In his judicious remarks to the Society of Antiquaries, (_Proceedings_,
xxxiv.,) Dr. Joseph Anderson observed that opinions would probably vary
as to certain among the disputed objects. Among these are the inscribed
oyster shells. I see nothing _a priori_ improbable in the circumstance
that men who incised certain patterns on schist or shale, should do so on
oyster shells. Palaeolithic man did his usual sporting sketches on
shells, and there was a vast and varied art of designing on shells among
the pre-Columbian natives of North America. {137} We here see the most
primitive scratches developing into full-blown Aztec art.
If the markings were only on such inscribed shells as mouldered away--so
Mr. Bruce tells us--when exposed to light and air, (I do not know whether
the designs were copied before the shells crumbled,) these conchological
drawings would not trouble us. No modern could make the designs on
shells that were hurrying into dust. We have Mr. Bruce's word for these
mouldering shells, and we have the absolute certainty that such
decomposing shells could not be incised by a hand of to-day, as shale,
slate, schist, and sandstone can now be engraved upon, fraudulently.
But when, as Professor Boyd Dawkins writes, the finds include "two fresh
shells . . . unmistakable Blue Points," drilled with perforations, or
inscribed, from Dunbuie, then there are only two possible alternatives.