Page:Rude Stone Monuments.djvu/72

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
46
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
Chap. II.

roof an absurdity, as no chamber could have existed. These tripod dolmens are very numerous, and well worth distinguishing, as it is probable that they will turn out to be more modern than the walled variety of the same class. But with our present limited knowledge it is hardly safe to insist on this, however probable it seems at first sight.

The question, however, fortunately, hardly requires to be argued, inasmuch as in Ireland, in Denmark,[1] and more especially in France, we have numerous examples of dolmens on the top of tumuli, where it is impossible they should ever have been covered with earth. One example for the present will explain what is meant. In the Dolmen de Bousquet in the Aveyron[2] the chamber is placed on the top of a tumulus, which from the three circlets of stone that surround it, and other indications, never could have been higher or larger than it now is.

Rude Stone Monuments 0072.png

8.
Dolmen de Bousquet. From a drawing by E. Cartailhac.

So far as I know, none of these dolmen-crowned tumuli have been dug into, which is to be regretted, as it would be curious to know whether the external dolmen is the real or only a simulated tomb. My own impression would be in favour of the latter hypothesis, inasmuch as a true and a false tomb are characteristic of all similar monuments. In the pyramids of Egypt they coexisted. In every Buddhist tope, without exception, there is a Tee, which is in every case we know only a simulated relic-casket. Originally it may have been the place where the relic was deposited, and as we know of instances where relics were exposed to


  1. Madsen. 'Antiquites Prehistoriques,' pl. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
  2. Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress' p. 355, pl. vi.