95 
you have made, you are prepared to tell us what you think 
these uses were.” To you I must give the same reply as I 
have given to others. I am just beginning to learn the 
alphabet, therefore you cannot expect me to read the 
language before I have mastered the letters. It is a step in 
the right direction to have convinced myself that what has 
been supposed to be one monument, is in fact a number of 
separate and distinct; monuments, each having its own 
features and peculiarities. There are more monuments of a 
like nature, with individual peculiarities, in Brittany, which 
are scarcely known. There are systems of avenues associated 
with circles in other countries, in Great Britain, in Lom- 
bardy, in Africa, as well as in India. Careful and accurate 
plans of all these should be made, and comparisons instituted 
between them, and researches prosecuted among them, and 
possibly their difficult language may in course of time be 
correctly interpreted. It seems to me that archaeologists 
have all been too prone to dogmatize upon these monuments 
with an insufficient knowledge of their construction. You 
may yourselves read in publications of leading antiquarian 
societies in this country and in France, statements and 
opinions relative to Brittany monuments which are based 
upon false premises. Now in endeavouring to interpret the 
meaning of these celebrated Carnac lines regard must be had 
and attention given to two points, viz. : to groups of rows of 
pillars, and pillars arranged in circles, and to these two 
distinct features here brought into relationship with each 
other. Mr. Stuart, of Edinburgh, has expressed his opinion 
that circles of stone are not temples, but sepulchral enclosures. 
ITp to this time, there is no evidence to show that the 
terminating circles of Menec and Kerlescant were used as 
burial places. It is true that in the summer of this year 
(1869) I found fragments of coarse clay vessels and flint 
scrapers and chippings within the area of the latter circle* 
