872 REPORT— 1902; 



of prehistoric remains than this ; and that such proceedings are not 

 either uncommon or confined to any particular part of the British 

 Islands is amply shown by the protest of the Dartmoor Committee. 

 From the statements in this protest it would seem that the law actually 

 aids and abets public officials in the systematic destruction of our pre- 

 historic remains it by chance stone be used in their construction. Under 

 an Act of William IV. the officer responsible for the maintenance of the 

 highways is entitled to collect any stones on the surface of the adjoining 

 land, public or private, for the purpose of being broken up to repair the 

 roads. In such a locality as Dartmoor, covered with hut circles and the 

 like, the mischief that may be done is great ; while in many others it 

 is scarcely less.^ What is to prevent the famous cup-marked stones of 

 Ilkley from being so used, or even more conspicuous monuments like 

 Stanton Drew and others ? Is it possible to conceive of a situation more 

 absurd than that shown by the existence in the same statute-book of two 

 such Acts as the Ancient Monuments Act on the one hand and this 

 mischievous Act on the other ? The one rigidly protects the very same 

 class of monuments that may be destroyed with impunity by virtue of 

 the othei-. It is fortunate that the Dartmoor Committee has called 

 special attention to this particular danger, and I can safely leave their 

 memorial to speak for itself, as it is ably supported by societies and 

 persons of influence. 



The^ danger to other remains, however, which may not be made of 

 stones is equally great, though from other causes. The burial-mounds, 

 mere heaps of earth that are spread more or less over the whole country, 

 are constantly being destroyed, by accident or design, and their story is 

 fully as important as that of any other class of prehistoric remains. The 

 operations of agriculture are daily reducing such mounds to the general 

 level of the surrounding land, and when the burial is at last exposed by 

 the plough the relics are, in almost every case, scattered or destroyed, 

 either in wanton mischief or from ignorance. It is a common thing for 

 odds and ends from such sites to be brought to me at the British Museum, 

 with the story that there was a great deal more found, but that they 

 were divided among the farm hand's or given to chance visitors. 



That such a state of things should be general in this country is not 

 creditable to our civilisation. Every modern state with any pretensions 

 to culture takes pains to preserve the memorials of its past, and takes a 

 legitimate pride in the preservation of its ancient monuments. In Britain 

 we cannot claim the same glories of architecture of early times that 

 are to be found in the Mediterranean area. Our modern history has 

 its glories, architectural and of other kinds, but these may safely be 

 left to the guardianship of public opinion. Public opinion, however, can 

 scarcely be said to exist Avith regard to such of our monuments as are 

 contemporary with the classical period of Greece. They are in the main 

 neither generally known nor understood, and it cannot be said that they 

 are immediately attractive. Nevertheless they are all we have to repre- 

 sent a page, or perhaps a volume, of our country's progress, and as such 

 are deserving of attention and of preservation. 



I ventured to urge some of these points in my Address to the 

 Anthropological Section at Dover in 1899, and I then formulated a 

 scheme that seemed to me practical and easy to work. I cannot do 

 better now than repeat the words I used at that meeting. The plan I 

 proposed was to enlist the active co-operation of the local archreological 



