1. History is absolutely silent either for or against this theory. In so far as the _litera scripta_ is concerned, it may either have been erected by the Phœnicians or in the time of the Stuarts. 2. The Danish theory is of no avail. No flint, bone, or bronze or iron implements have been found in a position to throw any light on its age. 3. There are in the islands some thousands of small mole-hill barrows--insignificant, stoneless, unadorned. 4. All parts of the Stennis group show design and power, and produce an effect of magnificence. 5. It seems evident that the circles and the barrows belong to two different peoples. 6. If so, the barrows belong to the Peti and Pape; the large howes and the stone monuments to the Northmen. 7. If this is so, the latter belong to the two centuries comprised between 800 and 1000 A.D. 8. Maes-Howe, being unique, must have belonged to the shortest, but most magnificent dynasty in the Island. 9. With regard to Havard. He was killed on, or close to the spot where Maes-Howe now stands. 10. His father, Thorfin, was buried in a howe in Ronaldshay. His contemporary, Gorm, was buried in a howe at Jellinge. 11. A dragon and serpent were carved in Gorm's tomb. Similar representations were found in Maes-Howe. 12. The four Runic letters on the closing stone of the right-hand loculus, date probably from its first erection. 13. All the subsequent inscriptions on the tomb acknowledge it as a Scandinavian monument. 14. The mention of treasure being found in it in 1152 goes far to show that it did not exist in 861, or it would then have been robbed by the Northmen, as the Irish tombs were. 15. It is extremely probable that the Skail Bay "find" is part of this treasure, which is not earlier than 945, and may be twenty or forty years later. 16. The torques found in the six large tumuli at Brogar belong to the same age. 17. The Holed Stone at Stennis was certainly set up by Northmen and by them dedicated to Woden, and it certainly forms part of the group. 18. The name Havard's Steigr, attaching to the place at the present day, is important. Against this, I know of only one argument: _Omne ignotum pro antiquo_; which, for reasons, given above, I reject. If such a case were submitted to anyone, regarding a monument of which we had never heard before, no one would probably hesitate in considering the case as proved, till, at least, something more to the point could be brought forward on the other side. Such, however, is the effect of education, and so strong the impression on the minds of most Englishmen with regard to Phœnicians and Druids, that nine people out of ten will probably reject it; some alleging that it must be an unfair, others that it is an inconclusive statement. Let them try and state their view in as few words, and I do not believe it will be difficult to judge between the two cases. CALLERNISH.