the desert of Sinai, and of the land of Moab. The explorations of the Ordnance Survey in 1869 have made the antiquities of the Sinai region perfectly known to us. Besides the ordinary beehive house of the Scotch type, there are also circles "nearly identical in character with those which in England and Scotland are commonly called Druidical Circles." They consist, as a rule, of a single outer ring of large standing stones, from 3 to 4 feet high, and placed in contact with one another; in some cases there is an inner concentric ring. The outer ring varies in size from 10 to 50 feet in diameter. In the centre of each circle a cist about 4 feet long by 24 feet wide and deep is found, with its sides composed of four large stones, and the top covered over with a heavy slab, which is generally level with the surface. The corpse was placed in this cist on its left side with the knees bent up to the chin. Over the cist is placed a small cairn, enclosed by a ring of standing stones of smaller size than those in the outer circles. "None of the cists," says Major Palmer, "opened by the Sinai expedition contained anything in addition to the skeleton, except in one instance, when some marine shells and worked flints were found," though other explorers found a lance and arrow-heads of flint in another. In only one case were these circles found associated with the bee-hive houses, and opinions differ as to whether the same race built them both, though they are all agreed that these remains are pre-historic-built by a people antecedent to the Jews, and the rest of the Semites, and long anterior to the Exodus. In regard to the Land of Moab, Canon Tristram, says: "In Moab are three classes of primæval monuments: stonecircles, dolmens, and cairns, each in great abundance in three different parts of the country, but never side by side. The cairns exclusively range in the east, on the spurs of the Arabian desert; the stone circles, south of Callirrhoe; and the dolmens, north of that valley. The fact would seem to indicate three neighbouring tribes, co-existent in the pre-historic period, each with distinct funeral or religious customis. Of course the modern Arab attri

butes all these dolmens to the Jinns."

What, then, is the origin and history of these stone circles? We may apply to history, to etymology, and to tradition in vain. The historians of the ancient world took practically no notice of them. Cæsar may have stood among the pillared stones of Carnac, watching the fight between his fleet and that of the Veneti, but, as these monuments did not interfere with his martial or political designs, he, as is his wont, makes no reference to them,

Diodorus Siculus, quoting from older sources, makes a

wild reference to "an island over against Celtica (Gaul), not less in size than Sicily, lying under the Polar Bear, and inhabited by the Hyperboreans, so-called because they lie beyond the blasts of the north wind Wherefore the worship of Apollo takes precedence of all others, and from the daily and continuous singing of his praises, the people are, as it were, his priests. There exists in the island a magnificent grove (temenos) of Apollo, and a remarkable temple of round (dome) shape, adorned with many votive offerings." This very unsatisfactory passage was greedily seized upon by those that favoured the "Druidic" origin of the stone circles, but it may be doubted if the island referred to was Britain at all-for Diodorus knew Britain perfectly well, and would have likely told us so, if this Hyperborean island was the same as Britain. And again, no people is more mythical than these Hyperboreans or dwellers beyond the North wind. The temple, too, was not merely round; it was also dome-shaped, like the Gaulish and British houses. How far does this agree with Stonehenge? It is useless to build or prop any theory on such a passage as this. In the 5th century, and on to the 11th century, we meet with constant edicts of church councils against worship and sacrifice upon stones-even the stones themselves were objects of worship. In 452, the Council of Arles decreed that "if, in any diocese, any infidel lighted torches or worshipped trees, fountains, or stones, he should be guilty of sacrilege.' Stones, trees, and fountains form the continual burden of these edicts. This worship of stones and sacrifices upon them we need not connect with stone circles, for there is no detail given as to the character of the worship or the monuments worshipped, or at which worship took place. It is very probable, however, that the stones referred to were those on the graves and around the mounds of the dead. Ancestor worship was strong among Celt and Teuton, and we know from old Norse literature that the family tumulus or howe was not merely a place of worship, but also a place of council. In the Land-nama-bok, we read that at one place "there was a harrow (high place') made there, and sacrifices began to be performed there, for they believed that they died into these hills." The use of these howes as places of meeting, and in villages as places of festive resort, whereon the May-pole tree might flourish, will also explain why the stone circles were used, at least on two historic occasions, in Scotland as places of solemn meeting. In 1349 the Earl of Ross and the Bishop of Aberdeen met at the standing stones of Rayne, and in 1380, Alexander, "Wolf of Badenoch," summoned to meet him at Rait, near Kingussie, the

Bishop of Moray, who protested against the proceedings, "standing outside the circle." A remarkable reference to stone idols occurs in a very old Irish manuscript as an incident in the life of St Patrick. When the Saint came to Magh Slécht, the plain of adoration, there he found Cenn or Crom Cruaich, the chief idol of Ireland, covered with gold and silver, and twelve other idols covered with brass. Patrick aimed at it with his crozier, which caused it to "bow" to one side, and the mark of the crozier was still to be seen on it when the pious Middle Age scribe was writing, and the earth also swallowed up the twelve idols as far as their head, and there they were as a proof of the miracle some six centuries later. This story may be merely a mythical explanation of a circle of stones existent at Magh Slécht. The building of Stonehenge is doubtless referred to in Geoffrey of Monmouth, who says that Merlin transferred the stones from Ireland and set up the circles in England as a monument over "the consuls and princes whom the wicked Hengist had treacherously slain," as Scotch legend represents the Cummings to have slain the Mackintoshes or Shaws at the feast. Stonehenge attracted attention after the revival of learning set in with the Reformation. King James I. interested himself in its origin and history, and got plans made of it by his architect, Inigo Jones. Jones ascribed it to the Romans, and immediately another set it down as of Danish origin. Aubrey and Stukeley afterwards started the theory that it was a temple of Druidic worship. Toland clenched this with all the scholarship he could command, and not merely claimed Stonehenge and such like structures as Druidic, but all prehistoric cairns, dolmens, as well as circles and single stones were made places of Druidic worship. And from that time till a generation or two ago, the Druidic theory held almost unquestioned sway.

The foregoing account is all that history can say of the rude stone monuments of Europe; Roman and Greek history know them not-we except the Cyclopean tombs of Mycenae and their mythic history; and even the references in early Christian times are too vague to be of any satisfactory use; and should we grant the stone monuments mentioned to be the rude stone circles, we could not be sure that the Celts and Tentons of the 5th to the 11th centuries were using them for their primitive purpose. In Asiatic history, these monuments fare no better. Old Jewish history refers several times to altars of rude stones and to stone monuments set up for remembrance of events, and for witness or compact; but, when closely examined, these accounts refer to

little more than a second-hand use of the pre-Jewish monuments, or give merely a popular explanation of the cairns and monuments of some long antecedent race.

Popular tradition and the examination or etymology of the names applied to these rude stone monuments yield even worse results than historical investigation. One thing is to be noted; popular tradition knows nothing of the Druids in connection with these circles. The nearest approach to the Druidic theory is where in one case the popular myth regards the stones as men transformed by the magic of the Druids. In fact, there is no rational tradition in regard to them. They belong to a period to which the oldest tradition or history of the present race cannot reach. For the accounts given of them are mythical, and the names given to them are either of the same mythic type, or are mere general terms signifying cairns, stone monuments, or stone heaps. For example, the famous circles of Stanton Drew are said to have been a bridal party turned into stone; a circle in Cornwall, which is called Dance Maine, or the dance of stones, is said to represent a party of maidens transformed into stone for dancing on the Sabbath day. We may learn from Giraldus that Stonehenge, or the "hanging stones," was known once as the Giants' Dance. In Brittany the avenues of Carnac are regarded as petrified battalions, and detached menhirs are their commanders, who were so transformed for offering violence to St. Cornily. These French groups of stones are variously attributed to the "unknown" gods; the fairies and the devil get the best share of them, though extinct popular deities, like Gargantua, Rebelais' hero, may be met with. We meet with "Grottoes of the Feys," "Stones of the Feys," "Devil's Chair," "Devil's Quoits," "Staff of Gargantua," and "Gargantua's Quoit." The covered alleys or continuous cromlechs of Drenthe, in Holland, are known as Giants' Beds"

Hunebeds. In Ireland, the cromlechs or dolmens are known as the "Beds of Diarmat and Granua," or simply "Granua's Beds"the beds which this pair of lovers made use of in their flight over Ireland when pursued by Fionn. And it is here interesting to note, as so far confirmatory of this worthy myth, that the Arab shepherds of the present day recline on these pre-historic dolmens and watch their sheep on the plains. The tumuli are, of course, fairy mounds; the Gaelic name is sithean, a word derived from sith, "fairy," allied to the Norse word seithr, "magic charm." Single stones are variously accounted for; sometimes we meet with names indicative of worship, "Clach aoraidh"-worship stone, and "Clach sleuchd a"-genuflection stone. But, as often as not,

the names have merely a reference to stones or stone monuments; as, for instance, already mentioned in the case of Strathspey. The term clachan, as applied to church in Scotch Gaelic, has been adduced as proving that the churches are the descendants of the stone circles where Druid worship was held; but it has first to be proved that the stone circles are themselves known as the "clachans." The word in Irish signifies hamlet, causeway, or graveyard, but it is also applied in an archæological sense to the stone-built cells ascribed to the old Christian anchorites, and its Scotch Gaelic meaning of church is perhaps thence derived. How little it helps the "Druid" theory is easy to see.

If history and tradition avail us not, let us see whether any such rude stone monuments are set up or used nowadays. If they are built and used by any savage or barbarous tribe now, then it is more than likely that the pre-historic builders of our stone circles used them for similar purposes. Now we do find that stone circles, if not built now, are at least used now, and that rude stone monuments are still being erected in India. With its 250 millions of inhabitants, India is an epitome of the world; it contains every state of man and every stage of belief--the oldest and the newest, Aryan and non-Aryan. It presents us with nearly every form of religion; ancestor-worship, demon-worship, polytheism, Buddhism, Mohammetanism, and Christianity. It is among the non-Aryan tribes of the highlands of India that we must look for the most ancient forms of worship. In the Dekkan we find rude stone circles set up and still in use. Their use is for purposes of worship; sacrifices are offered at the stones, and the inner faces of the stones are daubed with patches of red paint to denote blood, whereby they are consecrated to the deities. The victims sacrificed are red cocks, and sometimes goats; the blood of the sacrifice is consecrated to the deity invoked, but the flesh is used by the votary himself. It would appear that the number of stones in the circle had some reference to the number of families or individuals worshipping there, and each stone appears to be the image or "fetish" of the particular deity worshipped. These deities are, therefore, all local and special, and as the Brahmins are opposed to the cult they ban it by every means in their power. Dekkan rude stone monuments are not necessarily circular; the stones may be arranged in lines or even irregularly, so that we cannot deduce much argument from the mere circular form of some of these monuments. We only note their religious purpose. And, again, in the hills of Assam we find rude stone monuments still set up, and probably their use bears more on our present inquiry

These