By the Rev. W. C. Lukis. 151 



Some one may ask : " why did this people make use of such 

 huge, mis-shapen, ponderous blocks, when slabs of a thinner and 

 lighter form would have served equally well — much better indeed, 

 — and given them less trouble to move ? " Thin flat stones (e.g. 

 Hubba's Low) were used in countries where they abounded ; and 

 rude granite blocks, or huge sarsen stones (as in the Wiltshire 

 instances), were used only through necessity. It must be remem- 

 bered that the power of cleaving blocks of granite, or other stones, 

 into slabs was perhaps very imperfectl}' known, if known at all by 

 them. All they could do was to select such natural blocks as suited 

 their purpose ; — and the gigantic stones employed in the construc- 

 tion of some cromlechs, especially in Brittany, not only proves the 

 necessities of their case, but stamps also the prodigious energy 

 and resolution of their natural character. They had at the same 

 time a reverence for large masses of stone. If they had possessed 

 the knowledge of splitting stones, and had been in the habit of 

 applying it, we may be sure that not only would they have practised 

 it in the construction of their stone chambers, but evidences of it 

 would have been not unfrequently met with. I have never seen 

 one cromlech that exhibited the smallest indication of its stones 

 having been artificially split. Had the practice of cleaving blocks 

 by means of wedges been in common use, the wedge holes would 

 have been visible to this day. I do not deny that the uneven 

 surfaces of rude blocks may have been rendered tolerably level by 

 hammering and abrasion. There are evidences of this having been 

 performed in some cases ; and the rude sculptures on the interior 

 surfaces of both cap-stones and supports, (as at Gavr'inis, Tumiac, 

 Mane-Lud, Dol-ar-marchant, New Grange, &c.,) are proofs of 

 their ability to accomplish works of this nature. Yet some distin- 

 guished antiquaries would persuade us that this people habitually 

 split and shaped the stones. Mr. Worsaae says : " It is highly 

 probable that many or most of them have been artificially split. 

 Their number is too great to allow of the supposition that they all 

 possess the natural form, whilst it is quite evident that the small 

 flat fragments, which fill up the interstices between the supporting 

 stones, have been split by artificial means. Hence it is probable 



VOL. VIII. — KO. XXIII. o 



