CURRENT LITERATURE.
Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries. By James Ferguson, D.C.L. (Murray.)—Dr. Ferguson's book deals with questions which it is im- possible to discuss at all adequately in these columns. In one sense the state of the controversy about the megalithic monuments of Western Europe may be stated very briefly. There is no direct evidence as to their age and purpose. Bat, on the other hand, there is an enormous mass of facts on which inferences may be built. The answer which
ninety-nine people out of a hundred would give, were they asked to account for such monuments as those of Stonehenge and Avebury, would be that
they are "Druidical Temples." It is this popular belief that Dr.
Ferguson seta himself to controvert. He argues that they were not temples at all, being utterly unsuited, from their vast size, among other reasons, for all purposes of worship; and that they were not built by the Druids, there being, he says, no evidence to prove that there were any Druids in the places where these remains are chiefly found. His own theory is that these monuments are chiefly if not wholly sepulchral, that they were erected by races partially civilised by contact with the Romans, and that they are to be attributed to various periods within the first ten centuries of the Christian era.
Some of our readers may remember that these theories were broached about ten years ago in an article that appeared in the Quarterly Review, written by Dr. Ferguson. One striking argument in that article was that " Silbury Hill," one of the chief features of the Avebury monu- ment, was built over the Roman road. If that could be proved, the
matter was practically settled. Unfortunately it cannot be 'moved. The present writer has tried to trace the line, but failed ; and Dr. Ferguson, though not abandoning his belief, allows that the argument cannot be insisted on. On the whole, however, the further researches of ten years have enabled him much to strengthen his case. Of course, like other theorists, he stretches his arguments too far. Here is an instance :— "When Comer and his army witnessed the fight between his galleys and the fleet of the Veneti in the Morbihan, he must have stood—if he occupied the beat place—on Mount St. Michel, if it then existed, and among the stone avenues of Carnac. Is it likely that such an artist would have omitted the chance of heightening his picture by an allusion to the standing stones of Dariorigum ? ' " Such an allusion would be the last thing to expect in Gasser. He was not, or, indeed, is any Roman author of his time, at all an "artist" in this sense. Had there been a fight among the stones, they would have
been mentioned, just as everything is mentioned which helps to make a battle-scene clear, but any description of the place from which he looked
on would not have come within his view of an historian's duty. It is
scarcely fair, however, to criticise an argument here and there. One gathers from the book a certainty that the author is profoundly ac- quainted with his subject, and a disposition to accept his theories. The chapters on the remains in Algeria, the Mediterranean Isles, Western Asia, and India help to make the book a complete and exhaustive treatise. It is furnished with numerous excellent illustrations.
Previous page
