e not of the nineteenth century. This is the extent of
our difference. On the other hand I heartily concur with Dr. Munro in
regretting that his advice,--to subject the disputed objects at the
earliest possible stage of the proceedings, to a jury of experts,--was
not accepted. {11a}

One observation must be made on Dr. Munro's logical method, as announced
by himself. "My role, on the present occasion, is to advocate the
correctness of my own views on purely archaeological grounds, without any
special effort to refute those of my opponents." {11b} As my view is
that the methods of Dr. Munro are perhaps,--and I say it with due
deference, and with doubt,--capable of modification, I shall defend my
opinions as best I may. Moreover, my views, in the course of seven long
years (1898-1905) have necessarily undergone some change, partly in
deference to the arguments of Dr. Munro, partly because much new
information has come to my knowledge since 1898-99. Moreover, on one
occasion, I misstated my own view, and, though I later made my real
opinion perfectly dear, some confusion was generated.

III--THE CLYDE CONTROVERSY

It is necessary, after these prefatory remarks, to give an account of the
rise of the Clyde controversy, and I may be pardoned for following the
example of Dr. Munro, who adds, and cannot but add, a pretty copious
narrative of his own share in the discussion. In 1896, the hill fort of
Dunbuie, "about a mile-and-a-half to the east of Dumbarton Castle, and
three miles to the west of the Roman Wall," {12} was discovered by Mr. W.
A. Donnelly: that is to say, Mr. Donnelly suggested that the turf might
conceal something worth excavating, and the work was undertaken, under
his auspices, by the Helensburgh Antiquarian Society.

As Mr. Donnelly's name constantly occurs in the discussion, it may be as
well to state that, by profession, he is an artist,--a painter and
designer in black and white,--and that, while keenly interested in the
pre-historic or proto-historic relics of Clydesdale, he makes no claim to
be regarded as a trained archaeologist, or widely-read student. Thus,
after Mr. Donnelly found a submarine structure at Dumbuck in the estuary
of the Clyde, Dr. Munro writes: "I sent Mr. Donnelly some literature on
crannogs." {13a} So Mr. Donnelly, it appears, had little book lore as to
crannogs. He is, in fact, a field worker in archaeology, rather than an
archaeologist of the study and of books