also reached the Baltic at about the same date, for we find there, too,
an early bronze industry, which, while bearing a close resemblance
to Central European models, exhibits also western and Mediterranean
types.[115] The search for amber probably induced our traders to go
to this distant region, for amber, like the precious metals, was much
in request in Mediterranean lands, for again it was a substance from
which beads could readily be made. It was probably these traders who
carried with them the news of the Irish gold-fields, and in due course
other traders, starting out from the Baltic, joined the gold rush. We
have already seen that a gold crescent of Irish work has been found in
Denmark, we can find, too, other evidence of this trade.
Now if we plot out on a map of the British Isles the sites at which
have been found the bronze implements of this period, and such a map of
flat celts was published some years ago by Mr. O. G. S. Crawford,[116]
we shall notice certain striking features. Where the chalk lands or
limestone hills exist these finds are fairly numerous and generally
distributed, for, as Crawford showed, these areas were open grass
lands. But throughout the rest of the country these sites string out
into long lines, and these lines, if produced, would intersect near
Dublin; these lines seem to indicate trade routes, passing through
thickly wooded and probably uninhabited country on their way to the
Irish gold-fields.
One such route starts from Southampton and passing Winchester,
crosses the Kennet at Newbury, where it was met perhaps by a route
from Chichester. Thence it passed by the head waters of the Thames
to a point on the Cotswolds not far from Cirencester, where it may
have been joined by other routes from the south-west. It descended
the scarp slope of the Cotswold at or near Broadway, crossed the Avon
near Evesham, and the Severn at Bevere Island above Worcester. Thence
it passed up the west side of the valley, crossing the river again
below Shrewsbury. Its course across north Shropshire seems to have
lain on the watershed between the Tern and the Perry, if we may judge
from evidence of a later date,[117] thence passing from Ebnal towards
Llanarmon-dyffryn-Ceiriog, it crossed over to the Dee Valley, where we
can pick up fresh evidence near Corwen. From the head of Bala lake it
seems to have turned slightly north of west, instead of passing down
the Mawddach Valley, and it reached the coast somewhere to the north of
Harlech, perhaps by the so-called Roman steps at Cwm Bychan. This is
the best attested route so far traced out, but further work is required
to establish its course with precision all the way.
Another route from the Yorkshire coast through York to the Aire gap
has been described by Colonel E. Kitson Clark,[118] while some years
ago I traced several from the borders of the Fens into Leicestershire,
where they met at Bardon Hill; thence the route passed through
Ashby-de-la-Zouch as far as Burton-on-Trent, where it seemed to be
pointing to the Peak district.[119] There appears to be a route
running thence by Macclesfield and Knutsford towards Warrington,
while there are signs that the route through the Aire gap also turned
south towards the same spot. Near Warrington a number of flat axes
have been found,[120] some on the north and some to the south. The
northern settlement was in the parish of Winwick, and among the things
found there and dating from this time is a battle-axe of the so-called
boat-axe or _batyx_ type.[121] This type and the flint of which it is
made both indicate Denmark as the place of origin. The fact that both
these trade routes run to Warrington, which seems then to have been an
island in the middle of the Mersey, shows, I think, that here we have
a port, from which in the early bronze age Baltic traders set sail for
Dublin Bay.[122] Warrington, therefore, rather than Chester, was the
first predecessor of Liverpool, and the Mersey holds its own as the
earliest estuary used for the western trade. Crawford’s map also shows
that a similar trade route must have crossed Scotland from the Firth of
Forth to the Firth of Clyde and the Mull of Galloway, but no details of
such route have been worked out.
Much work yet remains to be done before the courses of these trade
routes can be traced with precision and their dates fully established,
but enough has been said, I trust, to show that in addition to
direct sea routes from Brittany, the Irish gold fields tempted
traders to cross both England and Scotland on their way from France
and the Baltic.[123] These traders would have needed provisions for
the journey, and for these would have bartered bronze axes to the
people settled on the chalk downs and limestone hills. The journey
across the Midland plain was through a densely wooded and probably
uninhabited area, and in passing through Wales they kept mostly to the
valleys, while the bulk of the population grazed its sheep on the high
moorlands.[124] The few axes found must have been such as were lost by
the way, and considering the number found this indicates an extensive
traffic.
In Ireland the traders probably employed the natives to wash the
alluvial gold; they had also to barter with them for their supplies.
No wonder, then, that bronze implements of the earliest type have been
found almost more abundantly in that island than in any other part of
Europe, while the number of gold objects found there is unsurpassed
elsewhere. Doubtless the natives worked the gold fields sometimes
on their own account, and they seem also to have tried to supply
themselves with home-made metal axes. There are veins of copper ore in
various parts of the island, which they seem to have discovered, but
tin is to all intents and purposes absent.[125] It is possible, too,
that the traders refused to divulge the secret of the tin alloy. It
would have been strange indeed had they not done so, and so the native
Irish, for a time at least, made themselves axes of copper. This, at
least, seems so be the most plausible explanation of the great number
of copper axes found in that island.
The foregoing is, of necessity, but a brief account of the early metal
trade and its relations with Celtic lands. To do the subject justice
would require more space than is at my disposal; nor is the time yet
ripe for more detailed treatment. This outline will serve to show that
foreign elements reached Celtic lands some 4000 years ago, though in
small numbers; who these people were must be considered in the next
chapter.
/Chapter IV/
THE PROSPECTORS
In many parts of the world there are to be found monuments of rough,
unhewn stones, sometimes rudely shaped by hammering, which from the
size of the stones used have been termed megalithic monuments.[126]
These consist of burial chambers, either a simple slab or capstone
supported on four or more uprights, or a similar but more complex
chamber, approached by a stone-lined passage. Other monuments consist
of circles or alignments of standing stones, or single stones only
set in an upright position. There are many types; some, like the
dolmen or simplest burial chamber, or the simple standing stone, are
widely distributed, while others have a restricted range. One type of
elaborate temple is found only in Malta and in the adjacent island of
Gozo.[127] Such monuments have these features in common: the stones
are large, they have not been hewn with chisels or axes, and they are
orthostatic or set on end.
Frequently associated with these megalithic monuments are other
structures, which are believed to belong to the same culture, though
the association is not so clearly established. Such are bee-hive huts,
round towers, and dry walls with polygonal masonry. These are often
found in close association with the erections of larger stones, but not
infrequently where true megalithic structures are absent.[128]
An attempt has been made to show that the dolmen originated in
Egypt, and is closely connected with the _mastaba_, the tomb used
throughout the earliest dynasties.[129] Elsewhere I have endeavoured
to show that there are reasons why we cannot attribute the origin
of these structures to the inhabitants of the Nile Valley, and that
the resemblances may better be explained by supposing that the idea
of the former was introduced into Egypt, perhaps at the beginning of
the second predynastic period, from some region, such as Syria, where
dolmens were known, or else that both had been derived from a common
ancestry.[130]
It has been suggested by some inquirers that the fashion of erecting
such megalithic monuments of orthostatic blocks arose at one time
and in one place, and was carried by degrees from centre to centre
until it reached many widely scattered regions between Ireland and
Polynesia.[131] It is not suggested that this culture, with which has
been associated many others, such as terrace cultivation, irrigation,
the use of conch shells and a number of others, was carried to all
these places simultaneously or even within the same millennium, nor is
it asserted that the people who introduced it to these widely scattered
regions were of necessity the same. The idea may, I think, be better
expressed by saying that a cult or religion became widely disseminated
at an early date, that it developed many varieties in the regions in
which it took root, and that these regions often became in time fresh
centres for dissemination. Thus it might happen that a daughter cult
might ultimately become spread through part of the region in which
the parent cult had arisen. A parallel may be drawn from the spread
of Christianity, especially in these islands. The new faith reached
Britain during the period of the Roman occupation and thence spread to
Ireland; later, when it had disappeared from the former, it passed from
Ireland to Iona and thence back to England.
We need not discuss the whole of this hypothesis, which is concerned
with a much wider area than the lands we are considering. One of the
most essential features, however, of this interesting thesis is that
the people, whoever they were, who spread the cult of megalithic
monuments and allied practices, were travelling in search of gold,
silver, copper, tin, amber and pearls; they were, in fact, merchants in
search of precious and easily portable commodities.
Now Perry,[132] who has specially worked at this part of the
hypothesis, maintains that megalithic monuments are invariably found
in association with metalliferous deposits, amber coasts and pearl
fisheries, and he has produced maps which appear at first sight very
convincing. A careful examination of his megalith map shows that he has
copied that of Fergusson, published in 1872,[133] and which represents
far less accurately the distribution of these monuments than does that
published by Colonel A. Lane-Fox in 1869.[134] Neither of these maps,
however, gives us a really reliable summary of the facts. Much work has
been done on this subject since these maps were produced, many fresh
areas have been added, and two at least have been deducted; but no one
has recently attempted to make a map of the European megaliths, or
those of any country except Holland.[135] The French anthropologists
have made a list of the dolmens in France, and published a summary
giving the number noted in each department,[136] a catalogue of the
British megaliths is in process of formation.
Wherever it has been possible to test it with sufficient accuracy, we
find that Perry’s contention is substantially true, and that there is a
definite relation between many areas rich in megalithic structures and
deposits of metal which are known to have been worked in early days;
the megalithic areas of the Baltic coincide fairly well with the coasts
producing amber. Nevertheless there are many spots, rich in metals, and
which are known or suspected to have been worked in early days, where
megaliths, have not hitherto been noted, and on the other hand, dolmens
and other such structures occur, sometimes with great frequency, in
areas devoid of metals or other precious commodities. The problem is
not quite so simple as it would appear from Perry’s account.
Still, looking at the matter broadly in the light of information
available at present, it does seem that, in western Europe at any
rate, the megalithic monuments cluster thickest in or _around_ those
regions which produced gold, copper, tin and amber, and which were
readily accessible to maritime traffic, and that they coincide very
closely with the lines of trade which I described in the last chapter.
The exceptions, too, are not destructive to the hypothesis. In the
British Isles we find that the megaliths in the main coincide with the
metalliferous areas, though in some cases more closely with lead ores
than with the metals previously mentioned. As lead does not seem to
have been used in north-west Europe before 1000 /B.C./, these monuments
must, if any connection be implied, date from a much later period
than that which we are discussing. But a large number of megalithic
structures are found in the region surrounding Salisbury Plain and in
certain parts of the Cotswolds. These are some of those open chalk and
limestone areas already mentioned, which were the early centres of
population in this country. As we have seen, certain trade routes to
Ireland seem to traverse these regions, and here the merchants would
have obtained their supplies of food for the rest of their journey; it
would not surprise us, therefore, if they introduced their cult here,
and that these populous areas formed fresh centres of dispersion.
The long barrows of Wiltshire and the Cotswold areas, and the same
is probably true of those in South Wales, have been thought by some
Scandinavian archæologists to be closely related to the types peculiar
to the Baltic region. Dr. Knut Sterjna[137] believed that the English
chambered long barrows represented a stage in the evolution from the
dolmens to the chambered barrows (_sépultures à galerie_) of Denmark
and Sweden. The stone circles, which are conspicuous in the Salisbury
plain area, are absent in France, and seem to have originated by the
Baltic. It would seem, then, that some at any rate of our English
megaliths were introduced, not so much by merchants coming from the
south as by those adventurers who came later from the Baltic region,
some of whom we have seen passed across this country to the port at
Warrington.
In France, too, though megaliths are more numerous and finer in the
Morbihan, where we have seen that tin and gold were found, than
elsewhere in that country, yet they cluster thickly in Finistère, and
in a curved line from that department to the Mediterranean coast near
Narbonne.[138] The occurrence of so many megaliths in Finistère and
the adjoining departments may be due to the need of the early traders
to take refuge in the inlets of that region, while endeavouring to
round the dangerous promontory. That they did so not infrequently
is shown by the occurrence near these inlets of numerous hoards of
bronze implements, most of which date from the time which we are
discussing.[139]
The band across the country clusters most thickly just north-east of
the line, running through the Carcassone gap, now followed by the
_canal du midi_. This seems to indicate that a land route through the
pass was in use at this time, as a safer alternative to rounding the
Iberian peninsula by sea. From this line the cult seems to have spread
north-eastwards, though these monuments grow scarcer the further we
leave this line.
Lastly, there are certain islands in which these monuments are found,
which do not seem to have produced any wealth of the type required,
notably Sardinia and Malta. We have also an isolated group near
Taranto. It seems probable that such islands, and points _en route_
with good harbours like Taranto, would have been convenient points of
call to these traders, as Tarentum was afterwards to the Phœnician
and Greek merchants. Here, and perhaps too at Syracuse, they may well
have had depôts, but from the wealth of its megalithic monuments we
may well believe that Malta was the base of operations for the western
and northern trade. Here we have a small island, very isolated and
with excellent ports, with a population primitive and docile; such
a spot would be a safe depôt in which to collect and store valuable
merchandise, until it was convenient to ship it through the more
traversed and perhaps pirate-infested seas of the east. Thus, though
there are more exceptions to his rule than Perry would lead us to
suspect, these exceptions do not seem to weaken his hypothesis, but
rather help to prove the rule.
Now in Britain and the north generally these monuments, or at any rate
some of them such as dolmens and long barrows, are believed to date
from the neolithic age, albeit from its latest phases; nevertheless
there are instances in Scandinavia and Brittany of the discovery of
copper tools and gold beads in these tombs.[140] Further south the
evidence of metal in association with them is clearer, but in Malta
the only bronze implements discovered, the hoard found in 1915 in the
temple of Hal Tarxien,[141] had been deposited above three feet of silt
which had accumulated on the temple floor. This at first sight seems to
militate against the theory that these structures were the tombs and
temples of miners.
I do not think, however, that these facts are necessarily fatal to
the hypothesis. In the first instance it is probable that gold and
amber were the objects of search, and these were probably to a large
extent exported. For a long time metal implements must have been rare
in these regions, and the people might well have hesitated to bury
them with their dead. The tools of metal were modern and new-fangled,
while burial customs are singularly conservative, as we can see at any
English funeral. For centuries and millennia it had been customary to
bury with the corpse weapons of stone for use in the next world; what
kind of a reception would the deceased have had on his arrival with a
metal instrument? It would have been a great risk, which was seldom
if ever taken. In matters of burial and religion, which are in fact
one, the older course is safer, and so these people, even after metal
was known, continued to bury stone implements with their dead, just as
Joshua circumcised the Israelites with flint knives.[142] The temples
of Malta, too, were erected without the use of metal tools, as was
Solomon’s temple,[143] and it is probable that while this cult lasted
no metal object might be taken within the shrine. It was only after
Hal Tarxien had been deserted, and its floor covered with three feet
or more of dust, that traders in bronze, or perhaps pirates, who knew
not the ancient cult, ventured to bury their treasure in the desolated
sanctuary.
In a recent paper Mr. Thurlow Leeds has suggested that the dolmen
originated in the Iberian peninsula, in the basin of the Tagus,
and thence spread throughout west Europe.[144] The first type he
believes to have been polygonal with a short gallery of approach,
lined with large stones, and this gallery seems, from his plans, to
have been somewhat in the nature of an antechamber. He further shows
that such primitive dolmens are derived from cave tombs, found in the
neighbouring region, and in these caves the antechamber seems more
apparent. More recently[145] he has compared these early dolmens with
certain rock-cut tombs at Castellucio near Syracuse, though, if I
understand him aright, he would derive the Sicilian tombs from those in
Portugal. Taking all the facts into consideration it seems more likely
that the Iberian caves and dolmens are derived from the rock-cut tombs
of south-east Sicily.
As to the date of this trade we can say little with certainty at
present. We have seen that objects have been found in Spain which
seem to point to a connection with Hissarlik II. In the temple of Hal
Tarxien in Malta were found certain carved stones with a double spiral
ornament[146], which exactly resemble some in the Syracuse museum,
which had closed some of the rock-cut tombs near that city.[147] These
tombs have been relegated by Signor Orsi to the period he calls Siculan
I., and to this period belong the rock-cut tombs at Castellucio, in
one of which was found several pieces of carved ivory, which closely
resemble a piece found in Hissarlik II[148]. This city was founded
about 2500 /B.C./, or perhaps some centuries earlier, and seems to
have been sacked about 2225 /B.C./[149] The trade then which we are
discussing must have taken place during the latter half of the third
millennium /B.C./, and in the light of the Babylonian tablet already
quoted may well have begun some centuries earlier. How soon the trade
and the megalith cult passed on from Spain to Brittany and thence to
Ireland and the Baltic is uncertain, though it becomes difficult to
fit in all the successive cultures unless we postulate that megalithic
monuments were known in Denmark and the south of Sweden as early as
2400 or 2500 /B.C./[150]; in Brittany a still earlier date seems to be
needed. We may then suggest tentatively that the Atlantic trade began
before the close of the first half of the third millennium.
All this seems to indicate that the rock-cut tomb with an antechamber,
the fore-runner of the dolmen, came from Asia; the antechamber also
occurs in the Egyptian _mastaba_. Professor Elliot Smith believes
that this structure, and the use of the antechamber, developed in
Egypt,[151] but of this I do not feel confident. It may well have been
introduced into that land from the north-east by his Giza folk. If
these may be identified, as I think they may, with Newberry’s people,
who introduced wheat and the second pre-dynastic culture, we must
postulate the use of rock-cut tombs with antechambers in Syria before
4000 /B.C./ Rock-cut tombs and dolmens, dating from before and just
after the discovery of metal, are not uncommon in some parts of this
region.[152]
Some years ago Professor Fleure was engaged in a detailed survey of
the physical characters of the present inhabitants of Wales, and the
results of this inquiry were published in 1916.[153] Among the many
types noted was one which is of special interest in this connection. He
describes it as: “powerfully built, often intensely dark, broad-headed,
broad-faced, strong and square jawed men characteristic of the Ardudwy
coast, the south Glamorgan coast, the Newquay district (Cardiganshire),
Pencaer in north Pembrokeshire, and other places.”[154] He states
in another place; “We found our dark, stalwart, broad-headed men on
certain coastal patches, often curiously associated with megaliths in
Wales.”[155] Later on he states that a similar type has been noted
in Ireland, about Wicklow, in South Devon, and perhaps Cornwall,
in the gulf of Saint Brieuc, around Narbonne, in the Asturias and
around Oviedo, on the Andalusian coast from Motril to Moguer, in the
gulf of Salerno and thence past the gulf of Taranto to Bari, on the
Adriatic.[156]
It will thus be seen that this type appears to occur in just those
regions in which megaliths and traces of early mining have been found.
The inference Fleure has drawn is that in some way these people were
connected with the ancient trade we have been discussing.[157] Though
I cannot find that he has published the fact, Fleure has told me that
he has noted the type in many of our commercial centres, especially in
sea-port towns. It is not uncommon in Liverpool, especially in shipping
circles.
Some years previous to the publication of Fleure’s paper I had noted
in Athens, in the restaurant at which I usually lunched, a type which
I was unable to place among those described by Ripley. I noted, too,
that they looked prosperous and were evidently well-off. Early in
1914 I noted the same type in Alexandria, especially common among the
successful Greek cotton merchants. Both these occurrences puzzled me
until in 1916 Fleure’s paper seemed to offer an explanation. I then
remembered having noted the same type in Venice and Florence, and among
the portraits in both those cities of successful merchants of the
renaissance; it also occurred to me that the type could often be seen
in London, especially in the city.