WHO WERE THE BUILDERS, AND WHENCE DID THEY COME?
Modern discussion of the origin of the megalithic monuments may be said
to date from Bertrand's publication of the French examples in 1864. In
this work Bertrand upheld the thesis that "the dolmens and _allées
couvertes_ are sepulchres; and their origin seems up to the present to
be northern." In 1865 appeared Bonstetten's famous _Essai sur les
dolmens_, in which he maintained that the dolmens were constructed by
one and the same people spreading over Europe from north to south. At
this time the dolmens of North Africa were still unstudied. In 1867
followed an important paper by Bertrand. In 1872 two events of
importance to the subject occurred, the publication of Fergusson's _Rude
Stone Monuments in All Countries_, and the discussion raised at the
Brussels Congress by General Faidherbe's paper on the dolmens of
Algeria. Faidherbe maintained the thesis that dolmens, whether in Europe
or Africa, were the work of a single people moving southward from the
Baltic Sea.
The question thus raised has been keenly debated since. At the
Stockholm Congress in 1874 de Mortillet advanced the theory that
megalithic monuments in different districts were due to different
peoples, and that what spread was the custom of building such structures
and not the builders themselves. This theory has been accepted by most
archæologists, including Montelius, Salomon Reinach, Sophus Müller,
Hoernes, and Déchelette. But while the rest believe the influences which
produced the megalithic monuments to have spread from east to west, i.e.
from Asia to Europe, Salomon Reinach holds the contrary view, which he
has supported in a remarkable paper called _Le Mirage Oriental_,
published in 1893.
The questions we have to discuss are, therefore, as follows: Are all the
megalithic monuments due to a single race or to several? If to a single
race, whence did that race come and in what direction did it move? If to
several, did the idea of building megalithic structures arise among the
several races independently, or did it spread from one to another?
We shall consider first the theory that the idea of megalithic building
was evolved among several races independently, i.e. that it was a phase
of culture through which they separately passed.
On the whole, this idea has not found favour among archæologists. The
use of stone for building might have arisen in many places
independently. But megalithic architecture is something much more than
this. It is the use of great stones in certain definite and particular
ways. We have already examined what may be called the style of
megalithic architecture and found that the same features are noticeable
in all countries where these buildings occur. In each case we see a type
of construction based on the use of large orthostatic slabs, sometimes
surmounted by courses of horizontal masonry, with either a roof of
horizontal slabs or a corbelled vault. Associated with this we
frequently find the hewing of underground chambers in the rock. In
almost all countries where megalithic structures occur certain fixed
types prevail; the dolmen is the most general of these, and it is clear
that many of the other forms are simply developments of this. The
occurrence of structures with a hole in one of the walls and of blocks
with 'cup-markings' is usual over the whole of the megalithic area.
There are even more remarkable resemblances in detail between structures
in widely separated countries. Thus the Giants' Tombs of Sardinia all
have a concave façade which forms a kind of semicircular court in front
of the entrance to the tomb. This feature is seen also in the temples of
Malta, in the tomb of Los Millares in Spain, in the _naus_ of the
Balearic Isles (where, however, the curve is slight), in the Giant's
Grave of Annaclochmullin and the chambered cairn of Newbliss in Ireland,
in the tomb of Cashtal-yn-Ard in the Isle of Man, in the barrow of West
Tump in Gloucestershire, and in the horned cairns of the north of
Scotland. These parallels are due to something more than coincidence; in
fact, it is clear that megalithic building is a widespread and
homogeneous system, which, despite local differences, always preserves
certain common features pointing to a single origin. It is thus
difficult to accept the suggestion that it is merely a phase through
which many races have passed. The phases which occur in many races alike
are always those which are natural and necessary in the development of a
people, such as the phase of using copper. But there is nothing either
natural or necessary in the use of huge unwieldy blocks of stone where
much smaller ones would have sufficed.
There are further objections to this theory in the distribution of the
megalithic buildings both in space and time. In space they occupy a very
remarkable position along a vast sea-board which includes the
Mediterranean coast of Africa and the Atlantic coast of Europe. In other
words, they lie entirely along a natural sea route. It is more than
accident that the many places in which, according to this theory, the
megalithic phase independently arose all lie in most natural sea
connection with each other, while not one is in the interior of Europe.
In time the vast majority of the megalithic monuments of Europe seem to
begin near the end of the neolithic period and cover the copper age,
the later forms continuing occasionally into that of bronze. Here again
it is curious that megalithic building, if merely an independent phase
in many countries, should arise in so many at about the same time, and
with no apparent reason. Had it been the use of _worked_ stones that
arose, and had this followed the appearance of copper tools, the
advocates of this theory would have had a stronger case, but there seems
to be no reason why huge unworked stones should _simultaneously_ begin
to be employed for tombs in many different countries unless this use
spread from a single source.
For these reasons it is impossible to consider megalithic building as a
mere phase through which many nations passed, and it must therefore have
been a system originating with one race, and spreading far and wide,
owing either to trade influence or migration. But can we determine
which?
Great movements of races by sea were not by any means unusual in
primitive days, in fact, the sea has always been less of an obstacle to
early man than the land with its deserts, mountains, and unfordable
rivers. There is nothing inherently impossible or even improbable in the
suggestion that a great immigration brought the megalithic monuments
from Sweden to India or vice versa. History is full of instances of such
migrations. According to the most widely accepted modern theory the
whole or at least the greater part of the neolithic population of Europe
moved in from some part of Africa at the opening of the neolithic age.
In medieval history we have the example of the Arabs, who in their
movement covered a considerable portion of the very megalithic area
which we are discussing.
On the other hand, many find it preferable to suppose that over this
same distance there extended a vast trade route or a series of trade
routes, along which travelled the influences which account for the
presence of precisely similar dolmens in Denmark, Spain, and the
Caucasus. Yet although much has been written about neolithic trade
routes little has been proved, and the fact that early man occasionally
crossed large tracts of land and sea in the great movements of migration
does not show that he also did so by way of trade, nor does it prove the
existence of such steady and extensive commercial relations as such a
theory of the megalithic monuments would seem to require. Immigration is
often forced on a race. Change of climate or the diverting of the course
of a great river may make their country unfit for habitation, or they
may be expelled by a stronger race. In either case they must migrate,
and we know from history that they often covered long distances in their
attempt to follow the line of least resistance. Thus there is nothing a
priori improbable in the idea that the megalithic monuments were built
by a single invading race.
There are other considerations which support such a theory. It will be
readily admitted that the commonest and most widely distributed form of
the megalithic monument is the dolmen. Both this and its obvious
derivatives, the Giant's Grave, the _allée couverte_, and others, are
known to have been tombs, while other types of structure, such as the
Maltese temple, the menhir, and the cromlech, almost certainly had a
religious purpose. It is difficult to believe that these types of
building, so closely connected with religion and burial, were introduced
into all these regions simply by the influence of trade relations.
Religious customs and the burial rites connected with them are perhaps
the most precious possession of a primitive people, and they are those
in which they most oppose and resent change of any kind, even when it
only involves detail and not principle. Thus it is almost incredible
that the people, for instance, of Spain, because they were told by
traders that the people of North Africa buried in dolmens, gave up, even
in isolated instances, their habit of interment in trench graves in
favour of burial in dolmens. It is still more impossible to believe that
this unnatural event happened in one country after another. It is true
that the use of metal was spread by means of commerce, but here there
was something to be gained by adopting the new discovery, and there was
no sacrifice of religious custom or principle. An exchange of products
between one country and another is not unnatural, but a traffic in
burial customs is unthinkable.
Perhaps, however, it was not the form of the dolmen which was brought by
commerce, but simply the art of architecture in general, and this was
adapted to burial purposes. To this there are serious objections. In the
first place it does not explain why exactly the same types of building
(e.g. the dolmen), showing so many similarities of peculiar detail,
occur in countries so far apart; and in the second place, if what was
carried by trade was the art of building alone, why should the learners
go out of their way to use huge stones when smaller ones would have
suited their purpose equally well? That the megalithic builders knew how
to employ smaller stones we know from their work; that they preferred to
use large ones for certain purposes was not due to ignorance or chance,
it was because the large stone as such had some particular meaning and
association for them. We cannot definitely say that large stones were
themselves actually worshipped, but there can be no possible doubt that
for some reason or other they were regarded as peculiarly fit to be used
in sanctified places such as the tombs of the dead. It is impossible
that the men who possessed the skill to lay the horizontal upper courses
of the Hagiar Kim temple should have taken the trouble to haul to the
spot and use vast blocks over 20 feet in length where far smaller ones
would have been more convenient, unless they had some deep-seated
prejudice in favour of great stones.
Such are the main difficulties involved by the influence theory. On the
other hand, objections have been urged against the idea that the
monuments were all built by one and the same race. Thus Dr. Montelius in
his excellent _Orient und Europa_ says, "In Europe at this time dwelt
Aryans, but the Syrians and Sudanese cannot be Aryans," the inference
being, of course, that the European dolmens were built by a different
race from that which built those of Syria and the Sudan. Unfortunately,
however, the major premise is not completely true, for though it is true
that Aryans did live in Europe at this time, there were also people in
Europe who were not Aryans, and it is precisely among them that
megalithic buildings occur.
The French archæologist Déchelette also condemns the idea of a single
race. "Anthropological observations," he says, "have long since ruined
this adventurous hypothesis." He does not tell us what these
observations are, but we presume that he refers to the occurrence of
varying skull types among the people buried in the megalithic tombs.
Nothing is more natural than that some variation should occur. We are
dealing with a race which made enormous journeys, and thus became
contaminated by the various other races with which it came in contact.
It may even have been a mixed race to start with. Thus even if we found
skulls of very different types in the dolmens this would not in the
least disprove the idea that dolmen building was introduced into various
countries by one and the same race. It would be simply a case of the
common anthropological fact that a race immigrating into an already
inhabited country becomes to some extent modified by intermarriage with
the earlier inhabitants. The measurements given in the last chapter
would seem to show that despite local variation there is an underlying
homogeneity in the skulls of the megalithic people.
It thus seems that the most probable theory of the origin of the
megalithic monuments is that this style of building was brought to the
various countries in which we find it by a single race in an immense
migration or series of migrations. It is significant that this theory
has been accepted by Dr. Duncan Mackenzie, who is perhaps the first
authority on the megalithic structures of the Mediterranean basin.
One question still remains to be discussed. From what direction did
megalithic architecture come, and what was its original home? This is
clearly a point which is not altogether dependent on the means by which
this architecture was diffused. Montelius speaks in favour of an Asiatic
origin. He considers that caves, and tombs accessible from above, i.e.
simple pits dug in the earth, were native in Europe, while tombs reached
from the side, such as dolmens and corridor-tombs, were introduced into
Europe from the east. Salomon Reinach, arguing mainly from the early
appearance of the objects found in the tombs of Scandinavia and the
rarity of the simpler types of monument, such as the dolmen, in Germany
and South Europe, suggests that megalithic monuments first appeared in
North Europe and spread southwards. Mackenzie is more inclined to
believe in an African origin. If he is right it may be that some
climatic change, possibly the decrease of rainfall in what is now the
Sahara desert, caused a migration from Africa to Europe very similar to
that which many believe to have given to Europe its early neolithic
population. The megalithic people may even have been a branch of the
same vast race as the neolithic: this would explain the fact that both
inhumed their dead in the contracted position.
It is probable that the problem will never be solved. The only way to
attempt a solution would be to show that in some part of the megalithic
area the structures were definitely earlier than in any other, and that
as we move away from that part in any direction they become later and
later. Such a means of solution is not hopeful, for the earliest form
of structure, the dolmen, occurs in all parts of the area, and if we
attempt to date by objects we are met by the difficulty that a dolmen in
one place which contained copper might be earlier than one in another
place which contained none, copper having been known in the former place
earlier than in the latter.
It still remains to consider the question of the origin of the rock-hewn
sepulchre and its relation to the megalithic monument. The rock-tomb
occurs in Egypt, Phoenicia, Rhodes, Cyprus, Crete, South Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia, Malta, Pianosa, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearic Isles, and
France. In all these places there are examples which are certainly
early, i.e. belong to the neolithic or early metal age, with the
exception of Malta and perhaps Rhodes and Phoenicia. Two types are
common, the chamber cut in the vertical face of rock and thus entered
from the side, sometimes by a horizontal passage, and the chamber cut
underground and entered from a vertical or sloping shaft placed not
directly over the chamber, but immediately to one side of it. It is
unlikely that these two types have a separate origin, for they are
clearly determined by geological reasons. A piece of country where
vertical cliffs or faces of rock abounded was suited to the first type,
while the other alone was possible when the ground consisted of a flat
horizontal surface of rock. We frequently find the two side by side and
containing identically the same type of remains. In South-East Sicily we
have the horizontal entrance in the tombs of the rocky gorge of
Pantalica, while the vertical shaft is the rule in the tombs of the
Plemmirio, only a few miles distant.
Two curious facts are noticeable with regard to the distribution of the
rock-hewn tombs. In the first place they are all in the vicinity of the
Mediterranean, and in the second some occur in the megalithic area,
while others do not. The examples of Egypt, Cyprus, and Crete show that
this type of tomb flourished in the Eastern Mediterranean. Was it from
here that the type was introduced into the megalithic area, or did the
megalithic people bring with them a tradition of building rock-tombs
totally distinct from that which is represented by the tombs of Egypt,
Cyprus, and Crete?
The question is difficult to answer. One thing alone is clear, that in
certain places, such as Malta and Sardinia, the megalithic people were
not averse to reproducing in the solid rock the forms which they more
usually erected with large stones above ground. The finest instance of
this is the Halsaflieni hypogeum in Malta, where the solid rock is hewn
out with infinite care to imitate the form and even the details of
surface building.
Similarly we have seen that both in Sardinia and in France the same
forms of tomb were rendered in great stones or in solid rock almost
indifferently.
There can therefore be no doubt that the hewing out of rock was
practised by the megalithic people, and that they were no mean exponents
of the art. We have no proof that they brought this art along with them
from their original centre of dispersion, though if they did it is
curious that they did not carry it into other countries where they
penetrated besides those of the Mediterranean. It may be that early
rock-tombs will yet be found in North Africa, but it seems improbable
that, had they existed in the British Isles, in North Germany, or in
Scandinavia, not a single example should have been found.
On the other hand, if the megalithic people did not bring the idea of
the rock-tomb with them we must suppose either that it evolved among
them after their migration, or that they adopted it from the Eastern
Mediterranean. The last supposition is particularly unlikely, as it
would involve the modification of a burial custom by foreign influence.
We have, in fact, no evidence on which to judge the question. Perhaps it
is least unreasonable to suppose that the idea of the rock-tomb was
brought into the megalithic area by the same people who introduced the
megalithic monuments, and did not result from contact with the Eastern
Mediterranean. Similarly we ought perhaps to disclaim any direct
connection between the corridor-tombs of the megalithic area and the
great _tholoi_ of Crete and the Greek mainland. At first sight there is
a considerable similarity between them. The Treasury of Atreus at Mycenæ
with its corbelled circular chamber and long rectangular corridor seems
very little removed, except in size and finish, from the tombs of Gavr'
Inis and Lough Crew. Yet there are vital points of difference. The two
last are tombs built partly with upright slabs on the surface of the
ground, entered by horizontal corridors, and covered with mounds. The
Treasury of Atreus is simply an elaborated rock-tomb cut underground
with a sloping shaft; as the ground consisted only of loose soil a
coating of stone was a necessity, and hence the resemblance to a
megalithic monument.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS
GENERAL
Fergusson, _Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries_ (London 1872).
Bonstetten, _Essai sur les dolmens_ (Geneva 1865).
Mortillet, _Compte rendu du congrès d'archéologie
préhistorique_, Stockholm, 1874, pp. 267 ff.
Reinach, _Le mirage oriental_, in _L'Anthropologie_, 1893, pp. 557 ff.
Montelius, _Orient und Europa_.
Borlase, _The Dolmens of Ireland_, Vols. II and III.
Reinach, _Terminologie des monuments mégalithiques
in Revue archéologique_, 3^{e} sér., XXII, 1893.
Westropp, _Prehistoric Phases_ (London 1872).
ENGLAND AND WALES
Fergusson, _op. cit._
_Recent Excavations at Stonehenge, Archæologia_, LVIII, pp. 37 ff.
Flinders Petrie, _Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and
Theories_ (London 1880).
Windle, _Remains of the Prehistoric Age in England._
James, Sir Henry, _Plans and Photos of Stonehenge and of Turnsuchan
in the Island of Lewis_ (Southampton 1867).
Evans, Sir A., _Archæological Review_, II, 1889, pp. 313 ff.
Lockyer, Sir N., _Nature_, November 21st, 1901.
Hinks, _XIXth Century_, June, 1903, pp. 1002 ff.
Lockyer, Sir N., _Nature_, LXXI, 1904-5, pp. 297 ff.,
345 ff., 367 ff., 391 ff., 535 ff.
Lewis, A. A., _Stone Circles in Britain, Archæological
Journal_, XLIX, pp. 136 ff.
Thurnam, _Ancient British Barrows, Archæologia_,
XLII, pp. 161 ff., XLIII, pp. 285 ff.
Lewis, A. A., _Prehistoric Remains in Cornwall, Journal of the
Anthrop. Inst.,_ XXV, 1895, and XXXV, 1905.
Kermode and Herdman, _Illustrated Notes on Manks
Antiquities_ (Liverpool 1904).
SCOTLAND
Wilson, _The Archæological and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland._
Forbes Leslie, _Early Races of Scotland._
Spence, Magnus, _Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness._
IRELAND
Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland._
Lewis, A. A., _Some Stone Circles in Ireland_, in
_Journal Anthrop. Inst.,_ XXXIX, pp. 517 ff.
SWEDEN
Montelius, _Orient und Europa._
Montelius, _Kulturgeschichte Schwedens._
Montelius, _Dolmens en France et en Suède_ (Le Mans 1907).
Montelius, Graf från stenåldern, upptäckt vid
Öringe i Ekeby socken, 1907.
Nilsson, _Das Steinalter, oder die Ureinwohner des
Scandinavischen Nordens_ (Hamburg 1865).
DENMARK
Montelius, _Orient und Europa._
Sophus Müller, _L'Europe préhistorique._
Sophus Müller, _Nordische Alterthumskunde._
HOLLAND
_Archæological Journal_, 1870, pp. 53 ff.
_Journal Anthrop. Inst._, VI, 1876, p. 158.
_Compte rendu du congrès d'arch. préhist._, Stockholm, 1874.
BELGIUM
Engelhardt, _Om stendysser og deres geografiske udbredelse_,
in _Aarböger f. nord. Oldkynd._, 1870, pp. 177 ff.
GERMANY
Krause und Schoetensack in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_,
1893 (Altmark only).
Morlot, _L'archéologie du Meclenbourg_ (Zurich 1868).
von Estorff, _Heidnische Altertümer der Gegend von
Aelzen_ (Hanover 1846).
SWITZERLAND
Keller, _Pfahlbauten_, 3 Bericht (Zurich, 1860), p. 101;
Pl. XI, Figs. 8 and 9.
FRANCE
Cartailhac, _La France préhistorique._
Bertrand in _Revue archéologique_, 1864 (List of monuments).
Bertrand, _Archéologie celtique et gauloise_, 2nd edit., 1889.
Déchelette, _Manuel d'archéologie préhistorique celtique
et gallo-romaine_, Vol. I.
Lewis, _Alignements at Autun_ in _Journal Anthrop.
Inst._, XXXVIII, 1908, pp. 380 ff.
Lewis, _On some dolmens of peculiar form, op. cit._,
XL, 1910, pp. 336 ff.
de Baye, _L'archéologie préhistorique_ (Petit-Morin tombs).
Reinach, S., _La Sculpture en Europe_ (Angers 1896.
Figures of the 'dolmen deity').
SPAIN
Cartailhac, _Âges préhistorique de l'Espagne_.
Cartailhac, _Monuments primitifs des îles baléares_.
Bezzenberger in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, XXXIX,
1907, pp. 567 ff.
ITALY
_Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana_, XXV, pp. 178 ff.
Nicolucci, _Brevi note sui monumenti megalitici di
Terra d'Otranto_, 1893.
_Bull. Paletn. Ital._, XXXVII, pp. 6 ff.
Mosso and Samarelli, _Il dolmen di Bisceglie_, in _Bull.
Paletn. Ital._, XXXVI, pp. 26 ff. and 86 ff.
SICILY
Orsi in _Bull. Paletn. Ital._, XXIV, pp. 202-3 (Monteracello).
Orsi in _Ausonia_, 1907, pp. 1 ff. (Cava Lazzaro).
Orsi in _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1905, p. 432, Fig. 18 (Cava Lavinaro).
SARDINIA
La Marmora, _Voyage en Sardaigne_.
Pinza in _Monumenti Antichi_, Vol. VIII.
Nissardi in _Atti del Congresso Internazionale_, Roma,
1903, sezione preistorica.
Nissardi and Taramelli in _Mon. Ant._, Vol. XVII.
Taramelli in _Memnon_, Band II, Mai, 1908, pp. 1-35.
Préchac in _Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire_, XXVIII.
Mackenzie in _Ausonia_, III, 1908, pp. 18 ff.
Mackenzie in _Memnon_, Vol. II, fasc. 3.
Mackenzie in _Papers of the British School of Rome_, V, pp. 89 ff.
Taramelli, _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1904, pp. 301 ff. (Anghelu Ruju).
Colini in _Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana_, XXIV, pp. 252 ff.
CORSICA
_Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques_, Vol. III,
1892, pp. 49 ff.
PIANOSA
_Bullettino di Paletn. Ital._, XXIV, pp. 281 ff.
MALTA
Mayr, A., _Die vorgeschichtlichen Denkmäler von Malta_.
Mayr, A., _Die Insel Malta_.
Zammit, _First Report on the Halsaflieni Hypogeum_.
Tagliaferro, _The Prehistoric Pottery found in the
Hypogeum at Halsaflieni_, in _Annals of Archæology
and Anthropology_, Vol. III, pp. 1 ff.
Zammit and Peet, _Report on the small objects found
at Halsaflieni_ (Valletta, in the Press).
Magri, _Ruins of a Megalithic Temple at Xeuchia, Gozo_.
Ashby, T., and others, _Report on Excavations at
Corradino, Mnaidra, and Hagiar Kim_, appearing
in Vol. VI of _Papers of the British School of Rome_.
Peet, _Contributions to the Study of the Prehistoric
Period in Malta, Papers of the British School of
Rome_, V, pp. 141 ff.
Tagliaferro, _Prehistoric Burials in a Cave at Burmeghez_,
in Man, 1911, pp. 147 ff.
NORTH AFRICA
Faidherbe in _Compte rendu du congrès d'archéologie
préhistorique_, Bruxelles, 1872, pp. 406 ff.
Flower in _Transactions of the International Congress
of Prehistoric Archæology_, Norwich, 1868, pp. 194 ff.
MacIver and Wilkin, _Libyan Notes_.
MOROCCO
_Matériaux pour l'histoire de l'homme_, V, p. 342;
VIII, p. 57; XX, p. 112.
TUNIS
Cartailhac in _L'Anthropologie_, 1903, pp. 620 ff.
Carton in _L'Anthropologie_, 1891, pp. 1 ff.
_Matériaux pour l'histoire de l'homme_, XXI, Pl. VI;
XXII, pp. 373 and 416.
EGYPT AND THE SUDAN
Wilson and Felkin, _Uganda and the Egyptian Sudan_,
Vol. II, p. 123.
de Morgan, _Recherches sur l'origine de l'Egypte_, p. 239, Fig. 398.
PANTELLERIA
Orsi in _Monumenti Antichi_, IX, pp. 449 ff.
LAMPEDUSA
Ashby in _Annals of Archæology and Anthropology_, Vol. IV.
BULGARIA
_Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in
Wien_, 1888, pp. 285 ff.
_L'Anthropologie_, 1890, p. 110.
CRIMEA
Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, III, p. 722.
CAUCASUS AND CRIMEA
Chantre, _Recherches anthropologiques dans le Caucase_,
Vol. I, pp. 50 ff.
Chantre in _Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft_, 1882, p. 344.
_Matériaux pour l'histoire de l'homme_, 1885, pp. 545 ff.
Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, III, p. 722.
SYRIA AND PALESTINE
_Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Reports_ for
1882; _Annual_, 1911, pp. 1 ff.
Conder, _Heth and Moab_, pp. 190, 293.
Perrot and Chipiez, IV, pp. 341, 378-9.
PERSIA
de Morgan in _Revue mensuelle de l'Ecole d'anthropologie
de Paris_, 1902, p. 187.
de Morgan, _La délégation en Perse_, 1902.
de Morgan, _L'histoire d'Elam_, Paris, 1902.
INDIA
_Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_, XXIV, 1865.
Westropp, _Prehistoric Phases_.
COREA
_Journal Anthrop. Inst._, XXIV, p. 330.
JAPAN
Gowland in _Archæologia_, LV, pp. 439 ff.
Gowland in _Journal Anthrop. Inst._, 1907, pp. 10 ff.
INDEX
Abbameiga, 85
Aberdeen, circles near, 38
Adrianople, 114
Africa, 90-6
Aiga, 85
Ain Dakkar, 117
Ainu, the, 122
Ala Safat, 116
Alemtejo, 71
Algeria, 91-5
_Alignements_, 3, 59-60, 89,
119-20, 124, 154-7
_Allées couvertes_, 3, 61, 64
Altar Stone at Stonehenge, 18
Altmark, 57
Ammân, 117
Ammon, 115
Anghelu Ruju, 88
Anglesey, 27, 29
Annaclochmullin, 145
Antequera, 70
Arbor Low, 25
Arcturus, 50, 51
Arles, 64
Arles, Council of, 12
Arran, circles on, 35-6
Arthur, King, 11, 25
Arthur's Quoit, 29
Asia, 114-22
Atreus, Treasury of, 157
Aurelius Ambrosius, 15
Avebury, 23-4, 27-8
Avening, 33, 127
Axe, cult of, 137-8
Axe-shaped pendants, 80, 112
Axevalla Heath, 54
Baetyls, 104, 105-6, 137
Balearic Isles, 71-5
Barnstone, the, 36-7
Barrows, long, 30-3
Barth, 90
Belgium, 58
Bellary, 118
Bell-shaped cup, 64, 81, 136
Beltane festival, 37
Benigaus Nou, 74
Bertrand, 64, 143
Birori, 82, 133
Bisceglie, 76
Bonstetten, 143
Borreby, 54-5
Boscawen-un, 26
Bou Merzoug, 92
Bou Nouara, 91
Boyle Somerville, Captain, 50
Brittany, 59-60
Brogar, Ring of, 36-7
Broholm, 54
Bulgaria, 114
Button, conical, 42, 71, 111, 135
Cæsar, 27
Cairns, horned, 38-9
Caithness, cairns of, 38-9
_Callaïs_, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 132
Callernish Circle, 34
Calvados, 64
Camster, 39
Can de Ceyrac, 60
Caouria, 89
Capella, 50, 51
Carnac, 13, 59-60
Carrick-a-Dhirra, 43
Carrickard, 45
Carrickglass, 41
Carrigalla, 49
Carrowmore, 41-2
Cashtal-yn-Ard, 145
Cassibile, 80
Castelluccio, 80, 81
Castor, 50
Caucasus, 114
Cava Lavinaro, 78
Cava Lazzaro, 78
Cave burial, 81, 88
Chagford, 29
Champ Dolent, menhir of, 13
Channel Isles, 67
Charlemagne, 12
Charlton's Abbott, 33
China, 122
Chittore, 119
Chun Quoit, 29
Circles, stone, 15-28, 34-8, 48-51,
60, 96, 115
Cirta, 92
Clava, 37
Clynnog Fawr, 128
Collorgues, 137
Constantine, 91
Contracted burials, 33, 54, 62, 77, 80,
81, 93, 97, 111, 140-1, 153
Coolback, 43
Corbelled roofs, 6, 32, 45, 48,
69, 73, 84, 86, 87, 102-3
Cordin, 105, 108
Corea, 122
Cornwall, dolmens in, 29
monuments of, 26
Corridor-tombs, 3, 43-8, 52-5, 56-8,
62-4, 67-71, 76-7, 96, 118, 120-2
Corse, Cape, 89
Corsica, 88-9
Coursed masonry, use of, 5, 73, 82
Cove, the, 25
Cremation, 35, 42, 66, 140
Crete, 113, 132, 142, 155, 157
Crickstone, the, 30
Crimea, 114
Cromlechs, 3
Cumberland, monuments of, 25
Cup-markings, 117, 127-8
Cyprus, 155
Cyrenaica, 91
Dance Maen Circle, 26
Date of megaliths, 123
Dax, 64
Deccan, 118-9
Déchelette, 139, 151
de Morgan, 90
Denmark, 53-5
Dennis, 76
Der Ghuzaleh, 116
Dolmens, 2, 29, 40-1, 52-3, 56, 58, 61, 67-8,
82, 89, 90, 91-6, 108, 114-9
Drawings on stones, 46, 48, 55, 62, 110
Drewsteignton, 29
Druids, 11, 27-8
Edfu, 90
Eguilaz, 68
Egypt, 155
Ellez, 96
England, monuments of, 15-33
Erdeven, 60
Er-Lanic, 60
Eskimos, 126
Es Tudons, _nau_ of, 73-4
Evans, Sir Arthur, 20, 105
Façades, curved, 78, 145-6
Faidherbe, General, 143
Faustina, medal of, 95
Féraud, M., 92-3
Fergusson, 28, 143
Fibrolite, 63
Finistère, dolmens of, 13
Fontanaccia, 89
Fonte Coberta, 68
Forbes Leslie, Colonel, 119
France, 59-67
Friar's Heel, 18, 21
Galilee, 115
Gargantua, 11
Gaulstown, 41
Gavr'inis, 62, 137
Gebel Mousa, 116
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 26
Ger, 64
Germany, 56-7
Get, 39
Gezer, 124
Giant's Bed, 56
Giant's Tombs, 87-8
Gigantia, 104
Giraldus Cambrensis, 15
Göhlitzsch, 137
Gozo, Is., 104
Greenland, 125
Grewismühlen, 56
Grotte des Fées, 64, 74
Grotte du Castellet, 64
Hagiar Kim, 6, 103-4
Hakpen Hill, 24, 27
Halsaflieni, 108-13, 130
Hauptville's Quoit, 25
Hengist, 15
Herrestrup, 53
Highwood, 45
Hinks, Mr., 22
Hirdmane Stone, 13
Holed tombs, 77, 114, 116, 117, 126-7
Holland, 57-8
Horned cairns, 146
_Hünenbetter_, 45, 56-8
Hurlers, the, 26
Idanha a Nova, 139
India, 118-20
Inigo Jones, 27
Inverness, circles in, 37-8
Ireland, monuments of, 40-51
Iron, 39, 46, 93, 119
Italy, 76-7
Jadeite, 63
James I, 27
Japan, 120-2
Jaulân, 117
Jimmu, 121
Judæa, 115
Karleby, 54
Karnak (Egypt), 22
Keamcorravooly, 44
Keller, 56
Kennet Avenue, 24
Kerlescan, 60
Kermario, 60
Keswick Circle, 25
Khasi Hills, 119
Kingarth, circle at, 36
Kirkabrost, circle at, 36
Kit's Coty House, 29
Knyttkärr, 55
Komei, 121
Kosseir, 118
Labbamologa, 43
Ladò, 90
Lampedusa, Isle of, 96
Lanyon Quoit, 29, 127
La Perotte, 7
Leaba Callighe, 43
Lecce, 76
Lewis, Isle of, 34
Linosa, Isle of, 96, 132
Lockyer, Sir Norman, 21-2, 51
Long Meg and her daughters, 25
Losa, 85
Los Millares, 70, 137, 145
Lough Crew, 45, 48, 62
Lough Gur, 48-51
Lozère, 130
Lundhöj, 55
Lüttich, 58
MacIver, D.R., 93-4
Mackenzie, Duncan, 85, 152, 153
Maeshowe, 36-7
Malta, 98-113
Man, Isle of, 30
Mané-er-Hroeck, 62-3
Marcella, 68
Matera, 77
Maughold, 30
Mayborough Circle, 25
Mayr, Albert, 105
Meayll Hill, 30
Melilli, 80
Men-an-tol, 30
Ménec, 59
Menhirs, 2, 29, 59, 115-6, 123-4
cult of, 12, 123-4
Merivale, circle at, 26
Merlin, 15
Merry Maidens, the, 26
Messa, 90
Minieh, 116
Mnaidra, 100-3
Moab, 115-7
Molafà, 88
Monte Abrahaõ, 71
Montelius, O., 126, 151, 153
Monteracello, 78
Morocco, 96
Mortillet, de, 59, 144
Mourzouk, 90
Msila, 93
Munster, tombs of, 44
Mursia, 97
Musta, 108
Mycenean vases, 81
Naas, 15
Nantes, Council of, 12
Nara, 121
_Naus_, 73-4, 145
_Navetas_, see _Naus_
Neermul jungle, 118
Newbliss, 145
New Grange, 46, 62
Nile valley, 90
Nilgiri Hills, 118
Nine Maidens, the, 26
Nissardi, 84
Norway, 53
Nossiu, 85, 87
_Nuraghi_, 82-7
Obsidian, 77, 134
Odin's Stone, 11, 36
Orkney Isles, cairns of, 38-9
Orry's Grave, 30, 127
Orsi, Paolo, 78, 79
Orthostatic slabs, use of, 4, 69, 74,
80, 96, 100
Palmella, 71
Pantalica, 80, 155
Pantelleria, Isle of, 96-8
Papa-Westra, 39
Pehada, 114
Penrith Circle, 11
Pentre Ifan, 29
Pera, 115
Périgord, 13
Persia, 114
Petit Morin, 66-7, 130
Pfäffikon, Lake, 56
Phoenicia, 154
Pianosa, 89
Picardt, John, 57
Pierre du Diable, La, 58
Pierres Plates, Les, 61
Piper, the, 26
Plas Newydd, 29, 127
Plemmirio, 155
Pliny, 27
Portico-dolmens, 40-1, 52, 119
Portugal, 67
Pottery, 135-6
Reinach, Salomon, 144
Religion, megalithic, 105-6, 137-9
Rhodes, 154
Rinaiou, 89
Rock-tombs, 3, 66-7, 71, 74, 79-81, 88
Rockbarton, 48
Rodmarton, 33, 127
Roknia, 94
Rollright Circle, 25, 29, 50
Saint George, 88
Saint-Germain-sur-Vienne, 12
Saint Michel, Mont, 63
Saint Pantaléon, 60
Saint Sermin, 139
Saint Vincent, 74
Sant' Elia, Cape, 88
Sardinia, 82-8
S'Aspru, 85
Scandinavia, 52-5
Scotland, monuments of, 34-9
Sculptures, 67, 138
Secondary burial, 79, 141-2
Senâm, the, 93-4
Seriphos, 139
Serucci, 85
_Sesi_, the, 97-8
Shap, circle at, 23
Sicily, 77-82
Sidbury Hill, 21
Sidon, 115
Siggewi, 108
Silbury Hill, 24, 28
Siret, Messieurs, 68
Sjöbol, 53
Skulls, 77, 112, 129-31
Sorapoor, 118
Spain, 67-71
Spence, Magnus, 37
Stanton Drew, 25, 49
Star-worship, 23, 50-1, 128
Steatopygous figures, 107, 112
Stenness, Ring of, 36
Stonehenge, 15-23
Stoney-Littleton, 32
Stripple Stones, the, 26
Stromness, circle at, 36
Stukeley, Dr., 27
Su Cadalanu, 84
Sudan, 90
Suetonius, 27
Sun-worship, 21-3, 28-9, 37, 51
Sweden, 52-5
Switzerland, 56
Syria, 115-8
Table des Marchands, La, 16, 137
Tagliaferro, Professor, 108, 111
Tahutihotep, tomb of, 8
_Talayots_, 71-3
Tamuli, 139
Tangier, 96
Tarentum, 76
Tattooing, 139
"Three Brothers of Grugith," the, 128
Tiberias, 115
Tinaarloo, 57
Toledo, Council of, 12
Torebo, 53
Tours, Council of, 12
Trade relations, 131-3
Tregeseal, circles near, 26
Trepanned skulls, 62
Trilithons, 2, 17, 90, 100-1, 103-4, 117
Tripoli, 90-1
_Truddhi_, 86
Tsîl, 117-8
Tunis, 95-6
Tyfta, 54
Tyre, 115
Tzarskaya, 114
Unebi, Mt., 121
Vail Gorguina, 67
Vellore, 118
Villafrati, 81
Villages, megalithic, 74, 85-6, 97
Wales, monuments of, 29
Watchstone, the, 36-7
Wayland the Smith's Cave, 11, 14, 30, 32
Wedge-shaped tomb, 44-5, 55, 70-1, 117
Westgothland, 54
West Tump, 146
Yarhouse, 39
Zammit, Dr. T., 112
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.
PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH
------------------------------------------------
| |
| HARPER'S LIBRARY OF LIVING THOUGHT |
| |
| _Foolscap 8vo, gilt tops, decorative covers, |
| richly gilt backs |
| |
| Per Volume: Cloth 2s. 6d. net, Leather |
| 3s. 6d. net._ |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By Prof. ARTHUR KEITH, M.D. |
|(Hunterian Professor Royal College of Surgeons)|
| |
| ANCIENT TYPES OF MAN |
| |
| _Illustrated_ |
| |
| |
| From discoveries of ancient human remains |
| made within the last half-century, |
| anthropologists are now able to place in |
| order changes that have taken place in the |
| posture, gait, height, and to some extent |
| the habits of man during a period of at |
| least a half-million years. Prof. Keith, who |
| is one of the foremost investigators in this |
| field, tells the story of the various forms |
| which the body of the man has assumed, in a |
| lucid and attractive way. |
| |
| "The kind of book that only a master of his |
| subject could write. It must interest every |
| thinking person."--_British Medical |
| Journal._ |
| |
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By Prof W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE |
| |
| PERSONAL RELIGION IN EGYPT |
| BEFORE CHRISTIANITY |
| |
| |
| "The author gauges what ideas were already |
| part of the religious thought in the first |
| century, and what were the terms and ideas |
| in Christianity which were new to mankind. |
| The current literature of the time was as |
| naturally taken for granted by Christians as |
| were the books of the Old Testament which |
| were familiar to them. The separation of the |
| new ideas in the teaching of Christ and of |
| the Apostles from the general terms of |
| religion at the time, is the only road to |
| understanding what Christianity meant to |
| those who actually heard the teaching." |
| |
| _Notts Guardian._ |
| |
| "A suggestive and thought-provoking book, a |
| real contribution to the study of |
| comparative religion." |
| |
| _Methodist Recorder._ |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By Prof. ERNEST A. GARDNER |
| |
| RELIGION AND ART IN ANCIENT GREECE |
| |
| |
| "Anything from such an authority on Greek |
| art is welcome. This subject in the hands of |
| Professor Gardner becomes a profoundly |
| interesting study in the philosophy of |
| religion. He has dealt with the religion of |
| Greece as it affected the art of sculpture, |
| and with the reaction of that art upon the |
| ideals and aspirations of the people and its |
| influence upon the popular and the educated |
| conceptions of the gods. It is well worth |
| the trouble to study the religious art of |
| such a people, and this is an epitome of the |
| subject such as readers can get nowhere |
| else." |
| |
| _Scotsman._ |
| |
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By Prof. W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE |
| |
| THE REVOLUTIONS OF CIVILISATION |
| |
| _Illustrated_ |
| |
| |
| In the light of history--so enormously |
| extended in recent years--the author surveys |
| the waxing and waning of civilisation as |
| evidenced in sculpture, painting, |
| literature, mechanics, and wealth. In |
| tracing the various forces at work in this |
| fluctuation he arrives at most significant |
| conclusions, notably in connection with race |
| mixture and forms of government. |
| |
| "We know nothing that exhibits in so brief a |
| compass the extraordinary vicissitudes of |
| human progress and retrogression since the |
| dawn of history."--_Birmingham Post._ |
| |
-------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By CHARLES H. HAWES, M.A., and |
| HARRIET B. HAWES, M.A., L.H.D. |
| |
| CRETE, THE FORERUNNER OF GREECE |
| |
| _Map, Plans, etc._ |
| |
| |
| "The wondrous story of a great civilisation |
| which flourished before Abraham was born, |
| and left behind a memory of itself in the |
| Arts of Ancient Greece and in the traditions |
| of a golden age and a 'Lost |
| Atlantis.'"--_Evening Standard._ |
| |
| "We have now the material for forming a very |
| fair conception of the fruitful contribution |
| made by Crete to Grecian and European |
| civilisation. What was long accounted |
| fable--statements of Herodotus and |
| Thucydides--have been turned into |
| established fact. The book supplies material |
| for forming judgments on some of the most |
| interesting and still highly debated |
| problems of early Greek history." |
| _Glasgow Herald._ |
| |
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| By Prof. G. ELLIOT SMITH |
| |
| THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS |
| |
| _Illustrated_ |
| |
| |
| An account of the Egyptians of the |
| unrecorded past as revealed by the |
| investigations of the anthropologist. The |
| author traces to their source the various |
| streams of alien immigrants which made their |
| way into the Nile valley, and correlates his |
| facts with the great racial movements in the |
| neighbouring continents. He shows how the |
| Egyptians inaugurated a higher |
| civilisation--particularly in bringing the |
| Stone Age to a close and introducing the use |
| of metals. |
| |
| "This is a brilliant little book, |
| illuminating the whole subject of the |
| history of the human race since man assumed |
| his proper shape."--_Manchester Guardian._ |
| |
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| Algernon Charles Swinburne |
| THREE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE |
| |
| Leo Tolstoy |
| THE TEACHING OF JESUS |
| |
| Prof. W.M. Flinders Petrie |
| PERSONAL RELIGION IN EGYPT BEFORE |
| CHRISTIANITY |
| |
| Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. |
| THE ETHER OF SPACE. Illustrated |
| |
| Prof. William Wrede |
| (University of Breslau) |
| THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT |
| |
| Prof. C.H. Becker |
| (Colonial Institute, Hamburg) |
| CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM |
| |
| Prof. Svante Arrhenius |
| (Nobel Institute, Stockholm) |
| THE LIFE OF THE UNIVERSE. |
| 2 vols. Illustrated |
| |
| Prof. Arnold Meyer (University of Zurich) |
| JESUS OR PAUL? |
| |
| Prof. D.A. Bertholet (University of Basle) |
| THE TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS |
| |
| Prof. Reinhold Seeberg |
| (University of Berlin) |
| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION |
| |
| Prof. Johannes Weiss |
| (University of Heidelberg) |
| PAUL AND JESUS |
| |
| Prof. Rudolph Eucken (University of Jena) |
| CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW IDEALISM |
| |
| Prof. P. Vinogradoff (Oxford University) |
| ROMAN LAW IN MEDIÆVAL EUROPE |
| |
| Sir William Crookes, O.M., F.R.S., LL.D. |
| DIAMONDS. Illustrated |
| |
| _PLEASE WRITE FOR PROSPECTUS |
| AND ANNOUNCEMENTS_ |
-------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Harper's Library of Living Thought |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| C.H. Hawes, M.A., and |
| Harriet Boyd Hawes, M.A. |
| CRETE THE FORERUNNER OF GREECE. Maps, etc. |
| |
| Sir William A. Tilden, F.R.S. |
| THE ELEMENTS: Speculations as to their |
| Nature and Origin. Illustrated |
| |
| Prof. Ernest A. Gardner |
| (University of London) |
| RELIGION AND ART IN ANCIENT GREECE |
| |
| Prof. F.W. Mott, F.R.S., M.D. |
| THE BRAIN AND THE VOICE IN SPEECH AND |
| SONG. Illustrated |
| |
| Prof. G. Elliott Smith |
| (University of Manchester) |
| THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS, and their |
| Influence upon the Civilisation |
| of Europe. Illustrated |
| |
| Prof. Frederick Czapek |
| (University of Prague) |
| CHEMICAL PHENOMENA IN LIFE |
| |
| Prof. W.M. Flinders Petrie |
| THE REVOLUTIONS OF CIVILISATION. |
| Copiously Illustrated |
| |
| The Very Rev. the Hon. W.H. Fremantle, D.D. |
| (Dean of Ripon) |
| NATURAL CHRISTIANITY |
| |
| Prof. A.W. Bickerton |
| THE BIRTH OF WORLDS AND SYSTEMS. |
| Illustrated. |
| Preface by Prof. E. RUTHERFORD, F.R.S. |
| |
| Prof. Arthur Keith, M.D. |
| ANCIENT TYPES OF MAN. Illustrated |
| |
| Sir William Ramsay, F.R.S. |
| ELEMENTS AND ELECTRONS. Diagrams |
| |
| Arthur Holmes, B.Sc. |
| THE AGE OF THE EARTH. Illustrated |
| |
| T. Eric Peet, M.A. |
| ROUGH STONE MONUMENTS AND |
| THEIR BUILDERS. Illustrated |
| |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| |
| :: HARPER AND BROTHERS :: |
| 45 Albemarle St: London, W. |
| Franklin Sq. New York |
| |
-------------------------------------------------