Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries_ Their Age and Uses James Fergusson 1422 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Rude Stone Monuments in All
Countries: Their Age and Uses
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries: Their Age and Uses

Author: James Fergusson

Release date: April 28, 2017 [eBook #54620]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54620

Credits: E-text prepared by Sonya Schermann, Brian Wilsden, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by Internet
Archive (https://archive.org)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RUDE STONE
MONUMENTS IN ALL COUNTRIES: THEIR AGE AND USES ***

The Project Gutenberg eBook, Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries, by
James Fergusson

Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet
Archive. See https://archive.org/details/rudestonemonumen00ferg

THE STANDING STONES OF STENNIS. From an original drawing in
the possession of the Author. FRONTISPIECE

RUDE STONE MONUMENTS

IN

ALL COUNTRIES;

THEIR AGE AND USES.
By JAMES FERGUSSON, D.C.L., F.R.S.,
V.P.R.A.S., F.R.I.B.A., &c.

Demi-Dolmen, Kerland.

WITH TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR ILLUSTRATIONS.

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1872.

The right of Translation is reserved.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHARING CROSS.

PREFACE
When, in the year 1854, I was arranging the scheme for the 'Handbook of
Architecture,' one chapter of about fifty pages was allotted to the Rude
Stone Monuments then known. When, however, I came seriously to consult
the authorities I had marked out, and to arrange my ideas preparatory to
writing it, I found the whole subject in such a state of confusion and
uncertainty as to be wholly unsuited for introduction into a work, the main
object of which was to give a clear but succinct account of what was known
and admitted with regard to the architectural styles of the world. Again, ten
years afterwards, while engaged in re-writing this 'Handbook' as a 'History
of Architecture,' the same difficulties presented themselves. It is true that in
the interval the Druids, with their Dracontia, had lost much of the hold they
possessed on the mind of the public; but, to a great extent, they had been
replaced by prehistoric myths, which, though free from their absurdity, were
hardly less perplexing. The consequence was that then, as in the first
instance, it would have been necessary to argue every point and defend
every position. Nothing could be taken for granted, and no narrative was
possible. The matter was, therefore, a second time allowed quietly to drop
without being noticed. I never, however, lost sight of the subject, and I
hoped some time or other to be able to treat of it with the fulness its interest
deserves; and in order to forward this project, in July, 1860, I wrote an
article in the 'Quarterly Review,' entitled 'Stonehenge,' in which I stated the
views I had then formed on the subject; and again, ten years afterwards, in
April of last year, another article, entitled 'Non-Historic Times' in the same
journal, in which I added such new facts and arguments as I had gathered in
the interval. The principal object it was sought to attain in writing these
articles, was to raise a discussion on the moot points which I hoped would
have tended towards settling them. If any competent archæologist had come
forward, and could have pointed out the weak point in the argument, he
would have rendered a service to the cause; or if any leading authority had
endorsed the views advocated in these articles, the public might have felt
some confidence in their correctness. This expectation has not been
fulfilled, but they have probably not been without their use in preparing the

minds of others for the views advanced in them, while, as no refutation has
appeared, and no valid objection has been urged against them, either in
public or in private, I may fairly consider myself justified in feeling
considerable confidence in their general correctness.
Till antiquaries are agreed whether the circles are temples or tombs or
observatories, whether the dolmens are monuments of the dead or altars for
sacrificing living men, and whether the mounds are tombs or law courts, it
seems impossible, without arguing every point, to write anything that will
be generally accepted. Still more, till it is decided whether they are really
prehistoric or were erected at the periods where tradition and history place
them, it seems in vain to attempt to explain in a simple narrative form either
their age or uses. As a necessary consequence of all this confusion, it is
scarcely practicable at present to compile a work which shall be merely a
Historical and Statistical account of the Rude Stone Monuments in all parts
of the world; but till something is settled and agreed upon, we must be
content with one which to a certain extent, at least, takes the form of an
argument. Many of its pages which would have been better employed in
describing and classifying, are occupied with arguments against some
untenable theory or date, or in trying to substitute for those usually
accepted, some more reasonable proposition. Notwithstanding this,
however, it is hoped that this work will be found to contain a greater
number of new facts regarding Rude Stone Monuments, and of carefully
selected illustrations extending over a larger area, than have yet been put
together in a volume of the same extent.

It may fairly be asked, and no doubt will, how I dare to set up my opinions
with regard to these monuments in opposition to those of the best informed
antiquaries, not only in this country but on the Continent? The answer I
would venture to suggest is, that no other antiquary, so far as I am aware,
has gone so carefully and fully into the whole subject, or has faced all the
difficulties with which the questions are everywhere perplexed. The books
that have hitherto been written are either the work of speculative dreamers,
like Stukeley, Higgins, or Vallancey, who having evolved a baseless theory
out of their own inner consciousness, seek everywhere for materials to prop

it up, and are by no means particular as to the inferences they draw from
very obscure or slender hints: or they are, on the other hand, the works of
local antiquaries, whose opinions are influenced mainly by what they find
in their own researches. The works of such men are invaluable as
contributions to the general stock of knowledge, but their theories must be
received with caution, as based on too narrow a foundation either of facts or
inferences; for it need hardly be insisted upon that no amount of local
experience can qualify any one to write on such a subject as this. It does not
even seem sufficient that an author should be familiar with all the varieties
of megalithic remains. Unless he has also mastered the other forms of
architectural art, and knows in what manner and from what motives the
styles of one people are adopted from or influenced by that of another race,
he will hardly be able to unravel the various tangled problems that meet him
at every step in such an investigation. When looked at, however, from the
same point of view, and judged by the same laws as other styles, that of the
dolmen builders does not appear either mythical or mysterious. They seem
to be the works of a race of men actuated by the same motives and feelings
as ourselves, and the phenomena of their arts do not seem difficult of
explanation.
It is because I have spent the greater part of my life in studying the
architecture of all nations, and through all ages, that I believe myself
entitled to express an opinion on the perplexed questions connected with
megalithic remains, though it differs widely from that generally received,
and that I dare to face the objection which is sure to be raised that my work
is based on too narrow an induction, and that I have overlooked the
evidences of primæval man which exist everywhere. It is not, however, that
I have neglected either the evidence from the drift, or from the caves, but
that I have rejected them as irrelevant, and because I can hardly trace any
connexion between them and the megalithic remains, to the investigation of
which this work is specially devoted. I have also purposely put on one side
all reference to hut circles, Picts' houses, brochs, and other buildings
composed of smaller stones, which are generally mixed up with the big
stone monuments. I have done this, not because I doubt that many of these
may be coeval, but because their age being doubtful also, it would only
confuse and complicate the argument to introduce them, and because,
whenever the age of the great stones is determined these minor monuments

will easily fit into their proper places. At present, neither their age or use
throws any light either for or against that of the great stones.
It need hardly be remarked, to anyone who knows anything about the
subject, that the difficulties in the way of writing such a book as this are
enormous, and I do not believe any one could, in a first edition at all events,
avoid all the pitfalls that surround his path. The necessary information has
to be picked up in fragments from some hundreds of volumes of travels, or
the Transactions and Journals of learned Societies, none of which are
specially devoted to the subject, and very few of which are indexed, or have
any general résumé of their contents. Add to this that the older works are all
untrustworthy, either from the theories they are twisted to support, or from
bad drawing or imperfect knowledge; and too many of the modern
examples are carelessly sketched and still more carelessly engraved.
Another source of difficulty is, that it is rare with readers of papers and
writers in journals to quote references, and sometimes when these are given
they are wrong. I have thus been forced to limit the field from which my
information is taken very considerably. I have tried hard to introduce no
illustration I could not thoroughly depend upon, and I have not intentionally
quoted a single reference I had not verified from the original authorities.
In one respect I cannot but feel that I may have laid myself open to hostile
criticism. On many minor points I have offered suggestions which I do not
feel sure that I could prove if challenged, and which, consequently, a more
prudent man would have left alone. I have done this because it often
happens that such suggestions turn the attention of others to points which
would otherwise be overlooked, and may lead to discoveries of great
importance; while if disproved, they are only so much rubbish swept out of
the path of truth, and their detection can do no harm to any one but their
author. Whatever my shortcomings, I am too much in earnest to look
forward with any feelings of dismay to such a contingency.
Besides the usual motives which prompt the publication of such a work as
this, there are two which seem to render its appearance at this time
particularly desirable. The first is to promote enquiry by exciting interest in
the subject; the second is to give precision to future researches. So long as
everything is vague and mythical, explorers do not know what to observe or
record: this work, however, presents a distinct and positive view of the age
or use of the megalithic remains, and every new fact must tend either to

upset or confirm the theory it seeks to establish. With this view, I need
hardly add that I shall be extremely grateful for any new facts or additional
sources of information which may be communicated to me, either through
the public press or privately. Numerous persons having local experience
must know many things which may have escaped me. It is very probable
that these may induce me to modify some of the details of this work; but so
much is now known, and the field from which my inductions are gathered is
so wide, that I have no fear that they will touch the main arguments on
which the theory of this work is founded.[1]
However this may be, I trust that this work may lay claim to being, in one
respect at least, a contribution to the cause of truth regarding the much-
disputed age and use of these Rude Stone Monuments. It states distinctly
and without reserve one view of the mooted question, and so openly that
any one who knows better can at once pull away the prop from my house of
cards and level it with the ground. If one thing comes out more clearly than
another in the course of this investigation, it is that the style of architecture
to which these monuments belong is a style, like Gothic, Grecian, Egyptian,
Buddhist, or any other. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end; and though
we cannot yet make out the sequence in all its details, this at least seems
clear—that there is no great hiatus; nor is it that one part is prehistoric,
while the other belongs to historic times. All belong to the one epoch or to
the other. Either it is that Stonehenge and Avebury and all such are the
temples of a race so ancient as to be beyond the ken of mortal man, or they
are the sepulchral monuments of a people who lived so nearly within the
limits of the true historic times that their story can easily be recovered. If
this latter view is adopted, the whole, it appears to me, hangs so perfectly
together, and presents so complete and so rational an account of all the local
or historical facts which are at present known concerning these remains,
that I feel great confidence that it must eventually be adopted as the true
explanation of the phenomena. If it is it will have this further advantage,
that when any serious attempt is made to investigate either the history or the
manners and customs of these ancient peoples, it is probable that these
megalithic remains will be found to be the best and surest guide.
From the circumstances above detailed, this work would have been a much
more meagre production than it is hoped it will be found, had it not been for
the kindness of many friends who have assisted me in my undertaking. My

chapter on Ireland, for instance, would have been much less full had not Sir
W. Wilde, Mr. Eugene Conwell, and Mr. Moore assisted me with
illustrations and information; and for my knowledge of Scotch antiquities I
owe much to my friend John Stuart, of Edinburgh, while Sir Henry
Dryden's invaluable collections have been of the utmost service to me both
as regards Scotland and Brittany. Professor Säve and Mr. Hildebrand have
materially aided me in Sweden, and M. Riaño in Spain; but the post
apparently suppresses any correspondence on archæological subjects with
France and Denmark. Without the kindness of Sir Bartle Frere and his elder
brother in lending me drawings, or Colonel Collinson in procuring
information, my account of the Maltese antiquities would have been very
much less satisfactory than it is; and I also owe my best thanks to Mr.
Walhouse, of the Madras Civil Service, and Mr. Burgess, of Bombay, for
their assistance in respect to Indian antiquities. I have tried in the text to
acknowledge my obligations to these and all other parties who have assisted
me. If I have omitted any, I trust they will believe it has not been
intentionally, but through inadvertence.
For myself, I hope I may be allowed to plead that I have spared no pains in
investigating the materials placed at my disposal, and no haste in forming
my conclusions; and I may also add, they are by no means those of
predilection or that I wished to arrive at. When I first took up the subject, I
hoped that the rude stone monuments would prove to be old,—so old,
indeed, as to form the "incunabula" of other styles, and that we might thus,
by a simple process, arrive at the genesis of styles. Bit by bit that theory has
crumbled to pieces as my knowledge increased, and most reluctantly have I
been forced to adopt the more prosaic conclusions of the present volume. If,
however, this represents the truth, that must be allowed to be an ample
compensation for the loss of any poetry which has hitherto hung round the
mystery of the Rude Stone Monuments.
Langham Place, Dec. 1, 1871.

Footnotes
[1] What is really wanted now is, a "Megalithic Monument Publication
Society." After the meeting of the Prehistoric Congress at Norwich, a
committee for this purpose was formed in conjunction with the
Ethnological Society. After several meetings everything was arranged and

settled, but, alas! there were no funds to meet the necessary expenses, or, at
least, risk of publication, and the whole thing fell through. To do what is
wanted on a really efficient scale a payment or a guarantee of 1000l. would
be necessary, and that is far beyond what is attainable in this poor country.
If it could be obtained, the materials are abundant. Sir Henry Dryden alone
could fill a volume with the materials he already possesses; and Lieut.
Oliver, Mr. Conwell, and others, have drawings sufficient to keep the
society at work for a long time.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introductory 1

CHAPTER II.
Preliminary Observations. Tumuli—
Dolmens—
Circles—Avenues—Menhirs 29

CHAPTER III.
England. Avebury and Stonehenge 61

CHAPTER IV.
Minor English Antiquities. Aylesford—
Ashdown—
Rollright—Penrith—Derbyshire—
Stanton Drew—Smaller Circles—
116
Dolmens

CHAPTER V.
Ireland. Moytura—Cemeteries—Boyne—
Lough Crew—Clover Hill—Dolmens 175

CHAPTER VI.
Scotland. Orkney Stone Circles—Orkney
Barrows—
Maes-Howe Dragon and Serpent-Knot
—

Holed Stone of Stennis—Callernish—
Aberdeenshire Circles—
Fiddes Hill—Clava Mounds—Stone at
Aberlemmo—
Sculptured Stones—Crosses in Isle of
239
Man

CHAPTER VII.
Scandinavia and North Germany.
Introductory—Battle-fields—
Harald Hildetand's Tomb—Long
Barrows—Tumuli—
Dolmens—Drenthe: Hunebeds 275

CHAPTER VIII.
France. Introductory—Distribution of
Dolmens—Age of Dolmens—
Grottes des Fées—Demi-Dolmens—
Rocking Stones—Carnac—
Locmariaker—Alignments at Crozon—
Age of the Monuments—
What are these Monuments?—They
must be Trophies—
Time of the Fight—M. Bertrand's List of
Dolmens in Thirty-one
Departments of France 325

CHAPTER IX.
Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Introductory—
Dolmens—
Portugal—Italy 377

CHAPTER X.

Algeria and Tripoli. Introductory—
Bazinas and Chouchas—
Free-Standing Dolmens—Age of
Dolmens—Circle near Bona—
The Nasamones—Origin of African
Dolmen-builders—Tripoli:
Trilithons—Buddhist Monument at
395
Bangkok

CHAPTER XI.
Mediterranean Islands. Malta—Sardinia
415
—Balearic Islands

CHAPTER XII.
Western Asia. Palestine—Sinai—Arabia—
Asia Minor—Circassia—
The Steppes—Cabul 438

CHAPTER XIII.
India. Introductory—Eastern India—
Khassia—Western India—
Geographical Distribution—Age of the
Stone Monuments—
Comparison of Dolmens—Buddhism in
455
the West

CHAPTER XIV.
America. North America—Central America
510
—Peru

Appendix A.—Glens Columbkille and Malin 520
" B.—Oden's Howe, &c., Upsala 526
" C.—Antiquities of Caithness 527

Index 533

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Frontispiece.—Standing Stones of Stennis. Vignette.—Demi-Dolmen at
Kerland.
NO. PAGE
1. Section of Tomb of Alyattes 31
2. Elevation of Tumulus at Tantalais 32
Plan and Section of Chamber in Tumulus
3. 32
at Tantalais
Section and Plan of Tomb of Atreus at
4. 33
Mycenæ
5. View of Cocumella, Vulci 33
View of principal Chamber in Regulini
6. 34
Galeassi Tomb
7. Dolmen in Castle Wellan, Ireland 46
8. Dolmen de Bousquet 46
Tee cut in the Rock on a Dagoba at
9. 47
Ajunta
10. Nine Ladies, Stanton Moor 49
11. Chambered Tumulus, Jersey 51
Avenues, Circles, and Cromlech, near
12. 55
Merivale Bridge, Dartmoor
13. Lochcrist Menhir 60
14. View of Avebury restored 62
Plan of Avebury Circle and Kennet
15. 63
Avenue
16. Circle on Hakpen Hill 76
17. Section of Silbury Hill 78

18. Iron Bit of Bridle, Silbury Hill 81
19. Plan of Avebury 81
20. Elevation of the Bartlow Hills 83
21. Marden Circle 85
22. General Plan of Stonehenge 90
23. Stonehenge as at present existing 92
24. Plan of Stonehenge restored 93
25. Tomb of Isidorus, at Khatoura 100
26. Country around Stonehenge 102
27. Countless Stones, Aylesford 116
28. The Sarsen Stones at Ashdown 122
Sketch Plan of King Arthur's Round
29.
Table, with the side,
obliterated by the road, restored 128
30. Arbor Low 140
Vases and Bronze Pin found in Arbor
31. 141
Low
32. Section of Gib Hill 141
Summit of Minning Low, as it appeared
33. 142
in 1786
34. Plan of Chambers in Minning Low 142
Fragment of Drinking Cup from Benty
35. 145
Grange
36. Fragment of Helmet from Benty Grange 145
37. Circles at Stanton Drew 149
38. View of the Circles at Stanton Drew 150
39. Rose Hill Tumulus 154
40. Snaffle-Bit found at Aspatria 156
41. Side Stone, Aspatria Cist 157
42. Mule Hill, Isle of Man, View of Cists 157
43. Circle of Cists at Mule Hill 157
44. Circles on Burn Moor, in Cumberland 160

45. Boscawen Circles 161
46. Park Cwn Tumulus 163
47. Tumulus, Plas Newydd 166
Entrance to Dolmen, in Tumulus, Plas
48. 166
Newydd
49. Dolmen at Pentre Ifan 168
50. Dolmen at Plas Newydd 169
51. Arthur's Quoit, Gower 170
52. Plan of Arthur's Quoit 171
Hob Hurst's House, on Baslow Moor,
53. 172
Derbyshire
Circle on Battle-field of Southern
54. 177
Moytura
Cairn on Battle-field of Southern
55. 177
Moytura
56. The Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura 179
Urn in the Cairn of the "One Man,"
57. 179
Moytura
58. Battle-field of Northern Moytura 181
Sketch Plan of Circle 27, Northern
59. 182
Moytura
60. View of Circle 27, Northern Moytura 183
Dolmen, with Circle, No. 7, Northern
61. 183
Moytura
Rath na Riog, or, Cathair of Cormac, at
62. 194
Tara
63. View of Mound at New Grange 201
64. New Grange, near Drogheda 203
65, 66. Ornaments at New Grange 205
67. Branch at New Grange 207
Sculptured mark at New Grange, of
68. 207
undecided character
69. Chambers in Mound at Dowth 208

70, 71. Ornaments in Dowth 210
72. Cairn T, at Lough Crew 214
73. The Hag's Chair, Lough Crew 215
74. Two Stones in Cairn T, Lough Crew 216
75. Cell in Cairn L, at Lough Crew 217
76. Stone in Cairn T, Lough Crew 222
77. Stones in Sculptured Graves, Clover Hill 223
78. Dolmen at Knockeen 229
79. Plan of Dolmen at Knockeen 230
Calliagh Birra's House, north end of
80. 230
Parish of Monasterboice
Plan and Section of Chamber in
81. 232
Greenmount Tumulus
82. Dolmen of the Four Maols, Ballina 233
Sketch-Plan of Monument in the Deer
83. 234
Park, Sligo
84. Circle at Stennis 242
85. Dragon in Maes-Howe 245
86. Wurm-Knot, Maes-Howe 245
87. Plan and Section of Maes-Howe 246
88. View of Chamber in Maes-Howe 247
89. Monument at Callernish 259
90. Circle at Fiddes Hill 264
91. Plan of Clava Mounds 266
92. View of Clava Mounds 266
93. Stone at Coilsfield 267
94. Front of Stone at Aberlemmo, with Cross 269
95. Back of Stone at Aberlemmo 269
96. Cat Stone, Kirkliston 271
Crosses in Isle of Man, bearing Runic
97, 98. 273
Inscriptions
99. View of Battle-field at Kongsbacka 279

Part of the Battle-field of Braavalla
100. 281
Heath
101. Harald Hildetand's Tomb at Lethra 282
Long Barrow, Kennet, restored by Dr.
102. 284
Thurnam
103. Long Barrow at Wiskehärad, in Halland 288
104. Battle-field at Freyrsö 292
105. Dragon on King Gorm's Stone, Jellinge 296
106. Dolmen at Herrestrup 303
107. Dolmen at Halskov 304
108. Dolmen at Oroust 306
109. Diagram from Sjöborg 307
110. Dolmen near Lüneburg 308
111. Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards 309
112. Plan of Double Dolmen at Valdbygaards 309
113. Triple Dolmen, Höbisch 309
114. View of Interior of Chamber at Uby 311
115. Plan of Chamber at Uby 311
116. Dolmen at Axevalla 313
117. Head-stone of Kivik Grave 314
118. Graves at Hjortehammer 316
119. Circles at Aschenrade 317
120. Plan of Hunebed near Emmen 320
121. Dolmen at Ballo 321
122. Dolmen at Sauclières 334
123. Dolmen at Confolens 337
124. Plan of Dolmen at Confolens 337
125. Dolmen near Mettray 342
126. Dolmen at Krukenho 342
127. Holed Dolmen, at Trie 344
128. Dolmen of Grandmont 344
129. Demi-dolmen, Morbihan 344

130. Demi-dolmen, near Poitiers 347
131. Demi-dolmen at Kerland 347
132. Pierre Martine 347
133. Pierre Martine, end view 348
Pierre Branlante, near Huelgoat, in
134. 348
Brittany
135. Map of Celtic Antiquities, near Carnac 352
136. Carnac Antiquities, on enlarged Scale 353
137. Head of Column at St.-Barbe 355
138. Long Barrow at Kerlescant 356
139. Hole between Two Stones at Kerlescant 357
140. Entrance to Cell, Rodmarton 357
141. Vases found at Kerlescant 357
142. Plan of Moustoir-Carnac 358
143. Section of Moustoir-Carnac 358
144. Section of Chamber of Moustoir-Carnac 359
145.
Sculptures at Mané Lud 361
146.
147. View of Dol ar Marchant 361
148. End Stone, Dol ar Marchant 362
149. Hatchet in Roof of Dol ar Marchant 362
Stone found inside Chamber at Mané er
150. 364
H'roëk
151. Plan of Gavr Innis 364
152. Sculptures at Gavr Innis 364
153. Holed Stone, Gavr Innis 364
154. Alignments at Crozon 367
View of the Interior of Dolmen at
155. 383
Antequera
Plan of Dolmen called Cueva de Menga,
156. 384
near Antequera
157. Dolmen del Tio Cogolleros 385

158. Sepultura Grande 386
159. Plan of Dolmen at Eguilar 387
160. Plan of Dolmen at Cangas de Onis 387
161. Dolmen of San Miguel, at Arrichinaga 387
162. Dolmen at Arroyolos 389
163. Dolmen at Saturnia 392
164. Bazina 397
165. Choucha 398
166. Dolmen on Steps 398
Tumuli, with Intermediate Lines of
167. 399
Stones
168. Group of Sepulchral Monuments, Algeria 399
169. Plan and Elevation of African Tumulus 400
170. Dolmen with Two Circles of Stones 401
Dolmens on the Road from Bona to
171. 402
Constantine
172. Four Cairns enclosed in Squares 402
173. Tombs near Djidjeli 404
174. Circle near Bona 405
175. Trilithon at Ksaea 411
176. Trilithon at Elkeb 412
177. Buddhist Monument at Bangkok 413
178. Giants' Tower at Gozo 417
179. Plan of Monument of Mnaidra 419
Section through Lower Pair of
180. 419
Chambers, Mnaidra
Entrance to Chamber B, Mnaidra,
181. 420
showing Table inside
North End of Left-hand Outer Chamber
182. 421
at Mnaidra
183. Plan of Hagiar Khem, partially restored 423
184. View of Madracen 424

185. Nurhag 428
186. Nurhag of Santa Barbara 428
Section and Ground-plan of Nurhag of
187. 429
Santa Barbara
188. Map of La Giara 430
189. Talyot at Trepucò, Minorca 435
190. Talyot at Alajor, Minorca 435
191. Dolmens at Kafr er Wâl 441
192. Holed Dolmen 447
193. Holed Dolmen, Circassia 447
194. Baba 448
195. Four-cornered Grave 448
196. Tumulus at Alexandropol 450
Uncovered Base of a Tumulus at
197. 451
Nikolajew
198. Circle near Peshawur 452
199. Circle at Deh Ayeh, near Darabgerd 453
200. View in Khassia Hills 462
201. Khassia Funereal Seats 463
202. Menhirs and Tables 464
203. Turban Stone, with Stone Table 464
204. Trilithon 464
205. Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468
206. Plan of Open Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468
207. Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468
208. View of Closed Dolmen at Rajunkoloor 468
209. Arrangement of Dolmens at Rajunkoloor 470
210. Cairns at Jewurgi 472
211,
Sections of Cairn at Jewurgi 472
212.
213. Double Dolmen, Coorg 473
214. Tomb, Nilgiri Hills 473

215. Sepulchral Circles at Amravati 474
216. Iron Pillar at the Kutub, Delhi 481
Sculpture on under side of cap-stone of
217. 483
Nilgiri Dolmen
218. Dolmen at Iwullee 484
219. Plan of Stone Monuments at Shahpoor 485
220. Cross at Katapur 486
221. Dolmen at Katapur 487
222. Dolmen with Cross in Nirmul Jungle 487
223. Lanka Ramayana Dagoba 490
224. Dolmen at Pullicondah 491
225. Rail at Sanchi, near Bhilsa 492
226. View of the Senbya Pagoda, Burmah 497
Enclosure in Newark Works, North
227. 511
America
Plan of Uprights, Cromlech D I.,
228. 521
Columbkille
229. Position of Stones of D III. 522
230. Plan of D VI. 522
231. Plan of Cromlechs of Group E. 523
232. Horned Cairn, Caithness 528
233. Dolmen near Bona, Algeria 532

DIRECTION TO BINDER.
The Map illustrating the distribution of Dolmens to be placed at the end of
the Volume.

RUDE STONE MONUMENTS.

INTRODUCTORY.

So great and so successful has been the industry recently applied to subjects
of archæological research that few of the many problems in that science
which fifty years ago seemed hopelessly mysterious now remain unsolved.
Little more than forty years have elapsed since Champollion's discoveries
enabled us to classify and understand the wonderful monuments of the Nile
Valley. The deciphering of the cuneiform characters has in like manner
enabled us to arrange and affix dates to the temples and palaces of Babylon
and Nineveh. Everything that was built by the Greeks and the Romans has
been surveyed and illustrated; and all the mediæval styles that arose out of
them have been reduced to intelligible sequences. The rock-cut temples of
India, and her still more mysterious dagobas, have been brought within the
domain of history, and, like those of Burmah, Cambodia, or China, shown
to be of comparatively modern date. The monuments of Mexico and Peru
may be said still to defy those who are endeavouring to wrest their secrets
from them; but even for these a fairly approximate date has been obtained.
But amidst all these triumphs of well-directed research there still remains a
great group of monuments at our own doors, regarding whose uses or dates
opinions are nearly as much divided as they were in the days of rampant
empiricism in the last century. It is true that men of science do not now
pretend to see Druids sacrificing their bleeding victims on the altar at
Stonehenge, nor to be able to trace the folds of the divine serpent through
miles of upright stones at Carnac or at Avebury; but all they have yet
achieved is simple unbelief in the popular fallacies, nor have they hitherto
ventured to supply anything better to take their places. They still call the
circles temples, but without being able to suggest to what god they were
dedicated, or for what rites they were appropriate, and, when asked as to the

age in which they were erected, can only reply in the words of the song, that
it was "long long ago."
This state of affairs is eminently unsatisfactory, but at the same time to a
great extent excusable. Indeed it is not at first sight easy to see how it is to
be remedied. The builders of the megalithic remains were utterly illiterate,
and have left no written records of their erection; nor are there any legible
inscriptions on the more important monuments which would afford any
hints to the enquirer. What is even more disheartening is that in almost
every instance they are composed of rough unhewn stones, not only without
any chisel marks, but even without any architectural mouldings capable of
being compared with those of other monuments, or, by their state of
preservation, of giving a hint as to their relative age.

"They stand, but stand in silent and uncommunicative majesty."

So silent, indeed, that it is hardly to be wondered at that fanciful antiquaries
have supplied them with voices most discordantly and absurdly various, or,
on the other hand, that the better class of enquirers have shrunk from the
long patient investigations and thoughtful ponderings which are necessary
to elicit even a modicum of truth from their stolid reticence.
If the investigation into the age and uses of the megalithic remains were a
new subject which had for the first time been taken up some thirty or forty
years ago, it is probable that a solution might have been obtained before
now, or at all events would not be far off. When, however, an investigation
gets into a thoroughly vicious groove, as this one has done, it is very
difficult to rescue it from its false position. The careless are willing to
accept any empirical solutions that are offered, however absurd they may
be, and the thoughtful are deterred from meddling with an enquiry which
has hitherto led only to such irrational conclusions.
The first of those who, in this country at least, led off the wild dance was
the celebrated Inigo Jones, the architect of Whitehall. It seems that when
King James I. was on a visit to the Earl of Pembroke at Wilton, he was
taken to see Stonehenge, and was so struck with its majesty and mystery
that he ordered his architect to find out by whom it was built, and for what
purpose. Whether the treatise containing the result of his enquiries was ever
submitted to the King is not clear. It certainly was not published till after its

author's death, and though it shows a very creditable amount of learning and
research, the results he arrived at were very startling. After a detailed
statement of the premises, his conclusions—as condensed in the Life
prefixed to his treatise—were "That it was a Roman temple, inscribed to
Cœlus, the senior of the heathen gods, and built after the Tuscan order."
This theory was attacked by Dr. Charleton, one of the physicians of Charles
II. He had corresponded for some time with Olaus Wormius, the celebrated
Danish antiquary, and struck with the similarity in form and of construction
that existed between the monuments in Denmark and those of this country,
he came to the conclusion that Stonehenge and other similar monuments
were erected by the Danes, and consequently after the departure of the
Romans. This attack on the theory of Inigo Jones raised the wrath of a Mr.
Webb, by marriage a relative, who replied in a very angry treatise, in which
he reiterates all Jones's arguments, and then, adding a considerable number
of his own, he concludes by triumphantly—as he supposes—restoring
Stonehenge to the Romans. [2]
So far no great harm was done; but Dr. Stukeley, who next appeared in the
controversy, was one of the most imaginative of men and one of the wildest
of theorists. His studies had made him familiar with the Druids, whom
classical authorities describe as the all-powerful priests of the Celtic race,
but who had no temples; on the other hand, his travels made him acquainted
with Stonehenge and Avebury, to the latter of which attention had just been
called by the researches of his friend Aubrey. Here, then, were temples
without priests. What could be so natural as to join these two, though in
most unholy matrimony. Our stone circles must be temples of the Druids!
But there was still one difficulty. What divinities did they worship therein?
Cæsar tells us that the Celts or Celtic Druids principally worshipped
Mercury and some other Roman gods whom he named; [3] but no images of
these gods are found in these temples, nor anything that would indicate a
dedication to their worship. Unfortunately, however, Pliny [4] tells a very
silly tale, how in Gaul the snakes meet together on a certain day and
manufacture from their spittle an egg (Anguinum), which, when complete,
they throw aloft, and if any one wants it, he must catch it in a blanket before
it falls to the ground, and ride off with it on a fleet horse, for if the snakes
catch him before he crosses a running stream, a worse fate than Tam o'
Shanter's may befall him! He then goes on to add that this egg was

considered as a charm by the Druids. From this last hint Dr. Stukeley
concluded that the Druids were serpent-worshippers, and consequently that
Stonehenge, Avebury, &c., were serpent temples—Dracontia, as he calls
them, daringly assuming that a word, which in the singular was only the
name of a plant, was actually applied by the ancients to serpent temples, of
the form of which, however, they were as ignorant as the Doctor himself.
Having advanced so far, it only remained to adapt the English circles to this
newly discovered form of worship, and Avebury was chosen as the principal
illustration. There was a small circle on Hakpen Hill, which had a stone
avenue formed by six or eight stones running east and west; between West
Kennet and Avebury there was another avenue leading to the circles, but
trending north and south. By introducing a curved piece between these
fragments, Hakpen became the head of the snake, the avenue its body;
Avebury a convoluted part of it, and then a tail was added, a mile long, on
the authority of two stones in the village, and a dolmen, called Long Stone
Cove, about halfway between Avebury and the end of the tail! Stanton
Drew and other circles were treated in the same way; curved avenues, for
which there is not a shadow of authority, except in the Doctor's imagination,
were added wherever required, and serpents manufactured wherever
wanted. It never seems even to have occurred to the Doctor or his
contemporaries to ask whether, in any time or place, any temple was ever
built in the form of the gods to be worshipped therein or thereat, or how any
human being could discover the form of the serpent in rows of stones
stretching over hills and valleys, crossing streams, and hid occasionally by
mounds and earthworks. On a map, with the missing parts supplied, this is
easy enough; but there were no maps in those days, and in the open country
it would puzzle even the most experienced surveyors to detect the serpent's
form.
Had so silly a fabrication been put forward in the present day, it probably
would have met with the contempt it deserves; but the strangest part of the
whole is that it was then accepted as a revelation. Even so steady and so
well informed an antiquary as Sir Richard Colt Hoare adopts Dr. Stukeley's
views without enquiry. His magnificent works on 'Ancient and Modern
Wiltshire,' which are not only the most splendid, but the most valuable
works of their class which this country owes to the liberality and industry of
any individual, are throughout disfigured by this one great blemish. He sees

Druids and their Dragons everywhere, and never thinks of enquiring on
what authority their existence rests.
It is not of course for one moment meant to contend that there were not
Druids in Europe in ancient days. Cæsar's testimony on this point is too
distinct, and his knowledge was too accurate to admit of any doubt on this
point. It is true, however, that the description of them given by Diodorus,[5]
and Strabo,[6] who mix them up with the bards and soothsayers, detracts
somewhat from the pre-eminence he assigns to them: but this is of minor
importance. The Druids were certainly the priests of the Celts, and had their
principal seat in the country of the Carnutes, near Chartres, where, however,
megalithic remains are few and far between. Neither Cæsar, however, nor
any one else, ever pretended to have seen a Druid in England. Suetonius
met 'Druidæ' in the Island of Anglesea (Mona),[7] but none were ever heard
of in Wiltshire, or Derbyshire, or Cumberland, where the principal
monuments are situated; nor in the Western Islands, or in Scandinavia. Still
less are they known in Algeria or India, where these megalithic remains
abound. According to the Welsh bards and Irish annalists, there were Druids
in Wales and Ireland before the introduction of Christianity. But, even
admitting this, it does not help us much; as even there they are nowhere
connected with the class of monuments of which we are now treating.
Indeed, it has been contended lately, and with a considerable show of
reason, that the Celts themselves, even in France, had nothing to do with
these monuments, and that they belong to an entirely different race of
people.[8] It is not, in short, at all necessary to deny either the existence of
the Druids or their power. The real difficulty is to connect them in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the stone monuments: and it seems still more
difficult to prove that the Celts ever worshipped the serpent in any shape or
form. [9]
Notwithstanding all this, in the present century, an educated gentleman and
a clergyman of the Church of England, the Rev. Bathurst Deane, adopts
unhesitatingly all that Stukeley and his school had put forward. He took the
trouble of going to Brittany, accompanied by a competent surveyor, and
made a careful plan of the alignments of Carnac. [10] Like the avenues at
Avebury, they certainly bore no resemblance to serpent forms, to eyes
profane, but looked rather like two straight lines running nearly parallel to

one another at a distance of about two miles apart. But may not an
intermediate curvilinear piece some three miles long have existed in the gap
and so joined the head to the tail? It is in vain to urge that no trace of it now
exists, or to ask how any human being could trace the forms of serpents
seven or eight miles long in an undulating country, and how or in what
manner, or to what part of this strange deity or monster, he was to address
his prayers.
It would be incorrect, however, to represent all antiquaries as adopting the
Ophite heresy. Another group have argued stoutly that Stonehenge was an
observatory of the British Druids. This theory was apparently suggested by
views published by Daniell and others of the observatories erected by Jey
Sing of Jeypore at Delhi, Ougein, Benares, and elsewhere in India. All
these, it is true, possess great circles, but each of all these circles contains a
gnomon, which is as essential a part of such an astronomical instrument as
it is of a sun-dial, and no trace of such a feature, it need hardly be said,
occurs in any British circle. One antiquary, who ought to be better
informed,[11] concluded that Stonehenge was an observatory, because,
sitting on a stone called the Altar on a Midsummer morning, he saw the sun
rise behind a stone called the Friar's Heel. This is the only recorded
observation ever made there, so far as I know; and if this is all, it is evident
that any two stones would have answered the purpose equally well, and as
the Altar stone is sixteen feet long, it allows a latitude of observation that
augurs ill for the Druidical knowledge of the exact sciences. Neither Mr.
Ellis, however, nor Dr. Smith, nor the Rev. Mr. Duke,[12] nor indeed any of
those who have taken up the astronomical theory, have yet pointed out one
single observation that could be made by these circles that could not be
made as well or better without them. Or, if they were orreries, as is
sometimes pretended, no one has explained what they record or represent in
any manner that would be intelligible to any one else. Till some practical
astronomer will come forward and tell us in intelligible language what
observations could be performed with the aid of the circles of Stonehenge,
we may be at least allowed to pause. Even, however, in that case, unless his
theory will apply to Avebury, Stanton Drew, and other circles so irregular as
to be almost unmeasurable, it will add little to our knowledge.
It might be an amusing, though it certainly must be a profitless, task to
enlarge on these and all the other guesses which have from time to time

been made with regard to these mysterious remains. It is not, however,
probable that theories so utterly groundless will be put forward again, or, if
promulgated, that they will be listened to in future. The one excuse for them
hitherto has been that their authors have been deprived of all their usual
sources of information in this matter. It is not too much to assert that there
is not one single passage in any classical author which can be construed as
alluding directly or indirectly to the megalithic remains on these isles or on
the continent. With all their learning and industry, the antiquaries of the last
century could only find one passage which, with all their misapplied
ingenuity, they could pervert to their purposes. It was this—in his second
book, Diodorus, quoting from Hecatæus, mentions that in an island, not less
in size than Sicily, and opposite to Celtica, there existed among the
Hyperboreans a circular temple magnificently adorned.[13] Stukeley and his
followers immediately jumped to the conclusion that the island not less than
Sicily and opposite Gaul must be England, and the circular temple
Stonehenge, which was consequently dedicated to Apollo and the serpent
Python, and our forefathers were the Hyperboreans, and our intercourse
with Greece clear and frequent. It is marvellous what a superstructure was
raised on such a basis. But against it may be urged that the whole of the
second book of Diodorus is dedicated solely to a description of Asia. In the
preceding chapter he describes the Amazons, who, if they ever existed,
certainly lived in that quarter of the globe. In the following chapters he
describes Arabia, and even in this one (xlvii.) he speaks of the
Hyperboreans as inhabiting the northern parts of Asia. By the utmost
latitude of interpretation we might assume this island to have been in the
Baltic—Œsel probably, Gothland possibly, but certainly not further west. It
is impossible Diodorus could be mistaken in the matter, for in his fifth book
he describes the British Isles in their proper place, and with a very
considerable degree of accuracy.[14] But, after all, what does it amount to?
In this island there was a circular temple. We are not told whether it was of
wood or of stone, whether hypæthral, or roofed, or vaulted, and certainly
there is not a shadow of a hint that it was composed of a circle of rude
stones like those in this country with which the antiquaries of the last
century tried to assimilate it.

It is little to be wondered at if all this rashness of speculation and
carelessness in quotation should have produced a belief that the solution of
the problem was impossible from any literary or historical data, or if
consequently our modern antiquaries should have grasped with avidity at a
scheme, first proposed by the Danes, which seemed at all events to place
the question on a scientific basis. No country could well be more favourably
situated for an enquiry of this sort than Denmark. It is rich in megalithic
remains of all sorts. Its tumuli and tombs seem generally to have been
undisturbed; and it was exceptionally fortunate in having a government
with sufficient common sense to enact a law of treasure-trove, so just and,
at the same time, so liberal as to prevent all metal articles from finding their
way to the melting pot, and governors so intelligent as fully to appreciate
the scientific value of these early remains. In consequence of all this, the
museums at Copenhagen were soon filled with one of the richest collections
of antiquities of this sort that was ever collected, and when brought together
it was not difficult to perceive the leading features that connected them in
one continuous sequence.
First it appeared that there was an age extending into far prehistoric times,
when men used only implements of stone and bone, and were ignorant of
the use of any of the metals; then that an age had succeeded to this when the
use of bronze was known, and also probably that of gold; and, lastly, that
there was a third age, when iron had been introduced and had superseded
the use of all other metals for weapons of war and utilitarian purposes.
The Danish antiquaries were somewhat divided in opinion as to the exact
period when bronze was first introduced, some carrying it back as far as
2000 B.C., others doubting whether it was known in Denmark more than
1000 or 1200 years B.C., but all agreed that iron was introduced about the
Christian era. Having satisfied themselves on these points, the Danish
antiquaries proceeded at once to apply this system to the monuments of
their country. Any tomb or tumulus which was devoid of any trace of metal
was dated at once at least 1000, probably 2000, years before Christ, and
might be 10,000, or 20,000 years old, or even still older. Any tomb
containing bronze was at once set down as dating between the war of Troy
and the Christian era; and if a trace of iron was detected, it was treated as
subsequent to the last-named epoch, but still as anterior to the introduction
of Christianity, which in Denmark dates about the year 1000 A.D.

This system seemed so reasonable and philosophical, compared with the
wild theories of the British antiquaries of the last century, that it was
instantly adopted both in the country of its birth and in England and France;
and the succession of the three ages—stone, bronze, and iron—was
generally looked upon as firmly established as any fact in chronology.
Gradually, however, it has been perceived that the hard and fast line at first
drawn between them cannot be maintained. At the last meeting of the
International Archæological Congress, held at Copenhagen in the autumn of
1869, it was admitted on all hands that there was a considerable overlap
between each of the three ages. Men did not immediately cease to use stone
implements when bronze was introduced; and bronze continued to be
employed for many purposes after the use of iron was well known.[15]
Antiquaries have not yet made up their minds to what extent the overlap
took place; but on its determination depends the whole value of the scheme
as a chronometric scale.
If the Danes, instead of breaking up their "finds" and distributing them in
cases according to a pre-conceived system, had kept and published a careful
record of the places where the contents of their museums were found, and
in what juxtaposition, we should not probably be in our present difficulty.
Under the circumstances, it is perhaps fortunate that we had no central
museum, but that our antiquaries have published careful narratives of their
proceedings. Sir Richard Colt Hoare's great works are models of their class,
but are scarcely to be depended upon in the present instance, as the
importance of flint and flint implements was not appreciated in his time to
the extent it now is.[16] The explorations of the Messrs. Bateman in
Derbyshire are more completely up to the mark of the science of the present
day. A few extracts from one of their works will show how various and how
mixed the contents of even a single group of tombs are, and will prove
consequently how little dependence can be placed on any one class of
objects to fix the age of these monuments.
In his 'Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire,' published in 1848 by
Thomas Bateman, we find the following among other interesting facts,
taking them as they are found arranged in his volume, without any attempt
at classification:—
On Winster Moor (p. 20), a gold Greek cross—undoubtedly Christian, with
a fibula of the same metal richly ornamented, and a quantity of glass and

metal ornaments.
Pegges Barrow (p. 24). Several Anglo-Saxon ornaments, most probably of
the seventh or eighth century.
In a barrow at Long Roods (p. 28) were found two urns, with calcined
bones and a brass coin of Constantine, of the type "Gloria exercitus."
In Haddon Field Barrow (p. 30) were found 82 brass coins: among them
Constantine 9, Constans 17, Constantius II. 9, family of Constantine 3, Urbs
Roma 1, Constantinopolis 2, Valentinian 5, Valens 12, Gratian 3. The
remainder illegible.
At Gib Hill, near Arbor Low (p. 31), of which more hereafter, there were
found a flint arrow-head 2½ inches long, and a fragment of a basaltic celt;
also a small iron fibula, and another piece of iron of indeterminable form.
On Cross Flatts (p. 35) the weapons found with the skeleton were an iron
knife, the blade 5 inches long; a piece of roughly chipped flint, probably a
spear-head; and a natural piece of stone of remarkable form. A similar iron
knife and a stone celt were afterwards found within a few yards of the
barrow, probably thrown out and overlooked when first opened.
In Galley Lowe (p. 37), a very beautiful gold necklace set with garnets, and
a coin of Honorius; but towards the outer edge of the Lowe, and
consequently, as far as position goes, probably later, another interment,
accompanied with rude pottery, a small arrow-head of grey flint, and a piece
of ironstone.
In the great barrow at Minning Lowe (p. 39) were found coins of Claudius
Gothicus, Constantine the Great, Constantine Junior, and Valentinian.
In a smaller barrow close by were found fragments of a coarse, dark-
coloured urn, a flint arrow-head, a small piece of iron, part of a bridle-bit,
and several horses' teeth; lower down, a cist with an iron knife, with an iron
sheath; and on the outer edge another interment, accompanied by a highly
ornamented drinking-cup, a small brass or copper pin, and a rude spear or
arrow-head of dark grey flint.
In Borther Lowe (p. 48) were found a flint arrow-head much burnt and a
diminutive bronze celt.

In Rolley Lowe (p. 55) were found a brass coin of Constantine, and a brass
pin 2¾ inches long; and lower down a rude but highly ornamented urn, and
with it two very neat arrow-heads of flint of uncommon forms; and in
another part of the barrow a spear-head of coarse flint, with the fragments
of an ornamented drinking-cup.
In a barrow on Ashford Moor (p. 57) were found, scattered in different
parts, a small iron arrow-head and five instruments of flint.
In Carder Lowe (p. 63) were found several instruments of flint, amongst the
latter a neatly formed barbed arrow-head; and lower down, with the primary
interment, a splendid brass or bronze dagger; a few inches lower down a
beautiful axe hammer-head of basalt. In another part of the barrow another
interment was discovered, accompanied by an iron knife and three hones of
sandstone.
A barrow was opened at New Inns (p. 66), where, along with the principal
interment, was found a beautiful brass dagger, with smaller rivets than
usual; and in another part a skeleton, with two instruments of flint, and
some animal teeth.
In Net Lowe (p. 68), close to the right arm of the principal interment, a
large dagger of brass, with the decorations of its handle, consisting of thirty
brass rivets; two studs of Kimmeridge coal. With the above-mentioned
articles were numerous fragments of calcined flint, and amongst the soil of
the barrow two rude instruments of flint.
At Castern (p. 73), in one part of the mound, an instrument was found, with
a fine spear-head of flint, and a small arrow-head of the same. In other
parts, but in apparently undisturbed earth, a circular instrument, and various
chippings of flint, and the handle of a knife of stag's horn, riveted in the
usual way on to the steel. A similar one is figured in Douglas's 'Nenia
Britannica,' plate 19, fig. 4, as found with an interment in one of the
barrows on Chartham Downs, Kent.
In Stand Lowe (p. 74), on digging towards the centre, numerous flint
chippings and six rude instruments were found, and above the same place a
broken whetstone. The centre being gained, an iron knife was found of the
kind generally attributed to the Saxons. This was immediately followed by a
bronze box and a number of buckles, fibulæ, and articles of iron, silver, and

glass, all showing the principal interment to have been of very late date. Mr.
Bateman adds—"the finding of instruments of flint with an interment of this
comparatively modern description is rather remarkable, but by no means
unprecedented."
In a barrow midway between Wetton and Ilam (p. 79) with the interment
were found three implements of flint of no great interest, some fragments of
an ornamented urn, and an iron pin, similar to the awl used by saddlers at
the present day. Mr. Bateman adds—"one precisely similar was found in a
barrow on Middleton Moor in 1824."
In a second barrow near the same place were found the remains of a coarse
and rudely ornamented urn with its deposit of burnt bones. A third brass
coin of Constantine the Great was also found on the summit, just under the
surface.
In Come Lowe (p. 95), with an interment of a very late period, were found
gold and iron ornaments and glass beads, as well as the usual chippings of
flint and rats' bones.
In Dowe Lowe (p. 96) the most remote interment consisted of two much
decayed skeletons lying on the floor of the barrow about two yards from its
centre; one was accompanied by a fluted brass dagger placed near the upper
bone of the arm, and an amulet of iron ore with a large flint implement,
which had seen good service, lying near the pelvis.
The other tumuli examined by this indefatigable explorer either contained
objects generally of the same class or nothing that was of interest as
marking their age. If his other works, or those of others, were abstracted in
the same way, numerous examples of the same sort might be adduced. The
above, however, are probably sufficient to show how little reliance can be
placed on the hard and fast distinction between the flint, bronze, and iron
ages which have hitherto been supposed to govern every determination of
age in this science. If in a hundred short pages of one man's work so many
instances of overlapping, and, indeed, of reversal of the usual order of
things, can be found, it is easy to understand how many might be added if
other works were also examined. All, however, that is wanted here is to
show that the Danish system is neither perfect nor final, and that we must
look for some other means of ascertaining the age of these monuments if we
are to come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding them.

The fact is that, though a tomb containing only stone and bone implements
may be 10,000 or 20,000 years old, unless it can also be shown that stone
and bone were no longer used after the Christian era, it may also be as
modern, or more so, than that epoch. Unless, also, it can be proved that
stone implements were never used after iron was introduced, or that bronze
was never employed down to a late period, this system is of no avail; and
after the examples just quoted from the Bateman diggings, it seems the
merest empiricism to assume that the use of each class of implements
ceased on the introduction of another; and till it can be shown at what date
their use did really cease, any argument based on their presence is of very
little value. This, however, is a task to which no antiquary has yet applied
himself; all have been content to fix the age of the monuments from the
assumed age of their contents, empirically determined. It is a far more
difficult task, however, to ascertain the age of the contents from that of the
monument in which they are found; it is a task that requires an investigation
into the history and circumstances of each particular example. With the
scant materials that exist, this is by no means easy; but as it seems the only
mode by which truth can be arrived at, it is the task to which we propose to
devote the following pages; should it prove impossible, we may indeed
despair.
It is curious to observe how different would have been the fate of this
science, had the Scandinavians followed up the line of investigation
commenced by their writers in the sixteenth century. Olaus Magnus, for
instance, Archbishop of Upsala, writing in 1555, describes the megalithic
remains of Sweden with the sobriety and precision with which a man in the
present day might give an account of the cemeteries of Kensal-green or of
Scutari. Some, he tells us, marked battle-fields, some family sepulchres,
others the graves of greatly distinguished men.[17] In like manner, Olaus
Wormius, in 1643, describes the tombs of the kings of Denmark as a writer
in the present day might the Plantagenet sepulchres in Westminster Abbey.
[18]
Neither have any doubt or hesitation about the matter, and though Dr.
Charleton was hasty in following this author too implicitly in applying his
data to this country, still, so far as I can form an opinion, if that line of
research had been steadily followed out, there would now have been as little
doubt about the age of Stonehenge, as there is about that of Salisbury
Cathedral. Stukeley, however, cut the vessel adrift from the moorings of

common sense, and she has since been a derelict tossed about by the winds
and waves of every passing fancy, till recently, when an attempt has been
made to tow the wreck into the misty haven of prehistoric antiquity. If ever
she reaches that nebulous region, she may as well be broken up in despair,
as she can be of no further use for human purposes.

Whether this will or will not be her fate must depend on the result of the
new impulse which has within the last ten or twelve years been given to the
enquiry. Hitherto it seems certainly to be in a direction which, it is to be
feared, is not likely to lead to any greater degree of precision in the enquiry.
While the Danish "savans" were arranging their collections in the museums
at Copenhagen, M. Boucher de Perthes was quietly forming a collection of
flint implements from the drift gravels of the valley of the Somme, which
far exceeded all hitherto found in antiquity. For many years his discoveries
were ridiculed and laughed at, till in 1858 the late Hugh Falconer visited his
museum at Abbeville, and being then fresh from his investigations at Kent's
Hole and the Gower Caves,[19] he at once saw their value and proclaimed it
to the world. Since then it has not been disputed that the flint implements
found in the valley of the Somme are the works of man, and that from the
position in which they are found their fabricators must have lived at a
period on the edge of the glacial epoch, and when the configuration of the
continent differed from what it now is, and when probably the British isles
were still joined to France. Similar implements have before and since been
found in Suffolk,[20] and other parts of England in analogous circumstances,
and all allied with a fauna which was extinct in these parts before historic
times.[21] If you ask a geologist how long ago the circumstances of the
globe were such as these conditions represent, he will answer at once not
less than a million of years! But they deal in large figures, and it is not
necessary to investigate them now. It was a very long time ago.
Even more interesting than these for our present purposes was the discovery
a few years later of human remains in the valleys of the Dordogne and other
rivers of the south of France. Here geology does not help us, but
climatology does. At that time the climate of the south of France was so
cold that the inhabitants of these caves had all the habits of people now

dwelling in the Arctic regions. Their principal domestic animal was the
reindeer, but they were familiar with the woolly-haired mammoth, the cave
bear, and the aurochs. The climate was so cold that they could throw on one
side the débris of their feasts, and floor their dwelling with marrow bones
and offal without dreading pestilence or even suffering inconvenience. They
were, in fact, in every respect, so far as we have the means of judging,
identical with the Esquimaux of the present day, and must have inhabited a
climate nearly similar to that of Arctic North America. How long ago was
this? We know from the pictures in the tombs near the pyramids that the
climate of Egypt was the same 5000 or 6000 years ago as it is now, and we
have no reason to suppose that, while that of the southern shores of the
Mediterranean remained unchanged, the northern would vary in any very
different ratio. Clearing of forests may have done something, but never
could have accounted for such a change as this. If we take 50,000 or 60,000
years instead of 5000 or 6000, it will not suffice for such a revolution,
though geologists will be wroth if we assume only 100,000; as a convenient
number this will answer our present purposes.
Having at least this space of time at their disposal, the tendency of modern
antiquaries has been to sweep everything into this great gulf. Why, they ask,
may not Stonehenge and Avebury be 10,000, 20,000, or 50,000 years old?
Man then existed, and why may he not have erected such monuments as
these? Of course he might, but there is no proof that he did, and as no single
tangible reason has yet been adduced for supposing them so old, the mere
presumption that they might be so cannot count for much.
To my mind the force of argument seems to tend the other way. If a race of
men lived on the face of the globe for 100,000 years so utterly
unprogressive as these cave men, incapable of discovering the use of metals
for themselves during that long period, or even of adopting them from
Egypt and the East, where bronze certainly, and most probably iron, were
known at least 6000 or 7000 years ago; if this people used flint and bone
during all this period, is it likely that they would adopt new-fangled
implements and new customs the first time they were presented to them?
The Esquimaux have been familiar with the Danish settlers in Greenland for
some centuries, and could easily have procured improved implements and
many of the advantages of civilization had they been so inclined. They have
not been changed a hair's-breadth by the influence of the stranger. The red

man of North America has been in contact with the white man for centuries
now. Has he changed, or can he change? In Alaska, and to the northward of
Vancouver's Island, there is a race of savages, called Hydahs, with all the
artistic tastes and faculties of the men of the Dordogne caves, and with
about the same degree of civilization.[22] All these are dying out, and may
soon disappear, but they present at this day exactly the same phenomenon
as we see in the south of France, say 10,000 years ago. They have been
exterminated in all the civilized parts of Europe by the progressive Aryan
races who have usurped their places; and it seems only too certain that, like
them, their American kindred must perish before the growing influence of
the white man, but they cannot change. In so far as we can judge from such
facts as are before us, if any family of this old people still lurked among our
hills or on any rocky island, their habits, or customs, and their implements,
would be as like those of the cave men as those of the Esquimaux or Alaska
savages are at the present day. It appears most unphilosophical to apply to
those people the principles of progress that are found among the higher
races of mankind, and to represent them as eagerly seizing on any
improvement offered them, and abandoning their old faith and their old
habits at the bidding of any wandering navigator that visited their shores.
This is not the place to enter on such an enquiry, but so far as can at present
be seen, it seems that mankind has progressed not so much by advance
within the limits of certain races as by the superposition of more highly
organized races over those of an inferior class. Thus we have those stone
men of the caves who possessed the world for 100,000 or a million of years,
and made no more progress in that period than the animals they were
associated with. Even the progress from a chipped to a polished stone
implement seems to have been taught them by a foreign bronze-using
people. We have then such races as the Egyptian, the Chinese, or the
Mexican, who can progress to a certain point, but stop and cannot go
beyond; and, lastly, we have the Aryans, the last to appear in the field, but
the most energetic, and the only truly progressive race. Our great error in
reasoning with regard to the older races seems to be that we insist on
applying to them the reasoning and principles which guide us, but which are
wholly inapplicable to the less progressive races of mankind.
All this will be plainer in the sequel; but in the meanwhile it may safely be
asserted that, up to this time, no royal road has been discovered that leads to

an explanation of our megalithic antiquities. No one has yet been able so to
classify the contents of cognate monuments as to construct a chronometric
scale which is applicable for the elucidation of their dates; and no à priori
reasoning has been hit upon that is of the smallest use in explaining either
their age or their peculiarities. The one path that seems open to us is a
careful examination of each individual monument, accompanied by a
judicial sifting of all or any traditions that may attach to it, and aided by a
comparison with similar monuments in other countries. By this means we
have a chance of arriving at a fair proximate degree of certainty; for, though
no one monument will tell its own tale directly, a multitude of whispers
from a great number may swell into a voice that is clear and distinct and be
audible to every one; while no system yet invented, and no à priori
reasoning, can lead to anything but deepening the ignorance that now
prevails on the subject. This is especially true with regard to the great
megalithic circles in this country. With the rarest possible exceptions, no
flint and no bronze or iron implements have been found within their
precincts. They cannot be older than the invention of flint implements, and
iron has been in continuous use since the art of smelting its ores was first
discovered. If, therefore, they have no written or traditional history which
can be relied upon, their age must for ever remain a mystery. The
conviction, however, under which this book is written is that such a history
does exist; that, when all the traditions attached to the monuments are sifted
and weighed, they amount to such a mass of circumstantial evidence as
suffices to prove the case and to establish the main facts of their history and
use, wholly independently of any system or of any external testimony.
Direct literary evidence, in the sense in which the term is usually
understood, cannot be said to exist. As before mentioned, no classical
author alludes, either directly or indirectly, to these megalithic structures;
yet they could not have been ignorant of them if they existed. When Cæsar
and his army witnessed the fight between his galleys and the fleet of the
Veneti in the Morbihan, he must have stood—if he occupied the best place
—on Mont St. Michel, if it then existed, and among the stone avenues of
Carnac. Is it likely that such an artist would have omitted the chance of
heightening his picture by an allusion to the "standing stones" of
Dariorigum? The Romans occupied Old Sarum probably during the whole
time they remained in this island, and the Via Badonica passed so
immediately under Silbury Hill that they could not have been ignorant of

either Stonehenge or Avebury. Nor in France could they possibly have
missed seeing the numerous dolmens with which the country is covered.
Notwithstanding all this, the silence is absolute. The circular temple of the
Hyperboreans is the only thing any one has ever pretended to quote against
this; and that, for reasons given above being inadmissible, any argument
based on it falls to the ground.
Neither Cæsar nor Tacitus, though describing the religious observances of
our forefathers, make any mention of temples; nor, indeed, does any other
classical author. Tacitus[23] tells us that the Germans worshipped only in
groves; and though this is hardly to the point, his relations with Agricola
were so intimate that had the Gauls and Britons had temples of stone, he
could hardly have avoided alluding to them. The inference from Cæsar and
all the other authors is the same, but there is no direct evidence either way.
There is no passage in any classical authors which connects the Druids,
either directly or indirectly, with any stone temples or stones of any sort.
Dracontia are wholly the creation of Dr. Stukeley's very fertile imagination.
So far, therefore, as negative evidence goes, it is complete in showing that
our megalithic circles did not exist in the time of the Romans, and that they
were not temples. Unfortunately, however, no amount of negative evidence
is sufficient to prove an affirmative, though it may suffice to establish a
strong presumption in favour of a particular view, and, at all events, clears
the way for the production of any direct evidence which we may have. The
direct written evidence that has been adduced is, however, of the most
shadowy character. It amounts to little more than this:—that every allusion
to these monuments in mediæval authors, every local tradition, every scrap
of intelligence we have regarding them, points to a post-Roman origin. No
writer, of any age or country, suggested their being prehistoric or even pre-
Roman before the age of Stukeley,—say 1700.
There is, so far as I know, only one paragraph in any classical author which
mentions a French or British temple; but it belonged to so exceptional a
community that it would hardly be safe to base an argument upon it. A
"hieron," Strabo tells us, existed at the mouth of the Loire, inhabited by a
colony of women who lived apart from their husbands, but the roof or
thatch of the roof of whose temple was renewed annually:[24] a fact that

shows, in the first place, that it had a roof, and in the second, that it was not
a very dignified or permanent structure.
It would add very much to the clearness of our conception on this subject if
the early Christian writers had left us some descriptions of the temples of
the Britons when the missionaries first came among them. Though not quite
so silent on the subject as the classical authors, their direct evidence is far
from being so complete as might be wished. One of the passages most
distinctly bearing on this question is found in a letter which Pope Gregory
the Great addressed to the Abbot Millitus, then on a mission to England. In
this letter he instructs him by no means to destroy the temples of the idols
belonging to the English, but only the idols which are found in them; and
adds, "Let holy water be made, and sprinkled over them. Let altars be
constructed, and relics placed on them; insomuch as if these temples are
well constructed, it is necessary that they should be converted from the
worship of dæmons to the service of the true God. So that the people,
seeing their temples are not destroyed, may put away errors from their
hearts, and, acknowledging the true God and adoring Him, may the more
willingly assemble in the places where they were accustomed to meet."[25]
A little further on he adds, in order that no apparent change may be made,
"that on great festivals the people may erect huts of boughs around those
churches which have been converted (commutatæ) from temples."
The fair inference from this paragraph seems to be that there was so little
difference between the temples of the Pagans and the churches of the
Christians that a little holy water and a few relics—as much esteemed in the
West as in the East in those days—were all that was required to convert the
one into the other.
We gather the same impression from another transaction which took place
at Canterbury about the same time. After taking possession of the Cathedral,
built of old by the Romans,[26] St. Augustine obtained from the recently
converted King Ethelbert the cession of the temple in which he had been
accustomed to worship his idols, and without more ado dedicated it to St.
Pancras, and appropriated it as a burying place for himself and his
successors from the circumstance of its being outside the walls.[27] We
further learn from Gervaise[28] that it was so used till Cuthbert, the second
archbishop, got permission to allow burials within the walls, and then

erected the baptistry of St. John for this purpose, where apparently Becket's
crown now stands. Afterwards the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, now St.
Augustine's, was erected "in fundo Templi"—whatever that may mean—but
at that time St. Augustine seems to have accepted the Pagan temples as
perfectly appropriate to Christian rites.
In like manner when King Redwald, after his conversion to Christianity was
persuaded by his wife not rashly to forsake the faith of his forefathers, he
set up two altars side by side in his temple (in fano), and dedicated the one
to Christ, the other to the "victims of the dæmons."[29] The temple,
apparently, was equally appropriate to either.
A still more instructive example is the description of the destruction of the
church at Godmundingham by Coifi—the heathen priest—on his
conversion to Christianity. He first desecrated it by throwing a spear into it
—whether by the door or window we are not told—and then ordered his
people to burn it to the ground with all its enclosures. These, therefore, must
all have been in wood or some equally combustible material.[30]
All this is not much nor very distinct, but by these passages, and every hint
we have on the subject, it would appear that the temples of the Pagans,
between the departure of the Romans and the time of Alfred, were at least
very similar to those of the Christians. Both were derived from the same
model, which was the temple or basilica of the Romans, and both were
apparently very rude, and generally, we may infer, constructed of wood.
The word circular does not occur in any description of any Pagan temple
yet brought to light, nor the word stone; nothing, in fact, that would in the
remotest degree lead us to suppose that Bede, or any one else, was speaking
or thinking of the megalithic monuments with which we are now
concerned.
Although the classical authorities are silent regarding these rude stone
monuments, and contemporary records help us very little in trying to
understand the form of the temples in which our forefathers worshipped, till
they were converted to Christianity, still the Decrees of the Councils render
it quite certain that Rude Stone Monuments were objects of veneration—
certainly in France, and, by implication, in England—down to the times of
Charlemagne and Alfred, at least.

One often-quoted decree of a Council, held at Nantes, exhorts "Bishops and
their servants to dig up, and remove, and hide in places where they cannot
be found, those stones which in remote and woody places are still
worshipped, and where vows are still made."[31] Unfortunately the date of
this Council is not certain; but Richard places it in 658, which is probably at
least nearly correct.[32] This, however, is of comparatively little
consequence, as in 452 a Council at Arles decreed that "if, in any diocese,
any infidel either lighted torches or worshipped Trees, Fountains, or Stones,
or neglected to destroy them, he should be found guilty of sacrilege;"[33]
and about a century later (567), a Council at Tours exhorts the clergy to
excommunicate those who, at certain Stones or Trees or Fountains,
perpetrate things contrary to the ordinances of the Church.[34]
Still another century further on (681), a Council held at Toledo admonishes
those who worship Idols or venerate Stones, those who light torches or
worship Fountains or Trees, that they are sacrificing to the devil, and
subject themselves to various penalties, &c.[35] Another Council held in the
same city, in the year 692, enumerates almost in the same words the various
heresies which were condemned by the preceding Council.[36] A Council at
Rouen, about the same time, denounces all who offer vows to Trees or
Fountains or Stones as they would at altars, or offer candles or gifts, as if
any divinity resided there capable of conferring good or evil. [37]
Lastly, a decree of Charlemagne, dated Aix-la-Chapelle in 789, utterly
condemns and execrates before God Trees, Stones, and Fountains, which
foolish people worship.[38]
Even as late as in the time of Canute the Great, there is a statute forbidding
the barbarous adoration of the Sun and Moon, Fire, Fountains, Stones, and
all kinds of Trees and Wood.[39]
The above which are taken from Keysler[40] are not all he quotes, nor
certainly all that could be added, if it were worth while, from other sources;
but they are sufficient to show that, from Toledo to Aix-la-Chapelle—and
from the departure of the Romans till the tenth, or probably the eleventh
century—the Christian priesthood waged a continuous but apparently
ineffectual warfare against the worship of Stones, Trees, and Fountains. The
priests do not condescend to tell us what the forms of the Stones were

which these benighted people worshipped, whether simple menhirs or
dolmens, or "grottes des fées," nor why they worshipped them; whether
they considered them emblems of some unnamed and unknown God, or
memorials of deceased ancestors, in whose honour they lighted candles, and
whom they propitiated with offerings. Nor do they tell us what the form of
that worship was; they did not care, and perhaps did not know. Nor do we;
for, except an extreme veneration for their dead, and a consequent ancestral
worship,[41] mixed with a strange adoration of Stones, Trees, and Fountains,
we do not know now what the religion was of these rude people. The
testimony of these edicts is, therefore, not quite so distinct as we might
wish, and does not enable us to assert that the Rude Stone Monuments,
whose age and uses we are trying to ascertain, were those alluded to in the
preceding paragraphs. But what it does seem to prove is, that down to the
11th century the Christian Priesthood waged a continuous warfare against
the veneration of some class of Rude Stone Monuments, to which the pagan
population clung with remarkable tenacity, and many, if not most of which
may consequently have been erected during that period. This is, at all
events, infinitely more clear and positive than anything that has been
brought forward in favour of their prehistoric antiquity. If, like the other
branches of the written argument, this is not sufficient to prove, by itself,
that the monuments were generally or even frequently erected after the
Christian era, it certainly entitles that assertion to a fair locus standi in the
argument we are attempting to develop.

If, however, the pen has been reticent and hesitating in its testimony, the
spade has been not only prolific but distinct. It is probably not an
exaggeration to say that three-fourths of the megalithic monuments—
including the dolmens, of course—have yielded sepulchral deposits to the
explorer, and, including the tumuli, probably nine-tenths have been proved
to be burial places. Still, at the present stage of the enquiry, it would be at
least premature to assume that the remaining tenth of the whole, or the
remaining fourth of the stone section, must necessarily be sepulchral. Some
may have been cenotaphic, or simply monuments, such as we erect to our
great men—not necessarily where the bodies are laid. Some stones and

some tumuli may have been erected to commemorate events, and some
mounds certainly were erected as "Motes" or "Things"—places of judgment
or assembly. In like manner some circles may have been originally, or may
afterwards have been used as places of assembly, or may have been what
may more properly be called temples of the dead, than tombs. These,
however, certainly are the exceptions. The ruling idea throughout is still of
a sepulchre, with what exceptions, and at what age erected, is the thesis
which we now propose to investigate.
At present these are mere assertions, and it is not pretended that they are
more, and they are only brought forward in this place in order to enunciate
the propositions it is hoped we may be able to prove as we advance in this
enquiry. These are,—
First, that the Rude Stone Monuments with which we are concerned are
generally sepulchral, or connected directly, or indirectly, with the rites of
the dead.
Secondly, that they are not temples in any usual or appropriate sense of the
term, and, Lastly,—that they were generally erected by partially civilized
races after they had come in contact with the Romans, and most of them
may be considered as belonging to the first ten centuries of the Christian
Era.
In stating these three propositions so broadly, it must be borne in mind, that
the evidence on which their proof or disproof rests is eminently cumulative
in its character; not perhaps with regard to the use to which the monuments
were applied, that probably will be admitted as settled, as so large a
proportion of the tumuli can be shown to have a fair title to a sepulchral
character, and most of the stone monuments can equally lay claim to being
erected for the same purpose to which one-half of them have been certainly
proved to have been dedicated. This is the more clear, as, on the other hand,
in spite of every surmise or conjecture, no one monument of the class we
are treating of can be proved to have been erected as a temple, or as
intended for any civic or civil purpose.
With regard to their age, the case is not quite so easily settled. Except such
monuments as those of Gorm and Thyra, and one or two others, to be
mentioned hereafter, few can produce such proof of their age as would
stand investigation in a court of law. But when all the traditions, all the

analogies, and all the probabilities of the case are examined, they seem to
make up such an accumulation of evidence as is irresistible; and the whole
appears to present an unbroken and intelligible sequence which explains
everything. The proof of all this, however, does not rest on the evidence of
two or three, or even of a dozen, of instances, but is based upon the
multiplication of a great number of coincidences derived from a large
number of instances, which taken together in the cumulative form, make up
a stronger body of proof than could be obtained from the direct testimony of
one or two cases. To appreciate this, however, the whole must be taken
together. To try to invalidate it by selecting one or two prominent cases,
where the proof is manifestly insufficient when taken by itself, is to
misunderstand and misrepresent the whole force of the argument.
One point, I fancy, there will be very little difficulty in proving, which is,
that the whole form one continuous group, extending in an unbroken series,
from the earliest to the latest. There is no hiatus or break anywhere; and if
some can be proved to belong to the 10th century, it is only a question how
far you can, by extenuating the thread, extend it backwards. It can hardly be
much beyond the Christian era. It seems that such a date satisfies all the
known conditions of the problem, in so far as the Stone Monuments at least
are concerned. There is, so far as I know at present, absolutely no evidence
on the other side, except what is derived from the Danish system of the
three ages: if that is established as a rule of law, cadit questio, there is no
more to be said on the subject. But this is exactly what does not appear to
have yet been established on any sufficient or satisfactory basis. There need
be no difficulty in granting that men used stone and bone for implements,
before they were acquainted with the use of the metals. It may also be
admitted, that they used bronze before they learned the art of extracting iron
from its ores. But what is denied is, that they abandoned the use of these
primitive implements on the introduction of the metals; and it is contended
that they employed stone and bone simultaneously with bronze and iron,
down to a very late period. The real fact of the case seems to be, that the
people on the shores of the Baltic and the North Sea, were as remote from
the centres of civilization on the Mediterranean and to the eastward of it in
the earlier centuries of our era, and were as little influenced by them, as the
inhabitants of the islands in the Pacific and Arctic America were by Europe
in the last century. In the remote corners of the world, a stone and bone age
exists at the present day, only modified by the use of such metal implements

as they can obtain by barter or exchange: and this appears to have been the
state of northern Europe, till, with their conversion to Christianity, the new
civilization was domesticated among its inhabitants.

Footnotes
[2] Those three treatises were afterwards republished in one volume, small
folio, with all the plates, &c., in London, 1725. It is from this volume that
the above is abstracted.
[3] Cæsar, 'De Bell. Gal.' vi 13-20.
[4] 'Hist. Nat.' xxix. 3.
[5] 'Historia,' v. 31.
[6] 'Geographica,' iv. 273.
[7] Tacitus, 'Ann.' xiv. 29.
[8] See controversy between M. Bertrand and M. Henri Martin, in volume
of 'Congrès préhistorique' (Paris, 1867), 193, 207, &c. See also 'Revue
archéologique,' août, 1864, 144.
[9] For further information on the subject, the reader is referred to 'Tree and
Serpent Worship,' by the author, p. 26 et seq., where the subject is treated
of at length.
[10] 'Archæologia,' xxv. 188 et seq.
[11] Mr. Ellis, 'Gent. Mag.' 4th series, ii. 317.
[12] 'Proceedings of the Archæological Institute, Salisbury,' volume 113.
[13] Diodorus, ii. 47.
[14] Ibid. v. 21 et seq.
[15] The volume containing the account of the proceedings of the congress
has not yet been published; so those who were not present cannot feel sure
to what extent these modifications were carried or admitted. A short
account of the Congress was published by Gen. Lefroy, in the 'Journal of
the Archæological Institute,' Nov. 1869, p. 58 et seq.
[16] "According to an analysis made by Sir John Lubbock, of the contents
of 250 tumuli described by Sir Richard Colt Hoare, in the first volume of
his 'Ancient Wiltshire,' 18 only had any implements of stone, only 31 of
bone, 67 of bronze, and 11 of iron, while one-half of them contained
nothing to indicate their age; but whether those that contained nothing are
earlier or more modern is by no means clear."—Prehistoric Times, 2nd edit.
p. 131.
[17]" Veterum Gothorum et Suevorum antiquissimus mos est ut ubi
acriores in campis seu montibus instituissent et perfecissent pugnas, illic
erectos lapides quasi Egyptiacas pyramides collocare soliti sunt ... Habent

itaque hæc saxa in pluribus locis erecta longitudine x. vel xv. XX. aut xxx.
et amplius et latitudine iv. vel vi, pedum, mirabili situ sed mirabiliori
ordine et mirabilissimo charactere, ob plurimas rationes collocata literato,
rectoque et longo ordine videlicet pugilarum certamina, quadrato, turmas
bellantium, et spherico familiarum designantia sepulturas ac cuneato
equestrium et pedestrium acies ibidem vel prope fortunatum triumphasse,"
&c. &c.—De Gentibus Septentrionalibus, &c. p. 48.
Or again:—"Quos humi recondere placuit honorabiles statuas lapidum
excelsorum prout hodie cernuntur mira compagine in modum altissimæ et
latissimæ januæ, sursum transversumque viribus gigantum erecta."—Ibid.
49.
[18] 'Danicorum Monumentorum,' libri sex, 22 et seq.
[19] 'Memoirs of Hugh Falconer,' by Dr. Murchison, ii. p. 596.
[20] In 1797, Mr. John Frere found flint implements identical with those at
Abbeville, and published an account of them, with engravings, in vol. xiii.
of the 'Archæologia,' in 1800.
[21] In the first years of the last century a flint implement, together with
some bones of the Elephas primigenus, were found in an excavation in
Gray's Inn Lane. An engraving of it was published in 1715, and the
implement itself is now in the British Museum.
[22] For the last, and one of the best, accounts of the Hydahs, see
'Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society,' vol. xiii. No. V. p. 386 et
seq., by Mr. Brown.
[23] 'Germania,' 9.
[24] Strabo, iv. p. 198.
[25] Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' i. 30.
[26] "Inibi antiquo Romanorum fidelium opere factam," Bede, 'Hist.
Eccles.' i. 32.
[27] Thorn, 'Dec. Script. Col.' 1760:—"Erat autem non longe ab ipsa
civitate ad orientem quasi medio itinere inter ecclesiam Sti. Martini et
muros civitatis Phanum sive ydolum situm ubi rex Ethelbertus secundus
ritum gentis suæ solebat orare et cum nobilibus suis dæmoniis et non deo
sacrificare. Quod Phanum Augustinus ab iniquinamentis et sordibus
gentilium purgavit et simulacro quod in eo erat infracto, synagogam
mutavit in ecclesiam, et eam in nomine Sti. Pancratii martyris dedicavit."
Of this "Fane" we further learn from Godselinus ('Leland Collect.' vol. iv.
p. 8), that "extat adhuc condita ex longissimis et latissimis lateribus more
Britannico ut facile est videre in muris Verolamiensibus," and may now be
seen in this very church at Canterbury. "Basilica Sti. Pancratii nunc est ubi
olim Ethelbertus idolum suum coluit. Opus exiguum structum tamen de
more veterum Britannorum."
[28] Gervaise, 'Acc. Pont. Cant.' p. 1640.
[29] Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' ii. 15.

[30] "Succendere fanum cum omnibus septis suis," Bede, 'Hist. Eccles.' ii.
13.
[31] Summo decertare debent studio episcopi et eorum ministri ut—
Lapides quoque, quos in ruinosis locis et silvestribus, demonum
ludificationibus decepti venerantur ubi et vota vovent et deferunt, funditus
effodiantur, atque in tali loco projiciantur ubi nunquam a cultoribus suis
inveniri possint et omnibus annunciatur quantum scelus est idolatria.—
Labbeum, t. ix. 474.
[32] Richard, 'Analyse des Conciles,' i. 646.
[33] Si in alicujus episcopi territorio infideles, aut faculas accendunt, aut
arbores, fontes vel Saxa venerentur si hoc eruere neglexerit, sacrilegii reum
se esset cognoscat.—Labb., iv. 1013.
[34] Contestamur illam solicitudinem tam pastores quam presbyteros,
gerere ut quemcunque in hac fatuitate persistere viderint, vel ad nescio quas
petras aut arbores vel fontes, designata loca gentilium perpetrare, quæ ad
ecclesiæ rationem non pertinent eos ab ecclesia sancta auctoritate repellant.
—Baluz, i. 518.
[35] Cultores idolorum, veneratores Lapidum, accensores facularum
excolentes sacra fontium vel arborum admonemus, &c.—Baluz, vi. 1234.
[36] Illi diversis suadelis decepti cultores idolorum efficiuntur, veneratores
Lapidum, accensores facularum, excolentes sacra fontium vel arborum, &c.
—Baluz, vi. 1337.
[37] Si aliquis vota ad arbores, vel fontes, vel ad Lapides quosdam, quasi
ad altaria, faciat aut ibi candelam, seu quolibet munus deferet velut ibi
quoddam Numen sit quod bonum aut malum possit inferre.—Baluz, 1. 2, p.
210.
[38] Item de arboribus vel Petris vel fontibus ubi aliqui stulti luminaria vel
aliquas observationes faciunt omnino mandamus, ut iste pessimus usus et
deo execrabilis ubicunque invenitur tolletur et distruatur.—Baluz, t. i. p.
235.
[39] Barbara est autem adoratio, sive quas idola (puta gentium divos),
Solem, Lunam, Ignem, Profluentem, Fontes, Saxa, cujusque generis
arbores lignam coluerunt.—Keysler, 'Antiquitates Septemtrion.'
(Hanoveræ, 1720), p. 18. He quotes also a canon of Edgar (967) to the
same effect.
[40] 'Ant. Sept.' chap. ii.
[41] Laing in his wrath seems to have, by accident, very nearly guessed the
truth, when, refuting the authenticity of Ossian, he accuses Macpherson of
"having rendered the Highlanders a race of unheard-of infidels, who
believed in no Gods but the ghosts of their fathers."

CHAPTER II.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

Before attempting to examine or describe particular instances—in which,
however, the main interest of the work must eventually be centred—it
would add very much to the clearness of what follows if a classification
could be hit upon, which would correctly represent the sequence of forms.
In the present state of our knowledge such an arrangement is hardly
possible, still the following 5 groups, with their sub-divisions, are
sufficiently distinct to enable them to be treated separately, and are so
arranged as roughly to represent what we know of their sequence, with
immense overlappings, however, on every joint.
I. —Tumuli a. Or barrows of earth only.
With small stone chambers or
b.
cists.
With megalithic chambers or
c.
dolmens.
d. With external access to chambers.

— Free standing dolmens without
II. a.
Dolmens tumuli.
Dolmens upon the outside of
b.
tumuli.

III. —Circles a. Circles surrounding tumuli.
b. Circles surrounding dolmens.
c. Circles without tumuli or dolmens.

—
IV. a. Avenues attached to circles.
Avenues

Avenues with or without circles or
b.
dolmens.

—
V. a. Single or in groups.
Menhirs
b. With oghams, sculptures, or runes.

Tumuli.

The first three of the sub-divisions of the first class are so mixed together
that it is almost impossible in the present state of our knowledge to separate
them with precision either as to date or locality, while, as they hardly
belong to the main subject of this book, it will not be worth while to attempt
it here.
Without being too speculative, perhaps, it may be assumed that the earliest
mode in which mankind disposed of the bodies of their deceased relatives
or neighbours was by simple inhumation. They dug a hole in the earth, and,
having laid the body therein, simply replaced the earth upon it, and to mark
the spot, if the person so buried was of sufficient importance to merit such
care, they raised a mound over the grave. It is difficult, however, to believe
that mankind were long content with so simple a mode of sepulture. To
heap earth or stones on the body of the beloved departed so as to crush and
deface it, must have seemed rude and harsh, and some sort of coffin was
probably early devised for the protection of the corpse,—in well-wooded
countries, this would be of wood, which, if the mound is old, has perished
long ago—in stony countries, as probably of stone, forming the rude cists
so commonly found in early graves. That these should expand into
chambers seems also natural as civilization advanced, and as man's ideas of
a future state and the wants and necessities of such a future became more
developed.
The last stage would seem to be when access was retained to the sepulchral
chamber, in order that the descendants of the deceased might bring
offerings, or supply the wants of their relative during the intermediate state
which some nations assumed must elapse before the translation of the body
to another world.

It is probable that some such stages as these were passed through by all the
burying races of mankind, though at very various intervals and with very
different details, while fortunately for our present subject it seems that the
earliest races were those most addicted to this mode of honouring their
dead. All mankind, it is true, bury their dead either in the flesh or their ashes
after cremation. It is one of those peculiarities which, like speech,
distinguish mankind from the lower animals, and which are so strangely
overlooked by the advocates of the fashionable theory of our ape descent.
All mankind, however, do not reverence their dead to the same extent. The
peculiarity is most characteristic of the earlier underlying races, whom we
have generally been in the habit of designating as the Turanian races of
mankind. But if that term is objected to, the tomb-building races may be
specified—beginning from the East—as the Chinese; the Monguls in
Tartary, or Mogols, as they were called, in India; the Tartars in their own
country, or in Persia; the ancient Pelasgi in Greece; the Etrurians in Italy;
and the races, whoever they were, who preceded the Celts in Europe. But
the tomb-building people, par excellence, in the old world were the
Egyptians. Not only were the funereal rites the most important element in
the religious life of the people, but they began at an age earlier than the
history or tradition of any other nation carries us back to. The great Pyramid
of Gizeh was erected certainly as early as 3000 years before Christ; yet it
must be the lineal descendant of a rude-chambered tumulus or cairn, with
external access to the chambers, and it seems difficult to calculate how
many thousands of years it must have required before such rude sepulchres
as those our ancestors erected—many probably after the Christian era—
could have been elaborated into the most perfect and most gigantic
specimens of masonry which the world has yet seen. The phenomenon of
anything so perfect as the Pyramids starting up at once, absolutely without
any previous examples being known, is so unique[42] in the world's history,
that it is impossible to form any conjecture how long before this period the
Egyptians tried to protect their bodies from decay during the probationary
3000 years.[43]

1. Section of Tomb of Alyattes. From Spiegelthal. No scale.

Outside Egypt the oldest tumulus we know of, with an absolutely authentic
date, is that which Alyattes, the father of Crœsus, king of Lydia, erected for
his own resting-place before the year 561 B.C. It was described by
Herodotus,[44] and has of late years been thoroughly explored by Dr. Olfers.
[45]
Its dimensions are very considerable, and very nearly those given by the
father of history. It is 1180 feet in diameter, or about twice as much as
Silbury Hill, and 200 feet in height, as against 130 of that boasted
monument. The upper part, like many of our own mounds, is composed of
alternate layers of clay, loam, and a kind of rubble concrete. These support a
mass of brickwork, surmounted by a platform of masonry; on this still lies
one of Steles, described by Herodotus, and another of the smaller ones was
found close by.

2. Elevation of Tumulus at Tantalais. From Texier's 'Asie Mineure.'
100 ft. to 1 in.

3. Plan and Section of Chamber in Tumulus at Tantalais.

There is another group of tombs, called those of Tantalais, found near
Smyrna, which are considerably older than those of Sardis, though their
date cannot be fixed with such certainty as that last described. Still there
seems no good reason for doubting that the one here represented may be as
old as the eleventh or twelfth century B.C., nor does it seem reasonable to
doubt but these tumuli which still stand on the plain of Troy do cover the
remains of the heroes who perished in that remarkable siege.[46]
A still more interesting group, however, is that at Mycenæ, known as the
tombs or treasuries of the Atridæ, and described as such by Pausanias.[47]
The principal, or at least the best preserved of these, is a circular chamber,
48 feet 6 inches in diameter, covered by a horizontal vault, and having a
sepulchral chamber on one side. Dodwell discovered three others of the five

mentioned by Pausanias,[48] and he also explored the sepulchre of Minyas at
Orchomenos, which had a diameter of 65 feet.

4. Section and Plan of Tomb of Atreus at Mycenæ. Scale of plan 100
ft. to 1 in.

5. View of Cocumella, Vulci.

Another group of tombs, contemporary or nearly so with these, are found in
the older cemeteries of the Etrurians at Cœre, Vulci, and elsewhere. One of
the largest of these is one called Cocumella, at Vulci, which is 240 feet in
diameter, and must originally have been 115 to 120 feet in height. Near the
centre rise two steles, but so unsymmetrically that it is impossible to
understand why they were so placed and how they could have been grouped
into anything like a complete design. The sepulchre, too, is placed on one
side.
A still richer and more remarkable tomb is that known as the Regulini
Galeassi Tomb at Cœre, the chamber of which is represented in the annexed

woodcut.

6. View of principal Chamber in Regulini Galeassi Tomb.

It is filled, as may be seen, with vessels and furniture, principally of bronze
and of the most elaborate workmanship. The patterns on these vessels are so
archaic, and resemble so much some of the older ones found at Nineveh,
whose dates are at least approximately known, that we may safely refer the
tomb to an age not later than the tenth century B.C.[49]
We have thus around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean a group of
circular sepulchral tumuli of well defined age. Some, certainly, are as old as
the thirteenth century B.C., others extend downwards to, say 500 B.C. All
have a podium of stone. Some are wholly of that material, but in most of
them the cone is composed of earth, and all have sepulchral chambers built

with stones in horizontal layers, not so megalithic as those found in our
tumuli, but of a more polished and artistic form of construction.
The age, too, in which these monuments were erected was essentially the
age of bronze; not only are the ornaments and furniture found in the
Etruscan tombs generally of that metal, but the tombs at Mycenæ and
Orchomenos were wholly lined with it. The holes into which the bronze
nails were inserted still exist everywhere, and some of the nails themselves
are in the British Museum. It was also the age in which Solomon furnished
his temple with all those implements and ornaments in brass—properly
bronze—described in the Bible,[50] and the brazen house of Priam and fifty
such expressions show how common the metal was in that day. All this,
however, does not prove that iron also was not known then. In the Egyptian
paintings iron is generally represented as a blue metal, bronze as red, and
throughout they are carefully distinguished by these colours. Now, in the
tombs around the pyramids, and of an age contemporary with them, there
are numerous representations of blue swords as there are of red spear-heads,
and there seems no reason for doubting that iron was known to the Greeks
before the war of Troy, to the Israelites before they left Egypt (1320 B.C.),
or to the Etruscans when they first settled in Italy. Hesiod's assertion that
brass was known before iron may or may not be true.[51] In so far as his
evidence is concerned we learn from it that iron was certainly in use long
before his time (800 B.C.); so long indeed that he does not pretend to know
when or by whom it was invented, and the modes of manufacturing steel—
ἀδάμασ—seem also to have been perfectly known in his day.
In India, too, as we shall see when we come to speak of that country, the
extraction of iron from its ores was known from the earliest ages, and in the
third or fourth century of our era reached a degree of perfection which has
hardly since been surpassed. The celebrated iron pillar at the Kutub, near
Delhi, which is of that age, may probably still boast of being the largest
mass of forged iron that the world yet possesses, and attests a wonderful
amount of skill on the part of those who made it.
When from these comparatively civilized modes of sepulture we turn to the
forms employed in our own country, as described by Thurnam[52] or
Bateman,[53] we are startled to find how like they are, but, at the same time,
how infinitely more rude. They are either long barrows covering the

remains of a race of dolicocephalic savages laid in rudely-framed cists, with
implements of flint and bone and the coarsest possible pottery, but without
one vestige of metal of any sort, or circular tumuli of a brachycephalic race
shown to have been slightly more advanced by their remains being
occasionally incinerated, and ornaments of bronze and spear-heads of that
metal being also sometimes found buried in their tombs.
According to the usual mode of reasoning on these subjects, the long-
headed people are older than the broad-pated race, the one superseding the
other, and both must have been anterior to the people on the shores of the
Mediterranean, for these were familiar with the use of both metals, and
fabricated pottery which we cannot now equal for perfection of texture and
beauty of design.
The first defect that strikes one in this argument is that if it proves anything
it proves too much. We certainly have sepulchral barrows in this country of
the Roman period, the Bartlow hills, for instance—of which more hereafter
—and Saxon grave mounds everywhere; but according to this theory not
one sepulchre of any sort between the year 1200 B.C. and the Christian era.
All our sepulchres are ruder, and betoken a less advanced stage of
civilization than the earliest of those in Greece or Etruria, and therefore,
according to the usually accepted dogma, must be earlier.
It may be argued, however, that several are older than the Argive examples.
That the Jersey tomb (woodcut No. 11), notwithstanding the coin of
Claudius, is older, because more rude, than the Treasury at Mycenæ
(woodcut No. 4); but that the Bartlow hills and the Derbyshire dolmens and
tumuli above alluded to (page 11 et seq.), containing coins of Valentinian
and the Roman Emperors, are more modern. Such an hypothesis as this
involves the supposition that there is a great gap in the series, and that after
discontinuing the practice for a 1000 or 1500 years, our forefathers returned
to their old habits, but with ruder forms than they had used before, and after
continuing them for five or six centuries, finally abandoned them. This is
possible, of course, but there is absolutely no proof of it that I know. On the
contrary, so far as our knowledge of them at present extends, the whole of
the megalithic rude stone monuments group together as one style as
essentially as the Classical or Gothic or any other style of architecture. No
solution of continuity can be detected anywhere. All are—it may be—
prehistoric; or all, as I believe to be the case, belong to historic times. The

choice seems to be between these two categories; any hypothesis based on
the separation into a historic and a prehistoric group, distinct in
characteristics as in age, appears to be utterly untenable.
The argument derived from the absence of iron in all our sepulchres also
proves more than is desirable. The Danish antiquaries all admit that iron
was not known in that country before the Christian era. Our antiquaries,
from the testimony of Cæsar as to its use in war by the Britons, are forced
to admit an earlier date, but it is hardly, if ever, found in graves. It is, on the
other hand, perhaps correct to assume that its use was known in Egypt 3000
years before Christ; even if this is disputed, it certainly was known in the
18th dynasty, 15 centuries B.C., and generally in the Mediterranean shortly
afterwards. If, then, the knowledge of the most useful of metals took 3000
or even 1500 years to travel across the continent of Europe, it seems
impossible to base any argument on the influence these people exercised on
one another, or on the knowledge they may have had of each others' ways.
Or to take the argument in a form nearer home. When Cæsar warred against
the Veneti in the Morbihan, he found them in possession of vessels larger
and stronger than the Roman galleys, capable of being manœuvred by their
sails alone, without the use of oars. Not only were these vessels fastened by
iron nails, but they were moored by chain cables of iron. To manufacture
such chains, the Veneti must have had access to large mines of the ore, and
had long familiarity with its manufacture, and they used it not only for
purposes on shore like the Britons, but in vessels capable of trading
between Brest and Penzance—no gentle sea—and quite equal to voyages to
the Baltic or other northern ports, which they no doubt made; it is asserted
that, in 50 B.C., the Scandinavians were ignorant of the use of iron, though
their country possessed the richest mines and the best ores of Europe.
The truth of the matter appears to be that, a century or so before Christ,
England and Denmark were as little known to Greece and Italy, and as little
influenced by their arts or civilization, as Borneo or New Zealand were by
those of modern Europe at the beginning of the last century. Even now, with
all our colonization and civilizing power, we have had marvellously little
real influence on the native races, and were our power removed, all traces
would rapidly disappear, and the people revert at once to what they were,
and act as they were wont to do, before they knew us.

In like manner the North American Indians have been very little influenced
by the residence of some millions of proselytizing Europeans among them
for 200 years, and while this is so, it seems most groundless to argue
because a few Phœnician traders may have visited this island to purchase
tin, that, therefore, they introduced their manners and customs among its
inhabitants; or because a traveller like Pytheas may have visited the
Cimbrian Chersonese, or even penetrated nearly to the Arctic Circle, that
his visit had, or could have, any influence on the civilization of these
countries.[54] Civilization, as far as we can see, was only advanced in
northern and western Europe by the extermination of the ruder races. Had
this rude but effective method not been resorted to, we should probably
have a stone-using people among us at the present day.
We may not know much of what happened in northern Europe before the
time of the Romans, but we feel tolerably safe in asserting that none of the
civilized nations around the Mediterranean basin ever colonized and settled
sufficiently long in northern Europe to influence perceptibly the manners or
usages of the natives. What progress was made was effected by migrations
among themselves, the more civilized tribes taking the place of those less
advanced, and bringing their higher civilization with them.
If these views are at all correct, it seems hopeless by any empirical theories
founded on what we believe ought to have happened or on any analogies
drawn from what occurred in other countries to arrive at satisfactory
conclusions on the subject. It is at best reasoning from the unknown
towards what we fancy may be found out. A much more satisfactory process
would be to reason from the known backwards so far as we have a sure
footing, and we may feel certain that by degrees as our knowledge advances
we shall get further and further forward in the true track, and may
eventually be able to attach at least approximative dates to all our
monuments.
From this point of view, what concerns us most, in the first instance at least,
is to know how late, rather than how early, our ancestors buried in tumuli.
We have, for instance, certainly, the Bartlow Hills, just alluded to, which
are sepulchres of the Roman period, probably of Hadrian's time; and we
have in Denmark the tumuli in which King Gorm and his English wife,
Queen Thyra Danebode, were buried in A.D. 950. We probably also may be
able to fill in a few others between these two dates, and add some after even

the last. Thus, therefore, we have a firm basis from which to start, and
working backwards from it may clear up some difficulties that now appear
insuperable.

Dolmens.

The monuments alluded to in the last section were either the rude barrows
of our savage ancestors, with the ruder cists, or the chambered tumuli of a
people who, when we first became acquainted with them, had attained
nearly as high a degree of civilization as any Turanian people are capable of
attaining. The people who erected such buildings as the Tombs of Mycenæ
or Orchomenos must have reached a respectable degree of organization.
They possessed a perfect knowledge of the use of metals, and great wealth
in bronze at least, and had attained to considerable skill in construction. Yet
it is not difficult to trace back—in imagination, at least—the various steps
by which a small rude chamber in a circular mound, just capable of
protecting a single body, may by degrees have grown into a richly-
ornamented brazen chamber, 50 or 60 feet in diameter and of equal height.
Nor is it more difficult to foresee what this buried chamber would have
become, had not the Aryan occupation of Greece—figured under the myth
of the return of the Heracleidæ—put a stop to the tomb-building
propensities of the people. Before long it must have burst from its chrysalis
state, and assumed a form of external beauty. It must have emerged from its
earthen envelope, and taken a form which it did take in Africa[55] a
thousand years afterwards,—a richly-ornamented podium, surmounted by a
stepped cone and crowned by a stele. In Greece it went no further, and its
history and its use were alike strange to the people who afterwards occupied
the country.
In Italy its history was somewhat different. The more mixed people of
Rome eagerly adopted the funereal magnificence of the Etruscans, and their
tumuli under the Empire became magnified into such monuments as the
Tomb of Augustus in the Campus Martius, or the still more gorgeous
mausoleum of Hadrian, at the foot of the Vatican hill.
In like manner, it would not be difficult by the same process to trace the
steps by which the rude tepés of the Tartar steppes bloomed at last into the
wondrous domes of the Patan and Mogol Emperors of Delhi or the other

Mahomedan principalities in the East. To do all this would form a most
interesting chapter in the history of architecture, more interesting, perhaps,
than the one we are about to attempt; but it is not the same, though both
spring from the same origin. The people or peoples who eventually
elaborated these wonderful mausoleums or domed structures affected, at the
very earliest periods at which we become acquainted with them, what may
be called Microlithic architecture. In other words, they used as small stones
as they could use, consistently with their constructive necessities. These
stones were always squared or hewn, and they always sought to attain their
ends by construction, not by the exhibition of mere force. On the other
hand, the people whose works now occupy us always affected the
employment of the largest masses of stone they could find or move. With
the rarest possible exceptions, they preferred their being untouched by a
chisel, and as rarely were they ever used in any properly constructive sense.
In almost every instance it was sought to attain the wished-for end by mass
and the expression of power. No two styles of architecture can well be more
different, either in their forms or motives, than these two. All that they have
in common is that they both spring from the same origin in the chambered
tumulus, and both were devoted throughout to sepulchral purposes, but in
form and essence they diverged at a very early period. Long before we
become acquainted with either; and, having once separated, they only came
together again when both were on the point of expiring.
The Buddhist Dagobas are another offshoot from the same source, which it
would be quite as interesting to follow as the tombs of the kings or
emperors; for our present purposes, perhaps, more so, as they retained
throughout a religious character, and being consequently freed from the
ever-varying influence of individual caprice, they bear the impress of their
origin distinctly marked upon them to the present day.
In India, where Buddhism, as we now know it, first arose, the prevalent
custom—at least among the civilized races—was cremation. We do not
know when they buried their dead; but in the earliest times of Buddhism
they adopted at once what was certainly a sepulchral tumulus, and
converted it into a relic shrine: just as in the early ages of Christianity the
stone sarcophagus became the altar in the basilica, and was made to contain
the relics of the saint or saints to whom the church was dedicated. The
earliest monuments of this class which we now know are those erected by

the King Asoka, about the year 250 B.C.; but there does not seem much
reason for doubting that when the body of Buddha was burnt, and his relics
distributed among eight different places,[56] Dagobas or Stupas may not
then have been erected for their reception. None of these have, however,
been identified; and of the 84,000 traditionally said to have been erected by
Asoka, that at Sanchi[57] is the only one we can feel quite sure belongs to
his age; but, from that date to the present day, in India as well as in Ceylon,
Burmah, Siam, and elsewhere, examples exist without number.
All these are microlithic, evidently the work of a civilized and refined
people, though probably copies of the rude forms of more primitive races.
Many of them have stone enclosures; but, like that at Sanchi, erected
between 250 B.C. and 1 A.D., so evidently derived from carpentry that we
feel it was copied directly, like all the Buddhist architecture of that age,
from wooden originals. Whether it was from the fashion of erecting stone
circles round tumuli, or from what other cause, it is impossible now to say;
but as time went on the form of the rail became more and more essentially
lithic, and throughout the middle ages the Buddhist tope, with its circle or
circles of stones, bore much more analogy to the megalithic monuments of
our own country than did the tombs just alluded to; and we are often
startled by similarities which, however, seem to have no other cause than
their having a common parent, being, in fact, derived from one primæval
original. There is nothing in all this, at all events, that would lead us to the
conclusion that the polished stone monuments of India were either older or
more modern than the rude stone structures of the West. Each, in fact, must
be judged by its own standard, and by that alone.
For the proper understanding of what is to follow the distinctions just
pointed out should always be borne in mind, as none are more important.
Half indeed of the confusion that exists on the subject arises from their
having been hitherto neglected. There is no doubt that occasional
similarities can be detected between these various styles, but they amount to
nothing more than should be expected from family likenesses consequent
upon their having a common origin and analogous purposes. But, except to
this extent, these styles seem absolutely distinct throughout their whole
course, though running parallel to one another during the whole period in
which they are practised. If this is so, any hypothesis based on the idea that
the microlithic architecture either preceded or succeeded to the megalithic

at once falls to the ground. Nor, if these distinctions are maintained, will it
any longer be possible to determine any dates in succession in megalithic
art from analogies drawn from what may have happened at any period or
place among the builders of microlithic structures. The fact which we have
got to deal with seems to be that the megalithic rude stone art of our
forefathers is a thing by itself—a peculiar form of art arising either from its
being adopted by a peculiar race or peculiar group of races among mankind,
or from its having been practised by people at a certain stage of civilization,
or under peculiar circumstances, and this it is our business to try to find out
and define. But to do this, the first thing that seems requisite is to put aside
all previously conceived notions on the subject, and to treat it as one
entirely new, and as depending for its elucidation wholly on what can be
gathered from its own form and its own utterances, however indistinct they
may at first appear to be.
Bearing this in mind, we have no difficulty in beginning our history of
megalithic remains with the rude stone cists, generally called kistvaens,
which are found in sepulchral tumuli. Sometimes these consist of only four,
but generally of six or more stones set edgeways, and covered by a cap-
stone, so as to protect the body from being crushed. By degrees this
kistvaen became magnified into a chamber, the side stones increasing from
1 or 2 feet in height to 4 or 5 feet, and the cap-stone becoming a really
megalithic feature 6 or 10 feet long, by 4 or 5 feet wide, and also of
considerable thickness. Many of these contained more than one funeral
deposit, and they consequently could not have been covered up by the
tumuli till the last deposit was placed in them. This seems to have been felt
as an inconvenience, as it led to the third step, namely, of a passage
communicating with the outer air, and formed like the chambers of upright
stones, and roofed by flat ones extending across from side to side. The most
perfect example of this class is perhaps that in the tumulus of Gavr Innis in
the Morbihan. Here is a gallery 42 feet long and from 4 to 5 feet wide,
leading to a chamber 8 feet square, the whole being covered with sculptures
of the most elaborate character.
A fourth stage is well illustrated by the chambers of New Grange, in
Ireland, where a similar passage leads to a compound or cruciform chamber
rudely roofed by converging stones. Another beautiful example of the same
class is that of Maeshow in the Orkneys, which, owing to the peculiarity of

the stone with which it is built, comes more nearly to the character of
microlithic art than any other example. It is probably among the last if not
the very latest of the class erected in these isles, and by a curious
concatenation of circumstances brings the megalithic form of art very
nearly up to the stage where we left its microlithic sister at Mycenæ some
two thousand years before its time.
All this will be made clearer in the sequel, but meanwhile there are one or
two points which must be cleared up before we can go further. Many
antiquaries insist that all the dolmens[58] or cromlechs,[59] which we now
see standing free, were once covered up and buried in tumuli.[60] That all
the earlier ones were so, is more than probable, and it may since have been
originally intended also to cover up many of those which now stand free;
but it seems impossible to believe that the bulk of those we now see were
ever hidden by any earthen covering.
Probably at least one hundred uncovered dolmens in these islands could be
enumerated, which have not now a trace of any such envelope. Some are
situated on uncultivated heaths, some on headlands, and most of them in
waste places. Yet it is contended that improving farmers at some remote age
not only levelled the mounds, but actually carted the whole away and
spread it so evenly over the surface that it is impossible now to detect its
previous existence. If this had taken place in this century when land has
become so valuable and labour so skilled we might not wonder, but no trace
of any such operation occurs in any living memory. Take for instance Kits
Cotty House, it is exactly now where it was when Stukeley drew it in 1715,
[61]
and there was no tradition then of any mound ever having covered it.
Yet it is contended that at some earlier age when the site was probably only
a sheep-walk, some one carried away the mound for some unknown
purpose, and spread it out so evenly that we cannot now find a trace of it.
Or take another instance, that at Clatford Bottom,[62] also drawn by
Stukeley. It stands as a chalky flat to which cultivation is only now
extending, and which certainly was a sheep-walk in Stukeley's time, and
why, therefore, any one should have taken the trouble or been at the
expense of denuding it is very difficult to understand, and so it is with nine-
tenths of the rest of them. In the earlier days when a feeling for the
seclusion of the tomb was strong, burying them in the recesses of a tumulus
may have been the universal practice, but when men learned to move such

masses as they afterwards did, and to poise them so delicately in the air,
they may well have preferred the exhibition of their art to concealing it in a
heap which had no beauty of form and exhibited no skill. Can any one for
instance conceive that such a dolmen as that at Castle Wellan in Ireland ever
formed a chamber in barrow, or that any Irish farmer would ever have made
such a level sweep of its envelope if it ever had one? So in fact it is with
almost all we know. When a dolmen was intended to be buried in a tumulus
the stones supporting the roof were placed as closely to one another as
possible, so as to form walls and prevent the earth penetrating between
them and filling the chambers, which was easily accomplished by filling in
the interstices with small stones as was very generally done. These tripod
dolmens, however, like that at Castle Wellan, just quoted, never had, or
could have had walls. The cap-stone is there poised on three points, and is a
studied exhibition of a tour de force. No traces of walls exist, and if earth
had been heaped upon it the intervals would have been the first part filled,
and the roof an absurdity, as no chamber could have existed. These tripod
dolmens are very numerous, and well worth distinguishing, as it is probable
that they will turn out to be more modern than the walled variety of the
same class. But with our present limited knowledge it is hardly safe to insist
on this, however probable it seems at first sight.

7. Dolmen in Castle Wellan, Ireland. From a drawing by Sir Henry
James.

8. Dolmen de Bousquet. From a drawing by E. Cartailhac.

The question, however, fortunately, hardly requires to be argued, inasmuch
as in Ireland, in Denmark,[63] and more especially in France, we have
numerous examples of dolmens on the top of tumuli, where it is impossible
they should ever have been covered with earth. One example for the present
will explain what is meant. In the Dolmen de Bousquet in the Aveyron[64]
the chamber is placed on the top of a tumulus, which from the three circles
of stone that surround it, and other indications, never could have been
higher or larger than it now is.
So far as I know, none of these dolmen-crowned tumuli have been dug into,
which is to be regretted, as it would be curious to know whether the
external dolmen is the real or only a simulated tomb. My own impression
would be in favour of the latter hypothesis, inasmuch as a true and a false
tomb are characteristic of all similar monuments. In the pyramids of Egypt
they coexisted. In every Buddhist tope, without exception, there is a Tee,
which is in every case we know only a simulated relic-casket. Originally it
may have been the place where the relic was deposited, and as we know of
instances where relics were exposed to the crowd on certain festivals, it is
difficult to understand where they were kept, except in some external case
like this. In every instance, however, in which a relic has been found it has
been in the centre of the Tope and never in the Tee. A still more apposite

illustration, however, is found in the tombs around Agra and Delhi. In all
those of any pretension the body is buried in the earth in a vault below the
floor of the tomb and a gravestone laid over it, but on the floor of the
chamber, under the dome, there is always a simulated sarcophagus, which is
the only one seen by visitors. This is carried even further in the tomb of the
Great Akbar (1556, 1605). Over the vault is raised a pyramid surrounded,
not like this tumulus by three rows of stones, but by three rows of pavilions,
and on the top, exposed to the air, is a simulated tomb placed exactly as this
dolmen is. No two buildings could well seem more different at first sight,
but their common parentage and purpose can hardly be mistaken, and it
must be curious to know whether the likeness extends to the double tomb
also.

9. Tee cut in the Rock on Dagoba at Ajunta.

This, like many other questions, must be left to the spade to determine, but,
unless attention is turned to the analogy above alluded to, the purpose of the
double tomb may be misunderstood, even when found, and frequently, I
suspect, has already been mistaken for a secondary interment.

Circles.

Circles form another group of the monuments we are about to treat of, in
this country more important than the dolmens to which the last section was
devoted. In France, however, they are hardly known, though in Algeria they
are very frequent. In Denmark and Sweden they are both numerous and
important, but it is in the British Islands that circles attained their greatest
development, and assumed the importance they maintain in all the works of
our antiquaries which treat of megalithic art.
The cognate examples in the microlithic styles afford us very little
assistance in determining either the origin or use of this class of monument.
It might, nay has been suggested, that the podium which surmounts such a
tumulus, for instance, that of the Cocumella (woodcut No. 5) would, if the
mound were removed, suggest, or be suggested, by the stone circles of our
forefathers. This podium, however, seems always to have been a purely
constructive expedient, without any mystic or religious significance, for
unless the base of an earthen mound is confined by a revêtement of this sort
it is apt to spread, and then the whole monument loses that definition which
is requisite to dignity.
The Rails of the Indian Buddhists at first sight seem to offer a more
plausible suggestion of origin, but it is one on which it would be dangerous
in the present state of our knowledge to rely too much; if for no other
reason, for the one just given, that up to the time of Asoka, B.C. 250, they,
like all the architecture of India, were in wood and wood only. Stone as a
building material, either rude or hewn, was unknown in that country till
apparently it was suggested to them by the Bactrian Greeks. Unless,
therefore, we are prepared to admit that all our stone circles are subsequent,
by a considerable interval of time, to the epoch of Asoka, they were not
derived from India. My own impression is that all may ultimately prove to
have been erected subsequently to the Christian Era, but till that is
established we must look elsewhere than to India for our original form, and
even then we have only got a possible analogy; and nothing approaching to
a proof that any connexion existed between them.
The process in this country, so far as I can make out, was different, though
tending to a similar result. The stone circles in Europe appear to have been
introduced in supercession to the circular earthen mounds which surround
the early tumuli of our Downs. These earthen enclosures still continued to
be used, surrounding stone monuments of the latest ages, but, if I mistake

not, they first gave rise to the form itself. Such a circle, for instance, as that
called the Nine Ladies on Stanton Moor, I take to be a transitional example.
The circular mound, which is 38 feet in diameter, enclosed a sepulchral
tumulus, as was, no doubt, the case from time immemorial, but, in this
instance, was further adorned and dignified by the circle of stones erected
upon it. A century or so afterwards, when stone had become more
recognized as a building material, the circular mound may have been
disused, and then the stone circle would alone remain.

10. Nine Ladies, Stanton Moor. From a drawing by L. Jewitt.

These stone circles are found enclosing tumuli, as in the Dolmen de
Bousquet (woodcut No. 8), in three rows, and sometimes five or seven rows
are found. They frequently also enclose dolmens, either standing on the
level plain or on tumuli, but often, especially in this country, they are found
enclosing nothing that can be seen above ground. This has led to the
assumption that they are "Things," comitia—or places of assembly—or, still
more commonly, that they are temples, though, now that the Druidical
theory is nearly abandoned, no one has been able to suggest to what religion
they are, or were, dedicated. The spade, however, is gradually dispelling all
these theories. Out of say 200 stone circles which are found in these islands,
at least one-half, on being dug out, have yielded sepulchral deposits. One-
quarter are still untouched by the excavator, and the remainder which have
not yielded up their secret are mostly the larger circles. Their evidence,
however, is at best only negative, for, till we know exactly where to dig, it
would require that the whole area should be trenched over before we can
feel sure we had not missed the sepulchral deposit. When, as at Avebury, the
circle encloses an area of 28 acres,[65] and the greater part of it is occupied
by a village, no blind digging is likely to lead to any result, or can be
accepted as evidence.

Still the argument would be neither illegitimate nor illogical if, in the
present state of the evidence, it were contended that all stone circles, up say
to 100 feet diameter, were sepulchral, as nine-tenths of them have been
proved to be, but that the larger circles were cenotaphic, or, if another
expression is preferred, temples dedicated to the honour or worship of the
dead, but in which no bodies were buried. But to admit—and it cannot now
be denied—that all circles up to 100 feet are sepulchral, yet to assert that
above that dimension they became temples dedicated to the sun, or serpents,
or demons, or Druids, without any other change of plan or design but
increased dimensions, appears a wholly untenable proposition.
All this will, it is hoped, be made more clear in the sequel when we come to
examine particular examples, regarding which it is more easy to reason than
merely from general principles; but in the meanwhile there is one other
peculiarity which should be pointed out before proceeding further. It is that
where great groups of circles are found, they—so far as is at present known
—never mark cemeteries where successive generations of kings or chiefs
were buried, but battle-fields. The circles, or dolmens, or cairns grouped in
these localities seem always to have been erected by their comrades, to the
memory of those who on these spots "fiercely fighting, fell," and are
monuments as well of the prowess of the survivors as of those who were
less fortunate. The proof of this also must depend on individual examples to
be brought forward in the following pages. It does not, however, seem to
present much difficulty, the principal point in the argument being that they
are generally found in solitary places far removed from the centres of
population, or are sometimes single and that they show no progression. Had
they been cemeteries or sepulchres of kings, several would undoubtedly
have been found grouped together; progression and individuality would
have been observed; and lastly, they are just such monuments as an army
could erect in a week or a month, but which the inhabitants of the spot
could not erect in years, and could not use for any conceivable purpose
when erected.

Avenues.

It is somewhat unfortunate that no recognized name has yet been hit upon
for this class of monument. Alignment has been suggested, but the term is

hardly applicable to two rows of stones, for instance, leading to a circle.
Parallellitha is, at best, a barbarous compound, and as such better avoided.
Though therefore, the word avenues can hardly be called appropriate to
rows of stones leading from nowhere to no place, and between which there
is no evidence that anybody ever was intended to walk, still it seems the
least objectionable expression that has yet been hit upon, and as such it will
be used throughout.

11. Chambered Tumulus, Jersey.

These avenues are of two classes. First, those leading to circles. About the
origin of this class there can be very little hesitation. They represent
externally the passages in tumuli which lead to the central chamber; take,
for instance, this example from a now destroyed[66] tumulus near St. Helier,
in Jersey.[67] The circular chamber was 24 feet in diameter, and contained
originally seven little cells, each roofed by a single slab of stone. This
circular area was approached by an avenue, 17 feet long at the time of its
destruction, which was roofed throughout the whole length with slabs of
stone. The central chamber never, however, appears to have been vaulted,
so that access to the tombs through this passage could never have been
possible after the mound was finished. The chamber was found filled with

earth, and the whole monument covered up by a tumulus of considerable
extent. It need hardly be observed that it is more unlikely that any people
should cover up such a monument at any subsequent age, than that they
should dig out such monuments and leave them standing without their
envelopes, as is so generally assumed. The tumulus was removed, because
the officer in command of the neighbouring fort wanted a level parade-
ground. As it stood uncovered it was a miniature Avebury, and the position
of its cells may give us a hint where the bodies may be found there—near
the outer circle of stones, where they have not been looked for. But of this
hereafter. It is meanwhile evident that while these monuments were in
course of erection they stood as shown in the last woodcut, and it is also
tolerably clear that when people became familiar with their aspect in this
state, they may have learned to regret hiding under a heap of earth what we
certainly would have thought more interesting as it was. In like manner, as
John Stuart well remarks, "If the cairns at New Grange were removed, the
pillars would form another Callernish."[68] It is true, however, that if the
Jersey monument is the type of Avebury, the latter must be comparatively
modern, as a coin of Claudius, found in one of the cells at St. Helier,[69]
probably fixes its date. Again, as we expect to be able to prove that New
Grange is subsequent to the Christian era, Callernish must be more modern
also. Be this as it may, I think there can be very little doubt that these
exposed circles, with their avenues, took their rise, as in the case of
dolmens, from people becoming familiar with their forms before they were
covered up, and eventually reconciling themselves to dispense with the
envelope. In the case of the circles, the new plan was capable of infinitely
greater extension than in that of the dolmens; but the process seems to have
been the same in both instances.
Before leaving the Jersey circle, if any one will compare it with the
chamber at Mycenæ (woodcut No. 4), they can hardly fail to perceive the
close similarity and probable identity of destination that exists between
them; but as the island example is very much ruder, according to the usual
reasoning it must be the more ancient of the two. This, however, is the
capital fallacy which has pervaded all reasoning on the subject hitherto. It is
true that nothing can be more interesting or more instructive than to trace
the progress of the Classical, the Mediæval, and the Indian styles through
their ever-changing phases, or to watch the influence which one style had

on the other. That progress was, however, always confined within the limits
of a nation, or community of nations, and the influence limited to such
nations as from similarity of race or constant intercourse were in position to
influence reciprocally not only the architecture, but their arts and feelings.
In order to establish this in the present instance, we must prove that there
was such community of race and frequency of intercourse between the
Channel Islands and Greece 1000 years B.C., that the latter would copy the
other, or rather that 2000 years B.C. the Channel Islanders gave the Greeks
those hints which they were enabled to elaborate, and of which the
chambers at Mycenæ about the time of the Trojan war were the result. Had
this been the case the influence could hardly have ceased as civilization and
intercourse with other countries increased, and we ought to find Tholoi in
great perfection in these islands, and probably temples and arts in all the
perfection to which they were afterwards expanded in Greece. In fact, we
get into such a labyrinth of conjecture, that no escape seems possible. It
would be almost as reasonable to argue that the images on Easter Island,
which we know continued to be carved in our day, were prehistoric, because
they are so much ruder than the works of Phidias. The truth is, that where
we cannot trace community of race or religion, accompanied by constant
and familiar intercourse, we must take each people as doing what their state
of civilization enabled them to accomplish, wholly irrespective of what was
doing or had been done by any other people in any other part of the world.
All that it is necessary to assume in this case is, that a dead-revering
ancestral-worshipping people wished to do honour to the departed, as they
knew or heard was done by other races of their family of mankind
elsewhere, and that they did it in the best manner the state of the arts among
them admitted of—rudely, if they were in a low state of civilization, and
more perfectly if they had advanced beyond that stage in which rude forms
could be tolerated.
It is much more difficult to trace the origin of the avenues which are not
attached to circles, and do not lead to any important monuments. Nothing
that is buried at all resembles them in form, and no erections in the
corresponding microlithic style, either in the Mediterranean countries or in
India, afford any hints which would enable us to suggest their purpose. We
are thus left to guess at their uses solely from the evidence which can be
gathered from their own form and position, and from such traditions as may

exist; and these, it seems, have not hitherto been deemed sufficient to
establish even a plausible hypothesis capable of explaining their intention.
Take, for instance, such an example as the parallel lines of stones near
Merivale Bridge on Dartmoor. They certainly do not form a temple in any
sense in which that word is understood by any other people or in any age
with which we are acquainted. They are not procession paths, inasmuch as
both ends are blocked up; and, though it is true the sides are all doors, we
cannot conceive any procession moving along their narrow gangway, hardly
three feet in width. The stones that compose the sides are only two and
three feet high; so that, even if placed side by side, they would not form a
barrier, and, being three to six feet apart, they are useless except to form an
"alignment." There is no place for an image, no sanctuary or cell; nothing,
in fact, that can be connected with any religious ceremonial.
If the inhabitants of the place had really wanted a temple, in any sense in
which we understand the term, there is a magnificent tor, a few hundred
yards off to the northward, where Nature has disposed some magnificent
granite blocks so as to form niches such as human hands could with
difficulty imitate. All that was wanted was to move the smaller blocks, lying
loose in front of it, a few yards to the right or left, and dispose them in a
semicircle or rectangular form, and they would have one of the most
splendid temples in England in which to worship the images which Cæsar
tells us they possessed.[70] They, however, did nothing of the kind. They
went to a bare piece of moorland, where there were no stones, and brought
those we find there, and arranged them as shown on the plan; and for what
purpose?

12. AVENUES, CIRCLES AND CROMLECH, NEAR MERIVALE
BRIDGE, DARTMOOR.
From a drawing by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

The only answer to the question that occurs to me is that these stones are
intended to represent an army, or two armies, drawn up in battle array; most
probably the former, as we can hardly understand the victorious army
representing the defeated as so nearly equal to themselves. But if we
consider them as the first and second line, drawn up to defend the village in
their rear—which is an extensive settlement—the whole seems clear and
intelligible. The circle in front would then represent the grave of a chief; the
long stone, 40 yards in front, the grave of another of the "menu" people; and
the circles and cromlech in front of the first line the burying-places of those
who fell there.
There is another series of avenues at Cas Tor, on the western edge of
Dartmoor,[71] some 600 yards in length, which is quite as like a battle array
as this, but more complex and varied in plan. It bends round the brow of the
hill, so that neither of the ends can be seen from the other, or, indeed, from
the centre; and it is as unlike a temple or anything premeditated

architecturally as this one at Merivale Bridge. There are several others on
Dartmoor, all of the same character, and not one from which it seems
possible to extract a religious idea.
When speaking of the great groups of stones in England and France, we
shall frequently have to return to this idea, though then basing it on
traditional and other grounds; but, meanwhile, what is there to be said
against it? It is perhaps not too much to say that in all ages and in all
countries soldiers have been more numerous than priests, and men have
been prouder of their prowess in war than of their proficiency in faith. They
have spent more money for warlike purposes than ever they devoted to the
service of religion, and their pæans in honour of their heroes have been
louder than their hymns in praise of their gods. Yet how was a rude,
illiterate people, who could neither read nor write, to hand down to
posterity a record of its victories? A mound, such as was erected at
Marathon or at Waterloo, is at best a dumb witness. It may be a sepulchre,
as Silbury Hill was supposed to be; it may be the foundation of a caer, or
fort, as many of those in England certainly were; it may be anything, in
short. But a savage might very well argue: "When any one sees how and
where our men were drawn up when we slaughtered our enemies, can he be
so stupid as not to perceive that here we stood and fought and conquered,
and there our enemies were slain or ran?" We, unfortunately, have lost the
clue that would tell us who "we" and "they" were in the instance of the
Dartmoor stones at least; but uncultivated men do not take so mean a view
of their own importance as to fancy this possible.
This theory has at least the merit of accounting for all the facts at present
known, and of being at variance with none, which is more than can be said
for any other that has hitherto been proposed. Till, therefore, something
better is brought forward, it must be allowed to stand at least as a basis to
reason upon, in order to explain the monuments we have to describe in the
following pages.

Menhirs.

The Menhirs, or tall stones,[72] form the last of the classes into which we
have thought it necessary for the present, at least, to divide the remains of
which we are now treating. They occur in all the megalithic districts, but

from their very singleness and simplicity, it is almost more difficult to
ascertain their purpose than it is that of any more complicated monuments;
nor do the analogies from the cognate microlithic styles help us much. The
stones mentioned in the early books of the Old Testament, though often
pressed into the service, were all too small to bear any resemblance to those
we are now concerned with. Neither Greece nor Etruria help us in the
matter, and though it is true that the Buddhists in India, from Asoka's time
downward, were in the habit of setting up Lâts or Stambas, it seems with
them to have been always, or nearly so, for the purpose of bearing
inscriptions, which is certainly not a distinguishing characteristic of our
Menhirs. It is true that we have in Scotland two stones. The Cat stone near
Edinburgh, bearing the name of Vetta, the grandson of Hengist (who
probably was slain in battle there),[73] and the Newton stone in Garioch,
which is still unread. We have also one in France near Brest,[74] equally
illegible, and no doubt others exist. Perhaps these may be considered as
early lispings of an infant, which certainly are the preludes of perfect
speech, and only to be found where that power of words must afterwards
exist. Here the analogy is, to say the least of it, remote.
There also are, especially in Ireland, but also in Wales and in Scotland, a
great number of stones with Ogham inscriptions. So far as these have been
made out they seem to be mere head-stones of graves, intimating that A, the
son of B, lies buried there. A custom, it need hardly be observed, that
continues to the present day in every cemetery in the land. The fact seems
to be that so soon as the use of stone was suggested and men were
sufficiently advanced to be able to engrave Oghams, it was at once
perceived that a stone pillar with an inscription upon it was not only a more
durable but a more intelligent and intelligible record of a man's life or death
than a simple mound of "undistinguishable earth." It in consequence rapidly
superseded the barrow, and has continued in use to the present time, and
been adopted by both Christians and Mahomedans, by all, in fact, who bury,
as contradistinguished from those who burn their dead.
In Scotland the story of the stones is slightly different. A great many of
these are no doubt cat stones or battle memorials, but as they have not even
Ogham inscriptions, they tell no tale. It is doubtful, indeed, if an Ogham
inscription could describe a battle, or anything more complex than a
genealogy, and still more so if it did whether we could read it. But without

it how can we say what they are? If, for instance, the battle of Largs had not
been fought in historic times, how could we tell that the tall stone that now
marks the spot was erected in the thirteenth century? Or how, indeed, can
we feel sure of the history of any one? By degrees, however, in Scotland
they faded into those wonderful sculptured stones which form so marked
and so peculiar a feature of Pictland. Whether we shall ever get a key to the
hieroglyphics with which these stones are covered is by no means clear, but
even if we do they probably will not tell us much. They certainly contain
neither names nor dates, but even now their succession can be made out
with tolerable distinctness. The probability seems to be that the figures on
them are tribal marks or symbols of rank, and, as such, would convey very
little information if capable of being read.
It is easy to trace the perfectly plain obelisk being developed into such as
the Newton stones, which have only one or two Pagan symbols, but are
certainly subsequent to the Christian era. From these we advance to those
on the back of which the Christian cross timidly appears, and which
certainly date after St. Columba's time (A.D. 563), and from that again to
the erection of Sweno's stone, near Forres, in the first years of the eleventh
century, where the cross occupies the whole of the rear, and an elaborate
bas-relief supersedes the rude symbols in the front.
In Ireland the rude stones do not appear to have gone through the "symbol
stage," but early to have ripened into the sculptured cross, for it was not
from a timidly engraved cross as in Scotland that they took their origin. The
Irish crosses at once boldly adopted the cross-arms, surrounded by a glory,
with the other characteristics of that beautiful and original class of Christian
monuments.
In France the menhir was early adopted by the Christians; so early that it
has generally been assumed that those examples which we see surmounted
by a cross were pagan monuments, on which at some subsequent time
Christians have added a cross. This, however, certainly does not appear to
have been always the case. In such a cross, for instance, as that at Lochcrist,
the menhir and the cross are one, and made for one another, and similar
examples occur at Cape St. Matthieu, at Daoulas, and in other places in
Brittany.[75] In France the menhir, after being adopted by the Christians,
does not seem to have passed through the sculptured stage[76] common to
crosses in Scotland and Ireland, but to have bloomed at once into the

Calvary so frequent in Brittany. Here the cross stands out as a tall tree, and
the figures are grouped round its base, but how early this form was adopted
we have no means of knowing.
In Denmark the modern history of the Bauta stones, as the grave or battle
stones are there called, is somewhat different. They early received a Runic
as the Irish received an Ogham inscription, but Denmark was converted at
so late an age to Christianity (the eleventh century) that her menhirs never
passed through the early Christian stage, but from Pagan monuments sank
at once into modern gravestones, with prosaic records of the birth and death
of the dead man whose memory they were erected to preserve.

13. Lochcrist Menhir.

In all these instances we can trace back the history of the menhirs from
historic Christian times to non-historic regions when these rude stone
pillars, with or without still ruder inscriptions, were gradually superseding
the earthen tumuli as a record of the dead. It is as yet uncertain whether we
can follow back their history with anything like certainty beyond the
Christian era. This, however, is just the task to which antiquaries should
address themselves. Instead of reasoning as hitherto from the unknown to
the known, it would be infinitely more philosophical to reason from the
known backwards. By proceeding in this manner every step we make is a
positive gain, and eventually may lead us to write with certainty about
things that now seem enveloped in mist and obscurity.

Footnotes
[42] It is so curious as almost to justify Piazzi Smyth's wonderful theories
on the subject. But there is no reason whatever to suppose that the progress
of art in Egypt differed essentially from that elsewhere. The previous
examples are lost, and that seems all.
[43] Herodotus, ii. 123; and Sir Gardner Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,'
second series, i. 211; ii. 440 et passim.
[44] Herod, i. 93.
[45] 'Lydische Königsgräber,' Berlin,
1859.
[46] I am, of course, aware that the now fashionable craze is to consider
Troy a myth. So far, however, as I am capable of understanding it, it
appears to me that the ancient solar myth of Messrs. Max Müller and Cox
is very like mere modern moonshine.
[47] Paus. ii. ch. 16; 'Dodwell's Pelasgic Remains in Greece and Italy,' pl.
11.
[48] Dodwell, 1. c. p. 13.
[49] More particulars and illustrations of these tombs will be found in the
first volume of my 'History of Architecture,' and they need not, therefore,
be repeated here.
[50] 1 Kings, vii. 13 et seq.; 2 Chron. iv. 1 et seq.
[51] Hesiod. 'Works and Days,' 1. 150.
[52] 'Crania Britannica,' passim. 'Archæologia,' xxxviii.
[53] 'Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire,' 1848. 'Ten Years' Diggings,'
1861.

[54] See controversy between Sir George Cornewall Lewis in his
'Astronomy of the Ancients,' p. 467 et seq. and Sir John Lubbock, in
'Prehistoric Times,' p. 59 et seq. with regard to Pytheas and his discoveries.
[55] In the Kubber Roumeia, in the Sahil, or the Madracen, near Blidah.
[56] See Turnour in 'J. A. S. B.' vii. p. 1013.
[57] Cunningham, 'Bilsah Topes,' passim; and 'Tree and Serpent Worship,'
by the author, p. 87-148.
[58] Dolmen is derived from the Celtic word Daul, a table—not Dol, a hole
—and Men or Maen, a stone.
[59] Crom, in Celtic, is crooked or curved, and therefore wholly
inapplicable to the monuments in question; and lech, stone.
[60] The most zealous advocate of this view is the Rev. W. C. Lukis, who,
with his father, has done such good service in the Channel Islands. His
views are embodied in a few very distinct words in the Norwich volume of
the 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 218, but had previously been put forward in a
paper read to the Wiltshire Archæological Society in 1861, and afterwards
in the 'Kilkenny Journal,' v. N. S. p. 492 et seq.
[61] 'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxii. and xxxiii.
[62] 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pl. xxxii. xxxiii. and xxxiv.
[63] Madsen, 'Antiquités Préhistoriques,' pl. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
[64] Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 355, pl. vi.
[65] Sir H. Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii, 71.
[66] The stones of which it was composed were transported by General
Conway to Park Place, near Henley-on-Thames, and re-erected there.
[67] 'Archæologia,' viii. p. 384.
[68] 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. Introd. p. 25.
[69] 'Archæologia,' viii. p. 385.
[70] Deum maxime Mercurium colunt. Hujus sunt plurima simulacra. 'Bell.
Gal.' vi. 16.
[71] Sir Gardner Wilkinson in 'Journal, Archæological Association,' xvi. p.
112, pl. 6 for Cas Tor, and pl. 7 for Merivale Bridge.
[72] From Maen, as before, stone, and hir—high. Minar is supposed to be
the same word. It cannot, at least, be traced to any root in any Eastern
language.
[73] 'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,' iv. 119 et seq.
[74] 'Freminville, Finistère,' pl. iv. p. 248.
[75] All these, and many others, are to be found illustrated in Taylor and
Nodier's 'Voyage Pittoresque dans l'ancienne Bretagne;' but as the plates in
that work are not numbered they cannot be referred to.

[76] I know only one instance of sculptured stone in France; it occurs near
the Chapelle St. Marguerite in Brittany.

CHAPTER III.
AVEBURY AND STONEHENGE.

If there existed any acknowledged facts or accepted data with regard to the
megalithic remains we are now treating of, the logical method of following
out the subject would be to describe first their geographical distribution,
and then their uses and dates. While, however, everything concerning them
is considered as uncertain—in fact, as unknown, such a mode of treatment,
though satisfactory to believers, would fail to carry conviction to the minds
of those who doubt. It appears, therefore, that under the circumstances a
preferable mode will be to take three or four of the principal and best
known British groups, and to subject them to a tolerably exhaustive
examination. If it is possible to dispel the errors that have grown up around
them, and to fix their uses and dates on anything like a reasonable basis, the
rest will be easy; but so long as men believe in Druids or Dragons, or even
think it necessary to relegate these monuments to prehistoric antiquity, it is
useless to reason regarding them. By the process it is proposed to follow, it
is hoped at least to be able to dispel these mists. Others must judge whether
the landscape their dispersion will reveal is either real, or pleasing to
contemplate.
The first monument we propose selecting for examination is Avebury, as the
largest, and in some respects the most important of the class in this country.
Stonehenge might at first sight seem to have equal claims to precedence,
but it is exceptional. It is the only hewn stone monument we possess, the
only one where trilithons are found with horizontal architraves, and where
the outer circle also possesses these imposts. It is, in fact, the megalithic
monument which exhibits the most civilized forms, and to prove its age and
use would not necessarily prove those of any rude stone monument found
elsewhere. Avebury, on the contrary, though larger than the others, is
constructed on precisely the same principle. It has the enclosing vallum,
with its ditch inside, like Arborlow, Marden, Arthur's round table, at
Penrith, and others we shall meet with further on, while its circle and

avenues are identical, as far as we can judge, with numerous examples
found elsewhere.
Before, however, proceeding to reason about Avebury, the first point is to
ascertain what the group really consists of, which is a much more difficult
task than would at first sight appear. Stukeley has introduced so many of his
own fancies into his description of the place, and they have been so
implicitly followed by all who have since written on the subject, that it is
now no easy task to get back to the original form.

14. View of Avebury restored. a. Silbury Hill. b. Waden Hill.

The principal monument at Avebury consists of a vallum of earth nearly, but
not quite, circular in form, with an average diameter of about 1200 feet.
Close on the edge of its internal ditch stood a circle apparently originally
consisting of about 100 stones, with a distance consequently of about 33
feet from centre to centre. Inside this were two other double circles, placed
not in the axis of the great one, but on its north-eastern side. The more
northern one was apparently 350 feet in diameter, the other 325 feet.[77] In
the centre of the northern one stood what is here called a cove, apparently
consisting of three upright stones supporting a cap-stone—a dolmen, in
fact, such as we shall frequently meet with in the following pages. In the
southern circle there was only one stone obelisk or menhir. These facts we
gather from Stukeley and Colt Hoare, for all is now so completely ruined
and destroyed, that without their description no one could now make even

an approximate plan of the place. The stones that comprise these inner as
well as the outer circle are all the native Sarsens, which occur everywhere
on these downs. In some places, such as Clatford Bottom, about a mile from
Avebury, they lie still in numbers sufficient to erect a dozen Aveburys, and
many are still to be seen in the Bottoms to the southward, and indeed in
every place where they have not been utilized by modern civilization. No
mark of a chisel is to be seen on any of the stones now standing here. For
their effect they depend wholly on their mass, and that is so great as to
produce an impression of power and grandeur which few of the more
elaborate works of men's hands can rival.

15. Plan of Avebury Circle and Kennet Avenue, from Sir R. Colt
Hoare.

From the outer vallum a stone avenue extended in a perfectly straight line
for about 1430 yards, in a south-easterly direction. The centre was
apparently drawn from the centre of the great 1200 feet circle, not from
those of the smaller ones. This is called the Kennet Avenue, from its
pointing towards the village of that name. I am extremely sceptical with
regard to the existence of another, called the Beckhampton Avenue, on
which Dr. Stukeley lays so much stress. Aubrey did not see it, though he
saw the Long Stone Cove, the "Devil's Quoits," as he called them; and
Stukeley is obliged to admit that in his day not one stone was standing.[78] It
seems that here, as, indeed, everywhere over this country, a number of
Sarsen stones were lying about, and his fertile imagination manufactured
them into the body of a snake. None, however, are shown in Sir R. Colt
Hoare's survey, and none exist now; and beyond the Cove even Stukeley
admits that he drew the serpent's tail only because a serpent must have a
termination of that sort. There were no stones to mark its form any more
then than now. The first objection that appears against admitting the
existence of the very hypothetical avenue is, that no curved avenue of any
sort is known to exist anywhere, or attached to any monuments. All the
curves of the Kennet avenue are the Doctor's own, introduced by him to
connect the straight-lined avenues which were drawn from the circle at
Avebury, and that on Hakpen Hill. There are none at Stanton Drew, or other
places where he audaciously drew them. Near the church there are, or were,
two stones placed in the opening like that called the Friar's Heel, and the
prostrate stone at Stonehenge, but these are all that probably ever existed of
the Beckhampton Avenue. The question is not, however, important. As there
were two circles inside the Avebury vallum, there may have been two
avenues. All that is here contended for is, that there is no proof of the
existence of the second. A dolmen, called the Long Stone Cove, existed
near where Stukeley draws its sinuous line, but there is nothing to show that
it ever formed any part of such an alignment; and around it there were some
standing stones, or rather, even in Stukeley's time, stones which apparently
had stood, but there is nothing to show whether forming part of a circle, or
as detached menhirs, or as parts of an avenue.
The second member of the Avebury group is the double circle, or rather
double oval, on Hakpen hill—Haca's Pen;[79] this was, according to
Stukeley, 138 feet by 155 feet, and had an avenue 45 feet wide, as

compared with 51 feet which Sir R. C. Hoare gives for those of the Kennet
avenue of Avebury. The avenue is supposed to have extended in a perfectly
straight line for above a quarter of a mile, pointing directly towards Silbury
Hill, which is about one mile and a quarter distant.
The third member of the group is the famous Silbury Hill, about a mile
distant due south from Avebury. That these two last named are of the same
age, and part of one design, seems scarcely open to doubt; but it is quite an
open question whether Haca's Pen belongs either to the same age or the
same design. Its stones were very much smaller, its form different, and its
avenue pointing towards Silbury looks as if that monument existed, and
may have long existed before it was built; but of this hereafter.
Besides these three there are numerous barrows, both long and round, in the
neighbourhood, and British forts and villages; but these we propose to pass
over at present, confining our attention in the first instance to the three
monuments above enumerated.
The first question that arises on looking at such a structure as Avebury, is
whether it is a temple at all. It has already been attempted in the preceding
pages to show what the temples of Britain were in the ages immediately
succeeding the Roman occupation; but even if it is conceded that they were
small basilicas, it will be contended that this is no answer to the question. If
Avebury, it will be said, is a temple, it belonged to a mysterious, mythical,
prehistoric people capable of executing such wonderful works before they
came in contact with the Romans, but who, strange to say, were incapable
of doing anything after the civilizing touch of that great people had left
them feebler, and more ignorant than they were before!
If this question, What is Avebury? is addressed to one—brought up in the
Druidical faith as most Englishmen have been—he at once answers, It is a
temple of the Druids. If pressed and reminded of the groves and the oaks
these sectaries delighted in, he will perhaps admit that no soil is so little
likely to grow oaks as the chalk downs of Wiltshire, and that there is no
proof that any oaks ever grew in the neighbourhood. But this is not a
complete answer, for it may be contended that for some reason we cannot
comprehend, the Druids may have dispensed with trees on this occasion.
The real difficulty is, as before mentioned, that no stones or stone structures
are ever mentioned in connection with Druids.

If an educated man whose mind is free from prejudice or pre-conceived
ideas is asked the question, he runs over in his own mind what he knows of
the temples of other peoples—Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome, in the ancient
or the middle ages. They produced nothing of the sort. Persia, India, China,
or the countries in the Eastern seas are all equally unsuggestive; nor will
Mexico or Peru help him. The first conclusion, therefore, that he inevitably
arrives at is, if these were the temples of the Britons, they must indeed have
been a "Peculiar people," unlike any other race that lived at any time in any
part of the world.
If they were temples, to what god or gods were they dedicated? It could
hardly have been Mercury, or Apollo, or Mars, Jove, or Minerva, mentioned
by Cæsar,[80] as the gods worshipped by the Druids—and though perhaps
these were only the nearest synonyms of Roman gods applied to Celtic
divinities, still there must have been such resemblances as to have justified
these appellations. We know of what form the temples of these gods were,
and certainly they were not built after the fashion of the circles at Avebury.
Some antiquaries have timidly suggested a dedication to the Sun. But there
is certainly no passage in any author, classical or mediæval, which would
lead us to suppose that our forefathers were addicted to the worship of a
deity so unlikely to be a favourite in such a climate as ours. But again, what
is a sun temple? Does one exist anywhere? Had the Wiltshire shepherds
attempted it, they probably would have found the same difficulty that beset
the fire-worshipping Persians of old. It is not easy to get the sun into a
temple fashioned by human hands, and his rays are far more available on
high places or on the sea-shore than inside walls or enclosures of any sort.
Even putting aside the question to what god it was dedicated, what kind of
worship could be performed in such a place? It could not be for speaking in.
Our largest cathedrals are 600 feet long, and no man would attempt from
the altar of the lady chapel to address a crowd beyond the west door; still
less would he in the open air attempt to address a crowd in a circle 1200
feet in diameter, and where from the nature of the arrangements one half of
the audience must be behind him. Still less is it fitted for seeing. The floor
of the area is perfectly flat, and though people talk loosely of the crowd that
could stand on the vallum, or on the berm, or narrow ledge between the
internal ditch and the foot of the rampart, they forget that only one row of
persons could stand on a sharp-pointed mound, and that the berm is on the

same level as the rest of the floor, and is the last place any one would
choose, as 100 great stones were put up in front of it as if especially
designed to obstruct the view. This was, in fact, the case with all the stones.
Assuming the ceremony or action to take place in the centre of either of the
two inner circles, the double row of stones which surround them is so
placed as to obstruct the view in every direction to the utmost possible
extent. It may be suggested that the priest might climb on to the cap-stone
of the cove, in the northern circle, and there perform his sacrifice in sight of
the assembled multitude. It would be difficult to conceive any place so ill
suited for the purpose; and even then, how would he manage on the point of
the obelisk in the centre of the southern circle? No place, in fact, can be so
ill adapted for either seeing or hearing as Avebury; and those who erected it
would have been below the capacity of ordinary idiots if they designed it
for either purpose. Besides this, it has none of the ordinary adjuncts of a
temple. There is no sanctuary, no altar, no ark, no procession path, no
priests' house, nothing that is found more or less prominently forming a part
of every temple in every part of the world.
Why so hypæthral? Are we to understand that the climate of the Wiltshire
downs is so perfect and equable that men can afford to dispense with roofs
or the ordinary protection against weather? or are we to assume that the
men who could move these masses of stone and raise these mounds were
such utter savages that they could not erect an enclosed building of any
sort?
Egypt possesses the finest and most equable climate in the world; yet all her
temples are roofed in a more careful manner and more stately than our
mediæval cathedrals, and so are all those of India and the Eastern climes
where shelter is far less wanted than here. In all these countries and climes
the temples of the gods are the dwellings or halls of men, enlarged and
improved. What they did well for themselves, they did better for their
deities. Are men therefore to assume that the Wiltshire shepherd slept on the
snow in winter, with no other protection than a circle of widely spaced
stones, and had no idea of a roof? Yet, if he were not hardened by some
such process, it is difficult to see why he should build a temple so exposed
to the inclemency of the weather that no ceremony could be properly
performed in it for one half of the days of the year.

Another objection to the temple theory that would strike most people, if
they would think about it, is the enormous size of Avebury. Its area is at
least five times that of St. Peter's at Rome; 250,000 people could easily be
seated within its vallum, and half a million could stand. Men generally try
to adapt the size of their buildings to the amount of accommodation
required. But where should such a multitude as this come from? How could
they be fed? How could they be lodged? There is no reason to suppose that
in any ancient time before the introduction of agriculture, the pastoral
population on these downs could ever have been greater than, or so great as,
that which now exists there. When Doomsday Book was compiled, there
were only two hides of arable land in the manor, and they seem to have
belonged to the church. A fair inference from which seems to be that, but
for the superior knowledge and influence of the priesthood, the inhabitants
of these downs might, in the eleventh century, have remained in the same
state of pastoral barbarity in which there is every reason to believe they
were sunk in pagan times. How a few shepherds, sparsely scattered over
these plains, could have erected or have required such a temple as this, is
the mystery that requires to be explained. A very small parish church now
suffices for their spiritual wants; and if 10,000 pilgrims, even at the present
day, when agriculture has been extended to every available patch of ground,
visited the place for a week, many of them would be starving before it was
over.
It would be easy to adduce fifty other arguments of this sort. Many more
must indeed occur to any one who will give himself the trouble to think of
the matter; but to those who are accustomed to such investigations the two
most convincing probably are, first, that there is no evidence whatever of
progress in the design of Avebury. It was built and finished as first
designed. The second is, that in it there is a total absence of ornament. In
India, we have temples as big as Avebury; but their history is written on
their faces. The first step in the process is generally that a small shrine, with
a narrow enclosure and small gateway, becomes from some cause or other,
sacred or rich, and a second enclosure is added to contain halls for the
reception of pilgrims or the ceremonial display on festal occasions. But no
god in that pantheon can live alone. New shrines are added for other deities,
with new halls, new residences for priests, and more accommodation for all
the thousand and one requisites of a great idol establishment. This requires
a third or fourth new enclosure, up even to a seventh, as at Seringham. But

in all this there is progress: 200 or 300 years are required, and each century
—sometimes each decade—leaves its easily recognised mark as the work
progresses. In like manner, the great temple at Karnac, though covering
only one-third the area of Avebury, took the Egyptians three centuries to
build, and every step of its progress can be easily traced. The works of the
earlier Thotmes differ essentially from those of Manepthah and Rameses,
and theirs again from those of Seshonk; and these again differ essentially
from the little shrine of Osortasen, which was the germ of the whole.
So it was with all our cathedrals. The small Saxon church was superseded
by the Norman nave with a small apsidal choir. This was enlarged into the
Early English presbytery, and beyond this grew the lady chapel, and as the
ill-built Norman work decayed, it was replaced by Tudor constructions. But
there is nothing of the sort at Avebury. Had the temple been built or begun
by the sparse inhabitants of these downs, we should have seen something to
show where the work began. They must have brought one stone one year
and another the next, and inevitably they would have employed their leisure
hours, like the inhabitants of Easter Island, in carving these stones either
with ornaments or symbols, or fashioning them into idols. There is
absolutely no instance in the whole world where some evidence of care and
of a desire after ornament of some sort is not to be traced in the temples of
the people. Nothing, however, of the sort occurs here. Indeed, if there is one
thing more evident than another about Avebury, it is that, as it was begun,
so it was ended. There is no hesitation, no sign of change: the same men, to
all appearance, who traced its plan saw its completion; and as they designed
it, so they left it. There is no sign of any human hand having touched it from
that hour henceforward till the sordid greed of modern farmers set to work
to destroy it, to build with its materials the alehouse and the village which
now occupies a small portion of the enclosure.
So too with regard to ornament. This structure, we may fairly assume, if a
temple, must have been in use for some centuries; but during that time, or
any shorter time that may be assumed, no man had the skill or the
inclination to adorn the greatest temple of his native land either with
carving or emblems or ornament of any kind. The men who could conceive
the great design—so great and noble—could do nothing more. Their hands
drooped in listless idleness by their sides, and they were incapable of
further exertion! Such a state of affairs, if not impossible, is certainly

unparalleled. No such example exists anywhere else with reference to any
temple, so far as we know, in any part of the world. Tombs do show these
peculiarities at times, temples never.
If these reasons are sufficient to prove that Avebury was not a temple, there
are more than can be required, to show that it was not a place of meeting of
ancient Britons. Whatever may be thought of the extent of prehistoric
assemblies, it will hardly be contended that it was necessary to provide
accommodation for the 250,000 men who could be seated in the great
circle. Even supposing it were intended only to accommodate 12,000 or
13,000 lords and as many commons in the two subordinate rings, they
would hardly have arranged an inner circle of great stones in the middle of
each assembly, or placed a spiked obelisk for a woolsack in the one or a tall
dolmen under or behind the Speaker's chair in the other. Nothing in fact
could be conceived so utterly unsuited for the purpose as these rings, and
unless these primeval men were very differently constituted from ourselves,
any assembly of elder-men who were likely to meet at Avebury would have
preferred a room however rude, and of one-hundredth part of the extent, for
their deliberations to the unsheltered and unsuitable magnificence of the
Big Stones. Of course, among all rude people, and often also among those
more civilized, open-air assemblies of the people will take place; but then
these will always be near the great centres of population. Men will go into
the desert for religious purposes, but they prefer talking politics nearer
home. In some communities a Campus Martius or a Thing field may be set
apart for the purpose; but the first requisite of such a place of assembly is
that it shall be open and free from encumbrance of any sort. A Mote hill too,
like the terraced Tynwald Mount in the Isle of Man, is an intelligible
arrangement, not for a deliberative assembly, but as a rostrum from which
to proclaim law. We can also understand why Shire courts should be held on
barrows, as seems often to have been the case. For here the judge occupied
a dignified position on the summit. His assessors stood behind him, and the
pleaders and people in front. Instances are also known in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries where local courts were summoned to meet at the
"standing stones," or in circles, in Scotland at least;[81] but in all these
instances it was apparently to settle territorial disputes on the spot, and the
stones or mounds were merely indicated as well-known marks and,
consequently, convenient trysting-places. Even if this were not so, it would
not be at all to be wondered at that in the middle ages sepulchral circles or

mounds were habitually used as meeting-places. They were then old enough
to be venerable; and their antiquity must have conferred on them a dignity
suitable to the purpose, whatever their original destination may have been.
But all this is very different from erecting as a place of assembly so huge
and inconvenient a place as Avebury is, and always must have been.
It seems needless to follow this line of argument further, for unless it can be
shown that the people who erected Avebury were so differently constituted
from ourselves that no reasoning derived from our experience can be
applied to them, the answer seems inevitable.
That no such Temple, nor has any such meeting-place, been built or
attempted by any set of men in any part of the world. But is there any
reason for supposing that the inhabitants of these downs differed so
essentially from ourselves? Dr. Thurnam has examined with care some
hundreds of skulls gathered from the grave-mounds in this neighbourhood,
and has published decades on decades of them.[82] Yet the most learned
craniologists cannot detect—except perhaps in degree—any difference that
would lead us to suppose that these ancient men were not actuated by the
same motives and governed by the same moral influences as ourselves. If
this is so, Avebury certainly was not erected either as a temple or a place of
assembly, in any sense of the word which we can understand, and those
who insist that it was either are bound to explain what the motives or
objects could have been which induced the inhabitants of the Wiltshire
downs to act in a manner so entirely opposed to all we know of the actions
or feelings of all other nations in all other parts of the world.

If, therefore, Avebury was neither a temple nor a place of assembly, what
was it? The answer does not seem far to seek. It must have been a burying-
place, but still not a cemetery in the ordinary sense of the term. The
inhabitants of these downs could never have required a bigger and more
magnificent burying-place than any other community in Great Britain, and
must always have been quite unequal to raise such a monument. But what is
more important than this, a cemetery implies succession in time and
gradations in rank, and this is exactly what is most conspicuously wanting

at Avebury. It may be the monument of one king or two kings, but it is not a
collection of the monuments of individuals of various classes in life, or of a
series of individuals of the same rank, erected at different intervals of time.
As before remarked, it is in one design—"totus teres atque rotundus,"
erected with no hesitation and no shadow of change.
If, however, we assume that Avebury was the burying-place of those who
fell in a great battle fought on the spot, every difficulty seems at once to
vanish. It is now admitted that men did bury in stone circles or under
dolmens, and beside head-stones and within earthen enclosures, and what
we find here differs only in degree from what we find elsewhere. It seems
just such a monument as a victorious army of say 10,000 men could, with
their prisoners, erect in a week. The earth is light, and could easily be
thrown up into the form of the vallum, and the Sarsen stones lay all over the
downs, and all on a higher level than Avebury, which perhaps for that very
reason is placed on the lowest spot of ground in the neighbourhood. With a
few rollers and ropes, 10,000 men would very soon collect all the stones
that ever stood there, and stick them up on their ends. They probably would
have no skilled labour in their ranks, and no leisure, if they had, to employ
it in ornamentation of any sort. Without this, it is just such a monument as
might and would be raised by an illiterate army wishing to bury with
honour those who had fallen in the fight, and having at the same time no
other means of leaving on the spot a record of their own victory.
On theoretical grounds, there seems to be no argument that can be urged
against this view; and during the ten years that it has been constantly before
the public none have been brought forward that deserve notice. It is urged,
however, that the evidence is not complete, and that nothing written serves
to confirm this view. Those who make the objection forget that one of the
first conditions of the problem is that those who erected such a monument
should be illiterate. If they could have written to any primeval 'Times,' they
would not have taken such pains to lithograph their victory on the spot. Had
they been able either to read or write, an inscription would have done more
than the 200 or 300 stones of Avebury; but because they could not write,
they raised them, and, for that reason also, left us the problem of finding out
why they did so.
We are not, however, wholly without evidence on this subject. Many years
ago Mr. Kemble printed a charter of King Athelstan, dated in 939, which,

describing the boundaries of the manor of Overton, in which Avebury is
situated, makes use of the following expression:—"Then by Collas barrow,
as far as the broad road to Hackpen, thence northward up along the Stone
row, thence to the burying-places."[83] It does not seem to be a matter of
doubt that the stone row here mentioned is the Kennet Avenue, nor that the
burying-places (byrgelsas) are the Avebury rings; but it may be urged that
the Saxon surveyor did not know what he was talking about; and as,
unfortunately, he does not say who were buried there, and gives no
corroborative evidence, all we learn from this is that they were so
considered in the tenth century.
Something more tangible was nearly obtained shortly before Stukeley's
time, when Lord Stawell levelled the vallum next the church, where the
great barn now stands. The original surface of the ground was "easily
distinguishable by a black stratum of mould on the chalk. Here they found
large quantities of buck-horns, bones, oyster-shells, and wood-coals. An old
man who was employed on the work says there was a quantity of a cartload
of horns, that they were very rotten, and that there were very many burned
bones among them."[84] On the same page, Dr. Stukeley adds: "Besides
some Roman coins accidentally found in and about Abury, I was informed
that a square bit of iron was taken up under one of the great stones upon
pulling it down." Other Roman coins have, I understand, been found there
since, but there is no authentic record of the fact which can be quoted. This
is to be regretted; for the presence, if ascertained, of these coins would go
far to prove that the erection of the monument was after their date, whatever
that may be.
Unfortunately no scientific man saw these bones, so no one was able to say
whether they were human or not; but the presumption is that they were, for
why should burned bones of animals be placed in such a situation? The
answer to this is that the Wiltshire Archæological Society have made some
excavations at Avebury, and found nothing. In 1865, they tapped the vallum
in various places, and dug one trench to its centre, and, as they found
nothing, concluded that nothing was to be found. But in a mound 4442 feet
long, according to Sir R. Colt Hoare, there must be many vacant spots,
especially if the bodies were burnt; and such negative evidence cannot be
considered as conclusive, nor as sufficient to disprove the evidence
acquired in Lord Stawell's diggings. Stukeley's honesty in recording facts of

this sort is hardly to be suspected, though the inferences he draws from his
facts are generally to be received with the extremest caution. The Society
also dug in the centre of the northern circle, where the dolmen stood, and
penetrated to the original chalk, but found nothing except the ruins of the
stones which had been destroyed by fire, and express great disappointment
at finding "no human bones whatever."[85] If the bodies were burnt—as we
should be led to infer from what Lord Stawell found under the vallum—
what they probably would have found, had the "Cove" been complete,
would have been a vase or urn with ashes. The barbarians who destroyed
the stones are scarcely likely to have spared so worthless a piece of
crockery; and if it were broken at the time, it would be in vain a hundred
years afterwards to look either for it or for bones that in all probability were
never laid there. Nor need better results have been expected from their
trench, 60 feet long. A man must know very exactly what he is looking for,
and where to look for it, who expects to find an object like an urn, a foot in
diameter, in a 28-acre field. Judging from the experience obtained at
Crichie, in Scotland, where a funereal deposit was obtained at the foot of
every one of a circle of stones that stood inside a ditch like the internal one
at Avebury, it is there we should expect to find the deposit.[86] That is just
where nobody has thought of looking at Avebury, though nothing would be
easier. There are fifty or sixty empty holes, and any one might without
difficulty be enlarged, and if there were a deposit at the foot of each, it
would then inevitably be found.

To this we shall return presently. Meanwhile let us see what evidence, if
any, is to be obtained from the circle on Hakpen Hill.
As before mentioned, this monument consists of two ovals, according to Dr.
Stukeley the outer one was 138 by 155 feet and the inner 45 by 51 feet. He
does not give the dimensions of the stones; but Aubrey calls them from 4 to
5 feet in height, which is confirmed by the Doctor's engraving; and,
altogether, they do not seem to average one-quarter the size of those at
Avebury. Of the avenue, only four stones are shown in the plan woodcut
(No. 16), and the same number is shown in the view (plate xxi.). In both
instances, the avenue is represented as perfectly straight, and as trending

rather to the southward of Silbury Hill.[87] It extended, according to Aubrey,
a quarter of a mile—say 440 yards.

16. Circle on Hakpen Hill. From Stukeley.

The most curious circumstance, however, connected with this circle is that,
at the distance of about 80 yards from the outer oval, there were found two
rows of skeletons, laid side by side, with their feet towards the centre of the
circles. In a curious letter, written by a Dr. Toope, of Oxford, dated 1st
December, 1685, addressed to Mr. Aubrey, and published by Sir R. Colt
Hoare,[88] it is said:—"I quickly perceived them to be human." "Next day
dugg up many bushells, with which I made a noble medicine. The bones are
large and nearly rotten, but the teeth extream and wonderfully white. About
80 yards from where the bones were found, is a temple 40 yards diameter,
with another 15 yards; round about bones layd so close that scul toucheth
scul. Their feet all round turned towards the temple, 1 foot below the
surface of the ground. At the feet of the first order lay the head of the next
row, the feet always tending towards the temple." Further on Aubrey asserts
that a ditch surrounded the temple, which Stukeley denies; but there seems
no difficulty in reconciling the two statements. The destruction of the
monument had commenced before Aubrey's time. For it is impossible to
conceive bodies lying for even 1000 or 1200 years in so light a soil, at the
depth of 1 foot or even 2 feet, exposed to the influence of rain and frost,
without their being returned to earth. Most probably there was a ditch, and

where there was a ditch there must have been a mound, and that, if heaped
over the bodies, might have protected them. The vallum had disappeared in
Aubrey's time; the ditch was filled up before Stukeley's, and stones and all
had been smoothed over in Sir R. Colt Hoare's; so that now the site can
hardly be defined with certainty. A trench, however, cut across it, if it can be
traced, might lead to some curious revelations, for there can be no doubt
whatever with regard to the facts stated in Dr. Toope's letter. He was a
medical man of eminence, and knew human bones perfectly, and was too
deeply interested in the diggings, from which he drew "his noble medicine,"
and to which he frequently returned, to be mistaken in what he stated.
Meanwhile, however, what interests us more at this stage of the enquiry are
the differences as well as the similarities of the two monuments. The circles
at Hakpen are on a very much smaller scale both as to linear dimensions
and the size of the stones than the circles at Avebury; and the difference
between burning and burying, which, so far as the evidence goes, seems to
have prevailed in the two places, is also remarkable. Do they belong to two
different ages, and, if so, which is the elder? The evidence of the tumuli is
uniform that the inhabitants of this island buried before they burnt. But can
these bones be so old as this would force us to admit they were? So far as
the evidence at present goes, it seems impossible to carry the burials on
Hakpen Hill back to the earliest period of prehistoric interments; the
condition of the bones is sufficient to render such an hypothesis untenable.
Unless the phosphates and other component adjuncts remained in them,
they would have been as useless for medicine as for manure, and the
exposed position in which they lay would have reduced these to dust or
mud in a very few centuries. From the descriptions we have, the bodies
certainly were not in the contracted doubled-up position usual in the so-
called bronze age, and there were no traces of the cremations apparently
introduced by the Romans, and practised for some time after they left. All
appear to have been laid out in the extended position afterwards adopted
and continued to the present day. In fact everything would lead us to
suppose that Camden was not far wrong in saying that these were the bones
of the Saxons and Danes slain at the battle of Kennet in A.D. 1006.[89] Even
then, unless there was a mound over them, they could hardly have lasted
600 years in the state in which they were found. If we do not adopt this
view, but insist that Hakpen and Avebury are contemporary monuments,
and part of one great plan, the only hypothesis that occurs to me that will at

all account for their peculiarities is that the victorious army burnt and
buried their dead at Avebury, and that the defeated force got permission to
bury their dead more modestly on Hakpen Hill.

17. Section of Silbury Hill.

Silbury Hill, which forms the third member of our group, is situated nearly
due south from Avebury, at a distance of 1200 yards from the outside of the
ring, of the former, to the foot of the hill, or, as nearly as may be, one
Roman mile from centre to centre. Mr. Rickman[90] based an argument on
the latter fact, as if it proved the post-Roman origin of the group; and like
the many recurring instances of 100 feet and 100 yards, which run through
all the megalithic remains, it may have some value, but, as a single instance,
it can only be looked upon as a coincidence.
The dimensions of the hill, as ascertained by the Rev. Mr. Smith, of
Yatesbury,[91] are that it is 130 feet in height, 552 feet in diameter, and 1657
feet in circumference; that the flat top is 104 feet or 102 feet across,[92]
according to the direction in which it is measured; this last being another
Roman coincidence, as the top has no doubt both sunk and spread. The
angle of the slope of the sides is 30 degrees to the horizon.
In the year 1777 a shaft was sunk from the top of the mound to the base, by
order of the then Duke of Northumberland and Colonel Drax, but no record
has been preserved of what they found, or rather did not find, for had they
made any discovery of the least importance, it certainly would have been
communicated to some of the learned societies of the day. Subsequently, in
1849, a shaft was driven nearly horizontally from the southern face on the
level of the original soil to the centre, where it met the Duke's shaft; and

subsequently a circular gallery was carried round the centre, but in vain;
nothing was found in these excavations that would show that the mound
had ever been used for sepulchral purposes, or that threw any light whatever
on its history or destination.[93]
Judging from the analogies gathered from our knowledge of the parallel
Indian series, we ought not to be surprised if this really were the only result.
From the accounts of the Chinese travellers who visited India in the fifth
and seventh centuries, we learn that about one-half of the topes they saw
and described were erected to commemorate events, and not to contain
relics, or as simulated tombs. Wherever Buddha or any of his followers
performed any miracles, or where any event happened of sufficient
importance to make it desirable that the memory of the locality where it
happened should be preserved, there a Tope was erected. To take an
example as bearing more directly than usual on our present subject. When
Dutthagamini, king of Ceylon (161 B.C.), defeated the usurper Ellala, and
restored the true faith, "he erected near the capital a dagoba in
commemoration of his victory. A stone pillar marks the spot where the
action commenced, and another stone pillar exists there with an inscription
to the effect that it marks the spot rendered sacred by the death and blood of
Ellala."[94] The dagoba is a simple mound of earth, and, so far as known,
has never been opened. In Afghanistan, many of the topes opened by
Messrs. Masson and Honigberger were found to be what they call "blind
topes," but they were not able to detect by any external sign whether their
researches were likely to be rewarded with success or to end in
disappointment.[95]
Whether these analogies are worth anything or not, nothing appears, at first
sight at least, more probable than that, if the fallen chiefs of a victorious
army are buried at Avebury, the survivors should have employed their
prisoners as slaves to erect a mound on the spot probably where the chiefs
were slain and the battle decided. The tradition, however, having been lost,
the mound stands silent and uncommunicative, and it is not easy now to
read its riddle.
It is very premature, however, to speculate either on these analogies or on
the negative results of the explorations made into the hill: these last were
undertaken, like the diggings at Avebury, on the empirical assumption that

the principal deposit would be found in the centre, and at Silbury on the
ground level, which is exactly the place where almost certainly it was not.
Supposing that there is a low-level sepulture at Silbury, it probably will be
found within 30 or 40 yards of the outer face of the mound, on the side
looking towards Avebury, if it is connected with that monument. But the
knowledge we have acquired, as will be afterwards detailed, from the
examination of the Minning Lowe, Arbor Lowe, Rose Hill tumuli, and other
monuments of this class, would lead us to expect to find the principal
deposit near the summit. The bit of a bridle (woodcut No. 18) and the traces
of armour which were found in Stukeley's time, near the summit, mark in
all probability the position of the principal graves, and nothing would
surprise me less than if five or six entombments were found arranged
around the upper plateau at a small depth below the surface. We shall be in
a better position to judge how far this is probable when we have finished
this chapter; but till the evidence is adduced, it is useless to speculate on its
effect.

18. Iron Bit of Bridle. Found in Silbury Hill.

At one time I hoped that the Roman road might be found to have passed
under the hill, and if this were the case, it would settle the question as to
whether it were pre- or post-Roman. In order to ascertain this, some
excavations were made into the hill in 1867, and simultaneously on the high
ground to the southward of it. As traces which seemed undoubtedly to mark
the existence of the road running past the hill, at about 50 to 100 yards to
the southward, were found there, the excavations into the hill were

discontinued, and the line of the road considered as established. Owing to
various mishaps, no plan of these discoveries has yet been published, but
the annexed woodcut, which is traced from the Ordnance Survey sheet, will
suffice to explain its bearing on the question.

19. Plan of Avebury, from Ordnance Survey. The line of
the Roman road is hatched throughout.

Standing on Silbury Hill and looking westward, the road coming from Bath
over the downs seems to come direct at the hill. After passing the Devizes
road, it trends to the southward, and shortly again resumes its original
direction. About a mile before it reaches the hill, it again resumes its
southward direction, and passes it at a distance of between 50 to 100 yards,
making, apparently, for the spot where the bridge over the Kennet now
exists, and may have existed in Roman times. Those who contend for the
pre-Roman antiquity of the hill rest their case on the assumption that the
Romans always made or wished to make their roads perfectly straight, and
that this being deflected to the south, it was in consequence of the hill being
there at the time the road was made. This, however, is singularly
contradicted by the line of this very road westwards from the Devizes road.
According to the Ordnance Survey, it is set out in a curve for 3½ miles till it
meets the Wandsdyke. Why this was done is not clearer than why the road
should have been curved to the eastward of the Devizes road. But, on the
other hand, supposing the hill to have been where it now stands, and the
Romans wished the road to be straight, nothing in the world was so easy as

for them to set out a line mathematically straight between the Devizes road
and the point where it passes the hill. The country is and was perfectly
open, and quite as flat as any Roman road-maker could desire, and signals
could have been seen throughout with perfect facility. It is crediting the
Roman surveyors with a degree of stupidity they certainly did not show
elsewhere, to say, if they wanted a straight road, that seeing the hill before
their eyes, they first set out their road towards it, when they knew that
before they had advanced a mile, they must bend it so as to avoid that very
obstacle. Even then they would have tried to make it as straight as possible,
and would have adopted the line of the present coach-road, which runs
inside their line and between it and the hill. At the same time, if any one
will turn to Sir R. Colt Hoare's map of the Roman roads in this district
—"Stations Calne and Swindon"—which includes Avebury, he will find
that all are set out in lines more or less curvilinear, and sometimes violently
so, when any object was to be gained by so doing. Though, therefore, as a
general rule, it is safe to argue on the presumption of the straightness of
Roman roads, it may lead to serious error to rely on such evidence in every
instance.
The inference drawn from the piece of the Roman road further eastward on
Hakpen Hill is the same. It is perfectly distinct and quite straight for about a
mile, but if it had been continued in that line, it would have passed the hill
at a distance of at least 200 yards to the southward, and never have joined
the other piece till long after it had passed the Devizes road. It was
deflected northward in the village of Kennet, apparently to reach the bridge,
and then to join the piece coming from Bath.
The result of all this seems to be, that the evidence of the Roman road is
inconclusive either way and must be withdrawn. Taking the point where it
passes the Devizes road, and the piece which is found on Hakpen hill as
fixed points, to join these it must have passed considerably to the southward
of the hill; whether it did so in a mathematically straight line or in one
slightly curved, was a matter for the judgment of the surveyor; but till we
know his motives, it is not in our power to found any argument upon them.

20. Elevation of the Bartlow Hills. From the 'Archæologia,' xxx.

If, however, the Roman road refuses to give evidence in this cause, the form
of the hill offers some indications which are of value. As before mentioned,
it is a truncated straight-lined cone, sloping at an angle of 30° to the
horizon, while all the British barrows known are domical or, at least,
curvilinear in section. In all his experience, Sir R. Colt Hoare met with only
one straight-lined monument of this class, which consequently he calls the
Conical Barrow. Whether it was truncated or not is not quite clear. There are
bushes, or weeds, growing out of the top, which conceal its form.[96]
Nothing was found in the barrow to indicate its age except a brass (bronze?)
spear-head, but it was attached to a British village, apparently of the Roman
period, inasmuch as iron nails and Roman pottery were found in it.[97] Be
this as it may, there are a range of tumuli at Bartlow, on the boundary
between Essex and Cambridgeshire, which are all truncated cones, and are
undoubtedly of Roman origin. A coin of Hadrian was found in the chamber
of one of them, and Mr. Gage, and the other archæologists who were
present at the opening, were all agreed that all the four opened were of
about the same age.[98] We may therefore feel assured that they were not
earlier than the time of Hadrian, though from the style of workmanship of
the various articles found, I would feel inclined to consider them somewhat
more modern, but that is of little consequence. The point that interests us
most is, that the angle of the Conical Barrow quoted above is 45° to the
horizon, that of the principal tumuli at Bartlow 37½°, and that of Silbury
Hill 30°. Here we certainly have a sequence not long enough to be quite
satisfactory, but still of considerable value, as an indication that Silbury hill
was post-Roman.
On the other hand, we have undoubted evidence that the truncated conical
form was common in post-Roman times. We have one, for instance, at

Marlborough, close by, and if that place was Merlin's bury, as Sir R. Colt
Hoare would fain persuade us it was, it assists us considerably in our
argument. Without insisting on this, however, Mr. George Clark, in his most
valuable paper on Ancient English Castles,[99] enumerates ninety truncated
cones erected in England, he considers, between the Roman times and the
Norman conquest. "These earthworks," he says, "may be thus described:
First was cast up a truncated cone of earth, standing at its natural slope from
50 feet to 100 feet in diameter at the top, and from 20 feet to 50 feet high."
[100]
Mr. Clark does not believe that these were ever sepulchral, nor does it
occur to him that they might be memorial. I should, however, be disinclined
to accept the first conclusion as absolute till excavations had been made
into some of them, at least, where I fancy we may find indications rather
tending the other way. Whether they were memorial or not must depend on
traditions that have not hitherto been looked for. Mr. Clark's contention was
that all had at some time or other been used for residential purposes, and as
fortifications, and many are recorded as having been erected as castles. All
this is probably quite correct, but the point that interests us here is, that
there are nearly one hundred examples of truncated cones of earth thrown
up in England after the Roman times, and not one before. If this is so, the
conclusion seems inevitable that Silbury Hill must belong to the latter age.
Whether this conclusion can be sustained or not, must depend on what
follows from the other monuments we are about to examine. The evidence
of the monument itself, which is all we have hitherto had an opportunity of
bringing forward, may be sufficient to render it probable, but not to prove
the case. Unless other examples can be adduced whose evidence tends the
same way, the case cannot be taken as proved, however strong a prima facie
presumption may be established.

21. Marden Circle. From Sir R. C. Hoare. No Scale.

Though a little distant, it may be convenient to include the Marden circle in
the Avebury group. It is situated in a village of that name seven miles south
of Silbury Hill. When Sir R. Colt Hoare surveyed it fifty years ago, the
southern half of the vallum had been so completely destroyed, that it could
not be traced, and he carried it across the brook, making the whole area
about fifty-one acres.[101] My impression is that this is a mistake, and that
the area of the circle was only about half that extent. The rampart was of
about the same section as Avebury, and the ditch was inside as there. Within
this enclosure were two mounds, situated unsymmetrically, like the circles
at Avebury. The greater one was opened with great difficulty, owing to the
friable nature of the earth of which it was composed; and Mr. Cunnington
was convinced that it was sepulchral, and contained one or more burials by
cremation; but Sir R. Colt Hoare was so imbued with the Druidical theory
as to Avebury, that he could not give up the idea that so similar a monument
must be also a Druidical altar, and the whole a temple. The second barrow

was too much ruined to yield any results, and on revisiting the spot, it was
found to have been cleared away. A great part of the vallum had also been
removed, but in it was found at least one skeleton of a man who had been
buried there.[102] How many more there may have been it is impossible to
say. The destroyers of these antiquities were not likely to boast of the
number of bodies they had disturbed.
The great interest of this circle is that it contains in earth the counterpart of
what was found at Avebury in stone; not that this necessarily betokens
either an earlier or a later age. There are no stones to be found at Marden,
which is on the edge of the chalk, while the country about Avebury was and
is covered with Sarsens to this day. It may, however, be considered as very
positive evidence of the sepulchral nature of that monument, if such were
needed, and if it were thoroughly explored, might perhaps settle the
question of the age of both. In this respect, the Marden monument affords a
better field for the explorer than Avebury. The destruction or disfigurement
of its mound, or vallum, would be no great loss to antiquaries, if a proper
record were kept of their present appearance; while to do anything tending
towards the further dilapidation of Avebury is a sacrilege from which every
one would shrink.

Before leaving the neighbourhood it now only remains to try and determine
who the brave men were who were buried at Avebury, and who the victors
who raised the mound at Silbury, assuming that the one is a burying place,
and the other a trophy. Some years ago I suggested it was those who fell in
Arthur's last and greatest battle of Badon Hill, fought somewhere in this
neighbourhood in the year A.D. 520,[103] and nothing that has since
occurred has at all shaken my conviction in the correctness of this
determination,[104] but a good deal has tended to confirm it.
The authors of the 'Monumenta Britannica' fix the site of this battle at
Banesdown, near Bath, which is the generally received opinion.[105] Carte,
and others, have suggested Baydon Hill, about thirteen miles west by north
from Avebury, while Dr. Guest carries it off to Badbury, in Dorset,[106] a
distance of forty miles. Unfortunately, Gildas, who is our principal authority

on this matter, only gives us in three words all he has to say of the locality
in which it was fought—"Prope Sabrinum Ostium";[107] and it has been
asserted that these words are an interpolation, because they are not found in
all the ancient MSS. If they are, however, an insertion, they are still of very
ancient date, and would not have been admitted and repeated if they had not
been added by some one who knew or had authority for introducing them.
As the words are generally translated, they are taken to mean near the
mouth of the Severn, a construction at once fatal to the pretensions of Bath,
which it is impossible any one should describe as near that river, even if any
one could say where the mouth of that river is. It is most difficult to
determine where the river ends and the estuary begins, and to a mediæval
geographer, especially, that point must have been much nearer Gloucester
than even Bristol. This, however, is of little consequence, as the words in
the text are not "Sabrinæ ostium," but "Sabrinum ostium"; and as the river
is always spoken of as feminine, it is not referred to here, and the
expression can only be translated as "near the Welsh gate." Nor does it seem
difficult to determine where the Welsh gate must have been.
The Wandsdyke always seems to have been regarded as a barrier erected to
stop the incursions of the Welsh into the southern counties, and that part of
it extending from Savernake forest westward, for ten or twelve miles, seems
at some comparatively recent period to have been raised and
strengthened[108] (either by the Belgæ or Saxons) to make it more effectual
for that purpose. According as an army is advancing northward from
Winchester, or Chichester to the Severn valley, or is marching from
Gloucester or Cirencester towards the south, the rampart either protects or
bars the way. In its centre, near the head-waters of the Kennet, the Saxons
advanced in 557 to the siege of Barbury Castle, and having gained that
vantage ground, they again advanced in 577 to Deorham, and fought the
battle that gave them possession of Glewanceaster, Cyrenceaster, and
Bathanceaster.[109] What they then accomplished they seem to have
attempted unsuccessfully thirty-seven years earlier, and to have been
stopped in the attempt by Arthur at Badon Hill. If this is so, there can be
very little difficulty in determining the site of the Welsh gate as that opening
through which the road now passes 2½ miles south of Silbury Hill, in the
very centre of the strengthened part of the Wandsdyke. If this is so, the
Saxons under Cerdic must have passed through the village of Avebury,

supposing it then existed, on their way to Cirencester; and if we assume that
they were attacked on Waden hill by Arthur, the whole history of the
campaign is clear. If we may rely on a nominal similarity the case may be
considered as proved. Waden is the name by which the hill between
Avebury and Silbury is called at the present day by the people of the
country, and it is so called on the Ordnance survey sheets, and
etymologically Waden is more like Badon than Baydon, or Badbury, or any
other name in the neighbourhood. The objection to this is that Waden Hill is
not fortified, and that Gildas speaks of the "Obsessio Montis Badonici." It is
true there is no trace of any earthworks on it now, but in Stukeley's time
there were tumuli and earthen rings (apparently sepulchral) on its summit,
which are represented in his plates; but no trace of these now remains. The
hill was cultivated in his day, and in a century or so beyond his time all
traces of ramparts may have been obliterated, supposing them to have
existed. The true explanation of the difficulty, however, I believe to be
found in Jeffrey of Monmouth's account of these transactions. He is a frail
reed to rely upon; but occasionally he seems to have had access to
authorities now lost, and their testimony at times throws considerable light
on passages of our history otherwise obscure. According to him there was
both a siege and a battle; and his account of the battle is so circumstantial
and so probable, that it is difficult to believe it to be a pure invention. If it is
not, every detail of his description would answer perfectly to an attack on
an army posted on Waden Hill.[110] The siege would then probably be that
of Barbury Hill, which Cerdic would be obliged to raise on Arthur's
advance; and retreating towards the shelter of the Wandsdyke, he was
overtaken at this spot and defeated, and so peace was established for many
years between the Brits and the Saxons. It may be true that the written
evidence is not either sufficiently detailed or sufficiently precise to establish
the fact that the battle was fought on this spot. It must, however, be
conceded that nothing in all that is written contradicts what is here
advanced, and when to this we add such a burying place, Avebury at one
end of Waden Hill, and such a monument as Silbury Hill at the other, the
proofs that it was so seem to me to amount as nearly to certainty as we can
now expect to arrive at in such matters.
Those who believe, however, that all these monuments are absolutely
prehistoric, will not, of course, be convinced by any argument derived from
a single monument; but if it should turn out that even a more certain case

can be made out for the equally modern age of others, that point must
eventually be conceded. When it is, I feel no doubt that it will come
eventually to be acknowledged that those who fell in Arthur's twelfth and
greatest battle were buried in the ring at Avebury, and that those who
survived raised these stones and the mound at Silbury in the vain hope that
they would convey to their latest posterity the memory of their prowess.

Stonehenge.

Although from its exceptional character Stonehenge is not so valuable as
some others for evidence of the age or uses of the rest of the monuments of
this class, it is in some respects even more important for our argument,
inasmuch as it possesses a more complete mediæval history than almost any
other of the series. It must be confessed that this history is neither so clear
nor so complete as might be wished; but, with the other evidence that can
be adduced, it makes up a case so strong as to leave little to be desired.
Before, however, proceeding to this, it is necessary to ascertain what
Stonehenge really is, or rather was, for strange to say, though numberless
restorations of it have been published, not one is quite satisfactory. There is
very little discrepancy of opinion with regard to the outer circle or the five
great central trilithons, but there is the greatest possible variety of opinion
as to the number and position of the smaller stones inside the central or
between the two great circles.

22. General Plan of Stonehenge. From 'Knight's Old England.'

There seems to be no doubt that the outer stone circle originally consisted
of thirty square piers, spaced tolerably equally in the circle. Though only
twenty-six can now be identified, either standing or lying in fragments on
the ground, it seems equally certain that they were all connected by a
continuous stone impost or architrave, though only six of these are now in
situ.[111] The diameter of the circle is generally stated to be about 100 feet,
and as this has been suggested as a reason for its being considered as post-
Roman, it is important to know what its exact dimensions are. It turns out
that from the face of one pier to that of the opposite one, where both are
perpendicular, the distance is 97·6, or exactly 100 Roman feet. The distance
from the outer face of these piers to inside of the earthen vallum that

surrounds the whole is again 100 feet, though that cannot now be
ascertained within a foot or two, or even more; but as this makes up the 100
yards and the 100 feet which recur so often in these monuments, these
dimensions can hardly be considered accidental, and "valeant quantum" are
an indication of their post-Roman date.[112]
Inside these outer circles stand the five great trilithons. Since the
publication of Sir R. Colt Hoare's plan, their position and plan may be
considered as settled. According to him, the height of the outer pair is 16·3,
of the intermediate pair 17·2, and of the great central trilithon as it now
stands 21·6. In their simple grandeur they are perhaps the most effective
example of megalithic art that ever was executed by man. The Egyptians
and Romans raised larger stones, but they destroyed their grandeur by
ornament, or by their accompaniments; but these simple square masses on
Salisbury plain are still unrivalled for magnificence in their own peculiar
style.
All the stones in these two great groups are Sarsens, as they are locally
called, a peculiar class of silicious sandstone that is found as a local deposit
in the bottoms of the valleys between Salisbury and Swindon. It is the same
stone as is used at Avebury, the difference being that there the stones are
used rough in their natural state, here they are hewn and fitted with very
considerable nicety. Each of the uprights has a tenon on its surface, and the
undersides of the architrave, or horizontal piece, have each a mortice, or
rather two mortices, into which these tenons fit with considerable exactness.

23. Stonehenge as at present existing, from Mr. Hawkshaw's plan.

Besides these there are even now eleven stones, some standing, others
thrown down, but still existing, within the inner circle. These are of a
different nature, being all cut from igneous rocks, such as are not to be
found nearer than Cornwall or even Ireland. It has not been exactly
ascertained whence they came; indeed, they seem to be of various kinds,
and consequently must have been brought from different places. Locally
they are called Blue stones, and it may be well to adopt that short title for
the present, as involving no theory, and as sufficing to distinguish them
from the local Sarsens.

24. Plan of Stonehenge restored.

None of the blue stones are large; one of the finest (23 in Sir R. Colt
Hoare's plan) is 7 feet 6 inches high, 2 feet 3 inches wide at base, tapering
to 1 foot on top. The others are generally smaller. One blue stone opposite
23 is grooved with a channel from top to bottom, though for what purpose it
is not easy to guess. On the most cursory glance, it is evident that these
stones generally stood in pairs, about 3 feet apart; but some are so
completely overthrown and displaced, that it is not quite clear whether this
can be predicated of all. Entering the choir on the left hand we find one that
seems to stand alone. But we may infer that this was not always so, from
the circumstance that there lies close by it an impost stone with two mortice
holes in it, only 3 feet 6 inches apart, which must have belonged to a

smaller order of trilithons, and is just such as would fit a pair of blue stones.
The next pair on the left is very distinct, and stands between the two great
trilithons. The next pair is also similarly situated. On the opposite side there
are two pairs, but situated, as far as can be made out, in front of, and not
between the trilithons; and again, there are two blue stones behind the stone
called the Altar stone, but so displaced by the fall of the great trilithon
behind them, that it is impossible to make out their original position with
certainty.
It will probably be impossible to determine whether all the pairs of the
stones were miniature trilithons or not, till we are able to turn over all the
stones that now strew the ground, and see if there is a second stone with
two mortices 3 or 4 feet apart. In the meanwhile there is a passage in Henry
of Huntingdon's work which may throw some light on the subject. He
describes "Lapides miræ magnitudinis in modum portarum elevati sunt, ita
ut portæ portis superpositæ videantur."[113] With a very little latitude of
translation, this might be taken as referring to the great trilithons towering
over the smaller; but if we are to adhere to the literal meaning of the words,
this is inadmissible. Another explanation has therefore been suggested. The
impost stone of the great trilithon has apparently mortice holes on both
sides. If those on one side are not mere wearings of the weather, this must
indicate that something stood upon it. If we assume two cubical blocks, and
raise on them the stone now called the Altar stone, which is of the exact
dimensions required, we would have an arrangement very similar to that of
the Sanchi gateway,[114] a cast of which is now exhibiting at South
Kensington, and which would fully justify Huntingdon's words. If it is
objected that it is a long way to go to Sanchi to look for a type, it may be
answered that the Imperial coins of Cyprus show a very similar
construction, and both may be derived from a common centre. On the
whole, however, I am inclined to the first explanation. There certainly were
large and small trilithons, and too great accuracy of description is not to be
expected from a Latin writer in the middle ages.
A good deal of astonishment has been expressed at the labour it must have
required to transport these blue stones from Cornwall or Wales and to set
them up here. If we refer them to the pre-Roman times of our naked blue
painted ancestors, the difficulties are, of course, considerable. But after
Roman times, the class of vessels they were in the habit of building in these

islands must have made their transport by sea easy, even if they came from
Ireland, as I believe they did. And any one who has seen with what facility
Chinese coolies carry about monolithic pillars 10 feet and 12 feet long, and
thick in proportion, will not wonder that twenty or thirty men should
transport these from the head of Southampton water to Stonehenge.[115]
With the works the Romans left, and the modicum of civilization the
natives could not fail to have imbibed from them, the whole was simple,
and must have been easy.
Still more wonder has been expressed at the mass of the stones composing
the great trilithons themselves, and speculations have been rife as to how
our forefathers could, without machinery, drag these masses to the spot, and
erect them as they now stand. A good deal of this wonder has been
removed, since it was understood that the Sarsens of which they are
composed are a natural deposit, found on the surface on all the bottoms in
the Wiltshire downs. Owing to the progress of civilization, they have
disappeared about Salisbury, but they are still to be seen in hundreds in
Clatford bottom, and all about Avebury, and in the northern portion of the
downs. The distance, therefore, that the stones of Stonehenge had to be
dragged was probably very small; and over a hard, even surface of chalk
down, with a few rollers and ropes, must have been a task of no great
difficulty. Nor would the process of blocking them up with a temporary
mound composed of wood and chalk be one that would frighten a rude
people with whom time was no object. After all, Stonehenge is only child's
play as compared with the monolithic masses the Egyptians quarried, and
carved, and moved all over their country, long before Stonehenge was
thought of, and without machinery in the sense in which we understand the
term. In India, our grandfathers might have seen far more wonderful things
done before we crushed all feeling and enterprise out of the people. The
great gateway, for instance, at Seringham is 40 feet high, 21 feet wide, and
100 feet deep. The four door posts are each of a single block of granite,
more, consequently, than 40 feet in length, for they are partially buried in
the earth. The whole is roofed by slabs of granite, each more than 21 feet
long, and raised to the height of 40 feet; and all of these, though of granite,
are elaborately carved. Yet the building of the gateway was stopped by our
quarrel with the French for the possession of Trichinopoly in the middle of
the last century. The Indians in those days had no machinery, but with
plenty of hands and plenty of leisure mountains may be raised; and it is on

this principle that barbarous nations act and by which they achieve such
wonders. The masses of Stonehenge are not, however, so very great after
all, but they impose by their simplicity. To use an apparent paradox, it is one
of the most artistic buildings in the world from its very want of art. The 40
feet monoliths of Seringham do not impress as much as the 20 feet stones of
Stonehenge, because the one is covered with sculpture, the other more
nearly in a state of nature, and the effect on the mind is immensely
enhanced by the monolithic simplicity of the whole.
Strange to say, this very grandeur and apparent difficulty is one of the most
common reasons adduced for its pre-Roman antiquity. Few can escape from
an ill-defined impression that what is great and difficult must also be
ancient, though the probability is, that if the feeling were analyzed it would
be found to have arisen from the learning we imbibed in the nursery, and
which told us of the giants that lived in the olden time. If, however, we turn
from the teachings of nursery rhymes to the pages of sober history, what we
learn is something very different. Without laying too much stress on the
nakedness and blue paint of our ancestors, all history, and the testimony of
the barrows, would lead us to suppose that the inhabitants of this island,
before the Romans occupied it, were sparse, poor in physique, and in a very
low state of civilization. Though their national spirit may have been
knocked out of them, they must have increased in number, in physical
comfort, and in civilization during the four centuries of peaceful prosperity
of the Roman domination, and therefore in so far as that argument goes,
became infinitely more capable of erecting such a monument as Stonehenge
after the departure of the Romans than they had been before their advent.
It certainly appears one of the strangest inversions of logic to assume that
the same people erected Stonehenge who, during the hundreds, or it may be
the thousands, of years of their occupation, could attempt nothing greater
than the wretched mole-hills of barrows which they scraped up all over the
Wiltshire downs. Not one of those has even a circle of stone round its base;
nowhere is there a battle stone or a stone monument of any sort. Though the
downs must have been covered with Sarsens, they had neither sense nor
enterprise sufficient even to set one of those stones on end. Yet we are asked
to believe that the same people, in the same state, erected Stonehenge and
Avebury, and heaped up Silbury Hill. These monuments may be the

expression of the feelings of the same race; but if I am not very much
mistaken, in a very different and much more advanced state of civilization.

We shall be in a better position to answer a question which has frequently
been raised, whether or not the blue stones were a part of the original
structure, or were added afterwards, when we have discussed the materials
for the history of its erection; meanwhile we may pass from these, which
are the really interesting part of the structure, to the circle which is
generally supposed to have existed between the outer circle of Sarsens and
the inner choir of great stones.
With regard to this nothing is certain, except in respect to eight stones,
which stretched across the entrance of the choir, and may consequently be
called the choir screen. Of the four on the right hand side only one has
fallen, but it is still there; on the left hand only two remain, and only one is
standing, but the design is perfectly clear. The two central stones are 6 feet
high, and the stones fall off by regular gradation right and left to 3 feet at
the extremities. They are rude unhewn Sarsen stones, but there is nothing to
indicate whether they were, or were not, a part of the original design.
Beyond this, between the two great Sarsen circles, there exist some nine or
ten stones, but whether they are in situ or not, or whether they were ever
more numerous, it seems impossible to determine. On the left hand, near the
centre, are a pair that may have been a trilithon, but the rest are scattered so
unsymmetrically that it would be dangerous to hazard any conjecture with
regard to their original arrangement. It seems, however, most improbable
that while the choir screen is so nearly entire even now, that this circle, if it
ever existed, should have been so completely destroyed. Had it been
complete, it would probably have consisted of 40 stones (excluding, of
course, the choir screen), and of these only 10, if so many, can be said to
belong to it. These are rude unhewn stones, and of no great dimensions.
In addition to these, there are two stones now overthrown lying inside the
vallum, unsymmetrically with one another, or with anything else. Here
again the question arises, were there more? There is nothing on the spot to
guide us to our answer, and as nothing hinges upon it, I may perhaps be

allowed to suggest that each of these marks a secondary interment. At the
foot of each, I fancy urns or bones, or some evidence of a burial might be
found, and if the place had continued for a century as a burying place, it
might have been surrounded by its circle of stones, like Avebury, or Crichie,
or Stanton moor. The place, however, may have become deserted shortly
after these two were erected, and none have been added since.
There are still two other stones, one standing, one lying in the short avenue
that leads up to the temple. Their position is exactly that of the two stones,
which are all that is visible of the so-called Beckhampton avenue, at
Avebury. But what their use is it is difficult to guess. Were either of the
places temples, they would have been placed opposite one another on each
side of the avenue, so that the priests in procession and people might pass
between, but being placed one behind the other in the centre of the roadway,
they must have had some other meaning. What that may have been I am
unable to suggest. The spade may tell us if judiciously applied, but except
from the spade I do not know where to look for a solution of the riddle.
Those who consider that Stonehenge was a temple have certainly much
better grounds for such a theory than it would be possible to establish in
respect to Avebury. Indeed, looking at the ground plan above, there is
something singularly templar in its arrangement. In the centre is a choir, in
which a dignified service could be performed, and a stone lies now just in
such a position as to entitle it to the appellation it generally receives of the
altar stone. Unfortunately for this theory, however, it lies flush with the
ground, and even if we assume that the surface has been raised round it, its
thickness is not sufficient to entitle it to be so called, judging from any
analogous example we know of elsewhere. Around the choir is what may
fairly be considered the procession path; and if its walls had only been
solid, and there were any indications that the building had ever been roofed,
it would be difficult to prove that it was not erected as a temple, and for
worship. As, however, it has no walls, and it is impossible to believe that it
was ever intended to be roofed, all the arguments that apply to Avebury in
this respect are equally applicable here, with this one in addition. Unless its
builders were much more pachydermatous, or woolly, than their degenerate
descendants, when they chose this very drafty and hypæthral style of
architecture, they would certainly have selected a sheltered spot on the
banks of the Avon close by, where, with trees and other devices, they might

have provided some shelter from the inclemency of the weather. They never
would have erected their temples on the highest and most exposed part of
an open chalk down, where no shelter was possible, and no service could be
performed except at irregular intervals, dependent on the weather
throughout the year. As, however, it differs not only in plan but in
construction—being hewn and having imposts—from all the rude stone
circles we are acquainted with elsewhere, no theory will be quite
satisfactory that does not account for this difference. My belief is, that this
difference arises from the fact that alone of all the monuments we know of
its class, it was erected leisurely and in time of peace by a prince retaining a
considerable admixture of Roman blood in his veins. All, or most of the
others, seem to be records of battles erected in haste by soldiers and
unskilled workmen: but of this hereafter.
Owing to its exceptional character, the usual analogies apply less directly to
Stonehenge than to almost any other monument.

25. Tomb of Isidorus, at Khatoura.

We shall be better able to judge how far those derived from India apply,
when we have described the monuments of that country. In Europe the
trilithon is certainly exceptional, and its origin not easily traced. My own
impression is, that it is only an improved dolmen, standing on two legs
instead of three, or four; but if that is so, the intermediate steps are wanting
which would enable us to connect the two in a logical manner. They were
not, however, quite unknown in the Roman world. Several exist in Syria,
for instance; three of these are engraved in De Vogüé's work. One (the tomb
of Emilius Reginus, A.D. 195) consists of two Doric columns, with an
impost; another (woodcut No. 25) is the tomb of a certain Isidorus, and is
dated A.D. 222, and is more like our Salisbury example; both these last-

named are situated near Khatoura.[116] The bearing of such an example as
this on the question of the age of these monuments admits of a double
interpretation. According to the usual and specious mode of reasoning, the
ruder form must be the earliest, and the architectural one copied from it. But
this theory I believe to be entirely at variance with the facts, as observed.
The rudeness or elaboration of a monument will probably be found in all
instances to be an index of the greater or less civilization of the people who
erected it, but seldom or ever a trustworthy index of time. What interests us
more at present is the knowledge that these Syrian examples are certainly
sepulchral, and their form is thus another argument in favour of the
sepulchral character of Stonehenge, if any were needed. More satisfactory
than this, however, is the testimony of Olaus Magnus, archbishop of
Upsala, quoted above.[117] He describes and figures "the most honourable
monuments of the great of his country as erected with immense stones, and
formed like great gates or trilithons" (in modum altissimæ et latissimæ
januæ sursum transversumque viribus gigantum erecta). There is no reason
for supposing that this author ever saw or even heard of Stonehenge, yet it
would be difficult to describe either the purpose or the mode of construction
of that monument more correctly than he does; and in so far as such
testimony is considered valuable, it is decisive as to both the age and use of
the monument.
Passing on from this branch of the enquiry to such local indications as the
spot affords, we find nothing very relevant or very important either for or
against our hypothesis. It has been argued, for instance, that the number of
tumuli that stud the downs within a few miles of Stonehenge, is a proof that
this temple stood there before the barrows were erected, and that they
gathered round its sacred precincts. The first objection to this view is, that it
is applying a Christian precedent to a Pagan people. Except the Jews, who
seem to have buried their kings close to their temples,[118] I do not know of
any people in ancient or modern times except Christians who did so, and we
certainly have no hint that the ancient Britons were an exception to this
universal rule.

26. Country around Stonehenge. From Ordnance Survey maps.
Scale 1 inch to 1 mile.

Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that this were otherwise, we
should then certainly find the barrows arranged with some reference to
Stonehenge. Either they would have gathered closely around its precincts,
or ranged in rows alongside the roads or avenues leading to it. Nothing of
the sort, however, occurs, as will be seen from the woodcut in the following
page. Within 700 yards of the monument there is only one very insignificant
group, eight in number (15 to 23 of Sir R. Colt Hoare's plan). Beyond that
they become frequent, crowning the tops of the hills, or clustering in the
hollows, but nowhere with the least apparent reference to Stonehenge. If
any one will take the Ordnance Survey maps, or Sir R. Colt Hoare's plans,
he will find the barrows pretty evenly sown all over the surface of the plain,

from two or three miles south of Stonehenge as far as Chidbury camp, eight
miles north of it. Indeed, if Sir R. Colt Hoare's plans are to be trusted, they
were thicker at the northern end of the plain than at the southern;[119] but as
the Ordnance maps do not bear this out, it must not be relied upon.
Nowhere over this large area (say 10 miles by 5 miles) is there any trace of
system as to the mode of placing these barrows. Indeed, from Dorchester up
to Swindon, over a distance of more than seventy miles, they are scattered
either singly or in groups so completely without order, that the only feasible
explanation seems to be, that each man was buried where he lived; it may
possibly have been in his own garden, but more probably in his own house.
The hut circles of British villages are in grouping and in form so like the
barrows, that it is difficult not to suspect some connexion between them. It
may have been that when the head of a family died, he was buried on his
own hearth, and an earthen mound replaced the hut in which he lived. Be
this as it may, there is one argument that those overlook who contend that
the barrows came to Stonehenge. It is admitted that Stonehenge belongs to
the so-called Bronze age,[120] but one half of the barrows contain only flint
and stone, and consequently were there before Stonehenge was built. Nor is
it by any means the case that the nearest it were those which contained
bronze or iron, it is generally quite the contrary; with all his knowledge,
even Sir R. Colt Hoare never could venture to predict from the locality
whether the interment would be found to belong to one class or to another,
nor can we now.
One of the most direct proofs that this argument is untenable is found in the
fact, that the builders of Stonehenge had so little respect for the graves of
their predecessors, that they actually destroyed two barrows in making the
vallum round the monument. Sir R. C. Hoare found an interment in one,
and from this he adds, "we may fairly infer that this sepulchral barrow
existed on the plain, I will not venture to say before the construction of
Stonehenge, but probably before the ditch was thrown up."[121]
It seems needless, however, to pursue the argument further. Any one who
studies carefully the Ordnance Survey sheet must, I think, perceive that
there is no connexion between the earthen and the stone monuments. Or if
this fail to convince him, if he will ride from Stonehenge over Westdown to
Chidbury camp,[122] he can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that
Stonehenge came to the barrows, not the barrows to Stonehenge.

One other indication drawn from the barrows has been thought to throw
some light on the subject. In one of those (No. 16) near Stonehenge, about
300 yards off, were found chippings of the same blue stones which form the
inner circle of the monuments; but there was nothing else in this barrow to
indicate its age except a spear-head of brass in fine preservation, and a pin
of the same metal, which seemed to indicate that it belonged to the bronze
age. In another (No. 22) a pair of ivory tweezers were found. From this
discovery it was inferred, and not without some show of reason, that the
barrows were more modern than Stonehenge; and if we are to believe that
all barrows are pre-Christian, as some would try to persuade us, there is an
end of the argument. But is this so? We have just seen that the Bartlow hills
were certainly Roman. We know that the Saxons buried in hows in the
country, down at least to Hubba the Dane,[123] who was slain in 878, and in
Denmark, as we shall presently see, to a much later period; and we do not
know when the Ancient Britons ceased to use this mode of interment.
Whoever they were that built Stonehenge, they were not Christians; or, at
all events, it is certainly not a Christian building, and we have no reason to
assume that those men who were employed on its erection, and who had for
thousands of years been burying in barrows, changed their mode of
sepulture before their conversion to Christianity. It is infinitely more
probable that they continued the practice very long afterwards; and till we
can fix some time when we feel sure that sepulture in barrows had ceased,
no argument can be drawn from this evidence. That the chief mason of
Stonehenge should be buried in his own house, or own workshop, appears
to us the most natural thing in the world; and that a village of barrows, if I
may use the expression, may be contemporary with the monument I regard
also as probable; but unless from some external evidence we can fix their
age, their existence does not seem to have any direct bearing on the points
we are now discussing.
The diggings inside the area of Stonehenge throw more light on the subject
of our enquiry than anything found outside, but even they are not so distinct
or satisfactory as might be desired. The first exploration was undertaken by
the Duke of Buckingham, and an account of it is preserved by Aubrey. He
says, "In 1620 the duke, when King James was at Wilton, did cause the
middle of Stonehenge to be digged, and this underdigging was the cause of
the falling down and recumbencie of the great stone there," meaning
evidently the great central trilithon. In the process of digging they "found a

great many bones of stagges and oxen, charcoal, batter dashes (whatever
that may mean), heads of arrows, and some pieces of armour eaten out with
rust. Bones rotten, but whether of stagges or of men they could not tell."[124]
He further adds "that Philip Earl of Pembroke did say that an altar stone
was found in the middle of the area here, and that it was carried away to St.
James'." What this means it is not easy to discern, for Inigo Jones distinctly
describes as the altar the stone now known by that name, which measures,
as he says, 16 feet by 4. It seems impossible that any other could have
existed without his knowing it, and if it existed it would have favoured his
views too distinctly for him not to mention the fact.
As the digging above referred to must have taken place between what is
now called the altar stone and the great trilithon, it is of considerable
interest to us. But strange to say it leaves us in ignorance whether the bones
found there were human or not; one thing, however, seems tolerably certain,
that the arrow-heads and armour were of iron, from the state of rust they are
described as being in, and this so far is indicative of a post-Roman date.
Another curious fact is mentioned by Camden. In his plate (page 122), half
plan, half elevation—at a spot marked C outside the vallum, men are
represented as making an excavation, and the reference is "Place where
men's bones are dug up." This is of no great value in so far as Stonehenge
itself is concerned, but it is curious from its analogy with the place where
the bones were found on Hakpen Hill, and may serve as an indication to the
spot where the bones may yet be found in Avebury. As we shall see further
on, there are strong reasons for believing that the principal interment at least
was not inside the circle, but situated externally on one side.
In more modern times, Sir R. Colt Hoare adds—"We have found, in digging
(within the circle), several fragments of Roman as well as coarse British
pottery, parts of the head and horns of deer and other animals, and a large
barbed arrow-head of iron," thus confirming what Aubrey tells us of the
Duke of Buckingham's excavation to the fullest extent. Mr. Cunnington also
dug near the altar to a depth of nearly 6 feet, and found the chalk had been
moved to that depth. At about the depth of 3 feet he found some Roman
pottery. Soon after the fall of the great trilithon, in 1797, he dug out some of
the earth that had fallen into the excavation, and "found fragments of fine
black Roman pottery, and since then another piece on the same spot."[125]

No excavation in the area has been undertaken since Sir R. Colt Hoare's
day, but as both he and Mr. Cunnington were experienced diggers, and
perfectly faithful recorders of what they found, it seems impossible to
doubt, from the finding of iron armour and Roman pottery in such places,
and at such depths that the building must have been erected after the
Romans settled in this island. As no one now will probably be found to
adopt Inigo Jones' theory that it was built by the Romans themselves, we
must look to some date after their departure to which we may assign its
erection.

For the written history of Stonehenge we are unfortunately forced to rely
principally on Jeffrey of Monmouth, who, though a recorder of historical
events, was also a fabulist of the most exuberant imagination. It is
consequently easy to throw discredit on his testimony, and some consider
themselves justified in putting it aside altogether. If, however, we are to
reject every mediæval author who records miracles, or adorns his tale with
fables, we may as well shut up our books at once, and admit that, between
the departure of the Romans and the arrival of the Normans, the history of
England is a mere confused jumble, in which may be found the names of
some persons and of the battles they fought with one another, but nothing
more. It is an easy process, and may be satisfactory to some minds. The
attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff is a more tedious and laborious
task, surrounded by difficulties, and open to criticism, but it is one that must
be undertaken if truth is to be arrived at. In the present instance the choice
of difficulties seems to be clear. Either we must reject the history of Jeffrey
as entirely fabulous and unworthy of credit, or admit his principal statement
that Stonehenge was erected by Aurelius Ambrosius as a monument to the
memory of the British chiefs treacherously slain by Hengist.
The first account we have of the event which led to its erection is in
Nennius, who lived much nearer to the time of the occurrence than Jeffrey,
who copied his narrative. It is as follows:—The Saxons having been
defeated in several actions on the coast of Kent by Vortimir, were shut up in
Thanet and forced to wait till they could summon succour from home.
When these arrived, Hengist, before attempting open force, had recourse to

stratagem, and at a feast held at the palace or monastery at Amesbury, to
which it was agreed all should come unarmed, three hundred British nobles
were treacherously slain by the followers of Hengist, who had concealed
their weapons under their cloaks. War ensued on this, and lasted apparently
for four years, when Ambrosius, who had succeeded to Vortigern, forced the
Saxons to sue for peace.[126] That being established, Jeffrey represents him
as erecting Stonehenge by the aid of Merlin as a monument to those who
were so treacherously slain by Hengist. The massacre took place apparently
in the year 462, and the erection of Stonehenge consequently may have
been commenced about the year 466, and carried on during the following
years, say down to 470 A.D. If he had been content to tell the story in as
few words as are used here, it probably never would have been doubted; but
Merlin, in the first place, has a bad character, for he is mixed up with the
mediæval romances which made the story of Arthur famous but fabulous,
and the mode in which he is represented by Jeffrey as bringing the stones
from Ireland is enough to induce incredulity in all sober minds.[127] As I
understand the narrative, it is this—there existed on a mountain in Ireland a
monument something like Stonehenge, which Merlin, when consulted,
advised the King to copy. This certainly is the view taken of the matter by
Geraldus Cambrensis in 1187, inasmuch as he tells us, that in the spot
referred to "similar stones, erected in a similar manner, were to be seen in
his day," though in the same sentence he tells us, that they, or others like
them, were removed to Salisbury Plain by Merlin.[128] As he probably
speaks of what he saw with his own eyes, his words furnish tolerably clear
evidence that Merlin had not removed what still remained at Kildare so
many centuries after his death. It is also evidence, however, that the design
of the monument was brought from Ireland, and even copied from a circle,
the remains of which may probably still, if looked for, be found. So far as
we know there was nothing like Stonehenge existing in England, nor in
France, in the 5th century. But, as we shall presently see, there probably
may have been in Ireland. The only trilithons I know of elsewhere are three
in a monument in the Deer Park near Sligo. They are small and simulate
portals, but they are more like Stonehenge than any else now known. At the
age we are now speaking of Ireland had contrived to nurse her old traditions
uninfluenced by Roman or foreign examples, and had attained to that stage
in art which would enable her to elaborate such a style of architecture.
While in England it is most improbable that anything so purely original

could have been elaborated during the Roman occupation of the island. Still
a monument like this must have had a prototype, and unless we can prove
its existence here before Cæsar's time, it is to Ireland or some foreign
country that we must look for the model that suggested the design. But,
after all, are we not fighting with a shadow? May it not be that the tradition
of a monument being brought from Ireland applies only to the blue stones? I
have been assured by competent geologists, though I have not seen the fact
stated in any form I can quote, that these belong to rocks not found in Great
Britain, but which are common in Ireland. If this is so, there would be no
greater difficulty in bringing them from the Sister Island than from Wales or
Cornwall. Once on board ship the difference of distance is nothing. If they
did come from Ireland nothing is more likely than that, after a lapse of eight
or ten centuries, the facts belonging really only to a part should be applied
to the whole; and in that case the aid of
Merlin or of some equally powerful magician would certainly have become
indispensable. In that age, at least, I do not know any other agency that
could have accomplished the transference, and I am not at all surprised,
under the circumstances, that Jeffrey arrived at the same conclusion.
The true explanation of the mystery seems to be, that the design of
Stonehenge may have come from Ireland, the native style of art having been
in abeyance in England during the Roman occupation, and that the blue
stones most probably came from the Sister Island, which is quite enough to
account for the Merlin myth; but of all this we shall be better able to judge
when we have discussed the Irish antiquities of the same age.
To return to our history, however, a little further on Jeffrey asserts that
Aurelius himself was buried "near the convent of Ambrius within the
Giant's Dance (chorea gigantum), which in his lifetime he had commanded
to be made."[129] As far as it goes, this is a distinct assertion that the place
was used for burial, otherwise from the context we would gather that the
Britons slain by Hengist were buried in the cemetery attached to the
monastery, and that Stonehenge was consequently a cenotaph and not a
monument. But again, in recording the life of Constantine, the nephew and
successor of Arthur, after relating how he defeated the Saxons and took
vengeance on the nephews of Mordred, he goes on to say—"Three years
after this he was killed by Conan, and buried close to Uther Pendragon,
within the structure of stones which was set up with wonderful art, not far

from Salisbury, and called in the English tongue Stonehenge." [130] This last
event, though no date is given, must have occurred some time between 546,
or four years after Arthur's death, and 552, the date of the battle of Banbury
Hill, where Conan his successor commanded. Assuming for the moment
that this may be the case, may it not suffice to explain one of the mysteries
of Stonehenge, the presence of the pairs of blue stones inside the choir?
Why may we not suppose that these were erected in memory of the kings or
others who were buried in front of them? Why may not Aurelius and
Constantine have been buried in front of the two small pairs at either end of
the so-called altar stone? If this were so, and it appears to me extremely
probable that it was, the last remains of the mist that hangs over the uses of
this monument would be dispersed.
From the time of Jeffrey (1147) all subsequent mediæval historians adopt
the account of these events given by him, with occasional but generally
slight variations, and even modern critics are inclined to accept his account
of Constantine and Conan, as his narrative can be checked by that of Gildas,
who was cotemporary with these kings. Similar statements are also found in
the triads of the Welsh bards, which some contend are original and
independent authorities.[131] My own impression is that they may be so, but
I do not think their independence has been so clearly established as to
enable us to found any argument upon it. On the other hand, the incidental
allusion of Jeffrey to the erection of Stonehenge as a cenotaph to the slain
nobles, and the subsequent burial there of the two kings, seems so likely
and natural that it is difficult to see why they should be considered as
inventions. The two last-named events, at all events, do not add to the
greatness or wonder of the kings, or of his narrative, and are not such things
as would be inserted in the page of history, unless they were currently
known, or were recorded somewhere in some writing to which the historian
had access.
Before quitting Stonehenge there is one other antiquity connected with it,
regarding which it is necessary to say a few words. Both in Sir R. Colt
Hoare's plan and the Ordnance Survey, there are marked two oblong
enclosures called the greater and lesser "Cursus," and along which the
antiquaries of the last century amused themselves by picturing the chariot
races of the Ancient Britons, though as they ascribed the introduction of
races to the Romans, they admitted that they must have been formed after

the subjection of the island by that people.[132] The greater cursus is about a
mile and three-quarters long, by 110 yards wide. The smaller is so indistinct
that only its commencement can be identified; but even as concerns the
larger, I walked twice across it without perceiving its existence, though I
was looking for it, and no one I fancy would remark it if his attention were
not turned to it. Its boundary mounds never could have been 3 feet high,
and now in many places are very nearly obliterated.
That these alignments were once race-courses, appears to me one of the
most improbable of the various conjectures which have been hazarded with
regard even to Stonehenge. No Roman race-course, that we know of,
omitted to provide for the horses returning at least once past the place they
started from, and no course was even a mile, much less a mile and three-
quarters long. What sort of horse-races the British indulged in before the
Conquest I don't know, nor will I hazard an opinion on the subject; but if
they wanted the races to be seen, there are several beautiful and appropriate
spots close at hand where they could have laid out a longer course along
one of the bottoms, where tens of thousands might conveniently have
witnessed the sport from the sloping banks on either hand, whereas here
only the front rank could have seen the race at all, and that imperfectly. It
may also be remarked that the east end of the cursus is closed by a mound
which must have been a singularly awkward position for the judges, though
that is the place assigned to them by Sir Richard; and the west end is cut off
also by an embankment, behind which are several tumuli on the course,
which seems a very unlikely racing arrangement.
But if not race-courses, what were they? If any one will turn back to
woodcut No. 12, p. 55, representing the alignments at Merivale bridge, and
compare them with the cursus as shown in woodcut No. 26, p. 102,
representing the ground about Stonehenge, I think he must perceive that the
two cursus, if complete, would occupy exactly the same relative position
with regard to Stonehenge—on a much larger scale of course—as those at
Dartmoor do to the circle there. The arrangements are so similar that the
purposes can hardly be different. At first sight this seems to tell against the
battle theory. We know of no battle fought on Salisbury Plain. This,
however, is the merest negative assumption possible. We know that the
massacre at Amesbury was followed by a four years' war, between
Ambrosius and the Saxons.[133] Battles there must have been, and many,

and what so likely as that the crowning victory should have been fought in
the immediate proximity of the capital of one of the contending parties. If
these cursus do mark the battle-field, it will at once account for the
somewhat anomalous position of Stonehenge. What is so likely as that the
victor should have chosen the field of his final victory to erect there a
monument to the memory of those whose treacherous slaughter had been
the cause of the war? Of course this is only an hypothesis, and it is only put
forward as such, but it seems to me infinitely nearer the truth than that of
the gratuitous suggestion of a race-course, and looks like one of the
coincidences sure to occur when the investigation is on the right path
towards the true solution.

The first impression that the narrative of the preceding pages will convey to
most readers, will probably be that there must be something more to be said
on the subject, or that something important is left out. If, it may be argued,
the case is so clear as here stated, it could never have been doubted, and
must have been accepted long ago. All I can say in answer is, that if
anything is omitted I am not aware of it. Everything I know of has been
stated as fully and as fairly as seemed necessary for its being clearly
understood. In this instance it must be remembered that the usual arguments
drawn from the division into stone, bronze, and iron ages hardly come into
play. Nothing has been found inside Stonehenge but iron and Roman
pottery. Even admitting the barrows in the immediate proximity of
Stonehenge to be coeval, before their testimony can be of any avail, it must
be ascertained when men ceased to be buried in barrows, and when a man
might not wish a bronze spear-head to be entombed with him as a relic,
even if he did not fight with it in his lifetime. Even then, however, the
evidence would be too indistinct to outweigh that of the finds inside the
circle.
If, after what has been said above, any one still maintains that Stonehenge is
a temple, and not sepulchral, we have no common ground from which to
reason, and need not attempt it. Or if any one as familiar with the locality as
I am personally, or who has studied the Ordnance maps with the same care,
likes to argue that the barrows came to Stonehenge, and not Stonehenge to

the barrows, we see things with such different eyes that we equally want a
common basis for argument.
In a case like the present, however, the great difficulty to be overcome is
not so much cool argument and close reasoning, as a certain undefined
feeling that a monument must be old because we know so little about it.
"Omne ignotum pro antiquo" is a matter of faith with many who will listen
to no argument to the contrary, and in the case of Stonehenge the false
notion has been so fostered by nearly all those who have written about it
since the time of James I., that it will be very difficult now to overthrow it.
Those who adhere to it, however, hardly realize how dark the ages were
between the departure of the Romans and the time of Alfred the Great, and
how much may have been done in that time without any record of it coming
down to our day. Even if we give them all the megalithic monuments we
possess, it is very little indeed for so large a population in so long a time.
Even at a much later period of English history than we are now occupied
with, it is wonderful how little we should know of our monuments if we
depended on the "litera scripta" for our information. Any one who is
familiar with the guide-books of the last, or beginning of the present
century, will see what dire confusion of dates existed with regard to the
erection of our greatest cathedrals and mediæval monuments. Saxon and
Norman were confounded everywhere, and the distinction of any of the
styles between Early English and Perpendicular was not appreciated, and
frequently the dates were reversed. In fact, it was not till Rickman took the
matter in hand that order emerged out of chaos, and he succeeded because
his constructive knowledge enabled him to perceive progressive
developments which formed true sequences, and he was thus able to supply
the want of written information. Every tyro now can fix a date to every
moulding in any of our mediæval buildings, but if we had only written
history to depend upon, in nine cases out of ten he could not prove that the
building was not erected by the Romans or the Phœnicians, or anybody
else. If this is the case in an age when writing was so common as between
the Conquest and the Reformation, should we be surprised if we find
matters so much darker between the departure of the Romans and Alfred,
when written history hardly helps us at all? But Rickman's method will,
when applied to Stonehenge and similar monuments, if I am not very much

mistaken, render their dates nearly as clear as those of our mediæval
monuments have been rendered by the same method.
None but those who have had occasion specially to study the subject can be
aware how devoid of all literary records the period is of which we are now
treating. So meagre and so scarce are they, that many well-informed persons
doubt whether such a person as King Arthur ever lived; and scarcely one of
his great actions is established by anything like satisfactory contemporary
testimony. Yet, in all ages, and in all countries where histories either written
or oral exist, they are filled with the exploits of favourite national heroes—
as Arthur was—which, even where they are fullest and most diffuse, it is
the rarest possible thing to find in them a record of the building of any
temple or tomb. From the building of the Parthenon to the completion of
Henry VIII.'s Chapel, the notices of buildings in general histories are as few
and meagre as may be, and are comprised in a few paragraphs scattered
through many hundred volumes. No one, I am convinced, who has thought
twice on the subject, would expect to find any notice of buildings in the few
pages which are all we possess of history between the departure of the
Romans and the time of the Venerable Bede; yet the absence of record is the
argument which, if I am not mistaken, has had more influence on the
popular mind than almost any other. Too generally it is assumed that, as we
know nothing about them, they must be old. To me, on the contrary, nothing
appears so extremely improbable as that the builders, while leaving no
record of their exploits, should have left any written account of the erection
of the Rude Stone Monuments.
One other point seems worth alluding to before concluding this chapter,
which is that nothing has been advanced, so far as I know, that would lead
us to suppose that the people of this island were, before the time of the
Romans, either more numerous or more powerful, and consequently more
capable of erecting such monuments as Stonehenge and Avebury, than they
were after that people had resided for four centuries among them. All our
existing knowledge seems to tend to a diametrically opposite conclusion,
and now that the day for vague declamation and à priori reasoning is past,
if any proof to the contrary can be brought forward, it would be well that it
were now adduced, for otherwise judgment may go by default. If we
mistake not, the case must be strong and clear that is to outweigh the

evidence just brought forward in reference to the two monuments the use
and age of which we have just been discussing.

Footnotes
[77] These particulars are taken from a careful survey made by Sir R. Colt
Hoare, in 1812, and published in his 'Ancient Wilts,' vol. ii. pl. xiii. p. 70 et
seq.
[78] 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' p. 34.
[79] Haca, or Haco, according to Kemble, was some mythical person with
a very Danish name which is found in Hampshire and Berkshire, as well as
here. Pen seems to mean merely enclosure, as it does now in English. See
Kemble, in 'Journal Arch. Inst.' xiv. p. 134.
[80] 'Bell. Gall.' vi. 17.
[81] 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. xli.
[82] Thurnam, 'Crania Britannica;' London, 1856 to 1865.
[83] 'Codex diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici,' v. p. 238, No. 1120.
[84] Stukeley, 'Stonehenge and Abury,' p. 27.
[85] The particulars are taken from a pamphlet entitled 'Excavations at
Avebury, under the direction of the Secretary of the Wiltshire Archæol. and
Nat. Hist. Society,' printed at Devizes, but, so far as I know, not yet
published.
[86] 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' vol. i. introd. p. xx.
[87] A plan of it was published about Stukeley's time by a Mr. Twining, in a
pamphlet, which was written to prove that this group of monuments was
erected by Agricola, to represent a map of England! A plan accompanies it,
which shows all the avenues as straight; but what weight can possibly be
attached to any evidence coming from a man with such a theory as this?
[88] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 63.
[89] Camden, 'Britannia,' 127.
[90] 'Archæologia,' xxviii. p. 399 et seq.
[91] 'Journal Wiltshire Archæol. and Nat. Hist. Society,' vii. p. 1861.
[92] Curiously enough these dimensions are almost identical with those of
the mound erected by the Belgic-Dutch, to commemorate the part they did
not take in the battle of Waterloo. Its dimensions are 130 feet high, 544 feet
in diameter, and 1632 feet in circumference. The angle of the slope of the
sides is lower, being 27½ degrees, owing to the smaller diameter of the flat
top, which is only 40 feet.
[93] Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 161. See also Salisbury volume of the
Archæological Institute, p. 74.

[94] 'Journal Royal Asiatic Soc.' xiii. p. 164; and Major Skinner's plan of
Anurajapura.
[95] Wilson, 'Ariana Antiqua,' p. 41; and Masson's 'Memoir,' passim.
[96] Sir R. C. Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. pl. ii. fig. 8.
[97] Ibid. i. p. 191.
[98] 'Archæologia,' xxx. p. 300 et seq.
[99] 'Arch. Journ.,' xxiv. pp. 92 and 319.
[100] Ibid. p. 100.
[101] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. 5. Unfortunately there is no scale attached to
the plan of the Marden Circle, and no dimensions quoted in the text.
[102] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' p. 7.
[103] I adopt Dr. Guest's dates for this part of the subject, not only because
I think them most probable, but because I think, from his knowledge and
the special attention he has bestowed on the subject, he is most likely to be
right. See Salisbury Volume Arch. Journal, p. 62.
[104] 'Athenæum Journal,' Dec. 13, 1865.
[105] 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.
[106] 'Salisbury Vol.' p. 63.
[107] 'Mon. Brit.' p. 15.
[108] Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' ii. p. 22.
[109] Saxon Chronicle, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 304.
[110] 'Jeffrey of Monmouth,' ix. p. 4.
[111] The history of the plan given on page 92, and from which all the
dimensions in the text are quoted, is this. When I was staying with my
friend, Mr. Hawkshaw, the eminent engineer, at Eversley, I was
complaining of the incorrectness of all the published plans, when he said,
"I have a man in my office whose plans are the very essence of minute
accuracy. I will send him down to make one for you." He did so, and his
plan—to a scale of 10 feet to 1 inch, is before me. I afterwards took this
plan to Stonehenge, and identified the position and character of every stone
marked upon it.
[112] I am almost afraid to allude to it even in a note, lest some one should
accuse me of founding any theory upon it, like Piazzi Smyth's British
inches in the Pyramids, but it is a curious coincidence that nearly all the
British circles are set out in two dimensions. The smaller class are 100 feet,
the larger are 100 metres in diameter. They are all more than 100 yards.
The latter measure is at all events certainly accidental, so far as we at
present know, but as a nomenclature and "memoria technica," the
employment of the terms may be useful, provided it is clearly understood
that no theory is based upon it.
[113] 'Historia,' in 'Mon. Brit.' 694.

[114] 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' by the author, plates iii. et seq.
[115] Twenty Chinese coolies would carry any one of them up in a week.
[116] 'Serie Centrale' by Comte Melchior de Vogüé. Though this work was
commenced some ten years ago, and subscriptions obtained, it is still
incomplete. No text has yet been published, and no maps, which makes the
identification of the places singularly difficult.
[117] Vide ante, footnote, p. 15.
[118] 'Topography of Jerusalem,' by the Author, p. 58.
[119] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 178, plan vi.
[120] Sir John Lubbock, 'Prehistoric Times,' p. 116.
[121] Sir R. Colt Hoare, 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 145.
[122] The name is written as Sidbury in the Ordnance maps.
[123] 'Archæologia,' vii. pp. 132-134.
[124] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 154.
[125] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 150.
[126] Nennius, in 'Mon. Brit.' p. 69.
[127] Jeffrey, viii. c. 9.
[128] "Fuit antiquis temporibus in Hiberniâ lapidum congeries admiranda,
quæ et Chorea gigantum dicta fuit, quia gigantes eam ab ultimis Africæ
partibus in Hiberniam attulerunt et in Kildarienes planicie non procul a
Castro Nasensi, tam ingenii quam virium opere mirabiliter erexerunt. Unde
et ibidem lapides quidam aliis simillimi similique modo erecti usque in
hodiernum conspiciuntur. Mirum qualiter tanti lapides tot etiam et tam
magni unquam in unum locum vel congesti fuerint vel erecti: quantoque
artificiis lapidibus tam magnis et altis alii superpositi sint non minores; qui
sic in pendulo et tanquam in inani suspendi videntur ut potius artificum
studio quam suppositorum podio inniti videantur. Juxta Britannicam
historiam lapides istos rex Britonum Aurelius Ambrosius divina Merlini
diligentia de Hiberniâ in Britanniam advehi procuravit; et ut tanti facinoris
egregium aliquod memoriale relinqueret eodem ordine et arte qua prius in
loco constituit ubi occultis Saxonum cultris Britanniæ flos occidit et sub
pacis obtentu nequitiæ telis male tecta regni juventus occubuit."—Topogr.
Hiberniæ, vol. ii. ch. xviii.
If we could trust Ware, they still existed in the beginning of the last century.
He speaks of "Saxa illæ in gentia et rudia quæ in planitie non longe a Naasa
in agro Kildariensi et alibi visuntur."—Hist. Hib., xxiv. 103.
[129] 'Hist. Brit.' viii. ch. xvi.
[130] 'Hist. Brit.' xi. ch. iv.
[131] This is the principal argument of Herbert's 'Cyclops Christianus.'
[132] 'Ancient Wiltshire,' i. p. 158. See also woodcut No. 26, p. 102. The
dotted part of the smaller cursus is a restoration of my own.

[133] Vide ante, p. 107.

CHAPTER IV.
MINOR ENGLISH ANTIQUITIES.

Aylesford.

The detailed examination of these groups at Avebury and Stonehenge will
probably be deemed sufficient to establish at least a prima facie case in
favour of the hypothesis that these monuments were sepulchral—that at
least some of them marked battle-fields, and lastly, that their antiquity was
not altogether prehistoric. If this is so, it will not be necessary to repeat the
same evidence in treating of those monuments or groups we are about to
describe. Incidentally the latter will, if I am not mistaken, afford many
confirmations of those propositions, but it will not be necessary to insist or
enlarge on them to the same extent as has been done in the previous pages.

27. Countless Stones, Aylesford. From a drawing by Stukeley.

Among the remaining groups of stones in England, one of the most
important is—or rather was—that in front of Aylesford in Kent. The best

known member of this group is that known as Kit's Cotty—or Coity-house,
which has, however, been so often drawn and described that it is hardly
necessary to do much more than refer to it here. It is a dolmen, composed of
four stones, three upright; the two side stones being about 8 feet square and
2 in thickness, the third somewhat smaller; these form three sides of a
chamber, the fourth side being—and apparently always having been—left
open. These three support a cap stone measuring 11 feet by 8 feet. If we can
trust Stukeley's drawing,[134] it was an external dolmen standing on the end
of a low long barrow. At the other end of the mound lay an obelisk, since
removed, but in Stukeley's time it was said to mark "the general's grave."
The mound has since been levelled by the plough, but the whole forms an
arrangement so common both in England and in Scandinavia, that I am
inclined to place faith in the drawing. So little, however, hinges on it here
that it is not worth while insisting on it, but a trench across the site of the
barrow might lead to interesting results. Nearly due south of Kit's Cotty-
house, at the distance of about 500 yards, is another monument of the same
class, popularly known as the Countless Stones, but so ruined—apparently
by searchers after treasure—that its plan cannot now be made out. In
Stukeley's time, however, it was more perfect, and as his pencil is always
more to be trusted than his pen, it may be worth while to reproduce his
drawings,[135] for the arrangement of the stones was peculiar, but may have
analogies elsewhere. Between these two a third dolmen is said to have
existed within the memory of man, but no trace of it is now to be found. In
the rear of these groups, nearer the village, there exists, or existed, a line of
great stones, extending from a place called Spring Farm, in a north-easterly
direction, for a distance of three-quarters of a mile, to another spot known
as Hale Farm,[136] passing through Tollington, where the greater number of
the stones are now found. In front of the line near the centre at Tollington
lie two obelisks, known to the country people as the coffin-stones—
probably from their shape. They are 12 feet long by 4 to 6 broad, and about
2 or 3 feet thick.[137] They appear to be partially hewn, or at least shaped, so
as to resemble one another.
Besides these stones, which are all on the right bank of the river, there are
several groups at or near Addington, about five miles to the westward of
Aylesford. Two of these in the park at Addington have long been known to
antiquaries, having been described and figured in the 'Archæologia' in 1773.

[138]
The first is a small circle, about 11 feet in diameter, the six stones
comprising it being 19 feet high, 7 wide, and 2 in thickness. Near it is the
larger one of oval form, measuring 50 paces by 42 paces. The stones are
generally smaller than those of the other circle. The other groups or
detached stones are described by Mr. Wright,[139] who went over the ground
with that excellent and venerable antiquary the Rev. L. B. Larking. They
seem to have adopted the common opinion that an avenue of such stones
existed all the way from Addington to Aylesford, but it seems to me that
there is no sufficient evidence to justify this conclusion. Many of the stones
seem natural boulders, and in no place is any alignment distinctly
perceptible.
In addition to these, Mr. Wright found, and attempted to excavate some
smaller monuments of a sepulchral character, near Kit's Cotty House, but
situated on the brow of the hill immediately above it. These "consist
generally of groups of stones buried partly on the ridge of the hill, but
evidently forming, or having formed, small sepulchral chambers." "Each
group," he adds, "is generally surrounded by a circle of stones."[140]
There only now remains the question, why were all these stones placed
here, and by whom? Mr. Wright is far too sober and too well-informed an
antiquary to repeat the usual nonsense about such monuments having been
Druid temples or altars. The conclusion at which he arrives (p. 183) is that
Kit's Cotty-house, and the cemetery around it, with that in the parish of
Addington, together formed the grand necropolis of the Belgian settlers in
this part of the island. Against this it must be observed that the Belgians
erected no such monuments in their own country, Gallia Belgica being
exactly that part of France in which no stone monuments are found, and it is
very unlikely that the Belgians should have done here what they did not do
at home. But another objection is, that the theory is wholly gratuitous, no
shadow of tradition, no analogy, and no reason being adduced to show why
it should be so, and, to say the least of it, it is most unlikely. If a straight
line were drawn from the mouth of the Humber to the head of Southampton
Water, this is the only group of this class of monuments to the eastward of
the line, and what possible reason can we have for supposing that the
princes or people of that vast district chose this place, and this only, for
their necropolis? Had it been some vast plain like Salisbury, or some
gloomy valley, or the site of some ancient sacred city, the choice might have

been intelligible, but a more unromantic, unlikely spot than the valley of the
Medway could hardly have been chosen. It is neither central nor accessible,
and neither history nor tradition lends any countenance to the suggestion.
Suppose, on the other hand, we assume that these erections are a record of
the battle which, according to the Saxon chronicle,[141] was fought on this
spot between Vortigern and Hengist and Horsa, in the year 455, and in
which Catigren was slain on the side of the British, and the redoubted Horsa
fell on that of the Saxons. This at least has the merit of accounting for all
we see—the line of stones at Tollington is just such a position as the British
army would take up, to cover the ford at Aylesford against an enemy
advancing from Thanet. The two obelisks in front would represent the
position of the two chiefs; Kit's Cotty-house would become the tomb of
Catigren, which tradition always represented it to be; the circles at
Addington would become the graves of chiefs who were wounded in the
battle, and taken to the rear and buried with due honours, at or near the spot
where they died; and lastly the tumulus at Horstead would also in
accordance with ancient tradition be the grave of Horsa.
So much depends on this last determination, that last year through the
kindness of Colonel Fisher, R.E., the assistance of a party of sappers was
procured from Chatham, and the mound was thoroughly explored. It was
found that a cremation (it is presumed of a human body) had taken place on
the natural surface of the ground, and that a tumulus had been raised over it.
The chalk was dug down to some depth and found quite undisturbed, but no
ornament or implement was found anywhere. At first this seemed
disappointing; but on Mr. Godfrey Faussett, who was present at the digging,
referring to certain passages in 'Beowulf,' it appears to be exactly what
should have been expected. The poem, in the first place, is about the best
authority we could have, inasmuch as, according to Kemble, "it gave
accounts of exploits not far removed, in point of time, from the crossing of
Hengist and Horsa into Britain, and the poem was probably brought hither
by some of those Anglo-Saxons, who, in 495, accompanied Cerdic and
Cyneric."[142] After Hengist's conflict with Fin, the body was burnt (l. 2232-
2251); but after Beowulf's death not only cremation is mentioned, but a
splendid mound is raised over the spot where the funeral pile stood, "ad on
Eorthen" (l. 6266), on the surface of the ground. At Beowulf's funeral,
vases, and arms, and jewels of all kinds, were thrown upon the pile and

burnt with him; and no wonder, considering the wealth just rescued from
the guardianship of the "Wurm" by the victorious hero. Poor Horsa died
defeated, and all his friends could expect would be to be allowed to bury
him under a flag of truce, with such rites as would ensure his proper
reception in the next world. Had they attempted to bury any treasures with
him, they probably would have been appropriated by the victorious Brits.
Bede's expression that Horsa's tomb was situated in "orientalibus partibus
Cantiæ,"[143] has more than once been quoted to disprove this identification.
But what did Bede mean by "eastern parts"? May it not have been that in
his day the Medway divided Kent into east and west? Or he may have
spoken without sufficient local knowledge. But that Horsa fell at Aylesford,
is as well authenticated as any fact in that age: he most probably was buried
near the battle-field; and the village where the mound is situated has
probably ever since been called Horstead, as it is at this day.
All this, it appears to me, makes so strong a case, that I cannot help thinking
it might be accepted till, at least, something is advanced against it. At
present I am not aware of any argument to the contrary that seems to me
entitled to any serious consideration. No flint, or bronze, or iron implement
of any sort, so far as I know, have been found on the spot—this may be only
because they have not been looked for; but as the case at present stands, the
Danish system cannot be pleaded for or against this view.
The real difficulty to be feared in obtaining acceptance of this explanation
of the stone at Aylesford, is its extreme simplicity. After all that has been
written about the unfathomable mystery and the primæval antiquity of this
class of monuments, to be told that these are merely the memorials of a
battle fought on the spot in the year 455, is too terribly prosaic to be
tolerated, nor ought it perhaps to be accepted if it stood alone. If, however,
it proves to be only one of many instances, the ultimate admission of the
above views can hardly be doubtful.

Ashdown.

In the neighbourhood of Uffington, in Berkshire, there are three
monuments, two at least of which still merit a local habitation and a name
in our history. One of these is the celebrated white horse, which gives its

name to the vale, and the scouring of which is still used by the inhabitants
of the neighbourhood on the occasion of a triennial festival and games,
which have been so graphically described by Mr. Thomas Hughes.

28. The Sarsen Stones at Ashdown. From a drawing by A. L. Lewis,
Esq.

The second is a cromlech, known as Wayland Smith's Cave, and
immortalized by the use made of it by Sir Walter Scott in the novel of
'Kenilworth.' The third is as remarkable as either, but still wants its poet.
The annexed woodcut will give a fair idea of its nature and extent.[144] It
does not pretend to be minutely accurate, and this in the present instance is
fortunately of no great consequence. All the stones are overthrown: some lie
flat on the ground, some on their edges, and it is only the smallest that can

be said to be standing. The consequence is, that we cannot feel sure that we
know exactly where any of them stood, nor whether they were arranged in
lines, like those at Carnac; nor if so, in how many rows, or whether they
always had the confused appearance they now present. They are spread over
an area of about 1600 feet north and south, and of half that distance east and
west. The gap in the centre was made purposely to clear the view in front of
the house when it was built, and many of the stones it is feared were
employed in the erection. They are the same Sarsens as are used at Avebury
and Stonehenge, and the largest are about 10 feet long from 6 to 9 wide, and
from 3 to 4 feet high (in their present recumbent position); but there are few
so large as this, the majority being from 2 to 4 feet in length and breadth,
and from 1 to 3 high.[145]
No one has yet attempted to give any explanation of the monument beyond
repeating the usual Druidical formulæ. To me it appears almost
incontestable that it is a memorial of the battle fought here between the
Saxons and the Danes in the year 871. From Asser we learn that the Pagans,
advancing from Reading, occupied the higher ground. It is sometimes
supposed that Uffington Castle was thrown up by them on the occasion,
which is by no means impossible. Advancing eastward, they then attacked
the Christians under Alfred, who occupied the lower ground. This, and the
ill-timed fit of devotion on his brother's part, nearly lost the Christians the
day; but Alfred's skill and intrepidity prevailed, and the victory was
complete.[146] This being so, nothing appears more probable than that the
victorious army, either by themselves or with the assistance of the
peasantry, should have collected together the Sarsens in the neighbourhood,
and have arranged them as Alfred and his army stood, when he first
received the shock of the Pagans. It seems also probable that he would have
engraved the emblem of the white horse on the side of the hill where the
Pagans had encamped the night before the battle, and where probably the
fight ended on the following day.
The question whether Weyland Smith's Cave belongs to the same group, or
to an earlier date, is not so easily settled. My impression is that it is older. It
is a three-chambered dolmen almost identical in plan with Petrie's No. 27,
Carrowmore, to be described in the next chapter, but with this difference,
that whereas the circle of stones in the Irish example contained thirty-six or
thirty-seven stones, and was 60 feet in diameter, this one contained

probably only twenty-eight, and was only 50 feet in diameter. This and the
fact of the one consisting of Sarsens—the other of granite blocks—account
so completely for all the difference between them, that I cannot believe that
so great a lapse of time as eight centuries could have taken place between
the erection of the two. I fancy it must have been erected for the
entombment of a local hero in the early centuries of the Christian era; but of
this we will be better able to judge when we are further advanced in our
survey of similar monuments.

Rollright.

At Rollright, between Chipping Norton and Long Compton, in Oxfordshire,
there is a circle, which, from what has been written about it, has assumed an
importance in the antiquarian world, which is certainly not due either to its
dimensions or to any traditions that attach to it. Every antiquary, from
Camden down to Bathurst Deane, has thought it necessary to say something
about this splendid temple of the Druid priesthood, so that the traveller,
when he visits it, is sure to be dreadfully disappointed. It is an ordinary 100-
foot circle, the entrance to which is apparently from the south opposite to
the five largest stones, which are placed in juxtaposition on the north, the
tallest in the centre being about 5 feet in height. The others average about 3
or 4 feet, but are uneven in height and irregularly spaced, but with a
tendency to form groups of threes, which is a peculiarity observable-in
some similar circles on Dartmoor.
Across the road, at a distance of about 50 yards, stands a single obeliscal
stone, about 10 feet high, on a mound which appears to be artificial. If it is
so, however, it was raised with the materials taken out of a pit, which still
exists on one side, and not from a ditch surrounding it, as is usual in such
cases. In another direction, about a quarter of a mile from the circle, stands
a dolmen, which is the finest feature in the group. The cap stone, which has
fallen, measures 8 feet by 9, and is of considerable thickness; and three of
the supporting stones are 7, 8, and 10 feet in height respectively.
This circle appears to have been examined by Ralph Sheldon, but without
results.[147] The mound, so far as is known, is yet untouched, and the
dolmen could not now be explored without causing its complete ruin; I
presume no one will contest its being sepulchral. It would be difficult now

to bring to the test of experiment the question whether the circle is so or
not, as some forty or fifty years ago, it and the plot round it were planted
with larch trees, whose roots have spread over the surface and could with
difficulty be now got rid of. This is to be regretted, as from its isolated
position the group affords an excellent opportunity of testing the usual
theories regarding these monuments. If it was a temple, it gives us a very
low idea of the religious state of our ancestors, that for a district of from
twenty to thirty miles' radius they should have possessed only one single
small enclosure, surrounded by a low imperfect wall, 3 or 4 feet high. If any
other had ever existed, traces of it must have been found, or why has this
one remained so complete, for not one stone apparently is missing. It is also
strange that, as in other instances, it should be situated on the highest and
bleakest part of the surrounding country. It is, in fact, not only the
unlikeliest form, but the most inconvenient site for a temple. It also gives us
a very low idea of their civilization. The circle at Rollright is a sort of
monument that the boys of any of our larger schools could set up in a week,
supposing the stones to be found lying about, at no great distance, which
there is little doubt was the case when it was erected. The dolmen might
require a little contrivance to get the cap stone hoisted; but there is nothing
that the villagers in the neighbourhood could not now complete in a few
days, if so inclined, and certainly nothing that a victorious army, of say
even 1000 men, could not complete between sunrise and sunset in a
summer's day. Even if the sepulchral character of the group is admitted, it
can hardly be the burying-ground of a chief, or clan, or family. In that case,
instead of one dolmen there must have been several, smaller it may be, but
in succession. The chief must have had ancestors, or successors, or
relations, and they would not be content that one, and one only, of their
family should possess an honoured tomb, and that they themselves should
rest in undistinguished graves. As in other cases, unless we are prepared to
admit that it marks the site of a battle, I know of nothing that will explain
the situation and the form of the group; nor do I see why we should reject
Camden's explanation of the circumstances under which it was erected:
"These would, I verily think, to have been the monument of some victory,
and haply erected by Rollo the Dane, who afterwards conquered
Normandy." "In what time he with the Danes troubled England with
depredations we read that the Danes joined battle with the English thereby
at Hock Norton, a place for no one thing more famous in old time than for

the woeful slaughter of the English on that foughten field, under the reign
of King Edward the Elder."[148] This last, however, is apparently a mistake,
for it was Eadward (901-923) who was really the contemporary of Rollo.
He was also the contemporary of Gorm the Old, of Denmark, of whose
tumulus and Pagan habits we shall hear hereafter.
This again will appear a very prosaic anti-climax to those who are nursed
on ideas of the hoar antiquity and wondrous magnificence of such
monuments as Ashdown and Rollright. A visit to them is sufficient to dispel
one part of that illusion, and a little common-sense applied to the other will
probably show that the more moderate view meets perfectly all the real
exigencies of the case.

Penrith.

In the neighbourhood of Penrith in Cumberland there is a group, or perhaps
it should be said there are three groups of monuments, of considerable
importance from their form and size, but deficient in interest from the
absence of any tradition to account for their being where we find them.
They extend in a nearly straight line from Little Salkeld on the north to
Shap on the south, a distance of fourteen miles as the crow flies, Penrith
lying a little to the westward of the line, and nearer to its northern than its
southern extremity.
About half a mile from the first named village is the circle known popularly
as Long Meg and her Daughters, sixty-eight in number, if each stone
represents one. It is about 330 feet (100 metres) in diameter, but does not
form a perfect circle. The stones are unhewn boulders, and very few of
them are now erect. Outside the circle stands Long Meg herself, of a
different class of stone from the others, about 12 feet high, and apparently
hewn, or at all events shaped, to some extent.[149] Inside the circle, Camden
reports "the existence of two cairns of stone, under which they say are dead
bodies buried; and indeed it is probable enough," he adds, "that it has been a
monument erected in honour of some victory."[150] No trace of these cairns
now remains, nor am I aware that the centre has ever been dug into with a
view of looking for interments. My impression, however, is that the
principal interment was outside, and that Long Meg marks either the head
or the foot of the chief's grave.

Close to Penrith is another circle called Mayborough, of about the same
dimensions—100 metres—as that at Little Salkeld, but of a very different
construction. The vallum or enclosure is entirely composed of small water-
worn stones taken from the beds of the Eamount or Eden rivers. The stones
are wonderfully uniform in size, and just about what any man could carry
without inconvenience. This enclosure mound is now so mined that it is
extremely difficult to guess what were its dimensions. It may have been
from 15 feet to 20 feet high, and twice that in breadth at its base. The same
cause makes it difficult to determine the dimensions of the internal area.
The floor of the circle I calculated as 290 feet from the foot of one slope to
the foot of the opposite one, and consequently the whole as from 320 feet to
340 feet[151] from crest to crest; but these dimensions must be taken as only
approximative till a more careful survey is made than it was in my power to
execute. Near, but not quite in the centre, stands a single splendid monolith;
it may be 12 feet in height, but is more than twice the bulk of Long Meg. In
Pennant's time there were four stones still standing in the centre, of which
this was one, and probably there may originally have been several more
forming a small circle in the centre.[152] In his day also he learned that there
were four stones—two pairs—standing in a gap in the vallum looking like
the commencement of an avenue. The place, however, is too near Penrith,
and stone is there too valuable to allow of such things escaping, so that
nothing now remains which would enable us to restore this monument with
certainty.
Close by this is a third circle known as Arthur's Round Table.

29. Sketch Plan of King Arthur's Round Table, with the side,
obliterated by the road, restored.

It consists, or consisted, of a vallum of earth, as near as can be made out,
300 feet from crest to crest; but about one-third of the circle being cut away
to form a road, it is not easy to speak with certainty. Inside the rampart is a
broad berm, then a ditch, and in the centre a plateau about 170 feet in
diameter, slightly raised in the centre. No stone is visible on the surface,
though the rampart when broken into shows that it is principally composed
of them. There is now only one entrance through the rampart and across the
ditch, but as both entrances existed in Pennant's time (1772), and are
figured in his plan of the monument, I have not hesitated to restore the
second accordingly.[153] The distance between Mayborough and King
Arthur's Round Table is about 110 yards, and at about the same distance

from the last-named monument, a third circle existed in Pennant's time. It
seems, however, to have been in his day at least only a circular ditch, and
has now entirely disappeared.
Owing to their more ruined state, the remains at Shap are more difficult to
describe. They were, however, visited by Stukeley in 1725, but he
complains it rained all the time that he was there, and rain on a bleak
exposed moor like Shap is singularly inimical to antiquarian pursuits.[154]
The remains were also described by Camden,[155] but not apparently from
personal observation, and others have described them since, but the
destruction has been so rapid, the village being almost entirely built out of
them, that it is now extremely difficult to ascertain what they really were.
All, however, are agreed that the principal monument was an alignment,
according to some of a double row of stones, of which others can only trace
a single row. So far as I could make out on the spot, it commenced near a
spot called the Thunder-stone, in the north, where there are seven large
stones in a field; six are arranged as a double row; the seventh seems to
commence a single line, from this all the way to a place at the southern
extremity of the village, called Karl Lofts, single stones may be traced at
intervals, in apparently a perfectly straight line and still beyond this, at a
farmyard called Brackenbyr, Mr. Simpson fancied he could, in 1859, trace
the remains of a circle 400 feet in diameter, with a large obelisk in the
centre.[156] I confess I was not so fortunate in 1869, and I also differ from
him as to the position of the stone row. He seems to fancy, from the
description of Stukeley, that it was situated to the southward of Karl Lofts,
though he could not detect any traces of it. My impression is that it
commenced with the circle at Brackenbyr, immediately south of Karl Lofts,
and proceeded in a north-westerly direction for nearly a mile and a half to
the Thunder-stone, as before mentioned. Rather more than half a mile due
south of Brackenbyr stands a portion of what was once a very fine circle. It
was partially destroyed by the railway, but seems to have been a hundred-
foot circle, and to have stood considerably in advance of the line of the
avenue, in the same relative position to the stone row as the circle at
Merivale Bridge (woodcut No. 12), or as Stonehenge to its cursus (woodcut
No. 26), whether we assume that it was continued in this direction, or
terminated as above indicated. In front of the circle is a noble tumulus,

called Kemp How, in which the body of a man of gigantic stature is said to
have been found.[157]
According to the popular tradition the stone avenue originally extended to
Muir Divock, a distance of rather more than five miles, to which it certainly
points. Though this is most improbable, it is not wholly without reason, as
on Muir Divock there are five or six circles of stone and several tumuli. The
circles have most of them been opened recently, and in all instances were
found to contain cists or other evidence of interments.[158] Immediately over
the Muir stands a commanding hill, 1747 feet high, marked on the
Ordnance Survey as Arthur's Pike. Besides these, on the hill behind Shap, to
the eastward, are several stone circles, some single, some double, but none
are of any great size, or composed of stones of very large dimensions. The
whole aspect of the country is that of a district used as a burying-place to an
extent far beyond anything that the usual inhabitants of the locality could
have required, for a bleaker and more ungenial spot is not inhabited in any
part of these islands.

So far as I know, no credible tradition attaches to these monuments so as to
connect them with any historical or local incident. We are, therefore, left
almost wholly to their intrinsic forms, or to analogies, to determine either
their history or their purposes.
No one will now probably be found seriously to maintain that the long stone
row at Shap was a temple either of the Druids or of any one else. At least if
these ancient people thought a single or even a double row of widely-
spaced stones, stretching to a mile and a half across a bleak moor, was a
proper form for a place to worship in, they must have been differently
constituted from ourselves. Unless they possessed the tails, or at least the
long-pointed ears with which Darwin endows our ancestors, they would
have adopted some form of temple more nearly similar to those used in all
other countries of the world. Nor was it a tomb. Not only have no
sepulchral remains been found here, but nowhere else has any trace of such
a purpose been found connected with such alignments. Even, however, if it
is contended that it is sepulchral, it certainly was not the burying-place of

the hamlet of Shap, or of its neighbourhood, for a more miserable spot for
habitation does not exist in England, and it cannot be that Shap, like
Avebury, should require the most magnificent cemeteries in the island,
while nothing of the sort exists near the great centres of population. Had the
country been as thickly inhabited as China, we might fancy the people
seeking waste uncultivable spots in which to bury their dead, but even at the
present day Woking is the only cemetery that has been selected on this
principle in England, and at any previous time to which we can look back,
the idea appears too absurd to be entertained for a moment.
If, therefore, the alignment at Shap was sepulchral, it must have been the
burying-place of those that fell in some battle on the spot; this in fact brings
us to the only suggestion I am aware of that seems at all tenable: that it
marks a battle-field like those on Dartmoor (ante, p. 54), and others we
shall meet with hereafter.
Excavations have proved that all the smaller circles which abound in the
neighbourhood are graves, and if those from 60 feet to 100 feet in diameter
are so, all analogy must lead us to the inference that the 100-metre circles
are so also. Direct proof has not, however, yet been obtained of this, but that
may arise first from the difficulty of excavating so large an area; or it may
be that the bodies were buried outside the circle, as at Hakpen (ante, p. 76),
or at the foot of the stones, as at Crichie (ante, p. 75) or in those circles
which have no erect stones in a similar position—at the toe of the inner
slope of the rampart—and these are just the places where they have not
been looked for. Meanwhile the cairns in the inside of the circle of Long
Meg's Daughters seem to favour this view of their sepulchral purpose. But
if sepulchres, certainly they were not family or princely tombs. If that was
their destination they would not be found only in two or three groups in the
wildest and most remote parts of the country, but in far greater numbers,
and nearer those places where men most do congregate. We are in fact
driven to Camden's suggestion, that they may have been made to celebrate
some victory; but, if so, what victory? It looks like riding a hobby very hard
to make the same suggestion as was made with regard to Avebury, but I
confess I know no other that can be brought forward with so much
plausibility as that of considering them to be memorials of Arthur's
campaigns against the Saxon invaders.

The first objection that will naturally be raised to this hypothesis is, that
King Arthur was a myth, and never fought any battles at all. It was not
necessary to examine this when speaking of Avebury. All that was then
required was to know if Waden Hill was Badon Hill. If it was the site of that
famous battle, there was no further enquiry necessary. Arthur, and he only,
commanded there; and if we admit the fact of the battle being fought, we
admit at the same time the existence of him who commanded there. But
with regard to the other eleven battles mentioned by Nennius[159] the case is
not so clear, and according to the present fashionable school of historical
criticism it is thought reasonable to reject the whole as a myth, because the
evidence is not such as would stand examination in a court of law, and also
because the story as it now stands is so mixed up with incredible fables as
to throw discredit on the whole. It is very much easier to heap ridicule on
the silly miracles which Merlin is said by mediæval minstrels to have
performed, and to laugh at the marvellous exploits of Arthur and the
Knights of his Round Table, than to attempt to glean the few facts which
their wild poetry has left unobscured. But if any one will attempt the same
process with one of the many 'Lhystoires du noble et vaillant roy Alexandre
le grand,' he will find exactly the same difficulties. Aristotle and his master
have been rendered quite as fabulous persons as Merlin and Arthur, and the
miracles of the one and the feats of the other are equally marvellous. In
Alexander's case we fortunately have Arrian and Curtius, and others, who
give us the truth with regard to him; but Arthur had no contemporary
history, and instead of living in a highly civilized state that continued for
ages after him, he was the last brilliant light of his age and race, and after
him all was gloom for centuries. It was not till after a long eclipse that his
name was seized upon in a poetical and an uncritical age as a peg for bards
whereupon to hang their wild imaginings.
This is not the place to examine so large a question. It will be sufficient to
state what I believe to be the main facts. Those who do not admit them need
not read further. Arthur, it seems to me, was born the prince of one of the
smaller states in the West of England, probably Cornwall, and after the
death of Ambrosius, in or about the year 508, took up the struggle the latter
had carried on with varying success against the hordes of Saxons and others
who were gradually pushing the Bryts out of England. My impression is,
that even before the Romans left, Jutes, Angles, and Danes had not only
traded with, but had settled, both on the Saxonicum littus of Kent, and on

the coast of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and the Lothians; and that during
the century that elapsed between the departure of the Romans and the time
of Arthur, they were gradually pushing the British population behind the
range of hills which extends from Carlisle to Derby and forms the back-
bone of England. It was in the plains behind this range and further south
that all Arthur's battles seem to have been fought. With Cumberland, Wales,
and Cornwall behind him, he was not only sure of support from the native
population in his rear, but had a secure retreat in case of adverse fortune
overtaking him. In all this range of country I do not know any spot so
favourable strategically for a defender of his country to take up as the high
land about Shap, or the open country extending from thence to Salkeld. The
ridges at Shap protected his right against an enemy advancing by Lancaster,
the Caledonian Forest and a very rugged country covered his left, and in
front there was only a wild inhospitable tract by which the invader from the
opposite coast could advance against him, while by a single day's march to
his rear he was among the inaccessible mountains and lakes of Cumberland.
I am afraid to lay much stress on the fact of one of the circles at Penrith and
the hill opposite Shap bearing Arthur's name, because in the last few years
we have seen two hard-headed sober-minded Scotchmen proving, to their
own satisfaction, that Arthur was born north of the Tweed—that all his
battles were fought and all his exploits performed in the northern portion of
the island. Even Ganora—the faithless Guinevere—if not a Scotchwoman,
was at all events buried in Miegle churchyard under a stone, which some
pious descendant sculptured some centuries later.[160] Even here, however, I
fancy I can perceive a difference between the two cases. In the middle ages
the Scotch had historians like Boece and Fordun, who recorded such fables
for the edification of their countrymen, and with proper patriotism were
willing that their country should have as large a share of the world's
greatness or great men as they could well appropriate. They were followed
by an educated class throughout the country, who were actuated by the
same motives, and did exactly what Stukeley and his followers did with
English monuments. They found Druids who had no temples, and remains
which they supposed to be temples with no priests; so, putting the two
together, they made what they fancied was a perfect whole out of two
incongruous halves. So the Scotch, having a rich repertory of fables on the
one hand, and on the other having hills without names and sculptured stones
without owners, joined the two together, and went on repeating in the same

manner their inventions till, from dire reiteration, they took the likeness of
fact.
The case was, if I mistake not, very different in Cumberland. The boors of
that land had no literature—no learning, and none of that ardent patriotism
which enabled the Scotch poets and pedants to manufacture a quasi history
for themselves out of other people's doings. It is difficult to fancy the
inhabitants of Cumberland troubling themselves with Arthur and his affairs,
and wishing to apply his name to their hills or antiquities, unless some
ancient tradition had made it probable, and, "valeat quantum," these names
may therefore be considered as suggesting a real connexion between the
place and the man.
Owing to the extreme brevity of the record in Nennius,[161] there are few
things about which greater discrepancy of opinion exists even among the
believers in Arthur than the localities of his battles. Taking them in the order
in which they are mentioned, the first is said to have been fought on the
river Glem of Glein, which the editors of the 'Monumenta Historica
Britannica' suggest may be a river of that name in Northumberland. The
river indicated is so small a brook that it is difficult to fancy its name should
be attached to so important an event.
If we must go so far north, I would rather feel inclined to place it at Wood
Castle, near Lochmaben, in Dumfriesshire, where there is a circular
enclosure identical in plan and dimensions with King Arthur's Round Table
at Penrith.[162] Strategically, it is a much more likely spot than the exposed
east coast of Northumberland; but, except the plan of Wood Castle, I know
of no authority for placing this battle-field in Annandale.
There is no indication where the second, third, or fourth battles were
fought; but for the fifth we have this important designation that it was
fought "super aliud flumen quod vocatur Duglas vel Dubglas quod est in
regione Linuis," or in another MS. Linnuis. A marginal note suggests
Lindesay, in Lincolnshire, but for no other reason apparently than from the
first three letters being the same in both. There is a River Duglas flowing
past Wigan, in Lancashire, which Whittaker, in his 'History of Manchester,'
boldly adopts as the place indicated, and others have been inclined to accept
his determination. After going carefully over the ground, I confess no spot
appears to me more unlikely for a great battle than the banks of this river,

nor does any local evidence of their having been so now remain. One
cannot but feel that if Arthur ever allowed himself to be pushed into such a
corner, with nothing but the sea behind him to retreat upon, he certainly was
not the general that made so successful a stand against the Saxons. I am
much more inclined to believe that Linnuis is only a barbarous latinization
of Linn, which in Gaelic and Irish means sea or lake. In Welsh it is Lyn, and
in Anglo-Saxon Lin, and if this is so, "In regione Linnuis" may mean "In
the Lake Country."
The name of the river does not appear to me at all an insuperable difficulty.
All the rivers about Penrith, the Lowther, the Eamount, and the Eden, have
names that were certainly given to them by the Saxons, but they must have
had Celtic names before they came; and Dubh as an adjective is dark or
black, and Glas, green or grey, is used as a substantive to denote the sea, in
Irish. Such an epithet would apply admirably to the Lowther; and if it could
be identified with the river mentioned by Nennius, our difficulties would be
at an end. These speculations, however, must of course be taken for what
they are worth. There is, so far as known, no authority for the name Duglas
or Dubhglas being applied to the Lowther or Eden.
The sixth battle was on a river called Bassas. It has been suggested that this
means the Bass Rock in the Frith of Forth; but it need hardly be objected
that a rock is not a river, and there is an extreme improbability that Arthur
ever saw the Lothians. In Derbyshire there is a Bas Lowe[163] in a
neighbourhood where, as we shall presently see, there is reason to believe
Arthur fought one or more of his battles, but I am not aware of any river so
called in that neighbourhood.
The seventh war was in Silva Calidonis, "id est Cat Coit Celidon." The Cat
in the last name is evidently Cat or Cath, "a battle," which we frequently
meet with, and shall again in describing these matters. Coit, only so far as
the dictionaries tell us, means coracle, and would seem to indicate a
struggle in boats. The Caledonian Forest, is what will really determine the
locality. Generally it is understood to be the forest that extended from
Penrith to Carlisle; and, if so, any one of our Penrith circles might be
assumed to mark the site of the seventh battle. Most probably in that case it
would be the Salkeld circle, or it might be one known as the Grey Yawds,
near Cumrew, about eight or nine miles further north.[164]

The eighth battle was in Castello Guinnion, or Guin, which, from the sound
of the name, can hardly escape being in Wales or the Welsh border, unless
indeed we assume that these Welsh appellations were common to the whole
country before the Saxons re-named many of the places. In that case we
have nothing to guide us as to where the battle was fought.
The ninth battle was "in Urbe Legionis." This may be either Chester or
Caerleon in South Wales. It most probably was the latter, as in another MS.
it is added "quæ Britannice Karlium dicitur," or Cair lin in another.
The tenth war was on the shores of a river which was called Ribroit.
Though this is spelt in various MSS. Tribruit, Trathreuroit, and Trattreuroit,
it seems impossible to identify it. But it must have been a large river, or the
expression "in littore" would hardly have been used.
The eleventh battle "fuit in Monte quod dicitur Agned Cathregonnon;" and
in different MSS. this is spelt Cathregomion, Cabregonnon, Catbregonnion,
and in one it is added, "in Somersetshire quem nos Cathbregion
appellamus." No such name seems now to be known in that country; but as
we shall presently, I hope, see reason for believing, the spot is probably that
now known as Stanton Drew.
The twelfth battle was that of Mount Badon, the position of which, as we
have already pointed out, may almost certainly be fixed in the immediate
neighbourhood of Avebury.
All this is indistinct enough, it must be confessed, and much of it depends
on nominal similarities, which are never very satisfactory; still the general
impression it leaves seems worthy of acceptance. It would lead us to think
that Arthur commenced his struggles with the invaders in the north of
England, probably in the time of Ambrosius, and fought his way
southwards, till after twelve campaigns, or twelve battles, he reached his
crowning victory at Badon Hill, which gave him peace for the rest of his
days. At all events, with respect to the first seven battles, there seems no
reason why we should not appropriate any of them except perhaps the first
—to our Cumberland circles. The proof of whether or not it is reasonable to
do so will of course depend on the case we can make out for the other
circles we have to examine, and on the general interdependence which the
whole series can be shown to have on one another.

At present it may be allowed to stand on an hypothesis, which certainly has
the merit of explaining the facts as now known; but the probability or
disproof of which must depend on the facts and arguments to be adduced
hereafter.

Derbyshire.

The next group of monuments with which we have to deal is perhaps as
interesting as any of those hitherto described. As before mentioned, when
speaking of the labours of William and Thomas Bateman, the north-western
portion of the county is crowded with barrows, but none apparently of so
ancient a character as those excavated by Canon Greenwell in Yorkshire,
and most of them containing objects of so miscellaneous a character as to
defy systematic classification. As these, however, hardly belong to the
subject of which we are now treating, it is not necessary to say more about
them at present; and the less so, that the group which falls directly in with
our line of research is well defined as to locality, and probably also as to
age.
The principal monument of this group is well-known to antiquaries as Arbe
or Arbor Low,[165] and is situated about nine miles south by east from
Buxton, and by a curious coincidence is placed in the same relative position
to the Roman Road as Avebury. So much is this the case, that in the
Ordnance Survey—barring the scale—the one might be mistaken for the
other if cut out from the neighbouring objects. Minning Low, however,
which is the pendant of Silbury Hill in this group, is four miles off, though
still in the line of the Roman road, instead of only one mile, as in the
Wiltshire example. Besides, there is a most interesting Saxon Low at Benty
Grange, about one mile from Arbor Low. Gib Hill, Kens Low, Ringham
Low, End Low, Lean Low, and probably altogether ten or twelve important
mounds covering a space five miles in one direction, by one and a half to
two miles across.
Arbor Low consists of a circular platform, 167 feet in diameter, surrounded
by a ditch 18 feet broad at bottom, the earth taken from which has been
used to form a rampart about 15 feet to 18 feet high, and measuring about
820 feet in circumference on the top.[166] The first thing that strikes us on
looking at the plan (woodcut No. 30) is that, in design and general

dimensions, the monument is identical with that called "Arthur's Round
Table," at Penrith. The one difference is that, in this instance, the section of
the ditch, and consequently that of the rampart, have been increased at the
expense of the berm; but the arrangements of both are the same, and so are
the internal and external dimensions. At Arbor Low there are two entrances
across the ditch, as there was in the Cumberland and Dumfriesshire
examples. As mentioned above, only one is now visible there, the other
having been obliterated by the road, but the two circles are in other respects
so similar as to leave very little doubt as to their true features.

30. Arbor Low. From a drawing by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

The Derbyshire example, however, possesses, in addition to its earthworks,
a circle of stones on its inner platform, originally probably forty or fifty in
number; but all now prostrate, except perhaps some of the smallest, which,
being nearly cubical, may still be in situ. In the centre of the platform, also,

are several very large stones, which evidently formed part of a central
dolmen.
There is another very interesting addition at Arbor Low, which is wanting at
Penrith, this is a tumulus attached unsymmetrically to the outer vallum.
This was, after repeated attempts, at last successfully excavated by the
Messrs. Bateman, and found to contain a cist of rather irregular shape, in
which were found among other things two vases[167] one of singularly
elegant shape, the other less so. In themselves these objects are not
sufficient to determine the age of the barrow, but they suffice to show that it
was not very early. One great point of interest in this discovery is its
position with reference to the circle. It is identical with that of Long Meg
with reference to her daughters, and perhaps some of the stones outside
Avebury, supposed to be the commencement of the avenue, may mark the
principal places of interment.

31. Vases and Bronze Pin found in Arbor Low.

32. Section of Gib Hill. No scale.

Attached to Arbor Low, at a distance of about 250 yards, is another
tumulus, called Gib Hill, apparently about 70 to 80 feet in diameter.[168] It
was carefully excavated by Mr. T. Bateman in 1848; but after tunnelling
through and through it in every direction on the ground level and finding
nothing, he was surprised at finding, on removing the timber which
supported his galleries, that the side of the hill fell in, and disclosed the cist
very near the summit. The whole fell down, and the stones composing the
cist were removed and re-erected in the garden of Lumberdale House. It
consisted of four massive blocks of limestone forming the sides of a
chamber, 2 feet by 2 feet 6 inches, and covered by one 4 feet square. The
cap stone was not more than 18 inches below the turf. By the sudden fall of
the side a very pretty vase was crushed, the fragments mingling with the
burnt bones it contained; but though restored, unfortunately no
representation has been given. The only other articles found in this tumulus
were "a battered celt of basaltic stone, a dart or javelin-point of flint, and a
small iron fibula, which had been enriched with precious stones."[169]

33. Summit of Minning Low, as it appeared in 1786. From Douglas.

34. Plan of Chambers in Minning Low.

Though Gib Hill is interesting as the first of the high-level dolmens which
we have met with in this country, Minning Low is a still more striking
example of that class which we hinted at before as common in Aveyron
(ante, woodcut No. 8), and which we shall meet with frequently as we
proceed. When it first attracted the attention of antiquaries in 1786,

Minning Low seems to have been a straight-lined truncated cone, about 300
feet in diameter, and the platform on its summit measured 80 feet across.
[170]
Its height could not be ascertained.[171] It was even then planted over
with trees, so that these dimensions, except the breadth of the platform, are
hardly to be depended upon, and since then the whole mound has been so
dug into and ruined, that they cannot now be verified. On the platform at
the top in 1786 there stood live kistvaens, each capable of containing-one
body; and, so far as can be made out from Douglas' plates and descriptions,
the cap stone of these was flush with the surface, or possibly, as at Gib Hill,
they may have been a few inches below the surface, and, becoming
exposed, may have been rifled as they were found; but this is hardly
probable, because unless always exposed, it is not likely they would have
been either looked for in such a situation, or found by accident. Below them
—at what depth we are not told—a stone chamber, or rather three
chambers, were found by Mr. Bateman, apparently on the level of the
ground on the south side of the Barrow.[172] To use Mr. Bateman's own
words ('Vestiges,' &c., p. 39): "On the summit of Minning Low Hill, as they
now appear from the soil being removed from them, are two large
cromlechs, exactly of the same construction as the well-known Kit's Cotty-
house, near Maidstone, in Kent. In the cell near which the body lay were
found fragments of five urns, some animal bones, and six brass Roman
coins, viz., one of Claudius Gothicus (270), two of Constantine the Great,
two of Constantine, junior, and one of Valentinian. There is a striking
analogy between this and the great Barrow at New Grange, described by Dr.
Ledwich, of which a more complete investigation of Minning Low would
probably furnish additional proofs." Mr. Bateman was not then aware that a
coin of Valentinian had been found in the New Grange mound,[173] which is
one similarity in addition.
The fact of these coins being found here fixes a date beyond which it is
impossible to carry back the age of this mound, but not the date below
which it may have been erected. The coins found in British barrows seem
almost always those of the last Emperors who held sway in Britain, and
whose coins may have been preserved and to a certain extent kept in
circulation after all direct connexion with Rome had ceased, and thus their
rarity or antiquity may have made them suitable for sepulchral deposits. No
coin of Augustus or any of the earlier Emperors was ever found in or on any

of these rude tumuli, which must certainly have been the case had any of
them been pre-Roman. This mound is consequently certainly subsequent to
the first half of the fourth century, and how much more modern it may be
remains to be determined.
Be this as it may, if Mr. Bateman's suggestion that this monument is a
counterpart of Kit's Cotty-house is correct—and no one who is familiar with
the two monuments will probably dispute it—this at once removes any
improbability from the argument that the last-named may be the grave of
Catigren. The one striking difference between the two is, that Kit's Cotty-
house is an external free-standing dolmen, while Minning Low is buried in
a tumulus. This, according to the views adopted in these pages, from the
experience of other monuments, would lead to the inference that the
Kentish example was the more modern of the two. It is not, however, worth
while arguing that point here; for our present purpose it is sufficient to
know that both are post-Roman, and probably not far distant in date.
Another barrow belonging to this group is at Benty Grange, about a mile
from Arbor Low, which, though of a different character, may be connected
with the others. One body only was buried in it, of which no trace, however,
remained but the hair.[174] There was apparently little more than 2 feet of
earth over it. The first thing found was a leather drinking-cup, ornamented
in silver with stars and crosses. Two circular enamels were also there,
adorned with that interlacing pattern found in the earliest Anglo-Saxon or
Irish MSS. of the sixth or seventh centuries, or it may be a little earlier; a
helmet also was found, formed of iron bars, with bronze and silver
ornaments, and surmounted by what Mr. Bateman assures us was a
perfectly distinct representation of a hog. He then quotes from Beowulf
several passages, in which the poet describes: "The boar an ornament to the
head, the helmet lofty in wars" (l. 4299).... "They seemed a boar's form to
bear over their cheeks" (l. 604).... "At the pile was easy to be seen, the mail-
shirt covered with gore, the hog of gold, the boar hard as iron" (l. 2213). As
Beowulf lived, as shown above, probably in the fifth century, the poem may
be taken as describing perfectly the costume of the warriors of his day; and
nothing could answer more completely his description than the contents of
this tomb.

35. Fragment of Drinking Cup from Benty Grange.

36. Fragment of Helmet from Benty Grange.

In Kenslow Barrow, between Minning Low and Arbor Low, were found a
few implements of flint and bone; but on clearing out the grave in the rock,
which had been examined before in 1821, Mr. S. Bateman found some
portions of the skeleton undisturbed, and with them a small neat bronze
dagger, and a little above these an iron knife of the shape and size usually
deposited in Anglo-Saxon interments.[175] Of course the theory of
successive interments is called on to explain away these disturbing facts;
but there seems nothing here to justify any other inference than that in this
case all the deposits belonged to the same age. This, therefore, may be
added to the examples quoted from the 'Vestiges,' to show how little the

Danish system is really applicable to the class of monuments of which we
are treating.
On Stanton Moor, four miles east from Kenslow, and about five miles from
Arbor Low and Minning Low respectively, there are many monuments,
both of earth and stone, which, though on a smaller scale, seem to belong to
the same age as those just described. They seem to have been very much
overlooked by the Batemans, but a very detailed account of them is given
by Mr. Rooke in the sixth volume of the 'Archæologia,' in 1780. One of
them, called the Nine Ladies, has been given already (ante, p. 49); but
westward of it stands or stood a stone, called the King Stone, at a distance
of 34 yards, thus suggesting a similarity to the Salkeld circle. Half a mile
west from this, nearer Arbor Low, is another group of nine stones, the tallest
17 feet in height, and 75 yards southward two stones of smaller dimensions;
200 yards from this an oval ring, the major axis of which measures 243 feet,
the minor 156 feet. It has what Mr. Rooke calls a double ditch, a rampart
outside the ditch as well as one inside; it is, in fact, a less-developed
example of that form of which Arbor Low and Arthur's Round Table are
finished examples. On the east side of the Moor were three tall isolated
stones, which in Rooke's time the natives still called Cat Stones, showing
clearly that the tradition still remained of a battle fought there, but when or
by whom no tradition lingers on the spot to enlighten us.
All these monuments and many more which it would be tedious and
uninteresting to particularize, are contained within a circle, which may be
described with a radius of about three miles, the centre being half way
between Henty Grange and Stanton Moor. It would perhaps be too much to
assert that they are all of one age; but there is certainly a very strong family
likeness among them, and they cannot differ much either in age or purpose.
It may also perhaps be conceded that they are not the tombs or temples of
the inhabitants of the moors on which they stand. The country where they
are situated is a bleak inhospitable tract, only not quite so bad as Shap, but
hardly more able to support a large population, if left only to their own
resources, than the Wiltshire Downs. These three localities could never
consequently have been so much richer in this class of monuments than
settlements in the more fertile parts of the island. Strangers must have
erected them, and to determine who these strangers were, is the task to
which antiquaries have now to apply themselves.

Whatever may be determined on the point, one thing, I think, must and will
be conceded, which is, that Arthur's Table at Penrith, Arbor Low, and
Avebury, are monuments of the same age, and were dedicated to the same
purposes. The first is a simple earthen monument, of a certain design and
with certain dimensions; the second has the same design and dimensions,
with the addition of a circle of stones and dolmen in the centre; the third has
all the features that the other two possess, with the addition of increased
dimensions, and the internal circles being doubled. But the internal ditch,
the rampart, and the character of the circle and other features, are so like
each other, and so unlike what are found elsewhere, that they must stand or
fall together. If any one of these belonged to the age of Arthur, all three
certainly did. If, on the other hand, any one of the three can be proved to
belong to another age, the other two will hardly be able to maintain their
position. The circles at Cumrew, Salkeld, and Mayborough, present so
many points of similarity, that they, too, must probably be classed with
these three, though there is not the same evidence to justify their being
classed together. The stone avenue at Shap is also most probably the
counterpart of that at Kennet; but the destruction of the circle at
Brackenbyr, and the limited knowledge we have of it, prevent anything very
definite being predicated regarding it.
If we may consider Gib Hill as the analogue of Silbury Hill, its place and
position may throw some light on the mystery attaching to the latter. The
relative distances of these satellites to their primaries is nearly proportional
to the diameter of the circles, and they both present the peculiarity that they
have no interment in their base. The Archæological Institute in 1849 did
exactly what the Batemans had done before them. They tunnelled and
explored the base of Gib Hill, and gave it up in despair, when an accident
revealed to them the grave over their heads, within 18 inches of the surface.
The antiquaries were not so fortunate at Silbury; but judging from the
analogy of Gib Hill, and still more from that of Minning Low, the graves
may be expected to be found arranged around the plateau on the summit,
probably six or seven in number, and as probably within a few feet of the
surface. There was none in the centre of the platform at Minning Low,
though there was in the smaller tumulus of Gib Hill; and this may account
for the Duke of Northumberland's ill-success when he dug into the hill in
1776. Poor Stukeley was very much laughed at for prizing a very modern-
looking iron bit, belonging to a bridle that was found on the top of the

hill[176] (woodcut No. 18); yet it may turn out to be the only real fact he
brought away from the place. Nothing but an iron sword was found in the
kistvaen, on the top of Minning Low, but it was nearly perfect;[177] why
should not the bridle be found, for we know that horses were frequently
buried with the warriors they had borne in battle?
Omitting Cornwall for the present, the circles at Stanton Drew form the
only other group of any importance in England for which it remains to find
a purpose and a name; and I confess I see no reason for separating them
from those just named. There are so many points of similarity, that they can
hardly be of an age far apart, and their purpose certainly is the same. If
there is anything in the arguments adduced above, they must mark a battle-
field. They are certainly not a family or a princely sepulchre, still less a
local cemetery, nor need it now be added, certainly not a temple.

37. Circles at Stanton Drew. From a plan by Sir R. C. Hoare.

38. View of the Circles at Stanton Drew. From a sketch by Percy
Shelton, Esq.

Their arrangement will be understood from the annexed woodcut (No. 37).
The group consists of one first-class circle or oval, 378 feet (?) by 345 feet
—100 metres; and two of the second class, one 96 feet, the other 129; and a
dolmen near the church, at a distance of 157 yards from the last-named.[178]
Attached to the two principal circles are short straight avenues, pointing
apparently to two stones very near to one another—the one at a distance of
300 feet from the large circle, the other at the distance of about 100 from
the smaller one, or at distances relative to their diameters. There is also a
very large stone, called the King Stone, by the roadside, but beyond the
limits of the plan. This, with the stones to which the avenues point, are
probably the analogues of the detached stone, known as Long Meg, at
Salkeld, or the Ring Stone, which stands 180 feet from one of the circles at
Avebury; perhaps also of the two which are assumed to be the
commencement of the Beckhampton avenue at that place, or of the Friar's

heel at Stonehenge, or of the King Stone at Stanton Moor. In fact, all these
circles seem to have detached stones standing at some little distance from
them outside. It is there that I would look for the principal interments, rather
than in the circles themselves; but this is one of the questions that the spade,
and the spade only, can decide. There is, however, also attached to the
smaller of the two circles at Stanton Drew a heap of stones which is
apparently the ruins of a dolmen, and these may mark the real place of
interment, as does the tumulus attached to Arbor Low, which corresponds
with them in position.
The only recorded tradition with regard to this monument at Stanton Drew
represents Keyna, a holy virgin in the fifth century, the daughter apparently
of a Welsh prince, obtaining a grant of the land on which the village of
Keynsham now stands from the prince of the country. She was warned,
however, of the insecurity of the gift, in consequence of the serpents of a
deadly species that infested the place. She accepted the gift
notwithstanding, and by her prayers converted the serpents into the stones
we now see there,[179] so at least Stukeley and Bathurst Dean assure us.
Such a tradition is only valuable as indicating the date that is popularly
ascribed to the monument. In this instance the fifth century is suggested,
which may be 50 or even 100 years earlier than I would be inclined to
assign it to, but such data are of little consequence. The date is also
shadowed forth in the incident related; for not only in Ireland, but in France,
and frequently also in England, the early struggles of the first Christian
missionaries are represented as victories over the snakes or snake
worshippers. St. Hilda, for instance, at Whitby signalized the establishment
of Christianity in the seventh century by converting the Yorkshire snakes
into Ammonites, which are still found there in quantities, which in the eyes
of the peasantry are much more like stone snakes than the stones into which
St. Keyna transformed her Somersetshire enemies.
Whatever the value of these and such like traditions, one thing seems quite
certain, that every local tradition which has yet been quoted represents these
monuments as erected subsequently to Roman times, and generally as
belonging to that transitional age when Christianity was struggling with
Paganism for the mastery. The common people are generally willing
enough to amuse themselves with fables about giants and demigods, and to
wander back into prehistoric times; but with regard to these monuments

they do not seem to have done so. I do not recollect a single tradition that
ascribes any stone circle to the pre-Roman period.
If, however, I am correct in assuming that these great groups of circles
belong to the Arthurian age, we have no difficulty in assigning to this one
its proper place in the series of his battles. The ninth, as we have seen
above, was probably fought at Caerleon on the Usk; which would seem to
indicate that, at a certain point in his career, Arthur was forced back quite
out of England into South Wales; but his return on that hypothesis is easily
traced. The tenth battle was on the shore of some large river, which ought in
consequence to be the Severn, though the name given in the text lends no
countenance to this supposition; the eleventh was "In monte quod dicitur
Agned in Somersetshire," which would answer perfectly, except in name;
for Stanton Drew, in that case, would be in the direct line of advance to
Badon Hill, where the twelfth and crowning victory was fought.
The name here, as throughout, creates the difficulty, but Stanton on the
Stones, or Stone Town, is simply an epithet applied to all these groups by
the Saxons at some period subsequent to that of which we are speaking,
when the memory of their purpose was lost, or little cared for by those of a
different race, and speaking a different language, who had succeeded to the
Bryts, who had erected them. Unless we assume that Stonehenge, Stanton
Drew, the circles on Stanton Moor, and the stones at Stennis, and others,
were erected by the Saxons themselves, they must originally have borne
Celtic names, and it would be these names that Nennius would quote, and
which consequently could not be those by which they are now known.
The expression "in monte" is singularly confirmatory of this determination,
inasmuch as one of the remarkable features of the locality is the fortified
hill known as Maes[180] Knoll, which literally looks into Stanton Drew, and
is the most remarkable feature seen from it, and a fight on its ridge is as
probable an operation as any likely to be undertaken in this quarter.

If the above were all the evidence that could be produced in support of the
hypothesis that all these great circles belonged to the Arthurian age, it might
be admitted to be sufficient to establish not a conclusion but a fair prima

facie case. The reasonableness, however, of what has been here advanced
will, it is hoped, become more and more apparent as we proceed. Absolute
mathematical or logical proof it is to be feared, in the present state of the
evidence, is not available. Till attention is fairly turned to a certain definite
line of argument, the experiments are not made, and the authorities are not
read, which bear upon it, or if made or read are not understood; but when
the arguments are examined with the earnest desire to prove or disprove
them, new light springs up from every quarter, and before long there may be
grounds for a positive answer.
Meanwhile it may be well to point out, before going further, that this class
of circles is peculiar to England. They do not exist in France or in Algeria.
The Scandinavian circles are all very different, so too are the Irish. The one
circle out of England that at all resembles them is that at Stennis, or rather
Brogar, in the Orkneys, which will be described in detail further on. There
we have a great 100-metre circle, with a ditch (but no rampart), a smaller
100-foot circle, with a ruined dolmen in its stone circle, as at Stanton Drew,
and we have the Maes Knoll for the Maes How. The Stennis group has also
the detached stones, though it wants the rudimentary avenues, and some
minor peculiarities, and it may be more modern, but it is very similar;
whereas those in Cornwall and elsewhere are small and irregular, and
totally wanting in the dignity belonging to those which we have ventured to
call Arthurian.
The arguments adduced in the preceding pages will probably be deemed
sufficient to make out a strong case to show that these great circles were
erected, at all events, after the departure of the Romans, and if this is so, it
confines the field for discussion within very narrow limits. Either they must
have been erected by the Romanized Britons before they were so
completely Christianized as to be entirely weaned from their Pagan habits,
or they were the works of the Saxons or Danes. We shall be in a better
position to judge how far it is likely that the latter were the authors, when
we have examined the rude stone monuments of Scandinavia or Friesland,
from which countries the Northmen descended on our shores. When this is
done, we shall probably come to the conclusion that, as they erected
Dolmens as burying-places for their dead, and Menhirs or Bauta Stones and
circles in their battle-fields, there is no improbability of their having done
so also here. The question, however, is, did they erect these great 100-metre

circles? These are unique, so far as I know; a class quite by themselves, and
so similar, whether found in Cumberland or Derbyshire, or in Wilts or
Somersetshire, that, with the probable exception of the Orkney group, they
must be the work of one people, and also nearly of the same age. If, in fact,
they do not mark the battle-fields to which I have attempted to ascribe
them, they must mark something nearly approximating to them in date, and
as nearly analogous in intention and purpose.

Smaller Circles.

39. Rose Hill Tumulus. From the 'Archæologia,' vol. x.

It would be as tedious as unprofitable to attempt to enumerate all the
smaller circles existing in various parts of England; but there are two or
three which are curious in themselves, and interesting as illustrating the
large circles of which we have just been treating. The first to be mentioned
is one situated in Englewood Forest, near Rose Hill, and therefore nearly
equidistant from Cumrew, Salkeld, and Carlisle. Locally, therefore, it
belongs to the Cumberland group, described above, and may do so in date
also. It is a low platform, it can hardly be called a tumulus, as it is only 12
feet high. It is circular, and measures 63 feet across. On the platform stand,
or at least stood in 1787, three bilithons, or groups of two tall stones
standing side by side, like those in the inner circle at Stonehenge. Mr.
Rooke dug in front of one of these, with the intention of seeing how deep it
was in the ground, but to his astonishment he found a cist formed of six
perfectly well fitted hewn stones, but measuring little more than 2 feet each
way. In front of the other outside group he found a similar cist, but a little
larger, 2 feet 10 inches by 2 feet 2 inches, and further removed from the
central pair of upright stones, and nearer the centre of the circle, a third cist,
formed equally of hewn and well fitted stones. In all three of these were
found human bones, fragments of skulls, teeth, &c., but no implements or
ornaments of any sort, only under one head a metallic lump, with
apparently particles of gold in it.[181] This was sent to the Society of
Antiquaries for examination, but with what result is not stated.[182]
According to the plan, it would appear as if there were originally six
interments in the mound. In fact, that it was the counterpart of the top of
Minning Low, with the addition of the pairs of obelisks. Mr. Rooke was,
however, so much puzzled at finding Druids buried six feet below the floor
of their own temple, that he did not seek further. But if the mound still
exists, it would be very interesting to know if any more cists exist in the
mound, or any burial deeper down below them, as in the Derbyshire
example. It might contain coins, and if so, would be interesting as another
example of its date; but meanwhile its truncated conoidal form and
arrangement of graves, and of trilithons, are sufficient to show that it was
cotemporary with Minning Low and Stonehenge, or at all events not far
from their date.

40. Snaffle-Bit found at Aspatria.

In the same paper in which Mr. Rooke describes the Rose Hill tumulus he
gives an account of an excavation at a place called Aspatria, a little farther
westward, and near St. Bees. They cleared away a barrow about 90 feet in
diameter, and at 3 feet below the original surface of the ground found a cist
in which lay the skeleton of a man of gigantic stature. As he lay extended,
he measured 7 feet from the head to the ankle. His feet were decayed and
rotted off. At his side, near the shoulder-blade, was an iron sword 4 feet in
length, the handle elegantly ornamented with inlaid silver flowers; a gold
fibula or buckle was also found, with portions of the shield and his battle-
axe. One of the most curious things found was the bit of a snaffle-bridle,
which is so modern-looking that it would not excite interest if seen on a
stall in Seven Dials. The main interest resides in its similarity to that which
Stukeley found at Silbury Hill (woodcut No. 18, p. 81). He cleaned and
polished his one carefully. Mr. Rooke had his engraved with all the rust
upon it, so, at first sight, they are not so similar as they are in reality. The
fact of this one being found in an undoubtedly ancient grave, takes away all
prima facie improbability from the suggested age of the other. From its
form, Stukeley's appears to be the older of the two; but we have no
chronometric scale for bridle-bits.
All these things make this grave look as if it were very modern; but on the
outside of the stones forming the cist were engraved a variety of figures
which are of interest as a means of comparison with the Irish and Danish
engravings we shall meet with hereafter. They are not very artistically

drawn, and are probably worse engraved; but it is easy to recognize the
cross in the circle. There are the concentric circles with dots in the centre
and straight lines proceeding from them and other figures found on rocks
and elsewhere, which antiquaries have hitherto been inclined to ascribe to a
primæval antiquity, but which this tomb would bring down at least to the
Viking age—of which more hereafter.

41. Side Stone, Aspatria Cist.

42. Mule Hill, View of Cists.

43. Circle of Cists at Mule Hill, Isle of Man.

The circle of cists on Mule Hill, in the Isle of Man, are interesting from
another cause; for unfortunately they all have been laid bare and rifled
before any antiquary took cognisance of them, and we have consequently
nothing by which their date can be even guessed at. Their interest lies in
their arrangement, which is that of eight cists arranged in a circle, with, it
would seem, others at right angles at certain intervals.[183] From simple
inspection it is evident that these cists must at one time have been covered
with earth. They are not dolmens, or anything that would do for self-
standing monuments. If covered with earth, they would form a circular
mound 45 feet in diameter internally, and 65 feet across to the foot of the
outer slope, and, as far as one example can go, would tend to prove that the

circular vallum at Avebury and many other places was a place for the
deposit of bodies. Except in the instance spoken of in describing the circle
at Marden, I am not aware of bodies having been found in England under
these ramparts; but they have not been sought for. Of one thing we may feel
certain, that nothing is unique in these matters, and that what occurred once,
occurred frequently, and will no doubt be found when looked for.
Another peculiarity of this circle is worth observing. There are two gaps or
openings in the circle opposite one another, as at Arbor Low and Penrith.
One must not rely too much on this, as the gaps here may arise from the
removal of cists; but the coincidence is at least curious, and if we restored
this monument in the sense just indicated, and could rely on that restoration,
the secret of the vallum surrounding Avebury and other similar monuments
would no longer be a mystery. To my mind it has not been so for many
years past; but though I dare not yet ask others to follow at once, I trust
sufficient evidence has been accumulated in the preceding pages to render it
probable that they were only continuous tumuli.
The circle or rather circles, on Burn Moor, near Wast Water, Cumberland,
are described by Mr. Williams as consisting of a 100-foot circle, formed of
forty-four stones, beyond which, at a distance of 25 feet is an outer circle of
fourteen large stones. A niche or square enclosure on one side of the inner
circle contains a cairn 25 feet in diameter, and within the circle are four
others, irregularly spaced, and measuring 21 to 25 feet in diameter; each
like the circle itself, surrounded by fourteen stones. These, on being opened,
were found to contain a rude chamber formed of five stones, in which were
found remains of burnt bones, horns of stags, and other animals.[184]
One point of interest in this monument is, that it explains the existence of a
similar square enclosure on one side of a well-known 100-foot circle near
Keswick. There is no sign of a cairn there now; it may have been removed,
as those at Salkeld were, or it may be that the body was interred without
this external indication; but that it lies, or lay, in this enclosure seems
certain. The principal reason for referring to it here is that it is undoubtedly
sepulchral. We shall find many examples equally so further on, but it is
well, in the meanwhile, to illustrate one which certainly was neither a
temple nor place of assembly, and which contains, besides, several
peculiarities to which we shall have occasion to advert hereafter.

44. Circles on Burn Moor, Cumberland.

It seems almost equally clear that the Boscawen circles, with which we
close our illustrations of English circles for the present, were neither
Temples nor Things. It is very difficult to see how any one could fancy that
anything so confused as the centre of these circles is, could be a temple, still
less a place of assembly. But Borlase, though generally admitting the
sepulchral nature of the circles, maintains that this one was a temple, and
describes the position of the serving Druids and all the ceremonies down to
the minutest particulars. The circles are small, the largest being only 75 feet
in diameter, and the whole group only 200 feet across, neither are the stones
by any means of imposing dimensions. Another circumstance worthy of
being noticed, is that there are detached stones in front of the principal

circles. Interesting results might be obtained by excavating at their bases,
as, for reasons above stated, it seems as if the principal interment might be
found at their feet.

45. Boscawen Circles. From Borlase.

Dolmens.

As stated above, England seems to be the native country of the great circles,
no 100-metre circles having yet been found anywhere out of England,
excepting, of course, that at Stennis. France, on the contrary, seems to be
the native country of the dolmens. They exist there in numbers far beyond
anything we can show, and of dimensions exceeding anything we can boast
of. In England proper, when we have enumerated Kit's Cotty-house, the
dolmen in Clatford Bottom, Wayland Smith's Cave, that at Rollright, and
one at Drewsteignton, in Devonshire, our list is nearly exhausted. There
may be heaps of stones which seem dolmens, or something like them; and
chambered tumuli, whose internal kistvaens, if exposed, might be entitled to

rank with dolmens; but, taking the word in its broad sense, it is difficult to
carry our list beyond the half-dozen.
In Cornwall the case is different. In the corner to the westward of Falmouth
there are at least twice as many as in all England. In Wales, I think I could
enumerate twice as many as in Cornwall; and in Anglesea[185] there are
certainly as many as in Cornwall, perhaps more; and in the Isle of Man they
are also numerous. It is difficult to be precise, as the same monument is,
sometimes at least, recorded under two names; but it is not an exaggeration
to say that from fifty to sixty have been described, and most of them
figured, as found in the West country, and I should not be surprised if an
industrious statistician carried the number to 100, including, of course,
many that are now ruinous.
There are two points of view from which this geographical distribution of
English dolmens may be regarded. The first and most obvious would be to
consider that they were erected by the Britons after they were driven into
the mountain fastnesses of the West, first by the Romans, and more
completely afterwards by the Saxons. The other view would be that they are
the work of a different race, who, we have every reason to believe, occupied
the western country in the time of the Romans. Tacitus is particularly
explicit on this point. He divides the inhabitants of the country into three
classes. The red-haired Caledonians, resembling the Germans and
inhabiting the north; the Silures, of dark complexion and curling hair, and
whom he describes as living in that part of the country which is opposite
Spain, and he suggests that the ancient Iberians crossed over and occupied
these regions; and he then adds: "Those nearest to Gaul are similar to the
inhabitants of that country."[186] There is so much in the present aspect of
the people of this country to confirm this general classification that there
seems very little reason for doubting its general correctness; and as all these
dolmens are found in the country of the Silures it may be argued that they
belong to them. If he had joined the Aquitanians to Iberians he would
probably have expressed more completely the whole facts of the case as we
now know them.
Admitting, however, this ethnographic view of the case to the fullest
possible extent—which I am prepared to do, it still leaves the question of
date wholly unsettled. It would be answered if we dared to assume that the
Silures were driven from the fertile parts of the valley of the Severn, which

we have reason to suppose they occupied in Agricola's time, to the
mountain fastnesses, and that it was then only that they began to repeat in
stone what previously they had only erected in earth. If this could be
established, we should get both an ethnographical and a chronological
determination of no small value; but of this we shall be better able to form
an opinion after discussing the monuments of France.
Meanwhile there is one point bearing upon the subject to which it may be as
well to draw attention. In Wales and Anglesea, which we may assume to
have been the country of the Silures or that to which they were driven, there
are no circles, but only dolmens. In Cornwall, where the blood was
certainly more mixed, there are both circles and dolmens, and the same is
the case at the other extremity of the western district in the Isle of Man.
If it is contended that, being nearer to Spain or Aquitaine than Wales,
Cornwall must have been earliest and most exclusively inhabited by the
dark race, the answer is, that though it may originally have been so, the
races in Cornwall had been mixed with Celtic and other blood before the
age of the stone monuments; while in the Isle of Man we shall probably see
reason for believing that northern blood was infused into the veins of the
people, at a very early age, when few, if any, monuments of this class
existed, and certainly before all had been completed.

46. Park Cwn Tumulus. Scale 16 feet to 1 inch.

Even a cursory examination of these West Coast dolmens would, I think, be
sufficient to prove to any one that the theory that all were originally covered
with earthen mounds is utterly untenable. That such chambered graves as
those at Uley in Gloucestershire,[187] or Stoney Littleton in Somersetshire,
[188]
were always intended to be so covered up is clear enough. So was this
one at Park Cwn, in the peninsula of Gower, recently opened and described
by Sir John Lubbock.[189] It is of the same type as Uley and Stoney
Littleton, but has only four chambers arranged on each side of the central
passage. One of its most remarkable characteristics is the beautiful masonry
of the retaining walls on each side of the funnel-shaped passage leading to
the cells. These are so carefully built that it is evident that they were meant

to be seen, and the entrance to be kept open. Indeed, unless we fancy it was
the monument of some fight, which there seems no reason for supposing, it
is evident it must have been kept open till forty deaths had occurred in the
family of the chief to which it served as sepulchre, as at least that number of
bodies were found in the chambers, but in a dreadfully confused condition,
as if the grave had been rifled before, but no implements or trace of metal
were left to indicate even approximately its age.
At Uley, in Gloucestershire, half way between Berkeley and Tetbury, there
is a tumulus which, in its internal arrangement, is very similar to that last
described. The entrance is of the same form, and there are four side-
chambers; but those at Uley are grouped more artistically in the centre,
instead of being separated by a passage, as at Park Cwn. Externally the
differences are more apparent; the Gloucestershire example being oblong,
or rather heart-shaped, while that in Gower is more circular in form. The
Uley tumulus was first opened by a Mr. Baker, in 1821, but subsequently
examined with great care by Dr. Thurnam; and a very careful account,
resulting from his own observation compared with the records of Mr.
Baker's, published by him in the 'Archæological Journal.'[190] The bodies in
the chambers, which were numerous, had been disturbed and were lying in
disorder, as at Park Cwn; but among them was found a vessel resembling a
Roman lachrymatory, and some pottery which may have been either
Romano-British or Mediæval. There were also found some fragments of
flint implements, apparently arrow-heads, and outside two stone axes—one
of flint. Near the summit of the mound, exactly over the easternmost
chamber, there had been another interment, and beside the skeleton were
found three brass coins of the sons of Constantine the Great.
On this evidence, Dr. Thurnam, with the approval probably of every
antiquary in England, comes to the conclusion that the original erection of
the chambered tumulus belongs to the long prehistoric past; that the pottery,
&c., were accidentally introduced; and that the coins belong to a secondary
post-Roman interment. The only evidence for this being the presence of the
flints above mentioned, and the assumptions based on them; they having
become articles of faith with antiquaries which it is rank heresy to dispute.
As I have already stated, till some one can show at what period flint ceased
to be used in any particular locality, this evidence is worthless. With regard
to the secondary interments, it appears to be inconceivable that, after the

lapse of 500 or 600 years at least, and the civilizing influence of the Roman
occupation, any one should choose the top of one of the mounds of the
long-forgotten pagan savages for a burying-place. If burying in barrows had
been the fashion in Gloucestershire, as it was on the wolds of Yorkshire or
the downs of Wiltshire, something might be said in favour of such an
hypothesis if we could also assume that the races had been undisturbed in
the interval. But there are hardly half-a-dozen tumuli in the whole county.
They, like Uley, Rodmarton,[191] Stoney Littleton,[192] are all chambered
tumuli of one class and apparently of one age. All too, it may be remarked,
are close to Roman stations and surrounded by evidences of Roman
occupation.
In the previous pages we have already met with several instances of summit
interments, as at Gib Hill, Minning Low, &c., which are certainly not
secondary, and we have reason to suspect that more will be found when
looked for; and the finding of Roman coins on or near the top of tumuli is
too frequent to be accidental, and occurs even in Ireland, where the Romans
never went.
We shall have occasion to recur to this subject when speaking of the tomb
of King Harald Hildetand at Lethra, and then propose to treat it more in
detail; but meanwhile it seems clear that the evidence of the coins and the
pottery must be allowed to outweigh that of the flints; and if this is so, not
only Uley but all the chamber-tumuli in Gloucestershire or Somerset belong
either to the Romano-British, or rather to the post-Roman period of British
history.

47. Tumulus, Plas Newydd.

48. Entrance to Dolmen, in Tumulus, Plas Newydd.

Another and even more interesting example of this class has recently been
brought to light by the Hon. W. O. Stanley, at Plas Newydd, not far from the
great dolmen represented on woodcut No. 50.[193] It is a chamber or cist, 3
feet 3 inches wide by about 7 feet long, and covered by two slabs. Before
being disturbed, the supporting slabs must have formed nearly perfect
walls, thus distinguishing the cist from those standing on widely-spaced
legs. Its principal point of interest, however, is the widely-splayed avenue
of stones leading up to it, showing that it was always intended to be visited;
and still more curious are the two holes that were pierced in the slab that
closed the entrance. The upper part of this slab is now broken off, but so
much remains that it is easy to see that they were originally circular and
about 10 inches in diameter. Such holed stones are very frequent in Eastern
dolmens, and are also common in Cornwall and elsewhere;[194] but what
their purpose may have been has not yet been explained. Further on it may
be attempted. At present it is the relation of this form of chambered tumuli
to external dolmens that principally interests us.

49. Dolmen at Pentre Ifan. From 'Archæologia Cambrensis.'

Almost all the so-called dolmens in the Channel Islands are of this class.
One has already been given (woodcut No. 11), and it may safely be asserted
that all chambers which were wainscoted with slabs, so as to form nearly

perfect walls, and all that had complicated quasi-vaulted roofs were, or
were intended to be, covered with mounds—more especially those that had
covered passages leading to them. There is, however, a very wide
distinction between these sepulchral chambers and such a monument as this
at Pentre Ifan, in Pembrokeshire.[195] The top stone is so large that it is said
five persons on horseback have found shelter under it from a shower of
rain. Even allowing that the horses were only Welsh ponies, men do not
raise such masses and poise them on their points for the sake of hiding them
again. Besides that, the supports do not and could not form a chamber. The
earth would have fallen in on all sides, and the connexion between the roof
and the floor been cut off entirely, even before the whole was completed.
Or, to take another example, that at Plas Newydd, on the shore of the Menai
Strait. Here the cap stone is an enormous block, squared by art, supported
on four stone legs, but with no pretence of forming a chamber. If the cap
stone were merely intended as a roofing stone, one a third or fourth of its
weight would have been equally serviceable and equally effective in an
architectural point of view, if buried. The mode of architectural expression
which these Stone men best understood was the power of mass. At
Stonehenge, at Avebury, and everywhere, as here, they sought to give
dignity and expression by using the largest blocks they could transport or
raise—and they were right; for, in spite of their rudeness, they impress us
now; but had they buried them in mounds, they neither would have
impressed us nor their contemporaries.

50. Dolmen at Plas Newydd. From 'Archæologia Cambrensis.'

As before mentioned, however, the great argument against the theory of
their having been always covered up is the impossibility of accounting for
the disappearance of the tumuli. If they had been situated on fertile plains
where the land was valuable for agricultural purposes, it might be assumed
that a civilized people with highly cultivated antiquarian tastes might have
been at the trouble and expense of removing the tumuli for the sake of the
land, and of preserving the dolmens for their historical value. But that the
rude peasantry of Cornwall and Wales should have done this is
inconceivable, more especially as by far the greater number of these
monuments are situated on bleak moorlands of no agricultural value
whatever. Still more inconceivable is it that they should have done it so
neatly and so carefully that no trace of the mound can now be found either
around the stones or in the neighbourhood.
If any history were attached to these Western dolmens, or any remains had
been found under them which would enable us to fix their dates, even
approximately, or to arrange them in any intelligible sequence, it might be
worth while recapitulating their names or illustrating their forms. Nothing
of the sort, however, has yet been attempted; and apparently no materials
exist from which any such series could be elaborated.

51. Arthur's Quoit, Gower. From a drawing by Sir Gardner
Wilkinson.

52. Plan of Arthur's Quoit.

Only one dolmen in Wales, so far as I know, bears a name; but it is the
illustrious one of King Arthur. The dolmen bearing his name is situated in
the peninsula of Gower, on the northern slopes of the bleak Bryn Cefn,
about ten miles west from Swansea.[196] It forms the centre of a very
extensive group of monuments—eighty cairns, at least, are still to be
counted in an area less than half a mile in length, by a quarter of a mile in
width. These are mostly small, 12 to 15 feet in diameter; one, 20 feet across,
was opened by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, but proved to contain no interment.
The largest is 68 feet in diameter, but has not been opened. About 350 feet
from this is the dolmen. The cap stone is 14 feet 6 inches in length, 7 feet 5
inches in height, and 6 feet 8 inches in breadth even now, but a very large
piece has been broken off, and now lies beside it, measuring upwards of 3
feet in thickness; and another piece seems to have been broken off on the
other end, so that when complete it must have weighed between 35 and 40
tons. It rested originally on ten or eleven upright stones, two of which,
however, have fallen, and only four now touch the cap stone. Sir Gardner is

of opinion that it once was covered with a tumulus; but this appears very
doubtful. The slight mound, backed up with large stones, that now
surrounds it, with a diameter of 73 to 74 feet, seems an enclosure more like
that of Hob Hurst's House (woodcut No. 53) than the remains of a tumulus,
and till some further evidence is adduced, we must be allowed to doubt
whether any cap stone on legs was ever so treated. Sir Gardner traced,
doubtfully, an avenue, of which, however, only five stones now remain,
extending to about 500 feet in a direction that would have passed the
dolmen on the north, as that at Shap did the circle at its front, or the lines at
Merivale Bridge, the circle still found there; Sir Gardner also points out
some small circular enclosures, which, from the analogy of those found on
Dartmoor, he assumes to be hut-circles.

53. Hob Hurst's House, on Baslow Moor, Derbyshire. From a
drawing by Thomas Bateman.[197]

What, then, is this group of monuments? Sir Gardner assumes that it is a
cemetery of the ancient Britons; but, if so, why are not other cemeteries
found in the fertile valleys and plains in South Wales? Why did they choose
one of the barest and bleakest hillsides, and one farthest removed from their
habitations as a place in which to bury their dead? Why did they not, like
the inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, disperse their graves pretty equally over
an area of 30 miles by 10? Why crowd them into less than half-a-mile?
Without reverting to my previous suggestion of a battle-field, I do not see
how these questions can be answered; and if so, I do not think we have far
to go to look for its name? As hinted above, Arthur's eighth battle must have
been fought in Wales. The name of the place is written Guin (Gwyn),
Guinon, Guinnon, Gunnion,[198] which certainly is Welsh; and when we

find it immediately preceding the battle of Caerleon on the Usk, and the
principal monument still bearing Arthur's name, we may fairly, I think,
adopt the suggestion till, at least, a better is offered.
Be this as it may, I think all antiquaries will agree with Sir Gardner
Wilkinson in assuming that this is the stone of Cetti[199] mentioned in the
Welsh triads. 'The 84th Triad' speaks of the Cor of Emmrys in Caer
Caradawg (another name for Salisbury), and the 88th of the three mighty
achievements of the Isle of Britain, the raising of the stone of Cetti, the
building of the work of Emmrys, and the heaping of the pile of Cyvragnon.
[200]
The work of Emmrys (Ambrosius) is generally admitted to be
Stonehenge. If this is the stone of Cetti, which I see no reason for doubting,
it only remains to identify the third. Most antiquaries suggest Silbury Hill;
and, if I am correct in placing these three monuments so near one another in
date, this seems also extremely probable, and so far as it goes, is a
satisfactory confirmation of what has been advanced above from other
sources.
From my ignorance of the Welsh language I am not in a position to say
what amount of reliance should be placed in the evidence of these triads.
But Herbert and other competent scholars consider it undoubted that
Emmrys is Ambrosius, and the 'Work' referred to certainly Stonehenge. If
this is so, it fixes its date beyond question, and as the other two are
mentioned in the same breath it is probable they were not distant in date. All
this may be, I believe certainly is so, but the circumstantial evidence
adduced above seems to me so much clearer and so much more to be relied
upon, that it derives very little additional force from the utterance of the
Welsh bards. It is, however, no doubt satisfactory that their evidence
coincides with everything that has been brought forward above, as bearing
directly or indirectly on their age or use.

Before proceeding, it may be as well to revert for one moment to Hob
Hurst's House. It is quoted here to show how a tumulus, with a dolmen on
the top of it, may be connected with a low rampart so as not to conceal it,
exactly, I believe, as is the case with Arthur's Quoit. But the name of the

place where it is situated may afford a hint which may lead to something
hereafter. It will be recollected that Arthur's sixth battle was fought "super
flumen quod vocatur Bassas." This mound is situated on "Bas" Moor, the
Low being merely the name of the mound itself. These nominal similarities
are too treacherous to be relied upon; but the more the whole group is
looked at the more does it appear that there are coincidences of name, or
form, or purpose, between those monuments here called Arthurian, which
cannot all be accidental. Individually they may not be able to resist hostile
criticism, but in their cumulative form they appear to me to make up a very
strong case indeed.
If any of the other dolmens in the West had even so good a title to a date as
Arthur's Quoit, it might be possible to arrange them in a series; but as none
have even traditional dates, all we can now do is to suggest that the dolmen
at Plas Newydd (woodcut No. 50) is of about the same age as Arthur's
Stone: perhaps something more modern, as it is more carefully squared; but
this may arise from the one being a battle-stone, the other a peaceful
sepulchre. In like manner it would seem that such an exaggerated form as
Pentre Ifan (woodcut No. 49) is a "tour de force" of a still more modern
date; and if we could get one certainly older than any of these, a tentative
scheme could be constructed which might lead us to satisfactory results.
I by no means despair of being able eventually to construct such a scheme
of classification, and, even before this Work is concluded, to make it
tolerably clear that the thing is possible, and then it will only remain, if one
or two fixed or probable dates can be ascertained, to bring the whole within
the range of historical investigation.

Footnotes
[134] 'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxiii.
[135] 'Iter Curiosum,' p. xxxii.
[136] When I was there four years ago I was fortunate enough to find an
old man, a stonemason, who had been employed in his youth in utilizing
these stones. He went over the ground with me, and pointed out the
position of those he remembered.
[137] It is extremely difficult to be precise about the dimensions. One is
almost wholly buried in the earth, and its dimensions can only be obtained
by probing; the other is half buried.

[138] 'Archæologia,' ii. 1773, p. 107.
[139] 'Wanderings of an Antiquary;' London, 1854, p. 175 et seq.
[140] loc. cit. 175.
[141] 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 299.
[142] 'Beowulf: an Anglo-Saxon Poem,' translated by J. W. Kemble, 1835,
preface, p. xix.
[143] 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 121.
[144] This woodcut is copied literally from one by Mr. Lewis published in
the 'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' and the
figures and facts I am about to quote are mostly taken from the paper that
accompanied it. The inferences, however, are widely different.
[145] 'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' p. 37.
[146] Asser, in 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 476.
[147] Stukeley, 'Avebury,' p. 12; Borlase, p. 210.
[148] Camden, 'Britannia,' i. p. 285. See also Charleton's 'Stonehenge
restored to the Danes,' p. 36.
[149] On this stone Sir Gardiner Wilkinson traced one of those circles of
concentric rings which are so common on stones in the north of England. I
did not see it myself, but assuming it to be true—which I have no doubt it
is—it will not help us much till we know when and by whom these circles
were engraved.
[150] 'Brit.' p. 1021.
[151] Pennant in his text calls the diameter 88 yards, but the scale attached
to his plan makes it 110 yards nearly.
[152] 'Tour in Scotland, 1772,' pl. xxxvii. p. 276.
[153] Near Lochmaben, in Annandale, a circle exists, or existed, called
Wood Castle, which, in so far as the plan and dimensions are concerned, is
identical with this. It is figured in General Roy's 'Military Antiquities of the
Romans,' pl. viii. I would not hesitate in quoting it as a monument of this
class, but for the view which I distrust excessively, but which makes it look
like a fortification. As I have no means of verifying the facts, I can only
draw attention to them.
[154] 'Iter Boreale,' p. 42.
[155] 'Brit.,' Gough edit. iii. p. 401.
[156] 'Archæological Journal,' xviii. p. 29.
[157] Ibid., xviii. p. 37.
[158] I am not aware that any account of these diggings has been
published. The facts I ascertained on the spot.
[159] Here, again, I quote from the copy in the 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 47 et
seq., to which it will not be necessary to refer every time the name is
mentioned.

[160] Stuart Glennie, 'King Arthur.' 1867. L. W. Skene. 'Ancient Books of
Wales,' i. 52 et seq.
[161] 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 73.
[162] General Roy's 'Mil. Ant. of the Romans,' pl. viii.
[163] Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.
[164] I have not seen this circle myself, though I made a long journey on
purpose. It is said to consist of eighty-eight stones, and one larger than the
rest, standing outside the circle, at a distance of about five yards, or exactly
as Long Meg stands with reference to her daughters.
[165] First described in the 'Archæologia,' vol. viii. p. 131 et seq., by the
Rev. S. Pegge, in 1783.
[166] These dimensions, as well as the plan, are taken from Sir Gardner
Wilkinson's paper in the 'Journal of the Archæological Association,' xvi. p.
116, and may consequently be thoroughly depended upon.
[167] Bateman, 'Vestiges,' p. 65.
[168] These dimensions are taken from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's plan. The
Batemans, with all their merits, are singularly careless in quoting
dimensions.
[169] Ante, p. 11.
[170] Douglas, 'Nenia Brittanica,' p. 168, pl. xxxv.
[171] If we knew its height we might guess its age. If it was 65 feet high,
its angle must be 30 degrees, and its age probably the same as that of
Silbury Hill. If 100 feet, and its angle above 40 degrees, it must have been
older.
[172] 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 82.
[173] 'Petrie's Life,' by Stokes, p. 234.
[174] The complete disappearance of the body of this undoubted Saxon
chief ought to make us cautious in ascribing remote antiquity to many
comparatively fresh bodies we find elsewhere.
[175] Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 21.
[176] "In 1723 the workmen dug up the body of a great king buried there in
the centre, a very little below the surface. The bones were extremely rotten,
and, six weeks after, I came luckily to rescue a great curiosity which they
took out there—an iron chain, as they called it. It was the bridle buried
along with the monarch. There were deer horns and an iron knife, with a
bone handle, too, all excessively rotten, taken up along with it."—
Stukeley's 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pp. 41-12. The bridle is figured, pl.
xxxvi.
[177] Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 168.
[178] Nothing can exceed the effrontery with which Stukeley inserted
curved avenues between these circles, so as to make the whole into a
serpent form. Nothing of the kind exists, nor existed in 1826, when Mr.

Croker made, for Sir R. C. Hoare, the survey from which the woodcut is
copied, with Sir Gardner Wilkinson's corrections.
[179] 'Archæologia,' xxv. p. 189.
[180] What is the meaning of the word "Maes"? It is singular that the Maes
How, in Orkney, should bear the same relative position to the Standing
Stones of Stennis, in Orkney, that Maes Knoll does to the group of circles. I
do not know of the name occurring anywhere else. According to the
dictionaries, it merely means "plain" or "field." In Irish "Magh"
pronounced "Moy;" but that can hardly be the meaning here.
[181] 'Archæologia,' x. pl. xi. p. 106.
[182] It probably may have been a piece of iron pyrites, and may have been
used for striking a light.
[183] 'Archæologia Cambriensis,' third series, vol. xii. p. 54. A fancy plan
of the same circle appears in the same volume, but is utterly untrustworthy.
It is reproduced by Waring, 'Mon.' &c. pl. xli.
[184] 'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries,' iii. p. 225.
[185] The Hon. W. C. Stanley enumerates by name twenty-four in
Anglesea.—'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series, vol. i. p. 58.
[186] Tacitus, 'Vita Agricolæ,' chap. v.
[187] 'Somerset Archæo. Soc. Proceedings,' viii. p. 51.
[188] 'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43 et seq.
[189] 'Journal of the Ethnological Society,' January, 1871, p. 416.
[190] Vol. xi. p. 315 et seq.
[191] 'Pro. Soc. Ant.,' second series, ii. 275. Thurnam, 'Archæologia,' xlii.
217.
[192] 'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43.
[193] 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series vol. i. p. 51 et seq.
[194] For Rodmarton, see 'Proceedings Soc. Ant.' l. s. c.; for Cornish, see
paper by M. Brash, 'Gent. Mag.,' 1864.
[195] 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' third series, xi. p. 284.
[196] The following particulars are taken from a paper by Sir J. Gardner
Wilkinson, in the first volume, fourth series, of the 'Archæologia
Cambrensis,' 1870. It is not only the last, but the best description which I
know, and, being from the pen of so accurate an observer, I have relied on
it exclusively.
[197] 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.
[198] Dare one suggest Gower?
[199] Is this the same word as "Cotty," as applied to Kit's Cotty-house, in
Kent? It looks very like it.—Coity?
[200] Herbert, 'Cyclops Christianus,' p. 35.

CHAPTER V.
IRELAND.

Moytura.

It is probable, after all, that it is from the Irish annals that the greatest
amount of light will be thrown on the history and uses of the Megalithic
monuments. Indeed, had not Lord Melbourne's Ministry in 1839, in a fit of
ill-timed parsimony, abolished the Historical Commission attached to the
Irish Ordnance Survey, we should not now be groping in the dark. Had they
even retained the services of Dr. Petrie till the time of his death, he would
have left very little to be desired in this respect. But nothing of the sort was
done. The fiat went forth. All the documents and information collected
during fourteen years' labour by a most competent staff of explorers were
cast aside—all the members dismissed on the shortest possible notice, and
our knowledge of the ancient history and antiquities of Ireland thrown back
half a century, at least.[201]
Meanwhile, however, a certain number of the best works of the Irish
annalists have been carefully translated and edited by John O'Donovan and
others, and are sufficient to enable any one not acquainted with Irish to
check the wild speculations of antiquaries of the Vallancy and O'Brien
class, and also to form an opinion on the value of the annals themselves,
though hardly yet sufficient to enable a stranger to construct a reliable
scheme of chronology or history out of the heterogeneous materials
presented to him. We must wait till some second Petrie shall arise, who
shall possess a sufficient knowledge of the Irish language and literature,
without losing his Saxon coolness of judgment, before we can hope to
possess a reliable and consecutive account of ancient Ireland.
When this is done, it will probably be found that the Irish possess a more
copious literature, illustrative of the eocene period of their early history,

than almost any other country of Europe. Ireland may also boast that, never
having been conquered by the Romans, she retained her native forms, and
the people their native customs and fashions, uninterrupted and
uninfluenced by Roman civilization, for a longer time than the other
countries of Europe which were subjected to its sway.
As most important and instructive parts of the Irish annals, it is proposed
first to treat of those passages descriptive of the two battles of Moytura[202]
(Magh Tuireadh), both of which occurred within a period of a very few
years. A description of the fields on which they were fought will probably
be sufficient to set at rest the question as to the uses of cairns and circles;
and if we can arrive at an approximative date, it will go far to clear up the
difficulties in understanding the age of the most important Irish antiquities.
The narrative which contains an account of the battle of Southern Moytura,
or Moytura Cong, is well known to Irish antiquaries. It has not yet been
published, but a translation from a MS. in Trinity College, Dublin, was
made by John O'Donovan for the Ordnance Survey, and was obtained from
their records above alluded to by Sir William Wilde. He went over the
battle-field repeatedly with the MS. in his hand, and has published a
detailed account of it, with sufficient extracts to make the whole intelligible.
[203]
The story is briefly this:—At a certain period of Irish history a colony
of Firbolgs, or Belgæ, as they are usually called by Irish antiquaries, settled
in Ireland, dispossessing the Fomorians, who are said to have come from
Africa. After possessing the country for thirty-seven years, they were in
their turn attacked by a colony of Tuatha de Dananns coming from the
north, said to be of the same race and speaking a tongue mutually
intelligible. On hearing of the arrival of these strangers, the Firbolgs
advanced from the plains of Meath as far as Cong, situated between Lough
Corrib and Lough Mask, where the first battle was fought, and, after being
fiercely contested for four days, was decided in favour of the invaders.[204]
The second battle was fought seven years afterwards, near Sligo, under
circumstances which will be detailed more fully below, and resulted equally
in favour of the Tuatha de Dananns, and they in consequence obtained
possession of the country, which, according to the Four Masters, they held
for 197 years.[205]

54. Circle on Battle-field of Southern Moytura. From Sir W. Wilde.

55. Cairn on Battle-field of Southern Moytura.

The field on which the four-days' battle of Southern Moytura was fought
extends from five to six miles north and south. Near the centre of the space,
and nearly opposite the village of Cong, is a group of five stone circles, one
of which, 54 feet in diameter, is represented in the annexed woodcut (No.
54). Another, very similar, is close by; and a third, larger but partially
ruined, is within a few yards of the first. The other two can only now be
traced, and two more are said to have existed close by, but have entirely
disappeared. On other parts of the battle-field there are six or seven large
cairns of stone, all of them more or less ruined, the stones having been used

to build dykes, with which every field is surrounded in this country; but
none of them have been scientifically explored. One is represented
(woodcut No. 55). Sir W. Wilde has identified all of these as connected with
incidents in the battle, and there seems no reason to doubt his conclusions.
The most interesting, however, is one connected with an incident in the
battle, which is worth relating, as illustrating the manner in which the
monuments corroborate the history. On the morning of the second day of
the battle, King Eochy retired to a well to refresh himself with a bath, when
three of his enemies looking down, recognised him and demanded his
surrender. While he was parleying with them, they were attacked by his
servant and killed; but the servant died immediately afterwards of his
wounds, and, as the story goes, was interred with all honours in a cairn
close by. In the narrative it is said that the well where the king had so
narrow an escape is the only open one in the neighbourhood. It is so to the
present day; for the peculiarity of the country is, that the waters from Lough
Mask do not flow into Lough Corrib by channels on the surface, but
entirely through chasms in the rock underground, and it is only when a
crack in the rock opens into one of these that the water is accessible. The
well in question is the only one of these for some distance in which the
water is approached by steps partly cut in the rock, partly constructed.
Close by is a cairn (woodcut No. 56), called to this day the "Cairn of the
One Man." It was opened by Sir W. Wilde, and in its chamber was found
one urn, which is now deposited in the Museum of the Royal Academy at
Dublin, the excavation thus confirming the narrative in the most satisfactory
manner.

56. The Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura.

57. Urn in the Cairn of the "One Man," Moytura.

"The battle took place on Midsummer day. The Firbolgs were defeated with
great slaughter, and their king, who left the battle-field with a body-guard of
100 brave men in search of water to allay his burning thirst, was followed
by a party of 150 men, led by the three sons of Nemedh, who pursued him
all the way to the strand, called Traigh Eothaile, near Ballysadare, in the
county of Sligo. Here a fierce combat ensued, and King Eochy (Eochaidh)
fell, as well as the leaders on the other side, the three sons of Nemedh."[206]
A cairn is still pointed out on a promontory jutting into the bay, about a mile
north-west of the village of Ballysadare, which is said to have been erected
over the remains of the king, and bones are also said to have been found
between high and low water on the strand beneath, supposed to be those of
the combatants who fell in the final struggle. It may be otherwise, but there

is a consistency between the narrative and the monuments on the spot
which can hardly be accidental, and which it will be very difficult to explain
except in the assumption that they refer to the same events.
In fact, it would be difficult to conceive anything more satisfactory and
confirmatory of the record than the monuments on the plain; and no one, I
fancy, could go over the field with Sir William's book in his hand, without
feeling the importance of his identifications. Of course it may be suggested
that the book was written by some one familiar with the spot, to suit the
localities. The probability, however, of this having been done before the
ninth century, and done so soberly and so well, is very remote, and the
guess that but one urn would be found in the cairn of the "One Man," is a
greater piece of luck than could reasonably be expected. Even, however, if
the book was written to suit the localities, it will not invalidate the fact that
a great battle was fought on this spot, and that these cairns and these circles
mark the graves of those who fell in the fight.
The collection of monuments on the battle-field of Northern Moytura is
even more interesting than that on Moytura Cong, and almost justified the
assertion of Petrie "that, excepting the monuments at Carnac, in Brittany, it
is, even in its present state of ruin, the largest assemblage of the kind
hitherto discovered in the world."[207] They have also this advantage, that
the principal group, consisting of some sixty or seventy monuments, are
situated on an elevated table-land, and in an area extending not more than a
mile in one direction, and about half a mile in another. The country, too, is
much less stony than about Cong, so that the monuments stand out better
and have a more imposing look. Petrie examined and described sixty-four
monuments as situated in or around this space, and came to the conclusion
that originally there could not have been less than 200.[208] My impression
is that there may have been 100, but hardly more, though, of course, this is
only a guess, and the destruction of them is going on so rapidly that he may
be right after all.
In the space above described almost every variety of Megalithic art is to be
found. There are stone cairns, with dolmens in their interiors—dolmens
standing alone, but which have been evidently always exposed; dolmens
with single circles; others with two or three circles of stones around them;
and circles without dolmens or anything else in the centres. The only form

we miss is the avenue. Nothing of the sort can now, at least, be traced, nor
does it seem that any of the circles possessed such appendages.

58. Battle-field of Northern Moytura.
Scale 6 inches to 1 mile.

The annexed woodcut (No. 58) will explain the disposition of the principal
group. It is taken from the Ordnance Survey, and is perfectly correct as far
as it goes, but being only on the 6-inch scale, is too small to show the form
of the monuments.[209] In the centre is, or rather was, a great cairn, called
Listoghil. It is marked by Petrie as No. 51, but having for years been used
as a quarry for the neighbourhood, it is now so mined that it is difficult to
make out either its plan or dimensions. Petrie says it is 150 feet in diameter;
I made it 120. It was surrounded by a circle of great stones, within which

was the cairn, originally, probably, 40 or 50 feet high. All this has been
removed to such an extent as to expose the kistvaen or dolmen in its centre.
Its cap stone is 10 feet square and 2 feet thick, and is of limestone, as are its
supports. All the other monuments are composed of granite boulders.
"Those who first opened it assert that they found nothing within but burnt
wood and human bones. The half-calcined bones of horses and other
animals were and are still found in this cairn in great quantities" (Petrie, p.
250). In a note it is said that a large spear-head of stone (flint?) was also
found in this cairn.

59. Sketch-plan of Circle 27, Northern Moytura.

The annexed woodcut (No. 59) will give an idea of the general disposition
of a circle numbered 27 by Petrie.[210] It is of about the medium size, being

60 feet in diameter. The general dimensions of the circles are 40, 60, 80,
and one (No. 46) is 120 feet in diameter. The outer circle of No. 27 is
composed of large stones, averaging 6 feet in height, and some 20 feet in
circumference. Inside this is a circle of smaller stones, nearly obliterated by
the turf, and in the centre is a three-chambered dolmen, of which fifteen
stones still remain; but all the cap stones, except that of the central inner
chamber, are gone, and that now stands on its edge in front of its support.
The general appearance of this circle will be understood from the annexed
view (woodcut No. 60), taken from a photograph. It does not, however, do
justice to its appearance, as the camera was placed too low and does not
look into the circle, as the eye does. In the distance is seen the hill, called
Knock na Rea, surmounted by the so-called Cairn of Queen Meave, of
which more hereafter.

60. View of Circle 27, Northern Moytura. From a photograph.

Another of these circles, No. 7, is thus described by Petrie:—"This circle,
with its cromlech, are perfect. Its diameter is 37 feet, and the number of
stones thirty-two. The cromlech is about 8 feet high, the table-stone resting
on six stones of great magnitude: it is 9 feet long and 23 feet in
circumference." Its general appearance will be seen in the annexed view
from a photograph (woodcut No. 61); though this, as in the last instance, is
far from doing justice to its appearance.[211]

61. Dolmen, with Circle, No. 7, Northern Moytura. From a
photograph.

No. 37 is described by Dr. Petrie (p. 248) as a triple circle. The inner one 40
feet in diameter. The second of twelve large stones, and of 80 feet, the third
as a circle of 120 feet in diameter. "The cromlech is of the smallest size, not
more than 4 feet in height. The circumference of the stone table is 16 feet,
and it rests on five supporters."
Excavations were made into almost all these monuments either by Mr.
Walker, the proprietor of the ground, or by Dr. Petrie, and, with scarcely
one exception, they yielded evidence of sepulchral uses. Either human
bones were found or urns containing ashes. No iron, apparently, was found
in any. A bronze sword is said to have been found, forty years ago, in 63;
but generally there was nothing but implements of bone or stone. At the
time Petrie wrote (1837) these were not valued, or classified, as they have
since been; so we cannot draw any inference from them as to the age of the
monuments, and no collection, that I am aware of, exists in which these
"finds" are now accessible. Indeed, I am afraid that Petrie and those who
worked with him were too little aware of the importance of these material
points of evidence, to be careful either to collect or to describe the contents
of these graves; and as all or nearly all have been opened, that source of
information may be cut off for ever.
Besides these monuments on the battle-field, there are two others, situated
nearly equidistant from it, and which seem to belong to the same group; one
known as the Tomb of Misgan Meave, the celebrated Queen of Connaught,
who lived apparently contemporaneously with Cæsar Augustus, or rather, as

the annalists insist, with Jesus Christ;[212] though, according to the more
accurate Tighernach, her death occurred in the 7th year of Vespasian, in
A.D. 75.[213] It is situated on the top of a high hill known as Knock na Rea
(woodcut No. 60), at a distance of two miles westward from the battle-field.
It was described by the Rt. Hon. William Burton, in 1779, as an enormous
heap of small stones, and is of an oval figure, 650 feet in circumference at
the base, 79 feet slope on one side and 67 feet on the other. The area on the
top is 100 feet in its longest diameter and 85 feet in its shortest. When Petrie
visited it in 1837, it was only 590 feet in circumference, and the longest
diameter on the top only 80 feet. It had in the interval, in fact, been used as
a quarry; and I have no doubt but that the flat top originally measured the
usual 100 feet, and was circular. "Around its base," says Petrie, "are the
remains of many sepulchral monuments of lesser importance, consisting of
groups of large stones forming circular or oval enclosures. A careful
excavation within these tombs by Mr. Walker resulted in the discovery not
only of human interments, but also of several rude ornaments and
implements of stone of a similar character to those usually found in
sepulchres of this class in Ireland, and which, being unaccompanied by any
others of a metallic nature, identify this group of monuments as of
contemporaneous age with those of Carrowmore, among which no iron
remains are known to have been discovered, and mark them as belonging to
any period of semi-civilized society in Ireland."[214]
From their situation, it seems hardly possible to doubt that these smaller
tombs are contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Great Cairn; and if
this really were the tomb of Queen Meave, it would throw some light on our
subject. The great cairn has not, however, been dug into yet; and till that is
done the ownership of the tomb cannot be definitely fixed. There are
several reasons, however, for doubting the tradition. In the first place, we
have the direct testimony of a commentary written by Moelmuiri, that
Meave (Meahbh) was buried at Rathcroghan, which was the proper
burying-place of her race; "her body having been removed by her people
from Fert Medhbha; for they deemed it more honourable to have her
interred at Cruachan."[215] As the Book of the Cemeteries confirms this,
there seems no good reason for doubting the fact, though she may have first
been laid in this neighbourhood, which may have given rise to the tradition.

If, on the other hand, we may trust Beowulf's description of a warrior's
grave, as it was understood in the 5th century, no tomb in these islands
would answer more perfectly to his ideal than the Cairn on Knock na Rea:
—

"Then wrought
The people of the Westerns
A mound over the sea.
It was high and broad,
By the sea-faring man
To be seen afar."

That an Irish queen should be buried on a mountain-top overlooking the
Western Ocean seems most improbable, and is opposed to the evidence we
have; but that a Viking warrior should be so buried, overlooking the sea and
a battle-field, seems natural; but who he may have been is for future
investigators to discover.
The other cairn is situated just two miles eastward from the battle-field, on
an eminence overlooking Loch Gill. It is less in height than the so-called
Queen's Tomb, but the top is nearly perfect, and has a curious saucer-like
depression, as nearly as can be measured, 100 feet in diameter. It has never
been dug into, nor, so far as I could learn, does any tradition attach to it.

The history of the Battle of Northern Moytura, as told in the Irish Annals, is
briefly as follows:[216] —
Nuada, who was king of the Tuatha de Dananns when the battle of Southern
Moytura was fought, lost his arm in the fight. This, however, some skilled
artificers whom he had with him skilfully replaced by one made of silver;
so that he was always afterwards known as Nuada of the Silver Hand.
Whether from this cause or some other not explained, he resigned the chief
sovereignty to Breas, who, though a Fomorian by birth, held a chief
command in the Tuatha de Danann army. Owing to his penurious habits and
domineering disposition, Breas soon rendered himself very unpopular with

the nobles of his Court; and, at a time when the discontent was at its height,
a certain poet and satirist, Cairbré, the son of the poetess Etan, arrived at his
Court. He was treated by the king in so shabby a manner and with such
disrespect, that he left it in disgust; but, before doing so, he wrote and
published so stinging a satire against the king, as to set the blood of the
nobles boiling with indignation, and they insisted on his resigning the
power he had held for seven years. "To this call the regent reluctantly
acceded; and, having held a council with his mother, they both determined
to retire to the Court of his father Elatha, at this time the great chief of
Fomorian pirates, or Sea Kings, who then swarmed through all the German
Ocean and ruled over the Shetland Islands and the Hebrides."
Elatha agreed to provide his son with a fleet to conquer Ireland for himself
from the Tuatha de Danann, if he could; and for this purpose collected all
the men and ships lying from Scandinavia westwards for the intended
invasion, the chief command being entrusted to Balor of the Evil Eye,
conjointly with Breas. Having landed near Sligo, they pitched their tents on
the spot—Carrowmore—where the battle was afterwards fought.
Here they were attacked by Nuada of the Silver Hand, accompanied by the
great Daghda, who had taken a prominent part in the previous battle, and
other chiefs of note. The battle took place on the last day of October, and is
eloquently described. The Fomorians were defeated, and their chief men
killed. King Nuada was slain by Balor of the Evil Eye, but Balor himself
fell soon after by a stone flung at him by Lug his grandson by his daughter
Eithlenn.
After an interval of forty years, according to the 'Annals of the Four
Masters,' the Daghda succeeded to the vacant throne, and reigned eighty
years.[217]
From the above abstract—all the important passages of which are in the
exact words of the translation—it is evident that the author of the tract
considered the Fomorians and the Tuatha de Danann as the same people, or
at least as two tribes of the same race, the chiefs of which were closely
united to one another by intermarriage. He also identifies them with the
Scandinavian Vikings, who played so important a part in Irish history down
to the Battle of Clontarf, which happened in 1014.

This may at first sight seem very improbable. We must not, however, forget
the celebrated lines of Claudian:[218] "Maduerunt Saxone fuso Orcades:
incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule: Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne."
This, it may be said, was written three or even four centuries after the
events of which we are now speaking; but it was also written five centuries
before the Northmen are generally supposed to have occupied the Orkneys
or to have interfered in the affairs of Ireland, and does point to an earlier
state of affairs, though how much anterior to the poet's time there is nothing
to show.
It has been frequently proposed to identify the Dananns with the Danes,
from the similarity of their names. Till I visited Sligo, I confess I always
looked on this as one of those random guesses from identity of mere sound
which are generally very deceptive in investigations of this sort. The
monuments, however, on the battle-field correspond so nearly to those
figured by Madsen in his 'Antiquités préhistoriques du Danemark,'[219] and
their disposition is so similar to that of the Braavalla feld[220] and other
battle-fields in Scandinavia, that it will now require very strong evidence to
the contrary to disprove an obvious and intimate connection between them.
In concluding his account of the battle, Mr. O'Curry adds: "Cormac Mac
Cullinan, in his celebrated Glossary, quotes this tract in illustration of the
word Nes; so that so early as the ninth century it was looked upon by him as
a very ancient historic composition of authority."[221] If this is so, there
seems no good reason for doubting his having spoken of events and things
perfectly within his competence, and so we may consider the account above
given as historical till at least some good cause is shown to the contrary.

It now only remains to try and find out if any means exist by which the
dates of these two battles of Moytura can be fixed with anything like
certainty. If we turn to the 'Annals of the Four Masters,' which is the
favourite authority with Irish antiquaries, we get a startling answer at once.
The battle of Moytura Cong, according to them, took place in the year of
the world 3303, and the second battle twenty-seven years afterwards.[222]
The twenty is a gratuitous interpolation. This is equivalent to 1896 and

1869 years before Christ. Alphabetical writing was not, as we shall
presently see, introduced into Ireland till after the Christian Era, the idea
therefore that the details of these two battles should have been preserved
orally during 2000 years, and all the intermediate events forgotten, is
simply ridiculous. The truth of the matter seems to be that the 'Four
Masters,' like truly patriotic Irishmen in the middle of the seventeenth
century, thought it necessary for the honour of their country to carry back
its history to the Flood at least. As the country at the time of the Tuatha de
Dananns was divided into five kingdoms,[223] and at other times into
twenty-five, they had an abundance of names of chiefs at their disposal, and
instead of treating them as cotemporary, they wrote them out consecutively,
till they reached back to Ceasair—not Julius—but a granddaughter of Noah,
who came to Ireland forty days before the Flood, with fifty girls and three
men, who consequently escaped the fate of the rest of mankind, and
peopled the western isle. This is silly enough, but their treatment of the hero
of Moytura is almost as much so. Allowing that he was thirty years of age
when he took so prominent a part in the second battle, in 3330, he must
have been seventy-one when he ascended the Irish throne, and, after a reign
of seventy-nine years, have died at the ripe old age of 150, from the effects
of a poisoned wound he had received 120 years previously. The 'Four
Masters' say eighty years earlier, but this is only another of their thousand
and one inaccuracies.
When we turn from these to the far more authentic annals of Tighernach,
who died 1088 A.D., we are met at once by his often quoted dictum to the
effect that "omnia Monumenta Scotorum usque Cimboeth incerta erant."
[224]
It would have been more satisfactory if he could have added that after
that time they could be depended upon, but this seems by no means to have
been the case. As, however, Cimboeth is reported to have founded Armagh,
in the year 289 B.C., it gives us a limit beyond which we cannot certainly
proceed without danger and difficulty. We get on surer ground when we
reach the reign of Crimthann, who, according to Tighernach, died in the
year of our era 85, after a reign of 16 years.[225] The 'Four Masters,' it is
true, make him contemporary with Christ; but even Dr. O'Donovan is
obliged to confess that all these earlier reigns, after the Christian era, are
antedated to about the same extent.[226] Unfortunately for our purpose,
however, Tighernach's early annals are almost wholly devoted to the

chronicles of the kings of Emania or Armagh, and it is only incidentally that
he names the kings of Tara, which was the capital both of the Firbolgs and
Tuatha de Dananns, and he makes no allusion to the battles of Moytura.
Though our annalist, therefore, to a certain extent deserts us here, there are
incidental notices of the Daghda and his friends in Irish manuscripts
referring to other subjects, which seem sufficient to settle the question. The
best of these were collected together for another purpose by Petrie, in his
celebrated work on the Round Towers, and, as they are easily accessible
there, it will not be necessary to quote them in extenso, but merely the
passages bearing directly on our subject.[227]
The first extract is from a very celebrated work known as the 'Leabhar na
l'Uidhre,' written apparently before 1106, which is given by the 'Four
Masters' as the date of the author's death. Speaking of Cormac, the son of
Art and grandson of Conn of a Hundred Battles:—"Before his death, which
happened in 267, he told his people not to bury him at Brugh, on the Boyne,
where the kings of Tara, his predecessors, were buried, because he did not
adore stones and trees, and did not worship the same god as those interred
at Brugh, for he had faith," adds the monkish chronicler, "in the one true
God according to the law."
The tract then goes on to say that "the kings of the race of Heremon were
buried at Cruachan until the times of Crimthann, who was the first king of
them that was buried in Brugh." The others, including Queen Meave, were
buried at Cruachan, because they possessed Connaught. "But they were
interred at Brugh from the time of Crimthann to the time of Leoghaire, the
son of Niall (A.D. 428), except three persons, namely Art the son of Conn,
and Cormac the son of Art, and Niall of the Nine Hostages." A little further
on we have the following paragraph:—"(101.) The nobles of the Tuatha de
Danann were used to bury at Brugh, i.e., the Dagdha with his three sons,
and also Lughaidh and Oe, and Ollam and Ogma, and Etan the poetess, and
Corpre the son of Etan, and Crimthann followed them because his wife was
one of the Tuatha Dea, and it was she that solicited him that he should adopt
Brugh as a burying-place for himself and his descendants."
In the 'Book of Ballymote' (p. 102) it is said, "Of the monument of Brugh
here, viz., The Bed of daughter of Forann. The monument of the Daghda.
The mound of the Morrigan. The Barc of Crimthann in which he was
interred. The Carnail (stone cairn) of Conn of a Hundred Battles," &c. In a

second passage we recognise the following names rather more in detail:
"The Bed of the Dagdha first, the two paps of the Morrigan, at the place
where Cermud Milbhel, the son of the Dagdha was born[228]—(the
monuments of) Cirr and Cuirrell wives of the Dagdha—there are two
hillocks; the grave of Aedh Luirgnech, son of the Dagdha." Again, in a
prose commentary on a poem which Petrie quotes, we have the following
apparently by Moelmuori. "The chiefs of Ulster before Conchobar (he is
said to have died 33[229]) were buried at Talten.... The nobles of the Tuatha
de Dananns, with the exception of seven who were interred at Talten, were
buried in Brugh, i.e., Lugh and Oe, son of Ollamh and Ogma, and Carpre
the son of Etan, and Etan (the poetess herself), and the Daghda and her
three sons, and a great many others besides of the Tuatha de Danann,
Firbolgs, and others."
There is no doubt but that many similar passages to these might be found in
Irish MSS., if looked for by competent scholars, but these extracts probably
are sufficient to prove two things. First, that the celebrated cemetery at
Brugh, on the Boyne, six miles west from Drogheda, was the burying-place
of the kings of Tara from Crimthann (A.D. 84) till the time of St. Patrick
(A.D. 432), and that it was also the burying-place of all those who were
concerned—without being killed—in the battles of Moytura. We are not,
unfortunately, able to identify the grave of each of these heroes, though it
may be because only one has been properly explored, that called New
Grange, and that had been rifled before the first modern explorers in the
seventeenth century found out the entrance. The Hill of Dowth has only
partially been opened. The great cairn of Knowth is untouched, so is the
great cairn known as the Tomb of the Dagdha. Excavations alone can prove
their absolute identity; but this at least is certain, we have on the banks of
the Boyne a group of monuments similar in external appearance at least
with those on the two Moytura battle-fields, and the date of the greater
number of those at Brugh is certainly subsequent to the Christian era.[230]
The second point is not capable of such direct proof, but seems equally
clear. It is that the kings of the race of Crimthann immediately succeeded to
the kings of the Tuatha de Danann, who fought at Moytura. If, indeed, we
could trust the assertion that Crimthann was the first king that was buried at
Brugh, we should be obliged to find a place for the Daghda under some
pseudonym afterwards, and it is possible that may be the case,[231] but for

the present it seems more reasonable to assume that he preceded him at a
very short interval.
According to the 'Four Masters,' the Tuatha de Danann had been extinct for
nearly 2000 years when we find Crimthann marrying a princess of that race,
and one of sufficient influence to induce him to adopt what appears literally
to have been the family burying-place of the Dagdha for that of himself and
his race; and it seems impossible to believe that when this took place it
could have been old, or neglected, or deserted.
According to the 'Four Masters,' the Firbolgs reigned thirty-seven years
only, so that they do not in this case seem to err on the side of exaggeration,
and the Tuatha de Danann 196 years. From this, however, we must deduct
the twenty years they unnecessarily interpolated between the two battles,
and we must take something from the eighty years the Dagdha reigned after
he was ninety-one years of age. If we allow, then, a century, it will place the
battles of Moytura 20 to 30 B.C., and the arrival of the Firbolgs about the
middle of the first century B.C. This, with a small limit of error either way
is, I am convinced, pretty nearly the true date of these events.[232]
If we turn to the celebrated Hill of Tara, about ten miles off, where those
resided who were buried at Brugh-na-Boinne, we find a great deal to
confirm the views expressed above. When Petrie was attached to the
Ordnance Survey, he had a very careful plan made of the remains on that
hill, and compiled a most elaborate memoir regarding them, which was
published in the eighteenth volume of the 'Transactions of the Royal Irish
Academy.' It concludes with these words (p. 231): "From the historical
allusions deduced it will be seen that, with the exception of the few last
described,[233] they are all nearly contemporaneous and belong to the third
century of the Christian era. The era of the original Tuatha de Danann
Cathair belongs to the remote period of uncertain tradition. The only other
monuments of ascertained date are those of Conor Mac Nessa and
Cuchullim, both of whom flourished in the first century. These facts are
sufficient to prove that before the time of Cormac Mac Art,[234] Tara had
attained to no distinguished celebrity."

62. Rath na Riogh, or, Cathair of Cormac, at Tara.

The only difficulty in this passage is the allusion to the Tuatha de Danann.
At the time Petrie wrote it he, like most Irish antiquaries, had been unable
to emancipate himself from the spell of the 'Four Masters,' and, struck by
the pains they had taken, and the general correctness of their annals after
the Christian era, had adopted their pre-Christian chronology almost
without question. The Cathair here alluded to is only an undistinguishable
part of the Rath of Cormac, to which tradition attaches that name, but
neither in plan, nor materials, nor construction can be separated from it.
That the Dananns had a Cathair on this hill is more than probable if, as I
suppose, they immediately preceded the Crimthann dynasty, who certainly
resided here. It may also well be that they occupied this site, which is the

highest on the hill, and that their palace was afterwards enlarged by
Cormac. The plan of it is worth referring to (woodcut No. 62), from its
curious resemblance to that of Avebury; what was here done in earth was
afterwards done in stone in Wiltshire, and it seems as if, as is so often the
case, the house of the dead was copied from the dwelling of the living.
The Dagdha had apparently no residence here. From the context I would
infer that he resided in the great Rath, about 300 feet diameter, at Dowth,
where his son, apparently, was born, and near to which, as above shown, he
also was buried. If, however, he had no residence on the Royal hill, his so-
called spit was one of the most celebrated pieces of furniture of the palace.
It was a most elaborate piece of ironmongery, and performed a variety of
cooking operations in a very astonishing manner, and shows, at all events,
that the smith who made it had no little skill in the working of iron, of
which metal it was principally composed.[235]
The Rath of Leoghaire (429-458 A.D.) is interesting to us, not only as the
last erected here, but from the circumstances of its builder being buried in
its ramparts. It seems that, in spite of all the preaching and persuasions of
St. Patrick, who was his contemporary, Leoghaire refused to be converted
to the Christian religion; but like a grand old Pagan, he ordered that he
should be buried standing in his armour in the rampart of his Rath, and
facing the country of the foes with whom he had contended during life. That
this was done is as well authenticated as any incident of the time, perhaps
even better;[236] and I cannot help fancying from the appearance of the
Raths, that some others of the kings were interred here also. Be that as it
may, this circumstance ought to prevent our feeling any surprise at the
actual discovery of the skeleton of a man under the rampart at Marden (ante
p. 86), or if human bones were still found under the vallum at Avebury, in
spite of the negative evidence of the partial explorations of the Wiltshire
Archæological Society.
There is still another point of view from which this question may be
regarded, so as to throw some light on the main issue of the age of the
monuments in question. If we can ascertain when the art of writing was first
practised in Ireland, we may obtain an approximate date before which no
detailed history of any events could be expected to exist. Now all the best
antiquaries of Ireland are agreed that no alphabetic writing was used in
Ireland before the reign of Cormac Mac Art, A.D. 218-266. There seems to

be evidence that, as above mentioned, he was converted to Christianity by
some Romish priest; and though it is unlikely that he himself acquired the
art of writing, he seems to have caused certain tracts to be compiled. None
of these, it is true, now exist, but they are referred to and quoted from an
ancient Irish MS. in a manner that leaves little doubt that some books were
written in Ireland in the third century, but almost certainly there were none
before that time. It is true, however, that Eugene O'Curry pleads hard for
some kind of Ogham writing having existed in Ireland before that time, and
even before the Christian era.[237] But though we may admit the former
proposition, the evidence of the latter is of the most unsatisfactory
description. Even, however, if it could be established it would prove very
little. It would be as difficult to write a connected history in Ogham as it
would be in Exchequer tallies, and so far as is known, it never was
attempted. The utmost Ogham ever did, or could do, was to record
genealogies; and such detailed histories as we possess of the Moytura
battles are quite beyond its powers. On the other hand, Mr. O'Curry's own
account of Senchan's difficulties in obtaining copies of the celebrated 'Táin
Bó Chuailgne,' or 'Cattle Spoil of Cooley,' after the year 598, shows how
little the art was then practised. No copy of this poem, which contains the
life and adventures of Queen Meave, in the first century, then existed in
Ireland. A mission was consequently sent to Italy to copy one said to have
existed there, and though the missionaries were miraculously spared the
journey,[238] the inference is the same, that no written copy of their most
celebrated work existed in Ireland in the year 600.
Petrie is equally clear on the subject. In his history of Tara he states that the
Irish were unacquainted with letters till the introduction of Christianity in
the fifth century, with the doubtful exception of the writings ascribed to
Cormac Mac Art. He consequently believes that the authentic history of
Ireland commences only with Tuathal, A.D. 130, 160, in which he is
probably correct.[239]
But here the question arises—Before the introduction of writing into a
country, how long could so detailed a narrative as that which we possess of
the Battles of Moytura, and one so capable of being verified by material
evidences on the spot, be handed down orally as a plain prose narrative?
Among so rude a people as the Irish avowedly then were, would this period
be one century or two, or how many? Every one must decide for himself. I

do not know an instance of any rude people preserving orally any such
detailed history for a couple of centuries. With me the great difficulty is to
understand how the memory of the battles was so perfectly preserved,
assuming them to have taken place so long ago as the first century B.C. As
it is not pretended that the narratives were reduced to writing so early as the
time of Cormac, I should, from their internal evidence, be much more
inclined to assume that the battles must have taken place one or two
centuries after the birth of Christ. At all events, it seems absolutely
impossible that the date of these battles can be so remote as the Four
Masters place them, or even as some Irish antiquaries seem inclined to
admit.
The truth of the matter appears to be that, in the Eocene period of Irish
history or in the one or two centuries that preceded the introduction of
writing, we have a whole group of names so inextricably mixed together
that it is impossible to separate them. We have the Dagdha and his wives
and their sons. We have Etan the poetess and her ill-conditioned son. There
is Queen Meave of the Cattle Raid, and her husband Conchobhar McNessa.
There is Cumbhail, the Fingal of Macpherson and Cuchullin; and then such
semi-historical persons as Tuathal the Accepted, and Conn of a Hundred
Battles. All these lived almost together in one capital, and were buried in
one cemetery, and form a half-historic, half-mythic group, such as generally
precedes written history in most parts of the world. Many of their dates are
known with fairly approximate certainty, whilst that of others cannot be
fixed. There seems, however, enough to justify us in almost positively
affirming that the Battle of Moytura, which raised the Dagdha to fame,
happened within the fifty years that preceded or the fifty that followed the
birth of Christ. My own impression is in favour of the former as the more
probable date.
To some this may appear an over-laboured disquisition to prove an
insignificant point. It is not, however, one-tenth part of what might be
advanced on the subject from translated and printed documents, and,
certainly, it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance with reference to
the subject matter of this work. If the two groups of monuments at Cong
and Carrowmore can be proved to be the monuments of those who fell in
the two battles of Southern and Northern Moytura, we have made an
immense step towards a knowledge of the use of these monuments; and if it

can be shown that they date from about the Christian Era, we gain not only
a standpoint for settling the age of all other Irish antiquities, but a base for
our reasoning with reference to similar remains in other countries.
No Irish antiquary, nor indeed of any other country, so far as I know, has
ventured to hint a doubt that they mark the battle-fields. Nor, in the present
state of the evidence, do I see any reason for questioning the fact; and, for
the present at least, we may assume it as granted. The second proposition is
more open to question. Irish antiquaries generally will dissent from so
serious a reduction in the antiquity of these two great battles. But, after the
most earnest attention I have been able to give to all that has been written
and said on the subject and a careful comparison of the monuments on these
fields with those of other countries, I would, on the whole, be inclined to
bring them forward a century or two, if I could find a gap to throw them
into, rather than date them earlier. They look older and more tentative than
the English circles described in the last chapter, but not so much so as to
lead us to expect a difference of four or five centuries. On the other hand,
they are so like those on the Bravalla field, and other monuments in
Scandinavia, to be described hereafter, that it is puzzling to think that seven
or ten centuries elapsed between them. But, taking all the circumstances of
the case into consideration, the conclusions above arrived at appear fair and
reasonable, and in conformity, not only to what was said in the last chapter,
but to the facts about to be adduced in the following pages.

Cemeteries.

Although Irish antiquaries have succeeded in identifying the localities of a
considerable number of the thousand and one battles which, as might be
expected, adorn at every page the annals of a Celtic race; yet, as none of
these are described as marked with circles or cairns, like those found on the
two battle-fields of Moytura, they are of no use for our present purpose, and
our further illustrations must be drawn from the peaceful burying-places of
the Irish, which are, however, of singular interest.
In the history of the Cemeteries, eight are enumerated;[240] but of these only
the first three can be identified with anything like certainty at the present
day. But as the antiquities of Ireland have never yet been systematically

explored, others may yet be found, and so also may many more stone-
marked battle-fields. Meanwhile our business is with

"The three cemeteries of the idolaters:
The Cemetery of Tailten the select,
The Cemetery of the ever fair Cruachan,
And the Cemetery of Brugh."[241]

The two last are known with certainty. The first is most probably the range
of mounds at Lough Crew, recently explored by Mr. Conwell; but, as some
doubt this identification, we shall take it last, and speak first of those
regarding which there is more certainty.
Cruachan, or Rathcrogan, is situated five miles west from Carrick-on-
Shannon, and consists, according to Petrie, of a circular stone ditch,[242]
now nearly obliterated, 300 feet in diameter. Within this "are small circular
mounds, which, when examined, are found to cover rude sepulchral
chambers, formed of stone, without cement of any kind, and containing
unburnt bones." The monument of Dathi (428 A.D.), which is a small
circular mound with a pillar-stone of Red Sandstone, is situated outside the
enclosure, at a short distance to the east, and may be identified from the
following notice of it by the celebrated antiquary Duald Mac Firbis. "The
body of Dathi was brought to Cruachan, and was interred at Relig na Riogh,
where most of the kings of the race of Heremon were buried, and where to
this date the Red Stone pillar remains on a stone monument over his grave,
near Rath Cruachan, to this time (1666)."[243]
Here, therefore, we have the familiar 300-foot circle, with the external
burial, as at Arbor Low, and external stone monument as at Salkeld and
elsewhere. The chief distinction between this and our English battle-circles
seems to be the number of cairns, each containing a chamber, which crowd
the circle at Rath Crogan, and it is possible that if these were opened with
great care, a succession might be discovered among them; but at present we
know little or nothing of their contents.
At present there are only two names that we can identify with certainty as
those of persons buried here. Queen Meave, who, as before mentioned, was
transferred from Fert Meave—or Meave's Grave, her first burying-place, to

this Rath, about the end of the first century, and Dathi, at the beginning of
the fifth. Whether any other persons were interred here before the first-
named queen seems doubtful. From the context, it seems as if her being
buried in her own Rath had led to its being consecrated to funereal rites, and
continuing to be so used till Christianity induced men to seek burying-
places elsewhere than in the cemeteries of the idolaters.

By far the best known, as well as the most interesting, of Irish cemeteries is
that which extends for about two miles east and west on the northern bank
of the Boyne, about five miles from Drogheda. Within this space there
remain even now some seventeen sepulchral barrows, three of which are
pre-eminent.[244] They are now known by the names of Knowth for the
most westward one, Dowth for that to the east, and about halfway between
these two, that known as New Grange. In front of the latter, but lower down
nearer the river, is a smaller one, still popularly known as that of the
Dagdha, and others bear names with more or less certainty; but no
systematic exploration of the group has yet been made, so that we are very
much in the dark as to their succession, or who the kings or nobles may be
that lie buried within their masses.
That at Knowth has never been carefully measured, nor, so far as I know,
even described in modern times. At a guess, it is a mound 200 feet in
diameter, and 50 to 60 feet in height, with a flat top not less than 100 feet
across. It is entirely composed of small loose stones, which have been
extensively utilized for road making and farm buildings, so that the mound
has now a very dilapidated appearance, which makes it difficult to ascertain
its original form; and so far as is known, its interior has not been accessible
in modern times. Petrie identifies it (p. 103) with "the cave of Cnodhba,
which was searched by the Danes on an occasion (A.D. 862), when the
three kings, Amlaff, Imar, and Auisle, were plundering the territories of
Flann, the son of Conaing. If this is so, its entrance ought not to be difficult
to find, but the prospect of the explorers being rewarded by any treasure or
object of value is very small indeed.

63. View of Mound at New Grange. From a drawing by Colonel
Forbes Leslie.

Less than a mile from this one is the larger and more celebrated mound of
New Grange. It is almost certainly one of the three plundered by the Danes
1009 years ago. No description of it has anywhere been discovered, prior to
the time when Mr. Llwyd, the keeper of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford,
mentioned it in a letter dated Sligo, 1699.[245] He describes the entrance, the
passage, and the side chapels, and the three basins as existing then exactly
as they do now, and does not allude to the discovery of the entrance as
being at all of recent occurrence, though Sir Thomas Molyneux, in 1725,
says it was found apparently not long before he wrote, in accidently
removing some stones.[246] The first really detailed account, however, is
that of Governor Pownall, in the second volume of the 'Archæologia'
(1770). He employed a local surveyor of the name of Bouie to measure it
for him, but either he must have been a bungler, or the engraver has
misunderstood his drawings, for it is almost impossible to make out the
form and dimensions of the mound from the plates published. In the 100
years that have elapsed since his survey was made, the process of
destruction has been going on rapidly, and it would now require both skill
and patience to restore the monument to its previous dimensions.
Meanwhile the accompanying cuts, partly from Mr. Bouie's plates, partly
from personal observations, may be sufficient for purposes of illustration,

but they are far from pretending to be perfectly accurate, or such as one
would like to see of so important a monument.
Its dimensions, so far as I can make out, are as follows: it has a diameter of
310 to 315 feet for the whole mound, at its junction with the natural hill, on
which it stands. The height is about 70 feet, made up of 14 feet for the slope
of the hill to the floor of the central chamber, and 56 feet above it. The
angle of external slope appears to be 35 degrees, or 5 degrees steeper than
Silbury Hill, and consequently if there is anything in that argument, it may,
at least, be a century or two older. The platform on the top is about 120 feet
across, the whole being formed of loose stones, with the smallest possible
admixture of earth and rubbish.

64. New Grange, near Drogheda.

Around its base was a circle of large stone monoliths (woodcut No. 63).
They stand, according to Sir W. Wilde, 10 yards apart, on a circumference
of 400 paces, or 1000 feet. If this were so, they were as nearly as may be 33
feet from centre to centre, and their number consequently must originally
have been thirty, or the same number as at Stonehenge. From Bouie's plan I
make the number thirty-two, but this is hardly to be depended upon. From
this disposition it will be observed that if the tumulus were removed, or had
never been erected, we should have here exactly such a circle—333 feet in
diameter—as we find at Salkeld or at Stanton Drew, and it seems hardly
doubtful but that such an arrangement as this on the banks of the Boyne
gave rise to those circles which we find on the battle-fields of England two
or three centuries later. Llwyd, in his letter to Rowland, mentions one
smaller stone standing on the summit, but that had disappeared, as well as
twenty of the outer circle, when Mr. Bouie's survey was made.
At a distance of about 75 feet from the outer edge of the mound, and at a
height of 14 or 15 feet above the level of the stone ring, is the entrance to
the crypt. The threshold stone is 10 feet long by about 18 inches thick, and
is richly ornamented by double spirals of a most elaborate and elegant
character;[247] and at a short distance above it is seen a fragment of a string-
course, even more elaborately ornamented with a pattern more like modern
architecture than anything else on these mounds. The passage into the
central chamber is, for about 40 feet, 6 feet high, by 3 feet in width, though
both these dimensions have been considerably diminished, the first by the
accumulation of earth on the floor, the second by the mass of the mound
pressing in the side walls of the passage, so that it is with difficulty that any
one can crawl through. Advancing inwards, the roof, which is formed of
very large slabs of stone, rapidly becomes higher; and at a distance of 70
feet from the entrance, rises into a conical dome 20 feet in height, formed of
large masses of stone laid horizontally. The crypt extends still 20 feet
beyond the centre of the dome; and on the east and west sides are two other
recesses, that in the east being considerably deeper than the one opposite to
it.
In each of these recesses stands a shallow stone basin of oval form 3 feet by
3 feet 6 or 7 inches across, and 6 to 9 inches deep. They seem to form an
indispensable part of these Irish sepulchres, though what their use was has
not yet been ascertained.

On one stone in the passage, and on most of those in the inner chamber, are
sculptured ornaments, mostly of the same spiral character as that on the
stone at the threshold, but hardly so elaborately or carefully executed. One
stone on the right hand angle of the inmost chamber has fallen forward (see
plan), so that by creeping behind it, it is possible to see the reverse of some
of the neighbouring stones, and it is found that several of these are
elaborately carved with the same spiral ornaments as their fronts, though it
is quite impossible that, situated as they are, they could have been seen after
the mound was raised. To account for this, some have asserted that they
belonged to an older building before having been used in this; but it hardly
seems necessary to adopt so violent an hypothesis. It may have been that
the stones were carved before being used, and at a time when no plans or
drawings existed, may have been found unsuited in size or form for the
places for which they were first intended, and consequently either turned
round or used elsewhere. Or it may be that as the crypt must have been built
and tolerably complete before the mound was raised over it, the king may
have had it ornamented externally while in that state. Labour was of little
value in those days, and it is dangerous to attempt to account for the
caprices of kings in such a state of society as must then have existed. The
identity of the style and character of the ornaments both on the hidden and
the visible parts of these stones excludes the idea that they were the work of
different epochs. A removal from an older building implies a desecration
and neglect which must have been the work of time; and, having regard to
their identity, it is improbable that a time considerable enough would have
elapsed to admit of a building being so desecrated and neglected as that its
stones should be carried away and used elsewhere.

65. Ornament at New Grange. From a rubbing.

66. Ornament at New Grange. From a rubbing.

The position of the entrance so much within the outline of the Tumulus, is a
peculiarity at first sight much more difficult to account for. As it now
stands, it is situated at a distance of about 50 feet horizontally within what
we have every reason to believe was the original outline of the mound. Not
only is there no reason to believe that the passage ever extended further, but
the ornamented threshold, and the carved string-course above, and other
indications, seem to point out that the tumulus had what may be called an
architectural façade at this depth. One mode of accounting for this would be
to assume that the original mound was only about 200 feet in diameter at
the floor level, and that the interior was then accessible, but that after the
death of the king who erected it, an envelope 50 feet thick was added by his

successors, forming the broad platform at the top, and effectually closing
and hiding the entrance to the sepulchre. If this were so, we may easily
fancy that many of his family, or of his followers, were buried in this
envelope, and formed the secondary but nearly contemporary interments
which are so frequently found in English mounds. The experience of
Minning Lowe (woodcut No. 33), Rose Hill (woodcut No. 39), and other
English tumuli, goes far to countenance such an hypothesis; and there is
much besides to be said in its favour, but it is one of those questions which
can only be answered satisfactorily by a careful examination of the mound
itself. Meanwhile, however, I am rather inclined to adopt the hypothesis that
the mound had a funnel-shaped entrance like Park Cwn tumulus (woodcut
No. 46), and that at Plas Newydd (woodcut No. 47), and shown in dotted
lines in the woodcut No. 64. The reason for this will be more apparent when
we come to examine the Lough Crew tumuli, but the apparent ease with
which Amlaff and his brother Danes seem to have robbed these tombs in the
ninth century, seems to indicate that the entrances were not then difficult to
find.

67. Branch at New Grange. From a rubbing.

68. Sculptured mark at New Grange, of undecided character.

The ornaments which cover the walls of the chambers at New Grange are
very varied, both in their form and character. The most prevalent design is
that of spirals variously combined, and often of great beauty. They seem
always to have been drawn by the hand, never outlined with an instrument,
and never quite regular either in their form or combination. The preceding
woodcuts from rubbings give a fair idea of their general appearance, though
many are much more complex, and some more carefully cut. The most
extensive, and perhaps also the most beautiful, is that on the external
doorstep.[248] These spirals are, however, seldom alone, but more frequently
are found combined with zigzag ornaments, as in (woodcut No. 66), and in
lozenge-shaped patterns; in fact, in every conceivable variety that seemed to
suit the fancy of the artist, or the shape of the stone he was employed upon.
In one instance a vegetable form certainly was intended. There may be

others, but this one most undoubtedly represents either a palm branch or a
fern; my impression is that it is the former, though how a knowledge of the
Eastern plant reached New Grange is by no means clear. One other example
of the sculptures is worth quoting, if not for its beauty, at least for its
interest (woodcut No. 68). It is drawn full size in the second volume of the
'Archæologia,' p. 238, and Governor Pownall, after a learned disquisition,
concludes that the characters are Phœnician but only numerals (p. 259).
General Vallancey and others have not been so modest; but one thing seems
quite clear, that it is not a character in any alphabet now known. Still it can
hardly be a mere ornament. It must be either a mason's mark, or a
recognizable symbol of some sort, something to mark the position of the
stone on which it is engraved, or its ownership by some person. Similar
marks are found in France, but seem there equally devoid of any
recognizable meaning.

69. Chambers in Mound at Dowth. From a MS. plan.

The third of these great tumuli on the Boyne is known as that of Dowth.
Dubhad if Petrie is right in identifying it with the third sepulchre plundered
by the Danes in 862. It was dug into by a Committee of the Royal Irish
Academy in 1847, but without any satisfactory results. A great gash was
made in its side to its centre, which has fearfully disfigured its form,[249] but
without any central chamber being reached; but on the western side a small
entrance was discovered leading to a passage which extended 40 feet 6
inches (from A to D) towards the interior. At the distance of 28 feet from the
entrance it formed a small domical chamber, with three branches, very like
that at New Grange, but on a smaller scale. In the centre of this apartment
was one large flat basin (L), similar in form, and, no doubt, in purpose, to
the three at New Grange, but far larger, being 5 feet by 3 feet. The southern
branch of the chamber extends to K in a curvilinear form for about 28 feet,
where it is stopped for the present by a large stone, and another partially
obstructs the passage at 8 feet in front of the terminal stone.
The Academy have not yet published any account of their diggings, nor
does any plan of the mound exist, so far as I know, anywhere. Even its
dimensions are unknown. Pending these being ascertained, it does look as if
this chamber was in an envelope similar to that just suggested as having
existed at New Grange. In that case the original tumulus was probably 120
feet in diameter, and with its envelope 200 feet.
The walls of the chambers of this tomb are even more richly and elaborately
ornamented than those of the chambers at New Grange, and are in a more
delicate style of workmanship. Altogether I should be inclined to consider it
as more modern than its more imposing rival.
One other small tumulus of the cemetery is open. It is situated in the
grounds of Netterville House. It is, however, only a miniature repetition of
the central chambers of its larger compeers, but without sculptures or any
other marked peculiarity.
The mound called the Tomb of the Dagdha and the ten or twelve others
which still exist in this cemetery, are all, so far as is known, untouched, and
still remain to reward the industry of the first explorer. If the three large
mounds are those plundered by the Danes, which seems probable, this is
sufficient to account for the absence of the usual sepulchral treasures, but it
by no means follows that the others would be equally barren of results. On

the contrary, there being no tradition of their having been opened, and no
trace of wounds in their sides, we are led to expect that they may be intact,
and that the bones and armour of the great Dagdha may still be found in his
honoured grave.
Nothing was found in the great mounds at New Grange and Dowth which
throws much additional light either on their age or the persons to whom
they should be appropriated. Two skeletons are said to have been
discovered at New Grange, but under what circumstances we are not told,
and we do not consequently know whether to consider them as original or
secondary interments. The finding of the coin of Valentinian is mentioned
by Llwyd in 1699, but he merely says that they were found on the top, or
rather, as might be inferred, near the top, when it was uncovered by the
removal of the stones for road-making and such purposes. Had it been
found in the cell, as at Minning Low, it would have given us a date, beyond
which we could not ascend, but when and under what circumstances the
coin of Theodosius was found, does not appear, nor what has become of
either. A more important find was made by Lord Albert Cunyngham in
1842. Some workmen who were employed to dig on the mound near the
entrance discovered two splendid gold torques, a brooch, and a gold ring,
and with them a gold coin of Geta[250] (205-212 A.D.). A similar gold ring
was found about the same time in the cell, and is in the possession of Mrs.
Caldwell, the wife of the proprietor. Although we might feel inclined to
hesitate about the value of the conclusions to be drawn from the first
discovery of coins, this additional evidence seems to be conclusive. Three
Roman coins found in different parts, at different times, and with the
torques and rings, are, it seems, quite sufficient to prove that it cannot have
been erected before 380, while the probable date for its completion may be
about 400 A.D. It may, however, have been begun fifty or sixty years
earlier. It is most likely that such a tomb as this was commenced by the king
whose remains it was destined to contain; but the mound would not be
heaped over the chamber till the king himself, and probably his wives and
sons, were laid there, and a considerable period may consequently have
elapsed between the inception and the completion of such a monument.
At Dowth there was the usual miscellaneous assortment of things. A great
quantity of globular stone-shot, probably sling-stones; and in the chamber
fragments of burned bones, many of which proved to be human; glass and

amber beads of unique shape, portions of jet bracelets, a curious stone
button, a fibula, bone bodkins, copper pins, and iron knives and rings. Some
years ago a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood cleared out a portion
of the passage, and found a few iron antiquities, some bones of mammals,
and a small stone urn, which he presented to the Irish Academy.[251] In so
far as negative evidence is of value, it may be remarked that no flint
implements and nothing of bronze—unless the copper pins are so classed—
was found in any of these tumuli.

70. Ornament in Dowth. From a rubbing.

71. Ornament in Dowth. From a rubbing.

The ornaments found inside the chambers at Dowth are similar in general
character to those at New Grange, but, on the whole, more delicate and
refined. Assuming the progressive nature of Irish art, which I see no reason
for doubting, they would indicate a more modern age, and this, from other
circumstances, seems more than probable. Though spirals are frequent, the
Dowth ornaments assume more of free-traced vegetable forms. It is not so
easy to identify the figures in the annexed woodcut (No. 70), as in the palm-
branch in New Grange (woodcut No. 67), but there can be little doubt that
the intention was to simulate vegetable nature. At other times forms are
introduced which a fanciful antiquary might suppose were intended for
serpents, or writing, or, at all events, as having some occult meaning. The
annexed from a rubbing is curious, as something very similar occurs on a
stone at Coilsfield, in Ayrshire, and may really be intended to suggest an
idea, but of what nature we are not yet in a position to guess. It is not so like
an alphabetical character as those at New Grange (woodcut No. 68), and till
that is shown to have a meaning, it is hardly worth while speculating with
regard to this one. We shall be in a better position to judge of the value or
importance of these ornaments, in an artistic or chronometric point of view,
when we have examined those at Lough Crew and elsewhere; but even
irrespectively of such considerations, no one can examine the monuments
on the banks of the Boyne without being struck with the elegance as well as
the endless variety of the ornaments which cover their walls.
If, however, the material proofs are deficient, the written evidence is clearer
and more satisfactory than with regard to any group of tombs in the three
kingdoms. In the passage above quoted, it is said "that they"—the kings of

Ireland—"were interred at Brugh from the time of Crimthann (A.D. 76) to
the time of Leoghaire, the son of Niall (A.D. 458), except three persons,
namely, Art the son of Conn, and Cormac the son of Art, and Niall of the
nine hostages,"—the father of Leoghaire. The reason given why Art and
Cormac were not buried here was that they had embraced Christianity. Art
was buried at a place called Treoit; Cormac on the right bank of the Boyne
at a place called Ros-na-righ, opposite Brugh; and Niall at Ochaim. But
having disposed of these three, we have still some twenty-seven kings to
find graves for, and only seventeen mounds can now be traced at Brugh;
and, besides these, we have to find the tombs of the Dagdha, and his three
sons, and Etan the poetess and her son Corpre, and Boinn, the wife of
Nechtan, "who took with her to the tomb her small hound Dabilla," and a
vast number of nobles of Tuatha de Danann and others. It is impossible to
find places for all these persons in the graves now visible, if each was
buried separately. It may be, however, that the great mounds contained
several sepulchres. The form and position of the chambers at Dowth
(woodcut No. 69) perhaps countenances such a supposition; but many may
have been buried under smaller cairns, long since removed to make way for
agricultural improvements, and many may yet be discovered if the place be
carefully and systematically explored, which does not yet seem to have
been done. Before, however, anything like certainty could be arrived at as to
the distribution of these graves, it would be necessary that the great mounds
should be thoroughly explored, and this, from the nature of their material,
will practically involve their destruction, which would be very much to be
regretted. Meanwhile, if I may be allowed to offer a conjecture, I would say
that New Grange might be the "Cumot or Commensurate grave of Cairbre
Lifeachair." He, according to the Four Masters, reigned from 271 to 288—
but probably fifty or sixty years later—and seems to have been a king
deserving of a right royal sepulchre; and I feel great confidence that the
unopened tumulus near the river may be what tradition says it is—the grave
of the Great Dagdha, the hero of Moytura. With regard to the others, it
would not be safe to hazard any opinion in the present state of our
knowledge. For the present it is sufficient to feel sure that we have a group
of monuments all, or very nearly all of which were erected in the first four
centuries of the Christian era, and from this basis we may reason with
tolerable certainty regarding the other groups which we may meet with in
the course of this enquiry.

Lough Crew.

At a distance of twenty-five miles nearly due west from Brugh na Boinn,
and two miles south-east from Oldcastle, is a range of hills, called on the
Ordnance map Slieve na Calliagh—the hags' or witches' hill. It is upwards
of 200 feet above the level of the sea, and the most conspicuous elevation in
that part of the country. On the ridge of this range, which is about two miles
in extent, are situated from twenty-five to thirty cairns, some of
considerable size, being 120 to 180 feet in diameter; others are much
smaller, and some so nearly obliterated that their dimensions can hardly be
now ascertained. Till seven or eight years ago this cemetery was entirely
unknown to Irish antiquaries, and the positions of the cairns were hardly
even indicated in the Ordnance Survey; but in 1863 they attracted the
attention of Mr. Eugene Conwell, of Trim. In the years 1867-8 he was
enabled, with the assistance and co-operation of the late Mr. Naper, of
Lough Crew, the proprietor of the soil, to excavate and explore the whole of
them. A brief account of the results which he obtained was submitted to the
Royal Irish Academy in 1868, and afterwards printed by him for private
circulation in 1868; but the greater work, with plans and drawings, in which
he intends fully to illustrate the whole, is still in abeyance, owing to want of
encouragement. When completed it will be one of the most valuable
contributions to our archæological knowledge that we have received of late
years. Meanwhile the following meagre particulars are derived from Mr
Conwell's pamphlet and the information I picked up during a personal visit
which I made to the spot in his company in the Autumn of last year. The
illustrations are all from his drawings.

72. Cairn T, at Lough Crew.—From a plan by E. Conwell.

One of the most perfect of these tumuli is that distinguished by Mr. Conwell
as Cairn T (woodcut No. 72). It stands on the highest point of the hill, and is
consequently the most conspicuous. It is a truncated cone, 116 feet in
diameter at base, and with a sloping side, between 60 and 70 feet in length.
Around its base are thirty-seven stones, laid on edge, and varying from 6 to
12 feet in length. They are not detached, as at New Grange, but form a
retaining wall to the mound. On the north, and set about 4 feet back from
the circle, is a large stone, 10 feet long by 6 high, and 2 feet thick, weighing
consequently above 10 tons. The upper part is fashioned as a rude seat,
from which it derives its name of the Hag's Chair (woodcut No. 73), and
there can be little doubt but that it was intended as a seat or throne; but

whether by the king who erected the sepulchre, or for what purpose, it is
difficult now to say.

73. The Hag's Chair, Lough Crew.—From a drawing by E. Conwell.

On the eastern side of the mound the stones forming the periphery of the
cairn curve inwards for eight or nine yards on each side of the spot where
the entrance to the chamber commences. It is of the usual cruciform plan,
and 28 feet long from the entrance to the flat stone closing the innermost
cell; the dome, consequently, is not nearly under the centre of the tumulus,
as at New Grange, and lends something like probability to the notion that
the cell at Dowth (woodcut No. 69), was really the principal sepulchre.
Twenty-eight of the stones in the chamber were ornamented with devices of
various sorts. Two of them are represented on the accompanying woodcut
(No. 74), which, with the drawings on the Hag's Chair give a fair idea of
their general character. They are certainly ruder and less artistic than those
on the Boyne, and so far would indicate an earlier age. Nothing was found
in the chambers of this tomb but a quantity of charred human bones, perfect
human teeth, mixed with the bones of animals, apparently stags, and one

bronze pin, 2½ inches long, with a head ornamented and stem slightly so,
and still preserving a beautiful green polish.

74. Two Stones in Cairn T, Lough Crew.—E. Conwell.

Cairn L (woodcut No. 75), a little further west, is 135 feet in diameter, and
surrounded by forty-two stones, similar to those in Cairn T. The same curve
inwards of these stones marks the entrance here, which is placed 18 feet
from the outward line of the circle. The chamber here is nearly of the same
dimensions as that last described, being 29 feet deep and 13 across its
greatest width. In one of the side chambers lies the largest of the mysterious
flat basins that have yet been discovered, 5 feet 9 inches long by 3 feet 1
inch broad, the whole being tooled and picked with as much care and skill
as if executed by a modern mason. This one has a curious nick in its rim,
but as it does not go through, it could hardly be intended as a spout. Till
some unrifled tomb is found, or something analogous in other countries, it
is extremely difficult to say what the exact use of these great stone saucers
may have been. That the body or ashes were laid on them is more than
probable, and they may then have been covered over with a lid like a dish-
cover, such as are found on tombs in Southern Babylonia.[252] Under this
basin were found great quantities of charred human bones and forty-eight
human teeth, besides a perfectly rounded syenite ball, still preserving its
original polish, also some jet and other ornaments. In other parts were
found quantities of charred bones, some rude pottery and bone implements,

but no objects in metal. The woodcut representing the cell, with large basin,
gives a fair idea of the general style of sculpture in this and the
neighbouring cairns. The parts cross-hatched seem to have been engraved
with a sharp metal tool. The ordinary forms, however, both here and on the
Boyne are picked; but whether they were executed with a hammer, or pick
direct, or by a chisel driven by a hammer, is by no means clear. My own
impression is, that it would be very difficult indeed to execute these patterns
with a hammer of any sort, and that a chisel must have been used, but
whether of flint, bronze, or iron, there is no evidence to show.

75. Cell in Cairn L, at Lough Crew.—E. Conwell.

Cairn H, though only between 5 and 6 feet in height and 54 feet in diameter,
seems to have been the only one on the hill not previously rifled, and
yielded a most astonishing collection of objects to its explorer. The cell was
of the usual cruciform plan, 24 feet from the entrance to the rear, and 16
feet across the lateral chambers. In the passage and crypts of this cairn Mr.
Conwell collected some 300 fragments of human bones, which must have
belonged to a considerable number of separate individuals; 14 fragments of

rude pottery, 10 pieces of flint, 155 sea-shells in a perfect condition, besides
pebbles and small polished stones, in quantities.
The most remarkable part of the collection consisted of 4884 fragments,
more or less perfect, of bone implements. These are now in the Dublin
Museum, and look like the remains of a paper-knife-maker's stock-in-trade.
Most of them are of a knife shape, and almost all more or less polished, but
without further ornamentation; but 27 fragments appear to have been
stained, 11 perforated, 501 engraved with rows of fine lines; 13 combs were
engraved on both sides, and 91 engraved by compass with circles and
curves of a high order of art. On one, in cross-hatch lines, is the
representation of an antlered stag, the only attempt to depict a living thing
in the collection.
Besides these, there were found in this cairn seven beads of amber, three
small beads of glass of different colours, two fragments, and a curious
molten drop of glass, 1 inch long, trumpet-shaped at one end, and tapering
towards the other extremity; six perfect and eight fragments of bronze rings,
and seven specimens of iron implements, but all, as might be expected, very
much corroded by rust. One of these presents all the appearance of being
the leg of a compass, with which the bone implements may have been
engraved, and one was an iron punch, 5 inches long, with a chisel-shaped
point, bearing evidence of the use of the mallet at the opposite end.
Cairn D is the largest and most important monument of the group, being
180 feet in diameter, and though it is very much dilapidated, the circle of
fifty-four stones which originally surrounded it can still be traced. On its
eastern side the stones curve inwards for about twelve paces, in the form
universal in these cairns; but though the explorers set to work industriously
to follow out what they considered a sure "find," they could not penetrate
the mound. The stones fell in upon them so fast, and the risk they ran was
so great, that they were forced to abandon the idea of tunnelling, and though
a large body of men worked assiduously for a fortnight trying to work down
from above, they failed to penetrate to the central or any other chambers. It
still, therefore, remains a mystery if there is a blind tope, like many in India,
or whether its secret still remains to reward some more fortunate set of
explorers. If it has no central chamber, the curving inwards of its outer
circle of stones is a curious instance of adherence to a sacred form.

The other monuments on the hill do not present any features worth
enumerating in a general summary like the present, though they would be
most interesting in a monograph. Though differing greatly in size and in
richness of ornamentation, they all belong to one class, and apparently to
one age. For our present purpose one of the most interesting peculiarities is
that, like the group on the banks of the Boyne, this is essentially a cemetery.
There are no circles, no alignments, no dolmens, no rude stone monuments,
in fact. All are carefully built, and all more or less ornamented; and there is
a gradation and progression throughout the whole series widely different in
this respect from the simplicity and rudeness of the English monuments
described in the last chapter.

It now only remains to try to ascertain who those were who were buried in
these tumuli, and when they were laid there to their rest. So far as the
evidence at present stands it hardly seems to me to admit of doubt but that
this is the cemetery of Talten, so celebrated in Irish legend and poetry:—

"The host of Great Meath are buried
In the middle of the Lordly Brugh;
The Great Ultonians used to bury
At Talten with pomp.

"The true Ultonians, before Conchobar,
Were ever buried at Talten,
Until the death of that triumphant man,
Through which they lost their glory."[253]

The distance of the spot from Telltown, the modern representative of Talten,
is twelve miles, which to some might appear an objection, but it must be
remembered that Brugh is ten miles from Tara, where all the kings resided,
who were buried there; and as Dathi and others of them were buried at Rath
Croghan, sixty-five miles off, distance seems hardly to be an objection.
Indeed, among a people who, as evidenced by their monuments, paid so
much attention to funeral rites and ceremonious honours to their dead, as

the Pagan Irish evidently did, it must have mattered little whether the last
resting-place of one of their kings was a few miles nearer or further from
his residence.
It must not, however, be forgotten, that the proper residence of the
Ultonians, who are said to have been buried at Talten, was Emania or
Armagh, forty-five miles distant as the crow flies. Why they should choose
to be buried in Meath, so near the rival capital of Tara, if that famed city
then existed, is a mystery which it is not easy to solve; but that it was so,
there seems no doubt, if the traditions or Books of the Irish are at all to be
depended upon. If their real residence was so distant, it seems of trifling
consequence whether it was ten or twelve miles from the place we now
know as Telltown. There must have been some very strong reason for
inducing the Ultonians to bury so far from their homes; but as that reason
has not been recorded, it is idle to attempt to guess what form it took. What
would appear a most reasonable suggestion to a civilized Saxon in the
nineteenth century would in all probability be the direct antithesis of the
motive that would guide an uncivilized Celt in the first century before
Christ, and we may therefore as well give up the attempt. Some other
reason than that of mere proximity to the place of residence governed the
Irish in the choice of the situation of their cemeteries; what that was we
may hereafter be able to find out,—at present, so far as I know, the
materials do not exist for forming an opinion. If, however, this is not Talten,
no graves have been found nearer Telltown, which would at all answer to
the descriptions that remains to us of this celebrated cemetery; and, till they
are found, these Lough Crew mounds seem certainly entitled to the
distinction. I cannot see that the matter is doubtful.
If this is so, there is little difficulty in determining who were buried here.
Besides the testimony of the poem just quoted, it is stated in the Book of the
'Cemeteries'—"At Tailten the kings of Ulster were used to bury vigt.
Ollamh Fodhla with his descendants down to Conchobhar, who wished to
be carried to a place between Slea and the sea, with his face to the east, on
account of the faith which he had embraced." This conversion of
Conchobhar is one of the most famous legends in Irish ancient history. He
was wounded in the head by a ball that remained there, and was ordered by
his physician to remain quiet and avoid all excitement as his only chance of
surviving. For seven years he followed this advice; but when he saw the

eclipse of the sun, and felt the great convulsion that came over nature, the
day that Christ was crucified, he turned to his Druid and asked, "What is
this?" To which Bacrach, the Druid, replied: "It is true, indeed, Christ, the
Son of God, is this day crucified by the Jews." "At the recital of this
enormity, Conchobhar felt so indignant that he went nearly mad: his
excitement was so great that the ball burst from his head, and he died on the
very Friday on which the crucifixion took place."[254] All this may be silly
enough, as the electric telegraph was not then in use, but it is worth quoting
here, as it seems that it was to establish this synchronism that the
chronology of the period was falsified to the extent of half a century at
least. Conchobhar and Crimthann were the two kings of the two great
dynasties then reigning in Ireland whom the annalists strive to synchronize
with Christ, and though they fail in that, they establish beyond much doubt
that those kings were contemporaries. If to this we add the fact so often
repeated by the authorities quoted above, that Conchobhar was the last of
his race buried at Talten, and that Crimthann was the first of his line buried
at Brugh, we obtain a tolerably clear idea of the history of these cemeteries.
Brugh, in fact, succeeded to Talten on the decline of the Ultonian dynasty
and the rise of Tuatha de Danann after the victories at Moytura had
established their supremacy and they had settled themselves at Tara.
The character of the sculptures in the two groups of monuments fully bears
out this view. The carvings at Lough Crew are ruder and less artistic than
those at Brugh. They are more disconnected, and oftener mere cup
markings. The three stones represented in the preceding and following
woodcuts (Nos. 75 and 76), are selected from a great many in the Conwell
portfolios as fair average specimens of the style of sculpture common at
Lough Crew, and with the woodcut No. 73, representing the Hag's Chair,
and No. 75, the chamber in cairn L, will convey a fair notion of the whole.
In no one instance does it seem possible to guess what these figures were
meant to represent. No animal or vegetable form can be recognized, even
after allowing the utmost latitude to the imagination; nor do the circles or
waving lines seem intended to convey any pictorial ideas. Beauty of form,
as a decoration, seems to have been all the old Celt aimed at, and he may
have been thought successful at the time, though it hardly conveys the same
impression to modern minds. The graceful scrolls and spirals and the
foliage of New Grange and Dowth do not occur there, nor anything in the
least approaching to them. Indeed, when Mr. Conwell's book is published,

in which they will all be drawn in more or less detail, I believe it will be
easy to arrange the whole into a progressive series illustrative of the artistic
history of Ireland for five centuries before the advent of St. Patrick.

76. Stone in Cairn T. Lough Crew.—E. Conwell.

It would be an extremely dangerous line of argument to apply this law of
progressive development to all countries. In India, especially, it is very
frequently reversed. The rudest art is often much more modern than the
most refined, but in Ireland this apparently never was the case. From the
earliest scratchings on pillar stones, down to the English conquest, her art
seems to have been unfalteringly progressive; and, beginning with these
two cemeteries, which are probably the oldest incunabula of her art, its
history might be written without a gap, or halt, till it bloomed in those

exquisite manuscripts and crosses and works of gold and metal which still
excite such unqualified admiration.

77. Stones in Sculptured Graves, Clover Hill. From a sketch by the
Author.

There may be, and no doubt are, many other sculptured graves in Ireland,
but they have not yet been explored, or, at least, published. One, however,
deserves notice; not, certainly, on account of its magnificence, but for
several points of interest which its peculiarities bring out. It is situated in a
field near Clover Hill, not far from Carrowmore, the battle-field of northern
Moytura.[255] It measures only 7 feet by 5, and is 4½ feet deep. Its cap-stone
was originally flush with the earth, and no cairn or circle of stones marks it
externally, nor is there any tradition of any such ever having existed. The
carvings on the stones forming the chamber are shallow, and now very
indistinct, from being overgrown with lichens and moss, but their general
character will be understood from the annexed woodcut. Its character is
something between the sculptures of Talten and Brugh, which would agree

very well with its date if we suppose it connected with the battle-field. This,
however, is very doubtful, for there are few things that come out more
prominently in the investigation than the fact that all those monuments
which are directly or indirectly connected with battle-fields are literally
rude and untouched by the chisel, but that all, or nearly all those which are
in cemeteries, or have been erected leisurely by, or for, those who occupy
them, are more or less ornamented. It may, however, be that some one
connected with the battle wished to be buried near his companions who fell
there, and prepared this last resting-place for himself, but we must know
more before such speculations can be of much value.
One other point is of interest regarding this tomb. If the minor sepulchres at
Brugh were like the one flush with the surface, we cannot guess how many
may yet be there undiscovered, and equally difficult to say how they are to
be disinterred.

Dolmens.

It is extremely difficult to write anything that will be at all satisfactory
regarding the few standing solitary dolmens of Ireland. Not that their
history could not be, perhaps, easily ascertained, but simply because every
one has hitherto been content to consider them as prehistoric, and no one
has consequently given himself the trouble to investigate the matter. The
first point would be to ascertain whether any of them exist on any of the
battle-fields mentioned in the Irish annals. My impression is that they do
not: but this question can only be answered satisfactorily by some one more
intimately acquainted with the ancient political geography of Ireland than I
can pretend to be. No connexion has, however, yet been shown to exist
between them and any known battle-fields, and till this is done, we must be
content to consider them as the graves of chiefs or distinguished individuals
whose ashes are contained in the urns which are generally found under
them.
A still more important question hinges on their geographical distribution.
Nothing can be more unsafe than to found any important deductions on
what is known on this subject at present. If all those which are described in
books and in journals of learned societies were marked on a map, the
conclusion would be that the most of them are found on the east coast of

Ireland; a dozen or so in Waterford and Wexford; as many in Dublin and
Meath, and an equal number in County Down. But this knowledge may
merely mean that the east coast, possessing roads and towns, has
consequently been more frequented by tourists and antiquaries than the
remote or inaccessible west.
Among the records, however, of the Ordnance survey, and in the Du Noyer
drawings, there are probably sufficient materials for the purpose. Both are
deposited in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy at Dublin; but any
person who would attempt to use these materials for the purpose of such an
investigation, must be not only an enthusiast, but have his whole time at his
disposal. The disarray in which they now exist renders them utterly useless
to any ordinary student of Irish antiquities.
The Irish themselves seem to have only one tradition regarding their
dolmens. They call them all "Beds of Diarmid and Graine," and that is the
name applied to them in the sheets of the Ordnance Survey. The elopement
of Diarmid with Graine, the daughter of Cormac Mac Art, whose date,
according to the Four Masters, was A.D. 286, is one of the most celebrated
of Irish legends.[256] The story is, that being pursued all over Ireland by
Finn, the disappointed suitor, they erected these as places of shelter, or for
hiding in. This is, of course, absurd enough; but it shows that, in the opinion
of the Irish themselves, they belong to the period which elapsed between
the birth of Christ and the conversion of the people to Christianity. There is
no hint in any Irish book that any of them were erected before the Christian
era, nor anything that would lead us to suppose that any are more modern
than the time of St. Columba.
The most extensive group of free standing dolmens known to exist in
Ireland, is that in or near Glen Columbkille, at the extreme western point of
Donegal. No account of these has been published—so far as I know—in
any book or journal, and I am indebted for all I know about them to my
friend, Mr. Norman Moore, who paid a visit to the spot this autumn to
obtain the information I wanted, and it is from his descriptions that the
following is abstracted.[257]
The principal groups are situated in Glen Malin More, a small valley
running parallel to that of Columbkille, about two miles to the southward of
it. There are three groups on the north side of this valley and two on the

south, extending from about half a mile from the sea-shore to about three
miles inward. The finest group is that next the sea on the south side, and
consists of six dolmens, situated nearly in a row, about 50 or 100 feet apart,
and is accompanied by some cairns, but so small as hardly to deserve the
name of Tumuli. The stones of the dolmens range from 6 to 12 feet in
height, and their cap-stones are still there, though some have been
displaced.
The second group, a little way up the glen, consists of ten dolmens arranged
in two parallel rows, but they are neither so large nor so perfect as those
nearer to the sea.
Nearly opposite the first-named group on the shore, but on the north side of
the stream, are two dolmens so nearly contiguous to each other that they
may almost be considered as one structure. About half a mile to the east of
this is a fourth group, consisting of four dolmens, accompanied by cairns,
and two at least of the former are of considerable magnificence. The group
farthest up the glen consists of five or six dolmens, but all except one in a
ruinous state.
The number of dolmens in Glen Columbkille is not given by Mr. Moore;
but, from the context, there must be five or six, making up twenty to thirty
for the whole group. So far as can be judged from the description, the group
in Glen Columbkille seems to have better fitted and more complete
chambers; consequently, I should infer it to be more modern than the others.
It would, however, require careful personal inspection to classify them;
though I have no doubt it could be done, and that, with a little care, these
six groups could be arranged into a consecutive series, whatever the initial
or final date may turn out to be.
The general construction and appearance of these tombs is that of the so-
called Calliagh Birra's house in Meath, described further on (woodcut No.
80). From its situation and appearance, there seems little reason for doubt
that the Meath example belongs to the fifth or the sixth century; and if this
is so, as little for doubting that these dolmens in Donegal are of about the
same age, or, in other words, that this mode of interment continued to be
practised in certain parts of Ireland, especially near the coasts, down to the
entire conversion of the inhabitants to Christianity.

There are no other traditions, so far as I know, attached to anything in this
glen, except those that relate to St. Columba, who, it is understood, long
resided here, attempting to convert the inhabitants to Christianity. Whether
he was successful or not is not clear. He certainly left Ireland in disgust, and
settled in the first island whence the shores of his detested native land could
not be seen. The only other tradition that seems to bear on the subject
relates to St. Patrick, who, being unable to convert the "Demons" about
Croagh Patrick, in Mayo, drove them into the sea; but, instead of perishing,
as they ought to have done, when he threw his bell after them, they
reappeared, and settled on this promontory.[258] The meaning of this fable
seems to be, that some tribe—not Celtic, for the Celts accepted Christianity
whenever and wherever it was preached to them, but, it may be of Iberian
origin—refusing to accept the doctrine, was expelled by force from their
seats in Mayo, and sought refuge with kindred tribes in this remote corner
of the island, and here remained till St. Columba took up his abode among
them. If we might assume that the Columbkille group belongs to a time
immediately preceding their conversion, and that the other five groups in
Malin More extended back to a date two, three, it may be four centuries
before St. Columba's time, and that they belonged to an Iberian or
Celtiberian race, we should have an hypothesis which at least would
account for all their peculiarities. Though in sight of Carrowmore, on the
southern side of Sligo Bay, it is certain that these monuments have no
affinity with them or with the works of any of the Northern circle-building
nations. Spanish or French they must be; and we can hardly hesitate
between the two. In Elizabeth's time, and as far back as history reaches, we
have Spaniards settled in Galway, and on the western coast of Ireland. Such
colonisation, if lasting, is not the work of any sudden impulse or of a long
past time; and the probability is that Iberians, before they learned to talk
Latin, were settled here from a very early age. It is also probable from what
we know of them and their monuments in the Peninsula, that they would
refuse for a longer period than the Celts to be converted, and that they
should use dolmens for their sepulchres in preference either to tumuli or
circles.
Be this as it may, there are at least two points which we may assume
negatively with regard to these dolmens. The first is, that they do not mark
battle-fields: they have none of the appearance of such monuments. The
second is, that as there is no capital or fertile country in their

neighbourhood, they are not a royal cemetery; they are not, indeed, claimed,
even in the remotest manner, by any of the royal races of Ireland. They are,
so far as we can see, the sepulchres of a foreign colony settled on this spot.
Whether this is probable or not must, of course, depend on a comparison of
these monuments with those in the countries from which they are supposed
to have come. But, in the meanwhile, it may be assumed, as an hypothesis
which at least accounts for the phenomena as we find them in Ireland, even
when judged of by their own internal evidence alone.

One of the most interesting of the Irish dolmens is that known as the Giant's
Grave, near Drumbo, about four miles south from Belfast. The interest
attached to this monument does not, however, arise so much from the
grandeur of the structure itself, though it may be considered a first-class
example and very tolerably perfect, but from its standing solitary in the
centre of the largest circle in these islands, Avebury only excepted. The
circle is about 580 feet in diameter, and consequently more than six acres in
extent, and is formed, not as at Avebury or Arbor Low, by a ditch dug
inside, and the earth so gained being used to form a rampart, but by the top
of a hill being levelled and the earth removed in so doing being thrown up
so as to form a circular amphitheatre. Although, consequently, the rampart
is not so high outside as at Avebury, the whole surface internally having
been lowered, the internal effect is very much grander.[259]
What, then, was the object of this great earthwork with one solitary dolmen
in the centre? Was it simply the converse of such a mound as that at New
Grange? Was it that, instead of heaping the earth over the sepulchral
chamber, they cleared it away and arranged it round it, so as to give it
dignity? Or was it that funereal games or ceremonies were celebrated round
the tomb, and that the amphitheatre was prepared to give dignity to their
performance? These are questions that can only be answered when more of
these circles are known and compared with one another, and the whole
subject submitted to a more careful examination than has yet been the case.
My impression is that it is the grave of a chief, and of him only, and that it
is among the most modern of its class.

At about the same distance west from Belfast is another dolmen, which, in
itself, is a much finer example than this Grave of the Giant. Its cap-stone is
said to weigh 40 tons, and is supported by five upright stones of
considerable dimensions. It has, however, no circle or accompaniments. The
Celtic name of the district in which it stands was 'Baille clough togal,' i.e.
the Town of the Stone of the Strangers, which would seem to indicate that it
was not very old, nor its origin quite forgotten.

78. Dolmen at Knockeen.

At Knockeen, county Waterford, there is a remarkable dolmen (woodcut
No. 78), though it neither has any surroundings nor any tradition attached to
it.[260] It is interesting, however, as it looks as if we were approaching the
form out of which Stonehenge grew, which, I have not a doubt, could be
found in Ireland if looked for. It is also interesting as showing in plan
(woodcut No. 79), an arrangement which is peculiar, I believe, to Irish