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 hundred 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, u 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 u the thundering noise they make.” The cist 
was opened “ 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 u 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 $ 
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 fi 12. 8. 1837.” See 
his Life. 
