As Dr. Munro introduces the subject, I may draw another example of the
survival of charm stones, from an amusing misadventure of my own. I was
once entrusted with a charm stone used in the nineteenth century for the
healing of cattle in the Highlands. An acquaintance of mine, a Mac--- by
the mother's side, inherited this heirloom with the curious box patched
with wicker-work, which was its Ark. It was exactly of the shape of a
"stone churinga of the Arunta tribe," later reproduced by Messrs. Spencer
and Gillen. {96} On the surfaces of the ends were faintly traced
concentric rings, that well-known pattern. I wrote in the _Glasgow
Herald_ that, "_if_ a Neolithic amulet, as it appears to be, it _may_
supply the missing link in my argument," as being not only a magic stone
(which it certainly was), but a magic stone with archaic markings. {97a}
At the British Museum I presently learned the real nature of the object,
to my rueful amusement. It had been the stone pivot of an old farm-gate,
and, in turning on the upper and nether stones, had acquired the
concentric circular marks. Not understanding what the thing was, the
Highland maternal ancestors of my friend had for generations used it in
the magical healing of cattle, a very pretty case of "survival."
{ Figs. 9, 10: p96a.jpg}
Writing on October 19th, I explained the facts in a letter to the
_Glasgow Herald_. A pseudonymous person then averred, in the same
journal, that I had "recently told its readers that I had found the
missing link in the chain that was to bind together the magic stones of
the Arunta and the discs, images, and 'blue points' of the Clyde crannog
man."
{ Fig. 11: p96b.jpg}
I never told any mortal that I had "found the missing link!" I said that
"_if_" the stone be Neolithic, it "_may_" be the missing link in my
argument. Dr. Munro prints the pseudonymous letter with approval, but
does not correct the inaccurate statement of the writer. {97b} Dr.
Munro, I need not say, argues with as much candour as courtesy, and the
omission of the necessary correction is an oversight.
{ Figs. 12, 13: p96c.jpg}
However, here was a survival of the use of charm stones, and I think
that, had the stone been uninscribed (as it was accidentally inscribed
with concentric circles by turning in its stone sockets), my friend's
Highland ancestors might have been less apt to think it a fairy thing,
and use it in cattle healing.
I trust that I have now established my parallelisms. The archaic
patterns of countries now civilised and of savage countries are assuredly
parallel. The use of charm stones in civilisation and savagery is
assuredly parallel. The application to these stones of the archaic
patterns, by a rude race in Clydesdale, familiar with the patterns on
rocks in the district, has in it nothing _a priori_ improbable.