The reader who desires to be hopelessly perplexed, may desert the
contemplation of the Fiscal Question, and turn his eyes upon _The Mystery
of the Clyde_. "Popular" this puzzle cannot be, for there is no "demmed
demp disagreeable body" in the Mystery. No such object was found in
Clyde, near Dumbarton, but a set of odd and inexpensive looking, yet
profoundly enigmatic scraps of stone, bone, slate, horn and so forth,
were discovered and now repose in a glass case at the National Museum in
Queen Street, Edinburgh.
There, as in the Morgue, lies awaiting explanation the _corpus delicti_
of the Clyde Mystery. We stare at it and ask what are these slate spear
heads engraved with rude ornament, and certainly never meant to be used
as "lethal weapons"? What are these many-shaped perforated plaques of
slate, shale, and schist, scratched with some of the old mysterious
patterns that, in almost every part of the world, remain inscribed on
slabs and faces of rock? Who incised similar patterns on the
oyster-shells, some old and local, some fresh--_and American_! Why did
any one scratch them? What is the meaning, if meaning there be, of the
broken figurines or stone "dolls"? They have been styled "totems" by
persons who do not know the meaning of the word "totem," which merely
denotes the _natural_ object,--usually a plant or animal,--after which
sets of kinsfolk are named among certain savage tribes. Let us call the
little figures "figurines," for that commits us to nothing.
Then there are grotesque human heads, carved in stone; bits of sandstone,
marked with patterns, and so forth. Mixed with these are the common rude
appliances, quern stones for grinding grain; stone hammers, stone
polishers, cut antlers of deer, pointed bones, such as rude peoples did
actually use, in early Britain, and may have retained into the early
middle ages, say 400-700 A.D.
This mixed set of objects, _plus_ the sites in which they were found, and
a huge canoe, 35 feet long, is the material part of the Clyde Mystery.
The querns and canoe and stone-polishers, and bones, and horns are
commonly found, we say, in dwellings of about 400-700 A.D. The peculiar
and enigmatic things are _not_ elsewhere known to Scottish antiquaries.
How did the two sets of objects come to be all mixed up together, in an
old hill fort, at Dunbuie on Clyde; and among the wooden foundations of
two mysterious structures, excavated in the mud of the Clyde estuary at
Dumbuck and Langbank, near Dumbarton? They were dug up between 1896 and
1902.
This is the question which has been debated, mainly in newspaper
controversy, for nearly ten years. A most rambling controversy it has
been, casting its feelers as far as central Australia, in space, and as
far back as, say, 1200 B.C. in time.
Either the disputed objects at the Museum are actual relics of life lived
in the Clyde basin many centuries ago; or the discoverers and excavators
of the old sites are dogged by a forger who "dumps down" false relics of
kinds unknown to Scottish antiquaries; or some of the unfamiliar objects
are really old, while others are jocose imitations of these, or--there is
some other explanation!
The modern "Clyde artists" are credited by Dr. Robert Munro with "some
practical artistic skill," and some acquaintance with the very old and
mysterious designs on great rocks among the neighbouring hills. {4} What
man of artistic skill, no conscience, and a knowledge of archaic patterns
is associated with the Clyde?
The "faker" is not the mere mischievous wag of the farm-house or the
country shop. It is possible that a few "interpolations" of false
objects have been made by another and less expert hand, but the weight of
the problem rests on these alternatives,--the disputed relics which were
found are mainly genuine, though unfamiliar; or a forger not destitute of
skill and knowledge has invented and executed them--or--there is some
other explanation.
Three paths, as usual, are open to science, in the present state of our
knowledge of the question. We may pronounce the unfamiliar relics
genuine, and prove it if we can. We may declare them to be false
objects, manufactured within the last ten years. We may possess our
souls in patience, and "put the objects to a suspense account," awaiting
the results of future researches and of new information.
This attitude of suspense is not without precedent in archaeology.
"Antiquarian lore," as Dr. Munro remarks by implication, _can_
"distinguish between true and false antiquities." {5a} But time is
needed for the verdict, as we see when Dr. Munro describes "the Breonio
Controversy" about disputed stone objects, a controversy which began in
1885, and appears to be undecided in 1905. {5b} I propose to advocate
the third course; the waiting game, and I am to analyse Dr. Munro's very
able arguments for adopting the second course, and deciding that the
unfamiliar relics are assuredly impostures of yesterday's manufacture.