The vanished menhir of St Mabyn has been noticed ([p. 42] supra), but, before leaving the English megaliths, we ought to glance at the smallest cromlech in Cornwall, that of Duloe, which is situated near Duloe church. Its longer diameter is 39 feet, and its shorter, 37 feet, so that the cromlech is slightly elliptical. The “circle” contains seven standing stones, and one fallen or broken stone. One of the pillars, which are very unshapely, is 9 feet in height. The finding of charcoal, together with a cinerary urn enclosing bones, near one of the pillars, is sufficient to show the sepulchral character of the circle[136]. Cornwall should indeed prove the touchstone of our theory, and I believe that both Cornwall and Devon would stand the test well, could we recall the witnesses. But these, sad to relate, are for the most part gone. Here a gatepost, there a tombstone, and yonder the hearth of a cottage, warn us not to expect the impossible. Sir Norman Lockyer, in his work on Stonehenge, asserts that many churches have been built on the sites of circles and menhirs, but he proffers no actual examples[137]. He gives, however, numerous instances from Cornwall, Ireland, and Scotland, of the juxtaposition of megaliths and sacred wells. Now, it will be shown in the next chapter, that churches were frequently built in proximity to holy wells, so that we have a triple relationship. Sir Norman Lockyer’s informant doubtless knew of other examples of church-megalith sites than those which have been adduced[138]. Such sites are said to be not uncommon in Wales. The church at Yspytty Kenwyn (or Cynfyn), near the Devil’s Bridge, in Cardiganshire, had the circle of stones built, at intervals, into the churchyard wall. There were also stone pillars at the Eastern entrance to the church, just as they are sometimes found near stone-circles. Large megaliths are also recorded from the churches of Tregaron, in Cardiganshire, and Llanwrthwl, in Brecon[139]. Cordiner, an eighteenth century writer, asserts that Benachie church, Aberdeenshire, is built within a stone-circle, and that the practice of thus building was not infrequent in that country. And Mr W. G. Wood-Martin has recorded at least two cromlechs in Irish churchyards[140].

There is also a scrap of linguistic testimony which is pregnant of ancient tradition, and which has been noted by several writers. Sir Daniel Wilson seems to have been the first to make the fact publicly known. The common Gaelic sentence, Am bheil thu dol d’on chlachan? (Are you going to the stones?) may be rendered alternatively, “Are you going to the church?” and is used in this second sense by the Scottish Highlander when addressing his neighbour. Primarily, chlachan (clachan) means a circle of stones, hence, a battle, or the scene of single combats. The interpretation “place of worship,” is, as might be anticipated, derivative, though not recent. So far back as 1774, Shaw, in the chapter which he contributed to the third edition of Pennant’s Tour in Scotland, observed, “From these circles and cairns many churches to this day are called clachan, i.e. a collection of stones[141].”

A word of caution is necessary to those who may be inclined to accept too hastily, and without examination, the claims of this or that megalith to a great antiquity. For instance, there stands at the South-Eastern gate of Binstead church, in the Isle of Wight, a grotesque figure, called by the villagers “The Idol.” This uncouth image has been thought by some to be a pagan object of worship. Little, indeed, is definitely known about the object, but it is asserted, with much credibility, that the gate once formed the door of the church, and that the image is merely a Norman keystone, or perhaps a corbel[142]. We note, however, that if it were a corbel, it could scarcely have been a portion of a doorway, though this matter is inessential. Our second illustration shall be given in order to show the danger of dating objects as pre-Christian, when they bear clear signs of Christian influence. In the churchyard at Penrith there is a large tomb which bears the nickname of “Giant’s Grave.” It happens that this name is often applied to prehistoric barrows and megaliths, and in this particular instance it has been proclaimed that the tomb is a cromlech—a “dolmen” being perhaps intended. Hutchinson, Pennant, and other writers, were greatly exercised concerning this ancient relic. But if the reader will turn to the beautiful engraving of the monument in the Victoria History of Cumberland, he will understand, even without the aid of the letterpress, that the tomb has features decidedly Christian. The monument really consists of the shafts of two pre-Conquest crosses, one being placed at the head and the other at the foot, while the space between is enclosed by three “hog-backs,” one of which has been split longitudinally[143]. Once again, in the churchyard of Chadwell St Mary, Essex, a large sarsen, concerning which fantastic theories were current, was observed by the Rev. J. W. Hayes to have a weathered concavity, or “pebble-hole,” within which were carved the letters “N. G.,” followed by the date 1691. Referring to the parish register, Mr Hayes found an entry, made during that year, recording the death of a churchwarden, Nathaniel Glascock. The inference was clear, and the lesson of caution was delivered with some force. These reservations about the nature of burial monuments lead us easily to the subject of grave-mounds, to which we must allot a special chapter.

CHAPTER II
CHURCHES ON PAGAN SITES (continued)

Our next task is to review the evidence, collected during many years of inquiry, respecting the mounds which are frequently seen in the neighbourhood of churchyards. Formerly, those archaeologists who gave any attention to this subject,—they were a very small band of observers,—contented themselves with grouping all the mounds as “barrows” or “tumuli.” With fuller information, we are now able to classify the hillocks as (1) defensive mounds, (2) “moot-hills,” (3) “toot-hills,” and (4) true barrows, or grave-mounds. Etymologically, there is nothing which warrants the limitation of the word “tumulus” to a burial-mound, and, in actual practice, it is often loosely applied to any kind of mound whatever. To avoid confusion, however, it will be well, in this chapter at least, to refrain from using “tumulus” to describe those knolls, comprised under the second and third headings, which have not yet been proved to be of a sepulchral character.

Taking the groups in order, we deal first with the defensive mounds, known to archaeologists under a variety of alternative names: castle-mounds, moated mounds or mounts, mound-castles, and mottes. And it should at once be said that this group includes the majority of the examples which will be adduced. This result might have been anticipated, for these moated mounds are large and durable, and hence have escaped levelling by spade and ploughshare.

A few words must be devoted to an explanation of mottes or mound-castles. These hillocks were essentially low, flat-topped, truncated cones of earthwork, usually surrounded by a ditch, and placed in direct connection with a larger defensive enclosure. The mound was generally artificial, either wholly or in part: the entirely natural mound is the rarest kind[144]. Of these natural hillocks, an illustration is found in the chalk “monticle” on which Corfe Castle is built (Figs. [13], [14]). This mound need not detain us, because it is still crowned by the ruins of what was once a solid structure of masonry, built during the reign of Henry I. Of its true character there can, therefore, be no doubt. The castle-mounds which we are particularly considering, in their earlier forms at least, are believed to have supported a kind of wooden guard-house (turris, bretasche, or keep), which was surrounded by a stockade. Not until a later period of fortification, when the material of the mound had subsided and become firm and solid, did a structure of stone appear on the summit, if indeed, the wooden structure were ever replaced by a more permanent keep or fortress. Stone keeps were built on mottes at Kilpeck in Herefordshire, Fewston in Yorkshire, and other places, but this does not appear to have been the more general custom. Many mounds, at any rate, were never capped by a superstructure of masonry.

The castle-mound, as already stated, was encompassed by a moat, which probably, however, was not intended to contain water, except in special cases ([Fig. 15]). Yet it is very possible that “puddling” was often an undesigned result of the constant trampling to which the ditch was subjected. It should here be explained that the Norman-French term, motte, which is constantly applied to the moated mound, is not related to the word “moat,” though, owing to a misunderstanding of the Latinized form, mota, it has often been so translated. Beyond the real moat, or ditch, was the larger enclosure to which reference has been made. This was the outer ward, the bailey or base court; it was of horseshoe or crescentic form, and was reached by crossing a wooden bridge. The bailey had its own moat, which, in its turn, was engirdled on the outside by a bank passing along the counterscarp[145].