THE DOLMENS OF IRELAND.*
THIS is the most important contribution to the archology of Western Europe that has appeared for some time. The title of the work restricts it to Ireland, but in scope it is an investigation of the larger question of the problem of the dolmens. Some idea of the magnitude of the undertaking will be formed when it is stated that the three volumes run to over twelve hundred pages, and include no less than eight hundred illustrations. In plan Mr. Borlase's book may be compared to Fergusaon's Rude Stone Monuments, though, as will be gathered from the title, the dolmens of Ireland occupy a larger relative space than in the latter work. The theory proposed by Fergusson of the late date of the Rude Stone monuments has not gained many adherents, and some of the most important instances on which he based his theory have not stood the teat of a closer examination of the evidence. It may be here stated that Mr. Borlase takes a middle course on this aspect of the problem. He tells us in the preface that although he cannot endorse the theory pro- pounded by Fergusson "as to the comparatively modern origin of the entire series," he "feels sure that in certain districts the type, the mode of construction, and the cu/tus connected with the dolmens, survived as late as the Roman Provincials." With the view held by Fergusson, that the dolmens were not mere tombs, but sacred shrines in which • The Dolmens of /retand; they Distribution, Structural Characteristics, and Affinities' with other Countries. By William Copeland Borlase. M.A. 3 vols. With 4 Maps and 800 Illustrations. London Chapman and Hall. the spirits of the dead were worshipped, Mr. Borlase is in entire agreement. Some of the evidence under this head in the body of the work is very conclusive. Ten years' investigation and research are represented in the volumes before us. Summer after summer was devoted to the inves- tigation of some particular district in Ireland. Thus a very considerable number of the monuments embraced in the survey which forms Part I. of the work were personally visited by the author, who is responsible for many of the plans and sketches which illustrate his arguments. While yet at Oxford, Mr. Borlase tells us, Professor Max Muller had said to him, "If you really intend to go deeply into the question of Celtic antiquities, it is to Ireland you must go." The present work would, therefore, appear to be the outcome of a long-formed plan of attack on the dolmen problem. The result is certainly not a contribution to Celtic antiquities. We do not know, perhaps never can know, what was the language the builders of the dolmens spoke. But in Ireland Mr. Borlase got his "long series," the only scientific method of approaching a problem such as he has attempted to solve. Thus only is it possible to fix leading types and eliminate exceptional and accidental features. It is not practicable within the space of a review such as this to discuss the details of the various questions the author raises. Some of his views are novel, and, depending as they do on cumulative evidence, it will be some time before a final opinion can be pronounced upon them. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to a brief notice of the chief features of the work. Part I. consists of detailed descriptions of the Irish monuments. It runs to four hundred and twenty-three pages, and contains four hundred and two sketches and plans. Four maps are attached to this portion of the book, on which the sites of the monuments, by provinces, are marked. This in itself was no light piece of work, and archmologists will be grateful for this, the first nearly exhaustive survey of the pre- historic monuments of the sister country. In Part II. the classification of types, structural features, and distribution are considered. The definition of " dolmen " is wider than that hitherto adopted. Under that term are included the monu- ments usually called cromlechs by Irish antiquarians (what the French call dolmen carrge), and those known in Ireland as Giants' Graves (the allee converte of the French). Mr. Borlase maintains that no line of demarcation can be drawn between these two forms. Further, he is of opinion that it is impossible to separate the chambered tumuli from the dolmen series, and "that a similar cu/tus was provided for in the one class of monuments, and in the other." This explains why Mr. Borlase has merely marked the sites of the monuments on his maps without distinguishing the forms. It is to be regretted that he has not adopted distinguishing marks. The value of the maps would then have been greatly increased for those who may not accept the author's views; as it is, each monument has to be looked out in the text to ascertain its form. The dolmen, he believes, was invariably surrounded by a cairn or mound, bat sometimes so slight as only to reach the edges of the cap-stone,—a view held by, among others, the Rev. W. C. Lukis. In support of this contention, instances are quoted where monuments marked on the earlier Ordnance Survey as cairns, would now have to be marked as dolmens. Moreover, a peristyle, or outer girdle of stones, in such cases as the monument known as Labbacalle, County Cork, is to be regarded as the retaining-wall within which the packing was filled in, a portion of which is still visible in the monument mentioned. As regards the rela- tion of the long dolmen to the cromlech, it is argued that the cromlech is the more megalithic portion of the long dolmen or Giant's Grave, and "that both types, despite the difference in appearance in the condition in which we now find them, belong to one and the same class of dolmen, originally of elongated form, in all probability surrounded by a peristyle either parallel to the sides, or circular or oval, and closed in." For instance, "Kit's Coity House" in Kent is given as an example of such a monument, of which only four stones have been left. How far the views here indicated will stand the test of expert criticism remains to be seen, but it must be said that they cannot be put aside without careful consideration of the evidence and argument. The main out- come of this portion of the work is to fix attention on the wedge-shaped dolmens, a class particularly numerous in Munster. They are referred to the early Bronze Age. Mr. Borlase then proceeds to the consideration of the structural comparisons between the Irish dolmens and those in Britain and on the Continent. A valuable service is here rendered to archteologiste. The collection of illustra- tions, especially of Continental examples, is the most complete that has as yet been brought together. The entire literature of the subject has been exhausted. The number of Continental authors and journals laid under contribution is, indeed, a monument of patience and industry. The German series is brought into special prominence. As Mr. Borlase says, it has been hitherto almost overlooked as a factor in the question of the West-British and Irish dolmens. In this section wedge- shaped dolmens and graves are numerous; they occur like- wise in the Scandinavian area, and are also found in the Iberian Peninsula. But we must not be led into details. Needless to say, France occupies a large apace in the com- parative part of the work. The consideration of the French evidence leads Mr. Borlase to an important and original con- clusion. France he regards as the cradle-land of the dolmen- builders, and centre of their dispersion. There we are furnished with the stepping-stone between the burial-cave and the dolmen, and it was in that land that the latter works attained their greatest development, and in which the venera- tion attaching to them lasted perhaps longest. The con- sideration of the folk-lore, anthropological and archmological evidence, induces him to propound the following theory, "with hesitation and deference," to answer the questions raised by the preceding conclusion. While in the Neolithic epoch, and commencing to erect dolmens in place of caves previously used for burial, the dolichocephalic inhabitants of France and Spain were pressed westward by a brachycephalic race from the east and north-east of Europe. Three courses were open to them: firstly, to stand their ground in the cliff and mountain fastnesses ; secondly, to go southward into Africa ; thirdly, to go northward to the islands of Britain and the coasts of the Baltic. The distribution and type relations of the monuments are, the author contends, best explained on the assumption of such a three fold disper- sion, but there is, of course, no necessity to suppose that these several divisions broke away from the parent stock at one and the same time.
In the concluding volume the folk-lore of the monuments and the anthropology and ethnology of the subject are con- sidered in detail. Concerning the legends of Ireland Mr. Borlase advances a new theory. Two opposite schools of critics have exercised their ingenuity on these stories. The one, native, synchronises each event with occurrences in the Bible or the classics. The other, foreign, sceptical, throws them into the vortex of Aryan mythology. Mr. Borlase is satisfied with neither of these methods. He arrives at the conclusion that the subject-matter of the Irish sagas concern- ing Partholan, Nemid, the Tnatha De Danaan. &c., is for the most part referable neither to pristine ages of Aryan mythology, nor to traditions of events in Ireland, but that it is largely made up of genuine traditions of events which occurred on the Continent from the third to the sixth century A.D. That such traditions were carried to Ireland partly by Gaedhelic-speaking people crossing the Ictian Sea, who, in conjunction with related tribes on either side of the Elbe, were participating in the raids on the Roman Empire, and partly by Teutonic-speaking immigrants, to be translated into Gaedhelic on arrivaL The idea that a reflection of Continental legends was to be found in those of Ireland is not, we believe, new; but the manner in which Mr. Bodes() has presented the theory, and given to it an historical shape and substance, is new. We shall await with interest what Professor Rhys and M. d'Arbois de Jnbainville may have to say on the subject, observing in passing that the date assigned for the introduction of the legends into Ireland appears to be unexpectedly late, and that in the discussion of the subject the positive evidence of the mythologists has to be counted with. But whatever may be the ultimate fate of the theories advanced by Mr. Borlase, as to which we have already said it is too soon to pronounce, there can be no question that as a work of reference The Dolmens of Ireland will always hold a foremost place in the literature of the subject.
Previous page
