Chapter VIII: The Results of Caesar’s Invasions of Britain (26)

[1963] _The Races of Europe_, p. 126. ‘The philologers,’ says Professor Ripley, ‘properly insist upon calling all those who speak the Celtic language, Celts ... while the physical anthropologists, finding the Celtic language spoken by people of divers physical types, with equal propriety hold that the term Celt, if used at all, should be applied to that physical group or type of men which includes the greatest number of those who use the Celtic language.’ I, on the contrary, hold that in an ethnological inquiry the term should be applied to ‘that physical group’ (if we can discover it) among whom the Celtic language came into being and who imposed it upon those whom they subdued; and I would remind the philologers that if all who speak the Celtic language are Celts, all who speak the English language, including the inhabitants of the United States and the negroes of Jamaica, are Englishmen.

[1964] See _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, p. 748. We shall see that MM. Collignon, Hervé, and Wilser are also dissentients. So too is Dr. Laloz (_L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 776).

[1965] _The Races of Britain_, p. 29. See also _L’Anthr._, v. 1894, p. 517.

[1966] _B. G._, i, 1, § 1.--Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.

[1967] _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 2^e sér., xii, 1877. p. 511.

[1968] _Ib._, p. 514.

[1969] _Mém. d’anthr._, ii, 1874, p. 126.

[1970] ‘La race celtique,’ he says (_Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 2^e sér., ix, 1874, p. 713), ‘est le résultat du mélange des races indigènes avec les immigrants.’

[1971] _Mém. d’anthr._, i, 1871, p. 395.

[1972] A. Kuhn’s _Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung_, &c., v, 1868, p. 98. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 291. The remark of Professor Rhys (_ib._, p. 2) that ‘Recent writers are of opinion that the terms Galli and Celtae argue an ancient distinction of race’, and that ‘the latter first applied exclusively to the aborigines’, is apparently based upon an entire misconception of the writings of Broca and M. Alexandre Bertrand. Does the professor mean by ‘the aborigines’ the dolichocephalic neolithic Baumes-Chaudes race, or the totally different brachycephalic neolithic Grenelle race? No French ethnologist holds the opinion which Professor Rhys attributes to ‘recent writers’; and even M. Bertrand, who distinguished ‘les Celtes’ from ‘les Galates’, was careful to point out (_Les Celtes dans les vallées du Pô et du Danube_, p. 36) that between them there was no ‘distinction of race’. The reader should note that, according to M. Bertrand, ‘les Galates,’ who conquered Gaul in the Iron Age, belonged to ‘la race celtique’; that his tall fair ‘Celtes’, who had invaded Gaul before, were not identical with, but only part of the mixed population whom Caesar called _Celtae_; and that his ‘Galates’ were to be found among the Celtae as well as among the Belgae. Professor Rhys, in a recent paper (_Celtae and Galli_, pp. 57-9, 62), assumes that as (according to his view) both Goidelic and Gallo-Brythonic were spoken in the country of the Celtae, the names _Celtae_ and _Galli_ correspond to the peoples who spoke the two dialects: he argues that the Celtae were conquered by the Galli; and he concludes that the two peoples were ethnologically distinct. Probably Goidelic Celts were conquered by Gallo-Brythonic Celts; but what then? It remains certain that conquered and conquerors were by themselves called collectively Celtae. Why did the name of the conquered prevail over that of the conquerors if it was essentially different? And does not Caesar expressly say that the two names denoted one and the same people? As a matter of fact, the terms _Celtae_ and _Galli_, as used by the ancient writers, including Polybius, were, generally speaking, synonymous. Diodorus Siculus (v, 23, § 1) distinguished between them; but as his Γαλαται included the Cimbri and other Germans, his testimony, which implicitly contradicts that of Caesar, is worthless. Even if it could be accepted it would only show that the Celtae, as a whole, differed from the Γαλάται, not that the Galatic conquerors of the people who, after the conquest and including the conquerors, were called Celtae, differed in race from earlier Celtic conquerors. Moreover, as I have remarked in _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_ (p. 290), ‘anybody who carefully reads through the chapters in which he [Diodorus] describes the inhabitants of Gaul, will see that he habitually uses the word Γαλάται not in the restricted but in the general sense, including both Γαλάται and Κελτοί.... In fact, though he thinks it necessary to warn his readers that the Celtae were geographically distinct from the Galli, he draws no physical distinction between them; and, in conformity with ancient usage, he as a rule uses the two terms indifferently.’ See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 300; M. Déchelette’s article in _Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, pp. 32-3; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 216-30; and _Rev. celt._, xxvii, 1906, pp. 109-10.

[1973] I am glad to find that I have the support of Dr. Collignon (_Annales de géogr._, v, 1896, p. 159), who speaks of ‘la population pré-gauloise que Broca nommait à tort les Celtes’. Similarly M. G. Hervé (_Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vi, 1896, p. 99) says that ‘_la race brachycéphale néolithique_ ou _race de Grenelle_ est devenue à l’âge de bronze ... celle des _Celtes_, au sens que les anthropologistes ont accoutumé d’attacher depuis Broca à ce dernier terme’; and, as he remarks (_ib._, p. 104), the Celtic language was imposed on this people, long before they and their conquerors were called by Caesar _Celtae_, by invading Gauls. MM. Collignon and Hervé do not perhaps make it sufficiently clear that the people whom Broca called ‘les Celtes’ were not the brachycephalic neolithic race alone, but that race _plus_ mesaticephalic people also of neolithic origin _plus_ the conquerors of both.

[1974] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 291. See also pp. 245-8, 281-301 of the same book.

[1975] _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, ii, 1861, pp. 508-9.

[1976] ... ‘les Kimris s’étaient établis en grand nombre dans cette région [the neighbourhood of Paris], au milieu des populations celtiques; que celles-ci, enfin, étaient déjà mélangées avant l’arrivée des Kimris, puisque le nom sous lequel elles ont pour la première fois paru dans l’histoire leur avait été imposé par ... la race conquérante,’ &c. ‘Cette première opinion,’ says Dr. L. Wilser (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 496-7), ‘oubliée plus tard par son auteur et par ses disciples, était juste.’

[1977] _Der Mensch_, ii, 1887, pp. 261-7.

[1978] Cf. _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 368; _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iii, 1893-5, pp. 323, 369; v, 1898-1900, pp. 43, 45, 71, 227-8; vi, 1900-2, p. 506; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvii, 1898, pp. 104-30, and especially p. 117; _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part iii, 1903, pp. 547-614; and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 281-320.

[1979] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, p. 124. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 301-5.

[1980] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 74-5.

[1981] See p. 418, n. 1, _supra_.

[1982] _The Races of Britain_, pp. 270-1.

[1983] An Italian anthropologist, Dr. V. Barteletti (_Archivio por l’antropologia e la etnologia_, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 277-85) affirms that red hair is an anomaly due to the crossing of blond with dark people. On this theory it seems inexplicable that in certain parts of the Highlands of Scotland and Wales red hair is very much more common than anywhere in England or in those parts of the Continent in which blonds and brunets have long been intermixed, and much more common in the department of Finistère than elsewhere in France. See _Crania Britannica_, i, 210; my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 315-6; and Dr. Beddoe’s article in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 223.

[1984] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 162.

[1985] Vol. i, p. 85. Probably Mr. Elton intended to refer to vol. ii, p. 85; but neither there nor on any other page of the book is there a single sentence which bears out his statement.

[1986] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 505. In a more recent paper (_ib._, xi, 1882, pp. 467-8), after remarking that ‘the defenders of the earth-work used flint, and consequently the work itself is not later than the bronze period’, and that the people who buried their dead on the Yorkshire wolds ‘were in the early bronze phase of civilisation’, General Pitt-Rivers goes on to say, ‘the archaeologists of Denmark have shown that the Early Bronze Age did not exist in Denmark; the art of working in bronze was full-blown when it first entered Denmark. If the invaders of Flamborough came from Denmark, and were, as we suppose ... a bronze-using people, they would have brought with them weapons of a more advanced type than those found in the tumuli of the wolds.... We are narrowed, therefore, to the opinion that the invaders of Flamborough, if invaders they were, were the same people who landed on the south and south-east coasts of England [the extreme improbability of which he has already shown], or else that these dykes belong to the people of the country, who ... were driven to the coast by another ... people who occupied the interior,’ &c. But why should the general assume that ‘the invaders of Flamborough’ were ‘a bronze-using people’? See pp. 119, 129, 131-2, 408-9, _supra_.

[1987] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 130, n. *, 508-10.

[1988] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 588-9, 680. Rolleston also mentions ‘the discovery in Yorkshire of monoxylic coffins with similar contents and fashion to those found in South Jutland’, &c. (_ib._, p. 631, n. 2).

[1989] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xix, 1890, pp. 482-3. Cf. _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 162, and W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, p. 309.

[1990] _Man, Past and Present_, p. 528.

[1991] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 24-5.

[1992] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 79, p. 110.

[1993] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, No. 84, pp. 86-8.

[1994] Cf. _Scottish Review_, xx, 1892, p. 378, and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, pp. 203-4.

[1995] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 24.

[1996] See pp. 408-9, _supra_.

[1997] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, pp. 373-97.

[1998] _Ib._, p. 374.

[1999] _Ib._, pp. 388, 393.

[2000] _Ib._, pp. 394-5. Dr. T. H. Bryce, who has made a special study of the chambered cairns of South-Western Scotland, and has found no bronze in any of them, tells us (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 110, p. 176) that in one at Glecknabae, Bute, ‘fragments of four vessels were recovered, of the “beaker” or “drinking-cup” class.’ ‘If,’ he says (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 78), ‘we accept Mr. Abercromby’s conclusions that this class of ceramic was introduced at the end of the Neolithic period, and that the type named α is earlier than ... β and υ, we are obliged to conclude that the culture of the Stone Age prevailed in the Western Islands for the whole period corresponding to type α in South Britain.’

[2001] Some of the skulls examined by Dr. Wright (see p. 427, _supra_) resembled the ‘Row Grave’ (_Reihengraber_) skulls of Germany, and he suspects that they belonged to immigrants from the valley of the Rhine (_Journ. Anat. and Physiol._, xxxix, 1905, p. 441).

[2002] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, viii, 1898, p. 207; _Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, p. 584.

[2003] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vi, 1896, p. 105.

[2004] Does not the radical difference between British and Gallic pottery of the Bronze Age (see _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 325, fig. 2; 337, fig. 8; 338-9, figs. 9 and 10; 340, fig. 11) tell against the view that many immigrants from Gaul entered Britain in the earlier periods?

[2005] Moreover, it must be remembered that only one interment of the Early Iron Age has been found in Scotland (see p. 435, n. 1, _supra_), although the culture of the same period is represented by ‘finds’ that range from Dumfriesshire to the Orkneys.

[2006] _The Geologist_, v, 1862, p. 204. Cf. _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, pp. 110-1.

[2007] See pp. 396-7, _supra_.

[2008] See p. 448, _infra_.

[2009] iv, 5, § 2.--οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες εὐμηκέστεροι τῶν Κελτῶν εἰσι καὶ ἧσσον ξανθότριχες, &c.

[2010] _Ib._,--σημεῖον δὲ τὸν μεγέθους· ἀντίπαιδας γὰρ εἴδομεν ἡμεῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ τῶν ὑψηλοτάτων αὐτόθι ὑπερέχοντας καὶ ἡμιποδίῳ, &c.

[2011] See p. 425, n. 4, _supra_.

[2012] _Phars._, iii, 77-8.--

celsos ut Gallia currus
Nobilis et flavis sequeretur mixta Britannis.

[2013] _The Races of Britain_, pp. 26, 249, 258.

[2014] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 302-5.

[2015] In regard to the ethnology of the Belgae, sec _ib._, pp. 301-25, with which cf. J. Rhys, _Celtae and Galli_, p. 60.

[2016] pp. 17, 35.

[2017] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 12. When that book appeared he was disposed to apply the word ‘Goidel’ to the mixed population of ‘Celticans’ and aborigines, who, he holds, became more closely fused under pressure from the Brythons. [For ‘Celticans’ he is now (?) inclined to substitute ‘Kelts’ of the ‘Celtic’ (not ‘Keltic’) family. Unlearned readers who scoff at subtle distinctions will find an explanation in the professor’s _Celtae and Galli_, p. 56. Is not the word Celtican unfortunate? The Celtici (Strabo, iii, 1, § 6) were in N.W. Spain.]

[2018] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 75.

[2019] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 4.

[2020] See p. 499, _infra_.

[2021] F. Vogel, in his edition of 1888, adopts the reading Βρεττανικῶν νήσων in i, 4, § 7; but everywhere else he prints the word with Π, following the codex _Vindobonensis_. See p. 459, _infra_.

[2022] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 399-400.

[2023] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 3-4.

[2024] I am of course aware that Professor Kuno Meyer disregards this argument; but he makes no attempt to answer it.

[2025] pp. 218-63 (216-60 of the older edition).

[2026] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 8; _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 216-8. When the second edition of _Celtic Britain_ was published, Professor Rhys held (p. 216) that the inscriptions were the monuments of Goidels retreating before Brythonic invaders, ‘and not those of Goidelic invaders from Ireland.’ In the new edition (p. 218) he says that ‘it is partly the monuments of these retreating Goidels of Britain that we have in the old inscriptions, but partly perhaps those also of Goidelic invaders from Ireland’.

[2027] _Ib._, pp. 229-31.

[2028] See the map facing the title page of _Celtic Britain_.

[2029] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 214-5) denies that Brittany was colonized ‘by Brythons from here’: but one of his arguments is simply that the Dumnonii were not Brythons, which I deal with in the text; and the other is equally unsatisfactory. Remarking that Procopius ‘gives a very fabulous account of an island called Brittia’, he says that ‘Brittia must have been a real name, as it is exactly the form which would result in that which is the actual Breton name of Brittany--namely Breiz: this last,’ he continues, ‘cannot be derived from any known form of the kindred name of our country and its people, and thus tells not a little against the tradition that Brittany was first colonised by Brythons from here,’ &c. But who ever heard of ‘the tradition that Brittany was _first_ colonised by Brythons from here’? And what if Brittany received the name which would have resulted in ‘Breiz’ _before_ the British immigration? See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 416, and J. Loth, _L’Émigration bretonne en Armorique_, 1883, pp. 21, 50-1, 75-82.

[2030] _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 221.

[2031] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 223-4.

[2032] _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, pp. 379-80.

[2033] _Ib._, xxii, 1901, p. 124.

[2034] _Ib._

[2035] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 222.

[2036] _Ib._, p. 233.

[2037] _Ib._, p. 234.

[2038] _Ib._

[2039] _Ib._, pp. 164-6.

[2040] _Ib._, 2nd ed., 1884, p. 221.

[2041] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 223-4.

[2042] _Ib._, p. 222.

[2043] _Ib._, p. 223.

[2044] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, p. 69.

[2045] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 383.

[2046] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, pp. 65-6.

[2047] _The Races of Britain_, p. 29.

[2048] _Incerti Pan. Constantio Caesari_, c. 11 (published in XII _Panegyrici Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens, 1874).--Britannia natio etiam tunc rudis, et solis Pictis modo et Hibernis assueta hostibus adhuc seminudis, facile Romanis armis signisque cessit. Prof. Haverfield (_The Romanization of Roman Britain_, p. 28) apparently disbelieves that there was any Irish invasion of Britain as early as the third century; but see _Y Cymmrodor_, xiv, 1901, p. 102.

[2049] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, pp. 70-1.

[2050] See pp. 411-2, _supra_; also M. d’Arbois’s _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, p. 69.

[2051] _Les Celtes_, p. 17.

[2052] I say ‘substantially’ because M. d’Arbois, unlike Professor Rhys, holds that at the time of the Goidelic invasion the Celtic language was everywhere one and the same.

[2053] See p. 445, _supra_.

[2054] _Les Celtes_, p. 31.

[2055] See p. 410, _supra_. M. d’Arbois rejects the analogy; but of course he would admit that the people of Gaul who remained behind belonged ethnologically to the same stock as those who, on his theory, invaded Britain and became the ancestors of British Goidels.

[2056] _Keltic Researches_, p. 110.

[2057] _Ib._, p. 111.

[2058] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 110-1.

[2059] _Ib._, pp. 30, 37, 5, 63-5, 78, 175.

[2060] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 229-31.

[2061] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 19-20, 27, 16-7.

[2062] Mr. Nicholson himself (_ib._, p. 151) calls attention to the fact that the Gallic tribes whose Goidelic character he believes himself to have proved belonged, for the most part, to the west of Gaul.

[2063] See pp. 410 and 449, _supra_.

[2064] See Rhys’s _Celtae and Galli_, p. 60.

[2065] _Keltic Researches_, p. 9.

[2066] Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 231.

[2067] _B. G._, i, 10, § 4; v, 39, § 1. Mr. Nicholson contends (_Keltic Researches_, pp. 9-13) that the Belgae also colonized Anglesey, where he finds various place-names of which _Bol_ forms a part; South Wales, where St. David’s was formerly called Meneu; both banks of the estuary of the Forth, where he believes that he can find traces of the Irish stem _Manann_; and Galway, Mayo, and other remote parts of Ireland, where the name _Mannin_ is of frequent occurrence. The Belgae, or rather the Menapii, would certainly seem to have been not less enterprising as colonists than Mr. Nicholson as an etymologist. Without straining the elasticity of the words _Menapii_ and _Belgae_ more than he has already done, he could easily, with a little diligence and a good gazetteer, find traces of them all over the world. Surely they must have settled in _Bul_garia. But, seriously, I would ask the reader to consider whether it is likely that they would have taken the trouble to go all the way to Connemara when there was plenty of good land open to them in this country. And, considering that they introduced the use of coins into Britain, is it not significant that no British coins have been found in Ireland, and hardly any in Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, pp. 11, 98-100) of course maintains that the Fir-Bolg of Ireland were Belgae, and that there is an etymological connexion between the two words. Professor Rhys, in a note to the second edition of his _Celtic Britain_ (p. 280), which in the third is absent, affirmed that ‘one thing is certain: neither the people [Belgae] nor its name had anything whatever to do with the Irish Fir-bolg’. At all events, MacFirbis and other Irish writers regarded the Fir-Bolg as having been found in Ireland and conquered by the Celtic invaders (J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 120; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 1027-8).

[2068] _Keltic Researches_, p. 151, n. 1.

[2069] _Ib._, p. 15.

[2070] _Ib._, p. 16.

[2071] Cf. _B. G._, i, 1, § 2, with ii, 1-4. See also J. Rhys, _Celtae and Galli_, 1905, p. 61.

[2072] _Keltic Researches_, p. 16.

[2073] I find that, in the judgement of Prof. Haverfield (_The Romanization of Roman Britain_, p. 29), ‘the inscription ... may be best explained as the work of some Western Celt who reached Silchester before its British citizens abandoned it in despair.’

[2074] Chambers’s _Encyclopaedia_, 1901, vol. i, p. 279.

[2075] ‘In case,’ says Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, p. 16, n. 2), ‘any one should quote against me Eppillus, the name of a son of Commius the Atrebat, as derived from _epos_ for _equos_, let me say that in that case it ought to have only one _p_.’ No doubt it is remarkable that the _p_ should be double (Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 302); but _Epillos_, which is certainly the same word (A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, i, 1445), occurs on Gallic coins of the Lemovices and on coins from Poitiers and the neighbourhood of Arles (E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, _Cat. des monnaies gaul. de la Bibl. nat._, 4578, 4579, 4580). See also _Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 189.

[2076] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 17-8.

[2077] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 31.

[2078] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11.

[2079] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 25, 149. On page 26 (n. 1) Mr. Nicholson makes the curious suggestion that ‘the Britons, strictly speaking, were the Kymric branch who painted themselves, as distinguished from the Goidelic who tattooed’. Is he prepared to argue that the Belgae, who, on his theory, were Goidels, and with whom (p. 110) he apparently identifies ‘the original Brittones or Brittani’, were not included among ‘the Britons, strictly speaking’? Will he maintain, in the face of Caesar, from whom we learn that the Britons all ‘painted themselves (_Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt_)’, that ‘the great majority’ (p. 110) of the inhabitants of Britain did not paint? And, since Caesar undoubtedly included among the painted Britons the maritime tribes of the south-east, and also included them among the Belgae, does he not see the inconsistency into which he has fallen?

_Bratuspantium_, the name of a Belgic town mentioned by Caesar (_B. G._, ii, 13, § 2), would to most minds prove that the Belgae spoke a Gallo-Brythonic dialect, not only by the _p_ which it contains, but also by the _nt_, a non-Goidelic combination. Mr. Nicholson, however (_Keltic Researches_, p. 16, with which cf. A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, i, 515), of course explains the _p_ as Indo-European.

[2080] It may be worth mentioning that Professor Rhys has affirmed (_The Welsh People_, p. 13) that the language of the British Goidels shows more traces of having been influenced by contact with the language of the non-Aryan aborigines than that of the Brythons. This fact, if it were a fact, would obviously be a further argument, if such were needed, against the view that the Goidels were the latest Celtic invaders of Britain. One expects, of course, to find that the professor changed this view, which was published in 1900; and accordingly we read in the address which he delivered in the same year to the British Association (_Report_, &c., p. 896) that ‘the syntax of insular Brythonic is no less non-Aryan than that of Goidelic’. Naturally in 1902 (_The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., p. 13) he repeated the former statement.

[2081] See p. 494, _infra_.

[2082] Philologists who have a sense of humour should read a truly delicious story told by M. H. Gaidoz (_Esquisse de la religion des Gaulois_, pp. 22-4) about a ‘celtiste de premier ordre’, who sent him for publication in the _Revue celtique_ an elaborate study on the word _encina_, which he had discovered on the pedestal of a statuette and taken for a Celtic inscription, but which, as M. Gaidoz mercifully warned him, was simply the name of the engraver, M. Encina, 56, boulevard Montparnasse, Paris. ‘Nous croyons utile,’ M. Gaidoz gravely concludes, ‘de protester par un exemple irréfutable contre l’abus qu’on semble faire actuellement de l’étymologie.’

[2083] _B. G._, v, 12, § 2.--maritima pars [Britanniae incolitur] ab iis qui praedae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgis transierunt, qui omnes fere isdem nominibus civitatum appellantur quibus orti ex civitatibus eo pervenerunt, &c.

[2084] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 450, 476-7.

[2085] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 13.

[2086] Not to mention Iscalis, the site of which is unknown.

[2087] Professor Rhys (_The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 88-9), observing that, according to Caesar (_B. G._, ii, 4, §§ 6-7), Diviciacus, King of the Belgic Suessiones, had established his hegemony in (Southern) Britain, and (_ib._, 3, § 5) that the territories of the Suessiones and the Remi were practically one, argues that ‘we should expect to find both of them represented in Britain, though their names have not been detected. Now,’ he continues, ‘we know from ... inscriptions that a god of the Remi was Camulos’; and he points out that the name of this god is preserved in _Camulodunum_, or _Colchester_, the name of the chief town of the Trinovantes. The argument is not decisive, because Camulos was worshipped by other Gallic tribes as well as the Remi, and his name appears also in that of Camulogenus, a chief of the Aulerci (_B. G._, vii, 57, § 3), who were not Belgae: nevertheless the Professor’s conclusion may be right.

[2088] p. 43.

[2089] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 6. On the next page the professor adds that ‘the Belgae probably occupied the whole of the coast on the east and south ... from the Isle of Wight to the Firth of Forth’. It is clear therefore that in 1902 the Cantii were ‘considered Belgic’, although in 1884 and in 1904 there was ‘no evidence’ for this view.

[2090] See pp. 459-60, _infra_.

[2091] _Proc. Cambridge Ant. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 478-9.

[2092] It has indeed been conjectured, as we have seen (p. 400, n. 3, _supra_), that the Basques were a distinct race.

[2093] The late Professor F. W. Maitland (_Domesday Book and Beyond_, p. 222) argues that post-Saxon British survivors could not have been very numerous, as the Celtic language left ‘few traces of itself’; but the same argument might be used to show that when the Romans came to Britain the Celts were few. See F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, pp. 9-12.

[2094] _An Inaugural Lecture_, 1903, pp. 39-40.

[2095] Although Matthew Arnold was almost absolutely ignorant of ethnology, I do not know any book which ethnologists would find more suggestive than his _Lectures on Celtic Literature_.

[2096] It has been truly said (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, 1870, p. xxxvi) that ‘between even the Welshman and the Irishman there is a want of sympathy ... fully equal to that which exists between either ... and the most Teutonic Briton’.

[2097] Mr. Alfred Nutt (_Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, p. 234), commenting on a statement in Mr. Nicholson’s _Keltic Researches_ (p. iv) that Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire are as Celtic (I should say as pre-Celtic) as South Wales and Ulster, asks whether it does not ‘demonstrate the absolute futility of statistics of “relative nigrescence”, or ... size of skulls. The Bucks peasant,’ he continues, ‘may be physiologically akin to the man from Kerry or Glamorganshire; psychically he differs profoundly.’ Yes, but this does not discredit the methods of physical anthropology: it only illustrates what I have said in the text. Between a certain number of individuals in Glamorganshire and a certain number in Buckinghamshire there is, let us assume, physical kinship: if we could isolate those two sets of individuals and compare them, instead of hastily comparing the populations of Glamorganshire and Buckinghamshire as wholes, we might find that the psychical difference was not as profound as Mr. Nutt supposes. Probably it would still be noticeable. But why? Partly because the physical resemblance is combined with a physical difference due to cross-breeding, the degree and nature of which it would be impossible to ascertain; partly because the environment, social, geographical, and climatic, of the peasants of Glamorganshire has for many centuries been very different from that of Buckinghamshire. Let two plum-puddings be made of identical sets of ingredients, but in slightly different quantities, in different kitchens, and by different cooks. The results will be very different. Or suppose that a thousand Spanish immigrants settled in Britain, and intermarried only among themselves. At the end of a century their physical and psychical types would have been modified. Nevertheless, handled with due skill and judgement, statistics of nigrescence and of cranial measurements retain their value.

[2098] See pp. 411-21, _supra_.

[2099] _Geogr._, ed. C. Müller and F. Dübner, 1853, p. 948, note to p. 97, line 22.

[2100] See F. Vogel’s ed. of 1888.

[2101] See p. 499, n. 2, _infra_.

[2102] _Geogr._, ed. C. Müller, i, 1883, p. 74, note.

[2103] i, 8 (_Geogr. Graec. min._, vol. i, 1855, ed. C. Müller). Cf. _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 399.

[2104] Ed. A. Meineke, 1849, pp. 186, 534. Cf. Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, vol. iii, part i, 1897, p. 860.

[2105] _Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, p. 137.

[2106] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 398-403.

[2107] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76.

[2108] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 241-2.

[2109] _The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., p. 6.

[2110] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 17 (31), § 106.

[2111] _Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., p. 4.

[2112] _Ib._, pp. 211-4.

[2113] _Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften_, &c., 35. Theil, 1884, p. 141.

[2114] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 384.

[2115] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 208-9.

[2116] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 384.

[2117] _Keltic Researches_, p. 25, n. 1.

[2118] iii, 57, § 3.

[2119] _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 540-51; _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, pp. 220-4, 340-5.

[2120] _Ib._, p. 537.

[2121] _Ib._, p. 219.

[2122] _Golden Bough_, 1900, i, 73, n. 2.

[2123] _Golden Bough_, 1900, i, 70.

[2124] See Sir A. Lyall’s _Asiatic Studies_, ii, 1899, p. 236.

[2125] See p. 58, _supra_.

[2126] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 534.

[2127] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 151.

[2128] _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 391.

[2129] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 533.

[2130] _Ib._, xvi, 1905, p. 658.

[2131] _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 54-5.

[2132] _Fortnightly Rev._, July, 1905, pp. 162-73.

[2133] _Ib._, p. 162.

[2134] _Ib._, p. 171.

[2135] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 49, p. 78.

[2136] _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, pp. 209-10.

[2137] _The Clyde Mystery_, pp. 138-9.

[2138] See p. 199, _supra_.

[2139] _Archaeology and False Antiquities_, pp. 170, 259-60.

[2140] _Ib._, p. 245.

[2141] See p. 435, _supra_.

[2142] _The Clyde Mystery_, p. 141.

[2143] See _Archaeology and False Antiquities_, pp. 255-6, and cf. pp. 229-30 with _The Clyde Mystery_, pp. 132-4.

[2144] _Prehist. Scotland_, p. 474.

[2145] See pp. 110, 185-6, _supra_.

[2146] _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 743.

[2147] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 366.

[2148] _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 476-80.

[2149] See pp. 429-40, _supra_.

[2150] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 409.

[2151] _Ib._, pp. 19-20, 22.

[2152] _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 478-9.

[2153] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 445.

[2154] See p. 110, _supra_, and W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 448-51.

[2155] _Ib._, p. 536.

[2156] See p. 204, _supra_.

[2157] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 189.

[2158] _Ib._, p. 187.

[2159] _Early Age of Greece_, i, 502.

[2160] See p. 188, n. 2, _supra_.

[2161] _Early Age of Greece_, i, 503.

[2162] _Ib._, p. 504.

[2163] See p. 110, n. 1, _supra_.

[2164] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 3rd ser., xiv, 1868, p. 291; _Archaeol. Journal_, xxvii, 1870, p. 156; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 103-6.

[2165] _Ib._, pp. 103-8.

[2166] _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. lxvii-lxviii.

[2167] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 338; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 335-6.

[2168] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 30.

[2169] _Ib._, pp. 4-5.

[2170] _Ib._, p. 189.

[2171] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 84.

[2172] _Ib._, xxviii, 1840, pp. 399-419.

[2173] _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 8, 82-3. Of this famous book the Rev. W. C. Lukis (_Archaeol. Review_, i, 1888, p. 353) says that ‘every copy should be committed to the flames’.

[2174] See Lord Avebury’s _Prehist. Times_, 6th ed., 1900, pp. 112-4, 122, and _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxiii, 1887, pp. 245-54. The theory of Mr. Edgar Barclay (_Stonehenge and its Earthworks_, 1895, pp. 40-1, 127-30), which ascribes the construction of Stonehenge to the time of Agricola, has been confuted by Professor Haverfield (_Classical Review_, x, 1896, pp. 74-5). The argument which Mr. Barclay (_op. cit._, pp. 50-1) directs against the received view that it was pre-Roman, is based upon the fanciful assumption that it was designed in accordance with ‘an ancient astrological figure’, which rests upon the further assumption that ‘all the salient measurements of Stonehenge may truly be said to result from an observation’ of the sun. His argument (_ib._, p. 88) that ‘we have the testimony of an eye-witness, John Webb, that an iron spike was dug up near one of the trilithons from a depth of 3 feet’, and that the circle must therefore have been erected after the close of the Bronze Age, would hardly impose upon a beginner. There is no evidence that this ‘spike’ (John Webb, _A Vindication of Stone Heng Restored_, 1665, p. 128) was made of iron: the circumstances in which it was found are not known; and, as we shall presently see (p. 477, n. 5, _infra_), an object manufactured in the nineteenth century has recently been unearthed within the precincts of Stonehenge at a depth much greater than three feet.

[2175] See pp. 215-6, _supra_.

[2176] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp. 320-2.

[2177] Cf. p. 183, _supra_.

[2178] The Hallstatt period is now believed to have ended about 400 B.C. See p. 229, _supra_.

[2179] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp. 322-3, 324-5.

[2180] _Ib._, p. 321.

[2181] Pottery was unearthed in 1802 close to the ‘Altar Stone’ from a depth of 5 feet or more by Sir R. C. Hoare’s collaborator, W. Cunnington, who described it as ‘similar to the rude urns found in the barrows’ (W. Long, _Stonehenge and its Barrows_, 1876, p. 86).

[2182] _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 6-51, and especially 14-6.

[2183] See p. 232, _supra_.

[2184] _Ancient Wilts_, i, 127.

[2185] _Ib._

[2186] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 291.

[2187] _Ib._, p. 301. One of the two barrows in which chippings of the Stonehenge stones were found contained a bronze ‘spear-head’ or dagger, and a bronze pin.

[2188] See _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 6, pp. 7-11, and _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 37-118.

[2189] _Ib._, pp. 51, 53, 55, 57, 62, 65-6, 71-2, and fig. 24.

[2190] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 16, p. 25.

[2191] _Ib._, p. 24; _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 84.

[2192] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 6, p. 9.

[2193] See p. 215, _supra_, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 46-7.

[2194] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902. pp. 63-5.

[2195] Dr. Evans, however, insists (_Man_, ii, 1902, No. 16, p. 22) that ‘amongst all the stone implements discovered [by Prof. Gowland] there was nothing distinctly neolithic’.

[2196] See pp. 71-2, 129, 131, _supra_.

[2197] _Man_, ii, 1902, p. 10.

[2198] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 86.

[2199] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 37, n. 1, 258, 304, 329, 432; _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 89.

[2200] A. Pitt Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 135.

[2201] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 55.

[2202] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1003.

[2203] _Ib._, p. 1002.

[2204] _Stonehenge_, 1880, p. 18.

[2205] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, pp. 55-6.

[2206] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1008.

[2207] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 57.

[2208] _Ib._

[2209] This phenomenon is explained in Sir N. Lockyer’s _Elementary Lessons in Astronomy_, 1889, §§ 549-54.

[2210] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 57.

[2211] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1009. See also _Nature_, lxviii, 1903, p. 180. (On the 22nd of June, 1903, a correspondent of the _Times_ wrote from Salisbury, ‘For the first time for nearly ten years visitors at Stonehenge yesterday morning saw the sun rise.’)

[2212] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1009. I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting Mr. Hinks’s criticism of Sir Norman Lockyer’s argument. ‘The authors [Sir Norman and Mr. Penrose] are trying,’ he says, ‘to find the place of a prehistoric sunrise by assuming that the avenue pointed to it. They measured the direction of the avenue, and found that the measures agreed so very nearly with the Ordnance Survey measure of the direction of their mark--presumably on the highest point--at Sidbury camp, that they adopted the latter measure rather than their own; in other words, they agreed that the avenue is directed very exactly to Sidbury. Henceforward one cannot leave Sidbury out of the argument.... There are two courses open to us. On the one hand we may suppose that the avenue was drawn to lead over the down to Sidbury camp, and had no intentional relation to the place of sunrise. On the other hand we may suppose that Sidbury is in the sunrise line not by accident but by design; that it forms an integral part of the solar temple of Stonehenge. And since the camp occupies the summit of a steep and isolated hill, while Stonehenge lies on a wide and gently sloping down, it is plain that the camp end of the Stonehenge-Sidbury line must have been fixed first, and the site of the temple determined by prolonging the line sunrise-Sidbury till it struck a suitable place on the down. There is nothing impossible in this; the question is, Can it be said to be so probable that one is justified in fixing a date for Stonehenge from the direction of the line so drawn? Which is the greater improbability, that the Stonehenge-sunrise line was laid out so that it passed over the peak of Sidbury hill ... so nearly invisible from Stonehenge by reason of an intervening down that Sir Norman Lockyer thought that the latter formed the local horizon, and makes no mention of having seen Sidbury over its top ... or that the line of an avenue setting out from Stonehenge happens to point to the place where the sun rose at a date which is perhaps as likely as any other for the foundation of the building...?

‘If preference be given to the first alternative, and we assume that Stonehenge really was so placed that Sidbury marked the point where the sun rose on midsummer morning, the question still remains, Was it done so accurately that it is worth measuring accurately now, and drawing from the measures an exact statement of date? It _may_ well be objected that in our climate Sidbury is probably not visible from Stonehenge at sunrise once in twenty years, and that the likelihood of a long delay in drawing out the plan of so great a work would very soon have induced the builders to adopt a line near enough for their purposes though not for ours.... And lastly there is the grave difficulty that everything depends upon guessing right what is to be considered the critical phase of the sunrise or sunset,’ &c.

[2213] _Journal of Philology_, xxix, 1903, pp. 94, 113.

[2214] This article is mentioned _honoris causa_ by Mr. Hinks (_Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1005).

[2215] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 55.

[2216] See p. 290, _supra_.

[2217] Professor Montelius accepts and endorses Sir Norman Lockyer’s conclusions. Most of the barrows near Stonehenge belong, he says (_Archiv für Anthr._, N. F., ii, 1904, p. 140) to the earliest period of the Bronze Age, which, in the south of England, began, in his opinion, about 2000 B.C. He goes on to speak of the chippings of the Stonehenge stones which have been found in two of the surrounding barrows, and affirms that to those who know the epoch to which Stonehenge belongs it is evident that it was a temple, for sepulchral monuments ‘have a different appearance’ (_sahen nicht so aus_); and finally he mentions the results at which ‘some of England’s greatest astronomers have arrived’.

Alas that a great archaeologist should meddle with what he does not understand! ‘Some of England’s greatest astronomers’ is presumably a rhetorical synonym for Sir Norman Lockyer: at all events the results which so appeal to Professor Montelius’s and Sir Norman’s imagination stand to Sir Norman’s credit alone. Let me recommend the professor to read the article in the _Nineteenth Century_ of June, 1903, in which another astronomer has demolished them. The only novelty in the professor’s article is the implied statement that the barrows in which the chippings were found are not much later than 2000 B.C. On this point he is of course entitled to a respectful hearing: but the mere amateur who remembers that the two barrows in question are assigned by one of England’s greatest archaeologists to about 300 B.C. will, I fear, shrug his shoulders; and Mr. Abercromby (see p. 183, _supra_) has proved that many of the Wiltshire barrows were later than 800 B.C. The remark that sepulchral monuments have a different appearance from Stonehenge is not helpful, seeing that Stonehenge is unique among megalithic circles. I can only repeat that many such circles have been proved to be sepulchral monuments; and, as I shall show presently, there is evidence that Stonehenge was a scene of sepulchral rites.

[2218] Sir R. C. Hoare, _Anc. Wilts_, i, 144-5; W. Long, _Stonehenge and its Barrows_, p. 86.

[2219] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 197. See also xxxv, 1901, pp. 194, 219; xxxvi, 1902, pp. 131, 579; and Joseph Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times: the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 118. As I have already remarked (p. 207, _supra_), the date of many English circles remains uncertain; and I admit that some may be of locally late neolithic age, though I doubt whether any were erected before the oldest bronze implement was introduced into Southern Britain. Mr. H. St. George Gray (_Archaeologia_, lviii, 1903, pp. 461-98) regards the well-known monument of Arbor Low, near Bakewell in Derbyshire, as belonging to ‘the period of transition from stone to bronze’. This circle has been excavated to a considerable extent. No metal was discovered, nor any pottery that could be assigned to the period of construction; but a barbed and tanged arrow-head was found on the bottom of the ditch. Arrow-heads of this kind were probably first manufactured later than the non-barbed varieties (see p. 81, _supra_), although many specimens of the latter were contemporary with the former. As I have already pointed out, the mere absence of bronze in a circle is not sufficient to prove that it did not belong to the Bronze Age: the excavation of Arbor Low was necessarily incomplete; and all that can be said with certainty is that it is not older than the period to which Mr. Gray ascribes it. The reasons which he gives (_Man_, vi, 1906, No. 101, p. 159) for presuming that the Stripple Stones in Cornwall were of the same date appear to me equally inconclusive.

[I find that Mr. Gray (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1902 [1904], p. 465) admits that ‘Arbor Low has not been disproved to be of Early Bronze Age date’, and that his conclusion rests ‘on somewhat meagre evidence’. It has, however, been pointed out (_ib._, p. 466) that ‘a Bronze Age tumulus was certainly constructed out of material _derived from a portion of the original structure_ of the earthwork enclosing the stone circle’, and therefore that ‘it is reasonable to assign the date of construction of the circle to a period _not later_ than the _early_ Bronze Age’.]

[2220] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 313. See pp. 211-2, _supra_.

[2221] _Ib._, pp. 313-4.

[2222] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, ii, 1870, p. 2.

[2223] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 322.

[2224] Professor Gowland (_Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 85) holds that the discovery of the ‘incense-cup’ proves nothing, ‘as the nature of the ground and the conditions under which it was found are not given.... In Excavation VI’, he dryly remarks, ‘I dug up a modern preserved meat tin from a much lower layer than the stone implements in the neighbouring undisturbed ground.’ Dr. Evans, however, who apparently anticipated this objection, holds (_Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 322), that if the cup had not been originally deposited in the place where it was found, it would have been broken. I cannot find any proof that the so-called incense-cup was an incense-cup, in the sense in which archaeologists use the term, at all. It is described by John Webb (_A Vindication of Stone Heng Restored_, 1665, pp. 127-8) as ‘the _Cover_ highly probable of a _Thuribulum_.... It was of Stone, light in comparison, the more by being hollow, and extream hard.’ Now incense-cups were not made of stone (though fragments of stone were often mixed with the clay of which they were baked), and they hardly ever had covers (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 383; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 164, note; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ [Brit. Museum], pp. 61-3). The word ‘Stone’ may have been used incorrectly; but if the ‘Thuribulum’ was really stone, it was perhaps of late date. Cf. Sir J. Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 471.

[2225] W. Long, _Stonehenge and its Barrows_, p. 86; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318. See p. 469, n. 7, _supra_.

[2226] See pp. 202, 212, n. 2, _supra_.

[2227] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 315.

[2228] _Ib._, p. 318.

[2229] _Ib._, pp. 315-6. See also _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, iv, 1866, pp. 251-3.

[2230] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 88.

[2231] See pp. 210-2, _supra_.

[2232] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 196.

[2233] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., ix, 1881-3, p. 348.

[2234] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, iv, 1866, pp. 244-63.

[2235] _Stonehenge_, pp. 21, 32-3.

[2236] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 319.

[2237] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 83-4.

[2238] _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxi, 1884, p. 146.

[2239] vol. lxxi, 1904-5, pp. 297-300, 345-8, 367-8, 391-3, 535-8.

[2240] _Ib._, p. 298.

[2241] Ed. T. Arnold, 1879, p. 12 (lib. i, c. 7). Sir Norman Lockyer (_Stonehenge_, 1906, p. 51), quoting the well-known passage in which Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Pytheas, describes a circular temple in the island of the Hyperboreans (Diodorus Siculus, ii, 47, § 1), says that ‘Stonehenge alone can by any probability be referred to’. Is it not possible that if the romancer was serious, he was referring to the far larger circle of Avebury?

[2242] In a work entitled _Choir Gaur ... commonly called Stonehenge ... astronomically explained_, &c.

[2243] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, p. 391.

[2244] See W. W. Rouse Ball, _Short Account of the Hist. of Math._, 3rd ed., 1901, pp. 2, 6, 14.

[2245] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, p. 535. Sir Norman Lockyer has discovered new uses for dolmens and barrows. ‘The dolmens,’ he says (_ib._, p. 298), ‘have, I am convinced, been in many cases not graves originally, but darkened observing places to observe along a sight-line’; and, he adds (_ib._, lxxii, 1905, p. 272), ‘I have always held that ... long and chambered barrows were for the living and not for the dead.’

[2246] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, pp. 536-8.

[2247] _Ib._, p. 536.

[2248] _Stonehenge_, p. 137.

[2249] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 178, n. 1. In a more recent article (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 119) Professor Haverfield refers to ‘the tin-trade of N.W. Spain, where we must place the famous and fabulous Cassiterides’. The word ‘fabulous’ seems to suggest that he here withdraws his former view that the Cassiterides were islands ‘off’ N.W. Spain.

[2250] _Academy_, xlviii, Oct. 5, 1895, p. 273.

[2251] W. C. Borlase, _Tin Mining in Spain_, 1898, p. 21.--‘In the island of Ons alone, near the mouth of the river Pontevedra ... some indications of tin-quartz were found, so Cornide tells us,’ &c. Ons is not one of the group of islands with which the Cassiterides have been identified.

[2252] _Ib._, pp. 24, 28, &c. Mr. Borlase’s investigations only confirm the statements of Diodorus (v, 38, § 4), of Strabo (iii, 2, § 9), and of Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xxxiv, 16 [47], § 156), who all agree in saying that Spain produced tin.

[2253] See p. 490, n. 5, _infra_.

[2254] De Mortillet’s identification of the Cassiterides with the islands off the coast of Brittany is not worth discussing. Tin was apparently worked in the Morbihan in the Bronze Age (W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 403-4), but not in any of the Breton islands; nor is there any evidence that Gallic tin was ever an object of foreign commerce.

[2255] _Bibl. hist._, v, 21, § 2; 22, §§ 1-2; 38, § 4.

[2256] _Ib._, 38, § 4.--ὑπεράνω γὰρ τῆς τῶν Λυσιτανῶν χώρας ἔστι μέταλλα πολλὰ τοῦ καττιτέρου, κατὰ τὰς προκειμένας τῆς Ἰβηρίας ἐν τῷ ὠκεανῷ νησῖδας τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος Καττιτερίδας ὠνομασμένας.

[2257] _Geogr._, ii, 5, § 15.--τούτοις δὲ [i.e. the extremity of the Pyrenees] τὰ ἑσπέρια τῆς Βρεττανικῆς ἀντίκεινται, πρὸς ἄρκτον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ταῖς Ἀρτάβροις ἀντίκεινται πρὸς ἄρκτον αἱ Καττιτερίδες καλούμεναι νῆσοι πελάγιαι, κατὰ τὸ Βρεταννικόν πως κλίμα ἱδρυμέναι.

[2258] _Ib._, ii, 5, § 30.--πρόκεινται δὲ νῆσοι τῆς Εὐρώπης, ἃς ἔφαμεν, ἔξω μὲν Στηλῶν Γάδειρά τε καὶ Καττιτερίδες, καὶ Βρεττανικαί, &c.

[2259] _Ib._, iii, 2, § 9.--τὸν δὲ καττίτερον οὐκ ἐπιπολῆς εὑρίσκεσθαί φησιν [Ποσειδώνιος] ... ἀλλ’ ὀρύττεσθαι· γεννᾶσθαι δ’ ἔν τε τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοὺς Λυσιτανοὺς βαρβάροις καὶ ἐν ταῖς Καττιτερίσι νήσοις, καὶ ἐκ τῶν Βρεττανικῶν δὲ εἰς τὴν Μασσαλίαν κομίζεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἀρτάβροις, οἳ τῆς Λυσιτανίας ὕστατοι πρὸς ἄρκτον καὶ δύσιν εἰσίν, ἐξανθεῖν φησιν τὴν γῆν ἀργυρίῳ, καττιτέρῳ, χρυσίῳ λευκῷ.

[2260] _Ib._, iii, 5, § 11.--Αἱ δὲ Καττιτερίδες δέκα μὲν εἰσί, κεῖνται δ’ ἔγγυς ἀλλήλων, πρὸς ἄρκτον ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν Ἀρτάβρων λιμένος πελάγιαι· μία δ’ αὐτῶν ἔρημός ἐστι, τὰς δ’ ἄλλας οἰκοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι μελάγχλαινοι, ποδήρεις ἐνδεδυκότες τοὺς χιτῶνας, ἐζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στέρνα, μετὰ ῥάβδων περιπατοῦντες, ὅμοιοι ταῖς τραγικαῖς Ποιναῖς· ζῶσι δ’ ἀπὸ βοσκημάτων νομαδικῶς τὸ πλέον. μέταλλα δὲ ἔχοντες καττιτέρου καὶ μολύβδου κέραμον ἀντὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν δερμάτων διαλλάττονται καὶ ἅλας καὶ χαλκώματα πρὸς τοὺς ἐμπόρους. πρότερον μὲν οὖν Φοίνικες μόνοι τὴν ἐμπορίαν ἔστελλον ταύτην ἐκ τῶν Γαδείρων, κρύπτοντες ἅπασι τὸν πλοῦν· τῶν δὲ Ῥωμαίων ἐπακολουθούντων ναυκλήρῳ τινί, ὅπως καὶ αὐτοὶ γνοῖεν τὰ ἐμπόρια, φθόνῳ ὁ ναύκληρος ἑκὼν εἰς τέναγος ἐξέβαλε τὴν ναῦν, ἐπαγαγὼν δ’ εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν ὄλεθρον καὶ τοὺς ἑπομένους, αὐτὸς ἐσώθη διὰ ναυαγίου.... οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ ὅμως πειρώμενοι πολλάκις ἐξέμαθον τὸν πλοῦν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ Πόπλιος Κράσσος, διαβὰς ἐπ’ αὐτούς, ἔγνω τὰ μέταλλα ἐκ μικροῦ βάθους ὀρυττομένα ... ἐκ περιουσίας ἤδη τὴν θάλατταν ἐργάζεσθαι ταύτην τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐπέδειξε, καίπερ οὖσαν πλείω τῆς διειργούσης εἰς τὴν Βρεττανικήν.

[2261] _Ib._, iii, 3, § 5.--Ὕστατοι δ’ οἰκοῦσιν Ἄρταβροι περὶ τὴν ἄκραν, ἣ καλεῖται Νέριον, ἣ καὶ τῆς ἑσπερίου πλευρᾶς καὶ τῆς βορείου πέρας ἐστί.

[2262] _Ib._, iii, 1, § 3.--τρίτον ἐστὶ τὸ ἑσπέριον πλευρὸν ... μέχρι τῆς πρὸς Ἀρτάβροις ἄκρας, ἣν καλοῦσι Νέριον.

[2263] _Chorographia_, iii, 6, § 47.--in Celticis aliquot sunt [insulae], quas quia plumbo abundant uno omnes Cassiteridas appellant.

[2264] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 22 (36), § 119.--Ex adverso Celtiberiae complures sunt insulae Cassiterides dictae Graecis a fertilitate plumbi, et e regione Arrotrebarum promunturi Deorum VI, quas aliqui Fortunatas appellavere. G. F. Unger (_Rheinisches Museum_, xxxviii, 1883, p. 167) holds that both Pliny and Mela, in locating the Cassiterides, followed Roman, and therefore recent authorities.

[2265] _Ib._, vii, 56 (57), § 197.--plumbum ex Cassiteride insula primus adportavit Midacritus.

[2266] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 196, n. 2. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 211.

[2267] See p. 514, _infra_.

[2268] _Nat. Hist._, xxxiv, 16 (47), § 156.--Pretiosissimum hoc, Graecis appellatum cassiterum fabuloseque narratum in insulas Atlantici maris peti vitilibusque navigiis et circumsutis corio advehi. Nunc certum est in Lusitania gigni et in Gallaecia, &c.

[2269] _Academy_, xlviii, Dec. 14, 1895, p. 524.

[2270] _Nat. Hist._, iii, 1 (2), § 6; iv, 19 (33), § 109; 22 (35), § 114.

[2271] _Geogr._, ii, 6, § 73.--Ἐν δὲ τῷ Δυτικῷ Ὠκεανῷ αἱ Καττιτερίδες δέκα τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν τὸ μεταξὺ ἐπέχει μοίρας δʹ μεʹ 𐅵ʹʹ (4° 45° 30′) καὶ αἱ τῶν θεῶν νῆσοι δύο τὸν ἀριθμὸν δʹ γοʹʹ μγʹ γʹʹ (4° 40′ 43° 30″).

[2272] _Orbis Descriptio_, 561-4.--αὐτὰρ ὑπ’ ἄκρην | Ἱρήν, ἣν ἐνίπουσι κάρην ἔμεν Εὐρωπείης, | Νήσους Ἑσπερίδας, τόθι κασσιτέροιο γενέθλη, | Ἀφνειοὶ ναίουσιν ἀγαυῶν παῖδες Ἰβήρων.

[2273] _Rheinisches Museum_, xxxviii, 1883, p. 166.

[2274] _Ib._, pp. 166-7.

[2275] _Ib._, p. 170.

[2276] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 5.--Ἔχουσι δὲ οἱ Ἄρταβροι πόλεις συχνὰς ἐν κόλπῳ συνοικουμένας, ὃν οἱ πλέοντες καὶ χρώμενοι τοῖς τόποις Ἀρτάβρων λιμένα προσαγορεύουσιν.

[2277] _Chorographia_, iii, 1, § 13.--In Artabris sinus ore angusto admissum mare non angusto ambitu excipiens Adrobricam urbem et quattuor amnium ostia incingit, &c.

[2278] _Geogr._, ii, 6, § 2.--Ἀρτάβρων λιμὴν εʹ γʹʹ μεʹ (5° 20′, 45°) Νέριον ἀκρωτήριον εʹ δʹʹ μεʹ ϛʹʹ (5° 15′, 45° 10′); § 4--ἐν τῷ Μεγάλῳ λιμένι Φλαούιοι Βριγάντιον ϛʹ 𐅵ʹʹ δʹʹ μεʹ (6° 45′, 45°).

[2279] _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 165, n. 2.

[2280] _Ib._, p. 168.

[2281] _Ib._

[2282] See p. 484, n. 6, _supra_.

[2283] _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 170.

[2284] _Academy_, xlviii, Nov. 23, 1895, p. 438.

[2285] _Ib._, Dec. 21, p. 547.

[2286] See p. 483, n. 3, _supra_. Unger (_Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 171) says that after the discovery made by Crassus the mines on the islands must have been speedily worked out. But this is pure fancy: the mines on these islands were never worked out, for they never existed.

[2287] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 7.--Μελανείμονες ἅπαντες.

[2288] _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, pp. 275-6. See also K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 92, n. *, and Unger in _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 163.