ROMAN ORIGIN. 35 



generally, a large proportion of lead, which is never the 

 case in that of the Bronze age. 



My friend Mr. Wright* mentions, three cases in which 

 bronze swords are supposed to have been found together 

 with Roman remains. The first instance has been already 

 alluded to (p. 12). As regards the other two, ho has, unfor- 

 tunately, mislaid the references, and I have therefore been 

 unable to verify the statements. Even granting that there 

 is no mistake about these cases, and that the facts are as he 

 supposes, they would prove nothing. Bronze swords are ex- 

 cellent and beautiful weapons, and would certainly have been 

 preserved as curiosities, sometimes even employed, long after 

 they had been replaced in general use by iron. Mr. Wright 

 lays much stress on the fact, that the bronze weapons have 

 generally been found near Roman stations, and Roman roads. 

 As regards England, this is no doubt true, but we must 

 remember that the whole f this country is intersected by 

 Roman roads, many of which, moreover, were old lines of 

 communication, long before Caesar first landed on our coasts. 

 He appears, however, to forget that bronze weapons are very 

 common in Ireland and Denmark, where there are no Roman 

 roads at all. 



But Mr. Wright sees nothing in Great Britain which 

 can be referred to ante-Roman times. The arms and im- 

 plements of bronze he refers, as we have seen, to the Romans 

 themselves, those of stone to the Britons, their contempo- 

 raries. Thus, having noticed that flint implements are more 

 common near Bridlington than near Leeds, 



"If these stone implements,"* he says, "belong to a period 

 anterior to the Romans, and before the metals were extracted 

 from the ground, why are they not found as frequently in 

 the neighbourhood of Leeds as in that of Bridlington ?" 



* Lecture on the Early History of Leeds, p. 19. f Ibid. p. 12. 



