In a paper by Mr. William Galloway, in the _Archæologia Scotica_, Vol. V. p. 217, a very interesting and ingenious theory is propounded thereanent. It is there supposed that the whinstone rubble work is actually a portion of an ancient chapel erected at a very early date, and that the Norman work was built around it, in order, so far as possible, to preserve the venerable remains of the primitive structure. This, it is pointed out, would explain the finely coursed work which occurs above the rubble work on the exterior and interior of the east end wall and adjoining portions of the north and south walls. As regards the inferior freestone work of the upper part of the walls, it is assumed that these are the result of an alteration which took place in the thirteenth century. If this theory were correct, it would enhance very greatly the interest of the structure, not only by the extreme antiquity it would assign to it, but also by proving the great veneration with which it was regarded, and the unusual tenderness with which it was treated by the twelfth century builders. It must, however, be confessed that an inspection of the building does not tend to confirm the theory. Several points arise which do not appear to be met by it, such as--(1) How does the splayed freestone base of the east end happen to be laid in the middle of the rubble work? Such a base is practically unknown in ancient Celtic structures. (2) On the north wall of the choir a string course and moulded base exist in the Norman portion, and have apparently run along the outside. Would these simply be butted against the supposed ancient rubble work, or how would they be terminated? (3) Is it at all consistent with the usual action of Norman builders to leave small fragments of ancient rubble work and incorporate them in their structures? Or was it not, on the contrary, their invariable practice to remove such early work? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the different styles of work which are seen here are the result of alterations and repairs? A study of the building itself certainly tends to strengthen that impression. After a careful inspection of the structure, one feels it impossible to believe that the different portions of the work were other than the result of alteration and patching. It is admitted that the matter is rather puzzling; but we venture to make the following suggestions as to the history of the building. The chancel was probably all built originally in the Norman style of its existing west half. Some accident overtook it, and the east half was demolished. In rebuilding it whinstone rubble work was chiefly used, but a splayed freestone base course was inserted, where it still remains. The Norman-like courses above the rubble work were derived from the old materials of the demolished Norman portion, and were reused without alteration, as nearly as possible, in the same manner as originally.