Elcock — Pre- Historic Monuments at Carrowmore. 251 



monuments of which so many lie scattered around it. In 1837 

 the fort (as it is called) was about one hundred and fifty feet 

 in diameter ; in 1883 it is about one hundred and twenty ; 

 originally, it was probably about fifty feet high. Two stone 

 circles formerly surrounded Listoghil, the outer circle consisting 

 of one hund red and fifty stones. Some of these are still standing. 

 From the top I counted twenty-two stone circles in sight, and 

 six cromleacs, besides the one under my feet. 



The large stone, " like a table," which had become exposed, 

 is the cap stone of a large cist, or cromleac. It is a flat lime- 

 stone flag, about nine feet six inches square by one foot six 

 inches thick. The height of the supporting stones I could not 

 determine without excavation, which could not be undertaken. 

 The interior of the cist or chamber is considerably filled up with 

 boulders, which have been thrown in at the entrance to please 

 the rustics by " the thundering noise they make." The cist 

 was opened u some years ago" by " some distinguished man," 

 whose name I could not learn. He brought two men with 

 him, and they dug down inside the chamber, and found "burnt 

 human bones, charred wood, and a large stone spear-head," 

 which were carried off. All trace of them is now lost. I was 

 told by the farmer, in whose fields most of these monuments 

 stand, that burnt bones, " like horses' bones," are still found at 

 Listoghil when a fall of the loose stones occurs. 



Entrance to the cist cannot now be had without removing 

 the stones lying about. By lying down I got my head inside, 

 and thought I could detect some rudely incised circles on some 

 of the stones, one circle being about ten inches in diameter. 

 These need further investigation. Dr. Petrie's* number for 

 Listoghil is 51. 



* Dr. Petrie visited and afterwards described the Carrowmore monuments, and 

 gave numbers to each, so as to identify them afterwards. I have made use of these j 

 but the route he took in going over the field is very difficult to follow so exactly as to 

 be sure we are correct, and I am not certain whether, in some instances, I may not 

 have mistaken his number. His letter on Carrowmore is dated a 12. 8. 1837." See 

 his Life. 



