REPORT OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SOCIETY, AT THE THE Committee beg to report to the Society that the excavations this year were begun by Mr. Bruce on September 29th and ended on October 4th, 1902, and that one or other of the members attended on these days. The men employed by Mr. Bruce were workmen belonging to the Clyde Trust staff, and had not been associated with previous explorations. Certain preliminary investigations, carried out a year ago, and previously reported to the Society, had demonstrated the existence on a tidal islet of a structure of piles and other timber, and in association with it of a refuse heap such as indicated a site of human habitation. The refuse layer consisted of shells and broken bones of animals. Among them were found bones of deer showing the marks of implements, a considerable series of ox or deer bones more or less pointed or shaped, and a comb of bone ornamented with circles. During this season's work Mr. Bruce has submitted further evidence as to structural details and associated relics. This evidence which Mr. Bruce has laid before the Society was considered on the spot by the members of Committee. They satisfied themselves that the details of the structural plan were such as Mr. Bruce has described; and that the setting of piles and arrangement of timbers had formed a foundation for a superstructure of some sort, but there was no evidence to show what may have been its nature. That the place had been a site of habitation during a period of some duration, appeared from the extent of the refuse layer disclosed in the excavations. In addition to the bone comb already mentioned, the Committee saw a buckle of metal (bronze), found in the same layer as the bones and shells. The bones, which came up in large numbers, were collected, and have been identified as those of Reddeer, of Roe-deer, of pig, of a sheep presenting characters not found in any existing variety, and, lastly, of a very small breed of cattle (Bos longifrons) now extinct as a pure breed. In the refuse layer were also found two perforated pieces of Cannel coal with incised markings. The Committee identifies itself with Mr. Bruce in recording the finding of these objects, but as none of the members were actually present they cannot personally vouch for the exact conditions under which the objects were found. There is no doubt, however, that they were found in the same refuse layer as the other relics, and close to one another. The Committee abstains from comment, resting content with Mr. Bruce's record of the find. They would note, however, that the finding of these objects is secondary and unessential, and to be considered apart from the evidence supplied by structural detail, by relics of a recognised archaeological nature, and by the bones of certain species of animals, which provide definite evidence for determining the nature and date of the structure. The Committee does not feel called upon to enter into a discussion as to the precise archaeological horizon indicated by the finds. Such of the members as have been able to see the operations in progress desire merely to record their individual testimony in corroboration of Mr. Bruce's main results; to express their satisfaction that these results have provided so much additional material necessary for the dating of the structure by expert opinion; and, lastly, to state their appreciation of the thorough manner in which the work has been carried out. No. V. A METHOD OF ARRANGING BRITISH BRONZE-AGE BY THE HON. JOHN ABERCROMBY, F.S.A.S. (Read at a Meeting of the Society held on 18th December, 1902.) IT will hardly be denied that it is a matter of great importance that steps should be taken to attempt to arrange, in chronological order, the very considerable quantity of prehistoric pottery that occupies the shelves of our museums in Great Britain and Ireland. Archeologists are well aware that a precise chronology, one that takes the year as its unit of time, is quite unattainable, is outside the sphere of archæology, and belongs to the domain of history. Nevertheless, they feel bound to grasp at the inaccessible as nearly as possible. For the human mind is so constituted that, when ancient objects are presented to its notice, it cannot rest satisfied till it can assign them to a certain period in the past. The efforts of archæologists are therefore constantly exercised in the problem of dividing and subdividing large epochs or ages into smaller spaces of time, and assigning to these various subdivisions the different archæological objects with which they are dealing. Chronology of this sort is, of course, only relative, and all idea of years is excluded. It is very commonly based on the duration of time during which a particular type of instrument, or of ornament lasted, and is, therefore, somewhat analogous to dating by dynasties, or by individual reigns of sovereigns. |