Chapter 14

47. Tumulus, Plas Newydd.

48. Entrance to Dolmen, in Tumulus, Plas Newydd.

Another and even more interesting example of this class has recently been brought to light by the Hon. W. O. Stanley, at Plas Newydd, not far from the great dolmen represented on woodcut No. 50.[193]It is a chamber or cist, 3 feet 3 inches wide by about 7 feet long, andcovered by two slabs. Before being disturbed, the supporting slabs must have formed nearly perfect walls, thus distinguishing the cist from those standing on widely-spaced legs. Its principal point of interest, however, is the widely-splayed avenue of stones leading up to it, showing that it was always intended to be visited; and still more curious are the two holes that were pierced in the slab that closedthe entrance. The upper part of this slab is now broken off, but so much remains that it is easy to see that they were originally circular and about 10 inches in diameter. Such holed stones are very frequent in Eastern dolmens, and are also common in Cornwall and elsewhere;[194]but what their purpose may have been has not yet been explained. Further on it may be attempted. At present it is the relation of this form of chambered tumuli to external dolmens that principally interests us.

49. Dolmen at Pentre Ifan. From 'Archæologia Cambrensis.'

Almost all the so-called dolmens in the Channel Islands are of this class. One has already been given (woodcut No. 11), and it may safely be asserted that all chambers which were wainscoted with slabs, so as to form nearly perfect walls, and all that had complicated quasi-vaulted roofs were, or were intended to be, covered with mounds—more especially those that had covered passages leading to them. There is, however, a very wide distinction between these sepulchral chambers and such a monument as this at Pentre Ifan, in Pembrokeshire.[195]The top stone is so large that it is said five persons on horseback have found shelter under it from a shower ofrain. Even allowing that the horses were only Welsh ponies, men do not raise such masses and poise them on their points for the sake of hiding them again. Besides that, the supports do not and could not form a chamber. The earth would have fallen in on all sides, and the connexion between the roof and the floor been cut off entirely, even before the whole was completed. Or, to take another example, that at Plas Newydd, on the shore of the Menai Strait. Here the cap stone is an enormous block, squared by art, supported on four stone legs, but with no pretence of forming a chamber. If the cap stone were merely intended as a roofing stone, one a third or fourth of its weight would have been equally serviceable and equally effective in an architectural point of view, if buried. The mode of architectural expression which these Stone men best understood was the power of mass. At Stonehenge, at Avebury, and everywhere, as here, they sought to give dignity and expression by using the largest blocks they could transport or raise—and they were right; for, in spite of their rudeness, they impress us now; but had they buried them in mounds, they neither would have impressed us nor their contemporaries.

50. Dolmen at Plas Newydd. From 'Archæologia Cambrensis.'

As before mentioned, however, the great argument against the theory of their having been always covered up is the impossibility of accounting for the disappearance of the tumuli. If they had been situated on fertile plains where the land was valuable for agricultural purposes,it might be assumed that a civilized people with highly cultivated antiquarian tastes might have been at the trouble and expense of removing the tumuli for the sake of the land, and of preserving the dolmens for their historical value. But that the rude peasantry of Cornwall and Wales should have done this is inconceivable, more especially as by far the greater number of these monuments are situated on bleak moorlands of no agricultural value whatever. Still more inconceivable is it that they should have done it so neatly and so carefully that no trace of the mound can now be found either around the stones or in the neighbourhood.

If any history were attached to these Western dolmens, or any remains had been found under them which would enable us to fix their dates, even approximately, or to arrange them in any intelligible sequence, it might be worth while recapitulating their names or illustrating their forms. Nothing of the sort, however, has yet been attempted; and apparently no materials exist from which any such series could be elaborated.

51. Arthur's Quoit, Gower. From a drawing by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

52. Plan of Arthur's Quoit.

Only one dolmen in Wales, so far as I know, bears a name; but it is the illustrious one of King Arthur. The dolmen bearing his name is situated in the peninsula of Gower, on the northern slopes of the bleak Bryn Cefn, about ten miles west from Swansea.[196]It forms the centre of a very extensive group of monuments—eighty cairns, at least, are still to be counted in an area less than half a mile in length, by a quarter of a mile in width. These are mostly small, 12 to 15 feet in diameter; one, 20 feet across, was opened by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, but proved to contain no interment. The largest is 68 feet in diameter, but has not been opened. About 350 feet from this is the dolmen. The cap stone is 14 feet 6 inches in length, 7 feet 5 inches in height, and 6 feet 8 inches in breadth even now, but a very large piece has been broken off, and now lies beside it, measuring upwards of 3 feet in thickness; and another piece seems to have been broken off on the other end, so that when complete it must have weighed between 35 and 40 tons. It rested originally on ten or eleven upright stones, two of which, however, have fallen, and only four now touch the cap stone. Sir Gardner is of opinion that it once was covered with atumulus; but this appears very doubtful. The slight mound, backed up with large stones, that now surrounds it, with a diameter of 73 to 74 feet, seems an enclosure more like that of Hob Hurst's House (woodcut No. 53) than the remains of a tumulus, and till some further evidence is adduced, we must be allowed to doubt whether any cap stone on legs was ever so treated. Sir Gardner traced, doubtfully, an avenue, of which, however, only five stones now remain, extending to about 500 feet in a direction that would have passed the dolmen on the north, as that at Shap did the circle at its front, or the lines at Merivale Bridge, the circle still found there; Sir Gardner also points out some small circular enclosures, which, from the analogy of those found on Dartmoor, he assumes to be hut-circles.

53. Hob Hurst's House, on Baslow Moor, Derbyshire. From a drawing by Thomas Bateman.[197]

What, then, is this group of monuments? Sir Gardner assumes that it is a cemetery of the ancient Britons; but, if so, why are not other cemeteries found in the fertile valleys and plains in South Wales? Why did they choose one of the barest and bleakest hillsides, and one farthest removed from their habitations as a place in which to bury their dead? Why did they not, like the inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, disperse their graves pretty equally over an area of 30 miles by 10? Why crowd them into less than half-a-mile? Without reverting to my previous suggestion of a battle-field, I do not see how these questions can be answered; and if so, I do not think we have far to go to look for its name? As hinted above, Arthur's eighth battle must have been fought in Wales. The name of the place is written Guin (Gwyn), Guinon, Guinnon, Gunnion,[198]which certainly is Welsh; and when we find it immediately preceding the battle of Caerleon on the Usk, and theprincipal monument still bearing Arthur's name, we may fairly, I think, adopt the suggestion till, at least, a better is offered.

Be this as it may, I think all antiquaries will agree with Sir Gardner Wilkinson in assuming that this is the stone of Cetti[199]mentioned in the Welsh triads. 'The 84th Triad' speaks of the Cor of Emmrys in Caer Caradawg (another name for Salisbury), and the 88th of the three mighty achievements of the Isle of Britain, the raising of the stone of Cetti, the building of the work of Emmrys, and the heaping of the pile of Cyvragnon.[200]The work of Emmrys (Ambrosius) is generally admitted to be Stonehenge. If this is the stone of Cetti, which I see no reason for doubting, it only remains to identify the third. Most antiquaries suggest Silbury Hill; and, if I am correct in placing these three monuments so near one another in date, this seems also extremely probable, and so far as it goes, is a satisfactory confirmation of what has been advanced above from other sources.

From my ignorance of the Welsh language I am not in a position to say what amount of reliance should be placed in the evidence of these triads. But Herbert and other competent scholars consider it undoubted that Emmrys is Ambrosius, and the 'Work' referred to certainly Stonehenge. If this is so, it fixes its date beyond question, and as the other two are mentioned in the same breath it is probable they were not distant in date. All this may be, I believe certainly is so, but the circumstantial evidence adduced above seems to me so much clearer and so much more to be relied upon, that it derives very little additional force from the utterance of the Welsh bards. It is, however, no doubt satisfactory that their evidence coincides with everything that has been brought forward above, as bearing directly or indirectly on their age or use.

Before proceeding, it may be as well to revert for one moment to Hob Hurst's House. It is quoted here to show how a tumulus, with a dolmen on the top of it, may be connected with a low rampart so as not toconceal it, exactly, I believe, as is the case with Arthur's Quoit. But the name of the place where it is situated may afford a hint which may lead to something hereafter. It will be recollected that Arthur's sixth battle was fought "super flumen quod vocatur Bassas." This mound is situated on "Bas" Moor, the Low being merely the name of the mound itself. These nominal similarities are too treacherous to be relied upon; but the more the whole group is looked at the more does it appear that there are coincidences of name, or form, or purpose, between those monuments here called Arthurian, which cannot all be accidental. Individually they may not be able to resist hostile criticism, but in their cumulative form they appear to me to make up a very strong case indeed.

If any of the other dolmens in the West had even so good a title to a date as Arthur's Quoit, it might be possible to arrange them in a series; but as none have even traditional dates, all we can now do is to suggest that the dolmen at Plas Newydd (woodcut No. 50) is of about the same age as Arthur's Stone: perhaps something more modern, as it is more carefully squared; but this may arise from the one being a battle-stone, the other a peaceful sepulchre. In like manner it would seem that such an exaggerated form as Pentre Ifan (woodcut No. 49) is a "tour de force" of a still more modern date; and if we could get one certainly older than any of these, a tentative scheme could be constructed which might lead us to satisfactory results.

I by no means despair of being able eventually to construct such a scheme of classification, and, even before this Work is concluded, to make it tolerably clear that the thing is possible, and then it will only remain, if one or two fixed or probable dates can be ascertained, to bring the whole within the range of historical investigation.

Footnotes[134]'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxiii.[135]'Iter Curiosum,' p. xxxii.[136]When I was there four years ago I was fortunate enough to find an old man, a stonemason, who had been employed in his youth in utilizing these stones. He went over the ground with me, and pointed out the position of those he remembered.[137]It is extremely difficult to be precise about the dimensions. One is almost wholly buried in the earth, and its dimensions can only be obtained by probing; the other is half buried.[138]'Archæologia,' ii. 1773, p. 107.[139]'Wanderings of an Antiquary;' London, 1854, p. 175et seq.[140]loc. cit.175.[141]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 299.[142]'Beowulf: an Anglo-Saxon Poem,' translated by J. W. Kemble, 1835, preface, p. xix.[143]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 121.[144]This woodcut is copied literally from one by Mr. Lewis published in the 'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' and the figures and facts I am about to quote are mostly taken from the paper that accompanied it. The inferences, however, are widely different.[145]'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' p. 37.[146]Asser, in 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 476.[147]Stukeley, 'Avebury,' p. 12; Borlase, p. 210.[148]Camden, 'Britannia,' i. p. 285. See also Charleton's 'Stonehenge restored to the Danes,' p. 36.[149]On this stone Sir Gardiner Wilkinson traced one of those circles of concentric rings which are so common on stones in the north of England. I did not see it myself, but assuming it to be true—which I have no doubt it is—it will not help us much till we know when and by whom these circles were engraved.[150]'Brit.' p. 1021.[151]Pennant in his text calls the diameter 88 yards, but the scale attached to his plan makes it 110 yards nearly.[152]'Tour in Scotland, 1772,' pl. xxxvii. p. 276.[153]Near Lochmaben, in Annandale, a circle exists, or existed, called Wood Castle, which, in so far as the plan and dimensions are concerned, is identical with this. It is figured in General Roy's 'Military Antiquities of the Romans,' pl. viii. I would not hesitate in quoting it as a monument of this class, but for the view which I distrust excessively, but which makes it look like a fortification. As I have no means of verifying the facts, I can only draw attention to them.[154]'Iter Boreale,' p. 42.[155]'Brit.,' Gough edit. iii. p. 401.[156]'Archæological Journal,' xviii. p. 29.[157]Ibid., xviii. p. 37.[158]I am not aware that any account of these diggings has been published. The facts I ascertained on the spot.[159]Here, again, I quote from the copy in the 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 47et seq., to which it will not be necessary to refer every time the name is mentioned.[160]Stuart Glennie, 'King Arthur.' 1867. L. W. Skene. 'Ancient Books of Wales,' i. 52et seq.[161]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 73.[162]General Roy's 'Mil. Ant. of the Romans,' pl. viii.[163]Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.[164]I have not seen this circle myself, though I made a long journey on purpose. It is said to consist of eighty-eight stones, and one larger than the rest, standing outside the circle, at a distance of about five yards, or exactly as Long Meg stands with reference to her daughters.[165]First described in the 'Archæologia,' vol. viii. p. 131et seq., by the Rev. S. Pegge, in 1783.[166]These dimensions, as well as the plan, are taken from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's paper in the 'Journal of the Archæological Association,' xvi. p. 116, and may consequently be thoroughly depended upon.[167]Bateman, 'Vestiges,' p. 65.[168]These dimensions are taken from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's plan. The Batemans, with all their merits, are singularly careless in quoting dimensions.[169]Ante, p. 11.[170]Douglas, 'Nenia Brittanica,' p. 168, pl. xxxv.[171]If we knew its height we might guess its age. If it was 65 feet high, its angle must be 30 degrees, and its age probably the same as that of Silbury Hill. If 100 feet, and its angle above 40 degrees, it must have been older.[172]'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 82.[173]'Petrie's Life,' by Stokes, p. 234.[174]The complete disappearance of the body of this undoubted Saxon chief ought to make us cautious in ascribing remote antiquity to many comparatively fresh bodies we find elsewhere.[175]Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 21.[176]"In 1723 the workmen dug up the body of a great king buried there in the centre, a very little below the surface. The bones were extremely rotten, and, six weeks after, I came luckily to rescue a great curiosity which they took out there—an iron chain, as they called it. It was the bridle buried along with the monarch. There were deer horns and an iron knife, with a bone handle, too, all excessively rotten, taken up along with it."—Stukeley's 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pp. 41-12. The bridle is figured, pl. xxxvi.[177]Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 168.[178]Nothing can exceed the effrontery with which Stukeley inserted curved avenues between these circles, so as to make the whole into a serpent form. Nothing of the kind exists, nor existed in 1826, when Mr. Croker made, for Sir R. C. Hoare, the survey from which the woodcut is copied, with Sir Gardner Wilkinson's corrections.[179]'Archæologia,' xxv. p. 189.[180]What is the meaning of the word "Maes"? It is singular that the Maes How, in Orkney, should bear the same relative position to the Standing Stones of Stennis, in Orkney, that Maes Knoll does to the group of circles. I do not know of the name occurring anywhere else. According to the dictionaries, it merely means "plain" or "field." In Irish "Magh" pronounced "Moy;" but that can hardly be the meaning here.[181]'Archæologia,' x. pl. xi. p. 106.[182]It probably may have been a piece of iron pyrites, and may have been used for striking a light.[183]'Archæologia Cambriensis,' third series, vol. xii. p. 54. A fancy plan of the same circle appears in the same volume, but is utterly untrustworthy. It is reproduced by Waring, 'Mon.' &c. pl. xli.[184]'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries,' iii. p. 225.[185]The Hon. W. C. Stanley enumerates by name twenty-four in Anglesea.—'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series, vol. i. p. 58.[186]Tacitus, 'Vita Agricolæ,' chap. v.[187]'Somerset Archæo. Soc. Proceedings,' viii. p. 51.[188]'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43et seq.[189]'Journal of the Ethnological Society,' January, 1871, p. 416.[190]Vol. xi. p. 315et seq.[191]'Pro. Soc. Ant.,' second series, ii. 275. Thurnam, 'Archæologia,' xlii. 217.[192]'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43.[193]'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series vol. i. p. 51et seq.[194]For Rodmarton, see 'Proceedings Soc. Ant.'l. s. c.; for Cornish, see paper by M. Brash, 'Gent. Mag.,' 1864.[195]'Archæologia Cambrensis,' third series, xi. p. 284.[196]The following particulars are taken from a paper by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in the first volume, fourth series, of the 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' 1870. It is not only the last, but the best description which I know, and, being from the pen of so accurate an observer, I have relied on it exclusively.[197]'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.[198]Dare one suggest Gower?[199]Is this the same word as "Cotty," as applied to Kit's Cotty-house, in Kent? It looks very like it.—Coity?[200]Herbert, 'Cyclops Christianus,' p. 35.

Footnotes

[134]'Iter Curiosum,' pl. xxxiii.

[135]'Iter Curiosum,' p. xxxii.

[136]When I was there four years ago I was fortunate enough to find an old man, a stonemason, who had been employed in his youth in utilizing these stones. He went over the ground with me, and pointed out the position of those he remembered.

[137]It is extremely difficult to be precise about the dimensions. One is almost wholly buried in the earth, and its dimensions can only be obtained by probing; the other is half buried.

[138]'Archæologia,' ii. 1773, p. 107.

[139]'Wanderings of an Antiquary;' London, 1854, p. 175et seq.

[140]loc. cit.175.

[141]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 299.

[142]'Beowulf: an Anglo-Saxon Poem,' translated by J. W. Kemble, 1835, preface, p. xix.

[143]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 121.

[144]This woodcut is copied literally from one by Mr. Lewis published in the 'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' and the figures and facts I am about to quote are mostly taken from the paper that accompanied it. The inferences, however, are widely different.

[145]'Norwich Volume of the International Prehistoric Congress,' p. 37.

[146]Asser, in 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 476.

[147]Stukeley, 'Avebury,' p. 12; Borlase, p. 210.

[148]Camden, 'Britannia,' i. p. 285. See also Charleton's 'Stonehenge restored to the Danes,' p. 36.

[149]On this stone Sir Gardiner Wilkinson traced one of those circles of concentric rings which are so common on stones in the north of England. I did not see it myself, but assuming it to be true—which I have no doubt it is—it will not help us much till we know when and by whom these circles were engraved.

[150]'Brit.' p. 1021.

[151]Pennant in his text calls the diameter 88 yards, but the scale attached to his plan makes it 110 yards nearly.

[152]'Tour in Scotland, 1772,' pl. xxxvii. p. 276.

[153]Near Lochmaben, in Annandale, a circle exists, or existed, called Wood Castle, which, in so far as the plan and dimensions are concerned, is identical with this. It is figured in General Roy's 'Military Antiquities of the Romans,' pl. viii. I would not hesitate in quoting it as a monument of this class, but for the view which I distrust excessively, but which makes it look like a fortification. As I have no means of verifying the facts, I can only draw attention to them.

[154]'Iter Boreale,' p. 42.

[155]'Brit.,' Gough edit. iii. p. 401.

[156]'Archæological Journal,' xviii. p. 29.

[157]Ibid., xviii. p. 37.

[158]I am not aware that any account of these diggings has been published. The facts I ascertained on the spot.

[159]Here, again, I quote from the copy in the 'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 47et seq., to which it will not be necessary to refer every time the name is mentioned.

[160]Stuart Glennie, 'King Arthur.' 1867. L. W. Skene. 'Ancient Books of Wales,' i. 52et seq.

[161]'Mon. Hist. Brit.' p. 73.

[162]General Roy's 'Mil. Ant. of the Romans,' pl. viii.

[163]Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.

[164]I have not seen this circle myself, though I made a long journey on purpose. It is said to consist of eighty-eight stones, and one larger than the rest, standing outside the circle, at a distance of about five yards, or exactly as Long Meg stands with reference to her daughters.

[165]First described in the 'Archæologia,' vol. viii. p. 131et seq., by the Rev. S. Pegge, in 1783.

[166]These dimensions, as well as the plan, are taken from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's paper in the 'Journal of the Archæological Association,' xvi. p. 116, and may consequently be thoroughly depended upon.

[167]Bateman, 'Vestiges,' p. 65.

[168]These dimensions are taken from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's plan. The Batemans, with all their merits, are singularly careless in quoting dimensions.

[169]Ante, p. 11.

[170]Douglas, 'Nenia Brittanica,' p. 168, pl. xxxv.

[171]If we knew its height we might guess its age. If it was 65 feet high, its angle must be 30 degrees, and its age probably the same as that of Silbury Hill. If 100 feet, and its angle above 40 degrees, it must have been older.

[172]'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 82.

[173]'Petrie's Life,' by Stokes, p. 234.

[174]The complete disappearance of the body of this undoubted Saxon chief ought to make us cautious in ascribing remote antiquity to many comparatively fresh bodies we find elsewhere.

[175]Bateman, 'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 21.

[176]"In 1723 the workmen dug up the body of a great king buried there in the centre, a very little below the surface. The bones were extremely rotten, and, six weeks after, I came luckily to rescue a great curiosity which they took out there—an iron chain, as they called it. It was the bridle buried along with the monarch. There were deer horns and an iron knife, with a bone handle, too, all excessively rotten, taken up along with it."—Stukeley's 'Stonehenge and Avebury,' pp. 41-12. The bridle is figured, pl. xxxvi.

[177]Douglas, 'Nenia Brit.' p. 168.

[178]Nothing can exceed the effrontery with which Stukeley inserted curved avenues between these circles, so as to make the whole into a serpent form. Nothing of the kind exists, nor existed in 1826, when Mr. Croker made, for Sir R. C. Hoare, the survey from which the woodcut is copied, with Sir Gardner Wilkinson's corrections.

[179]'Archæologia,' xxv. p. 189.

[180]What is the meaning of the word "Maes"? It is singular that the Maes How, in Orkney, should bear the same relative position to the Standing Stones of Stennis, in Orkney, that Maes Knoll does to the group of circles. I do not know of the name occurring anywhere else. According to the dictionaries, it merely means "plain" or "field." In Irish "Magh" pronounced "Moy;" but that can hardly be the meaning here.

[181]'Archæologia,' x. pl. xi. p. 106.

[182]It probably may have been a piece of iron pyrites, and may have been used for striking a light.

[183]'Archæologia Cambriensis,' third series, vol. xii. p. 54. A fancy plan of the same circle appears in the same volume, but is utterly untrustworthy. It is reproduced by Waring, 'Mon.' &c. pl. xli.

[184]'Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries,' iii. p. 225.

[185]The Hon. W. C. Stanley enumerates by name twenty-four in Anglesea.—'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series, vol. i. p. 58.

[186]Tacitus, 'Vita Agricolæ,' chap. v.

[187]'Somerset Archæo. Soc. Proceedings,' viii. p. 51.

[188]'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43et seq.

[189]'Journal of the Ethnological Society,' January, 1871, p. 416.

[190]Vol. xi. p. 315et seq.

[191]'Pro. Soc. Ant.,' second series, ii. 275. Thurnam, 'Archæologia,' xlii. 217.

[192]'Archæologia,' xix. p. 43.

[193]'Archæologia Cambrensis,' fourth series vol. i. p. 51et seq.

[194]For Rodmarton, see 'Proceedings Soc. Ant.'l. s. c.; for Cornish, see paper by M. Brash, 'Gent. Mag.,' 1864.

[195]'Archæologia Cambrensis,' third series, xi. p. 284.

[196]The following particulars are taken from a paper by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in the first volume, fourth series, of the 'Archæologia Cambrensis,' 1870. It is not only the last, but the best description which I know, and, being from the pen of so accurate an observer, I have relied on it exclusively.

[197]'Ten Years' Diggings,' p. 87.

[198]Dare one suggest Gower?

[199]Is this the same word as "Cotty," as applied to Kit's Cotty-house, in Kent? It looks very like it.—Coity?

[200]Herbert, 'Cyclops Christianus,' p. 35.

Back to Index Next