158 Danish Cromlechs and Burial Customs, fyc. 



Then again the human remains and pottery, although in many 

 instances broken and intermingled, are as a rule in the lowest 

 stratum. Had the chambers been originally filled up with trodden 

 earth, the objects would have been scattered throughout the entire 

 mass, if an interval had occurred between the several interments, 

 or if plunderers had taken the trouble to fling the contents in 

 again. But, in fact, whenever we do observe traces of an early 

 disturbance, they occur in the lowest stratum. I know from per- 

 sonal investigation, that the same was the case in the cromlechs of 

 the Morbihan. 



What conclusions are we to draw from this comparison ? Were 

 they the original Celtic people who constructed the Danish, as well 

 as our own and the French cromlechs? There is, I think, a 

 sufficiently strong family likeness to induce us to believe that the 

 races who constructed them must have had a common origin, while 

 at the same time, the differences in their construction and burial 

 customs would indicate a modification of ideas and habits resulting 

 either from foreign influence, want of mutual and frequent inter- 

 course, or from a difference in their age. But upon which side 

 are we to lay the change, and to which should we give the priority 

 of date ? The following description of the earliest occupants of 

 Denmark may be a true picture of the others. " The first inhabit- 

 ants were rude and uncultivated in the highest degree. They did 

 not commonly possess a knowledge of copper, of iron, or of any 

 metals ; they formed all their implements and weapons of wood, 

 of the bones of animals, and of stone," (Primev. Antiq., p. 11.) 

 So far we can perhaps trace no difference between the races. But 

 Mr. Worsaae intends this to be a description of an older people 

 than the Celts ; whilst we have always attributed our cromlechs 

 and this mode of life to this race. His notion is that cromlechs are 

 not Celtic monuments at all, but belong to a people who preceded the 

 Celts. This is his view ; — he divides ancient sepulchral monuments 

 into three distinct periods, viz., of stone, of bronze, and of iron. 1 



1 It has been said by a learned archaeologist (Mr. T. Wright), that to talk of 

 a stone age, or of a bronze age, or of an iron age, is mere poetry or imagination, 

 and that such divisions have no meaning in history. I cannot but think that 



