Transcribed from the 1885 Macmillan and Co. edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
The Clyde Mystery
A Study in Forgeries and Folklore
By
Andrew Lang, M.A. Oxford
Hon. Fellow of Merton College, LL.D. St. Andrews
D.Litt. Oxford, D.C.L. Durham
Glasgow
James MacLehose and Sons
Publishers to the University
1905
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY
ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
PREFACE
The author would scarcely have penned this little specimen of what Scott
called "antiquarian old womanries," but for the interest which he takes
in the universally diffused archaic patterns on rocks and stones, which
offer a singular proof of the identity of the working of the human mind.
Anthropology and folklore are the natural companions and aids of
prehistoric and proto-historic archaeology, and suggest remarks which may
not be valueless, whatever view we may take of the disputed objects from
the Clyde sites.
While only an open verdict on these objects is at present within the
competence of science, the author, speaking for himself, must record his
private opinion that, as a rule, they are ancient though anomalous. He
cannot pretend to certainty as to whether the upper parts of the marine
structures were throughout built of stone, as in Dr. Munro's theory,
which is used as the fundamental assumption in this book; or whether they
were of wood, as in the hypothesis of Mr. Donnelly, illustrated by him in
the Glasgow _Evening Times_ (Sept. 11, 1905). The point seems
unessential. The author learns from Mr. Donnelly that experiments in
shaping piles with an ancient stone axe have been made by Mr. Joseph
Downes, of Irvine, as by Monsieur Hippolyte Muller in France, with
similar results, a fact which should have been mentioned in the book. It
appears too, that a fragment of fallow deer horn at Dumbuck, mentioned by
Dr. Munro, turned out to be "a decayed _humerus_ of the _Bos
Longifrons_," and therefore no evidence as to date, as post-Roman.
Mr. Donnelly also protests that his records of his excavations "were
exceptionally complete," and that he "took daily notes and sketches of
all features and finds with measurements." I must mention these facts,
as, in the book, I say that Mr. Donnelly "kept no minute and hourly dated
log book of his explorations, with full details as to the precise
positions of the objects discovered."
If in any respect I have misconceived the facts and arguments, I trust
that the fault will be ascribed to nothing worse than human fallibility.
I have to thank Mr. Donnelly for permission to photograph some objects
from Dumbuck and for much information.
To Dr. Munro, apart from his most valuable books of crannog lore, I owe
his kind attention to my private inquiries, and hope that I successfully
represent his position and arguments. It is quite undeniable that the
disputed objects are most anomalous as far as our present knowledge goes,
and I do not think that science can give more than all I plead for, an
open verdict. Dr. Ricardo Severe generously permitted me to reproduce a
few (by no means the most singular) of his designs and photographs of the
disputed Portuguese objects. A serious illness has prevented him from
making a visit recently to the scene of the discoveries (see his paper in
_Portugalia_, vol. ii., part 1). I trust that Dr. de Vasconcellos, from
whom I have not yet heard, will pardon the reproduction of three or four
figures from his _Religioes_, an important work on prehistoric Portugal.
To Dr. Joseph Anderson, of the National Museum, I owe much gratitude for
information, and for his great kindness in superintending the
photographing of some objects now in that Museum.
Dr. David Murray obliged me by much information as to the early
navigation of the Clyde, and the alterations made in the bed of the
river. To Mr. David Boyle, Ontario, I owe the knowledge of Red Indian
magic stones parallel to the perforated and inscribed stone from Tappock.
As I have quoted from Dr. Munro the humorous tale of the palaeolithic
designs which deceived M. Lartet and Mr. Christie, I ought to observe
that, in _L'Anthropologie_, August, 1905, a reviewer of Dr. Munro's book,
Prof. Boule, expresses some doubt as to the authenticity of the
_historiette_.