Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries/Chapter 12

by James Ferguson

 

CHAPTER XII.

WESTERN ASIA.

Palestine.

Palestine is one of those countries in which dolmens exist, not in thousands and tens of thousands, as in Algeria, but certainly in hundreds—perhaps tens of hundreds; but travellers have not yet condescended to open their eyes to observe them, and the Palestine Exploration Fund is too busy making maps to pay attention to a subject which would probably throw as much light on the ethnography of the Holy Land as anything we know of. Before, however, retailing what little we know about the monuments actually existing, it is necessary in this instance to say a few words about those which we know of only by hearsay. All writers on megalithic remains in the last century, and some of those of the present, have made so much of the stones set up by Abraham and Joshua that it is indispensable to try to ascertain what they were, and what bearing they really have on the subject of which we are treating.

The earliest mention of a stone being set up anywhere as a monument or memorial is that of the one which Jacob used as a pillow in the night when he had that dream which became the title of the Israelites to the land of Canaan. "And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it."^[1] The question is, What was the size of this stone? In the East, where hard pillows are not objected to, natives generally use a brick for this purpose. Europeans, who are more stiffnecked as well as more luxurious, insist on two bricks, and these laid one on the other, with a cloth thrown over them, form by no means an uncomfortable headpiece. The fact of Jacob being alone, and moving the stone to and from the place where it was used, proves that it was not larger than, probably not so large as, the head that was laid upon it. It certainly, therefore, was neither the Lia Fail which still adorns the hill of Tara nor even the Scone stone that forms the king's seat in Westminster Abbey, and, what is more to our present purpose, it may safely be discharged from the category of megalithic monuments of which we are now treating.

The next case in which stones are mentioned is in Genesis xxxi. 45 and 46: "And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob said unto his brethren, Gather stones; and they took stones, and made an heap: and they did eat there upon the heap." This is not quite so clear; but the fair inference seems to be that what they erected was a stone altar, on which they partook of an offering, which, under the circumstances, took the form of a sacramental oath—one party standing on either side of it. The altar in the temple of Jerusalem, we know, down even to the time of Herod, was formed of stones, which no iron tool had ever touched,^[2] and the tradition derived from this altar of Jacob seems to have lasted during the whole Jewish period. So there is nothing in this instance to lead us to suppose that "the heap" had any connection with the megalithic monuments of other countries.

The third instance, though more frequently quoted, seems even less relevant. When Joshua passed the Jordan, twelve men, according to the number of the tribes, were appointed, each "to take up a stone on his shoulder out of the Jordan, in the place where the priests' feet had stood, and to carry them and set them down at the place where they lodged that night, as a memorial to the children of Israel for ever."^[3] Here, again, stones that men can carry on their shoulders are not much bigger than their heads, and are not such as in any ordinary sense would be used as memorials, inasmuch as they could be as easily removed by any one, as placed where they were. If ranged on an altar, in a building, this purpose would have been answered; but as an open-air testimonial such stones seem singularly inappropriate.

The only instance in which it seems that the Bible is speaking of the same class of monuments as those we are concerned with is in the last chapter of Joshua, where it is said (verse 26), he "took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord," and said, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us." It is the more probable that this was really a great monolith, as it seems to be the stone mentioned in Judges ix. 6 as "the pillar of the plain," . . . or "by the oak of the pillar which was in Shechem;" and if this is so, it must have been of considerable dimensions. It therefore alone, of all the stones mentioned in the Bible, seems to belong to the class of stones we are treating of; but even then its direct bearing on the subject is not clear. It by no means follows that because the Israelites in Joshua's time set up such a stone for such a purpose that either then or a thousand years afterwards the French or Scandinavians did the same thing with the same intention. It may be so, but both the time and locality seem too remote for us to rely on any supposed analogy.

As bearing indirectly on this subject, it is curious to observe that the rite of circumcision in these early days of Jewish history was performed with flint knives,^[4] which, considering that bronze and iron were both familiarly known to the Israelites at that period, is a remarkable example of the persistence in an old fashion long after it might have been supposed it would have become obsolete. It is equally curious, if the Septuagint is to be depended upon, that they should have buried with Joshua in his grave those very flint implements (τὰς μαχαίρας τὰς πετρίνας) with which the operation was performed. This cannot of course be quoted as the latest or even a late example of flint being buried in tombs, but it is interesting as explaining one reason for the practice. It is at least one instance in which flint was used long after metal was known, and one tomb in which stone implements were buried for other reasons than the people's ignorance of the use of metal.^[5] If the Jews used flints for that purpose in Joshua's time, and so disposed of them after the death of their chief, the only wonder is that they do not do so at the present day.

To turn from these speculations, based on words, to the real facts of the case. We find that the first persons who observed dolmens in Syria were Captains Irby and Mangles. In their hurried journey from Es Salt, in 1817, to the fords of the Jordan, apparently in a straight line from Es Salt to Nablous, they observed a group of twenty-seven dolmens, very irregularly situated at the foot of the mountain. All those they observed were composed of two side-stones, from 8 to 10 feet long, supporting a cap-stone projecting considerably beyond the sides and ends. The chambers, however, were only 5 feet long internally—too short, consequently, for a body to be stretched out at full length. The contraction arose from the two transverse stones being placed considerably within the ends of the side-stones. One of these appears to have been solid, the other to have been pierced with what is called a door: but whether this was a hole in one stone, or a door formed by two jambs, is not clear.^[6] No drawing or plan accompanies their description; but the arrangement will be easily understood when we come to examine those of Rajunkoloor, in India,^[7] described farther on (woodcut No. 206).

The only other reliable information I have is extracted for me from his note-books by my friend, Mr. D. R. Blaine. In travelling from Om Keis—Gadara—towards Gerash, at a place called Kafr er Wâl, not far from Tibné, they met with one considerable group, a portion of which is represented in the above woodcut (No. 191). The size of the stones varies considerably; generally, however, they are about 12 feet by 6 feet, and from 1 to 2 feet in thickness. One cap-stone was nearly 12 feet square, and the side-stones vary from 5 to 6 feet in height. On approaching Sûf, a great number of dolmens were observed on either side of the road for a distance of from three to four miles. Some of these seemed quite perfect, others were broken down; but the travellers had unfortunately no time to count or examine them with care.

This is a very meagre account of a great subject—so meagre, indeed, that it is impossible to found any argument upon it that will be worth anything; but it is interesting to observe that all the dolmens as yet noticed in Syria are situated in Gilead, the country of the Amorites, and of Og, king of Bashan. If it should prove eventually that there are none except in this district, it would give rise to several interesting ethnographical determinations. At present all we can feel confident about is that there are no dolmens west of the Jordan; but the Amorites were originally settled in Hebron,^[8] and there are certainly no dolmens there. So unless they migrated eastward before the dolmen period, they can scarcely lay claim to them. Then these dolmens may belong to the Rephaim, the Emim, the Anakim, the Zuzim, and all those giant tribes that dwelt beyond Jordan at the time of Chedorlaomer, the dreaded king of Elam, who smote the kings of this district at the dawn of the Bible history of these regions.^[9] The speculation is a tempting one, and if it should eventually be proved that they are confined to this one district, it will no doubt find favour in some quarters. There seems, however, nothing to support it beyond the fact that the people in the region beyond the Jordan seem all and always to have been of Hamite or Turanian blood, and therefore likely to adopt this mode of burial whenever it may have been introduced, in spite of the colonization of two tribes and a half of Israelites, who could do but little to leaven the mass. I am afraid that, like the theory which identified the Roman cities of the Hauran with the giant cities of Og, king of Bashan, and his tall contemporaries, this hypothesis will not bear examination. Every stone of these cities, it is now known, was placed where we now find it, after the time when Pompey extended Roman influence to these regions; and nothing would surprise me less than to find that these dolmens are even more modern. Before, however, we venture to speculate on such a subject, we must feel surer than we now do of their extent and their distribution, and know something of their contents. On both these subjects we are at present practically entirely ignorant.

Gilead is almost the last safe resting-place at which we can pause in our explorations eastward in our attempts to connect the Eastern and the western dolmen regions together. But Gilead is two thousand miles from Peshawur, where we meet the first example of the Indian dolmens; and in the vast regions that lie between, only one or two doubtful examples are known to exist. We can creep on doubtfully a couple of hundred miles nearer, in Arabia and Circassia; but that hardly helps us much, and unless some discoveries are made in the intermediate countries, the migration theory will become wholly untenable.

In the course of the recent ordnance survey of the peninsula of Sinai in 1868-9, great numbers of circular buildings were discovered, many of which were certainly tombs; and plans and drawings of some of them have been engraved, and will be published by the authorities at Southampton. But as great bodies move slowly, it may yet be a long time before they are accessible to the public. Meanwhile the following particulars, gleaned from a paper by the Rev. Mr. Holland,^[10] will suffice to explain what they are. The buildings are of two classes: the first, which were probably store-houses, were built in the shape of a dome, about 5 feet high and 5 or 6 feet in diameter in the interior. The walls were often as much as 4 feet thick, and a large flat stone formed the highest portion of the roof, which appeared to have been covered, with loose shingle. They had no windows, and one door, about 3 feet high and 11/2 foot broad. The stones used in their construction were often large, but never dressed, and no mortar was used.

The other kind of ruins, which is generally found in close proximity to the former, often in separate groups, consists of massively built circles of stones, of about 14 to 15 feet in diameter, and 3 feet high, but without any roof. "These," Mr. Holland says, "were evidently tombs; for I found human bones in all that I opened," which were never met with in the buildings of the first class; "and in one two skeletons lying side by side, one of them on a bed of flat stones. The rings of stones were apparently first half filled with earth; the bodies were then laid in them, and they were then quite filled up with earth, and heavy stones placed on the top to prevent the wild beasts disturbing the bodies. Some of these rings are of much larger size: some 45, others 90, feet in diameter, and some contained a smaller ring in the centre. Near the mound of Nukb Hawy is one no less than 375 feet in diameter." From the above description it is evident that, except from the dimensions of the last-mentioned, these circles have much more affinity with the Chouchas and Bazinas of Algeria than with anything farther north or west, and there is probably some connection between them. But a wall of coursed masonry of small stones can hardly be compared with our megalithic structures, and, so far as is known, no dolmens, nor any examples of the great rude-stone monuments we are discussing, have been found in the peninsula. When the results of the survey are published, we may see reason to alter this opinion; but at present these Sinaitic tombs seem to belong to a class altogether different from the European examples, except in two points—that they are circular and sepulchral. These characteristics are, however, so important that eventually other points of comparison may be established.

The rude-stone monuments which Mr. Giffard Palgrave accidentally stumbled upon in the centre of Arabia are of a very different class from these. According to his account, what he saw was apparently one-half of what had once been a complete circle of trilithons; but whether continuous, like the outer circle of Stonehenge, or in pairs, like the inner circle there, is not quite clear. As he could just touch the impost with his whip when on his camel, the height was, as he says, about 15 feet—the same as Stonehenge; and the expression he uses would lead us to suppose that the whole structure was essentially similar. Allowance, however, must be made for his being in disguise, which prevented his making notes or writing down his observations; and writing afterwards from memory, his description may not be minutely correct. He is, however, so clear and acute an observer that he could hardly be deceiving himself; and we may take it for granted that exactly halfway between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, near Eyoon, in latitude 26° 20′, there exist three rude-stone monuments—he saw only one, but heard of two others—of a class similar to those found in England and in the continent of Europe,^[11] and what is more important to our present purpose, similar to those found in Tripoli, and illustrated above in woodcuts 175 and 176.

De Voguë's plates of late Roman tombs in the Hauran, especially those represented in his plates 93 and 94,^[12] take away all improbability from the idea that trilithons should have been erected for sepulchral purposes in this part of the world. That the one form is copied from the other may be assumed as certain; but whether the rude stones are anterior to or contemporary with or subsequent to those of the Roman order, every one must decide for himself. I believe them to be either coeval or more modern, but there is nothing in these particular monuments to guide us to a decision either way. If we could fancy that the savages who now occupy that country would ever allow it to be explored, it would be extremely interesting to know more of the Arabian examples, even if they should only prove to be an extension of Syrian or North African forms into Central Arabia. If, on the other hand, a migration theory is ever to be established, this probably would be the southern route, or at least one of the southern routes; though the imagination staggers when we come to consider how long it must have been ago since any wandering tribes passed through Central Arabia on their way westward.

 

Are there any dolmens in Asia Minor? It is no answer to this question to say that none have been seen by any of the numerous travellers who have traversed that country. Ten years ago, by a parity of reasoning, their existence in Algeria or in Syria might have been denied. My impression is that they will not be found in that region. I expect that Asia Minor was too completely civilized in a pre-dolmen period to have adopted this form after- wards; but it is dangerous to speculate about a country of whose early history, as well as of whose modern geography, we really know so little.

It would be extremely interesting, however, if some traveller would open his eyes, and tell us what really is to be found there, as it would throw considerable light on some interesting problems connected with this subject. It would, for instance, be interesting to know whether there are or are not dolmens in Galatia. If there are, it would go far to assist the Celtic claim to their invention. If they do not exist, either the Celts must be asked to waive their claim or we must find out some other mode of accounting for their absence.

In like manner, it would be interesting to know if there are dolmens in Lydia. As mentioned before, there are numberless chambered tumuli in that country, and it would be curious to trace the existence or absence of any connection between these two forms of sepulchres. My impression is that the case of Lydia is very similar to that of Etruria. It was civilized before the dolmen era, and it will consequently be in vain to look there for any megalithic remains. The chambers in all the tombs yet opened are, so far as we at present know, constructed of small stones, and show no reminiscence of a rude-stone stage of art.^[13]

When we cross the Black Sea to Kertch, we find a state of affairs very similar to that in Lydia — great numbers of chambered tumuli, but all of microlithic or masonic forms. The tombs seem to be the lineal descendants of those at Mycenæ, and to belong to a totally different class from those we are treating of, and, notwithstanding their similarity of purpose, have apparently sprung from a different source. Yet it is curious to observe that even here the inevitable flints reappear. In one tomb, known as Kouloba, or Hill of Cinders, were found the remains of a chief, with his wife, their servants, and a horse. He wore a cap ornamented with gold, a gold enamelled necklace, and gold bracelets, and his sword was of iron. An electrum plate, which had formed part of a quiver, was ornamented with figures of animals and inscribed with the Greek word Πόρναχο. The queen's ornaments were richer in metal and more elaborate in workmanship than her husband's, yet among all this magnificence were found a quantity of flakes and other implements of flint:^[14] a tolerably convincing proof that flint implements were not buried in this tomb, any more than in Joshua's, because men did not know the use of metals, but for some symbolical reason we do not now understand. There is little doubt that other examples as striking as these will be found when looked for, and, at all events, these do away with all à priori arguments based on the probability or otherwise of their being modern.

Combined with these are found, very sparsely on the shore of the Crimea, but frequently on the eastern shore of the Baltic and in Circassia, the forms of dolmens we are familiar with in other parts of the world. Nothing like a regular survey of them has yet been attempted, nor have we any detailed accounts of them; but from such information as is published,^[15] the general type seems to be that of the holed dolmen, such as those represented in the annexed woodcuts.

As far as can be judged from such illustrations as have been published, all the Caucasian or Circassian dolmens are composed of stones more or less hewn and shaped and carefully fitted together, giving them a more modern appearance than their Western congeners. That, however, may be owing to other circumstances than age, and cannot be used as an argument either way till we know more about them. It would be extremely interesting if some one would make a special study of this group, as Circassia lies exactly halfway between India and Scandinavia, and if we adopt a migration theory, this is exactly the central resting-place where we would expect to find traces of the passage of the dolmen-builders. Their route probably would be through Bactria, down the Oxus to the Caspian, across Circassia, and round the head of the Sea of Azof to the Dnieper, and up that river and down the banks of the Niemen or Vistula to the Baltic.

If, on the other hand, we adopt a missionary theory, and are content to believe in an Eastern influence only, without insisting on a great displacement of peoples, this would equally be the trade route along which such influence might be supposed to extend, and so connect the north with the east, just as we may suppose a southern route to have extended through Arabia and Syria to the southern shores of the Mediterranean.

Even more important for our present purpose, however, than an examination of these Caucasian regions would be an exploration of the Steppes to the northward of the route just indicated. If there is any foundation for the theory that the dolmens are of Turanian origin, it is here that we should expect to find the germs of the system. It is one of the best-established facts of ethnology that the original seat of the Aryans was somewhere in Upper and Central Asia, whence they migrated eastward into India, southward into Persia, and westward into Europe. In like manner, the original seat of the Turanians is assumed to be somewhat farther north, and thence at an earlier period it is believed that they spread themselves at some very early prehistoric time over the whole face of the Old World. When we turn to the Steppes, whence this great family of mankind are supposed to have migrated, we find it covered with tumuli. As Haxthausen^[16] expresses it, the Kurgans, as they are there called, are counted "non par des milliers, c'est centaines de milliers qu'il faudrait dire;" and Pallas equally gives an account of their astonishing

numbers.^[17] These tumuli resemble exactly our barrows, such as are seen on Salisbury plain, except that they are generally of very much larger dimensions, and they have one peculiarity not known elsewhere. On the top of each is an upright stone, rudely carved, but always unmistakably representing a human figure, and understood to be intended for a representation of the person buried beneath. Pallas, Haxthausen, and Dubois, all give representations of these figures, but in some instances at least they are repetitions of the same original. They are perfectly described by the monk Ruberquis, who visited these countries in 1253. "The Comanians," he says, "build a great tomb over their dead, and erect an image of the dead party thereon, with his face towards the east, holding a drinking-cup in his hand before his navel. They also erect on the monuments of rich men pyramids, that is to say, little pointed houses or pinnacles. In some places I saw mighty towers, made of brick, and in other places pyramids made of stones, though no stones are found thereabouts. I saw one newly buried in whose behalf they hanged up sixteen horse-hides, and they set beside his grave Cosmos (Kumiss) to drink and flesh to eat, and yet they say he was baptized. And I beheld other kinds of sepulchres, also towards the east, namely, large floors or pavements made of stone, some round and some square; and then four long stones, pitched upright above the said pavement, towards the four regions of the world."^[18] The general correctness of this account is so fully confirmed by more modern travellers that there seems no reason for doubting it; but, as no one has described these "pavements," we dare not rely too much on their manifest similarity to the Scandinavian square

and round graves, with four angle-stones, like the preceding one (woodcut No. 195).

It may not be satisfactory to be obliged to go back to a traveller of the thirteenth century, however much he may be confirmed by subsequent writers, for an account of monuments which we would like to see measured and drawn with modern accuracy. It is, on the other hand, however, a gain to find a trustworthy witness who lived among a people who buried their dead in tumuli and sacrificed horses in their honour, and provided them with meat and drink for their journey to the Shades; who, in fact, in the thirteenth century were enacting those things as living men which we find only in a fossil state in more Western lands.

The general appearance of these tumuli may be judged of by one of the most magnificent recently excavated by the Russians near Alexandropol, between the Dnieper and the Bazaolouk. It is about 1000 feet in circumference and 70 feet high, and was originally surmounted by a "Baba," which, however, is not there now. Around its base was a sort of retaining wall of small stones, and outside these a ditch and low mound, but no attempt whatever at lithic magnificence. Within it were several sepulchres. The principal one in the centre had apparently been already rifled, but in the subsidiary ones great quantities of gold ornaments were found, especially on the trappings of the horses which seem to have been buried here almost with more honour than their masters. Judging from the form of the ornaments and the style of the workmanship, the tomb belonged to the third or fourth century B.C.^[19]

In Haxthausen's work^[20] there is a woodcut which may give us a hint as to the genesis of circles. A kurgan, or tumulus, at Nikolajew, in the government of Cherson, was cleared away, and though nothing was found in it to indicate its age and purpose, its base was composed of three or four concentric circles of upright stones, surrounding what appears to be a tomb composed of five stones in the centre. Similar arrangements have been found in Algerian tumuli, and it looks as if the first hint of a sepulchral circle may have arisen from such an arrangement having become familiar before being covered up, just as I believe the free-standing dolmen arose from the uncovered cist having excited such admiration as to make its framers unwilling to hide it.

It does not appear to me to admit of doubt that there is a connexion, and an intimate one, between these Scythian or Tartar tombs and those of Europe; but the steps by which the one grew out of the other, and the time when it took place, can only be determined when we have more certain information regarding them than we now possess. It is important, however, to observe that, if they are the original models or congeners of the tumuli of the Western world, they are not of the dolmens or circles, except in such an indirect way as in the last example quoted from Haxthausen; nor are they of our menhirs, for all the stones we know of are carved as completely as the babas (woodcut No. 194); and we know literally of no rude stones connected with them, nor do we find any attempt in Scythia to produce effect by masses in unhewn stone, which is the fundamental idea that governed their use in Europe.

We tread on surer ground when we reach the Caubul valley, not that many proofs of it have yet been published, but the quantity of tumuli, topes, and similar monuments,^[21] render it certain that circles and dolmens will he found there when looked for. Only one typical example has been published, but Sir Arthur Phayre, to whom we owe it, heard of other similar monuments existing in the neighbourhood. Fourteen of the stones composing this circle are still standing, and the tallest are about 11 feet in height, but others are lying on the ground more or less broken. The circle is about 50 feet in diameter, and there are appearances of an outer circle of smaller stones at a distance of about 50 to 60 feet from the inner one. The natives have no tradition about its erection, except the same myth which we find in Somersetshire, that a wedding party, passing over the plain, were turned into stone by some powerful magician.^[22]

At present, these Eusufzaie circles, and those described by Sir William Ouseley at Deh Ayeh,^[23] are almost the only examples we have to bridge over the immense gulf that exists between the Eastern and Western dolmen regions. Even the last, however, is only a frail prop for a theory, inasmuch as we have only a drawing of it by Sir W. Ouseley, who, in his description, says: "I can scarcely think the arrangement of these stones wholly, though it may be partly, natural or accidental." Coupled with the stone represented as figure 13 on the same plate, in Sir William Ouseley's work, I feel no doubt about these belonging to the class of rude-stone monuments, but we must know of more examples and more about them before we can reason with confidence regarding them. Another example, which certainly appears to be artificial, is recorded by Chardin. In travelling between Tabriz and Miana, he observed on his left hand several circles of hewn stones, which his companions informed him had been placed there by the Caous — the giants of the Kaianian dynasty. "The stones," he remarks, "are so large, that eight men could hardly move one of them, yet they must have been brought from quarries in the hills, the nearest of which is twenty miles distant."^[24] Numerous travellers must have passed that way since, but no one has observed these stones. It does not, however, follow that they are not still there, and hundreds of others besides; but while all this uncertainty prevails, it is obviously most unsafe to speculate on the manner in which any connexion may have taken place. It may turn out that the intervening country is full of dolmens, or it may be that practically we know all that is to be learned on the subject, but till this is ascertained, any theory that may be broached must be open to correction, perhaps even to refutation. It is not, however, either useless or out of place to make such suggestions as those contained in the last few pages. They turn attention to subjects too liable to be overlooked, but which are capable of easy solution when fairly examined, while their truth or falsehood does not practically in any essential degree affect the main argument. The age and uses of the Indian dolmens, as of the European examples, must be determined from the internal evidence they themselves afford. Each must stand or fall from its own strength or weakness. It would of course be interesting if a connexion between the two can be established, and we could trace the mode and time when it took place, but it is not necessarily important. If anyone cares to insist that there was no connexion between the two, he deprives himself of one of the principal points of interest in the whole enquiry, but does not otherwise affect the argument either as to their age or use. But of all this we shall be in a better position to judge when we have gone through the evidence detailed in the next chapter.

1. Genesis xxviii. 18; xxxv. 14.
2. Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.' v. 6.
3. Joshua iv. 2 to 8. There is some mistake in the 9th verse; either it is a mistranslation or the verse is an interpolation. It is to be hoped that the Revisers will look to it.
4. Exodus iv. 25; Joshua v. 3.
5. Herodotus (ii. 86) mentions that, in his day, the Egyptians, after extracting the brain with an iron instrument, cut open the body they intended to embalm with au Ethiopic stone, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson ('Ancient Egyptians,' iii. 262) found two flint knives in a tomb which might have been used for such a purpose.
6. Irby and Mangles, 'Travels in Egypt, Nubia, &c.' 1823, p. 325.
7. Colonel Meadows Taylor, in 'Trans. Royal Irish Academy,' 1865.
8. Genesis, xiii. 18; xiv. 13.
9. Gen. xiii. 5.
10. 'Journal Royal Geographical Society,' 1868, pp. 243 et seq.
11. S. Palgrave, 'Central and Eastern Arabia,' i. p. 251. These appear to be the same as those mentioned by Bonstetten. "Dernièrement encore un missionaire jésuite, le Père Kohen, a découvert en Arabie dans le district de Kasim, près de Khabb, trois vastes cercles de pierres pareils à celui de Stonehenge, et composés chacun de groupes de trilithes d'une grande elevation."—Essai sur les Dolmens, p. 27.
12. One of them has already been given, woodcut No. 25, p. 100.
13. Ante, p. 32.
14. Dubois de Montpereux, v. pp. 194 et seqq. pls. xx. to xxv. See also 'Journal Arch. Ass.' xiii. pp. 303 et seqq.
15. Dubois de Montpereux, 'Voyage autour du Caucase,' i. p. 43. See also two dolmens from drawings by W. Simpson, in Waring's 'Stone Monuments,' pl. lx.
16. Haxthausen, 'Mémoires sur la Russie,' ii. p. 291.
17. 'Voyage,' i. p. 495.
18. 'Purchas his Pilgrims,' iii. p. 8.
19. These particulars are taken from a Russian work, 'Recueil d'Antiquités de la Scythie,' 1866. Only one number, apparently, was ever published.
20. 'Mémoires sur la Russie,' ii. p. 308.
21. Introduction to Wilson's 'Ariana Antiqua,' passim.
22. 'Journal Asiatic Soc. Bengal,' p. i. No. 1, 1870.
23. 'Travels in Persia,' ii. p. 124, pl. lv. fig. 14.
24. 'Voyages en Perse, &c.,' i. p. 267.