20 BRONZE WEAPONS NOT OF ROMAN ORIGIN. 



The first is that of the bronze sword figured in Stuart's 

 Caledonia Romana, PL v. " This sword," says Mr. Wright, 

 " is stated to have been found at the Eoman station of Ardoch, 

 in Scotland, on the wall of Antoninus, and there appears no 

 reason to doubt the statement." In truth, however, there is 

 no such statement ; Mr. Wright has been misled by the fact 

 that the sword is figured on the same plate with some Roman 

 remains from Ardoch. 



The second case quoted by Mr. Wright is that of a sword 

 described by Mongez before the French Institute, on the 

 "16th Prairial, An. 9," i.e. 5th June, 1801. It is stated to 

 have been found in a peat-moss at Heilly, near Abbeville, 

 with the skeletons of a man and a horse, and four coins of 

 the Emperor Caracalla. "This sword, therefore," says Mr. 

 Wright, " was that of a Roman cavalry soldier, not older, and 

 perhaps a little later, than this reign, who had sunk in the 

 bog to which this turbary had succeeded." 



Mongez, on the contrary, concluded that the skeleton 

 could not have been that of a cavalry soldier at all, because 

 a cavalry soldier would not have been armed with a short 

 sword ; and so far from regarding the sword as Ptoman, " On 

 ne pourroit," he says, " egalement pas Tattribuer aux Remains, 

 si Ton ne raisonnoit que d'apres la matiere dont elle est faite."* 

 And in the next page he adds, " We are therefore certain, that 

 after the second Punic war the Roman swords were made of 



iron/'f 



It is true that five months later he altered his opinion, and 

 came to the conclusion that, after all, the bronze swords were 

 Roman, but I cannot consider that much weight should be 

 attached to this opinion, which was in direct opposition to 

 that which he entertained a few months previously. 



* Loc. cit., p. 193. conde guerre Punique, fut fabriquee 



t " Nous voila done certains que en fer," p. 194. 

 'epee des Remains, depuis la se- 



