logical
horizon," and also says that "there is no evidence" for the
"contemporaneity of occupancy." This is not, as it may appear, an
example of lack of logical consistency. "The range of the occupancy" (of
the sites) "is uncertain, probably it was different in each case," writes
Dr. Munro. {124d} No reason is given for this opinion, and as all the
undisputed remains are confessedly of one stage of culture, the "wags" at
all three sites were probably in the same stage of rudimentary humour and
skill. If they made the things, the things are not modern forgeries. But
the absence of the disputed objects from other sites of the same period
remains as great a difficulty as ever. Early "wags" may have made
them--but why are they only known in the three Clyde sites? Also, why
are the painted pebbles only known in a few brochs of Caithness?

Have the _graffiti_ on slate at St. Blane's, in Bute, been found--I mean
have _graffiti_ on slate like those of St. Blane's, been found elsewhere
in Scotland? {125} The kinds of art, writing, and Celtic ornament, at
St. Blane's, are all familiar, but not their presence on scraps of slate.
Some of the "art" of the Dumbuck things is also familiar, but not, in
Scotland, on pieces of slate and shale. Whether they were done by early
wags, or by a modern and rather erudite forger, I know not, of course; I
only think that the question is open; is not settled by Dr. Munro.

XXXI--GROTESQUE HEADS. DISPUTED PORTUGUESE PARALLELS

Figurines are common enough things in ancient sites; by no means so
common are the grotesque heads found at Dumbuck and Langbank. They have
recently been found in Portugal. Did the forger know that? Did he forge
them on Portuguese models? Or was it chance coincidence? Or was it
undesigned parallelism? There is such a case according to Mortillet. M.
de Mortillet flew upon poor Prof. Pigorini's odd things, denouncing them
as forgeries; he had attacked Dr. Schliemann's finds in his violent way,
and never apologised, to my knowledge.

Then a lively squabble began. Italian "archaeologists of the highest
standing" backed Prof. Pigorini: Mortillet had not seen the Italian
things, but he stood to his guns. Things found near Cracow were taken as
corroborating the Breonio finds, also things from Volosova, in Russia.
Mortillet replied by asking "why under similar conditions could not
forgers" (very remote in space,) "equally fabricate objects of the same
fo