in our museums were really of Roman origin, many of them would have been found from time to time in conjunction with other Roman remains; whereas bronze weapons are never found in association with coins, pottery, or other relics of Roman origin.
Elsewhere, indeed, he has called this fact in question, but in spite of his profound acquaintance with archæological literature, he has only been able to bring forward three cases in support of his argument, not one of which appears to me to be satisfactory.
For a full statement of his views I must refer to his "Memoir on Bronze Weapons," in the Transactions of the Ethnological Society,[1] which, in conjunction with my brother Frederic, I have endeavoured to answer before the same learned body.[2] I will, however, refer to the only three cases which Mr Wright has been able to discover.
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 Roman 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
