this is so, there must have been changes of fashion even among -Cave races as their blood got more and more mixed; and it would be -interesting to know where and--relatively at least--when this took -place. My present impression is that the southern are the most modern, -for this among other reasons.--I look on the sequence of a cist in a -barrow to a dolmen or chamber in a tumulus as very nearly certain, -and from that the sequence to the exposed free-standing dolmen, and -from that to the dolmen on the tumulus, as nearly, if not quite as, -probable. The latter form, so far as I know, never occurs in Brittany, -while on the other hand it is common in the south of France.[397] -If they are of the same age as similar monuments in Scandinavia and -Ireland, they must be of comparatively modern date. There are also some -monuments, trilithons of hewn or partially hewn stone, as this one -at Sauclières (woodcut No. 122), which at least look more modern than -their northern congeners. - -The monument, however, that seems capable of throwing the greatest -amount of light on their age is the dolmen of St.-Germain-sur-Vienne, -near Confolens, in Poitou. As will be seen from the woodcuts opposite, -its cap-stone, measures 12 feet by 15 feet, and is of proportionate -thickness. The mass was originally supported by five columns of -Gothic design, but one having fallen away, it now rests only on -four; but their interest arises from the fact that the style of -their ornamentation belongs undoubtedly to the twelfth century or -thereabouts--certainly not earlier than the eleventh. In order to -explain away so unwelcome an anomaly, it has been suggested, that some -persons in the twelfth century cut away all the rest of the original -rude stones which supported the cap-stone, and left only the frail -shafts which we now see. If this were so, it would in no way alter the -argument to be derived from it. If men could be found in the twelfth -century to take the trouble and run the enormous risk of such an -operation, their respect for the monument must have been quite equal -to that implied in its erection; but the fact is that each of the five -columns is composed of three separate pieces--a base, a shaft, and a -capital,[398] and we see them now as they were originally erected.[399] - -There may be doubts about the tomb of the Moals at Ballina (page 233), -but doubt seems impossible with regard to this: it is a dolmen pure and -simple, and it was erected in the twelfth century. In itself the fact -may not be of any very great importance, but it cuts away the ground -from any _à priori_ argument as to the age of these monuments. It does -not, of course, prove that they are all modern, but it does show that -some of them at least were erected after the time of the Romans, and -at an era extending even far into the middle ages. - -[Illustration: 123. Dolmen at Confolens.] - -[Illustration: 124. Plan of Dolmen at Confolens.] - -It is amusing, however, to see how the French antiquaries resist -such a conclusion. Dr. de Closmadeuc, for instance, one of the most -distinguished antiquaries of Brittany, opened a perfectly virgin -tumulus at Crubelz. After penetrating through three distinct but -undisturbed strata, he reached the roof of the enclosed dolmen -or chamber. In this he found the usual products of cremation and -the inevitable flint arrow-heads, but he refers in triumph to the -"absence de toute trace des métaux." "Aucun doute," he adds, "n'est -donc possible. Ce dolmen appartient bien à cette classe de monuments -primitifs de l'âge de pierre." So far all is clear; but there are -still difficulties, for he goes on to say: "Nous tenons peu de compte -des débris de tuiles antiques rencontrées à la superficie du tumulus, -et même sous les tables du dolmen. Il est raisonnable d'admettre que -ces fragments de tuiles qui dénoncent l'industrie gallo-romaine, ont -accidentellement pénétré dans l'intérieur."[400] - -Let us pause a moment to consider what is involved in such a -supposition. These tiles, which it is admitted are scattered in -quantities over the surrounding plain, must have climbed to the top -of the mound, penetrated through three undisturbed strata of earth, -and finally penetrated "accidentally" between the close-fitting slabs -forming the roof of the chamber. The hypothesis will not bear a -moment's examination, but anything, however absurd, is to some minds -preferable to admitting that any dolmen or tumulus can be subsequent to -Roman times. It is astonishing, however, what effect that shibboleth, -"no trace of metal," has on the mind of most antiquaries. It is, of -course, true that before the metals were introduced no trace of them -could be found in the prehistoric barrows of the rude savages that -occupied Europe in the earliest times. We do not, at the present day, -bury metal objects in our graves, and but for the coffin nails it would -be as fair to argue that the graves in Kensal Green are prehistoric -because the interments show no trace of metal implements. At all -events, there are many burying races now existing who do not use -coffins, nor bury metal objects in their graves; and all these this -argument would make prehistoric. To me it seems much more logical to -assume that, in those countries which had been occupied by the Romans, -the natives, though reverting after their departure to their original -modes of sepulture, had at least been so far civilized as to know that -bronze daggers and spear-heads were not likely to be of much use in the -next world, and had come to the conclusion that the personal ornaments -of the dead might as well remain with their living friends. This -hypothesis would at least account for the absence of metal in the long -barrows of Gloucestershire, and at West Kennet, as well as at Crubelz, -though Roman pottery was found in all these instances. In fact, it is -the merest negative presumption to assume that, because no metal is -found in a grave, it must be prehistoric. It may be of any age, down to -yesterday's, in so far as such proof is concerned. - -Even the presence of metal, however, does not disturb the faith of -some antiquaries. The Baron de Bonstetten, for instance, opened a -tumulus not far from Crubelz. At one foot (30 centimetres) below the -undisturbed surface the usual deposit of flint implements was found; -and two feet (60 centimetres) below them two statuettes of Latona in -terra-cotta and a coin of Constantine II. were found, but without this -in the least degree shaking his undoubting faith in the prehistoric -antiquity of the tomb![401] - -Numerous other Roman coins have been found in these French monuments, -but their testimony is disregarded. In the Manné er H'roëk, commonly -called the Butte de César, about half a mile south from Locmariaker, -near the surface, eleven medals of the Roman emperors, from Tiberius -to Trajan, were found, together with fragments of bronze, glass, and -pottery, but there were no signs of a secondary interment.[402] In like -manner, in another monument at Beaumont-sur-Oise, Roman moneys were -found, but, as M. Bertrand is careful to explain, in a stratum above -the stone and flint implements, which, of course, he believed to mark -the true date of the monument.[403] It seems impossible, however, that -all these Roman coins can have been accidentally placed there. Those of -Valentinian and Theodosius in the mound at New Grange were precisely in -the same position as those of Titus, Domitian, and Trajan in the Butte -de César or those of Beaumont, and so were those of Constantine found -at Uley, in Gloucestershire (_ante_, p. 165). Those of Valentinian at -Minning Lowe were in the tomb itself; so probably might others have -been found in the other tombs had they not previously been rifled. It -is not easy to assign a motive for placing these coins in the upper -part of the mound externally. Their being found in that position at -New Grange, Uley, Locmariaker, and Beaumont, is, however, sufficient -to prove it was not accidental, and their value is so small that they -could not have been buried there for concealment. They must have had -something to do with some funereal rite or superstition, the memory of -which has passed away. No ancient British or Gaulish coins have ever -been found in similar positions, and no Christian coins, which, had -their presence been purely accidental, would probably have been the -case. The inference seems to me inevitable that they were looked on as -valued relics or curiosities, and placed there intentionally by those -who raised the mounds it may be very long after the dates which the -coins bear. - - -DOLMENS. - -There is nothing specific in the Rude Stone Monuments of France -sufficient to distinguish them from those of the other countries -we have been describing. They are larger, finer, and more numerous -there than in either Scandinavia or the British Isles, but except -in the negative peculiarity of there being no circles in France -there is little to distinguish the two groups. It can hardly even be -absolutely asserted that there are no circles in France. There are -some semicircles, which may possibly have been parts of circles never -completed; there are some rows of small stones around or on tumuli; but -certainly nothing that can for one moment be classed with the great -circles of Cumberland and Wiltshire, or those of Moytura and Stennis, -and certainly nothing like the innumerable Scandinavian examples. - -We are hardly yet in a position to speculate why this should be so; -but, so far as I can at present see, I would infer from this that the -French examples are, as a rule, of earlier date than the British and -Scandinavian. The circle I take to be one of the latest forms of rude -stone architecture--the skeleton of a tumulus, after the flesh of the -sepulchral mound, which gave meaning to the group, had been thrown on -one side as no longer indispensable. But of this we shall be better -able to judge as we proceed. - -Another characteristic, although not a distinction, is the fondness of -the French for the "Allée couverte" or "Grotte des fées." No examples -of this form have yet been brought to light in England, but one is -engraved (woodcut No. 80) as the Hag Birra's grave near Monasterboice, -a second from the same neighbourhood, at Greenmount (woodcut No. -81), and they exist in Scandinavia, but their home is Drenthe and -the neighbouring corner of Germany. As already mentioned, upwards of -fifty examples exist in that province. They are much ruder, it must be -confessed, than those of France; but this may arise from the nature of -the only material available; they have also the peculiarity of having -the entrance always at the side instead of at the end. - -So far as their distribution in France has yet been ascertained, the -Grottes des fées exist only on the Loire, and to the north of it, in -fact in the most northern division of the French dolmen region; while, -on the other hand, as they are principally found in Drenthe, or at the -southern extremity of the German dolmen field, we may assume that there -is some connection between the two, or that there would have been if it -had not been severed by the Belgians before those in either region were -erected. - -One of the finest of the French examples of this class of monuments -is that near Saumur, at Bagneux. The walls are composed of only four -stones on one side and three on the other, yet it measures 57 feet 6 -inches by 14 feet 4 inches across. Another, near Essé, is even larger, -though not so regular in plan, nor so grand in the character of the -stones. It measures, however, 61 feet by 12 feet at the entrance, -increasing to 14 feet over all at the inner end. There is a third at -Mettray, near Tours, which, though very much smaller, is curiously -characteristic of the form. The immense mass in the centre (woodcut -No. 125) and the two smaller which form the roof almost take from it -the character of rude-stone architecture. There is a fourth, of a -less megalithic character, at Locmariaker,[404] and several others -are dispersed over Brittany. It is not possible to know whether the -intention may not have been that these, like all smaller chambers, -should have been buried in tumuli. These just quoted, however, -certainly never were so, but this may have arisen from their having -been left unfinished. That at Bagneux, however, could hardly have -supported a heavy mass without falling in, and that at Mettray looks -too like a finished monument for any one to fancy its builders wished -it hid. - -[Illustration: 125. Dolmen near Mettray. From Gailhabaud.] - -[Illustration: 126. Dolmen of Krukenho.] - -The more usual form of French dolmens is either square or slightly in -excess of that form, seldom reaching two squares in plan, and with a -height equal to its breadth. One of the finest specimens[405] of a -monument of this class is in the middle of the village of Krukenho, -halfway between Carnac and Erdeven, and is now used as a cart-shed -or barn. It certainly never was covered up, though its entrance may -have been closed; indeed, the stones used for that purpose still lie -in front of it. From this, which may be styled a first-class dolmen -of the ordinary type, down to the simple dolmen of four stones, like -Kit's Cotty house, every possible variety and gradation are to be found -in France; but, so far as I know, no classification has been hit upon -which would enable us to say which are the oldest or which the more -modern. - -On the whole, however, I am inclined to look on the Grottes des fées -as the more modern form. The stones of which they are composed are -generally hewn, or at least shaped, by metal tools to the extent to -which those of Stonehenge can be said to be so treated. They also look -more like ordinary structures than other megalithic monuments, and seem -rather sepulchral chapels than sepulchres. Even, however, if we were to -determine to regard them as relatively the most modern of the northern -dolmens, this would not settle the question of the southern external -dolmens on tumuli, which may be even more modern. These questions, -however, must, I fear, remain unanswered till our knowledge of the form -of the whole group and of the materials of which the monuments are -composed is more extensive and more accurate than it is at present. - -The holed-stone variety occurs frequently in France, either in the form -of simple four-stone dolmens, like that of Trie, Oise[406] (woodcut -No. 127), or in a still more characteristic example at Grandmont, in -Bas-Languedoc[407] (woodcut No. 128). Certainly neither of these was -intended to be covered up, at least in the first instance, or, at all -events, only partially; or the use of the hole, which was, no doubt, -to get access to the chamber, would have been destroyed. The umbrella -form of the southern example is hardly such as would ever be used for a -chamber in a tumulus, but as a pent-roof is singularly suitable for an -open-air monument. The so-called Coves at Avebury were, I believe, in -this form, and it prevails also in India[408] and elsewhere, and the -likeness between the two is so remarkable that it may well have given -rise to speculations as to their common origin. - -[Illustration: 127. Holed Dolmen, at Trie. From Gailhabaud.] - -[Illustration: 128. Dolmen of Grandmont.] - -[Illustration: 129. Demi-dolmen. From Malé, 'Antiquités du Morbihan.'] - -There is still a form of dolmen very common in France, but found -also frequently in these islands, though I do not know if it occurs -in Scandinavia. Mr. Du Noyer proposed to call them "earth-fast -dolmens,"[409] from one end of the cap-stones always resting on the -ground, the other only being supported by a pillar or block. At first -sight it might appear that they were only unfinished or imperfect -dolmens, as it is more than probable that the mode of erection, in all -instances, was to raise first one end of the cap-stone and then the -other, as by this means the weight is practically halved. If, however, -any faith is to be placed in this representation of a monument by -Malé,[410] it is clear that it was a deliberate mode of getting rid of -half the expense and half the trouble of erecting a dolmen sepulchre. -Generally speaking, however, they are more like the one near Poitiers -(woodcut No. 130), where the stone either rests at one end on a bank or -on a flat space sloping upwards. Those in Ireland and Wales seem all -really to be only demi-dolmens, and as economy would hardly be a motive -in the good old times, I look upon them as probably a very modern -form of this class of monument. There is, indeed, one at Kerland, in -Brittany (woodcut No. 131), which, in spite of the shock such an idea -will give to most people, I cannot help thinking is and always was a -Christian monument. At least it is inconceivable to me from what motive -any Christian could have erected a cross on a pagan monument of this -class, if it really were one. It seems, on the other hand, perfectly -intelligible that long after their nominal conversion to Christianity -the people would adhere to the forms so long practised by their -ancestors, and there appears to be no great reason why even the most -bigoted priest should object to it, provided the symbol of the cross -made it quite clear that the "poor inhabitant below" died in the true -faith. - -[Illustration: 130. Demi-dolmen, near Poitiers.] - -[Illustration: 131. Demi-dolmen at Kerland.] - -I have purposely refrained from speaking of rocking stones, which play -so important a part in the forms of Druidical worship invented by -Stukeley, Borlase, and the antiquaries of the last century, because -I believe that nine-tenths of those found in this country--if not -all--are merely natural phenomena. So far from being surprised that -this should be the case, the wonder is that they are not more frequent -where loose boulders abound, either ice-borne or freed by the washing -away of the underlying strata. That some of these should rest in an -unstable equilibrium easily disturbed is only what might be expected, -and that they would also be matters of marvel to the country people -around is also natural; but it does not follow from this that any -priests purposely and designedly placed, or could place, rude stones in -such positions, or that they used them for religious purposes. - -[Illustration: 132. Pierre Martine.] - -In France, however, there is one called the Pierre Martine, near -Livernon, in the department of the Lot, which was designedly balanced, -if any one was. Its general appearance will be understood from the -preceding woodcut, taken from 'La France monumentale et pittoresque,' -which correctly represents its form and appearance.[411] The cap-stone -measures 22 feet by 11 feet, and is 16 inches in thickness, and is so -balanced on its two points of support that a slight pressure of the -hand is sufficient to set it oscillating with a motion which it retains -for some time.[412] - -[Illustration: 133. Pierre Martine. From Bonstetten.] - -[Illustration: 134. Pierre Branlante, in Brittany.] - -Another and more celebrated one, in Brittany, which is known as the -Pierre branlante de Huelgoat, seems rather due to accident. It looks -as if it formed, or was intended to form, part of a demi-dolmen, but -happening to rest on one of its supports so as to oscillate, it has -been allowed to remain so. Even assuming, however, that this was done -designedly, what would it prove beyond the desire which pervades -all these monuments, of exciting astonishment by _tours de force_. -I believe it is correct to say that no passage exists in any book -ancient or medieval which mentions rocking stones or their uses; nor -has anyone been able to explain how they delivered their oracles. A -certain push produced an oscillation, not fitful or irregular, but -always in proportion to the force applied; so the answer must always -have been the same and alike to all people. A still more important -fact is that nowhere do the people appeal to them now. Neither at the -Beltane nor at Halloween, nor at any of those festivals where country -people revive every extinct superstition to aid them in prying into -futurity, are these rocking stones appealed to; and it seems almost -impossible that, when so many other superstitions have survived, this -one should be lost, and lost in presence of the rocks themselves, which -still remain. Wonders they certainly are, but I question much if they -ever were appealed to for any higher purpose than that of extracting -sixpences from the pockets of gaping tourists. - - -CARNAC. - -In a zone about twenty miles in extent, stretching from Erdeven on the -north-west to Tumiac in a south-easterly direction, and nowhere more -than five miles in width, there is to be found the most remarkable -group of megalithic remains, not only in France, but perhaps in the -whole world. Not only are examples of every class of monument we -have been describing, except circles, to be found here, but they are -larger and finer examples than are generally to be met with elsewhere. -Another point of interest also is that within the zone are found--if I -am not mistaken--both a cemetery and a battle-field. At least in the -neighbourhood of Locmariaker, which there seems no reason for doubting -was the Dariorigum of the Romans, the capital of the Venetes in Cæsar's -times,[413] all the monuments are more or less sculptured, and all the -stones fashioned, not to say hewn. On the other hand, no stone in the -neighbourhood of Carnac is hewn, or even fashioned, beyond splitting, -and no sculptures of any class have been traced. The distinction is too -marked to be accidental, and unless it can be made out that they belong -to different ages, which appears to me most improbable, goes far to -establish the conclusion at which we have arrived in previous chapters. - -To begin with the Carnac monument,[414] which is the best known and the -most important. As will be seen by the woodcut on p. 352, it consists -of two separate alignments, or great stone rows--one, that of Carnac, -extending for nearly two miles in a direction nearly east and west; the -other, that of Erdeven, at a distance of two miles and a half from that -at Carnac, being little more than one mile in length. There is a third, -but smaller, group at St.-Barbe, about a mile and a half due south of -Erdeven; and numerous dolmens and tumuli are spread at intervals all -over the plain. - -In order to be understood, the Carnac monument must again be subdivided -into three portions. Beginning at Le Maenec (the Stones), we have -eleven rows of very fine stones, measuring from 11 feet to 13 feet in -height from the ground, and still nearly perfect. Gradually, however, -they become smaller and more sparse, till, when they reach the road -from Auray to Carnac, there are few of them that measure 3 feet in -any direction, and some are still smaller. Shortly after passing that -road the avenues cease altogether, for a distance of more than 300 -yards, there being nothing but a few natural boulders in the interval -between. When, however, we reach the knoll on which the farm of -Kermario stands, the avenues reappear, this time only ten in number, -but perfectly regular, and with stones as large and as regularly spaced -as those at Maenec. They diminish more and more in size, however, and -almost die out altogether before they reach the mound (tumulus?) on -which the windmill stands, and after that become so small and sparse -that a stranger riding across the line could hardly remark that they -were artificially disposed, but would merely regard it as a stony -piece of land. They again cease entirely before we reach the brook, to -recommence at Kerlescant, where thirteen rows are found; but these are -composed of stones of less dimensions and more irregularly spaced than -those at Maenec, and die out much more rapidly. At a distance of less -than 500 yards from the head of the column they disappear entirely. -It may be suggested that these gaps arise from the stones having been -removed for agricultural and other purposes. I think, however, that -any one who carefully examines the spot will be convinced that we -really now possess all, or nearly all, that were ever placed here. -They are thickest and best preserved in the village of Maenec, and at -Kermario, where buildings are most frequent, and they disappear exactly -in those places where there are no buildings or walls, but where the -ground is an open, barren heath, without roads, and whence it would -be very difficult to transport them; and in so stony a country it is -very improbable that the attempt would be made. Besides this, the -gradual way in which they diminish in size before disappearing shows -a regularity of design, regarding which there can be no mistake. In -addition to this, the heads of the three divisions are all marked by -monuments of different kinds, but which are easily recognizable. At -the head of the Maenec division there is a curvilinear enclosure of -smaller stones, none of them being more than 6 feet in height, but set -much closer together than the rows (woodcut No. 136). It probably was -once complete, and, if so, joined the centre stone row. At Kermario, -a dolmen stands in front of the alignment, not remarkable for its -size, but conspicuous from its position; and at Kerlescant there is -a quadrangular[415] enclosure, three sides of which are composed of -stones of smaller size and set closely together, like those at Maenec. -The fourth side is formed by a tumulus or long barrow. This was dug -into in 1851, by some persons with or without authority; but who they -were, or what they found, is not recorded. - -[Illustration: 135. MAP OF SOME CELTIC ANTIQUITIES _IN THE -NEIGHBOURHOOD_ OF CARNAC] - -[Illustration: 136.] - -The monument at Erdeven is very inferior in scale to that at Carnac, -and planned on a different principle. Instead of the heads of the -division following one another, as at Carnac, they face outwards; -and, like the fabled Amphisbena, this group has two heads, one at -each end. The principal one is the western, where there is a group of -very large stones close to the road, but rather confusedly arranged. -There seem to be nine or ten rows, and a row of large stones branches -off at right angles to the north. After extending about 100 yards the -main column dies out, and is resumed again at a distance of 200 yards, -in smaller stones much more widely spaced. It is again and again so -interrupted, that it is sometimes difficult to trace it till we come -near the eastern end, where it resumes its regularity, possessing eight -well-defined rows of stones similar to those at the west end.[416] - -At the west end there can still be traced the remains of what was once -a tumulus, and, beyond that, a single standing menhir. At the east end -there is a tumulus of a somewhat oval form, and in the centre, a hill, -or rising ground, apparently natural, on which are placed two dolmens; -and, south of the east end, a second hill or mound with two more -similar monuments. - -It is not easy to guess whether the lines of St.-Barbe were ever more -complete than we now find them. My own impression is that we have them -now very nearly as originally completed. The head facing the west seems -to have been intended for a curvilinear enclosure similar to that at -Maenec, but is now, at least, very incomplete. Its most remarkable -feature is the group of stones at its head (woodcut No. 137), two of -which are the largest and finest blocks in the neighbourhood. The -farthest away in the view is 19 feet long by 12 feet broad, and 8 -feet thick; the other, seen in the foreground, even exceeds it in -dimensions. Whether these are like the Coffin stones at Aylesford, or -the two stones found among the stone rows at Dartmoor, or have, indeed, -any separate meaning, must be left to be determined when we know more -of the general scheme on which these monuments were planned. - -There is nothing at present but juxtaposition to justify us in -connecting these great stone rows with the smaller groups of stones and -the dolmens or tumuli which stud the plain where they are found. In -respect to these, what we find at Carnac seems the exact converse of -what exists at Stonehenge and Stennis. There the great stone monuments -stand among the pigmy barrows of another race and age. Here all are -megalithic and all seem to have been erected nearly at the same time, -and to belong to one people, whoever they may eventually be proved to -have been. In so far as any argument as to their age is concerned, it -is at present of little importance whether this is so or not, for they -are all equally uncommunicative on this subject. - -[Illustration: 137. Head of Column at St.-Barbe. From Messrs. Blair and -Ronalds' work.] - -One of the tumuli known as Mont St.-Michel, is so situated with -respect to the Maenec row that it seems impossible to dissociate the -two. It was opened by M. René Galles in 1862, and an account of his -researches, in the form of a report to the Préfet, was published -shortly afterwards. The mound itself, at its base, is nearly 400 feet -in length by half that dimension in width. In modern times its summit -has been levelled, to form a platform for the church which now occupies -its eastern summit. In front of the church, M. Galles sunk a shaft -near the centre of the mound, and came upon a sepulchral chamber of -irregular form, the side walls of which were formed of very irregular -and bad masonry of small stones, similar to that of the dolmens at -Crubelz. Its mean dimensions were about 6 feet by 5 feet, and 3 feet -6 inches in height. In it were found some magnificent celts of jade -and tribolite, nine pendents in jasper, and 101 beads in jasper, with -some in turquoise, all polished and pierced so as to form a necklace. -The human remains in the principal cell seem utterly to have perished, -owing probably to the continued penetration of water since, at least, -the levelling of the summit, though some bones were subsequently found -in a small chamber adjoining. - -On the north side of the avenue at Kerlescant, at a distance of about -100 paces from it, is a second long barrow, consequently occupying -the same relative position to it that Mont St.-Michel does to that at -Maenec. It is so similar in external appearance and general arrangement -to that forming the north side of the enclosure, which terminates the -avenue, that there can be little doubt of their being of the same age -and forming part of the same general arrangement. It had been opened -some twenty years ago by a gentleman residing at Carnac, but was -re-examined in 1867 by the Rev. W. C. Lukis.[417] - -[Illustration: 138. Long Barrow at Kerlescant.] - -In the centre he found a long rectangular chamber, measuring 52 feet -in length by 5 feet in width internally, and divided into two equal -compartments by two stones cut away in the centre, so as to leave a -hole 1 foot 6 inches wide by 3 feet high. A similar but smaller hole -exists on the side, and is identical with those found in the long -barrows at Rodmarton and Avening in Gloucestershire.[418] Mr. Lukis, -among other things, found an immense quantity of broken pottery, some -of very fine quality. Two vases which he was enabled to restore are -interesting from their general resemblance to the two which Mr. Bateman -found in Arbor Low (woodcut No. 31). Though not exactly the same in -form, there can be little doubt that they belong to the same age. - -[Illustration: 139. Hole between Two Stones at Kerlescant.[419]] - -[Illustration: 141. Vases found at Kerlescant.] - -About a mile from this example, Mr. Lukis mentions a still larger -one. It measures 81 feet in length by 6 feet in width, is divided -into two compartments like the one just described, and has also a -holed entrance. He also measured two in Finistère, one 76 feet, the -other 66 feet, in length, and both 6 feet wide. Both, however, had -been rifled long ago, and are now mere ruins. More, no doubt, would be -found if looked for. Indeed, these straight-lined "allées couvertes," -or "Grottes des fées," without cells, as the French call them, as -before mentioned, are the most characteristic, if not the most common, -form of French rude-stone monuments. The only other place where they -are equally common is Drenthe, and it may be that this side hole -at Kerlescant is an approach to the side entrance so usual in that -province. - -At Plouharnel, about a mile and a half westward from Mont St.-Michel, a -double dolmen was opened a good many years ago. In it were found some -beautiful gold ornaments, others in bronze, and some celts or stone -axes in jade[420]--all these, like those of Mont St.-Michel, belonging -evidently to what antiquaries call the latest period of the Polished -Stone age; but until it is determined what that age is, it does not -help us much to a date. - -[Illustration: 142. Plan of Moustoir-Carnac.] - -[Illustration: 143. Section of Moustoir-Carnac. From 'Mémoire' by René -Galles.] - -To the north of Kerlescant, at about the distance of half a mile, -is another long barrow, called Moustoir or Moustoir-Carnac, which -was opened in 1865, also by M. René Galles. It was found to contain -four separate interments, dispersed along its length, which exceeds -280 feet, the height varying from 15 to 20 feet. The western chamber -is a regular dolmen, of the class called "Grottes des fées," and is -apparently the oldest of the group. The centre one (_b_) is a very -irregular chamber, the plan of which it is difficult to make out; the -third (_c_) is a dolmen, irregular in plan, but roofed with three -large stones; but the fourth (_d_) is a circular chamber, the walls -of which are formed of tolerably large stones, the roof being built -up into the form of a horizontal dome (woodcut No. 144), by stones -projecting and overlapping, instead of the simpler ceiling of single -blocks as on all the earlier monuments. This, as well as the walls, -being built with small stones, I take to be a certain indication of -a more modern age. A considerable number of flint implements were -found in the western chamber, with some beads and a partially pierced -cylinder in serpentine, but no coins, nor any object of an age which -can be positively dated. Here, however, these troublesome Roman tiles -make their appearance as at Crubelz. "Ici, comme à Mané er H'roëk, -nous trouvons les traces caractéristiques du conquerant (les Romains): -des tuiles à rebord ont croulé, au pied de notre butte funéraire, et -plusieurs même se sont glissées à travers les couches supérieures des -pierres, qui forment une partie de la masse."[421] - -[Illustration: 144. Section of Chamber _d_ of Moustier-Carnac.] - -If these monuments are really prehistoric, it is to me incomprehensible -that these traces of the Romans should be so generally prevalent in -their structure. If it is objected that these are not found in the -chambers of the tombs themselves, the answer seems only too evident -that hardly one of them is virgin: all, or nearly all, have been -entered before the time of recent explorers, and all their more -valuable contents removed. Celts and beads and stone implements were -not likely to attract the attention of early pilferers, and these they -left; but except in the instance of the sepulchre at Plouharnel, metal -is very rarely found in any. But the presence of Roman pottery, or -other evidence of that people, in the long barrows in Gloucestershire, -at Kennet, and at Carnac, are too frequent to be accidental. In so far -as proving that the monument is not prehistoric, the presence of a -single fragment of Roman pottery is as conclusive as a hoard of coins -would be, provided it is found so placed that it could not have been -inserted there after the mound was complete; and this I fancy is the -case in all the instances mentioned above. - - -LOCMARIAKER. - -It is rather to be regretted that no good survey exists of this -cemetery. Not that much depends on the juxtaposition of the monuments, -but that, as the French are continually changing their names, and most -of them have two, it is not always easy to feel sure which monument -is being spoken of at any particular time. Those on the mainland are -situated in a zone about a mile in length, running north and south, -between Mané Lud, the most northern, and Mané er H'roëk, the most -southern. The first-named is a long barrow, 260 feet by about 165, -but not, as in England, of one age or containing only one, but, like -Moustoir-Carnac, several sepulchres, which may either be of the same -age or erected at different though hardly distant periods, and joined -together by being buried under one great mound. Of the three which Mané -Lud contains, the most interesting is the partially covered dolmen at -the west end. It consists of a chamber of somewhat irregular form, but -measuring 12 feet by 10 feet, and covered by one enormous block of -stone, measuring 29 feet by 15 feet, and with a passage leading to it, -making the whole length from the entrance to the central block of the -chamber 20 feet. According to Mr. Ferguson,[422] five of the blocks -of this dolmen are sculptured; according to M. René Galles,[423] nine -are so ornamented. The stone, however, is so rough and the place so -dark that it is difficult at times to distinguish them and always so -to draw them. The principal objects represented seem to be intended -for boats and hatchets, but there are other figures which cannot be -so classed, and, though it may be rash to call them writing, they may -mean numbers or cyphers of some sort. Their great interest is, however, -their similarity to the engravings on Irish monuments. If any one will, -for instance, compare this woodcut (No. 145) and woodcut No. 68 from -New Grange, he can hardly fail to see a likeness which cannot well be -accidental; and in like manner the curvilinear forms of woodcut No. -146, in a manner hardly to be mistaken, resemble those from Clover Hill -(woodcut No. 77). - -[Illustration: 145. Sculpture at Mané Lud.] - -[Illustration: 146. Sculpture at Mané Lud.[424]] - -[Illustration: 147. View of Dol ar Marchant. From Blair and Ronald.] - -Close by Mané Lud, but a little nearer to Locmariaker, stands what may -be considered as the most interesting, if not the finest, free-standing -dolmen in France. Its roof consists of two stones: one of these -measures 18 feet by 9 feet,[425] and more than 3 feet in thickness. The -second stone is very much smaller, and seems to form a sort of porch to -it. The great stone rests, like that of most free-standing dolmens, on -three points, their architects having early learned how difficult it -was to make sure of their resting on more; so that unless they wanted a -wall to keep out the stuff out of which the tumulus was to be composed, -they generally poised them on three points like that at Castle Wellan -(woodcut No. 7). - -[Illustration: 148. End Stone, Dol ar Marchant.] - -[Illustration: 149. Hatchet in roof of Dol ar Marchant.] - -The great interest in this dolmen, however, lies in its sculptures. The -stone which closes the east end is shaped into the form of two sides of -an equilateral spherical triangle and covered with sculptures, which -this time are neither characters nor representations of living things, -but purely decorative. At one time I thought the form of a cross could -be traced on the stone. The central stem and the upper arm are shown -clearly enough in the drawing by Mr. Ferguson; but all the drawings -show a lower cross-arm--though I confess I did not see it--which quite -destroys this idea. On the roof a well-sculptured plumed[426] hatchet -can be traced very distinctly, as shown in the woodcut copied from Mr. -Ferguson. He fancies he can also trace the form of a plough in the -sculptures of the roof, but this seems doubtful. - -It is to this dolmen that the great fallen obelisk belongs. If it -was one stone, it measured 64 feet in length and 13 feet across its -greatest diameter; but I confess I cannot, from the mode in which it -has fallen, rid myself of the idea that it was in reality two obelisks, -and not one. Whether this was the case or not, it is a remarkable work -of art for a rude people, for it certainly has been shaped with care, -and with the same amount of labour might have been made square or round -or any other shape that might have been desired. This, however, is -one of the peculiarities of the style. No one will dispute that this -obelisk and the stones of the Dol ar Marchant are hewn; but instead of -adopting the geometrical forms, of which we are so fond, they preferred -those that reminded them of their old rude monuments, and which to -their eyes were more beautiful than the straight lines of the Romans. I -do not feel quite sure that artistically they were not right. - -If we compare this dolmen with that at Krukenho (woodcut No. 126), the -difference between them appears very striking. The Del ar Marchant is a -regular tripod dolmen, carefully built of shaped stones and engraved. -The other is a magnificent cist, walled with rude stones, and such as -would form a chamber in a tumulus if buried in one, though whether this -particular example was ever intended to be so treated or not is by no -means clear. Be this as it may, there are two modes of accounting for -the difference between two monuments so nearly alike in dimensions and -situated so near to one another. The first would be to assume that the -Krukenho example is the oldest, it being the rudest and approaching -more nearly to the primitive form of the monuments: the second would -be to assume that the one was the memorial of some warrior, erected in -haste on the battle-field where he fell, by his companions in arms; -and that the other was a royal sepulchre, prepared at leisure either -by the king himself or by those who succeeded him in times of peace, -and consequently who had leisure for such works. We must know more of -these monuments before a satisfactory choice can be made between these -two hypotheses. At present I rather incline to the belief that the -circumstances under which they were erected may have more to do with -their differences than their relative ages. - -To return to Locmariaker. Close to the town there is, or was, a long -allée couverte.[427] It is 70 feet long, and divided towards its inner -end into a square chamber, to which a long-slightly curved gallery -led, composed of fourteen stones on each side. Five of these are -covered with ornaments, and characters engraved on them. One might be -considered as representing the leaf of a fern, or possibly a palm; the -rest are ovals, circles, and similar ornaments, which may or may not -have more meaning than those at New Grange or other monuments in the -locality. - -[Illustration: 150. Stone found inside Chamber at Mané er H'roëk.] - -On the other side of the village is the tumulus already mentioned as -Mané er H'roëk, where the twelve Roman coins were found, and inside -it an immense collection of polished celts, but all broken, and one -slab, which apparently originally closed the door, and is covered with -sculptured hatchets, similar in character to that on the roof of the -Dol ar Marchant, but not so carefully drawn nor so well engraved. - -[Illustration: 151. Plan of Gavr Innis.] - -Besides these there are several--probably as many as a dozen--monuments -of the same class, within what may fairly be considered the limits of -this cemetery; but of these the most interesting, as well as the most -perfect, is that on the island of Gavr Innis, about 2 miles eastward -from Locmariaker. - -[Illustration: 152. Sculptures at Gavr Innis. From a drawing by Sir -Henry Dryden.[428]] - -[Illustration: 153. Holed Stone, Gavr Innis. From a drawing by Sir -Henry Dryden.] - -The plan of the chamber of this monument will be understood from the -annexed plan.[429] The gallery of entrance measures 44 feet from where -the lining stones begin to the chamber, which is quadrangular in -form, and measures 9 feet by 8 feet. All the six stones forming the -three sides of the chamber, and most of those which line the entrance -on either hand, are most elaborately sculptured with patterns, the -character of which will be understood from the annexed woodcuts. The -pattern, it will be observed, is not so flowing or graceful as those -found at New Grange or Dowth, and nowhere, I believe, can it be said -to imitate vegetable forms; and in the woodcut on the left-hand stone -are some seventeen or eighteen figures, which are generally supposed -to represent celts, and probably do so; but if they do, from their -position they must mean something more, either numbers or names, but, -whatever it may be, its meaning has not yet been guessed. On other -stones there are waving lines, which are very generally assumed to -represent serpents, and, I believe, correctly so; but as that is -somewhat doubtful, it is as well to refrain from citing them. Besides -these, the general pattern is circles within circles, and flowing -lines nearly equidistant, but, except on one stone, never of spirals, -and then less graceful than the Irish. The sculpture, however, on some -of the stones at Lough Crew, and that in the centre especially of -woodcut No. 75, is absolutely identical with the patterns found here; -and altogether there is more similarity between these sculptures and -those at Lough Crew than between almost any other monuments of the -class that I know of. - -In the chamber on the left-hand side is a stone (woodcut No. 153), -with three holes in it, which have given rise to an unlimited amount -of speculation. Generally it is assumed that it was here that the -Druids tied up the human victims whom they were about to sacrifice. -But, without going back to the question as to whether there ever were -any Druids in the Morbihan, would any priest choose a small dungeon 8 -feet square and absolutely dark for the performance of one of their -greatest and most solemn rites? So far as we know anything of human -sacrifices, they were always performed in the open day and in the -presence of multitudes. Assuming for the moment, however, that these -holes were intended for some such purpose, two would have sufficed, and -these of a form much simpler and more easily cut. As will be seen from -the woodcut, not only are the three holes joined, but a ledge or trough -is sunk below them which might hold oil or holy water, and must, it -appears to me, have been intended for some such purpose. - -The existence of these holes seems to set at rest another question of -some interest. Generally it has been assumed that the tattooing on the -stones of the chambers, &c., may have been done with stone implements. -This cannot be denied, though it seems improbable; but the undercutting -of the passages between these holes and the formation of the trough -could only be effected by a tool which would bear a blow on its head, -and a heavy one too, or, in other words, by some well-tempered metal -tool. - -At Tumiac, opposite Gavr Innis, existed a very large tumulus, which -was opened in 1853 by Messrs. Fouquet and L. Galles. It was found to -contain a small chamber, partly formed of large slabs, partly of small -stones. Some of the former had rude carvings upon them, but without any -meaning that can now be made out. - -The whole has the appearance of being considerably more modern than -Gavr Innis. - - * * * * * - -Besides these, in the neighbourhood of Carnac and Locmariaker, there -are at least three other groups of stones in France which deserve much -more attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon them. The first is -in the peninsula of Crozon, forming the southern side of the roadstead -of Brest. It consists, among others, of three alignments of stones. The -principal one is at a place called Kerdouadec, and consists of a single -line of stones 1600 feet in length, arranged on a slightly curved plan, -and terminating in a curious "Swastica"-like cross. The second, at -Carmaret, is a single line, 900 feet long, and with two branches at -right angles to it, near its centre. The third, at Leuré, is likewise -a single line with a slight elbow in the centre, from which starts a -short branch at right angles.[430] - -[Illustration: 154. Alignments at Crozon.] - -I am not able to offer a conjecture what these alignments represent, -nor why or when they were placed here. Whether an inspection on the -spot might suggest some clue is not clear, but they are so unlike -anything found anywhere else, either in France or any other country, -that they must for the present, I fear, remain a mystery. - -The second group, known as the Gré de Cojou, is situated about halfway -between Rennes and Redon. The remains here consist of a short double -alignment some 500 feet long, several tumuli--one at least surmounted -by a circle of stones--several stone enclosures, and frequent dolmens. -They have been imperfectly described by M. Ramé,[431] and planned, -but not published, by Sir Henry Dryden. Until these are given to the -world more in detail than has hitherto been done, it is impossible to -say whether they represent a battle-field or a cemetery. From their -position--a bleak, barren heath, far from any centre of population--I -would guess the former; but I have not visited the place myself, and -the information at my command is too meagre to enable me to speak with -any confidence regarding them. - -The third group is in the department of the Lot, near Preissac, in -the parish of Junies, and extends over half a mile (800 metres) in -length. Unfortunately we have nothing but verbal descriptions of it, -and from these it is impossible to realise its form, or predicate its -destination.[432] We are, indeed, in a state of great ignorance with -regard to all these megalithic remains in the south of France, but as -they seem as important and as numerous as those in the north, it is to -be hoped some one will devote an autumn to their illustration. There -are probably several other groups as important as those at Junies, but -they are quite unknown to us at present. These groups must therefore -be put aside for the present, and any argument regarding age or use of -this class of monuments must be based wholly on what we know of those -of the Morbihan. - - * * * * * - -So far as I know, no reasonable tradition attaches to any of the -monuments in the Locmariaker cemetery which would enable us to fix -their dates with anything like certainty, nor are there any local -circumstances, except the Roman coins and tiles above alluded to, which -aid us in our researches. We are thus left to such general inferences -as the case admits of, and to a comparison with other similar monuments -whose dates are nearer and better ascertained. No one, however, who is -familiar with the two great cemeteries of Meath will probably hesitate -in admitting that the two groups cannot be far separated in date. Of -course, it is impossible in a general work like the present to put the -evidence forward in anything like a complete state. In order to do -this in a satisfactory manner would require a large volume to itself, -and the illustrations both of the French and Irish examples should be -drawn by the same person. Even the few illustrations that have been -given are probably sufficient to show a similarity so great that it -can hardly be accidental, and I may be allowed to add, from personal -familiarity with both groups of monuments, that it seems impossible -to escape the conviction that they are monuments of the same class, -probably of the same or a closely allied race, and of about the same -age. This last must always be the most uncertain premiss of the three, -as we can scarcely hope ever to know the relative state of civilization -of the two countries at a given time; and consequently, even if we -could prove that two ornaments in the two countries were identical in -form, this would not prove that there might not be a difference of -fifty or a hundred years between them. Even at a later age, in the -thirteenth century, for instance, the same form and the same style in -France and England did not prevent a difference of fifty years existing -between any two examples. In the fourteenth the two were abreast, and -in the fifteenth century they again diverged, so that, although the -architecture of both was still Gothic, a comparison of style for this -purpose became almost impossible. - -In like manner, though the central ornament in the middle stone at -Lough Crew (woodcut No. 75) is almost identical with some of the -ornaments at Gavr Innis (woodcut No. 152), it by no means necessarily -follows that the two are exactly of the same age. So, too, the foliage -at New Grange (woodcut No. 67) and that in the allée--now, I fear, -destroyed--at Locmariaker are evidently of one style, but still admit -of a certain latitude of date. On the whole, judging from style alone, -I should feel inclined to range Gavr Innis rather with the cemetery at -Lough Crew than with that on the Boyne; as well from its ornaments as -because I fancy that those monuments which are roofed with flat stones -only are earlier than those which make some attempt at construction. -But, on the other hand, I believe that Mané er H'roëk and Mané Lud may -more probably range with New Grange and Dowth; and as I look upon it -as quite certain that the monuments on the Boyne were all erected in -the first four centuries after the birth of Christ, it seems impossible -that the age of those at Locmariaker can be very distant from that date. - -To many it will no doubt seem improbable that these monuments should -have been erected during the occupation of the country by the Romans. -If, however, they would take the trouble of studying what is now going -on in India, their incredulity would, I fancy, soon disappear. The -natives there at the present day are in many parts of the country -building temples which it requires a practised eye to distinguish from -those erected before any European settled in the land; and they follow -their own customs, and worship their own gods, utterly irrespective of, -and uninfluenced by, the strangers who have held the chief sway in the -country for more than a hundred years. It must also be borne in mind -that the Romans never really settled in Brittany. The country was poor -then as now, and it led to nowhere. So long as the Bretons remained -quiet, the Romans seem to have left them to themselves, and certainly -have left no traces of any establishment of importance in their -country--nothing that would lead us to suspect such intimate relations -with the natives as would induce them to change their faith or fashions -and copy the institutions of the foreigners. - -On the other hand, it seems not only possible, but probable, that -intercourse with the Romans may first have inspired the inhabitants -of Brittany with a desire to attain greater durability and more -magnificence, by the employment of stone, instead of earth or wood, -for their monuments. This they might do, without its creating in -their minds the smallest desire to copy either Roman forms or Roman -institutions. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that in -these remote districts the Romans would be hated as conquerors, and -that their religion and their customs would be held in abhorrence as -strange and unsuited to the land they occupied. - -Be this as it may, a comparison with the Irish examples reduces the -questions at issue with regard to dates within very narrow limits. -Either these monuments were erected immediately before or during the -time of the Roman occupation or immediately after their departure, -but prior to the conversion of the natives to Christianity. We are not -yet in a position to decide positively between these two hypotheses, -but the presence of Roman coins and Roman tiles in some of the mounds -and the whole aspect of the argument seem to me to incline the balance -in favour of their belonging to Roman times. Some may be anterior to -the Christian era, but I am very much mistaken if it be not eventually -admitted that the greater number of them are subsequent to that epoch. - -Even, however, if the age of the monuments of the cemetery of -Locmariaker could be ascertained, it would by no means necessarily -carry with it that of the stone rows at Carnac. They belong to a -different category altogether, and may be of a different age. - -No one now, I presume, after what has been said above, especially with -regard to the Scandinavian examples, will think it necessary that I -should go over the ground to prove that they are not temples. Every -argument that could be adduced to prove that Avebury or Stonehenge are -not temples tells with tenfold force here. A temple extending over six -or seven miles of country is more improbable than one covering only -28 acres. This one, too, is open everywhere, and has no enclosure or -"temenos" of any sort, and there being an uneven number of equally -spaced rows of stones in the principal monument is sufficient to show -it was not intended and could not be used for processions. In fact I -hardly know of any proposition that appears to me so manifestly absurd -as that these stone rows were temples, and I feel sure that no one who -thinks twice of the matter will venture again to affirm it. - -It seems equally clear that they were not erected for any civic or -civil purpose. No meetings could be held, and no administrative -functions could be carried on in or around them. Nor are they -sepulchral in any ordinary sense of the term. In the first place -because, though men were buried in tumuli or under dolmens, or had -single head-stones, nowhere were men buried in rows like this, -extending over miles of heath and barren country. But the great fact -is that the French savants have dug repeatedly about these stones and -found no trace of burials. The most conclusive experiment of the sort -was made by a road surveyor some six or seven years ago. Wishing to -raise the road from Auray to Carnac, he dug out the sand and gravel on -the east side of the road, over a considerable area, to a depth of from -three to four feet; but being of a conservative turn of mind, he left -the eleven rows of stones each standing on a little pillar of sand. It -was then easy to trace the undisturbed strata of differently coloured -earth round and almost under the stones, and to feel perfectly certain -that it had never been disturbed by any inhumation. It, no doubt, is -true that the long barrow at Kerlescant, the dolmen at Kermario, and -the enclosure at Maenec, may have been, indeed most probably were, -all of them, burying-places, but they can no more be considered the -monument than the drums and fifes can be considered the regiment. They -are only the adjuncts; the great rows must be considered as essentially -the monuments. - -If, therefore, they are neither temples, nor town-halls, nor even -sepulchres, we are driven back on the only remaining group of motives -which, so far as I know, ever induced mankind to expend time and labour -on the erection of perfectly unutilitarian erections. They must be -trophies--the memorials of some great battle or battles that at some -time or other were fought out on this plain. The fact of the head of -each division being a tomb is in favour of this hypothesis; but if it -is considered as the principal part, it is like drawing a jackdaw with -a peacock's tail--an absurdity into which these men of the olden time -would hardly fall. - -It is more difficult to answer the questions, Are Carnac and Erdeven -parts of one great design, or two separate monuments? Is Carnac the -march, St.-Barbe the position before the battle, Erdeven the scene -of the final struggle for the heights that gave the victory, and the -tombs scattered over the plain between these alignments the graves of -those who fell in that fight? Such appears to me the only feasible -explanation of what we here find; but the great question still remains, -What fight? - -There is, probably, no single instance in which the negative argument -derived from the silence of the classical authors applies with such -force as to this. If these stones existed when Cæsar waged war against -the Veneti in this quarter, he must have seen them, and as it may be -presumed that the monument was then more complete than it is now, he -could hardly have failed to be struck with it, and, if so, to have -mentioned it in his 'Commentaries.' Even, however, if he neglected -them, the officers of his army must have seen these stones. They must -have been talked about in Rome, and some gossip like Pliny, when -writing about stones, must have heard of this wonderful group, and -have alluded to it in some way. The silence, however, is absolute. No -mediæval rhapsodist even attempts to give them a pre-Roman origin. -Such traditions as that of St. Cornely, or Cornelius the Centurion, -though absurd enough, point, as such traditions generally do, to the -transition time between paganism and Christianity, when, apparently, -all mediæval chroniclers seem to have believed that all these -rude-stone monuments were erected. Till, therefore, some stronger -argument than has yet been adduced, or some new analogy be suggested, -the pre-Roman theory must be set aside; and if this is so, we are -tolerably safe in assuming that no battle of sufficient importance was -fought which these stones could be erected to commemorate during the -time when the Romans held supreme sway in the country. - -If this is so, our choice of an event to be represented by these great -stone rows is limited to the period which elapsed between the overthrow -of the Roman power by Maximus, A.D. 383, and the time when the -people of the country were completely converted to Christianity--which -happened in the early part of the sixth century.[433] But if the -history of England is confused and uncertain during that century and a -half, that of Brittany is even more so, and has not yet been elucidated -by the French authorities to the same extent as ours has been. - -No one, I believe, doubts that Maximus, coming with an army from -Britain, landed somewhere in Brittany, where he fought a great battle -with the forces of Gratian, whom he defeated, and that afterwards, -in a second battle near Lyons, he expelled the legitimate government -of the Romans from Gaul.[434] I also see no reason for doubting that -he was accompanied by a British prince Conan Meriadec, who afterwards -settled in the country with thousands of his emigrant countrymen, over -whom he was enabled to establish his chieftainship on the ruins of the -Roman power. - -If this is so, the battle which destroyed the Roman power, and gave -rise to the native dynasty, would be worthy of such a monument as that -at Carnac; but so far as local traditions go, the place where Maximus -and his British allies landed was near St. Malo, and the battle was -fought at a place called Alleth, near St. Servan.[435] If this is so, -it was too far off to have any connection with the Carnac stones. Two -other wars seem to have been carried on by Conan, one in 410 against -a people who are merely called barbarians,[436] a second against the -Romans under Exuperantius in 416;[437] but we have no local particulars -which would enable us to connect these wars with our stones. A war of -liberation against Rome would be worthy of a national monument, and -it may be that this is such a one, but I know of nothing to connect -the two together, though local enquiries on the spot might remove this -difficulty. - -On the whole, however, I am more inclined to look among the events of -the next reign for a key to the riddle. Grallon was engaged in two -wars at least: one against the Roman consul Liberius in 439,[438] -in which he succeeded in frustrating the attempts of that people to -recover their lost power; the other against the "Norman pirates;"[439] -and it is to this, as connecting the stone monuments with a Northern -people, that I should be inclined to ascribe the erection of the Carnac -alignments. From Grallon being the reputed founder of Landevenec, it -might seem more probable that the alignments at Crozon marked the -position of this battle, and I am not prepared to dispute that it may -be so. The question is not of importance; if either group marked a -battle-field of this period, the other certainly did so also, and I -would prefer to refrain from offering any opinion as to what particular -battle these stones commemorate. That must be determined by some -local antiquary with much more intimate knowledge of the history and -traditions of the province than I possess. All I wish to show here is -that there was a period of a century and a half between the departure -of the Romans and the time when the Bretons were so completely -converted to Christianity as to abandon their old habits and customs, -and that during that period there were wars with the Romans and the -Northern barbarians of sufficient importance to justify the erection -of any monuments within the competence of the people. If this is so, -and we are limited to this period, enough is established in so far as -the argument of this work is concerned, and the rest may fairly be -left to be discussed and determined by the local antiquaries. All that -it is necessary to contend for here is, that the alignments at Carnac -are neither temples, nor tombs, nor town-halls, and that they were not -erected before the time of the Romans. If these negative propositions -are answered, there will not, probably, be much difficulty in admitting -that they must be trophies, and that the battle or campaign which they -commemorate was fought between the years 380 and 550 A.D.--in -fact in the Arthurian age, to which we have ascribed most of those in -this country. - -The monuments in the cemetery at Locmariaker are probably older, but -some of them extend down to the time when Carnac "closed the line in -glory." - -NUMBER OF DOLMENS IN THIRTY-ONE DEPARTMENTS OF FRANCE ACCORDING TO -M. BERTRAND, 1864.[440] - - - Dolmens. Terminations in _ac_. - Lot 500 71 - Finistère 500 3 - Morbihan 250 26 - Ardèche 155 16 - Aveyron 125 35 - Dordogne 100 75 - Vienne (Haute et Basse) 82 41 - Côtes du Nord 56 8 - Maine-et-Loire 53 -- - Eure-et-Loir 40 -- - Gard 32 16 - Aube 28 1 - Indre-et-Loire 28 -- - Charente 26 50 - Creuse 26 6 - Charente-Inférieure 24 21 - Lozère 19 16 - Corrèze 17 42 - Vendée 17 -- - Loire-Inférieure 16 11 - Sarthe 15 -- - Ille-et-Vilaine 15 18 - Deux-Sèvres 15 -- - Orne 14 -- - Indre 13 3 - Manche 13 -- - Pyrénées-Orientales 12 2 - Puy-de-Dôme 10 3 - Oise 9 -- - Cantal 8 37 - Tarn-et-Garonne 7 16 - - - [Footnote 379: 'Revue archéologique,' August, 1864, 148 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 380: Livy, v. chap. 34.] - - [Footnote 381: Walcknaer, 'Géographie des Gaules.' The earlier - chapters and Map V.] - - [Footnote 382: 'Revue archéologique,' new series, vii. 228.] - - [Footnote 383: _Ibid._] - - [Footnote 384: 'De Bello Gall.' i. 1.] - - [Footnote 385: Strabo, vi. 176, 189.] - - [Footnote 386: 'Archæological Journal,' 1870, cviii. p. 225 _et - seq._] - - [Footnote 387: Lartet, Christy, and 'Reliquiæ Aquitanicæ.' London, - 1865 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 388: 'Monuments mégalithiques du Vivarais,' p. Oll. de - Marchand; Montpellier, 1870.] - - [Footnote 389: 'Époques antéhistoriques du Poitou,' P. A. - Brouillet; Poitiers, 1865.] - - [Footnote 390: This list must be taken as only tentative. All I - have done was to take the Atlas Joanne, and count the number of - names as well as I could. I feel far from confident that I have - counted all; and, besides, the scale of the maps is too small to - feel sure that all, or nearly all, are there. It is, however, - sufficient for present purposes of comparison. If it is thought - worth while to pursue the investigation farther, it must be done - on the 80,000 scale map of France, which would be work of great - labour.] - - [Footnote 391: Delpon, 'Statistique du Département du Lot,' i. p. - 383.] - - [Footnote 392: In the Ordnance Maps, 1-inch scale, the termination - _ac_ occurs at least 38 times in this corner, though in these maps - always spelt with an additional _k_, as Botallac_k_, Carnidjac_k_; - although this is by no means the usual or ancient spelling of the - district.] - - [Footnote 393: The whole of these churches are described in more or - less detail by Félix de Verneilh in his 'Architecture byzantine en - France,' 4to. Paris, 1851. Several of them are also illustrated in - my 'History of Architecture,' i. 418-441.] - - [Footnote 394: The argument, which it is not necessary to enter - on here, has been well summed up by Dr. Schmitz, in Smith's - 'Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography,' _sub voce_ Cimbri.] - - [Footnote 395: The existence of this line of dolmens and of a - separate people, all the way from Brittany to Narbonne, may serve, - perhaps, to explain the mode in which the tin of Britain found - its way across France to the Mediterranean Sea. That the Veneti - traded from the Côtes-du-Nord and the Morbihan to Cornwall and - the Cassiterides, no one, probably, will dispute. Their vessels, - according to Cæsar's account, were fully equal to carrying to - France all the metal this country could produce. The road by which - it reached Marseilles across France was always the difficulty. In - later times, the Celtic trade-route across France was apparently - up the Rhone, but on its left bank, and down the Seine, or on its - right bank; passing then through Celtica, but round the Aquitania - of Augustus, and reaching Britain through the country of the - Morini, which was the route Cæsar followed. This does not, however, - appear to have been the line which was taken by the trade in tin. - It followed, so far as we know, the central line of the dolmen - country; and the fact of one people and one language prevailing - throughout the whole of that region takes away any improbability, - and removes all the difficulties that have hitherto impeded the - adoption of that hypothesis.] - - [Footnote 396: My intention was to have spent last autumn in - travelling through the southern departments of France with this - intent; but the war rendered the position of an exploring and - sketching foreigner so undesirable that I was forced to desist. Had - this book been a "statisque" of the subject, as it was originally - intended, I should have been obliged to defer its publication till - I had accomplished this journey, or till the monuments had been - illustrated. As, however, it has now assumed more the form of an - "argument," this is of comparatively little consequence.] - - [Footnote 397: In a paper on the 'Monuments mégalithiques de - l'Auvergne,' by M. Cartheilhac, in the Norwich volume of the - Prehistoric Congress, he gives drawings of ten as types. Five of - these, or one-half, are dolmens on tumuli, which is, however, - probably more than a fair proportion. One has already been given, - woodcut No. 8.] - - [Footnote 398: 'Statistique monumentale de la Charente,' 141. - Richard, 'France monumentale,' p. 677. 'Mém. de la Société royale - des Antiquaires de France,' vii. 26.] - - [Footnote 399: The woodcuts are copied from Michon, 'Statistique - de la Charente.' In describing it, he quotes the Edict of the - Council at Nantes with regard to the destruction of these - "venerated stones." He (p. 141) gives the date of this council as - A.D. 1262, which would almost make it appear that this was - one of the stones against which the decree was fulminated. This - date, however, appears to be a mistake. The true date I believe to - be 658, as given above, p. 24.] - - [Footnote 400: 'Rev. archéologique,' ix. 400.] - - [Footnote 401: 'Essai sur les Dolmens,' p. 38.] - - [Footnote 402: Paper read by S. Ferguson, Q.C., before the R. I. A. - 14th Dec. 1863. See also pamphlet by René Galles (Vannes, 1863), - describing the exploration.] - - [Footnote 403: 'Congrès préhistorique,' vol. de Paris, 1868, 42.] - - [Footnote 404: All these are represented in Gailhabaud's - 'Architecture ancienne et moderne,' ii. plates 7 and 8.] - - [Footnote 405: The woodcut is from a publication privately printed - by Dr. Blair and Mr. Ronalds.] - - [Footnote 406: Gailhabaud, 'Arch. anc. et mod.' i.] - - [Footnote 407: Renouvier, 'Monuments de Bas-Languedoc.' No numbers - to plates.] - - [Footnote 408: See one published by Sir R. Colt Hoare, 'Modern - Wiltshire,' iv. p. 57.] - - [Footnote 409: 'Kilkenny Journal,' third series, vol. i. p. 40 _et - seq._] - - [Footnote 410: I have not seen the monument myself, nor do I know - any one who has, but I cannot believe it to be a pure invention. - Too much stress must not, however, be laid upon it.] - - [Footnote 411: There is a woodcut in Bonstetten's work (p. 25) - which, being taken endways, explains more clearly how, the - cap-stone resting on two points only, it can be understood to - oscillate. It is, however, much less correct as a representation. - [Illustration: 133. Pierre Martine. From Bonstetten]] - - [Footnote 412: Delpon, 'Statistique du Dép. du Lot,' i. p. 388.] - - [Footnote 413: 'Ptolemæi Geo.' Amstel. 1605, p. 47.] - - [Footnote 414: The only survey of this monument which has - been published, and can be depended upon, is that made by Mr. - Vicars, a surveyor of Exeter, for the Rev. Dr. Bathurst Deane. - It was published by him on a reduced scale in vol. xxv. of the - 'Archæologia,' and re-engraved, with the principal parts on the - original scale, by Dr. Blair and Mr. Ronalds, in the work before - alluded to, but unfortunately never published. The original map, on - a scale of 440 feet to 1 inch, is still in Dr. Deane's possession, - at Bath, and is so valuable a record of what the monument was - thirty-two years ago that it is hoped it may be preserved by some - public body. Sir Henry Dryden and the Rev. Mr. Lukis have been - employed for some years past exploring and surveying in that - neighbourhood, and have brought back perfect plans, on a large - scale, of all the principal monuments; and if these were published, - they would leave little to be desired in that respect. Meanwhile - nothing can exceed Sir Henry's kindness and liberality in allowing - access to his treasures, and the use of them by any one who desires - it; and I am indebted to him for a great deal of the information - in this chapter. The general plans here published are from Messrs. - Blair and Ronalds' work, which is quite sufficiently correct for my - scale or my present purpose.] - - [Footnote 415: The form of this enclosure, as will be seen from - the plan, is not an exact square, and some of the angle-stones - being removed, it is difficult now to ascertain its exact form. - Sir Henry Dryden makes it curvilinear. Messrs. Blair and Ronalds - make the east side quite straight; the south and west were slightly - curvilinear, but the whole figure is quadrangular; which is my own - impression of its form.] - - [Footnote 416: Sir Henry Dryden counts ten rows. Mr. Vicars' - survey, from which the woodcut is copied, makes only eight. Their - irregularity makes it difficult to feel certain on such a point.] - - [Footnote 417: 'Journal of Archæological Association,' vol. xxiv. - pp. 40 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 418: _Ante_, pp. 163 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 419: It is so difficult to realise these similarities, - except by representation, that I give here a woodcut of that at - Rodmarton. Allowing for the difference of drawing and engraving, - the openings are identical, and it is so peculiar in form that the - likeness cannot be accidental. If it does not occur anywhere else, - or at any other time, it proves, as far as anything can prove, that - the French and English long barrows were erected under the same - inspiration. If one is post-Roman, so, certainly, is the other; or - if one can be proved to be prehistoric, the other must follow. - - [Illustration: 140. Entrance to Cell, Rodmarton.]] - - [Footnote 420: These were exhibited in the inn in the village when - I was there. Where they are now, I do not know.] - - [Footnote 421: 'Revue archéologique,' xii. p. 17.] - - [Footnote 422: 'Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy,' vol. viii. - 1864, p. 298 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 423: 'Revue archéologique,' vol. x. 1864, pl. iv.] - - [Footnote 424: Woodcuts No. 145 and 146 are copied from Mr. - Ferguson's paper in the 'Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy,' viii. - 398 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 425: These dimensions are from Richard; other authorities - make it 18 feet by 12 feet.] - - [Footnote 426: The existence of the plume is doubted by Sir Henry - Dryden, and he is so accurate that he probably is right; but as - others say they have seen it, and nothing depends upon it, I have - allowed it to remain.] - - [Footnote 427: It was in a very ruinous state when I saw it five - years ago; and there is an ominous silence regarding it among - subsequent tourists. The measurements here quoted are from Richard, - 'France monumentale.'] - - [Footnote 428: The plan here given is reduced from one by Sir Henry - Dryden, and may be perfectly depended upon as far as the smallness - of the scale will allow.] - - [Footnote 429: Sir Henry drew all these sculptures first on - the spot, and afterwards corrected his drawings from the casts - at St.-Germain. They are the only drawings existing which can - thoroughly be depended upon.] - - [Footnote 430: A plan of the first-named alignment was published - by Freminville, 'Finistère,' part ii. pl. i., but the above - particulars and the woodcut are taken from a diagram by Sir Henry - Dryden in the last number of the 'Journal of the Anthrop. Inst.' He - has perfect plans of the whole.] - - [Footnote 431: 'Revue archéologique,' new series, ix. pp. - 81 _et seq._ I may mention that almost every other name in - their neighbourhood ends in _ac_. See 'Joanne Atlas,' dép. - Ille-et-Vilaine.] - - [Footnote 432: Delpon, 'Statistique du Dép. du Lot,' i. 384.] - - [Footnote 433: "C'est en 465 que Vannes reçut pour premier évêque - l'Armoricain St. Patern, qui mourut peu d'années après chez les - Francs, où les Goths l'avoient forcé de se réfugier. Modestus en - 511 mit tout en œuvre pour repandre le Christianisme parmi - les Pagani de son diocèse, mais son zèle ne fut pas recompensé, - car plus de trente ans après la mort de Patern les habitans de - la Vénétie étoient encore presque tous païens. 'Erant enim tunc - temporis Venetenses pene omnes Gentiles.'--_Ap. Boll._ 'Vita St. - Melan.' vi. Jan. p. 311."--_Courzon_, 'Chartulaire de l'Abbaye de - Redon,' cxliii.] - - [Footnote 434: The authority for these events will be found at - length in Gibbon, chap. xviii., and are too familiar to need - quoting here.] - - [Footnote 435: Daru's 'Histoire de la Bretagne,' vol. i. p. 58.] - - [Footnote 436: _Ibid._ p. 112.] - - [Footnote 437: Dom. Bouquet, 'Recueil des Hist. des Gaules,' i. - p. 629. "Exuperantius anno circa 416 Armoricos qui a Romanis - defecerunt ad officium reducere tentavit."] - - [Footnote 438: Daru, i. p. 112.] - - [Footnote 439: "Gradlonus gratia dei rex Britonum necnon ex - parte Francorum."--_Chartulaire de Landevenec_; quoted by P. - Lobineau, ii. 17. And further: "'Pervenit Sancti (Wingaboei) - fama ad Grallonum regem Occiduorum Cornubiensium, gloriosum - ultorem Normannorum qui post devictas gentes inimicas sibi - duces subduxerat.'--_Gurdestan, Moine de Landevenec_, 'Vie de - St.-Wingabois.'"--_Daru_, i. p. 69.] - - [Footnote 440: The information in this table must be received with - great limitation. In the first place, What is a dolmen? Do the - alignments at Carnac count as two, as seven, or as 700? Many also - are mere estimates of local antiquaries. It is, for instance, very - doubtful if Finistère contains more monuments than the Morbihan; - and subsequent information may introduce great modifications into - many of the numbers. - - The value of the _ac_ distinction does not come out clearly: first, - because of the imperfect mode in which it has been obtained, but - more because it does not make it clear that there are in France - twenty-nine departments in which there are no dolmens, and no - _ac_-terminations; in fact, the negative evidence which does not - appear here is stronger than the positive.] - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -SPAIN, PORTUGAL, AND ITALY. - - -It would not be easy to find a more apt illustration of the difficulty -and danger of writing such a book as this than the history of how -we acquired our knowledge of Spanish dolmens. When Ford published -his interesting and exhaustive 'Handbook of Spain,' in 1845, he had -travelled over the length and breadth of the land, and knew its -literature intimately, but he did not know that there was a single -"Druidical remain" in the country. The first intimation of their -existence was in a pamphlet by Don Rafael Mitjana,[441] containing -the description of one at Antequera; and since then Don Gongora ý -Martinez[442] has published a work containing views and descriptions of -thirteen or fourteen important monuments of this class in Andalusia and -the south of Spain; and from other sources I know the names of at least -an equal number in the Asturias and the north of Spain.[443] Had this -work consequently been written only a very few years ago, a description -of the dolmen at Antequera must have begun and ended the chapter. As -it now is, we not only know that dolmens are numerous in Spain, but -we have a distinct idea of their distribution, which may lead to most -important historical results. - -With regard to Portugal, the case is even more striking. Kinsey, in his -'Portugal Illustrated,' in 1829, gave a drawing of a "Druid's altar" -at Arroyolos, and it was mentioned also by Borrow,[444] but there our -information stopped, till the meeting of the International Prehistoric -Congress at Paris in 1867, when S. Pereira da Costa described by name -thirty-nine dolmens as still existing in Portugal. He also mentioned -that as long ago as 1734 a memoir had been presented to the Portuguese -Academy enumerating 314 as then to be met with; and though this is -doubtful, it seems that they were at one time very numerous, and many, -no doubt, still exist which have escaped S. da Costa's enquiries. -Neither he nor any one else appears to have visited Cape Cuneus, the -most southern point of Portugal, where, if we read Strabo aright, -dolmens certainly existed in his day;[445] and if they do so now, it -would be a point gained in our investigation. - -At present, according to S. da Costa, there are twenty-one dolmens in -Alentejo, two in Estramadura, nine in Beira, four in Tras os Montes, -and three in Minho. According to my information, they are numerous in -Gallicia, but have never been described. Three at least are known by -name in Santander, and as many in the Asturias. One at least is known -in Biscay, and two in Vitoria; one in Navarre, and one in Catalonia. -But I am assured that all along the roots of the mountains they are -frequent, though no one has yet described or drawn them.[446] So far as -is known, there are none in the Castiles, in the centre of Spain, and -only that group above alluded to in Andalusia, where probably, instead -of a dozen, it may turn out that there are twice or thrice that number. - -Assuming this distribution of the Spanish dolmens to be correct--and -I see no reason for doubting that it is so, in the main features at -least--it is so remarkable that it affords a good opportunity for -testing one of the principal theories put forward with regard to the -migrations of the dolmen-building people. According to the theory of M. -Bertrand, the dolmen people, after passing down the Baltic and leaving -their monuments there, migrated to the British islands, and after a -sojourn of some time again took to their ships and landed in France and -Spain, to pass thence into Africa and disappear.[447] This seems so -strange, that it is fortunate we have another hypothesis which assumes -the probability of an indigenous population driven first to the hills -and then into the ocean by the advancing tide of modern civilization. - -The first hypothesis involves the assumption that the dolmen people -possessed a navy capable of transplanting them and their families from -shore to shore, and that they had a sufficient knowledge of geography -to know exactly whither to go, but at the same time possessed with -such a spirit of wandering that so soon as they settled for a certain -time in a given place, and buried a certain number of their chiefs, -they immediately set out again on their travels. According to this -view, they were so weak that they fled the moment when the original -possessors of the land rose against them, though, strange to say, they -had in the first instance been able to dispossess them. What is still -more unlikely is that they should have possessed the organization to -keep together, and to introduce everywhere their own arts and their -own customs, but that, when they departed, they should have left -nothing but their tombs behind. This hypothesis involves in fact so -many difficulties and so many improbabilities that I do not think that -either M. Bertrand or the Baron de Bonstetten would now, that our -knowledge is so much increased, adhere to it. I at least cannot see -on what grounds it can be maintained. It is so diametrically opposed -to all we know of ancient migrations. They seem always--in so far as -Europe is concerned--to have followed the course of the sun from east -to west; and the idea that a people, after having peopled Britain, -should have started again to land on the rugged coasts of the Asturias -or in Portugal, and not have been able to penetrate into the interior, -is so very unlikely that it would require very strong and direct -testimony to make it credible, while it need hardly be said no such -evidence is forthcoming. - -The hypothesis which seems to account much more satisfactorily for -the facts as we know them assumes that an ancestral worshipping -people inhabited the Spanish peninsula from remote prehistoric times. -If so, they certainly occupied the pastoral plains of Castile and -the fertile regions of Valencia and Andalusia, as well as the bleak -hills of Gallicia and the Asturias. Whether we call them Iberians, or -Celtiberians, or, to use a more general term, Turanians, they were -a dead-reverencing, ancestral worshipping people, but had not in -prehistoric times learnt to use stone for the adornment of their tombs. - -The first people, so far as we know, who disturbed the Iberians in -their possessions were the Carthaginians. They occupied the sea coast -at least of Murcia and Valencia, and if, according to their custom, -they sought to reduce the natives to slavery, they probably frightened -multitudes from the coast into the interior, but there is no proof that -they ever made any extensive settlements in the centre of the country, -nor on its west or north coast. It was different with the Romans: with -them the genius of conquest was strong; they longed to annex all Spain -to their dominions, and no doubt drove all those who were impatient -of their yoke into the remote districts of Portugal and the rugged -fastnesses of the Asturias and the northern mountains. It is also -probable that many, to avoid their oppressions, sought refuge beyond -the sea; but the great migrations are probably due to the intolerance -of the early Christian missionaries. It thus seems that it was to avoid -Carthaginian rapacity, Roman tyranny, and Christian intolerance, that -the unfortunate aborigines were forced first into the fastnesses of the -hills, and thence driven literally into the sea, to seek refuge from -their oppressors in the islands of the ocean.[448] - -Such an hypothesis seems perfectly consonant with all the facts as we -now know them, and it also accounts for the absence of dolmens in the -centre of Spain; for if this is correct, these migrations took place -in the pre-dolmen period, and just as we find the Bryts beginning to -use stones after having been driven from the fertile plains of the east -into the fastnesses of Cumberland and Wales, so we find the Spaniards -first adopting rude-stone monuments after having been driven into -Portugal and the Asturias. - -The one point which this theory does not seem to account for is the -presence of dolmens in Andalusia. They however are, if I am not -mistaken, an outlying branch of the great African dolmen field, and -belong to the same age as these do, of which we shall be better able -to judge presently. That there was a close or intimate connection -from very early times between the south coast of Spain and the north -of Africa hardly admits of a doubt. The facility with which the Moors -occupied it in the seventh century, and the permanence of their -dominion for so many centuries, is in itself sufficient to prove that -a people of the same race had been established there before them, and -that they were not a foreign race holding the natives in subjection, -but dwelling among their own kith and kin. - -It seems in vain to look among the written annals, either of Spain -or Ireland, for a rational account of these events. Both countries -acknowledge to the fullest extent that the migration did take place; -and the Spanish race of Heremon is one of the most illustrious of -those of Ireland, and fills a large page in its history. So, too, the -Spanish annalists fill volumes with the successful expeditions of -their countrymen to the Green Island.[449] The mania, however, of the -annalists of both countries for carrying everything back to the Flood, -and the sons and daughters of Noah, so vitiates everything they say, -that beyond the fact, which seems undoubted that such migration did -occur no reliance can be placed on their accounts of these transactions. - -One only paragraph that I know of seems to have escaped perversion. In -his second chapter of his fourth book, D. O'Campo states:--"Certain -natives of Spain called Siloros (the Siluri), a Biscayan tribe, joined -with another, named Brigantes, migrated to Britain about 261 years -before our era, and obtained possession of a territory there on which -they settled."[450] This is so consonant with what we know of the -settlement of the Silures on the banks of the Severn that there seems -no good reason for doubting its correctness. It is more doubtful, -however, whether any Spanish colonies reached Ireland at so early an -age. Even allowing for the existence in the north-east of Ireland of -the realm of Emania, the only kingdom in Ireland of which we have any -authentic annals before the Christian era, there was plenty of room -for the contemporary existence of the race of Heremon in the south and -west. Tara did not then exist, and, in fact, according to the annals -of the 'Four Masters,' was founded by Heremon himself, and took its -first name, Teamair, from Tea, his wife, who selected this spot. All -this is perfectly consistent with what we know of the history of the -place. The earliest monument at Tara is the Rath of Cormac[451] (218 -A.D., or probably fifty years later). Though therefore chosen -by Heremon as a sacred or desirable spot for residence, there is no -proof that his race ever occupied it; and in the two centuries that -elapsed from his advent to the time of Cormac his race had passed away -from Meath at least, and was only to be found in the south and west of -Ireland. The one reminiscence of the Milesian race that remained at -Tara, in historical times, is the Lia Fail, or Stone of Destiny, which -these "veneratores lapidum" are said to have brought with them from -Spain, but which, with all due deference to Petrie, is not the obelisk -still standing there,[452] but may be the stone now in Westminster -Abbey. The Spanish colonists seem principally to have occupied the -country about Wexford and Galway,[453] and to these places, especially -the latter, a continual stream of immigration appears to have flowed -from the first century of our era down to the time of Elizabeth. No -one can travel in these counties without remarking the presence of a -dark-haired, dark-eyed race that prevails everywhere; but, strange to -say, the darkest-complexioned people in the west are those who still -linger among the long-neglected dolmens of Glen Malim More. - -According to the annals of the 'Four Masters,' Heremon landed in -Ireland fifty years after the death of the great Dagdha. The Irish -historians say that the country was then ruled by three princesses, -wives of the grandsons of the Dagdha, and add that the event took -place 1002 years after Forann (Pharaoh) had been drowned in the Red -Sea.[454] If that event took place in 1312, as I believe it did,[455] -this would fix their advent in 310 B.C., which, though less -extravagant than the chronology of the 'Four Masters, is still, I -believe, at least three centuries too early. All this may not be--is -not in fact--capable of absolute proof; but it has at least the merit -that it pieces together satisfactorily all we know of the history and -ethnography of these races, and explains in a reasonable manner all the -architectural forms which we meet with. It is hardly fair to expect -more from the annals of a rude people who could not write, and whose -history has never been carefully investigated in modern times. It is -too early yet to say so, but the fact is, that it is these rude-stone -monuments which alone can reveal the secrets of their long forgotten -past. As they have hitherto been treated, they have only added mystery -to obscurity. But the time is not far off when this will be altered, -and we may learn from a comparison of the Irish with Spanish dolmens, -not only what truth there is in the migrations of Heremon, but also at -what time these Spanish tribes first settled as colonists in the Irish -isle. - - -DOLMENS. - -[Illustration: 155. View of the Interior of Dolmen at Antequera. From -Mitjana.] - -The finest dolmen known to exist in Spain is that of Antequera, above -alluded to; it will, indeed, bear comparison with the best in France -or any other country in Europe. The chamber is of a somewhat oval -shape, and measures internally about 80 feet from the entrance to the -front of the stone closing the rear. Its greatest width is 20 feet 6 -inches, and its height varies between 9 and 10 feet.[456] The whole is -composed of thirty-one stones: ten on each side form the walls; one -closes the end; five are roofing, and three pillars support the last -at their junction. The stone forming the roof of the cell or innermost -part measures 25 feet by 21 feet, and is of considerable thickness. All -the stones comprising this monument are more or less shaped by art--at -least to the extent to which those at Stonehenge can be said to be -so; while the three pillars in the centre, which seem to be part of -the original structure, are certainly hewn. The whole was originally -covered with a mound about 100 feet in diameter, and is still partially -at least so buried. Its entrance is, however, and probably always was, -flush with the edge of the mound, and open and accessible, and it is -consequently not to be wondered at if nothing was found inside to -indicate its age or use. - -[Illustration: 156. Plan of Dolmen called Cueva de Menga, near -Antequera.] - -If we might assume--there is no proof--that the mound at Antequera was -originally surrounded by a circle of stones like those at Lough Crew -(woodcut No. 72), we should have a monument whose plan and dimensions -were the same as those of Stonehenge, and, _mutatis mutandis_, the two -would be, as nearly as may be, identical. There is the same circle -of stone or earth 100 feet in diameter, and the same elliptical -choir 80 feet in length, assuming that of Stonehenge to be extended -to the outer circle. Antequera is, in fact, a roofed and covered-up -Stonehenge, Stonehenge a free-standing Antequera. If both were situated -in Wiltshire or in Andalusia, I should unhesitatingly declare for -Antequera being the older. Men do what is useful before they indulge -in what is merely fanciful. The two, in fact, bear exactly the same -relation to one another that Callernish does to New Grange; but when so -widely separated geographically as the former two are, and belonging to -two different races, it is difficult to say which may be the older. All -we can feel sure of is that both belong to the same system, and that -they are not far removed from each other in date. We must, however, -know more than we do of the local history of Spanish dolmens before we -can feel sure that Antequera may not be even considerably more modern -than Stonehenge. - -[Illustration: 157. Dolmen del Tio Cogolleros. From Gongora.] - -None of the other dolmens in Andalusia approach Antequera in -magnificence, though they all seem to bear a similar character, and in -appearance belong to the same age. The supporting stones seem to be all -more or less shaped by art, and fitted to some extent to one another. -The cap-stone is generally left in its natural state, largeness being -the feature that the builders always aimed at. These peculiarities are -well exhibited in the dolmen called de la Cruz del Tio Cogolleros, -in the parish of Fonelas, near Guadix. Here the cap-stone measures -nearly 12 feet each way, and covers what was intended to be a nearly -square chamber; one side, as at Kit's Cotty House, being left open; -consequently it could hardly ever have been intended to be covered with -a mound. Indeed, so far as we can gather from Don Gongora's drawings, -none of those which he illustrates were ever so buried, nor does it -appear that it was originally the intention ever to cover them with -earth. Another monument, called only Sepultura Grande, in the parish -of Gor, in the same neighbourhood, is interesting from its resemblance -to the Swedish sepulchre illustrated in woodcut No. 108, and to the -Countless Stones at Aylesford. Its cap-stone is 12 feet by 8 feet, and -the side-stones fall away to a point in front. It evidently never was -intended to be further roofed, nor to be buried in a mound, and, so far -as can be judged from its appearance, is of comparatively modern date. - -The most interesting of Don Gongora's plates is one representing -a dolmen near Dilar. This, if the drawing is to be depended upon, -consists of a monolithic chamber, hollowed out of a stone of -considerable dimensions, and hewn so as almost to look like an Egyptian -cell. It is surrounded by twelve or fourteen rude-stone pillars, -apparently 3 feet in height, and like those of Callernish in shape. -In the distance are seen two other circles of rude stones, but with -nothing in their centre. If I understand Don Gongora rightly, these -monuments are now very much ruined, if not entirely destroyed, and it -is not clear how far the drawings are actual sketches or restorations. -They may be correct, but without further confirmation it would hardly -be safe to found any argument upon them. - -[Illustration: 158. Sepultura Grande. From Gongora.] - - * * * * * - -So little is known--or at least so little has been published--regarding -the dolmens of the north of Spain that it is very difficult and very -unsafe to attempt any generalisation regarding them. There are three, -however, which do seem to throw some light on our enquiries. The first -is at Eguilar, in the district of Vitoria, on the road between that -city and Pampeluna. It is of a horse-shoe form, like the Countless -Stones at Aylesford, and measures 13 feet by 10 feet internally. -Originally it was roofed by a single stone, measuring 19 feet by 15 -feet, but which is now, unfortunately, broken. The side-stones and roof -are closely fitted to one another, showing that it was always intended -to be, and, in fact, is now, partially covered by a mound of earth. - -[Illustration: 159. Plan of Dolmen at Eguilar.] - -At Cangas de Onis, in the Asturias, about forty miles east from Oviedo, -there is a small church built on a mound which contains in it a dolmen -of rather unusual shape. Its inner end is circular in plan, from which -proceeds a funnel-shaped nave, formed of three stones on each side, -and with a doorway formed by two large stones at right angles to its -direction. On the top of the mound a church was built, probably in -the tenth or eleventh century,[457] to which this dolmen served as a -crypt. From this it seems to be a fair inference that, when the church -was built on the mound, the dolmen was still a sacred edifice of the -aborigines. Had the Christians merely wanted a foundation for their -building, they would have filled up or destroyed the pagan edifice, but -it seems to have remained open to the present day; and though it has -long ceased to be used for any sacred purpose, it still is, and always -was, an essential part of the church which it supported. - -[Illustration: 160. Plan of Dolmen at Cangas de Onis.] - -[Illustration: 161. Dolmen of San Miguel, at Arrichinaga.] - -A still more remarkable instance of the same kind is to be found at -a place called Arrichinaga, about twenty-five miles from Bilboa, in -the province of Biscay. In the hermitage of St. Michael, at this -place, a dolmen of very considerable dimensions is enclosed within -the walls of what seems to be a new modern church. It may, however, -be the successor of one more ancient; but the fact of these great -stones being adopted by the Christians at all shows that they must have -been considered sacred and objects of worship by the natives at the -time when the Christians enclosed them in their edifice. If the facts -are as represented in the woodcut,[458] we can now easily understand -why the councils of Toledo, in 681 and 692, fulminated their decrees -against the "veneratores lapidum;"[459] and why also the more astute -provincial priesthood followed the advice that Pope Gregory gave to -Abbot Millitus, and by means of a little holy water and an image of -San Miguel turned the sacred stones of the pagans into a temple of the -true God. It is difficult to say when Christianity penetrated into -the Asturias--not, probably, before the time of Pelayo (A.D. -720); but even this would be too early for such churches as those of -Cangas de Onis and Arrichinaga. They, in fact, seem to carry down the -veneration for big stones to almost as late a date as the age indicated -by the dolmen at Confolens (woodcut No. 123), and bring the probable -erection of some of them at least, if not of all, within the historic -era. - - -PORTUGAL. - -[Illustration: 162. Dolmen at Arroyolos. From Kinsey.] - -Only one drawing of a dolmen in Portugal has as yet, so far as I know, -been published. It is situated on a bleak heath-land at Arroyolos, not -far from Evora. Mr. Borrow describes it as one of the most perfect and -beautiful of its kind he had ever seen. "It was circular, and consisted -of stones immensely large and heavy at the bottom, which towards -the top became thinner, having been fashioned by the hand of art to -something like the shape of scallop-shells. These were surmounted by -a very large flat stone, which slanted down towards the south, where -was a door. Three or four individuals might have taken shelter within -the interior, in which was growing a small thorn-tree."[460] Neither -he nor Kinsey condescend to dimensions, and S. da Costa merely remarks -that the dolmens which he has seen at Castello da Vide are of a similar -construction to this one at Arroyolos.[461] - -This, it must be confessed, is but a meagre and imperfect outline of -one of the most important dolmen-fields in Europe, but it is probably -sufficient to indicate its importance and its bearing on the history -of megalithic remains in general. When filled up, it promises to throw -a flood of light on the subject in general, not only from being one of -the connecting links serving to join the African dolmen-field to that -of Europe, but more especially from the assistance it seems to afford -us in understanding the hitherto mysterious connection of the Irish -Milesians with Spain. If the dolmens on the north and west coasts of -the Spanish peninsula were carefully examined and compared with those -in Ireland, their similarity would probably suffice to prove their -affinity, and to establish on a broad basis of fact what has hitherto -been left to the wild imaginings of patriotic annalists, more anxious -for the fabled antiquity of their race than for the prosaic results of -truthful investigations. - -From such knowledge as we at present possess, I see no reason for -supposing that any of the Spanish dolmens are as old as the Christian -era; and the facts connected with the two at Cangas de Onis and -Arrichinaga seem to prove that they were "venerated" as late at least -as the eighth, it may be the tenth, century, and, if venerated, there -is no reason why they should not also have been erected at that late -age. - - -ITALY. - -Although the experience we have just acquired with reference to dolmens -in Spain ought to make any one cautious as to making assertions -regarding those in Italy, still it probably is safe to assert that, -with the exception of one group at Saturnia, there are no dolmens in -that country. In many respects Italy is very differently situated from -Spain. Her own learned societies and antiquaries have for centuries -been occupied with her antiquities, and foreign tourists have traversed -the length and breadth of the land, and could hardly have failed to -remark anything that called to their recollection the Druids or Dragons -of their own native lands. As nothing, however, of the sort has been -recorded, we may feel tolerable confidence that no important specimens -exist; though at the roots of the hills and in remote corners there can -be little doubt that waifs and strays of wandering races will reward -the careful searcher for such objects. One, for instance, is known to -exist near Sesto Calende, in Lombardy. It is a circle of small stones, -some 30 feet in diameter, with an avenue 50 feet in length touching -it tangentially on one side, and with a small semicircle of stones 20 -feet wide a few yards farther off.[462] The whole looks like the small -alignments on Dartmoor, and if several were found and the traditions of -the country were carefully sifted, this might lead to some light being -thrown on the subject. At present it is hardly much bigger or more -interesting than a sheep-fold. - -The Saturnia group is thus described by Mr. Dennis:--"They are very -numerous, consisting generally of a quadrangular chamber sunk a few -feet below the surface, lined with rough slabs of rock set upright, -one on each side, and roofed over with two large slabs resting against -each other, so as to form a penthouse, or else a single one of enormous -size, covering the whole, and laid with a slight slope, apparently for -the purpose of carrying off the rain. Not a chisel has touched these -rugged masses, about 16 feet square to half that size; some divided, -like that shown in the annexed woodcut, into two chambers over 18 feet -across. To most of them a passage leads, 10 or 12 feet long and 3 feet -wide. All are sunk a little below the surface, because each had a -tumulus of earth piled around it, so as to cover all but the cap stone." - -One tumulus was observed with a circle of small stones set round it, -and Mr. Dennis suggests "that all may have been so encircled, but that -the small stones would be easily removed by the peasantry." "Nothing," -he adds, "at all like them is seen in any other part of Etruria."[463] -Saturnia is situated twenty miles from the sea, and if it is true that -nothing of the sort is found elsewhere in Italy, these dolmens must -be looked upon as exceptional--the remains of some stray colony of -dolmen-builders, the memory of which has passed away, and may probably -now be lost for ever. - -[Illustration: 163. Dolmen at Saturnia. From Dennis' 'Etruria.'] - -If this is a correct representation of what took place in Italy, -the conclusion seems inevitable that the chambered tumuli of that -country--all of which are erected with hewn stones--did not grow out -of rude-stone monuments. In no country in Europe are the tumuli so -numerous or so important as in Etruria, and, as before mentioned, they -certainly extend back to an era twelve or thirteen centuries before -Christ. But if the dolmens of France or Scandinavia are prehistoric, -or, in other words, extend back to anything like a thousand or fifteen -hundred years before Christ, there is no reason whatever why dolmens -should not be found also in Italy, if they ever existed there. Either -it must be that Italy never possessed any or that those in the rest of -Europe are very much more modern. If the northern dolmens are only one -thousand to two thousand years old, the matter is easily explained. If -they are three thousand or four thousand years old, they ought also to -be found in Italy. - -The fact seems to be that both the Pelasgi of Greece and the Tyrrheni -of Italy came in contact either with Egypt or some early stone-hewing -people before they left their homes in the East to migrate into Europe, -and that they never passed through the rude-stone stage of architecture -at any period, or at any place with which we are acquainted; and as -they were, so far as we know, the earliest colonists of the countries -they afterwards occupied, it seems in vain to look for dolmens where -they settled. If Attila had lived five centuries before instead -of after the Christian era, he and his Huns might have produced a -rude-stone age in Italy. The inhabitants of Etruria were essentially a -burying, dead-reverencing people, and if they had only been thrown back -to that stage of barbarism which the rude monuments of our forefathers -represent, we might have found dolmens there in thousands. The fate -of Italy was different. Pressed by the Celts of Gallia Cisalpina -in the north and by the Romans in the south, Etruria was squeezed -out of existence, but by two races more civilized and progressive -than herself. So far from throwing her back towards barbarism, Rome -in adopting many of her forms advanced and improved upon them, and -imparted to her architecture a higher and more intellectual form than -she had been herself able to impress upon it. So, too, in Greece. The -Dorian superseded and extinguished the Pelasgic forms, but after a -longer interval of time. Four or five centuries elapsed between the -last tomb we know of, at Mycenæ, and the earliest Doric temple at -Corinth, and the consequence is that we see far fewer traces of the -earlier people in the architecture of Greece than we do in that of -Rome. But in neither instance was there any tendency to retrograde to a -dolmen stage of civilization. - -The case was widely different with such countries as Spain or France. -There an aboriginal population had existed for thousands and tens of -thousands of years, unprogressive and incapable, so far as we know, of -progress within themselves, and only at last slowly and reluctantly -forced by Roman example to adopt a more ambitious mode of sepulture -than a mere mound of earth. No semi-civilized race ever settled in -their lands, and the Carthaginians at Carthagena or Marseilles hardly -penetrated into the interior, and were besides neither a building nor -burying race, and had, consequently, very little influence on their -modes of sepulture. - -With Rome the case was different. She conquered and administered for -centuries all those countries in which we find the earliest traces -of rude-stone monuments, and she could hardly fail to leave some -impress of her magnificence in lands which she had so long occupied. -But when she withdrew her protecting care, France, Spain, and Britain -relapsed into, and for centuries remained sunk in, a state of anarchy -and barbarism as bad, if not worse than, that in which Rome had found -them three or four centuries before. It was in vain to expect that the -hapless natives could maintain either the arts or the institutions -with which Rome had endowed them. But it is natural to suppose that -they would remember the evidences of her greatness and her power, and -would hardly go back for their sepulchres to the unchambered mole-hill -barrows of their forefathers, but attempt something in stone, though -only in such rude fashion as the state of the arts among them enabled -them to execute. - - - [Footnote 441: 'Memoria sobre el Tempio Druida de Antequera,' - Malaga, 1847.] - - [Footnote 442: 'Antegüedades prehistoricos de Andalucia,' Madrid, - 1868.] - - [Footnote 443: For a great part of the information regarding them, - I am indebted to my friend Don J. F. Riaño, of Madrid.] - - [Footnote 444: 'Bible in Spain,' ii. p. 35.] - - [Footnote 445: Strabo, iii. p. 138.] - - [Footnote 446: There is an interesting paper by Lord Talbot de - Malahide on this subject in the 'Archæological Journal,' 108, 1870, - illustrated by drawings of hitherto unknown dolmens, by Sir Vincent - Eyre.] - - [Footnote 447: 'Revue archéologique,' new series, viii. p. 530.] - - [Footnote 448: "In the year B.C. 218, the second and - fiercest struggle between the rival republics of Carthage and Rome - was commenced by Hannibal taking Seguntum. The Peninsula thereafter - became the theatre of a war afterwards carried by Hannibal into - Italy, which was not concluded till 202 B.C., when Spain - was added to the growing Italian Republic. But the nation of Spain - did not willingly bow to the yoke. One of the bloodiest of all - the Roman wars commenced in Spain in 153, and did not finally - terminate for twenty years, during which cities were razed to the - ground, multitudes massacred and made slaves, and the triumphant - arms of Rome borne to the Atlantic shores. Here, therefore, is - an epoch in the history of the Spanish peninsula which seems - completely to coincide with the ancient traditions of the Scoti, - and the knowledge we possess of the period of their arrival in - Ireland."--_Dan Wilson_, 'Prehistoric Annals of Scotland,' p. 475.] - - [Footnote 449: See a paper on the migration from Spain to Ireland, - by Dr. Madden, 'Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy,' viii. pp. 372 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 450: Madden, _l. s. c._ p. 377.] - - [Footnote 451: _Ante_, p. 193.] - - [Footnote 452: Petrie, "Essay on Tara," 'Trans. R. S. A.' xviii.] - - [Footnote 453: "The two provinces which the race of Heremon - possessed were the province of Gailian (_i.e._ Leinster) and the - province of Olnemacht (_i.e._ Connaught)."--_Petrie_, 'Round - Towers,' p. 100.] - - [Footnote 454: Reeves, translation of Nennius, p. 55.] - - [Footnote 455: 'True Principles of Beauty in Art,' by the Author, - appendix, 526.] - - [Footnote 456: These dimensions are taken from Mitjana's book, - merely turned into their equivalents in English feet. They do - not, however, agree in scale with the plan, but are probably - approximately correct.] - - [Footnote 457: There is a view of the mound and church in - Parcerisa, 'Recuerdos y Bellezas de España, Asturias y Leon,' p. - 30, but too small to enable us to be able to form any idea of its - age from the lithograph.] - - [Footnote 458: The woodcut is copied from one in Frank Leslie's - 'Illustrated News;' which is itself, taken from a French - illustrated journal. I do not doubt that the American copy is a - correct reproduction of the French original; but there may be - exaggerations in the first. I see no reason, however, for doubting - that the great stones do exist in the hermitage, and that they are - parts, at least, of a dolmen---and this is all that concerns the - argument. I wish, however, we had some more reliable information on - the subject.] - - [Footnote 459: Vide _ante_, p. 24.] - - [Footnote 460: Borrow, 'Bible in Spain,' ii. p. 35.] - - [Footnote 461: 'Congrès international préhistorique,' Paris volume, - p. 182.] - - [Footnote 462: 'Congrès international préhistorique,' Paris volume, - p. 197.] - - [Footnote 463: 'Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria,' ii. p. 314.] - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -ALGERIA. - - -It would be difficult to find a more curious illustration of the fable -of "Eyes and no Eyes" than in the history of the discovery of dolmens -in northern Africa. Though hundreds of travellers had passed through -the country since the time of Bruce and Shaw, and though the French -had possessed Algiers since 1830, an author writing on the subject ten -years ago would have been fully justified in making the assertion that -there were no dolmens there. Yet now we know that they exist literally -in thousands. Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that ten -thousand are known, and their existence recorded. - -The first to announce the fact to the literary world in Europe was -the late Mr. Rhind. He read a paper on what he called "Ortholithic -remains in North Africa," to the Society of Antiquaries in 1859, which -was afterwards published in volume xxxviii. of the 'Archæologia.' It -attracted, however, very little attention, perhaps in consequence of -its name, but more from its not being illustrated. It was not really -till 1863, when the late Henry Christy visited Algeria, that anything -really became known. At Constantine he formed the acquaintance of a M. -Féraud, interpreter to the army of Algeria, who took him to a place -called Bou Moursug, about twenty-five miles south of Constantine, -where, during a short stay of three days, they saw and noted down -upwards of one thousand dolmens.[464] M. Féraud afterwards published -an account of these in the 'Mémoires de la Société archéologique -de Constantine' for 1863, and the subject having attracted some -attention in Europe, a second memoir appeared in the following year, -which contained a good deal of additional information collected from -different district officers. Since then various memoirs have been -published in Algeria and France. One by the now celebrated General -Faidherbe "speaks of three thousand tombs in the single necropolis -at Roknia, and of another equally extensive within a few leagues of -Constantine."[465] An excellent _résumé_ of the whole subject will be -found in the Norwich volume of the International Prehistoric Congress, -by Mr. Flower. From all these we gather a fair general idea of the -subject, but, unfortunately, none of the memoirs are written by persons -combining extensive local experience with real archæological knowledge, -except, perhaps, Mr. Flower. No plan of any one group has yet been -given to the world, nor are any of the monuments illustrated with such -details and measurements as would enable one to speak with certainty -regarding them. This is especially the case with those represented -in the 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie,' published by the -French Government. There are in this work numerous representations of -dolmens carefully and beautifully drawn, but very seldom with scales -attached to them; and as no text has yet been published, they are -of comparatively little value for the purposes of research. Had Mr. -Christy lived a little longer, these deficiencies would doubtless have -been supplied; but, unfortunately, his mantle has not fallen on any -worthy successor, and we must wait till some one appears who combines -leisure and means with the knowledge and enthusiasm which characterized -that noble-minded man. - -It need hardly be added that no detailed map exists showing the -distribution of the dolmens in Algeria,[466] and as many of the names -by which they are known to French archæologists are those of villages -not marked on any maps obtainable in this country, it is very difficult -to trace their precise position, and almost always impossible to draw -with certainty any inferences from their distribution. In so far as -we at present know, the principal dolmen region is situated along and -on either side of a line drawn from Bona on the coast to Batna, sixty -miles south of Constantine. But around Setif, and in localities nearly -due south from Boujie, they are said to be in enormous numbers. The -Commandant Payen reports the number of menhirs there as not less than -ten thousand, averaging from 4 to 5 feet in height. One colossal -monolith he describes as 26 feet in diameter at its base and 52 feet -high.[467] This, however, is surpassed by a dolmen situated near -Tiaret, described by the Commandant Bernard. According to his account -the cap-stone is 65 feet long by 26 feet broad, and 9 feet 6 inches -thick; and this enormous mass is placed on other rocks which rise -between 30 and 40 feet above the surface.[468] If this is true, it is -the most enormous dolmen known, and it is strange that it should have -escaped observation so long. Even the most apathetic traveller might -have been astonished at such a wonder. Whether less gigantic specimens -of the class exist in that neighbourhood, we are not told, but they do -in detached patches everywhere eastward throughout the province. Those -described by Mr. Rhind are only twelve miles from Algiers, and others -are said to exist in great numbers in the regency of Tripoli.[469] So -far as is at present known, they are not found in Morocco, but are -found everywhere between Mount Atlas and the Syrtes, and apparently not -near the sites of any great cities, or known centres of population, -but in valleys and remote corners, as if belonging to a nomadic or -agricultural population. - - * * * * * - -[Illustration: 164. Bazina. From Flower's Paper.] - -When we speak of the ten thousand or, it may be, twenty thousand stone -sepulchral monuments that are now known to exist in northern Africa, -it must not be understood that they are all dolmens or circles of -the class of which we have hitherto been speaking. Two other classes -certainly exist, in some places, apparently, in considerable numbers, -though it is difficult to make out in what proportion, and how far -their forms are local. One of these classes, called Bazina by the -Arabs, is thus described by Mr. Flower:--"Their general character is -that of three concentric enclosures of stones of greater or less -dimensions, so arranged as to form a series of steps. Sometimes, -indeed, there are only two outer circles, and occasionally only one. -The diameter of the larger axis of that here represented is about 30 -feet. In the centre are usually found three long and slender upright -stones, forming three sides of a long rectangle, and the interior is -paved with pebbles and broken stones. - -[Illustration: 165. Choucha. From a drawing by Mr. Flower.] - -"The Chouchas are found in the neighbourhood of the Bazinas, and are -closely allied to them. They consist of courses of stones regularly -built up like a wall, and not in steps like the Bazinas. Their diameter -varies from 7 to as much as 40 feet; but the height of the highest -above the soil does not exceed 5 to 10 feet. They are usually capped -and covered by a large flag-stone, about 4 inches thick, under which -is a regular trough or pit formed of stones from a foot and a half -to 3 feet in thickness. The interior of these little towers is paved -like the Bazinas; and indeed M. Payen considers that they are the -equivalents in the mountains of the Bazinas in the plains."[470] - -[Illustration: 166. Dolmen on Steps. From 'Exploration scientifique de -l'Algérie.'] - -In many instances the chouchas and bazinas are found combined in one -monument, and sometimes a regular dolmen is mounted on steps similar -to those of a bazina, as shown in the annexed woodcut, representing -one existing halfway between Constantine and Bona. But, in fact, -there is no conceivable combination which does not seem to be found in -these African cemeteries; and did we know them all, they might throw -considerable light on some questions that are now very perplexing. - -The chouchas are found sometimes isolated, and occasionally 10 to -12 feet apart from one another in groups. In certain localities the -summits and ridges of the hills are covered with them, while on the -edges of steep cliffs they form fringes overhanging the ravines. - -In both these classes of monuments the bodies are almost always found -in a doubled-up posture, the knees being brought up to the chin, and -the arms crossed over the breast,[471] like those in the Axevalla tomb -described above (page 312). - -[Illustration: 167. Tumuli, with Intermediate Lines of Stones.] - -[Illustration: 168. Group of Sepulchral Monuments, Algeria.] - -The most remarkable peculiarity of the tumuli and circles in Algeria -is the mode in which they are connected together by double lines of -stones--as Mr. Flowers expresses it, like beads on a string--in the -manner shown in woodcut No. 167. What the object of this was has not -been explained, nor will it be easy to guess, till we have more, -and more detailed, drawings than we now possess. Mr. Féraud's plate -xxviii.[472] shows such a line zigzagging across the plain between -two heights, like a line of field fortifications, and with dolmens -and tumuli sometimes behind or in front of the lines, and at others -strung upon it. At first sight it looks like the representation of -a battle-field, but, again, what are we to make of such a group as -that represented in woodcut 168 on the previous page? It is the most -extensive plan of any one of these groups which has yet been published, -but it must be received with caution.[473] There is no scale attached -to it. The triple circles with dolmens I take to be tumuli, like -those of the Aveyron (woodcuts Nos. 8 and 122), but the whole must be -regarded as a diagram, not as a plan, and as such very unsafe to reason -upon. Still, as it certainly is not invented, it shows the curious -manner in which these monuments are joined together, as well as the -various forms which they take. - -[Illustration: 169. Plan and Elevation of African Tumulus. From Féraud.] - -One of these (?) is represented in plan and elevation in the annexed -woodcut 169.[474] It is, as will be observed, almost identical-- -making allowance for bad drawing--with those of Aveyron just referred -to, or with the Scandinavian examples as exemplified in the diagram -(woodcut No. 109). As this class with the external dolmen on the -summit seems to be very extensive in Algeria, indeed almost typical, -an examination of their interior would at once solve the mystery of -their arrangements, and tell us whether there was a second cist on the -ground level, or where the body was deposited. Where the dolmen stands -free, but on the flat ground, as is the case with that shown in this -cut (No. 170), with two rows of stones surrounding it, the body was -deposited in a cist formed between the two uprights that support the -cap-stone, which are carried down some 5 or 6 feet into the ground for -that purpose. My impression is that the same arrangement is met with in -those which are raised, and that either the supports of the cap-stone -are carried down to the ground for that purpose or that an independent -cist, is formed directly under the visible one. - -[Illustration: 170. Dolmen with Two Circles of Stones. From Féraud.] - -The dolmen in this last instance is of the usual Kit's Cotty House -style, consisting of three upright stones supporting the cap-stone. -Sometimes the outer row of stones is replaced by a circular pavement -of flat stones,[475] forming what may be supposed to be a procession -path round the monument; but in fact hardly any two are exactly alike, -and when we come to deal with thousands, it requires very complete -knowledge of the whole before any classification can be attempted. -Suffice it to say here that there is hardly any variety met with -elsewhere of which a counterpart cannot be found in Algeria. - -[Illustration: 171. Dolmens on the Road from Bona to Constantine. From -'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie.'] - -Of their general appearance as objects in the landscape, the annexed -woodcut will convey a tolerable idea. They seem to affect the ridges -of the hills, but they also stretch across the plain, and in fact are -found everywhere and in every possible position. Except apparently on -the sea-coast, nothing like the Viking graves, so far as is known, is -found in Algeria; whether this indicates that they were a sea-faring -people or not is not quite clear, but it is a distinction worth bearing -in mind. - -[Illustration: 172. Four Cairns enclosed in Squares. (From 'Soc. arch. -de Constantine,' 1864.)] - -One curious group is perhaps worth quoting as a means of comparison -with the graves of Aschenrade (woodcut No. 119). It consists of four -tumuli enclosed in four squares joined together like the squares of -a chess-board. Single squares enclosing cairns are common enough in -Scandinavia, but this conjoined arrangement is rare and remarkable, -and its similarity to the Livonian example is so great that it can -hardly be accidental. The Aschenrade graves, it will be recollected, -contained coins of the Caliphs extending down to A.D. 999, -and German coins down to 1040. There would, therefore, be no _à -priori_ improbability in these graves in Algeria being as late, if the -similarity of two monuments so far apart can be considered as proving -identity of age. Without unduly pressing the argument, the points of -resemblance which exist everywhere between the Northern Europe and -North African monuments appear to prove that the latter may be of any -age down to the tenth or eleventh century, but any decision as to -their real date must depend on the local circumstances attending each -individual example. - - * * * * * - -The preceding woodcuts are perhaps sufficient to explain the more -general and more typical forms of Algerian dolmens, but they are so -numerous and so varied that ten times that number of illustrations -would hardly suffice to exhibit all their peculiarities. Their study, -however, is comparatively uninteresting, till we know more of their -contents, and till something definite is accepted as to their age. -When, however, we turn to examine that, we find the data from which -our conclusions must be drawn both meagre and unsatisfactory. Such as -they are, however, they certainly all tend one way. In the first place, -the negative evidence is as complete here as elsewhere. The Greeks, -the Romans, and the early Christians were all familiar with northern -Africa, and there is not one whisper as to any such monuments having -been seen by any of them. When we consider our own ignorance of their -existence till some ten years ago, it may be said that such evidence -does not go for much; but it is worth alluding to, as a hint in the -opposite direction would be considered final, and as its absence, -at all events, leaves the question open. On the other hand, all the -traditions of the country as reported by M. Féraud, and others, and -repeated by M. Bertrand and Mr. Flower, ascribe these monuments to -the pagan inhabitants who occupied the country at the time of the -Mahommedan conquest. Thus (page 127): "At the epoch the Mussulman -invasion these countries were inhabited by a pagan population, who -elevated these vast ranges of stone to arrest the invading host." Or, -again, they even name the prince who opposed the conquerors. Thus -(page 117): "Formerly at Machira lived a pagan prince called Abd en -Nar--fire worshipper. He married Zana, queen of a city now in ruins -bearing that name. When the Arabs conquered Africa, Abd en Nar abjured -his crown, became a Mussulman, and from that time called himself Abd en -Nour--worshipper of the light."[476] - -[Illustration: 173. Tombs near Djidjeli. From 'Exploration scientifique -de l'Algérie.'] - -This, too, must be taken for what it is worth; but in a cemetery -near Djidjeli, on the north coast, there is a curious tomb formed of -a circle of stones like those of the pagan cists, with a head-stone -which, if it is not the turban-stone that is usually found in Turkish -tombs of modern date, is most singularly like it. That the cemetery -belongs to the Mahommedans seems clear, but the circles of stones, -though small, indicate a very imperfect conversion--just such as the -tradition indicates. - -These arguments, however, acquire something like consistency when we -come to examine the contents of the tombs themselves. One of them (No. -4) is described by Mr. Féraud as surrounded by a circular enceinte, 12 -metres, nearly 40 feet, in diameter. The chamber of the dolmen measured -7 feet by 3 feet 6 inches. At the feet of the skeleton were the bones -and teeth of a horse, and an iron bridle-bit. In the same grave were -found a ring of iron, another ring with various other objects in -copper (bronze?), some fragments of pottery of a superior quality, -and fragments of worked flint implements, and lastly a medal of the -Empress Faustina.[477] All the three ages were consequently represented -in the one tomb, and yet it certainly belongs to the second century. -None of the others give such distinct evidence of their age, but M. -Bertrand, who is a strong advocate for the prehistoric age of French -dolmens, sums up his impressions of M. Féraud's discoveries in the -following words: "Ceux de la province de Constantine ne pouvaient, à en -juger par les objets qui y out été trouvés, être de beaucoup antérieur -à l'ère chrétienne; quelques-uns même seraient postérieurs."[478] - -In addition to what he found inside the tombs, M. Féraud discovered a -Latin inscription in the cap-stone of a dolmen near Sidi Kacem. The -letters are too much worn to enable the sense of the inscription to be -made out, but quite sufficient remains to prove that it is in Latin, -and, from the form of the letters, of a late type.[479] - -Monsieur Leternoux found hewn stones and even columnar shafts of Roman -workmanship among the materials out of which the bazinas at the foot -of the Aures chain had been constructed, and he gives a drawing of a -cippus of late Roman workmanship, bearing an inscription in Berber -character, which he identifies with those on two upright stones of rude -form, one of which forms parts of a circle near Bona.[480] - -[Illustration: 174. Circle near Bona.] - -In addition to these there are numerous instances among the plates -which form the volume of the 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie' -where the rude-stone monuments are so mixed up with those of late Roman -and early Christian character that it seems impossible to doubt that -they are contemporary. As no text, however, has yet been published to -accompany these plates, it is most unsafe to rely on any individual -example, which from some fault of the draughtsman or engraver may -be misleading. The general impression, however, which these plates -convey is decidedly in favour of a post-Roman date, and of their being -comparatively modern. It requires, however, some one on the spot, whose -attention is specially directed to the subject, to determine whether -the rude-stone monuments are earlier than those which are hewn, or -whether the contrary is not sometimes, perhaps always, the case. If -M. Bertrand is right, and the Faustina tomb is of any value as an -indication of age, certainly sometimes at least, the rude monuments are -the more modern. Carthage fell B.C. 146, and the Jugurthan -war ended B.C. 106, and it is impossible to conceive that -a people like the Romans, would possess as they did the sovereignty -of northern Africa, after that date, and not leave their mark on it, -in the shape of buildings of various sorts. If we adopt the usual -progressive theory, all must be anterior to B.C. 100; for on -that hypothesis it would be considered most improbable that after long -contact with Carthaginian civilization and under the direct influence -of that of Rome anyone could prefer rude uncommunicative masses to -structures composed of polished and engraved stones. It certainly was -so, however, to a very great extent, and my impression is, for the -reasons above given, that the bulk of these North African dolmens are -subsequent to the Christian era, and that they extend well into the -period of the Mahommedan domination, for it could not, for a long -time at least, have been so complete as entirely to obliterate the -feelings and usages so long indulged in by the aboriginal inhabitants -of the country. Nothing, indeed, would surprise me less than if it were -eventually shown that some of these rude-stone monuments extended down -to the times of the Crusades. As, however, we are not yet in a position -to prove this, it is only put forward here as a suggestion, in order -that those who may hereafter have the task of opening these tombs may -not reject any evidence of their being so late, as they probably would -do if imbued with prehistoric prejudices. - -It is to be feared that the question who the people were that set up -these African dolmens must wait for an answer till we know more of -the ethnography of northern Africa in ancient times than we do at -present. The only people who, so far as we now see, seem to be able -to claim them, are the Nasamones. From Herodotus we learn that this -people buried their dead sitting, with their knees doubled up to their -chins, and were so particular about this that, when a man was dying, -they propped him up that he might die in that attitude (iv. 190). We -also learn from him that they had such reverence for the tombs of their -ancestors that it was their practice in their solemn form of oath to -lay their hands on these tombs, and so invoke their sanction; and in -their mode of divination they used to sleep in or on these sepulchres -(iv. 172). All this would agree perfectly with what we find, but -Herodotus unfortunately never visited the country nor saw these tombs, -and consequently does not describe them, and we do not know whether -they were mere mounds of earth, or cairns of stone, or dolmens such -as are found in Africa. It is also unfortunate for their claim that, -in his day, the Nasamones lived near the Syrtes and to the eastward -of them (ii. 32), and it seems hardly possible that they could have -increased and multiplied to such an extent in the four following -centuries as to occupy northern Africa as far as Mount Atlas, without -either the Greeks or the Romans having known it. They are mentioned -again by Curtius (iv. 7), by Lucan (ix. v. 439), and by Silius Italicus -(ii. v. 116 and xi. v. 180), but always as a plundering Libyan tribe, -never as a great people occupying the northern country. Their claim, -therefore, to be considered the authors of the thousands of dolmens -which are even now found in the province of Algeria, seems for the -present wholly inadmissible. - -Still less can we admit M. Bertrand's theory alluded to above, that the -dolmen-builders migrated from the Baltic to Britain, and thence through -France and Spain to Africa. Such a migration, requiring long land -journeys and sea voyages, if it took place at all, is much more likely -to have been accomplished when commercial intercourse was established, -and the North Sea and the Mediterranean were covered with sailing -vessels of all sorts; but then it is unlikely that a rude people, as -the dolmen-builders are assumed to be, could have availed themselves of -these trade routes. - -Still no one can look at such monuments as this of Aveyron (woodcuts -Nos. 8 and 122) and compare them with those of Algeria, of which -woodcut No. 169 is a type, without feeling that there was a connection, -and an intimate one, at the dolmen period, between the people on the -northern with those on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, which -can only be accounted for in one of three ways. - -Either it was that history was only repeating itself when Marshal -Bougeaud landed in Algeria in 1830, and proceeded to conquer and -colonise Algeria for the French. Or we must assume, as has often been -done, that some people wandering from the east to colonise western -Europe left these traces of their passage in Africa on their way -westward. The third hypothesis is that already insisted upon at the end -of the Scandinavian chapter, which regards these rude-stone monuments -as merely the result of a fashion which sprung up at a particular -period, and was adopted by all those people who, like the Nasamones, -reverenced their dead and practised ancestral worship rather than that -of an external divinity. - -Of all these three hypotheses, the second seems the least tenable, -though it is the one most generally adopted. The Pyramids were built, -on the most moderate computation, at least 3000 B.C.[481] -Egypt was then a highly civilized and populous country, and the art of -cutting and polishing stones of the hardest nature had reached a degree -of perfection in that country in those days which has never since been -surpassed, and must have been practised for thousands of years before -that time in order to reach the stage of perfection in which we there -find it. Is it possible to conceive any savage Eastern race rushing -across the Nile on its way westward, and carrying their rude arts with -them, and continuing to practise them for four or five thousand years -afterwards without change? Either it seems more probable to assume that -the Egyptians would have turned them back, or if they had sojourned -in their land like the Israelites, and then departed because they -found the bondage intolerable, it is almost certain that they would -have carried with them some of the arts and civilization of the people -among whom they had dwelt. If such a migration did take place, it must -have been in prehistoric times so remote that its occurrence can have -but little bearing on the argument as to who built these Algerian -monuments. But did they come by sea? Did the dolmen-building races -embark from the ports of Palestine or those of Asia Minor? Were they in -fact the far-famed Phœnicians, to whom antiquaries have been so fond -of ascribing these structures. The first answer to this is that there -are no dolmens in Phœnicia, and that they have not yet been found -near Carthage, nor Utica, nor in Sicily, nor indeed anywhere where the -Phœnicians had colonies. They are not even found at Marseilles, -where they settled, though on the western bank of the Rhone, where they -had no establishments, they are found in numbers. They may have traded -with Cornwall, and discovered lands even farther north, but to assume -that so small a people could have erected all the megalithic remains -found in Scandinavia and the continent of France, and other countries -where they never settled, perhaps never visited, is to ascribe great -effects to causes so insignificant as to be wholly incommensurable. -So wholly inadequate does the Phœnician power seem to have been to -produce such effects, that the proposition would probably never have -been brought forward had the extent of the dolmen region been known at -the time it was suggested. Even putting the element of time aside, it -is now clearly untenable, and if there is any truth in the date above -assigned to this class of monuments, it is mere idleness to argue it. - -The idea of a migration from France to Algeria is by no means so -illogical. The French dolmens, so far as is now known, seem certainly -older than the African--a fact which, if capable of proof, is fatal to -the last suggestion--and if we assume that this class of monument was -invented in western Europe, it only requires that the element of time -should be suitable to establish this hypothesis. When the Celts of -central Gaul, six centuries before the Christian era, began to extend -their limits and to press upon those of the Aquitanians, did the latter -flee from their oppressors to seek refuge in Africa, as at a latter -period the dolmen-builders of Spain sought repose in the green island -of the west? There certainly appears to be no great improbability that -they may have done so to such an extent as to cause the adoption of -this form of architecture after it had become prevalent elsewhere; and -as the encroaching Celts, down to the prosecution of the middle ages, -may have driven continual streams of colonists in the same direction, -this would account for all the phenomena we find, provided we may -ascribe that modern date to the Algerian examples which to me appears -undoubted. - -It is hardly probable, however, that the Aquitanians would have sought -refuge in Africa unless some kindred tribe existed there to afford them -shelter and a welcome. If such a race did exist, that would go far to -get rid of most of the difficulties of the problem. We are, however, -far too ignorant of North African ethnography to be able to say whether -any such people were there, or if so, who their representatives may now -be, and till our ignorance is dispelled, it is idle to speculate on -mere probabilities. - -We know something of the migrations of the peoples settled around the -shores of the Mediterranean for at least ten centuries before the birth -of Christ, but neither in Greek or Roman or Carthaginian history, nor -in any of the traditions of their literature, do we find a hint of any -migration of a rude people, either across Egypt or by sea from Asia, -and, what is perhaps more to the point, we have no trace of it in any -of the intermediate islands. The Nurhags of Sardinia, the Talayots of -the Balearic Islands, are monuments of quite a different class from -anything found in France or Algeria. So too are the tombs of Malta, -and, as just mentioned, there are no such remains in Sicily. - -We seem thus forced back on the third hypothesis, which contemplates -the rise of a dolmen style of architecture at some not very remote -period of the world's history, and its general diffusion among all -those kindred races of mankind with whom respect for the spirits of -deceased ancestors was a leading characteristic. - - -TRIPOLI. - -Dr. Barth seems to be the only traveller who has in recent times -explored the regions about Tripoli to a sufficient extent and with -the requisite knowledge to enable him to observe whether or not there -were any rude-stone monuments in that district. About halfway between -Moursuk and Ghât, he observed "a circle laid out very regularly with -large slabs, like the opening of a well; and, on the plain above the -cliffs, another circle regularly laid out, "and," he adds, "like the -many circles seen in Cyrenaica and in other parts of Northern Africa, -evidently connected with the religious rites of the ancient inhabitants -of these regions."[482] This is meagre enough; but fortunately, in -addition to this, he observed and drew two monuments which are of equal -and perhaps even of more importance to our present purposes. - -[Illustration: 175. Trilithon at Ksaea.] - -One of these, situated at a place called Ksaea, about forty-five miles -east by south from Tripoli, consists of six pairs of trilithons, -similar to that represented in the annexed woodcut. No plan is given -of their arrangement, nor does Dr. Barth speculate as to their use; -he only remarks that "they could never have been intended as doors, -for the space between the upright stones is so narrow that a man of -ordinary size could hardly squeeze his way between them."[483] - -The other, situated at Elkeb, about the same distance from Tripoli, -but south by east, is even more curious. It, too, is a trilithon, but -the supports, which are placed on a masonry platform two steps in -height, slope inwards, with all the appearance of being copied from a -carpentry form, and the cap-stone likewise projects beyond the uprights -in a manner very unusual in masonry. Another curious indication of its -wooden origin is that the western pillar has three quadrangular holes -on its inner side, 6 inches square, while the corresponding holes in -the eastern pillar go quite through. These pillars are 2 feet square -and 10 feet high, while the impost measures 6 feet 6 inches.[484] - -In front of these pillars lies a stone with a square sinking in it -and a spout at one side. Whatever this may have been intended for, it -is--if the woodcut and description are to be depended upon--the exact -counterpart of a Hindu Yoni, and as such would not excite remark as -having anything unusual in its appearance if found in a modern temple -at Benares. Beyond these in the woodcut are seen several other stones, -evidently belonging to the same monument, one of which seems to have -been formed into a throne. - -[Illustration: 176. Trilithon at Elkeb. From a Drawing by Dr. Barth.] - -These monuments are not, of course, alone. There must be -others--probably many others--in the country, a knowledge of which -might throw considerable light on our enquiries. In the meanwhile the -first thing that strikes one is that Jeffrey of Monmouth's assertion, -that "Giants in old days brought from Africa the stones which the -magic arts of Merlin afterwards removed from Kildare and set up at -Stonehenge,"[485] is not so entirely devoid of foundation as might at -first sight appear. The removal of the stones is, of course, absurd, -but the suggestion and design may possibly have travelled west by this -route. - -[Illustration: 177. Buddhist Monument at Bangkok. From Mouhot's -'Travels in Indo-China, Cambodia, &c.' vol. i. p. 218.] - -If we now turn back to page 100, it seems impossible not to be struck -with, the likeness that exists between woodcut No. 25 and woodcuts 175 -and 176, especially the first. Such similarity is more than sufficient -to take away all improbability from Dr. Barth's suggestion that "the -traces of art which they display may be ascribed to Roman influence." -It also renders it nearly certain that these African trilithons were -sepulchral, and adds another to the many proofs adduced above that -Stonehenge was both sepulchral and post-Roman. - -The most curious point, however, connected with these monuments is -the suggestion of Indian influence which they--especially that at -Elkeb--give rise to. The introduction of sloping jambs, derived -from carpentry forms, can be traced back in India, in the caves of -Behar[486] and the Western Ghâts, to the second century before Christ, -but certainly to no earlier date. The carpentry forms, but without the -sloping jambs, continued at Sanchi and the Ajunta caves till some time -after the Christian era, and where wood is used has, in fact, continued -to the present day. "Mutatis mutandis," no two monuments can well be -more alike to one another than that at Elkeb and the Buddhist tomb at -Bangkok, represented in woodcut 177. The Siamese tomb may be a hundred -years old; and if we allow the African trilithon to be late Roman, we -have some fourteen or fifteen centuries between them, which, certainly, -is as long as can reasonably be demanded. In reality it was probably -less, but if the one was prehistoric, we lose altogether the thread of -association and tradition that ought to connect the two. - -To all this we shall have occasion to return, and then to discuss -it more at length, when speaking of the Indian monuments and their -connection with those of the West. In the meanwhile these two form a -stepping-stone of sufficient importance to make us feel how desirable -it is that the country where they are found should be more carefully -examined. My impression is that the key to most of our mysteries is -hidden in these African deserts. - - - [Footnote 464: 'International Congress,' Norwich volume, 1869, p. - 196.] - - [Footnote 465: Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 196.] - - [Footnote 466: A very imperfect one appeared in the 'Revue - archéologique,' in 1865, vol. xi. pl. v. It contained most of the - names of places where dolmens were then known to exist, but our - knowledge has been immensely extended since then.] - - [Footnote 467: 'Mémoires de la Soc. arch. de Constantine,' 1864, p. - 127.] - - [Footnote 468: Flower, in Norwich volume, p. 204.] - - [Footnote 469: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 124.] - - [Footnote 470: Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 201 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 471: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, pp. 109, - 114.] - - [Footnote: 472: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine.'] - - [Footnote 473: Another is published by M. Bourguignal, in his - 'Monuments symboliques de l'Algérie,' pl. i., but it is still more - suspicious.] - - [Footnote 474: I have been obliged to take some liberties with M. - Féraud's cuts; the plan and elevation are so entirely discrepant, - that one or both must be wrong. I have brought them a little more - into harmony.] - - [Footnote 475: 'Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich volume, p. 199.] - - [Footnote 476: 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864.] - - [Footnote 477: 'Revue archéologique,' viii. p. 527.] - - [Footnote 478: _Ibid._ _l. s. c._] - - [Footnote 479: 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 122, pl. - xxx.] - - [Footnote 480: Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 202-206.] - - [Footnote 481: 'History of Architecture,' i. p. 81.] - - [Footnote 482: 'Travels and Discoveries in Northern Africa,' i. p. - 204.] - - [Footnote 483: _Ibid._ p. 74.] - - [Footnote 484: _Ibid._ p. 59. The holes are not shown in the cut.] - - [Footnote 485: 'British History,' viii. chap. ii.] - - [Footnote 486: 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, ii. p. - 483.] - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS. - - -Before leaving the Mediterranean Sea and the countries bordering -upon it, it seems desirable to say a few words regarding certain -"non-historic" monuments which exist in its islands. Strictly speaking, -they hardly come within the limits assigned to this book, for they are -not truly megalithic in the sense in which the term has been used in -the previous pages; for though stones 15 feet and 20 feet high are used -in the Maltese monuments, they are shaped and, it may be said, hewn -with metal tools, and they are used constructively with smaller stones, -so as to form walls and roofs, and cannot therefore be considered as -Rude Stone Monuments. Still they have so much affinity with these, and -are so mixed up in all works treating of the subject with Druidical -remains and prehistoric mysteries, that it certainly seems expedient to -explain as far as possible their forms and uses. - -The monuments are of three classes. The first, found in Malta, are -there called giants' towers--"Torre dei giganti"--a name having -no meaning, but which, as also involving no hypothesis, it may be -convenient to adhere to. The second class, called Nurhags, are peculiar -to Sardinia. The third, or Talyots, are found only in the Balearic -islands. There may be some connection between the two last groups, but -even then with certain local peculiarities sufficient to distinguish -them. The Maltese monuments however stand alone, and have certainly no -connection with the other two, and, as it will appear in the sequel, -none of the three have any very clear affinity with any known monuments -on the continent of either Europe or Africa. - - -MALTA. - -The best known monuments of the Maltese groups are situated near the -centre of the Isle of Gozo, in the commune of Barbato. When Houel -wrote in 1787,[487] only the outside wall with the apse of one of the -inner chambers and the entrance of another were known. He mistook -the right-hand apse of the second pair of chambers for part of a -circle, and so represented it with a dolmen in the centre, led to this -apparently by the existence of a real circle which then was found at -a distance of 350 yards from the main group. This circle was 140 feet -in diameter, composed of stones ranged close together and alternately -broad and tall, as shown in the next woodcut, which represents the rear -of the principal monument. The entrance was marked by two very tall -stones, apparently 20 feet high. The interior was apparently rugged, -but there is nothing in the plates to show from what cause. When Houel -made his plan,[488] it had all the appearance of being what was styled -a regular "Druidical circle," and might have been used as such to -support any Druidical theory. It is now however evident that it really -was only the commencement of the envelope of a pair of chambers, such -as we find in all the monuments of this class on these islands. If the -plan is correct, it was the most regular of any, which, besides its -having every appearance of never having been completed, would lead -us to suppose that it was the last of the series. This monument has -now entirely disappeared, as has also another of even more megalithic -appearance which stood within a few yards of the principal group, but -of which unfortunately we have neither plan nor details. It is shown -with tolerable distinctness in a view in Mr. Frere's possession, and -in the plates which are engraved from drawings by a native artist, -which Admiral Smyth brought home in 1827,[489] and which are engraved -in volume xxii. of the 'Archæologia.' Unfortunately the text that -accompanies these plates is of the most unsatisfactory character. This -he partially explains by saying that he had left his measurements with -Colonel Otto Beyer, who had just caused the principal pair of chambers -to be excavated. - -The second pair of chambers was excavated by Sir Henry Bouverie when -he was governor, some time before or about 1836, when a careful plan -and drawings of the whole were published by Count de la Marmora.[490] -It has been re-engraved by Gailhabaud and others, and is well known to -archæologists. - -The monuments thus brought to light consisted of two pairs of -elliptical chambers very similar in dimensions and plan to those at -Mnaidra (woodcut No. 179). The greatest depth internally from the -entrance to the apse of the principal pair is 90 feet; the greatest -width across both 130 feet. The right-hand pair as you enter is -comparatively plain. The outer chamber of the left-hand pair still -retained, when excavated, fittings that looked like an altar in the -right-hand apse, which was separated from the rest by what may be -called the choir-screen or altar-rail; and this was ornamented with -spirals and geometric figures neatly and sharply cut. In the inner -chamber was a stone, near the entrance, on which was a bas-relief of -a serpent, but no other representation of any thing living was found -elsewhere. - -[Illustration: 178. View of the exterior of the Giants' Tower at Gozo. -From a drawing in the possession of Sir Bartle Frere, K.C.B.] - -The external appearance of the monument may be gathered from the -woodcut No. 178. The lower part of the wall is composed alternately--as -in the circle just alluded to--of large stones laid on their sides and -smaller ones standing perpendicularly between them. Above this the -courses of stones are of regular masonry, and probably there was some -kind of cornice or string-course before the beginning of the roof, but -of this no trace now remains in any of these monuments. - -The second group, known as Hagiar Khem, is situated near Krendi, on the -south side of the island of Malta, and is the most extensive one known. -The principal monument contains, besides the usual pair of chambers, -four or five lateral chambers; and a short way to the north is a second -monument, containing at least one pair; and to the south a third -group, but so ruined it is difficult to make out the plan. Only the -tops of the walls and the tall stones which still rise above the walls -were known to exist of the monument, till in 1839 Sir Henry Bouverie -authorized the expenditure of some public money to excavate it. An -account of these excavations, with a plan and drawings, was published -in Malta at the time by Lieutenant Foulis. The plan was repeated, in -less detail however, in the 'Archæologia,'[491] and afterwards in the -Norwich volume of the International Prehistoric Congress, by Mr. Furze, -from a survey recently made by the Royal Engineers. - -The third group, known as that at Mnaidra, is situated not far from the -last, between it and the sea; and as it never has been published, a -plan of it is given here[492] from a survey made by Corporal Mortimer, -of the Royal Engineers. Like the Gozo monument, it consists of two -pairs of oval chambers in juxtaposition. The right-hand pair, in this -instance, is larger and simpler in design than that on the left, but -it is so nearly identical, both in plan and dimensions, with the -right-hand pair at Gozo that they are probably of the same age and -served the same purpose. They are also, as nearly as may be, of the -same dimensions: both would be enclosed, with their side walls, by -a circle 75 feet in diameter. The left-hand cone at Mnaidra would be -nearly of the same diameter; but at Gozo the corresponding enclosure -would require to be, and in fact was, 100 feet in diameter, and the -inner room, measuring 80 feet by 50 feet, including the apse, was the -largest and finest apartment of the class in the islands. - -[Illustration: 179. Plan of Monument of Mnaidra. From one by Corporal -Mortimer.] - -[Illustration: 180. Section, on the line A B, through Lower Pair of -Chambers, Mnaidra.] - -The section through the lower chambers (woodcut No. 180) will suffice -to explain the general appearance of these buildings internally, -as they now stand. A is the entrance into a small square apartment -in which the altar or table stands, shown more completely in the -next woodcut (No. 181), from a photograph, which also renders much -more clear the peculiar style of ornamenting with innumerable "pit -markings," peculiar to these Maltese monuments. D is the entrance -into the other chamber, which but for the interference of that last -described, would have been of the usual elliptical form. My impression -is that the left-hand apse was removed at some time subsequent to the -erection of the monument, to admit of its insertion. On each side of -the doorway are seats, C and E, which are always found in similar -situations. Beyond, at F, is one of those mysterious openings which are -so frequent; it is also seen with another in Woodcut No. 182. Between -this apartment and the upper apartment H are two tiers of shelves or -loculi, which are also found at Gozo, and for which it is difficult to -suggest a meaning if they were not used as columbaria for sepulchral -purposes. - -[Illustration: 181. Entrance to Chamber B, Mnaidra, showing Table -inside. (The Rod is divided into English feet.)] - -A difficult question here arises as to which of these two pairs of -apartments is the older--the upper, with the simpler style and the -smaller stones, or the apartments with the larger stones and more -ornate arrangements. On the whole, I am inclined to think the simpler -the older: among other reasons because the floor of the right-hand pair -at Mnaidra is 10 feet above the level of the left-hand apartments. As -the edifices are all placed on heights, it seems improbable that the -first comer would have chosen a site commanded by a knoll 10 feet above -him, and touching his half-buried building. But, besides this local -indication, it seems probable that the style was progressive, and that -this right-hand chamber at Mnaidra may be the oldest, and the great one -at Gozo the last completed of all which we know. - -[Illustration: 182. North End of Left-hand Outer Chamber at Mnaidra. -From a photograph.] - -The excavations at Mnaidra as well as those at Hagiar Khem have -sufficed to settle the question of how these buildings were roofed. The -above woodcut, from a photograph, shows the springing of the roof of -the north end of the outer left-hand chamber, but, like photographs in -general, does so unintelligently. Colonel Collinson, however, informs -me that they bracket outwards, at the rate of 1 foot in 10, and he -calculates that they would meet at a height of 30 feet so nearly that -they could be closed by a single stone. He, however, overlooks the -fact that all these horizontally-constructed domes, whether in Greece, -or Italy, or Sardinia, are curvilinear, their section being that of a -Gothic pointed arch, and consequently, if corbelling forward at the -rate of 1 in 10 near the springing, they would certainly meet in this -chamber at 15 or 20 feet from their base. When we recollect that before -the Trojan war the Pelasgic architects of Greece roofed chambers 50 and -60 feet in diameter (_vide ante_, page 33), we should not be surprised -at the Maltese architects grappling with apses of 20 feet span. This -has generally been admitted as easy, but several authors have been -puzzled to think how the flat spaces joining the two apses could have -been so roofed. A careful examination of the plans of the Maltese -building seems to make this easy. Looking, for instance, at the plan -of Mnaidra, a retaining wall will be observed on the extreme right, -which is a segment of a circle 75 feet in diameter, and continuing it -all round, it encloses both chambers. If a similar circle is drawn -round the left-hand chambers, it equally encloses them, and the circles -osculate, or have one party wall at a point where there is the group -of cells. This granted, it is easy to see that the external form of -the roof was a stepped cone, covering the inner roofs, and so avoiding -the ridges and hollows which would have rendered independent roofing -impracticable. The external appearance of the building would thus have -been that of two equal cones joined together, and rising probably to -a height of 50 feet above their springing. To erect such a cone on an -enclosing wall only 8 or 10 feet thick may appear at first sight a -little difficult for such rude builders as the Maltese were when they -erected these domes, but when we recollect that the cone was divided -into two by a cross party wall, which may have been carried the whole -height, all difficulty vanishes. - -When we apply these principles to the ruins at Hagiar Khem, their -history becomes plain at once. Originally the monument seems to have -consisted of a single pair of chambers of the usual form, A and B of -the accompanying plan; but extension becoming necessary, the central -apse of the inner apartment was removed and converted into a doorway, -and the left-hand lateral apse was also removed so as to make an -entrance into four other ovoid apartments, which were arranged radially -so as to be covered by a cone 90 feet in diameter. Here again the -difficulty, if any, of constructing a cone of these dimensions is got -over by the numerous points of support from perpendicular walls which -honeycomb the building. The external appearance of this building would -be that of one great cone 90 feet in diameter covering the cells, and -anastomosing with one 60 feet, or one-third less, in diameter covering -the entrance chambers. - -[Illustration: 183. Plan of Hagiar Khem, partially restored.] - -Restored in this manner, the external appearance of these monuments -would have been very similar to that of the Kubber Roumeia near Algiers -and the Madracen near Blidah. The former was 200 feet in diameter, with -a cone rising in steps to the height of 130 feet, which was lower in -proportion than suggested above, but its interior was nearly solid, -and admitted therefore of any angle that might appear most beautiful. -The Madracen looks even lower, but no correct section of it has been -published. The Kubber Roumeia has now been ascertained to have been the -tomb of the Mauritanian kings down to the time of Juba II., or about -the Christian era.[493] Judging from its style, the Madracen may be a -century earlier. Be this as it may, it hardly seems to me doubtful but -that these tombs are late Roman translations of a type to which the -Maltese examples belonged; but the intermediate links in the long chain -which connects them have yet to be recovered. - -[Illustration: 184. View of Madracen. From a plate in Blakesley's 'Four -Months in Algeria.'] - -Internally, these Maltese monuments are rude, and exhibit very little -attempt at decoration. The inner apartments, being dark, are quite -plain, but the outer, admitting a certain quantity of light by the -door, have a proportionate amount of ornament. At Gozo, in the outer -apartment, there are, as mentioned above, scrolls and spirals of a -style very much more refined than is found in Ireland or in rude -monuments generally, but more resembling that of those found at Mycenæ -and other parts of Greece. At Hagiar Khem and Mnaidra the favourite -ornament are pit markings. Whether these have any affinity with those -which Sir J. Simpson so copiously illustrated,[494] is by no means -clear. In Malta they are spread evenly over the stone, and are such a -decoration as might be used at the present day (woodcut No. 181). An -altar was found in one of the outer chambers at Hagiar Khem, and in -both the Maltese monuments, stone tables from 4 to 5 feet high (one is -shown in the woodcut No. 181), the use of which is not clearly made -out. They are too tall for altars, and, unless in the Balearic Islands, -nothing like them is known elsewhere. - -After what has been said above, it is hardly worth while to enter -into the argument whether these buildings are temples or tombs. Their -situation alone, in this instance, is sufficient to prove that they do -not belong to the former class. Men do not drop three or four temples -irregularly, as at Gozo, within a stone's throw of one another, on a -bare piece of ground, far away from any centres of population. The same -is the case at Hagiar Khem, where certainly three, probably four, sets -of chambers exist; and Mnaidra may almost be considered a part of the -same group or cemetery. - -Malta, it is said, was colonised by the Phœnicians, at least was -so in Diodorus' time,[495] though how much earlier they occupied it, -we are not told, nor to what extent they superseded the original -inhabitants. We also learn incidentally that they possessed temples -dedicated to Melkart and Astarte. This is very probable, and if so, -their remains will be found near their harbours, and where they -established themselves; and Colonel Collinson informs me that remains -of columnar buildings have been found both at Marsa Sirocco and near -the dockyard creek at Valetta. These, most probably, are the remains -of the temples in question, though possibly rebuilt in Roman times. -The little images found in the apartments at Hagiar Khem may be -representations of the Cabeiri, though I doubt it; but little headless -deformities, 20 inches high, some of stone and some of clay, are not -the divinities that would be worshipped in such temples, though they -might be offerings at a tomb. - -If these buildings were tombs, they were the burying-places of a people -who burnt their dead and carefully preserved their ashes, and who -paid the utmost respect to their buried dead long after their decease. -The inner apartments have shelves and cupboards in stone, and numerous -little arrangements which it seems impossible to understand except on -the supposition that they were places for the deposit of these sacred -remains. Some of the recesses have doors cut out of a single slab 2 and -3 feet square at the opening, some are so small that a man could hardly -squeeze himself through, and some are holes into which only an arm -could be thrust,[496] but from the rebate outside of all, the intention -seems to have been for them all to be closed. - -Although from all these arrangements it may broadly be asserted that -they are not temples in the ordinary sense of the term; the outer -apartments may be considered as halls in which religious ceremonies -were performed in honour of the dead, and, so far, as places of -worship; but essentially they were sepulchres, and their uses -sepulchral. - -We know so little of the ancient history of Malta that it is extremely -difficult even to guess who the people were who erected and used these -sepulchres. Most people would at once answer, the Phœnicians; -but, in order to establish their claim, one of two things is -necessary--either we must have some direct testimony that they erected -these monuments, or we must be able to show that they erected similar -tombs either near their own homes or elsewhere. Neither kind of proof -is forthcoming. No such tombs are found near Tyre or Sidon, or near -Carthage, and classical authorities are absolutely silent on the -subject. The monuments most like them are the tombs at Mycenæ, but the -differences are so great that I would hesitate to lay much stress on -any slight similarities that exist. The Greek monuments were always -intended to be buried in tumuli. Those at Malta have so strongly marked -and so ornamental a podium outside that it is evident they never were -so covered up. It may be difficult to prove it, but I fancy if we are -ever to find their originals, it is to Africa we must look for them. -They are too unlike anything else in Europe. - -It seems even more difficult to define their age than to ascertain -their origin. Looking at the nature of the stone, their state of -preservation, and other circumstances, I cannot believe they are -very old. If they were in Greece, or in Europe, or anywhere where -they could be compared with other monuments, some useful inferences -might be drawn; but they are so unique that this mode is unavailable. -We have nothing we can confidently compare them with, and we are so -entirely ignorant of the ancient history of Malta that we cannot tell -in the least at what age she reached that stage of civilization which -the workmanship of these monuments represents. We are probably safe, -however, in assuming that they are pre-Roman, and as safe in believing -that they are not earlier than the monuments of Mycenæ and Thyrns; -in short, that they belong to some period between the Trojan and the -Punic wars, but are most probably much nearer to the former than to the -latter epoch in the world's history. - - -SARDINIA. - -It is a curious illustration of the fragmentary nature of society in -the ancient world that Sardinia should possess a class of monuments -absolutely peculiar to itself. It is not this time ten or a dozen -monuments, like those of Malta, but they are numbered by thousands, and -so like one another that it is impossible to mistake them, and, what -is still more singular, as difficult to trace any progress or change -among them. The Talyots of the Balearic Islands may resemble them, but, -excepting these, the Nurhags of Sardinia stand quite alone. Nothing the -least like them is found in Italy, or in Sicily, or, indeed, anywhere -else, so far as is at present known. - -A Nurhag is easily recognized and easily described. It is always a -round tower, with sides sloping at an angle of about 10 degrees to the -horizon, its dimensions varying from 20 to 60 feet in diameter, and its -height being generally equal to the width of the base. Sometimes they -are one, frequently two and even three storeys in height, the centre -being always occupied by circular chambers, constructed by projecting -stones forming a dome with the section of a pointed arch. The chamber -generally occupies one-third of the diameter, the thickness of the -walls forming the remaining two-thirds. There is invariably a ramp -or staircase leading to the platform at the top of the tower. These -peculiarities will be understood from the annexed section and plan of -one from De la Marmora's work.[497] - -[Illustration: 185. Nurhag. From De la Marmora.] - -[Illustration: 186. Nurhag of Santa Barbara.] - -When the Nurhags are of more than one storey in height, they are -generally surrounded by others which are attached to them by platforms, -often of considerable extent. That at Santa Barbara has, or had, four -small Nurhags encased in the four corners of the platform, to which -access was obtained by a doorway in the central tower; but frequently -there are also separate ramps when the platforms are extensive. The -masonry of these monuments is generally neat, though sometimes the -stones are unhewn, but nowhere does there appear any attempt at -megalithic magnificence. - -They are, at the same time, absolutely without any architectural -ornament which could give us any hint of their affinities; and no -inscriptions, no images, no sculptures of any kind, have been found in -them. They are in this respect as uncommunicative as our own rude-stone -monuments. - -[Illustration: 187. Nurhag of Santa Barbara. From De la Marmora.] - -Written history is almost equally silent. Only one passage has -been disinterred which seems to refer to them. It is a Greek work, -generally known as 'De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus,'[498] and ascribed -doubtfully to Aristotle. It is to the following effect:--"It is said -that in the island of Sardinia there exist, among other beautiful -and numerous edifices, built after the manner of the ancient Greeks, -certain domes (Θόλοι) of exquisite proportions. It is further -said that they were built by Iolas, son of Iphicles, who, having taken -with him the Thespiadæ, went to colonise this island." This certainly -looks as if the Nurhags existed when this book was written, though the -description is by a person who evidently never saw them. Diodorus so -far confirms this that he says: "Iolaus, having founded the colony, -fetched Dedalus from Sicily, and built numerous and grand edifices, -which subsist to the present day, and are called Dedalean, from the -name of their builder;"[499] and in another paragraph he recurs to -the veneration "in which the name of Iolaus is held." This, too, is -unsatisfactory, as written by a person who never visited the island, -and had not seen the monuments of which he was speaking. - - * * * * * - -It is little to be wondered at if buildings so mysterious and so unlike -any known to exist elsewhere should have given rise to speculations -almost as wild as those that hang around our own rude-stone monuments. -The various theories which have been advanced are enumerated and -described by De la Marmora[500] so fully that it will not be necessary -to recapitulate them here, nor to notice any but three, which seem -really to have some plausible foundation. - -The first of these assumes the Nurhags to have been watch-towers or -fortifications. - -The second, that they were temples. - -The third, that they were tombs. - -[Illustration: 188. Map of La Giara. From De la Marmora.] - -Looking at the positions in which they are found, the first of these -theories is not so devoid of foundation as might at first sight appear. -As a rule, they are all placed on heights, and at such distances as -to be seen from one another, and consequently be able to communicate -by signal at least. Take such an example, for instance, as that of -Giara, near Isili (woodcut No. 188). Any engineer officer would be -delighted with the manner in which the position is taken up. Every -point of vantage in the circumference is occupied, and two points in -the interior fortified, so as to act as supports. The designer of the -entrenched camp at Linz might rub his eyes in astonishment to find -his inventions forestalled by three thousand years, and by towers -externally so like his own as hardly to be distinguishable to an -unpractised eye. The form of the towers themselves lends considerable -plausibility to the defensive theory. Such a Nurhag, for instance, as -that of Santa Barbara (woodcuts Nos. 186, 187), surrounded by four -lesser ones, connected by a platform, and dominated by the central -tower, is a means of defence we might now adopt, provided we may assume -the existence of a parapet, which has fallen through age. - -When we come to look a little more closely at this military question, -we perceive that we are attempting to apply to a people who certainly -had no projectiles that would carry farther than arrows, principles -adapted to artillery or musketry fire. The Nurhags are placed at such -distances as to afford no support to one another before the invention -of gunpowder, and though in themselves not indefensible, they possess -the radical defect of having no accommodation for their garrisons. -It is impossible that men could live, cook, and sleep in the little -circular apartments in their interior, and the platforms added very -little to their accommodation. Had the four detached Nurhags at Santa -Barbara been connected with walls only, so as to surround the central -tower with a court, the case would have been very different; but as -in all instances this is filled up, so as to form a platform, it is -evident that it was exposure, not shelter, that was sought in their -construction.[501] - -Another, and even stronger, argument is derived from their number. De -la Marmora asserts that the remains of at least three thousand Nurhags -can now be traced in Sardinia,[502] and there seems no reason to doubt -the truth of his calculation, nor his assertion that they were once -much more numerous, and that they are dispersed pretty evenly over the -whole island. Can any one fancy a state of society in such an island -which would require that there should be three thousand castles and -yet no fortified cities as places of refuge? They were not erected to -protect the island against a foreign enemy, because most of them are -inland. They could not be made to serve for the protection of the rich -during insurrections or civil wars, nor to enable robbers to plunder -in security the peaceful inhabitants of the plain. In short, unless -the ancient Sardinians lived in a state of society of which we have no -knowledge elsewhere, these Nurhags were certainly not military works. - -When we turn to the second hypothesis and try to consider them as -temples, we are met by very much the same difficulties as beset the -fortification theory. If temples, they are unlike the temples of any -other people. Generally it is assumed that they were fire temples, -from their name _Nur_--in the Semitic languages signifying fire--but -more from their construction. The little circular chambers in their -interiors are admirably suited for preserving the sacred fire, and -the external platforms as well adapted for that Sabean worship of -the planets which is generally understood to be associated with -fire-worship. But assuming this to be the case, why so numerous? We -can count on our fingers all the fire-temples that exist, or were ever -known to exist, in fire-worshipping Persia; and if a dozen satisfied -her spiritual wants, what necessity was there for three thousand, -or probably twice that number, in the small and sparsely inhabited -island of Sardinia? Had every family, or little village community its -own separate temple on the nearest high place? and did each perform -its own worship separately from the rest? So far as we know, there -is no subordination among them, nothing corresponding to cathedrals, -or parish churches or chapels. Some are smaller, or some form more -extensive groups than others, but a singularly republican equality -reigns throughout, very unlike the hierarchical feeling we find in most -religions. In one other respect, too, they are unlike the temples of -other nations. None of them are situated in towns or villages, or near -the centres of population in the island. - -Must we then adopt the third hypothesis, that they were tombs? Here -again the same difficulties meet us. If they were tombs, they are -unlike those of any other people with whom we are acquainted. Their -numbers in this instance is, however, no difficulty. It is in the -nature of the case that sepulchres should accumulate, and their number -is consequently one of the strongest arguments in favour of this -destination. Nor does their situation militate against this view. -Nothing is more likely than that a people should like to bury their -dead, on high places, where their tombs can be seen from afar. In fact, -there does not seem much to be said against this theory, except that -no sepulchral remains have been found in them. It is true that De la -Marmora found a skeleton buried in one at Iselle,[503] and apparently -so placed that the interment must have taken place before the tower was -built, or at all events finished; but the presence of only one corpse -in two thousand nurhags tells strongly against the theory, as where -one was placed more would have been found had this form of interment -been usual, and amidst the hundreds of ruined and half-ruined nurhags -some evidence must have been found had any of the usual sepulchral -usages prevailed. To my mind the conclusion seems inevitable that, if -they were tombs, they were those of a people who, like the Parsees of -the present day, exposed their dead to be devoured by the birds of the -air. If there is one feature in the nurhags more consistent or more -essential than another, it is that of the stairs or ramps that give -access to their platforms. It shows, without doubt, that, whether for -defence, or worship, or burial, the platform was the feature for which -the edifice was erected, and there it must have been that its purposes -were fulfilled. But is it possible that such a practice ever prevailed -in Sardinia? It is, of course, precipitate to answer that it did. But -the custom is old. Anything so exceptional among modern usages is not -the invention of yesterday, and it may have been far more prevalent -than it now is, and it may in very ancient times have been brought by -some Eastern colonists to this Western isle. I dare hardly suggest that -it was so; but this is certain, that such towers would answer in every -respect perfectly to the "Towers of Silence" of the modern Persians, -and the little side chambers in the towers would suit perfectly as -receptacles of the denuded bones when the time arrived for collecting -them. - -One argument against their being sepulchres has been drawn from the -fact that frequently a different class of graves, called giants' tombs, -is found in their immediate proximity. The conclusion I would draw -from this is in a contrary sense. These giants' tombs are generally -long graves of neatly fitted stones, with a tall frontispiece, which -is formed of one stone, always carefully hewn and sometimes carved. On -each side of the entrance two arms extend so as to form a semicircle in -front, and when the circle is completed by detached menhirs, these are -generally shaped into cones and carved. The whole, in fact, has a more -advanced and more modern appearance than the nurhags, and, as I read -the riddle, the inhabitants adopted this form, and that found in the -nurhag at Iselle, after they had ceased to use the nurhag itself as a -means of disposing of their dead, but were still clinging to the spots -made sacred by the ashes of their forefathers. - -That the nurhags are old scarcely seems to admit of a doubt, though -I know of only one material point of evidence on the subject. It is -that the pier of a Roman aqueduct has been founded on the stump of a -ruined and consequently desecrated nurhag.[504] Some time must have -elapsed before the primitive and sacred use of the nurhag had been so -completely forgotten that it should be so used. But the passages above -quoted from the 'Mirabilibus' and Diodorus show that in the first -and fifth centuries B.C. nothing was known of their origin by these -authors, and no other has ventured to hint at their age. In classical -times they seem to have been as mysterious as they are now:-- - - "In the glimmer of the dawn - They stand the solemn silent witnesses - Of ancient days,--altars--or graves." - - -BALEARIC ISLANDS. - -The third group of monuments indicated above are the Talyots of Minorca -and Majorca. Unfortunately our guide, De la Marmora, deserts us here. -He went to explore them, but ill health and other adverse circumstances -prevented his carrying his intent fully into effect, and we are left -consequently very much to the work of Don Juan Ramis,[505] which is the -reverse of satisfactory. - -[Illustration: 189. Talyot at Trepucò, Minorca. From De la Marmora.] - -[Illustration: 190. Talyot at Alajor, Minorca. From De la Marmora.] - -Externally they generally resemble the nurhags in appearance, and -apparently have always chambers in their interior, but De la -Marmora was unable to determine whether any of them had the internal -staircase[506] leading to the summit which is the invariable and -essential characteristic of the nurhag. If they had not this, they -must be considered as more nearly approaching to our chambered cairns -than to nurhags; and till this point is settled, and we know more -about them, we must refrain from speculations on the subject. One -characteristic feature they have, however, which it is useful to note. -It is a bilithon, if such a term is admissible--an upright flat stone, -with one across it forming a sort of table. In appearance it very much -resembles those stone tables which are found inside the chambers of the -Maltese sepulchres, but these are always larger, and placed, so far as -is known, externally. What their use may have been, it is difficult -to conjecture, but they were evidently considered important here, as -in woodcut No. 190 one is shown surrounded by a sacred enclosure, -as if being itself the "Numen" to be honoured. At Malta, as before -remarked, they certainly were not altars, because pedestals, which were -unmistakably altars, are found in the same apartments, and they are -very unlike them. They seem more like the great saucers in the Irish -tombs, and may have served the same purposes; but altogether these -Balearic outside tables are unlike anything we know of elsewhere. - -Rude-Stone circles seem to be not uncommon in combination with the -talyots and tall altars, and on the whole they seem to bear as much -affinity to the monuments of Spain as to those of Sardinia, but again -till we know more it is idle to speculate on either their age or uses -beyond the conclusion drawn from all similar monuments--that their -destination was to honour departed greatness. - - * * * * * - -It would be not only interesting but instructive to pursue the subject -further, for the monuments of these islands deserve a more complete -investigation than they have yet received; but this is not the place to -pursue it. Indeed, it is only indirectly that they have any connection -with the subject of this work. They are not megalithic in the sense in -which the word is generally used. Nor are they rude, for all the stones -are more or less shaped by art, and all are used constructively. In -none of them is the stone itself the object and end of the erection. In -all it is only a means to an end. - -It is their locality and their age that import them into our argument -if there is anything in the connection between the monuments of France -and Algeria, as attempted to be shown above. Whether the African ones -came from Europe, or _vice versâ_, it must have been in consequence -of long-continued intercourse between the two countries, and of -an influence of the dolmen builders in the Western Mediterranean -which could hardly have failed to leave traces in the intermediate -islands, unless they had been previously civilized and had fixed and -long-established modes of dealing with their own dead. - -Assuming that the nurhags and giants' towers extend back to the -mythic times of Grecian history, say the war of Troy--and some of -them can hardly be more modern--it will hardly be contended now that -the dolmens are earlier. If they were so, it must be by centuries -or by thousands of years, if we are to assume that the one had any -influence on the other, for it must have taken long before a truly -rude-stone monument could have grown into a constructive style like -that of Sardinia or Malta; and I do not think, after what has been -said above, any one would now contend for so remote an antiquity. If -neither anterior nor coeval, the conclusion, if we admit any influence -at all, seems inevitable that the dolmens must be subsequent. But this -is just the point at issue. The nurhags did not grow out of dolmens, -nor dolmens out of nurhags. They are separate and distinct creations, -so far as we know, belonging to different races, and practically -uninfluenced by one another. Here, as elsewhere, each group must be -judged by itself, and stand on its own merits. If any direct influence -can be shown to exist between any two groups, there is generally very -little difficulty in arranging them in a sequence and seeing which is -the oldest, but till such connection is established, all such attempts -are futile. - -In so far as any argument can now be got out of these insular -monuments, it seems to take this form. If the dolmen people were -earlier than the nurhag-builders, they certainly would have occupied -the islands that lay in their path between France or Spain and Africa, -and we should find traces of them there. If, on the contrary, the -nurhag-builders were the earlier race, and colonised these islands -so completely as to fill them before the age of the dolmen-builders, -the latter, in passing from north to south, or _vice versâ_, could -only have touched at the islands as emigrants or traders, and not as -colonists, and consequently could have neither altered nor influenced -to any great extent the more practically civilized people who had -already occupied them. - -So far as we can see, this is the view that most nearly meets the -facts of the case at present known, and in this respect their negative -evidence is both interesting and instructive, though, except when -viewed in this light, the monuments of the Mediterranean islands have -no real place in a work treating on rude-stone monuments. - - [Footnote 487: 'Voyage pittoresque en Sicile et Malte,' 4 vols. - folio, Paris, 1787.] - - [Footnote 488: _Ibid._ pl. ccxli.] - - [Footnote 489: The three formed part of a set of - nine, a duplicate of which has kindly - been lent to me by Mr. Frere, of Roydon - Hall, Norfolk. Unfortunately there is no - artist's name, and no date, upon them.] - - [Footnote 490: 'Nouvelles Annales de l'Institut archéologique,' i.; - Paris, 1836.] - - [Footnote 491: With a paper by Mr. Vance, 'Archæologia,' - vol. xxix. p. 227.] - - [Footnote 492: For this plan and the photographs - of it I am indebted to the kindness of - Col. Collinson, R.E., who accompanied - them by a very full description and - notes on their history and uses, from - which much of the following information - is derived.] - - [Footnote 493: Berbrugger, 'Tombeau de la Chrétienne--Mausolée des - derniers Rois de Mauritanie;' - Alger, 1867.] - - [Footnote 494: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.,' vi., Supplement.] - - [Footnote 495: Hist., v. 12, 3.] - - [Footnote 496: One at Mnaidra will be seen at F, in woodcut No. 180, - and also in the view, - woodcut No. 182.] - - [Footnote 497: 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' par le Cte. - Albert de la Marmora; Paris, 1840. As - this is not only the best but really the - only reliable work on the subject, all, or - nearly all, the information in this chapter - is based upon it.] - - [Footnote 498: Bekker, iii. p. 604, para. 100.] - - [Footnote 499: Diodorus, iv. 30; v. 15.] - - [Footnote 500: 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' chap. iv. pp. 117 to 159.] - - [Footnote 501: The Scotch brochs, which are in their construction - the erections most like these, have all courtyards in their centre, - in which all the domestic operations of the garrison could be - carried on conveniently, and they only needed to creep into the - chambers in the wall to sleep.] - - [Footnote 502: 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' pp. 46 and 116.] - - [Footnote 503: 'Voyage,' p. 152.] - - [Footnote 504: De la Marmora, pl. v. p. 149.] - - [Footnote 505: 'Antigüedades Celticas de la Isla de Menorca, &c.;' - Mahon, 1818.] - - [Footnote 506: 'Voyage,' pp. 547 _et seq._] - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -WESTERN ASIA. - - -PALESTINE. - -Palestine is one of those countries in which dolmens exist, not in -thousands and tens of thousands, as in Algeria, but certainly in -hundreds--perhaps tens of hundreds; but travellers have not yet -condescended to open their eyes to observe them, and the Palestine -Exploration Fund is too busy making maps to pay attention to a subject -which would probably throw as much light on the ethnography of the -Holy Land as anything we know of. Before, however, retailing what -little we know about the monuments actually existing, it is necessary -in this instance to say a few words about those which we know of only -by hearsay. All writers on megalithic remains in the last century, and -some of those of the present, have made so much of the stones set up by -Abraham and Joshua that it is indispensable to try to ascertain what -they were, and what bearing they really have on the subject of which we -are treating. - -The earliest mention of a stone being set up anywhere as a monument or -memorial is that of the one which Jacob used as a pillow in the night -when he had that dream which became the title of the Israelites to the -land of Canaan. "And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the -stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and -poured oil upon the top of it."[507] The question is, What was the size -of this stone? In the East, where hard pillows are not objected to, -natives generally use a brick for this purpose. Europeans, who are more -stiffnecked as well as more luxurious, insist on two bricks, and these -laid one on the other, with a cloth thrown over them, form by no means -an uncomfortable headpiece. The fact of Jacob being alone, and moving -the stone to and from the place where it was used, proves that it was -not larger than, probably not so large as, the head that was laid -upon it. It certainly, therefore, was neither the Lia Fail which still -adorns the hill of Tara nor even the Scone stone that forms the king's -seat in Westminster Abbey, and, what is more to our present purpose, it -may safely be discharged from the category of megalithic monuments of -which we are now treating. - -The next case in which stones are mentioned is in Genesis xxxi. 45 and -46: "And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob -said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made -an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap." This is not quite so -clear; but the fair inference seems to be that what they erected was -a stone altar, on which they partook of an offering, which, under the -circumstances, took the form of a sacramental oath--one party standing -on either side of it. The altar in the temple of Jerusalem, we know, -down even to the time of Herod, was formed of stones, which no iron -tool had ever touched,[508] and the tradition derived from this altar -of Jacob seems to have lasted during the whole Jewish period. So there -is nothing in this instance to lead us to suppose that "the heap" had -any connection with the megalithic monuments of other countries. - -The third instance, though more frequently quoted, seems even less -relevant. When Joshua passed the Jordan, twelve men, according to the -number of the tribes, were appointed, each "to take up a stone on -his shoulder out of the Jordan, in the place where the priests' feet -had stood, and to carry them and set them down at the place where -they lodged that night, as a memorial to the children of Israel for -ever."[509] Here, again, stones that men can carry on their shoulders -are not much bigger than their heads, and are not such as in any -ordinary sense would be used as memorials, inasmuch as they could be as -easily removed by any one, as placed where they were. If ranged on an -altar, in a building, this purpose would have been answered; but as an -open-air testimonial such stones seem singularly inappropriate. - -The only instance in which it seems that the Bible is speaking of the -same class of monuments as those we are concerned with is in the -last chapter of Joshua, where it is said (verse 26), he "took a great -stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of -the Lord," and said, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us." -It is the more probable that this was really a great monolith, as it -seems to be the stone mentioned in Judges ix. 6 as "the pillar of the -plain," ... or "by the oak of the pillar which was in Shechem;" and if -this is so, it must have been of considerable dimensions. It therefore -alone, of all the stones mentioned in the Bible, seems to belong to the -class of stones we are treating of; but even then its direct bearing -on the subject is not clear. It by no means follows that because the -Israelites in Joshua's time set up such a stone for such a purpose that -either then or a thousand years afterwards the French or Scandinavians -did the same thing with the same intention. It may be so, but both -the time and locality seem too remote for us to rely on any supposed -analogy. - -As bearing indirectly on this subject, it is curious to observe that -the rite of circumcision in these early days of Jewish history was -performed with flint knives,[510] which, considering that bronze and -iron were both familiarly known to the Israelites at that period, is a -remarkable example of the persistence in an old fashion long after it -might have been supposed it would have become obsolete. It is equally -curious, if the Septuagint is to be depended upon, that they should -have buried with Joshua in his grave those very flint implements (τὰς -μαχαίραγς τὰς πετρίνας) with which the operation was performed. This -cannot of course be quoted as the latest or even a late example of -flint being buried in tombs, but it is interesting as explaining one -reason for the practice. It is at least one instance in which flint was -used long after metal was known, and one tomb in which stone implements -were buried for other reasons than the people's ignorance of the use of -metal.[511] If the Jews used flints for that purpose in Joshua's time, -and so disposed of them after the death of their chief, the only wonder -is that they do not do so at the present day. - -To turn from these speculations, based on words, to the real facts -of the case. We find that the first persons who observed dolmens in -Syria were Captains Irby and Mangles. In their hurried journey from Es -Salt, in 1817, to the fords of the Jordan, apparently in a straight -line from Es Salt to Nablous, they observed a group of twenty-seven -dolmens, very irregularly situated at the foot of the mountain. All -those they observed were composed of two side-stones, from 8 to 10 feet -long, supporting a cap-stone projecting considerably beyond the sides -and ends. The chambers, however, were only 5 feet long internally--too -short, consequently, for a body to be stretched out at full length. -The contraction arose from the two transverse stones being placed -considerably within the ends of the side-stones. One of these appears -to have been solid, the other to have been pierced with what is called -a door; but whether this was a hole in one stone, or a door formed by -two jambs, is not clear.[512] No drawing or plan accompanies their -description; but the arrangement will be easily understood when we come -to examine those of Rajunkoloor, in India,[513] described farther on -(woodcut No. 206). - -[Illustration: 191. Dolmens at Kafr er Wâl. From a sketch by Mrs. -Roberton Blaine.] - -The only other reliable information I have is extracted for me from -his note-books by my friend, Mr. D. R. Blaine. In travelling from Om -Keis--Gadara--towards Gerash, at a place called Kafr er Wâl, not far -from Tibné, they met with one considerable group, a portion of which -is represented in the above woodcut (No. 191). The size of the stones -varies considerably; generally, however, they are about 12 feet by 6 -feet, and from 1 to 2 feet in thickness. One cap-stone was nearly 12 -feet square, and the side-stones vary from 5 to 6 feet in height. On -approaching Sûf, a great number of dolmens were observed on either side -of the road for a distance of from three to four miles. Some of these -seemed quite perfect, others were broken down; but the travellers had -unfortunately no time to count or examine them with care. - -This is a very meagre account of a great subject--so meagre, indeed, -that it is impossible to found any argument upon it that will be worth -anything; but it is interesting to observe that all the dolmens as yet -noticed in Syria are situated in Gilead, the country of the Amorites, -and of Og, king of Bashan. If it should prove eventually that there are -none except in this district, it would give rise to several interesting -ethnographical determinations. At present all we can feel confident -about is that there are no dolmens west of the Jordan; but the Amorites -were originally settled in Hebron,[514] and there are certainly no -dolmens there. So unless they migrated eastward before the dolmen -period, they can scarcely lay claim to them. Then these dolmens may -belong to the Rephaim, the Emim, the Anakim, the Zuzim, and all those -giant tribes that dwelt beyond Jordan at the time of Chedorlaomer, -the dreaded king of Elam, who smote the kings of this district at the -dawn of the Bible history of these regions.[515] The speculation is -a tempting one, and if it should eventually be proved that they are -confined to this one district, it will no doubt find favour in some -quarters. There seems, however, nothing to support it beyond the fact -that the people in the region beyond the Jordan seem all and always to -have been of Hamite or Turanian blood, and therefore likely to adopt -this mode of burial whenever it may have been introduced, in spite of -the colonization of two tribes and a half of Israelites, who could do -but little to leaven the mass. I am afraid that, like the theory which -identified the Roman cities of the Hauran with the giant cities of Og, -king of Bashan, and his tall contemporaries, this hypothesis will not -bear examination. Every stone of these cities, it is now known, was -placed where we now find it, after the time when Pompey extended Roman -influence to these regions; and nothing would surprise me less than -to find that these dolmens are even more modern. Before, however, we -venture to speculate on such a subject, we must feel surer than we now -do of their extent and their distribution, and know something of their -contents. On both these subjects we are at present practically entirely -ignorant. - - * * * * * - -Gilead is almost the last safe resting-place at which we can pause in -our explorations eastward in our attempts to connect the Eastern and -the Western dolmen regions together. But Gilead is two thousand miles -from Peshawur, where we meet the first example of the Indian dolmens; -and in the vast regions that lie between, only one or two doubtful -examples are known to exist. We can creep on doubtfully a couple of -hundred miles nearer, in Arabia and Circassia; but that hardly helps -us much, and unless some discoveries are made in the intermediate -countries, the migration theory will become wholly untenable. - -In the course of the recent ordnance survey of the peninsula of Sinai -in 1868-9, great numbers of circular buildings were discovered, many of -which were certainly tombs; and plans and drawings of some of them have -been engraved, and will be published by the authorities at Southampton. -But as great bodies move slowly, it may yet be a long time before they -are accessible to the public. Meanwhile the following particulars, -gleaned from a paper by the Rev. Mr. Holland,[516] will suffice to -explain what they are. The buildings are of two classes: the first, -which were probably store-houses, were built in the shape of a dome, -about 5 feet high and 5 or 6 feet in diameter in the interior. The -walls were often as much as 4 feet thick, and a large flat stone formed -the highest portion of the roof, which appeared to have been covered -with loose shingle. They had no windows, and one door, about 3 feet -high and 1½ foot broad. The stones used in their construction were -often large, but never dressed, and no mortar was used. - -The other kind of ruins, which is generally found in close proximity -to the former, often in separate groups, consists of massively built -circles of stones, of about 14 to 15 feet in diameter, and 3 feet -high, but without any roof. "These," Mr. Holland says, "were evidently -tombs; for I found human bones in all that I opened," which were -never met with in the buildings of the first class; "and in one two -skeletons lying side by side, one of them on a bed of flat stones. -The rings of stones were apparently first half filled with earth; the -bodies were then laid in them, and they were then quite filled up with -earth, and heavy stones placed on the top to prevent the wild beasts -disturbing the bodies. Some of these rings are of much larger size: -some 45, others 90, feet in diameter, and some contained a smaller -ring in the centre. Near the mound of Nukb Hawy is one no less than -375 feet in diameter." From the above description it is evident that, -except from the dimensions of the last-mentioned, these circles have -much more affinity with the Chouchas and Bazinas of Algeria than with -anything farther north or west, and there is probably some connection -between them. But a wall of coursed masonry of small stones can hardly -be compared with our megalithic structures, and, so far as is known, -no dolmens, nor any examples of the great rude-stone monuments we are -discussing, have been found in the peninsula. When the results of the -survey are published, we may see reason to alter this opinion; but -at present these Sinaitic tombs seem to belong to a class altogether -different from the European examples, except in two points--that they -are circular and sepulchral. These characteristics are, however, so -important that eventually other points of comparison may be established. - -The rude-stone monuments which Mr. Giffard Palgrave accidentally -stumbled upon in the centre of Arabia are of a very different class -from these. According to his account, what he saw was apparently -one-half of what had once been a complete circle of trilithons; but -whether continuous, like the outer circle of Stonehenge, or in pairs, -like the inner circle there, is not quite clear. As he could just -touch the impost with his whip when on his camel, the height was, as -he says, about 15 feet--the same as Stonehenge; and the expression he -uses would lead us to suppose that the whole structure was essentially -similar. Allowance, however, must be made for his being in disguise, -which prevented his making notes or writing down his observations; and -writing afterwards from memory, his description may not be minutely -correct. He is, however, so clear and acute an observer that he could -hardly be deceiving himself; and we may take it for granted that -exactly halfway between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, near Eyoon, -in latitude 26° 20´, there exist three rude-stone monuments--he saw -only one, but heard of two others--of a class similar to those found -in England and in the continent of Europe,[517] and what is more -important to our present purpose, similar to those found in Tripoli, -and illustrated above in woodcuts 175 and 176. - -De Voguë's plates of late Roman tombs in the Hauran, especially those -represented in his plates 93 and 94,[518] take away all improbability -from the idea that trilithons should have been erected for sepulchral -purposes in this part of the world. That the one form is copied from -the other may be assumed as certain; but whether the rude stones -are anterior to or contemporary with or subsequent to those of the -Roman order, every one must decide for himself. I believe them to be -either coeval or more modern, but there is nothing in these particular -monuments to guide us to a decision either way. If we could fancy that -the savages who now occupy that country would ever allow it to be -explored, it would be extremely interesting to know more of the Arabian -examples, even if they should only prove to be an extension of Syrian -or North African forms into Central Arabia. If, on the other hand, a -migration theory is ever to be established, this probably would be the -southern route, or at least one of the southern routes; though the -imagination staggers when we come to consider how long it must have -been ago since any wandering tribes passed through Central Arabia on -their way westward. - - * * * * * - -Are there any dolmens in Asia Minor? It is no answer to this question -to say that none have been seen by any of the numerous travellers who -have traversed that country. Ten years ago, by a parity of reasoning, -their existence in Algeria or in Syria might have been denied. My -impression is that they will not be found in that region. I expect that -Asia Minor was too completely civilized in a pre-dolmen period to have -adopted this form afterwards; but it is dangerous to speculate about a -country of whose early history, as well as of whose modern geography, -we really know so little. - -It would be extremely interesting, however, if some traveller would -open his eyes, and tell us what really is to be found there, as it -would throw considerable light on some interesting problems connected -with this subject. It would, for instance, be interesting to know -whether there are or are not dolmens in Galatia. If there are, it would -go far to assist the Celtic claim to their invention. If they do not -exist, either the Celts must be asked to waive their claim or we must -find out some other mode of accounting for their absence. - -In like manner, it would be interesting to know if there are dolmens in -Lydia. As mentioned before, there are numberless chambered tumuli in -that country, and it would be curious to trace the existence or absence -of any connection between these two forms of sepulchres. My impression -is that the case of Lydia is very similar to that of Etruria. It was -civilized before the dolmen era, and it will consequently be in vain to -look there for any megalithic remains. The chambers in all the tombs -yet opened are, so far as we at present know, constructed of small -stones, and show no reminiscence of a rude-stone stage of art.[519] - -When we cross the Black Sea to Kertch, we find a state of affairs -very similar to that in Lydia--great numbers of chambered tumuli, -but all of microlithic or masonic forms. The tombs seem to be the -lineal descendants of those at Mycenæ, and to belong to a totally -different class from those we are treating of, and, notwithstanding -their similarity of purpose, have apparently sprung from a different -source. Yet it is curious to observe that even here the inevitable -flints reappear. In one tomb, known as Kouloba, or Hill of Cinders, -were found the remains of a chief, with his wife, their servants, and a -horse. He wore a cap ornamented with gold, a gold enamelled necklace, -and gold bracelets, and his sword was of iron. An electrum plate, which -had formed part of a quiver, was ornamented with figures of animals -and inscribed with the Greek word Πὁναχο. The queen's ornaments were -richer in metal and more elaborate in workmanship than her husband's, -yet among all this magnificence were found a quantity of flakes and -other implements of flint:[520] a tolerably convincing proof that flint -implements were not buried in this tomb, any more than in Joshua's, -because men did not know the use of metals, but for some symbolical -reason we do not now understand. There is little doubt that other -examples as striking as these will be found when looked for, and, at -all events, these do away with all _à priori_ arguments based on the -probability or otherwise of their being modern. - -[Illustration: 192. Holed Dolmen. From Dubois de Montpereux.] - -[Illustration: 193. Holed Dolmen, Circassia. From a drawing by Simpson.] - -Combined with these are found, very sparsely on the shore of the -Crimea, but frequently on the eastern shore of the Baltic and in -Circassia, the forms of dolmens we are familiar with in other parts -of the world. Nothing like a regular survey of them has yet been -attempted, nor have we any detailed accounts of them; but from such -information as is published,[521] the general type seems to be that of -the holed dolmen, such as those represented in the annexed woodcuts. - -As far as can be judged from such illustrations as have been published, -all the Caucasian or Circassian dolmens are composed of stones more -or less hewn and shaped and carefully fitted together, giving them a -more modern appearance than their Western congeners. That, however, -may be owing to other circumstances than age, and cannot be used as -an argument either way till we know more about them. It would be -extremely interesting if some one would make a special study of this -group, as Circassia lies exactly halfway between India and Scandinavia, -and if we adopt a migration theory, this is exactly the central -resting-place where we would expect to find traces of the passage of -the dolmen-builders. Their route probably would be through Bactria, -down the Oxus to the Caspian, across Circassia, and round the head of -the Sea of Azof to the Dnieper, and up that river and down the banks of -the Niemen or Vistula to the Baltic. - -If, on the other hand, we adopt a missionary theory, and are content -to believe in an Eastern influence only, without insisting on a great -displacement of peoples, this would equally be the trade route along -which such influence might be supposed to extend, and so connect -the north with the east, just as we may suppose a southern route to -have extended through Arabia and Syria to the southern shores of the -Mediterranean. - -[Illustration: 194. Baba. From Dubois de Montpereux.] - -[Illustration: 195. Four-cornered Grave. From Sjöborg.] - -Even more important for our present purpose, however, than an -examination of these Caucasian regions would be an exploration of the -Steppes to the northward of the route just indicated. If there is any -foundation for the theory that the dolmens are of Turanian origin, it -is here that we should expect to find the germs of the system. It is -one of the best-established facts of ethnology that the original seat -of the Aryans was somewhere in Upper and Central Asia, whence they -migrated eastward into India, southward into Persia, and westward into -Europe. In like manner, the original seat of the Turanians is assumed -to be somewhat farther north, and thence at an earlier period it is -believed that they spread themselves at some very early prehistoric -time over the whole face of the Old World. When we turn to the Steppes, -whence this great family of mankind are supposed to have migrated, -we find it covered with tumuli. As Haxthausen[522] expresses it, the -Kurgans, as they are there called, are counted "non par des milliers, -c'est centaines de milliers qu'il faudrait dire;" and Pallas equally -gives an account of their astonishing numbers.[523] These tumuli -resemble exactly our barrows, such as are seen on Salisbury plain, -except that they are generally of very much larger dimensions, and -they have one peculiarity not known elsewhere. On the top of each is -an upright stone, rudely carved, but always unmistakably representing -a human figure, and understood to be intended for a representation of -the person buried beneath. Pallas, Haxthausen, and Dubois, all give -representations of these figures, but in some instances at least they -are repetitions of the same original. They are perfectly described -by the monk Ruberquis, who visited these countries in 1253. "The -Comanians," he says, "build a great tomb over their dead, and erect -an image of the dead party thereon, with his face towards the east, -holding a drinking-cup in his hand before his navel. They also erect -on the monuments of rich men pyramids, that is to say, little pointed -houses or pinnacles. In some places I saw mighty towers, made of brick, -and in other places pyramids made of stones, though no stones are found -thereabouts. I saw one newly buried in whose behalf they hanged up -sixteen horse-hides, and they set beside his grave Cosmos (Kumiss) to -drink and flesh to eat, and yet they say he was baptized. And I beheld -other kinds of sepulchres, also towards the east, namely, large floors -or pavements made of stone, some round and some square; and then four -long stones, pitched upright above the said pavement, towards the four -regions of the world."[524] The general correctness of this account is -so fully confirmed by more modern travellers that there seems no reason -for doubting it; but, as no one has described these "pavements," we -dare not rely too much on their manifest similarity to the Scandinavian -square and round graves, with four angle-stones, like the preceding -one (woodcut No. 195). - -It may not be satisfactory to be obliged to go back to a traveller of -the thirteenth century, however much he may be confirmed by subsequent -writers, for an account of monuments which we would like to see -measured and drawn with modern accuracy. It is, on the other hand, -however, a gain to find a trustworthy witness who lived among a people -who buried their dead in tumuli and sacrificed horses in their honour, -and provided them with meat and drink for their journey to the Shades; -who, in fact, in the thirteenth century were enacting those things as -living men which we find only in a fossil state in more Western lands. - -[Illustration: 196. Tumulus at Alexandropol.] - -The general appearance of these tumuli may be judged of by one of the -most magnificent recently excavated by the Russians near Alexandropol, -between the Dnieper and the Bazaolouk. It is about 1000 feet in -circumference and 70 feet high, and was originally surmounted by a -"Baba," which, however, is not there now. Around its base was a sort -of retaining wall of small stones, and outside these a ditch and low -mound, but no attempt whatever at lithic magnificence. Within it were -several sepulchres. The principal one in the centre had apparently -been already rifled, but in the subsidiary ones great quantities of -gold ornaments were found, especially on the trappings of the horses -which seem to have been buried here almost with more honour than -their masters. Judging from the form of the ornaments and the style -of the workmanship, the tomb belonged to the third or fourth century -B.C.[525] - -[Illustration: 197. Uncovered Base of a Tumulus at Nikolajew.] - -In Haxthausen's work[526] there is a woodcut which may give us a hint -as to the genesis of circles. A kurgan, or tumulus, at Nikolajew, in -the government of Cherson, was cleared away, and though nothing was -found in it to indicate its age and purpose, its base was composed of -three or four concentric circles of upright stones, surrounding what -appears to be a tomb composed of five stones in the centre. Similar -arrangements have been found in Algerian tumuli, and it looks as if -the first hint of a sepulchral circle may have arisen from such an -arrangement having become familiar before being covered up, just as I -believe the free-standing dolmen arose from the uncovered cist having -excited such admiration as to make its framers unwilling to hide it. - -It does not appear to me to admit of doubt that there is a connexion, -and an intimate one, between these Scythian or Tartar tombs and those -of Europe; but the steps by which the one grew out of the other, and -the time when it took place, can only be determined when we have -more certain information regarding them than we now possess. It is -important, however, to observe that, if they are the original models -or congeners of the tumuli of the Western world, they are not of the -dolmens or circles, except in such an indirect way as in the last -example quoted from Haxthausen; nor are they of our menhirs, for all -the stones we know of are carved as completely as the babas (woodcut -No. 194); and we know literally of no rude stones connected with them, -nor do we find any attempt in Scythia to produce effect by masses in -unhewn stone, which is the fundamental idea that governed their use in -Europe. - - * * * * * - -[Illustration: 198. Circle near Peshawur. From a photograph.] - -We tread on surer ground when we reach the Caubul valley, not that -many proofs of it have yet been published, but the quantity of tumuli, -topes, and similar monuments,[527] render it certain that circles and -dolmens will be found there when looked for. Only one typical example -has been published, but Sir Arthur Phayre, to whom we owe it, heard -of other similar monuments existing in the neighbourhood. Fourteen of -the stones composing this circle are still standing, and the tallest -are about 11 feet in height, but others are lying on the ground more -or less broken. The circle is about 50 feet in diameter, and there are -appearances of an outer circle of smaller stones at a distance of about -50 to 60 feet from the inner one. The natives have no tradition about -its erection, except the same myth which we find in Somersetshire, that -a wedding party, passing over the plain, were turned into stone by some -powerful magician.[528] - -[Illustration: 199. Circle at Deb Ayeh, near Darabgerd.] - -At present, these Eusufzaie circles, and those described by Sir -William Ouseley at Deli Ayeh,[529] are almost the only examples we -have to bridge over the immense gulf that exists between the Eastern -and Western dolmen regions. Even the last, however, is only a frail -prop for a theory, inasmuch as we have only a drawing of it by Sir -W. Ouseley, who, in his description, says: "I can scarcely think the -arrangement of these stones wholly, though it may be partly, natural -or accidental." Coupled with the stone represented as figure 13 on -the same plate, in Sir William Ouseley's work, I feel no doubt about -these belonging to the class of rude-stone monuments, but we must -know of more examples and more about them before we can reason with -confidence regarding them. Another example, which certainly appears to -be artificial, is recorded by Chardin. In travelling between Tabriz -and Miana, he observed on his left hand several circles of hewn -stones, which his companions informed him had been placed there by the -Caous--the giants of the Kaianian dynasty. "The stones," he remarks, -"are so large, that eight men could hardly move one of them, yet they -must have been brought from quarries in the hills, the nearest of which -is twenty miles distant."[530] Numerous travellers must have passed -that way since, but no one has observed these stones. It does not, -however, follow that they are not still there, and hundreds of others -besides; but while all this uncertainty prevails, it is obviously most -unsafe to speculate on the manner in which any connexion may have taken -place. It may turn out that the intervening country is full of dolmens, -or it may be that practically we know all that is to be learned on -the subject, but till this is ascertained, any theory that may be -broached must be open to correction, perhaps even to refutation. It is -not, however, either useless or out of place to make such suggestions -as those contained in the last few pages. They turn attention to -subjects too liable to be overlooked, but which are capable of easy -solution when fairly examined, while their truth or falsehood does not -practically in any essential degree affect the main argument. The age -and uses of the Indian dolmens, as of the European examples, must be -determined from the internal evidence they themselves afford. Each must -stand or fall from its own strength or weakness. It would of course -be interesting if a connexion between the two can be established, and -we could trace the mode and time when it took place, but it is not -necessarily important. If anyone cares to insist that there was no -connexion between the two, he deprives himself of one of the principal -points of interest in the whole enquiry, but does not otherwise affect -the argument either as to their age or use. But of all this we shall be -in a better position to judge when we have gone through the evidence -detailed in the next chapter. - - - [Footnote 507: Genesis xxviii. 18; xxxv. 14.] - - [Footnote 508: Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.' v. 6.] - - [Footnote 509: Joshua iv. 2 to 8. There is some mistake in the - 9th verse; either it is a mistranslation or the verse is an - interpolation. It is to be hoped that the Revisers will look to it.] - - [Footnote 510: Exodus iv. 25; Joshua v. 3.] - - [Footnote 511: Herodotus (ii. 86) mentions that, in his day, the - Egyptians, after extracting the brain with an iron instrument, - cut open the body they intended to embalm with an Ethiopic stone, - and Sir Gardner Wilkinson ('Ancient Egyptians,' iii. 262) found - two flint knives in a tomb which might have been used for such a - purpose.] - - [Footnote 512: Irby and Mangles, 'Travels in Egypt, Nubia, &c.' - 1823, p. 325.] - - [Footnote 513: Colonel Meadows Taylor, in 'Trans. Royal Irish - Academy,' 1865.] - - [Footnote 514: Genesis, xiii. 18; xiv. 13.] - - [Footnote 515: Gen. xiii. 5.] - - [Footnote 516: 'Journal Royal Geographical Society,' 1868, pp. 243 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 517: S. Palgrave, 'Central and Eastern Arabia,' i. - p. 251. These appear to be the same as those mentioned by - Bonstetten. "Dernièrement encore un missionaire jésuite, le Père - Kohen, a découvert en Arabie dans le district de Kasim, près - de Khabb, trois vastes cercles de pierres pareils à celui de - Stonehenge, et composés chacun de groupes de trilithes d'une grande - élevation."--_Essai sur les Dolmens_, p. 27.] - - [Footnote 518: One of them has already been given, woodcut No. 25, - p. 100.] - - [Footnote 519: _Ante_, p. 32.] - - [Footnote 520: Dubois de Montpereux, v. pp. 194 _et seq._ pls. xx. - to xxv. See also 'Journal Arch. Ass.' xiii. pp. 303 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 521: Dubois de Montpereux, 'Voyage autour du Caucase,' - i. p. 43. See also two dolmens from drawings by W. Simpson, in - Waring's 'Stone Monuments,' pl. lx.] - - [Footnote 522: Haxthausen, 'Mémoires sur la Russie,' ii. p. 291.] - - [Footnote 523: 'Voyage,' i. p. 495.] - - [Footnote 524: 'Purchas his Pilgrims,' iii. p. 8.] - - [Footnote 525: These particulars are taken from a Russian work, - 'Recueil d'Antiquités de la Scythie,' 1866. Only one number, - apparently, was ever published.] - - [Footnote 526: 'Mémoires sur la Russie,' ii. p. 308.] - - [Footnote 527: Introduction to Wilson's 'Ariana Antiqua,' _passim_.] - - [Footnote 528: 'Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal,' p. i. No. 1, 1870.] - - [Footnote 529: 'Travels in Persia,' ii. p. 124, pl. lv. fig. 14.] - - [Footnote 530: 'Voyages en Perse, &c.,' i. p. 267.] - - - - -CHAPTER XIII. - -INDIA. - - -The number of rude-stone monuments in India is probably as great or -even greater than that of those to be found in Europe, and they are -so similar that, even if they should not turn out to be identical, -they form a most important branch of this enquiry. Even irrespective, -however, of these, the study of the history of architecture in India is -calculated to throw so much light on the problems connected with the -study of megalithic monuments in the West that, for that cause alone it -deserves much more attention than it has hitherto received. - -No one, it is presumed, will now be prepared to dispute the early -civilization at least of the northern parts of India. Whether the -Aryans crossed the Indus three thousand years B.C., as I -believe, or two thousand B.C., as others contend, is of little -consequence to our present purposes. It is generally understood that -the Vedas were compiled or reduced to writing thirteen centuries before -Christ, and the Laws of Menu seven or eight hundred years before our -era, and these works betoken a civilization of some standing. Ayodia -was a great prosperous city at the time of the incidents described in -the Ramayana, and Hastinapura when the tragedy of the Mahabharata was -being enacted; and these great events took place probably one or two -thousand years before Christ, or between these two dates. Or to come a -little nearer to our time, all the circumstances depicted in all the -thousand and one legends connected with the life and teaching of Sakya -Muni (623 to 543 B.C.), describe a country with cities and -palaces, and possessing a very high state of civilization; and these -legends are so numerous and so consentaneous that they may fairly be -considered, for this purpose at least, as rising to the dignity of -history. Yet with all this we now know it for a fact that no stone -building or monument of stone now exists in India that was erected -before the time of Asoka, B.C. 250. But, besides negative -proof, we have in the early caves, 150 to 200 B.C., such -manifest proofs of the stone architecture being then a mere transcript -of wooden forms that we know certainly that we have here reached the -very _incunabula_ of a style. Of course it does not follow from this -that the cities before this time may not have been splendid or the -palaces magnificent. In Burmah and Siam the palaces and monasteries -are either wholly or mostly in wood, and these timber erections are -certainly more gorgeous and quite as expensive as the stone buildings -of the West, and the Indians seem to have been content with this less -durable style of architecture till the influence of the Bactrian Greeks -induced them to adopt the clumsier but more durable material of stone -for their buildings. - -With such an example before us, ought we to be surprised if the rude -inhabitants of Europe were content with earth and the forms into which -it could be shaped, till the example of the Romans taught them the -use of the more durable and more strongly accentuated material? Nor -will it do to contend that, if our forefathers got this hint from the -Romans, they would have adopted the Roman style of architecture with -it. The Indians certainly did not do so. Their early attempts at stone -architecture are wooden, in the strictest sense, and retained their -wooden forms for two or three centuries almost unchanged, and when -gradually they became more and more appropriate to the newly adopted -material, it was not Greek or foreign forms that they adopted, but -forms of their own native invention. In Asoka's reign we have Greek or -rather Assyrian ornaments in one of his lâts,[531] and something like -a Persepolitan capital in some of the earlier caves,[532] but these -died out, and it is not till after five centuries that we really find -anything like the arts of Bactria at Amravati.[533] As the civilized -race copied their own wooden forms with all the elaborateness of which -wood carving is capable, so the rude race seems to have used the forms -which were appropriate to their status, and which were the only forms -they could appreciate. - -Another peculiarity of Indian architecture is worth pointing out here -as tending to modify one of the most generally received dogmas of -Western criticism. In speaking of such monuments as New Grange or the -tombs at Locmariaker, which are roofed by overlapping stones forming -what is technically called a horizontal arch, it is usual to assume -that this must have been done before the invention of the Roman or -radiating arch form. So far as Indian experience goes, this assumption -is by no means borne out. When Kutb u deen wished to signalise his -triumph over the idolaters, he, in 1206 A.D., employed the -Hindus to erect a mosque for him in his recently acquired capital of -Delhi. In the centre of the screen forming the mosque, he designed a -great archway 22 feet span, 53 feet in height, and formed as a pointed -arch of two sides of an equilateral spherical triangle. This was the -usual form of Saracenic openings at Ghazni or Balkh in the beginning -of the thirteenth century, but it was almost beyond the power of the -Hindus to construct it. They did so, however, and it still stands, -though crippled; but all the courses are horizontal, like their own -domes, except two long stones which form the apex of the arch.[534] In -a very few years after this time the Mahommedan conquerors had taught -the subject Hindus to build radiating arches, and every mosque or -Mahommedan building from that time forward is built with arches formed -as we form them; but, except a very few in the reign of the cosmopolite -Akbar, no single Hindu building or temple, even down to the present -time, has an arch in the sense in which we understand the word. - -One of the most striking instances of this peculiarity is found in the -province of Guzerat. There are still to be seen the splendid ruins of -the city of Ahmedabad built by the Mahommedan kings of the province -between the years 1411 and 1583.[535] There every mosque and every -building is arched or vaulted according to one system. In the same -province stands the sacred city of Palitana, with its hundreds of -temples, some of a date as early as the eleventh, many built within -the limits of the present century, and some now in the course of -construction; yet, so far as is known, there is not a single arch -within the walls of the city. So it is throughout India: side by -side stand the buildings of the two great sects--those belonging to -the Mahommedans universally arched, those belonging to the Hindus -as certainly avoiding this form of construction. This is the more -remarkable as the moment we cross the frontier of India we find the -arch universally prevalent in Burmah, as early certainly as the tenth -or eleventh century, and in all the forms, round, pointed, and flat, -which we use in the present day.[536] But if we extend our researches -a little farther east, we again come to a country full of the most -wonderful buildings known to exist anywhere, with bridges and viaducts -and vaults; but not one single arch has yet been discovered in the -length and breadth of the kingdom of Cambodia. - -All this is no doubt very anomalous and strange, though, if it were -worth while, some of it might be accounted for and explained. This, -however, is not the place for doing so: all that is here required is to -point out the existence of the apparent anomaly, in order that we may -not too hurriedly jump to chronological conclusions from the existence -or absence of arches in any given building. - -Another most instructive lesson bearing on our present subject that is -to be derived from the study of Indian antiquities will be found in -that curious but persistent juxtaposition that everywhere prevails of -the highest form of progressive civilization beside the lowest types of -changeless barbarism. Everywhere in India the past is the present, and -the present is the past; not, as is usually assumed, that the Hindu is -immutable--quite the contrary. When contemporary history first dawned -on us, India was Buddhist, and for eight or nine centuries that was the -prevalent religion of the state. There is not now a single Buddhist -establishment in the length and breadth of the land. The religions -which superseded Buddhism were then new, and have ever since been -changing, so that India now contains more religions and more numerous -sects than any portion of the world of the same extent. Even within -the last six centuries one-fifth of the population have adopted the -Mahommedan religion, and are quite prepared to follow any new form of -faith that may be the fashion of the day. But beside all this never -ceasing change, there are tribes and races which remain immutable. - -To take one instance among a hundred that might be adduced. Ougein -was a great commercial capital in the days of the Greek. It was the -residence of Asoka, 260 B.C.[537] It was the Ozene of the -Periplus, the capital of the great Vicramaditya in the middle of the -fifth century,[538] and it was the city chosen by Jey Sing for the -erection of one of his great observatories in the reign of Akbar. Yet -almost within sight of this city are to be found tribes of Bhils, -living now as they lived long before the Christian era. They are not -agricultural, hardly pastoral, but live chiefly by the chase. With -their bows and arrows they hunt the wild game as their forefathers did -from time immemorial. They never cared to learn to read or write, and -have no literature of any sort, hardly any tradition. Yet the Bhil was -there before the Brahmin; and the proudest sovereign of Rajpootana -acknowledges the Bhil as lord of the soil, and no new successor to -the throne considers his title as complete till he has received the -tika at the hands of the nomad.[539] If India were a country divided -by high mountain-ranges, or impenetrable forests, or did impassable -deserts anywhere exist, this co-existence of two forms of society might -be accounted for. But the contrary is the case. From the Himalayas to -Cape Comorin, no obstacle exists, nor, so far as we know, ever did -exist, to the freest intercourse between the various races inhabiting -the country. If we may believe the traditions on which the epic of the -Ramayana was founded, armies traversed the length and the breadth of -the land one thousand, it may be two thousand, years before Christ. -The Brahmins carried their arms and their literature to the south at a -very early age. The Buddhists spread everywhere. The Jains succeeded -them. The Mahommedans conquered and settled in Mysore and the Carnatic, -but in vain. The Bhil, the Cole, the Gond, the Toda, and other tribes, -remain as they were, and practise their own rites and follow the -customs of their forefathers as if the stranger had never come among -them. - - -EASTERN INDIA. - -To turn from these generalities to two instances more directly -illustrative of our European experience. The first is that of the -Khonds, the Druids of the East, worshipping in groves, _priscâ -formidine sacris_, and indulging in human sacrifices and other -unamiable practices of our forefathers.[540] These tribes exist partly -on a range of hills bounding the province of Cuttack on the western -side and partly extend into the plains themselves. Almost within -their boundaries there exists a low range of rocky hills known as -the Udyagiri, in which are found a series of Buddhist caves, many -of them excavated before the Christian era, and as beautiful and as -interesting as any caves in India.[541] A little beyond this are seen -the great tower of the Bobaneswar temple and of the hundred and one -smaller fanes dedicated to the worship of Siva, which was established -here in all its splendour in the seventh century;[542] and a little -farther on, rises on the verge of the ocean the great tower of the -temple of Juggernaut, at Puri, established in the twelfth century for -the worship of that form of Vishnu.[543] Yet in defiance of all this, -in close proximity to the shrines of the gentle ascetic who devoted -his life to the prevention of the shedding of the blood of the meanest -of created beings, in sight of Bobaneswar and Puri, Macpherson tells -us, unconsciously almost repeating the words of Tacitus[544]: "The -Khonds use neither temples nor images in their worship. They cannot -comprehend and regard as absurd the idea of building a house in honour -of a deity, or in the expectation that he will be peculiarly present -in any place resembling a human habitation. Groves kept sacred from -the axe, hoar rocks, the tops of hills, fountains, and the banks of -streams, are in their eyes the fittest places for worship." It was in -these sacred and venerable groves, that annually human victims were -offered up to appease the wrath of the dreaded Tari, and to procure -fertility for the fields. In 1836 we first interfered to put a stop to -this, and before the Mutiny believed we had been successful. Perhaps -we may have been so, but if our strong repressive hand were once -removed, it cannot be doubted but the sacrifices would be instantly -resumed. What the Buddhists and the Brahmins, working during at least -two thousand years, have failed to accomplish, we strangers cannot -expect to succeed in, in a few years, unless indeed we adopt the system -followed by our forefathers, and are determined on extirpating those -who obstinately adhere to such practices. Had it not been that first -the Roman, and then the Celt, by sword and cord set vigorously to -improve the older race, we might now have human sacrifices celebrated -on the plains of Bauce in the neighbourhood of Chartres, and find -people quietly erecting dolmens in the valley of the Dordogne. - -The practices, however, of a Claudius or a Simon de Montfort -are repugnant to the feelings of the Indians, and so long as no -political issue is at stake, they rarely interfere with the religious -proclivities of their neighbours. - -When from the hills inhabited by the Khonds we cross the delta of the -Ganges in a northerly direction, and come to the Khassia hills, we -find a very different state of things, but equally interesting as an -illustration of our present studies. These hills are situated between -the valley of Assam and the plains of Sylhet, and, rising to a height -of some 5000 to 6000 feet, catch the rains during the south-west -monsoon, and but for this would be one of the most delightful sanitaria -of the Bengal province. A country, however, where 300 inches of rain -fall in three months is, for at least a quarter of the year, an -undesirable abode, and it is difficult also to keep any soil on the -rocks. Throughout the whole of the western portion of the hilly region, -inhabited by tribes bearing the generic name of Khassias, rude-stone -monuments exist in greater numbers than perhaps in any other portion -of the globe of the same extent (woodcut No. 200). All travellers who -have visited the country have been struck with the fact and with the -curious similarity of their forms to those existing in Europe.[545] -So like, indeed, are they that it has long been the fashion to assume -their identity, and it has consequently been often hoped that, if we -could only find out why the Indian examples were erected, we might -discover the motive which guided those in Europe who constructed -similar monuments, while at the same time there seemed every reason for -believing that it would not be difficult to discover the motives which -led to the erection of the Indian examples. The natives make no mystery -about them, and many were erected within the last few years, or are -being erected now, and they are identical in form with those which are -grey with years, and must have been set up in the long forgotten past. -Here, therefore, there seemed a chance of at last solving the mystery -of the great stones. Greater familiarity with them has, however, -rather tended to dispel these illusions. - -[Illustration: 200. View in Khassia Hills. By H. Walters.] - -The Khassias burn their dead, which is a practice that hardly could -have had its origin in their present abodes, inasmuch as, during three -months in the year, it is impossible, from the rain, to light a fire -out of doors, and consequently, if any one dies during that period, the -body is placed in a coffin, formed from the hollowed trunk of a tree, -and pickled in honey, till a fair day admits of his obsequies being -properly performed.[546] According to Mr. Walters, the urns containing -the ashes are placed in little circular cells, with flat tops like -stools, which exist in the immediate proximity of all the villages, and -are used as seats by the villagers on all state occasions of assembly; -but whether one stool is used for a whole family, or till it is filled -with urns, or whether a new stool is prepared when a great man dies, -has not yet been ascertained.[547] - -[Illustration: 201. Khassia Funeral Seats. From Yule.] - -The origin of the menhirs is somewhat different. If any of the Khassia -tribe falls ill or gets into difficulties, he prays to some one of -his deceased ancestors, whose spirit he fancies may be able and -willing to assist him. Father or mother, uncle or aunt, or some more -distant relative, may do equally well, and to enforce his prayer, he -vows that, if it is granted, he will erect a stone in honour of the -deceased.[548] This he never fails to perform, and if the cure has been -rapid, or the change in the luck so sudden as to be striking, others -address their prayers to the same person, and more stones are vowed. -It thus sometimes happens that a person, man or woman, who was by no -means remarkable in life, may have five, or seven, or ten--two fives, -for the number must always be unequal--in their honour. The centre -stone generally is crowned by a capital, or turban-like ornament, and -sometimes two are joined together, forming a trilithon, but then they -apparently count as one. Major Austen mentions a set of five being -erected in 1869 on the opposite side of the road to an original set of -the same number with which an old lady had previously been honoured, in -consequence of the services which after her death she had rendered to -her tribe.[549] - -[Illustration: 202. Menhirs and Tables. From Schlagintweit.] - -[Illustration: 203. Turban Stone, with Stone Table.] - -[Illustration: 204. Trilithon.] - -The origin of the stone tables or dolmens is not so clearly made out. -Like the tomb stools, they frequently at least seem to be places of -assembly. One, described by Major Austen, measured 30 feet 4 inches by -10 feet in breadth, and had an average thickness of 1 foot; it had -steps to ascend to it; and certainly it looks like a place from which -it would be convenient to address an audience. The great stone of this -monument weighed 23 tons 18 cwt., and another is described as measuring -30 feet by 13 feet, and 1 foot 4 inches in thickness, and others seem -nearly of the same dimensions; and they are frequently raised some -height from the ground, and supported on massive monoliths or pillars. - -While this is so, we need not wonder at the masses employed in the -erection of Stonehenge or Avebury, or any of our European monuments. -Physically the Khassias are a very inferior race to what we can -conceive our forefathers ever to have been. Their stage of civilization -is barely removed from that of mere savages, and their knowledge of the -mechanical arts is of the most primitive description. Add to all this -that their country is mountainous and rugged in the highest degree. Yet -with all these disadvantages they move these great stones and erect -them with perfect facility, while we are lost in wonder because our -forefathers did something nearly equal to it some fourteen centuries -ago. - -There are apparently no circles and no alignments on the hills, nor -any of the forms which in the previous pages we have ascribed to -battle-fields, and no tumuli nor any of their derivatives, and no -sculptured stones of any sort. The real likeness, therefore, between -the two forms of art is not so striking as it appears at first sight, -but still presents coincidences that it is impossible to overlook. - -One of the most curious points which an examination of these two Indian -tribes brings to light with reference to the European congeners is that -in Cuttack we have sacred groves, human sacrifices, an all-powerful -priesthood indulging in divination, and various other peculiarities, -all savouring of Druidism, but not one upright stone or stone monument -of any sort. In the Khassia hills, on the other hand, we have dolmens, -menhirs, trilithons, and most of the forms of rude-stone architecture, -but no dominant priesthood, no human sacrifices, no groves, nor -anything savouring of the Druidical religion. - -To the European student the most interesting fact connected with the -monuments on the Khassia hills is probably their date. We do not know -how far back they extend, but we do know that many were erected within -the limits of the present century, and some within the last few years. -Yet this has taken place in presence of, and in immediate contact with, -two far higher forms of civilization. - -At the foot of the Khassia hills, to the north, lies the famous Hindu -kingdom of Kamarupa. How far it extends back to, we do not know, -but its foundation was certainly anterior to the Christian era; -and when Hiouen Thsang visited it in the beginning of the seventh -century, he found it rich and prosperous, and containing "temples by -hundreds."[550] And now, in the jungles, ruins are continually being -discovered of temples not so old perhaps as this date, but showing -continued prosperity down to a far later period. All these temples are -richly and elaborately carved and ornamented with that exuberance of -detail characteristic of Hindu architecture. - -At the foot of the southern slope of the hills lies Sylhet. When it -became great, we do not know, but it certainly was occupied by the -Mahommedans some centuries ago, and adorned with mosques and palaces -and all that magnificence in which the Moslems indulged in the East. -Yet the Khassia looks down on these new forms of civilization unmoved. -As a servant or a trader he must have been for centuries familiar -with both: but he clings to his old faith, and erects his rude-stone -monuments, as his forefathers had done from time immemorial, and it is -doubtful whether either our soldiers or our missionaries will soon wean -him from this strange form of adoration. - -Surely all this is sufficient to make us pause before arguing from our -own European experiences, or deciding questions when so few facts have -hitherto been available on which to base any sound conclusions. - - -WESTERN INDIA. - -On the other side of India there are some groups of rude-stone -monuments similar to those found in the Khassia hills, and apparently -erected for similar purposes. They are, however, much less perfectly -known, and are described or at least drawn by only one traveller.[551] -The most conspicuous of these is one near Belgaum. It consists of -two rows of thirteen stones each, and one in front of them of three -stones--the numbers being always uneven, as in Bengal--and on the -opposite side four of those small altars, or tables, which always -accompany these groups of stones on the Khassia hills. These, however, -are very much smaller, the central stone being only about 4 feet high, -and falling off to about a foot in height at the end of each row.[552] -Whether they were or were not dedicated to the same purpose, Colonel -Leslie does not inform us; but their resemblance is so marked that -there seems very little doubt that they were dedicated or vowed to the -spirits of deceased ancestors. - -Another class of circular fanes looks at first sight more promising as -a means of comparison with ours. Generally they seem to consist of one -or three stones, in front of which a circular space--in the largest -instance 40 feet in diameter, but more generally 20 to 30 feet only--is -marked out by a number of small stones, from 8 to 20 inches in height, -while the great central stones are only 3 feet high. To compare these, -therefore, with our great megalithic monuments seems rather absurd. -So far as can be made out, the central stone seems to represent a -local village deity, called Vetal or Betal, who, like Nadzu Pennu, the -village god, one of the inferior deities of the Khonds, is familiarly -represented merely by a rude-stone, placed under a tree.[553] In the -instance of Vetal, it seems when a sacrifice--generally of a cock--is -to be made, all those who are interested bring their own stones, and -arrange them, in a circular fashion, round the place where the ceremony -is to be performed; hence the superficial likeness. None, so far as is -known, are ancient, nor indeed has it at all been made out when and how -the worship of this deity arose. It is evidently a local superstition -of some of the indigenous tribes, which latterly under our tolerant -rule has become more prominent, for the sect is hated and despised by -the Brahmins; and so far as facts are concerned, it would be difficult -to carry back the history of this form of architecture for a hundred -years from this time. It may be older, but there is nothing to show -that it is so. - -So far as the monuments above mentioned are concerned, there seems -nothing in them that affords a real analogy or establishes any direct -connexion between the European and Indian examples. The sacrifice of -a cock to Vetal, when in sickness, looks like a similar sacrifice to -Esculapius, and the human sacrifices and sacred groves of the Khonds -are very Druidical in appearance; but no one probably will be found to -contend that Vetal and Esculapius are the same god, or that the Khonds -are Celts; and without this being established, the argument halts. -The case, however, seems different when we turn to the sepulchral -arrangements of the aboriginal tribes of India. Here the analogies are -so striking that it is hard to believe that they are accidental, though -equally hard to understand how and when the intercourse could have -taken place which led to their similarity. - -[Illustration: 205. Dolmen at Rajunkoloor. From a drawing by Colonel -Meadows Taylor.] - -[Illustration: 206. Plan of Open Dolmen at Rajunkoloor.] - -[Illustration: 207. Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor.] - -[Illustration: 208. View of Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor.] - -As in Europe, the sepulchral monuments of India may be divided into -two great classes--the dolmens and the tumuli. In the present state -of our knowledge it is difficult to say which are the more numerous. -According to Colonel Meadows Taylor,[554] who is our best authority -on the subject, the dolmens are of two kinds--those consisting of four -stones, that is to say, three supporting stones and one cap-stone--thus -leaving one side open--and those in which the chamber is closed by a -fourth stone; in the latter case this fourth stone has invariably a -circular opening in it, like the Circassian examples (woodcuts Nos. -192, 193), and the dolmen at Trie (No. 127). These forms are both shown -in woodcut No. 205, representing two at Rajunkoloor, in the province -of Sholapore, between the Bheema and Kistnah, near their junction. The -side-stones of the larger monument measure 15 feet 3 inches by 9 feet -in height, and more than 1 foot in thickness. The cap-stone is 15 feet -9 inches by 10 feet 9 inches, and the internal space 8 feet by 6 feet, -the third slab being placed at some distance from the rear, and between -the two side-stones. The same arrangement is followed in the closed -dolmen, the cross slabs being inside, as shown in the view (woodcut No. -208), and plan (woodcut No. 207). The interior of the closed dolmen -contained a little black mould on the surface. Below this a greyish -white earth, brought from a distance, with which were found human ashes -and portions of bones and charcoal mixed, and pieces of broken pottery, -red and black. These rested on the solid rock on which the dolmen was -erected. Nothing whatever was found in any of the open dolmens; but -whether this arose from their being plundered, or from being exposed, -is not clear. It could hardly have been that they were not sepulchral. -They seem at least to be mixed up indiscriminately with the others, -and except their being open, there is nothing to distinguish them. The -arrangement of these dolmens in plan is peculiar. As will be seen from -the next woodcut (No. 209), they are as regular as in our cemeteries, -and apparently in certain directions would have gone on extending _ad -infinitum_; but in another direction are cairns irregularly spaced, and -showing a distinction in the mode of burying which at present it is -difficult to account for. - -At a place in the Raichore Doab, called Yemmee Gooda, four of the -dolmens of the first class were surrounded by double circles of stones; -but this does not seem to be a usual arrangement. - -[Illustration: 209. Arrangement of Dolmens at Rajunkoloor. By Colonel -Meadows Taylor.] - -Almost more interesting than the dolmens are the cairns. The following -plan of the group at Jewurgi, a place fifty miles, as the crow flies, -north-east from Rajunkoloor, will explain their arrangement and -juxtaposition. They, too, seem to divide themselves into two classes, -as shown in the two sections--those with a summit-cist, like those in -Auvergne, and those without; all, however, apparently have single and -double circles of stones surrounding them. Two stones are generally -found protruding slightly through the surface of the tumulus, and when -an excavation is made between them, the cist is found laid in their -direction at a depth of 9 to 10 feet below the surface. This seems to -be generally double, and contains skeletons laid on their faces. At -one end, but outside the cist, are quantities of pottery, and above -the cist a number of skeletons, thrown in pellmell, and over these a -thick layer of earth and gravel. Detached heads are found sometimes -in the cists, sometimes outside among the pottery, which led Colonel -Taylor to the conclusion that human sacrifices had been practised at -the time these cairns were raised, and that these are the remains of -the wives or slaves of the defunct. It may be so, but it may also be -that, as in Europe, we must make a distinction between battle-fields -and cemeteries; and I confess the idea that the cairns at Jewurgi mark -a battle-field, and the dolmens at Rajunkoloor a cemetery, appears to -account for the phenomena better than the other hypothesis. If this is -not so, as the distance between Rajunkoloor and Jewurgi is only fifty -miles, we must assume either that the district was inhabited by two -different races of men at the same time, practising different modes of -sepulture, or we must concede that the one is older than the other, and -that the one race had been dispossessed and was succeeded by the other. -The difficulties attending either of these suppositions appear to me -infinitely greater than those involved in assuming that the one is a -battle-field, the other a cemetery. The only thing that would make me -hesitate about this is the presence of several cairns at Rajunkoloor. -These, however, do not appear to have been opened, and we do not -consequently know whether the same instances of decapitation were to -be found, or whether the bodies were arranged in the same manner as at -Jewurgi. - -[Illustration: 210. Cairns at Jewurgi. By Colonel Meadows Taylor.] - -[Illustration: 211. Section of Cairn at Jewurgi.] - -[Illustration: 212. Section of Cairn at Jewurgi.] - -Be this as it may, if these sections are to be depended on, it appears -to be tolerably certain that these tombs cannot be old. It seems -impossible that human bones could remain so entire and perfect as these -are represented to be, so near the surface and in a recently disturbed -soil, where rain and moisture must easily have penetrated at all times. -A medical man on the spot might determine whether two or three or five -centuries have elapsed since these bodies were laid where they are -found; but I should be very much surprised if he raised their date -beyond the last named figure. It is hazardous, however, to pronounce on -such questions from the scanty data we have before us. - -There is still another class of dolmens, or rather kistvaens, common -on the Nilgiri hills and throughout the hill region of Malabar. In it -the chamber is formed like those described above, but always buried -in the earth, only showing the cap-stone flush with the surface of -the soil. One of these, in the Coorg country, is worth quoting, from -its possessing two circular apertures, like those of the Plas Newydd -tumulus (woodcut No. 48). This one, however, has a diaphragm dividing -it into two chambers. If the Welsh one was so partitioned, the wall has -disappeared. - -[Illustration: 213. Double Dolmen, Coorg.[555]] - -[Illustration: 214. Tomb, Nilgiri Hills. From a drawing by Sir Walter -Elliot.] - -One other class of monument must be quoted, not as illustrating any -of our examples, but because it is so nearly identical with the -chouchas[556] of Northern Africa (woodcut No. 165), and when we try to -find out whether there was any real connexion between the East and the -West, such examples may afford valuable flints. According to Sir Walter -Elliot,[557] they are the commonest, or rather, perhaps, the most -conspicuous, being perched on the tops of hills or ridges. Their form -is a circular wall of uncemented rough stones, 4 to 5 feet high, 3 feet -thick, and 6 to 8 feet in diameter. - -[Illustration: 215. Sepulchral Circles at Amravati.] - -One other variety is interesting, not only from its similarity to -those in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, but also from its bearing -on the question of the age of those in India. The sepulchres of this -class are all very like one another, and consist of small circles -of rude stones, generally of two dimensions only, 24 and 32 feet in -diameter, and have something like an opening on one side, and opposite -this two or three stones within the circle, apparently marking the -position of the sepulchral deposit.[558] Monuments very similar to -these exist in the Nilgiri hills, and elsewhere in India,[559] but -they are principally found at the roots of the hills round Amravati, -where they exist literally in hundreds. No one, probably, who studies -Colonel Mackenzie's map of that district[560] will doubt that they form -the cemetery of the city of Dharani Kotta, to which the Amravati Tope -is attached. As in China, burying in the fertile land was not allowed, -and consequently the place selected for the graves of the inhabitants -was the nearest uncultivated spot, which was the foot of the hills. -So far as is at present known, these circular graves exist nowhere in -such numbers as here, and it can hardly be doubted but that they have -some connexion with the great circular rail of the Amravati Tope. That -rail is unique in India, whether we consider its extent, the beauty of -its sculptures, or the elaborateness of its finish. Other rails exist -elsewhere surrounding dagobas or sacred spots, but none where the -circle itself is relatively so much greater and more magnificent than -the surrounding objects. The question thus arises, did the Amravati -circle grow out of the rude-stone graves that cluster round the hills -in its neighbourhood, or are the rude circles humble copies of that -pride of the city? I have myself no doubt that the latter is the true -explanation of the phenomena; but the grounds for this conclusion -will be clearer as we proceed. Meanwhile it is hardly worth while -enumerating all the smaller varieties of form which the rude-stone -sepulchres of the Indians took in former days. Their numbers in many -classes are few, and have no direct bearing on the subject of our -enquiries. - - -GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. - -Nothing would tend more to convey clear ideas on the subject of -Indian dolmens than a map of their distribution, were it possible to -construct one. As, however, no nation even in Europe, except France, -is in a position to attempt such a thing, it is in vain to expect -that sufficient information for the purpose should exist in India, -where the subject has been taken up only so recently in so sporadic -a manner.[561] The following sketch, however, is perhaps not very -far from the truth regarding them. They do not exist in the valley -of the Ganges, or of any of its tributaries, nor in the valleys of -the Nerbudda or Taptee; not, in fact, in that part of India which is -generally described as north of the Vindhya range of hills. They exist, -though somewhat sparsely, over the whole of the country drained by -the Godavery and its affluents. They are very common, perhaps more -frequent than in any other part of India, in the valleys of the Kistnah -and its tributaries. They are also found on both sides of the Ghâts, -through Coimbatore, all the way down to Cape Comorin; and they are also -found in groups all over the Madras presidency, but especially in the -neighbourhood of Conjeveran. - -The first inference one is inclined to draw from this is that they must -be Dravidian, as contradistinguished from Aryan; and it may be so. -But against this view we have the fact that all the races at present -dominant in the south repudiate them: none use similar modes of burial -now, nor do any object to our digging them up and destroying them. - -If we look a little deeper, we come to a race of Karumbers, to whom -Sir Walter Elliot is inclined to ascribe the bulk of the rude-stone -monuments.[562] From his own researches, and the various documents -contained in the Mackenzie MSS.,[563] they seem to have been a powerful -race in the south of India, from the earliest times to which our -knowledge extends, and to have continued powerful about Conjeveran -and Madras till say the tenth or eleventh centuries, when they were -overpowered by the Cholas, and finally disappear from the political -horizon before the rising supremacy of that triumvirate of powers, the -Chola, Chera, Pandya, who governed the south till the balance of power -was disturbed by the Mahommedan and Maharatta invasions. - -A wretched remnant of these Karumbers still exists on the Nilgiri -hills, and about the roots of the western Ghâts, but without a -literature or a history, or even traditions that would enable us to -identify or distinguish them from any of the other races of the south. -The only test that seems capable of application is that of language, -and this philologers have determined to be a dialect of the Dravidian -tongues.[564] But, in such a case as this, language is a most unsafe -guide. Within recent times the Cornish have changed their language -without any alteration of race, and if intercommunication goes on -at its present rate, English, in a century or two, may be the only -language spoken in these islands. From the names of places we would -know that Celtic races had inhabited many localities, but from the -tongue of the people we should not know now that the Cornish, or then -that the Welsh, were more Celtic than the inhabitants of Yorkshire or -the Lothians. So in India nothing seems more likely than that, during -the last eight or ten centuries, the Tamulian or Dravidian influence -should have spread northward to the Vindhya, and that the Gonds, the -Karumbers, and other subject half-civilized races, should have adopted -the language of their conquerors and masters. It may be otherwise, but -we know certainly that the southern Dravidians brought their style of -architecture--as difficult a thing to change almost as language--as far -north as Ellora, and carved the imperishable rocks there, in the eighth -or ninth century, in the style that was indigenous at Tanjore;[565] and -this, too, for the purpose of marking their triumph over the religion -of Buddha, which they had just succeeded in abolishing in the south. - -If this is so, there are still two distinguishing features which may -help us to discriminate between the candidates for the rude-stone -monuments. The true Dravidians--the Chola, Chera, Pandya--never were -Buddhists, and never put forward a claim to have erected any monuments -of this class. The Karumbers were Buddhists, and claim these monuments; -and Buddhism and such structures must, I fancy, for reasons to be given -hereafter, always have gone together. - -Further researches may enable us to speak with precision on the -subject, but all we can at present do is to except, first, the Aryans -of the north, and all the people incorporated with them, from the -charge of being builders of rude-stone monuments. We must also except -the Tamulians or pure Dravidians of the south. But between these two -there must have been some race, whom, for the present at least, we may -call Karumbers. One of their centres of power was Conjeveran, but from -that they were driven, as far as I can make out, about the year 750. -But it does not appear that they might not have existed as a power on -the banks of the Upper Kistnah and Tongabudra to a much later period. - -The limits of the Chalukya kingdom, which arose at Kalyan early in the -seventh century,[566] and of that of Vijianagara, which was established -in the Tongabudra in the fourteenth, are so nearly coincident with the -limits of the dolmen region--except where the latter was compressed on -the north by the Mahommedan kingdom of Beejapore--that it seems most -probable that there must have been a homogeneity among the people of -that central province of which we have now lost the trace. - -This, however, like many other questions of the sort, must be postponed -till we know something of the Nizam's country. In so far as the history -or ethnography of the central plateau of India is concerned, or its -arts or architecture, the Nizam's dominions are absolutely a _terra -incognita_. No one has visited the country who had any knowledge of -these subjects, and the Indian Government has done nothing to enquire, -or to stimulate enquiry, into these questions in that country. Yet, if -I am not very much mistaken, the solution of half the difficulties, -ethnological or archæological, that are now perplexing us lies on the -surface of that region, for anyone who will take the trouble to read -them. Till this is done, we must, it is feared, be content with the -vaguest generalities; but even now I fancy we are approaching a better -state of knowledge in these matters, and I almost believe I can trace -a connexion between our so-called Karumbers and the Singalese, which, -if it can be sustained, will throw a flood of light on some of the most -puzzling questions of Indian ethnography. - - -AGE OF THE STONE MONUMENTS. - -A glimmering of light seemed to be thrown on this subject by a passage -quoted by Sir Walter Elliot from a missionary report from Travancore, -in which it was stated that an Indian tribe still continued to bury -in "cromlechs," like those of Coimbatore, "constructed with four -stones and a covering one."[567] If this were so, we might have got -hold of one end of a thread which would lead us backwards through the -labyrinth. It looked so like a crucial instance that Mr. Walhouse -kindly wrote to Mr. Baker, the author of the report in question, and -sent me an extract from his reply, which is curious. "The M[a]la -Arryians are a race of men dwelling in dense jungles and hills. -Cromlechs are common among them, and they worship the spirits of their -ancestors, to whom they make annual offerings. At the present day they -are accustomed to take corpses into the sacred groves, and place small -slabs of stones, in the form of a box, and, after making offerings -of arrack, sweetmeats, &c., to the departed spirit, supposed to be -hovering near, a small stone is placed in the model box or vault, and -it is covered over with great ceremony. The spirit is supposed to dwell -in the stone, which in many cases is changed at the annual feast into -a rough silver or brass figure." As Mr. Walhouse remarks, this looks -like an echo from megalithic times. The people, having lost the power -of erecting such huge structures as abound in their hills and on the -plains around, from which they may have been driven at some early -period, are content still to keep up the traditions of a primæval usage -by these miniature shams. There seems little doubt that this is the -case, and it is especially interesting to have observed it here, as it -accounts for what has often puzzled Indian antiquaries. In Coorg and -elsewhere, miniature urns and miniature utensils, such as one sees used -as toys in European nurseries, are often found in these tombs, and have -given rise to a tradition among the natives that they belong to a race -of pigmies: whereas it is evident that it is only a dying out of an -ancient faith, when, as is so generally the case, the symbol supersedes -the reality. - -The articles found in the cairns and dolmens in India unfortunately -afford us very little assistance in determining their age. The pottery -that is found in quantities in them everywhere, is to all appearances, -identical in form, in texture, and in glaze with the pottery of the -present day. No archaic forms have, so far as I know, been found -anywhere, nor anything that would indicate a progression. This might be -used as an argument to prove how modern they were. In India, however, -it would be most unsafe to do so. We have no knowledge as to how long -ago these forms were introduced into or invented in that country, and -no reason to suppose that they would change and progress as ours do. So -far as our present knowledge extends, the pottery found in these tombs -may have been made within the last few centuries, but it may also be a -thousand or two thousand years old for anything we know to the contrary. - -The same remarks apply to the gold and silver ornaments and generally -to the trinkets found in the tombs. Similar objects may be picked up in -the bazaars in remote districts at the present day, but they may also -have been in use in the time of Alexander the Great. Iron spear-heads -and iron utensils of the most modern shape and pattern are among the -commonest objects found in these tombs; and if anyone were arguing for -victory, and not for the truth, these might be adduced to prove that -the tombs belonged to what the Germans call "the youngest Iron age." -This reasoning has no application whatever to India. Flint implements -are found there, and very similar to those of Europe, but never in the -tombs. Bronze was probably known to the Indians at a remote age, but -no bronze implements have been buried with the dead so far as we yet -know, though iron has been, and that frequently; but its presence tells -us nothing as to age. So far we know, the Indians were as familiar -with the use of iron in the fourth century B.C. as the Greeks -themselves were, and, for anything we know to the contrary, may have -understood the art of extracting it from the ore and using it for arms -and cutting-tools before these arts were practised in Europe. - -[Illustration: 216. Iron Pillar at the Kutub, Delhi. From a -photograph.] - -One of the most curious and interesting illustrations of this is -found in the existence of the celebrated iron pillar of Dhava, in the -courtyard of the mosque at the Kutub, near Delhi. This consists of -a solid shaft of wrought iron, standing 22 feet 6 inches out of the -ground and is 5 feet 6 inches in circumference at about 5 feet from -its base. When I visited it, the report was that Colonel Baird Smith -had dug down and found its base 16 feet below the surface. Lieutenant -Cole[568] now brings home a report that it is 26 feet deep in the -ground. Taking, however, the more moderate dimension, a single forging -nearly 40 feet long and 5 feet circumference was not made, and could -not have been made, in any country of Europe before the introduction -of steam-machinery, nor, indeed, before the invention of the Nasmyth -hammer. - -There is an inscription on the pillar which, unfortunately, bears no -date; but from the form of the characters, the nature of the event it -describes,[569] coupled with the architecture of the capital of the -pillar, it leaves no doubt that it was erected in the third or fourth -century of our era. - -It must be left to those practically skilled in the working of metals -to explain how any human being could work in close proximity to such -a mass heated to a welding heat, or how it was possible without -steam-machinery to manipulate so enormous a bar of iron. The question -that interests us here is, how long must the Hindus have been familiar -with the use of iron and the mode of working it before they could -conceive the idea of such a monument and carry it into execution? It -could hardly have been centuries, it must have been nearer thousands of -years, and yet they erect rude-stone monuments in India at the present -day![570] - -One other instance, at the lower end of the scale, may be quoted as -also bearing directly on this subject. Of all the people of India the -Khassias are probably the most expert in extracting iron from its ores -and manufacturing it when made; and their mode of doing this is so -original, and, though rude, so effective, that there can be no doubt -that it is the result of long experience among themselves.[571] They -have, in fact, practised the art from time immemorial; yet though -possessing iron tools for, it may be, thousands of years, they at -the present day adhere to the practice of using rude unhewn-stone -monuments, like the Jews, in preference to those "which any iron tool -had touched at any time."[572] Nor can it be argued that they do -this because they do not know better. As just mentioned, at any time, -certainly within the last thousand years, they might have seen the -Buddhist or Hindu stonemasons of Kamarupa erecting the most elaborately -carved stone temples, and can now see the domes of the mosques which -the Mahommedans erected in the cities of Sylhet three or four centuries -ago. - -[Illustration: 217. Sculpture on under side of Cap-stone of a Nilgiri -Dolmen.] - -Although it thus happens that all these _à priori_ reasonings and -mistaken analogies, drawn from our own progressive state, which are so -familiar to European antiquaries, break down at once when applied to -India, still there are a few indications from which approximate dates -may be obtained, and many more could, no doubt, be found if looked -for. One of these is, that the greater number of the dolmens of the -Nilgiri hills are sculptured; but only one of the drawings on them, so -far as I know, has been published,[573] and though it is ungracious to -say so, I fear that it is not a very faithful representation. It is, -however, sufficiently so to enable us to recognise at once a similarity -to a class of monuments very common in the plains. These are called -Viracull, if destined to commemorate men or heroes, and Masteecull if -erected in honour of women who sacrifice themselves on their husband's -funereal pile. Colonel Mackenzie collected drawings of more than one -hundred of these, which are now in the India Office, and photographs of -many others have been made but not published. - -The similarity in the costume and style of art displayed in the -preceding woodcut with that of the memorial stones leaves little or -no doubt of their being approximately of the same age. As most of the -memorial stones are inscribed and their dates at least approximately -known, if the identity can be established the date of the dolmens can -also be determined. Till, however, some one will take the trouble of -photographing the cairns, so as to enable us to compare them with the -standing stones, no certainty can be obtained; but as none of the -sculptured stones go back a thousand years, and those most like the -woodcut cannot claim five centuries of antiquity, these sculptured -cairns in the Nilgiris cannot be so very old as is sometimes assumed. - -[Illustration: 218. Dolmen at Iwullee. From a photograph.] - -The second instance is curious and instructive. In the centre of the -courtyard of a now ruined Sivite temple at Iwullee, in Dharwar, in the -very centre of the dolmen country, now stands a regular tripod dolmen -of the usual shape (woodcut No. 218). The question is, how got it -there? No one who knows anything of India will, I presume, argue that -the Brahminical followers of Siva would erect the sanctuary of their -god in front of the tomb of one of the despised aboriginal tribes, -if still reverenced by them, or would have neglected to utilize -it if neglected. One of two things therefore only seems possible. -Either a Korumber, or native chief of some denomination, stipulated -that on his conversion to the faith of the Brahmins, if he erected a -temple in honour of his newly-adopted god, he should be allowed to be -buried, "more majorum," in the courtyard. This is possible, but hardly -probable. It seems more likely that, after the temple was desecrated -and neglected, some native thought the spot fit and appropriate for -his last resting-place, and was buried there accordingly. From its -architecture, there is no doubt that the age of the temple may be -carried back as far as the thirteenth century, but it more probably -belongs to the fourteenth. According to the first hypothesis, the age -of the dolmen would be that of the temple; according to the second, -one, two, or three centuries more modern. - -[Illustration: 219. Stone Monuments at Shahpoor.] - -A third indirect piece of evidence is derived from Colonel Meadows -Taylor's paper in the 'Irish Transactions.' He represents a tolerably -extensive group of these monuments as placed immediately outside the -city gate at Shahpoor, and from what he says of them they are evidently -of the same age as the other examples he quotes. From their position -and arrangement, it does not seem doubtful that they are the usual -extramural cemetery so generally attached to Indian cities, and they -are, in fact, subsequent in date to the erection of the gate in front -of which they are placed. The gateway, I learn from a letter from -Colonel Meadows Taylor, undoubtedly belongs to the Mahommedan period. -It is a regular arch, of the usual pointed form, and consequently -subsequent to 1347 A.D., when the Bahmany dynasty first -established themselves in this quarter. This being so, the masons who -built the gate would certainly have utilized the tombs of the pagans -had they existed previously. They must, therefore, be subsequent to -the gate; and as it cannot be five centuries old, we have a limit to -their age beyond which we cannot go. - -[Illustration: 220. Cross at Katapur. From a photograph.] - -Our next example is still more curious and interesting. In the cold -weather of 1867-8, Mr. Mulheran, when attached to the Trigonometrical -Survey of India, came accidentally across a great group of "cromlechs," -situated on the banks of the Godavery, near Nirmul, about halfway -between Hyderabad and Nagpore, in Central India. Some of these he -photographed, and sent an account of them to the Asiatic Society of -Bengal,[574] from which the following particulars are gleaned. "The -majority of the cromlechs consist of a number of upright stones, -sunk in the ground in the form of a square, and covered with one -or two large slabs of sandstone. In some two bodies appear to have -been interred, and in others only one. The crosses are found in the -neighbourhood of Malúr and Katapur, two villages on the Nizam's side -of the river. The crosses at Katapur (woodcut No. 220) are, with one -exception, uninjured. All are situated to the right of the cromlechs -near which they have been erected. Judging from the one lying exposed -at Malúr, they are all above 10 feet in length, although only 6 to -7 feet appear above ground. They all consist of one stone, and are -all of the latest form. No information of any kind could be obtained -regarding the people by whom the crosses or cromlechs were erected. -There can be no doubt, however, that the crosses are memorials of the -faith of Christians buried in their vicinity." Close by is a cave, -before which a cross was erected, which Mr. Mulheran assumes was thrown -down by the Brahmins when they took possession of it; and he adds, "I -enclose a note from Captain Glasfurd, who sent a packet of implements, -rings, and utensils, found in two of the cromlechs he opened, to the -Asiatic Society." No such packet, however, ever arrived, and we are, -therefore, left to his photographs and descriptions from which to draw -our conclusions. - -[Illustration: 221. Dolmen at Katapur. From a photograph.] - -[Illustration: 222. Dolmen with Cross in Nirmul Jungle.] - -In the first place, I think it can hardly be doubted that the crosses -are Christian emblems; and secondly, that the cromlechs and crosses -are of the same date. Their juxtaposition and whole appearance render -escape from this conclusion apparently inevitable. The question, -therefore, is, when could any community of native Christians have -existed in India who would bury in dolmens and use the cross as their -emblems? Their distance from the coast and the form of the cross seem -at once to cut them off from all connexion with St. Thomas's mission -or that of the early apostles, even assuming that the records of -these are authentic. My impression is that this form of cross was not -introduced as an out-of-doors self-standing sign till, say, the sixth -or seventh century.[575] On the other hand, it is extremely improbable -that any such community could have existed after the Mahommedan -invasion at the end of the thirteenth century. Between these limits -we know that the Nestorians had establishments as far east as China, -and extending in a continuous chain westward as far at least as the -Caspian;[576] and there seems to be no difficulty in assuming that, -between the seventh and the thirteenth centuries a form of Taiping -Christianity may have been introduced from the north and established -itself extensively in the western and central parts of India, but, -owing allegiance only to the potentate we know of as Prester John, -may have entirely escaped the knowledge of the Western world. Besides -helping to fix the date of the dolmens in India, this discovery opens -out a wide field for those who would investigate the early history of -the Christian Church in India. There can be little doubt that this -group is not solitary. Many more will be found, when people open their -eyes and look for them. Meanwhile it is a curious illustration of the -policy of Pope Gregory in his advice to Abbot Mellitus, alluded to -in the Introduction (page 21). It is the same thing as the dolmen at -Kerland (woodcut No. 131), and that at Arrichinaga (woodcut No. 161), -repeated in the centre of India, though probably at a somewhat later -date. - - * * * * * - -There is still another point of view from which these Indian monuments -may be regarded, so as to throw considerable light on the history -of their analogues in Europe, and perhaps to modify to some extent -our preconceived views regarding their history. In Ceylon there is a -class of dagoba, which, in some respects, is peculiar to the island. -Two of these will suffice for our present purposes, both in the city -of Anuradhapura, which was the capital of the country from about -B.C. 400 till the eleventh century. The first of these, -the Thupa Ramayana, was erected B.C. 161; the second, the -Lanka Ramayana, A.D. 231.[577] For the sake of the argument -it would be best to select the first for illustration; but it was, -unfortunately, so completely restored about forty years ago that, as -in the case of our unfortunate cathedrals, it requires considerable -knowledge of the style to discriminate between what is old and what -new. Notwithstanding the four centuries that elapsed between their -dates, however, they are so like one another in all essentials that it -is of little consequence which we select. Neither is large, and both -consist of nearly hemispherical domes, surmounted by a square box-like -appendage called a Tee, and both are surrounded by three rows of tall -stone pillars, as shown in the accompanying woodcut. - -[Illustration: 223. Lanka Ramayana Dagoba, A.D. 231. From a -photograph.] - -That the domical part of the dagoba is the lineal and direct descendant -of the sepulchral tumuli or cairns, which are found everywhere in -Northern Asia and probably existed in India in primæval times, is -hardly open to doubt. This the Buddhists early refined into a relic -shrine, probably immediately after the death of the founder of the -religion, B.C. 543; and we know from numerous excavations[578] -that the relic was placed in a cist in the centre of the mound, nearly -on the level of the soil, exactly where, and in the same manner as, -the body-containing kistvaens of our sepulchral tumuli. To this, -however, the Buddhists added a square box on the top, which either -was invented by them or copied from some earlier form; but no dagoba -was complete without it, and all the rock-cut examples and sculptured -representations of topes, with many structural ones, still possess -it. That it represented a wooden relic-casket may be assumed as -certain, but whether it was ever used as such is not quite clear. The -relics were sometimes accessible, and shown to the public on festal -occasions,[579] and unless they were contained in some external case -like this it is not easy to see how they could be got at. A third -indispensable part of a perfect dagoba was an enclosing rail. All the -early dagobas and all the sculptured representations possess this -adjunct. In the rock-cut examples and in the later structural ones the -rail becomes attached to the building as a mere ornament, but is never -omitted. - -[Illustration: 224. Dolmen at Pullicondah.] - -If we compare such a sepulchral mound as this at Pullicondah, near -Madras,[580] or that represented in section, woodcut No. 211, with -the Lanka or Thupa Ramayana dagobas, we cannot fail to be struck with -their similarity. Both possess the mound, the rail, and the tee; and in -this last instance it is a simulated tomb, such as many in Europe are -suspected of having been. That a people might both bury in barrows and -erect domical cairns to contain relics would not necessarily involve a -proof of the one form being copied from the other; but that both should -be surmounted by a simulated sarcophagus or shrine, and both surrounded -by one, two, or three rows of useless stones, points to a direct -imitation of the one from the other which can hardly be accidental. - -Assuming for the nonce that the one is copied from the other, the -ordinary mode of reasoning with which we are familiar in Europe would -be then something like this. If the Thupa Ramayana were erected -B.C. 161, this cairn at Pullicondah must probably be as old as -B.C. 1000, for it would take many centuries before so rude a -style of architecture could be reformed into so polished an example as -the Thupa Ramayana, which, as before stated, we may assume as identical -with the Lanka Ramayana (woodcut No. 223). - -[Illustration: 225. Rail at Sanchi, near Bhilsa.] - -The conclusions I have arrived at are diametrically opposed to this -view. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the architectural -material of India was wood, down to B.C. 250 or 300. It then -became timidly lithic, but retained all its wooden forms and simulated -carpentry fastenings down, at all events, to the Christian era. The -rail at Sanchi, which was erected in the course of the two centuries -preceding our era, is still essentially wooden in all its parts, so -much so that it is difficult to see how it could be constructed in -stone,[581] and these pillars round the Ceylonese dagobas are copies of -wooden posts, and not such forms as in any number of centuries would -have grown out of rude-stone forms. Had they been derived from the -latter original they would have been thick, strong and massive, and -never have assumed forms so curiously attenuated as we find here. It -is difficult to see what these stone pillars or posts were originally -intended for. It may have been either that garlands might be hung upon -them on festal occasions, as we see represented in the sculptures, or -that pictures might be suspended from them, as Fa Hian, who visited -this place in the year 400, tells us was done all the way from -Anuradhapura to Mehentele on the occasion of a great procession in -honour of the Tooth relic which was there exposed to public view.[582] - -Be all this as it may, the question which this comparison raises is -simply this: If we admit the similarity between the Pullicondah cairn -and the Lanka Ramayana Tope, and that the one grew out of the other, -it seems to me perfectly evident that the adjunct of the Tope grew out -of a wooden and not out of a rude-stone original. If this is so, and -if the Tope did not grow out of the cairn, the conclusion seems to me -inevitable that the cairn is only a rude copy of a polished original. - -The same conclusion hinted at above was forced on me by the examination -of the rude-stone circles which crowd round the elaborate tope at -Amravati. Generally, I know of no hypothesis by which the phenomenon -of polished-stone buildings, with known dates, existing in India for -the last 2000 years side by side with rude-stone monuments which are -being erected at this day, can be accounted for, unless we give up our -favourite system of sequence and are content to take facts as we find -them. - -It is quite certain there were no hewn-stone buildings in India before -the year 250 B.C., and my impression is that none of the -rude-stone monuments now existing there were erected till five, it may -be ten centuries from that time, and when they once began that there is -no break in the sequence to the present day. - - * * * * * - -I know nothing that can be fairly urged against this reasoning, except -our own ignorance, and that of the natives themselves, with regard -to the origin and date of these monuments. Neither is much to be -wondered at, as it is only so lately that Europeans have turned their -attention to the subject, and the natives know so little about their -own monuments that it would be strange indeed if they knew anything -at all about those of the hated and despised Dasyus. Any one who has -travelled in India knows what sort of information he gets even from -the best and most intelligent Brahmins with regard to the dates of the -temples they and their forefathers have administered in ever since -their erection. One thousand or two or three thousand years is a -moderate age for temples which we know were certainly erected within -the last two or three centuries. Or ask any native about the date of -the rock-cut temples at Ellora or Elephanta, he at once glibly answers, -they were erected by the Pandus, 3101 B.C.; and if he breaks -loose from that landmark, ten or twenty thousand years is the least you -can expect. Yet we know now, from inscriptions and other data, that no -rock-cut temple can be carried further back than the second century -B.C. - -In this infantile state of the native mind it costs them nothing to -hide their ignorance in the mists of thousands of years when questioned -about these rude stones, but their testimony is absolutely worthless, -and it is only by processes like those just described that we can -hope to arrive at the truth. Among races so unchangeable as some of -those existing in India they may carry us back to a time prior to -the Christian era with some classes of monuments; but, unless I am -very much mistaken, it will be found that all those mentioned in the -preceding pages are of comparatively recent date and are members of an -unbroken series which continues to the present day. - - -COMPARISON OF EASTERN WITH WESTERN DOLMENS. - -We are now in a position to approach one of the most interesting, but -at the same time most difficult, branches of the inquiry we are engaged -upon, which is the connexion, if any, that exists between these Indian -rude-stone monuments and those we find in Europe. The difficulties, -however, do not appear to be so much inherent in the essence of the -subject as in its novelty. It has never fairly been approached by any -modern writer, and would consequently require an amount of illustration -incompatible with such a work as this to make it clear, or, on the -other hand, it is necessary to assume an amount of information on the -part of the public which it is feared hardly anywhere exists. - -The architectural evidence, as detailed in the preceding pages, seems -of a nature difficult to resist. It is easy and generally correct to -assume that men in certain stages of civilization will do the same -thing or things, in a manner so similar that it is difficult to -discriminate between them. There would thus be no improbability in -assuming that all men would raise a mound of earth over the dead bodies -of their buried ancestors, or that they would protect their bodies -from being crushed by the superincumbent weight, by a cist or coffin -more or less artificially formed of stone or wood. It may even further -be granted that when having got so far they would naturally improve -and enlarge this cist into a dolmen or chamber and provide it with an -external entrance. All these things being found together would by no -means prove a necessary connexion between two races using them, further -than that the races using or inventing these forms must have belonged -to the same family of tomb-building ancestral-worshipping people. But -when we find two distinct people putting this cist outside, on the -tumulus in the open air, and piercing one of the slabs in it with a -circular hole 6 or 8 inches in diameter, we come to a coincidence that -can hardly be considered accidental. As there was no writing and no -post, either some tribe must have migrated from the east to the west -and introduced the form, or _vice versâ_, some European must have -taught the Indians the advantages of this hole, whatever they were; and -having been once taught to adopt, they afterwards continued to employ -it. - -A still more striking instance is that already pointed out, of the -combination of a central cistvaen containing a body inside a mound with -a simulated cist on the top outside, and several circles of stones on -or around the mound externally. All this is so complicated and shows -so much design that it cannot possibly be the result of accident, -if it is found in two distinct lands. The examples quoted above are -perhaps sufficient to establish this similarity, but they are only a -fraction of those which might be adduced if the subject were carefully -followed out. It evidently was much more common in the East than we -have hitherto had reason to suspect--for this reason alone, if for no -other--that it continued to last so long. In this example from Burmah -(woodcut No. 226) we have first an external mound encircling the tope, -then the circles of rude stones replaced by a complicated rail, and -above all, in the centre, a simulated dagoba replacing the simulated -cist. These are great changes, it must be confessed, but hardly so -great as we might expect when we consider that the Senbya dagoba was -only erected fifty-five years ago, and that the interval between it and -the rude-stone monuments is consequently considerable. Another striking -instance of the modern form this primæval sepulchre assumes is found -in the celebrated tomb of Akbar the Great at Agra. There the king is -buried in a vault below the level of the ground, but his simulated -tomb is on the top of the pyramid, exposed to the air outside; and on -each stage, externally, little pavilions replace the stones which his -progenitors had previously employed for a like purpose. - -[Illustration: 226. View of the Senbya Pagoda, Burmah. From a -photograph.] - -These two--the holed stone and the simulated cist--are perhaps the most -direct evidences of similarity between the East and the West, but the -whole system affords innumerable points of contact, not sufficiently -distinct perhaps to quote as evidence individually, but collectively -making up such a case that it seems very difficult to refuse to believe -that both styles were the product of one kindred race of men, and who -at the time they erected them must have been more or less directly in -communication with one another. - -The literary evidence is much less complete or satisfactory. So far -as I know, no paragraph has been detected in any classical authors -which would lead us to suspect any connexion at any time between India -and any country so remote from it, as France for instance, and still -less with Denmark, unless it be the Woden myth belonging to the latter -country. That, however, was either so indistinct originally, or has -been so obscured by later additions, that it is now almost impossible -to say what it is. Though so frequently insisted upon, it seems almost -impossible that by any process, the gentle ascetic Sakya Muni could -ever have become the fierce warlike Woden, and except some nominal -similarities there seems nothing to connect the two. It may be that at -some time about the Christian era, a chief of that name migrated from -the Crimean Bosphorus to the Baltic, and may have brought with him some -Asiatic practices, but the connecting link between him and India seems -wholly wanting, and not likely to be now supplied. - -The one passage that seems to bear directly on the subject, strange -to say, comes this time from India itself. Among the edicts that -Asoka engraved on the rocks in various parts of India, the last or -thirteenth is to the following effect, so far as it can be made out. -It is unfortunately the nearest to the ground, and consequently in all -the published copies appears more or less injured. Two more copies of -the edicts are known to exist,--one in the Dehra Doon, the other in -Orissa: when they are copied and published, perhaps a more perfect -translation may be possible. Meanwhile, Mr. Prinsep's translation -runs thus:--"There is not in either class of the heretics of men a -procedure marked by such grace ... nor so glorious nor friendly, nor -even so extremely liberal, as Devanampiyo's (Asoka's) injunction for -the non-injury and content of living creatures.... And the Greek -king besides by whom the kings of Egypt, Ptolemaios, Antigonus and -Magas.... Both here and in foreign countries wherever they go, the -religious ordinances of Devanampiyo effect conversion. Conquest is -of every description, but the conquest that bringeth joy, springing -from pleasant emotion, becometh joy itself. The victory of virtue is -happiness. Such victory is desired in things of this world and things -of the next world."[583] In other copies of this edict the names of -Antiochus and Alexander are found, making five well known names, and -curiously enough all five are mentioned by Justin within a few lines of -one another in the last chapter of his twenty-sixth book and the first -chapter of his twenty-seventh book. There is thus no doubt who the -kings were, nor of more than a year as to the date of this edict, which -must have been within a year or so of 257 B.C. - -The great interest, however, for our present purpose is that an Indian -emperor, in the middle of the third century before Christ, should be -in a condition to form an alliance with Magas of Cyrene so near the -African dolmen-field. As before mentioned (_ante_, p. 410), we are -still very deficient in our knowledge of the Megalithic remains of this -country; but we do know that they exist, and that those which have been -illustrated are of a singularly Indian type. It is also nearly certain -that many of the rock-cut chambers about his capital are monasteries or -temples, not tombs, as has always been too hastily assumed. Whether, -on further investigation, these will prove to be so essentially Indian -as they at present appear to be, remains to be seen, but meanwhile the -possibility of an alliance of this sort two or three centuries before -Christ, takes away much of the improbability that would otherwise exist -in assuming that Indian influence might have extended further westward -at some subsequent period, and that the African dolmens might be proved -to be allied to, and possibly contemporary with, those of India. - - -BUDDHISM IN THE WEST. - -The great basis, however, on which any proof of the existence of -a connexion between the East and West must eventually rest, will -probably be found in the amount of pure Buddhism which crept into -Christianity in the early age of the Church. The subject has not yet -been fairly grappled with by any one capable of doing it justice. It -has been frequently alluded to by travellers, who have been struck with -resemblances which could hardly be accidental, and used sometimes by -scoffers in order to depreciate Christianity; but no serious historian -of the Latin Church has had sufficient knowledge of Buddhism or of its -forms to be able to appreciate correctly either the extent or the cause -of its introduction; and till some one does this, it will be treated by -the general reader as an idle speculation. Yet it probably is not too -much to assert, that at least nine-tenths of the institutions and forms -which were engrafted on pure evangelical Christianity in the middle -ages, are certainly derived from Buddhist sources. - -Of these, one of the most striking is the introduction of monastic -institutions, which exercised so important an influence on the forms of -Christianity during the whole period of the middle ages. It is in vain -to look for their origin in anything that existed in Europe before the -Christian era. Nothing can be more forced than the analogies it has -been attempted to establish between the Vestal virgins and the nuns of -the middle ages, and no trace of conventual life can be found among the -semi-secular priesthood of classical times. According to the usually -received opinion, Antony (A.D. 305[584]) was the first monk, -and from him and about his time a prolific progeny are traced to the -Thebais, which is usually assumed to be the cradle of the institution. -Monastic life was, however, absolutely antithetical to the religious -institutions of the ancient Egyptians, amongst whom the king was high -priest and god, and where civil could hardly be distinguished from -religious rank. It was equally opposed to the feelings of the Arabic -or at least Semitic races, that superseded the Coptic in that country, -and could consequently hardly have existed at all, unless introduced -from some foreign source and maintained by some extraneous influence. -The Essenes are the only sect to whom in the ancient world in the -West anything like the peculiar institutions of monasticism can be -traced; but unfortunately we do not know how or when they adopted them. -Josephus represents them as only one of the three principal sects into -which the Jews in his time were divided; but the silence not only of -the Bible but of the Rabbis weakens the force of his statement, while -his unfortunate omission of the name of their Lawgiver[585] leaves us -in the dark on the most essential point. That it was not Moses, whose -name is usually interpolated, is quite certain. He never inculcated any -such doctrines, and one hardly dares to suggest the Indian name, which -would clear up the whole mystery at once. Be this as it may, the sect -only arose apparently in the time of the Maccabees, and practically -disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; all which would -accord perfectly with the hypothesis of their Indian origin, but would -hardly suffice to support the idea that they were the sect from whom, -in the fourth century, the Christian Church adopted the principles and -practices of Asceticism. - -When from these sparse indications we turn to the East, we are met -by the difficulty that none of the books we possess were reduced -to writing in their present form till the time of Buddhaghosa, -A.D. 412,[586] or even later; and any one who knows what -wild imaginings can in the fertile East creep into works during the -remodellings of a thousand years, will easily understand with what -caution they must be used. Fortunately in this instance the monuments -and inscriptions come to our assistance, and we are enabled to form a -fair idea of the progress of monasticism in India from what they tell -us. - -Before the first monuments, the books tell us of three great -convocations: the first held immediately on the death of the founder -of the religion, B.C. 543, at Rajagriha; the second 100 years -afterwards, at Vaisali; and the third by Asoka, 250 B.C., at -Pataliputta, or Patna. These we are told were attended by thousand and -tens of thousands of monks.[587] But Asoka's edicts give no countenance -to any such extension of the system in his day. Shortly after this, -however, the earlier caves show cells appropriated to hermits, or -even for the reunion of a limited number of monks under one roof. -These Viharas or monasteries are small at first, and insignificant as -compared with the Chaityas or church caves to which they are attached, -as at Karlee, Baja, Bedsa and elsewhere; but shortly afterwards, at -Nassick and Jooneer, in the first or second centuries they become more -important; and when we reach such a series as that at Ajunta or Baug, -for instance, we find the Vihara becoming all important, the Chaitya -sinking into comparative insignificance. This great change took place -apparently about the end of the third or beginning of the fourth -century of our era, and continued till Buddhism actually perished, -smothered under the weight of its enormously developed hierarchy some -three centuries later. - -The sculptures tell the same story. There are no representations of -priests in the form we afterwards find them in at Sanchi, in the first -century of our era. Ascetics there are, dwelling in woods and lonely -places, but not congregated in monasteries, nor jointly performing -ceremonies. But at Amravati, three centuries later, we have shaven -priests in their distinctive robes, and every symptom of a well -developed system. - -If this is so, it could hardly have been before the era of the Roman -Empire that these peculiar institutions penetrated to the West; nor -could they have done so during its supremacy without attracting -attention. But in the great "débacle" which followed the change of -the seat of government and the destruction of the old faith, it is -easy to see how these forms may have crept in, together with the new -Eastern faith, which an illiterate people were adopting, without much -knowing whence it came, and without being able to discriminate what was -Christian and what Buddhist in the forms or doctrines that were being -presented to them. - -Among the peculiarities then introduced, one of the most remarkable -was the segregation of the clergy from the laity, and the devotion -of the former wholly to the performance of religious duties. Still -more so was their seclusion in monasteries, living a life of the most -self-denying asceticism, subsisting almost wholly on alms, and bound -by vows of poverty, chastity and temperance, to a negation of all the -ordinary enjoyments of life. That the two systems are identical no one -has doubted, and no one, indeed, can enter now a Buddhist monastery in -the East and watch the shaven priests in the yellow robes at matins, or -at vespers, issue from their cells and range themselves on either side -of a choir, on whose altar stands an image of the Queen of Heaven, or -of the three precious Buddhas, and listen to their litanies, chanted -in what to them is a dead or foreign tongue, without feeling that -he is looking in the East on what is externally the same as he had -long been familiar with in the West.[588] If he follows these monks -back to their cells and finds them governed by a mitred abbot, and -subordinated as deacons, priests, and neophytes, learns that they are -bound by vows of celibacy, live by alms, and spend their lives in a -dull routine of contemplation and formal worship, he might almost fancy -he was transported back into some Burgundian convent in the middle -ages, unless he is prepared, like Huc and Gabet, to believe that it is -a phantasm conjured up by the author of all evil for the confusion of -mankind. We know from the form and arrangement of the great Chaitya -caves, that these forms prevailed as early at least as the first -century B.C., and, as they are practised without change in the -East to the present day, it seems clear that it is thence that they -were introduced into Europe. - -Canonization is another remarkable institution common to the Buddhist -and Christian Churches, and to them only. It has frequently been -attempted to draw a parallel between the demigods of Greece and Rome -and the institution of Saints in the mediæval Church; but this argument -has always failed, because in fact no two institutions could in their -origin be more essentially different. The minor gods of the heathen -pantheon, though sometimes remarkable for their prowess or virtues, -were all more or less connected by ties of blood or marriage with the -great Olympic family, and owed their rank rather to their descent than -to their merits. It is true that in later times the deification of -Roman emperors and others of that class, which the abject flattery of -a corrupt age had introduced, was a nearer approach to the practice of -Buddhism, which was then flourishing in the East, than anything before -known in the pagan world. But canonization in its purity, as practised -both in the East and West, is not to be attained through either birth -or office, but by the practice of ascetic virtues on the part of the -clergy, and by piety coupled with benefactions to the Church by those -outside its pale. In these casteless institutions any man, however -obscure his origin, by devotion to the interests of his adopted order, -and the practice of the asceticism, heightened if possible by the -endurance of self-inflicted tortures, might attain to Buddhahood or -saintship. But such a path to adoration in this world, or to worship -hereafter, was utterly unknown in Europe until it was introduced from -the East, after the Christian era. - -Relic-worship is another peculiarity which the mediæval Church -certainly borrowed from the East. No tradition is more constant than -that which relates that the relics of Buddha were, after cremation, -divided into eight parts, and distributed to eight different -kingdoms, and the history of some portions of these can be traced to -comparatively modern times. Perhaps too much reliance should not be -placed on these very early traditions, as no material evidence of -them exists, nor in the often-repeated assertion that Asoka built -84,000 dagobas,[589] to receive relics. That he built several is quite -certain. The fact of the relics of two of the favourite disciples of -Buddha--Mogalana and Sariputra--and of ten of the principal dignitaries -of the Buddhist Church in the time of Asoka having been found at -Sanchi in topes certainly anterior to the Christian era,[590] is quite -sufficient for our present purpose. As is well known, the Tooth relic, -whose history can be traced back with certainty for more than fifteen -centuries, is now worshipped under British protection in Ceylon. - -No such form of worship existed in classical antiquity, nor is it quite -clear how it came to be adopted by the Christian Church. Buddhism was -a reform of a material, ancestral-worshipping, body-respecting form -of religion. The sepulchral tumulus with them became in consequence a -dagoba, or relic shrine, containing a bone, or a vessel, or rag, or -something that belonged to Buddha or some of his followers; and all -the grosser superstitions of the Turanian natives, whose faith he was -trying to elevate and refine, were sublimated into something immaterial -and more pure. But Christianity never could have wanted this, and its -adoption of relic worship was either a piece of blind imitation adopted -without thinking, among other things, for which there was more excuse, -or it was one of the many instances of the toleration of foreign -elements which characterized the Christian priesthood in the early age -of the Church. - -It is as little clear when this worship was introduced as why it was -done, for Christian legends in regard to relics are not more to be -depended upon than those of the Buddhists. It could not have been -common in the days of Clemens of Alexandria, or he would not have -mentioned as a wonder that the Indians worshipped a bone enclosed in a -pyramid;[591] but shortly after Constantine's time the fashion became -prevalent, and the miracles performed by the touch of relics became -one of the favourite delusions of the middle ages. If this is correct, -and we are justified in assuming that the Buddhism which we find in -mediæval Christianity was introduced after Constantine's time, we may -take it for granted that any influence which the East exercised on the -Western rude-stone monuments was also subsequent to that monarch's -reign. If this is so, a considerable portion, at least, of those found -in both countries must also belong to the dark ages that closed with -the Crusades. - -It would be easy to go on multiplying instances of Eastern customs -introduced into the Western Church were this the place to do it. All -that is required here, however, is to adduce sufficient evidence to -accentuate an assertion which no one, probably, who knows anything of -the subject would be found to dispute. It is, that the mediæval Church -borrowed many of its forms from pre-existing Buddhism, and that these -were introduced not before but after the time of Constantine. If, -after having reached conviction on this point, we turn to our books to -ascertain what light they throw on the subject, we find them absolutely -silent. You may wade through all the writings of the Fathers, all the -ponderous tomes of the Bollandists, without finding a trace, or even -a hinted suspicion, that such a transference of doctrine took place. -Except from one or two passages in Clemens of Alexandria, we should -not be able to show that before the time of Constantine the nations -of the West knew even the name of Buddha,[592] much less anything -of his doctrines. While this is so it is obviously idle to ask for -written evidence with regard to the influence of either country on the -architectural style of the other. Men write volumes on volumes with -regard to doctrines and faiths, but rarely allude to anything that -concerns mere buildings; and while written history is so absolutely -silent respecting the introduction of Buddhist forms into the West, it -is in vain to hope that any allusion will be found to the influence -Eastern forms may have had on the sepulchral monuments of Northern -Africa or Europe. In this case, the "litera scripta" is not to be -depended upon, but the monuments and their inscriptions are, and it -is from them and them only, that either correct dates or reliable -materials for such an investigation can be obtained. So far as I am -capable of forming an opinion, their evidence is amply sufficient, in -the first place, to take away all _à priori_ improbability from the -assumption that there may have been a direct influence exercised by -the East on the Western rude-stone monuments. But it seems to me at -the same time sufficient to render it extremely probable that while -influencing to so great an extent the religious institutions of the -country, they should also have modified their sepulchral forms so -as fully to account for all the similarities which we find existing -between them. - -It may not be possible, in the present state of our knowledge, to -explain exactly how this influence was exercised, and we must, -consequently, rest content with the fact that as Buddhism did so -influence the religion of the West in those early ages, the same agency -may equally have acted upon the architectural or sepulchral forms of -the same class in our population. - -To explain this it is necessary to revert for a moment to a -proposition I have often had occasion to advance, and have not yet -seen refuted--that Buddhism is the religion of a Turanian race, using -that word, as used by its inventors, in the broadest possible sense. -The Persians say Iran and Turan, and Iran and Aniran, terms equivalent -to our Aryan and non-Aryan; and Buddhism is not and never was, but -exceptionally, the religion of the Aryan race, and is not now professed -by any Aryan people in any quarter of the globe. It is essentially the -faith of a quiescent, contemplative race, with no distinct idea of a -god external to this world, or of a future state other than through -transmigrations accomplished in this world, leading only to eternal -repose hereafter; its followers, however, still believing in the direct -influence of the temporarily-released spirits of their forefathers in -guiding and controlling the destiny of their offspring, thus leading -directly to ancestral worship. In India this primitive faith was -refined and elevated into one of the most remarkable and beneficent of -human institutions by the Aryan Sakya Muni and his Brahmin coadjutors, -and did at one time nearly obliterate the Aryan faith which it -superseded. After, however, a thousand years of apparent supremacy, -the old faith came again to the surface and Buddhism disappeared from -India, but still remains the only faith of all the Turanian nations -around it and wherever the Aryan races never seem to have settled. - -If any Turanian blood remained in the veins of any of the various races -who inhabited Europe in the middle ages, it is easy to understand how -the preaching or doctrines of any Buddhist missionaries or Turanian -tribes must have struck a responsive chord in their hearts, and how -easily they would have adopted any new fashion these Easterns may have -taught. As we have had occasion to point out above, the dolmen-builders -of Europe certainly were not Aryan. Nor, if we may trust M. Bertrand -and the best French antiquaries, were they Celts; but that an old -pre-Celtic people did exist in those parts of France in which the -dolmens are generally found appears to me indisputable. Though the more -active and progressive Celts had commenced their obliteration of this -undemonstrative people at the time when written history first began in -their country, there is no reason to suppose that their blood or their -race was entirely exterminated till a very recent period, and it may -still have been numerically the prevalent ingredient in the population -between the fourth and the tenth centuries of our era. - -Of course, it is not intended to assert or even to suggest that the -Western nations first adopted from the East the practice of using stone -to accentuate and adorn their sepulchral monuments. The whole evidence -of the preceding pages contradicts such an assumption. But what they -do seem to have borrowed is the use or abuse of holed stones, and the -arrangement of external dolmens on the summit of tumuli combined with -two or three circles of rude stones. These I fancy to have been among -the latest of the forms which rude-stone architecture adopted, and may -very well have been introduced in post-Constantinian times; and when we -become more familiar with the peculiarities of these monuments, both in -the East and the West, there may be other forms which we may recognize -as modern and interchangeable, while many others, such as the great -chambered tumuli and the tall solitary menhirs, seem as original and as -peculiar to the West. - -Having now made the tour of the Old World, it will be convenient to -try to resume, in as few words as possible, the principal results we -have arrived at from the preceding investigation. - -First, with regard to their age. It seems that the uncivilized, -ancestral-worshipping races of Europe first borrowed from the -Romans--or, if any one likes, from the Phœnicians or Greeks of -Marseilles--the idea of using stone to accentuate and adorn the -monuments of their dead. In like manner, it certainly was from the -Bactrian Greeks that the Indians first learned the use of stone as a -building material. How early the Eastern nations adopted it in its rude -form we do not know. In its polished form it was used as early as the -middle of the third century B.C., but we have no authentic instance -of the rude form till at least a century or two after Christ; but, -once introduced, its use continued to the present day. Its history -in the West seems somewhat different. The great chambered tumuli at -Gavr Innis, and others in France, as well as those at Lough Crew, in -Ireland, seem to belong to a time before the Romans occupied the states -of Western Europe; but no stone monument of this class has yet made -out its claim to an antiquity of more than two centuries, if so much, -before the Christian era. Some of those in Greece about Mycenæ, and -those at Saturnia, may be earlier, but they are as yet undescribed -scientifically, and we cannot tell. From shortly before the Christian -era, till the countries in which they are found became entirely and -essentially Christian, the use of these monuments seems to have been -continual, whenever a dolmen-building race--or, in other words, a race -with any taint of Turanian blood in their veins--continued to prevail. -This, in remote corners of the world, seems to have extended in France -and Britain down to the eighth or ninth century. In Scandinavia -it lasted down to the eleventh or twelfth, and sporadically, in -out-of-the-way and neglected districts, as late both in France and -Great Britain. - -These results do not, of course, touch the age of the earthen tumuli -or barrows, for the determination of whose age no scale has yet been -invented; still less do they approach the question of the antiquity of -the Cave men or the palæolithic stone implements, the age of which we -must, for the present at least, leave wrapped in the mists of the long -prehistoric past. - -Their uses seem more easily determined than their dates; with only a -few rare and easily-recognizable exceptions, all seem originally to -have been intended for sepulchral or cenotaphic purposes. Either, like -the great chambered tumuli and the dolmens, they were actually the -burying-places of the illustrious dead; or, like the greater circles -and the alignments, they marked battle-fields, and were erected in -honour of those slain there, whether their bodies were actually laid -within their precincts or not; or, like the rude stone pillars of the -Khassia hills, they were offerings to the spirits of the departed. - -With the fewest possible exceptions[593] and these of the most -insignificant character, their connexion with the relics of the dead -can be proved from all having become places for ancestral worship and -having under various forms been used for commemorating or honouring -departed spirits. No single instance has been authenticated of either -circles or dolmens in any other form, except perhaps single stones, -having ever been used for the worship of Odin, or of the gods called -Mercury, Mars, Venus, or the other gods of the Druids, still less -is there any trace of the worship of the sun or moon or any of the -heavenly host; nor, I am sorry to think, can the serpent lay claim to -any temple of this class. Honour to the dead and propitiation of the -spirits of the departed seem to have been the two leading ideas that -both in the East and West gave rise to the erection of these hitherto -mysterious structures which are found numerously scattered over the -face of the Old World. - - - [Footnote 531: 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, ii. p. - 459, fig. 968.] - - [Footnote 532: 'Caves of Baja and Bedsa in Western Ghâts;' - unpublished.] - - [Footnote 533: 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' quotation from Hiouen - Thsang, p. 135, and plates, _passim_.] - - [Footnote 534: 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, ii. p. - 649.] - - [Footnote 535: 'Architecture of Ahmedabad.' 120 photographs, with - text. Murray, 1868.] - - [Footnote 536: Yule, 'Mission to the Court of Ava,' p. 43, pl. ix.] - - [Footnote 537: 'J. A. S. B.,' vii. p. 930.] - - [Footnote 538: 'J. R. A. S.,' new series, iv. p. 88.] - - [Footnote 539: 'Tods Rajastan,' i. p. 224.] - - [Footnote 540: The information regarding the Khonds is principally - derived from a work entitled 'Memorials of Service,' by Major - Charteris-Macpherson (Murray, 1865), and his papers in 'J. R. A. - S.' xiii. pp. 216 _et seq._ I quote by preference from the latter, - as the more generally accessible.] - - [Footnote 541: For several years past I have officially and - privately been exerting all the influence I possess to try and get - two bassi relievi that exist in these caves cast or photographed, - or at least carefully copied in some form, but hitherto in vain. In - 1869 the Government sent an expedition to Cuttack with draftsmen, - photographers, &c., but they knew so little what was wanted that - they wasted their time and money in casting minarets and sculptures - of no beauty or interest, and, having earned their pay, returned - _re infecta_. I am not without hopes that something may be done - during the present cold season. When representations are obtained, - they will throw more light on the history of the Yavanas or Greeks - in that remote part of India than anything else that could be done, - and would clear up some points in the history of Indian art that - are now very obscure.] - - [Footnote 542: Sterling's account of Cuttack, 'Asiatic Researches,' - xv. p. 306.] - - [Footnote 543: _Loc. s. c._ p. 315.] - - [Footnote 544: Tacitus' 'Germania,' 9.] - - [Footnote 545: H. Walters, 1828, 'Asiatic Researches,' xvii. pp. - 499 _et seq._ Colonel Yule, 'Proceedings, Soc. of Antiq. Scot.' - i. p. 92. Hooker's 'Himalayan Journals,' ii. p. 276. Major Godwin - Austen, 'Journal Anthropological Institute,' vol. i. Part II.] - - [Footnote 546: Schlagintweit, in 'Ausland,' No. 23, 1870, pp. 530 - _et seq._] - - [Footnote 547: 'Asiatic Researches,' xvii. p. 502.] - - [Footnote 548: Major Godwin Austen, 'Journal Anthrop. Institute,' - i. p. 127.] - - [Footnote 549: 'Journal Anthrop. Inst.' i. p. 126.] - - [Footnote 550: 'Mémoires sur les Contrées occidentales,' iii. p. - 76.] - - [Footnote 551: Colonel Forbes Leslie, 'Early Races of Scotland,' - vol. ii. pls. lviii. lix. lx. They have also been described by Dr. - Stevenson, 'J. R. A. S.' v. pp. 192 _et seq._ It would be extremely - interesting, in an ethnographic point of view, if some further - information could be obtained regarding these stone rows.] - - [Footnote 552: 'Early Races of Scotland,' ii. 459.] - - [Footnote 553: 'J. R. A. S.' xiii. p. 268.] - - [Footnote 554: I quote from a paper by him, published in the - 'Trans. R. Irish Academy,' xxiv. pp. 329 _et seq._ There is an - earlier paper by him in the 'J. B. B. R. A. S.' vol. iii. p. 179, - but it is superseded by the later publication.] - - [Footnote 555: 'Proceedings, Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1868,' p. 152.] - - [Footnote 556: 'International Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich - volume, p. 200.] - - [Footnote 557: 'International Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich - volume, p. 245.] - - [Footnote 558: 'J. R. A. S.' new series, iii. p. 143.] - - [Footnote 559: 'International Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich - volume, p. 257.] - - [Footnote 560: Published on a reduced scale, 'Tree and Serpent - Worship,' p. xlvi.] - - [Footnote 561: The principal sources of information on the subject - are the papers of Sir Walter Elliot and Col. Meadows Taylor, so - often referred to above. But I am also indebted to Mr. M. J. - Walhouse, M.C.S., for a great amount of valuable information on the - subject. His private letters to me are replete with details which - if he would only consent to arrange and publish would throw a flood - of light on the subject.] - - [Footnote 562: Norwich volume, 'International Prehistoric - Congress,' pp. 252 _et seq._ He places the destruction of the - Karumbers as early as the seventh century, but the dates are, to - say the least, often very doubtful. When, for instance, Hiouen - Thsang visited Conjeveran in 640--the Buddhist establishment--they - were still flourishing, and no signs apparent of the storm, which - did not, I fancy, break out till at least a century after that - time. See also 'The Seven Pagodas,' by Capt. Carr, Madras, 1869, p. - 127.] - - [Footnote 563: Second Report by the Rev. W. Taylor, 'Madras Lit. - Jour.' vii. p. 311 _et passim_.] - - [Footnote 564: Caldwell's 'Dravidian Grammar,' pp. 9 _et seq._ - 'The Tribes of the Nilgiri Hills,' by a German missionary (Madras, - 1856)--the Rev. F. Metz, who probably knows more of their language - than any one now living. Mr. Walhouse's letters are also strong on - this point.] - - [Footnote 565: See 'Rock-cut Temples,' by the Author, p. 50.] - - [Footnote 566: Sir Walter Elliot, 'J. R. A. S.' iv. pp. 7 _et - seq._; and new series, i. 250.] - - [Footnote 567: Sir W. Elliot, 'Journal Ethnological Soc.,' new - series, 1869, p. 110.] - - [Footnote 568: Lieut. Cole, R.E., has brought home a cast of the - upper part of this pillar, which is now at the South Kensington - Museum.] - - [Footnote 569: 'Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal,' vii. p. 629.] - - [Footnote 570: The crack and bend in the upper part of the pillar - are caused by a cannon shot, the dent of which is distinctly - visible on the opposite side. I hope it was not fired by the - English, but I do not know who else would, or could, have done it.] - - [Footnote 571: Hooker's 'Himalayan Journals,' ii. p. 310. Percy's - 'Metallurgy: Iron and Steel,' p. 254 _et seq._ All the original - authorities will be found referred to in the last-named work.] - - [Footnote 572: Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' v. p. 6.] - - [Footnote 573: 'Journal Madras Lit. Soc.' xiv. pl. 8.] - - [Footnote 574: 'J. A. S. B.' xxxvii. p. 116 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 575: An elaborate paper by the Rev. Mr. Joyce, in the - 'Archæological Journal,' 108, 1870, shows, I think clearly, that - these crosses could not be earlier than 470 A.D.--all the - crosses he quotes being of the usual Greek form, though possessing - one longer limb. Indeed, I do not myself know of any crosses like - those at Nirmul earlier than the 10th or 11th century; but, as my - knowledge of the subject is not profound, I have allowed the widest - possible margin in the text. I cannot prove it, but my impression - is, that they belong to the 11th or 12th century.] - - [Footnote 576: As it is wholly beside the object of this work I - have not attempted to go into the history of the Siganfu Tables, - nor the records of the early churches in the East. If the reader - cares to know more, he will find the subject fully and clearly - discussed in Col. Yule's 'Cathay, and the Way Thither,' published - by the Hakluyt Society, 1866. It is the last work on the subject, - and contains references to all the earlier ones.] - - [Footnote 577: 'J. R. A. S.,' xiii. 164 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 578: Wilson's 'Ariana Antiqua,' Introduction _passim_. - Cunningham, 'Bhilsa Topes,' &c., _passim_.] - - [Footnote 579: Hiouen Thsang, 'Vie et Voyages,' p. 77.] - - [Footnote 580: 'Madras Journal of Lit. and Science,' xiii. pl. 14.] - - [Footnote 581: 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' p. 82, woodcut 8.] - - [Footnote 582: 'Foe Koué Ki,' p. 335.] - - [Footnote 583: 'J.R.A.S.' xii. p. 233. 'J.B.A.S.' vii. p. 261 _et - seq._] - - [Footnote 584: Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall,' iv. p. 392, where the - original authorities are found.] - - [Footnote 585: Josephus, 'B. J.,' II. viii. p. 9.] - - [Footnote 586: "The prestige of such a witness as Buddhaghosa soon - dwindles away, and his statements as to kings and councils 800 - years before his time are, in truth, worth no more than the stories - told of Arthur, by Geoffrey of Monmouth, or the accounts we read in - Livy of the early history of Rome"--_Chips from a German Workshop_, - i. p. 198. As a mere linguist, and dependent wholly on books, Max - Müller was perfectly justified in making this statement, while his - ignorance of everything connected with the archæology or art of - India, prevented his perceiving how these wild statements could be - verified or controlled. Till he learns that there are other means - of investigation than mere words his statements on these subjects - are untrustworthy, and, in many cases, absolutely worthless.] - - [Footnote 587: Turnour's 'Mahawanso,' 12 _et seq._ 'J. A. S. B.,' - vii. _passim_.] - - [Footnote 588: Huc and Gabet, in their 'Travels in Thibet,' give - a most amusing account of their bewilderment on observing there - these things:--"La crosse, la mitre, la dalmatique, la chape ou - pluvial, que les grands Lamas portent en voyage, ou lorsqu'ils font - quelque cérémonie hors du temple; l'office des deux chœurs, la - psalmodie, les exorcismes, l'encensoir soutenu par cinque chaines, - et pouvant s'ouvrir et se fermer à volonté; les bénédictions - données par les Lamas, en étendant la main droite sur la tête des - fidèles; le chapelet, le célibat ecclesiastique, les retraites - spirituelles, le culte des saints, les jeûnes, les processions, - les litanies, l'eau bénite: voilà autant des rapports que les - Bouddhistes ont avec nous."--Vol. ii. p. 110.] - - [Footnote 589: 'Mahavanso,' p. 26.] - - [Footnote 590: Cunningham, 'Bhilsa Topes,' p. 289 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 591: Clemens, i. 194. Oxford, 1715.] - - [Footnote 592: Clemens, i. 132. Translation by Potter, _ut sup._ p. - 504.] - - [Footnote 593: The accidental resemblance of the microlithic - temples of the Deccan mentioned above (p. 467) can hardly be quoted - as an exception. They are said to be dedicated to Vetal, but it is - not clear that the stones of the circle do not represent dead, as - they certainly do absent persons, and the sacrifice, after all, - is offered up to their departed spirits; it being a form of the - present day we do not know how much its spirit may not be changed - from the ancient rite which it was originally intended to typify.] - - - - -CHAPTER XIV. - -AMERICA. - - -If this work had any pretension to being a complete history or -statistical account of the Rude Monuments of the world, it might be -necessary to describe somewhat in detail, and to illustrate those of -the New World as well as those of the Old. In the form that it has now -taken, however, nothing more is required than to point out as briefly -as possible what the American monuments really are, with sufficient -detail to show whether they have or have not any connexion with those -we have been describing, and to point out what bearing--if any--their -peculiarities may have on the main argument of this work. - -In so far as the rude monuments of North America are concerned, there -is fortunately no difficulty in speaking with confidence. In the -first volume of the 'Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge,'[594] -the Americans possess a detailed description of their antiquities of -this class such as no nation in Europe can boast of. The survey was -carefully and scientifically carried out by Messrs. Squier and Davis, -to whom it was entrusted. The text is tersely and clearly written, -mere theories or speculations are avoided, and the plates are clearly -and carefully engraved. If we had such a work on our own antiquities -we should long ago have known all about them; but unfortunately there -are no Smithsons in this country, and among our thousand and one -millionaires, to whom the expense would be a flea-bite, there is not -one who has the knowledge requisite to enable him to appreciate the -value of such a survey, nor consequently the liberality sufficient to -induce him to incur the expense necessary for its execution. - - -NORTH AMERICA. - -With this work before us, we feel justified in making the assertion -that there are no rude-stone monuments on the continent of North -America. There are extensive earth works of nearly all the classes -found in the Old World, and some--especially the animal forms--which -are peculiar to the New. - -These earthworks Messrs. Squier and Davis classify as follows (page -7):-- - - 1. Enclosures for defence. - 2. Sacred and miscellaneous enclosures. - 3. Mounds of sacrifice. - 4. Mounds of sepulture. - 5. Temple mounds. - 6. Animal mounds. - -With the first we have nothing to do: they are similar to those erected -everywhere and in all ages of the world. They consist of a ditch, the -earth taken in forming which is thrown up on its inner side, so as to -form an obstacle to the advance of an enemy, and to become a shelter to -the defenders. Some of these in America are of great extent, and show -not only considerable proficiency in the art of defence, but indicate -the presence of an extensive and settled population. The so-called -"sacred enclosures" are not only numerous and extensive, but are unlike -anything met with elsewhere. In Ross county alone our authors state -that there are 100 at least of various sizes, and in the State of Ohio -1000 to 1500, some of them enclosing areas from 100 to 200 acres in -extent. - -[Illustration: 227. Enclosure in Newark Works.] - -Their typical form will be understood from the annexed woodcut. All -seem to have a forecourt either square or octagonal in form, with 4 -or 8 entrances to it, and beyond this is a circle generally quite -complete, and entered only by a passage or opening from the forecourt. -These are enclosed by earthen mounds varying from 5 to 30 feet in -height, with the ditch almost invariably on the inside. - -The last peculiarity is in itself, as in the case of the English -circles, quite sufficient to preclude the idea of their being -fortifications or meant for defence, and they certainly are not -sepulchral in any sense in which we understand the term. In the first -place, because we know perfectly what the sepulchres of these people -were, from the thousands and tens of thousands of tumuli which dot the -plains everywhere; but also because, unlike the English circles, which -are as a rule found in the most remote and barren spots, these American -enclosures as generally occupy the flattest and richest spots in the -country. They are most frequently situated near the rivers, and on the -natural lines of communication; so much so indeed that many of the -cities of the present occupants of the country stand on the same spots -and within the enclosures of the earlier races who raised these mounds. - -We are thus left to the choice between two hypotheses. Either they -are sacred enclosures, as suggested by our authors, or they are royal -residences--temples or palaces. - -All the arguments, derived from its excessive size, that were urged -against Avebury being a temple, apply with redoubled force to these -American enclosures. Temples occupying 50 to 100 acres are certainly -singular anomalies when we try to realise what these admeasurements -imply. Our largest square, Lincoln's Inn Fields, occupies only 12 -acres; the Green Park is 53; and all our parks together do not occupy -the same space as the Newark enclosures, which, according to Messrs. -Squier and Davis, cover more than four square miles.[595] Yet all these -are circles and squares with connecting lines, and all with inside -ditches. Temples of these dimensions, without divisions, or enclosures, -or mounds, or permanent works of any kind, are anomalies difficult to -understand, and must belong to some religion of which I, at least, have -no knowledge; and no one, so far as I know, has yet suggested what -that religion was, nor how these vast spaces could be utilized for any -religious purpose. - -If we adopt the idea that they were the residences of the chiefs of -the people, the mystery does not seem so great. If the circular wigwam -of the chief was erected in the centre of the circles, and the wigwams -of his subordinates and retainers in concentric circles around him, -it would account for their dimensions, and also for the disappearance -of all traces of habitation. The forecourt would thus be the place of -assembly of the tribe, the exercise ground or gymnasium, and for such -purposes it is admirably adapted, and both the size and the situation -of these enclosures seem easily explicable. - -One curious circumstance tends to render this view more tenable. On -plate xxi. of Messrs. Squier and Davis's work four groups of squares -with circles are delineated, situated in different parts of the -country; but all the four squares are almost identical in size, each -side measuring 1080 feet. Why four temples should be exactly alike is a -mystery, but that a tetrarchy of chiefs should be bound down to equal -dimensions for their rival residences seems reasonable from a civil -point of view. - -It does not seem difficult to explain the meaning of the inside ditch -when fortification was not intended, as it must have been almost a -necessity with a people who had not arrived at the elevation of using -brick drains or drain-pipes. Without some such arrangement all the -rain that fell within these solid enclosures would have remained on -the surface, or in the squares could only have escaped through the -openings, but a deep and broad ditch all round would drain the whole -surface without inconvenience, and secure the only mode which would -prevent the enclosure, be it a temple or palace, from becoming a swamp. - - * * * * * - -Messrs. Squier and Davis divide the conical mounds which they excavated -into two classes. The first they call "Mounds of sacrifice," because -on digging into them they found on the level of the soil what appeared -to be altars--raised floors which exhibited evidence of intense heat, -and what they considered a long-continued practice of burning. It is -evident, however, that such results might be produced in a week as well -as in years, and it is very difficult to understand why at any time -that which had been an altar should be buried in a tumulus. If it had -been used for years, why, and on what occasion, was it agreed to bury -it? If it was the funereal pyre of some chief, and used for burning -sacrifices for the time the funeral services lasted, and was then -buried, the case is intelligible enough, but the other hypothesis is -certainly not easy of explanation. - -The true "Sepulchral mounds" are, as before mentioned, immensely -numerous, and of all sizes, from a few feet up to such as the Grave -Creek mound, 70 feet high and 1000 feet in circumference, or that at -Miamisburgh, 68 feet high, and 852 feet in circumference at its base. -The dead were buried in them apparently without coffins or cists, -unless of wood, and generally in the contracted doubled-up position -found so frequently in Scandinavia and in Algeria. - -The "Temple mounds" are generally square or oblong truncated pyramids, -with inclined planes leading up to them on three and frequently on all -four sides. They are in fact in earth the same form as the Teocallis -of the Mexicans, though the latter seem always to have been in stone. -Whether in the one material or the other, they are of a perfectly -intelligible templar form. If a human sacrifice or any great ceremonial -is to take place before all the people, the first requisite is an -elevated platform where the ministrants can stand above the heads of -the crowd, and be seen by all; and the absence of this in the Ohio -and in our English circles is one of the most fatal objections to the -temple theory. In one or two instances a single earthen Teocalli is -found within the circles, but this no further militates against the -supposition that they were residences than the presence of a chapel or -place of worship in any of our palaces would prove them to be temples -also. It must, however, be borne in mind that it is always difficult to -draw a hard and fast line between the House of God and the Palace of -the King. In Egypt it is never possible, and in the middle ages royal -monasteries and royal residences were frequently interchangeable terms. -We should not therefore feel surprised if, in America, we found the -one fading into the other. But, on the whole, the enormous number of -these circular enclosures--1000 and 1500 in one State--their immense -size, 100 and 200 acres being not unfrequent, and the general absence -of all signs of preparations for worship, seem sufficient to prove that -they must be classed among civil and not among sacred erections. This -seems to be the case even though sometimes three or four temple mounds -are found together surrounded by a rampart just sufficient to enclose -them with the necessary space for circulation all round; in which case, -however, it is evident that they have passed the line separating the -two divisions, and may, probably must, be classified as really sacred -enclosures. These are generally found in the South, in Texas, and in -the States most nearly bordering on Mexico, which looks as if they -belonged to another race more nearly allied to the Toltecs or Aztecs -than to the northern tribes. - -The only remaining class of mounds are those representing "Animals," -to which plates xxxv. to xliv. of Messrs. Squier and Davis's book are -devoted. One of these, our authors have no doubt, represents a serpent -700 feet long as he lies with his tail curled up into a spiral form, -and his mouth gaping to swallow an egg (?) 160 feet long by 60 feet -across. This at first sight looks so like one of Stukeley's monstrous -inventions that the first impulse is to reject it as an illusion on the -part of the surveyors. When, however, we bear in mind that the American -mound-builders did represent not only men, but animals, quadrupeds, -and lizards, in the same manner, and on the same relative scale, all -improbability vanishes. At the same time the simple fact that the form -is so easily recognisable here is in itself sufficient to prove that -our straight-lined stone rows were not erected with any such intention, -and could only be converted into Dracontia by the most perverted -imagination. - -Though therefore we may assume that this mound really represents a -serpent, it by no means follows that it was an idol or was worshipped. -It seems to represent an action--the swallowing of something, but -whether a globe or a grave is by no means clear, and must be left for -further investigation. It is, however, only by taking it in connection -with the other animal mounds in America that we can hope to arrive at a -solution. They were not apparently objects of worship, and seem to have -no connexion with anything found in the Old World. - -The other mounds representing quadrupeds are quite unmistakable: they -are a freak of this people whoever they were. But it seems difficult to -explain why they should take this Brobdignagian way of representing the -animals they possessed, or were surrounded by. If we knew more of the -people, or of their affinities, perhaps the solution would be easy; at -present it hardly interests us, as we have no analogue in Europe.[596] - -It only now remains to try and ascertain if any connexion exists -or existed between these American monuments and those of the Old -World; and what light, if any, their examination may be expected to -throw on the problems discussed in the preceding chapters. If it is -wished to establish anything like a direct connexion between the two -continents, we must go back to the far distant prehistoric times when -the conformations of land and water were different from what they -now are. No one, I presume, will be found to contend that, since the -continents took their present shape, any migration across the Atlantic -took place in such numbers as to populate the land, or to influence the -manners or customs of the people previously existing there. It may be -that the Scandinavians did penetrate in the tenth or eleventh centuries -to Vinland, by the way of Greenland, and so anticipated the discovery -of Columbus by some centuries;[597] but this is only a part of that -world-pervading energy of the Aryan races, and has nothing whatever -to do with the people of the tumuli. If any connexion really existed -between the Old and the New World, in anything like historic times, -everything would lead us to believe that it took place _viâ_ Behring -Strait or the Aleutian Islands. It seems reasonable to suppose that the -people who covered the Siberian Steppes with tumuli may have migrated -across the calm waters of the Upper Pacific, and gradually extended -themselves down to Wisconsin and Ohio, and there left these memorials -we now find. It may also be admitted that the same Asiatic people may -have spread westward from the original hive, and been the progenitors -of those who covered our plains with barrows, but beyond this no -connexion seems to be traceable which would account for anything we -find. Nowhere, however, in America do these people ever seem to have -risen to the elevation of using even rude stones to adorn their tombs -or temples. Nor do they appear to have been acquainted with the use of -iron or of bronze; all the tools found in their tombs being of pure -unalloyed native copper--both of which circumstances seem to separate -these American mound-builders entirely from our rude-stone people in -anything like historic times. - -Unfortunately, also, the study of the manners and customs of the -Redmen, who occupied North America when we first came in contact with -them, is not at all likely to throw any light on the subject. They -have never risen beyond the condition of hunters, and have no settled -places of abode, and possess no works of art. The mound-builders, on -the contrary, were a settled people, certainly pastoral, probably to -some extent even agricultural; they had fixed well chosen unfortified -abodes, altogether exhibiting a higher state of civilization than we -have any reason to suppose the present race of Redmen ever reached or -are capable of reaching. - -Although, therefore, it seems in vain to look on the Red Indians who -in modern times occupied the territories of Ohio and Wisconsin as the -descendants of the mound-builders, there are tribes on the west coast -of America that probably are, or rather were, very closely allied to -them. The Hydahs and the natives inhabiting Vancouver's Island and -Queen Charlotte's Sound seem both from their physical condition, and -more so from their works of art, to be just such a people as one would -expect the mound-builders to have been. If this is so, it again points -to Northern Asia, and not to Europe, as the country where we must -look for the origin of this mysterious people; and it is there, I am -convinced, if anywhere, that the solution of our difficulties with -regard to this phase of North American civilization is to be found. - - -CENTRAL AMERICA. - -When we advance a little farther south, we meet in Mexico and Yucatan -with phenomena which are the exact converse of those in Ohio and -Wisconsin. There everything is in stone; earth either never being -used, or, if employed at all, it was only as a core to what was faced -or intended to be faced with the more durable material. There is one -fact, however, which takes the Mexican monuments entirely out of the -category of the works contemplated in this book. All the stones in -Central America are carved. So far as is known, no rude stones were -ever set up there, even the obelisks which stand alone, and look most -like our menhirs in outline, are, like the Babas of the Steppes, all -carved, most of them elaborately; and though it may be true that they -may, at some remote period, have been derived from some such rude -originals as are found in Europe, still till we find some traces of -these in Central America they cannot be said to belong to the class -of monuments of which we are now treating; nor can they be used as -affording any analogies or illustrations which it would be worth while -citing in this place. - - -PERU. - -The same remarks apply to what we find in Peru with equal force, but -not with equal distinctness. No one will, I presume, contend that there -was any direct communication between Europe and the west coast of South -America before the time of Columbus. Yet there are similarities between -the masonry of the Peruvian monuments and those of the Pelasgi in -Greece and Tyrrheni in Italy which are most striking, and can only be -accounted for, at present, on the assumption that nations in the same -stage of civilization, and using similar materials, arrive nearly at -the same results. Perhaps we ought to add to this, provided they have -some taint of the same blood in their veins; and that, in this case, -does not seem absolutely improbable. - -Be this as it may, there are, so far as I know, no rude-stone monuments -in Southern America. The ruins, for instance, of Tia Huanaco, which -have often been quoted for their similarity to "Druidical remains," -are as far removed as possible from that category. It is true that -there are rows of squared stones that now stand apart, and in imperfect -drawings look like our menhirs enclosing a square or circular space. -In reality, however, as we learn from photographs, they are carefully -squared stones, which formed pilasters in walls constructed with -Adobes, or imperfectly burned bricks, or smaller stones which have been -removed.[598] The doorways which led into this enclosure are hewn out -of a single block of stone, and are more carefully cut and polished -than anything else to be found anywhere out of Egypt, and there only in -the best days of her great Pharaohs. - -The same remarks may apply to the circles and squares illustrated by -Mr. Squier.[599] I may be mistaken, but my impression is that like -Houel's Druidical circles in Gozo, above alluded to, they are only the -foundation courses of square and circular buildings, the upper parts of -which have perished. At all events, till they are excavated, or some -traditional or real use is found for them, I should be very unwilling -to base any argument on their accidental similarity with our stone -circles. - - * * * * * - -There can be no doubt that these earthen mounds and primitive carved -stones of the American continent form in themselves a most interesting -group of monuments, well deserving more attention than has yet been -bestowed upon them, and that, when properly investigated, they will -throw more light on the origin and migrations of the various aboriginal -races of that country than can be expected from any other source. -They are not, however, of the class we are treating of, nor do they -seem to have any direct connexion with those of the Old World. As, -besides this, their examination does not promise to solve any of our -difficulties, they do not necessarily occupy an extended space in -a work devoted to the elucidation of the Use and Age of Rude-Stone -Monuments. - - - [Footnote 594: 'Ancient Monuments in the Mississippi Valley;' - Philadelphia, 1847.] - - [Footnote 595: 'Ancient Monuments,' &c., p. 49. Hyde Park, - including Kensington Gardens, occupies about one square mile.] - - [Footnote 596: I cannot help fancying that the great animals in - stone that line the avenues leading to the tombs of the emperors in - China may have some affinity with the American animal sculptures, - which occur principally in Wisconsin and the farther West. I am - unable, however, to obtain any information with regard to the - Chinese or Siberian examples sufficiently reliable to found any - argument upon.] - - [Footnote 597: 'Annal. for Nordk. Oldkyndighed,' ii. p. 3 _et seqq_. - See also C. C. Rafn, 'Antiquitates Americanæ,' &c., Hafniæ, 1837.] - - [Footnote 598: 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, vol. ii. - pp. 774 _et seq._] - - [Footnote 599: 'The American Naturalist,' iv., March, 1870, - figures 1, 8, and 9.] - - - - -APPENDIX A. - -(_Referred to, page 225._) - - - DUNMINNING, GLARRYFORD, CO. ANTRIM, - - _August 18, 1871_. - - MY DEAR SIR,--I was unable to get to Glen Columbkille till - this week, and I am afraid that I shall be too late to be of use - to you. As, however, I did not forget to examine the monuments, I - send the notes I made on them. All were written down at the stones - themselves. Glen Columbkille is about 4 miles long and 3 broad. Its - eastern boundary is a steep rocky mountain, from which the floor of - the glen slopes down to the sea, and ends westward in Glen Bay. Glen - Bay is of considerable width from its southern point, Rossan, to its - northern, Glen Head, but it has only a short beach. There is also - a dangerous bar, so that it is an almost impossible landing-place - except for curraghs, and in smooth weather for boats. The north side - of Glen Columbkille is rocky and steep, and is chiefly formed by the - mountain Ballard. The south side, though in parts precipitous, and - nowhere a very gradual slope, is not so steep as its opposite. The - coast south and north of Glen Bay for miles is a range of cliffs, of - from 1900 to 100 feet, with here and there a small beach, but no safe - landing-places. South of Glen Columbkille is a smaller and shallower - valley, Glen Malin. The sides of Glen Malin are all gradual; its - coast is precipitous; on the south it is bounded by a mountain of - large base, Leathan. Both Glen Columbkille and Glen Malin are in the - parish of Glen Columbkille and barony of Banagh. Most of the great - stone structures are in Glen Malin. - - The monuments are of three kinds: (1) cromlechs;[600] (2) stone - chambers; (3) solitary stones. They are in groups of various size and - compactness. There are five distinct groups, a considerable distance - apart, and with no apparent connexion of arrangement. Three groups - are on the north and two on the south side of the glen. The stones in - each have been more or less disturbed, and have been made to serve - in lime-kilns and byres and as malt stores. While examining one set, - I felt my foot sink, and, lifting the edge of a piece of heather, - found an excavation filled with barley, soaking. On getting into - another cavity, I found two black lambs inside, and in another some - pigs, in another calves. The most remarkable general feature of the - architecture that I noticed was that the stones in each group were - much of a size, but that in some groups they were a good deal larger - than in others. I shall speak of the groups as they are marked by - letters in a plan I made for my own use on the spot. - - [Illustration: 228. Plan of the Uprights of Cromlech D I.] - - D. This group, which is that nearest the sea on the south side of the - river, consists of six cromlechs, arranged in line, with considerable - intervals. A few yards west of this group are several mounds of - stones with some large blocks amongst them, but no blocks more than 4 - feet long. These extend for some 50 yards in line from west to east. - A few yards above them is a large pile of stones, in the midst of - which is a stone 6 feet high and 3 feet wide. These heaps have been - augmented by stones collected from the fields, but I think there are - indications that they were originally of the nature of the cromlechs. - - There are six cromlechs, and from the first the other five are in - sight. The line in which they are placed along the glen side is not - quite straight. The westernmost cromlech is some yards south of the - others, and the west to east line is not exact with regard to the - others, but is nowhere so much departed from as with the first pile. - The first is about half a mile from the sea. I shall describe them - from west to east. - - I. This was a cromlech of five huge stones and a top. The top stone - has fallen to westward, and the uprights are all somewhat displaced. - Three of the upright stones are still erect; two are fallen, but not - quite to the ground. At the west end are some smaller blocks and - another slab. These are hidden by small stones and earth; I think - there were two support stones and a slab. After examining all the - monuments of the two glens, I came to the conclusion that this (D I.) - was a cromlech with a stone chamber beside it. There is a space 2 - feet 6 inches wide between the two tallest uprights. The annexed plan - shows the arrangement of the uprights. The top slab has fallen over - _e_; _d_ and _e_ are fallen; _a_, _b_, and _c_ are upright, but slant - more or less. The dimensions are:-- - - - Ft. In. - - (_a_) Height 12 9 (_a_) slants somewhat to - Breadth 9 4 westward; the height from its tip - Thickness(about) 3 0 to the ground is 10 feet 2 inches. - Widest girth 23 0 - - (_b_) Height 7 5 (_b_) from tip perpendicular - Breadth 4 3 the height is 6 feet 6 inches. - Thickness 2 0 - - (_c_) Height 7 0 - Breadth 2 10 - Thickness 1 0 - - (_d_) Length 10 0 - Breadth 5 0 - Thickness 2 0 - - (_e_) Length 7 0 (_e_) is hard to measure, as it - lies under earth, stones, and the - top slab. - - All these are of a gritty stone, veined with quartz, a rock plentiful - in Sliabh Liag, Sliabh Leathan, and the cliffs of the coast. Their - shape is rugged. - - The top slab is of pure quartz. It is about a foot thick, and is - smooth on both sides. This sort of stone splits with a smooth - surface, as may be seen on Sliabh Liag and in some of the cliffs. - The slab is a tolerably regular oblong, 9 feet 8 inches by 6 feet 6 - inches. The smaller slab alluded to above, and which was, I think, - the top of the chamber, is about 6 feet by 3 feet. - - D II. lies about 40 feet east of D I. It, too, is a cromlech, but the - stones of which it is built are of smaller size than those of D I. - There are no traces of a chamber, but otherwise it is constructed as - D I. The highest standing stone is 4 feet high. There seem to have - been five uprights. The top slab has fallen to the west side. It - measures 6 feet 3 inches by 5 feet. - - [Illustration: - - 229. Plan showing the actual position of the Stones of D III. ] - - D III. is situate 55 feet east of D II. It is a cromlech of five - uprights and one slab. One upright only is erect now. Its height is 5 - feet, its width 3 feet. The slab which was atop is 8 feet by 7 feet, - and averages 2 feet in thickness. - - D IV. is 31 feet east of D III. It is a small-sized cromlech. The - uprights are all fallen. The slab measures 6 feet 8 inches by 6 feet. - A series of low mounds with large stones sticking out here and there - forms a sort of connexion with the next cromlech, which stands 48 - feet farther east. - - D V. Its slab has fallen to eastward, and the uprights in several - directions. The tallest upright is 6 feet high. The slab is of - quartz, and measures 10 feet by 7 feet, and is about 13 inches thick. - Around this cromlech are numbers of loose stones. They are from 1 - foot to 2 feet long, and are of mica-schist and quartz. They are not - such as would be picked off the meadow, and seem to have been in some - way connected with the cromlech. - - [Illustration: 230. Plan (excl. Top Slab).] - - D VI. stands 96 feet farther east. It is a very large cromlech. It is - a good deal fallen; all the stones of which it is built have more or - less the character of slabs. It is used as one side of a respectable - byre. One great smooth piece of quartz seems to have been the roof. - It measures 18 feet 7 inches by 11 feet. The biggest of the stones - seems to have formed the east wall of the chamber. Its dimensions are - 12 feet by 14 feet, and it is 4 feet thick. I took the dimensions of - three others:--1. Length 5 feet 6 inches, width 4 feet; 2. Length 11 - feet, width 8 feet; 3. Length 9 feet, width 3 feet, thickness 3 feet. - - From the flat nature of the component stones, the chamber inside - would have had few gaps in its walls. Near this cromlech is a low - stony mound. - - From a few yards east of D VI. a ridge runs slantwise up the side - of Leathan. Many stones stick up out of it, but I could make out no - arrangement. The highest projecting stone is not 4 feet high. This - ridge is about a quarter of a mile long. It might be natural, but it - has very much the look of a human work. Some 150 yards up the ridge - I noticed a slab projecting from the heather. It might possibly be - the top of a chamber, of which the walls are beneath the earth. This - seeming road does not lead to another group of stones, but disappears - a short way up the mountain side. Near the mountain top there is a - small bare cliff, the only bare bit of rock on the otherwise smooth - slopes of Leathan. The rock exposed is quartz, and the position of - the little cliff leads one at a glance to imagine that it may have - been the quarry whence the slabs were brought. In this case the ridge - may have been the road down the mountain. When one goes up to the - crag, it looks less like a quarry than from below, but at the same - time I could perceive no geological reason for the exposure of so - small a surface of rock. - - Some distance up Glen Malin, and on the same side of the river as D, - but not in sight from it, is another group, E, of stone monuments. - - The large stones of this group are surrounded by numbers of rough, - weather-worn stone blocks, averaging 2 feet in length. The monuments - seem to be all cromlechs or chambers, and, as far as I could tell, - are about a dozen in number. One cromlech stands a good deal higher - than the rest. West of it are two stony mounds; these seem to have - been chambers. They are built of long flat slabs, with similar slabs - at the ends and top. - - [Illustration: 231. Plan of the Arrangement of the Cromlechs of Group - E. - _a._ Eastmost one. - _b._ Highest. - _c_, _d_. Mounds.] - - The ground beyond the cromlechs is moorland, and without loose - stones. The stony area is oval, and measures east to west 130 feet, - north to south 50 to 60 feet. - - All the cromlechs are about the same size. In the construction - of all, the aim seems to have been a well shut-in chamber. The - easternmost one is a chamber 9 feet 10 inches long. At each end it - has a flat stone 3 feet high. The side stones are 7½ feet long - and 3 feet high The width of the chamber is 4 feet 6 inches. At each - side, and at each end, are heaps of loose small stones. The top slab - is about 1 foot thick, and is almost a square of 9 feet. - - On the north side of Glen Malin, there are three groups:-- - - A. This, which is the group furthest from the sea, is of five or six - cromlechs, but only one is in good preservation. It consists of a - slab resting on four flat blocks, and encloses a chamber. The side - stones are each 5 feet 8 inches long. This group stands on a small - flat piece of ground below a crag and above a stream. Leading from the - chamber there seems to have been a passage, the sides of which were - formed of slabs of stone, of which a few remain. - - Some distance lower down the glen, on the north side, is a solitary - pointed stone. It is 6 feet 1 inch high, and its girth is 5 feet 5 - inches. Higher on the slope by 110 feet, and 18 feet farther west, - group B begins. - - B. The first of this group is a chamber cromlech. It is much buried - in the heather. Some loose stones lie around the cromlech. What seems - to have been the top slab is 10 feet across and nearly square, and 2 - feet thick. One of the side slabs of the chamber is 10 feet 8 inches - by 4 feet. The tallest stone is at the east end, and is in height 6 - feet 8 inches. Lower down the slope, below this cromlech, are several - low mounds, from which there are no projecting stones; 200 yards west - in a straight line is a huge cromlech. It seems to have consisted of - a gigantic slab, supported on three upright stones, not forming a - closed chamber. The top slab is still on its supports; it is 3 feet - thick, and measures 13 feet by 10 feet 9 inches. The tallest of the - uprights is 9 feet high, and is rather pointed at top. The third - upright seems to have been broken into several pieces. Some 10 yards - from this is another cromlech of equal dimensions, and a little south - of these several large loose stones are lying on the ground. Forty - yards west is a chamber cromlech of small dimensions, and near it are - many mounds with stones projecting, possibly artificial. - - C. This group is some distance farther down on the same side of the - glen; it consists of two cromlechs, separated by a short ridge, so - that I think they are really parts of one structure. The eastern part - is fallen; it consists of three uprights and a top slab. The western - part consists of two stones leaning gablewise against one another. - Between the two there is a short ridge, from which several stones - stick out. Each of the western pair of stones is about 7 feet high - by 6 feet broad. The dimensions of the eastern part of the monument - are:--Top slab, 11 feet by 7 feet; thickness, 1½ foot. Uprights: - (_a_) 8 feet (and I think 2 feet below ground) by 7 feet 7 inches - broad; 2 feet 3 inches thick. (_b_) 9 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 8 - inches; thickness 2 feet 5 inches, (_c_) 9 feet 6 inches by 3 feet 5 - inches; thickness, 1 foot 9 inches. - - The other groups do not command remarkable prospects, but from this - last group there is a fine view of the sea, with the island of - Rathlin O'Beirne close below, and beyond the mountainous coast line - of Mayo as far as Belmullet. - - So far the stone monuments of Glen Malin. - - In Glen Columbkille is but one group. It stands in the townland of - Farn MacBride, on the north side of the glen, and at the foot of the - mountain Ballard. Its monuments are all of the chamber kind. The - chambers are made of huge slabs, one at each side, one atop, one at - each end. I measured one, and found the sides each 12 feet long and - 4 feet broad. Most of the monuments project but little above the - ground. One is used to keep calves in, one for pigs, and one for - lambs. A native of the townland told me that his brother had dug up a - skull and a piece of earthenware near one of the cromlechs. The skull - was buried in the churchyard, and its grave is forgotten. The same - man also told me that, digging to clear a cromlech for a malt-store, - they found that the side slabs rested on a basement slab. The ground - is very rugged about these monuments, and some are quite beneath - ground, but I think there are altogether six. - - I hope that, if these notes are too late to be of use for your book, - they may yet be of some interest to you, and - - I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely, - - NORMAN MOORE. - - _James Fergusson, Esq._ - - -On receiving the above communication, I forwarded to Mr. Moore an -impression of the woodcut No. 80, representing Calliagh Birra's Tomb or -House, and received the following reply:-- - - - DUNMINNING, GLARRYFORD, CO. ANTRIM, - - _August 28, 1871_. - - MY DEAR SIR,--The cromlechs of Farn MacBride, as they stand - apparently undisturbed, exactly resemble in plan that depicted in - the woodcut. With one or two exceptions the cromlechs of Glen Malin, - as far as one can tell in their fallen condition, are built on the - same plan. The shape of the stones at the sides and of the top slabs - of the cromlech in the engraving is exactly the shape of the stones - of the cromlechs in both Glen Malin and Farn MacBride. In one or - two of the cromlechs I noticed stones which might correspond to the - buttress-like outside stones of the ground-plan in the cut. - - The number of slabs in the side walls of the Glen cromlechs is - smaller than the number in the woodcut. - - The very large cromlech, easternmost of the group the first described - in my letter, is in every particular, except the number of its - component blocks, the counterpart of your engraving. - - _In fine_, the plan of all the cromlechs of Glen Columbkille, except - one or two, the variety of which may be owing to disarrangement, is - that of the Meath cromlech. - - NORMAN MOORE. - - - [Footnote 600: Throughout this paper Mr. Moore uses the term - "Cromlech," as is usually done by English antiquaries, in the sense - in which "Dolmen" is employed in the body of the work.] - - - - -APPENDIX B. - -THE DIGGINGS IN ODEN'S HOWE, &c. Gamla, Upsala, 1846-7. - - - These diggings were conducted by Riks Antiquary B. E. Hildebrand and - Lieut.-Colonel Ståt, chiefly in the days of August-September, 1846, - and June 7-22, 1847. The only printed notices thereon appeared at the - time, chiefly from the pen of B. E. Hildebrand, in the Upsala paper - 'Correspondenten,' Nos. 75, 77, 79--September 12, 19, 26, 1846, and - Nos. 50, 53--June 23 and July 3, 1847. - - 1. 'Correspondenten,' September 12, 1846.--Diggings going on, but - prove more laborious than had been expected. - - 2. 'Correspondenten,' September 19, 1846.--A boarded gallery 7 - Swedish feet 5 inches high and 5 feet broad has been constructed from - the east side of the howe (Oden's Howe, the largest of the three - so-called King-howes), towards the centre. After penetrating 68 feet - (20 met.), a mighty wall of granite blocks was struck, probably a - grave-chamber. The gently rising gallery abuts on the lowest stones - of the chamber. During the diggings have been found unburnt animal - bones, bits of dark wood, charcoal, burnt bones, &c. Thus this was - evidently a sepulchral mound. The name _King-howes_ is evidently - correct. Diggings have also been made in the smaller cairns near by, - and although they have been opened before, burial-urns have been - found, burnt human bones, bones of animals and birds, bits of iron - and bronze, &c. - - 3. 'Correspondenten,' September 26, 1846.--The great wall has proved - to be the edge of a mighty chamber. Between 200 and 300 large granite - blocks have been taken out. Some of them have traces of tooling. The - gallery has been carried 16 Swedish feet through the stone mass, - which lies on hard packed clay, over a layer of fine sand, resting - on large stones above the natural soil. At the middle of the howe - the grave-chamber is 9 feet above the level of the soil, 18 feet - under the top of the howe. On the bed of clay under the great stones - have been found an iron clinker 3 inches long, remains of pine poles - partly burnt, a lock of hair chestnut coloured, &c. The numerous - clusters of charcoal show that the dead had been burned on the layer - of clay, and the bones have been collected in an urn not yet found. - In one of the nearest small howes have been found a quantity of - burnt animal and human bones, two little-injured bronze brooches, a - fragment of a golden ornament, &c. - - 4. 'Correspondenten,' June 23, 1847.--The burial-urn has been found - in the grave-chamber. Also have turned up bones of men, horses, dogs, - a golden ornament delicately worked, a bone comb, bone buttons, &c. - - 5. 'Correspondenten,' July 3, 1847.--The gallery has been driven 4 - feet farther, thereafter has been made a side gallery, 8½ feet - wide and 8 feet long, up to the burial-urn. This was found 3 inches - under the soil, and was covered with a thin slab. It was 7 inches - high, 9 inches in diameter, filled with burnt bones, human and animal - (horse, dog, &c.), ashes, charcoal (of needle and leaf trees), nails, - copper ornaments, bone articles, a bird of bone, &c. In the mass of - charcoal about were found bones, broken ornaments, bits of two golden - bracteates, &c. Coins of King Oscar were then placed in the urn, and - everything restored as before. - - Frey's Howe was opened, and showed the same results. - - * * * * * - - The gallery remained for some years, and was visited by thousands of - persons, but afterwards fell in, and the howe is now inaccessible. - - CARL SÄVE. - - UPSALA, _March 1, 1871_. - - - - -APPENDIX C. - - -Since the sheets containing the account of the Scottish monuments were -printed off, I have received from Sir Henry Dryden slips of two letters -which he addressed to the editor of the _John o' Groat's Journal_, -giving an account of some explorations he had made in Caithness during -this autumn. One of these contains an account of certain chapels, -brochs, and circles he had examined. The first two classes do not -concern us here, and are therefore omitted; but the circles are of -interest as probably belonging to the same category as those in the -Orkneys, and the description of them is consequently printed with the -other letter, which gives an account of four alignments which are so -germane to our subject that Sir Henry's description is printed _in -extenso_. The name of the first, "The Battle Moss, Yarhouse," is of -itself singularly suggestive, and I have little doubt that, if properly -inquired into, the peasantry could tell what battle was fought there, -and what, consequently, these lines were erected to commemorate. -Taken in conjunction with the horned cairns described by Mr. -Anderson,[601] and the circles, it does not seem to me doubtful that -the whole of this Caithness group belongs to the tenth century. The -circles, and especially the horned cairns, are the exact counterparts -of the fanciful forms of the Viking graves found at Hjortehammer -(woodcut No. 118) and elsewhere in Scandinavia, which resemble them in -more respects than one, and the alignments are such as those at Ashdown -(woodcut No. 28). Nor need we go far for the events they commemorate. -Between the years 970 and 996, A.D., two great battles, at -least, are recorded to have taken place in Caithness, between the sons -of Thorfin, and between Liotr, the victor of the first fight, and the -Scots, who in vain attempted to avenge the death of Skiuli; and besides -these there may have been many subordinate frays. It is probable that -both brothers were buried in Caithness, and we are distinctly told -that Laudver, the last surviving son of Thorfin, was certainly buried -there.[602] - -[Illustration: 232. Horned Cairn, Caithness.] - -The fact of these alignments and horned cairns and semicircles being -unlike what is found elsewhere in Scotland, separates this group from -anything existing further south. Their similarity to the Viking graves -of Scandinavia, avowedly of the tenth century, points to an age from -which they cannot be distant; and when it is recollected that Caithness -in the tenth century formed part of the Orcadian Jarldom, it does not -seem that we have far to seek for an authentic explanation of all we -find in that remote corner of the isle. - -J. F. - - - [Footnote 601: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.,' vii. 480 _et seqq._] - - [Footnote 602: 'Barry's History of Orkney,' pp. 125-129.] - - - - -LETTER FROM SIR H. DRYDEN, BART., - -TO THE - -_Editor of the 'John o' Groat's Journal.'_ - - LINES, BATTLE MOSS, YARHOUSE. LINES AND CIST, - GARRYWHIN. LINES, "MANY STONES," CLYTH. LINES, - CAMSTER. CIRCLE(?) ACHANLOCH. CIRCLE, GUIDEBEST, - LATHERONWHEEL. - - - GROUPS OF LINES. - - I am not aware of any similar groups in Great Britain, though no - doubt there are some, and have no books at hand to refer to any in - Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. The groups of lines in France (of far - larger stones and greater length than those in Caithness) have the - largest stones and widest intervals and the highest ground (the - heads) to the west or thereabouts, and the smallest stones and - narrowest intervals and lowest ground (the tails) to the east or - thereabouts. The Caithness groups differ entirely in principle. The - one at Yarhouse Loch runs north and south, does not radiate, and - is on nearly level ground; but the three others have the narrower - intervals and higher ground to the north (which end we may call the - head), and radiate towards the south and lower ground. The group - at Battlemoss, near Yarhouse, is on ground falling slightly to - north-west. It consists of eight lines placed north and south. The - width at the south end is forty-four feet. The lines are somewhat - irregular, and appear to radiate slightly towards the north, but this - is uncertain. One line extends 384 feet, and another one 170 feet, - but the remaining six now only extend 133 feet. The ground is covered - with peat and heather, and other stones may be hidden below the - surface. There is no cairn or other grave now visible in proximity to - the lines. The largest stones are about 2 feet 6 inches high, 2 feet - 6 inches wide, and 1 foot 3 inches thick. - - The group at Garrywhin consists of six lines. The whole width at the - head (north-east end) is 50 feet, and at the bottom 107 feet. The - central line bears N.N.E. or S.S.W. The length of this line is 200 - feet. The fall is 20 feet to the S.S.W. At the head is a cist of - slabs 3 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 6 inches, and 2 feet 4 inches deep, - placed east and west. As this grave is on the highest point of the - knoll, and as the lines commence at it, it is fair to presume that - they are connected. In the cist were found ashes, pieces of pottery, - and flint chips, but no bones. As the cist is between the third and - fourth lines, it is fair to presume that there never were more than - six lines. - - The group called "Many Stones" has the head on the top of a knoll, - from which the ground falls on all sides. The lines are on the south - slope, and are 22 in number. The width at the head or north end is - 118 feet, and at the bottom is 188 feet. The length in the centre is - 145 feet, but there is no proof that this was the original length, - and the presumption is the reverse. The average bearing is north - and south, and the fall 10 feet 3 inches. The largest stones now - remaining are about 3 feet high, 3 feet wide, and 1 foot 6 inches - thick. There are numerous blocks of stone lying about the head, - where, however, the rock is exposed, but the example of Garrywhin - makes it probable that a cairn once existed on this knoll. There are - no traces of any _sunk_ grave, but the cairn may have contained a - chamber above ground, like many in the vicinity. - - The group at Camster is on the moor, on ground falling slightly - to the south-west. A considerable depth of peat overlies the rock - here, and many stones are below the surface. There are now six lines - ascertained. The length is 105 feet, width at the head or north end - 30 feet, and at the tail or lower end 53 feet. The average bearing is - north and south. The stones are smaller than at the last mentioned - group. There is no cairn or other grave apparent close to these - lines, but in a direction due north, at 346 feet, is a chambered - cairn. No stones are now traceable between; but as there are gaps in - the lines themselves, this blank interval may once have had lines on - it to connect the cairn with the existing group. No habitation _now_ - exists near the spot, but there were many in this strath, which may - account for destruction of stones in former times. A few hundred feet - farther north is the huge horned cairn described by Mr. Anderson, and - at 436 feet N.N.E. from the small cairn is the round chambered cairn - described in the same paper. - - - CIRCLE AT ACHANLOCH, ESTATE OF FORSE, IN PARISH OF LATHERON. - - The name is spelt Achinloch and Auchinleck. These no doubt are wrong, - and probably the name is derived from Gaelic words signifying "The - Field at the Loch," or "The Field of the Stones," from these standing - stones. The place is close to the new road from Lybster to Thurso. - This series of standing-stones, entitled "circle," as a classname, - is in the form of a donkey's shoe, the length being N.N.W, and - S.S.E., the open end to the latter. The sides are nearly parallel. - The area is covered with heather and peat, on a substratum of rock - of the slaty character common to the district. The ground falls from - the area to the west, north, and east. In the latter direction, the - ground falls only for a short distance, and then rises to much higher - ground. On the north-east, at 700 feet or 800 feet, is the loch of - Stemster. - - There is no evidence that the two south ends were ever joined by a - straight or curved line of stones; and as the sides are of equal - length, we may infer that they never were joined, though possibly - intended to be so. The highest point of the area is about 13 feet - above the hollow on the east. This donkey-shoe-shaped series of stones - is 226 feet long, and 110 feet wide in the middle, inside measure. The - two extremities are 85 feet 3 inches apart. - - There are now 36 stones existing, of which only one is down; but by - filling up intervals at usual distances, it appears there were 54 - stones, supposing the lower end vacant as now. The average interval - seems to have been 8 feet. The highest stone is 5 feet 7 inches high - above ground; the widest 5 feet 4 inches; and the thickest 1 foot 7 - inches. - - All these stones are of a slaty character, and have their sides - parallel, so that in width (long sides) they are generally three - or four times their thickness (short sides). But the singular - characteristic of this series is that the stones are set with their - long sides at right angles to the curve, projecting like cogs of a - wheel. - - In many circles some or all of the stones have no decided difference - in the measures of width and thickness; but in all cases, when I have - found a difference, the long sides are in the line of the curve. - - Any notice of an arrangement similar to that at Achanloch would be a - favour. - - There is no appearance of any part of the area having been disturbed - for burial or other purposes. There is a ruin of a chambered cairn - south-east of the circle; and in the loch of Rangag, about a mile - west, is the remain of a brough. - - - CIRCLE AT GUIDEBEST, LATHERONWHEEL, PARISH OF LATHERON. - - The place is on the north bank of the burn, one mile and a half - up the strath. The circle is nearly true in form, and though now - imperfect, doubtless was once complete. It is 170 feet in diameter. - The area is flat, covered with heather and peat, on a substratum of - rock in some places, and of alluvial gravel in others. It is 15 feet - above the brook, which has washed away the cliff very close up to the - south-west stone, and appears likely, unless prevented, to dislocate - the stones on that side. - - There are now only seven stones existing--all erect--and by filling - up the gaps at usual distances there were thirteen stones. The - average interval seems to have been 45 feet. The highest stone is - 5 feet 3 inches above ground; the widest 3 feet 2 inches; and the - thickest 1 foot 10 inches. The stone is of the common argillaceous - slate of the district. - - The stones are nearer square or circular in plan than those at - Achanloch, but (so far as they can be) are all set with the long - sides to the curve. The south stone is a little beyond the line of - the circle, but is evidently a moved and erected stone. - - There are numbers of stones lying about the area; but no evidence of - a cairn or other burial-place in or near the circle. From its soil, - and the absence of remains, it was probably not sepulchral, though - some antiquaries hold that all circles are sepulchral. - - Lower down the strath on the same side of the brook were many circles - which were destroyed in "improving" the land some years ago. These - are stated to have been 20 or 30 yards across, of stones 2 feet to - 4 feet high. No remains are known to have been found in them; but - no observations or measures were made. It is probable that these - circles were sepulchral--the absence of stones in the centres - notwithstanding. Nearer the road and shore are other remains of - broughs, cairns, cists, &c. - - I remain your obedient servant, - - H. DRYDEN, - - Hon. Mem. of the Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland. - - _Caithness, September 21, 1871._ - - [Illustration: 233. Dolmen near Bona, Algeria.] - - - - -INDEX. - - - Abbeville, museum at, 16. - Abbot Millitus, Pope Gregory's letter to, 21. - Abd en Nar and Abd en Nour, 404. - Aberdeenshire circles, 202 _et seq._ - Aberlemmo, stone at, with cross, 268; - date, 270; - memorial of what, 270. - Abraham, stone set up by, 438. - Ac, import of termination, 329, 330; - its prevalence in West of France, 329; - its coincidence with dolmens, 329; - its occurrence in West of England, 330; - names of cities with this termination in France, 328, 376. - Achemlock circle, 530. - Addington, groups at, 118; - circles at, 119. - _See_ Aylesford. - Adil, Swedish king, defeats Snio, 279. - Africa. _See_ Algeria, Tripoli. Its monuments may furnish key to - solution of mysterious questions, 414. - African prince mentioned by Asoka, 498. - Age between exodus of Romans and Alfred, darkness of, 113-4; - stones more eloquent than books then, 114. - Agra, tomb of Akbar at, 496. - Agricola, 20. - Ahmedabad, city of, 457. - Aix la Chapelle, decree of, 25. - Ajunta, importance of Vihara at, 501. - Akbar, sovereign of India, 459; - tomb of, 47, 496. - Alajor, Talyot at, 435. - Alaska, Hydahs in, 18. - Aleutian Islands, route of peoplers of America, 516. - Alexander mentioned in edict of Indian prince, 498. - Alfred, 23-4; - his victory at Ashdown, 123; - how commemorated, 123. - Alentejo, dolmen in, 378. - Algeria, no Druids in, 6; - long ignorance as to its numerous dolmens, 395; - researches of Messrs. Rhind, Christy, and M. Féraud, 395; - Bou Moursug, 395; - Setif, 396; - Tiaret, 397; - Tripoli, 397; - their ordinary position, 397; - Bazinas, 397; - Chouchas, 398; - dolmen on steps, 398; - tumuli with lines between, 399; - sepulchral stones, 399; - plan and elevation of African tumulus, 400; - dolmen with two circles, 400, 471; - others on road from Bona to Constantine, four - cairns enclosed in squares, 402; - analogy to examples in Scandinavia, 403; - age of Algerian examples, 403; - of what race, 403; - Djidjeli, tombs near, with circle, 404; - find there, _ib._; - their age, _ib._; - Sidi Kacem, dolmen near, and inscription, 405; - circle near Bona, 405; - Algerian monuments contemporary with early Christians, 405-6; - their general age, 406; - who erected them, 406 _et seq._; - date of, 403; - compared to Aveyron, 407. - Alignment, at Shap, 130; - Carnac, Erdeven, St.-Barbe, 354 _et seq._; - two heads, 354; - singular head of column, 355; - Crozon, Kerdouadec, Carmaret, Leuré, Gré de Cojou, 368; - Preissac, 368; - Stonehenge, why made, 110-1; - Sesto Calende, 391. - _See_ Avebury, Avenues, Beckhampton, Caithness. - Alkil, Danish chief, 279. - Allées couvertes ou grottes des Fées in France, 340 _et seq._, 358-9; - at Lochmariaker, 365. - Alleth, battle at, 374. - Alphabetical writing, date of its introduction into Ireland, 189, - 196, 271; - interruption of use for centuries, 272. - Altars, 425. - Altmark, dolmen at, 301. - Alyattes, tomb of, 31. - Ambrius, convent of, 109. - Ambrosius Aurelius said to have erected Stonehenge, and why, 106; - forces a peace upon Saxons, 107. - America, North, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge; - survey of Messrs. Squiers and Davis, 510; - absence of rude-stone monuments, _ib._; - earthworks, American peculiarity, 511; - _enclosures for defence_, extent of, _ib._; - inference from, _ib._; - _sacred enclosures_, peculiarity and number of, size and form of - enclosures, _ib._; - Newark Works, _ib._; - whether residences of chiefs, 513; - _conical mounds_, mounds of sacrifice, finds, _ib._; - Grave Creek mound, Miamisburgh mound, 514; - _temple mounds_ compared to Teocallis of Mexicans, _ib._; - difficulty of distinguishing between temple and palace, _ib._; - were the mounds not civil? _ib._; - animal mounds, gigantic serpent form, doubt - whether animal object of worship, 515; - whether European emigrants account for population of America, 517; - way of communication, 516; - material of tools found in America, 517; - Redmen and mound-builders distinguished, these correspond with the - "Hydahs," 517. - America, Central, and Peru, carved stone monuments, 517-8; - Peruvian compared to those of Pelasgi and Tyrrheni, 518; - no rude-stone monuments observed in South America, _ib._; - Tia Huanaco not like so-called Druidical remains, _ib._; - circles and squares, 519. - American Indians non-progressive, 18. - Amesbury, Hengist's meeting with British chiefs at, 107. - Amlaff, King, 253. - Amlech, or Hamlet, tomb of, 299. - Amorites, dolmens in country of, and perhaps nowhere else in - Palestine, 442. - Amravati, arts of Bactria at, 456; - sepulchral circles at, 474; - tope and rail, 475, 493; - representations of priests at, 501. - 'Ancient and Modern Wiltshire,' 5. - 'Ancient English Castles,' Mr. Clark's, 84. - Andalusia, dolmens in, 378. - Anderson, Mr., horned cairns described by, 528. - Angles, _see_ Saxons. - Anglesea, Druids in, 5; - circles in, 162. - Anhalt dolmen, 301. - Animal mounds in America, 515; - whether of Chinese origin, 517 _note_. - 'Annals of the Four Masters,' 176, 187-8. - Annandale, 129; - circle, _see_ Woodcastle. - Antequera dolmen, 383. - Antigonus } mentioned in edict of Asoka, 498. - Antiochus } - Antiquity, why caution necessary in assigning, 144; - of rude and polished stone monuments, 508. - Antony, whether founder of Monasticism, 499. - Aquhorties circle, 263. - Aquitania in time of Cæsar, 328; - of Augustus, 328; - language of, unknown, 333; - pressed upon by Celts, 409; - whether they migrated to Africa, 410. - Aquitanians perhaps in Britain, 163, 238; - and perhaps dolmen builders, 328; - but few dolmens between Garonne and Pyrenees, 328. - Arabia, rude-stone monuments in, 444 _et seq._ - Arabs, their conquest of North Africa, 404; - their feeling as to monasticism, 500. - Arborlowe, vallum and ditch of, 62. - _See_ Derbyshire. - Archæological Congress at Copenhagen, 10. - Arches not in use amongst Hindus, but Burmese, 458. - Architecture, meagreness of historical accounts of buildings between - erection of Parthenon and Henry VII.'s Chapel, 114; - Irish, 221 _et seq._; - law of progressive development, 222; - when inapplicable, 222-3; - sequence in monuments of Ireland, 237-8; - three styles of three races perhaps simultaneous there, 238; - of monuments at Stennis, 255-6; - differences of style of similar monuments in different countries, - 306; - sequence of style in dolmens, 335; - without drawings no words can describe style, 334; - peculiarity of church architecture in south dolmen region in France, - 332; - Celtic, _ib._; - similarity of style no proof of synchronism, 369; - different examples compared, 369; - influences of Roman, 414; - of Indian Art, _ib._; - of dolmens or nurhags and giants' towers, which the older, 437; - sequence of style and material in India, 456 _et seq._; - wood, stone imitation of wood architecture, 456; - Mahommedan mosque built by Hindus, 457; - arches not used by Hindus, _ib._; - ruins of Ahmedabad, 457; - Palitana, _ib._; - Burmah, Cambodia, 458; - Hindu not immutable, 459; - Indian unprogressive tribes, _ib._; - rude and refined architecture, co-existence of, in India, 482; - early crosses in India, of what date?, 486 _et seq._; - appropriation by Romanists of pagan forms, 489; - connexion of Singalee dagobas and sepulchral tumuli, 491; - Tee, what it represented, 490; - wood and then stone forms--rails, 492-3; - styles of Eastern and European dolmens compared, 494; - points of similarity and dissimilarity, 495; - cists outside tumuli, holed slabs, simulated summit cists, - concentric enclosing circles, 496 _et seq._; - use of stone imitated by rude nations in Europe, from what nations, - 508; - and in India from what race, _ib._; - when introduced in the East in its rude form, and in its polished - form, _ib._; - ditto in the West, _ib._; - age of introduction of tumuli or barrows unascertained, _ib._; - as also of Cave men and stone implements, _ib._; - uses sepulchral or cenotaphic, 509; - or for battle-field, or offerings to spirits of the departed, _ib._; - connexion with relics of the dead, _ib._; - whether dedicated to God, sun or moon, &c., or serpents, _ib._; - twofold principle of erection of such structures, _ib._; - North America, 511; - civil and sacred, royal and monastic, 514; - animal, gigantic earthen forms, 515. - Ard-na-Raigh, place of execution, 233. - Ardèche, remains of Cave men in, 321. - Arfin, Prince of Norway, 250. - Argyllshire dolmens, 273. - Arles council, 24, 25. - Arnbjörg, wife of Sandulf, 272. - Art, King, where buried, 212. - Arthur, King, his existence doubted by some, 114, 132; - round table, 62; - contemporary history null, 114; - his round table, 128 (_see_ Penrith); - probable history of Arthur, 133; - his defensive war against invaders, 134; - his supposed Scottish career, 134; - ill-founded, 135; - localities of his twelve battles, 135 _et seq._; - of his last battle, 86-7; - views of the author, 152; - fables respecting, likened to those about Alexander, 133; - Arthur's pike at Shap, 130; - Arthur's Quoit, 170. - _See_ Baden Mound, Bas Lowe, Caerleon, Caledonian Forest, Gain, - Salkeld, Stanton Drew, Woodcastle Lyn. - Arrichinaga dolmen, 388. - Arroyolos dolmen, 377; - described by Borrow, 389. - Aryans a progressive race, 18, 19; - occupation of Greece, 39; - when they crossed Indus, 445; - penetrate into North America, by what route, 516; - Aryan, non-Aryan, equivalents of what, 506. - Aschenrade, singular arrangement of circles, 317. - Ashdown, Sarsen stones at, 121-3; - drawing of, 122; - contrasted with Carnac, _ib._; - Druidical, 123; - or monument of battle between Saxons and Danes, _ib._ - Asia Minor, dolmens not yet found in, 445. - Asoka, King, monument of, 47; - introduction of stone monuments in India, 48, 455; - his rock-engraved edict, 498; - convocation, 501. - Aspatria, 155; - compared to Herrestrup, 304. - _See_ Circles. - Asser cited as to battle between Saxons and Danes, 123. - Astarte, _see_ Melkart. - Asturias, dolmens in, 378. - Atridæ, tombs of, 32; - Atreus, 33. - Aubrey, 3; - his account of Hakpen Hill, 76; - cited, 104. - Augustine, St., cession of temple at Canterbury to, 22-3. - Augustus, tomb of, 40; - no coins of, found in Britain, 144. - Auisle, King, 201. - Aurelius, _see_ Ambrosius. - Axevalla, singular dolmen at, 312-3; - find there, 312. - Aztecs, buildings of, 515. - Avebury, 1, 3, 6, 7, 61; - age of, 17; - pretended serpent worship, 4; - represented, 62; - vallum, ditch and circle, 62, 63; - Sarsens, 62; - Kennet avenue, 63; - no curved avenues, 64; - double circle or oval, 64; - who interred there, 86; - author's opinion, 86, 89; - holes, 343; - Beckhampton avenue, 64, 98; - Silbury hill, 62; - Waden hill, 62; - object of structure, 65; - theory of Druidical temples, 66; - disputed, 66 _et seq._; - Avebury a burying-place, 72; - charter of Athelstan as to, 73; - stone row, 73; - plan of, 81; - sepulchral or battle-field, 116; - attached to circles, 29, 51; - with or without circles or dolmens, 29, 53; - example at St. Helier, Jersey, 51; - chamber there found buried, 54; - at Merivale Bridge, on Dartmoor, _ib._; - why erected, _ib._; - what they represent, 56. - Avening, holes in chamber at, 357. - Avenue. _See_ Alignments, Avebury, Aylesford. - Averni Celts mentioned by Livy, 327. - Aylesford, 110 _et seq._ - Kit's Cotty House, what, 116; - description of, 110; - why erected, 119; - erroneous view of Mr. Wright as to Belgian burials there, 119; - Tollington, stones at, purpose of, 119; - obelisks or coffin stones, 117; - in memory of what, 119; - circles of Addington abbey, _ib._; - Horstead, tumulus at, 120; - explored by Colonel Fisher, _ib._; - absence of valuables or other articles in tombs there, accounted - for, _ib._; - "Countless stones," 117; - resembles Oroust, 305; - drawing of, 117; - a supposed avenue near, 117-8; - other groups at Addington and near Kit's Cotty House, 118; - Aylesford the stage of a battle between Vortigern and Saxons, 119; - Bede's statement of locality of battle not conclusive, 121. - - - BABA, images of, buried, 449. - Babylon, age of its palaces, 1. - Bactrian Greeks, influence of, upon Indian architecture, 456, 508. - Badon Hill, Arthur's battle there, 138. _See_ Battles. - Bahmany dynasty in India, 485. - Bähr, Professor, his book of Graves, 318. - Baille clough togal dolmen, 229. - Baker, Mr., his account of Aryan interments, 479. - Balk, Saracenic arches, 457. - Ballina, _see_ Maols. - Ballo dolmen, 321. - Ballysadare, cairn at, 179. - Balor of the Evil Eye, 187. - Balquhain circle, 263. - Banesdown battle, 87. - Bang, importance of monastery at, 50. - Bangkok, Buddhist monument at, 413. - Barbarism of early Irish, 235. - Barbato, monuments in, 415. - Barbury Castle, siege of, 88. - Bards, 19; - testify to Druids, 6. - Barrows, 11; - of Roman period, 36 (_see_ Bartlow Hills); - British, 65; - Silbury, _ib._; - conical, 83; - their number and position, 102; - age of, 104; - Derbyshire, 138; - Yorkshire, _ib._; - on Boyne, 200; - in Orkneys at Stennis; - bowl-shaped, 243; - find, 243; - Sandwick, _ib._; - conoid barrows, _ib._; - find, _ib._; - of what race the barrows, 243-4; - _see_ Maes-Howe; - little barrows by thousands in Orkneys, of what race, 249; - Halfdan's barrow, 250; - Danish Royal barrow, _ib._; - _Long_ barrow at Lethra, 282; - and at West Kennet, 284; - whose grave, 283; - date, 285; - explored by Thurnam, 283; - find there, 285; - inference from, 286-9; - post-Roman, 286; - long barrow at Wiskehärad in Halland, 288; - what it marks, _ib._; - long barrows post-Roman, 289; - ship barrows, 291-2; - numerous in East France, 327; - holed chambers in long barrows at Kerlescant and Rodmarton, 357. - Barry's 'Views in Orkneys,' 241. - Bartlow Hills barrow, 36; - elevation, 14, 83. - Bas Lowe, Arthur's table, 137. - Basin, flat-bottomed, mysterious, 216-7. - Bassas, Arthur's battle on, 136. - Bateman, Messrs., diggings by, 138, 140-4; - finds at Benty Grange, 145; - and at Kenslow barrow, _ib._; - overlook monuments at Stanton Drew, 146. - Bateman, Mr., explores Arbor Lowe, 357; - his and author's remarks on finds by, 13-4. - Bath, _see_ Battles. - Battles.--Arthur's, 12, 135 _et seq._; - Ashdown, 122; - Aylesford, 119; - Badbury, 87; - Badon Hill, 86; - place of Arthur's last battle disputed, 86-7; - Banbury Hill, date of, 109; - Banesdon, 87; - Bath, 87; - Battlemoss, Yarhouse, 526; - Braavalla, 188, 280-2; - Deorham, 88; - Kongsbacka, 279; - Moytura, South and North, 176 _et seq._; - Rollright, 126. - Battlefields marked by megalithic remains, 14. - Battlestones in Scotland, 240, 272; - Kirkliston, 272. - Bauta stones, 60, 272. - Bazinas in North Africa, 397-8. - Beaumont-sur-Oise, find at, 339. - Beckhampton avenue, 64; - position of stone, 98. - Bede, his division of Kent explained, 121. - "Beds" of Diarmid and Graine, 225. - Behring's Straits route of peoplers of America, 516. - Beira dolmens, 378. - Belgæ, absence of dolmens amongst, 302; - their pre-dolmen immigration into Britain, 323-4; - Belgæ or Firbolgs in Ireland, 176. - Belgaum, altars and tables at, 467. - Belgians, erroneous statement of interments at Kit's Cotty House, 119. - Bellovesus, his invasion of Italy, 327. - Benares, style of architecture at, 412. - Benty Grange barrow, 144. _See_ Derbyshire. - Beowulf's poem contains incidents of Saxon burials, 120; - Beowulf's victory over Wurm, _ib._; - his interment, _ib._; - his helmet, 145; - his verses on Knock na Rea, 185. - Bernard, Commandant, his description of enormous dolmen at Tiaret, - 397. - Bertrand, Alexander, attacks Celtic origin of megalithic monuments, - 254. - Bertrand, M., 6; - his essay upon dolmens, 324; - his theory as to migration of dolmen race, 378-9, 407; - as to builders in North Africa, 403. - Betal or Vetal, worship of, 467. - Bhils, Coles, Gonds and Toda, non-progressive tribes in India, 459; - their tenacity to usages, _ib._ - Bilithons, 435. - Birck, dolmen enclosed in square, 307. - Birra the hag, 231; - monastery, 231 _note_. - Biscay dolmens, 378. - Bits of Bridle, 81, 304. _See_ Stukeley. - Blaine, Mr. D. R., his notes and sketch of dolmen at Kafr er Wâl, 441. - Blair, Dr., engraves Carnac, 350. - Blenda, Swedish heroine, her victory, 291. - Bluestones, if part of Stonehenge, 97; - whence the stones, 108; - story explained, 108-9. _See_ Sarsens. - "Bluetooth," 296. - Boece and Fordun, their fables, 134. - - Boinn, wife of Nechtan, 212; - "her small hound" buried with her, _ib._ - Bollandists' work silent as to Buddhism, 505. - Bona, circle near, 405; - dolmen, 532. - Bonstetten, cited, 308, 379; - map, 324; - according to, no dolmen in Poland, 301. - Borlase cited as to Boscawen circles, 160. - Borrow mentions monument at Arroyolos, 377. - Borther Lowe, find at, 12. - Boscawen, 160. _See_ Circles. - Boucher de Perthes, collection by, 16. - Bouie's survey of New Grange, 204. - Bousquet, dolmen of, 46, 49. - Boyne, monuments on, 200, 290; - burials, 212. - Braavalla Heath battle, 280-2. _See_ Battle-fields. - Brachenbyr dolmen, 46, 49. - Brahmins, their domination in India, 459. - Breas' invasion of Ireland and defeat, 187. - Brest Menhir, 58. - Brigantes join Silures, 381. - British chiefs massacred by Hengist, where, 106. - British isles described by Diodorus, 8; - not more prosperous before Roman invasion than in 5th century, - 114-5; - Spaniards, Silures, settle in, 383. - British Rude-Stone Monuments, - how affected by conquest by and withdrawal of Romans, 394. - Britons, 20, 21, 37; - peace with Saxons, when, 89. - Brittany, monuments in, 6. _See_ Carnac. - Broad-pated race, 306. - Brochs, Scotch, resemble Nurhags, 431 _note_. - Brodick Bay circles, 262. - Brogar, King of, in Orkneys, 241; - failure of search there, 243; - how to proceed, _ib._; - tumuli, 252-3; - compared to Stanton Drew circles, 256. - Bronze age, Stonehenge belongs to, 102; - as also tumuli in South of France, 327. - Brouillet, M., his work on Poitou, 329. - Brown, Mr., his account of Hydahs, 18. - Bruges, capital of Celts, temp. Bellovesi, 327. - Brugh, burial-place of Kings of Tara, 190, 199, 212. - Brugh na Boinne, burials at, 191 _et seq._ - Brunswick dolmens, 301. - Bryce, Dr., his observations in Arran, 265. - Buckingham, Duke of, directs diggings at Stonehenge, 104. - Buddha, Dagobas or Stupas of, 41. - Buddhagosa, no written books before, 500. - Buddhism, 458; - in India, 458 _et seq._; - in the West, 499 _et seq._; - in Christianity, 499; - monastic institutions, _ib._; - monasticism opposed to Egyptian institutions and Arab or Semitic - feeling, 500; - relation of Essenes to Buddhism, _ib._; - monasticism in India apparent from monuments and inscriptions, 501; - three convocations: cells: Viharas, Chaityas, 501; - sculptures: Sanchi: Ascetics: Amravati shaven priests: date of - similar institutions in West, _ib._; - peculiarities of, separation of clergy from laity, 501; - canonization, relic worship, 503; - date, silence of the Fathers, eloquence of architecture, 506; - Buddhism Turanian, _ib._; - nature of the faith, _ib._; - Turanians in Europe in Middle Ages, 507; - what with respect to stone monuments the West borrowed from the - East, 507; - of what Buddhism was the reform, 504. - Buddhist architecture, 40-2. - Buddhist Topes 46; - rails, 48, 492; - Lâts or Stambas, 57; - convocations, 501. - Burials, usages of, in the Steppes, 449. - Burmah, date of temples at, 1; - dagobas, 41. - Burmah and Siam, architecture of wood, 456. - Burn Moor, 159. _See_ Circles. - Burton, Right Hon. W., describes cairn Knock na Rea, 184. - Butte de Cæsar, find there, 339. - Buxton, rude monuments near. _See_ Derbyshire. - - - CABEIRI, images of, 425. - Caboul valley, 452. - Cæsar mentions Druids, but not their temples, 20; - stood, perhaps, at Carnac, _ib._; - inference from his and Pliny's silence, 373. - Caerleon, or Chester, Arthur's ninth battle at, 137. - Cairns at Rath Cruachan, 200; - Lough Crew, 213; - Glen Columbkille, 226; - Freyrsö, 292; - Norway, 302; - the distribution of dolmens in Europe, 301-2; - dolmens belong to a sea-faring race, 302; - four cairns enclosed in squares, 402; - compared to Aschenrade, 403; - Jewurgi, 471-2; - probably battle-field, 472; - huge horned cairn Caithness, 528, 530; - of "one Man," find there, 178-9. - Caldwell, Mrs., find in possession of, 210. - Caledonians like Germans, 162; - Caledonian Forest, place of Arthur's battle, 137. - Callernish, age of, 52. - Calliagh Birra's House, 230. - Calvaries in Brittany, 59. - Cambodia, monuments of, not ancient, 1; - style of buildings, 458. - Camden, his remark as to place of interments at Stonehenge, 105; - as to Rollright and Rollo in England, 126; - as to Long Meg, 127; - as to ruins at Shap, 129; - and Penrith, 132. - Camster alignment, 529. - Cangas de Onis, 387. - Cannibalism of early Irish, 235. - Canonization in the East, 503. - Canterbury, Roman Cathedral at, 22. - Canute forbids adoration of stones, 25. - Caons, or Giants' circles, 453. - Cape St. Matthieu, 59. - Carder Lowe, barrow opened at, 1. - Carl Sverkersson slays Danish prince, 291. - Carmaret, alignment at, 367. - Carnac, 1; - Rev. Bathurst Deane's plan of, 6; - Cæsar perhaps saw from it battle with Veneti, 20; - described, 349; - plan, 352. - Carnutes, Druids' chief seat amongst, 5. - Carrowmore, 181; - field of battle, 187, 198, 223. - Carte, Mr., as to field of battle at Baydon hill, 87. - Carthaginians in Spain, 379; - not building or burying race, 394. - Cartheilhac, M., his paper on megalithic monuments, 335. - Cas Tor avenue, 56. - Castern, find at, 13. - Castille, if dolmens in, 378. - Castle Wellan dolmen, 45. - Cat stones, 57, 146. _See_ Derbyshire battle stones. - Catalonia, dolmens in, 378. - Cathair, or round fort, 235; - of Tuatha de Danann, 193; - of Cormac at Tara, 194. - Cathregomion, Cabregonnon, Catbregonnion, or Cathbregion, Arthur's - 11th battle there, 138. _See_ Stanton Drew. - Catigren, where buried, 144. _See_ Kitt's Cotty House. - Cattle spoil of Cooley, 196. - Cave men, 17, 18, 329; - like Red Indians, 17; - or Esquimaux, _ib._; - under what circumstances found in France, 16; - and England, 16, 17. - Cave races, gradations of style of monuments among, 335. - Caves, early, in India, 456; - Buddhist, 460. - Ceallach, murder of, 233. - Cedric, Saxon chief, 88-9. - Celtiberians, _see_ Iberians. - Celtic race, priests of, 3, 4; - whether French megalithic monuments belong to, 6; - their influence upon Etruria, 393. - Celts, ready converts to Christianity, 227; - date of the first invasion of Gaul, _ib._; - were earlier converts than dolmen builders, 328; - spread themselves through centre of France, _ib._; - either Celts or a prehistoric race built the dolmens, 329; - the Cave men, _ib._; - who these were, _ib._; - dolmens and Cave men perhaps conterminous, _ib._; - Cimbri, Celts, and Gauls, 333; - Cimbri and Aquitanians, relation of, _ib._; - their capital temp. Bellevesi, 327; - described by Livy, _ib._; - Averni, _ib._; - if dolmens in Galatia, important bearing upon Celtic theory, 446; - their invasions of other countries, 409. - Cemeteries of Ireland, 199; - Cruachan, or Rathcrogan, _ib._; - circular mounds there, _ib._; - monument of Dathi, _ib._; - Relig na Riogh, 200; - Red stone pillar, _ib._; - circle, _ib._; - cairns, _ib._; - burials, Queen Meave and Dathi, _ib._; - compared with Arbor Low and Salkeld, _ib._; - Knowth, _ib._; - New Grange, 201; - plundered by Danes, _ib._; - first mentioned by Mr. Lloyd, _ib._; - Sir T. Molyneux's statement, _ib._; - Governor Pownall's, 202; - engravings of by Bouie, 203; - if uncovered, resemblance to Salkeld and Stanton Drew, _ib._; - sculpture, 204; - reverses of stones elaborately carved, 205; - how such came to be covered, _ib._; - entrance, position of, _ib._; - ornaments, 206-7; - sculptured mark, 207; - whether characters, _ib._; - Dowth, or perhaps Dubhad, plundered by Danes, 208; - diggings, _ib._; - find there, 210; - Netterville House, 209; - tomb of the Dagdha, _ib._; - perhaps intact, _ib._; - find there, 209, 210; - ornaments at Dowth, 211-2; - written evidence respecting these three cemeteries, 212; - and persons buried, _ib._; - author's conjecture as to New Grange, 213; - Lough Crew, 213 _et seq._; - if cemetery of Talten, 219; - choice of plan of cemetery amongst Irish, 220; - 'Book of the Cemeteries' cited, 221; - stone in cairn T, Lough Crew, 222; - stones in sculptured graves, 223; - Clover Hill, _ib._; - Shahpoor, 485. - Cetti, stone of, 173. - Ceylon dagobah, 41; - Thupa Ramayana, and Lanka Ramayana, 489, 490. - Chaityas, _see_ Church Caves. - Champollion's discoveries, 1. - Chardin cited as to circles at Tabriz and Miana, 453. - Chariot wheels sculptured on dolmens, 304. - Charlemagne condemns stone worship, 25. - Charleton, Dr., 15; - Inigo Jones's theory attacked by, 3. - Chartham Downs, find at, 13. - Chartres Carnutes, 5. - Chester, _see_ Caerleon. - China, monuments of, not ancient, 1. - Chinese not progressive, 19. - Chisel, early use of, in Ireland, 217. - Chorœa Gigantum, _see_ Giants' Dance. - Chouchas in North Africa, 398-9; - position of bodies in, _ib._ - Christian era, rude-stone monuments subsequent to, 27; - according to Danes, iron introduced about commencement of, 9. - Christianity, according to Welsh and Irish writers, their Druids prior - to, 6; - date of introduction into Denmark, 10; - into India, 489; - in what respect influenced by Buddhism, 499 _et seq._ - Christians in India, _see_ Crosses. - Christy, Mr., his researches in Algeria, 395-6. - Church caves at first more important than Viharas, 501. - Cimboeth marks date in Irish history, 189; - founds Armagh, _ib._ - Cimbri, their cognate races, 333. - Cimbrian Chersonese visited by Pytheas, 38. - Circassia, dolmens in, of shaped stone, 447; - importance of, to migration or missionary theory, 447-8. - Circles, 154; - Englewood Wood, or Rosehill tumulus, _ib._; - platform, _ib._; - bilithons, 155; - find, _ib._; - Aspatria, 156; - barrow, _ib._; - find, 156-7; - circle of cists in Isle of Man, _ib._; - Mule Hill, _ib._; - view and plan of, 158; - openings to circle, 159; - Burn Moor, Cumberland, _ib._; - find there, _ib._; - square enclosure there, 160; - plan, 160; - Boscawen not Temples nor "Things," _ib._; - plan of, 161; - at Moytura, 183; - triple, _ib._; - sculptured, enclosing crosses, 304, 315; - mysterious concentric circles, with lines traversing them, 304; - the use of circles and Viking graves continuous in Ireland and - England, 317; - singular arrangement at Aschenrade and in Algeria, 317-8; - circles with stone in centre at Bajard, 318; - circular groups in India, 467 (_see_ Bazina, Choucha); - Alexandropol circles, 450; - Nikolajew concentric circles, base of tumulus, 451; - Western circles not imitation of Tartar, 452; - Peshawur, 453; - Deh Ayeh, near Darabgerd, _ib._; - circles attributed to Caons or Giants, _ib._; - enclosed circles in America, 511-3; - at Caithness (_see_ Scotland); - Amravati, 474. - Circles, great English, peculiar, 153; - and belong probably to Arthurian age, _ib._; - post-Roman, 154; - of what race, _ib._; - in Wales and Anglesea no circles, 163; - Giant's grave, Drumbo, 228; - circle there object of, 224; - in Scotland, 240; - district of circles _par excellence_ not on mainland, _ib._; - Orkneys, 241; - King of Brogar and Stennis, 241-2; - part of entire group, 254; - date, 256; - Callernish, 259; - circle-building race, 274; - opposite currents of migration, _ib._; - Braavalla Heath, 280; - in France, 340; - circle the skeleton of tumulus, 340; - circle at Sesto Calende, 391; - semicircle, _ib._; - circles, 397-9; - triple and quadruple, 399; - enclosed in squares, 402; - at Djideli, 404; - Bona, 405; - Malta, 416; - Sinai, 443-4; - Arabia, 444. - Circles surrounding tumuli or dolmens, circles without tumuli or - dolmens, 29, 47, 50; - at Addington, 118-9; - at Rollright, 124; - Dartmoor, _ib._; - at Penrith, 126; - concentric, 127 _note_; - at Marden, 65, 85; - at Shap, 130; - Merivale Bridge, _ib._; - at Arbor Low, 139; - Stanton Drew, 150. - Circular temple mentioned by Diodorus among Hyperboreans, 8. - Cissa, King, his tomb where, 283. - Cists, _see_ Kistvaens. - Civil and sacred structures, where indistinguishable, 515. - Clark, Mr. George, his paper on Ancient English Castles, 84. - Clatford Bottom, 44; - Sarsen stones at, 63; - circles at, 161. - Claudian, verses of, as to disasters of Saxons, Picts, and Scots, in - the North, 188. - Claudius Gothicus, coins of, 12, 36, 52; - Claudius, 461. - Clava, 265; - circles and mounds, _ib._; - perhaps burial-place of King Brude, 267. - Clemens of Alexandria, his surprise at relic-worship, 504; - as to Buddhism, 505. - Clergy and laity, separation of, in the East, 502. - Closmadeuc, Dr., antiquary, 337. - Clover Hill, 223. - Cnodhba, cave of, identified with Knowth, 201. - Cock sacrificed to Betal, 467. - Cocumella, tomb at, 33. - Cœlus, God, Stonehenge ascribed to, 3. - Cœre, tomb at, 33-4. - Cogolleros, dolmen del Tio, 385. - Coibi, his conversion, 23. - Coilsfield, rubbing on stone at, 211; - stone, 267. - Coins, Roman, of what Emperors generally found, 144; - in Ireland, 166; - inference from, _see_ Finds. - Cojou, Gré de, alignment at, 367. - Cole, _see_ Bhil. - Cole, Lieutenant, his report as to Kutub pillar, 181. - Collas barrow mentioned in Charter of Athelstan, 73. - Collinson, Colonel, finds columnar buildings in Malta, 425. - Columba, St., 59. - Columbus, America peopled by Europeans prior to, 516. - Columns, _see_ Alignment. - Come Lowe, find at, 13. - Commerce of early Britons, with what races, 133-4. - Conaing, 201. - Conan, _see_ Meriadec. - Concentric circles, _see_ Circles. - Conchobhar McNessa, 197; - husband of Queen Meave, 197, 221; - his conversion, 221; - where buried, _ib._ - Confolens, dolmen at, 337. - Cong, at Moytura, 177; - place of battle, 198. - Conical form, Roman and Post-Roman, 84. - Conjeveran, city of Kurumbers, 478. - Conn of a Hundred Battles, 193-7, 212, 236. - _See_ Cormac MacArt. - Conor MacNessa, 193. - Constantine, Saxons defeated by, 109; - his supposed interment at Stonehenge, and when, 109; - coins, 11, 12, 13. - Constantine Junior, coins of, 12. - Constantinople, coins of, 11. - Constans, coins of, 11. - Constantius, coins of, 11. - Conwell, Mr., exploration of Lough Crew, 199, 213, 222. - Copenhagen, congress at, 10; - museum, 16, 325. - Cormack, son of Conn, 190; - where buried, 212. - Cormack MacArt, 193; - convert to Christianity, 196; - orders tracts to be written, _ib._; - could he write? _ib._ - Cornelius, tradition as to, 373. - Cornwall, circles, 162; - circle-building race in, 274. - Corpre, Etan's son, 191. - Costa, S. Pereira da, his account of Portuguese dolmens, 377. - Cotty or Coity House, _see_ Aylesford. - Councils of Arles, Nantes, Rouen, Toledo, Tours, 24; - their decrees as to stoneworship, 23-4. - Countless Stones, _see_ Aylesford. - Court held at standing stones of Rayne by Bishop of Aberdeen, 264. - Cove, Long stone, 4. - Cremation amongst Saxons, 120. - Crew, Lough, 199. - Crichie, find at, 75. - Crimthann, when he lived, 190, 221; - where buried, 192; - seat of his dynasty, 194. - Croker, Mr., his survey of Stanton Drew, 150. - Crom, meaning of word, 44 _note_. - Cromlech, near Merivale, 55; - among M[a]la Aryans, 479. - _See_ Dolmen. - Cross Flats, 11. - Crosses, 270, 272; - Irish, how distinguished from Scottish, 270; - Isle of Man, with Runic inscriptions, 273; - crosses in circles, 304; - "Swastica"-like cross, 367; - in India, and their date, 486 _et seq._ - Crozon, alignment at, 367; - what battle there, 375. - Cruachan, ancient burial-place of Kings of Tara, find, 190-9. - Crubelz, 359. - Crusades, rude-stone monuments in time of, 406. - Cuchullin, 193-7. - Cumberland, no mention of Druids in, 5; - rude monuments, 127, 128; - circles in, probably of same age, 147; - circle-building race in, 274. - Cumbhail (Fingal), 197. - Cumot, or Commensurate grave of Cairbre Lifeachaire, 213. - Cumrew, Salkeld and Mayborough, circles at, similar, 147. - Cuneus, Cape, unvisited by Portuguese writers, 378. - Cunningham, Lord Albert, finds by, at Dowth, 210. - Cunnington, Mr., his opinion as to Marden, 86; - excavation by, at Stonehenge, 105-6; - finds in long barrows, 289. - Curtius cited as to Nasomenes, 407. - Cuthbert, 22. - Cuttack, sacred groves at, 465. - Cyvragnon, pile of, mentioned in Welsh Triads, what, 173. - - - DABILLA, the hound, interment of, 212. - Daghda, the general, 187; - and king, _ib._; - where buried, 191; - when, 190; - real name Eochy, 192; - cairn of, _ib._; - residence, 195; - his spit, _ib._; - family, 197, 212; - his tomb where, according to author, 213; - written evidence as to, 212. - Dagoba, Buddhist, 41, 79, 490 _et seq._; - relic, cists, Tee, rail, 490-1; - compared to dolmen at Pullicondah, 491. - Dananns, Tuatha de, 177 _et seq._; - arrival in Ireland, 193; - when, _ib._; - burial of, 212. - _See_ Ireland, Moytura. - Danes, cemeteries plundered by, 209. - Danish antiquaries, their opinion as to epoch of introduction of - bronze and iron into Denmark, 9, 37; - their system respecting, 9, 10, 28; - too hastily adopted in France and England, 10, 388; - their mistaken proceedings, 10-14, 16, 146, 257, 275; - International Congress of Prehistoric Archæology, 276; - merits of Sjöborg, 276. - Danish isles, dolmens in, 301. - Danish settlers in Greenland, 18; - in Britain and Scotland before Roman invasion, 133-4; - commerce, &c., 133. - Daoulas, menhir and cross at, 59. - Darabgerd, circle near, 453. - Dariorigum, standing stones of, 20. - Dartmoor parallel stones at Merivale Bridge, 54; - circles and cromlechs, 55; - avenues at Cas Tor, 56; - circles compared with those at Rollright, 124. - Dasyus the despised, 493. - Date, priority of, in dolmens external or covered, 144. - Dates, found and corrected by architects, 113; - comparative antiquity of certain classes of monuments, 261; - rude-stone sometimes more modern, 407. - Dathi, monument of, 199. - Daviot circle, 263. - Dead, images of, 449. - Deane, Rev. Bathurst, adopts Stukeley's views, 6, 151; - visits Carnac, 351. - Decrees of Councils respecting veneration of stone monuments, 24, 25. - Dedalean buildings in Sardinia, why so called, 429. - Deer Park, Sligo, monument in, 234-5. - Defence, _see_ Mounds. - Deh Ayeh, circle at, 453. - Delhi, iron pillar near, 35; - mosque of Kutb u deem, 457. - Demi-dolmens, 345. - Demons, _see_ St. Patrick. - Denmark, megalithic remains in, 9; - museums, _ib._; - bronze and iron, date of their introduction into, _ib._; - tombs of kings described by Olaus Magnus, 15; - ignorance of Romans respecting, 38; - tumuli in, 39; - circles in, 47; - Bauta or battle-stones, 60. - Dennis' 'Etruria' cited, 391. - Derbyshire dolmens, date of, 36; - rude-stone monuments in, 138. - Derbyshire Rude-Stone Monuments, 138; - Arbor Low, 139; - description of, 139; - similarity to Arthur's Round Table, 139; - plan of, 140; - circle, 140; - dolmen, _ib._; - tumulus, _ib._; - excavations and find there, 140-1; - Gib Hill tumulus, 141; - excavation and find, 141-2; - Minning Low, 142; - plans of, 142-3; - find there, 143; - similarity to New Grange, _ib._; - and Kit's Cotty House, 144; - first Roman, _ib._; - Benty Grange barrow, _ib._; - find there, 144-5; - Kentlow barrow, 45-6; - Stanton Moor, 146; - monuments of earth and stone, _ib._; - Nine Ladies, _ib._; - King Stone, _ib._; - other groups near Arbor Low, _ib._; - cat stones, _ib._; - Derbyshire monuments not temples nor tombs of inhabitants, 147; - monuments of what race? _ib._; - similar in purpose and age to those in Cumberland, _ib._; - find in former, 148; - Stanton Drew, _ib._ - Devil's Quoits, 64. - Devonshire, circles in, 161. - Diarmid and Graine, _see_ Beds. - Dinnsenchus, 233. - Diodorus, cited as to circular temple, 8; - text explained, _ib._; - as to barbarism of Irish, 235; - Phœnicians in Malta in his time, 425; - Dedalean buildings, 429. - Divitiacus, 323. - Djideli, tombs near, 404; - whose, _ib._; - find there, _ib._ - Dodwell, tombs of Atridæ discovered by, 33; - that of Minyas explored, _ib._ - Dolicocephalic race, 35. - Dolmens, 29; - free-standing, 29; - on outside of tumuli, 29; - progress of tomb-building, 40-43; - kistvaens, 43; - chambers, _ib._; - with gallery, _ib._; - dolmens covered, 44; - uncovered, _ib._; - opinion that all once covered with tumuli refuted, _ib._; - dolmen at Wellan, 45; - de Bousquet, 46; - excavation suggested of dolmen-crowned tumuli, _ib._; - at Kit's Cotty House, 116; - at Rollright, 124; - in Cumberland (_see_ Penrith); - at Arbor Low, 140; - France native country of, 161; - few in England, _ib._; - and most of English in Cornwall, 162; - in Wales more numerous, _ib._; - and Anglesea, _ib._; - and Isle of Man, _ib._; - by whom erected, _ib._; - where, 163; - all not originally buried, 163, 169; - some always intended to be covered, 164, 168; - dolmen in Park Cwn tumulus, 164; - find there, 165; - Uley, _ib._; - find there, _ib._; - judicious conclusions of Dr. Thurnam from, _ib._; - Plas Newydd, 166-9; - stone avenue leading to, 167; - holes in slab, 168; - Pentre Ifan, _ib._; - Arthur's Quoit, 170; - whether originally in tumulus, 171-2; - alleged avenue, 172; - group of cairns there, 171; - purpose, 172; - not a cemetery, _ib._; - but battle-field? _ib._; - Arthur's 8th battle there? 173; - the stone of "Cetti," _ib._; - Hob Hurst's House, 172-3; - dates of dolmens, 173; - at Moytura, 183; - in Ireland, how situated, 224; - not on battle-fields, _ib._; - perhaps most on east coast, _ib._; - beds of Diarmid, 225; - elopement of, with Graine, _ib._; - legend as to dolmens, _ib._; - legitimate inference from legend, _ib._; - Glen Columbkill and Glen Malin More, _ib._; - cairns there, 226; - age of, _ib._; - tradition as to St. Columba, 227; - of what race the group, 227-8; - Spaniards or Iberians in Ireland, 228; - giant's grave, 228; - circle there, 229; - object of, _ib._; - Town of the Stone of the Strangers, _ib._; - dolmen at Knockeen, _ib._; - Knockeen, plans of, 230; - Calliagh Vera or Birra, _ib._; - Greenmount tumulus, 231; - the "four Maols," Ballina, 232; - dolmens in Ireland do not mark battle-fields, 228; - dolmens in Scotland, 240; - many dolmens erected by kings, &c., as their burial-places, and - covered after their interment, 260 _et seq._; - comparative antiquity of Callernish and New Grange, 261; - dolmens in North Germany, 300; - silence of German archæology, _ib._; - no dolmens in Poland, 301; - Prussia, _ib._: - Silesia, _ib._; - Prussian Silesia, Pomerania, Rügen, _ib._; - Mecklenburg, Hanover, Oldenburg, _ib._; - Wildesheim and Engelmanns Becke, _ib._; - Helmstädt, _ib._; - Holland, _ib._; - Saxony, Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, _ib._; - Holstein Schleswig, Jutland, Danish isles, _ib._; - Sweden, _ib._; - none in Norway, 302; - Herrestrup, 303; - dolmen with representations of ships, and circles with crosses, - 304; - analogous to dolmen at Aspatria, _ib._; - Halskov, 305; - Oroust, 306; - dolmens in the different countries have distinguishing features, - _ib._; - oblong enclosures, 307; - diagram from Sjöborg, _ib._; - Roeskilde and Birck dolmens with oblong enclosures, _ib._; - Lüneburg, 308; - Hanover, _ib._; - Valdbygaards, near Soröe, double dolmen, 308-9; - triple dolmens, Höbisch, 309; - sentinel stones, 310; - buried dolmens, _ib._; - Uby, 311; - Smidstrup, _ib._; - Axevalla, and find there, 312-3; - dolmens, elliptical and oblong, 313; - age of, _ib._; - find, 314; - inscription at Axevalla, _ib._; - head-stone with drawings on it, of Kivik Grave, _ib._; - its resemblance to one at Locmariaker, _ib._; - dolmen at Exlo, 320; - peculiarity of Drenthe dolmens, _ib._; - Ballo, 321; - distribution of dolmens map, 324; - pre-dolmen immigration of Belgæ into Britain, 323; - Luxemburg, _ib._; - Belgians and pure Celts not dolmen builders, 326; - sequences of dolmens, 335; - Sauclières, _ib._; - St. Germain-sur-Vienne or Confolens, 336; - date of, _ib._; - demi-dolmens, 345; - others in Ireland and Wales, _ib._; - Poitiers and Kerland, 346; - rocking stones, Pierre Martine, 347; - whether accidental, 347-9; - Pierre branlante de Huelgoat, 348; - double dolmen at Plouharnel, and find, 358; - dolmens, &c., if built with small stones, more modern, 359; - Mané Lud, dolmen with sculptured stones, similar to Irish, 360-3; - Dol ar Marchant, sculpture decorations, 361-2; - Bertrand's list of dolmens in France, 376; - termination of names in ac, _ib._; - dolmens in Spain, Portugal, 377 _et seq._; - dolmen race, migration of, 378-9; - Spain, Antequera, 383; - its stone town once wholly buried, circle, 384; - contrasted with Stonehenge, _ib._; - Tio Cogolleros, 385; - Sepultura Grande, 386; - compared to what, _ib._; - dolmen near Dilar, _ib._; - Eguilar, Cangas de Onis, 387; - dolmen of San Miguel, Arrichinaga, 388; - Portugal, Arroyolos, 389; - Cangas de Onis, Arrichinaga, 390; - why not so numerous in Italy, 392; - influence of conquest and withdrawal of Romans upon, 394; - distribution in Algeria, 396; - principal dolmen region, _ib._; - Tiaret, enormous dolmen there, 397; - Tripoli, _ib._; - Morocco, _ib._; - but not near populous centres, _ib._; - inference thence as to nomadic origin, 397; - dolmen on steps, 398; - on a circled tumulus, 400; - with two circles of stones, 401; - resemblance to Kit's Cotty House, _ib._; - dolmens on road from Bona to Constantine, 402; - no dolmens in Phœnicia nor in their colonies, 409; - Nurhags and giants' towers earlier than dolmens, 437; - in Palestine, 441; - in Gilead, whether of the giant tribe, 443; - long interval from the first Indian dolmen at Peshawur, _ib._; - query as to dolmens in Asia Minor, 445; - holed dolmen in Circassia, 447; - migration theory of dolmens, 448; - missionary theory, _ib._; - important bearing of searches in the Steppes upon theories, 448; - Tartar tumuli not models of Western dolmens, 452; - space unexplored for dolmens in East, 454; - Rajunkoloor, 468, 470; - dolmens with holes, find, 468; - double circles round dolmens at Yemmee Gooda, 470; - arrangement of dolmens at Rajunkoloor, 470; - Nilgiri hills: Courg double dolmens with circular openings, 473; - tomb, _ib._; - sepulchral circles at Amravati, 474; - rail there, 475; - geographical distribution, 475 _et seq._; - of what race, 476 _et seq._; - age of, 479 _et seq._; - finds in Indian dolmens, 480; - Nilgiri sculptured dolmen, 483; - singular position of one at Iwallee, 484; - stone monuments at Shahpoor, 485; - Katapur, 487; - find, _ib._; - dolmen with cross in Nirmul jungle, 489; - illustration of Romish policy, _ib._; - dolmen at Pullicondah compared with Cingalese Dagoba, 491; - Eastern and European dolmen compared, 494 _et seq._; - whether connexion between them to be inferred from similarity, 495; - or from literature, or from rock-engraved edict of Asoka, 496. - _See_ Glen Columbkille; - dolmen near Bona, Algeria, 532. - Dordogne, monuments in, insufficient knowledge of, 335. - Doric supersedes Pelasgic style, 393; - earliest Doric temple, interval between and last Pelasgic tomb, 393. - Dowe Lowe, "find" in, 13. - Down, English tumuli on, 48. - Dowth Hill, 192, 200; - the Dagdha's Rath at, 195; - his son born there, _ib._ - Dracontia, 515. _See_ Serpent, Stukeley. - Dragon in Maes-Howe, 245. - Drenthe, dolmens in, 301, 320; - Hunebeds at, their extent, 319; - compared by Keysler to Stonehenge, 319; - described by Dr. Janssen, 319; - Hunebeds, grottes des fées, 341. - Dresden, dolmens destroyed near, 301. - Drew, Stanton, circles at, 7, 161. - Drosten, name inscribed on stone, 273. - Druids, human sacrifices by, at Stonehenge, no longer believed, 1; - Dr. Stukeley's fancy respecting their temples, 3; - Cæsar's account of them, 4, 5; - serpent worship supposed, 4; - by Stukeley and Sir R. C. Hoare, 5; - Druids in Mona met by Suetonius, _ib._; - none ever seen in regions of principal rude monuments, 6; - nor in Algeria nor India, _ib._; - in Wales, according to Welsh writers, before Christianity - introduced, _ib._; - controversy in France respecting so-called Druidical monuments, - _ib._; - difficulty of connecting them with Druids, _ib._; - Stukeley's idea adopted by Deane, _ib._; - Stonehenge pretended to be their observatory, 7; - remarks of author, 7, 20, 61; - gods worshipped by Druids, according to Cæsar, 66; - Druidical institutions in India, 465; - Druids and serpents, freedom of Sjöborg from errors as to, 274. - Dryden, Sir Henry, explores Carnac, 350; - near Emmen, 320; - and Caithness, 530; - letter from, to author, _ib._; - cited, 362; - his drawings of Gavr Innis, 365; - describes Gré de Cojou, 368. - Duald Mac Firbis, antiquary, 199. - Dubois, cited, 449. - Duglas or Dubglas River, Arthur's battle on, 136; - meaning of word, _ib._ - Dunadeer Circle, 263. - Du Noyer, M., cited, 345; - drawings, 225. - Dutthagamini, _see_ Ellala. - - - EADWARD, contemporary of Rollo, 126. - East, _see_ Palestine. - Easter Island, images in, 53. - Eguilar dolmen, 387. - Egypt, iron when introduced into, 37. - Egyptians, tomb building race, 31; - pyramids contained true and false tombs, 46; - their feelings as to monasticism, 500; - royal monasteries and residences indistinguishable, 514. - Eithlenn, daughter of Balor, 187. - Ellala, his defeat by King Dutthagamani commemorated by Dagoba, 80. - Elliot, Sir Walter, cited on Indian interments, 479. - Elliptical dolmens, _see_ Dolmens. - Ellis, Mr., his opinion that Stonehenge was an Observatory, 7. - Ellora and Elephanta, dates of, 494. - Elopement of Diarmid with Graine, 225. - Emmen, 320. _See_ Hunebed. - Emmrys, work of, in Welsh Triads, what, 173. - Enclosures, dolmens with, 307 _et seq._, 354; - in America, for defence, 511; - sacred and miscellaneous, 311. - End Low mound, 139. _See_ Derbyshire. - England, circle-building race in, 274; - dolmen-building race, _ib._; - old race in, improved by Celts and Romans, 461. - Engelmanns-Becke, dolmen near, 301. - English idolatry, letter of Gregory the Great concerning, 21. - Eochy, King, tradition as to his bath, 179; - his death, _ib._ - Eochy the Daghda, 192 _note_. - Erdeven, 350. - Eric Blodoxe, 250; - sons of, 291. - Eric the Holy, 291. - Eskil, 279. - Esquimaux, Cave men similar to, in what respects, 17. - Es Salt, dolmens near, 441. - Essenes, their connexion with Buddhism, 500. - Estremadura, dolmens in, 378. - Etan, poetess, 197; - where buried, 212. - Ethelbert, cedes temple at Canterbury to Augustine, 22. - Ethnography, _see_ Races. - Etrurians, tomb-building race, 31, 393; - dead reverencing, 393; - tomb of Commella, 33; - of Regulini Galeassi, 34; - contents of, 34; - belong to age of bronze, 34; - imitated at Rome, 40. - Europe, Northern, limited knowledge of, before Roman epoch, 38. - Eusufzaie circles, 453. - - - FA HIAN, his visit to Sanchi, 492. - Faidherbe, General, his remarks on tombs in Roknia, 396. - Family sepulchres marked by megalithic monuments, 15. - Faussett, Mr. Godfrey, his happy reference to Beowulf, 120. - Féraud, M., his researches in Algeria, 395; - his opinion as to building-race, 403; - respecting find at Djideli, 404. - Ferguson, Mr., drawings by, of sepulchres at Dol ar Marchant, 362. - Fiddes Hill circle, 263-5. - Fin, his conflict with Hengist, 120. - Finds: altar stone, 104; - armour, 79, 104; - amber beads, 218; - amulet of - iron, 14; - arrow-head, flint, 11, 12; - ditto, iron, 104-6, 337; - awl, 13; - axe-stone, 165; - ball syenite, 217; - batter dishes, 104; - battle-axe, 156; - basaltic celt, 11; - and hammer head, 12; - beads of glass, 13, 218, 359; - and of amber, 218; - bird of bone, 527; - bluestone, chippings of, 103; - bones, 74, 526; - burnt, 13, 142, 159, 210, 526; - charred, 217; - calcined, 11; - human bones, 155, 179, 182, 199, 216, 219, 446; - bones of animals, 143-5, 182, 216; - bones of mammalia, 210; - of horse, 404, 446; - dogs, 527; - rats, 13; - stags, 104; - oxen, _ib._; - of men, _ib._; - bones incinerated, 264; - bone bodkin, 210; - comb, 527; - box of bronze, 13; - brass, 165; - brass or copper pin, 12; - spear-head, 103; - bracelet, gold, 447, 527; - bridle bit, 12, 80, 81, 148, 157, 404; - bronze, 11, 13, 120, 141, 145, 184, 216, 318, 339, 358, 526; - buckle, 43; - and heads, 297; - of gold, 156; - burial urn, 527; - cap ornamented with gold, 446; - carvings, rude, 366; - celt, basaltic, 11; - stone, 11, 142; - of bronze, 127; - of jade, 358; - chamber, rude, 159; - charcoal, 103, 265, 469, 526; - chief, and wife and children, remains of, 446; - chippings of stones, 103; - circular instrument, 13; - circumcision, instruments of, 440; - cists, 12, 140-1, 155-6; - coal, Kimmeridge, 13; - coins (_see_ Roman Coins); - coins, German, 318; - Anglo-Saxon, _ib._; - Byzantine, _ib._; - Arabic or Kufic, _ib._; - coins, Roman, 74; - brass coins, 11; - Claudius, Gothicus, 12, 33, 143; - Constantine, 11, 12, 143, 165; - family of, 11; - Constans, 11; - Constantine II., 11, 339; - Constantinopolis, 11; - Constantine Junior, 12, 143; - Gratian, 11; - Hadrian, 84; - from Tiberius to Trojan, 339; - Theodosius, 209; - Urbs Roma, 11; - Valens, 11; - Valentinian, 11, 12, 36, 143, 144, 209; - combs, engravings on, 218; - compass, leg of, 218; - comb, 527; - copper, 120; - cromlechs, 143; - cylinder partially pierced, 359; - dagger, bronze, 145; - brass or bronze, 12, 13, 14; - dart or javelin point, 142; - dog's bones, 527; - drinking cup (fragments), 12, 145, 297; - earthenware, 525; - electrum plate, part of quiver ornamented with figures of animals - and Greek inscription, 446-7; - enamels, 145; - engraved dagger and Wurm knot, 245; - fibula, 11, 13, 142, 210, 297; - fibula, gold, 156; - flat basin, large, 217; - flint, 11, 12, 14, 146, 165, 182, 218; - fragments of, 286; - flakes, and instruments of, 447; - flowers, silver, 156, 339; - Faustina, medal of, 405; - garnets, 11; - giant, remains of, 130, 156; - glass, 13, 339; - glass beads, _ib._; - glass, molten drop of, 218; - gold-enamelled necklace and bracelets, 440; - gold cross, 11; - necklace, 12; - brooch, 212; - ornaments, 13, 358, 451; - goblet, silver, 297; - gold, traces of, 155; - hair, human, chestnut-coloured, 526; - hammer-head, 12; - handle of knife, 13; - helmets ornamented with bronze and silver, 114; - hone of sandstone, 12; - horns, 74; - stags', 13, 105; - of other animals, 105, 150; - horse, 446; - bones and teeth of, 404; - teeth, 12; - bones, 183, 527; - human remains, 165, 209, 217, 356, 444; - ashes and bones, 469; - hair, 526; - human interments, 185, 359; - original or secondary, 209, 284; - inscriptions, 246, 314; - implements of flint and bone, 145, 184, 185, 217, 218, 359; - of iron, 218; - of modern form, 318; - of flint, 286; - inscriptions, 246, 314; - instruments, 13; - ironstone, 12; - ivory tweezers, 103; - jade, axes in, 358; - jet bracelet, 210; - ornaments, 217; - knife, 11, 146; - knife with iron sheath, 12; - iron, 212; - knife-shaped articles, 218; - lacrymatory, Roman, 165; - medal, 404; - metal, lump, 155; - nails, 527; - ornaments, Anglo-Saxon, 11; - rude, 185; - more refined, 211; - of goblet, 297; - dragons, tortoise, fantastic heads of animals, 297; - in gold and bronze, 358, 526; - and copper, 527; - oyster shells, 74; - pebbles, 218; - pin, iron, 13; - bronze ditto, 141, 216; - copper, 210; - pine poles partly burnt, 526; - point, flint, of dart or javelin, 142; - pottery, fine, broken, 357; - pottery, rude, 12, 217, 218, 285, 339; - Roman, 105, 106; - black, 285; - fine, 404; - red and black, rude British, 105, 285; - Roman British, or Mediæval, 165; - precious stones, traces of, 142; - punch, iron, 218; - rat's bones, 13; - ring, gold, 210; - iron, _ib._; - bronze, 218, 487; - Runes, 244; - representations of stag and camels, 218; - shield, fragments of, 156; - silver-flower sword-ornaments, 156; - slate, 525; - spear-heads, flint or stone, 182; - skulls, human, 155, 525; - snaffle bridle, 156; - sword, iron, 148, 156, 184, 446; - syenite, 217; - sea shells, 218; - silver, 13, 243; - skeletons, human, 11, 14, 17, 76, 145, 148, 165, 209, 289, 313; - sling-stones, 210; - spear-head, 11, 12; - of brass, 103; - sculptured slab, 365; - stained fragments, 218; - stag's bones, 216; - statuettes, 339; - stone, 11, 165; - polished stones, 218; - stone button, 210; - stone shot, _ib._; - studs of coal, 13; - tiles, Romano-Gallic, 338; - others, 359; - teeth of animals, 12; - human, 155, 216; - of horse, 404; - tweezers, ivory, 103; - terra cotta, 339; - torques, gold, 210; - silver, 243; - urns, 11-13, 143, 179, 264; - with ashes, 184, 210; - of stone, 210; - for burial, 527; - vases, 140-1, 357; - whetstone, 13; - wood, coals, 74; - wood, burnt, 182; - wood, dark, 526. - Finds in Denmark, 10; - Derbyshire, 11; - Winster Moor, _ib._; - Pegges Barrow, _ib._; - Long Rood, _ib._; - Haddon Field Barrow, _ib._; - Gib Hill, _ib._; - Cross Flats, _ib._; - Galley Lowe, 12; - Minning Lowe, _ib._; - Borther Lowe, _ib._; - Rolley Lowe, _ib._; - Ashford Moor, _ib._; - Carder Lowe, _ib._; - New Inns, _ib._; - Net Lowe, 13; - Castern, _ib._; - Chartham Downs, _ib._; - Stand Lowe, _ib._; - Wetton and Ilam, _ib._; - Middleton Moor. _ib._; - Come Lowe, _ib._; - Dowe Lowe. _ib._; - valley of Somme, 16; - Abbeville, _ib._; - Gray's Inn Lane, _ib._; - Nineveh, 34; - at Avebury, 74; - at Crichie, 75; - at Hakpen, 76; - contents of, 250; - tumuli, analysis of contents of, 11; - finds at Stonehenge, 103-5; - at West Kennet, 285 _et seq._; - inferences from, 288; - inference from nature of, 106; - from coins, 338; - from absence of British, Gallic, and Christian coins, 340; - from Roman pottery, 360; - few inferences of age possible from finds in India, and why, 480; - no iron or bronze, but copper, in North America, 517; - and tools only of copper, 517. - Finn, suitor of Graine, 225. - Firbolgs, or Belgæ, in Ireland, 176; - when, 193; - defeat at Moytura, 179; - how long in Ireland, 193; - whence they came thither, 193. - Fire, worship of, forbidden by Councils, 25. - Flann, son of Conaing, 201. - Flint remains found at Abbeville, 16 _note_; - inference from, 166; - symbolic of what, 447. - _See_ Finds. - Flower, Mr., account of African monuments, 396; - and their builders, 403. - Ford, Mr., his 'Handbook of Spain.' - Fordun, _see_ Boece. - Fomorians, from Africa settled in Ireland, 176; - dispossessed by Belgæ, 176; - of same race as Dananns, 187. - Forres, Sweno's stone at, 59. - Fountains, worship of, 24-5. - Fouquet, M., _see_ Galles, M. - Four-cornered grave, 449. - "Four Masters" cited, 213, 225, 382. - France, climate of, at epoch of "Cave men," 17; - finds in, 16; - menhirs, 59; - a single sculptured stone there, 59 _note_; - French study of rude-stone monuments, recent, but scientific, 325; - 'Dictionnaire des Antiquités Celtiques,' _ib._; - Bertrand, M., his map of France, 326; - general distribution of French monuments, _ib._; - no dolmens in East of France, 327; - date of Celtic first invasion of Gaul, 327, 334; - two early contemporary races in, 328; - the 'ac' termination, 329; - church architecture in dolmen region of the South of France, 331; - form of dolmen distinguishes dolmens in Brittany from those in South - of France, 335; - Confolens, 337; - plan of, _ib._; - error of French antiquaries, _ib._; - find, 337-9; - dolmens, 340; - size, number, and beauty of, _ib._; - few and imperfect circles, _ib._; - "Allée couverte" or "Grotte des Fées," _ib._; - examples of, elsewhere than in France, _ib._; - their distribution here, 340; - Saumur, Essé, Locmariaker, Bagneux, Mettray, 341; - form of French dolmens, 342; - Krukenho, _ib._; - comparative age of, 343; - demi-dolmens, rocking stones, &c., 345 _et seq._; - Carnac, cemetery and battle-field, 349; - alignments, Carnac and Erdeven, St. Barbe, 350; - Maenec and Kermario, 351; - map, 352-3; - stone rows, 354; - differ how, from Stonehenge and Stennis, 355; - head of column of St. Barbe, Mont St. Michel, _ib._; - find, 356; - Kerlescant, find, 357; - Plouharnel, double dolmen and find, 358; - long barrow, Moustoir-Carnac, _ib._; - find, 359; - Locmariaker, cemetery, dolmen, 360; - sculptured stones at Mané Lud, 361; - dolmen, Dol ar Marchant, _ib._; - end stone and roof, sculptured, 362; - fallen obelisk, 363; - compared to dolmen at Krukenho, _ib._; - allée couverte, 364; - ornamented stones, _ib._; - Mané er H'roëk, and find, _ib._; - Gavr Innis, sculptured stones, 365; - resemble sculptures at Lough Crew, 366; - three-holed stone, tools used, _ib._; - Tumiac, tumulus and find, _ib._; - Crozon alignments, their origin and purpose obscure, 367; - Gré de Cojou, double alignment, circle, enclosures, dolmen, 367-8; - Preissac, _ib._; - date and object of monuments at Carnac, 370 _et seq._; - Carnac, Erdeven, and St. Barbe, are they parts of one whole? 372; - argument against their existence in Cæsar's time, 373; - not pre-Roman, _ib._; - early history not satisfactory, _ib._; - battle between Maximus and Gratian, _ib._; - Conan Meriadec, 374; - author's view as to origin of Carnac monuments, 374-5; - Grallon's war with Liberius and Northern pirates, 374; - Romans never settled in Brittany, 370; - effect there of Roman building-style, ib; - and of withdrawal of Romans, 394. - Franks, M., his photograph of Ballo dolmen, 321. - French antiquaries, errors of, 337. - Frere, Mr., his find at Abbeville, 16 _note_. - Freyrsö, battle at, 276. - Frey's Howe, opened, 527. - Friar's Heel stone at Stonehenge, 7. - Frode Frodegode, tomb of, 299. - Frode V., 278, 288. - - - GALATIA, importance of dolmens there, if any, to Celtic theory, 446. - Galles, M. René, explores Mont St. Michel,354; - with M. Fouquet explores Tumiac, find, 366. - Galley Low, find at, 12. - Gallicia, dolmens in, 378. - Ganora, _see_ Guinevere. - Gariock, Newton stone at, 57. - Garrywhin alignment, 529. - Gaul, Pliny's tale of snakes in, 4; - no stone temples in, mentioned by Cæsar or Tacitus, 20. - Gavr Innis, in Morbihan, 43, 364; - sculptures, holed stone, 365; - compared to Lough Crew, 366; - holes and trough below, _ib._; - object of it. - Geraldus Cambrensis, his statement as to removal of stones to - Stonehenge, 107; - how fable originated, 108. - Germans, worship of, in groves only, 20. - Germany, North (_see_ Scandinavia); dolmens in, 301. - Gervaise mentions cemetery at Canterbury, 22. - Ghazni, Saracenic arches at, 457. - Giant tribes in Palestine, builders of dolmens? 442; - circles, 453. - "Giant's dance," Geraldus and Ware cited as to, 107 _note_. - Giant's grave, 229; - circle there, _ib._ - Giants' towers, 415. - Giara, plan of, Nurhag of, 430. _See_ Mediterranean Islands. - Gib Hill, find at, 11, _see_ Derbyshire; - analogue of Silbury Hill, 147. - Gildas cited, 87; - as to interments at Stonehenge, 110. - Gilead, dolmens in, 442; - last safe place for dolmens before India, 443. - Gizeh, date of pyramid of, 31. - Glasfurd, Capt., find by, 487. - Glem, or Glein, river, Arthur's battle near, 135. - Glen Columbkille, 225. - Glen Columbkille and Glen Malin, survey of Mr. Norman Moore, 520; - cromlechs or dolmens, stone chambers, solitary stones, 320; - plan of one, 521; - groups of, 523-4; - find, 525; - resemblance of one to Calliagh Birra's tomb, 525. - Glen Malin More, 225. - Godmundingham, destruction of church at, 23. - Gond, _see_ Bhil. - Gongora y Martinez, Don, his work cited, 377. - Gordon, Principal, anecdotes of, respecting holed stones at Stennis, - 255. - Gorm, monument of, 27; - date of, 126, 296 _et seq._; - dragon on, 245. - Gothland perhaps mentioned by Diodorus, 8. - Göttenburg, drawings of ships on stones at, 303. - Göttingen, no dolmens in, 301. - Gower caves, 16. - Gozo, spirals and scrolls at, compared to those at Mycenæ, 424. - Graine, daughter of Cormac Mac Art, _see_ Beds. - Grallon, king of Briton, his wars, 374. - Grandmont, holed dolmen at, 343. - Grange, New, cairns at, 52. - Gratian, defeat of, in Brittany, 374. - Grave, four cornered, 449. - Greece, Aryan occupation of, 39; - early tombs in Greece, _ib._; - succession of architectural styles, 393. _See_ Bactrian. - Greeks of Bactria introduce usage of stone monuments in India, 48; - Greek kings mentioned by Asoka, 498. - Greenland, route of early peoplers of America, 516. - Greenmount, tumulus at, 231; - diggings at, _ib._; - date, 232. - Greenwell, Canon, his researches as to prehistoric tumuli, 289. - Gregory the Great, letter of, respecting English idols, 21. - Gröningen, dolmens in 301. - Grottes des Feés, _see_ Alées couvertes. - Groups of stones in England, 56. - Groves, sacred, 465. - Guest, Dr., accuracy of his dates, 86; - opinions as to place of Arthur's last battle, 87. - Guidebert circle, 531. - Guin, Arthur's 8th battle there, 137, 172. - Guinevere, where born and buried? 134. - Guzerat, ruins in, of Mahommedan city, 457. - - - HACAS PEN, _see_ Hakpen Hill. - Hadrian, mausoleum of, 40; - coins of, 84. - Hagiar Khem, plan of cone, 423; - pit-markings, 424; - altar, 425; - headless image, _ib._ - Hag's Hill, 213. _See_ Slieve na Calliage. - Haken, his victory, 291. - Hakpen Hill, circle and avenue, 4; - double circles, 64; - Dr. Stukeley's theory as to, 4; - dimensions, 65; - mentioned in Charter of Athelstane, 73; - dimensions of ovals, 75; - stones, 76; - find, 76; - date of interments, 77; - Camden's account, 78; - Saxon and Danish burials, _ib._; - Roman road at, 83. - Hale Farm, 117. - Halkor, 305; - dolmen, with drawing of ships, circles with crosses or - chariot-wheels, 304. - Hamlet, citation from, 286. - Hannibal in Spain, 380. - Hanover dolmen, 301; - with enclosure, 308. - Harald Blaatand, 296. - Harald Hildetand, his defeat, 280; - grave, 282. - Harold Harfagar, 248; - when took the Orkneys, 250. - Haugagerdium, 249. - Havard the Happy, 250. - Havard, Earl, where interred, 298. - Hauran, Roman tombs in the, 445. - Haxthausen, cited as to Steppes, 448-9. - Head-stone, _see_ Kivik. - Hecatæus cited, 8. - Height of mound an indication of its age, 142 _note_. - Helmstädt, once dolmens were near, 301. - Hengist and Horsa, 119; - Hengist's grandson, 57; - his treachery, 107. - Henry of Huntingdon cited as to triliths at Stonehenge, 94. - Heracleidæ, return of, what figured by, 39. - Heraldic symbolism, 273. - Heremon, Spanish race of, in Ireland, 381 _et seq._; - kings of this race in Ireland, where buried, 200. - Herodotus, his descriptions of tomb of Alyattes, 31; - his account of the Nasomenes, 407. - Herrestrup, dolmen at, 303; - ships, and circles with crosses engraved upon, 303. - Hesiod, his statement as to respective antiquity of brass or iron, 35. - Hiero's temple at mouth of Loire, 21. - Hildebrand, his account of diggings and find at Oden's Howe, 526. - Hildesheim, no dolmen at, 301. - Hindu Goni, 412. - Hindus as builders, 457; - did not employ the arch, 457; - not immutable, 458. - Historic, monuments not, 416. - Hjarnæ, tomb of, 299. - Hjortehammer, singular form of graves at, 316; - date of, according to Worsaae, 316; - Viking graves at, 528. - Hoare, Sir R. C., 5; - his work on Wiltshire, _ib._; - his authority, in what questionable, 10; - his account of Hakpen, 77; - etymology of Marlborough, 84; - surveyed Marden, 85; - his opinion of, 86; - plan of Stonehenge, 91; - cited as to Stonehenge, 101-5, 110; - Stanton Drew, 150; - find by long barrows, 289. - Hob Hurst's house, 172. - Höbisch, double dolmen at, 309. - Hock Norton, defeat of English at, 126. - Holback, 310. - Holes in dolmens, 161; - Plas Newydd monolith at Stennis, 255; - ceremony connected with, _ib._; - date of, 256; - certainly Scandinavian, 258; - in France, Trie, Grandmont, Bas Languedoc, 343-4; - umbrella form has analogues in India, &c., 343; - holes as entrances to chambers at Kerlescant and Rodmarton, 357; - others at Finistère, 358; - Gavr Innis, 365; - objects of holes there, trough below, 366; - in trilithon, 411; - in dolmen in Circassia, 447; - at Rajunkoloor, 469; - inference of connexion of race from, 495. - _See_ Tumulus. - Holland, dolmens in, 301. - _See_ Drenthe, Hunebeds. - Holland, Rev. Mr., cited as to Sinai, 443; - find by, 444. - Holstein, dolmens in, 301. - Holy Land, _see_ Palestine. - Horsa, his burial-place, 119-21; - battle between and Vortigern, 119. - Horses, sacrifices of, in the Steppes, 449-52. - Horstead, Horsa perhaps there buried, 121. - Houel's monuments in Malta, 416. - Howes, Danish and Saxon burials in, 104; - British ditto, to what date, _ib._; - Danish kings buried, 250; - to what date, argument from, 297. - Hoxay, 249-50. - Hubba the Dane, his era, 104. - Huc and Gabet cited as to monasticism in the East, 502. - Human remains, _see_ Finds. - Human sacrifices amongst Anglo-Saxons, 284-5; - and Khonds in India, 460; - in Cuttack, 465. - Humble, tomb of, 299. - Hunebeds, 318, _et seq._; - Emmen, 320-1; - Ballo, 321; - were they originally covered, 321; - Gröningen and Friesland, 322; - use and date, _ib._ - Hunestadt, dragon at, 245. - Hwitaby circles and Bacta stones, 290. - Hydahs in Alaska, 18; - compared to Cave men, _ib._; - accounts of, 18 _note_; - whether of race of mound builders, 517. - Hy Fiachrach cited, 233. - Hyperboreans, mentioned by Diodorus, 8; - circular temples amongst, _ib._; - falsely supposed to be inhabitants of Britain, _ib._ - - - IBERIANS, or Celtiberians, 227; - in Britain, 162; - in Donegal, 227; - dolmens, 228; - Irish dolmens, 238; - not very ready converts to Christianity, 228. - Idols, worship of, Councils forbidding, 24, 25. - Ilam, find at, 13. - Images, headless, 425; - of dead on tombs, 449. - India, temples of, 1; - no Druids in, 6; - observations on, 7; - when iron first known in, 35; - tombs in, 41; - holed stones, 343; - westernmost dolmen, 443; - rude-stone monuments, 455; - dates of Aryans crossing Indus, of Vedas and laws of Menou, 455; - no existing stone building prior to Asoka, _ib._; - progress of Indian architecture contrasted with that of other - countries, 457; - Hindu not immutable, 459; - but other races are so, 459-461; - Khassia Hills, 462; - rude monuments there similar to European examples, _ib._; - cremation amongst Khassias, 463; - funereal seats, _ib._; - origin of menhirs there, stone turbans, 464; - menhirs and tables, _ib._; - turban-stone, stone-table, trilithon, _ib._; - no circles and alignments, tumuli, nor sculptures, but coincidences - with Western nations, 465; - points of similarity and of dissimilarity to Druidical institutions, - _ib._; - date of monuments, _ib._; - Kamarupa, 466; - Sylhet, _ib._; - Western India, _ib._; - Belgaum altars or tables, 467; - small circles, central stones, worship of Betal, _ib._; - dolmen at Rajunkoloor, 468; - closed dolmen, 469; - find, 470; - cairns, _ib._; - Raichore Doab dolmens surrounded by double circles, 470; - arrangement of dolmens at Rajunkoloor, _ib._; - cairns at Jewurgi, find, 471; - purpose of each set of dolmens, 472; - their ages, _ib._; - double dolmen, Coorg, 473; - tomb, Nilgiri Hills, _ib._; - sepulchral circles at Amravati, 474; - circular rail, 475; - distribution of dolmens in India, _ib._; - Karumbers Buddhists, 477; - Dravidians or Tumulians, 478; - Karumbers and Singalese, connexion of, _ib._; - importance of the unexplored territory of Nizam, _ib._; - Travancore cromlechs, 479; - mode of interment, offerings to departed spirits, explanation of - miniature utensils, 479; - finds, 480; - age of monuments, iron how long known in India, iron pillar at Kutub, - Delhi, 481; - sculptured Indian dolmen, 483; - Iwallee, 484; - group at Shahpoor, 485; - cross and dolmen at Katapur, 486-7; - dolmen with cross at Nirmul Jungle, 488; - dagobas in Ceylon, 489, 490; - dolmen at Pullicondah, 491; - Sanchi, rail near, 492; - author's view as to dates of hewn and rude-stone buildings, ignorance - of natives, 493-4; - Eastern and Western dolmens, similarities between, how far proof of - connexion, 495; - tomb of Akbar at Agra, 496; - proof from literature inconclusive, 496; - from Asoka's rock-engraved edict, 498. - Indian Buddhists, rails of, 48; - art influences elsewhere, 414. - Indian origin of Essenes, 500. - Inhumation, different kinds and history of, 30. - Inigo Jones, his treatise on Stonehenge, 23. - Inquisition, 332. - Inscriptions in Maes-Howe, 246; - Newton Stone, perhaps earliest Scotch inscription, 271; - Kirkliston, 271; - Ogham inscription, 271. - Interments, place of, in case of circles, 132, 151; - at Shap, Hakpen, and Crichie, 131-2; - Saxon (_see_ Beowulf); - articles deposited by Saxons, 145-6; - theory of successive interments, 146; - secondary interments, 165-6; - fallacy as to, 288-9; - Sir John Lubbock's argument respecting summit interments, 166. - International Prehistoric Congress at Paris, 337. - Iolaus with Thespiadæ colonizers of Sardinia, 429. - Iorsala Farer or pilgrims, 244. - Iran and Turan or Aniran, of what these words the equivalents, 506. - Irby and Mangles, Captains, observe dolmens in Syria, 441. - Ireland, tomb-building in, 43; - dolmens in, 45; - external ditto, 46; - menhirs in, 58; - no symbolage in, 59; - bluestones from, transported to England, 108; - rude-stone monuments in, 175; - best illustration of megalithic remains, _ib._; - obstruction of the study of Irish monuments, _ib._; - services of Dr. Petrie, _ib._; - materials for history of, _ib._; - copious literature, 176 (_see_ Moytura); - King Eochy, 178; - Firbolgs or Belgians, 179; - tradition of the "One Man," _ib._; - Queen Misgan Meave, 184-6; - Dananns who? 188; - King Nuada of the Silver Hand, 186; - Fomorians, 186-7; - Breas, 186; - Balor of the Evil Eye, 187; - the great Daghda, _ib._; - Fomorians and Dananns alleged to be of same Scandinavian race, _ib._; - their very early intercourse with Irish, 188; - Dananns were Danes, _ib._; - chronology of early events, 188 _et seq._; - places of royal interment, 190; - race of Crimthann, 132; - introduction of alphabet, 189, 196; - division into kingdoms, 189; - early accounts of its peopling, _ib._; - Irish history doubtful until Cimboeth, _ib._; - burial-places of ancient kings, 190; - first influx of civilization, when, according to Dr. Todd, - 193 _note_; - Oghams, 196; - authentic history of Ireland, when commences, according to Petrie, - _ib._; - legend of the Beds of Diarmid, 225; - tradition as to (_see_ Cemeteries); - St. Colomba, 227; - Iberians in Ireland, monuments of, 227; - murder of Dathi by foster-brothers, 233; - barbarism of Irish before St. Patrick, 235-6; - their civilization progressive, 236; - stages of architecture, 237-8; - marks of triple system of monuments, 238; - importance of them to history, 238; - age and sequence of its monuments, 237-8; - circle-building race in, 274; - dolmen-building ditto, 274, 381; - Spanish migration to, Heremon, 381; - where Spaniards settled, 382; - date, _ib._ - _See_ Glen Columbkille. - Iron, when known to Greeks, Israelites, Etruscans, 35; - argument from absence of iron in tombs considered, 37; - when introduced into Denmark, England, Egypt, _ib._; - iron, early manufacture of, in India, 482; - and now by Khassias especially, _ib._ - Iron pillar at Kutub, 481; - date of, 482. - Italy, tomb-building in, 40; - dolmen at Saturnia, 391-2; - chambered tumuli, 392; - hewn stones, _ib._; - Etruria, _ib._; - why dolmens not so uniform in Italy as in France and Scandinavia, - 393; - earliest colonists, the Pelasgi and Tyrrheni, in contact with merely - stone-hewing peoples, _ib._; - reverence of Etrurians for dead, _ib._; - their effacement by more progressive races, _ib._; - Rome adopts and improves Etruscan architecture, _ib._; - and forces Spain and France to a more ambitious sepulture, 394; - their relapse into rude-stone monuments, _ib._ - Iwallee, singular place of dolmen, 484. - - - JACOB, stone set up by, 438-9. - Jains succeeded Buddhists in India, 459. - James I. directs researches respecting Stonehenge, 3, 104. - Janssen, Dr., his work on Hunebeds, 319. - Jarl Ragnvald, his expedition, 244. - Jarls, Orcadian, how buried, 297. - Jeffrey of Monmouth cited, 88; - account by, of Stonehenge, 106 and of Merlin, are justified, 412; - his character as writer, 106. - Jellinge, King Gorm's tomb at, 245, 296 _et seq._ - Jersey, tumulus in, 51; - circle, 52. - Jewurgi, cairns at, 471-2. - Jey Sing, observatories of, 7, 459. - John, St., Baptistery of, at Canterbury, erected, 22. - Jones, _see_ Inigo. - Joshua, stone set up by, 438-40; - flint instruments of circumcision interred with him, 440. - Joyce, Rev. Mr., on crosses, 488. - Juggernaut, temple of, 460. - Junies, remains there, 368. - Jutes, settle in and trade with Britain before Cæsar's time, 133. - Jutland, dolmens in, 301. - - - KAFR ER WÂL, dolmen at, 441. - Kamarupa, Hindu kingdom, 466. - Karl Lofts, if circle there, 130. - Karumbers, 476 _et seq._; - originators of rude monuments in India, 478. - Katapur, cross and dolmen at, 486-7. - Kemble cited, 64, 73; - as to historical value of poem of Beowulf, 120. - Kemp How, 130. - Kennet Avenue at Avebury, 63-4; - called "stone row" in charter of Athelstan, 74; - river, station of Saxons upon, 88; - long barrow similar to Lethra, 283. - _See_ River Kennet. - Kens Low, 139; - barrow, find at, 145. - Kent, division of, by Bede, 120. - Kent's Hole, 16. - Kerdouadec alignment, 367. - Kerland demi-dolmen, 336. - Kerlescant, 351, 356; - long barrow opened, find, 356. - Kermario avenues, 350. - Keyna, traditions respecting, 151. - Keysler, citations from, 24, 25; - compares Drenthe to Stonehenge, 319. - Khassia Hills, rude-stone monuments, 462 _et seq._; - tribes practise cremation, 463; - funereal usages, 463; - iron manufacture, 482. - Khatoura, tomb of Isidorus at, 100. - Khonds (_see_ Gonds), usages of, resemblance to Druids, 460; - Major Macpherson's remarks respecting their worship, 461; - difficulty of putting an end to their human sacrifices, _ib._ - King Stone, 146. - _See_ Stanton Drew. - Kings of Denmark, tombs of, 15. - Kinsey, his 'Portugal Illustrated,' 377. - Kistvaens, or cists, how composed, 43; - contents of, _ib._; - when covered, 43-4; - passages into, 43; - sculpture in, _ib._; - New Grange, _ib._; - Gavr Innis, _ib._; - Maes-Howe, _ib._; - Arbor Low, 140; - Gib Hill, 141; - Plas Newydd, 166. - Kit's Cotty House, 116; - whether ever covered, 44. - Kivik grave, head-stone of, 314; - figures upon, _ib._; - date assigned to, _ib._; - resembles one in France, _ib._ - Klein-Raden, 301. - _See_ Cotty House. - Knock na Rea, 184; - cairn at, 280. - _See_ Queen Misgan Meave. - Knockeen, dolmen at, 229. - Knowth, cairn of, 192, 200; - identified by Petrie with cave of Cnodhba, 201; - searched by Danes, _ib._ - Knut, the great battle between and Olof, 291. - Kongsbacka battle-field, 279. - Königsberg, dolmens near, 301. - Konitz, dolmen at, 301. - Krukenho, allée couverte at, 342; - dolmen compared with Dol ar Marchant, 36. - Kubber Roumeia, tomb of Mauritanian kings, 423-4. - Kurgans or mounds in the Steppes, 448. - Kutb u Deen, his mosque at Delhi, 457. - Kutub iron pillar, 35, 481. - - - LAITY, _see_ Clergy and Laity. - Landevenec founded by Grallon, 374. - Landver, son of Thufin, where buried, 528. - Largs, battle of, 58; - stone to mark, 58. - Larking, Rev. Mr., his visit to Aylesford, 118. - Latheronwheel, 530 _et seq._ - Lean Low mound, 139. - _See_ Derbyshire. - Lecan, book of, cited, 233. - Lech, meaning of word, 44. - Ledwich, Dr., his description of New Grange, 143. - Lefroy, General, his diggings at Greenmount, 231. - Leoghaine, 212-3. - Leslie, Col. Forbes, 264; - his paper upon Aberdeenshire circles, 263; - Belgian group described by, 467. - Lethra, tomb at, of Harold, 282, 289. - Leuré, alignment at, 367. - Lia Fail, 382, 439. - _See_ Stone of Destiny. - Liberius, Consul, defeat of, 374. - Liegnitz, dolmen at, 301. - Lifeachaire Cairbre, his grave, 213. - Linn} _see_ Linuis; meaning of word, 136; - Lyn } perhaps Lake country, 136. - Linuis, where, 136; - locality of a battle of Arthur, different opinions respecting - locality, 136. - Liotr, or Landver, sepulchre, 254. - Listoghil cairn, 181; - mentioned by Petrie, _ib._; - find there, 182. - Llwyd, Mr., 201. - Lockmaben, 129. - _See_ Wood Castle. - Locmariaker, allée couverte at, 341; - Dariorigum, capital of Venetes, 349; - long barrow, Mané Lud 360; - Mané er H'roëk, 360; - dolmen and sculpture, 360-1; - Dol ar Marchant, 361; - allée couverte near, 364; - date, 370. - Loire, grottes des fées along, 341. - Loncarty, defeat of Danes at, 270. - Long Stow Cove, 64. - Long-headed race, superior antiquity of, 36. - Long Roods, barrow at, 11. - Lot, department of, 334. - Lothbrok Ragnar, victories of, 290; - sepulchre of, 298; - battle fought by, 314. - Lough Crew, 199, 213; - excavations, 213; - cairn T. 214; - Hag's Chair, 215; - two stones, 216; - cairn L, 217; - cairn H, _ib._; - find there, 218; - cairn D, 219; - other monuments at, _ib._ - Lubbock, Sir John, analysis by, of contents of numerous tumuli, 11; - Park Cwn tumulus described by, 164. - Lucan cited as to Nasomenes, 407. - Lug, grandson of Balor, 187. - Lukis, Rev. Mr., explores Carnac, 350, 356-7. - Lumberdale House, cist at Gib Hill removed to, 141. - Lüneburg, dolmen near, with enclosures, 308. - Luxembourg, Grand Duchy, dolmens in, 301, 323; - to whom referred, 323. - Lyons, battle near, 374. - - - MACKENZIE, Col., his map cited, 474; - his drawings of Viraculls and Masteeculls, 483. - Macpherson, Major Charteris, his work, memorials of service in India - cited, 460. - Madracen, 423; - of same type as Maltese examples, 424. - Madsen, his 'Antiquités préhistoriques du Danemark,' 188; - gives examples of buried dolmen, 310. - Maenec, Le, 350 _et seq._ - Maes-Howe tumulus, 244; - opened, _ib._; - early spoliation of, _ib._; - runes descriptive of origin, _ib._; - the spoilers, who, _ib._; - inference from runes, _ib._; - engraving of dragon, similar to Danish, 245, 246 _et seq._; - Wurm knot, 245; - inscription, 246; - age of, _ib._; - architecture of howe, 247; - chamber and loculi, _ib._; - resemblance of mound to those on Boyne, 248; - of what race and age, 249-256; - unique monument must have belonged to most magnificent race, 258. - Magas mentioned by Asoka, 498. - Magh Mor, King of Spain, his connexion with Ireland, 187. - Magnus Henricksson, Danish Prince, 291. - Magnus Olaus, description by, of megalithic remains in Sweden, 15, 101. - Mahabharata, date of the, 455. - Mahommedans could not influence the non-progressive tribes of India, - 459. - Mahommedanism, aversion to, in India, 459. - Majorca and Minorca, _see_ Mediterranean Islands, 434. - Mal Lumkun, cross erected by, 272. - Malé, M., his example of demi-dolmen, 345. - Malmor, or Mal Muru, 272. - Malta, tombs of, 410; - giants' towers, 415; - Maltese monuments, _see_ Mediterranean Islands. - Man, Isle of, circles in, 162; - crosses in, 273. - Mané er H'roëk, find there, 339, 360, 364; - singular sculptured slab, 364. - Mané Lud, 360. - Mangles, Captain, _see_ Irby. - "Many Stones," group, 529. - Maols, or Murderers, graves of four, at Ballina, 233, 336; - certain date of, 233. - Marden, 63; - circle, plan, 85. - Marienwerder, dolmen at, 301. - Marlborough, etymology of word, 84. - Marmora, Count de la, his work on Sardinia, 428 _et seq._ - Marsa Sirocco, remains at, 425. - Masses, immense, moved by rude peoples, 465. - Masteeculls, what, 483. - Mauritanian kings, tombs of, 424. - Maximus, overthrow of Roman power by, 373; - his battle, 374. - Mayborough (_see_ Penrith and Cumrew); - circle at, compared to Little Salkeld, 127. - Meave Misgan, Queen, _see_ Misgan. - Mecklenburg, dolmens in, 301. - Mediterranean islands, non-historic monuments of, shaped stones, 415, - 436; - Malta, giants' towers, circles, 416; - Gozo, 417; - Hagiar Khem, 419, 423; - Mnaidra, 418-22; - roofing of Maltese monuments, 422; - these compared to Kubber Roumeia and Madracen, 424; - Gozo scrolls and spirals compared to those of Mycenæ and Greece, - _ib._; - pit-markings, _ib._; - altars and stone tables, 225; - monuments not temples but sepulchres, 425-6; - Phœnicians in Malta, 425; - the monuments, of what race and age, 426, 437; - prior to dolmens, 437; - Sardinic Nurhags, 427; - storeys of Nurhags and groups, plan of, _ib._; - Santa Barbara, 428, 431; - silence of history as to them, 429; - Dedalean buildings according to Diodorus, _ib._; - La Giara, 430; - what Nurhags were, 431; - derivation of, 432; - view of author as to purpose of Nurhags, 433; - Balearic islands, Talyots at Trepucò, Minorca bilithon, 435; - Alajor, _ib._; - stone tables, 435-6; - rude-stone circles, 432. - Megalithic monuments at Moytura, 180 _et seq._; - every kind of, except avenues, 180-1; - monument in Deer Park, Sligo, 234; - its anomalous nature, 235; - Celts had nothing to do with, according to Bertrand, 254; - gap of, between France and Scandinavia, 323; - none in valleys of Rhine or Scheldt, _ib._; - distribution of, 334; - map, 324; - table, 376; - demi-dolmens, rocking stones, 345 _et seq._; - Carnac, 350; - Tiaret, 397. - Megalithic remains, how to study, 19; - rarely in this country contain flint, bronze, or iron, 19; - style uniform, 36; - age of, 37; - resemblance to Buddhist structure, 42 (_see_ Kistvaens); - mark battle-fields, family sepulchres, or graves of distinguished - men, 15; - great light as to, derivable from Irish remains, 175. - Melkart and Astarte, temple in Malta dedicated to, 425. - 'Memorials of Service,' work of Major Charteris-Macpherson, 460. - Menhirs, 29; - derivation of word, 57; - where, _ib._; - purpose, _ib._; - single stones in Scripture, Greece, Etruria, _ib._; - rarely inscribed, _ib._; - in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, 59; - France, _ib._; - at Lochrist, _ib._; - Denmark, 60 (_see_ Monoliths); - purpose of menhir in Khassia, 463; - Western not after Tartar models, 452. - Menou, laws of, date of, 455. - Meriadec Conan, British Prince in France, 374; - wars of, _ib._ - Merivale, bridge at, 55-6; - parallel lines of stones at, 54; - their purpose, _ib._; - avenue, circles, and cromlech at, 55-6. - Merlin, his bury, 84; - his connexion with Stonehenge, 107; - fable about, 133; - explained, 412. - Mettray, allée couverte at, 341. - Mexican temples, 514; - race non-progressive beyond a certain point, 19. - Mexico, carved stone monuments in, 517. - Miamisburgh, sepulchral mound at, 514. - Miana, circle at, 453. - Microlithic remains, 40, 41, 47. - Miegle, alleged burial-place of Guinevere, 134. - Migration from France to Algeria, 409; - of people settled around Mediterranean, 410. - Migration theory, how proved or disproved, 443, 445. - Minho, dolmens in, 378. - Miniature urns and utensils in Indian tomb, use of, explained, 479. - Mitjana, Don Rafael, pamphlet by, 377. - Minning Low, 130, 142-3. - _See_ Derbyshire. - Minorca, _see_ Mediterranean. - Minyas, tomb of, 33. - 'Mirabilibus Auscultationibus, De,' work ascribed to Aristotle, 429, - 434. - Miscellaneous, _see_ Mounds. - Misgan Meave, Queen, cairn of, 183; - killed by whom, 184 (_see_ Moytura); - poem of her life and adventures, 196; - her husband, 197. - Mnaidra, elliptical chambers, 417; - plans of monuments at, 418-22; - cones, 419; - pit-markings, 420; - openings in walls, shelves or loculi or columbaria? 420; - roofs, 421. - Modestus, his zeal of proselytism unsuccessful in Brittany, 373. - Mogalana and Sariputra, disciples of Buddha, 504. - Mogols, domes of, 40. - Molyneux, Sir Thomas, 202. - Monasticism in the West, 499; - Vestal Virgins, Antony, _ib._; - Essenes, 500; - history silent as to monasticism in the East, not so architecture, - 501; - imitated by the West from the East, _ib._; - peculiarities introduced, 502. - Monoliths at Stennis, 242; - holed, 242, 255; - Setif, 397. - Mont St. Michel, possibly occupied by Cæsar, 20; - find, 356. - Montfort, Simon de, 481. - 'Monumenta Britannica' cited, 87. - Monuments, _see_ Rude-Stone. - Moon worship forbidden, 25. - Moore, Norman, Mr., his visit to Glen Columbkille, 225; - letters from, respecting, _Appendix_, 520-3. - Moors in Spain, 381. - Motes, or places of judgment, stones to mark, 26. - Mounds of sacrifice in North America, 513; - of sepulture, 514; - temple, _ib._; - animal mounds, 515; - conical mounds, 513. - Moustoir Carnac, long barrow and find, 358-9. - Moytura, 176; - two battles at, 175; - narrative of, by O'Donovan, 176; - first battle at North Moytura, 176-7; - second battle at South Moytura, 177-9; - circles, 177; - cairns, _ib._; - cairn of "One Man," 178; - importance and varieties of monuments at Northern Moytura, 180; - map, 181; - plan of circles, 182-3; - dolmen, 183; - tomb of Misgan Meave, 184; - locality of it doubted, 185; - account of battle of Northern Moytura, 186; - dates of battles, 188, 197; - when accounts first written, 197; - localities of battles, 198; - monuments at, contrasted with English and Scandinavian examples, 198; - resemblance of, to Braavalla, 280, 304. - Muir Divock, 130; - circles at, 130. - Mule Hill, 157-8. - _See_ Circles, Small. - Mulheran, Mr., account of Katapur, 487. - Mull of Cantyre circles, 262. - Munch, Professor, his observations as to spoilers of Maes-Howe, 244; - mentions Halfdan's barrow, 250. - Mycenæ, tombs of Atridæ at, 32, 36; - analogous to Jersey circles, 52, 53; - scrolls and spirals there resemble those of Gozo, 424. - - - NABLOUS, dolmens on road to, 441. - Naper, Mr., excavations by, 213. - Nasamones, who, 407; - Herodotus mentions their veneration of dead, _ib._; - a plundering tribe, _ib._ - Navarre, dolmens in, 378. - Nemedh, three sons of, 179. - Nennius, his account of origin of Stonehenge, 107; - of Arthur's battles, 135. - Nestorians, how far to the east, 488. - Net Lowe, find, 13. - Netterville House, tumulus, 209. - New Craig circle, 263. - New Grange, 43, 52; - Royal cemetery, 192, 201. - New Inn, 12. - Newark Works in America, 511. - Newton, 263; - sculptured stone, 263, 271. - Niall, father of Leoghaire, 212. - Nicol, Dr., his observations in Kincardine, 265. - Nikolajew, uncovered base of tumulus, 451. - Nilgiri Hills, tombs and dolmens, 472-3; - sculptured dolmens, 483. - Nine Ladies, circle of, at Stanton Moor, 48-9, 140. - Nineveh, dates of buildings at, how ascertained, 1, 34. - Nirmul Jungle dolmen with cross, 488. - Nizam's unexplored territory important to art and history, 478. - Nonhistoric monuments, 415. - Norman pirates, Grallon's war with, 374. - North Germany, _see_ Scandinavia. - Norway, no dolmens in, but cairns and such like monuments, 302. - Nuada, king, "of the silver hand," battle and death, 187. - Nur, meaning of, 432. - Nurhags of Sardinia, 410, 415, 427 _et seq._; - derivation of word, _see_ Sardinia. - - - OAK used in Thyra's tomb, 298. - Obelisk, development of, 59; - at Aylesford, 117, 119; - at Rollright, 124; - at Dol ar Marchant, 363. - Oberhartz, no dolmens in, 301. - Oberyssel, dolmen in, 301. - O'Brian, wild speculations of, 175. - Observatories in India, 459. - Ochaim, Niall's burying-place, 212. - O'Curry, his account of battle cited, 188; - his view as to date of Ogham writing, 196. - Oden's Howe, exploration of, 526; - find, _ib._ - O'Donovan, his account of Moytura, 176; - his confession of uncertainty of Irish chronology, 190; - remarks as to dolmen of four Maols, 233. - Og, king of Bashan, 442. - Oghams, 29; - on menhirs, 58; - date of introduction, 196; - little used, and for what, _ib._; - on Newton Stone, 271. - Ohio, sacred enclosures in, 511; - district of, how first peopled, 516. - Oise, holed dolmen at, 343. - Olaus, _see_ Wormius, Magnus. - Old Testament, stones mentioned in, 57. - Oldenburg, dolmens in, 301. - Olfers, Dr., tomb of Alyattes examined by, 32. - Olof the Holy, 241. - Ophite theory, 4, 7. - Oppeln, dolmen near, 301. - Orchomenos sepulchre explored by Dodwell, 33; - lined with bronze, 34; - inference from, as to civilization, 39. - Orkneys (_see_ Maes-Howe, Scotland, Stennis); - no timber in, 298. - Orkhow, treasure there, 252. - Oroust, dolmen at, 305-6; - resembles Countless Stones, 305; - in enclosure, 310. - Osnabrück, dolmen in, 301. - Ougein, observatories in, 7; - commercial capital of Asoka, 459. - Ouseley, Sir W., cited as to Eastern circles, 453. - Oval dolmens, _see_ Dolmens. - Ozene, or Ougein, which see. - - - PAGAN TEMPLES, similarity of, to Christian, 22-3. - Palestine and the East, dolmens, 438; - of stones mentioned in Scripture but one of megalithic class, 438-40; - monolith, 440; - dolmens between Es Salt and Nablous, 441; - and Kafr-er-Wâl, _ib._; - whether dolmens outside of Gilead, 442; - of what tribe known examples are, _ib._; - age of, 443; - Peshawur, _ib._; - circular-domed tombs at Sinai, and stone circles, _ib._; - find, 444; - Nukb Hawy ring, _ib._; - resemblance to Bazinas and Chouchas, _ib._; - Arabia, near Eyoor, rude-stone monuments mentioned by Palgrave, - resembling those of the West and at Tripoli, 445; - interest attaching to Arabian examples, _ib._; - Asia Minor, unsolved problems respecting, 446; - Kertch, chambered tumuli, and finds, 447; - dolmens of shaped stones, holed in Circassia, Crimea, and on shore of - Baltic, 447. - Palgrave, Mr. Giffard, rude-stone monuments seen by him in Arabia, 444. - Pallas cited, 449. - Pancras, St., temple at Canterbury dedicated to, 22. - Pandus, temples popularly assigned to, 494. - Pape and Peti, early inhabitants of Orkneys, 248. - Parallel lines or avenues, 50. - _See_ Avenues. - Park Cwn tumulus, 164; - meant to be visible, 164; - find at, _ib._ - Parkhouse circle, 263. - Pataliputta, _see_ Patna. - Patan, Emperors, domes of, 40. - Patna, convocation at, 501. - Pausanias, tomb of Atridæ described by, 32, 33. - Pegges Barrow, 11. - Pelasgi and Tyrrheni, in contact with only stone-hewing races, 393. - 'Pelasgic Remains,' work by Dadwell, 33; - style superseded by Doric in Greece, 393. - Pembroke, Philip, Earl of, his testimony as to Stonehenge, 104. - Pen, prefix, meaning of, 64. - Pennant cited as to Mayborough, 128-9. - Penrith, Arthur's Round Table at, 82; - Long Meg and her Daughters, 126 _et seq._; - mentioned by Camden, 127; - Mayborough, _ib._; - monolith, 128; - King Arthur's Round Table, _ib._; - plan of, _ib._; - history of monuments, 131; - Shap alignment not Druidical, _ib._; - nor sepulchral, _ib._; - at least not the cemetery of Shap, _ib._; - marks battle-field, 132; - victory over Saxons, perhaps, _ib._; - objections, 132-3; - monuments near, mark victories of Arthur, 132. - Pentre Ifan dolmen, 168. - 'Periplus,' the, cited, 459. - Perthes, M. Boucher de, "find" by, on the Somme, 16. - Peru, carved stone monuments in, 518; - resemble Pelasgic and Tyrrhenian, _ib._ - Peshawur dolmen, 443; - circle, 452; - and at Deh Ayeh, 453; - hewn-stone circles ascribed to Caons or giants, 453; - if other dolmens in the East? 454. - Peti or Picts, 248-9. - _See_ Pape. - Petrie, Dr., his useful but interrupted services in Ireland, 175; - observations of, as to cairn Listoghil, 181; - Moytura, 181 _et seq._; - Tara, 193; - introduction of writing into Ireland, 196; - Oghams, _ib._; - Knowth, 201; - cited as to Talten, 219; - style of Irish monuments, 238; - his excavations in the Orkneys, 249; - his suggestion as to Moytura, 280. - Phayre, Sir Arthur, on circle at Peshawur, 452. - Phœnicians, Romans, and Greeks of Marseilles, their influence upon - architecture of rude nations, 508. - Phœnicians, voyages of, to Cornwall, 38; - written characters at New Grange, 207; - not builders of rude-stone monuments, 409. - Picardy, remains of Cave men in, 329. - Pictland, features of, 58. - Picts, origin and relations with Irish and Gauls, 267; - their capitals, 271; - language, _ib._ - Pierre branlante, Brittany, 348. - Pierre Martine, rocking stone, 347-8. - Pilgrim Scandinavian pirates, 244. - Pit-markings, 424. - Plas Newydd dolmen, 167-9. - Pliny, _see_ Cæsar. - Plouharnel, double dolmen at, 358. - Poitiers, demi-dolmen, 346. - Poitou, Cave men's remains in, 329. - Poland and Posen, no dolmens in, 301. - Pomerania, dolmens in, 301. - Portugal, writers on its rude-stone monuments, 377; - dolmens, _ib._; - Strabo, an authority for its dolmens, _ib._; - Cuneus, 378; - distribution of dolmens, _ib._; - throws light upon theories, _ib._; - course taken by dolmen race, 378 _et seq._; - Arroyolos, dolmen at, 389. - Posen, _see_ Poland. - Pownall, Governor, his disquisition upon marks at New Grange, 202, 207. - Pregel, dolmens on, 301. - Prehistoric prejudices, 406. - _See_ International. - Preissac, alignment at, 368. - Pre-Roman theory, 373. - Progressive theory, 406. - Prussia, dolmens rare in, 301. - Prussian Saxony, _see_ Saxony. - Priam's house of brass, 35. - Prinsep, Mr., his translation of an edict of Asoka, 498. - Priority of dates, _see_ Dates. - Ptolemy, mentioned in edict of Indian Prince, 498. - Pullicondah, cairn or dolmen, 491. - Puri, temple of Juggernaut at, 460. - Pyramids, inference as to climate from pictures in, 17; - date of that at Gizeh, 31; - antecedent structures supposed, _ib._; - contain tombs true and false, 46; - probable date of, 408. - Pytheas, visit of, to Cimbrian Chersonese, 38. - - - QUEEN Charlotte's Sound, whether natives a race of mound-builders, 517. - - - RACE, inference as to, from use of circles, 163; - of dolmens, _ib._; - of circles and dolmens, _ib._; - divisions of, in Britain by Tacitus, 162; - inference from simultaneous monuments of three kinds in Ireland as to - races, 238; - relations of Picts with Irish and Gaels, shown by comparison of - monuments, 267, 271; - circle-building and dolmen-building races, 274; - whence each came, and course which each took, _ib._; - dolmens, historic, 302; - distribution of, _ib._; - prehistoric theory leaves subject of races obscure, _ib._; - dolmen-building race not so ready converts to Christianity as the - Celts, 328; - inference from church architecture in South of France, 332; - and Protestant feeling in South of France, _ib._; - non-progressive, _ib._; - Cimbri, Celts, and Gauls, 333; - Cimbri and Aquitani related, _ib._; - race traced by dolmens from Brittany to Narbonne, 334; - Iberians, Celtiberians, Turanians, 379; - disturbed by Carthaginians, 379; - Romans, 380; - Moors, their easy conquest of Spain, how accounted for, 381; - Spanish settlers in Ireland and Britain, _ib._; - Tara, 382; - Lia Fail, _ib._; - Heremon, 381-3; - ethnography of North Africa, 406, _et seq._; - different theories as to, _ib._; - connexion between races on the northern and southern sides of - Mediterranean, 408; - chief race in India, 458; - Bhil, Cole, Gond, and Toda, non-progressive, 459; - Hindus not immutable, _ib._; - inference from style of architecture, 495; - peopling of America, 516; - by what way, 516; - Mound-builders, Redmen, Hydahs, 517; - Aztecs and Toltecs, 515; - Pastoral or Agricultural races, ditto Hunters in North America, _ib._ - Race-course, notion that alignments at Stonehenge were, 111. - Raguhilda, wife of Eric, 250. - Rail, Sanchi, 492. - Rajagriha, convocation at, 501. - Rajpootana, pertinacity of Bhil usages, 459. - Rajunkoloor, 468 _et seq._ - Ramayana, the date of, 455. - Ramé, M., describes alignment at Gré de Cojou, 377. - Rath at Dowth, residence of the Dagdha, 195. - Rath of Leoghaire, 195; - singular direction by him as to his burial, _ib._ - Rath of Queen Meave, 193. - Rath na Riogh, 194; - resembles Avebury, _ib._ - Rathcrogan, supposed burial-place of Queen Meave, 183. - Rayne, old circle at, 263. - Rectangular dolmens, 313. - _See_ Dolmens. - Redmen of North America, 517; - not mound-builders, _ib._ - Redstone pillar, 200. - Relic worship in the East, 503. - Relig na Riogh, Dathi's burial-place, 200. - Rhind, Mr., his bequest for Professorship - of Archæology in Scotland, 239; - paper on ortholithic remains in Africa, 395-7. - Ribroit, Arthur's tenth battle there, 137. - Rickman, his perception of progress and sequence in monuments, 113; - value of his process in fixing dates, 114. - Ring Sigurd, 280; - saga as to, 282. - Ringham Low, group, 139. - _See_ Derbyshire. - Rocking stones, 347. - Rodmarton, chambered tumulus, 166; - post-Roman, 289; - holes in entrance, resembles Kerlescant, 357. - Roeskilde, dolmen in square, 307. - Rolley Lowe, 12. - Rollo in England, 126. - Rollright, circle at, 124; - obeliscal stone, _ib._; - dolmen, _ib._; - examined by R. Sheldon, 125; - unimportance of monuments there, _ib._; - whether sepulchral, _ib._; - assigned by Camden to Rollo, 126. - Roman coins, find of, in Ireland, 166. - _See_ Coins, Finds. - Roman pottery found at Stonehenge, 105; - inference from, 106. - _See_ Finds. - Roman road at Silbury Hill, 81; - argument from its state, 82; - and of that at Hakpen Hill, 83. - Romans, Stonehenge assigned to, by Inigo Jones, 3; - in England, 96; - effect of Roman art upon British civilization, _ib._; - and architecture, 394; - in Africa, 414; - pressure of, upon Etruria, 393. - Ronalds, Mr., his engraving of Carnac, 350. - Rooke, Mr., his account of Stanton Moor, 146; - snaffle-bit found by, 156. - Rose Hill tumulus, 155. - _See_ Circles, Small, 155. - Ros-na-righ, who buried there, 212. - Ross County, North America, sacred enclosures in, 511. - Rothiemay circle, 263. - Round tower, _see_ Tower. - Roy's, General, 'Military Antiquities of Romans' cited as to circle at - Wood Castle, 129. - Rude-Stone monuments erected even where letter inscriptions and carving - practised, 273; - none in the valleys of Scheldt and Rhine, 323; - sometimes comparatively modern, 406; - result sometimes of fashion, 408; - Aryans and pure Dravidians or Tamulians not builders of, in India, - 447-8. - Rudeness of monument, what it proves, 100. - Rügen, island of, dolmens in, 301. - Runes on menhirs, 29; - Maes-Howe, 246-8, 251; - Isle of Man, 273. - - - SABÆAN worship of planets, 432. - "Sabrinum ostium," meaning of words, 87; - Arthur's last battle fought near, _ib._ - Sacrifices, _see_ Human. - Sagas, 254; - as to Harald Hildetand, 280. - Sakya Muni, date of, 455; - influences Buddhism, 506; - is not Woden, 496. - Salkeld, Arthur's seventh battle, 137. - _See_ Cumrew. - Sanchi rail, 492; - gate, 94; - no images of priests, 501; - relics of saints, 504; - dagobas and stupas, 41. - Sandulf the Swarthy, 272. - Santa Barbara, Nurhags at, 428 _et seq._ - _See_ Mediterranean Islands. - Santander dolmens, 378. - Sardis, tombs at, 32; - age of, 32. - Sariputra, see Mogalana. - Sarsen stones, at Ashdown, 122; - what they represent, _ib._; - at Avebury, 73, 86; - whence they came, 95; - at Stonehenge, 94. - Saturnia, dolmen at, 391-2. - Sauclières dolmen, 335. - Saumur, grotte des feés near, 341. - Säve, Karl, letter from, respecting diggings at Oden's Howe, 526-7. - Savernake Forest, 87. - Saxo-Grammaticus as to Gorm's son, 296. - Saxons, defeat of, by Vortimer, 106; - battle with Vortigern, 119. - Saxons, march of, in the West, 88; - encounter Arthur, 88-9, 132; - their defeat near Penrith, 132; - traded with and settled in Britain before Cæsar's time, 133-4; - grave mounds in England, 36; - articles supposed Saxon at Stand Lowe, 13. - Saxons, Prussian, 301. - Saxony, dolmens in, 301. - Scandinavia and North Germany, 275; - Danes, their megalithic remains little known, _ib._; - false route of their antiquaries, 276; - except Sjöborg, 277; - their early historians little reliable, _ib._; - Scandinavian history prior to Christ, _ib._; - Odin, fable as to, _ib._; - Frode I., date of, 278; - and of Harald Harfagar, _ib._; - list of kings, _ib._; - battle-fields, _ib._; - Kongsbacka, 279; - its analogy to Dartmoor, Ashdown, and Karnac alignments, _ib._; - view of, _ib._; - grave of Frode, but which Frode? _ib._; - battle-field of Swedes and Danes, _ib._; - Braavalla Heath, 280; - resemblance to Moytura, _ib._; - circles, _ib._; - doubt as to date of, _ib._; - square and triangular graves, 282; - King Harald Hildetand, saga of, and Sigurd Ring, 283; - tomb of former, 282; - find of flints, 283; - erroneous inference, _ib._; - form of grave, _ib._; - Hwitaby circles and Bauta stones at, 290; - battle-fields, whose, _ib._; - Lothbrok, 291; - Stiklastad, and circles there, _ib._; - circles and ovals, mounds and square enclosures, _ib._; - victory of Blenda, _ib._; - Freyrsö cairns, mounds, and ship barrows, _ib._; - tumuli, to what race due, aboriginal or invading, 293; - Scandinavians, of what race, _ib._; - Worsaae's argument, _ib._; - triple group at Upsala, 294; - find, _ib._; - mound of Wodin, _ib._; - Jellinge, tombs of Gorm and Thyra, 296; - importance of, 297; - diggings in the latter, 296; - find, 297; - date, _ib._; - compared to Maes-Howe, 299; - comparative dates of Danish, Irish, and Stennis monuments, _ib._; - series of Royal Danish tombs, _ib._; - might furnish dates of styles, 300. - _See_ Scotland, Caithness. - Scandinavian antiquaries commended, 15. - Scandinavians in Ireland, 187; - different tribes of, 187; - Vikings, _ib._; - in Scotland, Orkneys, 244; - pilgrims, Christian, and pirates, _ib._; - conoid graves, 243; - ship graves, 315; - equilateral triangles, _ib._; - meaning of the latter form, 315-6; - singular arrangement of circles at Aschenrade, 317; - resembles Algerian example, 318; - finds, _ib._; - no Druids amongst, 6; - ignorant of iron, 37. - Schleswig dolmens, 301. - Scone stone, 439. - Scotland, menhirs in, 57; - megalithic remains in, 239; - Wilson's 'Prehistoric Annals' of, _ib._; - scanty means of studying monuments in, _ib._; - cat or battle-stones, dolmens, circles, 240; - distribution of, _ib._; - Orkneys, 241; - circles, tumuli, _ib._; - Stennis, _ib._; - dolmens, 241, 355; - monoliths, 242; - holed monument, 242, 255; - bowl-shaped barrows, 243; - find, _ib._; - conoid barrows, _ib._; - find there, _ib._; - Maes-Howe, _ib._; - spoliation of, _ib._; - runes, _ib._; - dragon and Wurm knot, 245; - inscription at Maes-Howe, 246; - chamber there, 247; - and loculi, 248; - resemblance to Boyne monuments, _ib._; - red sandstone material, _ib._; - conquest of Island by Harold Harfagar, _ib._; - Pape and Peti, who these races were, _ib._; - what is Maes-Howe, 248-9; - and what the barrows, _ib._; - Haugagerdium, perhaps How of Hoogsay, who buried there, _ib._; - Halfdan's Barrow, 250; - similarity to Danish royal tumuli, _ib._; - account of conquest of Orkneys by the Norwegians, _ib._; - Stennis, scene of what battle, 250-1; - runic inscriptions, 251; - scantiness of, accounted for, 252; - an inscription confirmed by a find, _ib._; - Maes-Howe, whether it has connexion with circles, 253-4; - dates of early invasions of Northmen, 255; - Brogar, 254; - less ancient than Stennis, 255; - conversion of Northmen to Christianity, _ib._; - date of group of monuments at Stennis, 256; - analogy of to Stanton Drew, _ib._; - author's reasons justifying date assigned to group at Stennis, 257-8; - Callernish circles, _ib._; - cruciform grave, 259; - avenue, 260; - Tormore, - Isle of Arran, cist circles, 261-2; - Brodick Bay circle, and obelisk, 262; - Mull of Cantyre, _ib._; - Aberdeenshire circles, 263; - Fiddes Hill, 264; - circle at Rayne and find, 263; - post Christian date of, 264; - moat and entrances, 265; - uses merely sepulchral, _ib._; - Clava mounds and circular chambers, 266; - find, _ib._; - their use, 267; - stone at Coilsfield, _ib._; - stone at Aberlemmo, 268-9; - its purpose, 270; - Caithness alignments differ from British and French, 529; - horned cairn, 530; - circles inferred by Sir H. Dryden not always to be sepulchral, 532; - date, 528; - similarity to Viking graves, 528. - Scott, Sir Walter, his description of holed monolith in Orkney, 242. - Scrolls and spirals in Irish sculpture, 222. - Sculpture, 29; - difficulty of reasoning from gradation of style as to Irish or - Scottish, 59; - chiselled, engraved, pricked, 217; - what tools employed, _ib._; - at Mané Lud, imitations of boats, hatchets, writing, 361; - at Dol ar Marchant, hatchet, plume, 362. - Secondary, _see_ Interment. - Semitic race, their feeling to monasticism, 500. - Senbya dagoba, 496-7. - Sentinel stones, 310. - Sepultura Grande dolmen, 386. - Sepulture, _see_ Cairns, Circles, Cists, Dolmens, Mounds, Tombs, - Tumuli. - Seringham, monoliths of, 96; - monstrous size of, _ib._; - work there, how interrupted, _ib._ - Serpent temples, false theory as to, 4, 21, 64; - gigantic serpent-forms in earth in America, 515; - serpent knot, _see_ Wurm. - Sesto Calende, rude-stone monuments at, 391. - Setif, dolmen near, 396. - Shahpoor stone monuments, 485. - Shap avenue, counterpart of Kennet, 147. - _See_ Penrith. - Ship graves, 316. - Ships sculptured in dolmens, 303. - Siam, 456; - dagobas and stupas in, 41. - Siberian Steppes, America peopled from, 516. - Side-stone, Aspatria cist, 157. - Siganfu tables, 488 _note_. - Sigurd, converted by Olaus, 250. - Silbury Hill, Roman writers silent as to monuments, 20; - their purpose and age, 65, 84; - description of, 78; - dimensions, 79; - researches there, _ib._; - negative results, _ib._; - accounted for, _ib._; - find in, 81; - mound, who raised, 86; - near Wansdyke, 88; - Arthur's last battle, 89; - mound, why created, _ib._; - analogue of Gib Hill, 147. - Silesia, dolmens in, 301. - Silius Italicus cited, 407. - Silures in Britain, 162-3; - in Wales and Anglesea, 163; - Cornwall, _ib._; - join with Brigantes, 381. - Simpson, Sir J., cited as to Vetta, 271; - as to pit-markings, 425. - Sinai, monuments at, 443-4. - Sing, Jey, observatory, 7. - Sivite temple, ruined, at Iwullee, 484. - Sjöborg, 276; - his merits, 276-9; - treats dolmens all as prehistoric, 306. - Skail Bay, 252. - Skiuli, death of, 528. - Skene, _see_ Stuart, Glennie. - Slieve na Calliagh, 213 (_see_ Hengist and Horsa); - when first remarked, 213; - illustrations of, 214 _et seq._; - style of sculpture, 215; - find at, 215-6; - mysterious great stone saucer, 216; - find, 217-8; - absence of circles, alignments, and rude-stone monuments, 219. - Sligo trilithon, 108; - cairn of Ballysadare, King Eochy's tomb, 179. - Smidstrup, buried dolmen at, 311. - Smith, Colonel Baird, his excavation at Kutub pillar, 481. - Smith, Dr., his astronomical theory, 7. - 'Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge' cited, 510 _et seq._ - Smyrna, date of tombs at, 32. - Smyth, Piazzi, his theories, 31, 91. - Snake theory, _see_ Stukeley, Dr. - Snio, king, where slain, 279. - Spain, writers on its rude-stone monuments, 377; - dolmens there, _ib._; - dolmen race, 378; - its navigation, in which direction, 378 _et seq._; - prehistoric race in Spain, 379; - its characteristics, _ib._; - and non-use of stone in prehistoric times, _ib._; - Iberians, Celtiberians, Turanians, _ib._; - Carthaginians, Romans, 381; - Moors' easy conquest proves earlier settlements in Spain, _ib._; - Spanish race of Heremon in Ireland, _ib._; - Spaniards, Siloros, migrate to Britain, _ib._; - part occupied by them in Ireland, 382; - date of Heremon, 383; - light thrown by rude-stone monuments on connexion of Spain and - Ireland, _ib._; - Roman architecture, its influence upon rude-stone monuments, 394. - Spaniards in Ireland, 227. - Spring Farm, 117. - Square enclosures in North America, 511-12. - Squares in Algeria, 399; - four cairns enclosed in squares, 402. - Squier and Davis, Messrs., their survey of America, 510 _et seq._ - St. Augustine's monastery, 23. - St. Barbe, 354; - head of column at, 355. - St. Columba, 227; - converts Picts, 248; - visits King Brude, 267; - language of Picts unknown to, 271. - St. Front, Périgueux, church, 330. - St. Germain-sur-Vienne, 336. - _See_ Confolens. - St. Helier, cells at, 52. - St. Jerome cited as to barbarism of Irish, 235. - St. Malo, Maximus and British landed there, 374. - St. Pancras, heathen fane consecrated to, 22. - St. Patern, a Breton, his death, 373. - St. Patrick fails to convert Leoghaire, 195; - legend of him and demons, 227. - St. Servan, battle near, 374. - St. Vigean's stone, 273. - Stand Low find, 13. - Stanton Drew circles, 64; - not observatories, 7; - circles at, 148; - similar to those in Derbyshire and Cumberland in purpose and date, - _ib._; - plan of, 149; - oval, _ib._; - avenues, 150; - Kingstone, _ib._; - Stukeley's interpolation of serpentine avenues, _ib._; - ruins of dolmens, 151; - tradition as to Keyna, _ib._; - date of, 151-2; - belongs to Arthurian age, 152; - scene of Arthur's 9th battle, _ib._; - meaning of "Stanton," _ib._; - Maes Knoll, 153; - meaning of word Maes, _ib._; - similarity to Stennis, 256-7. - Stanton Moor circle, 48, 49. - Stanley, Hon. W. C., circles enumerated by, 162; - cist found by, at Plas Newydd, 166. - Stawell, Lord, excavation directed by, at Avebury, 74-5. - Stennis, 241; - dolmen, _ib._; - great circle like English ones, 161; - like Stanton Drew, 257; - date, _ib._; - countless barrows, _ib._; - magnificent effect of group, _ib._; - circles and barrows belong to different and what races, _ib._; - dates thereof, _ib._ - Steppes, importance of exploring with reference to Turanian origin of - dolmens, 447 _et seq._; - tumuli, 448-9; - images of dead on tombs, 449; - usages as to interments and sepulchres, _ib._; - four-cornered grave, _ib._; - tumulus at Alexandropol, 450; - find, 451; - uncovered base of tumulus, _ib._; - genesis of circles, _ib._; - Tartar and European tombs cognate, but not of same origin as Western - dolmen or circles, or menhirs, 452; - Haxthausen's example an exception, _ib._; - examples in the Steppes carved, _ib._ - Stiklastad in Norway, battle at, 291. - "Stone of Destiny," where now, 382. - Stone tables, 425. - Stone temples, no classical writer connects Druids with, 20. - Stonehenge, theories respecting, 3, 4; - not an observatory, 7; - not alluded to by Diodorus, 8; - ill-judged proceedings as to, 15; - age of, 17; - not mentioned by Roman writers, 20; - plans, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93; - circles, 100-3; - Sarsen or bluestones, 92-7; - trilithons, 95, 98, 100; - means of transport, 95-6; - who erected, 97; - intermediate circle, _ib._; - mere stones more numerous, 98; - was Stonehenge a temple, 99; - why hewn stones there, _ib._; - erected leisurely, _ib._; - trilithons called gates by Olaus, 101; - question as to priority in time of the barrows or stone monuments, - _ib._; - connexion between circles and British villages, 102; - diggings there, 104; - map of country around, 102; - its builders not Christians, 104; - whether sepulchral, 112, 116; - why erected and by whom, 106, 116. - _See_ Alignments, Avenues, Barrows, Bluestones, Finds, Sarsens. - Stones, worship of, forbidden, 24-6. - Stoney Littleton, chambered tumulus, 166; - grave intended to be covered, 164; - post-Roman, 289. - Strabo, account of Druids by, 5; - of temple by, 21; - barbarism of early Irish, 235. - Stuart, Glennie, and Kendal, W., assign Scottish birthplace and - campaign to Arthur, 134. - Stuart, J., cited, 52, 239; - as to diggings at Rayne, 264-5. - Stukeley, Dr., wild theory of, 3, 4, 15, 21, 64; - adopted by Sir R. C. Hoare, 5; - misunderstands text of Diodorus, 8; - drawings by, 44; - his visit to Shap, 129; - compared in one respect to Boece, 135; - his serpent interpolation at Stanton Drew, 150; - his snake bit, 151. - Stupas in India, 41. - Suetonius, Druids met by, 5. - Sûf, dolmens near, 442. - Suhm, cited as to date of Lothbrok victories, 290. - Summit interments, 166. - _See_ Interments. - Sun worship forbidden, 25. - Sutherland, Duchess of, her etchings of ruins in Orkneys, 241. - Swansea, Arthur's Quoit at, 170. - Sweden, South, megalithic remains in, 15; - circles, 47; - dolmens in, 301. - Swen Grate, King, 291. - Sylhet, Mohammedan kingdom, 466. - Symbol stage, none in Ireland, 59. - Syria, trilithons in, 100. - - - TABLE-STONES, 435-6. - Tabriz circle, 453. - Tacitus cited as to three races in Britain, 162. - Tailten, Talton, or Telltown, burial of Irish kings there, 199; - of Lough Crew, 219 _et seq._; - fair in honour of Magh Mor, King of Spain, 186. - Táin Bó Chuailgne, 196. - Talyots, or talayots, 434 _et seq._; - in Balearic isles, 410, 415. - Tamulians not builders of rude-stone monuments in India, 477. - Tantalais tumulus, 32. - Tara, Hill of, remains at, 193; - early celebrity of, _ib._; - capital of Firbolgs and Dananns, 190, whence the name, 382. - Tartar tombs, 451. - Taylor, Col. Meadows, cited as to Indian dolmens, 469; - and Shahpoor monuments, 485. - Teamair, wife of Heremon, 382. - Tee in Tope, 46; - in rock at Ajunta, 47, 491; - as connecting links between Eastern and Western dolmens, 489-90. - Temples, what structures not, 512; - megalithic remains not, 20 _et seq._ - _See_ mounds. - Teocallis, Mexican, what, 514. - "Things," meaning of word, 26. - Thomas, Lieut., his account of monuments in the Orkneys, 241, 248. - Thorfin, 250; - sons of, 528; - where buried, 249; - battle between them and Liotr, 528. - Three Ages, Danish doctrine of, 9; - illusive application of, 10. - Thunder-stone at Shap, 129, 130. - Thurnam, his work on British Skulls, 35, 36, 72; - his inference from finds, 165, 286; - as to West Kennet, 287. - Thyra, monument of Queen, 27, 250; - finds, 297. - Tia Huanaco, ruins at, not like those attributed to Druids, 518; - what they were, 519. - Tigernach, his date of Queen Meave's death, 184; - of Crimthann's, 190. - Tika received by Rajahs from Bhils, 459. - Tin, route of ancient British commerce in, 334. - Toda tribe in India, 459. - _See_ Bhil. - Toltecs, buildings of, 515. - Tollington, supposed avenue at, 117-9; - obelisks at, 117. - Tombs--of Alyattes, 3; - Atridæ, 32, 33; - Cocumella, 33; - Cœre, 33; - Regulini Galeassi, 34; - of great men marked by megalithic monuments, 15; - of Isidorus, 100; - Tartar, 451; - Nilgiri hills, 473. - Toope, Dr., his letter to Aubrey respecting Hakpen Hill, 76, 77. - Tooth-relic, worship of, 504. - Topes in India found blind, 80. - _See_ Dagoba. - Tormore, 261. - Towers, round, at Brechin and Abernethy, 271. - Town of the Stone of the Strangers, 229. - Tras os Montes dolmens, 378. - Tree-worship forbidden, 24, 25. - Trepucò talyot, 435. - Triads, Welsh authority for interments at Stonehenge, 110; - as to stone of Cetti, 173; - value of, as authority, _ib._ - Triangular monuments, 315; - perhaps cuneatus ordo of Olaus Magnus, _ib._ - Trie, holed dolmens, 343. - Trilithons at Stonehenge, 99; - connexion with dolmens, 100; - in Sligo, 108; - at Ksaea at Elkeb, 412; - Hauran, 445. - Tripoli, trilithons at Ksaea, 411; - Elkel with holes, 411-2; - compared to Hindu Yoni, 412; - Buddhist monument at Bangkok, 43. - Tuatha de Dananns, _see_ Dananns. - Tuathal, authentic history begins with, 196; - "the accepted," 197. - Tumiac tumulus and find, 366. - Tumuli, 29; - different kinds of, _ib._ (_see_ Barrows, Pyramids, Tombs); - history of inhumation, 30; - Troy, 32; - Roman, 84; - truncated cones, _ib._; - spoliation of their own ancestors' tombs by Northmen, 300; - Kemp How at Shap, 130; - find at, _ib._; - chambered tumuli, 166, 168; - Freyrsö, 291; - certain Danish, identical with some in Auvergne, 323; - tumuli by thousands in the east of France, 327; - finds, _ib._; - numerous in Etruria, 392; - peculiarity of tumuli in North Africa, 399; - plan and elevation of two sepulchral monuments, _ib._; - not battle-field, 400; - quadruple circles, _ib._; - tumuli chambered in Lydia and Kertch, 446; - kouloba on hill of cinders, _ib._; - find there, 446-7; - tumuli in the Steppes, 448; - at Alexandropol, 450; - finds there, _ib._; - uncovered base of, at Nikolajew, 451; - Tartar tumuli perhaps models of Western, 452. - Turanian origin of dolmens, theory of, how to be proved or - disproved, 448; - Turanian race in Europe, 507. - Twining's strange map theory, 76. - Tyrebagger, circle at, 263. - Tynwald Mount, 71. - Tyrrheni, _see_ Pelasgi. - - - U, buried dolmen at, 310; - chamber, 311. - Udyagiri Hills, Buddhist caves in, 460. - Uekermark, dolmen at, 301. - Uelzen, dolmen with enclosures near, 308. - Uffington Castle, monuments near, 121; - why constructed, 123. - Uley, 163; - chambered grave, 163, 166; - post-Roman, 289. - Ultonians, tombs of, 219, 220. - Upland, Danish prince killed at, 291. - Urn found in cairn of One Man, 179. - - - VAISALI, convocation at, 501. - Valdbygaards, two dolmens in enclosure, 308. - Vallancy, wild speculations of, 175, 207. - Vancouver's Island, natives of, whether mound-builders, 517. - Vannes, Museum of, 326. - Vedas, date of, 455. - Veneti, Cæsar's naval battle with, 20, 37; - hence what inference of age of monuments, 372; - iron nails used by, 37. - Verneilh, Felix de, his 'Byzantine Architecture in France,' 332. - Vestal Virgins, no just analogy of Nuns, to, 499. - Vetta, his name on Cat stone, 57; - supposed grandfather of Hengist and Horsa, 271. - Via Badonica, under Silbury Hill, 20. - Vicars, Mr., surveys Carnac, 350. - Vicramaditya, his capital, 459. - Viharas, early date and growth of, in India, 501. - Vikings, 303-4; - grave, 315, 317. - Vinland, America peopled through, 516. - Viraculls, what, 483. - Vitoria, dolmens in, 378. - Voguë's, De, plates of Roman tombs in the Hauran, 445. - Vortigern, victory of, at Aylesfor, 119. - Vulci, tomb at, 33. - - - WADEN HILL, where and what it is, site of what battle, 88-9. - Wales, Druids in, when 6; - dolmen-building race, 274. - Walhouse, Mr., cited, 479. - Walker, Mr., his find at Knock na Rea, 185. - Wansdyke, barrier against Welsh, 87, 88, 89. - Ware, statement of, as to Giant stones in Kildare, 108; - circles in, 162. - Waterloo, mound at, 56. - Wayland Smith's Cave in Berkshire, used by Scott in 'Kenilworth,' 122; - what it was, 123-4; - great circle there, 161. - Webb's reply to Dr. Charleton respecting Stonehenge, 3. - Welsh Gate, what and where it was, 87-89. - Welsh Triads, _see_ Triads. - West Kennet, 4; - its similarity to barrow in Denmark, 283 _et seq._ - _See_ Barrow. - Western Islands, no Druids in, 6. - White Horse, near Uffington, described by Mr. T. Hughes, 121. - Wilde, Sir W., his residence at Moytura, 176; - his work, 177, 202 _et seq._ - Wildesheim, dolmen at, 301. - Wilkinson, Sir Gardner, observations on Long Meg, 127; - on Arbor Low, 139, and Gib Hill, 141; - his corrections to Croker's survey of Stanton Drew, 150; - dolmen at Gower opened by, 171. - Wilson, Captain, his survey of Clava, 265. - Wilson, Daniel, dolmen mentioned by, in Argyllshire, 273. - Wilson's 'Prehistoric Annals,' 239; - his remarks upon Daw's theory as to origin, 253. - Wiltshire, Sir R. C. Hoare's work on, 5. - Wisconsin and Ohio, how first peopled, 516. - Woden myth, its allusion to Indian - origin, 496; - Woden not Sakya Muni, 496. - Woking, principle of selection of, as cemetery, 131; - not applied by ancients, 131. - Wood worship forbidden, 25; - early employment of, in Indian architecture, 492. - Wood Castle, circle at, 129 _note_; - Arthur's battle there, 135. - Wormius Olaus, correspondence with Dr. Charleton respecting - Stonehenge, 3; - mentions dolmens with square enclosures, 307. - Worsaae cited as to Scandinavian monuments, 297 _et seq._ - Wright, Mr., account of monuments at Aylesford, 118. - _See_ Aylesford. - Written history, errors of, 113; - deficiency of, supplied by monuments, 113; - and by architectural study, 113; - uncertain accounts of King Arthur, 114. - Wurm Knot in Maes-Howe, 245. - - - YARHOUSE, battle at, 529. - Yarrow, inscription in stone at, 272. - Yucatan, 516; - carved stone monuments, 517. - Yule, Col., his 'Cathay,' 488 _note_. - - - ZANA, Queen, 404. - Zealand, _see_ Bilk Valdbygaards. - - -THE END. - - - - - LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, - AND CHARING CROSS. - - - - -WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. - - - HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE IN ALL COUNTRIES, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES - TO THE PRESENT DAY. With 1200 Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. 84_s._ - London, Murray, 1865-7. - - HISTORY OF THE MODERN STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE. FORMING THE THIRD - VOLUME OF THE 'HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE.' With 312 Illustrations. - 8vo. 31_s._ 6_d._ London, Murray, 1862. - - * * * * * - - ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ROCK-CUT TEMPLES OF INDIA. 18 Plates in Tinted - Lithography, folio: with an 8vo. volume of Text, Plans, &c. 2_l._ - 7_s._ 6_d._ London, Weale, 1845. - - PICTURESQUE ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE IN HINDOSTAN. 24 - Plates in Coloured Lithography, with Plans, Woodcuts, and explanatory - Text, &c. 4_l._ 4_s._ London, Hogarth, 1847. - - AN ESSAY ON THE ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM; with restored Plans - of the Temple, and with Plans, Sections, and Details of the Church - built by Constantine the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as - the Mosque of Omar. 16_s._ London, Weale, 1847. - - AN ESSAY ON A PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM OF FORTIFICATION, with Hints for - its Application to our National Defences. 12_s._ 6_d._ London, Weale, - 1849. - - AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BEAUTY IN ART, more - especially with reference to Architecture. Royal 8vo. 31_s._ 6_d._ - London, Longmans, 1849. - - THE PALACES OF NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS RESTORED: An Essay on Ancient - Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 8vo. 16_s._ London, Murray, 1851. - - THE PERIL OF PORTSMOUTH. FRENCH FLEETS AND ENGLISH FORTS. - Plan. 8vo. 3_s._ London, Murray, 1853. - - PORTSMOUTH PROTECTED: with Notes on Sebastopol and other Sieges - during the Present War. Plans. 8vo. 3_s._ London, Murray, 1856. - - OBSERVATIONS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NATIONAL GALLERY, and NATIONAL - RECORD OFFICE; with Suggestions for their improvement. 8vo. London, - Weale, 1849. - - THE ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise and Popular - Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and all - Countries. With 850 Illustrations. 8vo. 26_s._ London, Murray, 1859. - - NOTES ON THE SITE OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE AT JERUSALEM. An answer to - 'The Edinburgh Review.' 2_s._ 6_d._ London, Murray, 1861. - - THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS RESTORED, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE - REMAINS RECENTLY DISCOVERED. Plates. 4to. 7_s._ 6_d._ London, - Murray, 1862. - - THE HOLY SEPULCHRE AND THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM. Being the Substance - of Two Lectures delivered in the Royal Institution, Albemarle Street, - on the 21st February, 1862, and 3rd March, 1865. Woodcuts. 8vo. 7_s._ - 6_d._ London, Murray, 1865. - -[Illustration: _Map, designed to illustrate the distribution of -Dolmens, and probable lines of the migrations of the Dolmen builders._] - - - - - * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber's note: - - 1. Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors have been - silently corrected. - - 2. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed. - - 3. The original book contained several unpaired double quotation - marks which could not be corrected with certainty. - - 4. Out of order entries in Index have been corrected. - - 5. Page 324: "Note" refers to the map opposite. There is no Map. - - 6. Page 411: "Footnote Anchor 484" is missing. An anchor has been added - at the end of the paragraph in which the text, to which it refers, - appears. - - 7. Index: The entry "Ross County, North America, sacred enclosures - in, 811." should read "Ross County, North America, sacred - enclosures in, 511." Index corrected. - - 8. Variations in hyphenation (e.g. battlefields/battle-fields) - have not been harmonised. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RUDE STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL -COUNTRIES*** - - -******* This file should be named 54620-0.txt or 54620-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/4/6/2/54620 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |