The Curse, (that is, the forger,) unwearied and relentless, next smote
Mr. John Bruce, F.S.A.Scot., merely, as it seems, because he and Mr.
Donnelly were partners in the perfectly legitimate pastime of
archaeological exploration. Mr. Bruce's share of the trouble began at
Dumbuck. The canoe was found, the genuine canoe. "It was at once
cleared out by myself," writes Mr. Bruce. In the bottom of the canoe he
found "a spear-shaped slate object," and "an ornamented oyster shell,
which has since mouldered away," and "a stone pendant object, and an
implement of bone." {34}
Such objects have no business to be found in a canoe just discovered
under the mud of Clyde, and cleared out by Mr. Bruce himself, a man or
affairs, and of undisputed probity. In this case the precise site of the
dubious relics is given, by a man of honour, at first hand. I confess
that my knowledge of human nature does not enable me to contest Mr.
Bruce's written attestation, while I marvel at the astuteness of the
forger. As a finder, on this occasion, Mr. Bruce was in precisely the
same position as Dr. Munro at Elie when, as he says, "as the second piece
of pottery was disinterred by myself, I was able to locate its precise
position at six inches below the surface of the relic bed." {35} Mr.
Bruce was able to locate _his_ finds at the bottom of the canoe.
If I understand Mr. Bruce's narrative, a canoe was found under the mud,
and was "cleared out inside," by Mr. Bruce himself. Had the forger
already found the canoe, kept the discovery dark, inserted fraudulent
objects, and waited for others to rediscover the canoe? Or was he
present at the first discovery, and did he subtly introduce, unnoted by
any one, four objects of shell, stone, and bone, which he had up his
sleeve, ready for an opportunity? One or other alternative must be
correct, and either hypothesis has its difficulties.
Meanwhile Sir Arthur Mitchell, not a credulous savant, says: "The
evidence of authenticity in regard to these doubted objects from Dumbuck
is the usual evidence in such circumstances . . . it is precisely the
same evidence of authenticity which is furnished in regard to all the
classes of objects found in the Dumbuck exploration--that is, in regard
to the canoe, the quern, the bones etc.--about the authenticity of which
no doubts have been expressed, as in regard to objects about which doubts
have been expressed." {36a}
Of another object found by a workman at Dumbuck Dr. Munro writes "is it
not very remarkable that a workman, groping with his hand in the mud,
should accidentally stumble on this relic--the only one found in this
part of the site? Is it possible that he was an unconscious
thought-reader, and was thus guided to make the discovery" of a thing
which "could as readily have been inserted there half-an-hour before?"
{36b}
This passage is "rote sarcustic." But surely Dr. Munro will not, he
cannot, argue that Mr. Bruce was "an unconscious thought-reader" when
_he_ "cleared out" the interior of the canoe, and found three disputed
objects "in the bottom."
If we are to be "psychical," there seems less evidence for "unconscious
thought-reading," than for the presence of what are technically styled
_apports_,--things introduced by an agency of supra-normal character,
vulgarly called a "spirit."
Undeterred by an event which might have struck fear _in constantem
virum_, Mr. Bruce, in the summer of 1901, was so reckless as to discover
a fresh "submarine wooden structure" at Langbank, on the left, or south
bank of the Clyde Estuary opposite Dumbarton Castle. The dangerous
object was cautiously excavated under the superintendence of Mr. Bruce,
and a committee of the Glasgow Archaeological Society. To be brief, the
larger features were akin to those of Dumbuck, without the central
"well," or hole, supposed by Dr. Munro to have held the pole of a beacon-
cairn. The wooden piles, as at Dumbuck, had been fashioned by "sharp
metal tools." {37} This is Mr. Bruce's own opinion. This evidence of
the use of metal tools is a great point of Dr. Munro, against such
speculative minds as deem Dumbuck and Langbank "neolithic," that is, of a
date long before the Christian era. _They_ urged that stone tools could
have fashioned the piles, but I know not that partisans of either opinion
have made experiments in hewing trees with stone-headed axes, like the
ingenious Monsieur Hippolyte Muller in France. {38a} I am, at present,
of opinion that all the sites are of an age in which iron was well known
to the natives, and bronze was certainly known.
The relics at Langbank were (1) of a familiar, and (2) of an unfamiliar
kind. There was (1) a small bone comb with a "Late Celtic" (200 B.C.-?
A.D.) design of circles and segments of circles; there was a very small
penannular brooch of brass or bronze; there were a few cut fragments of
deer horn, pointed bones, stone polishers, and so forth, all familiar to
science and acceptable. {38b}
On the other hand, the Curse fell on Mr. Bruce in the shape of two
perforated shale objects: on one was cut a grotesque face, on the other
two incomplete concentric circles, "a stem line with little nicks," and
two vague incised marks, which may, or may not, represent "fragments of
deer horn." {38c}
We learn from Mr. Bruce that he first observed the Langbank circle of
stones from the window of a passing train, and that he made a few slight
excavations, apparently at the end of September, 1901. More formal
research was made in October; and again, under the superintendence of
members of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, in September, October,
1902. No members of the Glasgow Committee were present when either the
undisputed Late Celtic comb, or the inscribed, perforated, and disputed
pieces of cannel coal were discovered. Illustrations of these objects
and of the bronze penannular ring are here given, (figures 1, 2, 3, 4),
(two shale objects are omitted,) by the kindness of the Glasgow
Archaeological Society (_Transactions_, vol. v. p. 1).
The brooch (allowed to be genuine) "might date from Romano-British times,
say 100-400 A.D. to any date up to late mediaeval times." {39} Good
evidence to date, in a wide sense, would be the "osseous remains," the
bones left in the refuse at Langbank and Dumbuck. Of the bones, I only
gather as peculiarly interesting, that Dr. Bryce has found those of _Bos
Longifrons_. Of _Bos Longifrons_ as a proof of date, I know little. Mr.
Ridgeway, Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of Cambridge,
is not "a merely literary man." In his work _The Early Age of Greece_,
vol. i., pp. 334, 335 (Cambridge University Press, 1901), Mr. Ridgeway
speaks of _Bos_ as the Celtic ox, co-eval with the Swiss Lake Dwellings,
and known as _Bos brachyceros_--"short horn"--so styled by Rutimeyer. If
he is "Celtic" I cannot say how early _Bos_ may have existed among the
Celts of Britain, but the Romans are thought by some persons to have
brought the Celtic ox to the Celts of our island. If this be so, the
Clyde sites are not earlier (or _Bos_ in these sites is not earlier) than
the Roman invasion. He lasted into the seventh or eighth centuries A.D.
at least, and is found on a site discovered by Dr. Munro at Elie. {40a}
Meanwhile archaeology is so lazy, that, after seven years, Dr. Bryce's
"reports on the osseous remains" of Langbank and Dumbuck is but lately
published. {40b}
{ Figs. 1, 2: p40a.jpg}
Dr. Bryce, in his report to the Glasgow Archaeological Society, says that
"_Bos Longifrons_ has a wide range in time, from Neolithic down to
perhaps even medieval times. It was the domestic ox in Scotland for an
unknown period, before, during, and for an unknown time after the Roman
invasion. . . . The occurrence of extinct, probably long extinct,
breeds, and these only, make the phenomena in this respect at Langbank
exactly comparable with those observed at sites of pile buildings in
Scotland generally, and thus it becomes indirect evidence against the
thesis that the structure belongs to some different category, and to
quite recent times." {40c}
{ Fig. 3: p40b.jpg}
The evidence of the bones, then, denotes any date except a relatively
recent date, of 1556-1758; contrary to an hypothesis to be touched on
later. It follows, from the presence of _Bos_ at Elie (700 A.D.) that
the occupants of the Clyde sites at Langbank may have lived there as late
as, say, 750 A.D. But when they _began_ to occupy the sites is another
question.
{ Fig. 4: p40c.jpg}
If Roman objects are found, as they are, in brochs which show many relics
of bronze, it does not follow that the brochs had not existed for
centuries before the inhabitants acquired the waifs and strays of Roman
civilisation. In the Nine Caithness Brochs described by Dr. Joseph
Anderson, {41} there was a crucible . . . with a portion of melted
bronze, a bronze ring, moulds for ingots, an ingot of bronze, bits of
Roman "Samian ware," but no iron. We can be sure that the broch folk
were at some time in touch of Roman goods, brought by traffickers
perhaps, but how can we be sure that there were no brochs before the
arrival of the Romans?
We shall return to the question of the disputable relics of the Clyde,
after discussing what science has to say about the probable date and
original purpose of the wooden structures in the Clyde estuary. Nobody,
it is admitted, forged _them_, but on the other hand Dr. Munro, the one
most learned authority on "Lake Dwellings," or "Crannogs," does not think
that the sites were ever occupied by regular "crannogs," or lacustrine
settlements, Lake Dwellings.