18 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



explanation does not remove. If it is admitted that a mound like this 

 might be raised merely as a memorial, that does not explain why 

 beneath it a deep excavation should have been made. On more than 

 one previous occasion I have found mounds apparently sepulchral, 

 which proved to be entirely wanting in any signs of an interment. I 

 came to the conclusion in these cases, though it was sometimes difficult 

 to admit it, that the bones had gone entirely to decay, leaving no 

 trace behind them. It is possible, however, that in these mounds, as 

 in the case of Willie Howe, there had never been any burial within 

 them ; and that they, equally with this in question, were memorial 

 and not sepulchral."^ 



Canon Greenwell's position may be described as the admission of a 

 negative possibility. Speaking generally, the present state of the 

 question appears to be that cenotaphs are not yet accepted in prehis- 

 toric archaeology, though individual archBeologists support that expla- 

 nation of barrows in which interments have not been made.^ 



The hesitation of archaeologists to recognize such barrows as 

 cenotaphs appears to be due to a misconception of the essential idea 

 of the cenotaph. 



This is evident in the extracts quoted from Canon Greenwell, who 

 speaks of such monuments as memorials, whereas they are, in primitive 

 logic, true tombs. This point appears to be recognized by Dr. Naue in 

 the passage quoted in the note below. 



The error prevails owing to the fact that, as far as I am aware, no 

 attempt has hitherto been made to combine the archaeological with 

 the anthropological evidence on the subject. "When we do so, it 

 becomes evident that it would be more difficult to account for the 

 absence of cenotaphs from the remains of a barrow-raising people than 

 their presence. 



Before, however, proceeding with this portion of the subject, it 

 is desii'able to further develop the archaeological evidence on the 

 question. 



1 "Recent researches in the Barrows in Yorkshire, "Wiltshire, Eerkshire, &c." 

 Archseologia (1890), vol. 52, p. 24. 



2 For instance, Handelmann, "Les Tumulus et les Cenotaphes de I'Age du 

 Bronze dans File de Sylt," "Cong. Prehist." Stockholm, vol. i., p. 516; jSTaue, 

 " Quelques tumulus, la plupart tres bien construits, n'ont donne aucun objet — 

 tout au plus, et tres rarement, quelques traces de charbons. Je les considere comma 

 des cenotaphes, tombes de hauts personnages de la tribu decedes au loin et dont on 

 n'avait pu recouvrer les corps." "L'Epoque de HaUstatt en Baviere," Eevue 

 Archeologique, 3 S., vol. xxvii. (1895), p. 46. 



