Introduct Programmi C++ International 3rd

Edition Liang Test Bank pdf download

https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduct-programmi-c-
international-3rd-edition-liang-test-bank/

Download more testbank from https://testbankdeal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Introduction to Programming with C++ 3rd Edition Liang

Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-programming-
with-c-3rd-edition-liang-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Introduction to C++ Programming and Data Structures 4th

Edition Liang Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-c-programming-and-
data-structures-4th-edition-liang-solutions-manual/

testbankdeal.com

International Accounting 3rd Edition Doupnik Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/international-accounting-3rd-edition-
doupnik-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Introductory Statistics 9th Edition Weiss Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/introductory-statistics-9th-edition-
weiss-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
Business Statistics Global Edition 10th Edition Groebner
Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/business-statistics-global-
edition-10th-edition-groebner-solutions-manual/

testbankdeal.com

Natural Hazards and Disasters 5th Edition Hyndman

Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/natural-hazards-and-disasters-5th-
edition-hyndman-solutions-manual/

testbankdeal.com

THINK Marketing Canadian 2nd Edition Tuckwell Solutions

Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/think-marketing-canadian-2nd-edition-
tuckwell-solutions-manual/

testbankdeal.com

Instructional Technology and Media for Learning 11th

Edition Smaldino Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/instructional-technology-and-media-
for-learning-11th-edition-smaldino-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Teaching Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Settings

Canadian 5th Edition Smith Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/teaching-students-with-special-needs-
in-inclusive-settings-canadian-5th-edition-smith-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
Management A Practical Introduction 6th Edition Kinicki
Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/management-a-practical-
introduction-6th-edition-kinicki-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
 Name:_______________________ CSCI 2490 C++ Programming
Armstrong Atlantic State University
(50 minutes) Instructor: Dr. Y. Daniel Liang

(Open book test, you can only bring the textbook)

Part I: Multiple Choice Questions:

5 quizzes for Chapter 11

1 Which of the following statements are correct to delete a dynamic object from a
pointer p?

A. delete [] p;
B. delete [] *p;
C. delete *p;
D. delete p;
2 Suppose you declare the following:

double radius = 5;
const double const* pValue = &radius;

Which of the following statements are allowed?

A. pValue = &radius;
B. cout << *pValue;
C. radius++;
D. *pValue = 0;
E. (*pValue)++;
3 What is the output of the following code?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
int list[] = {10, 20, 30, 40};
cout << *(list + 1) << " " << *list + 1 << endl;

return 0;
}

A. 10 10
B. 20 11
C. 30 30
D. 20 20
4 Suppose you declare int count = 5; which of the following is true?

A. &count is 5

1
B. *count is the address of count
C. *count is 5
D. &count is the address of count
5 Suppose you declare an array double list[] = {1, 3.4, 5.5, 3.5}. &list[1] is same as
________.

A. list[1]
B. list
C. list[0]
D. list + 1
E. list + 2

5 quizzes for Chapter 12

6 What is wrong in the following code?

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
vector<int> v;
cout << v[0];
return 0;
}

A. The program has a runtime error on vector<int> v.

B. The program has a runtime error on v[0], because the vector is empty.
C. The program has a syntax error on vector<int> v.
D. The program has a syntax error on v[0].
7 Which of the following statements are true?

A. A class template can be derived from a nontemplate class.

B. Friends are used exactly the same for template and nontemplate classes.
C. A nontemplate class can be derived from a class template specialization.d. Stack<int,
double> s;
D. A class template can be derived from a class template.
E. You can define static members in a template class. Each template specialization has its
own copy of a static data field.
8 To add an int value 5 to a vector v of integers, use _________.

A. v.append(5);
B. v.insert(5);
C. v.add(5);
D. v.push_back(5);
9 To obtain the first element in a vector v, use _______.

2
A. v[1];
B. v.at(1);
C. v.at(0);
D. v[0];
10 Suppose a template function is defined as follows:

template<typename T>
T maxValue(const T &value1, const T &value2)
{
if (value1 > value2)
return value1;
else
return value2;
}
Which of the following statements are correct?

A. cout << maxValue(1.5, 2)

B. cout << maxValue('A', 'B')
C. cout << maxValue(1, 2)
D. cout << maxValue("AB", "AB")
E. cout << maxValue(1.5, 2.5)

5 quizzes for Chapter 13

11 You can use the _________ function to move the file pointer for output.

A. stream.tellp();
B. stream.seekp(length);
C. stream.tellg();
D. stream.seekg(length);
12 You can use the _________ function to move the file pointer for input.

A. stream.seekp(length);
B. stream.tellg();
C. stream.tellp();
D. stream.seekg(length);
13 To know whether the I/O operation succeeded, you use the function ________.

A. stream.clear()
B. stream.bad()
C. stream.fail()
D. stream.good()
E. stream.eof()
14 Suppose you want to read an int to the variable value from a binary file, use ______.

A. biStream.read(&value);
B. binaryio.read(reinterpret_cast<char *>(&value), sizeof(value));

3
C. value = biStream.read();
D. biStream.read(value);
15 To know whether it is the end of a file, you use the function ________.

A. stream.good()
B. stream.clear()
C. stream.bad()
D. stream.fail()
E. stream.eof()
Part II:

a. What is the output of the following code?

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

void f1(int x, int &y, int *z)

{
x++;
y++;
(*z)++;
}

int main()
{
int i = 1, j = 1, k = 1;
f1(i, j, &k);

cout << "i is " << i << endl;

cout << "j is " << j << endl;
cout << "k is " << k << endl;

return 0;
}

b.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
ofstream output;

// Create a file
output.open("scores.txt");

// Write two lines

output << "John" << " " << "T" << " " << "Smith"
<< " " << 90 << endl;
output << "Eric" << " " << "K" << " " << "Jones"
<< " " << 85;

output.close();

4
 ifstream input;

// Open a file
input.open("scores.txt");

// Read data
char firstName[80];
char mi;
char lastName[80];
int score;
input >> firstName >> mi >> lastName >> score;
double sum = score;

input >> firstName >> mi >> lastName >> score;

sum += score;

cout << "Total score is " << sum << endl;

input.close();

return 0;
}

c. Write the code that represents the following array using a vector:

int matrix[4][4] =
{{1, 2, 3, 4},
{5, 6, 7, 8},
{9, 10, 11, 12},
{13, 14, 15, 16}};

Part III:

a. Write a function that counts the occurrence of each

digit in a string using the following header:
int * count(const string &s)

The function counts how many times a digit appears in the

string. The return value is an array of ten
elements, each of which holds the count for a
digit. For example, after executing int counts[]
= count("12203AB3"), counts[0] is 1, counts[1] is
1, counts[2] is 2, counts[3] is 2.
Write a main function to display the count for "SSN is 343
32 4545 and ID is 434 34 4323".

5
b. Write a program to create a file named temp.txt if it
does not exist. Write one hundred integers
created randomly into the file using text I/O.
Integers are separated by spaces in the file.
Read the data back from the file and display the
sorted data.

6
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
The second pair of chambers was excavated by Sir Henry Bouverie
when he was governor, some time before or about 1836, when a
careful plan and drawings of the whole were published by Count de
la Marmora.[490] It has been re-engraved by Gailhabaud and others,
and is well known to archæologists.
The monuments thus brought to light consisted of two pairs of
elliptical chambers very similar in dimensions and plan to those at
Mnaidra (woodcut No. 179). The greatest depth internally from the
entrance to the apse of the principal pair is 90 feet; the greatest
width across both 130 feet. The right-hand pair as you enter is
comparatively plain. The outer chamber of the left-hand pair still
retained, when excavated, fittings that looked like an altar in the
right-hand apse, which was separated from the rest by what may be
called the choir-screen or altar-rail; and this was ornamented with
spirals and geometric figures neatly and sharply cut. In the inner
chamber was a stone, near the entrance, on which was a bas-relief
of a serpent, but no other representation of any thing living was
found elsewhere.
 178. View of the exterior of the Giants' Tower at Gozo.
From a drawing in the possession of Sir Bartle Frere, K.C.B.

The external appearance of the monument may be gathered from

the woodcut No. 178. The lower part of the wall is composed
alternately—as in the circle just alluded to—of large stones laid on
their sides and smaller ones standing perpendicularly between them.
Above this the courses of stones are of regular masonry, and
probably there was some kind of cornice or string-course before the
beginning of the roof, but of this no trace now remains in any of
these monuments.
The second group, known as Hagiar Khem, is situated near Krendi,
on the south side of the island of Malta, and is the most extensive
one known. The principal monument contains, besides the usual pair
of chambers, four or five lateral chambers; and a short way to the
north is a second monument, containing at least one pair; and to the
south a third group, but so ruined it is difficult to make out the plan.
Only the tops of the walls and the tall stones which still rise above
the walls were known to exist of the monument, till in 1839 Sir
Henry Bouverie authorized the expenditure of some public money to
excavate it. An account of these excavations, with a plan and
drawings, was published in Malta at the time by Lieutenant Foulis.
The plan was repeated, in less detail however, in the
'Archæologia,'[491] and afterwards in the Norwich volume of the
International Prehistoric Congress, by Mr. Furze, from a survey
recently made by the Royal Engineers.
The third group, known as that at Mnaidra, is situated not far from
the last, between it and the sea; and as it never has been published,
a plan of it is given here[492] from a survey made by Corporal
Mortimer, of the Royal Engineers. Like the Gozo monument, it
consists of two pairs of oval chambers in juxtaposition. The right-
hand pair, in this instance, is larger and simpler in design than that
on the left, but it is so nearly identical, both in plan and dimensions,
with the right-hand pair at Gozo that they are probably of the same
age and served the same purpose. They are also, as nearly as may
be, of the same dimensions: both would be enclosed, with their side
walls, by a circle 75 feet in diameter. The left-hand cone at Mnaidra
would be nearly of the same diameter; but at Gozo the
corresponding enclosure would require to be, and in fact was, 100
feet in diameter, and the inner room, measuring 80 feet by 50 feet,
including the apse, was the largest and finest apartment of the class
in the islands.

179. Plan of Monument of Mnaidra. From one by Corporal

Mortimer.
 180. Section, on the line A B, through Lower Pair of
Chambers, Mnaidra.

The section through the lower chambers (woodcut No. 180) will
suffice to explain the general appearance of these buildings
internally, as they now stand. A is the entrance into a small square
apartment in which the altar or table stands, shown more completely
in the next woodcut (No. 181), from a photograph, which also
renders much more clear the peculiar style of ornamenting with
innumerable "pit markings," peculiar to these Maltese monuments. D
is the entrance into the other chamber, which but for the
interference of that last described, would have been of the usual
elliptical form. My impression is that the left-hand apse was removed
at some time subsequent to the erection of the monument, to admit
of its insertion. On each side of the doorway are seats, C and E,
which are always found in similar situations. Beyond, at F, is one of
those mysterious openings which are so frequent; it is also seen with
another in Woodcut No. 182. Between this apartment and the upper
apartment H are two tiers of shelves or loculi, which are also found
at Gozo, and for which it is difficult to suggest a meaning if they
were not used as columbaria for sepulchral purposes.
 181. Entrance to Chamber B, Mnaidra, showing Table
inside.
(The Rod is divided into English feet.)

A difficult question here arises as to which of these two pairs of

apartments is the older—the upper, with the simpler style and the
smaller stones, or the apartments with the larger stones and more
ornate arrangements. On the whole, I am inclined to think the
simpler the older: among other reasons because the floor of the
right-hand pair at Mnaidra is 10 feet above the level of the left-hand
apartments. As the edifices are all placed on heights, it seems
improbable that the first comer would have chosen a site
commanded by a knoll 10 feet above him, and touching his half-
buried building. But, besides this local indication, it seems probable
that the style was progressive, and that this right-hand chamber at
Mnaidra may be the oldest, and the great one at Gozo the last
completed of all which we know.
 182. North End of Left-hand Outer Chamber at Mnaidra.
From a photograph.

The excavations at Mnaidra as well as those at Hagiar Khem have

sufficed to settle the question of how these buildings were roofed.
The above woodcut, from a photograph, shows the springing of the
roof of the north end of the outer left-hand chamber, but, like
photographs in general, does so unintelligently. Colonel Collinson,
however, informs me that they bracket outwards, at the rate of 1
foot in 10, and he calculates that they would meet at a height of 30
feet so nearly that they could be closed by a single stone. He,
however, overlooks the fact that all these horizontally-constructed
domes, whether in Greece, or Italy, or Sardinia, are curvilinear, their
section being that of a Gothic pointed arch, and consequently, if
corbelling forward at the rate of 1 in 10 near the springing, they
would certainly meet in this chamber at 15 or 20 feet from their
base. When we recollect that before the Trojan war the Pelasgic
architects of Greece roofed chambers 50 and 60 feet in diameter
(vide ante, page 33), we should not be surprised at the Maltese
architects grappling with apses of 20 feet span. This has generally
been admitted as easy, but several authors have been puzzled to
think how the flat spaces joining the two apses could have been so
roofed. A careful examination of the plans of the Maltese building
seems to make this easy. Looking, for instance, at the plan of
Mnaidra, a retaining wall will be observed on the extreme right,
which is a segment of a circle 75 feet in diameter, and continuing it
all round, it encloses both chambers. If a similar circle is drawn
round the left-hand chambers, it equally encloses them, and the
circles osculate, or have one party wall at a point where there is the
group of cells. This granted, it is easy to see that the external form
of the roof was a stepped cone, covering the inner roofs, and so
avoiding the ridges and hollows which would have rendered
independent roofing impracticable. The external appearance of the
building would thus have been that of two equal cones joined
together, and rising probably to a height of 50 feet above their
springing. To erect such a cone on an enclosing wall only 8 or 10
feet thick may appear at first sight a little difficult for such rude
builders as the Maltese were when they erected these domes, but
when we recollect that the cone was divided into two by a cross
party wall, which may have been carried the whole height, all
difficulty vanishes.
When we apply these principles to the ruins at Hagiar Khem, their
history becomes plain at once. Originally the monument seems to
have consisted of a single pair of chambers of the usual form, A and
B of the accompanying plan; but extension becoming necessary, the
central apse of the inner apartment was removed and converted into
a doorway, and the left-hand lateral apse was also removed so as to
make an entrance into four other ovoid apartments, which were
arranged radially so as to be covered by a cone 90 feet in diameter.
Here again the difficulty, if any, of constructing a cone of these
dimensions is got over by the numerous points of support from
perpendicular walls which honeycomb the building. The external
appearance of this building would be that of one great cone 90 feet
in diameter covering the cells, and anastomosing with one 60 feet,
or one-third less, in diameter covering the entrance chambers.

183. Plan of Hagiar Khem, partially restored.

Restored in this manner, the external appearance of these

monuments would have been very similar to that of the Kubber
Roumeia near Algiers and the Madracen near Blidah. The former was
200 feet in diameter, with a cone rising in steps to the height of 130
feet, which was lower in proportion than suggested above, but its
interior was nearly solid, and admitted therefore of any angle that
might appear most beautiful. The Madracen looks even lower, but no
correct section of it has been published. The Kubber Roumeia has
now been ascertained to have been the tomb of the Mauritanian
kings down to the time of Juba II., or about the Christian era.[493]
Judging from its style, the Madracen may be a century earlier. Be
this as it may, it hardly seems to me doubtful but that these tombs
are late Roman translations of a type to which the Maltese examples
belonged; but the intermediate links in the long chain which
connects them have yet to be recovered.

184. View of Madracen. From a plate in Blakesley's 'Four

Months in Algeria.'

Internally, these Maltese monuments are rude, and exhibit very little
attempt at decoration. The inner apartments, being dark, are quite
plain, but the outer, admitting a certain quantity of light by the door,
have a proportionate amount of ornament. At Gozo, in the outer
apartment, there are, as mentioned above, scrolls and spirals of a
style very much more refined than is found in Ireland or in rude
monuments generally, but more resembling that of those found at
Mycenæ and other parts of Greece. At Hagiar Khem and Mnaidra the
favourite ornament are pit markings. Whether these have any
affinity with those which Sir J. Simpson so copiously illustrated,[494]
is by no means clear. In Malta they are spread evenly over the stone,
and are such a decoration as might be used at the present day
(woodcut No. 181). An altar was found in one of the outer chambers
at Hagiar Khem, and in both the Maltese monuments, stone tables
from 4 to 5 feet high (one is shown in the woodcut No. 181), the
use of which is not clearly made out. They are too tall for altars,
and, unless in the Balearic Islands, nothing like them is known
elsewhere.
After what has been said above, it is hardly worth while to enter into
the argument whether these buildings are temples or tombs. Their
situation alone, in this instance, is sufficient to prove that they do
not belong to the former class. Men do not drop three or four
temples irregularly, as at Gozo, within a stone's throw of one
another, on a bare piece of ground, far away from any centres of
population. The same is the case at Hagiar Khem, where certainly
three, probably four, sets of chambers exist; and Mnaidra may
almost be considered a part of the same group or cemetery.
Malta, it is said, was colonised by the Phœnicians, at least was so in
Diodorus' time,[495] though how much earlier they occupied it, we
are not told, nor to what extent they superseded the original
inhabitants. We also learn incidentally that they possessed temples
dedicated to Melkart and Astarte. This is very probable, and if so,
their remains will be found near their harbours, and where they
established themselves; and Colonel Collinson informs me that
remains of columnar buildings have been found both at Marsa
Sirocco and near the dockyard creek at Valetta. These, most
probably, are the remains of the temples in question, though
possibly rebuilt in Roman times. The little images found in the
apartments at Hagiar Khem may be representations of the Cabeiri,
though I doubt it; but little headless deformities, 20 inches high,
some of stone and some of clay, are not the divinities that would be
worshipped in such temples, though they might be offerings at a
tomb.
If these buildings were tombs, they were the burying-places of a
people who burnt their dead and carefully preserved their ashes,
and who paid the utmost respect to their buried dead long after
their decease. The inner apartments have shelves and cupboards in
stone, and numerous little arrangements which it seems impossible
to understand except on the supposition that they were places for
the deposit of these sacred remains. Some of the recesses have
doors cut out of a single slab 2 and 3 feet square at the opening,
some are so small that a man could hardly squeeze himself through,
and some are holes into which only an arm could be thrust,[496] but
from the rebate outside of all, the intention seems to have been for
them all to be closed.
Although from all these arrangements it may broadly be asserted
that they are not temples in the ordinary sense of the term; the
outer apartments may be considered as halls in which religious
ceremonies were performed in honour of the dead, and, so far, as
places of worship; but essentially they were sepulchres, and their
uses sepulchral.
We know so little of the ancient history of Malta that it is extremely
difficult even to guess who the people were who erected and used
these sepulchres. Most people would at once answer, the
Phœnicians; but, in order to establish their claim, one of two things
is necessary—either we must have some direct testimony that they
erected these monuments, or we must be able to show that they
erected similar tombs either near their own homes or elsewhere.
Neither kind of proof is forthcoming. No such tombs are found near
Tyre or Sidon, or near Carthage, and classical authorities are
absolutely silent on the subject. The monuments most like them are
the tombs at Mycenæ, but the differences are so great that I would
hesitate to lay much stress on any slight similarities that exist. The
Greek monuments were always intended to be buried in tumuli.
Those at Malta have so strongly marked and so ornamental a
podium outside that it is evident they never were so covered up. It
may be difficult to prove it, but I fancy if we are ever to find their
originals, it is to Africa we must look for them. They are too unlike
anything else in Europe.
It seems even more difficult to define their age than to ascertain
their origin. Looking at the nature of the stone, their state of
preservation, and other circumstances, I cannot believe they are
very old. If they were in Greece, or in Europe, or anywhere where
they could be compared with other monuments, some useful
inferences might be drawn; but they are so unique that this mode is
unavailable. We have nothing we can confidently compare them
with, and we are so entirely ignorant of the ancient history of Malta
that we cannot tell in the least at what age she reached that stage
of civilization which the workmanship of these monuments
represents. We are probably safe, however, in assuming that they
are pre-Roman, and as safe in believing that they are not earlier
than the monuments of Mycenæ and Thyrns; in short, that they
belong to some period between the Trojan and the Punic wars, but
are most probably much nearer to the former than to the latter
epoch in the world's history.

Sardinia.
It is a curious illustration of the fragmentary nature of society in the
ancient world that Sardinia should possess a class of monuments
absolutely peculiar to itself. It is not this time ten or a dozen
monuments, like those of Malta, but they are numbered by
thousands, and so like one another that it is impossible to mistake
them, and, what is still more singular, as difficult to trace any
progress or change among them. The Talyots of the Balearic Islands
may resemble them, but, excepting these, the Nurhags of Sardinia
stand quite alone. Nothing the least like them is found in Italy, or in
Sicily, or, indeed, anywhere else, so far as is at present known.
A Nurhag is easily recognized and easily described. It is always a
round tower, with sides sloping at an angle of about 10 degrees to
the horizon, its dimensions varying from 20 to 60 feet in diameter,
and its height being generally equal to the width of the base.
Sometimes they are one, frequently two and even three storeys in
height, the centre being always occupied by circular chambers,
constructed by projecting stones forming a dome with the section of
a pointed arch. The chamber generally occupies one-third of the
diameter, the thickness of the walls forming the remaining two-
thirds. There is invariably a ramp or staircase leading to the platform
at the top of the tower. These peculiarities will be understood from
the annexed section and plan of one from De la Marmora's work.
[497]

185. Nurhag. From De la Marmora.

 186. Nurhag of Santa Barbara.

When the Nurhags are of more than one storey in height, they are
generally surrounded by others which are attached to them by
platforms, often of considerable extent. That at Santa Barbara has,
or had, four small Nurhags encased in the four corners of the
platform, to which access was obtained by a doorway in the central
tower; but frequently there are also separate ramps when the
platforms are extensive. The masonry of these monuments is
generally neat, though sometimes the stones are unhewn, but
nowhere does there appear any attempt at megalithic magnificence.
They are, at the same time, absolutely without any architectural
ornament which could give us any hint of their affinities; and no
inscriptions, no images, no sculptures of any kind, have been found
in them. They are in this respect as uncommunicative as our own
rude-stone monuments.
 187. Nurhag of Santa Barbara. From De la Marmora.

Written history is almost equally silent. Only one passage has been
disinterred which seems to refer to them. It is a Greek work,
generally known as 'De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus,'[498] and
ascribed doubtfully to Aristotle. It is to the following effect:—"It is
said that in the island of Sardinia there exist, among other beautiful
and numerous edifices, built after the manner of the ancient Greeks,
certain domes (Θόλοι) of exquisite proportions. It is further said that
they were built by Iolas, son of Iphicles, who, having taken with him
the Thespiadæ, went to colonise this island." This certainly looks as
if the Nurhags existed when this book was written, though the
description is by a person who evidently never saw them. Diodorus
so far confirms this that he says: "Iolaus, having founded the colony,
fetched Dedalus from Sicily, and built numerous and grand edifices,
which subsist to the present day, and are called Dedalean, from the
name of their builder;"[499] and in another paragraph he recurs to
the veneration "in which the name of Iolaus is held." This, too, is
unsatisfactory, as written by a person who never visited the island,
and had not seen the monuments of which he was speaking.

It is little to be wondered at if buildings so mysterious and so unlike

any known to exist elsewhere should have given rise to speculations
almost as wild as those that hang around our own rude-stone
monuments. The various theories which have been advanced are
enumerated and described by De la Marmora[500] so fully that it will
not be necessary to recapitulate them here, nor to notice any but
three, which seem really to have some plausible foundation.
The first of these assumes the Nurhags to have been watch-towers
or fortifications.
The second, that they were temples.
The third, that they were tombs.
 188. Map of La Giara. From De la Marmora.

Looking at the positions in which they are found, the first of these
theories is not so devoid of foundation as might at first sight appear.
As a rule, they are all placed on heights, and at such distances as to
be seen from one another, and consequently be able to
communicate by signal at least. Take such an example, for instance,
as that of Giara, near Isili (woodcut No. 188). Any engineer officer
would be delighted with the manner in which the position is taken
up. Every point of vantage in the circumference is occupied, and two
points in the interior fortified, so as to act as supports. The designer
of the entrenched camp at Linz might rub his eyes in astonishment
to find his inventions forestalled by three thousand years, and by
towers externally so like his own as hardly to be distinguishable to
an unpractised eye. The form of the towers themselves lends
considerable plausibility to the defensive theory. Such a Nurhag, for
instance, as that of Santa Barbara (woodcuts Nos. 186, 187),
surrounded by four lesser ones, connected by a platform, and
dominated by the central tower, is a means of defence we might
now adopt, provided we may assume the existence of a parapet,
which has fallen through age.
When we come to look a little more closely at this military question,
we perceive that we are attempting to apply to a people who
certainly had no projectiles that would carry farther than arrows,
principles adapted to artillery or musketry fire. The Nurhags are
placed at such distances as to afford no support to one another
before the invention of gunpowder, and though in themselves not
indefensible, they possess the radical defect of having no
accommodation for their garrisons. It is impossible that men could
live, cook, and sleep in the little circular apartments in their interior,
and the platforms added very little to their accommodation. Had the
four detached Nurhags at Santa Barbara been connected with walls
only, so as to surround the central tower with a court, the case
would have been very different; but as in all instances this is filled
up, so as to form a platform, it is evident that it was exposure, not
shelter, that was sought in their construction.[501]
Another, and even stronger, argument is derived from their number.
De la Marmora asserts that the remains of at least three thousand
Nurhags can now be traced in Sardinia,[502] and there seems no
reason to doubt the truth of his calculation, nor his assertion that
they were once much more numerous, and that they are dispersed
pretty evenly over the whole island. Can any one fancy a state of
society in such an island which would require that there should be
three thousand castles and yet no fortified cities as places of refuge?
They were not erected to protect the island against a foreign enemy,
because most of them are inland. They could not be made to serve
for the protection of the rich during insurrections or civil wars, nor to
enable robbers to plunder in security the peaceful inhabitants of the
plain. In short, unless the ancient Sardinians lived in a state of
society of which we have no knowledge elsewhere, these Nurhags
were certainly not military works.
When we turn to the second hypothesis and try to consider them as
temples, we are met by very much the same difficulties as beset the
fortification theory. If temples, they are unlike the temples of any
other people. Generally it is assumed that they were fire temples,
from their name Nur—in the Semitic languages signifying fire—but
more from their construction. The little circular chambers in their
interiors are admirably suited for preserving the sacred fire, and the
external platforms as well adapted for that Sabean worship of the
planets which is generally understood to be associated with fire-
worship. But assuming this to be the case, why so numerous? We
can count on our fingers all the fire-temples that exist, or were ever
known to exist, in fire-worshipping Persia; and if a dozen satisfied
her spiritual wants, what necessity was there for three thousand, or
probably twice that number, in the small and sparsely inhabited
island of Sardinia? Had every family, or little village community its
own separate temple on the nearest high place? and did each
perform its own worship separately from the rest? So far as we
know, there is no subordination among them, nothing corresponding
to cathedrals, or parish churches or chapels. Some are smaller, or
some form more extensive groups than others, but a singularly
republican equality reigns throughout, very unlike the hierarchical
feeling we find in most religions. In one other respect, too, they are
unlike the temples of other nations. None of them are situated in
towns or villages, or near the centres of population in the island.
Must we then adopt the third hypothesis, that they were tombs?
Here again the same difficulties meet us. If they were tombs, they
are unlike those of any other people with whom we are acquainted.
Their numbers in this instance is, however, no difficulty. It is in the
nature of the case that sepulchres should accumulate, and their
number is consequently one of the strongest arguments in favour of
this destination. Nor does their situation militate against this view.
Nothing is more likely than that a people should like to bury their
dead, on high places, where their tombs can be seen from afar. In
fact, there does not seem much to be said against this theory,
except that no sepulchral remains have been found in them. It is
true that De la Marmora found a skeleton buried in one at Iselle,[503]
and apparently so placed that the interment must have taken place
before the tower was built, or at all events finished; but the
presence of only one corpse in two thousand nurhags tells strongly
against the theory, as where one was placed more would have been
found had this form of interment been usual, and amidst the
hundreds of ruined and half-ruined nurhags some evidence must
have been found had any of the usual sepulchral usages prevailed.
To my mind the conclusion seems inevitable that, if they were
tombs, they were those of a people who, like the Parsees of the
present day, exposed their dead to be devoured by the birds of the
air. If there is one feature in the nurhags more consistent or more
essential than another, it is that of the stairs or ramps that give
access to their platforms. It shows, without doubt, that, whether for
defence, or worship, or burial, the platform was the feature for
which the edifice was erected, and there it must have been that its
purposes were fulfilled. But is it possible that such a practice ever
prevailed in Sardinia? It is, of course, precipitate to answer that it
did. But the custom is old. Anything so exceptional among modern
usages is not the invention of yesterday, and it may have been far
more prevalent than it now is, and it may in very ancient times have
been brought by some Eastern colonists to this Western isle. I dare
hardly suggest that it was so; but this is certain, that such towers
would answer in every respect perfectly to the "Towers of Silence" of
the modern Persians, and the little side chambers in the towers
would suit perfectly as receptacles of the denuded bones when the
time arrived for collecting them.
One argument against their being sepulchres has been drawn from
the fact that frequently a different class of graves, called giants'
tombs, is found in their immediate proximity. The conclusion I would
draw from this is in a contrary sense. These giants' tombs are
generally long graves of neatly fitted stones, with a tall frontispiece,
which is formed of one stone, always carefully hewn and sometimes
carved. On each side of the entrance two arms extend so as to form
a semicircle in front, and when the circle is completed by detached
menhirs, these are generally shaped into cones and carved. The
whole, in fact, has a more advanced and more modern appearance
than the nurhags, and, as I read the riddle, the inhabitants adopted
this form, and that found in the nurhag at Iselle, after they had
ceased to use the nurhag itself as a means of disposing of their
dead, but were still clinging to the spots made sacred by the ashes
of their forefathers.
That the nurhags are old scarcely seems to admit of a doubt, though
I know of only one material point of evidence on the subject. It is
that the pier of a Roman aqueduct has been founded on the stump
of a ruined and consequently desecrated nurhag.[504] Some time
must have elapsed before the primitive and sacred use of the nurhag
had been so completely forgotten that it should be so used. But the
passages above quoted from the 'Mirabilibus' and Diodorus show
that in the first and fifth centuries B.C. nothing was known of their
origin by these authors, and no other has ventured to hint at their
age. In classical times they seem to have been as mysterious as they
are now:—

"In the glimmer of the dawn

They stand the solemn silent witnesses
Of ancient days,—altars—or graves."

Balearic Islands.
The third group of monuments indicated above are the Talyots of
Minorca and Majorca. Unfortunately our guide, De la Marmora,
deserts us here. He went to explore them, but ill health and other
adverse circumstances prevented his carrying his intent fully into
effect, and we are left consequently very much to the work of Don
Juan Ramis,[505] which is the reverse of satisfactory.
189. Talyot at Trepucò, Minorca. From De la Marmora.

190. Talyot at Alajor, Minorca. From De la Marmora.

Externally they generally resemble the nurhags in appearance, and
apparently have always chambers in their interior, but De la Marmora
was unable to determine whether any of them had the internal
staircase[506] leading to the summit which is the invariable and
essential characteristic of the nurhag. If they had not this, they must
be considered as more nearly approaching to our chambered cairns
than to nurhags; and till this point is settled, and we know more
about them, we must refrain from speculations on the subject. One
characteristic feature they have, however, which it is useful to note.
It is a bilithon, if such a term is admissible—an upright flat stone,
with one across it forming a sort of table. In appearance it very
much resembles those stone tables which are found inside the
chambers of the Maltese sepulchres, but these are always larger,
and placed, so far as is known, externally. What their use may have
been, it is difficult to conjecture, but they were evidently considered
important here, as in woodcut No. 190 one is shown surrounded by
a sacred enclosure, as if being itself the "Numen" to be honoured. At
Malta, as before remarked, they certainly were not altars, because
pedestals, which were unmistakably altars, are found in the same
apartments, and they are very unlike them. They seem more like the
great saucers in the Irish tombs, and may have served the same
purposes; but altogether these Balearic outside tables are unlike
anything we know of elsewhere.
Rude-Stone circles seem to be not uncommon in combination with
the talyots and tall altars, and on the whole they seem to bear as
much affinity to the monuments of Spain as to those of Sardinia, but
again till we know more it is idle to speculate on either their age or
uses beyond the conclusion drawn from all similar monuments—that
their destination was to honour departed greatness.

It would be not only interesting but instructive to pursue the subject

further, for the monuments of these islands deserve a more
complete investigation than they have yet received; but this is not
the place to pursue it. Indeed, it is only indirectly that they have any
connection with the subject of this work. They are not megalithic in
the sense in which the word is generally used. Nor are they rude, for
all the stones are more or less shaped by art, and all are used
constructively. In none of them is the stone itself the object and end
of the erection. In all it is only a means to an end.
It is their locality and their age that import them into our argument if
there is anything in the connection between the monuments of
France and Algeria, as attempted to be shown above. Whether the
African ones came from Europe, or vice versâ, it must have been in
consequence of long-continued intercourse between the two
countries, and of an influence of the dolmen builders in the Western
Mediterranean which could hardly have failed to leave traces in the
intermediate islands, unless they had been previously civilized and
had fixed and long-established modes of dealing with their own
dead.
Assuming that the nurhags and giants' towers extend back to the
mythic times of Grecian history, say the war of Troy—and some of
them can hardly be more modern—it will hardly be contended now
that the dolmens are earlier. If they were so, it must be by centuries
or by thousands of years, if we are to assume that the one had any
influence on the other, for it must have taken long before a truly
rude-stone monument could have grown into a constructive style like
that of Sardinia or Malta; and I do not think, after what has been
said above, any one would now contend for so remote an antiquity.
If neither anterior nor coeval, the conclusion, if we admit any
influence at all, seems inevitable that the dolmens must be
subsequent. But this is just the point at issue. The nurhags did not
grow out of dolmens, nor dolmens out of nurhags. They are
separate and distinct creations, so far as we know, belonging to
different races, and practically uninfluenced by one another. Here, as
elsewhere, each group must be judged by itself, and stand on its
own merits. If any direct influence can be shown to exist between
any two groups, there is generally very little difficulty in arranging
them in a sequence and seeing which is the oldest, but till such
connection is established, all such attempts are futile.
In so far as any argument can now be got out of these insular
monuments, it seems to take this form. If the dolmen people were
earlier than the nurhag-builders, they certainly would have occupied
the islands that lay in their path between France or Spain and Africa,
and we should find traces of them there. If, on the contrary, the
nurhag-builders were the earlier race, and colonised these islands so
completely as to fill them before the age of the dolmen-builders, the
latter, in passing from north to south, or vice versâ, could only have
touched at the islands as emigrants or traders, and not as colonists,
and consequently could have neither altered nor influenced to any
great extent the more practically civilized people who had already
occupied them.
So far as we can see, this is the view that most nearly meets the
facts of the case at present known, and in this respect their negative
evidence is both interesting and instructive, though, except when
viewed in this light, the monuments of the Mediterranean islands
have no real place in a work treating on rude-stone monuments.

Footnotes
[487] 'Voyage pittoresque en Sicile et Malte,' 4 vols. folio,
Paris, 1787.
[488] Ibid. pl. ccxli.
[489] The three formed part of a set of nine, a duplicate of
which has kindly been lent to me by Mr. Frere, of Roydon
Hall, Norfolk. Unfortunately there is no artist's name, and no
date, upon them.
[490] 'Nouvelles Annales de l'Institut archéologique,' i.; Paris,
1836.
[491] With a paper by Mr. Vance, 'Archæologia,' vol. xxix. p.
227.
[492] For this plan and the photographs of it I am indebted
to the kindness of Col. Collinson, R.E., who accompanied
them by a very full description and notes on their history and
uses, from which much of the following information is
derived.
[493] Berbrugger, 'Tombeau de la Chrétienne—Mausolée des
derniers Rois de Mauritanie;' Alger, 1867.
[494] 'Proceedings Soc. Ant. Scot.,' vi., Supplement.
[495] Hist., v. 12, 3.
[496] One at Mnaidra will be seen at F, in woodcut No. 180,
and also in the view, woodcut No. 182.
[497] 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' par le Cte. Albert de la
Marmora; Paris, 1840. As this is not only the best but really
the only reliable work on the subject, all, or nearly all, the
information in this chapter is based upon it.
[498] Bekker, iii. p. 604, para. 100.
[499] Diodorus, iv. 30; v. 15.
[500] 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' chap. iv. pp. 117 to 159.
[501] The Scotch brochs, which are in their construction the
erections most like these, have all courtyards in their centre,
in which all the domestic operations of the garrison could be
carried on conveniently, and they only needed to creep into
the chambers in the wall to sleep.
[502] 'Voyage en Sardaigne,' pp. 46 and 116.
[503] 'Voyage,' p. 152.
[504] De la Marmora, pl. v. p. 149.
[505] 'Antigüedades Celticas de la Isla de Menorca, &c.;'
Mahon, 1818.
[506] 'Voyage,' pp. 547 et seq.
 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."[507] 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,[508] 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."[509] 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,[510] 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 μαχαίραγς 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.[511] 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.[512] No drawing or plan
accompanies their description; but the arrangement will be easily
understood when we come to examine those of Rajunkoloor, in
India, [513] described farther on (woodcut No. 206).

191. Dolmens at Kafr er Wâl. From a sketch by Mrs.

Roberton Blaine.
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,[514]
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. [515] 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