Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (24)

[1309] E. A. Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, iii, 1875, p. 399. The minute details which Mr. F. H. Appach (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_, 1868, pp. 57-8, 99, 107-8) gives as to Caesar’s order of sailing both in 55 and 54 B.C. are imaginary: in saying this I have the support of Capt. Iron, the harbour-master of Dover. Moreover, if, as Mr. Appach conjectures, the transports had been drawn up for the disembarkation in 55 B.C. in two lines, one behind the other, the men, in attempting to disembark from the rear line, would have been drowned. See _B. G._, iv, 24, § 2, 25, § 3, and p. 673, _infra_.

[1310] In regard to Caesar’s expression--(III. fere vigilia) _solvit_ (_B. G._, iv, 23, § 1), see Prof. R. Y. Tyrrell’s _Correspondence of Cicero_, i, 1885, p. 193, with which cf. _B. C._, iii, 102, § 7.

[1311] See _Tidal Streams,--English and Irish Channels_.

[1312] See pp. 634-5, 644-6, _infra_.

[1313] See pp. 615-6, _infra_.

[1314] See p. 615, _infra_.

[1315] Cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus angustis mare continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum adigi posset. _B. G._, iv, 23, § 3.

[1316] See pp. 652-3, _infra_.

[1317] See pp. 648-9, _infra_.

[1318] See pp. 610-1, 647-9, _infra_. Strictly speaking, the true (not magnetic) direction of the stream, west of the South Foreland, would have lain between about ENE. and NE. by E. See _Archaeologia_, xxxix, 1863, pp. 291-3.

[1319] Cf. _B. G._, v, 14, § 2, with _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., ix, 1903, pp. 95-6.

[1320] _B. G._, iv, 25, § 5. See the notes in Kraner--Dittenberger’s edition and in that of C. E. C. Schneider.

[1321] _B. G._, v, 37, § 3.

[1322] Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 3; J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 192, 232, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 363.

[1323] _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, pp. 53, n. 6, 54.

[1324] aliae eodem unde erant profectae referrentur, aliae ad inferiorem partem insulae, quae est propius solis occasum, magno suo cum periculo deicerentur; quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus complerentur, necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem petierunt. _B. G._, iv, 28, §§ 2-3. See p. 598, n. 2, _infra_.

[1325] A gale blowing from the north-east on the eastern coast of Kent would be diverted on the south coast to ENE. This, or possibly NE. by E., may be assumed to have been the direction of the wind when the transports were scudding before it. If it had blown from a point nearer north they would have found shelter under the lee of the southern cliffs. See p. 582, _infra_.

[1326] See pp. 582, 651, _infra_.

[1327] See p. 219, n. 4, _supra_.

[1328] _B. G._, i, 50, §§ 4-5.

[1329] My view, which is based upon _B. G._, iv, 32--not § 5 only--is supported by Turpin de Crissé (_Comm. de César_, i, 1785, p. 294), but differs from that of von Göler (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 136, n. 3).

[1330] See _Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 229-31.

[1331] See pp. 676-7, _infra_.

[1332] It is impossible to decide whether the cohort or half-cohort which reported to Caesar (_B. G._, iv, 32, § 1) was an outlying piquet, as von Göler thinks (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 136, n. 2), or a guard stationed just outside one of the gates. The latter appears to have been the usual position. (_B. G._, vi, 37, §§ 3-4; _B. C._, i, 75, § 3; iii, 94, § 6). Von Göler’s opinion is based upon a mistranslation of the word _longius_ (_B. G._, iv, 32, § 3).

[1333] C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, i, 407) in a note on _B. G._, iv, 32, § 1, infers from vi, 37, §§ 3-4, that one cohort was on guard in front of each of the four gates of the camp. But there is no proof that in _B. G._, vi, 37, § 3, the word _cohors_ means an entire cohort, and not details thereof, or even if it does, that any hard-and-fast rule prescribed that, without regard to circumstances, one entire cohort, no more and no less, should invariably guard each of the four gates.

[1334] ... nostri se ex timore receperunt. Quo facto ad lacessendum hostem et committendum proelium alienum esse tempus arbitratus, suo se loco continuit, &c. _B. G._, iv, 34, §§ 1-2.

[1335] See pp. 311-2, _supra_.

[1336] Eo duae omnino civitates ex Britannia obsides miserunt, reliquae neglexerunt. _B. G._, iv, 38, § 4.

[1337] Cf. _B. G._, v, 8, § 4.

[1338] Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, i, 59-60 (ACTUARIAE NAVES).

[1339] I infer from Caesar’s narrative (see p. 334, _infra_) that his vessels were not provided with lee-boards, in regard to which see E. F. Knight, _Sailing_, 1900, pp. 16, 25.

[1340] See p. 331, n. 2, _infra_.

[1341] See Suetonius, _Divus Iulius_, 47, and also p. 350, _infra_.

[1342] Cf. _B. G._, v, 1, § 1 with p. 726, _infra_.

[1343] _Mescinium Rufum_, quem mihi commendas regem Galliae faciam.... Tu ad me alium mitte quem ornem.... Mitto igitur ad te Trebatium, &c. _Fam._, vii, 5, § 2. See R. Y. Tyrrell, _Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1886, p. 112, note.

[1344] In Britannia nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti. Id si ita est, essedum aliquod capias suadeo et ad nos quam primum recurras. _Ib._, vii, 7, § 1.

[1345] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 568-9.

[1346] Sed ille scripsit ad Balbum fasciculum illum epistolarum in quo fuerat mea et Balbi totum sibi aqua madidum redditum esse, ut ne illud quidem sciat, meam fuisse aliquam epistolam. Sed ex Balbi epistola pauca verba intellexerat, ad quae rescripsit his verbis: ‘De Cicerone te video quiddam scripsisse, quod ego non intellexi: quantum autem coniectura consequebar, id erat eius modi ut magis optandum quam sperandum putarem’. _Q. fr._, ii, 10, § 4. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell, _Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1886, p. 110, note.

[1347] Modo mihi date Britanniam, quam pingam coloribus tuis, penicillo meo. _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 2.

[1348] See p. 667, _infra_, and _Hermes_, xl., 1905, pp. 17-8.

[1349] Britannici belli exitus exspectatur. Constat enim aditus insulae esse muratos mirificis molibus. Etiam illud iam cognitum est, neque argenti scripulum esse ullum in illa insula neque ullam spem praedae nisi ex mancipiis, ex quibus nullos puto te litteris aut musicis eruditos exspectare. _Att._, iv, 16, § 7. See pp. 666-7, _infra_.

[1350] See p. 727, _infra_.

[1351] singulari militum studio in summa omnium rerum inopia circiter DC eius generis cuius supra demonstravimus naves et longas XXVIII invenit instructas neque multum abesse ab eo quin paucis diebus deduci possint. _B. G._, v, 2, §2.

[1352] See C. E. C. Schneider’s note (_Comm. de bellis C. Iulii Caesaris_, ii, 1849, pp. 43-4).

[1353] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 453-6, and H. J. Heller’s remarks in _Zeitschr. für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865, pp. 185-6.

[1354] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 816.

[1355] Ex Quinti fratris litteris suspicor iam eum esse in Britannia. Suspenso animo exspecto quid agat. _Att._, iv, 15, § 10.

[1356] nihil hunc se absente pro sano facturum arbitratus qui praesentis imperium neglexisset. _B. G._, v, 7, § 7.

[1357] See pp. 728-30, _infra_.

[1358] See pp. 349, 355, 670, _infra_.

[1359] Cicero, _ad Fam._, xii, 16, §§ 2-3, xv, 21; _ad Q. fr._, iii, 1, § 9. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, _Correspondence of Cicero_, iv, 1894, pp. lvii-lviii.

[1360] See p. 314, n. 3, _supra_.

[1361] See p. 729-30, _infra_.

[1362] See p. 658, _infra_.

[1363] Polybius, i, 50, §§ 7-8, 51, § 1. Cf. x, 43-7, and _Ency. Brit._, xxii, 1887, p. 49.

[1364] See pp. 655-9, _infra_.

[1365] See p. 348, _infra_.

[1366] See pp. 664-5, and 673-4, _infra_.

[1367] eo minus veritus navibus quod in litore molli atque aperto deligatas ad ancoras relinquebat. _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

[1368] See pp. 682-5, _infra_.

[1369] See p. 253, _supra_.

[1370] See A. von Göler, _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 149, n. 5.

[1371] See pp. 686-7, _infra_.

[1372] See pp. 685-8, _infra_.

[1373] Forcellini, _Totius latinitatis lex._, iv, 1868, p. 651.

[1374] _B. G._, v, 11, § 8. Cf. i, 30, § 4; ii, 4, § 4; iii, 8, § 3; vii, 63, §§ 6-7; and my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, p. 12.

[1375] See pp. 688-91, _infra_.

[1376] ... repente ex omnibus partibus ad pabulatores advolaverunt, sic uti ab signis legionibusque non absisterent. _B. G._, v, 17, § 2. See p. 692, _infra_.

[1377] ... neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes contenderunt. _B. G._, v, 17, § 5.

[1378] See p. 675, _infra_.

[1379] See G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, p. 197.

[1380] See p. 676, _infra_.

[1381] _B. G._, iv, 2, § 2.

[1382] W. Ridgeway, _Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse_, pp. 94-5, 102-3.

[1383] _B. G._, i, 48, §§ 4-7; iv, 2, §§ 2-3; vii, 65, § 5.

[1384] See p. 676, _infra_.

[1385] Livy, x, 28-30.

[1386] See pp. 692-8, _infra_.

[1387] _Archaeologia_, li, 1888, map facing p. 446.

[1388] See A. von Göler, _Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 157, n. 1.

[1389] See pp. 692-6, _infra_.

[1390] See p. 697, _infra_.

[1391] See pp. 698-9, _infra_.

[1392] Sed ea celeritate atque eo impetu milites ierunt, cum capite solo ex aqua extarent, ut hostes impetum legionum atque equitum sustinere non possent ripasque dimitterent ac se fugae mandarent. _B. G._, v, 18, § 5.

[1393] See _Archaeologia_, ii, 1773, p. 166.

[1394] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 284-5. I am inclined to think that the Bibroci, whether their name is connected with that of Berkshire or not, and the other two may have lived on the south of the Thames. Otherwise would they not have been clans either of the Trinovantes or the Catuvellauni? It seems unlikely that any group included in the latter would have dared in spite of Cassivellaunus to surrender. Dr. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_, 1896, xv,--‘Roman Britain’) suggests that the Bibroci may have been in Berkshire, and that they and the Segontiaci were clans of the Atrebates.

[1395] See J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 41, 225, 272-5, Suppl., pp. 534, 539-40; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 273. Sir J. Evans says that the word SEGO on coins of Tasciovanus ‘seems plainly to point to the tribe of the Segontiaci’; and as VER. on coins stands for Verulam, so SEGO, may stand for Segontium, the site of which is, however, unknown.

[1396] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 273-4.

[1397] _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 284-5.

[1398] See pp. 699-702, _infra_.

[1399] O iucundas mihi tuas de Britannia litteras! Timebam Oceanum, timebam litus insulae. Reliqua non equidem contemno, sed plus habent tamen spei quam timoris, &c. _Q. fr._ ii, 15 (16), § 4.

[1400] De Britannicis rebus cognovi ex tuis litteris nihil esse nec quod metuamus nec quod gaudeamus. _Ib._, iii, 1, § 10.

[1401] Ex Britannia Caesar ad me Kal. Sept. dedit litteras, quas ego accepi A.D. IIII. Kal. Octobr., satis commodas de Britannicis rebus, quibus, ne admirer quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit. _Ib._, § 25.

[1402] See pp. 672, 731-3, _infra_.

[1403] Such is Caesar’s statement (_B. G._, v, 22, § 3): but only his perfervid admirers deny that in certain passages of his memoirs he was guilty of misrepresentation; and there are critics who argue that he employed Commius to induce Cassivellaunus for a consideration to negotiate. See pp. 669-71, _infra_.

[1404] A Quinto fratre et a Caesare accepi A.D. IX. Kal. Nov. litteras, datas a litoribus Britanniae proximis A.D. VI. Kal. Octobr. Confecta Britannia, obsidibus acceptis, nulla praeda, imperata tamen pecunia, exercitum _e_ Britannia reportabant. _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. See pp. 712-3, 726, _infra_. Strabo (iv, 5, § 3) says that Caesar got much booty besides slaves.

[1405] See p. 499, _infra_ and Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, part i, 1897, p. 863.

[1406] Hominum est infinita multitudo creberrimaque aedificia fere Gallicis consimilia, pecoris magnus numerus. _B. G._, v, 12, § 3.

[1407] See pp. 225-6, _supra_.

[1408] Nos nihil de eo percontationibus reperiebamus, nisi certis ex aqua mensuris breviores esse quam in continenti noctes videbamus. _Ib._, 13, § 4.

[1409] _Ib._, 14, §§ 4-5.

[1410] See pp. 414-7, _infra_.

[1411] See p. 223, _supra_.

[1412] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 480.

[1413] Cf. Caesar, _B. C._, i, 44, § 4.

[1414] Quae prima signa conspexit, ad haec constitit. _B. G._, ii, 21, § 6.

[1415] Lord Wolseley, _The Soldiers’ Pocket-Book_, 5th ed., pp. 286, 412-7.

[1416] _Phars._, ii, 572.

[1417] See the passages quoted on pp. 329, 348, 350, _supra_, and also Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 2; Strabo, iv, 5, § 3; Plutarch, _Caesar_, 23; Appian, _De rebus Gall._, i, 5, _B. C._, ii, 17; Dion Cassius, lxii, 4, § 1; Tacitus, _Agricola_, 13; and Suetonius, _Divus Iulius_, 25.

[1418] ... divus Iulius cum exercitu Britanniam ingressus, quamquam prospera pugna terruerit incolas ac litore potitus sit, potest videri ostendisse posteris, non tradidisse (_Agricola_, 13).

[1419] Th. Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, v, 1894, p. 66 (_Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, p. 272). Mommsen is, I think, nearer the truth when he says (_The Provinces of the Roman Empire_, i, 1886, p. 171 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 155]) that ‘the Britons ... certainly did not long pay--perhaps never paid at all--the tribute,’ &c.

[1420] _Bibl. Hist._, v, 21, § 2.

[1421] Strabo, ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 3.

[1422] ... φέρει δὲ σῖτον καὶ βοσκήματα καὶ χρυσὸν καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ σίδηρον· ταῦτα δὴ κομίζεται ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ δέρματα καὶ ἀνδράποδα, &c. _Geogr._, iv, 5, §§ 2-3.

[1423] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 241, 265-6.

[1424] _Ib._, pp. 297-305, 347, 352-3.

[1425] _Ann._, xiv, 31.

[1426] See p. 510, _infra_.

[1427] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 99, 116, 126.

[1428] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxvi, 1870, p. 198; _Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, pp. 247-8. Silver coins of two values have been found in Sussex (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 109-10).

[1429] _Ib._, p. 44.

[1430] _Ib._, pp. 106, 131, 148, 361, 379-80; _Numism. Chron._, 3rd ser., xvi, 1896, pp. 183-4.

[1431] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 240-1.

[1432] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 246-7, 291.

[1433] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 161.

[1434] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 215.

[1435] _Ib._, p. 38.

[1436] _Ib._, p. 406.

[1437] _Ib._, p. 131.

[1438] _Ib._, pp. 40, 129; Suppl., pp. 433, 549, map facing p. viii, and indices of both vols.

[1439] _Ib._, p. 41.

[1440] See pp. 250-1, _supra_.

[1441] 22, 7 (9). Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., p. 36) says that Solinus made the statement quoted in the text about the Silures of South Wales; but he speaks of the inhabitants of the island of Silura, which, he says, is separated from the country of the Dumnonii (Cornwall) by a stormy strait (_Siluram insulam ab ora quam gens Brittana Dumnonii tenent turbidum fretum distinguit_). Mommsen, in his edition of Solinus (p. 113), remarks that as there is no island called Silura, we must either accept the reading of the ‘interpolated’ MSS., _insulae Sillinae_ (Scilly islands), or assume that Solinus based his statement upon a careless perusal of the passage in which Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 [30], § 103) mentions the Silures (_super eam_ [Britanniam] _haec_ [Hibernia] _sita abest brevissimo transitu a Silurum gente xxx_). Considering what Solinus says about the Dumnonii, I would adopt the former alternative.

[1442] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 39, 140-1; Suppl., p. 488 and map facing p. viii.

[1443] J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 29, 62. Professor Rhys (_ib._, pp. 40-1) remarks further that on coins of the Parisi ‘one Volisios styles himself sometimes Domnocoveros and sometimes Domnoveros, which may possibly have meant the guardian of the state, or the man of the people. At any rate ... the same term occurs on a coin of Dumnorix, the Æduan, whose great popularity with the common people Caesar dwells upon more than once.... On another of these northern coins the person who issued it gives himself a title, which, if correctly read Senotigirnios, would literally mean the old lord or monarch, whatever the exact official signification of that may have been among the Parisi. Unfortunately, the relation of these two kinds of coins to one another in point of time is not known; should they turn out to be of the same date, they might be taken to prove the state to have been divided into two parties, the one clinging to the representative of a dynasty, and the other rallying round one who gave himself out as the friend of the people.’

The professor’s ‘proof’, resting as it does upon possibilities and uncertainties, is hardly conclusive. Moreover the reading DOMNOVEROS does not occur at all, and must be replaced by DVMNOVELLAVNOS (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., p. 591)--the same name as that of the prince who sought the aid of Augustus (p. 363, _infra_); while the reading SENOTIGIRNIOS is hopelessly uncertain (J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 405, 410-1). The term which occurs on the coins of Dumnorix (assuming that Dumnorix and Dubnorex are identical) is DVBNOCOV (E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, _Cat. des monnaies gaul. de la Bibl. Nat._, 1889, Nos. 5026-48).

It is impossible to decide whether the coins to which Professor Rhys alludes belong to the Parisi or to the Brigantes (J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., Suppl., p. 589).

[1444] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 141; Suppl., p. 488.

[1445] According to Xiphilinus, the continuator and epitomator of Dion Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 2), the Caledonians had democratic government (δημοκρατοῦνται δὲ ὡς πλήθει): but Dion wrote in the third century; and he also says (_ib._, § 1) that they did not till the soil, which, considering that bronze sickles have been found in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire, and Sutherlandshire (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 199-200), and that ancient Scottish querns are numerous (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 259), is hardly credible.

[1446] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 223-4.

[1447] _Ib._, pp. 223-6, 239-40.

[1448] _Ib._, pp. 222-3.

[1449] _Ib._, pp. 200, 216, 226, 238-9, 274; _Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 154.

[1450] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 200, 226, 279-80.

[1451] _Hist. Brit._, iv, 11. Cf. J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 288-9.

[1452] _Ib._, pp. 289-90; Suppl., pp. 479, 565.

[1453] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., p. 283. See p. 369, n. 3, _infra_.

[1454] _Ib._, pp. 200-2, 226, 287, 291.

[1455] _Ib._, pp. 226, 287-9.

[1456] _Ib._, pp. 137-8. Sir John Evans is mistaken in identifying the Dobuni with the Boduni, whom Aulus Plautius subdued (Dion Cassius, lx, 20, § 2), and who were certainly a south-eastern tribe. See Th. Mommsen, _Provinces_, i, 175, n. 1 (_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 160, n. 1) and F. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_, xv,--‘Roman Britain’).

[1457] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 287.

[1458] _C. Caligula_, 44.

[1459] _Res gestae divi Augusti_ ed. Th. Mommsen, 1883.

[1460] _Ib._ p. 139.

[1461] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 200-2; Suppl, p. 527. According to Mommsen (_Provinces_, i, 171 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 156]), Dubnovellaunus was ‘probably the successor of the prince of the Trinovantes confirmed by Caesar’. The only ground for this conjecture is that Dubnovellaunus appears to have had temporary dominion over the country of the Trinovantes, which had previously been annexed by Tasciovanus. But the fragmentary numismatic evidence which is all that we have to go upon seems to show that Dubnovellaunus was originally King of Kent.

[1462] Gold coins have been found, struck by a king named Addedomaros, which appear to show that he began to reign earlier than Cunobeline, and that his dominions were in the eastern counties, their centre being Essex; but there is no evidence for defining his relations with Cunobeline or Dubnovellaunus (_Numism. Chron._, 4th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 12, 16).

[1463] ‘primas tres’ [litteras], says Mommsen, ‘in Latino exemplo TIM fuisse Chishullius auctor est, qui unus eas servavit, in Graecis non superest nisi prima T. Comparavit Evansius (l. c. p. 159) nummos inscriptos _Tinc... Commi f(ilius)_ repertos praesertim in regione Sussex, potestque fortasse defendi in lapide Ancyrano superfuisse TIN et postremam litteram fractam errore pro M acceptam esse.’

[1464] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., pp. 499, 515. In his earlier volume (pp. 159-60) Sir John Evans remarks that ‘possibly it is his [Tincommius’s] name which is preserved in the form of TIM, in company with that of Dubnovellaunus, in the inscription at Ancyra.... I should, however,’ he adds, ‘regard Tinc[ommius] as belonging to a rather earlier period than Dubnovellaunus, though both must have been contemporaries of Augustus,’ &c.

[1465] _Ib._, pp. 153-4.

[1466] Huius opera Commii, ut antea demonstravimus, fideli atque utili superioribus annis erat usus in Britannia Caesar; pro quibus meritis civitatem eius immunem esse iusserat, iura legesque reddiderat atque ipsi Morinos attribuerat. Tanta tamen universae Galliae consensio fuit libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae ut neque beneficiis neque amicitiae memoria moverentur omnesque et animo et opibus in id bellum incumberent. _B. G._, vii, 76, §§ 1-2.

[1467] J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 30-1.

[1468] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., p. 156. Cf. pp. 83, 157-8; Suppl., p. 499; and _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxvi, 1870, p. 196.

[1469] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 154-5.

[1470] _Ib._, pp. 153, 155-6.

[1471] _Ib._, p. 155.

[1472] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 155, 158, 171; Suppl., p. 521.

[1473] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 170-2; Suppl., pp. 508-9.

[1474] _Ib._, pp. 523-4. Is it permissible to suppose that Verica may have ruled the Gallic, and Eppillus the British Atrebates?

[1475] See J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 159, 172.

[1476] _Ib._, p. 172.

[1477] _Ib._, pp. 172-3, 183.

[1478] See p. 363, _supra_.

[1479] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., p. 161 and pl. I, no. 12.

[1480] _Ib._, p. 194 and pl. III, no. 14.

[1481] As far as I know, I am alone responsible for the conjecture which I have made in the text.

[1482] Dion Cassius, xlix, 38, § 2.

[1483] _Georg._, i, 30.

[1484] _Carm._, i, 35, 29.

[1485] _Ib._, iii. 5, 2-4.

[1486] Dion Cassius, liii, 22, § 5; 25, § 2.

[1487] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 32), apparently forgetting the dates (which I have given in the text) of Augustus’s preparations for invading Britain, suggests that ‘it may be that it was the representations of the [fugitive British princes] ... that led him thereto.’

[1488] ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 3.

[1489] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 384.

[1490] Velleius Paterculus, ii, 110, § 5.

[1491] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 489-94.

[1492] xi, 53.

[1493] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 151, 156.

[1494] See J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 25-6.

[1495] νυνὶ μέντοι τῶν δυναστῶν τινες τῶν αὐτόθι πρεσβεύσεσι καὶ θεραπείαις κατασκευσάμενοι τὴν πρὸς Καίσαρα τὸν Σεβαστὸν φιλίαν, ἀναθήματά τε ἀνέθηκαν ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ, καὶ οἰκείαν σχεδόν τι παρεσκεύασαν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ὅλην τὴν νῆσον (_Geogr._, iv, 5, § 3).

[1496] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 226, 289-90. Sir John observes that Jupiter Ammon, Hercules, Apollo, Diana, Cybele, and other deities are figured on silver and copper coins of Cunobeline, which proves ‘how completely Roman mythology had taken root ... unless we are to suppose that the types were ... left to the mere fancies of the engravers’, who either were Roman or had been trained in Roman workshops.

[1497] _Hist. Brit._, iv, 11.

[1498] Tacitus, _Ann._, ii, 24.

[1499] See Mommsen’s _Provinces_, i, 173-4 (_Röm. Gesch._, v, 157-8).

[1500] Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., pp. 208-9) gives good reasons for not identifying Adminius with the Amminus whose name appears on coins. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 34, 280.

[1501] Suetonius, _C. Caligula_, 44. Cf. J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., p. 285.

[1502] _Ib._, pp. 286-7. See also Tacitus, _Ann._, xii, 35.

[1503] See p. 330, _supra_.

[1504] This is the theory of Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 36-8) and apparently also of Sir John Evans (_Coins of the Anc. Britons_,--Suppl., pp. 489-93, with which cf. p. 584 and pp. 358, 366-7, 381-5, 387-9 of the earlier volume); but it will not bear examination. Bericus was one of the fugitives whose retention at Rome was resented by the two sons of Cunobeline who remained in Britain. It is admitted, or rather maintained, by Professor Rhys that the Iceni were hostile to the dynasty of Cunobeline. It would seem therefore that if, as the professor suggests, Antedrigus was forced to flee from the Iceni when they joined the Romans, he belonged to a party among the Iceni which was not opposed to the sons of Cunobeline and was perhaps even in sympathy with them. But if he had prevailed over Bericus and forced him to flee, his party was evidently the stronger. Why then should he have been forced to quit the Icenian territory? Are we to assume that the anti-Catuvellaunian party among the Iceni, to which Bericus _ex hypothesi_ belonged, was originally the weaker, but on the return of Bericus suddenly became the stronger? May we not rather suppose that Bericus was one of the sons of Cunobeline and was for some reason at variance with his brothers, Caratacus and Togodumnus; that the Iceni, with whom he was in sympathy, were for the most part or as a whole opposed to them; and that Antedrigus was not the leader of a faction but the king of the Iceni, who, like Gallic kings mentioned by Caesar, was unpopular with his nobles and his subjects generally, and was by them forced to flee?

[1505] Dion Cassius, lx, 19, § 1.

[1506] Suetonius, _Claudius_, 17.

[1507] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 284-5. Professor Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_, xv,--‘Roman Britain’) thinks that Claudius’s pretext, as stated by Dion Cassius--the appeal of Bericus--‘may well be the real reason for the undertaking’. Mommsen (_Provinces_, i, 174, n. 1 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 158, n. 1]) says ‘The war was certainly not waged on account of Bericus (Dio, lx, 19)’.

[1508] F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, pp. 9-12.

[1509] _Ib._, pp. 14-5; _Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton_, i, 159-62.

[1510] _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xi, 1896, pp. 417-30.

[1511] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 268-9, and cf. F. W. Maitland, _Domesday Book and Beyond_, 1897, pp. 222, 327-40.

[1512] A few years ago Professor Macalister (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, pp. 407-8) propounded a set of questions which, he suggested, might be answered by the help of an ‘ethnographic census’:--‘Have we’, he asked, ‘any representatives of the pre-Celtic inhabitants? ... if so, are such people of a pre-Aryan stock, and are they of the same type as the long-headed people in the long barrows? ... Are these the Silures? ... Were the Celtic immigrants homogeneous? ... What relation subsisted between the Cymric and Gaidhelic-speaking peoples?’ &c. It will be apparent to any one who reads this article that most of these questions can be answered without the aid of an ‘ethnographic census’; and that, if they could not be answered independently, such aid would be insufficient unless it could be supplemented by new archaeological and linguistic information. The unofficial census which has been carried out by Dr. Beddoe, M. H. Muffang, Sir William Turner, and, perhaps in consequence of Professor Macalister’s suggestion, by Dr. C. R. Browne, Messrs. Gray and Tocher, and other anthropologists, is of course incomplete; but it may be doubted whether the evidence which they have collected would be seriously modified by further investigation. When Dr. Collignon undertook a similar informal census in France, he compared in each department the mean cephalic index of the whole number of the heads which he had measured with that of the ten which he had measured first; and in every instance the difference was less than 1 per cent. (Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 320).

[1513] _Mém. d’anthr._, iv, 1883, p. 243.

[1514] Professor W. Z. Ripley thinks that the difference is nearer 1·5 than 2 (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 516-9); while Mr. Gray (_Man_, ii, 1902, No. 41, pp. 50-1) regards the method of subtracting 2 as ‘illogical’, and would subtract 8 mm. from the breadth and 10 mm. from the length.

Certain minute differences between Broca’s system of measuring the skull, which is followed everywhere except in Germany, and that adopted by the German anthropologist, von Ihering, are lucidly explained by Otto Ammon (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 676-82) and Professor Ripley (_The Races of Europe_, 1900, p. 593), but may, for the purpose of the present inquiry, be safely disregarded.

[1515] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 249-50.

[1516] For instance, Prof. Ripley (_The Races of Europe_, p. 37), Dr. Beddoe (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, No. 93), Sir W. Turner (_Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part iii, 1903, pp. 547-614), and Prof. Symington (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903, p. 796). See also _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, pp. 105-6, and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, pp. 181-206.

[1517] See Prof. C. S. Myers’s article (_ib._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 36-40) and _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 13, pp. 28-32. I confess that I do not believe that for the present inquiry any valuable result would be attained by revising, on what are called ‘biometric’ lines, the craniological work which has already been done for ancient Britain. See _Nature_, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458, and _Biometrika passim_.

[1518] _The Mediterranean Race_, 1901, p. 102. See also _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, pp. 105-6; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1901, p. 778; _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 41, p. 50; and _Nature_, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458.

[1519] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 104.

[1520] _Ib._, p. 195.

[1521] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii. 1864-7, p. 284. Cf. G. Rolleston (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 646, n. 1).

[1522] For instance, on pages 136, 138, 143, 160-2, 189-92, and 238.

For evidence that ‘the mesaticephals’, Sergi’s opinion notwithstanding, are the result of intermarriage between ‘dolichocephals’ and ‘brachycephals’, see _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, iv, 1894, p. 399; v, 1895, p. 413.

[1523] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 199-200. Professor Rolleston (_Brit. Barrows_, 1877, p. 568) so far supports Sergi’s view that he regards a skull as brachycephalic, even though its index be less than 80, if it has what he regards as the distinguishing characteristic of brachycephaly, which he proceeds to explain in terms that are too technical for the general reader. Ethnological students will remember the passage.

[1524] Even Sergi, as Mr. Myers observes (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 37), ‘shows signs of yielding the isolated position which he originally took up as to the utter worthlessness of indices.’ He has recently affirmed (_Archiv für Anthr._, N. F., iii, 1904, p. 120) that the long and the short types of European skulls are specifically different,--that the ‘Eurafrican’ species is dolichocephalic and the ‘Eurasiatic’ brachycephalic. See also _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 587-8.

[1525] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 38, 40.

[1526] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 105.

[1527] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 568.

[1528] See A. de Quatrefages and E. T. Hamy, _Crania Ethnica_, 1876-82, pl. lv, and _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 150.

[1529] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 621. For some valuable remarks on the permanence of cranial types notwithstanding changes of environment, see Mr. J. L. Myres’s paper in _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, p. 559, with which cf. pp. 555-6.

[1530] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 246, n. 1.

[1531] A. H. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 1888, pp. 205-6. See also Dr. Beddoe’s remarks in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xvii, 1888, pp. 202-9.

[1532] I say ‘for our purpose’ because of many of the skeletons with which we are here concerned the only relevant measurement that exists is that of the thigh-bone. Dr. Garson (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p. 9) thinks that the ‘most reliable estimate of stature is obtained from the length of the femur and tibia added together’ according to the formula (Femur + Tibia x 100) / 49·4

[1533] _Ib._, xvii, 1888, p. 204. Dr. Beddoe’s arguments are very strong; and his method appears to me better, on the whole, than that of Dr. Topinard, expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·1 (_ib._, xxii, 1893, p. 9), or than that of M. Rollet (_ib._, p. 19, note), expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·3. So far as I know, the most exhaustive discussion of the question is that of M. L. Manouvrier (_Mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 2^e sér., iv, 1892, pp. 347-402), who points out defects in the methods of Dr. Beddoe and MM. Topinard and Rollet; but although he has perhaps shown how greater accuracy can be achieved, the more or less approximate results that have been already obtained are sufficient for our purpose: we should not be in a better position for solving the problems of the ethnology of Ancient Britain even if the Britons whose skeletons have been preserved had been measured in their lifetime, and the measurements recorded.

[Since the foregoing note was written I have read a most interesting paper by Dr. Beddoe (_Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xv, 1902, pp. 161-78), which confirms my conviction that his is the best method of measurement, although he confesses (p. 165) that it ‘probably errs by excess in the higher statures’. Remarking (p. 163) that prehistoric bones ‘have lost much of their original substance, and are probably from 1 to 3 millimetres short of their original length’, he says, ‘Manouvrier does not seem to have made any provision for this reduction; and I apprehend that his computed statures must on an average be a little too low’. See Addenda.]

[1534] See pp. 25-30, _supra_.

[1535] See p. 35, _supra_.

[1536] _Proc. Philosoph. Soc. Glasgow_, xxx, 1899, pp. 30-8.

[1537] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 42.

[1538] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 217, 221. See also _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, li, 1895, pp. 505-27, and especially 516 and 526.

[1539] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, pp. 51-5. Cf. Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 542, 656, 703.

[1540] See p. 33, _supra_.

[1541] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 607.

[1542] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, p. 51, pl. iv-vi; _Nature_, Nov. 15, 1894, p. 68. A skeleton of palaeolithic age was found two years ago near Luton in Bedfordshire, but has not been preserved (_Man_, vi, 1906, No. 6, pp. 10-1).

[1543] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1; Ph. Salmon, _L’Age de la Pierre_, 1889, p. 62; J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, 1900, pp. 310-2.

[1544] The reader will remember that the age of the Neanderthal skull is uncertain. See p. 34, _supra_. The _norma verticalis_ of the Galley Hill skull is different from that of ‘the continental forms’ (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, li, 1895, p. 526); and the profile is not brutal.

[1545] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 90.

[1546] Der Neanderthalschädel (_Bonner Jahrbücher_, Heft 106, 1901, pp. 1-72). See also _Globus_, lxxx, 1901, pp. 217-22; lxxxi, 1902, pp. 165-74; the notices of Schwalbe’s article in _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 129, pp. 186-9; and _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 356-8, xvii, 1906, pp. 67-72.

[1547] Mr. J. Gray (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 17, pp. 28-9) summarizes Schwalbe’s most recent views (_Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen_).

[1548] Professor Johnson Symington (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903, p. 798) holds that Schwalbe ‘has not sufficiently recognised the significance of the large cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull ... or made sufficient allowance for the great variations in form which skulls undoubtedly human may present’; and he affirms that the Neanderthal skull ‘was capable of lodging a brain fully equal in volume to that of many existing savage races’.

[1549] See p. 40, _supra_.

[1550] _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, pp. 17-8.

[1551] _Ib._, p. 395.

[1552] _Ib._, pp. 396-7.

[1553] See p. 35, _supra_.

[1554] See J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, pp. 311-2 and fig. 87. Dr. J. G. Garson (_Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1) implies, if I do not misunderstand him, that the Laugerie-Basse skeletons belonged to the Neanderthal race. I can only invite the reader to compare the illustrations of the two types, and refer to Deniker, Philippe Salmon, and the French anthropologists generally in support of my view. But when Salmon (_L’Age de la Pierre_, p. 64) remarks that ‘le crâne de Laugerie-Basse ... présente une forme manifeste de transition entre le type des premiers temps quaternaires et ceux de Cro-Magnon’ [the oldest of the French neolithic skulls], I am unable to follow him. See _Geogr. Journ._ xxviii, 1906, p. 546. The known skulls of Neanderthal type do not belong to ‘les premiers temps quaternaires’, and the age of the Neanderthal skull is unknown. See p. 34, _supra_.

[1555] See p. 35, _supra_.

[1556] I find that Sir John Evans (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1897 [1899], p. 12) has argued in the same sense.

[1557] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 292.

[1558] _Ib._, and p. 111.

[1559] _Ib._, pp. 110, 292, 297. M. Verneau holds that the skeletons of Laugerie-Basse and Chancelade are the ‘arrière-petits-fils’ of this inhabitant of the Mentone cave.

[1560] _Ib._, p. 299.

[1561] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 292-3. Cf. vol. xvi, 1905, pp. 503-6. M. E. Piette (_Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., iii, 1902, pp. 773-4), if I do not misunderstand him, attributes negroid characters to the Neanderthal race.

[1562] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 308-9. It has been maintained that another--the so-called steatopygous--race existed in Gaul in late palaeolithic times. If any reader does not know the meaning of ‘steatopygous’, let him use his dictionary, and he will pardon me for not having translated the word into plain English. The existence of this people is inferred from the discovery of certain ‘statuettes’ at Brassempouy in the department of the Landes (_L’Anthr._, vi, 1895, pp. 129-51) and near Mentone. I have not seen them; but when I saw the woodcut of one which was selected for illustration (_Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., iii, 1902, p. 775, fig. 4), it seemed to me that the carving was so villainous that no scientific conclusion could be drawn from it; and I am glad to find (p. 778) that this was the opinion of M. Manouvrier. M. Piette, however, assures us (_L’Anthr._, vi, 1895, p. 143) that the ‘Venus of Brassempouy’ is ‘l’œuvre d’art la plus parfaite qui soit sortie des mains des sculpteurs éburnéens’. Anyhow, though it would not be difficult for a sculptor to make statuettes of steatopygous individuals in the England of to-day, there is no evidence that the ‘race’ in question, if it existed in palaeolithic Gaul, ever penetrated into this country.

[1563] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 207.

[1564] _Ib._, pp. 230, 243.

[1565] _Ib._, pp. 204-5.

[1566] _Ib._, p. 111, fig. 24.

[1567] See p. 435, _infra_.

[1568] _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 230-1.

[1569] _Ib._, pp. 202-3.

[1570] See p. 40, _supra_.

[1571] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 475, 641-3.

[1572] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 230.

[1573] _Ib._, and p. 243.

[1574] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 230.

[1575] _Ib._ p. 243.

[1576] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 475, 499-500, 522, 641; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 62.

[1577] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 90.

[1578] _The Races of Britain_, 1885, pp. 8-9.

[1579] _Crania Ethnica_, pp. 28-9.

[1580] See _Quart. Journ. of Science_, 1864, p. 96; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 288-90; _Anthr. Review_, iii, 1865, pp. 372-3; S. Laing, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 114, 125, and fig. 44-7, 60-61; Worthington Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 37-9; J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, p. 312; and _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, xxxix, 1905, pp. 423-4. Dr. Wright (_Ib._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 120) has described two skulls of Chancelade type, found in a round barrow near Garton-on-the-Wolds of the late Stone Age or Early Bronze Age.

[1581] J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, p. 312, n. 1; _Scottish Review_, xx, 1892, pp. 148, 152-3; _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1899, p. 261; _Nature_, March 7, 1901, p. 457.

[1582] See p. 59, _supra_.

[1583] _Ethnology_, 1896, p. 113.

[1584] See pp. 19-22, 59-60, 62, _supra_.

[1585] _Trans. Internal. Congr. Prehist. Arch._, 1868 (1869), p. 278. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell indeed affirms (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xi, 1891, pp. 226-7) that remains of some of the extinct mammals, including the elephant, ‘are found high up in the’ alluvium, and that mammoths’ teeth, not ‘derived’, have frequently been met with in peat in the valley of the Thames.

[1586] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 246.

[1587] _Ib._

[1588] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 246.

[1589] _Ib._, p. 248.

[1590] Even this, however, is not absolutely certain. See p. 62, _supra_.

[1591] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 250.

[1592] _Ib._, p. 255. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 10 (pref.), note.

[1593] See Mr. W. J. Knowles’s valuable article in _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vii, 1897, pp. 1-18.

[1594] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p. 98. See pl. iii and iv, facing p. 98. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xi, 1891, pp. 225-6, note) and Mr. Worthington Smith (_Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 299) also regard certain British implements as mesolithic; and Mr. Spurrell (_op. cit._, p. 226) gives reasons for believing that the Tilbury skull belonged to a period of transition.

[1595] _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 501.

[1596] To quote Mr. Allen Brown (_Journ. Anthr. Inst_., xxii, 1893, p. 93), ‘Sir J. Evans says, “It is almost demonstrable that some of the chipped celts which have hitherto been classed as Neolithic must be among the earliest of the Neolithic implements,” and “must in all probability date back to a very distant period”. It is to these forms, which appear to be of transition age, that I would apply the term Mesolithic.... At present some flint implements, which from their form would be ranged under one of the later Palaeolithic groups by the French geologists, would be included in the ... Neolithic in England.’ Mr. Brown’s quotation from Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, pp. 85-6) is substantially but not verbally accurate.

[1597] _Cave Hunting_, pp. 353-9; _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 233-42.

[1598] See A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 310.

[1599] See p. 49, _supra_.

[1600] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, pp. 387-8; _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, pp. 707-9; xvii, 1906, pp. 180-2.

[1601] _Cave Hunting_, p. 243.

[1602] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 179.

[1603] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 257.

[1604] _L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 1-17, 388-9; R. Munro, _Prehist. Problems_, pp. 66-81; _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, pp. 277-84; _Athenaeum_, Jan. 14, 1899, p. 53; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, ix, 1899, p. 275, xiv, 1904, pp. 160, 378; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., v, 1904, p. 614; _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 33^e sess., 1904 (1905), p. 1035.

[1605] See p. 61, _supra_. Dr. A. J. Evans, who in 1893 was ‘so overpowered by the vision of the yawning hiatus’ between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Age that he regarded the skeletons of the Baoussé Roussé caves as neolithic, has of course since recanted (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 908).

[1606] _Celtic Folk-Lore_, 1901, pp. 675-6.

[1607] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11.

[1608] _Celtic Folk Lore_, pp. 679-80.

[1609] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 888.

[1610] _Celtic Folk Lore_, pp. 683-6.

[1611] In _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 288, Professor Rhys suggested that _Coritani_ might be a pre-Celtic word; and as the suggestion is repeated on p. 293 of the 3rd edition, which has just appeared (November, 1904), it would seem that he does not set great store by his intermediate conjecture,--that _Coritani_ is derived from the Celtic word _cor_.

[1612] Vol. ii, pp. 675-6.

[1613] _The Welsh People_, 1900, and 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-2. The references which Prof. Rhys gives to Ripley’s _Races of Europe_ (pp. 322, 328, 521) do not prove that the country of the Coritani was inhabited by dwarfs, but only by descendants of the neolithic population.

[1614] _Fians, Fairies and Picts_, 1893, pp. 44-53; _Antiquary_, xxxvi, 1900, pp. 53-6, 70-4; _Scottish Notes and Queries_, 2nd ser., i, 1900, pp. 137-9; _The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist_, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 89-97; _Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901, pp. 131-48; _Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1902, pp. 179-94. See also _Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, pp. 212-23; xx, 1863, pp. 32-7; Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, 1880, pp. 59-72; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxvii, 1881, pp. 254-61; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1902 (1903), p. 755; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvii, 1903, pp. 352-9.

[1615] _Scottish Notes and Queries_, 2nd ser., i, 1900, pp. 137-8. ‘Mound-dwellings’ and other ‘earth-houses’ are commonly assigned to the Early Iron Age. See R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, 1899, pp. 345-81.

[1616] He tells us (_Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901, pp. 139-40) that ‘the early Gaelic chroniclers assert that the Gaels were preceded in Scotland and Ireland by two races’ [the Picts and the Dananns]. ‘Of them too,’ he adds, ‘it is said that they lived in hidden habitations, that they also persecuted the newer race.’ In other words, the ‘mound-folk’ who, according to Professor Rhys, were ‘slaves and drudges’ of the neolithic race, were themselves persecutors of the Celts. That the Picts, or some of them, lived in ‘hidden habitations’ I am not concerned to deny; as for the ‘Dananns’ of Irish legend, I would ask Mr. MacRitchie to read what Professor Rhys (_Celtic Heathendom_, p. 119) has written about them. ‘The earliest Scottish writer, so far as I am aware,’ continues Mr. MacRitchie (_Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901, p. 141), ‘who speaks of the Picts as a small race living underground was a fifteenth-century Bishop of Orkney, Thomas Tulloch.... Tulloch compiled a Latin account of Orkney (_De Orcadibus Insulis_) ... and therein he states that the Picts inhabiting those islands ... in the ninth century were “not much bigger than pigmies in stature”, and that ... they occasionally took refuge “in little houses underground”’. The work of Tulloch, or rather Tullock, is not mentioned in the catalogue of the British Museum; and I cannot verify Mr. MacRitchie’s quotation. But is the statement of a fifteenth-century compiler about the stature of a people who lived in the ninth century to be taken seriously as evidence? And if so, what does it prove about the Picts as a whole? What more does it prove than this,--that in a remote group of islands there were dwarfish people who were included under the name ‘Picts’,--a name which of course denoted not a race but a heterogeneous population, comprising people whom the physical anthropologist would classify under several heads?

[1617] _Antiquary_, xxxvi, 1900, pp. 54-5.

[1618] Cf. _Archaeol. Journal_, xx, 1863, pp. 33-4. Some ‘mound-dwellings’, the chambers in which were of habitable though very small size, have, I am of course aware, been proved to have been really dwellings.

[1619] _Antiquary_, xxxvi, 1900, p. 73. See also _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vii, 1870, pp. 519-23.

[1620] I find that this suggestion is supported by Mr. W. C. Mackenzie (_ib._, xxxix, 1905, p. 257), who truly says that tradition ‘measures its low-statured people by inches, just as it measures its tall peoples by yards’.

[1621] See W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 552-3, 687, iii, 801, 805, 810, &c. Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 344) tells us that he has examined many mounds in Westmorland, locally called ‘Giants’ Graves’, without finding anything in them. In regard to the danger of trusting to legend and folk-lore as evidences of the former existence of giants and dwarfs, see E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, pp. 385-8.

[1622] _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, xxvi, 1894, pp. 189-254; _Die Pygmäen und ihre systematische Stellung innerhalb des Menschengeschlechts_, 1902, reviewed in _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 62, p. 112. See also _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, pp. 37-9.

[1623] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 51.

[1624] J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, p. 13.

[1625] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 41. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 333) has, however, affirmed that ‘the few explored long barrows’ of the district between Driffield and Aldro’ in Yorkshire have yielded skulls whose cephalic indices exceeded 80; and one of the skulls found in the cave of Perthi-Chwareu in Denbighshire had a cephalic index of 80. See p. 396, n. 17, _infra_.

[1626] _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 522. See also p. 517, n. 1.

[1627] See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 30 (pref.).

[1628] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 59.

[1629] Based on Dr. Humphry’s estimate of the relation of the thigh-bone to the height, viz. 27·5:100.

[1630] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, pp. 71-3. According to the method recommended by Thurnam in _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 42, p. 3, n. ‡, the average, deduced from the data which he furnishes in _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 72, n. 1, would have been exactly 5 feet 8 inches, or 1 metre 727!

[1631] See p. 379, n. 3, _supra_.

[1632] According to the method of M. Rollet, recommended by Dr. Garson (see p. 379, n. 3, _supra_), the average height of the fourteen Long Barrow skeletons the measurements of which are given in Tables I and II of _Crania Britannica_, would have been just under 5 feet 6⅙ inches, or about 1 metre 680.

[1633] The skeletons from the Wor Barrow, referred to on p. 111, n. 3, _supra_, measured by M. Rollet’s method, gave the following results:--5 ft. 9·4 in., 5 ft. 7·2 in., 5 ft. 1·9 in., 5 ft. 0·7 in., 4 ft. 11 in., and 4 ft. 10·2 in., or an average of 5ft. 2·4 in. (A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, vol. iv, one of unnumbered pages following p. 122).

[1634] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxix, 1895, pp. 412-3, 425, 430; xxxvi, 1902, p. 142; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 402.

[1635] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[1636] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 147, 154-5, 161. The cephalic indices of such of these skulls as could be measured were 75·2, 70, and 66·6 (male), and 75 (female).

[1637] _Ib._, xxix, 1895, p. 436; _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258.

[1638] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. Mr. C. S. Myers (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, p. 123) makes some interesting remarks on ‘the two [types of Long Barrow skulls] which Dr. Garson has been able to differentiate’ (cf. _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxiii, 1887, p. 296): but for the purposes of ethnological investigation the doctor nevertheless places the two types in one group (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, pp. 13, 15-6).

[1639] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 154.

[1640] _Crania Britannica_, ii, 1865, pl. 33, p. 6.

[1641] _Ib._, pl. 5.

[1642] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 5, p. 2.

[1643] _Ib._, pl. 24, p. 4

[1644] _Ib._, pl. 50, p. 5.

[1645] See p. 394, _supra_.

[1646] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 654.

[1647] _Crania Britannica_, ii, Table II. See also _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvii).

[1648] The length of its thigh bone was 508 millimetres, or almost 20 inches.

[1649] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p. 9. See pp. 408-9, _infra_.

[1650] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 222.

[1651] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, pp. 155-87.

[1652] _The Geologist_, v, 1862, pp. 213-4.

[1653] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., i, 1861, p. 268; S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, p. 123, and figs. 48-51.

[1654] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, p. 186; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 944.

[1655] S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 83-103.

[1656] _Ib._, p. 120, and figs. 52-5; _Archaeol. Journal_, iii, 1846, pp. 223-8.

[1657] S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 114-5.

[1658] It is very doubtful whether the Caithness skulls were neolithic (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 160, n. 1).

[1659] See pp. 408-9, _infra_.

[1660] _The Races of Europe_, p. 306.

[1661] _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 128-30. Cf. _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1869, p. 63. Huxley argued that these skulls were also virtually identical with those of the Australian aborigines; but on another occasion, as we have seen already (p. 377, _supra_), when his combative instincts were aroused, he affirmed the contrary.

[1662] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[1663] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, p. 449.

[1664] _Ib._, p. 444. Cf. _Fortnightly Rev._, N. S., xvi, 1874, p. 336; and W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, pp. 155, 159, 164, 185, 187.

[1665] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii, 1864 7, p. 282.

[1666] _The Races of Britain_, p. 13. See also p. 360.

[1667] _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 515-6.

[1668] Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, p. 171. The figures are 76, 75, 80, 79·7, 74·6, 79·4, 74·3 (Perthi-Chwareu); 77 (Cefn cave); and 76·5 (Tyddyn Bleiddyn).

[1669] _Ib._, pp. 179, 187; _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 444-5, 460.

[1670] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, p. 186.