"Now borne upon the wings of truth sublime, Review thy dim original and prime,-- This island, spot of unreclaimed rude earth, The cradle that received thee at thy birth, Was rocked by many a rough Norwegian blast, And Danish howlings scared thee as they past."[6] Similar examples of the influence of this predominant theory might be multiplied from the most diverse sources; nor are even the recently established archæological periodicals free from it. It is obvious, therefore, that such opinions must be sifted to the utmost, and either established or got rid of before any efficient progress can be made in British Archæology. In Scotland this theory is much more comprehensive in its effects than in England, where the Anglo-Saxon element is recognised as the predominating source of later changes; and now that the character of genuine Roman antiquities is well ascertained, nearly the whole of our native relics have latterly been assigned to a Scandinavian origin. It is altogether unnecessary, I trust, to disclaim any petty spirit of national jealousy in the rigorous investigation of such theories which will be found pursued in the following pages. The error is for the most part of native growth; but whencesoever it be derived, truth is the end which the archæologist has in view; and the enlightened spirit in which the researches of the Northern antiquaries have already been pursued, is the best guarantee that they will not be less ready to co-operate in overturning error than in establishing truth. It is not a mere question between Northman or Dane and Celt or Saxon. It involves the entire chronology of the prehistoric British periods, and so long as it remains unsettled any consistent arrangement of our archæological data into a historical sequence is impossible.