.■1un. 13, 1874 I 



NATURE 



291 



traces of mounds which in some instances no longer 

 exist are upon record, and there is no reason for doubting 

 the record. Immediately following the above statement, 

 a well-known monument is brought forward as one of the 

 unmistakeable hundred examples, and the remark is 

 ■ made that Kits Cotty House, near Aylcsford, in Kent, 

 " is exactly now where it was when Stukcley drew it in 

 1815, and there was no tradition then of any mound 

 ever having covered it," and " we cannot now find a trace 

 of it." But if we pass on to p. 116, where the monu- 

 ment is again mentioned, we find it said, " If we can 

 trust Stukeley's drawing, it was an external dolmen stand- 

 ing on the end of a low long barrow," " the mound has 

 since been levelled by the plough," and " I am inclined 

 to place faith in the drawing." There is no tradition, it 

 is true, of any mound having covered it, but how any 

 faith can be put in the drawing, and yet it can be said 

 that the mound has been levelled, which, it is implied 

 at p. 44, never existed, is beyond comprehension. 

 According to .Stukcley, therefore, there was not only a 

 trace of the mound, but its form was in his time determin- 

 able, and the stone chamber was situated near one of its 

 extremities. This agrees admirably with the construction 

 of many other chambered long barrows where we see the 

 chamber either wholly or in great part enveloped. This 

 monument, therefore, should not be included among the 

 obvious hundred examples. 



Pentre Ifan, in Pembrokeshire, is also brought forward 

 by the same author as another remarkable example in 

 support cf the "free-standing" theory. He describes it 

 very briefly and inadequately in pp. 1(^18, 169, and com- 

 pares it with those which " were, or were intended to be, 

 covered with mounds." There is, he thinks, a very wide 

 difference between it and them, for the latter, he admits, 

 are enclosed sepulchral chambers, whereas .as regards 

 the former it never could have been erected to be hid, and 

 " besides that, the supports do not and could not form a 

 chamber. The earth would have fallen in on all sides," 

 &c. Unquestionably there would be much to favour the 

 theory, if it could be granted that the monument is in the 

 same condition now as it always was ; but it is known for 

 certain that this is not so. There is, foi Innately, a de- 

 scription of it written by Owen more than 200 years ago, 

 and there is also another account by Fenton as it ap- 

 peared in his day, about seventy or eighty years since, and 

 Irom these we learn that the aspect of the monument was 

 totally unlike what it is now. There were then eight or 

 nine upright stones under the great roofing stone, now 

 there are only three ; then there were the remains round 

 about it of a stone circle 50 ft. in diameter, not now exist- 

 ing ; and according to the late Rev. H. Longueville Jones, 

 there were traces, when he saw it, of the original mound. 

 Of the eight or nine upright stones, two, or at most three, 

 supported the capstone, which will easily account for the 

 removal of those which gave it no support. .So that in 

 this instance, also, here is a monument which should be 

 excluded from the hundred examples. 



On a careful inspection of Plas Newydd, another of the 

 hundred, it will be found that there is evidence both of 

 the encircling ring of stones and of a mound. 



It would not be necessary to enter into these particulars 

 but for the oft-repeated assertion of Vit. Fergusson, "no 

 trace of the mound can now be found either around the 

 stones or in tlic neighbourhood," which is expressed in 

 various ways, and by vhich he conveys the impression 

 that no mound ever existed ; and for the argument which 

 this belief is made to sustain, an argument which we 

 think strongly militates .against the idea that all these 

 monuments were destined for sepulchral purposes. 



Before passing on to monuments of other lands it will 

 be well to point out the error of one who, with every 

 desire to advance archaological science, has been misled 

 by the classification adopted by Mr. Fergusson. It will 

 not be out of place to do so here, because the views of the 



writer of the present article have been assailed* by this 

 young Cornisli antiquary, who has been carried away by 

 his zeal. In order to give support to the " frcc-stanjing" 

 theory he enters into a description of Lanyon Quoit, a 

 dolmen standing in the parish of Madron, Cornwall, which 

 he thinks fully establishes it, an opinion shared by Mr. 

 Fergusson (p. 163). But Capt. Oliver, R.A.,t has con- 

 vincingly shown that the monument is not now in the 

 condition in which it used to be ; that it has been rebuilt 

 and the position of its supporters have been altered ; that 

 these original supporters were stout stone slabs (4 ft. wide 

 by I ft. 6 in. thick), and not slim pillars ; that whereas 

 there are now three, there were four upright slabs in old 

 Mr. Borlase's time ; that two more slabs are lying pros- 

 trate close to the others, which it is fair to presume were 

 once upright walling stones of the chamber ; and that 

 the monument stands as much /// as on a long mound, 

 which bears every appearance, he adds, of having been 

 a long barrow. It ought therefore to be struck off the 

 list also. 



Arthur's Quoit, in Gower, according to Mr. Fergusson, 

 was probably always "freestanding;" but both Sir 

 Gardner Wilkinson (" Archa?ologia Cambrensis," 1S70) 

 and the Rev. E. L. Barnwell have expressed the contrary 

 opinion. The former believes it to have been covered 

 with a tumulus, and the latter writes, " there are cart- 

 loads of stones still remaining, and so little disturbed in 

 position that their outline gives that of the base of the 

 once existing mound." This monument therefore may 

 rightly be excluded from the list. 



The elder Borlase describes very accurately all the 

 most remarkable exposed monuments existin,, in Corn- 

 wall in his day, and speaks of the traces of their mounds 

 in every case, e.i;. Mulfra Quoit, in the remains of a stone 

 barrow ; Eosporthenis Cromlech, once in a mound of 

 stones and earth ; and Zennor Cromlech, once in a stone 

 barrow. 



According to Norden, who described Trevethy Crom- 

 lech in 1610, it was "standing on a little hill within a 

 feilde."i Lower Lanyon chamber was discovered in 

 1790 in a bank of earth and stones; and only one upright 

 stone and the fallen capstone now remain. Pawton 

 Cromlech is still partly " buried in the tumulus which no 

 doubt formerly covered the whole " (" Na;nia Cornubia," 

 p. 32). Chywoone or Chim Cromlech was in a barrow 

 or cairn, 32 ft. in diameter (ibid., pp. 56, 58), and the 

 author of this book says that it so closely resembles a 

 dolmen at Moytura, Ireland, and another at Halskov, in 

 Scandinavia, that the drawings of one might pass for those 

 of the other two. This is a repetition of Mr. Fergusson's 

 remark §— the monument "at Halskov is so like the doli 

 men and circle represented in woodcut 6r that the one 

 might almost pass for the other." 



The " free-standing " theory receives no support what- 

 ever from the monuments of the Channel and Scilly 

 Islands, nor yet from those of the Isle of Man, so that the 

 area of the British Isles is circumscribed within which the 

 more than hundred examples are to be found. En,i;land, 

 Wales, Scotland,*! and Ireland contain a large number of 

 rude stone monuments, and the area is sufficiently wide 

 to produce as many as Mr. Fergusson supposes. But it 

 would be a most difficult — we should say a hopeless — 

 task for anyone to attempt to enumerate them and to hand 

 in the required tale. 



The writer of the present article has examined the 

 group of monuments known as those of Beni-Messous, or 

 El-Kalaa, in Algeria, and planned several of them. They 

 are all of similar construction, and are simple cists, 

 averaging about 7 ft. by 2 ft. 6 in. (internal dimensions) 



• Nature, vol. viii. p. 202. , + Ibid p. 344. 



t For account and drawings see " Nainia Cornubia," pp. 46, 47. 



§ Op. cit , pp- 304, 305. 



fl At p. 240, Mr. Fergusson says— " The free-standing dolmens are few 

 and far between, some half-dozon for the whole country," which again di- 

 niinislies the area. 



