But not only has there been a question, as to what was the method of interment in vogue among the owners of the bronze swords, but, as already mentioned in the Introductory Chapter, serious dispute has arisen whether the swords themselves are not Roman, or at all events of Roman date. The late Mr. Thomas Wright[1009] was the most ardent advocate of this latter view, and he has been to some extent supported by Mr. C. Roach Smith.[1010] The contrary view, that the swords belong to a Bronze Age before the use of that metal was superseded by that of iron, has been ably advocated by the late Mr. A. Henry Rhind, F.S.A.Scot.,[1011] and Sir John Lubbock.[1012] It seems almost needless for me here to enter further into this controversy, in which, to my mind, as already stated in the Introductory Chapter, the whole weight of the argument is in favour of a pre-Roman origin for these swords in Western and Northern Europe. There was no doubt a time when bronze swords were in use in Greece and Italy, and the substitution of iron or steel for bronze, so far as we can judge from the early iron swords found in the ancient cemetery at Hallstatt and elsewhere, involved little if any alteration in the form and character of the weapon, which was better adapted for thrusting than for striking. Even here in Britain, by the time when the Roman invasion took place, not only were swords made of iron in use, but the form of what is known as the Late-Celtic[1013] sword was no longer leaf-shaped, but slightly tapering, with the edges nearly straight almost as far as the point. Among the Romans it would seem that more than one change was made in the form of their swords after the introduction of iron as the material from which they were formed. As Mr. Rhind has pointed out, Polybius speaks of the swords wielded by the soldiers of Æmilius at the battle of Telamon, B.C. 225, as made not only to thrust but to give a falling stroke with singular effect. “During the Second Punic War, however, which immediately succeeded the battle of Telamon, the Romans adopted the Spanish sword,” the material of which we have no difficulty in definitely ascertaining, as “Diodorus Siculus[1014] particularly mentions the process by which the Celtiberians prepared their iron for the purpose of manufacturing swords so tempered that neither shield, helmet, nor bone could resist them.” How far their process of burying iron underground until a part of it had rusted away would, in the case of charcoal iron, leave the remaining portion more of the nature of steel, I am unable to say. Perhaps the amount of manipulation in charcoal necessary to restore the rusted plates to a serviceable condition may have produced this effect of converting the iron into mild steel. The steel of the sabres made in Japan,[1015] which will cut through an iron nail without their edge being injured, is said to be prepared in a similar manner from iron long buried underground.