the forger is at the opposite pole from the theory of Dr.
Munro. He says that, "in applying these local designs" (the worldwide
archaic patterns,) to unworked splinters of sandstone and pieces of water-
worn shale and slate, "the manufacturers had evidently not sufficient
archaeological knowledge to realise the significance of the fact that
they were doing what prehistoric man, in this country, is never known to
have done before." {111}

But, (dismissing the Kintyre and Tappock stones,) the "manufacturers" did
know, apparently, that perforated and inscribed, or uninscribed tablets
and plaques of shale and schist and slate and gas coal were found in
America, France, Russia, and Portugal, and imitated these things or
coincided in the process by sheer luck. The "manufacturers" were,
perhaps, better informed than many of their critics. But, if the things
are genuine, more may be found by research in the locality.

XXIX--WEAPONS

Dr. Munro is less than kind to the forger in the matter of the "weapons"
found at Dunbuie and Dumbuck. They are "absolutely worthless as real
weapons," he says, with perfect truth, for they are made of slate or
shale, _not_ of hard stony slate, which many races used to employ for
lack of better material. {112a}

{ Fig. 16: p113a.jpg}

The forger was obviously not thinking of dumping down _serviceable_ sham
weapons. He could easily have bought as many genuine flint celts and
arrow-heads and knives as he needed, had his aim been to prove his sites
to be neolithic. So I argued long ago, in a newspaper letter. Dr. Munro
replies among other things, that "nothing could be easier than to detect
modern imitations of Neolithic relics." {112b} I said not a word about
"modern imitations." I said that a forger, anxious to fake a Neolithic
site, "would, of course, drop in a few Neolithic arrow-heads, 'celts' and
so forth," meaning genuine objects, very easily to be procured for money.

{ Figs. 17, 18: p113b.jpg}

As the forger did not adopt a device so easy, so obvious, and so
difficult of detection, (if he purchased Scottish flint implements) his
aim was not to fake a Neolithic site. He put in, not well-known genuine
Neolithic things, but things of a character with which some of his
critics were not familiar, yet which have analogues elsewhere.

Why did he do that?

As to the blunt decorated slate weapons, the forger did not mean, I
think, to pass off these as practicable arms of the