144 TRANSACTIONS LIVERPOOL BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



stones in a field, close to a hedge, a little way south of their present position ; 

 and Mr. Peter Cowell tells me that in Bennison's map (1835) they are still 

 marked as in a field, and not on the road. It must be remembered, however, 

 that a map is frequently of earlier date than the book in which it is pub- 

 lished. The recollections of John Peers, as given by Mr. E. W. Cox,* also 

 agree with the above in placing the stones to the south of the road in the 

 early part of this century. 



"We have now four independent accounts which agree in stating that the 

 Calderstones were formerly in or on a tumulus or mound of sand, and that 

 when the tumulus was removed one or more urns and a quantity of human 

 bones were found. The four accounts are — (1) that of John Peers told to 

 Mr. E. W. Cox, (2) that of William Spencer and also of his nephew, given 

 by Mr. R. E. Roberts, (3) that of Mr. Ambrose Lace quoted by Mr. James 

 Thornely, and (4) that of Mr. Studley Martin told both by Dr. Newton and 

 also, with further details, in a letter which Mr. Robert Gladstone has sent 

 me. In each case the eye-witness told the story to those now living. 



"Mr. Gladstone tells me that there is an old man, of about eighty, in 

 Woolton Village, who says he remembers when the big stones were twice as 

 many as they are now, and were lying all about the place. The large 

 number of the stones, I may remark, is no argument against the dolmen 

 theory. Dr. Newton asks — does a dolmen not usually consist of only three 

 upright stones supporting a large cover stone ? Not necessarily. Most 

 of the French dolmens have more than three upright stones, and some of 

 those in Brittany have twenty or thirty ; but it is true that the large table 

 or cover stone usually rests upon only three of the uprights, doubtless because 

 it is easier to place a table top steady upon three than upon any other 

 number of supports. 



"The tumulus, the urns, and the human bones (and therefore the 

 dolmen or cist-vaen interpretation) seem certain. If we try to reconstruct 

 the history further from the somewhat scanty evidence now collected (see 

 especially Mr. Cox's two letters), it has probably been as follows : — 



"'1st, a neolithic (pre-Celtic) dolmen, the burial place of a chief or a 

 family, inside a tumulus of sand ; the spiral and cup and ring markings 

 probably belong to this period, and possibly one or more of the urns (if 

 obtained from the interior of the dolmen). 



"2nd, some secondary interments in the tumulus around the dolmen, 

 indicated by the urns dug out about 1789, and which, if we may judge 

 from the Wavertree urns, which I have examined, probably belonged to the 

 bronze (Celtic) period. They are of the type usually labelled ' British 

 pottery ' in museums. 



* Mr. Cox has published a brief note on John Peers' story in Trans. Hist. 

 Soc. Lane, and Chesh., n. ser., vol. xi., p. 246, 1896. 



