s," as to the
Spanish cave paintings, but acknowledged his error. I can guess no
motive for the ponderous bulk of Portuguese forgeries, and am a little
suspicious of the tendency to shout "Forgery" in the face of everything
unfamiliar.

But the Portuguese things are suspected by M. Cartailhac, (who, however,
again admits that he has been credulously incredulous before,) as well as
by M. Reinach. The things ought to be inspected in themselves. I still
think that they are on parallel lines with the work of the Clyde forger,
who may have read about them in _A Vida Moderna_ 1895, 1896, in
_Archeologo Portugues_, in _Encyclopedia dar Familiar_, in various
numbers, and in _Religioes da Lusitania_, vol. i. pp. 341, 342, (1897), a
work by the learned Director of the Ethnological Museum of Portugal. To
these sources the Dumbuck forger may have gone for inspiration.

Stated without this elegant irony, my opinion is that the parallelism of
the figurines and grotesque stone faces of Villa d'Aguiar and of Clyde
rather tends to suggest the genuineness of both sets of objects. But
this opinion, like my opinion about the Australian and other
parallelisms, is no argument against Dr. Munro, for he acknowledges none
of these parallelisms. That point,--a crucial point,--are the various
sets of things analogous in character or not? must be decided for each
reader by himself, according to his knowledge, taste, fancy, and bias.

XXXII--DISPUTED OBJECTS FROM DUNBUIE

The faker occasionally changes his style. We have seen what slovenly
designs in the archaic cup and ring and incomplete circle style he dumped
down at Dumbuck. I quote Dr. Munro on his doings at Dunbuie, where the
faker occasionally drops a pear-shaped slate perforated stone, with a
design in cupules. Dr. Munro writes:

"The most meaningless group--if a degree of comparison be admissible
in regard to a part when the whole is absolutely incomprehensible on
archaeological principles--consists of a series of unprepared and
irregularly shaped pieces of laminated sandstone (plate xvi.) similar
to some of the stones of which the fort of Dunbuie was built, {132}
having one of their surfaces decorated with small cup-marks, sometimes
symmetrically arranged so far as to indicate parts of geometrical
figures, and at other times variously combined with lines and circles.
Two fragments of bones, also from Dunbuie, are similarly adorned
(plate