292 



NATURE 



{Aug. 13, 1874 



without galleries. These cists point east and west, with 

 slight variations, and are built with unhewn stones of the 

 locality — tufa and pudding-stone. The mounds, which 

 in a few instances remain intact, are small and of stone, 

 and the chambers which are visible are in various stages 

 of dilapidation and exposure, traces of the mounds being 

 clearly indicated by the quantity of loose stones which 

 are round about them. The place has served for many 

 years as a convenient quarry for the Trappist monks of 

 Staouli, and for the French colonists who have located 

 themselves at Guyotville and Cheragas. If it had not 

 been for a Government order the whole of these monu- 

 ments would have been carted away for the sake of their 

 building materials. When first discovered they are said 

 to have numbered about 100 ; about 30 are now left. 

 They are scattered over an area of a few acres, and are 

 arranged without any regularity ; and at the period of 

 their completion must have presented a remarkable col- 

 location of stone heaps. The late M. Berbrugger, who 

 was Inspector-General of Historical ISIonuments in 

 Algeria, was the first to make their existence known, 

 about thirty-seven years ago. Dr. E. Bertherand, the 

 present secretary of the Algerian Acclimatisation Society, 

 has described them in a pamphlet printed by that Society. 

 In 1859 Mr. A. H. Rhind communicated an article upon 

 them to the Society of Antiquaries, London, which is 

 printed in " Archasologia," vol. xxxviii. M. Rc'nc Galles, 

 the well-known explorer of Brittany dolmens, has also 

 written about them ; .and the late Mr. J. W. Flower, who 

 visited the spot in 186S, has compiled an article from the 

 foregoing pamphlets, which he read at the International 

 Congress of Prehistoric Archa;ology held at Norwich in 

 the same year. All these writers have classified them as 

 covered and uncovered tombs, implying, if not asserting 

 in so many words, that the latter had never been covered ; 

 i.e. " free-standing." Mr. Fergusson has followed their 

 lead, and adopted their classification ; but a careful in- 

 spection of each exposed monument will convincingly 

 prove that the stone heaps which surround them strongly 

 testify against the theory. 



When, however, our attention is directed by Mr. Fer- 

 gusson to continental examples our astonishment at the 

 glaring inaccuracies and contradictory statements is in- 

 creased, and we wonder that several well-known monu- 

 ments should have b;en brought foru'ard to support a 

 theory which their prominent features most clearly refute. 

 There are two in the south of Brittany which have been 

 described by him as belonging to the uncovered class, 

 viz. Dol-ar-Marchand at Locmariaker, and Courconno, in 

 the parish of Plouharnel. Of the latter, he says, " it cer- 

 tainly never was covered up " (p. 343). This is a plain 

 and positive assertion ; yet a few pages further on (p. 363) 

 he writes doubtfully, if not contradictingly, on this point : 

 it is " a magnificent cist, walled with rude stone, and such 

 as would form a chamber in a tumulus if buried in one, 

 though whether this particular example was ever intended 

 to be so treated or not is by no means clear." Of the 

 former he writes, it is " the most interesting, if not the 

 finest, free-standing dolmen in France," and " the great 

 stone, like that of most free-standing dolmens, rests on 

 three points, their architects having early learned how 

 difficult it was to make sure of their resting on more. So 

 that, unless they wanted a wall to keep out the stufT of 

 which the tumulus was to be composed, they generally 

 poised them on three points, like that at Castle Wellan." 



The question bears quite another aspect, however, when 

 these monuments are carefully inspected, and the treat- 

 ment they have received at the hands of the inhabitants 

 of late years is inquired into. We thus ascertain that the 

 great dolmen of Courconno is in a very difterent state 

 now fro;n what it was in 1847, when drawn and described 

 by Cayot-Delandre, the historian of the Morbihan, and 

 that it has been fiirther curtailed of its proportions since 

 1854. It was then notamerecist of gigantic size but a huge 



chamber to which a long covered way or passage was 

 attached, the dimensions of which are given ; and there 

 were also traces of the enveloping mound, some of 

 which still exist. 



So, too, with regard to the great dolmen of Dol-ar- 

 Marchand, it is not at all as described by Mr. Fergusson. 

 Its chamber has also a long covered way attached to it, 

 which fact he does not mention ; both the chambers and 

 the covered way are buried to a depth of several feet in 

 the remains of a circular mound which can be measured : 

 and regular walls line the chamber and the covered way 

 for the express purpose of keeping out the earth compos- 

 ing the tumulus. All these features are incontestably 

 visible. These monuments, therefore, do not sustain the 

 theory. 



There are other well-known examples of exposed monu- 

 ments in France, respecting which a great deal might be 

 written to invalidate the "free-standing" theory. The 

 above will be sufScient to show upon what a weak and 

 indefensible basis it rests. 



The theory is supposed, however, to receive the 

 strongest support from a singular monument near Con- 

 folens, near St. Germain-sur-Vienne, which is also thought 

 to have been erected as late as the tenth or eleventh 

 century of the Christian era. It is considered of such 

 great importance that it has been engraved and stamped 

 in gold upon the cover of the book which has been so 

 often referred to. It will not be right, therefore, to pass 

 it by. The monument is really a remarkable one, and 

 merits a most careful study on the spot. Owing to its 

 situation in a most out-of-the-way part of France, which 

 entails a very fatiguing journey to reach, few archa:o- 

 logists have had the temerity to undertake the journey, 

 and very few Englishmen have seen it. At a first view it 

 is a very staggering example, but on investigation its 

 simple history unfolds itself in a convincing manner, and 

 quite upsets Mr. Fergusson's conclusions. In brief, it is 

 an ancient sepulchre which has been altered and con- 

 verted to another use many centuries later. The covering 

 stone is the only remaining relic of the primitive building, 

 and there are incised designs upon its under surface, 

 which point to its early age and use. These designs have 

 only been recently noticed, and the tale they disclose is 

 unmistakeable. This monument was most certainly not 

 a " free-standing " one in the sense implied by Mr. Fer- 

 gusson, nor was it originally erected at the period he 

 supposes. 



The "free-standing" theory, having been adopted, 

 required further confirmation than the external appear- 

 ance of the monuments was supposed to give it, and its 

 advocates have considered that it is strengthened by the 

 " impossibility of accounting for the disappearance of the 

 mounds," and Mr. Fergusson has followed in the wake of 

 Baron Bonstetten,* whose accuracy of observation does 

 not seem to have been of a high order, and has adopted 

 his language. The Baron says that both Brittany and 

 the Department of the Lot are " pays iV dolmens appa- 

 rents par excellence," by which he means, as he after- 

 wards shows, dolmens which are now as they have always 

 been. This observation proves that he must have given 

 them a very cursory examination. His objection to the 

 tumular belief is thus stated : — " Les dolmens se rcncon- 

 trent les plus souvent dans des landes inculles et impropres 

 aux dcfrichements par la nature memedu sol. D'ailleurs, 

 dans un but de nivellement on ne se bornerait pas a 

 enlever le tumulus, mais on dcitruirait encore le dolmen. 

 Les pierres seraicnt utilisces ou on les enfouirait assez 

 profondcment en terre pour qu'elles ne lieurtent pas le soc 

 dc la charrue,' pp. 7, 8. This objection he applies to 

 both the Brittany and the Lot monuments ; but what arc 

 the real facts.'' Very many, indeed the larger number, of 

 the dilapidated or partially covered monuments of Brit- 

 tany are not tar from habitations, and although they may 



* " Ess;ii svir les dulmens," Genev.i, 1S65. 



