archæologists), and consist of four small slabs (the average tomb area is two feet by four) crowned by a fifth, the whole covered by a mound or cairn. The earlier cists correspond to the distribution of beakers,' a form of pottery characteristic of this people; but the style went on all through the Bronze, and even into the Iron, Age, so that some later cists are found in places, like Dartmoor, well outside the 'beaker' region. These men were round-headed, and typical objects used by them are jet necklaces, stone wrist-guards, conical buttons, and flat-bladed, riveted, or tanged copper knives. None of these objects has ever been found in a megalithic tomb in England, and the point is worth noticing, in view of Mr Perry's statements that the form of dagger in question was characteristic of the Children of the Sun, that it was a sign of royal or noble birth in early Egyptian hieroglyphics (there is no foundation for this), and that its modern descendant is the officer's sword. The cists were often constructed of very small stones, or even of wood, as on Salisbury Plain, and sometimes a pit was dug instead, as in the case of the 'round barrows' on the Wiltshire Downs.

Mr Perry attacks the problem with a very smallscale map of his own construction. It will be best to examine separately this map and the conclusions he draws from it. The map covers Wessex and the Cotswolds, and is intended to show 'the geographical relationship between the distribution of megalithic monuments, Long Barrows, neolithic settlements, and the chalk and lias formations.' It shows no fewer than forty-three 'neolithic villages.' This seems strange, in view of the fact that there is no satisfactory evidence for a single neolithic village in the whole region. The explanation is that Mr Perry has taken the sites marked 'British Village' on the Ordnance Map; but most of these are Romano-British, and in none are there any remains earlier than the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age. 'Long barrows' and 'dolmens' he has marked by different symbols; but in practice they are confused; for instance, near Avebury three dolmens are marked, and no long barrows; whereas there are actually no less than seventeen long barrows (including the ones which he marks as 'dolmens') within a radius of four miles.

'Dolmens,' finally, and so-called 'kist-vaens,' are marked by one symbol, as being megalithic monuments belonging to the same culture. This, in view of what has been said above on the distinction between Megalithic and Beaker Folk, which is the fundamental fact of British pre-history, speaks for itself.

Mr Perry's case is that, here as elsewhere, the megalith builders were miners, and settled in mining regions. Also, that they made settlements in places where they found materials for their domestic and industrial implements and utensils, and for their personal adornment. The second part is so sweeping as to be meaningless. The first is entirely disproved by the facts of distribution. The Cotswolds, Derbyshire, South Wales, Bute and Arran, the Orkneys and Hebrides, all contain true megalithic' monuments. But none of these possesses gold, copper, tin, or flint-bearing chalk. Conversely, there is gold in Lanarkshire, but not a single megalithic burial, or even a stone cist. There is flint in the whole chalk region between Thames and Humber, but no megalith of any sort, and only three long barrows. It is plain that, once again, a lack of first-hand acquaintance with the material has led Mr Perry into an untenable position.*

Enough has been said to show that the unanimous rejection of these theories by serious archeologists has some justification. They are, in fact, to be classed with the modern crop of superstitions and fancies which will form a curious chapter in any future history of early 20th-century thought. Earnest seekers after truth assure us that the Armistice was foretold by the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Lyonesse, Atlantis, and Lemuria reappear on the map. Joanna Southcott's box, to be opened in the presence of not less than five bishops, is shortly to reveal the millennium.† Mr Belloc interprets English History, with surprising results, in the light of the Path to, and from, Rome. A book has recently been written to prove that the people of the British Isles are Hittite Phoenicians of Aryan Race.' (This 'Lewis Carrollite compendium of incongruities,' as Dr Macalister

These criticisms are borrowed from Mr Crawford's article. Cf. also Kendrick, op. cit., pp. 64 ff.

† It has revealed only a pistol and some knick-knacks.

calls it, would be difficult to match.) Even so wellinformed a writer as Dr Inge, in his book on 'England,' states that 'the indigenous population (of Ireland) is mainly of neolithic or Mediterranean stock,' a first-class 'howler' which reveals an unsuspected ignorance of the elements of archæology.*

Some of these books fall still-born from the press, others have a wide circulation. And herein lies the danger. The Bellman's adage becomes increasingly apt. 'What I tell you three times is true.' Mere repetition in the public press carries conviction. A controversial article by the leader of the self-styled historical' school even found its way into a recent volume of the 'Encyclopædia Britannica' (s.v. Anthropology'), but a corrective was fortunately included in the next issue. A literary journalist, Mr H. J. Massingham, known for his charming studies of bird-life and metaphysical poets, in a new book, 'Downland Man,' introduced by Dr Elliot Smith and based on the theories of the Egyptian school, has written an 'imaginative reconstruction' of Avebury, built, of course, by Egyptian searchers for 'givers of life,' as the capital of England'-a view which displays as alarming a credulity as any of the instances referred to above. The somewhat flamboyant style (Avebury is 'The Serpent of Old Nile,' and there is much more of this sort) might have warned reviewers to be on their guard; but in several reputable journals enthusiastic columns have hailed this addition to our knowledge,' and proclaimed the discovery of our earliest capital' as a serious achievement. And stray allusions in the daily and weekly press by leader-writers and essayists show that the attractive idea of a Nile-born origin of all human culture is already taken for granted, in many quarters, as a 'scientific fact,' like Gravitation, or the Circulation of the Blood.

A publisher has recently announced the forthcoming issue of a series of works, directed by Dr Elliot Smith and Mr Perry, in which the new theories are to be presented in a popular form. Mr Massingham is to contribute a volume on 'The Golden Age,' dealing with the time when war was not. It is hoped that the present article may supply something in the nature of an antidote to this intensive propaganda. H. ST L. B. Moss.

* P. 148.

Art. 11.-EMPIRE DEFENCE.

My Working Life. By Colonel Lord Sydenham of Combe. Murray, 1927.

LORD SYDENHAM was born in 1848. In 1927 he finds that, to those who pass the allotted three score years and ten, there comes a time when troubles, once easily thrown off, tend to become chronic, leading to growing disabilities. At the age of seventy-five he was compelled to sever his connexion with various public bodies because younger men could serve them better, and he thus lost touch with many of the valued colleagues with whom he had long worked. He has found the beginning of detachment from public life and comparative isolation to be the great trials of his old age. He should consider himself fortunate. The sweetest canticle,' wrote Francis Bacon as a consolation to those so situated, 'is Nunc Dimittis, when a man hath achieved worthy ends and expectations.' Lord Sydenham has achieved many worthy ends, and the life has yet to be written of the man who has achieved all his expectations.

Lord Sydenham's life has followed the right lines for one of his temperament. It has been a life of continuous and prolonged labour; not always congenial, it is true, but better than leisure for one who, by his own showing, has cultivated no hobby wherefrom to draw contentment at an age when congenial employment in the public service is no longer obtainable. There is no true rest,' wrote Charles Kingsley (a strenuous worker in another field for the good of his fellow-citizens), but in labour.' 'No true misery,' wrote Thomas Carlyle, but in that of not being able to work,' and, judged by such standards, Lord Sydenham is to be congratulated in having retained, to so advanced an age, his broad mental outlook and his amazing industry. He tells us that:

'In the eight years since the Armistice, I find that I have written more than 1000 articles and about 300 letters in 24 London and 5 Provincial papers, in 10 foreign journals, mainly American, and in 32 magazines and other publications. . . . There were also many speeches and interviews. These multitudinous efforts of my old age covered many subjects.'

The subjects touched upon in 'My Working Life' are so diverse, that it is not possible to deal with one-tenth of them adequately in a short review. First and foremost amongst them stands Empire defence, and upon this it will be best to concentrate, because it was in this connexion that the author performed public services of the greatest permanent value to the Nation and Empire which he served so long and so faithfully, sometimes disregarding his own personal interest in fearless attacks upon systems and upon departments which had the power to wreck his career. Many years of hard work brought that career-as far as Empire defence was concerned to its zenith in the Secretaryship of the Committee of Imperial Defence in the years 1904-1907:

'I look back upon my three and a half years of Secretaryship as among the most important in my career; because of the insight into Cabinet Government which I gained, while, thanks to the kindness of two Prime Ministers, I was permitted not only to express my views for what they were worth with complete freedom, but to raise any questions to which I attached Imperial importance. . . . In those years, I think that it may be said that the study of the questions involved in preparation for War in the complex conditions of an Empire like our own was begun; but much remained to be done by my able successors.'

The two Prime Ministers referred to were Mr (now Earl) Balfour and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, men differing widely in temperament and in outlook upon public affairs. It fell to Lord Sydenham's lot, as head of the permanent staff of the Committee, to justify its existence and to ensure its continuity at the most critical stage of its growth, at the time when the Liberal party came into power in 1906, and with it a Cabinet which, according to Mr Churchill, contained elements hostile to such of its members as Mr Asquith and Sir Edward Grey on account of their tendency to wander into patriotic pastures.'

In the period during which Lord Sydenham was Secretary, the Liberal Government held only sixteen meetings of the Defence Committee, as compared with eighty-two in the time of its predecessor; but useful work was done by many Sub-Committees. On July 19, Vol. 249.-No. 494.

2 D