Home > Authors Index > Andrew Lang > Clyde Mystery, a Study in Forgeries and Folklore > This page
The Clyde Mystery, a Study in Forgeries and Folklore, a non-fiction book by Andrew Lang |
||
XII - THE DISPUTED OBJECTS |
||
| < Previous |
Table of content |
Next > |
|
________________________________________________
_ XII - THE DISPUTED OBJECTS We now approach the disputed and very puzzling objects found in the three Clyde sites. My object is, not to demonstrate that they were actually fashioned in, say, 410-550 A.D., or that they were relics of an age far more remote, but merely to re-state the argument of Dr. Joseph Anderson, Keeper of the Scottish National Museum, and of Sir Arthur Mitchell, both of them most widely experienced and sagacious archaeologists. They play the waiting game, and it may be said that they "sit upon the fence"; I am proud to occupy a railing in their company. Dr. Anderson spoke at a meeting of the Scots Society of Antiquaries, May 14, 1900, when Mr. Bruce read a paper on Dumbuck, and exhibited the finds. "With regard to the relics, he said that there was nothing exceptional in the chronological horizon of a portion of them from both sites (Dumbuck and Dunbuie), but as regards another portion, he could find no place for it in any archaeological series, as it had 'no recognisable affinity with any objects found anywhere else.'" "For my part," said Dr. Anderson, (and he has not altered his mind,) "I do not consider it possible or necessary in the meantime that there should be a final pronouncement on these questions. In the absence of decisive evidence, which time may supply, I prefer to suspend my judgment--merely placing the suspected objects (as they place themselves) in the list of things that must wait for further evidence, because they contradict present experience. It has often happened that new varieties of things have been regarded with suspicion on account of their lack of correspondence with things previously known, and that the lapse of time has brought corroboration of their genuineness through fresh discoveries. If time brings no such corroboration, they still remain in their proper classification as things whose special character has not been confirmed by archaeological experience." Sir Arthur Mitchell spoke in the same sense, advising suspension of judgment, and that we should await the results of fresh explorations both at Dumbuck and elsewhere. {61} Dr. Murray said that the disputed finds "are puzzling, but we need not condemn them because we do not understand them." Dr. Munro will not suspend his judgment: the objects, he declares, are spurious.
|
||