Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Peter Barozzi and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team.
[Illustration: STONEHENGE FROM THE SOUTH-EAST]
ROUGH STONE
MONUMENTS
AND THEIR
BUILDERS
BY
T. ERIC PEET
FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD;
LATELY CRAVEN FELLOW IN THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD AND PELHAM STUDENT AT
THE BRITISH SCHOOL OF ROME
HARPER & BROTHERS
LONDON AND NEW YORK
45 ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1912
_Published October, 1912_.
PREFACE
The aim of this volume is to enable those who are interested in
Stonehenge and other great stone monuments of England to learn something
of the similar buildings which exist in different parts of the world, of
the men who constructed them, and of the great archæological system of
which they form a part. It is hoped that to the archæologist it may be
useful as a complete though brief sketch of our present knowledge of the
megalithic monuments, and as a short treatment of the problems which
arise in connection with them.
To British readers it is unnecessary to give any justification for the
comparatively full treatment accorded to the monuments of Great Britain
and Ireland. Malta and Sardinia may perhaps seem to occupy more than
their due share of space, but the usurpation is justified by the
magnificence and the intrinsic interest of their megalithic buildings.
Being of singularly complicated types and remarkably well preserved they
naturally tell us much more of their builders than do the simpler
monuments of other larger and now more important countries. In these two
islands, moreover, research has in the last few years been extremely
active, and it is felt that the accounts here given of them will contain
some material new even to the archæologist.
In order to assist those readers who may wish to follow out the subject
in greater detail a short bibliography has been added to the book.
For the figures and photographs with which this volume is illustrated I
have to thank many archæological societies and individual scholars.
Plate III and part of Plate II I owe to the kindness of Dr. Zammit,
Director of the Museum of Valletta, while the other part of Plate II is
from a photograph kindly lent to me by Dr. Ashby. I have to thank the
Society of Antiquaries for Figures 1 and 3, the Reale Accademia dei
Lincei for Figures 17 and 20, and the Société préhistorique de France,
through Dr. Marcel Baudouin, for Figure 10. I am indebted to the Royal
Irish Academy for Figure 8, to the Committee of the British School of
Rome for Figure 18, and to Dr. Albert Mayr and the Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Munich for the plan of Mnaidra. Professors Montelius,
Siret and Cartailhac I have to thank not only for permission to
reproduce illustrations from their works, but also for their kind
interest in my volume. Figure 19 I owe to my friend Dr. Randall MacIver.
The frontispiece and Plate I are fine photographs by Messrs. The
Graphotone Co., Ltd.
In conclusion, I must not forget to thank Canon F.F. Grensted for much
help with regard to the astronomical problems connected with Stonehenge.
T. ERIC PEET.
LIVERPOOL,
_August 10th,_ 1912.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. STONEHENGE AND OTHER GREAT STONE
MONUMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES 15
III. MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS IN SCOTLAND
AND IRELAND 34
IV. THE SCANDINAVIAN MEGALITHIC AREA 52
V. FRANCE, SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 59
VI. ITALY AND ITS ISLANDS 76
VII. AFRICA, MALTA, AND THE SMALLER.
MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS 90
VIII. THE DOLMENS OF ASIA 114
IX. THE BUILDERS OF THE MEGALITHIC
MONUMENTS, THEIR HABITS, CUSTOMS,
RELIGION, ETC 123
X. WHO WERE THE BUILDERS, AND WHENCE
DID THEY COME? 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY 159
INDEX 167
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES
Stonehenge from the south-east _Frontispiece_
FACING PAGE
I. Stonehenge from the south-west 17
II. Mnaidra, doorway of Room H. The _Nuraghe_ of
Madrone in Sardinia 82
III. Temple of Mnaidra, Malta. Apse of chief room 100
FIGURE PAGE
1. Plan of Stonehenge 16
2. Avebury and Kennet Avenue 23
3. Plans of English Long Barrows 31
4. Horned tumulus, Caithness 39
5. Plans of three dolmen-types 40
6. Type-plan of simple corridor-tomb 42
7. Type-plan of wedge-shaped tomb 44
8. Corridor-tomb at New Grange, Ireland 47
9. Corridor-tomb at Ottagården, Sweden 53
10. Plan of La Pierre aux Fées, Oise, France 61
11. Chambered mound at Fontenay-le-Marmion, Normandy 63
12. Plan of La Grotte des Fées, Arles, France 65
13. The so-called dolmen-deity, Petit Morin, France 66
14. Plan of corridor-tomb at Los Millares, Spain 69
15. Section and plan of a _talayot_, Majorca 72
16. Section and plan of the _nau_ d'Es Tudons 73
17. Elevation, section and plan of a Sardinian _nuraghe_ 83
18. Plan of Giant's Tomb at Muraguada, Sardinia 87
19. Plan of stone circle at the Senâm, Algeria 94
20. Plan of the Sese Grande, Pantelleria 97
21. Plan of the Sanctuary of Mnaidra, Malta 99
22. Dolmen with holed stone at Ala Safat 115
ROUGH STONE MONUMENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
To the south of Salisbury Plain, about two miles west of the small
country town of Amesbury, lies the great stone circle of Stonehenge. For
centuries it has been an object of wonder and admiration, and even
to-day it is one of the sights of our country. Perhaps, however, few of
those who have heard of Stonehenge or even of those who have visited it
are aware that it is but a unit in a vast crowd of megalithic monuments
which, in space, extends from the west of Europe to India, and, in time,
covers possibly more than a thousand years.
What exactly is a megalithic monument? Strictly speaking, it is a
building made of very large stones. This definition would, of course,
include numbers of buildings of the present day and of the medieval and
classical periods, while many of the Egyptian pyramids and temples would
at once suggest themselves as excellent examples of this type of
building. The archæologist, however, uses the term in a much more
limited sense. He confines it to a series of tombs and buildings
constructed in Western Asia, in North Africa, and in certain parts of
Europe, towards the end of the neolithic period and during part of the
copper and bronze ages which followed it. The structures are usually,
though not quite invariably, made of large blocks of unworked or
slightly worked stone, and they conform to certain definite types. The
best known of these types are as follows: Firstly, the menhir, which is
a tall, rough pillar of stone with its base fixed into the earth.
Secondly, the trilithon, which consists of a pair of tall stones set at
a short distance apart supporting a third stone laid across the top.
Thirdly, the dolmen, which is a single slab of stone supported by
several others arranged in such a way as to enclose a space or chamber
beneath it. Some English writers apply the term cromlech to such a
structure, quite incorrectly. Both menhir and dolmen are Breton words,
these two types of megalithic monument being particularly frequent in
Brittany. Menhir is derived from the Breton _men_, a stone, and _hir_,
long; similarly dolmen is from _dol_, a table, and _men_, a stone. Some
archæologists also apply the word dolmen to rectangular chambers roofed
with more than one slab. We have carefully avoided this practice, always
classing such chambers as corridor-tombs of an elementary type.
Fourthly, we have the corridor-tomb (_Ganggrab_), which usually consists
of a chamber entered by a gallery or corridor. In cases where the
chamber is no wider than, and hence indistinguishable from the corridor,
the tomb becomes a long rectangular gallery, and answers to the French
_allée couverte_ in the strict sense. Fifthly, we come to the
_alignement_, in which a series of menhirs is arranged in open lines on
some definite system. We shall find a famous example of this at Morbihan
in Brittany. Sixthly, there is the cromlech (from _crom_, curve, and
_lec'h_, a stone), which consists of a number of menhirs arranged to
enclose a space, circular, elliptical or, in rare cases, rectangular.
These are the chief types of megalithic monument, but there are others
which, though clearly belonging to the same class of structure, show
special forms and are more complicated. They are in many cases
developments of one or more of the simple types, and will be treated
specially in their proper places. Such monuments are the _nuraghi_ of
Sardinia and the 'temples' of Malta and Gozo.
Finally, the rock-hewn sepulchre is often classed with the megalithic
monuments, and it is therefore frequently mentioned in the following
pages. This is justified by the fact that it generally occurs in
connection with megalithic structures. The exact relation in which it
stands to them will be fully discussed in the last chapter.
We have now to consider what may be called the architectural methods of
the megalithic builders, for although in dealing with such primitive
monuments it would perhaps be exaggeration to speak of a style, yet
there were certain principles which were as carefully and as invariably
observed as were in later days those of the Doric or the Gothic styles
in the countries where they took root.
The first and most important principle, that on which the whole of the
megalithic construction may be said to be based, is the use of the
orthostatic block, i.e. the block set up on its edge. It is clear that
in this way each block or slab is made to provide the maximum of wall
area at the expense of the thickness of the wall. Naturally, in
districts where the rock is of a slabby nature blocks of a more or less
uniform thickness lay ready to the builders' hand, and the appearance of
the structure was much more finished than it would be in places where
the rock had a less regular fracture or where shapeless boulders had to
be relied on. The orthostatic slabs were often deeply sunk into the
ground where this consisted of earth or soft rock; of the latter case
there are good examples at Stonehenge, where the rock is a soft chalk.
When the ground had an uneven surface of hard rock, the slabs were set
upright on it and small stones wedged in beneath them to make them stand
firm. Occasionally, as at Mnaidra and Hagiar Kim, a course of horizontal
blocks set at the foot of the uprights served to keep them more securely
in position. With the upright block technique went hand in hand the
roofing of narrow spaces by means of horizontal slabs laid across the
top of the uprights.
The second principle of megalithic architecture was the use of more or
less coursed masonry set without mortar, each block lying on its side
and not on its edge. It is quite possible that this principle is less
ancient in origin than that of the orthostatic slab, for it usually
occurs in structures of a more advanced type. Thus in simple and
primitive types of building such as the dolmen it is most rare to find
dry masonry, but in the advanced corridor-tombs of Ireland, the Giants'
Graves and _nuraghi_ of Sardinia, and in the 'temples' of Malta this
technique is largely used, often in combination with the upright slab
system. Indeed, this combination is quite typical of the best megalithic
work: a series of uprights is first set in position, and over this are
laid several horizontal courses of rather smaller stones. We must note
that the dry masonry which we are describing is still strictly
megalithic, as the blocks used are never small and often of enormous
size.
Buildings in which this system is used are occasionally roofed with
slabs, but more often corbelling is employed. At a certain height each
succeeding course in the wall begins to project inwards over the last,
so that the walls, as it were, lean together and finally meet to form a
false barrel-vault or a false dome, according as the structure is
rectangular or round. Occasionally, when the building was wide, it was
impossible to corbel the walls sufficiently to make them meet. In this
case they were corbelled as far as possible and the open space still
left was covered with long flat slabs.
It has often been commented on as a matter of wonder that a people
living in the stone age, or at the best possessing a few simple tools of
metal, should have been able to move and place in position such enormous
blocks of stone. With modern cranes and traction engines all would be
simple, but it might have been thought that in the stone age such
building would be impossible. Thus, for instance, in the 'temple' of
Hagiar Kim in Malta, there is one block of stone which measures 21 feet
by 9, and must weigh many tons. In reality there is little that is
marvellous in the moving and setting up of these blocks, for the tools
needed are ready to the hand of every savage; but there is something to
wonder at and to admire in the patience displayed and in the
organization necessary to carry out such vast pieces of labour. Great,
indeed, must have been the power of the cult which could combine the
force of hundreds and even thousands of individuals for long periods of
time in the construction of the great megalithic temples. Perhaps slave
labour played a part in the work, but in any case it is clear that we
are in the presence of strongly organized governments backed by a
powerful religion which required the building of temples for the gods
and vast tombs for the dead.
Let us consider for a moment what was the procedure in building a simple
megalithic monument. It was fourfold, for it involved the finding and
possibly the quarrying of the stones, the moving of them to the desired
spot, the erection of the uprights in their places, and the placing of
the cover-slab or slabs on top of them.
With regard to the first step it is probable that in most cases the
place chosen for a tomb or cemetery was one in which numbers of great
stones lay on the surface ready to hand. By this means labour was
greatly economized. On the other hand, there are certainly cases where
the stones were brought long distances in order to be used. Thus, in
Charente in France there is at La Perotte a block weighing nearly 40
tons which must have travelled over 18 miles. We have no evidence as to
whether stones were ever actually quarried. If they were, the means used
must have been the stone axe, fire, and water. It was not usual in the
older and simpler dolmens to dress the stones in any way, though in the
later and more complicated structures well-worked blocks were often
used.
The required stones having been found it was now necessary to move them
to the spot. This could be done in two ways. The first and simpler is
that which we see pictured on Egyptian monuments, such as the tomb of
Tahutihotep at El Bersheh. A rough road of beams is laid in the required
direction, and wooden rollers are placed under the stone on this road.
Large numbers of men or oxen then drag the stone along by means of ropes
attached to it. Other labourers assist the work from behind with levers,
and replace the rollers in front of the stone as fast as they pass out
behind. Those who have seen the modern Arabs in excavation work move
huge blocks with wooden levers and palm-leaf rope will realize that for
the building of the dolmens little was needed except numbers and time.
The other method of moving the stones is as follows: a gentle slope of
hard earth covered with wet clay is built with its higher extremity
close beside the block to be moved. As many men as there is room for
stand on each side of the block, and with levers resting on beams or
stones as fulcra, raise the stone vertically as far as possible. Other
men then fill up the space beneath it with earth and stones. The process
is next repeated with higher fulcra, until the stone is level with the
top of the clay slope, on to which it is then slipped. With a little
help it now slides down the inclined plane to the bottom. Here a fresh
slope is built, and the whole procedure is gone through again. The
method can even be used on a slight uphill gradient. It requires less
dragging and more vertical raising than the other, and would thus be
more useful where oxen were unobtainable.
When the stones were once on the spot it is not hard to imagine how they
were set upright with levers and ropes. The placing of the cover-slab
was, however, a more complicated matter. The method employed was
probably to build a slope of earth leading up from one side to the
already erected uprights and almost covering them. Up this the slab
could be moved by means of rollers, ropes, and levers, until it was in
position over the uprights. The slope could then be removed. If the
dolmen was to be partly or wholly covered with a mound, as some
certainly were, it would not even be necessary to remove the slope.
Roughly speaking, the extension of megalithic monuments is from Spain to
Japan and from Sweden to Algeria. These are naturally merely limits, and
it must not be supposed that the regions which lie between them all
contain megalithic monuments. More exactly, we find them in Asia, in
Japan, Corea, India, Persia, Syria, and Palestine. In Africa we have
them along the whole of the north coast, from Tripoli to Morocco; inland
they are not recorded, except for one possible example in Egypt and
several in the Soudan. In Europe the distribution of dolmens and other
megalithic monuments is wide. They occur in the Caucasus and the Crimea,
and quite lately examples have been recorded in Bulgaria. There are none
in Greece, and only a few in Italy, in the extreme south-east corner.
The islands, however, which lie around and to the south of Italy afford
many examples: Corsica, Sardinia, Malta, Gozo, Pantelleria, and
Lampedusa are strongholds of the megalithic civilization, and it is
possible that Sicily should be included in the list. Moving westward we
find innumerable examples in the Spanish Peninsula and in France. To the
north we find them frequent in the British Isles, Sweden, Denmark, and
North Germany; they are rarer in Holland and Belgium. Two examples have
been reported from Switzerland.
It is only to be expected that these great megalithic monuments of a
prehistoric age should excite the wonder and stimulate the imagination
of those who see them. In all countries and at all times they have been
centres of story and legend, and even at the present day many strange
beliefs concerning them are to be found among the peasantry who live
around them. Salomon Reinach has written a remarkable essay on this
question, and the following examples are mainly drawn from the
collection he has there made. The names given to the monuments often
show clearly the ideas with which they are associated in the minds of
the peasants. Thus the Penrith circle is locally known as "Meg and her
Daughters," a dolmen in Berkshire is called "Wayland the Smith's Cave,"
while in one of the Orkney Isles is a menhir named "Odin's Stone." In
France many are connected with Gargantua, whose name, the origin of
which is doubtful, stands clearly for a giant. Thus we find a rock
called the "Chair of Gargantua," a menhir called "Gargantua's Little
Finger," and an _allée couverte_ called "Gargantua's Tomb." Names
indicating connections with fairies, virgins, witches, dwarfs, devils,
saints, druids, and even historical persons are frequent. Dolmens are
often "houses of dwarfs," a name perhaps suggested or at least helped by
the small holes cut in some of them; they are "huts" or "caves of
fairies," they are "kitchens" or "forges of the devil," while menhirs
are called his arrows, and cromlechs his cauldrons. In France we have
stones of various saints, while in England many monuments are connected
with King Arthur. A dolmen in Wales is his quoit; the circle at Penrith
is his round table, and that of Caermarthen is his park. Both in England
and France we find stones and altars "of the druids"; in the Pyrenees,
in Spain, and in Africa there are "graves of the Gentiles" or "tombs of
idolaters"; in Arles (France) the _allées couvertes_ are called
"prisons" or "shops of the Saracens," and the dolmens of the Eastern
Pyrenees are locally known as "huts of the Moors." Dolmens in India are
often "stones of the monkeys," and in France there are "wolves' altars,"
"wolves' houses," and "wolves' tables."
Passing now to more definite beliefs connected with megalithic
monuments, we may notice that from quite early times they have been--as
indeed they often are still--regarded with fear and respect, and even
worshipped. In certain parts of France peasants are afraid to shelter
under the dolmens, and never think of approaching them by night. In
early Christian days there must have been a cult of the menhir, for the
councils of Arles (A.D. 452), of Tours (A.D. 567), and of Nantes (A.D.
658) all condemn the cult of trees, springs, and _stones_. In A.D. 789
Charlemagne attempted to suppress stone-worship, and to destroy the
stones themselves. In Spain, where, as in France, megalithic monuments
are common, the councils of Toledo in A.D. 681 and 682 condemned the
"Worshippers of Stones." Moreover there are many cases in which a
monument itself bears traces of having been the centre of a cult in
early or medieval times. The best example is perhaps the dolmen of
Saint-Germain-sur-Vienne, which was transformed into a chapel about the
twelfth century. Similar transformations have been made in Spain. In
many cases, too, crosses have been placed or engraved on menhirs in
order to "Christianize" them.
Remarkable powers and virtues have been attributed to many of the
monuments. One of the dolmens of Finistère is said to cure rheumatism in
anyone who rubs against the loftiest of its stones, and another heals
fever patients who sleep under it. Stones with holes pierced in them are
believed to be peculiarly effective, and it suffices to pass the
diseased limb or, when possible, the invalid himself through the hole.
Oaths sworn in or near a megalithic monument have a peculiar sanctity.
In Scotland as late as the year A.D. 1438 "John off Erwyne and Will
Bernardson swor on the Hirdmane Stein before oure Lorde ye Erie off
Orknay and the gentiless off the cuntre."
Many of the monuments are endowed by the credulous with life. The menhir
du Champ Dolent sinks an inch every hundred years. Others say that a
piece of it is eaten by the moon each night, and that when it is
completely devoured the Last Judgment will take place. The stones of
Carnac bathe in the sea once a year, and many of those of the Périgord
leap three times each day at noon.
We have already remarked on the connection of the monuments with dwarfs,
giants, and mythical personages. There is an excellent example in our
own country in Berkshire. Here when a horse has cast a shoe the rider
must leave it in front of the dolmen called "The Cave of Wayland the
Smith," placing at the same time a coin on the cover-stone. He must then
retire for a suitable period, after which he returns to find the horse
shod and the money gone.