Page images
PDF
EPUB

River cairns are commonly built on piled platforms, and my doubt is whether this is not the nature of the structure in question. It is difficult to suggest why a pile-dwelling should be placed on a spot dry for several hours every day. The so-called causeway would be under water at high and of no use at low tide. The supposed dock in which the canoe was found would be equally useless, being at one time on dry land and at another 12 feet under water. The canoe does not seem to have been associated with the structure. It is similar to other Clyde canoes,

one of which was found a short distance to the east. The other finds are puzzling, but we need not condemn them because we do not understand them.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir ARTHUR MITCHELL) said :-The comments which have been made on Mr Bruce's paper will, I think, serve a useful purpose. The fact that they have by no means been all in agreement does not, in my opinion, lessen their value. It seems to me that the position of the Society as a corporate body has already been on the whole satisfactorily disclosed in regard to the question, or rather the doubts which have largely led to these comments. But a little more may perhaps with advantage be said. The Society as a whole-that is in its corporate capacity has no function or duty to give a deliverance on such a matter ; but, of course, the individual Fellows composing the Society may hold opinions which differ, and differ greatly. The Society, indeed, cannot put an end to such differences by any deliverance. It could not do so even if it wished. It is clearly desirable that this should be remembered. The doubts I have referred to relate to some, but not to all of the objects presented to us as having been found during the Dumbuck exploration. And it must be kept in mind that these objects are presented to us as finds upon such evidence as we are accustomed to accept as sufficient in regard to alleged finds made during other similar explora

It is manifestly important that this be understood and kept in mind. The evidence of authenticity, in short, in regard to these doubted objects from Dumbuck is the usual evidence in such circumstances; and

it is desirable to remember, further, that 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 those objects about which doubts have been entertained. These doubted objects are new to us. They are not only new in connection with a pile structure, if Dumbuck really is a pile structure, and can be truly regarded as a sort of crannog, but they are also new in a wider sense, not having been found in connection with any other sort of structure, always excepting the fort at Dunbuie, which is in close proximity to Dumbuck. When quite new objects present themselves with claims to antiquity, it is certainly proper to examine those claims with care. This would be proper if there was nothing peculiar about them beyond their newness, that is, their not having been seen before; but a careful examination of them becomes still more clearly proper, if there is anything about their character, in addition to newness, raising doubts as to their genuineness. There may be little or no hesitation in accepting objects as genuine objects of antiquity, and yet some uncertainty as to their authenticity. It is, of course, a deeper doubt, which extends to genuineness as well as to authenticity.

So far as concerns the action of the Society as a whole, objects brought before it, as these are, cannot properly be discarded as unworthy of consideration, simply because they are new. That seems to me quite clear. And it is nearly as clear that such treatment would not be proper, when to newness are added characters that give rise to doubts as to genuineness. Even in such circumstances the proper course, I think, is to do nothing more than shelve them, which with us would mean placing the objects in a case for preservation. We come to no other conclusion, in short, than that a record of the find shall be kept, and the objects preserved, and that we must wait till further experience enables the Fellows to accept or reject either the authenticity or the genuineness, or both the authenticity and genuineness of the objects. This experience may be reached in various ways. It may be derived from fresh explorations

in other localities, or from further explorations at Dumbuck itself, or from a fuller knowledge of the circumstances in which the doubted objects were found. It seems to me that this is the right course for the Society to follow. Thanks to Mr Bruce, we have a full record, and our function is to preserve both the record and the objects.

I have only one other remark to make, and I am not sure that it will be considered of much value. It seems to me that we should, in the meantime, speak hesitatingly of the Dumbuck structure as a crannog. No doubt crannogs differ widely from each other, but Dumbuck has some peculiarities which present themselves, so far as I am aware, in no other structure which has been generally accepted as a crannog.

In connection with this point, the position of the Dumbuck structure seems of some importance. It is situated on the Clyde, at a place which was at one time a ford-not a ferry. There are indeed many references to the Dumbuck Ford. When the Clyde was deepened, great changes, we know, occurred in the region of Dumbuck, the result of dredging on a great scale, and also of river buildings, not far from the structure. There is still, I think, a guiding light at Dumbuck. It is now, if I mistake not, a gas light, but I think it was at one time a light from an open fire of flaming coal. On these matters, however, I have no certain information. But the history of Dumbuck as a ford seems to me to deserve looking into.

In conclusion, I have much pleasure in asking you to accord Mr Bruce a vote of thanks for his paper, which is a carefully drawn up account of the Dumbuck exploration, and in which there is no pleading for the adoption of any views or opinions. He has given us what he regards as a record of facts, and there he leaves the matter. In this he has set an excellent example, for which he deserves our thanks. He is a busy man, but I hope he may some day find time for further work at Dumbuck. It has proved a difficult and costly exploration, and what remains to be done will not be less difficult and costly; but we have evidence that Mr Bruce has the enthusiasm, and I hope he will yet find the time to do more work either at Dumbuck or elsewhere.

II.

NOTICE OF AN INCISED SEPULCHRAL SLAB FOUND IN THE CHURCH OF LONGFORGAN, PERTHSHIRE. BY A. H. MILLAR, F.S.A. SCOT.

In July 1899, while extensive structural alterations were being made in the Parish Church of Longforgan, the richly decorated tombstone, now to be described, was discovered. These alterations were designed and executed by Mr Alex. Hutcheson, F.S.A. Scot., of Broughty Ferry, and under his immediate supervision. An apse with a three-light window was erected at the east wall, and the whole interior of the church was reconstructed. The flooring was entirely removed, and while this part of the work was in progress, the workmen came upon a very beautiful tombstone, lying face upwards, near the supposed site of the altar in the pre-Reformation Church. With Mr Hutcheson's accustomed care for the preservation of archæological relics, he had given instructions that he should be notified at once when any discoveries were made. To this prevision is due the protection of what is unquestionably one of the finest monumental stones of the fifteenth century yet discovered in Scotland. The position of the slab, covered as it was with earth, and safely preserved from injury by the flooring, has made it possible to bring the stone to light nearly as fresh as when it came from the sculptor's hands. Proper arrangements have been made for its future preservation. It has been erected against the north wall in the inside of the church, and placed on an entablature supported by brackets, at a sufficient height from the ground to prevent its mutilation by accident. or design.

The slab (fig. 1) is an oblong block of fine Kingoodie stone, from the local quarry, and measures 6 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 10 inches at the top, tapering to 2 feet 8 inches at the base, and with an average thickness of 5 inches. It bears the full-length effigies of a knight in armour, his lady in the costume of the period, and a small figure of a youth in armour, either a son or an attendant squire. The figure of the knight

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed]
« PreviousContinue »