Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (22)

That geometrical forms were in certain cases derived from ‘realistic prototypes’ may be granted, but does not exclude the possibility that in others the same forms were ‘spontaneously invented’. Moreover, certain geometrical forms occur, as we have seen (pp. 197-8), on neolithic and even on palaeolithic objects, to which they could not have found their way by the route and from the source to which Mr. Coffey refers. Others again are of such a kind that it is difficult to conceive of any ‘realistic prototype’ from which they could have been derived; and there are lozenge, chequer, and saltire patterns on pottery of the Bronze Age in parts of England to which, according to Mr. Coffey, the spiral did not penetrate until the Bronze Age was at an end. Mr. Coffey (_ib._, iv, 1894, p. 356) is himself disposed to except ‘some zigzag, chevron, and triangle ornaments’ from the list of geometric patterns which, as he insists, ‘have been invariably derived from naturalistic forms’; but the truth is that, as Mr. Romilly Allen has shown (_Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_, pp. 27-37), all the patterns of the Bronze Age, except spirals, circles and other curves, and mere dots, punch marks, and straight lines, are simply combinations of diagonal straight lines based upon the chevron.

Another theory of Mr. Coffey’s (_op. cit._, v, 1895, p. 202) is that ‘as far as the ornament of primitive peoples has been studied, it appears to be generally associated with religious ideas’, and that the ‘naturalistic objects’ to the conventionalization of which he would trace the geometric patterns of the Bronze Age had ‘a religious and talismanic meaning’. I am not concerned to deny that certain geometric patterns, for instance the swastika and the circle, may sometimes have had such a meaning; but Mr. Coffey’s theory is too sweeping. It would be difficult to prove that oblong punch-marks or impressions of finger-nails and finger-tips, or the herring-bone pattern were connected with religion. [See A. Lang, _Magic and Religion_, 1901, p. 248.]

[839] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 51, 79.

[840] A. Lang, _The Clyde Mystery_, p. 80, fig. 5.

[841] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 53; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 164; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 336-7.

[842] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 25-7; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, pp. 241-3; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 338; _Rév. de l’École d’anthr._, 1904, p. 135; _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 135.

[843] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 54-6, 59; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 401; xlix, 1885, pp. 188-9; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-10; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 175; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 56, 67-9, 86-7, 94; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, _passim_. Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 8), speaking of twenty-two round barrows near Rushmore, remarks that ‘Here, as in other places, the smaller barrows have, as a rule, been found to contain the larger number of relics’.

[844] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 39.

[845] _Ib._, p. 60.

[846] See Lord Avebury, _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 133, 135, 144, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 57. Seventy-nine flint saws were found by Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 262) in one barrow in the parish of Rudstone, East Riding of Yorkshire. They could hardly have been intended for the use of the deceased, unless, indeed, he was a dealer in implements, and his relatives wished to provide him with the means of plying his trade in a future state. ‘On ensevelit le guerrier,’ says M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 354), ‘avec ses armes, la femme avec ses objets de parure, parce qu’ils sont _tabous_ et, à ce titre, retirés de la circulation et du commerce’, &c. Very likely this motive sometimes operated; but it will not account for many of the deposits which I have mentioned.

[847] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 483-5.

[848] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.

[849] _Germ._, 27.

[850] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 477-90.

[851] A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 11, n. 2. See also W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 59-60, 121.

[852] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 536-8; lii, 1890, p. 24; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 10. Pitt-Rivers, however (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 2), found that only one of the twenty-two barrows which he opened at Rushmore contained animal bones. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxx) believes that ‘many of the small dish-shaped cavities containing burnt matter that are found scooped into the old turf-line under the barrows were probably made to serve as cooking ovens for roasting the funeral feasts’. Some of these cavities contained pieces of animal and human bones, charcoal, and potsherds; but Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 9) observes that ‘there is no appearance of a fire having ever been kindled within them, the burnt matter, when they contain any, having evidently been placed there in that condition’. Their object remains unexplained.

[853] _Iliad_, xxiii, 171-4.

[854] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.

[855] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., iii, 1865, p. 320; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vii, 1870, p. 375; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 15-6; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, p. 217.

[856] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, pp. 126, 129; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 539-40. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. 355.

[857] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 180.

[858] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, p. 25; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vi, 1867, p. 343, n. 2. The works of Canon Greenwell and Mr. Mortimer abound with instances of this practice.

[859] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 50; T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, p. 135; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 540. See also _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., iii, 1865, pp. 317-8, and _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, pp. 424-5. Prof. Robertson Smith (_The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 293) remarks that ‘the mouse appears as an abominable sacrifice in Isa. lxvi, 17’; and Sir A. Mitchell (_The Past in the Present_, p. 145) states, as a fact within his own experience, that in the last century cocks were buried alive in Scotland by church-going people in order to cure epilepsy by the propitiation of some supernatural power.

[860] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, pp. 78-9; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 120, 164-5, 177, 243-4. Cf. O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 390-1. Mr. E. Sidney Hartland (_Folk-Lore_, xi, 1900, p. 91), criticizing Sir A. Lyall’s remark (_Asiatic Studies_, 2nd ser., 1899, p. 247) that ‘a Calabar chief explained to Miss Kingsley that the custom [of sacrificing wives at their husbands’ funerals] was also a salutary check upon husband-poisoning’, says that this does not explain the origin of the custom. Sir Alfred did not quote it in this sense; but it may explain the persistence of the custom even among certain ancient tribes. Cf. Caesar, _B. G._, vi, 19, § 3.

[861] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 10-1; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii. 4, 34, 42, 252, 258.

[862] Act v, scene i, 218-9.

[863] W. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i, 1901, pp. 507, 509-10, 512, 520, 524, &c.

[864] See pp. 110, 185-6, _supra_.

[865] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 293.

[866] See p. 286, _infra_.

[867] See pp. 177, 183, _supra_.

[868] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 55-65, 145; _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 39, 134; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iii, 1903, pp. 224-38 (especially 235-8).

[869] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xvi, 1860, p. 120; xxxv, 1879, pp. 16-8, 21-5; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, ii, 1866, pp. 277-9; Sir J. Y. Simpson, _Archaic Sculpturings_, &c., 1867, pl. xiii, figs. 3 and 5; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 7; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xvi, 1882, pp. 79-80, 85, 101, 104, 121-43, 300-401; xviii, 1884, pp. 109-28; xix, 1885, pp. 394-5; xx, 1886, pp. 41-6, 135, 358-60; xxi, 1887, pp. 143-51; xxiii, 1889, pp. 125-37, 140; xxix, 1895, pp. 68-71, 73, 91, 193; xxxiii, 1899, pp. 363-4, 368, 371; xxxvii, 1903, p. 22; xxxviii, 1904, p. 148; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 246-7; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 39; A. Bertrand, _La religion des Gaulois_, 1897, pp. 62-3; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 269-70; _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, xi, 1901, p. 55; _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 696, 701, 710-1; xiv, 1903, pp. 536-7; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 381-2; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, p. 127. It would seem that certain cup-markings, at all events in the British Isles, France, Spain, and Scandinavia, belong to the Neolithic Age (Sir J. Y. Simpson, _Archaic Sculpturings_, &c., p. 29; E. Cartailhac, _Age préhist. de l’Espagne_, 1886, pp. 174-5; _La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 246-7.)

[870] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 437. Mr. W. Frazer (_Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, pp. 69-70) affirms that ‘almost without exception the simple “cupules” ... on our rude stone monuments are to be attributed to ... _Echinus lividus_’ (a sea-urchin). In many cases, however, the marks of tools are unmistakable (W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 342-3, 433).

[871] They have been found on the porches of churches at Quimperlé, on the north porch of the cathedral at Quimper, and (with crosses) on the thresholds of houses of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, near Carnac (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvii, 1897-9, pp. 328-9).

[872] _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 59. Concentric circles with rays appear to belong to the later period of the Bronze Age (_ib._, pp. 59, 65-6). Rays are also found on a spiral carved on a megalith in New Caledonia (_L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 697, fig. 9).

[873] A. Lang, _Magic and Religion_, pp. 245-6, 253-4. Mr. Lang (_The Clyde Mystery_, pp. 66, 79) observes that similar markings on rocks, &c., in different countries may have different meanings.

[874] Rectilinear figures like those which are common on pottery of the Bronze Age have also been found on these stones (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 209, 226-7). It seems probable that the famous ‘Cerne Giant’--a colossal human figure wielding a club--which is cut in the chalk on the hill-side east of Cerne Abbas in Dorsetshire, may belong to the Bronze Age and be connected with phallus-worship. See _Vict. Hist. of ... Buckingham_, i, 189. It has been pointed out (_Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xxii, 1901, pp. 107-9) that it is petrographic, colossal, nude, ithyphallic, and clavigerous; and that ‘forms which possess these five characteristics have been found in the rock carvings of Scandinavia ... and belong only to the Bronze Age and to its overlap with the Early Age of Iron’. See J. J. Worsaee, _Industrial Arts of Denmark_, 1883, pp. 112-3.

[875] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, part i, 1903-4, pp. 6-13, part ii, 1904-5, pp. 254-5; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 151-2.

[876] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 564, 721; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904 (1905), p. 723. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, p. 391.

[877] See p. 105, _supra_.

[878] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 122-3.

[879] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 122-3; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 224.

[880] I do not mean to suggest that all stone circles were derived from peristaliths; but I do not think that we should be justified in differentiating from the peristaliths by a hard and fast line those larger circles in which no traces of interment have been found. Mr. John Ward (_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 169), remarking that most of the round barrows, or rather cairns, of Derbyshire consist merely of stones ‘thrown together anyhow’, says that ‘a slight advance is the introduction of a kerb of larger stones laid upon the ground to confine the proposed mound’; and he goes on to observe that in those cases in which the stones of the mound itself have been removed, the kerb ‘may remain as a ring of stones easily mistaken for a circle’. He evidently believes that the kerb was merely a structural improvement. Perhaps in Derbyshire, though even this is not certain. The object of the stone rings which have been found within cairns, and of those which stood upon barrows in Northern Germany, was certainly not utilitarian; and the kerb may have had a religious or mystical meaning. Nor is there any evidence that it was an ‘advance’ upon the structureless cairn.

[881] _Archaeologia_, xxxv, 1853, pp. 232-58; lii, 1890, p. 39; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 111, 113-4, 119-23, 300-1; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 11-2; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 60, 67, 70; B. C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, pp. 197-204; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 181-4; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 282.

[882] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xviii, 1862, p. 50; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402; W. C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. 16. The extreme rarity of stone rows in Cornwall, contrasted with their abundance on Dartmoor, suggests to Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 402) ‘a difference in cult’.

[883] See _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2.

[884] For instance in Cornwall (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 379), Inverurie (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7), and Lewis (_ib._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 190).

[885] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., ix, 1881-3, p. 151; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, p. 246; xxxviii, 1904, p. 190; _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xiv, 1901, p. 378.

[886] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, i, 1872, p. cxi. Roger Gale (whose testimony is accepted by Mr. W. C. Lukis (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., vii, 1876-8, pp. 270-1), writing in 1740 to Stukeley, said that he remembered having seen the holes in which the stones of the Stonehenge avenue had been placed.

[887] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 320.

[888] _Ib._, ix, 1881-3, pp. 150-1; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, p. 246; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2.

[889] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, pp. 143, 196-7; xxxv, 1901, p. 246; xxxvii, 1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4.

[890] _Ib._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7.

[891] _Ib._; _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 7, 12. See also _Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland_, i, 245, 247.

[892] Caesar, _B. G._, vi, 13, § 4; 16, § 2; 21, § 1.

[893] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 194. Demeter was worshipped in stone circles in the city of Hermion (Pausanias, ii, 34, § 10).

[894] Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland_, i, 245, 247, with _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 312. Mr. A. L. Lewis (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xv, 1886, p. 479) assumes that in some cases the external object by which the orientation was determined was a mountain.

[895] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xi, 1882, pp. 3-7, 117-22; xv, 1886, pp. 471-81; xx, 1891, p. 285; xxx, 1900, p. 70; _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, pp. 139, 146; _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xiii, 1895, pp. 111-2; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 196. Mr. A. L. Lewis, the principal advocate of the solar temple theory, seems to be satisfied with almost any kind of orientation. Thus he tells us that of twenty-one circles which he observed in Southern Britain nineteen ‘had a special reference to the north-east’, that is to the midsummer sunrise: but he maintains that a ‘line due east through the Stannon and Fernacre circles to Brown Willy evidently was meant to indicate the equinoctial sunrise’; and in another case he insists that the object pointed at was the pole star.

Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 404-5), after making careful investigations with his compass in Cornwall, has arrived at results ‘mainly negative’, and concludes that ‘there is not apparently such evidence of orientation as would satisfy a critical observer’.

Mr. W. C. Lukis, on the other hand (_Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. vi), remarking that circles sometimes occur in groups, asks, ‘if they were temples ... why should the worshippers have been divided into so many different congregations?’ As it is not contended that all circles were solar temples, this argument would obviously apply only to those particular instances; and even with this limitation it is inconclusive. Each circle was probably erected in honour of some one chieftain; and it remains possible that sun-worship may have been practised by his clan. We can hardly suppose that the erection of circles was supervised by a central hierarchy who aimed at economizing labour! See p. 479, _infra_.

[896] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vi, 1867, pp. 337-9; xviii, 1884, pp. 319-23; xxix, 1895, p. 302; xxxiii, 1899, p. 363; xxxiv, 1900, pp. 151, 186, 197; xxxv, 1901, pp. 194, 219, 247; xxxvi, 1902, p. 579; xxxvii, 1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4; xxxix, 1905, pp. 192-5; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 291-2, 389-92, 471-2; x, 1884-5, p. 312; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 111, 113-4, 116-8; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp. 313-5; _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxvii, 1895, p. 442; xxx, 1898, p. 107; xxxv, 1903, p. 142; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 67; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-1; _Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland_, i, 236 n. 5, 245, 247, 249; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 183; _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, i, 401; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 286-92.

[897] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 124; _Matériaux pour l’hist ... de l’homme_, 3^e sér., ii, 1885, pp. 368-70; A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les vallées du Pô et du Danube_, 1894, pp. 80-5; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 507, 644; iii, 720, 728, 753; _Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des inscr._, 1904, pp. 560-4.

[898] See _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 139; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98; and _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, p. 60, §§ 5-6.

[899] Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 404) remarks that ‘the principal English [as distinguished from most Cumbrian and Scottish] circles have never been proved to be’ sepulchral; but neither have they been proved to be non-sepulchral. It is said (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98) that the circle of Sunken Kirk in Westmorland has been subjected to a ‘searching exploration’. Was the whole area excavated? Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 148), speaking of the fifty two secondary interments which he discovered just outside a barrow at Rushmore (see p. 178, _supra_) says, ‘They showed no trace whatever on the surface ... and would never have been discovered had it not been for the practice I have established of trenching down to the undisturbed chalk the entire surface of the ground contained within the area of the contoured plan of the Barrow’.

Mr. R. Burnard (_Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 359-60) observes that ‘fires seem to have been kindled all over the [Fernworthy] circle, for every scoop of the pick and shovel ... displayed charcoal’, and, remarking that this monument is the ‘predominant feature of a group of sepulchral remains’, conjectures that it was ‘the crematorium or the site of the funeral feasts or both’.

[900] A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt, et gaul._, 1889, p. 103. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, p. 288, and _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 530.

[901] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, i, 1872, pp. cxi, cxiii-cxvi; _Trans.... Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 117; xxxv, 1903, p. 429; _Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 370.

[902] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 288, 292, 471-4.

[903] See Dr. A. J. Evans’s interesting account of the folk-lore of the Rollright Stones in _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 21-3, 30-2, and cf. Lord Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 388.

[904] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, i, 1869, p. 59; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 325.

[905] _Ib._, p. 316.

[906] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 15, 20, 40, 42, 115.

[907] See _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318.

[908] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 73-5, 80-2.

[909] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318.

[910] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 83.

[911] Some geologists have suggested that they may have come from Wales or even Cumberland!

[912] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 115-6.

[913] Cf. p. 156, _supra_.

[914] The circle at Callernish, which belonged to the Scottish Stone Age, and within which an interment was made, may have been contemporary with the Bronze Age of England.

[915] See pp. 468-77, _infra_. In a case containing a model of Stonehenge in the Prehistoric Room of the British Museum it is actually stated that ‘on the supposition that Stonehenge was a Sun-temple, its date has been astronomically determined’! I would ask the Keeper to consult Mr. Hinks’s paper in the _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903.

[916] See Polybius, iii, 38, §§ 1-2; 58-9; xxxiv, 10, § 7; Dion Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4.

[917] See p. 494 _infra_.

[918] See p. 513, note, _infra_.

[919] See p. pp. 490-1, 512, _infra_.

[920] See pp. 499-513, _infra_.

[921] See H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, 1897, pp. 15-6.

[922] Strabo, ii, 4, § 2. Cf. A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les vallées du Pô et du Danube_, 1894, p. 15.

[923] Strabo, ii, 1, § 12; 5, § 8. Cf. V. de St. Martin, _Hist. de la géogr._, 1873, p. 101.

[924] Plutarch (_De placitis philosophorum_, iii, 17, § 2), who evidently knew nothing about the tides, ascribed to Pytheas the absurd statement that high tide occurs at full moon, and low tide at new moon (Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης τῇ πληρώσει τῆς σελήνης τὰς πλημμύρας γίνεσθαι, τῇ δὲ μειώσει τὰς ἀμπώτιδας), a blunder which, as Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 365) remarks, nobody could have made who had spent twenty-four hours on the Atlantic coast. I agree with him that Pytheas had anticipated the discovery of Posidonius (Strabo, iii, 5, § 8), which, needless to say, must have been made long before by Phoenician mariners, but that he was unfortunate in his reporter. Cf. H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 155.

[925] See p. 221, _infra_, and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 155-7.

[926] See _ib._, p. 160, and _Geogr. Journal_, i, 1893, p. 520.

[927] Geminus, _Elem. astron._, ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, § 9); K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 311.

[928] _Ib._, p. 367.

[929] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3; ii, 3, § 5; iv, 5, § 5; vii, 3, § 1, &c. Cf. M. Dubois, _Examen de la géogr. de Strabon_, 1891, pp. 253-4, 264-5. In regard to the scientific eminence of Pytheas see V. de St. Martin, _Hist. de la géogr._, p. 107; K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 311-3; _Geogr. Journal_, i, 1893, pp. 520-1; and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 47-50.

[930] H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_, iii, 1891, p. 27.

[931] Strabo, ii, 4, § 2.

[932] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, 1902, p. 65.

[933] K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 311.

[934] See pp. 495-6, _infra_.

[935] Strabo, i, 4, §§ 3, 5; iii, 2, §§ 1, 11; iv, 4, § 1; Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 3; K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 368-70, 375-7; Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, part i, 1897, p. 863; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, pp. 66-71. Sir Clements Markham (_Geogr. Journal_, i, 1893, p. 516) holds that Pytheas sailed from Uxisama to Kent, ‘because he reported that the coast of Gaul, where he left it, was some days’ sail from Cantion’. But what he reported was simply that Cantium was some days’ sail from Gaul (καὶ τὸ Κάντιον ἡμερῶν τινων πλοῦν ἀπέχειν τῆς Κελτικῆς φησι [Strabo, _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3]); and this estimate may have been based upon his homeward voyage. Professor Ridgeway (_Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 97) referring to the same passage in Strabo, argues that he sailed from Brittany to the Isle of Wight. Müllenhoff gives satisfactory reasons for the view adopted in the text.

[936] Except by Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 46), who, however, may perhaps have changed his mind since the appearance of Mr. Clement Reid’s article in _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1905, pp. 281-8.

[937] See p. 359, _infra_.

[938] See _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1902, 1^{re} part., p. 268; 1903, 2^e part., p. 911.

[939] See pp. 499-507, _infra_.

[940] Strabo, i, 4, § 3; ii, 4, § 1. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 379-81) makes an ingenious attempt to explain Pytheas’s exaggeration. Cf. H. Berger, _Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_, iii, 1891, p. 37.

[941] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 4; ii, 1, §§ 13, 17; iv, 5, § 4.

[942] Strabo, iv, 5, § 5; Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 394-6.

[943] _Nat. Hist._, ii, 97 (99), § 217.

[944] _Mém. de l’Acad. des inscr._, xxxvii, 1724, p. 437; H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 159.

[945] _Whitaker’s Almanack_, 1897, p. 71. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 367, and _Geogr. Journal_, xix, 1902, p. 53.

[946] Strabo, ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 5. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 392.

[947] I have come independently to the same conclusion as M. V. de St. Martin (_Hist. de la géogr._, p. 103) and Mr. H. F. Tozer (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 158-9).

[948] Strabo, i, 4, § 2.

[949] H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_, iii, 1891, p. 37.

[950] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 5. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 393) insists that Strabo’s description must include Thule; for, he says, it compares the observations made by Pytheas in Thule with others, made in more southerly tracts, where wheat was grown and beer brewed. But, as I observe in the text, it is questionable whether Pytheas was ever in Thule.

[951] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3.

[952] _Ib._, ii, 5, § 8. See H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 159.

[953] K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 389. Cf. _Mém. de l’Acad. des inscr._, xxxvii, 1724, pp. 436-42.

[954] Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 386, 401) gives sufficient reasons for rejecting the statement of Cleomedes that there was continuous night in Thule for one month. The statement of Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 [30], § 104) that the winter night lasted six months needs no refutation.

[955] Strabo, i, 4, § 2.

[956] _Elem. astron._, ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, § 9).--ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς τόπους τούτους δοκεῖ καὶ Πυθέας ... παρεῖναι. φησὶ γοῦν ... ὅτι ‘ἑδείκνυον ἡμῖν οἱ βάρβαροι ὅπου ὁ ἥλιος κοιμᾶται. συνέβαινε γὰρ περὶ τούτους τοὺς τόπους τὴν μὲν νύκτα παντελῶς μικρὸν γίνεσθαι, ὡρῶν οἷς μὲν δύο, οἷς δὲ τριῶν, ὥστε μετὰ τὴν δύσιν μικροῦ διαλείμματος γινομένου ἐπανατέλλειν εἰθέως τὸν ἥλιον.’

[957] See H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde_, &c., iii, 1891, pp. 16-7.

[958] Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 388, 392.

[959] Strabo (ii, 4, § 1) seems to imply that Pytheas avowed that he described Thule from hearsay. He tells us on the authority of Polybius that Pytheas wrote an account of τὰ περὶ τῆς Θούλης καὶ τῶν τόπων ἐκείνων, ἐν οἷς οὔτε γῆ καθ’ αὑτὴν ὑπῆρχεν ἔτι οὔτε θάλαττα, οὔτ’ ἀήρ, ἀλλὰ σύγκριμά τι ἐκ τούτων πλεύμονι θαλαττίῳ ἐοικός, ἐν ᾧ φησι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλατταν αἰωρεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα, καὶ τοῦτον ὡς ἂν δεσμὸν εἶναι τῶν ὅλων, μήτε πορευτὸν μήτε πλωτὸν ὑπάρχοντα· τὸ μὲν οὖν τῷ πλεύμονι ἐοικὸς αὐτος ἑωρακέναι, τἆλλα δὲ λέγειν ἐξ ἀκοῆς.

[960] My view coincides, in regard to the identification of Thule, with that of G. Hergt (_Die Nordlandfahrt des Pytheas_, 1894), and also with that of M. Camille Jullian (_Journ. des Savants_, 1905, pp. 95, n. 1, 101, n. 2). Hergt’s work is not in the British Museum, and I have not been able to procure a copy; but his conclusions are summarized in _Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft_, 1895, iii, 167. He and M. Jullian (_op. cit._, p. 101) hold that Pytheas landed in Norway, and that the Norwegians with whom he conversed pointed out to him in the distance ‘le lieu mystérieux où le soleil repose durant les longues nuits du cercle polaire’. On this theory I cannot conceive how Pytheas came to regard Thule as one of the British Isles.

Müllenhoff, who identifies Thule with Mainland, argues, first (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 387-8) that Pytheas would hardly have succeeded in sailing to Norway in six days on account of difficulties, which he points out, in navigation; secondly (p. 393), that Pytheas, who distinguished between the Celtic and the Germanic populations of Northern Europe and must have been accompanied by an interpreter, would not have confounded Norway--a non-Celtic country--with Thule; thirdly (pp. 398-9), that agriculture was introduced into Norway by the Germans, that Pytheas, in his description of Britain and of Thule, did not say that corn was not cultivated there, and that, if he had visited Norway, he would have mentioned the Lapps and the reindeer; and lastly (pp. 399-400), that the place where ‘the barbarians’ showed him ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’ was evidently the most northerly land which he reached, and was not in the Arctic Circle.

Every one of these arguments rests upon the assumption that Pytheas visited Thule, for which, as we have seen, there is no evidence. Neither is there any that Thule was inhabited by a Celtic-speaking people: it is, as we have seen (p. 152, n. 2), absolutely certain that corn was cultivated in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age; and even if Pytheas did visit Thule, there is no reason to suppose that he went sufficiently far northward to come in contact with Lapps.

Mr. Tozer (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 159-60), who does not believe that Pytheas travelled further northward than ‘the extremity of Britain’, nevertheless holds with Müllenhoff that Thule was Mainland. He points out that ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’, which he of course locates in Thule, was in the Arctic Circle. ‘This of course,’ he continues, ‘would not apply to Shetland ... but on such a question the report of “barbarians” could hardly be expected to be accurate.’ Is not this a weak argument for identifying Thule with Mainland, where, even at the winter solstice, the sun is above the horizon five hours out of the twenty-four? The ‘barbarians’ had not themselves penetrated within the Arctic Circle; and that darkness was anywhere continuous for twenty-four hours would not have occurred to them if they had not learned the fact from Scandinavian sailors who had seen the phenomenon or had been informed of it by eye-witnesses. Moreover, Pytheas, who so accurately determined the latitude of Massilia, would hardly have allowed himself to be persuaded that Mainland was on the Arctic Circle.

[961] See, however, pp. 410, 449, _infra_.

[962] See pp. 232-3, _infra_.

[963] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 87, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_, p. xii. Hallstattian objects are also very rare in Northern Gaul (_Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, p. 38, n. 1).

[964] See pp. 411-2, 445-6, 449, _infra_.

[965] See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 163, ii, 179-87, iv, 11, 13, 61, and _Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, p. 26.

[966] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 262.

[967] See _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 930-1, and W. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, i, 407-52, 594-630. Cf. _Class. Rev._, xvi, 1902, pp. 74-5, 88-90.

[968] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 208-12. Cf. _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 109-11.

[969] Mr. Romilly Allen (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xiii, 1896, p. 223) argues from the fewness of the known Late Celtic burials that the period between the introduction of iron and the Roman conquest ‘cannot have been very long’. So also thought Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 212), apparently forgetting what he had very judiciously said on p. 50. The argument would lead to the conclusion that in Scotland the Late Celtic Period was almost non-existent; for only one interment of the Early Iron Age has been found there (p. 435, _infra_). Many such interments, unmarked by any tumulus, have doubtless escaped notice; and in many French departments they are unknown (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, p. 386; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 218-26).

[970] Sir J. Evans (_Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 39) remarks that, according to Ptolemy (_Geogr._, ii, 3, § 13), the territory of the Belgae included Ischalis (Ilchester), Aquae Calidae (Bath), and Venta (Winchester), and must therefore have comprised nearly all the area corresponding with Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire; but that in each of these counties we find a distinct coinage. Probably, he argues, when the inscribed coins of Somersetshire were struck, the Belgae only occupied the east of Hampshire and the west of Sussex. Without disputing this conclusion, I would suggest that since no one Gallic tribe was called the Belgae, the British Belgae, in the narrower sense of the term, may have been a loose confederation or aggregate of tribes or of _pagi_, each of which perhaps had its own coinage.

All scholars are, however, aware that it is generally impossible to determine the frontiers of the British tribes, even for the period of the Roman conquest, with any approach to the comparative accuracy which has been attained in the case of those of Gaul (see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 330-2). The delimitation of the tribal areas of independent Gaul depends mainly upon the reasonable assumption that they correspond for the most part exactly or nearly with those of the Gallo-Roman cantons (_civitates_). But in Britain we are not only baffled by the political changes which took place in the restless century that intervened between the invasions of Caesar and the Claudian conquest: we also find that although a recently discovered inscription (_Archaeologia_, lix, 1904, pp. 121-2) has shown that at all events in the case of the Ordovices the cantonal organization was preserved or adopted by the Roman Empire, yet, as Mommsen says (_Provinces_, i, 191 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 174]), ‘the Britannic tribes, taken in the strict sense, [apparently] disappear as soon as they fall under Roman rule, and of the individual cantons after their annexation there is virtually no mention at all.’ Moreover, the boundaries of the Gallo-Roman _civitates_ served, in principle, to define the areas of episcopal jurisdiction; and the areas of the Gallic dioceses are known. In Britain this source of information is wanting.

[971] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 387-8.

[972] _Archaeol. Rev._, ii, 1889, p. 324.

[973] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), pp. 159-60.

[974] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 83, 98, and p. 240, _infra_. It has been pointed out (_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 385-7) that the interments by inhumation which have been discovered at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire correspond with the Gallic interments of the fourth century before Christ. Since the Belgae appear to have practised cremation, these interments very likely indicate, what we know already, that there was a pre-Belgic Brythonic invasion of Britain: but it does not follow that they were contemporary with those of Gaul, and belonged to the time that immediately followed the close of the British Bronze Age; for, as we shall see (p. 286), inhumation persisted in Britain long after it had become obsolete on the other side of the Channel.

[975] See my article on the ethnology of Britain (pp. 428-45, _infra_).

[976] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-3.

[977] See pp. 459-60, _infra_.

[978] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, 1883, pp. 172-3; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 360-4; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 573-4; vii, 1896, p. 693; _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1895, p. 160; _Scotsman_, Dec. 14, 1895, p. 7, col. 6, Dec. 17, p. 7, col. 3, Dec. 19, p. 6, col. 5; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 921; _Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, pp. 40-1; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 12, 16-23, 29-30, 103; _Rev. des études anc._, viii, 1906, p. 119.

[979] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 60, 143-4, 159.

[980] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 371-3.

[981] _Ib._, pp. 360-70, 374-5.

[982] A. W. Franks, _Horae ferales_, 1863, pl. xiv, fig. 1; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 93.

[983] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 144-51.

[984] _Rev. celt._, xx, 1899, pp. 13-29, 117-31; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 417; _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., ii, 1903, p. 368; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 214; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 87, 105, 108.

[985] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 90-2; J. G. Bulliot, _Fouilles du mont Beuvray_, 1899, i, 123-6, 129-46; ii, 3-44.

[986] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, pp. 342-4; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 88-95. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 2; Herodian, iii, 14, § 7; J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 330; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 236. Helmets, as Sir J. Evans says, ‘could never have been in general use in Britain’; and the only two British specimens that have come to light are not earlier than the first century of our era.

[987] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, p. 125; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 88, 90.

[988] _Reports Architect. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 58; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 761-2.

[989] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 95-6.

[990] Sometimes the bronze covered some other material,--probably wood (_Archaeologia_, xlv, 1880, p. 263).

[991] _Agricola_, 36.

[992] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 498.

[993] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 98. See also, in regard to swords, _Archaeologia_, xviii, 1817, p. 341; xlv, 1880, pp. 251-66; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 275; _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 442; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Essex_, i, 268.

[994] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 502, 510; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 454-5; J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 115-6; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 214; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 57, 127.

[995] _Ib._, pp. 100, 127; _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 3-4; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 382; _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), p. 163; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 423.

[996] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 99. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 117-8.

[997] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 344-7.

[998] _Ib._, xvii, 1897-9, p. 120.

[999] _Archaeol. Journal_, iii, 1846, pp. 27-38; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, pp. 131, 135-6; _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 495-6; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 55-6, 137-8. A plain bronze torque was found on the neck of a skeleton in a grave at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire (_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-2) and a plain iron one on another (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 138).

[1000] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 3-4; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 210. Cf. _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 80-4.

[1001] _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, pp. 97-8.

[1002] _Hist. Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club_, 1856-62 (1863), p. 307.

[1003] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 3; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 475, 497; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 208; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 134-5; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, p. 102.

[1004] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.

[1005] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96; _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 130, 137.

[1006] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 358-9.

[1007] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 213-6.

[1008] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 126, 147, 160.

[1009] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xlv, 1889, p. 81; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 328-31, 333-4, 340-1, 343, 344-6, 350-5; _Essex Naturalist_, xiii, 1903, pp. 110-2; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, pp. 258-60; xx, 1901-5, p. 212; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 49, 66-8, 117-8, 122, 140; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 393. An urn figured in _26th ann. report Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, 1844 (1845), p. 22, appears to me to be of the Aylesford type.

[1010] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), p. 163; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 11; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904 (1905), p. 329; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, pp. 100-1; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 67, 141-2.

[1011] A. W. Franks, _Horae ferales_, pl. xv, fig. 1; J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 93-4. Although the known Late Celtic shields were oblong, long double-pointed shields and even round ones, which may have resembled those of the Late Bronze Age (p. 146, _supra_), are figured on gold coins belonging to the period between the invasions of Caesar and the Roman conquest (Tacitus, Agricola, 36; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 354; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 239).

[1012] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 376-7, 380.

[1013] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), pp. 160-2.

[1014] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 373; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 29.

[1015] See p. 357 _infra_.

[1016] _B. C._, i, 54, §§ 1-2.

[1017] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, iv, 1875, p. 425.

[1018] See G. Payne, _Collectanea Cantiana_, p. 129; _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, p. 217; lx, 1903, pp. 209-10; lxiv, 1904, pp. 309, 313, 318; _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 249; and J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. 381-5. Ancient ‘corduroy’ roads, made of ‘cross timbers laid side by side on three lines of supporting logs parallel to the direction of the road’, have been discovered near Gilpin Bridge in Cumberland (_Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 207-10); but their date cannot yet be fixed. It has been said that trackways were made (1) by digging two parallel ditches and throwing up the earth so as to form a bank between them, and (2) by digging one ditch and building the bank on one or on both sides. See _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xxi, 1900, pp. 105-6; _Trans. Birmingham and Midland Inst._, xxv, 1900, p. 41; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Berks_, i, 192.

[1019] _The Past in the Present_, p. 97 and figs. 70, 71, and 72. See also A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 78-9.

[1020] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, 1864, pp. 25-6, 47-8. See, however, A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, 1905, pp. 478-9. Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., Suppl., p. 424) admits that the Macedonian stater may not have been the sole progenitor of British coins. His son, Dr. A. J. Evans (_Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 [1896]) affirms that ‘Massalia, Rhoda, and Emporiae ... each contributed their part’, and that he has ‘succeeded in tracing back ... certain scrolls and outlines that appear on a class of late British coin-types that extend from Tewkesbury and Oxford, through Armoric and Iberic Gaul, and the Greek colonies beyond, still further ... to the head of Persephonê on the medallions of Syracuse’.

[1021] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 26-8.

[1022] _Num. Chron._, 3rd ser., xvi, 1896, p. 184. M. A. Blanchet (_Traité des monn. gaul._ p. 75) believes that the inscribed coinage of Gaul dates from about 150 B.C.

[1023] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 25-6, 31, 38; _ib._, Suppl., p. 423.

[1024] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 49-50, 69-70, 79, 81, &c.

[1025] _Geogr._, iv. 5, § 2.

[1026] _Agricola_, 12.

[1027] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 33; Suppl, pp. 473, 484-6.

[1028] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 99, 116-7, 123, 133.

[1029] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 36-7.

[1030] _Ib._, pp. 35-6, 41.

[1031] _Ib._, Suppl., p. 434.

[1032] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 50-2, 62, 81, 94.

[1033] _Ib._, p. 40.

[1034] _Ib._, pp. 38, 51, 95-7.

[1035] _Ib._, pp. 62-5, 81-3; Suppl., pp. 442, 481-3; _Archeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 327; A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, p. 515.

[1036] _B. G._, v, 12, § 4.--_utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut anulis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo._ So runs the passage in the British Museum Add. MS. 10084; but the Paris MS. 5764 has _taleis_ (bars) instead of _anulis_ (rings). ‘The phrase _aut aere_,’ says Dr. Haverfield (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 186), ‘must be wrong, and the conjecture _anulis_ in Add. MS. 10084 is plainly an attempt to explain _aliis_. As _aliis_ is the reading of A and part of B [the two principal families of the MSS. of Caesar’s _Commentaries_, generally quoted as α and β], and _taleis_ of the rest of B, and _aut aliis_ can hardly be other than a misreading of _aut taleis_, this latter may be accepted.’ E. Hübner (Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, 1897, p. 864) accepts _aut aere_.

[1037] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 179-91; _Class. Rev._, xix, 1905, pp. 206-7. Iron bars were also used as currency by the Spartans, and are still so used by the natives of West Africa near Sierra Leone.

[1038] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5; _Trans. Internat. Congress of Prehist. Archaeol._, 1868 (1869), pp. 185-90.

[1039] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 194.

[1040] See p. 260, _infra_.

[1041] See p. 499, _infra_.

[1042] See p. 267, _infra_. Caesar’s statement, that the Britons imported copper or bronze (_aere utuntur importato_ [_B. G._, v, 12, § 4]), has always been a puzzle. I doubt whether any scholar would now infer from it that the cakes of copper which have been found in bronze-founders’ hoards were of foreign origin; but it has been suggested (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 86) that Caesar may have referred to articles of foreign manufacture such as the bronze flagon mentioned on p. 246, _supra_. See also J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419.

M. S. Reinach (_Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, p. 173) infers from Caesar’s observation that ‘the industrial activity to which the relics of the Bronze Age testify had long ceased’, and that there was an arrest, or rather a recoil of civilization. But, as we shall see hereafter (p. 267), the culture of the Bronze Age persisted in certain parts of Britain until the Roman conquest. Were the bronze implements that were used in those parts imported? If so, how could they have been paid for without industrial activity; and what conceivable reason can be suggested for the assumed paralysis? The industrial activity of the Early Iron Age in Britain is unquestionable; and I doubt whether any theory could be framed to account for a cessation, contemporaneous with the manufacture of iron, of the trade of the bronze-founder.

[1043] See p. 148, _supra_.

[1044] See J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., p. 492; F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, 1906, pp. 20-1; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.

[1045] I have nothing to add to what I have already written on this question (_Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 521-3) except to refer, in support of my conclusion, to _Rev. crit. d’hist. et de litt._, nouv. sér., xxx, 1890, pp. 441-2, and E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_, i, 1900 (by G. Bloch), p. 61, n. 2; and, for a very clear but hardly complete summary of the controversy, to M. G. Dottin’s _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, 1906, pp. 184-6. Pasture land was not improbably common property both in Gaul and Britain. See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 95.

[1046] See pp. 339, 346, _infra_.

[1047] _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6.

[1048] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 422. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 4-6.

[1049] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 451; _Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 61; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, pp. 69, 78.

[1050] _Nat. Hist._, xvii, 6 (4), § 42; 8, § 45. Cf. Varro, _Rerum rust._, i, 7, § 8. See pp. 515-7, _infra_.

[1051] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, pp. 438-9; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 238-9; _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6; _Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 60.

[1052] W. Holloway, _Hist. of Romney Marsh_, 1849, pp. 10-1; C. H. Pearson, _Hist. Maps of England_, 1870, pp. 4-5; R. Furley, _Hist. of the Weald of Kent_, i, 1871, p. 387, and map facing p. 26; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 36; _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 157. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 27, ii, 56, iii, 3.

[1053] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 268-9; _ib._, _Somerset_, i, 213-4.

[1054] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 291, 338. See pp. 358-9, _infra_.

[1055] _Archaeol. Journal_, lxii, 1905, p. 265.

[1056] _Ib._, li, 1894, p. 338.

[1057] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 12. Cf. _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, map facing p. 380.

[1058] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick_, i, 227, and pp. 704-5, _infra_.

[1059] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 274, 300-2. See also pp. 272 n. 1, 275-6, 297.

[1060] _Ib._, lx, 1903, pp. 155-6, 174.

[1061] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxi, 1875, pp. 266-75; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, pp. 8 n. 3, 19-23, 29 n. 19, 50 § 4, 67 § 45, 69, 78; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, pp. 17-28.

[1062] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 233-46.

[1063] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 46.

[1064] A few pits like those of Mount Caburn, and containing similar relics, were found at Cissbury and Winkelbury (_Archaeol. Journal_, xli, 1884, p. 76).

[1065] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 39, 48-50; xlvi, 1881, pp. 450-1, 456-8.

[1066] Oppidum autem Britanni vocant, cum silvas impeditas vallo atque fossa munierunt, quo incursionis hostium vitandae causa convenire consuerunt. _B. G._, v, 21, § 3.

[1067] See p. 136, _supra_, and _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 458.

[1068] _B. G._, vii, 30, § 4.

[1069] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 266-7. Two forts with defences of this kind are known in Peebles-shire.

[1070] _B. G._, ii, 29, § 2; vi, 32, § 4. Cf. _Mém. de la Soc. nat. des ant. de France_, 4^e sér., ii, 1871, pp. 141-2.

[1071] See p. 70, _supra_.

[1072] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiii, 1899, pp. 29-30

[1073] See p. 138, _supra_, and also _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, pp. 438-9, 467; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 238-9; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvi, 1899, pp. 106-8, 130; xvii, 1900, pp. 189, 195, 206, 209; _Archaeol. Journal_, lvii, 1900, pp. 52-6, 60-3, 66-7; _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xvi, 1904, pp. 73-83; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 122-4.

[1074] See p. 134, _supra_.

[1075] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1898-9 (1900), p. 20.

[1076] See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxix, 1895, pp. 131, 149-50.

[1077] _B. G._, vii, 22.

[1078] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxv, 1891, pp. 428, 438, 440, 444-5.

[1079] _Ib._, xxxiii, 1899, pp. 15, 20-3, 26-32; xxxiv, 1900, p. 74. A similar method of fortification was practised by the Dacians (_Congrès archéol. de France_, 1874 [1876], p. 444), ‘in the Danne-werk at Korborg, near Schleswig’ (A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 254), and in Nassau (_Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, p. 45).

The well-known camp on Herefordshire Beacon is interesting because, like Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum), it contains a citadel. Though it is locally described as a ‘British camp’, its date is at present uncertain. While most of the objects which have been found in it are comparatively late, Pitt-Rivers (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p. 331) pointed out that the pottery seemed to indicate its Celtic origin; but the citadel presents a difficulty. Was it a later addition? See also F. J. Haverfield, _Archaeol. Survey of Herefordshire_, 1896, pp. 3-4.