Notes on the Builders and the Purposes of Megalithic Monuments Author(S): A

Notes on the Builders and the Purposes of Megalithic Monuments Author(s): A. L. Lewis Source: The Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jan., 1871), pp. 286-296 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3024812 Accessed: 27-06-2016 04:08 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Anthropology This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 286 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY. Art. V.?NOTES ON THE BUILDEES AND THE PUli- POSES OF MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS* By A. L. Lewis, F.A.S.L. The Megalithic, or, as they were formerly called, Druidic monuments, which extend in a practically unbroken chain from Great Britain, through Europe, part of North Africa, and Asia Minor, to India, where in places they are still in use, on the one hand, and something similar to which may be traced across America to Easter Island, the Fiji Islands, and Madagascar, on the other hand, form a most important element in Archaic Anthropology. Could we but fully ascertain the scenes and events these monuments have witnessed, how vast an addition would be made to our knowledge of what are now called prehistoric ages! This knowledge, alas, can never fully be ours; something, however, would be gained if we could, with some degree of precision, fix upon their builders, and upon the purposes for which they were constructed, and it is as a slight contribution to this end that the following remarks are offered. The "learned and ingenious" antiquaries of the last century have indeed already discovered almost all that we could wish to know respecting these structures, ancl have fully demonstrated their various and often conflicting theories?to their own satis- faction; but their notions, like many others of the same period, have of late been declared to be entirely unsupported by facts, if not opposed to them. Modern investigation, however, while demolishing or ignoring old theories, has brought us new facts upon which we may in due time base a more durable superstruc- ture of theory than that which has been so ruthlessly upset. Diligent observers, mostly connected with the Government ser? vices in India, have shown us that there exist in that country numbers of megalithic monuments, some identical in form, size, and character with certain of our own, and some of smaller size but of similar character; and what is of even more importance * The substance of this paper was read before the British Association at Exeter in 1869; but it has since been entirely re-written, and is now pub? lished for the first time as an introduction to a series of papers descrip- tivo of British monuments, which it is expected the author will contribute. This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS. 287 ?that some of them are in use at tlie present day.* Similar monuments?not merely burial tumuli, which, whether with or without kists, naturally suggest themselves to all races, and are consequently found nearly all over the world?but circles or other monuments, having a distinctly marked ancl special form, have been found to exist in North Africa, Asia Minor, and Persia, and have long been known in Scandinavia, France, Spain, Portu? gal, and Italy, so that, as I have stated, there is a practically unbroken chain of these monuments extending from Hindostan to Britain and Scandinavia. Now, as I have observed in another place/f*" It seems to me almost certain that there must have been some connection, racial or otherwise, between the peoples who have, in different countries, and, it may be, at different periods, constructed these monuments. It is easy to understand that similar necessities might lead to the construction of rude flint implements of a similar shape by nations which had nothing in common, and which were separated by centuries in time, ancl by continents ancl seas in space, but it is not easy to conceive any impulse or necessity that would lead a nation to arrange shape- less stones pver acres of ground in a special rnanner, similar to that used by another nation with which it had had no connection whatever;" and, when we add to this, the consideration that throughout the countries over which the line of monuments from India to Britain extends there have prevailed, and I might almost say do prevail, certain obscure but identical practices and super? stitious,! we must, I think, come to the conclusion that there has been a very great common influence at work throughout the whole of this area. Mr. Squier has recently shown me a picture, prepared for his forthcoming work, of a kind of circle in Central America, and circles of some kind are said to exist in Australia, but whether they possess the special characteristics which distinguish those of India and Britain is as yet uncertain; and I propose, therefore, to dismiss them from our consideration on the present occasion, although other traces are not wanting of a possible pre-historic European influence in America, and perhaps from America to the * Colonels Forbes LesHe, Meadows Taylor, Ross King, Dr. Hooker, Sir W. EUiott, etc. f Paper read before the International Congress at Norwich, 1868. X See Golonel Forbes Leslie's Early Races of Scotland for many interesting particulars. This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 288 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY. Pacific Islands. The Tonga cromlech (so called), and the stones set up by the Esquimaux, as described to me by Dr. King, do not seem to have any affinity whatever to our own monuments, and those in Madagascar perhaps owe their origin to an Indian, an Arabian, or even a Syrian source. Assuming, however, that the monuments of Europe, North Africa, and Asia, have a certain community of origin, we next ask?were their builders of one race ? It is not necessary that they should have been?in fact, the barrows, which probably cover their remains, give us skulls of at least two very different characters, even in the limited area of the Wiltshire downs?yet if there be any force in the arguments I have advanced, there must have been such a community of influence as could probably only have arisen from at least & partial community of race, caused by immigration, peaceful or otherwise. Nor are other traces of such immigrations wanting, as archaeologists well know. The question then arises, where did this influence originate ? Did it start from India, and move steadily westward, through Asia, along the Mediterranean coasts, and through France, till it reached even these distant islands, and then, checked by the ocean, turned in a north-easterly direction into Scanclinavia ? Or was this country, formerly the chief seat of the Druidic system, also the birthplace of the influence under which these monuments were constructed ? Or is it not more probable that that influence origi? nated at some central point, and spread gradually thence towards the various countries I have mentioned ? What was the social condition of the builders of these structures ? They must have been acquainted in a high degree with mechanical appliances; ropes, levers, weclges, and other means must have been largely employed; the inscribed lines found in places, as at Gavr Innis, in Brittany, also seem to have required implements of bronze or even iron, but above all there must have been, in Western Europe at least, such a unity of purpose among masses of men, resulting in such a combined effort and sustained discipline, as speaks volumes for the perfection (after its kind) of the social system under which they lived. Could any of the savage nations of the earth combine, under any social system of their own, to the extent necessary to construct a work?a work, too, of no abso? lute necessity, such as Avebury, with its enormous earthworks, miles of avenues, and vast circles of huge stones ? I answer con- This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:08:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS 289 fidently they could not; and I maintain that the social organisa? tion and general civilisation of the builders of these monuments in Western Europe must have been of a much higher character than those of any native race now existing in the southern hemi? sphere, and in some respects than those of the peoples who now use similar, but much smaller monuments, in different parts of India. Inigo Jones, indeed, attributed Stonehenge to the Eomans, on the express ground that it was a work of art, that the Britons had no arts, and that where no art existed, no work of art could be produced. We, while justly carrying these works back to a further date than the Eoman invasion of Britain, have inconsis- tently sought to attribute them to an unknown race, vaguely spoken of as "pre-historic," and which, if it ever existed at all, we believe to have existed in the most utter barbarism.

Load more