ALGERIA.
It would be difficult to find a more curious illustration of the fable
of "Eyes and no Eyes" than in the history of the discovery of dolmens
in northern Africa. Though hundreds of travellers had passed through
the country since the time of Bruce and Shaw, and though the French
had possessed Algiers since 1830, an author writing on the subject ten
years ago would have been fully justified in making the assertion that
there were no dolmens there. Yet now we know that they exist literally
in thousands. Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that ten
thousand are known, and their existence recorded.
The first to announce the fact to the literary world in Europe was
the late Mr. Rhind. He read a paper on what he called "Ortholithic
remains in North Africa," to the Society of Antiquaries in 1859, which
was afterwards published in volume xxxviii. of the 'Archæologia.' It
attracted, however, very little attention, perhaps in consequence of
its name, but more from its not being illustrated. It was not really
till 1863, when the late Henry Christy visited Algeria, that anything
really became known. At Constantine he formed the acquaintance of a M.
Féraud, interpreter to the army of Algeria, who took him to a place
called Bou Moursug, about twenty-five miles south of Constantine,
where, during a short stay of three days, they saw and noted down
upwards of one thousand dolmens.[464] M. Féraud afterwards published
an account of these in the 'Mémoires de la Société archéologique
de Constantine' for 1863, and the subject having attracted some
attention in Europe, a second memoir appeared in the following year,
which contained a good deal of additional information collected from
different district officers. Since then various memoirs have been
published in Algeria and France. One by the now celebrated General
Faidherbe "speaks of three thousand tombs in the single necropolis
at Roknia, and of another equally extensive within a few leagues of
Constantine."[465] An excellent _résumé_ of the whole subject will be
found in the Norwich volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,
by Mr. Flower. From all these we gather a fair general idea of the
subject, but, unfortunately, none of the memoirs are written by persons
combining extensive local experience with real archæological knowledge,
except, perhaps, Mr. Flower. No plan of any one group has yet been
given to the world, nor are any of the monuments illustrated with such
details and measurements as would enable one to speak with certainty
regarding them. This is especially the case with those represented
in the 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie,' published by the
French Government. There are in this work numerous representations of
dolmens carefully and beautifully drawn, but very seldom with scales
attached to them; and as no text has yet been published, they are
of comparatively little value for the purposes of research. Had Mr.
Christy lived a little longer, these deficiencies would doubtless have
been supplied; but, unfortunately, his mantle has not fallen on any
worthy successor, and we must wait till some one appears who combines
leisure and means with the knowledge and enthusiasm which characterized
that noble-minded man.
It need hardly be added that no detailed map exists showing the
distribution of the dolmens in Algeria,[466] and as many of the names
by which they are known to French archæologists are those of villages
not marked on any maps obtainable in this country, it is very difficult
to trace their precise position, and almost always impossible to draw
with certainty any inferences from their distribution. In so far as
we at present know, the principal dolmen region is situated along and
on either side of a line drawn from Bona on the coast to Batna, sixty
miles south of Constantine. But around Setif, and in localities nearly
due south from Boujie, they are said to be in enormous numbers. The
Commandant Payen reports the number of menhirs there as not less than
ten thousand, averaging from 4 to 5 feet in height. One colossal
monolith he describes as 26 feet in diameter at its base and 52 feet
high.[467] This, however, is surpassed by a dolmen situated near
Tiaret, described by the Commandant Bernard. According to his account
the cap-stone is 65 feet long by 26 feet broad, and 9 feet 6 inches
thick; and this enormous mass is placed on other rocks which rise
between 30 and 40 feet above the surface.[468] If this is true, it is
the most enormous dolmen known, and it is strange that it should have
escaped observation so long. Even the most apathetic traveller might
have been astonished at such a wonder. Whether less gigantic specimens
of the class exist in that neighbourhood, we are not told, but they do
in detached patches everywhere eastward throughout the province. Those
described by Mr. Rhind are only twelve miles from Algiers, and others
are said to exist in great numbers in the regency of Tripoli.[469] So
far as is at present known, they are not found in Morocco, but are
found everywhere between Mount Atlas and the Syrtes, and apparently not
near the sites of any great cities, or known centres of population,
but in valleys and remote corners, as if belonging to a nomadic or
agricultural population.
* * * * *
[Illustration: 164. Bazina. From Flower's Paper.]
When we speak of the ten thousand or, it may be, twenty thousand stone
sepulchral monuments that are now known to exist in northern Africa,
it must not be understood that they are all dolmens or circles of
the class of which we have hitherto been speaking. Two other classes
certainly exist, in some places, apparently, in considerable numbers,
though it is difficult to make out in what proportion, and how far
their forms are local. One of these classes, called Bazina by the
Arabs, is thus described by Mr. Flower:--"Their general character is
that of three concentric enclosures of stones of greater or less
dimensions, so arranged as to form a series of steps. Sometimes,
indeed, there are only two outer circles, and occasionally only one.
The diameter of the larger axis of that here represented is about 30
feet. In the centre are usually found three long and slender upright
stones, forming three sides of a long rectangle, and the interior is
paved with pebbles and broken stones.
[Illustration: 165. Choucha. From a drawing by Mr. Flower.]
"The Chouchas are found in the neighbourhood of the Bazinas, and are
closely allied to them. They consist of courses of stones regularly
built up like a wall, and not in steps like the Bazinas. Their diameter
varies from 7 to as much as 40 feet; but the height of the highest
above the soil does not exceed 5 to 10 feet. They are usually capped
and covered by a large flag-stone, about 4 inches thick, under which
is a regular trough or pit formed of stones from a foot and a half
to 3 feet in thickness. The interior of these little towers is paved
like the Bazinas; and indeed M. Payen considers that they are the
equivalents in the mountains of the Bazinas in the plains."[470]
[Illustration: 166. Dolmen on Steps. From 'Exploration scientifique de
l'Algérie.']
In many instances the chouchas and bazinas are found combined in one
monument, and sometimes a regular dolmen is mounted on steps similar
to those of a bazina, as shown in the annexed woodcut, representing
one existing halfway between Constantine and Bona. But, in fact,
there is no conceivable combination which does not seem to be found in
these African cemeteries; and did we know them all, they might throw
considerable light on some questions that are now very perplexing.
The chouchas are found sometimes isolated, and occasionally 10 to
12 feet apart from one another in groups. In certain localities the
summits and ridges of the hills are covered with them, while on the
edges of steep cliffs they form fringes overhanging the ravines.
In both these classes of monuments the bodies are almost always found
in a doubled-up posture, the knees being brought up to the chin, and
the arms crossed over the breast,[471] like those in the Axevalla tomb
described above (page 312).
[Illustration: 167. Tumuli, with Intermediate Lines of Stones.]
[Illustration: 168. Group of Sepulchral Monuments, Algeria.]
The most remarkable peculiarity of the tumuli and circles in Algeria
is the mode in which they are connected together by double lines of
stones--as Mr. Flowers expresses it, like beads on a string--in the
manner shown in woodcut No. 167. What the object of this was has not
been explained, nor will it be easy to guess, till we have more,
and more detailed, drawings than we now possess. Mr. Féraud's plate
xxviii.[472] shows such a line zigzagging across the plain between
two heights, like a line of field fortifications, and with dolmens
and tumuli sometimes behind or in front of the lines, and at others
strung upon it. At first sight it looks like the representation of
a battle-field, but, again, what are we to make of such a group as
that represented in woodcut 168 on the previous page? It is the most
extensive plan of any one of these groups which has yet been published,
but it must be received with caution.[473] There is no scale attached
to it. The triple circles with dolmens I take to be tumuli, like
those of the Aveyron (woodcuts Nos. 8 and 122), but the whole must be
regarded as a diagram, not as a plan, and as such very unsafe to reason
upon. Still, as it certainly is not invented, it shows the curious
manner in which these monuments are joined together, as well as the
various forms which they take.
[Illustration: 169. Plan and Elevation of African Tumulus. From Féraud.]
One of these (?) is represented in plan and elevation in the annexed
woodcut 169.[474] It is, as will be observed, almost identical--
making allowance for bad drawing--with those of Aveyron just referred
to, or with the Scandinavian examples as exemplified in the diagram
(woodcut No. 109). As this class with the external dolmen on the
summit seems to be very extensive in Algeria, indeed almost typical,
an examination of their interior would at once solve the mystery of
their arrangements, and tell us whether there was a second cist on the
ground level, or where the body was deposited. Where the dolmen stands
free, but on the flat ground, as is the case with that shown in this
cut (No. 170), with two rows of stones surrounding it, the body was
deposited in a cist formed between the two uprights that support the
cap-stone, which are carried down some 5 or 6 feet into the ground for
that purpose. My impression is that the same arrangement is met with in
those which are raised, and that either the supports of the cap-stone
are carried down to the ground for that purpose or that an independent
cist, is formed directly under the visible one.
[Illustration: 170. Dolmen with Two Circles of Stones. From Féraud.]
The dolmen in this last instance is of the usual Kit's Cotty House
style, consisting of three upright stones supporting the cap-stone.
Sometimes the outer row of stones is replaced by a circular pavement
of flat stones,[475] forming what may be supposed to be a procession
path round the monument; but in fact hardly any two are exactly alike,
and when we come to deal with thousands, it requires very complete
knowledge of the whole before any classification can be attempted.
Suffice it to say here that there is hardly any variety met with
elsewhere of which a counterpart cannot be found in Algeria.
[Illustration: 171. Dolmens on the Road from Bona to Constantine. From
'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie.']
Of their general appearance as objects in the landscape, the annexed
woodcut will convey a tolerable idea. They seem to affect the ridges
of the hills, but they also stretch across the plain, and in fact are
found everywhere and in every possible position. Except apparently on
the sea-coast, nothing like the Viking graves, so far as is known, is
found in Algeria; whether this indicates that they were a sea-faring
people or not is not quite clear, but it is a distinction worth bearing
in mind.
[Illustration: 172. Four Cairns enclosed in Squares. (From 'Soc. arch.
de Constantine,' 1864.)]
One curious group is perhaps worth quoting as a means of comparison
with the graves of Aschenrade (woodcut No. 119). It consists of four
tumuli enclosed in four squares joined together like the squares of
a chess-board. Single squares enclosing cairns are common enough in
Scandinavia, but this conjoined arrangement is rare and remarkable,
and its similarity to the Livonian example is so great that it can
hardly be accidental. The Aschenrade graves, it will be recollected,
contained coins of the Caliphs extending down to A.D. 999,
and German coins down to 1040. There would, therefore, be no _à
priori_ improbability in these graves in Algeria being as late, if the
similarity of two monuments so far apart can be considered as proving
identity of age. Without unduly pressing the argument, the points of
resemblance which exist everywhere between the Northern Europe and
North African monuments appear to prove that the latter may be of any
age down to the tenth or eleventh century, but any decision as to
their real date must depend on the local circumstances attending each
individual example.
* * * * *
The preceding woodcuts are perhaps sufficient to explain the more
general and more typical forms of Algerian dolmens, but they are so
numerous and so varied that ten times that number of illustrations
would hardly suffice to exhibit all their peculiarities. Their study,
however, is comparatively uninteresting, till we know more of their
contents, and till something definite is accepted as to their age.
When, however, we turn to examine that, we find the data from which
our conclusions must be drawn both meagre and unsatisfactory. Such as
they are, however, they certainly all tend one way. In the first place,
the negative evidence is as complete here as elsewhere. The Greeks,
the Romans, and the early Christians were all familiar with northern
Africa, and there is not one whisper as to any such monuments having
been seen by any of them. When we consider our own ignorance of their
existence till some ten years ago, it may be said that such evidence
does not go for much; but it is worth alluding to, as a hint in the
opposite direction would be considered final, and as its absence,
at all events, leaves the question open. On the other hand, all the
traditions of the country as reported by M. Féraud, and others, and
repeated by M. Bertrand and Mr. Flower, ascribe these monuments to
the pagan inhabitants who occupied the country at the time of the
Mahommedan conquest. Thus (page 127): "At the epoch the Mussulman
invasion these countries were inhabited by a pagan population, who
elevated these vast ranges of stone to arrest the invading host." Or,
again, they even name the prince who opposed the conquerors. Thus
(page 117): "Formerly at Machira lived a pagan prince called Abd en
Nar--fire worshipper. He married Zana, queen of a city now in ruins
bearing that name. When the Arabs conquered Africa, Abd en Nar abjured
his crown, became a Mussulman, and from that time called himself Abd en
Nour--worshipper of the light."[476]
[Illustration: 173. Tombs near Djidjeli. From 'Exploration scientifique
de l'Algérie.']
This, too, must be taken for what it is worth; but in a cemetery
near Djidjeli, on the north coast, there is a curious tomb formed of
a circle of stones like those of the pagan cists, with a head-stone
which, if it is not the turban-stone that is usually found in Turkish
tombs of modern date, is most singularly like it. That the cemetery
belongs to the Mahommedans seems clear, but the circles of stones,
though small, indicate a very imperfect conversion--just such as the
tradition indicates.
These arguments, however, acquire something like consistency when we
come to examine the contents of the tombs themselves. One of them (No.
4) is described by Mr. Féraud as surrounded by a circular enceinte, 12
metres, nearly 40 feet, in diameter. The chamber of the dolmen measured
7 feet by 3 feet 6 inches. At the feet of the skeleton were the bones
and teeth of a horse, and an iron bridle-bit. In the same grave were
found a ring of iron, another ring with various other objects in
copper (bronze?), some fragments of pottery of a superior quality,
and fragments of worked flint implements, and lastly a medal of the
Empress Faustina.[477] All the three ages were consequently represented
in the one tomb, and yet it certainly belongs to the second century.
None of the others give such distinct evidence of their age, but M.
Bertrand, who is a strong advocate for the prehistoric age of French
dolmens, sums up his impressions of M. Féraud's discoveries in the
following words: "Ceux de la province de Constantine ne pouvaient, à en
juger par les objets qui y out été trouvés, être de beaucoup antérieur
à l'ère chrétienne; quelques-uns même seraient postérieurs."[478]
In addition to what he found inside the tombs, M. Féraud discovered a
Latin inscription in the cap-stone of a dolmen near Sidi Kacem. The
letters are too much worn to enable the sense of the inscription to be
made out, but quite sufficient remains to prove that it is in Latin,
and, from the form of the letters, of a late type.[479]
Monsieur Leternoux found hewn stones and even columnar shafts of Roman
workmanship among the materials out of which the bazinas at the foot
of the Aures chain had been constructed, and he gives a drawing of a
cippus of late Roman workmanship, bearing an inscription in Berber
character, which he identifies with those on two upright stones of rude
form, one of which forms parts of a circle near Bona.[480]
[Illustration: 174. Circle near Bona.]
In addition to these there are numerous instances among the plates
which form the volume of the 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie'
where the rude-stone monuments are so mixed up with those of late Roman
and early Christian character that it seems impossible to doubt that
they are contemporary. As no text, however, has yet been published to
accompany these plates, it is most unsafe to rely on any individual
example, which from some fault of the draughtsman or engraver may
be misleading. The general impression, however, which these plates
convey is decidedly in favour of a post-Roman date, and of their being
comparatively modern. It requires, however, some one on the spot, whose
attention is specially directed to the subject, to determine whether
the rude-stone monuments are earlier than those which are hewn, or
whether the contrary is not sometimes, perhaps always, the case. If
M. Bertrand is right, and the Faustina tomb is of any value as an
indication of age, certainly sometimes at least, the rude monuments are
the more modern. Carthage fell B.C. 146, and the Jugurthan
war ended B.C. 106, and it is impossible to conceive that
a people like the Romans, would possess as they did the sovereignty
of northern Africa, after that date, and not leave their mark on it,
in the shape of buildings of various sorts. If we adopt the usual
progressive theory, all must be anterior to B.C. 100; for on
that hypothesis it would be considered most improbable that after long
contact with Carthaginian civilization and under the direct influence
of that of Rome anyone could prefer rude uncommunicative masses to
structures composed of polished and engraved stones. It certainly was
so, however, to a very great extent, and my impression is, for the
reasons above given, that the bulk of these North African dolmens are
subsequent to the Christian era, and that they extend well into the
period of the Mahommedan domination, for it could not, for a long
time at least, have been so complete as entirely to obliterate the
feelings and usages so long indulged in by the aboriginal inhabitants
of the country. Nothing, indeed, would surprise me less than if it were
eventually shown that some of these rude-stone monuments extended down
to the times of the Crusades. As, however, we are not yet in a position
to prove this, it is only put forward here as a suggestion, in order
that those who may hereafter have the task of opening these tombs may
not reject any evidence of their being so late, as they probably would
do if imbued with prehistoric prejudices.
It is to be feared that the question who the people were that set up
these African dolmens must wait for an answer till we know more of
the ethnography of northern Africa in ancient times than we do at
present. The only people who, so far as we now see, seem to be able
to claim them, are the Nasamones. From Herodotus we learn that this
people buried their dead sitting, with their knees doubled up to their
chins, and were so particular about this that, when a man was dying,
they propped him up that he might die in that attitude (iv. 190). We
also learn from him that they had such reverence for the tombs of their
ancestors that it was their practice in their solemn form of oath to
lay their hands on these tombs, and so invoke their sanction; and in
their mode of divination they used to sleep in or on these sepulchres
(iv. 172). All this would agree perfectly with what we find, but
Herodotus unfortunately never visited the country nor saw these tombs,
and consequently does not describe them, and we do not know whether
they were mere mounds of earth, or cairns of stone, or dolmens such
as are found in Africa. It is also unfortunate for their claim that,
in his day, the Nasamones lived near the Syrtes and to the eastward
of them (ii. 32), and it seems hardly possible that they could have
increased and multiplied to such an extent in the four following
centuries as to occupy northern Africa as far as Mount Atlas, without
either the Greeks or the Romans having known it. They are mentioned
again by Curtius (iv. 7), by Lucan (ix. v. 439), and by Silius Italicus
(ii. v. 116 and xi. v. 180), but always as a plundering Libyan tribe,
never as a great people occupying the northern country. Their claim,
therefore, to be considered the authors of the thousands of dolmens
which are even now found in the province of Algeria, seems for the
present wholly inadmissible.
Still less can we admit M. Bertrand's theory alluded to above, that the
dolmen-builders migrated from the Baltic to Britain, and thence through
France and Spain to Africa. Such a migration, requiring long land
journeys and sea voyages, if it took place at all, is much more likely
to have been accomplished when commercial intercourse was established,
and the North Sea and the Mediterranean were covered with sailing
vessels of all sorts; but then it is unlikely that a rude people, as
the dolmen-builders are assumed to be, could have availed themselves of
these trade routes.
Still no one can look at such monuments as this of Aveyron (woodcuts
Nos. 8 and 122) and compare them with those of Algeria, of which
woodcut No. 169 is a type, without feeling that there was a connection,
and an intimate one, at the dolmen period, between the people on the
northern with those on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, which
can only be accounted for in one of three ways.
Either it was that history was only repeating itself when Marshal
Bougeaud landed in Algeria in 1830, and proceeded to conquer and
colonise Algeria for the French. Or we must assume, as has often been
done, that some people wandering from the east to colonise western
Europe left these traces of their passage in Africa on their way
westward. The third hypothesis is that already insisted upon at the end
of the Scandinavian chapter, which regards these rude-stone monuments
as merely the result of a fashion which sprung up at a particular
period, and was adopted by all those people who, like the Nasamones,
reverenced their dead and practised ancestral worship rather than that
of an external divinity.
Of all these three hypotheses, the second seems the least tenable,
though it is the one most generally adopted. The Pyramids were built,
on the most moderate computation, at least 3000 B.C.[481]
Egypt was then a highly civilized and populous country, and the art of
cutting and polishing stones of the hardest nature had reached a degree
of perfection in that country in those days which has never since been
surpassed, and must have been practised for thousands of years before
that time in order to reach the stage of perfection in which we there
find it. Is it possible to conceive any savage Eastern race rushing
across the Nile on its way westward, and carrying their rude arts with
them, and continuing to practise them for four or five thousand years
afterwards without change? Either it seems more probable to assume that
the Egyptians would have turned them back, or if they had sojourned
in their land like the Israelites, and then departed because they
found the bondage intolerable, it is almost certain that they would
have carried with them some of the arts and civilization of the people
among whom they had dwelt. If such a migration did take place, it must
have been in prehistoric times so remote that its occurrence can have
but little bearing on the argument as to who built these Algerian
monuments. But did they come by sea? Did the dolmen-building races
embark from the ports of Palestine or those of Asia Minor? Were they in
fact the far-famed Phœnicians, to whom antiquaries have been so fond
of ascribing these structures. The first answer to this is that there
are no dolmens in Phœnicia, and that they have not yet been found
near Carthage, nor Utica, nor in Sicily, nor indeed anywhere where the
Phœnicians had colonies. They are not even found at Marseilles,
where they settled, though on the western bank of the Rhone, where they
had no establishments, they are found in numbers. They may have traded
with Cornwall, and discovered lands even farther north, but to assume
that so small a people could have erected all the megalithic remains
found in Scandinavia and the continent of France, and other countries
where they never settled, perhaps never visited, is to ascribe great
effects to causes so insignificant as to be wholly incommensurable.
So wholly inadequate does the Phœnician power seem to have been to
produce such effects, that the proposition would probably never have
been brought forward had the extent of the dolmen region been known at
the time it was suggested. Even putting the element of time aside, it
is now clearly untenable, and if there is any truth in the date above
assigned to this class of monuments, it is mere idleness to argue it.
The idea of a migration from France to Algeria is by no means so
illogical. The French dolmens, so far as is now known, seem certainly
older than the African--a fact which, if capable of proof, is fatal to
the last suggestion--and if we assume that this class of monument was
invented in western Europe, it only requires that the element of time
should be suitable to establish this hypothesis. When the Celts of
central Gaul, six centuries before the Christian era, began to extend
their limits and to press upon those of the Aquitanians, did the latter
flee from their oppressors to seek refuge in Africa, as at a latter
period the dolmen-builders of Spain sought repose in the green island
of the west? There certainly appears to be no great improbability that
they may have done so to such an extent as to cause the adoption of
this form of architecture after it had become prevalent elsewhere; and
as the encroaching Celts, down to the prosecution of the middle ages,
may have driven continual streams of colonists in the same direction,
this would account for all the phenomena we find, provided we may
ascribe that modern date to the Algerian examples which to me appears
undoubted.
It is hardly probable, however, that the Aquitanians would have sought
refuge in Africa unless some kindred tribe existed there to afford them
shelter and a welcome. If such a race did exist, that would go far to
get rid of most of the difficulties of the problem. We are, however,
far too ignorant of North African ethnography to be able to say whether
any such people were there, or if so, who their representatives may now
be, and till our ignorance is dispelled, it is idle to speculate on
mere probabilities.
We know something of the migrations of the peoples settled around the
shores of the Mediterranean for at least ten centuries before the birth
of Christ, but neither in Greek or Roman or Carthaginian history, nor
in any of the traditions of their literature, do we find a hint of any
migration of a rude people, either across Egypt or by sea from Asia,
and, what is perhaps more to the point, we have no trace of it in any
of the intermediate islands. The Nurhags of Sardinia, the Talayots of
the Balearic Islands, are monuments of quite a different class from
anything found in France or Algeria. So too are the tombs of Malta,
and, as just mentioned, there are no such remains in Sicily.
We seem thus forced back on the third hypothesis, which contemplates
the rise of a dolmen style of architecture at some not very remote
period of the world's history, and its general diffusion among all
those kindred races of mankind with whom respect for the spirits of
deceased ancestors was a leading characteristic.
TRIPOLI.
Dr. Barth seems to be the only traveller who has in recent times
explored the regions about Tripoli to a sufficient extent and with
the requisite knowledge to enable him to observe whether or not there
were any rude-stone monuments in that district. About halfway between
Moursuk and Ghât, he observed "a circle laid out very regularly with
large slabs, like the opening of a well; and, on the plain above the
cliffs, another circle regularly laid out, "and," he adds, "like the
many circles seen in Cyrenaica and in other parts of Northern Africa,
evidently connected with the religious rites of the ancient inhabitants
of these regions."[482] This is meagre enough; but fortunately, in
addition to this, he observed and drew two monuments which are of equal
and perhaps even of more importance to our present purposes.
[Illustration: 175. Trilithon at Ksaea.]
One of these, situated at a place called Ksaea, about forty-five miles
east by south from Tripoli, consists of six pairs of trilithons,
similar to that represented in the annexed woodcut. No plan is given
of their arrangement, nor does Dr. Barth speculate as to their use;
he only remarks that "they could never have been intended as doors,
for the space between the upright stones is so narrow that a man of
ordinary size could hardly squeeze his way between them."[483]
The other, situated at Elkeb, about the same distance from Tripoli,
but south by east, is even more curious. It, too, is a trilithon, but
the supports, which are placed on a masonry platform two steps in
height, slope inwards, with all the appearance of being copied from a
carpentry form, and the cap-stone likewise projects beyond the uprights
in a manner very unusual in masonry. Another curious indication of its
wooden origin is that the western pillar has three quadrangular holes
on its inner side, 6 inches square, while the corresponding holes in
the eastern pillar go quite through. These pillars are 2 feet square
and 10 feet high, while the impost measures 6 feet 6 inches.[484]
In front of these pillars lies a stone with a square sinking in it
and a spout at one side. Whatever this may have been intended for, it
is--if the woodcut and description are to be depended upon--the exact
counterpart of a Hindu Yoni, and as such would not excite remark as
having anything unusual in its appearance if found in a modern temple
at Benares. Beyond these in the woodcut are seen several other stones,
evidently belonging to the same monument, one of which seems to have
been formed into a throne.
[Illustration: 176. Trilithon at Elkeb. From a Drawing by Dr. Barth.]
These monuments are not, of course, alone. There must be
others--probably many others--in the country, a knowledge of which
might throw considerable light on our enquiries. In the meanwhile the
first thing that strikes one is that Jeffrey of Monmouth's assertion,
that "Giants in old days brought from Africa the stones which the
magic arts of Merlin afterwards removed from Kildare and set up at
Stonehenge,"[485] is not so entirely devoid of foundation as might at
first sight appear. The removal of the stones is, of course, absurd,
but the suggestion and design may possibly have travelled west by this
route.
[Illustration: 177. Buddhist Monument at Bangkok. From Mouhot's
'Travels in Indo-China, Cambodia, &c.' vol. i. p. 218.]
If we now turn back to page 100, it seems impossible not to be struck
with, the likeness that exists between woodcut No. 25 and woodcuts 175
and 176, especially the first. Such similarity is more than sufficient
to take away all improbability from Dr. Barth's suggestion that "the
traces of art which they display may be ascribed to Roman influence."
It also renders it nearly certain that these African trilithons were
sepulchral, and adds another to the many proofs adduced above that
Stonehenge was both sepulchral and post-Roman.
The most curious point, however, connected with these monuments is
the suggestion of Indian influence which they--especially that at
Elkeb--give rise to. The introduction of sloping jambs, derived
from carpentry forms, can be traced back in India, in the caves of
Behar[486] and the Western Ghâts, to the second century before Christ,
but certainly to no earlier date. The carpentry forms, but without the
sloping jambs, continued at Sanchi and the Ajunta caves till some time
after the Christian era, and where wood is used has, in fact, continued
to the present day. "Mutatis mutandis," no two monuments can well be
more alike to one another than that at Elkeb and the Buddhist tomb at
Bangkok, represented in woodcut 177. The Siamese tomb may be a hundred
years old; and if we allow the African trilithon to be late Roman, we
have some fourteen or fifteen centuries between them, which, certainly,
is as long as can reasonably be demanded. In reality it was probably
less, but if the one was prehistoric, we lose altogether the thread of
association and tradition that ought to connect the two.
To all this we shall have occasion to return, and then to discuss
it more at length, when speaking of the Indian monuments and their
connection with those of the West. In the meanwhile these two form a
stepping-stone of sufficient importance to make us feel how desirable
it is that the country where they are found should be more carefully
examined. My impression is that the key to most of our mysteries is
hidden in these African deserts.
[Footnote 464: 'International Congress,' Norwich volume, 1869, p.
196.]
[Footnote 465: Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 196.]
[Footnote 466: A very imperfect one appeared in the 'Revue
archéologique,' in 1865, vol. xi. pl. v. It contained most of the
names of places where dolmens were then known to exist, but our
knowledge has been immensely extended since then.]
[Footnote 467: 'Mémoires de la Soc. arch. de Constantine,' 1864, p.
127.]
[Footnote 468: Flower, in Norwich volume, p. 204.]
[Footnote 469: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 124.]
[Footnote 470: Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 201 _et seq._]
[Footnote 471: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, pp. 109,
114.]
[Footnote: 472: 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine.']
[Footnote 473: Another is published by M. Bourguignal, in his
'Monuments symboliques de l'Algérie,' pl. i., but it is still more
suspicious.]
[Footnote 474: I have been obliged to take some liberties with M.
Féraud's cuts; the plan and elevation are so entirely discrepant,
that one or both must be wrong. I have brought them a little more
into harmony.]
[Footnote 475: 'Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich volume, p. 199.]
[Footnote 476: 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864.]
[Footnote 477: 'Revue archéologique,' viii. p. 527.]
[Footnote 478: _Ibid._ _l. s. c._]
[Footnote 479: 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 122, pl.
xxx.]
[Footnote 480: Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 202-206.]
[Footnote 481: 'History of Architecture,' i. p. 81.]
[Footnote 482: 'Travels and Discoveries in Northern Africa,' i. p.
204.]
[Footnote 483: _Ibid._ p. 74.]
[Footnote 484: _Ibid._ p. 59. The holes are not shown in the cut.]
[Footnote 485: 'British History,' viii. chap. ii.]
[Footnote 486: 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, ii. p.
483.]