FRANCE.
It is only in very recent times that the French have turned their
attention to the study of their Rude-Stone Monuments; but since they
have done so, it has been in so systematic and scientific a manner
that, had it been continued a few years longer, little would have been
left to be desired by the students of that class of antiquities in
France. War and revolution, however, intervened just as the results of
these labours were about to be given to the world, and how long we may
now have to wait for them, no one can tell. The Musée de St.-Germain
was far from being complete in July last, and only the first parts of
the great 'Dictionnaire des Antiquités celtiques' had been published at
that time. We can now hardly hope that the necessary expenditure will
be continued which is indispensable to complete the former, and it is
difficult to foresee in what manner the materials collected for the
dictionary can now be utilised.
Even when much further advanced towards completion, it is hardly to
be expected that the museums of St.-Germain and Vannes can rival
the royal collections at Copenhagen; and if the French had confined
themselves only to collecting, they would not have advanced our
knowledge very much; but, while doing this, they have also gathered
statistical information, and have been mapping and describing, so that
our knowledge of their monuments is much more complete than of those
of the Danes. To borrow a simile from kindred sciences, it is as if
the Danes had attended exclusively to the mineralogy of the subject:
collecting specimens from all parts, and arranging them according to
their similarities or affinities, wholly irrespective of the localities
from which they came. The French, on the other hand, have founded a
science similar to that of geology on their knowledge of the minerals;
they have carefully noted the distribution of the various classes
of monuments, and, so far as possible, ascertained their relative
superposition. The first is, no doubt, a most useful process, and one
that must to a certain extent precede the other; but unless we map the
various rocks on the surface and ascertain their stratification, it
hardly helps us in studying the formation or history of our globe.
In 1864 M. Bertrand published in the 'Revue archéologique' a small map
of France, showing the distribution of dolmens as then known; and three
years afterwards another, on a much larger scale, intended to accompany
the 'Dictionnaire des Antiquités celtiques,' and containing all that
was then known. Were a second edition of this map published now, it
would, no doubt, be much more full and complete; but the main outlines
must still be the same, and are sufficient for our present purposes.
From these maps and the text which accompanies them we learn that the
greater number of the rude-stone monuments in France are arranged at no
great distance on either side of a straight line drawn from the shores
of the Mediterranean, somewhere about Montpellier, to Morlaix, in
Brittany. There are none east of the Rhone, none south of the Garonne,
till we come to the Pyrenees, and so few north of the basin or valley
of the Seine that they may be considered as wanderers.
Referring to the table at the end of this chapter, which is compiled
from that of 1864, we find that thirty departments contain more than
ten monuments. Thirty others, according to M. Bertrand, contain from
one to eight or nine; and the remaining twenty-nine either contain none
at all or these so insignificant as hardly to deserve attention.
From this table we learn, at least approximately, several facts of
considerable interest to our investigation. The first is that, of
the three divisions into which Cæsar divides Gaul, the northern in
his day belonged to a race who had had no stone monuments. There are
none in Belgium proper, and so few in French Flanders, or indeed in
any part of Gallia Belgica, that we may safely assert that the Belgæ
were not dolmen-builders. In the next place, I cannot help agreeing
with M. Bertrand in his conclusion that the Celts properly so called
have as little claim to the monuments as the Belgæ.[379] We know
something of the provinces occupied by the Celts six hundred years
before Christ from Livy's[380] description of the tribes who, under
Bellevesus, invaded Italy. Their capital was Bruges, and they occupied
the departments immediately around that city; but they had not then
penetrated into Brittany, nor north of the Seine, nor into any part of
Aquitania.[381] But they occupied the whole of the east of Gaul up,
apparently, to the Rhine and the country on the east bank of the Rhone.
According to the French statistics, there are 140,000 barrows or tumuli
in the departments of the Côte-d'Or, Vosges, Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin,
Doubs, Jura, and Ain, but not one single dolmen;[382] and there are
none to the east of the Rhine. As we proceed westward, the tumuli
become rarer, and the dolmens are gradually met with. The Averni, for
instance, were one of the Celtic tribes that accompanied Bellovesus,
and in their country dolmens are found; but perhaps we need only infer
from this that in a hilly country like Auvergne the older people still
remained, and followed their old customs in spite of its partial
occupation by the conquering Celts. We do not know at what period the
Celts first invaded Gaul, but there seems no reason for supposing that
it could not be very long before they first came in contact with the
Romans; and if we may judge from the rate of progress which they made
in subduing the rest of the country in historic times, their first
invasion could hardly have been a thousand years B.C. All the
tumuli in the east of France which have been dug into have yielded
implements of bronze and metal,[383] and if they belonged to the Celts,
this would fairly accord with the conclusions at which archæologists
have arrived from other sources with regard to the Bronze age. It is
not, however, worth while following up the question here; for unless
it could be proved that the dolmens either succeeded or preceded the
tumuli, it has no bearing on our argument. The fact of their occupying
different and distinct districts prevents any conclusion of the sort
being arrived at from geographical or external considerations. Their
contents, if compared, might afford some information, but up to the
present time this has not been done, and all we can at present assume
is that there were two contemporary civilizations, or barbarisms,
co-existing simultaneously on the soil of France. My impression is,
however, that the Celtic barrow-builders were earlier converts to
Christianity, and left off their heathenish mode of burial long before
the less easily converted dolmen-builders of the west ceased to erect
their Rude-Stone Monuments.
We are thus reduced to the third of the great provinces into which Gaul
was divided in Cæsar's time, to try and find the people who could have
erected the stone monuments of France, and at first sight it seems
extremely probable that they were erected by the Aquitanians. Both
Cæsar[384] and Strabo[385] distinctly assert that the people of the
southern province differed from the Celts in language and institutions
as well as in features, and add that they resembled more the Iberians
of Spain than their northern neighbours. When, however, we come to
look more closely into the matter, we find that the Aquitania of Cæsar
was confined to the country between the Garonne and the Pyrenees,
and where, however, few, if any, dolmens now exist. They are rather
frequent in the Pyrenees[386] and the Asturias, where remnants of the
dolmen-building races may have found shelter and continued to exist
after their congeners were swept from the plains; and there are one or
two on the left bank of the Garonne, but except these there are none
in Aquitania proper. If, however, we apply the term Aquitania to the
province as extended by Augustus up to the left bank of the Loire, we
include the greater part of the provinces where dolmens are found;
but here again, when we look more closely into it, we find that the
northern districts of this great province were, in Augustus' time,
inhabited by Celts, or, at all events, that Celts formed the governing
and influential bodies in the states. Indeed, the fact seems to be
that, during the six centuries which elapsed between the invasions
of Italy by the Gauls and the return invasion of Gaul by the Romans,
the Celts had gradually extended themselves over the whole of central
France from the Garonne to the Seine, and had obliterated the political
status of the people who had previously occupied the country, though
there is no reason to suppose they had then at least attempted to
exterminate them. It must thus be either that the Celts were the
builders of the dolmens, which appears most improbable, or that there
existed in these provinces a prehistoric people to whom they must be
ascribed.
Without at all wishing, at present at least, to insist upon it, I may
here state that the impression on my mind is every day growing stronger
that the dolmen-builders in France are the lineal descendants of the
Cave men whose remains have recently been detected in such quantities
on the banks of the Dordogne and other rivers in the south of
France.[387] These remains are found in quantities in the Ardèche[388]
and in Poitou.[389] If they have not been found in Brittany, it may be
that they have not been looked for, or that the soil is unfavourable
to their preservation; but they have been found in Picardy, though
possibly not exactly of the same class. It is, of course, dangerous to
found any argument on such local coincidence, as new discoveries may be
made in the east of France or elsewhere; but in the present state of
our knowledge the Cave men and the dolmens seem not only conterminous
but their frequency seems generally to be coincident.
As we know next to nothing of the languages spoken in the south-west
of France before the introduction of the Romance forms of speech,
philology will hardly assist us in our enquiry. There is, however, one
particle, _ac_, which I cannot help thinking may prove of importance,
when its origin is ascertained. In the table at the end of this
chapter, I have placed the number of the names of the cities having
this termination in each department[390] next to M. Bertrand's number
of dolmens. The coincidence is certainly remarkable, more especially as
it is easy to account for the comparative paucity of names with this
termination in Brittany by taking into account the enormous reflex wave
of Celtic population from England that overwhelmed that country in the
fourth and fifth centuries, and changed the nomenclature of half the
places in the district: still, Carnac and Tumiac, Missilac, and others,
as names of monuments, and Yffignac, as the name attached to the port
which I believe was the place of embarkation for England, with many
others that remain, are sufficient to attest that more previously may
have existed.
The question remains, what is this particle? The first impulse is
to assume that it is the Basque definite article. The Basques, for
instance, say _Guizon_, "a man," _Guizónac_, "the man," and _Guizónac_,
"the men," besides using it in other cases, while their local
proximity to the dolmen country would render such a connection far
from improbable. Against this, however, it may be urged, that _ac_,
as a terminal syllable, hardly ever occurs in the Basque provinces,
and the names to which it is attached in France hardly seem to belong
to that language. Another suggestion has been made,[391] that it is
equivalent to the Greek word πὁλις, which would be exactly
the signification for which we are looking, though in what language
this occurs is by no means clear. For our present purpose, however, it
is of little consequence what it may or may not be. It is sufficient
to know that its occurrence is, as nearly as may be, coincident with
the existence of dolmens. It does not occur to the eastward of the
Rhone, nor do dolmens, though both are frequent on the right bank of
that river; and it is not to be found in the east of France, in those
countries which we have reason to believe were at the dawn of history
essentially Celtic, and where the tumuli of the Bronze period exist in
such numbers. It does, however, occur in that part of Cornwall south of
Redruth and west of Falmouth,[392] where all the rude-stone monuments
of that province are found, but it is not found anywhere else in Great
Britain or Ireland.
Nor is it found in the Channel Islands, though dolmens abound there;
but this may be accounted for by the subsequent colonisation of
these islands, as of Brittany in more modern times, by races of a
different origin, who have to a great extent obliterated the original
nomenclature of the country.
Equally interesting, however, for our purposes is the fact that, though
the _ac_-termination occurs frequently in the departments between the
Garonne and the Pyrenees, no dolmens exist in that region except, as
before mentioned, a few at the roots of the mountains. This, at first
sight, might seem to militate against the universality of the theory;
but I, on the other hand, only take it to express that the _ac_-people
were driven from that country by Ibero-Aquitanians before they had
adopted the fashion of stone monuments. If we knew when Aquitania was
first occupied by the people whom Cæsar and Strabo found there, it
would give us a date before which dolmens could hardly have existed;
but as we have no materials for the purpose, all that can be said is
that, just as the dolmen races were cut in two by the Belgæ before the
use of stone for funereal monuments had been introduced, so here the
same phenomenon occurred, and the people we have to deal with were
driven north of the Garonne, west of the Rhone, and south of the Seine,
before they took to building dolmens--assuming, of course, that they
once had extended beyond those limits; but this, except in the case of
Aquitania proper, does not at present seem capable of being proved.
Before the Romans came in contact with them, and our first written
accounts describe them, they had ceased to be a nation politically, and
their language also was lost, or, at least, except in the one syllable
_ac_, we now know nothing of it. If, therefore, it may be argued, the
nationality of this people was lost before the Christian era, and their
language had become extinct, these monuments must belong to a long
anterior period. There are, however, certain considerations which would
make us pause before jumping too hastily to this conclusion. There are,
throughout the whole dolmen region of the south of France, a series
of churches whose style is quite distinct from that of central and
northern France. The typical example of this style is the well-known
church of St.-Front, Périgueux. But the churches at Cahors, at
Souillac, at Moissac, Peaussac, Tremolac, St.-Avit-Sénieur, and many
others, are equally characteristic. The cathedral at Angoulême, the
abbey church at Fontevrault, and St.-Maurice at Angers,[393] and the
church at Loches--all these churches are characterized by possessing
domes, and the earlier ones by having pointed arches which look very
much more as if they were derived from the horizontal arches of the
tumuli than from the radiating arches of the Romans, which the Celts
everywhere adopted; and, altogether, the style is so peculiar that no
one the least familiar with it can ever mistake it for a Celtic style.
All belong to the same group, and as distinctly as, or even more so
than, the _ac_-termination, mark out the country as inhabited in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries by a people differing from the Celts.
Though, therefore, both their nationality and their language may have
been superseded by those of the more enterprising and active Celts
before the time of Cæsar, it is evident they retained their old feeling
and a separate internal existence to a period at least a thousand years
later.
There is still another trait that marks this country as a non-Celtic
country in historical times--it is in the south-west, and there only,
in France that Protestantism ever flourished or took root. To the Celt,
the transition was everywhere easy from the government of the hierarchy
of the Druids to that of the similarly organized priesthood of Rome.
But it required all the cruel power of the Inquisition--the crusades of
Simon de Montfort--the exterminating wars against the Camisards of the
Cevennes---and, in fact, centuries of the most cruel and unrelenting
persecution down to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and, indeed,
to the French Revolution--to exterminate this people and extirpate the
faith and feelings to which they clung. If they have in their veins,
as I fancy they must have, any of the blood of the Cave people, they
belong to one of the least progressive people of the earth, and we
should not therefore be surprised if it required two thousand years
of Celtic aggressiveness, coupled with Celtic ferocity, entirely to
obliterate this race, if, indeed, that is done even now, which I very
much doubt.
* * * * *
Before leaving this part of the subject, there is one other question
which it may be as well to allude to here, as these investigations into
the distribution of the rude-stone monuments seem destined to throw a
new and important light upon it. Few questions have been more keenly
debated among the learned than the relationship stated to have existed
between the Cimbri and the Gauls. A great deal has been, and can be,
said on both sides,[394] but the difficulty appears to me to have
arisen principally from the erroneous assumption that on other people
except the Celts existed in France.
There is no trace of Celts or of a Celtic language in the Cimbric
Chersonese or the north-west corner of Europe, which is generally
assumed to be the country occupied by the Cimbri, and no such people as
the Cimbri are found settled in any part of France in historical times.
If, however, we assume that the relationship may have been between
the Cimbri and the Aquitanians, the case assumes a totally different
aspect. As we do not know what the language of the Aquitanians really
was, no assistance can be obtained from it, but our very ignorance of
it leaves the field open for any other evidence that may be adduced,
and that of the monuments seems clear and distinct. It seems almost
impossible that there should be so much similarity between the
monuments of the two countries without some community of race, and
the great likeness that exists between those on the southern frontier
of the northern dolmen province and those on the northern edge of the
southern dolmen field seems almost to settle the question.
From history we only know of the existence of this relationship by the
mode in which they fought together against Marius in the late Roman
wars. If they were then geographically separated by the Belgæ and the
Celts having thrust themselves between them, the separation must
have been recent, for a barbarian people could hardly be brought to
acknowledge the ties and duties of relationship after a long interval
of time.[395]
* * * * *
As may be gathered from the table, page 376, or the map opposite
page 324, the rude-stone monuments are pretty evenly distributed
over the whole of the area extending from the English Channel to the
Mediterranean Sea. Our knowledge of them is, however, practically
confined to the northern portion of this zone, known as Brittany. The
information which is available regarding those of Languedoc and Guienne
is of the most meagre description. Hundreds of English tourists have
visited Brittany, and many of them have drawn the monuments there and
at least described them intelligibly; but I do not know one English
book that mentions those in the departments of Lot or Dordogne, and
almost the only information regarding them is to be picked up from the
local "Statistiques;" but as these are very rarely illustrated, they do
not suffice. No form of words will convey a correct idea of any unknown
architectural monument except by comparing it with one that is known;
and unless both have some well-defined features of style, it is even
then very difficult, and with rude unshaped stones, almost impossible,
by words to convey what is intended.
[Illustration: 122. Dolmen at Sauclières.]
It is to be regretted that we do not know more of the southern
examples,[396] as they are different in several essential features
from those of the north; and it is probable that any one who was
familiar with all could point out a gradation of style which would
aid materially in determining their age. Whatever that may turn out
eventually to be, no one will, I presume, contend that all are of one
age or even of one century. It is far more probable that they extend
over a considerable lapse of time, probably a thousand years, and
if this is so, there must have been changes of fashion even among
Cave races as their blood got more and more mixed; and it would be
interesting to know where and--relatively at least--when this took
place. My present impression is that the southern are the most modern,
for this among other reasons.--I look on the sequence of a cist in a
barrow to a dolmen or chamber in a tumulus as very nearly certain,
and from that the sequence to the exposed free-standing dolmen, and
from that to the dolmen on the tumulus, as nearly, if not quite as,
probable. The latter form, so far as I know, never occurs in Brittany,
while on the other hand it is common in the south of France.[397]
If they are of the same age as similar monuments in Scandinavia and
Ireland, they must be of comparatively modern date. There are also some
monuments, trilithons of hewn or partially hewn stone, as this one
at Sauclières (woodcut No. 122), which at least look more modern than
their northern congeners.
The monument, however, that seems capable of throwing the greatest
amount of light on their age is the dolmen of St.-Germain-sur-Vienne,
near Confolens, in Poitou. As will be seen from the woodcuts opposite,
its cap-stone, measures 12 feet by 15 feet, and is of proportionate
thickness. The mass was originally supported by five columns of
Gothic design, but one having fallen away, it now rests only on
four; but their interest arises from the fact that the style of
their ornamentation belongs undoubtedly to the twelfth century or
thereabouts--certainly not earlier than the eleventh. In order to
explain away so unwelcome an anomaly, it has been suggested, that some
persons in the twelfth century cut away all the rest of the original
rude stones which supported the cap-stone, and left only the frail
shafts which we now see. If this were so, it would in no way alter the
argument to be derived from it. If men could be found in the twelfth
century to take the trouble and run the enormous risk of such an
operation, their respect for the monument must have been quite equal
to that implied in its erection; but the fact is that each of the five
columns is composed of three separate pieces--a base, a shaft, and a
capital,[398] and we see them now as they were originally erected.[399]
There may be doubts about the tomb of the Moals at Ballina (page 233),
but doubt seems impossible with regard to this: it is a dolmen pure and
simple, and it was erected in the twelfth century. In itself the fact
may not be of any very great importance, but it cuts away the ground
from any _à priori_ argument as to the age of these monuments. It does
not, of course, prove that they are all modern, but it does show that
some of them at least were erected after the time of the Romans, and
at an era extending even far into the middle ages.
[Illustration: 123. Dolmen at Confolens.]
[Illustration: 124. Plan of Dolmen at Confolens.]
It is amusing, however, to see how the French antiquaries resist
such a conclusion. Dr. de Closmadeuc, for instance, one of the most
distinguished antiquaries of Brittany, opened a perfectly virgin
tumulus at Crubelz. After penetrating through three distinct but
undisturbed strata, he reached the roof of the enclosed dolmen
or chamber. In this he found the usual products of cremation and
the inevitable flint arrow-heads, but he refers in triumph to the
"absence de toute trace des métaux." "Aucun doute," he adds, "n'est
donc possible. Ce dolmen appartient bien à cette classe de monuments
primitifs de l'âge de pierre." So far all is clear; but there are
still difficulties, for he goes on to say: "Nous tenons peu de compte
des débris de tuiles antiques rencontrées à la superficie du tumulus,
et même sous les tables du dolmen. Il est raisonnable d'admettre que
ces fragments de tuiles qui dénoncent l'industrie gallo-romaine, ont
accidentellement pénétré dans l'intérieur."[400]
Let us pause a moment to consider what is involved in such a
supposition. These tiles, which it is admitted are scattered in
quantities over the surrounding plain, must have climbed to the top
of the mound, penetrated through three undisturbed strata of earth,
and finally penetrated "accidentally" between the close-fitting slabs
forming the roof of the chamber. The hypothesis will not bear a
moment's examination, but anything, however absurd, is to some minds
preferable to admitting that any dolmen or tumulus can be subsequent to
Roman times. It is astonishing, however, what effect that shibboleth,
"no trace of metal," has on the mind of most antiquaries. It is, of
course, true that before the metals were introduced no trace of them
could be found in the prehistoric barrows of the rude savages that
occupied Europe in the earliest times. We do not, at the present day,
bury metal objects in our graves, and but for the coffin nails it would
be as fair to argue that the graves in Kensal Green are prehistoric
because the interments show no trace of metal implements. At all
events, there are many burying races now existing who do not use
coffins, nor bury metal objects in their graves; and all these this
argument would make prehistoric. To me it seems much more logical to
assume that, in those countries which had been occupied by the Romans,
the natives, though reverting after their departure to their original
modes of sepulture, had at least been so far civilized as to know that
bronze daggers and spear-heads were not likely to be of much use in the
next world, and had come to the conclusion that the personal ornaments
of the dead might as well remain with their living friends. This
hypothesis would at least account for the absence of metal in the long
barrows of Gloucestershire, and at West Kennet, as well as at Crubelz,
though Roman pottery was found in all these instances. In fact, it is
the merest negative presumption to assume that, because no metal is
found in a grave, it must be prehistoric. It may be of any age, down to
yesterday's, in so far as such proof is concerned.
Even the presence of metal, however, does not disturb the faith of
some antiquaries. The Baron de Bonstetten, for instance, opened a
tumulus not far from Crubelz. At one foot (30 centimetres) below the
undisturbed surface the usual deposit of flint implements was found;
and two feet (60 centimetres) below them two statuettes of Latona in
terra-cotta and a coin of Constantine II. were found, but without this
in the least degree shaking his undoubting faith in the prehistoric
antiquity of the tomb![401]
Numerous other Roman coins have been found in these French monuments,
but their testimony is disregarded. In the Manné er H'roëk, commonly
called the Butte de César, about half a mile south from Locmariaker,
near the surface, eleven medals of the Roman emperors, from Tiberius
to Trajan, were found, together with fragments of bronze, glass, and
pottery, but there were no signs of a secondary interment.[402] In like
manner, in another monument at Beaumont-sur-Oise, Roman moneys were
found, but, as M. Bertrand is careful to explain, in a stratum above
the stone and flint implements, which, of course, he believed to mark
the true date of the monument.[403] It seems impossible, however, that
all these Roman coins can have been accidentally placed there. Those of
Valentinian and Theodosius in the mound at New Grange were precisely in
the same position as those of Titus, Domitian, and Trajan in the Butte
de César or those of Beaumont, and so were those of Constantine found
at Uley, in Gloucestershire (_ante_, p. 165). Those of Valentinian at
Minning Lowe were in the tomb itself; so probably might others have
been found in the other tombs had they not previously been rifled. It
is not easy to assign a motive for placing these coins in the upper
part of the mound externally. Their being found in that position at
New Grange, Uley, Locmariaker, and Beaumont, is, however, sufficient
to prove it was not accidental, and their value is so small that they
could not have been buried there for concealment. They must have had
something to do with some funereal rite or superstition, the memory of
which has passed away. No ancient British or Gaulish coins have ever
been found in similar positions, and no Christian coins, which, had
their presence been purely accidental, would probably have been the
case. The inference seems to me inevitable that they were looked on as
valued relics or curiosities, and placed there intentionally by those
who raised the mounds it may be very long after the dates which the
coins bear.
DOLMENS.
There is nothing specific in the Rude Stone Monuments of France
sufficient to distinguish them from those of the other countries
we have been describing. They are larger, finer, and more numerous
there than in either Scandinavia or the British Isles, but except
in the negative peculiarity of there being no circles in France
there is little to distinguish the two groups. It can hardly even be
absolutely asserted that there are no circles in France. There are
some semicircles, which may possibly have been parts of circles never
completed; there are some rows of small stones around or on tumuli; but
certainly nothing that can for one moment be classed with the great
circles of Cumberland and Wiltshire, or those of Moytura and Stennis,
and certainly nothing like the innumerable Scandinavian examples.
We are hardly yet in a position to speculate why this should be so;
but, so far as I can at present see, I would infer from this that the
French examples are, as a rule, of earlier date than the British and
Scandinavian. The circle I take to be one of the latest forms of rude
stone architecture--the skeleton of a tumulus, after the flesh of the
sepulchral mound, which gave meaning to the group, had been thrown on
one side as no longer indispensable. But of this we shall be better
able to judge as we proceed.
Another characteristic, although not a distinction, is the fondness of
the French for the "Allée couverte" or "Grotte des fées." No examples
of this form have yet been brought to light in England, but one is
engraved (woodcut No. 80) as the Hag Birra's grave near Monasterboice,
a second from the same neighbourhood, at Greenmount (woodcut No.
81), and they exist in Scandinavia, but their home is Drenthe and
the neighbouring corner of Germany. As already mentioned, upwards of
fifty examples exist in that province. They are much ruder, it must be
confessed, than those of France; but this may arise from the nature of
the only material available; they have also the peculiarity of having
the entrance always at the side instead of at the end.
So far as their distribution in France has yet been ascertained, the
Grottes des fées exist only on the Loire, and to the north of it, in
fact in the most northern division of the French dolmen region; while,
on the other hand, as they are principally found in Drenthe, or at the
southern extremity of the German dolmen field, we may assume that there
is some connection between the two, or that there would have been if it
had not been severed by the Belgians before those in either region were
erected.
One of the finest of the French examples of this class of monuments
is that near Saumur, at Bagneux. The walls are composed of only four
stones on one side and three on the other, yet it measures 57 feet 6
inches by 14 feet 4 inches across. Another, near Essé, is even larger,
though not so regular in plan, nor so grand in the character of the
stones. It measures, however, 61 feet by 12 feet at the entrance,
increasing to 14 feet over all at the inner end. There is a third at
Mettray, near Tours, which, though very much smaller, is curiously
characteristic of the form. The immense mass in the centre (woodcut
No. 125) and the two smaller which form the roof almost take from it
the character of rude-stone architecture. There is a fourth, of a
less megalithic character, at Locmariaker,[404] and several others
are dispersed over Brittany. It is not possible to know whether the
intention may not have been that these, like all smaller chambers,
should have been buried in tumuli. These just quoted, however,
certainly never were so, but this may have arisen from their having
been left unfinished. That at Bagneux, however, could hardly have
supported a heavy mass without falling in, and that at Mettray looks
too like a finished monument for any one to fancy its builders wished
it hid.
[Illustration: 125. Dolmen near Mettray. From Gailhabaud.]
[Illustration: 126. Dolmen of Krukenho.]
The more usual form of French dolmens is either square or slightly in
excess of that form, seldom reaching two squares in plan, and with a
height equal to its breadth. One of the finest specimens[405] of a
monument of this class is in the middle of the village of Krukenho,
halfway between Carnac and Erdeven, and is now used as a cart-shed
or barn. It certainly never was covered up, though its entrance may
have been closed; indeed, the stones used for that purpose still lie
in front of it. From this, which may be styled a first-class dolmen
of the ordinary type, down to the simple dolmen of four stones, like
Kit's Cotty house, every possible variety and gradation are to be found
in France; but, so far as I know, no classification has been hit upon
which would enable us to say which are the oldest or which the more
modern.
On the whole, however, I am inclined to look on the Grottes des fées
as the more modern form. The stones of which they are composed are
generally hewn, or at least shaped, by metal tools to the extent to
which those of Stonehenge can be said to be so treated. They also look
more like ordinary structures than other megalithic monuments, and seem
rather sepulchral chapels than sepulchres. Even, however, if we were to
determine to regard them as relatively the most modern of the northern
dolmens, this would not settle the question of the southern external
dolmens on tumuli, which may be even more modern. These questions,
however, must, I fear, remain unanswered till our knowledge of the form
of the whole group and of the materials of which the monuments are
composed is more extensive and more accurate than it is at present.
The holed-stone variety occurs frequently in France, either in the form
of simple four-stone dolmens, like that of Trie, Oise[406] (woodcut
No. 127), or in a still more characteristic example at Grandmont, in
Bas-Languedoc[407] (woodcut No. 128). Certainly neither of these was
intended to be covered up, at least in the first instance, or, at all
events, only partially; or the use of the hole, which was, no doubt,
to get access to the chamber, would have been destroyed. The umbrella
form of the southern example is hardly such as would ever be used for a
chamber in a tumulus, but as a pent-roof is singularly suitable for an
open-air monument. The so-called Coves at Avebury were, I believe, in
this form, and it prevails also in India[408] and elsewhere, and the
likeness between the two is so remarkable that it may well have given
rise to speculations as to their common origin.
[Illustration: 127. Holed Dolmen, at Trie. From Gailhabaud.]
[Illustration: 128. Dolmen of Grandmont.]
[Illustration: 129. Demi-dolmen. From Malé, 'Antiquités du Morbihan.']
There is still a form of dolmen very common in France, but found
also frequently in these islands, though I do not know if it occurs
in Scandinavia. Mr. Du Noyer proposed to call them "earth-fast
dolmens,"[409] from one end of the cap-stones always resting on the
ground, the other only being supported by a pillar or block. At first
sight it might appear that they were only unfinished or imperfect
dolmens, as it is more than probable that the mode of erection, in all
instances, was to raise first one end of the cap-stone and then the
other, as by this means the weight is practically halved. If, however,
any faith is to be placed in this representation of a monument by
Malé,[410] it is clear that it was a deliberate mode of getting rid of
half the expense and half the trouble of erecting a dolmen sepulchre.
Generally speaking, however, they are more like the one near Poitiers
(woodcut No. 130), where the stone either rests at one end on a bank or
on a flat space sloping upwards. Those in Ireland and Wales seem all
really to be only demi-dolmens, and as economy would hardly be a motive
in the good old times, I look upon them as probably a very modern
form of this class of monument. There is, indeed, one at Kerland, in
Brittany (woodcut No. 131), which, in spite of the shock such an idea
will give to most people, I cannot help thinking is and always was a
Christian monument. At least it is inconceivable to me from what motive
any Christian could have erected a cross on a pagan monument of this
class, if it really were one. It seems, on the other hand, perfectly
intelligible that long after their nominal conversion to Christianity
the people would adhere to the forms so long practised by their
ancestors, and there appears to be no great reason why even the most
bigoted priest should object to it, provided the symbol of the cross
made it quite clear that the "poor inhabitant below" died in the true
faith.
[Illustration: 130. Demi-dolmen, near Poitiers.]
[Illustration: 131. Demi-dolmen at Kerland.]
I have purposely refrained from speaking of rocking stones, which play
so important a part in the forms of Druidical worship invented by
Stukeley, Borlase, and the antiquaries of the last century, because
I believe that nine-tenths of those found in this country--if not
all--are merely natural phenomena. So far from being surprised that
this should be the case, the wonder is that they are not more frequent
where loose boulders abound, either ice-borne or freed by the washing
away of the underlying strata. That some of these should rest in an
unstable equilibrium easily disturbed is only what might be expected,
and that they would also be matters of marvel to the country people
around is also natural; but it does not follow from this that any
priests purposely and designedly placed, or could place, rude stones in
such positions, or that they used them for religious purposes.
[Illustration: 132. Pierre Martine.]
In France, however, there is one called the Pierre Martine, near
Livernon, in the department of the Lot, which was designedly balanced,
if any one was. Its general appearance will be understood from the
preceding woodcut, taken from 'La France monumentale et pittoresque,'
which correctly represents its form and appearance.[411] The cap-stone
measures 22 feet by 11 feet, and is 16 inches in thickness, and is so
balanced on its two points of support that a slight pressure of the
hand is sufficient to set it oscillating with a motion which it retains
for some time.[412]
[Illustration: 133. Pierre Martine. From Bonstetten.]
[Illustration: 134. Pierre Branlante, in Brittany.]
Another and more celebrated one, in Brittany, which is known as the
Pierre branlante de Huelgoat, seems rather due to accident. It looks
as if it formed, or was intended to form, part of a demi-dolmen, but
happening to rest on one of its supports so as to oscillate, it has
been allowed to remain so. Even assuming, however, that this was done
designedly, what would it prove beyond the desire which pervades
all these monuments, of exciting astonishment by _tours de force_.
I believe it is correct to say that no passage exists in any book
ancient or medieval which mentions rocking stones or their uses; nor
has anyone been able to explain how they delivered their oracles. A
certain push produced an oscillation, not fitful or irregular, but
always in proportion to the force applied; so the answer must always
have been the same and alike to all people. A still more important
fact is that nowhere do the people appeal to them now. Neither at the
Beltane nor at Halloween, nor at any of those festivals where country
people revive every extinct superstition to aid them in prying into
futurity, are these rocking stones appealed to; and it seems almost
impossible that, when so many other superstitions have survived, this
one should be lost, and lost in presence of the rocks themselves, which
still remain. Wonders they certainly are, but I question much if they
ever were appealed to for any higher purpose than that of extracting
sixpences from the pockets of gaping tourists.
CARNAC.
In a zone about twenty miles in extent, stretching from Erdeven on the
north-west to Tumiac in a south-easterly direction, and nowhere more
than five miles in width, there is to be found the most remarkable
group of megalithic remains, not only in France, but perhaps in the
whole world. Not only are examples of every class of monument we
have been describing, except circles, to be found here, but they are
larger and finer examples than are generally to be met with elsewhere.
Another point of interest also is that within the zone are found--if I
am not mistaken--both a cemetery and a battle-field. At least in the
neighbourhood of Locmariaker, which there seems no reason for doubting
was the Dariorigum of the Romans, the capital of the Venetes in Cæsar's
times,[413] all the monuments are more or less sculptured, and all the
stones fashioned, not to say hewn. On the other hand, no stone in the
neighbourhood of Carnac is hewn, or even fashioned, beyond splitting,
and no sculptures of any class have been traced. The distinction is too
marked to be accidental, and unless it can be made out that they belong
to different ages, which appears to me most improbable, goes far to
establish the conclusion at which we have arrived in previous chapters.
To begin with the Carnac monument,[414] which is the best known and the
most important. As will be seen by the woodcut on p. 352, it consists
of two separate alignments, or great stone rows--one, that of Carnac,
extending for nearly two miles in a direction nearly east and west; the
other, that of Erdeven, at a distance of two miles and a half from that
at Carnac, being little more than one mile in length. There is a third,
but smaller, group at St.-Barbe, about a mile and a half due south of
Erdeven; and numerous dolmens and tumuli are spread at intervals all
over the plain.
In order to be understood, the Carnac monument must again be subdivided
into three portions. Beginning at Le Maenec (the Stones), we have
eleven rows of very fine stones, measuring from 11 feet to 13 feet in
height from the ground, and still nearly perfect. Gradually, however,
they become smaller and more sparse, till, when they reach the road
from Auray to Carnac, there are few of them that measure 3 feet in
any direction, and some are still smaller. Shortly after passing that
road the avenues cease altogether, for a distance of more than 300
yards, there being nothing but a few natural boulders in the interval
between. When, however, we reach the knoll on which the farm of
Kermario stands, the avenues reappear, this time only ten in number,
but perfectly regular, and with stones as large and as regularly spaced
as those at Maenec. They diminish more and more in size, however, and
almost die out altogether before they reach the mound (tumulus?) on
which the windmill stands, and after that become so small and sparse
that a stranger riding across the line could hardly remark that they
were artificially disposed, but would merely regard it as a stony
piece of land. They again cease entirely before we reach the brook, to
recommence at Kerlescant, where thirteen rows are found; but these are
composed of stones of less dimensions and more irregularly spaced than
those at Maenec, and die out much more rapidly. At a distance of less
than 500 yards from the head of the column they disappear entirely.
It may be suggested that these gaps arise from the stones having been
removed for agricultural and other purposes. I think, however, that
any one who carefully examines the spot will be convinced that we
really now possess all, or nearly all, that were ever placed here.
They are thickest and best preserved in the village of Maenec, and at
Kermario, where buildings are most frequent, and they disappear exactly
in those places where there are no buildings or walls, but where the
ground is an open, barren heath, without roads, and whence it would
be very difficult to transport them; and in so stony a country it is
very improbable that the attempt would be made. Besides this, the
gradual way in which they diminish in size before disappearing shows
a regularity of design, regarding which there can be no mistake. In
addition to this, the heads of the three divisions are all marked by
monuments of different kinds, but which are easily recognizable. At
the head of the Maenec division there is a curvilinear enclosure of
smaller stones, none of them being more than 6 feet in height, but set
much closer together than the rows (woodcut No. 136). It probably was
once complete, and, if so, joined the centre stone row. At Kermario,
a dolmen stands in front of the alignment, not remarkable for its
size, but conspicuous from its position; and at Kerlescant there is
a quadrangular[415] enclosure, three sides of which are composed of
stones of smaller size and set closely together, like those at Maenec.
The fourth side is formed by a tumulus or long barrow. This was dug
into in 1851, by some persons with or without authority; but who they
were, or what they found, is not recorded.
[Illustration: 135. MAP OF SOME CELTIC ANTIQUITIES _IN THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD_ OF CARNAC]
[Illustration: 136.]
The monument at Erdeven is very inferior in scale to that at Carnac,
and planned on a different principle. Instead of the heads of the
division following one another, as at Carnac, they face outwards;
and, like the fabled Amphisbena, this group has two heads, one at
each end. The principal one is the western, where there is a group of
very large stones close to the road, but rather confusedly arranged.
There seem to be nine or ten rows, and a row of large stones branches
off at right angles to the north. After extending about 100 yards the
main column dies out, and is resumed again at a distance of 200 yards,
in smaller stones much more widely spaced. It is again and again so
interrupted, that it is sometimes difficult to trace it till we come
near the eastern end, where it resumes its regularity, possessing eight
well-defined rows of stones similar to those at the west end.[416]
At the west end there can still be traced the remains of what was once
a tumulus, and, beyond that, a single standing menhir. At the east end
there is a tumulus of a somewhat oval form, and in the centre, a hill,
or rising ground, apparently natural, on which are placed two dolmens;
and, south of the east end, a second hill or mound with two more
similar monuments.
It is not easy to guess whether the lines of St.-Barbe were ever more
complete than we now find them. My own impression is that we have them
now very nearly as originally completed. The head facing the west seems
to have been intended for a curvilinear enclosure similar to that at
Maenec, but is now, at least, very incomplete. Its most remarkable
feature is the group of stones at its head (woodcut No. 137), two of
which are the largest and finest blocks in the neighbourhood. The
farthest away in the view is 19 feet long by 12 feet broad, and 8
feet thick; the other, seen in the foreground, even exceeds it in
dimensions. Whether these are like the Coffin stones at Aylesford, or
the two stones found among the stone rows at Dartmoor, or have, indeed,
any separate meaning, must be left to be determined when we know more
of the general scheme on which these monuments were planned.
There is nothing at present but juxtaposition to justify us in
connecting these great stone rows with the smaller groups of stones and
the dolmens or tumuli which stud the plain where they are found. In
respect to these, what we find at Carnac seems the exact converse of
what exists at Stonehenge and Stennis. There the great stone monuments
stand among the pigmy barrows of another race and age. Here all are
megalithic and all seem to have been erected nearly at the same time,
and to belong to one people, whoever they may eventually be proved to
have been. In so far as any argument as to their age is concerned, it
is at present of little importance whether this is so or not, for they
are all equally uncommunicative on this subject.
[Illustration: 137. Head of Column at St.-Barbe. From Messrs. Blair and
Ronalds' work.]
One of the tumuli known as Mont St.-Michel, is so situated with
respect to the Maenec row that it seems impossible to dissociate the
two. It was opened by M. René Galles in 1862, and an account of his
researches, in the form of a report to the Préfet, was published
shortly afterwards. The mound itself, at its base, is nearly 400 feet
in length by half that dimension in width. In modern times its summit
has been levelled, to form a platform for the church which now occupies
its eastern summit. In front of the church, M. Galles sunk a shaft
near the centre of the mound, and came upon a sepulchral chamber of
irregular form, the side walls of which were formed of very irregular
and bad masonry of small stones, similar to that of the dolmens at
Crubelz. Its mean dimensions were about 6 feet by 5 feet, and 3 feet
6 inches in height. In it were found some magnificent celts of jade
and tribolite, nine pendents in jasper, and 101 beads in jasper, with
some in turquoise, all polished and pierced so as to form a necklace.
The human remains in the principal cell seem utterly to have perished,
owing probably to the continued penetration of water since, at least,
the levelling of the summit, though some bones were subsequently found
in a small chamber adjoining.
On the north side of the avenue at Kerlescant, at a distance of about
100 paces from it, is a second long barrow, consequently occupying
the same relative position to it that Mont St.-Michel does to that at
Maenec. It is so similar in external appearance and general arrangement
to that forming the north side of the enclosure, which terminates the
avenue, that there can be little doubt of their being of the same age
and forming part of the same general arrangement. It had been opened
some twenty years ago by a gentleman residing at Carnac, but was
re-examined in 1867 by the Rev. W. C. Lukis.[417]
[Illustration: 138. Long Barrow at Kerlescant.]
In the centre he found a long rectangular chamber, measuring 52 feet
in length by 5 feet in width internally, and divided into two equal
compartments by two stones cut away in the centre, so as to leave a
hole 1 foot 6 inches wide by 3 feet high. A similar but smaller hole
exists on the side, and is identical with those found in the long
barrows at Rodmarton and Avening in Gloucestershire.[418] Mr. Lukis,
among other things, found an immense quantity of broken pottery, some
of very fine quality. Two vases which he was enabled to restore are
interesting from their general resemblance to the two which Mr. Bateman
found in Arbor Low (woodcut No. 31). Though not exactly the same in
form, there can be little doubt that they belong to the same age.
[Illustration: 139. Hole between Two Stones at Kerlescant.[419]]
[Illustration: 141. Vases found at Kerlescant.]
About a mile from this example, Mr. Lukis mentions a still larger
one. It measures 81 feet in length by 6 feet in width, is divided
into two compartments like the one just described, and has also a
holed entrance. He also measured two in Finistère, one 76 feet, the
other 66 feet, in length, and both 6 feet wide. Both, however, had
been rifled long ago, and are now mere ruins. More, no doubt, would be
found if looked for. Indeed, these straight-lined "allées couvertes,"
or "Grottes des fées," without cells, as the French call them, as
before mentioned, are the most characteristic, if not the most common,
form of French rude-stone monuments. The only other place where they
are equally common is Drenthe, and it may be that this side hole
at Kerlescant is an approach to the side entrance so usual in that
province.
At Plouharnel, about a mile and a half westward from Mont St.-Michel, a
double dolmen was opened a good many years ago. In it were found some
beautiful gold ornaments, others in bronze, and some celts or stone
axes in jade[420]--all these, like those of Mont St.-Michel, belonging
evidently to what antiquaries call the latest period of the Polished
Stone age; but until it is determined what that age is, it does not
help us much to a date.
[Illustration: 142. Plan of Moustoir-Carnac.]
[Illustration: 143. Section of Moustoir-Carnac. From 'Mémoire' by René
Galles.]
To the north of Kerlescant, at about the distance of half a mile,
is another long barrow, called Moustoir or Moustoir-Carnac, which
was opened in 1865, also by M. René Galles. It was found to contain
four separate interments, dispersed along its length, which exceeds
280 feet, the height varying from 15 to 20 feet. The western chamber
is a regular dolmen, of the class called "Grottes des fées," and is
apparently the oldest of the group. The centre one (_b_) is a very
irregular chamber, the plan of which it is difficult to make out; the
third (_c_) is a dolmen, irregular in plan, but roofed with three
large stones; but the fourth (_d_) is a circular chamber, the walls
of which are formed of tolerably large stones, the roof being built
up into the form of a horizontal dome (woodcut No. 144), by stones
projecting and overlapping, instead of the simpler ceiling of single
blocks as on all the earlier monuments. This, as well as the walls,
being built with small stones, I take to be a certain indication of
a more modern age. A considerable number of flint implements were
found in the western chamber, with some beads and a partially pierced
cylinder in serpentine, but no coins, nor any object of an age which
can be positively dated. Here, however, these troublesome Roman tiles
make their appearance as at Crubelz. "Ici, comme à Mané er H'roëk,
nous trouvons les traces caractéristiques du conquerant (les Romains):
des tuiles à rebord ont croulé, au pied de notre butte funéraire, et
plusieurs même se sont glissées à travers les couches supérieures des
pierres, qui forment une partie de la masse."[421]
[Illustration: 144. Section of Chamber _d_ of Moustier-Carnac.]
If these monuments are really prehistoric, it is to me incomprehensible
that these traces of the Romans should be so generally prevalent in
their structure. If it is objected that these are not found in the
chambers of the tombs themselves, the answer seems only too evident
that hardly one of them is virgin: all, or nearly all, have been
entered before the time of recent explorers, and all their more
valuable contents removed. Celts and beads and stone implements were
not likely to attract the attention of early pilferers, and these they
left; but except in the instance of the sepulchre at Plouharnel, metal
is very rarely found in any. But the presence of Roman pottery, or
other evidence of that people, in the long barrows in Gloucestershire,
at Kennet, and at Carnac, are too frequent to be accidental. In so far
as proving that the monument is not prehistoric, the presence of a
single fragment of Roman pottery is as conclusive as a hoard of coins
would be, provided it is found so placed that it could not have been
inserted there after the mound was complete; and this I fancy is the
case in all the instances mentioned above.
LOCMARIAKER.
It is rather to be regretted that no good survey exists of this
cemetery. Not that much depends on the juxtaposition of the monuments,
but that, as the French are continually changing their names, and most
of them have two, it is not always easy to feel sure which monument
is being spoken of at any particular time. Those on the mainland are
situated in a zone about a mile in length, running north and south,
between Mané Lud, the most northern, and Mané er H'roëk, the most
southern. The first-named is a long barrow, 260 feet by about 165,
but not, as in England, of one age or containing only one, but, like
Moustoir-Carnac, several sepulchres, which may either be of the same
age or erected at different though hardly distant periods, and joined
together by being buried under one great mound. Of the three which Mané
Lud contains, the most interesting is the partially covered dolmen at
the west end. It consists of a chamber of somewhat irregular form, but
measuring 12 feet by 10 feet, and covered by one enormous block of
stone, measuring 29 feet by 15 feet, and with a passage leading to it,
making the whole length from the entrance to the central block of the
chamber 20 feet. According to Mr. Ferguson,[422] five of the blocks
of this dolmen are sculptured; according to M. René Galles,[423] nine
are so ornamented. The stone, however, is so rough and the place so
dark that it is difficult at times to distinguish them and always so
to draw them. The principal objects represented seem to be intended
for boats and hatchets, but there are other figures which cannot be
so classed, and, though it may be rash to call them writing, they may
mean numbers or cyphers of some sort. Their great interest is, however,
their similarity to the engravings on Irish monuments. If any one will,
for instance, compare this woodcut (No. 145) and woodcut No. 68 from
New Grange, he can hardly fail to see a likeness which cannot well be
accidental; and in like manner the curvilinear forms of woodcut No.
146, in a manner hardly to be mistaken, resemble those from Clover Hill
(woodcut No. 77).
[Illustration: 145. Sculpture at Mané Lud.]
[Illustration: 146. Sculpture at Mané Lud.[424]]
[Illustration: 147. View of Dol ar Marchant. From Blair and Ronald.]
Close by Mané Lud, but a little nearer to Locmariaker, stands what may
be considered as the most interesting, if not the finest, free-standing
dolmen in France. Its roof consists of two stones: one of these
measures 18 feet by 9 feet,[425] and more than 3 feet in thickness. The
second stone is very much smaller, and seems to form a sort of porch to
it. The great stone rests, like that of most free-standing dolmens, on
three points, their architects having early learned how difficult it
was to make sure of their resting on more; so that unless they wanted a
wall to keep out the stuff out of which the tumulus was to be composed,
they generally poised them on three points like that at Castle Wellan
(woodcut No. 7).
[Illustration: 148. End Stone, Dol ar Marchant.]
[Illustration: 149. Hatchet in roof of Dol ar Marchant.]
The great interest in this dolmen, however, lies in its sculptures. The
stone which closes the east end is shaped into the form of two sides of
an equilateral spherical triangle and covered with sculptures, which
this time are neither characters nor representations of living things,
but purely decorative. At one time I thought the form of a cross could
be traced on the stone. The central stem and the upper arm are shown
clearly enough in the drawing by Mr. Ferguson; but all the drawings
show a lower cross-arm--though I confess I did not see it--which quite
destroys this idea. On the roof a well-sculptured plumed[426] hatchet
can be traced very distinctly, as shown in the woodcut copied from Mr.
Ferguson. He fancies he can also trace the form of a plough in the
sculptures of the roof, but this seems doubtful.
It is to this dolmen that the great fallen obelisk belongs. If it
was one stone, it measured 64 feet in length and 13 feet across its
greatest diameter; but I confess I cannot, from the mode in which it
has fallen, rid myself of the idea that it was in reality two obelisks,
and not one. Whether this was the case or not, it is a remarkable work
of art for a rude people, for it certainly has been shaped with care,
and with the same amount of labour might have been made square or round
or any other shape that might have been desired. This, however, is
one of the peculiarities of the style. No one will dispute that this
obelisk and the stones of the Dol ar Marchant are hewn; but instead of
adopting the geometrical forms, of which we are so fond, they preferred
those that reminded them of their old rude monuments, and which to
their eyes were more beautiful than the straight lines of the Romans. I
do not feel quite sure that artistically they were not right.
If we compare this dolmen with that at Krukenho (woodcut No. 126), the
difference between them appears very striking. The Del ar Marchant is a
regular tripod dolmen, carefully built of shaped stones and engraved.
The other is a magnificent cist, walled with rude stones, and such as
would form a chamber in a tumulus if buried in one, though whether this
particular example was ever intended to be so treated or not is by no
means clear. Be this as it may, there are two modes of accounting for
the difference between two monuments so nearly alike in dimensions and
situated so near to one another. The first would be to assume that the
Krukenho example is the oldest, it being the rudest and approaching
more nearly to the primitive form of the monuments: the second would
be to assume that the one was the memorial of some warrior, erected in
haste on the battle-field where he fell, by his companions in arms;
and that the other was a royal sepulchre, prepared at leisure either
by the king himself or by those who succeeded him in times of peace,
and consequently who had leisure for such works. We must know more of
these monuments before a satisfactory choice can be made between these
two hypotheses. At present I rather incline to the belief that the
circumstances under which they were erected may have more to do with
their differences than their relative ages.
To return to Locmariaker. Close to the town there is, or was, a long
allée couverte.[427] It is 70 feet long, and divided towards its inner
end into a square chamber, to which a long-slightly curved gallery
led, composed of fourteen stones on each side. Five of these are
covered with ornaments, and characters engraved on them. One might be
considered as representing the leaf of a fern, or possibly a palm; the
rest are ovals, circles, and similar ornaments, which may or may not
have more meaning than those at New Grange or other monuments in the
locality.
[Illustration: 150. Stone found inside Chamber at Mané er H'roëk.]
On the other side of the village is the tumulus already mentioned as
Mané er H'roëk, where the twelve Roman coins were found, and inside
it an immense collection of polished celts, but all broken, and one
slab, which apparently originally closed the door, and is covered with
sculptured hatchets, similar in character to that on the roof of the
Dol ar Marchant, but not so carefully drawn nor so well engraved.
[Illustration: 151. Plan of Gavr Innis.]
Besides these there are several--probably as many as a dozen--monuments
of the same class, within what may fairly be considered the limits of
this cemetery; but of these the most interesting, as well as the most
perfect, is that on the island of Gavr Innis, about 2 miles eastward
from Locmariaker.
[Illustration: 152. Sculptures at Gavr Innis. From a drawing by Sir
Henry Dryden.[428]]
[Illustration: 153. Holed Stone, Gavr Innis. From a drawing by Sir
Henry Dryden.]
The plan of the chamber of this monument will be understood from the
annexed plan.[429] The gallery of entrance measures 44 feet from where
the lining stones begin to the chamber, which is quadrangular in
form, and measures 9 feet by 8 feet. All the six stones forming the
three sides of the chamber, and most of those which line the entrance
on either hand, are most elaborately sculptured with patterns, the
character of which will be understood from the annexed woodcuts. The
pattern, it will be observed, is not so flowing or graceful as those
found at New Grange or Dowth, and nowhere, I believe, can it be said
to imitate vegetable forms; and in the woodcut on the left-hand stone
are some seventeen or eighteen figures, which are generally supposed
to represent celts, and probably do so; but if they do, from their
position they must mean something more, either numbers or names, but,
whatever it may be, its meaning has not yet been guessed. On other
stones there are waving lines, which are very generally assumed to
represent serpents, and, I believe, correctly so; but as that is
somewhat doubtful, it is as well to refrain from citing them. Besides
these, the general pattern is circles within circles, and flowing
lines nearly equidistant, but, except on one stone, never of spirals,
and then less graceful than the Irish. The sculpture, however, on some
of the stones at Lough Crew, and that in the centre especially of
woodcut No. 75, is absolutely identical with the patterns found here;
and altogether there is more similarity between these sculptures and
those at Lough Crew than between almost any other monuments of the
class that I know of.
In the chamber on the left-hand side is a stone (woodcut No. 153),
with three holes in it, which have given rise to an unlimited amount
of speculation. Generally it is assumed that it was here that the
Druids tied up the human victims whom they were about to sacrifice.
But, without going back to the question as to whether there ever were
any Druids in the Morbihan, would any priest choose a small dungeon 8
feet square and absolutely dark for the performance of one of their
greatest and most solemn rites? So far as we know anything of human
sacrifices, they were always performed in the open day and in the
presence of multitudes. Assuming for the moment, however, that these
holes were intended for some such purpose, two would have sufficed, and
these of a form much simpler and more easily cut. As will be seen from
the woodcut, not only are the three holes joined, but a ledge or trough
is sunk below them which might hold oil or holy water, and must, it
appears to me, have been intended for some such purpose.
The existence of these holes seems to set at rest another question of
some interest. Generally it has been assumed that the tattooing on the
stones of the chambers, &c., may have been done with stone implements.
This cannot be denied, though it seems improbable; but the undercutting
of the passages between these holes and the formation of the trough
could only be effected by a tool which would bear a blow on its head,
and a heavy one too, or, in other words, by some well-tempered metal
tool.
At Tumiac, opposite Gavr Innis, existed a very large tumulus, which
was opened in 1853 by Messrs. Fouquet and L. Galles. It was found to
contain a small chamber, partly formed of large slabs, partly of small
stones. Some of the former had rude carvings upon them, but without any
meaning that can now be made out.
The whole has the appearance of being considerably more modern than
Gavr Innis.
* * * * *
Besides these, in the neighbourhood of Carnac and Locmariaker, there
are at least three other groups of stones in France which deserve much
more attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon them. The first is
in the peninsula of Crozon, forming the southern side of the roadstead
of Brest. It consists, among others, of three alignments of stones. The
principal one is at a place called Kerdouadec, and consists of a single
line of stones 1600 feet in length, arranged on a slightly curved plan,
and terminating in a curious "Swastica"-like cross. The second, at
Carmaret, is a single line, 900 feet long, and with two branches at
right angles to it, near its centre. The third, at Leuré, is likewise
a single line with a slight elbow in the centre, from which starts a
short branch at right angles.[430]
[Illustration: 154. Alignments at Crozon.]
I am not able to offer a conjecture what these alignments represent,
nor why or when they were placed here. Whether an inspection on the
spot might suggest some clue is not clear, but they are so unlike
anything found anywhere else, either in France or any other country,
that they must for the present, I fear, remain a mystery.
The second group, known as the Gré de Cojou, is situated about halfway
between Rennes and Redon. The remains here consist of a short double
alignment some 500 feet long, several tumuli--one at least surmounted
by a circle of stones--several stone enclosures, and frequent dolmens.
They have been imperfectly described by M. Ramé,[431] and planned,
but not published, by Sir Henry Dryden. Until these are given to the
world more in detail than has hitherto been done, it is impossible to
say whether they represent a battle-field or a cemetery. From their
position--a bleak, barren heath, far from any centre of population--I
would guess the former; but I have not visited the place myself, and
the information at my command is too meagre to enable me to speak with
any confidence regarding them.
The third group is in the department of the Lot, near Preissac, in
the parish of Junies, and extends over half a mile (800 metres) in
length. Unfortunately we have nothing but verbal descriptions of it,
and from these it is impossible to realise its form, or predicate its
destination.[432] We are, indeed, in a state of great ignorance with
regard to all these megalithic remains in the south of France, but as
they seem as important and as numerous as those in the north, it is to
be hoped some one will devote an autumn to their illustration. There
are probably several other groups as important as those at Junies, but
they are quite unknown to us at present. These groups must therefore
be put aside for the present, and any argument regarding age or use of
this class of monuments must be based wholly on what we know of those
of the Morbihan.
* * * * *
So far as I know, no reasonable tradition attaches to any of the
monuments in the Locmariaker cemetery which would enable us to fix
their dates with anything like certainty, nor are there any local
circumstances, except the Roman coins and tiles above alluded to, which
aid us in our researches. We are thus left to such general inferences
as the case admits of, and to a comparison with other similar monuments
whose dates are nearer and better ascertained. No one, however, who is
familiar with the two great cemeteries of Meath will probably hesitate
in admitting that the two groups cannot be far separated in date. Of
course, it is impossible in a general work like the present to put the
evidence forward in anything like a complete state. In order to do
this in a satisfactory manner would require a large volume to itself,
and the illustrations both of the French and Irish examples should be
drawn by the same person. Even the few illustrations that have been
given are probably sufficient to show a similarity so great that it
can hardly be accidental, and I may be allowed to add, from personal
familiarity with both groups of monuments, that it seems impossible
to escape the conviction that they are monuments of the same class,
probably of the same or a closely allied race, and of about the same
age. This last must always be the most uncertain premiss of the three,
as we can scarcely hope ever to know the relative state of civilization
of the two countries at a given time; and consequently, even if we
could prove that two ornaments in the two countries were identical in
form, this would not prove that there might not be a difference of
fifty or a hundred years between them. Even at a later age, in the
thirteenth century, for instance, the same form and the same style in
France and England did not prevent a difference of fifty years existing
between any two examples. In the fourteenth the two were abreast, and
in the fifteenth century they again diverged, so that, although the
architecture of both was still Gothic, a comparison of style for this
purpose became almost impossible.
In like manner, though the central ornament in the middle stone at
Lough Crew (woodcut No. 75) is almost identical with some of the
ornaments at Gavr Innis (woodcut No. 152), it by no means necessarily
follows that the two are exactly of the same age. So, too, the foliage
at New Grange (woodcut No. 67) and that in the allée--now, I fear,
destroyed--at Locmariaker are evidently of one style, but still admit
of a certain latitude of date. On the whole, judging from style alone,
I should feel inclined to range Gavr Innis rather with the cemetery at
Lough Crew than with that on the Boyne; as well from its ornaments as
because I fancy that those monuments which are roofed with flat stones
only are earlier than those which make some attempt at construction.
But, on the other hand, I believe that Mané er H'roëk and Mané Lud may
more probably range with New Grange and Dowth; and as I look upon it
as quite certain that the monuments on the Boyne were all erected in
the first four centuries after the birth of Christ, it seems impossible
that the age of those at Locmariaker can be very distant from that date.
To many it will no doubt seem improbable that these monuments should
have been erected during the occupation of the country by the Romans.
If, however, they would take the trouble of studying what is now going
on in India, their incredulity would, I fancy, soon disappear. The
natives there at the present day are in many parts of the country
building temples which it requires a practised eye to distinguish from
those erected before any European settled in the land; and they follow
their own customs, and worship their own gods, utterly irrespective of,
and uninfluenced by, the strangers who have held the chief sway in the
country for more than a hundred years. It must also be borne in mind
that the Romans never really settled in Brittany. The country was poor
then as now, and it led to nowhere. So long as the Bretons remained
quiet, the Romans seem to have left them to themselves, and certainly
have left no traces of any establishment of importance in their
country--nothing that would lead us to suspect such intimate relations
with the natives as would induce them to change their faith or fashions
and copy the institutions of the foreigners.
On the other hand, it seems not only possible, but probable, that
intercourse with the Romans may first have inspired the inhabitants
of Brittany with a desire to attain greater durability and more
magnificence, by the employment of stone, instead of earth or wood,
for their monuments. This they might do, without its creating in
their minds the smallest desire to copy either Roman forms or Roman
institutions. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that in
these remote districts the Romans would be hated as conquerors, and
that their religion and their customs would be held in abhorrence as
strange and unsuited to the land they occupied.
Be this as it may, a comparison with the Irish examples reduces the
questions at issue with regard to dates within very narrow limits.
Either these monuments were erected immediately before or during the
time of the Roman occupation or immediately after their departure,
but prior to the conversion of the natives to Christianity. We are not
yet in a position to decide positively between these two hypotheses,
but the presence of Roman coins and Roman tiles in some of the mounds
and the whole aspect of the argument seem to me to incline the balance
in favour of their belonging to Roman times. Some may be anterior to
the Christian era, but I am very much mistaken if it be not eventually
admitted that the greater number of them are subsequent to that epoch.
Even, however, if the age of the monuments of the cemetery of
Locmariaker could be ascertained, it would by no means necessarily
carry with it that of the stone rows at Carnac. They belong to a
different category altogether, and may be of a different age.
No one now, I presume, after what has been said above, especially with
regard to the Scandinavian examples, will think it necessary that I
should go over the ground to prove that they are not temples. Every
argument that could be adduced to prove that Avebury or Stonehenge are
not temples tells with tenfold force here. A temple extending over six
or seven miles of country is more improbable than one covering only
28 acres. This one, too, is open everywhere, and has no enclosure or
"temenos" of any sort, and there being an uneven number of equally
spaced rows of stones in the principal monument is sufficient to show
it was not intended and could not be used for processions. In fact I
hardly know of any proposition that appears to me so manifestly absurd
as that these stone rows were temples, and I feel sure that no one who
thinks twice of the matter will venture again to affirm it.
It seems equally clear that they were not erected for any civic or
civil purpose. No meetings could be held, and no administrative
functions could be carried on in or around them. Nor are they
sepulchral in any ordinary sense of the term. In the first place
because, though men were buried in tumuli or under dolmens, or had
single head-stones, nowhere were men buried in rows like this,
extending over miles of heath and barren country. But the great fact
is that the French savants have dug repeatedly about these stones and
found no trace of burials. The most conclusive experiment of the sort
was made by a road surveyor some six or seven years ago. Wishing to
raise the road from Auray to Carnac, he dug out the sand and gravel on
the east side of the road, over a considerable area, to a depth of from
three to four feet; but being of a conservative turn of mind, he left
the eleven rows of stones each standing on a little pillar of sand. It
was then easy to trace the undisturbed strata of differently coloured
earth round and almost under the stones, and to feel perfectly certain
that it had never been disturbed by any inhumation. It, no doubt, is
true that the long barrow at Kerlescant, the dolmen at Kermario, and
the enclosure at Maenec, may have been, indeed most probably were,
all of them, burying-places, but they can no more be considered the
monument than the drums and fifes can be considered the regiment. They
are only the adjuncts; the great rows must be considered as essentially
the monuments.
If, therefore, they are neither temples, nor town-halls, nor even
sepulchres, we are driven back on the only remaining group of motives
which, so far as I know, ever induced mankind to expend time and labour
on the erection of perfectly unutilitarian erections. They must be
trophies--the memorials of some great battle or battles that at some
time or other were fought out on this plain. The fact of the head of
each division being a tomb is in favour of this hypothesis; but if it
is considered as the principal part, it is like drawing a jackdaw with
a peacock's tail--an absurdity into which these men of the olden time
would hardly fall.
It is more difficult to answer the questions, Are Carnac and Erdeven
parts of one great design, or two separate monuments? Is Carnac the
march, St.-Barbe the position before the battle, Erdeven the scene
of the final struggle for the heights that gave the victory, and the
tombs scattered over the plain between these alignments the graves of
those who fell in that fight? Such appears to me the only feasible
explanation of what we here find; but the great question still remains,
What fight?
There is, probably, no single instance in which the negative argument
derived from the silence of the classical authors applies with such
force as to this. If these stones existed when Cæsar waged war against
the Veneti in this quarter, he must have seen them, and as it may be
presumed that the monument was then more complete than it is now, he
could hardly have failed to be struck with it, and, if so, to have
mentioned it in his 'Commentaries.' Even, however, if he neglected
them, the officers of his army must have seen these stones. They must
have been talked about in Rome, and some gossip like Pliny, when
writing about stones, must have heard of this wonderful group, and
have alluded to it in some way. The silence, however, is absolute. No
mediæval rhapsodist even attempts to give them a pre-Roman origin.
Such traditions as that of St. Cornely, or Cornelius the Centurion,
though absurd enough, point, as such traditions generally do, to the
transition time between paganism and Christianity, when, apparently,
all mediæval chroniclers seem to have believed that all these
rude-stone monuments were erected. Till, therefore, some stronger
argument than has yet been adduced, or some new analogy be suggested,
the pre-Roman theory must be set aside; and if this is so, we are
tolerably safe in assuming that no battle of sufficient importance was
fought which these stones could be erected to commemorate during the
time when the Romans held supreme sway in the country.
If this is so, our choice of an event to be represented by these great
stone rows is limited to the period which elapsed between the overthrow
of the Roman power by Maximus, A.D. 383, and the time when the
people of the country were completely converted to Christianity--which
happened in the early part of the sixth century.[433] But if the
history of England is confused and uncertain during that century and a
half, that of Brittany is even more so, and has not yet been elucidated
by the French authorities to the same extent as ours has been.
No one, I believe, doubts that Maximus, coming with an army from
Britain, landed somewhere in Brittany, where he fought a great battle
with the forces of Gratian, whom he defeated, and that afterwards,
in a second battle near Lyons, he expelled the legitimate government
of the Romans from Gaul.[434] I also see no reason for doubting that
he was accompanied by a British prince Conan Meriadec, who afterwards
settled in the country with thousands of his emigrant countrymen, over
whom he was enabled to establish his chieftainship on the ruins of the
Roman power.
If this is so, the battle which destroyed the Roman power, and gave
rise to the native dynasty, would be worthy of such a monument as that
at Carnac; but so far as local traditions go, the place where Maximus
and his British allies landed was near St. Malo, and the battle was
fought at a place called Alleth, near St. Servan.[435] If this is so,
it was too far off to have any connection with the Carnac stones. Two
other wars seem to have been carried on by Conan, one in 410 against
a people who are merely called barbarians,[436] a second against the
Romans under Exuperantius in 416;[437] but we have no local particulars
which would enable us to connect these wars with our stones. A war of
liberation against Rome would be worthy of a national monument, and
it may be that this is such a one, but I know of nothing to connect
the two together, though local enquiries on the spot might remove this
difficulty.
On the whole, however, I am more inclined to look among the events of
the next reign for a key to the riddle. Grallon was engaged in two
wars at least: one against the Roman consul Liberius in 439,[438]
in which he succeeded in frustrating the attempts of that people to
recover their lost power; the other against the "Norman pirates;"[439]
and it is to this, as connecting the stone monuments with a Northern
people, that I should be inclined to ascribe the erection of the Carnac
alignments. From Grallon being the reputed founder of Landevenec, it
might seem more probable that the alignments at Crozon marked the
position of this battle, and I am not prepared to dispute that it may
be so. The question is not of importance; if either group marked a
battle-field of this period, the other certainly did so also, and I
would prefer to refrain from offering any opinion as to what particular
battle these stones commemorate. That must be determined by some
local antiquary with much more intimate knowledge of the history and
traditions of the province than I possess. All I wish to show here is
that there was a period of a century and a half between the departure
of the Romans and the time when the Bretons were so completely
converted to Christianity as to abandon their old habits and customs,
and that during that period there were wars with the Romans and the
Northern barbarians of sufficient importance to justify the erection
of any monuments within the competence of the people. If this is so,
and we are limited to this period, enough is established in so far as
the argument of this work is concerned, and the rest may fairly be
left to be discussed and determined by the local antiquaries. All that
it is necessary to contend for here is, that the alignments at Carnac
are neither temples, nor tombs, nor town-halls, and that they were not
erected before the time of the Romans. If these negative propositions
are answered, there will not, probably, be much difficulty in admitting
that they must be trophies, and that the battle or campaign which they
commemorate was fought between the years 380 and 550 A.D.--in
fact in the Arthurian age, to which we have ascribed most of those in
this country.
The monuments in the cemetery at Locmariaker are probably older, but
some of them extend down to the time when Carnac "closed the line in
glory."
NUMBER OF DOLMENS IN THIRTY-ONE DEPARTMENTS OF FRANCE ACCORDING TO
M. BERTRAND, 1864.[440]
Dolmens. Terminations in _ac_.
Lot 500 71
Finistère 500 3
Morbihan 250 26
Ardèche 155 16
Aveyron 125 35
Dordogne 100 75
Vienne (Haute et Basse) 82 41
Côtes du Nord 56 8
Maine-et-Loire 53 --
Eure-et-Loir 40 --
Gard 32 16
Aube 28 1
Indre-et-Loire 28 --
Charente 26 50
Creuse 26 6
Charente-Inférieure 24 21
Lozère 19 16
Corrèze 17 42
Vendée 17 --
Loire-Inférieure 16 11
Sarthe 15 --
Ille-et-Vilaine 15 18
Deux-Sèvres 15 --
Orne 14 --
Indre 13 3
Manche 13 --
Pyrénées-Orientales 12 2
Puy-de-Dôme 10 3
Oise 9 --
Cantal 8 37
Tarn-et-Garonne 7 16
[Footnote 379: 'Revue archéologique,' August, 1864, 148 _et seq._]
[Footnote 380: Livy, v. chap. 34.]
[Footnote 381: Walcknaer, 'Géographie des Gaules.' The earlier
chapters and Map V.]
[Footnote 382: 'Revue archéologique,' new series, vii. 228.]
[Footnote 383: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 384: 'De Bello Gall.' i. 1.]
[Footnote 385: Strabo, vi. 176, 189.]
[Footnote 386: 'Archæological Journal,' 1870, cviii. p. 225 _et
seq._]
[Footnote 387: Lartet, Christy, and 'Reliquiæ Aquitanicæ.' London,
1865 _et seq._]
[Footnote 388: 'Monuments mégalithiques du Vivarais,' p. Oll. de
Marchand; Montpellier, 1870.]
[Footnote 389: 'Époques antéhistoriques du Poitou,' P. A.
Brouillet; Poitiers, 1865.]
[Footnote 390: This list must be taken as only tentative. All I
have done was to take the Atlas Joanne, and count the number of
names as well as I could. I feel far from confident that I have
counted all; and, besides, the scale of the maps is too small to
feel sure that all, or nearly all, are there. It is, however,
sufficient for present purposes of comparison. If it is thought
worth while to pursue the investigation farther, it must be done
on the 80,000 scale map of France, which would be work of great
labour.]
[Footnote 391: Delpon, 'Statistique du Département du Lot,' i. p.
383.]
[Footnote 392: In the Ordnance Maps, 1-inch scale, the termination
_ac_ occurs at least 38 times in this corner, though in these maps
always spelt with an additional _k_, as Botallac_k_, Carnidjac_k_;
although this is by no means the usual or ancient spelling of the
district.]
[Footnote 393: The whole of these churches are described in more or
less detail by Félix de Verneilh in his 'Architecture byzantine en
France,' 4to. Paris, 1851. Several of them are also illustrated in
my 'History of Architecture,' i. 418-441.]
[Footnote 394: The argument, which it is not necessary to enter
on here, has been well summed up by Dr. Schmitz, in Smith's
'Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography,' _sub voce_ Cimbri.]
[Footnote 395: The existence of this line of dolmens and of a
separate people, all the way from Brittany to Narbonne, may serve,
perhaps, to explain the mode in which the tin of Britain found
its way across France to the Mediterranean Sea. That the Veneti
traded from the Côtes-du-Nord and the Morbihan to Cornwall and
the Cassiterides, no one, probably, will dispute. Their vessels,
according to Cæsar's account, were fully equal to carrying to
France all the metal this country could produce. The road by which
it reached Marseilles across France was always the difficulty. In
later times, the Celtic trade-route across France was apparently
up the Rhone, but on its left bank, and down the Seine, or on its
right bank; passing then through Celtica, but round the Aquitania
of Augustus, and reaching Britain through the country of the
Morini, which was the route Cæsar followed. This does not, however,
appear to have been the line which was taken by the trade in tin.
It followed, so far as we know, the central line of the dolmen
country; and the fact of one people and one language prevailing
throughout the whole of that region takes away any improbability,
and removes all the difficulties that have hitherto impeded the
adoption of that hypothesis.]
[Footnote 396: My intention was to have spent last autumn in
travelling through the southern departments of France with this
intent; but the war rendered the position of an exploring and
sketching foreigner so undesirable that I was forced to desist. Had
this book been a "statisque" of the subject, as it was originally
intended, I should have been obliged to defer its publication till
I had accomplished this journey, or till the monuments had been
illustrated. As, however, it has now assumed more the form of an
"argument," this is of comparatively little consequence.]
[Footnote 397: In a paper on the 'Monuments mégalithiques de
l'Auvergne,' by M. Cartheilhac, in the Norwich volume of the
Prehistoric Congress, he gives drawings of ten as types. Five of
these, or one-half, are dolmens on tumuli, which is, however,
probably more than a fair proportion. One has already been given,
woodcut No. 8.]
[Footnote 398: 'Statistique monumentale de la Charente,' 141.
Richard, 'France monumentale,' p. 677. 'Mém. de la Société royale
des Antiquaires de France,' vii. 26.]
[Footnote 399: The woodcuts are copied from Michon, 'Statistique
de la Charente.' In describing it, he quotes the Edict of the
Council at Nantes with regard to the destruction of these
"venerated stones." He (p. 141) gives the date of this council as
A.D. 1262, which would almost make it appear that this was
one of the stones against which the decree was fulminated. This
date, however, appears to be a mistake. The true date I believe to
be 658, as given above, p. 24.]
[Footnote 400: 'Rev. archéologique,' ix. 400.]
[Footnote 401: 'Essai sur les Dolmens,' p. 38.]
[Footnote 402: Paper read by S. Ferguson, Q.C., before the R. I. A.
14th Dec. 1863. See also pamphlet by René Galles (Vannes, 1863),
describing the exploration.]
[Footnote 403: 'Congrès préhistorique,' vol. de Paris, 1868, 42.]
[Footnote 404: All these are represented in Gailhabaud's
'Architecture ancienne et moderne,' ii. plates 7 and 8.]
[Footnote 405: The woodcut is from a publication privately printed
by Dr. Blair and Mr. Ronalds.]
[Footnote 406: Gailhabaud, 'Arch. anc. et mod.' i.]
[Footnote 407: Renouvier, 'Monuments de Bas-Languedoc.' No numbers
to plates.]
[Footnote 408: See one published by Sir R. Colt Hoare, 'Modern
Wiltshire,' iv. p. 57.]
[Footnote 409: 'Kilkenny Journal,' third series, vol. i. p. 40 _et
seq._]
[Footnote 410: I have not seen the monument myself, nor do I know
any one who has, but I cannot believe it to be a pure invention.
Too much stress must not, however, be laid upon it.]
[Footnote 411: There is a woodcut in Bonstetten's work (p. 25)
which, being taken endways, explains more clearly how, the
cap-stone resting on two points only, it can be understood to
oscillate. It is, however, much less correct as a representation.
[Illustration: 133. Pierre Martine. From Bonstetten]]
[Footnote 412: Delpon, 'Statistique du Dép. du Lot,' i. p. 388.]
[Footnote 413: 'Ptolemæi Geo.' Amstel. 1605, p. 47.]
[Footnote 414: The only survey of this monument which has
been published, and can be depended upon, is that made by Mr.
Vicars, a surveyor of Exeter, for the Rev. Dr. Bathurst Deane.
It was published by him on a reduced scale in vol. xxv. of the
'Archæologia,' and re-engraved, with the principal parts on the
original scale, by Dr. Blair and Mr. Ronalds, in the work before
alluded to, but unfortunately never published. The original map, on
a scale of 440 feet to 1 inch, is still in Dr. Deane's possession,
at Bath, and is so valuable a record of what the monument was
thirty-two years ago that it is hoped it may be preserved by some
public body. Sir Henry Dryden and the Rev. Mr. Lukis have been
employed for some years past exploring and surveying in that
neighbourhood, and have brought back perfect plans, on a large
scale, of all the principal monuments; and if these were published,
they would leave little to be desired in that respect. Meanwhile
nothing can exceed Sir Henry's kindness and liberality in allowing
access to his treasures, and the use of them by any one who desires
it; and I am indebted to him for a great deal of the information
in this chapter. The general plans here published are from Messrs.
Blair and Ronalds' work, which is quite sufficiently correct for my
scale or my present purpose.]
[Footnote 415: The form of this enclosure, as will be seen from
the plan, is not an exact square, and some of the angle-stones
being removed, it is difficult now to ascertain its exact form.
Sir Henry Dryden makes it curvilinear. Messrs. Blair and Ronalds
make the east side quite straight; the south and west were slightly
curvilinear, but the whole figure is quadrangular; which is my own
impression of its form.]
[Footnote 416: Sir Henry Dryden counts ten rows. Mr. Vicars'
survey, from which the woodcut is copied, makes only eight. Their
irregularity makes it difficult to feel certain on such a point.]
[Footnote 417: 'Journal of Archæological Association,' vol. xxiv.
pp. 40 _et seq._]
[Footnote 418: _Ante_, pp. 163 _et seq._]
[Footnote 419: It is so difficult to realise these similarities,
except by representation, that I give here a woodcut of that at
Rodmarton. Allowing for the difference of drawing and engraving,
the openings are identical, and it is so peculiar in form that the
likeness cannot be accidental. If it does not occur anywhere else,
or at any other time, it proves, as far as anything can prove, that
the French and English long barrows were erected under the same
inspiration. If one is post-Roman, so, certainly, is the other; or
if one can be proved to be prehistoric, the other must follow.
[Illustration: 140. Entrance to Cell, Rodmarton.]]
[Footnote 420: These were exhibited in the inn in the village when
I was there. Where they are now, I do not know.]
[Footnote 421: 'Revue archéologique,' xii. p. 17.]
[Footnote 422: 'Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy,' vol. viii.
1864, p. 298 _et seq._]
[Footnote 423: 'Revue archéologique,' vol. x. 1864, pl. iv.]
[Footnote 424: Woodcuts No. 145 and 146 are copied from Mr.
Ferguson's paper in the 'Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy,' viii.
398 _et seq._]
[Footnote 425: These dimensions are from Richard; other authorities
make it 18 feet by 12 feet.]
[Footnote 426: The existence of the plume is doubted by Sir Henry
Dryden, and he is so accurate that he probably is right; but as
others say they have seen it, and nothing depends upon it, I have
allowed it to remain.]
[Footnote 427: It was in a very ruinous state when I saw it five
years ago; and there is an ominous silence regarding it among
subsequent tourists. The measurements here quoted are from Richard,
'France monumentale.']
[Footnote 428: The plan here given is reduced from one by Sir Henry
Dryden, and may be perfectly depended upon as far as the smallness
of the scale will allow.]
[Footnote 429: Sir Henry drew all these sculptures first on
the spot, and afterwards corrected his drawings from the casts
at St.-Germain. They are the only drawings existing which can
thoroughly be depended upon.]
[Footnote 430: A plan of the first-named alignment was published
by Freminville, 'Finistère,' part ii. pl. i., but the above
particulars and the woodcut are taken from a diagram by Sir Henry
Dryden in the last number of the 'Journal of the Anthrop. Inst.' He
has perfect plans of the whole.]
[Footnote 431: 'Revue archéologique,' new series, ix. pp.
81 _et seq._ I may mention that almost every other name in
their neighbourhood ends in _ac_. See 'Joanne Atlas,' dép.
Ille-et-Vilaine.]
[Footnote 432: Delpon, 'Statistique du Dép. du Lot,' i. 384.]
[Footnote 433: "C'est en 465 que Vannes reçut pour premier évêque
l'Armoricain St. Patern, qui mourut peu d'années après chez les
Francs, où les Goths l'avoient forcé de se réfugier. Modestus en
511 mit tout en œuvre pour repandre le Christianisme parmi
les Pagani de son diocèse, mais son zèle ne fut pas recompensé,
car plus de trente ans après la mort de Patern les habitans de
la Vénétie étoient encore presque tous païens. 'Erant enim tunc
temporis Venetenses pene omnes Gentiles.'--_Ap. Boll._ 'Vita St.
Melan.' vi. Jan. p. 311."--_Courzon_, 'Chartulaire de l'Abbaye de
Redon,' cxliii.]
[Footnote 434: The authority for these events will be found at
length in Gibbon, chap. xviii., and are too familiar to need
quoting here.]
[Footnote 435: Daru's 'Histoire de la Bretagne,' vol. i. p. 58.]
[Footnote 436: _Ibid._ p. 112.]
[Footnote 437: Dom. Bouquet, 'Recueil des Hist. des Gaules,' i.
p. 629. "Exuperantius anno circa 416 Armoricos qui a Romanis
defecerunt ad officium reducere tentavit."]
[Footnote 438: Daru, i. p. 112.]
[Footnote 439: "Gradlonus gratia dei rex Britonum necnon ex
parte Francorum."--_Chartulaire de Landevenec_; quoted by P.
Lobineau, ii. 17. And further: "'Pervenit Sancti (Wingaboei)
fama ad Grallonum regem Occiduorum Cornubiensium, gloriosum
ultorem Normannorum qui post devictas gentes inimicas sibi
duces subduxerat.'--_Gurdestan, Moine de Landevenec_, 'Vie de
St.-Wingabois.'"--_Daru_, i. p. 69.]
[Footnote 440: The information in this table must be received with
great limitation. In the first place, What is a dolmen? Do the
alignments at Carnac count as two, as seven, or as 700? Many also
are mere estimates of local antiquaries. It is, for instance, very
doubtful if Finistère contains more monuments than the Morbihan;
and subsequent information may introduce great modifications into
many of the numbers.
The value of the _ac_ distinction does not come out clearly: first,
because of the imperfect mode in which it has been obtained, but
more because it does not make it clear that there are in France
twenty-nine departments in which there are no dolmens, and no
_ac_-terminations; in fact, the negative evidence which does not
appear here is stronger than the positive.]