the centre of the circle, two rude stone chambers were found, approached by a narrow passage of the same character as those found in chambered cairns. In these chambers were found fragments of incinerated human bones, imbedded in an unctuous substance apparently composed of peaty and animal matter." But, on turning to a minute description and drawing of this circle and its chambers, which, I have every reason to believe, are correct, by Dr. Wilson, in his "Prehistoric Annals of Scotland," 2d Ed., vol. I., chap. V., p. 168, I find that these chambers, and especially the great one, were as near to the circumference as to the centre-as near to several of the stones of the circumference on the east side, as they were to the central stone. Therefore, no argument can be based upon it, and from it no such deduction drawn as Dr. Stuart attempts.

But, even although Dr. Stuart were better supported by instances which he could produce in his favour, than he is, yet is he bound to act with great caution in following out Dr. Petrie's recommendation for investigation, of which he speaks so highly, when he says, "This sagacious conclusion of one of the most profound antiquaries of Ireland is, so far as I am aware, one of the first attempts to deduce from the remains found in them the real character of the stone circles, and to overthrow the comparatively modern popular delusion, which assumes them to have been 'Druid temples."" The discovery of remains in them simply proves that

pur

serve

the dead were buried in them; but it does not prove that they were erected for this purpose, and were not used for any other purpose. Let us go to Westminster Abbey, Holyrood Abbey, and many other ruined Abbeys, Cathedrals, and Parish Churches in the land, we find the floors covered with tomb stones, and the walls with memorials of the dead, as well perhaps as the yards around. We would be in error to say, and never with our present knowledge would we say, that these edi had been built primarily for such monumental poses, although advantage has been taken of ather erection, and they are, or have been made to en such purposes. But the primary intention of the thr erection was to celebrate divine worship, hing secondary use was made of them for the burtiga-d the dead. If we had not history or inscripding which the ancients had not, we would know n of the primary intention of these edifices chral from the ashes of the dead found in them, or the them. We are in a similar condition with t Dr. to these stone circles. The discovery of rcist or within them does not settle the point. found. therefore, do we deny the soundness of Dr. p. 22, reasoning, when he says regarding these iderate and their positions, p. 25: "On the who word facts regarding stone circles entitle us to instuart? they were erected, as they certainly were theson, sepulchral purposes." wis, he As I do not allow, that these facts rpillar in

were

stone circles entitle us to infer that they were erected, although some of them were certainly used, for sepulchral purposes, so I make no distinction, as, he afterwards says, some writers do, between the greater and smaller circles; but I look upon them all, as of the same description, whatever that be. And I shall proceed further to inquire now, whether my friend Dr. Stuart has produced any sufficient facts or arguments "to overthrow" what he calls, "the comparatively modern popular delusion which assumes them to have been 'Druid temples.'

| Ed.,

and

circu

of th

as the

Permit me, with all deference to say, after having examined and weighed his facts and arguments, that they entitle us to draw no such inference. And f either he or we do it, we are guilty of doing what e accuses Mr. Stukely of doing, namely, of jumping to a conclusion." They merely entitle s to say, that some of these circles, but not all, ertainly, were used for sepulchral purposes. But ported he object of the erection of any one of them is left ntouched; and has to be proved or disproved om other sources. In this, the First Section of

argur

such

But

favour

caution

tion for First Division, the learned doctor has com

of the

when h "etely failed both in his proof and logic. And in s Second Section, to which he goes next, he cceeds no better, for he grounds his conclusion ere upon the foregoing false deduction.

far as I

duce fro

racter c compar

assumes

discover

DIVISION I.-SECTION II.

THE USE OF GROUPS.

HE use of groups of pillars for monuments in different countries is traced" by Dr.

Stuart, "and the question is considered whether there be any reason for drawing distinctions between small circles admitted to be sepulchres, and those of larger size like Stonehenge and Stennis.”

"Some writers,” he says, p. 25, "while they admit that the smaller stone circles may have been sepulchres, are not disposed to believe that the larger and more complicated structures like Stonehenge and Avebury in England, or Stennis and Classernish in Scotland, could have been designed for such a purpose.

"But, if there be no reason, except the great size and importance of these circles, for supposing them to have been of a different character, the objection does not appear of much weight.

In Egypt, there were myriads of interments in little chambers built in the sand; while the great pyramids were reserved for the monarchs of Memphis, but both were the depositories of the dead.

"The royal mausoleum of our own day differs more in character from the humble headstone, and the great mounds at Kertch from a common grave, than does Stonehenge from the circle at Crichie, although all have a common design.

"In the like manner, if we must recognise the smaller stone circles to be ancient sepulchres, I think it is reasonable that we should regard the larger examples as of the same kind, but of greater importance. Such structures as Stonehenge and Stennis may have resulted from some great national effort to commemorate mighty chiefs."

We agree with Dr. Stuart that Stonehenge does not differ more from the circle at Crichie than the royal mausoleum of our own day differs from the humble headstone; and we are of opinion that what is sufficient proof for the one ought to be sufficient proof for the other; and we do not think that any writers would be consistent with themselves who would admit, as being sufficient, a certain kind and degree of proof for the smaller circles, but reject the same kind and same degree for the larger.

When Dr. Stuart says here, "Some writers, while they admit that the smaller stone circles may have been sepulchres, are not disposed to believe that the larger could have been designed for such a purpose," he employs language which is far from being sufficiently exact. What sort of syllogism does he employ? Does he mean to say that these writers admit the whole or only some of the smaller