Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the 234 original illustrations. See 54620-h.htm or 54620-h.zip: (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54620/54620-h/54620-h.htm) or (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54620/54620-h.zip) Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/rudestonemonumen00ferg Transcriber's note: Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). The caret symbol (^) indicates that the following character is superscripted. (e.g., vig^t). [Illustration: THE STANDING STONES OF STENNIS. From an original drawing in the possession of the Author. FRONTISPIECE] RUDE STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL COUNTRIES; Their Age and Uses. by JAMES FERGUSSON, D.C.L., F.R.S., V.P.R.A.S., F.R.I.B.A., &c. [Illustration: Demi-Dolmen, Kerland.] With Two Hundred and Thirty-Four Illustrations. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. 1872. The right of Translation is reserved. London: Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, and Charing Cross. PREFACE When, in the year 1854, I was arranging the scheme for the 'Handbook of Architecture,' one chapter of about fifty pages was allotted to the Rude Stone Monuments then known. When, however, I came seriously to consult the authorities I had marked out, and to arrange my ideas preparatory to writing it, I found the whole subject in such a state of confusion and uncertainty as to be wholly unsuited for introduction into a work, the main object of which was to give a clear but succinct account of what was known and admitted with regard to the architectural styles of the world. Again, ten years afterwards, while engaged in re-writing this 'Handbook' as a 'History of Architecture,' the same difficulties presented themselves. It is true that in the interval the Druids, with their Dracontia, had lost much of the hold they possessed on the mind of the public; but, to a great extent, they had been replaced by prehistoric myths, which, though free from their absurdity, were hardly less perplexing. The consequence was that then, as in the first instance, it would have been necessary to argue every point and defend every position. Nothing could be taken for granted, and no narrative was possible. The matter was, therefore, a second time allowed quietly to drop without being noticed. I never, however, lost sight of the subject, and I hoped some time or other to be able to treat of it with the fulness its interest deserves; and in order to forward this project, in July, 1860, I wrote an article in the 'Quarterly Review,' entitled 'Stonehenge,' in which I stated the views I had then formed on the subject; and again, ten years afterwards, in April of last year, another article, entitled 'Non-Historic Times' in the same journal, in which I added such new facts and arguments as I had gathered in the interval.