nd, if I am wrong, blame Venerable
Bede!

XI--MY THEORY OF PROVISIONAL DATE

Provisionally, and for the sake of argument merely, may I suggest that
the occupancy of these sites may be dated by me, about 300-550 A.D.? That
date is well within the Iron Age: iron had long been known and used in
North Britain. But to the non-archaeological reader, the terms Stone
Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, are apt to prove misleading. The early Iron
Age, like the Bronze Age, was familiar with the use of implements of
stone. In the Scottish crannogs, admirably described by Dr. Munro, in
his _Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings_, were found implements of flint, a
polished stone axe-head, an iron knife at the same lowest level, finger
rings of gold, a forged English coin of the sixth or seventh century
A.D., well-equipped canoes (a common attendant of crannogs), the greater
part of a stone inscribed with concentric circles, a cupped stone, and a
large quartz crystal of the kind which Apaches in North America, and the
Euahlayi tribe in New South Wales, use in crystal gazing. In early ages,
after the metals had been worked, stone, bronze, and iron were still used
as occasion served, just as the Australian black will now fashion an
implement in "palaeolithic" wise, with a few chips; now will polish a
weapon in "neolithic" fashion; and, again, will chip a fragment of glass
with wonderful delicacy; or will put as good an edge as he can on a piece
of hoop iron.

I venture, then, merely for the sake of argument, to date the origin of
the Clyde sites in the dark years of unrecorded turmoil which preceded
and followed the Roman withdrawal. The least unpractical way of getting
nearer to their purpose is the careful excavation of a structure of wood
and stone near Eriska, where Prince Charles landed in 1745. Dr. Munro
has seen and described this site, but is unable to explain it. Certainly
it cannot be a Corporation cairn.

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