months. Hence the gods have their day of the length of six months, and their night of the same duration, i. e., they have their day and night of the length of one year of men. But this year is the tropical one and not the sidereal, and hence the tropical system is more important. It is plain, from the consideration of the verses of the SÚRYA-SIDDHANTA, from 45th verse of 12th Chapter, that the year, the sun's northern and southern progresses, and the seasons are tropical, and the reckoning of the signs from the vernal equinox is the more important.

Now, as long as the sun lies to the north of the equinoctial, the north pole of the earth is exposed to him, and consequently the gods have their day at that time; and as long as the sun is to the south of the equinoctial, the north pole of the earth is turned aside from him, and then the gods have their night. Though this is the case, still it is written in our SANHITÁ works, that the sun's northern progress is the day of the gods, and his southern progress is their night. This is written with this view, because the religious rites of the daytime are said to be observed from midnight to midday, and those of the night time, from midday to midnight; and as the sun's northern progress commences from midnight of the gods and ends at their noon, that time, i. e., the sun's northern progress is therefore given as their day; and as the sun's southern progress begins from their noon and terminates at their midnight, that time, i. e., the sun's southern progress, is said to be their night, for the performance of the religious rites at their proper time. For this reason, all the holy rites are said to observed in the sun's northern progress, and others in the sun's southern progress. But as the sun's northern and southern progresses, which are the gods' day and night respectively, according to the opinion of the authors of the SANHITÁ works, are according to the tropical system, hence the tropical system is an important one.

Thus the tropical system is called the important system in our SÁSTRAS, on account of the above-stated and several other reasons; yet the sidereal system is in use now-a-days, and the reason of this is as follows. Formerly, when the first point

of the stellar Aries and the vernal equinox were coinciding with each other, both systems were the same. But after that time, no attention was paid to the notion of the equinoxes, and therefore the unimportant sidereal system continued. Now, it is to be observed here that, even admitting the unimportant sidereal system, the first point of Aries, or the origin of the fixed signs, cannot be determined, which is shown as follows:

It is stated in the SÚRYA-SIDDHANTA, and other works, that the sun requires 365d. 6h. 12m. 36.56s. to complete his sidereal revolution. But this period is nearly 3 minutes more than the exact period; and it is plain from this that when the sun's sidereal revolution, as stated in our old works, is not correct, his place, determined through these data, will not be correct, and consequently the origin of the ecliptic cannot be determined through these. This is the case with the places of all other planets; and for this reason, not one of them is fit for the determination of the origin.

In the same manner, the origin cannot be determined through the longitudes of the principal stars of the asterisms. Because the longitudes and latitudes of the principal stars, stated in our works, differ from those which are now determined through the best observations. For example, the principal star (B Arietis) of the ASWINI, the first asterism, is about 2° forward from the place stated in our works; that (a Musca) of the BHARANÍ, the second asterism, is 24° forward; that (a Orionis, or the ÁRDRÁ, the sixth asterism, is about 3° forward; that (a Virginis Spica) of the CHITRA, the fourteenth asterism, is 3° forward; that (Libra) of the VISÁKHÁ, the 16th asterism, is 21° backward, and so on. In like manner there is much difference in the latitudes also. Hence, the origin of the ecliptic cannot be determined through the longitudes of the principal stars stated in our works. Thus, the origin of the ecliptic, from which the places of all planets are reckoned, can by no means be fixed, and this is a great mistake in our works.

Therefore, I say that as the stellar entrances of the sun cannot be known (without determining the origin of the ecliptic), the sidereal signs are not according to the position of

the ecliptic; they do not at all depend upon any of the principles of the doctrine of the sphere, the year, the sun's northern and southern progresses, seasons, lunar months, and day and night, whether ours or the gods' are not according to the sidereal system, but to the tropical; and hence the sidereal system is called less important in our SáSTRAS; the religious ceremonies or rites, therefore, are not performed, now-a-days, at the proper times, and this is a great fault.

Therefore, as the sun's entrances can be determined exactly according to the tropical system, which is reasonable, and authorised also by our SÁSTRAS, the astronomical calculation ought to be made according to this system.

Thus, as the tropical entrances are reasonable, and called the more important, the lunar months, CHAITRA VAISÁKHA, etc., which come according to the sun's entrances into the signs Aries, Taurus, etc., ought to be taken according to the sun's tropical entrances, i. e., the lunar month in which the sun enters into the first tropical sign is CHAITRA, that in which the sun enters into the second tropical sign is VAISÁKHA, and so on. This reckoning of the lunar months is right, because it is stated in our SASTRAS that the month CHAITRA is in the spring, which always commences at the time when the sun enters into the first tropical sign. Therefore, that lunar month ought to be taken as CHAITRA, in which the sun enters into the first tropical sign. In like manner, all other seasons become according to the tropical system, and hence the other lunar months VAISAKHA, etc., ought to be taken according to this system. But if the lunar months be not taken according to the system, the spring will take place in the months MAGHA, PAUSHA, etc., on account of the precession of the equinoxes, and thus there will be great disorder. Now, if anybody says that the vernal equinox recedes only 27° and then returns, i. e., it librates, as is stated in the SÚRYA-SIDDHANTA, and other works, and thus the spring will never take place in the months MAGIA, PAUSHA, etc. I say this to him that it cannot be so, because MUNJALA, and other astronomers, have stated in their works that the vernal equinox completes its whole revolution, and does not librate; and this only is reasonable, and not the

statement that it librates. Therefore, the spring will necessarily take place in the above said months by admitting the sidereal system. Then, without knowing the principles of the science of astronomy, people will say that the horrible iron age has arrived; signs of one time are seen in another time. For this reason, I say that all we HINDUS ought to try to correct our old works on astronomy. If any obstinate man says that although the opinion of MUNJALA is reasonable, still he will not admit it, because MUNJALA was not a saint; to this I say, that he is quite wrong, because the great saint VASISHTHA says in the YOGAVASISHTHA, 2nd verse, 18th section of the Chapter called MUMUKSHU-PRAKARANA:

"That science, which is reasonable, ought to be accepted, although it be the production of a man, and not the unreasonable, though it be composed by a saint; and thus it is proper to have recourse always to the right path." Again, he says in the 3rd verse :—

"The well-founded statement ought to be adopted, though it be given by a boy; and that which is not so, we should abandon, considering it like a straw, though it be uttered by the god BRAHMA."

If the obstinate man still say, that whatever mistake there may be in the old astronomical works, he will not grant it, he will accept what his forefathers used to accept, and that he cares very little about reasonable and unreasonable doctrines. In reply to this I write what VASISHTHA says in the 4th verse of the same section:

"That bigoted man is intolerable who drinks the water of a well because it belonged to his father, leaving the pure water of the Ganges flowing in the front."

Therefore, I beg, gentlemen, that those errors which can be well established by the authority of our SASTRAS, and several other reasons, may be corrected.

Thus, I have expressed before you my inward feelings, and if there be any harshness of speech in expressing them, I pray you to pardon my unintentional offence.

XV.-Notice of the Brochs and the so-called Picts' Houses of Orkney. By GEORGE PETRIE, Kirkwall, Local Secretary of the Anthropological Society of London, Fellow of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries, Copenhagen, etc., etc.

THE Orkneys are rich in Archæological remains. Traces of the early inhabitants are found in every island, and most interesting relics are continually turning up.

Besides the ordinary barrows, or grave-mounds, there are very many tumuli which, on examination, are found to be ancient structures more or less in ruins. These and the barrows are, however, so very much alike in external appearance, that an unpractised eye cannot distinguish the one from the other. It is only when the tumulus has been dug into that its true character is discovered. But even then there is very often the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the class to which the building belongs, when the description of the discovery is communicated by a person who does not know, or who forgets that the name Pict's house is applied indiscriminately, in the northern counties of Scotland, to every sort of ancient structure. To prevent such confusion, the appellation "Pict's house", is restricted, in the following notice, to a peculiar class of buildings very common in Orkney, and of which one, opened by me in 1849, near Kirkwall, and to be afterwards noticed, may be taken as the type.

The tumuli in Orkney contain several varieties of buildings. The most remarkable of these, for size at least, are

THE BROCHS.-The "Burgs" or "Brochs" are circular towers, generally varying from fifty to seventy feet diameter, from outside to outside of wall of tower. None of the ruins of those in Orkney, that have yet been examined, exceeds sixteen or seventeen feet in height. The circular wall is from twelve to fifteen feet thick, and is generally a solid mass of masonry