MEGAL1THIC MONUMENTS NOT DRUIDICAL. 123 



It is very striking to find these menhirs mentioned in our 

 earliest writings, as monuments of events even then already 

 lost in the obscurity of the past. 



Many of the very largest tumuli in Western Europe appear, 

 from the nature of their contents, to have been constructed 

 during the Stone Age. At first, indeed, it seems almost 

 incredible that the immense tumuli of Brittany should have 

 been erected by a people who possessed no metal. We must 

 remember, however, that some of the South Sea monuments 

 were quite as considerable. Moreover, though hundreds of 

 beautiful stone axes and ornaments have been found in the 

 tumuli of Brittany, no weapons of metal have yet occurred in 

 them. It has been supposed that the carvings on some of 

 the stones could not have been cut without metal. Actual 

 experiments, however, as Messrs. Bertrand and de Mortillet 

 have shown me, prove that the stone can be cut with flint, 

 while bronze produces no effect on it. Sir James Y. Simpson 

 also has shown that the engravings on the Scotch rocks, even 

 those on granite, may have been carved with a flint tool.* 



In this country we still habitually call the megalithic 

 monuments "Druidical," but it is hardly necessary to men- 

 tion that there is really no sufficient reason for connecting 

 them with Druidical worship. 



The greatest of all so-called Druidical monuments is the 

 temple of Abury, in Wiltshire. It is, indeed, much less known 

 than Stonehenge ; and yet, though a ruder, it must have been 

 originally even a grander temple. According to Aubrey, Abury 

 " did as much exceed Stonehenge as a cathedral does a parish 

 church." When perfect, it consisted of a circular ditch and 

 embankment, containing an area of 28J acres ; inside the ditch 

 was a circle of great stones, and within this, again, two smaller 

 circles, formed by a double row of smaller stones, standing 

 side by side. From the outer embankment started two long 



* Proc. Soc, Antiq. Scotland, vol. vi. 1867, p. 122. 



