To return to the site first found, the hill fort of Dunbuie, excavated in
1896. Dr. Munro writes:
"There is no peculiarity about the position or structure of this fort
which differentiates it from many other forts in North Britain. Before
excavation there were few indications that structural remains lay
beneath the debris, but when this was accomplished there were exposed
to view the foundations of a circular wall, 13.5 feet thick, enclosing
a space 30 to 32 feet in diameter. Through this wall there was one
entrance passage on a level with its base, 3 feet 2 inches in width,
protected by two guard chambers, one on each side, analogous to those
so frequently met with in the Brochs. The height of the remaining
part of the wall varied from 18 inches to 3 feet 6 inches. The
interior contained no dividing walls nor any indications of secondary
occupation."
Thus writes Dr. Munro (pp. 130, 131), repeating his remarks on p. 181
with this addition,
"Had any remains of intra-mural chambers or of a stone stair been
detected it would unhesitatingly be pronounced a broch; nor, in the
absence of such evidence, can it be definitely dissociated from that
peculiar class of Scottish buildings, because the portion of wall then
remaining was not sufficiently high to exclude the possibility of
these broch characteristics having been present at a higher level--a
structural deviation which has occasionally been met with."
"All the brochs," Dr. Munro goes on, "hitherto investigated have shown
more or less precise evidence of a post-Roman civilisation, their range,
according to Dr. Joseph Anderson, being "not earlier than the fifth and
not later than the ninth century." {17} "Although from more recent
discoveries, as, for example, the broch of Torwodlee, Selkirkshire, there
is good reason to believe that their range might legitimately be brought
nearer to Roman times, it makes no difference in the correctness of the
statement that they all belong to the Iron Age."
So far the "broch," or hill fort, was not unlike other hill forts and
brochs, of which there are hundreds in Scotland. But many of the relics
alleged to have been found in the soil of Dunbuie were unfamiliar in
character in these islands. There was not a shard of pottery, there was
not a trace of metal, but absence of such things is no proof that they
were unknown to the inhabitants of the fort. I may go further, and say
that if any person were capable of interpolating false antiquities, they
were equally capable of concealing such real antiquities in metal or
pottery as they might find; to support their theories, or to serve other
private and obscure ends.
Thus, at Langbank, were found a bronze brooch, and a "Late Celtic" (200
B.C.?--A.D.) comb. These, of course, upset the theory held by some
inquirers, that the site was Neolithic, that is, was very much earlier
than the Christian era. If the excavators held that theory, and were
unscrupulous, was it not as easy for them to conceal the objects which
disproved the hypothesis, as to insert the disputed objects--which do not
prove it?
Of course Dr. Munro nowhere suggests that any excavator is the guilty
"faker."
I now quote Dr. Munro's account of the _unfamiliar_ objects alleged to
have been found in Dunbuie. He begins by citing the late Mr. Adam
Millar, F.S.A.Scot., who described Dunbuie in the _Proceedings S. A.
Scot._ (vol. XXX. pp. 291-308.)
"The fort," writes Mr. Millar, "has been examined very thoroughly by
picking out the stones in the interior one by one, and riddling the
fine soil and small stones. The same treatment has been applied to
the refuse heap which was found on the outside, and the result of the
search is a very remarkable collection of weapons, implements,
ornaments, and figured stones." There is no description of the
precise position of any of these relics in the ruins, with the
exception of two upper stones of querns and a limpet shell having on
its inner surface the presentation of a human face, which are stated
to have been found in the interior of the fort. No objects of metal
or fragments of pottery were discovered in course of the excavations,
and of bone there were only two small pointed objects and an awl
having a perforation at one end. The majority of the following worked
objects of stone, bone, and shell are so remarkable and archaic in
character that their presence in a fort, which cannot be placed
earlier than the Broch period, and probably long after the departure
of the Romans from North Britain, has led some archaeologists to
question their genuineness as relics of any phase of Scottish
civilisation.
OBJECTS OF STONE.--Nine spear-heads, like arrow-points, of slate, six
of which have linear patterns scratched on them. Some are perforated
with round holes, and all were made by grinding and polishing. One
object of slate, shaped like a knife, was made by chipping. "This
knife," says Mr. Millar, "has a feature common to all these slate
weapons--they seem to have been saturated with oil or fat, as water
does not adhere to them, but runs off as from a greasy surface."
Another highly ornamental piece of cannel coal is in the form of a
short spear-head with a thickish stem. The stem is adorned with a
series of hollows and ridges running across it; radiating lines
running from the stem to the margin. Another group of these
remarkable objects shows markings of the cup-and-ring order, circles,
linear incisions, and perforations. Some of these ornamentations are
deeply cut on the naturally rough surfaces of flat pieces of
sandstone, whilst others are on smooth stones artificially prepared
for the purpose. A small piece of flint was supposed to have been
inserted into a partially burnt handle. There are several examples of
hammer-stones of the ordinary crannog type, rubbing-stones,
whetstones, as well as a large number of water-worn stones which might
have been used as hand-missiles or sling-stones. These latter were
not native to the hill, and must have been transported from burns in
the neighbourhood. There are also two upper quern stones.
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS.--A number of splintered pieces of bone, without
showing any other evidence of workmanship, have linear incisions, like
those on some of the stones, which suggest some kind of cryptic
writing like ogams. There are also a few water-worn shells, like
those seen on a sandy beach, having round holes bored through them and
sharply-cut scratches on their pearly inner surface. But on the whole
the edible molluscs are but feebly represented, as only five oyster,
one cockle, three limpet, and two mussel shells were found, nearly all
of which bore marks of some kind of ornamentation. But perhaps the
most grotesque object in the whole collection is the limpet shell with
a human face sculptured on its inner surface.
"The eyes," writes Mr. Millar, "are represented by two holes, the nose
by sharply-cut lines, and the mouth by a well-drawn waved line, the
curves which we call Cupid's bow being faithfully followed. There is
nothing at all of an archaic character, however, in this example of
shell-carving. We found it in the interior of the fort; it was one of
the early finds--nothing like it has been found since; at the same
time we have no reason for assuming that this shell was placed in the
fort on purpose that we might find it. The fact that it was taken out
of the fort is all that we say about it."
Mr. Millar's opinion of these novel handicraft remains was that they
were the products of a pre-Celtic civilisation. "The articles found,"
he writes, "are strongly indicative of a much earlier period than post-
Roman; they point to an occupation of a tribe in their Stone Age."
"We have no knowledge of the precise position in which the 'queer
things' of Dunbuie were found, with the exception of the limpet shell
showing the carved human face which, according to a recent statement
in the _Journal of the British Archaeological Association_, September,
1901, "was excavated from a crevice in the living rock, over which
tons of debris had rested. When taken out, the incrustations of dirt
prevented any carving from being seen; it was only after being dried
and cleaned that the 'face' appeared, as well as the suspension holes
on each side."
So, this unique piece of art was in the fort before it became a ruin
and otherwise presented evidence of great antiquity; but yet it is
stated in Mr. Millar's report that there was "nothing at all of an
archaic character in this example of shell-carving." {21}
I have nothing to do with statements made in _The Journal of the British
Archaeological Association_ about "_a carved oyster shell_." I stick to
the limpet shell of Mr. Millar, which, to my eyes looks anything but
archaic.