[Footnote 312: In my 'History of Architecture,' ii. p. 345, I ventured timidly to hint that this Armenian ornament would be found identical with that in the Irish and Pictish crosses. Since then I have seen a series of photographs of Armenian churches, which leave no doubt in my mind that this similarity is not accidental, but that the one country borrowed it from the other.] [Footnote 313: See Stuart's 'Sculptured Stones,' and Colonel Forbes Leslie's 'Early Races of Scotland,' _passim_.] [Footnote 314: Reeves, 'Adamnan. Vita St. Columb.' pp. 65 and 145.] [Footnote 315: 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.' iv. p. 119 _et seq._] [Footnote 316: _Ibid._ iv. p. 524.] [Footnote 317: Westwood, 'Facsimiles of Irish MSS.' plates 4-28.] [Footnote 318: These two woodcuts are borrowed from Worsaae, 'The Danes and Northmen.' London, 1852.] [Footnote 319: 'Sculptured Stones of Scotland,' ii. p. 70.] [Footnote 320: Camden, 'Brit.' 1268.] CHAPTER VII. SCANDINAVIA AND NORTH GERMANY. INTRODUCTORY. So much has been said by the Danes and their admirers of the services that they have rendered to the study of prehistoric archæology that it is rather disappointing to find that, when looked into, almost less is known regarding their megalithic monuments than regarding those of any other country in Europe. No work has yet been published giving anything like a statistical account of them, and no map exists showing their distribution. What little information can be obtained regarding the Danish dolmens, and other similar monuments, is scattered through so many volumes of transactions and detached essays that it is extremely difficult to arrive at any connected view of them--almost, indeed, impossible for any one who is not locally familiar with the provinces in which they are found. The truth seems to be that the Danish antiquaries have been so busy in arranging their microlithic treasures in glass cases that they have totally neglected their larger monuments outside. They have thus collected riches which no other nation possesses, and have constructed a very perfect grammar and vocabulary of the science. But a grammar and a dictionary are neither a history nor a philosophy; and though their labours may eventually be most useful to future enquirers, they are of very little use for our present purposes. They have indeed up to this time been rather prejudicial than otherwise, by leading people to believe that when they can distinguish between a flint or bronze or iron implement they know the alpha and omega of the science, and that nothing further is required to determine the relative date of any given monument. It is as if we were to adopt the simple chemistry of the ancients, and divide all known substances into earth, water, fire, and air: a division not only convenient but practically so true that there is very little to be said against it. It