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:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/54620/pg54620-images.html)
or
(https://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been replaced by prehistoric myths, which, though free from their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.]