Mr. C. H. Pearson is one of those who has most conclusively demonstrated the forgery, and yet in his historical maps of England, published in 1869, he places the Roman provinces of Britain according to an arrangement for which the so-called Richard of Cirencester is the sole authority. Mr. Burton also denounces this work as a forgery (vol. i. p. 61, note); but he elsewhere says, ‘Thus there were Scots in Ireland and Scots in Britain, and _a practice arose among British writers of calling the latter Attacotti, which has been explained to mean the hither Scots or Scots of this side_’ (vol. i. p. 256). This statement is apparently taken from Pinkerton, who identified the Attacotti with an early settlement of Scots in Argyll solely on the authority of Richard of Cirencester. The opinion is quite untenable, and the etymology preposterous. It was, however, rather unexpected to find Mr. W. Fraser, in a work printed in 1874 (_The Lennox_), adopting the whole of the spurious matter of the so-called Richard of Cirencester as genuine. Footnote 14: Roy, _Military Ant._, p. ix. Footnote 15: See _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. i. pp. 30-32. In rejecting the Welsh Triads, which have been so extensively used, the author excepts those Triads which are to be found in ancient MSS., such as the Triads of the Horses in the Black Book of Caermarthen; those in the Hengwrt MS. 536, printed in the _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. ii. p. 457; and those in the Red Book of Hergest. Footnote 16: For instance, the annals record the death of Somhairle MacGillaadomnan Ri Innsigall at 1083. This was Somerled Regulus of Argyll, whose death really took place in 1166, and this entry has probably been inserted at haphazard from some genealogy of the Macdonalds. Footnote 17: