VOL. XV. (2) RUDE STONE MONUMENTS OF INDIA 123 
of monument which most European archeologists would 
eall “a circle.” 
Next come the two structures known as a dolmen and 
a kistvaen. The dolmen is originally a cell, such as those 
found in the long barrows of Europe, which may or may 
not be covered with a mound. The theory of Fergusson 
that they were always sub-aerial is not now generally 
accepted.’ The kistvaen is a smaller variety of the dolmen, 
but it usually differed from it in the fact that, unlike the 
dolmen, it was usually not intended to be reopened for 
secondary interments. It was generally covered with 
earth, but, like the dolmen, it often in course of time has 
lost this protection. Mr Breeks again extends the title of 
kistvaen to “a vault of large stone slabs, closed on every 
side, but sometimes with a round hole in one of the walls, 
with or without a surrounding stone circle or tumulus”;* 
while he calls the structure open on one side a “crom- 
lech.” We should rather call both these structures “ open” 
and ‘“‘closed” dolmens. The circle and the menhir, or 
standing stone, will be discussed separately. 
To begin with the tumulus or mound. The tumuli of 
India, when built solely of earth, naturally tend to dis- 
appear under the disintegrating influence of the climate, 
and those of early date are now not easily identifiable. 
The stone cairn is, of course, less perishable in its nature. 
Most of these erections are probably sepulchral, but 
Mr Walhouse regards some of those in South India as 
rather memorial or commemorative.3 
Numerous examples of the tumulus, ancient and 
modern, have been discovered in various parts of the 
country. Those constructed over the graves of the old 
_ Kings of Assam are described by Gen. Dalton* as very 
1 Windle, Of. ctt., p. 174 f. 
2 Op. cit., p. 72. 
3 “ Journal Anthropological Institute,” vii., 22. 
4 “Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal,’ p. 9. 
J2 
