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 sleuchda"-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. These 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

than the circles of Dekkan. Among the Khasias, a barbaric tribe there, the worship of deceased ancestors prevails. They burn their dead and raise to their honour nenhirs of stone either singly or in groups, but they do not arrange them in circles. The number of stones must be odd-3, 5, 7, but also 10, if made into two fives. The worship, too, is of a very practical kind. If a Khasian gets into trouble or sickness, he prays to some deceased ancestor or relative, promising to erect a stone in his honour if he helps him—a promise which he faithfully performs, if the departed appears to have helped him. In regard to these Indian rude stone monuments and their bearing on European pre-historic ones, Mr Tylor says: "It appears that the Khasias of north-east India have gone on to modern times setting up such rude pillars as memorials of the dead, so that it may be reasonably guessed that those of Brittany, for instance, had the same purpose. Another kind of rude stone structures well known in Europe are the cromlechs (?) or stone circles, formed of upright stones in a ring, such as Stanton Drew, not far from Bristol. There is proof that the stone circles have often to do with burials, for they may sur round a burial mound or have a dolmen in the middle. But considering how tombs are apt to be temples where the ghost of the buried chief or prophet is worshipped, it is likely that such stone circles should also serve as temples, as in the case of South India at the present time, where cocks are actually sacrificed to the village deity, who is represented by the large stone in the centre of a cromlech (stone circle)." Such is Mr Tylor's theory in regard to these structures, and that is the view of them which I shall endeavour to maintain and prove in this paper, while at the same time I shall further endeavour to make clear what races probably did build them and what races certainly did not.

Having now considered the character of the stone circles, their geographical distribution, their history as it presents itself in ancient authors and documents, their popular names and their mythic history in modern times, and having, lastly, discovered that rude stone monuments, and even stone circles are set up, and still used in India, and that their use there is in connection with religious rites, while, in Khasia, they were connected further with burial to a certain extent, let us briefly review the theories of the learned in regard to their purpose and use. And, first, there comes the Druidic theory, started in the 17th century and still held by antiquaries of repute-men like Colonel Forbes-Leslie, who have done really admirable work. The Druids were the priests of the Celts in Gaul and Britain. They formed, if Cæsar