Dr. Munro next reproduces two _wooden_ churinga (_churinga irula_), as
being very unlike the Clydesdale objects _in stone_ {84a} (figures 5, 6).
They are: but I was speaking of Australian _churinga nanja_, of _stone_.
A stone churinga {84b} presented, I think, by Mr. Spencer through me to
the Scottish Society of Antiquaries (also reproduced by Dr. Munro), is a
much better piece of work, as I saw when it reached me, than most of the
Clyde things. "The Clyde amulets are," says Dr. Munro, "neither strictly
oval," (_nor are very many Australian samples_,) "nor well finished, nor
symmetrical, being generally water-worn fragments of shale or clay slate.
. . ." They thus resemble ancient Red Indian pendants.
As to the art of the patterns, the Australians have a considerable
artistic gift; as Grosse remarks, {85a} while either the Clyde folk had
less, or the modern artists had _not_ "some practical artistic skill."
But Dr. Munro has said that any one with "some practical artistic skill"
could whittle the Clyde objects. {85b} He also thinks that in one case
they "disclose the hand of one not altogether ignorant of art" (p. 231).
Let me put a crucial question. Are the archaic markings on the disputed
objects better, or worse, or much on a level with the general run of such
undisputably ancient markings on large rocks, cists, and cairns in
Scotland? I think the art in both cases is on the same low level. When
the art on the disputed objects is more formal and precise, as on some
shivered stones at Dunbuie, "the stiffness of the lines and figures
reminds one more of rule and compass than of the free-hand work of
prehistoric artists." {85c} The modern faker sometimes drew his marks
"free-hand," and carelessly; sometimes his regularities suggest line and
compass.
Now, as to the use of compasses, a small pair were found with Late Celtic
remains, at Lough Crew, and plaques of bone decorated by aid of such
compasses, were also found, {85d} in a cairn of a set adorned with the
archaic markings, cup and ring, concentric circles, medial lines with
shorter lines sloping from them on either side, and a design
representing, apparently, an early mono-cycle!
For all that I know, a dweller in Dunbuie might have compasses, like the
Lough Crew cairn artist.
If I have established the parallelism between Arunta churinga nanja and
the disputed Clyde "pendants," which Dr. Munro denies, we are reduced to
one of two theories. Either the Picts of Clyde, or whoever they were,
repeated on stones, usually small, some of the patterns on the
neighbouring rocks; or the modern faker, for unknown reasons, repeated
these and other archaic patterns on smaller stones. His motive is
inscrutable: the Australian parallels were unknown to European
science,--but he may have used European analogues. On the other hand,
while Dr. Munro admits that the early Clyde people might have repeated
the rock decorations "on small objects of slate and shale," he says that
the objects "would have been, even then, as much out of place as
surviving remains of the earlier Scottish civilisation as they are at the
present day." {86}
How can we assert that magic stones, or any such stone objects,
perforated or not, were necessarily incongruous with "the earlier
Scottish civilisation?" No civilisation, old or new, is incapable of
possessing such stones; even Scotland, as I shall show, can boast two or
three samples, such as the stone of the Keiss broch, a perfect circle,
engraved with what looks like an attempt at a Runic inscription; and
another in a kind of cursive characters.