Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (25)

[1671] See the illustrations of the Perthi-Chwareu skulls in _Cave Hunting_, pp. 168-9.

[1672] No. 7 (figs. 1-4, p. 84 of _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_); no. 2 (figs. 17-20, p. 90); no. 3 (figs. 34-8, p. 98); and no. 5 (figs. 39-43, p. 96).

[1673] No. 8 (figs. 9-12, p. 88); and no. 1 (figs. 25-8, p. 92).

[1674] _Ib._, p. 115.

[1675] See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 162.

[1676] _Nature_, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 58-9, 71. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Archaeol. Journal_, liv, 1897, p. 338), speaking of the famous Cro-Magnon skeleton and of the gigantic skeleton without a skull, the discovery of which in the Paviland cave, Glamorganshire, was recorded in 1824 by Dean Buckland (_Reliquiae Diluvianae_, p. 82), says:--‘In this group of remains so widely spread over Europe, we are on the track of a very early Prehistoric people, belonging to a tall, long-headed race, without the knowledge of pottery and without polished axes, if negative evidence be accepted.... They are probably the advance-guard of the Neolithic migration.... Further evidence is needed before we can define their precise relation to the Neolithic culture ordinarily so called.’ Further evidence is also needed before we can affirm that the Paviland skeleton was neolithic at all (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, &c., 1897, p. 487).

[1677] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxiii, 1891, pp. 119-24.

[1678] _Ib._, facing p. 121.

[1679] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxiii, 1891, p. 120.

[1680] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[1681] _Proc. Royal Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, pp. 570-85; vi, 1900-2, pp. 334-5; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1901, pp. 795-7.

[1682] M. J. Deniker (_The Races of Man_, p. 313) even goes so far as to say that it is not yet certain whether the Long Barrow race immigrated from the Continent or were descended from the palaeolithic inhabitants of Britain!

[1683] This definition may be accepted as true in a general sense, though it leaves out of account the Celtic inhabitants of the peninsula, whom Strabo loosely called Iberians; but see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 255-62, and cf. _Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, pp. 383-4.

[1684] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 213-21, 225, 230, 244, 249, &c.

[1685] _Agricola_, 11. Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania Iberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt.

[1686] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville formerly pointed out, in support of Tacitus’s conclusion, that, according to Festus Avienus (_Ora maritima_, 433), there was a mountain in the Spanish peninsula called _Silurus_ (_Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 44). But, since the origin of the name _Silures_ is unknown, it seems rash to found an ethnological argument on its resemblance to _Silurus_. In Mexico there is a river called Tamesi: would M. d’Arbois infer from the name which Caesar latinized into _Tamesis_ that the people who named this river were akin to the prehistoric inhabitants of Britain? M. d’Arbois has since argued that the Silures could not have been Iberian (_Les Celtes_, p. 30); but his recantation is hardly more reasonable than his original theory.

[1687] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 480.

[1688] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92.

[1689] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 59, p. 5, note.

[1690] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 160.

[1691] _The Races of Britain_, p. 26.

[1692] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 270-3.

[1693] _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 276-87.

[1694] See p. 376, _supra_.

[1695] See _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 4^e sér., vii, 1896, pp. 666-71.

[1696] See also _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, x, 1900, p. 214.

[1697] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 271.

[1698] _Ib._, pp. 267-8. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 334) argues that ‘the identification of the Neolithic aborigines with ... the modern Basques, is confirmed by’ the fact that _aizcora_, the Basque word for an axe, means ‘stone mounted in a handle’: but how does this tend to establish the identity of the British neolithic aborigines with the Basques? It only shows that the ancestors of the Basques used stone tools.

Since I wrote the paragraph to which this note relates I have read M. G. Hervé’s interesting article ‘La race basque’ (_Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, x, 1900, pp. 213-37), which confirms my conclusions. He holds (p. 220) that the Spanish Basques represent ‘une race croisée, à la constitution de laquelle a pris part, en tant que facteur principal, la _race ibérique_, la vieille race de Baumes-Chaudes’. ‘Il est clair’, he adds (pp. 221-2), ‘que les Hispano-Basques se différenciant des Gallo-Basques par tous leurs points de ressemblance avec les Ibères, les Gallo Basques ne peuvent à aucun titre être rattachés à ces derniers ... les Ibères, en tout cas, n’ont joué qu’un rôle médiocre dans leur ethnogénie’. On pp. 235-7 M. Hervé offers certain tentative suggestions as to the origin of the Basques, whose purest representatives are the French Basques, and whose physical characters raise them, he considers, ‘sans conteste au rang de quatrième race européenne’.

[1699] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 206-7, 210. See also pp. 159-60, 182, 211-3 218-9, 269, 275.

[1700] _Ib._, p. 212.

[1701] _Ib._, p. 269.

[1702] _Ib._, p. 286.

[1703] See p. 110, _supra_. In France also incineration was common in the Neolithic Age (_Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_, xxii, 1888, pp. 1-2, 4, 6-7).

[1704] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 182.

[1705] J. B. Davis and J. T. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 59, p. 3. See also _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 127, 713-4.

[1706] See Dr. Beddoe’s article in _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 515; _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, p. 171; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 251; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 161-2. Still, Rolleston points out (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 710) that ‘the orbital index [the relation between the length and breadth of the socket of the eye], which does put ... the Caverne de l’Homme Mort into a position of similarity to skulls such as those of the Tasmanian, Australian, and Melanesian races, puts the neolithic skulls of British Barrows into a position of superiority’, &c.

The average height of the people of l’Homme Mort was, according to M. Rollet, 1 m. 578, or nearly 5 ft. 1-9/10 in.; according to M. Manouvrier, 1 m. 620, or nearly 5 ft. 2-9/10 in. (_Mém. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris_, 2^e sér., iv, 1892, p. 388). See, however, p. 379, n. 3, _supra_.

[1707] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, pp. 163-4. The cephalic indices of 35 Baumes-Chaudes skulls varied from 64·3 to 76·1.

[1708] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 160.

[1709] See pp. 393-4, _supra_.

[1710] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, pp. 72-3.

[1711] _Ethnology_, 2nd ed., 1896, pp. 135-6.

[1712] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, p. 308.

[1713] _Man_, i, 1901, No. 88, p. 110.

[1714] _Ib._

[1715] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 70.

[1716] _Man_, i, 1901, No. 88, p. 110. Cf. _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, p. 113, and A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, p. 173, _La religion des Gaulois_, p. 4.

[1717] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiv, 1895, pp. 316-30; A. H. Keane, _Ethnology_, 1896, p. 133; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, p. 186; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 476-566, 698-712, iii, 726-55.

[1718] It is remarkable, however, that in Prussia there are no dolmens east of the Vistula, although stone is as abundant there as in West Prussia, where there are many. _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 485.

[1719] _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, map facing p. 631; A. Bertrand, _La Gaule avant les Gaulois_, 1891, map facing p. 128.

[1720] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, xi, 1901, pp. 36-9.

[1721] _Ib._, pp. 36-7, 43.

[1722] It would seem that there was also a dolmen in a round barrow in Lancashire. See _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 240.

[1723] See p. 66, n. 5, _supra_.

[1724] Of dolmens in the narrower sense of the word (see p. 65, _supra_) only two, so far as I know, exist in Scotland. See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, p. 373, and W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 424-9, 468.

[1725] _Dict. des sc. anthr._, 1883, p. 1079; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, p. 197; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_, pp. 195-7; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 449, 468, 610-2, 632-4, and the maps facing pp. 1, 102, 200, and 305 of vol. i.

[1726] _Ib._, ii, 445, 460, 463, 493, 501, 557, 567-8, 585, 612-3, 634, 670; iii, 723, 962.

[1727] _Ib._, ii, 489-90; iii, 974, n. §.

[1728] _Ib._, ii, 450-1.

[1729] _Ib._, pp. 495-6.

[1730] _Ib._, p. 701.

[1731] _Ib._, iii, 723; A. Bertrand, _Arch. celt. et gaul._, 1889, pp. 139, 141, 177. Cf. the remarks of M. Salomon Reinach _La République Française_, 26 Sept., 1892.

[1732] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 661-2; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 246-7.

[1733] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 164.

[1734] It has been argued that there must have been a particular dolmen-building race, because certain countries, for instance Austria, which have been continuously inhabited from palaeolithic times, contain no dolmens. But this only proves that certain peoples did not build dolmens.

[1735] _Dict. des sc. anthr._, p. 388.

[1736] _Ib._, pp. 387-8; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889, p. 199.

[1737] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 714-5. See also Gen. Faidherbe’s _Collection ... des inscr. numidiques_, 1870, p. 13; _Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_, xxi, 1887, p. 190, pl. vi; and A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, pp. 167-72.

[1738] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 482, 646, n. 1; _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 41, p. 51. According to Sergi (_The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 225, 249, 254, 259), the primitive Scandinavian dolichocephali were only one of the numerous branches of his ubiquitous ‘Eurafrican species’. He insists that the modern Scandinavian ‘cranial and skeletal facial forms’ are identical with those of the Mediterranean race; and the tallness and fairness of the Scandinavians do not in the least shake his faith. ‘Northern Europe,’ he says (p. 254), ‘has given origin to the white skin, blond hair, and blue or grey eyes’ of the Scandinavians. Then why did it not produce the same phenomena among the Lapps and the ‘Iberians’ of the British Isles? See also _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., iii, 1904, p. 153. I am of course willing to admit that the ‘Iberian’ and North European races were branches of the same primitive stock. See p. 434, n. 7, _infra_.

[1739] See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 162.

[1740] _Ib._, pp. 163-4.

[1741] _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, p. 113.

[1742] _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 610-2. Cf. _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 731.

[1743] _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, i, 1874 (1876), p. 253; E. Cartailhac, _Les âges préhist. de l’Espagne_, p. 328.

[1744] See _ib._, pp. 144-90, 316, 318, 325; _Crania Ethinica_, pp. 493-4; and _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, pp. 155-81, 184, 407-13, ix, 1899, p. 278.

[1745] M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 485, 558) has expressed the opinion that of all European dolmens the most ancient are those of Northern Germany; but the only reason which he gives, namely, that this region is on the limit of the last moraines of the northern ice-sheet, and that the dolmens were constructed of ‘erratic’ rocks, does not seem worth discussing.

[1746] Professor Zimmer (_Zeitschriftder Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschte_, xv, 1894, pp. 217-8), while he denies that we are yet justified in saying that the language of the pre-Celtic [or, as I would say (see pp. 428-44, _infra_), the dolichocephalic pre-Celtic] inhabitants of the British Isles was Iberian, affirms that the linguistic evidence is sufficient to show that it was non-Aryan. Similarly Professor Rhys remarked at the meeting of the British Association in 1900 (_Report_, &c., p. 889) that there was ‘probably no county in the kingdom that would be too small to supply a dozen or two [of names of streams] which would baffle the cleverest Aryan etymologist ... and why? Because they belong in all probability to a non-Celtic, non-Aryan language.’

[1747] J. Rhys and Brynmor Jones, _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 617-41.

[1748] May it not also have been modified, before it was introduced into Britain, by the non-Aryan language or languages which it presumably encountered on the Continent?

[1749] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 618; _Celtic Review_, i, 1905, p. 279.

[1750] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 42-4. Cf. _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 686, and _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 19, p. 28.

[1751] _Fortnightly Rev._, N. S., xvi, 1874, p. 336.

[1752] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 741, note.

[1753] After I had written these words, I was glad to learn that they had the support of Dr. Arthur Evans, who, speaking of the discoveries in the Mentone caves, says (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p. 301) that ‘it will no longer be allowable to say that these supposed immigrants from Asia brought with them at their first coming certain domestic animals, and had already attained a knowledge of the potter’s art, and of the polishing of stone weapons’. And, as M. Salomon Reinach has justly remarked (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, p. 687), in a criticism of the address which Dr. Evans delivered in 1896 at the meeting of the British Association, ‘La race méditerranéenne s’offre d’abord à nos yeux dans une région [Mentone] d’où elle a pu fort bien gagner l’Afrique avant les modifications géologiques.’

[1754] _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 296-7.

[1755] _Ib._, p. 302.

[1756] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 551-4; xvi, 1905, p. 187; _La Grande Encyclopédie_, xiv, 856; _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 33^{e} sess^{n}., 1904 (1905), pp. 1034-49.

[1757] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 257-73.

[1758] See p. 400, _supra_.

[1759] The late Mr. Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, pp. 149-50) affirmed that certain customs, of which the couvade was one, had ‘left distinct traces in the usages which still prevail in the region of the Pyrenees. But,’ he continued, ‘at present there seems to be no point of connection between them and anything which was ever observed in this country’; and he insisted that this ‘should be taken into account by those who assert the identity of the Iberians with the Britons of the Silurian type’. I have not asserted that identity in the narrower sense in which Mr. Elton used the word ‘Iberian’: nevertheless his objection has no force. The answer to it is, first, that the couvade did survive in historical times, or leave traces of its former existence, in Ireland, Scotland, and Yorkshire (pp. 94-5, _supra_); secondly, that the custom prevails, or has prevailed, among peoples of every continent except Australia, who could never have influenced one another (_ib._); and lastly, that it cannot be expected that widely scattered peoples who originally sprang from one stock should continue to preserve all the customs of their ancestors.

The other ‘customs’ of which Mr. Elton spoke are not worth mentioning. He simply affirmed that certain tribes who inhabited the Iberian peninsula in ancient times had different customs. Naturally. The fact in no way tends to prove that they did not belong to the same stock.

[1760] Cf. _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, x, 1900, p. 230.

[1761] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, ii, 1894, p. 213.

[1762] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 276-7. See also _Rev. arch._, 4^{e} sér., i, 1903, pp. 65-6; _Rev. celt._, xxx, 1904, p. 372; and p. 296, n. 4, _supra_.

[1763] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 280-1, 318.

[1764] See pp. 426 and 434, _infra_; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, p. xv; _Archaeol. Journal_, lviii, 1901, p. 337; and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, pp. 122-3, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 66-73.

[1765] _Anthr. Rev._, iv, 1866, p. 14; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 630, 711; J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, ch. v; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 64; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, pp. 88, 113; W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, pp. 321-2, 326. Dr. Beddoe (_op. cit._, p. 270) emphasizes ‘the undoubted fact that the Gaelic and Iberian races of the west ... are tending to swamp the blond Teuton of England by a reflux migration’. Cf. his paper in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 235, and Addenda, p. 740.

[1766] See, for example, Prof. Boyd Dawkins’s article in _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., viii, 1891, p. 72; and cf. p. 129, n. 2, _supra_.

[1767] See pp. 107-8, _supra_.

[1768] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiii, 1884, pp. 83-4. See also _Anthr. Rev._, iv, 1866, p. 99.

[1769] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, pp. 11, 15-6, 18.

[1770] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 2, pp. 1-2.

[1771] _Ib._, pl. 3 and 4, p. 1.

[1772] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 131, 450, 480, note; _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xiii, 1870, pp. 522-3; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 148.

[1773] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 263.

[1774] See p. 110, _supra_.

[1775] ‘The most tenable hypothesis may be said to be that the Picts were non-Aryans, whom the first Celtic migrations found already settled here ... the Picts were the descendants of the Aborigines’ (_The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 13-4).

[1776] _Incerti Pan. Constantio Caesari_, c. 11 (XII _Panegyrici Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens, 1874).

[1777] See pp. 410, 438, n. 3, _infra_.

[1778] See J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 215-6. Similarly the Latins retained _qu_, as in _equus_, while the Greeks, as in ἵππος, changed it into _p_.

[1779] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 299, note; E. W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, 1904, pp. 6-7.

[1780] _Ib._, pp. 6, 128, 149, 167.

[1781] _Rev. celt._, xi, 1890, p. 377; xx, 1899, pp. 108-9. In the latest volume of his review (xxvii, 1906, p. 107) M. d’Arbois reiterates his dissent, asking whether _Britain_, _Thames_, and _London_ are words of Anglo Saxon origin.

[1782] _Ib._, xxv, 1904, pp. 351-3; xxvii, 1906, pp. 107-8.

[1783] _Celtae and Galli_, 1905. See especially pp. 1-2, 46, 55-64. Professor Rhys (_ib._, pp. 48-50) somewhat doubtfully regards two other inscriptions, which have been found near Bourges and near Evreux, as akin to Goidelic.

[1784] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 116-53.

[1785] _Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 351-3; xxvii, 1906, p. 107.

[1786] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 2494.

[1787] _Celtae and Galli_, p. 62.

[1788] See pp. 451-2, _infra_.

[1789] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, ii, 1894, pp. 255-82; _Les Celtes_, pp. 17-9.

[1790] _Keltic Researches_, p. 127.

[1791] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 895.

[1792] _Rev. celt._, xxvii, 1906, pp. 107-8.

[1793] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 13. Cf. Zimmer in _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv, 1894, pp. 214, 215, n. 1.

[1794] _Ib._, pp. 215-6; J. Rhys, _Celtic Folk-Lore, Welsh and Manx_, p. 281; _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, pp. 69-70.

[1795] The forms _Cruithni_ and _Cruithnig_ were also used. See Dr. Whitley Stokes’s article in A. Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-5, and J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 241-2.

[1796] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76. Cf. _Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, pp. 133-8.

[1797] See pp. 459-61, _infra_.

[1798] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 45, n. 2; ii. 1894, pp. 282-3; _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 399-400; _Les Celtes_, p. 25.

[1799] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 4.

[1800] _Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, pp. 134-5.

[1801] See pp. 418-9, _infra_. M. d’Arbois’s latest pronouncement (_Les Druides_, pp. 35-6, n. 5) is that ‘_Cruithne_ est le même mot que Πριτανία, le nom que prit la Grande-Bretagne avant de s’appeler’ Πρεττανία, &c.

[1802] Prof. Rhys’s suggestion (_The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 114) that ‘the word Dumnonii [which (see p. 447, _infra_) was the name of a Brythonic tribe] was a collective name of the Goidels of Britain when the Brythons arrived’ may be taken for what it is worth.

[1803] See p. 234, _supra_.

[1804] p. 239.

[1805] p. 243.

[1806] _Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, p. 142.

[1807] _Ib._, p. 124.

[1808] pp. 78-9.

[1809] See pp. 499-507, _infra_.

[1810] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 895.

[1811] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 78-9.

[1812] pp. 311-3.

[1813] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv, 1894, pp. 213-4.

[1814] E. Windisch in _Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften_, &c., 35. Theil, 1884, p. 136; A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, ii, 993; E. W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, p. 5.

[1815] _Cormac’s Glossary_, ed. Whitley Stokes, 1868, p. 40.

[1816] See the remarks of M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Les Celtes_, p. 22), who regards the _p_ in _Picti_ as a trace of the Belgic invasion, and Prof. Rhys’s _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 311-2.

[1817] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 32, 147-50.

[1818] _B. G._, v, 14, §§ 4-5.

[1819] See p. 267, _supra_.

[1820] _B. G._, v, 14, § 1.--Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt ... neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine.

[1821] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv, 1894, pp. 224-5.

[1822] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 36-7. Cf. _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 55-6.

[1823] Dr. F. B. Jevons (_Journal of Philology_, xvi, 1888, p. 104), remarking that ‘the Joint Undivided Family persisted in Sparta long after it had disappeared in the rest of Greece’, and that ‘Polybius, misunderstanding the practice, was led to imagine, where brothers lived on the joint estate, and one alone had a wife, that the wife was common to all the brothers’, says (_ib._, n. 1) that ‘precisely the same mistake, due to the same cause ... is made by Caesar when he ascribes polyandry to the ancient Britons’. M. d’Arbois Jubainville, however (_Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 188-9), referring to _Ancient Laws of Ireland_ (_Senchus Mor_), ed. W. N. Hancock, i, 122, 1. 19, 126, 1. 4, 142, 1. 30, concludes that ‘en Irlande, à une époque reculée, la communauté des femmes entre frères a existé d’une façon générale’. The editor (p. 143) does not share this view.

[1824] pp. 369-80.

[1825] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv, 1894, p. 234.

[1826] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 61-2.

[1827] I quote from the translation of Messrs. Church and Brodribb.

[1828] I find that M. J. Loth (_Annales de Bretagne_, vi, 1890-1, p. 113) has made a suggestion which is substantially the same.

[1829] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 14.

[1830] _Ib._, pp. 14-5.

[1831] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 45-7. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxii, 1898, pp. 324-98, and especially 324-30; also _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., viii, 1891, pp. 29-32.

[1832] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, pp. 640-1. Professor Jones refers to A. Hanoteau, _Essai de grammaire de la langue tamachek_, 1860, p. xv.

[1833] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 61-2.

[1834] See p. 422, _infra_.

[1835] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 59. Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 229-46.

[1836] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, xxii, 1901, p. 122) gives various instances from history to show that the ‘Pictish succession’ did not imply matriarchy. ‘Julius Caesar,’ he says, ‘chose as his heir Octavius, his sister’s grandson: was this matriarchy? Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus: was this matriarchy? When a king had to be chosen among the Picts, the son of the late king’s sister may sometimes have been preferred to his own son; but the sister’s son must often have been the elder and more experienced of the two.’ And so on (see also vol. xxiii, 1902, p. 359, vol. xxv, 1904, p. 206, and _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., v, 1905, p. 447). But the point is that during the time for which the history of the Picts is known to us a Pictish king was never once succeeded by his own son. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s arguments are not required for the purpose of demonstrating that the ‘Pictish succession’ does not prove the Picts to have been _the_ representatives of the neolithic aborigines.

[1837] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 895.

[1838] _Ib._, p. 896.

[1839] Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, pp. 144, 174) offers one explanation of _Vipoig_, and Dr. Macbain (W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, pp. 394-5) another.

[1840] _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 222. See also p. 153.

[1841] p. 224.

[1842] _Incerti Pan. Constantino Augusto_, c. 7 (published in XII _Panegyrici Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens).--Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas, &c. For the manuscript reading Baehrens, following Eyssenhardt, needlessly substitutes (Caledonum,) _Pictorum aliorumque_.

[1843] The view, advocated by W. C. Borlase (_Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 1042-3) and others, that the Caledonians were Germans is hardly worth discussing. There is absolutely no evidence for it, except the remark of Tacitus (_Agricola_, 11) that ‘the red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia indicate a German origin’; and everybody knows that the physical characters of the Germans and the Celts, as described by the ancient writers, were virtually identical (see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 309-10, and _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vii, 1897, pp. 74, 89). It is possible that some of the Caledonians may have been descended from immigrants who came from Germany; but this, I need hardly say, would be quite consistent with the view that they were a Celtic-speaking people.

[1844] _De bello Gothico_, 416-8.--

Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis,
Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas
Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.

[1845] iii, 14, § 7.--τὰ δὲ σώματα στίζονται γραφαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ζῴων παντοδαπῶν εἰκόσιν· ὅθεν οὐδ’ ἀμφιέννυνται ἵνα μὴ σκέπωσι τοῦ σώματος τὰς γραφάς.

[1846] M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 401, n. 1) rejects this derivation.

[1847] Those who are familiar with Professor Rhys’s writings will not be surprised to find that his notion of the meaning of these words is unstable. In 1884 he wrote (_Celtic Britain_, p. 240), ‘These words Cruithni and Prydyn are derived from _cruth_ and _pryd_ respectively, which mean form’; and he added that ‘Duald MacFirbis, quoted by Todd in a note on the Irish version of Nennius, p. vi,’ ‘has rightly explained the former [Cruithni] as meaning a people who painted the forms (crotha) of beasts, birds, and fishes on their faces, and ... on the whole of the body. This,’ he observed, ‘agrees well enough with Claudian’s vivid description of Stilicho’s soldiery, scanning the figures punctured with iron on the body of the fallen Pict,’ &c. In 1891 he threw both MacFirbis and Claudian overboard: ‘We are not warranted,’ he said (_Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, p. 124), ‘in supposing that he [Claudian] drew his inspiration from any deeper source than the popular etymology of the name Pictus, interpreted as a Latin word.’ He went on to say (p. 131) that the silence of Gildas, who hated the Picts, ‘is proof positive that neither Picts nor Scots were in the habit of discolouring their skins to any greater extent than his own people’; and he insisted that there was a grave objection to the explanation given by MacFirbis, ‘namely, that it accounts for too few of the elements of the word Cruithne.’ In 1900 (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, p. 895) he brushed aside the ‘proof positive’, and proclaimed his conviction that, after all, the Picts really had tattooed themselves. In 1902 (_The Welsh People_, pp. 79-80, n. 2) he observed that if _Cruithni_ and _Prydyn_ had been really derived from _cruth_ and _pryd_, ‘one could scarcely avoid treating _Cruithni_ and _Prydyn_ as translations ... of the word _Pict_ regarded as the Latin _pictus_, ‘painted’’; and that ‘the supposition here suggested as to _Pretani_ being merely a sort of translation of ... _pictus_ would compel us to regard the first use of _Pretani_ as dating no earlier than Caesar’s time’, which, as he truly remarks, chronology will hardly allow us to do. In the 3rd edition of _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 242, he reverts to his view of 1884.

Candour is a virtue; but how are we to follow a guide who is for ever changing his mind?

[1848] See p. 413, _supra_.

[1849] _The Language of the Continental Picts_, 1900, pp. 22, 26.

[1850] E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, _Cat. des monn. gaul. de la Bibl. Nat._, 4439.

[1851] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, pp. 889-90. Cf. Rhys’s _Celtic Folk-lore, Welsh and Manx_, pp. 681-2.

[1852] A. H. Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 1899, pp. 138, 198-9; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 255; xxxv, 1905, pp. 283-94; _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 129; _Man_, v, 1905, No. 53, pp. 86-7; vi, 1906, No. 4, pp. 6-9. Needless to say, tattooing is practised by many other peoples besides those mentioned in the text.

[1853] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 94-5, 162, 184, &c. On the last-named page, for instance, among the ‘nations of Pictland’ are included ‘the Verturian Brythons’.

[1854] _Ib._, p. 275.

[1855] _Ib._, pp. 241, 245.

[1856] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxvi, 1892, pp. 263-351.

[1857] _Ib._, xxxii, 1898, p. 324.

[1858] _Ib._ See also _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 16.

[1859] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 398.

[1860] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 71-3.

[1861] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxii, 1898, p. 374.

[1862] _Ib._, p. 361.

[1863] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 272.

[1864] _Les Celtes_, p. 30.

[1865] _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 181.

[1866] _Keltic Researches_, p. 24.

[1867] _Ib._, p. 21.

[1868] A. Bezzenberger, _Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115, and especially 113-4.

[1869] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, pp. 381-401.

[1870] _Hist. eccl._, i, 12.--Incipit autem duorum ferme milium spatio a monasterio Aebbercurnig ad occidentem, in loco qui sermone Pictorum Peanfahel, lingua autem Anglorum Penneltun appellatur, &c.

[1871] E. W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, pp. 4, 21. Cf. A. Bezzenberger, _Beiträge_, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 98, 108.

[1872] _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 153.

[1873] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 153-4. Referring to p. 24 of Mr. Nicholson’s book, Professor Rhys says (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 153) that _Peanfahel_ ‘points back to a Latin term _penna(e)_ or _pinna(e) valli_, “wing of the vallum,” that is, the pinnacle or turret at the end of the wall’. Now ‘pinnacle or’ appears to have been inserted in order to save the face of _pinna_. Does the professor mean ‘a pinnacle’, or does he mean a ‘turret’? And if he means ‘a turret’, in what sense does he use the word? A pinnacle would have been a feature far too insignificant to give rise to a place-name; and a turret would have been equally insignificant unless it was a defensive tower, in which case it would have been called not _pinna_ but _turris_. Professor Haverfield (_Archaeologia_, lv, 1897, p. 196) speaks of ‘the corner turret’ of the fort of Aesica on the Roman wall about midway between Newcastle and Carlisle. Read his description of it, and you will appreciate the absurdity of calling it a _pinna_, and the still greater absurdity of the supposition that even a ‘corner turret’ could beget a geographical name. There is no authority for the use of the word _pinna_ in connexion with a defensive wall, except in the sense of ‘pinnacle’, in which sense it is used twice by Caesar (_B. G._, v, 40, § 6; vii, 72, § 4). The _pinnae_ which he describes were merely small pinnacles rising from a breastwork on an earthen rampart, breastwork and pinnacles forming a battlement, and both being made of wattlework (_pinnae loricaeque ex cratibus contexuntur_ [_B. G._, v, 40, § 6]. See also C. E. C. Schneider’s note in his edition of Caesar, vol. ii, p. 565). The notion that the geographical name _Peanfahel_ ‘points back’ to a _pinna_ is too ridiculous to be discussed. Why not be content with Dr. Stokes’s etymology in Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge_, xviii, 1902, pp. 98, 108?

[1874] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 154. Cf. _Rev. celt._, vi, 1883-5, p. 398.

[1875] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 33-80.

[1876] A. Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115.

[1877] W. F. Skene’s _Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, pp. 387-401.

[1878] Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge_, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 113-4. M. J. Loth (_Annales de Bretagne_, vi, 1890-1, p. 115) is substantially in agreement with Dr. Stokes.

[1879] I find that my criticism has been anticipated by M. J. Loth (_ib._, p. 114).

[1880] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 15-6.

[1881] _Rev. celt._, xx, 1899, p. 390.

[1882] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxii, 1898, p. 398.

[1883] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 275.

[1884] _Ib._, p. 165.

[1885] I am glad to find that I have been anticipated by M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 381). Replying to Professor Rhys’s argument, which appeared also in the earlier edition of _Celtic Britain_, he remarked that ‘l’usage des vaincus est de copier les noms propres des vainqueurs’.

[1886] See pp. 429-40, _infra_.

[1887] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 160.

[1888] See, for instance, _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 19.

[1889] See pp. 408-9, _supra_.

[1890] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 713.

[1891] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, p. 309.

[1892] D. Wilson, _Prehist. Annals of Scotland_, i, 1863, pp. 268-75; _Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865, p. 76; _Crania Britannica_, ii, Tables i and ii; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 52; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, pp. 39-41; xxxvi, 1902, pp. 157-9; xxxviii, 1904, p. 81; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, pp. 96-7; xxxii, 1902, pp. 402-3; _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; _Archaeol. Journal_, lviii, 1901, pp. 330-8; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 31.

[1893] Thirty years ago, however, Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, pp. 328-34) said, ‘My computation of the stature of these two types of men--the brachycephalic and the dolichocephalic--is the very reverse of’ Thurnam’s; and he stated that of ten skeletons found in round barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds between Driffield and Aldeborough, five, of which the cephalic indices ranged from 70 to 75, averaged 5 ft. 9⅖ in. in height, while five others, the indices of which ranged from 79 to 94, averaged only 5 ft. 5 in. The barrows, however, although no bronze was found in them, contained not only ‘drinking-cups’ but also ‘food-vessels’ (_Anthropologia_, i, 1873-5, pp. x-xi); and it may be concluded that they belonged to the Bronze Age. Rolleston (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 654, n. 2) was therefore justified in presuming that the tall dolichocephali who were buried in them belonged to ‘a mixed race’; and, he said, ‘the effect of crossing ... is very usually to increase the size of the mixed races.’ Still, the low stature of Mr. Mortimer’s brachycephali is remarkable; and we shall see that they belonged to a distinct race, of which other examples have since been exhumed.

[1894] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 437-8.

[1895] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xvii, 1888, p. 209. Dr. Beddoe’s figures are not absolutely correct. The measurements of the thigh bones of the twenty-seven skeletons to which he refers are given in Tables I and II of _Crania Britannica_. They do not include the Arras skeleton, mentioned in Table I, which belonged to the Early Iron Age. The average height of the seventeen brachycephali, calculated by Dr. Beddoe’s method, would have been just over 5 ft. 9⅕ in. (1 m. 758); of the twenty-seven mixed skeletons, 5 ft. 9⅗ in. (within a very minute fraction), or approximately 1 m. 768. Calculated by M. Rollet’s method (see p. 379, n. 2, _supra_), the figures would have been just under 5 ft. 8½ in. and just over 5 ft. 9⅖ in. respectively.

[1896] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 6-7, 50-62; iii, 225.

[1897] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., v, 1905, pp. 222, 235-6. The average length of the thigh-bones was 446 millimetres, or rather more than 17·55 inches.

[1898] _Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Anthr. Soc._, 1902-4, pp. 11-20, 31.

[1899] Dr. Beddoe (_L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 522) assigns all the skeletons in question to the Bronze Age; but I suspect that some are older.

[1900] _Ib._ Thurnam’s figures are much about the same. He found that out of 70 skulls from round barrows 44 had indices ranging from 80 to 89 (_Memoirs Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, pp. 48-50; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 543-4). There is reason to believe that some of the round skulls found in round barrows had been artificially flattened on the occiput in infancy; but Thurnam (_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 45, p. 6) shows that their brachycephaly was only due in a minor degree to this cause. I presume that Dr. Beddoe, in his article in _L’Anthr._ (v, 1894, p. 522), did not take account of 15 skulls which were found in 1885-7, in association with bronze and remains of the _urus_, during the excavation of the Ribble Docks at Preston. Their cephalic indices range between 70·41 and 81·76. See _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 250.

[1901] _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, xxxviii, 1904, p. 127; xxxix, 1905, pp. 438-9; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p. 426. Apparently Dr. Beddoe’s list did not include Scottish skulls.

[1902] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 639-40, 642.

[1903] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 644-5. See also _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 45, p. 4.

[1904] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 154. In Scotland, however, of 12 skulls from short cists, the mean cephalic index of which was 81·4, only one, says Sir W. Turner (_Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258), was prognathous.

[1905] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 151-2.

[1906] _Ib._, p. 154.

[1907] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 681. Cf. _Crania Britannica_, pl. 11; _Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 240-2; _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxxiii, 1904, pp. 18-9; and _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 120-4, xxxix, 1905, pp. 418-21, 423-4, 429-30.

[1908] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903 (1904), pp. 801-2. Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 333, and _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, xxxix, 1905, pp. 417-21.

[1909] _Ib._, p. 442.

[1910] Six of the skeletons were associated with drinking-cups (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p. 431); and no bronze was found with any of them, only flint and bone implements (_Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Anthr. Soc._, 1902-4, p. 33).

[1911] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p. 431.

[1912] _Journ. Anat. and Physiol._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 127-9.

[1913] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 426, 437.

[1914] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., v, 1905, p. 219.

[1915] _Ib._; _Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Physiol. Soc._, 1902-4, p. 26.

[1916] _Ib._, p. 34. A skeleton has been found with a drinking-cup in a short cist in Caithness, which belonged to the same type (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 421-4).

[1917] This view, stated independently, would leave it an open question whether they were Celts or not.

[1918] See for instance A. Pitt-Rivers (_Archaeol. Journal_, liv, 1897, p. 390); A. H. Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, p. 527; Romilly Allen (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 225); W. Boyd Dawkins (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 261); B.C. A. Windle (_Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester_, i, 179); G. Sergi, _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 243; and H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Druides_, pp. 15-6. It is useless to multiply references.

[1919] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 135.

[1920] _Ib._, pp. 484-5.

[1921] _Ib._, pp. 482-3.

[1922] _Ib._, p. 128.

[1923] _Ib._, iii, 1870, p. 76.

[1924] _Ib._, p. 79; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 304. Huxley (S. Laing, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 117-9) agreed with Thurnam.

[1925] _Scottish Review_, xv, 251.

[1926] _Fortnightly Rev._, xvi, 1874, p. 337.

[1927] _Origin of the Aryans_, pp. 86, 88.

[1928] The statement in the text is of course perfectly consistent with the fact that some of the earlier Brythonic invaders buried their dead in small round barrows. See p. 435, n. 1, _infra_.

I am astonished to find that even such a well-informed writer as Mr. H. J. Mackinder (_Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, p, 185) suggests that the Belgae ‘may well have been the broad-skulled “bronze” men of the round barrows’; and that, according to Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 15), ‘the Gaels and Brythons ... are the people of the Round-barrows.’ It is rather puzzling to find that he fixes ‘the close of the Barrow period about 900 B.C.’ (ib., p. 23), and yet assigns the first Brythonic invasion to the fourth century B.C. He appears to think that the earliest invaders of the Round Barrow period belonged to a non-Aryan race (_ib._, pp. 24-5); and he rightly distinguishes both the Goidels and the Brythons from the brachycephalic neolithic population of Gaul (_ib._, p. 22), whom he nevertheless erroneously calls ‘the true Kelts’. See pp. 433-40, _infra_. I am still more puzzled when I read in the _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (p. 2), for which Mr. Read has made himself responsible, that ‘the Bronze Age inhabitants of this country seem to have been the most closely connected with the true Kelts’, whereas in the _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (p. 15) they are sharply distinguished from them.

[1929] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900 (1901), p. 894.

[1930] See p. 127, _supra_.

[1931] M. Déchelette’s remarks in _Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, pp. 32-3, are worth reading.

[1932] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 482-3, 486-8. See also _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 639-41, and J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, p. 253, n. *.

[1933] _Mém. d’anthr._, ii, 1874, p. 126.

[1934] _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 516.

[1935] See _Crania Britannica_, pl. 1, 53, 41, 11, 32, 43, 42, and the descriptions of these skulls in vol. ii; also the illustrations facing pp. 571, 579, 583, 587, 591, and 599 of Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_.

The description which Dr. Collignon gives of the brachycephalic race of France will show how totally unlike it is to the characteristic Round Barrow type. He speaks (_Ann. de Géogr._, v, 1896, p. 164) of ‘les caractères bien connus de la race brachycéphale, à savoir, taille plutôt petite, cheveux foncés, tête globuleuse, face ronde, courte, large, plate, nez large et court’, &c.

[1936] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, iv, 1894, pp. 396, 400. The ‘maximum of frequency’, according to M. Hervé (_ib._, vi, 1896, p. 105), lies between 1 m. 50 (just over 4 ft. 11 in.) and 1 m. 59 (just over 5 ft. 2½ in.).

I was glad to find, after I had finished the rough draft of this article, that Prof. A. C. Haddon (_Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, pp. 583-4) distinguishes ‘the short, swarthy, black- [or rather dark-brown] haired brachycephalic race of Central Europe (the “Celtae” ... or the “Type de Grenelle” ...)’ from ‘the tall, fair, brachycephalic race that may have come from Denmark (the “Celts” of some authors ... the “Round Barrow Race” of all authors)’. To identify the Grenelle race with the Celtae is, however, misleading. The Celtae (see pp. 438-9, _infra_) were a mixed population, comprising descendants of various neolithic dolichocephalic tribes and of the Grenelle race and also real Celts--the introducers of the Celtic language--who invaded Gaul about the eighth century B.C.

[1937] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 203.

[1938] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 25.

[1939] See Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 10, 15-6.

[1940] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 682.

[1941] _Ib._, p. 746; L. Rütimeyer and W. His, _Crania Helvetica_, 1864, p. 12. The average cephalic index of 29 skulls of the Sion type described in _Crania Helvetica_ is 77·2, the highest being 81·9, and the lowest 73. Not one of the 22 illustrations has the slightest resemblance to the more strongly marked brachycephalic Round Barrow type. The Sion type, moreover, is orthognathous, whereas the tall Round Barrow men were often extremely prognathous.

Taking into account the skulls of the Sion type which have been measured since the publication of the work of His and Rütimeyer, the average cephalic index is 76. See _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, p. 153.

[1942] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 308.

[1943] _Ib._, p. 296, and n. 3.

[1944] See J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, p. 16; _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 361; W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, p. 310: and cf. Sir W. R. Wilde, _The Beauties of the Boyne_, 2nd ed., 1850, p. 40; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 1006-12; and _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, xxiv, 1902-4, sect. C, pp. 1-6. Professor A. C. Haddon (_ib._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, p. 584) suggests that the brachycephalic people who did invade Ireland were ‘the Neolithic brachycephals of Central Europe’, and that ‘the Round Barrow race had comparatively little to say to Irish ethnology’.

[1945] See pp. 126-7, _supra_.

[1946] See K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, ii, 1887, pp. 236-8, and cf. H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 262, and _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 894.

[1947] See p. 494, _infra_.

[1948] _Les Celtes_, pp. 19-20.

[1949] Professor Rhys, who a few years ago (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, p. 893) assigned the Goidelic invasion to ‘the seventh and the sixth centuries B.C.’, has recently (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 2) dated it back to ‘more than a millennium before the Christian era’, but without giving any reasons.

[1950] See _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, p. 344. The Aryans, before their dispersion, were acquainted with the use of copper (O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 187-91; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 547; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 163, 207-19; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., v, 1904, p. 88).

[1951] _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, p. 407.

[1952] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 281-319.

[1953] _Ib._, p. 305.

[1954] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 514.

[1955] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 636, 683, 711. See also _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6, pp. 7-8; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., vol. xvii, 1897-9, p. 126, n. *; and p. 435, n. 1, _infra_.

[1956] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 129, 213.

[1957] The skulls which have been found in the fort of Worlebury, near Weston-super-Mare, belong, according to Prof. Macalister (C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, pp. vii, 102-4), ‘to the so-called Iberian type’; but they have ‘strong brow ridges’, and ‘the men were of strong muscular build’. They appear to me to show signs of crossing with individuals of the ‘characteristic’ Round Barrow type; but it is impossible to determine whether they were of Gallo-Brythonic descent or not. Prof. Macalister computed the stature of five males, whose bones, except in one instance, did not belong to the skulls, at 5 ft. 3 in., 5 ft. 5½ in., 5 ft. 8 in., 5 ft. 10 in., and 6 ft. 4 in., the overage being 5 ft. 8½ in.

[1958] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 683. It appears, however, highly probable that the ‘Iberian’ and North-European dolichocephalic types, to the latter of which the type which I call Celtic belongs, are traceable to the same origin. See _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, pp. 538, 541.

[1959] Partly because during the latter part of the period the custom of cremation was prevalent in South-Eastern Britain. See p. 286, _supra_.

A considerable number of skeletons has been discovered in the so-called ‘Danes’ Graves’ in the parish of Driffield, Yorkshire, which undoubtedly belong to the Early Iron Age, and were earlier than the time of Agricola (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 257), by Dr. Thurnam (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxii, 1865, pp. 109 n. 8, 264), Canon Greenwell (_ib._, pp. 108-11, 264), and Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvii, 1897-9, pp. 119-28). The cephalic indices of those male skulls which were found by Thurnam and Canon Greenwell are 75, 76, 70, 75, and 71: the mean index of those in the collection of Mr. Mortimer, who does not give the individual measurements, is 75·5; and the indices of fourteen, which have lately been measured by Dr. Wright (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 67, 70-1), and which, for aught that I know, may have included the others, ranges from 68 to 79. Neither Thurnam, nor Canon Greenwell, nor Mr. Mortimer says anything about stature; but the average height of the men whose bones Dr. Wright measured would only have been 5 ft. 3½ in. This is so low as to suggest that they were not Celts; and the question of their origin has caused much discussion. The remains of a chariot were found in one of the graves which Mr. Mortimer opened; but chariots may of course have been used by non-Celtic Britons. According to Thurnam, the skulls ‘appear to be distinguished from the ... long-barrow type’, and might pass for those of modern inhabitants of Scandinavia; but the pottery found in the graves by Canon Greenwell was not only unlike any which he had discovered in other parts of Yorkshire, but also different from Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon ware. Moreover, he describes the mode of interment as ‘unlike any which has been found in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden’. Therefore I cannot agree with Dr. Wright, who thinks that the people in question came from Scandinavia. All that is certain is that, like most of our Late Celtic skeletons, they did not belong to the familiar tall Celtic type.

In Scorborough Park, near Beverley, there is a group of small mounds, similar to the ‘Danes’ Graves’. Mr. Mortimer opened six of them in 1895, and found two skulls ‘of a decidedly long type’.

Fourteen skulls at least have been found in and just outside the Glastonbury marsh-village (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1895, p. 519; 1896, p. 658; 1898 [1900], p. 695; 1899 [1901], p. 594; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, l, 1904, p. 80; li, 1905, pp. 88, 99-100); but no detailed description of them has yet been published, though Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 200) affirms that they ‘belong to the small dark Iberic inhabitants’, and argues that as some of them belonged to men who had been decapitated, they do not represent inhabitants of the village, but their enemies. Some, however, belonged to young children, and were found in the hut-circles. There is the same dearth of information about skeletons which have been found near Birdlip, on the Cotswold Hills (_Trans. Bristol and Gloster Archaeol. Soc._, v, 1880-1, pp. 137-41), and in the parish of St. Keverne, Cornwall (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxx, 1873, pp. 267-72).

In the only interment of the Early Iron Age that has yet been discovered in Scotland--a cist on the estate of Moredun in Midlothian (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 427-38)--which was probably not earlier than the second century of our era (_ib._, p. 438), two skeletons, apparently of females, were found. It was only possible to calculate the stature of one, which, estimated from the _femur_ alone, by what method I do not know, was about 5 ft. 5½ in. This, for a woman, would be comparatively tall. The cephalic index was 75; and, according to Dr. T. H. Bryce, who measured the skull (_ib._, pp. 439-45), ‘all the measurements and the indices deduced from them are such as might belong to a [neolithic] skull from the chambered cairns,’ but ‘the general characters are markedly different. It resembles in general proportions certain of the skulls from the “Danes’ Graves” ... described by Dr. W. Wright ... but in form it does not fall in with any of his types ... the skull shows rather closer affinities with the modern than with any ancient type,’ &c. Has Dr. Bryce seen any of the skulls from the Gallic tumuli of the Early Iron Age?

For further information about skeletons of this period see _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 2, 7 (Arras), pl. 43, p. 3 (Roundway Hill); _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iv, 1867-70, pp. 275-6 (Grimthorpe); _Brit. Barrows_, p. 683; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 325-6; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 124-5, 130. The Arras and Grimthorpe specimens at least were probably Brythonic.

[1960] _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, pp. 605, 607, 611. Unhappily Broca does not give the indices of all the skulls, but only the average.

[1961] _Bull. du Muséum d’hist. nat._, &c., 1902, p. 178.

[1962] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 7, 10, 16-7, 25. See also _Crania Ethnica_, p. 498; _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 171; A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes_, &c., pp. 122-34; _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vii, 1897, pp. 65-87; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, v^e sér., ii, 1901, pp. 721-2; and _Archiv für Anthr._, xxviii, 1902, pp. 185-6.