If we now turn back to page 100, it seems impossible not to be struck with, the likeness that exists between woodcut No. 25 and woodcuts 175 and 176, especially the first. Such similarity is more than sufficient to take away all improbability from Dr. Barth's suggestion that "the traces of art which they display may be ascribed to Roman influence." It also renders it nearly certain that these African trilithons were sepulchral, and adds another to the many proofs adduced above that Stonehenge was both sepulchral and post-Roman.
The most curious point, however, connected with these monuments is the suggestion of Indian influence which they—especially that at Elkeb—give rise to. The introduction of sloping jambs, derived from carpentry forms, can be traced back in India, in the caves of Behar[486] and the Western Ghâts, to the second century before Christ, but certainly to no earlier date. The carpentry forms, but without the sloping jambs, continued at Sanchi and the Ajunta caves till some time after the Christian era, and where wood is used has, in fact, continued to the present day. "Mutatis mutandis," no two monuments can well be more alike to one another than that at Elkeb and the Buddhist tomb at Bangkok, represented in woodcut 177. The Siamese tomb may be a hundred years old; and if we allow the African trilithon to be late Roman, we have some fourteen or fifteen centuries between them, which, certainly, is as long as can reasonably be demanded. In reality it was probably less, but if the one was prehistoric, we lose altogether the thread of association and tradition that ought to connect the two.
To all this we shall have occasion to return, and then to discuss it more at length, when speaking of the Indian monuments and their connection with those of the West. In the meanwhile these two form a stepping-stone of sufficient importance to make us feel how desirable it is that the country where they are found should be more carefully examined. My impression is that the key to most of our mysteries is hidden in these African deserts.
Footnotes
[464] 'International Congress,' Norwich volume, 1869, p. 196.
[465] Norwich volume of 'Prehistoric Congress,' p. 196.
[466] A very imperfect one appeared in the 'Revue archéologique,' in 1865, vol. xi. pl. v. It contained most of the names of places where dolmens were then known to exist, but our knowledge has been immensely extended since then.
[467] 'Mémoires de la Soc. arch. de Constantine,' 1864, p. 127.
[468] Flower, in Norwich volume, p. 204.
[469] 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 124.
[470] Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 201 et seq.
[471] 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine,' 1864, pp. 109, 114.
[472] 'Mémoires, etc., de Constantine.'
[473] Another is published by M. Bourguignal, in his 'Monuments symboliques de l'Algérie,' pl. i., but it is still more suspicious.
[474] I have been obliged to take some liberties with M. Féraud's cuts; the plan and elevation are so entirely discrepant, that one or both must be wrong. I have brought them a little more into harmony.
[475] 'Prehistoric Congress,' Norwich volume, p. 199.
[476] 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864.
[477] 'Revue archéologique,' viii. p. 527.
[478] Ibid. l. s. c.
[479] 'Mémoires, &c., de Constantine,' 1864, p. 122, pl. xxx.
[480] Flower, in Norwich volume, pp. 202-206.
[481] 'History of Architecture,' i. p. 81.
[482] 'Travels and Discoveries in Northern Africa,' i. p. 204.
[483] Ibid. p. 74.
[484] Ibid. p. 59. The holes are not shown in the cut.
[485] 'British History,' viii. chap. ii.
[486] 'History of Architecture,' by the Author, ii. p. 483.
[CHAPTER XI.]
MEDITERRANEAN ISLANDS.
Before leaving the Mediterranean Sea and the countries bordering upon it, it seems desirable to say a few words regarding certain "non-historic" monuments which exist in its islands. Strictly speaking, they hardly come within the limits assigned to this book, for they are not truly megalithic in the sense in which the term has been used in the previous pages; for though stones 15 feet and 20 feet high are used in the Maltese monuments, they are shaped and, it may be said, hewn with metal tools, and they are used constructively with smaller stones, so as to form walls and roofs, and cannot therefore be considered as Rude Stone Monuments. Still they have so much affinity with these, and are so mixed up in all works treating of the subject with Druidical remains and prehistoric mysteries, that it certainly seems expedient to explain as far as possible their forms and uses.
The monuments are of three classes. The first, found in Malta, are there called giants' towers—"Torre dei giganti"—a name having no meaning, but which, as also involving no hypothesis, it may be convenient to adhere to. The second class, called Nurhags, are peculiar to Sardinia. The third, or Talyots, are found only in the Balearic islands. There may be some connection between the two last groups, but even then with certain local peculiarities sufficient to distinguish them. The Maltese monuments however stand alone, and have certainly no connection with the other two, and, as it will appear in the sequel, none of the three have any very clear affinity with any known monuments on the continent of either Europe or Africa.