FERGUSSON'S RUDE STONE MONUMENTS.*
ANTIQUARIES of standing consider Mr. Fergusson, in this hand- some volume, to have developed what was originally a crotchet into an elaborate paradox. So far as rude stone monuments are concerned, he has practically set himself to suppress "Pre-His- toric Times," substituting for them the " Non-Historic Times" which headed his Quarterly Review article of April, 1871. While not considering Mr. Fergusson to have made out his own case, we are bound to admit that he has brought effective criticism to bear on the extreme theories of the pre-historic school of archaso- logy, such as will no doubt in future check a certain lavishness in the use of centuries B.C. The problem which Mr. Fergusson attempts to work out may be popularly stated in a few words. There exist, in certain regions of the Old World, numerous struc- tures of large rough stones, the principal types of which may be seen in perfection in our own country ; for instance, by any visitor to the Land's End. In the neighbourhood of Penzance the tourist goes to look at the cromlech, or circle of rude upright stones, called Dance Main, a ring of girls turned to stone (so tradition says) for dancing on a Sunday. Hard by are two huge menhirs, or single standing-stones, of rough granite; these are the two demon pipers who tempted the damsels and shared their fate. Not far off is the Fogo, a good example of an underground sepulchral structure of stone slabs, while in another direction a height is crowned by Lanyon Quoit, a fine type of the dolmen or table-like chamber built of huge stones, with just the architecture of the little child who sets up three wooden bricks edgeways, and roofs them in with one brick fiat, having previously laid a wooden soldier inside. If to these we add an instance of a line or avenue of upright stones, such as may be traced at Avebury, we shall have before our minds a set of general ideas as to what the rude stone monu- ments of the world are like. It is next to be noticed that these are not spread broadcast over the Old World, but only abound in certain districts. They occupy a wide stretch from Hanover up to Gothland, strips of Great Britain and Ireland, a broad band across France from N.W. to S.E., a border of the Spanish Peninsula on the N. and W., and the province of Granada, whence we follow them into North Africa, Syria, Circassia, and the Dekban, besides various patches elsewhere. Mr. Ferguson's map of the distribution of rude stone monuments suggests interesting problems as to the relations and movements of the nations who spent their uncultured strength in erecting them. We do not find here, however, the mention we should have ex- pected of the earlier and almost similar map drawn by Colonel Lane Fox three years ago, and published in the Journal of the Ethnological Society for 1869.
The problems to be solved are why, when, and by whom were these huge rude structures set up? As regards those in Europe, it is usually maintained by students of prehistoric archteology that they were erected by ancient races whose history is now lost, and that while most of them were sepulchres, others were temples or places of worship, and yet others intended for other purposes to which they were suitable, such as memorials, landmarks, or places of assembly. Mr. Fergusson's opinion, on the other hand, is that they are comparatively modern structures, all connected with burials, and erected between the first and tenth centuries of the Christian era, by races partially civilised through contact with the Romans. Fortunately, as to dolmens, whether in the Dekhan or in Cir- caasia, in Algeria, Brittany, or Kent, there is no doubt as to their general purpose. These rude chambers of huge stones, whether buried under mounds of earth or standing exposed on some open hill-top, are proved by the remains found in hundreds of them to be simply sepulchres. Nor does any doubt attach to the similar purpose of the simple underground kists of stone slabs in which corpses were placed, nor of the more elaborate under- ground burial chambers with passages. Moreover, it is very usual for burial-places to be surrounded by circles of upright un- hewn stones. Among the examples figured by Mr. Fergusson are a sepulchral circle of rough stones at Amravati, in India, within which is the grave, marked apparently by three stones ; the Algerian dolmen, surrounded by two circles of stones (fig. 170) ; and the Scandinavian long burial-mound, encompassed by a ring of rude stones (fig. 103). So frequent is this practice, that we may go so far in Mr. Fergusson's direction as to admit that crom- lechs or stone-circles are more often than not the enclosures of burial-places.
The menhirs or standing-stones, too, are often tombstones or monuments to the dead. There happen to be still people in India who set up such standing-stones, and it is worth while to question them as to what they mean them for. These people are the Khasia mountaineers, who by the combined effort of whole villages set up those rows of huge menhirs which have so curious an effect in the landscape of their rugged hills. Though these stone pillars are connected with the dead, they do not mark the burial-places, for the corpses are burnt and their ashes kept in urns in peculiar places of deposit close to the villages, and at last placed under rude stone tables. It appears that these Khasias worship the spirits of the dead, to whom they pray for cure of sickness and for other pro- tection and benefit, and the great standing-stones are set up in commemoration of these divine ghosts, one who has done great spiritual service to his or her people being often honoured by five or ten monoliths. Apropos of the Khasia mountaineers, Mr. Fer- gusson makes one of his best points. These hill-men have been for ages in contact with Hindu civilisation and near specimens of Hindu architecture, they are expert iron-workers, and yet they choose to go on setting up, as their fathers did, these grand rugged monuments of unhewn stone.
There are, however, in South India groups and circles of rude stones, which seem to be actual places of worship, or at least to be connected with deities. These tell against Mr. Fergusson's theory that all such monuments are sepulchral, and he does them but scanty justice. Among them are the rows of stones frequently set up to represent the guardians of the fields, and called the five Pandus. They are daubed with red paint, which is usual with the rough stones so frequently worshipped in India. The Belgaum cluster consists of close rows of rough slabs, each daubed on the face with a circular spot of red paint blackened over in the centre, ap- parently to represent a large blood-spot. The Andlee group is a cromlech or circle of rough stones, and these stones arc likewise daubed with paint. But what seems conclusive is that some stone circles are actually places of sacrifice, where cocks are offered to "a local village deity, called Vetal or Betel," represented by a larger stone in the centre of the circle. Mr. Fergusson (who, by the way, seems to be unaware that vetal is not a proper name at all, but simply a term meaning " demon ") tries to invalidate this unanswerable proof that cromlechs are really sometimes temples. Pointing out that the central stones are only three feet high, and the surrounding ones only 20 inches or less, he argues that it is ab- surd to compare these with our great megalithic monuments. Considering, however, that men do in fact worship little idols in little temples on just the same principles that they worship big idols in big temples, this appeal to the foot-rule seems rather help- less. We ask, too, why Mr. Fergusson suppresses the fact here just mentioned, a significant one from the religious point of view, the daubing of the stones with red paint.
As to Mr. Fergusson's general theory, if he had used his facts rather to criticise than to upset the pre-historic theory, he would have made out a much better case. With the Khasias before our eyes, we should admit the evidence that the Indian dolmen building may have gone on till modern times. In Algeria, the local tradition is at least probable, that the Pagan population went on setting up the thousands of dolmens and menhirs which cluster over their hills, up to the very date of the Mohammedan con- version. Scandinavian tradition declares that the scores of stand- ing-atones on the plain at Kongsbacka mark the place of a great battle, about A.D. 500; that the mound at Lethra, with its dol- men on top, and remains of a cromlech round it below, is really the burial-mound of Harald Hildetand, slain in the eighth century at the famous battle of Bmvalla. For all we know, there may be truth in many such traditions attached to battle- fields and mounds ; we had better wait a few years for the results of careful digging, than cut all knots by the magic word "pre-historic." Stonehenge is claimed by English history (of a sort) for the fifth century. At any rate, it would be a sensible thing to spend a few hundred pounds in digging there, rather than in printing speculative books about it. It is true that its hewn stones and imposts almost remove Stone- henge from the class of rude stone monuments, though it might be considered as a late keeping-up of the ancient practice of cromlech- building. That in France rude stone architecture could continue in what may almost be called modern times is shown by the re- markable dolmen of Confolens, in Poitou, which Mr. Fergusson judiciously puts on the cover of his book, as representing his very fact of facts. This is a real dolmen, and its cap-stone is a huge rough slab, but instead of other rough stones to support this, there are four slender columns (originally there were five), with separate bases, shafts, and capitals, and belonging to the twelfth century. Thus far again we may go safely with Mr. Fergusson, that when- ever rude stone monuments began, they certainly did not cease with the Roman conquest.
But it is another thing to suppose the inhabitants of Western Europe not to have begun to erect their menhirs, cromlechs, and dolmens till after Roman times. What was there in Roman influ- ence to set Celts, not to say Scandinavians, on depositing the remains of their dead in dolmens, and adopting a style of rude stone architecture which has nothing Roman about it? The dolmens and tumuli of Brittany, as is proved by the abundance of stone implements and the general absence of metal ones, were the work of men of the Stone Age ; is it likely that the Bretons re- mained into Christian centuries in the same condition as the Caribs at the time of Columbus? The whole evidence of stone implements in Europe, as a proof of antiquity, is discarded by Mr. Fergusson. It is in India, however, that ordinary and reasonable argument seems to us most neatly turned upside down by our author, who can see in the rude stone sepulchral circles of Amravati modern and degraded imitations of the grand stone rail surrounding the Amravati tope. Such a combination as a mound with a dolmen on the top, and a stone circle round the base, would be likely to have a similar origin whenever it occurs, and that origin might be simply the first development of rude architecture among rude races. It is found in India, as at Pulli- condah (fig. 221), but there Mr. Fergusson can see in the combined mound, doltnen, and double stone circle a degenerate copy of a Buddhist dagoba or dome-shrine of hewn stone, with its tee or symbolic relic-chest on top, and its ornamented stone rail round the base. Very good ; and now one asks in wonder, were there also Buddhist dagobas in Europe and Africa to supply models for such burial-mounds as West Kennet barrow, and Harald's mound at Lethra, and the Algerine tumulus (fig. 169), all of which combine the features of mound, dolmen, and cromlech ? So utterly does Mr. Fergusson invert what seems the natural in- ference as to the historical succession of barbarous and civilised architecture, that we are half surprised at his admitting that, built tumuli of hewn stone such as the Indian dagobas are them- selves the improved successors of rude primitive mounds or cairns of burial. To have taken the opposite theory and maintained, for instance, that the mounds of Troy are degenerate copies of the Egyptian pyramids, would have been a delightful thesis, capable of proof by most learned and picturesque evidence.
Previous page
