Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (17)

We now come to a date the significance of which has hardly been appreciated. At the close of one of his letters to Quintus, Cicero writes, ‘Caesar wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September... in which, to prevent my wondering at not getting one from you, he tells me that you were not with him when he reached the coast’ (_Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras ... quibus, ne admirer, quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit_[3664]). This passage proves that Caesar had returned from the interior of Britain to the coast on or before the 1st of September, that is to say, the 5th of August of the Julian calendar. But we have already seen that he did not quit the coast after the construction of his naval camp until about the 19th of July, and that on the 29th of August he was still in Britain, ‘on the point of bringing back the army,’ and did not sail for Gaul till several days later.[3665] We have to decide, then, between two alternatives. Either Caesar had finished the campaign against Cassivellaunus by the 5th of August of the Julian calendar, and thereafter remained on the coast until the 29th of August, when he was able to announce that he was ‘on the point of bringing back the army’; or he made a hurried temporary visit to the coast, the object of which remains unexplained. The latter view is not supported by the _Commentaries_. Caesar’s narrative certainly leaves the impression that, immediately after the completion of his naval camp, he resumed the military operations which had been interrupted by the shipwreck, and did not again return to the coast until the time came for him to prepare for his voyage to Gaul. He tells us that Cassivellaunus, after the failure of the attack which had been made by his orders upon the naval camp, and in consequence of the reverses which he had suffered, sued for peace; that he ordered Cassivellaunus to furnish hostages;[3666] and that, ‘on receiving the hostages, he led back the army to the sea, where he found the ships repaired’ (_Obsidibus acceptis exercitum reducit ad mare, naves invenit refectas_[3667]). ‘When they were launched,’ he continues, ‘he determined to take the army back in two trips’ (_his deductis ... duobus commeatibus exercitum reportare instituit_[3668]). Certainly there is not a word in this to support the view, which is advocated by Vogel, that the visit to the coast which Caesar made on the 1st of September (the 5th of August of the Julian calendar) was purely temporary, and took place _before_ he began to march towards the country of Cassivellaunus; and the motive which Vogel[3669] suggests for the visit--that Caesar wished to inspect the camp once more and to give the necessary instructions before marching against Cassivellaunus--is hardly adequate, unless we grant Vogel’s assumption, that when Caesar returned to the sea the campaign had advanced no further than the stage which he describes in the 17th chapter of his Fifth Book, where three legions under Trebonius inflicted a decisive defeat on the enemy; in other words, that Caesar returned from a point within a day’s march of the sea. But this affair, according to the _Commentaries_, took place on the very day after Caesar quitted his naval camp in order to resume the campaign; whereas he returned to the sea, on Vogel’s own showing, about 17 days after he quitted the camp. If, on the other hand, we adopt Napoleon’s view[3670]--that Caesar, after he returned to the sea on the 1st of September, remained there until he sailed for Gaul--how are we to account for the 24 days which elapsed before he wrote to tell Cicero that he was on the point of bringing back the army? What was he doing all that time? Napoleon,[3671] indeed, maintains that, on the day on which he wrote this last letter, he actually sailed for Gaul, and Bergk that he had already arrived in Gaul; but it has already been shown that both these assumptions are untenable. Moreover, in order to account for Caesar’s having arrived at the sea so early, Napoleon and Bergk are forced to strain the words of the _Commentaries_ (_exercitum reducit ad mare_),--to assume that Caesar hurried on in advance of his army, and that it did not reach the coast until several days later.[3672]

Although the problem cannot be definitively solved, I have no doubt but that Vogel’s solution is wrong. Not only does it give the lie to Caesar’s narrative, but it requires us to believe that Caesar had failed for about 17 days to make any headway against the Britons, and had been held in check by them within a dozen miles of the sea. Yet Caesar states that, in consequence of the defeat which Cassivellaunus suffered at the hands of Trebonius on the day after he left the newly-constructed naval camp, the British infantry levies dispersed; and in the same breath he goes on to say that he forthwith marched for the country of Cassivellaunus.[3673] If, as Vogel implies, this statement had been false, surely Quintus Cicero would have informed his brother, in one of the five letters which he wrote before the 1st of September, of the real state of affairs! On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that Caesar used the words _exercitum reducit ad mare_ loosely, and that he remained on the coast from the 1st to the 25th of September, without once writing to Cicero between those two dates,[3674] and then remained several days longer before embarking. This view, indeed, would compel us to assume that he left Trebonius or one of his other generals to carry on the negotiations with Cassivellaunus which are described in the 22nd chapter of his Fifth Book.

Napoleon, it is true, believes that Caesar did not leave his army and hurry on in advance of it to his naval camp until the negotiations were completed and he had received his hostages from Cassivellaunus.[3675] But on this assumption what motive could he have had, first, for hurrying on in advance of his army, and, secondly, for delaying its re-embarkation until after the lapse of several weeks? I am inclined, therefore, to believe that he made a hurried temporary visit to his naval camp, escorted probably by a small column, and then, having accomplished his purpose, returned to the main army in order to conduct or to complete the negotiations with Cassivellaunus. The motive of his visit may have been connected with the attack which the Kentish chieftains made upon the naval camp.[3676]

The date of Caesar’s return to Gaul can only be given approximately. We have seen that on the 25th of September (the 29th of August of the Julian calendar) he wrote to Cicero, saying that he was on the point of bringing back the army.[3677] Vogel[3678], remarking that, after he reached the coast, his ships had to be launched and loaded, and that he did not sail with the second detachment of troops until he had waited a long time in vain for the return of the ships which had carried the first, concludes that he did not return to Gaul until about 20 days after he wrote to Cicero, that is to say, not until the 15th of October. This date corresponds with the 17th of September of the Julian calendar; and Vogel maintains that it agrees with Caesar’s statement of the reason which led him to hurry on his return, namely, that the equinox was at hand. But it is impossible to estimate, from Caesar’s statement, how many days he waited for the return of his ships. Let us examine the attempts which have been made to gain a clue from Cicero’s correspondence.

Vogel[3679] points out that Cicero,[3680] in a letter written just after the 23rd of November--the 26th of October of the Julian calendar--referred to two letters which he had received from Quintus, and also to a third, which Quintus had handed to Labienus for transmission the day before he dispatched the earlier of the other two, but which had not yet arrived. Now Labienus had remained in Gaul during the invasion of Britain.[3681] It is clear, therefore, that these three letters were not written until after Quintus had returned to Gaul. On the other hand, they would seem to have been the first letters which Quintus wrote to his brother after his return. For Cicero, in the letter in which he referred to them, said, ‘where your Nervii dwell and how far off, I have no idea’ (_Ubi enim isti sint Nervii et quam longe absint, nescio_[3682]). The Nervii were the tribe in whose country Quintus, with his legion, was to pass the winter.[3683] Evidently Quintus, when he wrote the two letters which Cicero received, had not yet reached the country of the Nervii; for otherwise he could not, on the previous day, have been with Labienus, who was to winter in the country of another tribe. Probably, as Vogel concludes, he wrote from Samarobriva, or Amiens, where Caesar had his head quarters and where the arrangements for the distribution of the legions were made.[3684] Again, in the letter which has been already quoted, Cicero wrote to Quintus, ‘Pray be careful to let me know to whom I am to give the letter which I shall then send you,--to Caesar’s letter-carriers, for him to forward it direct to you, or to those of Labienus?’ (_Tu velim cures ut sciam quibus nos dare oporteat eas quas ad te deinde litteras mittemus, Caesarisne tabellariis, ut is ad te protinus mittat, an Labieni_[3685]). Vogel remarks that ‘this question is only intelligible on the hypothesis that Quintus was only just beginning to take up his quarters in Gaul’ at the time when he wrote the two letters which Cicero had just received. Now a letter would have required about 25 days for transmission from Samarobriva to Rome;[3686] and accordingly the letters to which Cicero referred, assuming that he replied to them promptly, would have been written about the end of October. Vogel, who thinks that they must have been written within a fortnight after Quintus and Caesar returned to Gaul, infers that they cannot have returned earlier than the 15th of October, the 17th of September of the Julian calendar. His reasoning is ingenious; but unfortunately we do not know exactly how soon after the receipt of his brother’s second letter Cicero wrote, or how many days intervened between the arrival of the first and of the second.

On the whole, it appears to me that all we can say for certain regarding the date of Caesar’s return is this. It cannot be fixed earlier than several days after the 29th of August of the Julian calendar,--the date of the letter in which he informed Cicero that he was on the point of bringing back the army. Bearing in mind that it occurred when ‘the equinox was at hand’, we may place it about the middle of September.

TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES

On April 25, 1902, I observed more carefully than I had ever done before the coast between Sandgate and West Hythe. To speak of the hills between Sandgate and Hythe as _angusti montes_ is sheer nonsense. Caesar would never have attempted to force a passage inland at any point between Lympne and Sandgate;[3687] nor would the Britons have abandoned these _loca superiora_, which lay ready to hand. There are, indeed, depressions in the line of hills--(1) just west of Sandgate railway station, (2) nearly opposite the Seabrook (now Imperial) Hotel, and (3) west of Hythe, just west of the point where the road diverges from the military canal; but if Caesar had attempted to force these gaps, he would have found himself entangled in the hills behind. 27.4.02.

* * * * *

Quite recently I explored the easternmost and the westernmost of the three valleys which partially break the continuity of the hills behind Hythe. Neither would have been [reasonably] practicable for an invading army [in the conditions of ancient warfare]. The road leading through the former, which branches off from the road [running from Sandgate] to Hythe, is level for the first 120 yards, and then ascends rapidly for a short distance. Then it is tolerably level until about 100 yards before one gets to the cross-road which turns off to the left, when it ascends rapidly for a long way. A column moving along it would have been exposed to attack from the hills on either side, and particularly on the west. 3.9.03.

* * * * *

On the return voyage from Boulogne [September 5, 1903] I most carefully scrutinized the whole coast-line between Sandgate and the Foreland, as I had often done before on land. Caesar’s description of the _angusti montes_ is applicable only to Shakespeare’s Cliff and the cliffs which extend from the Castle Hill to the neighbourhood of Kingsdown. It is not applicable even to the imposing heights which bound East Wear Bay, because, although they might fairly be called _angusti montes_, the missiles of which Caesar speaks could only have been thrown on to the beach from the precipitous but low chalk cliffs which form the lowest part of these heights; whereas he plainly means that the missiles would [or rather, could] have been thrown by the enemy who were standing _in omnibus collibus_; and if he anchored off East Wear Bay, the _colles_ were a quarter of a mile or more from the sea. The low chalk cliffs of East Wear Bay would never have been called _montes_, although they are the lowest part of a range of _montes_. The notion that the cliffs between East Wear Bay and Folkestone Harbour, or the cliffs on which the ‘Leas’ stand, as seen from a vessel half a mile from the shore, would have been called _angusti montes_ or _montes_ at all is simply ludicrous. No! It is absolutely certain that Caesar’s _angusti montes_ were the cliffs of Dover,--the cliffs between [and including] the Castle Hill and the Foreland. And as for Airy’s theory, how could cliffs ‘ten to thirty feet high’ have been called _angusti montes_ by an observer standing on the deck of a ship five nautical miles away?[3688]

[Cicero’s description (_Att._, iv, 16, § 7) of the cliffs which ‘walled in the approaches to the island’--_mirificis molibus_--is applicable only to the heights behind East Wear Bay and the cliffs of Dover.]

* * * * *

The following notes were jotted down on September 15, 1902, on the deck of a steamer running from Dover to Deal:--

Six _colles_ at present visible off Dover Harbour, i.e. on east of old [pre-Roman and Roman] harbour: one on left, not counting Shakespeare’s Cliff.

Eight from off the Foreland. Nothing could be more appropriate than the expressions _in omnibus collibus expositas_ [hostium copias] and _montes angusti_. In the various ‘dips’ the _hostium copiae_ would have been very conspicuous.

* * * * *

Behind the low rampart between Kingsdown and Walmer Castle the ground rises. Caesar might have encamped [in his first expedition] on this rising ground or on the rising ground which extends behind the castle towards the church.

Just after passing Deal Castle one turns to the left down Gilford Road, and, after walking about 300 yards, passes under a railway bridge, and then, very gradually ascending for a few paces, walks along a path, which crosses fields. It seemed to me just possible that C. might have encamped on these fields, but very--to the last degree--unlikely.

The only suitable camping-grounds that I can see anywhere are those mentioned above. 16.9.02.

* * * * *

Walked over the cliffs from St. Margaret’s to Walmer.... After walking for a short distance along the edge of this [natural] rampart [south of Walmer Castle], I struck inland along a fence, and came to a path which traverses a rolling chalk plateau, and runs exactly in a straight line with the tower of St. Mary’s Church, Walmer. There is splendid camping-ground on this plateau. The camp would have commanded the approaches from every point of the compass; and the descent from the plateau on the west or landward side is steep. Beyond the valley which bounds the plateau on this side the ground rises again fairly rapidly. The plateau extends northward to a point just south of Walmer Castle, which it commands. If Caesar encamped on the plateau, the camp could be discovered by excavation: but if he encamped on the gently rising ground north-west of the plateau, the camp could not be discovered; for this ground is covered by buildings. (I assume of course that he did not encamp on the high ground west of the plateau or on the ground on which the windmill stands; for both sites are too far from the sea.) 17.9.02.

ADDENDA

PAGE 122. ‘There was certainly a Copper Age ... Ireland.’ Professor Gowland (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, pp. 26-7) deprecates the use of the expression ‘Copper Age’, remarking that ‘the so-called Copper Age possesses no characteristics which are not common to the Neolithic Age, except the imitations and limited use of stone forms in metal’, &c. The question seems to be purely verbal.

PAGE 140. ‘It is worthy of remark ... not pure.’ The proportion of lead in Scottish bronze implements appears to have been remarkable; but Professor Gowland (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, p. 30) observes that lead is ‘found in small quantities in nearly all bronze implements’. See, however, J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 417.

PAGE 148. ‘All the open ones ... sand.’ Professor Gowland (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, p. 36) affirms that ‘moulds of sand or loam were undoubtedly of later times [in the Bronze Age], as there are considerable mechanical difficulties in preparing them’.

PAGE 194, note 3. To the list of counties in which drinking-cups have been found must now be added Kincardineshire (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl, 1906, pp. 304-6).

PAGE 205, note 4. To the list of papers on cup- and ring-markings may be added _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl, 1906, pp. 318-27.

PAGE 208. ‘Stone circles ... Kincardineshire.’ A circle in Stirlingshire is described in _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl, 1906, pp. 301-4.

PAGE 211, note 2. To the list of papers on Scottish stone circles may be added _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl, 1906, pp. 164-206, 245-54.

PAGE 221. ‘They told him ... ankle-bones.’ This statement rests upon the reading ἀστραγάλων in Diodorus Siculus, v, 22, § 2. Professor Ridgeway (_Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 83, n. 1) suggests that the true reading may be ἀστραβῶν (saddles).

PAGE 237. ‘Coral ... later period.’ M. S. Reinach (_Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., vi, 1906, pp. 309-10) argues that the development of enamelling in Gaul was due to the growing dearness of coral, the price of which rose because large quantities were bought for exportation to India after the conquests of Alexander the Great. This view leaves unexplained the continued use of coral in Britain long after it had fallen into disuse in Gaul.

PAGE 259, note 3. In a recent article on vitrified forts (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xl, 1906, pp. 136-50) Lieut.-Col. A. B. McHardy suggests that some of them may have been built in the time of the Vikings, and argues that the vitrifaction was probably never intentional, because (1) ‘in various forts ... the loose stones below the vitrification (_sic_) are supported by ordinary masonry, which apparently might have been carried up the whole way had the builders so desired,’ and (2) the greatest amount of vitrifaction is generally found ‘where a strong parapet is least needed’. He also thinks that the forts were used for signalling, and that the vitrifaction was produced by smouldering beacon fires.

PAGE 288, note 1. Canon Greenwell, in a paper to which I have already referred (p. 676, n. 6), states that in the ‘Danes’ Graves’ ‘by far the larger number [of bodies] were laid on the left side, and ... about one-third had the head pointing to north-east. It does not seem, however,’ he adds, ‘that the dead were laid with the face turned towards the sun.’ He also observes that ‘the presence of charcoal in close proximity to an unburnt body, so universal a feature in the graves of the Bronze Age [on the Yorkshire Wolds] was not noticed except in a few cases, at the Danes’ Graves, and in these it may only have been there accidentally’.

PAGE 379, note 3. I omitted to mention Professor Karl Pearson’s method of estimating stature. Dr. Beddoe, who has criticized it in _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xv, 1902, pp. 163-71, thinks that it ‘probably underestimates the stature of tall men’, and observes that in one case, where the actual height of living men had been ascertained, Professor Pearson’s calculations erred considerably more than his own or M. Manouvrier’s.

PAGE 408, note 4. See also _Biometrika_, iii, 1904, pp. 243-4.

PAGE 490, note 5. Further evidence of tin mining in the Scilly Islands will be found in _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Isles of Scilly_, 1906, pp. 10, 11.

PAGES 504-5. ‘Is he not aware ... distinguished.’ C. Müller, in his edition of Ptolemy’s _Geography_ (p. 106), argues that Pliny’s Vectis cannot be the Vectis which was the Isle of Wight, because he mentions it among the islands between England and Ireland. But if this argument is sound and Pliny did not blunder, it remains true that there is no evidence in Pliny or any other writer for identifying Ictis with Vectis.

PAGE 527, note 9. Mr. Spurrell has proved that a slight subsidence has taken place in the London district since the Roman occupation. See also p. 566, _supra_.

PAGES 581-3. ‘There is one passage ... anchorage.’ The argument in this paragraph depends upon the assumption that the ships which were ‘carried back’ (_referrentur_) in 55 B.C. to the port from which they had started were laid to, and that they could not lie within less than four points and a half of the wind, or, if, with Falconer and James Smith, we allow six points for leeway, within less than two and a half. It may not perhaps be impertinent to explain that when a ship is laid to her head is brought as close to the wind as possible without losing way, under little sail. In these circumstances the helm is often lashed, and the ship then has a tendency to yaw, that is, to fall off the wind and come up again alternately. An experienced seaman with whom I have recently discussed the matter believes, however, that it might have been practicable for the captains of the ships in question to adopt the plan of ‘head reaching’, that is, working to windward under comparatively low sail but still enough to enable the steersmen to keep the ships under control, to luff up to dangerous seas, and to make considerable headway. As he remarked, the difference between lying to, when the helm is not lashed, and ‘head reaching’ is simply one of degree: in ‘head reaching’ the vessel carries a little more sail; and, judging from illustrations of ancient ships, he thinks that Caesar’s would have been able, when ‘head reaching’, to lie within two points of the wind. Allowing five points for leeway, he holds that they could have made good a course within seven points; and he insists that an ancient ship with its sails properly trimmed could have gone as near the wind as a modern lugger!

This, I need hardly say, is rank heresy, and I do not believe that any one who is conversant with the literature of ancient navigation will accept it. Besides, we do not know whether Gallic ships were rigged exactly like those of the Mediterranean. James Smith (_The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul_, 1880, pp. 75, 127, 215) may or may not have been right in maintaining that an ancient ship could not make good a course in moderate weather within less than about seven points of the wind; but numerous passages prove that ancient ships, if they could work to windward, could not do so without difficulty. If my heretical friend is right, why were Caesar’s cavalry transports windbound in the _ulterior portus_, less than eight miles from the port which their captains wished to make, and why were they obliged by contrary winds to put back, even in moderate weather, after they first started from the _ulterior portus_? M. Jules Vars, indeed (_L’art nautique dans l’antiquité_, 1887, pp. 181 ff.), apparently doubts whether ancient ships could work to windward at all; but a passage which James Smith quotes from one of Cicero’s letters (_Fam._, xiv, 5, § 1)--_cum sane adversis ventis usi essemus tardeque et incommode navigassemus_--and another in Livy, which I am obliged to quote at second hand--_hinc atque hinc ad ventos obliqua transferre vela_--suggest, if they do not prove, that they could. I hope to discuss the question soon in another place. Meanwhile it is enough to say that if Caesar’s cavalry transports could not work to windward, they could neither ‘head-reach’ nor lie to; and those which were carried back to their port of departure must have fetched it by sailing with the wind nearly abeam. But those which were ‘driven down in great peril to the lower and more westerly part of the island’ (_ad inferiorem partem insulae quae est propius solis occasum magno suo cum periculo deicerentur_) were evidently scudding; and while the word _referrentur_ (‘were carried back’), which is strongly contrasted with _deicerentur_, suggests that the others were laid to, Caesar’s words show that they were comparatively in little danger, though, if they had not been brought close to the wind, they would evidently have run as great a risk as the others. A distinguished admiral suggests to me that they did sail with the wind nearly abeam, and disposes of the question of danger by assuming that Caesar exaggerated its force. But, with due deference, I would ask whether, since it was strong enough to drive ashore and wreck ships which were riding at anchor, and since the ships that ran before it were ‘in great peril’, ships sailing with it nearly abeam would not have been in peril equally great. It is universally admitted that ancient ships could sail with the wind abeam: it seems hardly credible that the discovery should not have followed that Gallic ships, which were not shallow, _could_ also make headway within less than eight points of the wind; and I therefore believe that, however rare, from one cause or another, tacking may have been, ships were occasionally laid to in bad weather.

Anyhow, my argument remains unshaken. If the ships which were carried back to the _ulterior portus_ neither lay to nor ‘head-reached’, it is self-evident that they could not have fetched Sangatte, and therefore that the _ulterior portus_ was Ambleteuse: if they sailed with the wind abeam, they could not have fetched any port east of Wissant: if they were laid to, they could not have fetched Sangatte; nor could they have done so even if they ‘head-reached’ unless they possessed a capacity for working to windward with which few modern ships and no ancient ship can be credited. Indeed they could not have done so even then; for it would evidently have been impossible for them to beat across the Channel in a single tide: the flood (see p. 583) would hardly have helped them; and the ebb, prolonged and strengthened by the north-easterly gale, would have carried them far out of their course.

The foregoing remarks apply of course to other passages in which I have mentioned the cavalry transports. By no means could they have returned either from near Hythe or Lympne to Ambleteuse or from near Pevensey to the mouth of the Authie.

PAGE 680. ‘Therefore, unless ... Bekesbourne.’ Mr. George Barrow of the Geological Survey, whom I have consulted, thinks that there is no reason to suppose that the relative level of water and banks in the Little Stour above Littlebourne was appreciably different in 54 B.C. from what it is now.

PAGE 698. ‘The claim ... better grounds.’ Mr. F. H. Baring (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, October, 1907, pp. 726-8) argues that Caesar crossed the Thames by ‘an undoubted ford just above tidewater at Hampton’, which was mentioned by Lord Lumley in 1685. He argues that, owing to the tides, Brentford would only have been available for ‘five or six hours out of twelve’; that ‘this important fact would surely have been mentioned’; and that the stakes which have been found at Brentford are fifteen inches round and therefore too large. I am not sure that he is referring to the stakes described by Mr. Montagu Sharpe, whom he does not mention; but surely the stakes would not have answered their purpose worse for being strong. I do not believe that Caesar would have mentioned the presence of tides at Brentford if they had not affected his passage; but, as we have seen (p. 696), Mr. Spurrell has argued that the tides did not reach Brentford. If there was a ford at Hampton before the days of locks and weirs, there was another, if the evidence of the name _Halliford_ is trustworthy, at or near Coway Stakes. Are we entitled to assume that either existed in the time of Caesar? The reader will have understood that I do not pin my faith to Mr. Sharpe’s theory: I only think that it is less feebly supported than any other.

PAGE 712, note 2. W. Sternkopf (_Hermes_, xl, 1905, p. 37) rejects Boot’s emendation, _proximis_, and conjectures that Cicero wrote _proxime_, meaning that the letter in question was the most recent of several which had arrived together.

INDEX

[Only such references to authors are included as seemed likely to be useful.]

Abbeville, 4.

Abercromby, J., 6, 168 n. 1, 182 n. 2, 185 n. 2, 192 n. 1.

Aberdeenshire, 81, 151, 194 n. 3, 361 note;
stone circles of, 208-10;
brachycephalic skeletons found in, 426;
ethnological observations in, 442.

Abnoba, 272.

Abydos, 123 n. 1.

Acton, 40 n. 2.

Addedomaros, 363 n. 6.

Adriatic, 243.

Adzes, 75.

Aedui, 331-3.

Aegean Sea, 9.

Africa, 5, 9, 30, 66-7, 82, 123, 197, 205, 211, 251 n. 1, 263 n. 2.

_Africus_, 555.

Agricola, 226.

Agricultural implements, 76, 89.
_See_ Ploughs.

Agriculture, in Neolithic Age, 89-91;
in Bronze Age, 151-2;
in Early Iron Age, 252-4.

Ain, 296, 410-1.

Airy, Sir G., 558-63, 616-8, 645-8, 652, 655, 659.

Aisne, 110 n. 1.

Akerman, R. Y., 5.

Alderbury, 27.

Aldington Knoll, 639-40.

Allen, J. Romilly, 6, 149 n. 5, 232 n. 2.

‘Alpine’ race, 127-8, 437, 455.

Alprech, 306, 570, 572-3.

Altars, 274, 280;
of Paris, 276, 279 note;
of Sarrebourg, 281.

Amber, 131;
cup, 159 n. 1;
ornaments, 162-3, 167-70, 183, 469;
trade, 218, 357;
amber coast visited by Pytheas, 220, 223-4.

Ambidexterity (alleged), 82 n. 5.

Ambleteuse,
cavalry transports sailed from, in 55 B.C., 313, 318-9, 587-8, 593,
616, 639;
not identical with Portus Itius, 552, 563-4.

Ambresbury Banks, 137 n. 4.

America, 4, 31, 51, 78, 93-4, 125, 205.

Amesbury, 189.

Amiens, 4.

Ammianus Marcellinus, 273.

Amminus, 370 note.

Amulets, 92-3, 116, 205, 260.

Ancalites, 346, 700.

Ancestor-worship, 116, 283-4.

Ancyra, 363-4, 368.

Andate, 297.

Anderson, J., 7, 135 note.

Andred (Anderida), 501, 507, 614.

Anglesey, 107, 139, 160, 194 n. 3;
hut-circles in, 154;
Druids, 292.

Animals, worship of, 55, 284;
domestication, 55-7;
interment, 114, 203, 288;
sacrifice, 202-3, 288.

Animism, 50-1.

Antedrigus, 370.

Anthropology, 8, 234;
methods of, 376-9, 457 n. 4.

‘Anthropomorphic ape,’ 48;
designs in Late Celtic art, 236.

Anthropomorphism, 286.

Anvils, 79.

Appach, F. H., 314 n. 2, 639-44.

Appledore, 533-4, 538-43, 545-6, 549-50, 552, 604, 638, 640, 643.
_See_ Rother.

Apollo, 275, 280.

Aquae Calidae, 232 n. 3.

Aquitaine, 40.

Aquitani, 304.

Arbois de Jubainville, H. d’, 228, 281, 291 n. 2, 292 note, 407-8,
410-2, 415 note, 416 n. 6, 421-3, 446-7.

Arbor Low, 476 n. 3.

_Archaeologia_, 3.

Archaeology, caution needed in, 7;
as an aid to ethnological inquiry, 375-6.

Archers, 313, 316, 331, 346, 698.

Arctic animals, 20-1, 40;
plants, 15, 19.

Arctic Circle, 225-6.

Argentocoxos, 423, 450.

Argyllshire, 102, 107-8, 185 n. 5, 194 n. 3, 205, 208.

Ariovistus, 300-1.

Armorica, 501, 507.

Arran, 115 n. 8, 208;
cairns, 108;
skulls, 394.

Arras, interments, 234 n. 1;
torque, 241 n. 1;
skeleton, 436 note;
chariot-burial, 676.

Arreton Down, 145, 182 n. 5.

Arrow-heads, 3, 80-2;
bronze, 132 note.

Artabri, 484-5, 487-8, 492.

Artillery, in Caesar’s army, 313, 347.

Artists, palaeolithic, 35, 47, 83.

Aruntas, 53, 199, 463.

Aryans, 153, 272, 275.

Asia, 4, 125, 205;
Asia Minor, 31.

Astronomy, 10;
astronomical theory of Stonehenge, 216-7, 472-6, 480-1;
of other stone circles, 481-2.

Atecotti, 448.

Atkinson, J. W., 5.

Atrebates, 232, 235, 347, 366, 451-2, 454, 695;
of Gaul, 300, 309, 364-6.

Atrius, 336, 338, 686.

Atticus, 329, 333, 350.

_Augusta_, 255, 704.

Augustus, 306, 357, 361, 363, 366-7, 369.

Aulus Plautius, 362 n. 7, 371.

Aurochs (_urus_), 68, 88.

Aurunculeius Cotta, 314, 324.

Austen, Godwin, 4.

Australia, 49, 51, 58, 72, 116, 197, 199, 206, 377, 463.

Austria, 199.

Authie, 306, 327, 558, 613.

Avebury, 209, 213, 240.

Avebury, Lord, 45.
_See_ Lubbock.

Avienus, Festus, 218, 490-2, 512.

Avon (Hampshire), 25, 27.

Awls, bone, 42;
stone, 80;
bronze, 140, 182.

Axe-hammers, 78.

Axes, stone, 3, 73, 131;
bronze, 144;
engravings of, 205;
iron, 253.

Aylesford, 5;
bucket, 237;
pottery, 242-4;
interments, 287-8;
Caesar may have crossed Medway at, 344.

Babylonia, 125.

Badbury Rings, 134, 137.

Balbus, 328.

Balearic islanders, 111.

Baltic, 14.

Banffshire, 194 n. 3;
stone circles of, 208-9.

Baoussé-Roussé, 34, 382.

Barbed arrow-heads, 80-1, 477 note.

Bards, 266.

Barham, 679-82.

Barrows, 3, 6, 8, 11.
_See_ Long barrows, Round barrows.

Barton Mere, 154.

Basket-work, 197.

Basques, 94, 399-400, 455;
Basque language, 407, 420.

Bateman, T., 5, 6 n. 1.

Bath, 207.

_Bâtons de commandement_, 48 n. 1.

Batten Promontory, 397.

Battersea, 158.

Battle-axes,
stone, 78, 131;
bronze, 132 note, 145.

Baumes-Chaudes, 93, 401.

Beads, lignite and shale, 92;
amber, 163, 167, 469;
glass, 162 n. 1, 167-8, 170, 183, 241, 357, 469;
jet, 167.

Beansale, 260 n. 1.

Bear, brown, 30, 68;
grizzly, 30, 68.

Beavers, 68.

Beddoe, J., 8, 385-6, 393-6, 425-6, 434, 437, 440-1, 445, 448.

Bedford, 40 n. 2.

Beech, 600, 661-2.

Beechey, Sir F. W., 607, 608 n. 3, 612 n. 6.

Beehive huts, 65, 155, 262.

Beer, 224, 261.

Bekesbourne, 679-80.

Belerium, 221, 499, 502 n. 8, 507.

Belgae, 232-6;
not identical with ‘round-heads’ of Bronze Age, 429-30;
date of their invasion of Britain, 233-4, 434, 445-6, 456, 459-60;
theory that they were Goidels, 449-54;
British tribe of that name, 232, 454, 460;
of Gaul, 250, 300-1.

‘Belgic ditches,’ 11.

Belgium, 30, 38, 82.

Belisama, 281.

Bell barrows, 175, 176 n. 1, 185 n. 3, 470.

‘Bell-pits,’ 516-7.

Bellovaci, 365.

Beltout, 97.

Bere Regis, 162.

Bericus, 370-1.

Berkshire, 36, 101, 130, 134, 138, 153 n. 9, 194 n. 3, 235, 240, 251,
267 n. 3, 347.

Bertrand, A., 9, 438 n. 3.

Berwickshire, 194 n. 3, 262.

Bexhill, 619.

Bibracte, 237, 283, 286 n. 2, 584-5.

Bibroci, 346, 700.

Bigbury, 256-7;
stormed by 7th legion (?), 337, 685.

Bill-hooks, 253.

Birdlip, 435 n. 1.

Bits, horses’, 152, 238, 264-5.

Blancnez, Cape, 306, 565.

Blandeno, 329, 727.

Blashenwell Farm, 63.

Bleasdale, 179.

‘Blue-stones,’ 214, 470, 479-80.

Boadicea, 269, 296-7, 347.

Boars, 68, 88, 202, 357, 407;
worshipped, 284.

Boduni, 362 n. 7.

Bognor, 19.

Boissier, G., 277.

Bokerly Dyke, 260 n. 1.

_Bol_, 451 n. 2.

Bone implements, 5, 42, 82, 158, 160.

Bonnington, 604, 639-40, 642.

Bononia, 591 n. 1.

Borreby, 430, 441.

_Bos longifrons_, 88.

Boudicca.
_See_ Boadicea.

Boulder clay, 15, 18, 20, 22-3.

Boule, Monsieur M., 14 n. 1, 29, 30 n. 3.

Boulogne, 306, 552-3, 557, 572-7, 579, 584;
identical with Portus Itius, 585-95, 643, 652, 658.

Bournemouth, 25, 32.

Bowl barrows, 175, 176 n. 1, 185 n. 1, 470.

Bracelets, 158, 163, 165;
Late Celtic, 241.

Brachycephalic invaders.
_See_ Round-headed invaders.

Brandon, 23, 44. 69-70.

Brassempouy, 198, 383 n. 2.

Breeches, 264-5.

_Breithyn_, 460.

Brentford, Caesar may have crossed Thames at, 344, 661, 697-8, 741.

_Bretain_, 460-1.

Bridge, 680-1.

Brigantes, 269, 359, 360 n. 2.

Brigantia, 280.

Brigit, 280.

Bristol Channel, 20, 62, 224.

Britain, materials for ‘prehistory’ of, 1-12;
continental during part of Pleistocene Period, 19-22;
origins of civilization neolithic, 63-4;
geography of neolithic, 64;
comparative backwardness of bronze culture, 171;
political and social conditions of, compared with those of Gaul, 270-1;
ties between Britons and Gauls, 299-300;
how Britons were affected by Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul, 300;
Caesar’s invasions of, 301-54;
history of, between Caesar’s departure and A.D. 43, 355-72;
Roman conquest of, 372.

Britanni (Gallic tribe), 235, 459-60.

_Britanni_, the name, 459-61.

British Association, 4.

British Isles identified with Cassiterides, 491, 493-4, 497-8.

British Museum, 9, 12 n. 1, 70, 158, 217 n. 1.

_Brittani_, 459-60.

Brittany, 19, 65, 109, 111, 155 n. 1, 171, 185, 194, 200, 212.

_Brittones_, 459-60.

Brixham Cave, 37.

Broad Down, 159 n. 1.

Broca, P., 9, 93, 376-7, 381, 430, 437-9.

Brochs, 7, 262, 464.

Bronze Age, 6-7, 121-230;
period of its commencement, 126-7;
no apparent interval between, and Roman occupation at Cranborne Chase,
267;
origin of bronze, 9, 124-6;
of British bronze culture, 126;
bronze implements used for centuries in Britain before Iron Age, 123-4;
social organization of invaders, 128-9;
their settlements, 129-31;
coins, 249, 358;
implements and weapons, 140-9;
hoards, 149-50;
ornaments, 158, 161-7;
backwardness of culture in Britain, 171.
_See_ Transition.

Brooches, 183 n. 6, 232, 240, 264.

Brutus, Decimus, 304.

Bruyos, islands of, wrongly identified with Cassiterides, 488.

Bryce, T. H., 7, 435 n. 1.

Brythonic, 421-3.

Brythons, 228-9, 232-6, 409-12;
date of their invasion of Britain, 233-4, 445-6;
religion, 274;
did they hold aloof from Druidism? 290-1;
not identical with early round-headed invaders, 428-40;
ethnology of, 444-53, 456, 458-61.

Buckets, 237, 246.

Buckinghamshire, 36, 153, 194 n. 3.

Buckland, W., 4.

‘Bulb of percussion,’ 44.

Bulford, 183.

Bull, wild, 48.

‘Bull-roarers,’ 49.

Bulverhythe, 604, 621 n. 3.

Burghead, 259.

Burial customs, 8;
neolithic, 110-2, 114-5;
of Bronze Age, 173, 184-91, 200-5;
of Early Iron Age, 286-8.

Bury St. Edmunds skull, 33, 380, 455.

Bute, 94 note, 110, 185.

Buttons, 161-2, 189;
gold, 131, 162;
stone, bone, wood, and jet, 161;
with V-shaped holes, 161-2;
bronze and ivory, 162;
in interments, 189.

Caddington, 25, 39, 44, 60.

Cae Gwyn, 23.

Caermarthenshire, 35.

Caesar, Gaius Julius, his limited knowledge of Britain, 1-2;
mentions no Gallic invaders of Britain except Belgae, 232-3;
wrote to Q. Cicero in Greek characters, 266;
on Britons of the interior, 267;
on social and political conditions of Gaul and Britain, 268-71;
on Gallic religion, 274-8, 281-2, 285;
on Druids, 289-90, 292-6, 298 n. 6;
how his Gallic campaigns affected Britons, 300;
first invasion of Britain, 301-25;
landing-place, 309-12, 315-6, 595-665;
disembarkation, 316-7, 673;
sites of his camps, 317, 335, 673-4;
credibility of his narrative, 319, 349 n. 3, 666-72;
forces passage of Stour near Canterbury and storms a British fort,
337, 678-85;
his earlier operations in 54 B.C., 337-8, 685-8;
second combat with the Britons, 339-41, 688-91;
crosses the Thames, 345-6, 692-9;
storms Cassivellaunus’s stronghold, 347, 699-702;
results of his invasions, 355-72;
his reform of the calendar, 707-26.
_See_ Table of Contents.

‘Caesar’s Camp’ (Folkestone), 134 n. 12.

Cairns, 67.
_See_ Chambered barrows, Horned cairns, Round barrows.

Caithness, chambered cairns of, 102, 106;
brochs, 262;
skulls, 394.

Calais, not Portus Itius, 306, 552, 565;
coast between, and Somme, 517-8.

Caledonians, 361 note, 416-8.

Calendar, of Coligny, 296;
Julian, 707-26.

Caligula, 369.

Callernish, 207, 209, 215 n. 3.

Calleva, 255, 366;
inscription found at, 451-2.

Calver, E. K., 607-10.

Cambrian Archaeological Association, 5.

Cambridgeshire, 36, 194 n. 3.

Camden, W., 2, 12, 213, 345.

Camps, 7, 11, 156-7.
_See_ Hill-forts.

Camulodunum, 255, 278, 299 n. 5, 359, 362.

Camulogenus, 342.

Camulus, 278, 454 n. 4.

Canche, 306, 324, 327, 518, 586.

Cann, 267 n. 2.

Cannibalism, 113-4, 268 n. 1.

Canoes, 61.

Canterbury, 253, 336-7, 339, 344, 660, 682-5.

Cantii, 255, 366, 454.

Cantium, 663.

Cantonal organization, 233 note.

Caractacus.
_See_ Caratacus.

Caratacus, 370-1.

Cardiganshire, 139.

Carl’s Wark, 135.

Carn Brea, 134, 258.

Carnarvonshire, 66 n. 3, 184, 194 n. 3, 205, 295 n. 1.

Carse of Stirling, 62.

Cartailhac, E., 9.

Carthaginians, Atlantic trade of, 220, 491, 496 n. 5, 512;
trade inherited by Veneti, 303.

Cartismandua, 269.

Cassi, 346, 700-1.

Cassiobury, 701.

Cassiterides, 483-98, 514.

_Cassiteros_, 494.

Cassivellaunus, his opposition to Trinovantes, 300, 327;
elected commander-in-chief against Caesar, 339;
his military operations, 341-7, 669;
sues for peace, 349-50, 670-1;
distance of his country from the sea, 692-3, 704;
site of his stronghold, 699-702.
See also 731-3.

Castle Law, 258-9.

Cattedown Cave, 380, 455.

Catti, 360.

Cattle, 57 n. 2, 88, 151, 354, 357, 406.

Catuvellauni, 232, 235, 299 n. 5, 354, 361-2, 701, 704;
oppose Trinovantes, 300, 309;
Commius tries to check, 365;
their territory, 454.

Cauldrons, 158.

Cavalry, Gallic, raised by Caesar, 301, 313, 331;
Caesar feels want of, in 55 B.C., 317, 320, 324, 635-6;
operations of British, in 55 B.C., 316, 321;
in 54 B.C., 336, 339-40, 342-3;
Caesar’s, fail to reach Britain in 55 B.C., 318-9;
service rendered by Commius’s, 323;
operations of Caesar’s, in 54 B.C., 335-7, 339-46, 616, 686-91, 698-9;
how British fought in conjunction with chariots, 674, 676-7, 688-91;
British depicted on coins, 689.
_See_ Transports.

‘Cave-men,’ 22, 38, 383-5.

Caversham, 32.

Caves, exploration of, 4-5;
frescoes in Pyrenaean, 35 n. 3;
implements found in, 36, 42;
inhabited in Palaeolithic Age, 37, 46;
implements compared with those of drift, 38-40, 383-5;
neolithic relics in, 67;
inhabited and used as sepulchres in Neolithic Age, 100;
and in Bronze Age, 178;
still inhabited in Early Iron Age, 261;
neolithic skeletons found in, 393-6.
_See_ Brixham, Creswell Crags, Heathery Burn, Kent’s Cavern, Rains
Cave, &c.

Cavities under barrows, 202 n. 3.

Cefn, 395.

Celtac, 430, 436, 438-9, 444.

Celtic languages, 8, 127-8, 433.
_See_ Brythonic, Goidelic.

‘Celticans,’ 413, 445.

Celts, not identical with earlier round-headed invaders, 127-8, 428-40;
date of their invasion of Britain, 128, 229, 233-4, 432-3, 445-52, 455;
ethnology of, 433-40, 444-54, 456-8.
_See_ Brythons, Goidels, ‘P’ Celts, ‘Q’ Celts.

Celts, stone, 69, 75-7;
bronze, 140-1, 144;
socketed, 126, 141, 144, 148-9;
celts in interments, 181 n. 3, 183;
as amulets, 205;
bronze socketed celt associated with silver coins, 267 n. 2.

Cemeteries, of Bronze Age, 178-9;
of Early Iron Age, 287-8.
_See_ ‘Danes’ Graves’, Scorborough Park.

Cenimagni, 346-7, 700.

Cenotaphs, 180-1, 212.

Cephalic index, 396-8.

Cereals, 64, 89, 407.
_See_ Corn.

Cerne Giant, 206 n. 5.

Cernunnos, 282 n. 2, 284.

Chalk, used for manure, 253, 515-7;
chalk downs, prehistoric settlements on, 68, 130;
cultivated, 90, 660 n. 4.

Chambered barrows, compared with dolmens, 65-6;
chambered long barrows, 101-6, 173-4;
round, 101-2, 107-8, 173;
chambered cairns of South-Western Scotland, 108-9;
interments in chambers, 112, 173.
_See_ Bleasdale, Horned cairns, Ronsay, Wor Barrow.

Chambers, subterranean, 87.

Chancelade, 35, 382, 385 n. 1, 455.

Chanctonbury Rings, 97.

Channel, English, 16, 19 n. 1, 32, 300, 303, 311, 334, 372.

Channel Islands, 19, 102, 194, 196, 222, 501.

Chariots, 312, 328;
oppose Caesar’s landing, 316, 597, 642-3;
operations of, in 54 B.C., 339-45, 352-3, 689-92, 699;
general account of, 674-7.

Chellean implements, 39 n. 1, 41 n. 3.

Cherbury, 138.

Cheshire, 16, 208, 235, 252, 279.

Chevron, 149, 162, 197-9, 236.

Chiefs, barrows erected in honour of, 100-1, 114, 117, 177-9.
_See_ Kings.

Chifflet, J., 2.

Chilham, 682-3.

Chinese may have been the first to use bronze, 125.

Chipping of tools, 44, 73-5.

Chisels, stone, 75, 77;
bronze, 140-1, 144.

Chishull, E., 363.

Christison, J., 7, 87 n. 1, 259 n. 3.

Chronology, palaeolithic, 31-2;
neolithic, 32 n. 1, 62-4;
of the Bronze Age, 126-7, 432-3;
of round barrows, 181-4, 476 n. 1;
of Caesar’s invasions of Britain, 706-7, 726-35.
_See_ Calendar.

Chrysoister, 262 note.

Church, British, 372.

Church Hole, 45 note.

_Churingas_, 199.

Cicero, M. Tullius,
his friendship with Diviciacus, 275;
on Deiotarus, 297;
his correspondence about Caesar’s invasions of Britain, 327-9, 333,
335, 348-50, 707, 728, 731-5;
in relation to credibility of Caesar’s narrative, 666-8.

Cicero, Quintus, 266;
with Caesar in Britain, 328-9;
his correspondence, 333, 335, 667-8, 728, 731, 734-5.

_Cicht_, 414.

Cinerary urns, 180, 182 n. 5, 185-7, 190, 193-4, 288, 467;
Late Celtic, 242-3, 288.

Cingetorix, 330, 370.

Circles, concentric, on shields, 146;
on bronze celts and spear-heads, 149;
on an incense cup, 183;
symbolical of sun-worship, 198-200, 206-7;
on cists and rocks, 205-6;
concentric stone circles, 177;
megalithic, 209.

Cisalpine Gaul, 326-7, 726-7.

Cissbury, 7;
flint mines, 69, 71;
date of fort, 98;
entrances, 138 n. 1;
fort described, 256;
implements of palaeolithic type at, 387.

Cists, 8, 173, 177, 179, 186-7, 205.

Civil jurisdiction exercised by Druids, 293-4.

_Civitates_, 269.

Clans, 52-5, 118, 128, 269, 271.
_See_ Intertribal war.

_Classis Britannica_, 545, 589 n. 1, 664.

Claudius Caesar, 239, 249, 357-9, 371, 589.

Claverdon, 260 n. 1.

Cleveland, 184-6.

‘Cliff-castles,’ 135, 136 n. 1.

Climate in Palaeolithic Age, 25 n. 3.

Clothing, of palaeolithic man, 47;
neolithic, 91;
in Bronze Age, 156, 160-2;
corpses interred in clothes, 189;
Late Celtic clothing, 264-5.

Clwyd, Vale of, 23.

Clyde, 62.

Coast, between Calais and the Somme, 517-8;
of Kent in Caesar’s time, 518-52.

Cock-fighting, 264.

Coffey, G., 169 n. 2, 170 n. 1, 172 n. 2, 198 n. 3.

Coffins, 159 n. 1, 173.

Coins, British, 5, 11;
Dumnonii had none, 222, 501;
probably first struck in Britain by Belgae, 233-4;
general account of British, 248-50;
inscribed, show knowledge of writing, 266;
religious significance of, 273;
as materials for British history, 357-70;
found near Sandown Castle and at Stonar, 520-1;
and at Deal, 524;
chariots depicted on, 675;
also mounted warriors, 689.

Colchester, 255;
inscription, 415.
_See_ Camulodunum.

Coles, F. T., 7, 476.

Coligny, calendar of, 296.

Collignon, R., 377, 399-400, 431 n. 1, 439 n. 1.

Columba, 421.

_Commentaries_, Caesar’s, 2, 10, 267, 298 n. 6, 339, 342, 348, 659;
credibility of, 666-72;
certain passages in, discussed:--
_quod inde ... traiectus_ (iv, 31, § 3), 554, 571;
_tertia fere vigilia_ (iv, 21, § 3), 615;
_montibus angustis_ (iv, 23, § 3), 597 n. 2, 613-4, 641-2, 652;
_ad horam nonam ... exspectavit_ (iv, 23, § 4), 597, 648-9;
_aliae ad inferiorem ... deicerentur_ (iv, 28, § 2), 636;
_quo ex portu ... continenti_ (v, 2, § 3), 558, 562, 619;
_sub sinistra conspexit_ (v, 8, § 2), 575-7, 616, 643, 655;
_aestus commutationem secutus_ (v, 8, § 3), 657;
_summa tranquillitate_ (v, 23, § 6), 617-9.
_See_ Mollis.

Commius, opposes Cassivellaunus, 300;
sent by Caesar to Britain, 309, 597;
arrested, 318;
service performed by his cavalry, 323;
accompanies Caesar to Britain (54 B.C.), 333;
negotiates for Cassivellaunus, 349, 670-1;
his dynasty, 361;
rebels against Caesar, 364-5;
his conquests in Britain, 365-6, 371.

Comparative method, 8.

Concubines, 270 n. 2.

‘Continuance Theory,’ 295.

Contorted drift, 25, 39, 60.

Contracted position, 110-1, 187, 287.

Cooking, 46, 89, 155.

Copper Age, 121-2, 739;
mining, 139, 251;
metallurgy, 139-40;
coins, 249, 358, 362;
imported into Britain (?), 252 n. 1;
stain of, at Stonehenge, 470.

Coracles, 247.

Coral, 237, 240, 265, 739.

Corbilo, 221, 500-1, 507-8, 512.

Cores, 149.

Corinium, 255.

Coritani, 235, 390-1, 452.

Corn, not grown in Palaeolithic Age, 46;
ear of, sculptured in cave at Lourdes, 57;
grown on chalk downs, 90, 660 n. 4;
cultivated in Bronze Age, 151-2, 224;
how threshed, 224;
cultivated largely in Early Iron Age, 253-4, 260;
remains of, at Hunsbury, 267;
reaped by 7th legion, 321;
supplied by Trinovantes, 346;
exported in Strabo’s time, 357.

Cornavii, 235.

Cornwall, 20, 101-2, 115 n. 8, 130, 134, 140, 152, 154, 174, 205, 239,
250, 359-60;
identified with Cassiterides, 493, 497;
cairns, 107 n. 8, 108;
hill-forts, 135;
mining, 139, 249, 502-3 n. 8, 509-11;
huts, 153-5, 261;
poor in relics, 168, 200;
interments, 184;
peculiar pottery, 195 note;
megalithic monuments, 208, 209 note, 211 n. 1;
trade, 218, 501-2, 504-7, 509-11.

_Corus_, 555 n. 2.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 226.

Côte-d’Or, 436.

Cotentin, 304.

Cotswold Hills, 176, 210.

Councils, 270, 330, 332.

_Couvade_, 94-5, 407 n. 6.

Coway Stakes, 693-7.

Cowlam, 183 n. 6, 231.

Cow’s tooth, 203.

Cranborne Chase, 103 n. 2, 105, 138, 175 n. 4, 177 n. 2, 179, 201
note, 267.
_See_ Bronze Age, Handley Down, Handley Hill Camp, Martin Down Camp,
Rushmore, South Lodge Camp, Wor Barrow, Woodcuts.

Cranbrook Castle, 135 note.

Cranial forms, 378.

Craniology, 3.
_See_ Cephalic index, Cranial forms, Ethnology.

Crannogs, 263 n. 2, 463.

Crassus (the triumvir), 334.

Crassus, Publius (consul of 95 B.C.), 494.

Crassus, Publius (son of the triumvir), 303-4, 485, 488-9, 493-7.

Crayford, 42, 44.

Credibility of Caesar’s narrative, 349 n. 3, 666-72.

Cremation in Neolithic Age, 110, 401;
in Bronze Age, 184-90, 229;
religious significance of, different from that of inhumation (?)
204-5, 465-6;
practised by Belgae, 234 n. 1, 286;
Sergi’s views on, 400-1.

Creswell Crags, 35, 37, 39, 47, 382.
_See_ Church Hole, Robin Hood Cave.

Crete, 5.

Criminal jurisdiction, 293-4.

Crinan, 177 n. 4.

Crocodiles in London Clay, 14.

Croham Hurst, 85.

Croll, James, 31.

Cro-Magnon, 382, 397 n. 8.

Cromer, 23.

Cromlechs, 65 n. 3.

Croydon, 85, 87.

Cruthni, 411-2, 418-9.

Cumberland, 101, 194 n. 3, 205, 247 n. 3.

Cumbrian mountains, 14.

Cunnington, W., 3, 186 n. 4, 188 n. 6, 469 n. 7, 480.

Cunobeline, 361-3, 366, 368-70, 372.

Cup-markings, 205-6.

Currency-bars, 250-1.

Curvilinear decoration, 236-9.

Cyprus, 198 n. 3.

Daggers, 82, 131, 182;
flint, 80;
bone, 82;
bronze, 131, 140, 145, 147;
decoration of, 149;
with handles of amber and ivory, 162;
in interments, 182, 201;
carved dagger-handles (?) 35;
Late Celtic sheath, 239.

Dalmatia, 367, 442.

Dananns, 391 n. 5.

‘Danes’ Graves,’ 288 n. 1, 435 n. 1, 739.

Danube, 170.

D’Anville, J. B. B., 2, 634.
_See_ _Stadia_.

Darent, 25.

Dartmoor, 6, 96;
hut-circles, 154-6;
kistvaens, 189 n. 1;
stone rows, 208, 212;
‘blue-stones’ fetched from (?), 214;
tin, 503 note.

Darwin, Sir G., 606.

Daventry, 110 n. 12.

David, Félicien, 275.

Davis, J. B., 5, 8, 394.

Dawkins, W. Boyd, 5, 23 n. 7, 40 n. 2, 45 note, 84 n. 2, 125 n. 2,
129 n. 2, 383-90, 400 n. 3, 406-7, 429, 465-6.

_Dea Arduinna_, 272.

_Deae matres_, 283.

Deal, amber found at, 168;
reconnaissance of, by Volusenus, 311;
Caesar’s landing at, 316;
ancient topography of, 519, 521-4;
Caesar drifts to latitude of, 575;
theory that Caesar landed at, in 55 B.C., 604-5, 626-7, 632,
641 n. 1, 644-62, 664-5;
distance between, and Great Stour, 682;
castle, 521-3, 525, 604, 664.

Deer, 68, 88, 91, 113.

Deer-horn implements, 74, 158, 160.
_See_ Picks.

Deiotarus, 297.

Demeter, 210 n. 5.

Denbighshire, 35, 184, 188 n. 2, 194 n. 3.

Dene-holes, 253, 515-7.

Denmark, 66, 77, 89, 105 n. 2, 127, 144, 172, 194.

Derbyshire, 5, 35, 37, 68, 83, 102, 110 n. 5, 129-30, 135, 165, 167,
175-6, 194 n. 3, 208, 235;
chambered cairns of, 108;
poor in ornaments, 169;
interments in, 184, 185 n. 3, 188 n. 2.

Derwent Moor, 108.

Desjardins, A. E. E., 562 n. 2, 573 n. 2, 583, 586, 589-90, 591 n. 1.

Deux-Sèvres, 410-1.

Devonshire, 20, 35, 117, 130, 133, 135, 155, 162, 174, 194 n. 3, 208,
359-60;
cists in, 179;
interments, 184.

Devonshire Association, 6.

Dew-ponds, 138.

Dewlish, 27 n. 5.

Dilston Park, 192 n. 1.

Diodorus Siculus, 1, 111, 219, 223, 265, 294, 358.

Diogenes Laertius, 289, 291 n. 2.

Dion Cassius, 1, 360 n. 4, 628, 630-1, 650-1.

Dis Pater, 281-3, 296.

Disk barrows, 175-6, 183 n. 1, 189, 208;
near Stonehenge, 469;
near Rollright Stones, 470.

Disks, bronze, 158;
gold, 167;
symbolical of sun worship, 207.

Diviciacus, 299-300, 454 n. 4.

Diviciacus (the Druid), 275, 298 n. 6, 332.

Division of labour, 83.

Dobuni, 255, 362, 370.

Dogger Bank, 22.

Dogs, not domesticated in Palaeolithic Age, 46;
used for hunting and eaten in Neolithic Age, 88;
interment of, 114.

Dolmens, 8;
evidence of, as to origin of later neolithic invaders of Britain,
65-7, 402-5.

Dolo, 644 n. 2.

Domestic animals, introduced into Britain by neolithic immigrants, 64,
88-9;
largely eaten in Bronze Age, 151;
bones of, in barrows, 202;
European origin of, 406-7.

Domestication of animals, 55-7.

Domnoveros, 360 n. 2.

Dorchester (Oxfordshire), 246.

Dorsetshire, 27 n. 5, 32 n. 2, 96, 101, 116, 130, 133-4, 151, 156,
160, 162, 177 n. 2, 178, 194 n. 3, 205, 208, 242, 251;
absence of chambered barrows in, 102;
bowl and disk barrows, 175-6;
interments, 184, 187-8, 190, 203;
incense-cups rare, 196.

Dover, 336, 604, 616, 641;
Straits of, in Ice Age, 16, 22;
time of high tide at, on Aug. 26-8, 55 B.C., 609-10;
inscribed tiles found at, 664.

Dover Castle, 32, 311, 315, 530 note, 653.

Dover cliffs, 315, 627, 642;
erosion of, 528-30;
Airy denies that Caesar anchored off, 631-4, 652.

Dover harbour, 310, 314, 530-1, 597 n. 2;
Caesar hoped to land in, 314, 645-6, 651-2.

Downs, The, 526-7, 665 n. 3.

Dowris, 152.

Dress.
_See_ Clothing.

Driffield, 240.
_See_ ‘Danes’ Graves.’

Drinking-cups, 6, 97 n. 2, 109 n. 2, 179, 191-2, 194-5, 288, 443, 467.

Druidesses (?), 296-7.

Druids, opposed to anthropomorphism, 83 n. 3, 286;
dolmens erected by (?), 114-5;
wore ornaments, 163;
may have worshipped in stone circles, 210;
wrote in Greek characters, 265;
political power of, 271, 298 n. 6;
influence on Celtic religion, 276, 298;
general account of, 289-98.

‘Drums,’ 199.

_Dryades_, 297 note.

Dubnoreix, 331, 360 n. 2.

Dubnovellaunus, 363, 366-9.

Duck Marsh, 547-8.

Duelling, 261.

Du Fresne, C., 2.

Dumbuck, 463-4.

Dumnonii, 359 n. 12, 447, 501;
of Scotland, 447-8.

Dumnorix, 269, 331-3, 358, 360 n. 2.