86 CORNISH DOLMENS. 



builders ! and that M. de Mortillet affirms' tliat they were huilt 

 by many races, because they contain many kinds of skeletons ! 

 These confused and contradictory results are clearl}^ owing to our 

 searching for light by a wrong method, and in a wrong 

 direction. 



Another error arises from considering each dolmen separately, 

 and not looking at it as a member of a widely-extended series. 

 Thus, those in Cornwall form a part of the series of dolmens in 

 Great Britain, and the British dolmens form a portion of the 

 series of Europe and Africa. We must consider the whole 

 chain, and not tix our attention merely on one or two links. As 

 long as our view is limited to Cornwall, we shall certainly fall 

 into serious errors. 



It is often contended that many dolmens bear marks of 

 having been squared and fashioned by metal tools. And that 

 consequently they must be of recent origin. Even if the fact 

 were admitted, the inference might be incorrect. For the 

 question is not whether the dolmens now show that metal tools 

 have been used upon them, but whether metal tools were used 

 upon them at the time of their erection, which is an entirely 

 different question, and most difficult to answer. This arises from, 

 the fact that we have historical evidence which proves that 

 some dolmens, and even menhirs,^ have been re-cut in recent 

 times. A remarkable illustration of this is furnished by the 

 dolmen of Saint Germain-sur-Vienne, in Central France. It 

 consists of a cap-stone supported by four uprights, the tops of 

 which have been cut in the form of capitals, and their sides 

 smoothed. The monument was in the Middle Ages used as a 

 chapel, the space between the pillars being built up. The 

 uprights, therefore, were cut into the form of pillars, about the 

 10th or 11th century.^ Another example of a dolmen converted 

 into a chapel is found in the church of the Seven Saints, in 

 C6tes-du-Nord, in Brittany.^'' But, even if the stones of the 



7. Revile Scieiitifiqiie. Aug., 1874. Also, Le Prehi&tor'iqne en Europe, by G. 

 Cotteau, p. 741. 



8. La France Prehistorigne, p. 319. 



9. Memoirs stir les Restes d' Industrie dans le Department de la Ckarante, by A. 

 T. de Rochebrune, p. 100. Also, La France Prehistorique, p. 30,5. This dolmen is also 

 figured in Mr. Fergusson's Rude Stone Monuments in all Cotmtries. 



10. La France Prehistorique, p. 306. 



