North Downs, 26, 662.
North Foreland, 309, 575-7, 657 n. 3.
North Sea, 14.
Northamptonshire, 36, 110 n. 11, 137 n. 4, 238, 251, 361.
Northumberland, 8, 133 n. 1, 154, 161, 167, 171, 179, 194 n. 3, 205,
208, 359;
hut-circles, 154-5;
cremation, 184;
drinking-cups, 192.
Norway, 126.
_See_ Scandinavia.
Novantae, 447-8.
_Nundinae_, 713 ff.
Oban, 62, 394.
Oestrymnides, 491.
Offa’s Dyke, 260 n. 1.
Oldbury, 46, 134.
Old Sarum, 259 n. 3, 481.
Ons, 483 n. 3, 487-8, 497.
Ordovices, 233 note.
Orientation of long barrows and chambered cairns, 103;
of skeletons in round barrows, 188;
of stone circles, 210-1, 481-2;
of Stonehenge, 216-7, 472-6, 480-1;
of skeletons in interments of Early Iron Age, 287-8, 739.
_See_ Hurlers.
Orkney, 87 n. 1, 97 n. 2, 109, 198, 208;
chambered cairns in, 102, 408;
holed stones, 115 n. 8;
amber necklace, 169;
barrows, 175;
brochs, 262.
_See_ Ronsay, Stromness, Unstan.
Ormiegill, 106.
Ornament, on pottery, origin of, 89, 198 n. 3;
on bronze weapons, 149;
on pottery of the Bronze Age, 197-200;
curvilinear, 236-9.
Ornaments, 92.
_See_ Jewellery.
Ortels, A., 2.
Osismii, 221.
Οὐάτεις, 297 note.
Ouse, 48.
Oval barrows, 105 n. 2, 108.
Oxfordshire, 36, 84 n. 2, 101, 183 n. 1, 194 n. 3, 208, 235, 239-40,
246, 248 n. 2.
‘P’ Celts, 227-8, 409-10.
Palaeolithic Age, 4, 13-61;
chronology of, 8, 31-2;
relation of palaeolithic man to Ice Age, 22-5;
environment of palaeolithic man in Britain, 30-1;
whence did he come?, 30-1;
skeletons, 33-5, 380-3;
races, 34-5, 383-5;
artists, 35;
range of hunters in Britain, 35-6;
implements, 3-4, 24, 38-42;
where implements have been found, 36-7;
‘Palaeolithic Floor,’ 39;
workshops, 42-4;
culture of inhabitants in Britain, 45-9;
religion, 49-51;
did palaeolithic man leave descendants in Britain?, 59-61, 385-90.
Palestine, 30.
Palms in London Clay, 14.
Palstaves, 141, 144;
of Scandinavia, 172.
Papa Westray, Holm of, 102.
Paris, altars of, 276, 279 note.
Parisi, 235, 360 n. 2, 450-1.
Park Cwm, 107.
Pasturage, 88, 150-1.
Paviland Cave, 168, 397 n. 8.
Peanfahel, 421-2.
Pebbles, painted, 49;
in brochs, 262, 464.
Peebles-shire, 257 n. 5.
_Peik-_, 414.
Pengelly, W., 223.
Pennine Range, 68.
Pennocrucium, 450.
Pentagram, 295.
Pentland Firth, 224.
Pen-y-Gaer, 257.
Peristaliths, 105, 208 n. 2.
Perthes, B. de, 4.
Perthi-Chwareu, 55, 395.
Perthshire, 153, 194 n. 3, 208, 361 note.
Peru, 125.
Pestles, 75.
Petrie, W. Flinders, 9, 111 n. 3, 402, 479.
Pevensey, 558;
theory that Caesar landed at, 604-5, 611-21.
Peytrel, gold, 131, 163.
Philip of Macedon, 248.
Philology, 8;
as an aid to ethnological inquiry, 229, 375-6;
Celtic philologists differ on fundamentals, 453.
Phoenicians, 172, 219 n. 4, 221, 479, 489-91, 493-5. 497-8. 511-4.
_See_ Cassiterides, Tin.
Phrygians, 514.
Picks, deer-horn, 69, 71;
at Stonehenge, 215, 470-1.
_Pict_ (the name), 412-4, 419.
Pictones, 419.
Picts, 351, 391 n. 5;
the ‘Pictish question’, 409-24, 456;
Pictish inscriptions, 420-3.
‘Picts’ houses,’ 102 n. 4, 261, 391.
Piette, E., 9, 99.
Pigs, 88, 407;
interment of, in barrows, 203.
Pilgrim’s Way, 247, 256, 337.
Pins, of Bronze Age, 161;
Late Celtic, 240.
Pit-dwellings, 84-7, 153, 261.
Pits, in Hunsbury, Mount Caburn, and Worlebury forts, 256, 260.
Pitt-Rivers, A., 6-7, 71, 84 n. 2, 97 n. 7, 123 note, 136, 138,
144 n. 10, 175 n. 4, 176 n. 1, 179, 197, 201 note, 202 n. 3,
212, 215, 256-7, 267, 441.
Placard Cave, 99.
Placentia, 329.
Plas Newydd, 107.
Plateau gravels, 25-8, 36.
Pleistocene Period, 4, 11, 14, 27.
_See_ Ice Age.
Pliny, 219, 224, 296, 592-3.
Ploughs, 152 n. 2, 253.
Plutarch, 628, 630-1.
Plymouth, 33.
_See_ Cattedown Cave.
Polished stone implements, 73.
Polyandry, 351, 414-7.
Polybius, 219-20, 226 n. 3, 285.
Polytheism, 51, 276, 282.
Pomponius Mela, 1, 295 n. 1.
Pont Newydd, 40 n. 2.
Port Erin, 180.
Portsdown Hill, 20.
Portugal, 194, 263 n. 2;
Portuguese neolithic chambers, 87.
_See_ Los Murciélagos.
Portus Itius, Caesar sails from, to Britain, 306-7, 312, 327, 330;
dispatch vessels ply between, and Britain, 348;
question of its site, 552-95.
_See_ Ambleteuse, Boulogne, Calais, Somme, Wissant.
Portus Lemanis, 533, 538-41, 543-9, 551-2, 622.
Portus Ritupis, 519.
Posidonius, on tides, 219 n. 4, 319;
on Gallic banquets, 261;
on tin trade, 484, 499;
no evidence that he visited Britain, 499 n. 2.
Potter’s wheel, 191, 242.
Pottery, not made in Palaeolithic Age, 46;
at Hurstbourne and Highfield, 84 n. 2;
neolithic, 89, 96-7, 108, 109 n. 2;
domestic, of Bronze Age, 159, 467;
of Early Iron Age, 244;
sepulchral, of Bronze Age, 191-9, 467;
Late Celtic pottery, 242-4, 288;
‘Samian,’ 372;
potsherds in barrows, 113-4, 203-4;
at Stonehenge, 469 n. 7.
_See_ Cinerary urns, Drinking-cups, Food-vessels, Incense-cups.
Prah Sands, 36 note.
Prasutagus, 358;
the name, 450, 452.
Prayer, 117, 290, 297.
Prehistoric ages, indefiniteness of, 72.
Prehistoric Britain, how our knowledge of it has been obtained, 1-12.
Prehistoric Room (British Museum), 9, 70, 217 n. 1.
Prestwich, Sir J., 4, 23, 26-7.
_Pretani_, 411-3, 459.
Pretanic island, 227-8, 411-3, 459.
Πρετανικαὶ νῆσοι, 411, 459-61.
Promontory, rounded by Caesar in 55 B.C., 600, 650.
Property, private, in land, 252;
British women might own property, 269-70.
_Prydein_, 411, 413, 418-9.
Ptolemy, 235, 255, 422-3.
Puttenham, 137.
Pygmies, 390-3.
Pygmy flints, 82-3.
Pyrenees, palaeolithic artists of, 35 n. 3;
cave-dwellers, 47;
pottery of dolmens, 109;
misplaced by Strabo, 488.
Pythagoras, 294-5.
Pytheas, 152;
his voyage, 217-26;
his scientific and geographical work, 218-9, 221, 223, 351-2;
an authority on British ethnology, 227-9, 411-2, 445-6, 459;
discredited in Caesar’s time, 307;
on tides, 219, 319;
misunderstood by Professor Ridgeway, 495;
Diodorus Siculus ultimately derived description of Ictis from, 499.
_See_ Ictis, Moon, Thule.
‘Q’ Celts, 227-8, 409-10.
_Qicti_, 414.
Qrtanic, 228.
_Qrtanoi_, 412, 452, 459.
Quaternary Period, 14.
Quatrefages, A. de, 9, 385.
Querns, 253, 262, 264, 361 note.
Quiberon Bay, 304.
Quintus Cicero.
_See_ Cicero.
Rains Cave, 178.
Raised beach, 62.
Ramsgate, 519, 575, 577.
Ranke, J., 9, 439-40.
Rapier-shaped swords, 147.
Razors, 158, 160.
Read, C. H., 7, 134 n. 12, 182 n. 5, 217 n. 1, 430 note, 431, 505-6.
Reculver, 36-7, 336.
Red hair, 440.
Regni, 366, 617.
Reid, C., 19, 23, 27, 28 n. 2, 36 n. 1, 40 n. 2, 61 n. 3, 222, 503-7.
Reinach, S., 9, 47, 57 n. 5, 83 n. 3, 121 n. 1, 125 n. 4, 171 n. 3,
201 n. 3, 210, 277, 279, 292 note, 405 n. 7, 406 n. 6, 461-2,
493-4, 513-4.
Reindeer, 40, 68.
Religion, 10;
may have been a motive of palaeolithic art, 48;
and of geometrical decoration, 199 note;
religion of palaeolithic man, 49-51;
of neolithic man, 114-8;
in Bronze Age, 200-7;
Celtic, 271-90, 297-8;
the birthday of religion, 461-3.
_See_ Altars, Animism, Anthropomorphism, ‘Continuance theory,’
Druidism, Magic, Metempsychosis, Retribution, Sun worship,
Temples, Totemism.
_Reliquiae Diluvianae_, 4.
Remi, 299 n. 5, 454 n. 4.
Retribution, religious doctrine of, 296.
Rhee Wall, 535, 538-40, 542, 548;
built by Romans, 549-52.
Rhine, some of the brachycephalic invaders come from, to Britain, 128,
443;
Strabo on passage from, to Britain, 577.
Rhinoceros, woolly, 20;
big-nosed, 40.
Rhoda, 248 n. 2.
Rhonddha valley, 134.
Rhône, tin exported from Britain to mouth of, 222, 499, 513.
Rhosdigre, 395.
Rhys, Sir J., 228, 290, 291 nn. 1-2, 351, 367 n. 9, 390-2, 405 n. 8,
409-24, 429-30, 433 n. 4, 446-9, 453-4, 459-61, 500, 508-9.
Richborough, 336, 641;
topography, 519-20;
distance from Gesoriacum, 591-2;
theory that Caesar landed at, 604, 663-4;
that he encamped on, 674.
Ridgeway Hill, 203.
Ridgeway, W., 9, 188 n. 2, 204, 221 n. 3, 495, 500-1, 507-9, 569-70,
619-21.
Rillaton, 195 note.
Rings, 165, 167, 183 n. 1.
Rivers, worshipped, 116, 272.
River-bed skulls, 8, 396-7.
River-drift, 22, 36;
‘river-drift men,’ 38, 383-5.
_See_ Caves, High-level drift.
Riviera, 35, 67.
_See_ Baoussé-Roussé, Mentone.
Robertsbridge, 616, 678.
Robin Hood Cave, 35, 45 note.
Rochester, 344.
Rodmarton, 105, 401.
Rolleston, G., 8, 112, 377-8, 406, 425 n. 4, 426, 432, 441, 662 n. 3.
Rollright Stones, 210, 470.
Rome, thanksgiving service at, for Caesar’s first invasion of Britain,
325;
Roman troops _versus_ British chariots, 341-3;
growth of Roman influence in Britain, 356-8, 362-3, 368-72;
flight of British princes to Rome, 366.
Romney, 535, 537-9, 540 n. 2, 543, 547, 550.
Romney Marsh, 310;
ancient geography of, 532-52, 622-3, 638, 640;
Maistre Wace anticipated modern view that Caesar landed on, 644.
Ross-shire, 115 n. 8, 168, 194 n. 3.
Rother, ancient course of, 533, 537-43, 552;
Airy holds that Caesar defeated Britons on in 54 B.C., 616.
Rouge, 80, 264.
Round barrows and cairns, 6, 8, 107-8, 119-20, 173-6;
first erected in Neolithic Age, 119-20, 408-9;
ditches, banks, and stone circles belonging to, 175-7, 207-8;
not erected only in memory of chiefs, 177-9;
cenotaphs, 180-1;
chronology of round barrows, 181-4, 476 n. 1;
round barrows of Early Iron Age, 287.
_See_ Bell barrows, Bowl barrows, Disk barrows.
Round-headed invaders of Britain, 127-8, 424-44;
begin to arrive in Neolithic Age, 119, 127, 408-9;
of ‘characteristic’ type, 425-8, 444, 455;
of short stature (‘Alpine’ type), 426-8, 455;
earlier round-headed invaders not Celtic, 428-40.
Roundway Hill, 109 n. 3.
‘Row Grave’ skulls, 443 n. 5.
Royal Archaeological Institute, 5.
Royal Irish Academy, 5.
Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 5.
Rudstone, 201 n. 3.
Rufina, 368.
Rushmore, round barrows at, 201 note, 202 n. 3, 212 n. 2;
did not contain bronze, 215.
Rutupiae, distance from Gesoriacum, 591;
theory that Caesar landed at, 663-4.
_See_ Richborough.
Rye, 604.
Sabinus, 304, 314, 324.
Sabre-toothed tiger, 37.
Sacrifice, 118.
_See_ Animals, Human sacrifice.
Salisbury Plain, forts on, 133, 137 n. 4;
sarsens, 214;
Salisbury Spire, 217, 481.
Salmon, Ph., 9, 382 n. 2.
Sanson, N., 2.
Sandgate, coast between, and Dover, 531-2;
in connexion with question of Caesar’s landing-place, 627, 638,
640-2, 646-7, 651.
Sandown Castle, 312, 323;
coins found near, 520-1;
coast between, and Walmer Castle, 521-5.
Sandtun, 539, 541, 542 n. 1.
Sandwich, 311, 323;
Caesar lands near in 54 B.C., 335-6, 664-5;
coast between, and Sandown Castle, 519-20;
decay of port, 526;
theory that Caesar landed at, in 55 B.C., 604-5, 660-4.
See also 651, 657-8, 673-4, 683.
Sangatte, 306;
not Caesar’s _ulterior portus_, 581-3, 585, 619, 639, 740-1.
Sarrebourg, altar at, 281.
Sarsens, 214-5, 470-1, 479-80.
Saturn, 282.
Saws, flint, 41, 79, 132;
bronze, 132 n. 2, 140;
many flint saws in one barrow, 201 n. 3;
iron saws, 253.
Scabbards, 147;
Late Celtic, 237, 239.
Scaliger, J., 2.
Scandinavia, 9, 14, 66-7, 77, 102, 115, 168, 185, 195 note, 205-6,
211, 218, 404, 441;
trade, 170-1;
superiority of bronze culture, 172.
_See_ Thule.
Schneider, R., 557, 589.
Scilly Islands, chambered barrows in, 102;
people of, traded by barter, 359;
identified with Cassiterides, 486, 490-3, 497-8, 513.
Scorborough Park, 435 n. 1.
Scotland, in Ice Age, 16, 21, 24;
subsidence of, 62;
dolmens, 66, 403 n. 5;
axe-hammers, 79;
barbed arrow-heads, 81;
chambered cairns, 101, 107;
Bronze Age began late, 132;
lead in bronze, 140;
cauldrons, 158;
ornaments, 163, 165, 167-9;
cairns, 174;
cemeteries, 178-9;
interments, 185, 200;
drinking-cups, 192, 195 note;
stone circles, 207-8, 476;
only one interment of Early Iron Age, 232 n. 2;
Late Celtic pins, 240;
vitrified forts, 259 n. 3;
dwellings and brochs, 261-2;
crannogs, 263 n. 2;
no coins struck in, 359.
_See_ also 109, 129-30, 133, 141, 205, the counties, Ethnology, &c.
Scrapers, palaeolithic, 41;
neolithic, 79;
on Dartmoor, 156.
Sculptor, neolithic, 70.
Sculptured stones, 8, 177, 183, 205-7.
Scythians, use of breeches borrowed from, 265.
Seaford, hill-fort at, 98 note, 136, 137 n. 1.
Secondary interments, 112, 173, 186 n. 4, 188-9.
Segontiaci, 346, 361, 700.
Seine, 327;
Strabo on passage from, to Britain, 577.
Selgovae, 448.
Selsea, 19.
Senotigirnios, 360 n. 2.
Sepulchral pottery, of Bronze Age, 191-9, 467;
Late Celtic, 242-3, 288.
Sergi, G., 9, 377-8, 398, 400-2, 404 n. 6, 406.
Sevenoaks, 25-6, 254.
Sewing, 47.
Shakespeare, 204.
Shakespeare’s Cliff, 310, 532.
Sheep, 88, 151, 357, 406.
Shells, 11, 16-7;
shell-fish eaten, 63, 157.
Shetland, 67, 129 n. 4, 225-6, 262.
_See_ Thule.
Shields, 145-6;
Scandinavian, 172;
Late Celtic, 237, 244-5.
Ships, figured on Scandinavian rocks, 171 n. 3;
British, 246-7;
of the Veneti, 304;
Caesar’s, wrecked, 319-20, 338.
_See_ Galleys, Transports.
Shorncliffe, 532, 536, 622-4, 651.
Shropshire, 208, 359.
Sibbald, Sir R., 4.
Siberia, 60-1.
Sickles, stone, 80;
bronze, 144-5;
iron, 253.
Sidbury Hill, 216, 472-3, 481.
Silbury Hill, 180-1.
Silchester, 255;
inscription found at, 410, 451.
Silura, 359 n. 12.
Silures, 281, 359 n. 12, 398.
Silver coins, 249, 358, 362;
bronze celt found with, 267 n. 2.
_Simulacra_, 285.
Sion type, 429-30.
Siret, MM., 9.
Sitting posture, 188 n. 2.
Skeletons, 3;
palaeolithic, 33-5, 380-3;
neolithic, 64, 393-8;
of late Neolithic Age and Bronze Age, 127-8, 424-8;
of Heathery Burn Cave, 159-60, 444;
of Early Iron Age, 234, 434-6.
Skin, vessels of, 42;
clothing, 47, 91, 156, 161, 267.
Skulls, 11.
_See_ Skeletons.
Sling-bullets, 264, 268.
Slingers, in Caesar’s army, 313, 331, 346, 698.
Small Down Camp, 134.
Small Downs, 526, 665 n. 3.
Smertullos, 279 note.
Smith, C. Roach, 5.
Smith, W. Robertson, 203 n. 4, 252 n. 4, 277.
Smith, Worthington G., 44.
Smyth, Admiral W. H., 608.
Societies, archaeological, formation of, 5.
Society of Antiquaries, 3.
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 5.
Socketed weapons, 141, 144-5, 148-9;
very rare in interments of Bronze Age, 181-4.
Solent, 32.
Solinus, 359.
Solutré, 39, 41, 383-4.
Solway Moss, 76.
Somaliland, 31;
did Mediterranean race originate in? 406.
Somersetshire, 5, 101, 133-4, 175, 194 n. 3, 208, 232 n. 3, 250-1,
359-60.
Somme, 4, 302-3, 306, 327;
coast between, and Calais, 517-8;
estuary of, not Portus Itius, 558-63, 617, 621.
Somme Bionne, 238, 243.
South Downs, entrenchments on, 96, 98;
settlements on, 130.
South Foreland, 2, 223, 311, 315, 319, 334, 575 n. 4, 582, 627, 642-3,
650, 653, 659, 662-3;
ancient configuration of cliffs, 528-30;
Caesar drifted past, in 54 B.C., 616, 620, 655-6.
South Lodge Camp, 156-7.
Spain, 9, 21, 65, 82, 111, 171, 194, 200, 211, 220-1, 263 n. 2, 327;
Copper Age, 122;
trade, 172;
tin obtained from, 512.
Spear-heads, palaeolithic (?), 41;
neolithic, 80, 147;
bronze spears, 131, 145-8;
socketed spear-heads not found in interments of Bronze Age, 181,
182 nn. 2, 5, 184.
Spettisbury, 251.
Spindle-whorls, 91-2, 156, 160, 264.
Spiral ornament, 170-1, 200, 239.
Spy, 33-4, 381.
St. Albans, 255, 347, 701.
St. David’s Head, fort on, 258.
St. George’s Hill, 694-5.
St. Keverne, 435 n. 1.
St. Leonards, 614, 617.
St. Margaret’s Bay, 311;
movements of shingle at, 523, 529 n. 3.
St. Michael’s Mount, 222-3, 502-3, 506-7, 513.
_See_ Ictis.
St. Valéry-sur-Somme, 243.
_Stadia_, 591-2.
Staffordshire, 82 n. 6, 129, 167, 194 n. 3, 203, 205, 208, 252.
Stalagmite, 59, 222, 386-7, 504.
Standard-bearer of 10th legion, 316-7.
Standards, military, 284.
Standlake, 84 n. 2, 183 n. 1.
Stannon, 211 n. 1.
Stanton Drew, 481-2.
Stars, worshipped, 116.
Statius, 114 n. 8.
Statues, 274, 279, 283-6;
statuettes at Brassempouy, 383 n. 2.
Stature, relative, of sexes in Neolithic Age, 91;
in Bronze Age, 152;
methods of estimating, 378-9, 740.
Steatopygous race, 383 n. 2.
Stokes, Whitley, 421-2, 450, 453.
Stonar, 519-20, 522 n. 6, 524 n. 2.
Stone Ages, 4.
Stone balls, 170.
Stone circles, 2 n. 1, 207-17, 285, 476-9;
within or enclosing barrows, 176-7;
solar temple theory, 210-1, 216-7, 478-9;
astral temples (?), 481-2.
Stonehenge, 5-6;
barrows near, 113-4, 167, 169-70, 174-5;
avenue, 209;
outlying stone, 210;
original form and construction, 213-4, 479-80;
date, 215-7, 468-77;
purpose of builders, 477-81.
_See_ Evans, A. J., Hinks, Lockyer, Webb.
Stone implements, purposely broken in barrows, 115.
_See_ Flakes, Neolithic Age, &c.
Stone rows, 208.
Stone Street, 543-4, 548-9.
Stones, engraved, 205-6.
Stoney Littleton, 105.
Stour (Hampshire), 25.
Stour.
_See_ Great Stour and Little Stour.
Strabo, 1, 219, 223-5, 234, 261, 302, 357-8, 368-9, 558, 569-71, 577-9.
Stromness, 87 n. 1.
Stukeley, W., 2, 12, 174, 210.
Sturry, 336, 660, 683-5.
Stutfall Castle, 336, 544-7, 622, 638-9.
Submerged forests.
_See_ Forests.
Submergence, in Ice Age, 16-7;
in Neolithic Age, 62-4.
Subsidence, in Neolithic Age, 64;
of SE. Britain and NE. Gaul since Roman times, 527, 566, 740.
Sucellos, 281 n. 8.
Suessiones, 299, 454 n. 4.
Suetonius, 1, 363.
Suffolk, 3. 22-3, 36, 69, 153, 194 n. 3, 263 n. 2, 347;
chisels, 77;
tankard, 241.
Sulpicius Rufus, 314.
Sunbury, 696.
Sunken Kirk, 212 n. 2.
Sun-worship, 116, 206-7, 210-1, 216-7, 280, 282, 472-6, 478, 480.
_See_ Concentric rings, Disks, Stone circles.
Surrey, 36, 82 n. 5, 97, 130, 137, 254, 362, 365.
Sussex, in Pleistocene Period, 19, 25;
terrace cultivation, 253.
_See also_ 36, 98 note, 130, 134, 165, 176, 194 n. 3, 232 n. 3, 256.
Sutherlandshire, 150, 194 n. 3, 361 note.
Swanscombe skull, 33, 380.
Swastika, 199 note, 207, 244.
Sweden, 77, 126.
_See_ Scandinavia.
Switzerland, 205.
_See_ Lake-dwellings.
Swords, 131, 145-7, 172;
not found in interments of Bronze Age, 181-2, 184;
Late Celtic, 238-9.
Syracuse, 248 n. 2.
Syria, 66, 211, 213.
Taboos, 54, 118, 201 n. 3.
Tacitus, 1, 161, 239, 249, 268, 286, 292, 355, 358, 375, 398-9, 415,
418 n. 1.
Taddington, 108.
Taexali, 448.
Tamesi, 399 n. 1, 453.
Tanarus, 279.
Tanged blades, 145, 147, 182 n. 5.
Tankards, 241-2.
Taplow, 147.
Taranis, 278-9, 281.
_See_ Tanarus.
Tarvos Trigaranus. 278, 284.
Tasciovanus, 361, 365, 368.
Tasmanians, 31, 44, 49 n. 5, 462.
Tattooing, 418-20.
Teddington, 696-7.
Teeth, of neolithic population compared with those of Bronze Age, 90,
152.
Temperate animals, 20-1, 383.
Temples, 284-6.
_See_ Stone Circles, Stonehenge.
Τενάγη, 631.
_Terminalia_, 722-3.
Tertiary man, 13-4;
deposits, 27.
Test, river, 32.
Textile fabrics, 89.
_See_ Clothing.
Thames, southern limit of glacial movement, 18, 36 n. 1;
implements found in drift, 22, 23 n. 7, 24, 26, 42;
level of, in Palaeolithic Age, 30, 32;
implements and weapons found in bed of, 124, 147, 158, 238-9, 244;
forded by Caesar, 345-6, 692-9;
his march to, 660-1.
Thanet, not to be identified with Ictis, 222, 500-2;
ancient configuration of, 519.
Thanington, 336, 683-5.
Thule, 223-6, 367;
confounded by Pliny with (M)ictis, 499 n. 5, 505.
Thurnam, J. T., 8, 97 n. 2, 102 n. 4, 112-3, 181 n. 2, 393-5, 401-2,
426 n. 5, 427, 429-30, 434.
Tiberius, 369.
Tidal currents, 10, 311, 315, 334-5, 595-6, 599;
question of, in connexion with Caesar’s invasions of Britain,
605-11, 612-3, 620-1, 625, 634, 638, 640, 641 n. 1, 645 n. 3,
647-9, 655-9.
_See_ Airy, Darwin.
Tides, Posidonius and Pytheas on, 219 n. 4, 319;
spring and neap, 601-2;
times of high tide at Dover on Aug. 26-8, 55 B.C., 610.
Tim...., 363-4.
Timaeus, 273, 351.
Timagenes, 294.
Tin, 121-2, 125;
early mining of, in Cornwall, 139, 502-3 n. 8;
smelting of, 140;
coins, 249;
produced in the Cassiterides, 483-6, 488-98;
British trade in, 218, 220-3, 251, 307, 358, 483-514;
had trade temporarily ceased in Caesar’s time? 509;
or before A.D. 50? 509-11;
did Phoenicians trade for, with Britain? 511-4.
_See_ Cassiterides, _cassiteros_, Ictis, κασσίτερος.
Tincommius, 364-9.
Titurius.
_See_ Sabinus.
Togodumnus, 370-1, 453.
Tongs, 157-8.
Torquay, 4, 37, 244.
Torques, of Bronze Age, 163;
Late Celtic, 93, 241.
Totemism, 51-7, 284.
Toutates, 278-9, 281-3.
Towyn-y-Capel, 396.
Trackways, 247-8, 344.
Trade, in Neolithic Age, 71;
in Bronze Age, 167-72;
Late Celtic, 246-8, 269;
of Veneti, 302;
trade stimulated by Caesar’s invasions, 308, 356-7, 371;
British, described by Strabo, 358.
_See_ Tin.
Transition between Palaeolithic Age and Neolithic Age, 13, 63;
from Neolithic to Bronze Age, 71-2, 120, 131-2, 139-40;
from Bronze to Early Iron Age, 230, 267.
_See_ Hiatus.
Transmigration of souls, 293.
_See_ Metempsychosis.
Transports, used by Caesar in 55 B.C., 313-20, 324, 554, 596;
constructed by him in 55-4 B.C., 326, 331, 555, 599;
constructed by Labienus, 350, 584;
transports which conveyed Caesar’s cavalry in 55 B.C., 313-4,
318-9, 554-6, 597-8;
could not have returned in gale of Aug. 30 from near Pevensey to
Authie, 558, 613;
or from near Walmer or Hythe to Sangatte, 581-3;
or from near Pevensey to Sangatte, 618-9;
or from near Hythe or Lympne to Ambleteuse, 624-5;
or from near Hurst to Sangatte or Ambleteuse, 639;
or from near Bonnington to Ambleteuse, 643;
some did return from near Walmer to Ambleteuse, 319, 588, 651;
day on which they sailed from Gaul, 601.
Trebatius, 328.
Trebonius accompanies Caesar to Britain in 54 B.C., 334;
defeats Britons, 341, 353, 692.
Trees worshipped, 272.
Trelan Bahow, 239.
Trent, skull found in, 63, 396.
Trepanning, 79, 93, 260.
Treveri, 330, 667-8.
Triads, 274.
Tribute, British tribes ordered by Caesar to pay, 350, 356, 670-1;
not levied by Augustus, 368.
Trinovantes, 235, 299 n. 5;
furnish grain to Caesar, 254, 339, 343, 346;
opposed to Catuvellauni, 300, 309, 327, 361;
Caesar enters their territory, 346-7, 702;
subdued by Cunobeline, 362;
by Dubnovellaunus, 363, 366.
Tropical animals, 20-1, 40.
_Triskele_, 242.
Trumpets, 172, 317.
Turner, J. M. W., 213.
Turner, Sir W., 8, 109 note, 375 n. 1, 377.
Tweezers, 160, 264.
Tyddyn Bleiddyn, 395.
Tylor, Prof. E. B., 10, 49 n. 5, 50, 277, 295 n. 1, 461, 463, 675.
Ty Mawr, 154, 155 n. 1.
Uley, 106-7.
_Ulterior portus_, 554, 556.
Unstan, 97 n. 2.
Uphill, 395.
Upper Greensand, 27.
Upper Swell, 106, 110 n. 11, 112.
Upton Lovel, 163.
Uxellon, 448.
Uxisama, 221.
V-shaped holes, 161, 162 n. 1.
Vacomagi, 448.
_Vada_, 631.
Varro, 286.
Vectis, 504-5, 740.
Veneti, 223;
Caesar’s campaign against, 302-5;
Strabo’s explanation of their hostility to Caesar, 308;
their trade, 506, 508-9.
Venta, 232 n. 3.
Vepogen, 415-7.
Vercingetorix, 353, 364-5
Vergil, 367.
Verica, 365-6.
Verulamium, 255;
perhaps the stronghold of Cassivellaunus, 347, 701-2;
its mint, 359, 361-2
Vesta, 286.
Vigo, islands near, identified with Cassiterides, 487-9, 494-6.
Virchow, R., 9.
Vitrified forts, 259 n. 3, 739.
Volisios, 360 n. 2.
Volusenus reconnoitres British coast, 308-10, 554, 596-7;
Caesar acts upon his report, 315;
attempts to assassinate Commius, 365;
various topographical inferences from Caesar’s account of his
reconnaissance, 613, 627, 639-40, 645-6, 651-2.
Votadini, 235.
Vulcan, 276.
Wagons, 152, 221, 247, 505.
Walbrook, 255, 703.
Wales, 5, 14, 24, 65 n. 3, 66, 86 n. 4, 101-2, 124, 129, 133, 135,
174, 208, 233, 259 n. 3, 263 n. 2, 359;
iron tools rare in, in pre-Roman times, 266.
See the counties.
Walmer, 253, 316, 321, 323, 519-21, 576, 604, 626-7, 674;
theory that Caesar landed at (and Deal) in 55 B.C., 644-62;
castle, 311, 521-5, 604, 653, 664, 674;
church, 311, 673-4.
_See_ Deal.
Walton-on-Thames, 693, 695.
Wandsworth, 239.
Wansdyke, 260 n. 1.
War Ditches, 454.
War, internecine, in Britain, 95, 129, 131, 133, 268-9, 339.
Warminster Downs, 90 n. 2.
Warne, C., 5.
Warren, The, 532.
Warwickshire, 131, 260 n. 1.
Water Eaton, 240.
Water supply, 138-9, 256.
Watling Street, 344, 704-5.
Weald, 26, 357.
Wealden Forest, 98, 253, 310, 615 n. 1.
_See_ Andred.
Wealth, 167, 269, 357.
Weaving.
_See_ Spindle whorls.
Webb, E. J., 474-6, 482.
Weems, 153. 391.
Wellesley, Sir A., 645-6.
Well-worship, 116, 272, 283.
Wendover, 701.
West Furze, 87.
West Hythe, 253-4;
ancient topography of, 539, 541, 544-5, 547-9, 622-3, 636, 639.
West Hythe Oaks, 533, 535-6, 542, 545-9, 552, 624.
West Indies, 76.
West Kennet, 97 n. 2, 103, 105, 403.
Westmorland, 101, 194 n. 3, 205. 212 n. 2, 359.
West Wickham, 81, 89 n. 8.
Weybourne, pit-dwellings at, 85;
theory that Caesar landed at, 604.
Wheel, god of the, 279-80.
Whetstones, 75.
Whit Tor, 96, 134, 155.
Wight, Isle of, 19, 27 n. 4, 32, 67, 145, 251;
wrongly identified with Ictis, 222-3, 501-7.
William the Conqueror, 314, 563, 614.
Wilson, D., 7.
Wiltshire, 27, 97, 109 n. 2, 130, 156, 160, 182 n. 5, 194 n. 3, 208,
215, 217, 232 n. 3, 250, 256, 287, 288 n. 1;
long barrows, 101-2, 105;
population subdued by Bronze Age invaders, 129;
ornaments, 162-3, 165, 167-70, 172;
round barrows, 175-8;
interments, 184, 187-91, 196, 203;
coins, 359, 362.
Wind shifted in Caesar’s first voyage to Britain, 314, 626-7;
dropped in second voyage, 334, 576 n. 1;
great influence of winds on tides, 595, 602, 608.
Windsor, 48.
Winkelbury, 169 n. 9, 256.
Winterbourne Stoke, 162 n. 1.
Wissant, 306-7, 552-3, 555 n. 2, 557-8;
not Portus Itius, 565-85, 588 n. 5, 589, 619, 652.
Witham, shield found in, 237, 284.
Wolds.
_See_ Yorkshire.
Wolseley, Lord, on warfare with savages, 354;
on range of vision, 612 n. 3;
on fords, 694.
Wolves, 68, 98.
Women, lot of, in Neolithic Age, 91;
in Bronze Age, 152;
in Early Iron Age, 269-70.
Woodcuts, 84 n. 2, 138, 261 n. 3.
Wooden tools, 42.
Woodnesborough, 519.
Woodwork, Late Celtic, 241-2.
Wookey Hole, 37.
Wor Barrow, 103 n. 2, 105, 111 n. 3, 179.
Worcestershire, 131, 134, 251, 360.
Workshops, 7;
palaeolithic, 42;
neolithic, 70, 85.
Worlebury, 253, 255-6, 434 n. 6.
Worth, 335, 660, 673-4.
Wright, Dr. W., 385 n. 7, 427-8.
Wrist-guards, 82, 162.
Writing, primitive, 99;
in Early iron Age, 265-6.
Wye, 633, 660-1, 678.
Yarhouse, 106.
Yarnbury, 137 n. 4.
_Ynys Prydein_, 411.
Yorkshire, 24, 35, 68, 101, 171 n. 3, 174 n. 5, 181 n. 1, 194 n. 3,
201 n. 3, 205, 231-2, 234 n. 1, 235, 241, 250, 264, 267, 288 n. 1;
chisels from Wolds, 77;
survival of _couvade_ in, 95;
cremation prevalent in, in Neolithic Age, 110;
cannibalism (?) in barrows, 113;
implements deposited in graves, 115 n. 4;
evidence from skeletons of commingling of races, 129, 427;
why Wolds were thickly peopled, 130;
rarity of bronze relics in Wolds barrows, 132, 181 n. 3, 183 n. 6;
large oxen reared on Wolds, 151;
poverty of people of Wolds, 156;
ornaments, 161, 165, 167, 169 n. 7;
barrows, 177;
interments, 184, 187-9, 191, 200.
Zeeland, 207.
Zeus, 217, 285.
Zimmer, Prof., 405 n. 8, 409, 411, 413-6.
Zoomorphic designs, 237.
Oxford: Printed at the Clarendon Press by HORACE HART, M.A.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Dr. Joseph Anderson (_Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and
Stone Ages_, 1886, p. 135) has pointed out that the subject of stone
circles was first treated in a scientific spirit in 1692--long before
Stukeley wrote--by Prof. Garden of Aberdeen (_Archaeologia_, i, 1770,
pp. 312-9).
[2] See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 1898, p.
18 (preface), and cf. _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 72.
[3] xiii, 1800, pp. 204-5.
[4] Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, 1880, pp. 155-7; Sir J.
Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements ... of Great Britain_, 2nd ed., 1897,
pp. 56-61, 65, 362-8; _Rev. arch._, 4^{e} sér. 1, vii, 1906, pp. 239-59.
[5] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 363.
[6] None of these excavators, however, was so thorough as Pitt-Rivers;
and Bateman was often careless (see H. St. G. Gray’s _Index to
‘Excavations in Cranborne Chase’_, 1905, p. xvi). But it must
be remembered that to do such work properly, not only skill and
perseverance are needed, but also money.
[7] Pitt-Rivers remarks (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 1892,
pp. x, 254) that a rampart almost always yields something, for example,
pottery, which throws light on the period of its construction; while
his experience shows the importance of ‘digging the whole of a camp
over, down to the undisturbed soil’ (_ib._, iv, 14 [preface]). He tells
us (_ib._, p. 4) that when he was excavating the earthwork called South
Lodge Camp, ‘in the first three sections little or nothing was found,
which shows what very false conceptions are liable to be formed by
merely digging one or two sections in a camp.’ See also vol. iii, pp.
xi, 13; vol. iv, pp. 46-8, 138, 144, 187; _Trans. Epping Forest ...
Naturalists’ Field Club_, ii, 1882, pp. 59-60; and _Report of ... the
Brit. Association_, 1904, pp. 691-700.
[8] _The Past in the Present_, 1880.
[9] The following passage from Sir John Evans’s _Ancient Bronze
Implements ... of Great Britain and Ireland_, 1880, pp. 25-6, is
instructive:--‘In company with Sir John Lubbock I was engaged in
opening a grave [at Hallstatt] in which we had come to an interment
of the Early Iron Age, accompanied by a socketed celt and spear-heads
of iron, when amidst the bones I caught sight of a thin metallic disc
of a yellowish colour which looked like a coin. Up to that time no
coin had ever been found in any one of the many hundred graves which
had been examined, and I eagerly picked up this disc. It proved to
be a “sechser”, or six-kreutzer piece, with the date 1826, which by
some means had worked its way down among the crevices in the stony
ground.... Had this coin been of Roman date it might have afforded an
argument for bringing down the date of the Hallstatt cemetery some
centuries in the chronological scale. As it is, it affords a wholesome
caution against drawing important inferences from the mere collocation
of objects when there is any possibility of the apparent association
being only due to accident.’
[10] See Mr. H. Balfour’s interesting introduction to Pitt-Rivers’s
_Evolution of Culture_, 1906, p. xiv.
[11] _Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), 1902,
p. 76. See also _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, p. 18.
[12] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 1905, p. 22.
[13] _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Field Club_, xxi, 1900, p. 75.
[14] See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, p. xii;
iv, p. 28.
[15] _Ib._, iii, p. xiii.
[16] Mr. N.W. Thomas (_Man_, v, 1905, No. 25, pp. 47-8) points out
that ‘some five years ago the Berlin collections [of ethnographical
objects] from British possessions were seven times as large as those
in our national museum, and since then this disproportion has not
been decreased’, the reason being that ‘the men whom the nation pays
to perform certain duties [in national expeditions] are permitted to
retain the objects collected in the performance of those duties’. But
the nation is to blame as much as the Government.
[17] See pp. 61, 385-90, _infra_.
[18] Lafcadio Hearn, _Kokoro_, p. 290.
[19] ‘Comme paléontologiste,’ says M. Marcellin Boule, ‘je crois
fermement à l’existence de l’Homme tertiaire: je ne doute pas qu’on
trouvera un jour ses traces’ (_L’Anthropologie_, xvi, 1905, p. 267).
[20] Sir A. Geikie, _Text-book of Geology_, 4th ed., ii, 1903, pp.
1224-5, 1231.
[21] Sir A. Ramsay’s theory (_Physical Geol. and Geogr. of Great
Britain_, 6th ed., 1894, p. 269), that the basins of the Scottish and
Cumbrian lakes were scooped out of the rocks by glaciers, was held by
no British geologist a few years ago, except in a modified form. See A.
J. Jukes-Browne, _Student’s Handbook of Phys. Geol._, 2nd ed., 1892,
pp. 159, 624, 629-30; T. G. Bonney, _Ice-Work, Present and Past_, 1896,
pp. 80-94; and Sir A. Geikie, _Text-book of Geol._, 1903, i, 552; ii,
1323-4, 1385-6. Prof. W. M. Davis of Harvard has, however, recently
produced fresh evidence ‘in favour of the excavating power of glaciers’
(_Trans. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh_, xl, part ii, 1902, p. 457); and
Ramsay’s theory is ‘in no wise extinct’ (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._,
lxii, 1906, p. 166); but Prof. E. J. Garwood has recently investigated
the Alpine lakes near Airolo, and holds (_ib._, p. 190) that, with a
few possible exceptions, they ‘do not seem to be due to ice-erosion’.
[22] For instance, H. B. Woodward, _Geol. of England and Wales_, 2nd
ed., 1887, pp. 475-512; J. Prestwich, _Geology_, ii, 1888, pp. 453-4,
469; A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, 1888, pp.
281, 289, 294-6; Sir A. C. Ramsay, _Phys. Geol. and Geogr. of Great
Britain_, 6th ed., 1894, pp. 229, 238, 242-3, 246-8, 252, 259, 263,
276; T. G. Bonney, _Ice-Work, Present and Past_, 1896, pp. 121, 277;
and Sir A. Geikie, _Text-book of Geology_, 1903, i, 169; ii, 1302-32.
[23] Mr. T. Mellard Reade, in an interesting paper (_Nat. Science_,
iii, 1893, pp. 423-35) has argued against the view that these shells
were carried up the hill of Moel Tryfaen by a glacier. See also, in
support of the theory of a period of extensive submergence, _Geol.
Mag._, 1893, pp. 35-7, 104-7; 1896, pp. 488-92; 1897, pp. 229-33.
[24] H. Carvill Lewis, _Papers and Notes_, &c., 1894, pp. 375-6;
_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1893 (1894), pp. 483-514;
_Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, p. 399; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lxii,
1906, pp. 33, 39. Mr. T. F. Jamieson, the author of the last-named
paper, suggests that the submergence may have been confined to the
northern part of Scotland.
[25] _Nat. Science_, iv, 1894, p. 472. Cf. _Trans. Roy. Soc.
Edinburgh_, xl, part i, 1904, p. 82.
[26] Clement Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, 1899, pp. 39-40.
[27] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 253; _Vict. Hist. of ...
Somerset_, i, 176.
[28] _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25-6. See p. 19, _infra_.
[29] _Geol. Mag._, 1895, pp. 63-4.
[30] C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 38.
[31] See Sir A. Geikie’s _Text-book of Geology_, ii, 1903, p. 1313. Cf.
_Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 388-9, 399.
[32] See Sir A. Geikie’s _Text-book of Geology_, ii, 1903, p. 1313.
[33] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1887, pp. 111-2.
[34] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, pp. 197-227, especially
p. 209; _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part i, 1904, p. 83; _Vict.
Hist. of ... Durham,_ i, 24. Professor Bonney, however (_Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc._, lxii, 1906, pp. 491-2, 498), remains unconvinced.
[35] See Mr. G. W. Lamplugh’s opening address, delivered in Section C
of the British Association (_Nature_, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 387-400). Mr.
T. F. Jamieson, in a valuable and interesting paper (_Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc._, lxii, 1906, p. 23), observes that ‘although we have some
evidence of more than one recurrence of an ice-sheet in [Aberdeenshire]
... no evidence has hitherto been obtained of warm intervals, further
than that which may be inferred from the melting away of the vast mass
of ice which preceded and followed the deposition of the Red Clay and
the shell-bed at Clava and elsewhere. It must have taken a great deal
of heat to melt these enormous masses.’
[36] Is it certain that an elevation of seventy feet would not have
been enough to unite Britain with the Continent? For thousands of years
the scour of the tides must have been deepening the Channel. [On April
11, 1906, I submitted to Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I
had with him at the Geological Museum, the gist of the argument by
which I endeavour to show (pp. 20-2, _infra_) that during some part of
the Palaeolithic Age Britain must have been continental. He virtually
admitted its force, remarking that an elevation of seventy feet would
have enabled animals to cross from Gaul to Britain, as the scour of the
tides had doubtless deepened the Channel.]
[37] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 37, 38.
[38] _Ib._, p. 41; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xlviii, 1892, pp.
344-61. Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 32.
[39] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 39. See also _Memoirs Geol.
Survey--The Geology of the Country around Cromer_, 1882, p. 90.
[40] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 33; _Vict. Hist. of ...
Sussex_, i, 22.
[41] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 33-4; _Origin of the Brit.
Flora_, pp. 42-3.
[42] _Report of the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 410-11. Cf. _Vict.
Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25-6. Mr. Reid has, however, concluded, from
an examination of the palaeolithic deposits at Hitchin (_Proc. Roy.
Soc._, lxi, 1897, pp. 40-9, and especially p. 46), as well as at Hoxne,
that before the time of the palaeolithic inhabitants of those districts
the land had again sunk.
[43] _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46. Cf. A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The
Building of the Brit. Isles_, pp. 291-2, 302.
[44] A. R. Wallace, _Island Life_, 1880, pp. 315-17; J. Prestwich,
_Geology_, ii, 1888, pp. 523-5. See p. 62, _infra_.
[45] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave-Hunting_, 1874, p. 124; _Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc._, xxxv, 1879, pp. 139-42; liv, 1898, pp. xcv-xcvi.
[46] Mr. Reid tells us that there was no vegetation except dwarf
birches and willows and other Arctic plants. See _Nat. Science_, i,
1892, pp. 430, 432; C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp. 40, 42;
_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 32-3.
[47] This fact seems to have escaped the notice of a writer who argues
(_Nat. Science_, iii, 1893, pp. 261-6) that ‘England was not restocked
by a land connexion from the Continent after glaciation’, and affirms
(p. 266) that ‘almost the only evidence of a post-glacial connexion
with the Continent is the supposed necessity of such to account for
our present fauna and flora’. The mammoth fed upon coniferous trees,
fragments of the wood of which have been found in the crevices of its
teeth (A. S. Woodward, _Outlines of Vertebrate Palaeontology_, 1898, p.
306).
[48] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxv, 1879, pp. 142-3.
[49] Sir Henry Howorth has written a series of articles (_Geol. Mag._,
1892, pp. 250-8, 396-405; _Nat. Science_, xii, 1898, pp. 261-70), in
which he claims to have proved that ‘in no instance, so far as we
know, does the drift actually underlie any land surface containing
the remains of the mammoth and of its contemporaries.’ Translated
into the language of geologists to whom the glacial period is not a
nightmare, this is tantamount to an assertion that the mammoth was
neither postglacial, nor interglacial, nor glacial, but preglacial. Mr.
A. J. Jukes-Browne (_Geol. Mag._, 1892, p. 575) replies that ‘gravels
containing mammoth remains occur in many other valleys [besides that
of the Great Ouse], which are generally considered to have been eroded
out of a widespread mantle of Glacial Drift’, and that ‘this conclusion
is not shaken by anything which Sir H. Howorth has written’; while Sir
John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1879, p. 701) remarks that ‘in
some cases, as at Fisherton, the worked flints have been found below
the remains of mammoth’. Since the gravel at Hoxne, in which bones
of the mammoth and of extinct animals contemporary with the mammoth
were found (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 573-5;
C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 77; _Guide to the Ant. of
the Stone Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 20), was shown by the committee who
excavated it (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 400-11)
to be later than the latest glaciation of the district, Sir Henry
naturally discredited their report; and he did so by declaring (_Nat.
Science_, xii, 1898, p 266) that the members of the committee were
‘already committed ... to the view that the implement-bearing deposit
at Hoxne was newer than the Drift. This,’ he continued, ‘was not very
promising.... It was, in fact, indecent.’
[50] Cf. _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxiii, 1867, p. 107, with _Geol.
Mag._, 1878, p. 98, and Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, 1880,
p. 149; and see also the same writer’s _Cave-Hunting_, 1874, p. 362.
Mr. H. B. Woodward states (_Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 23) that
‘the Dogger Bank is a remnant of old Pleistocene deposits; as Mr. Reid
suggests [_Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around
Cromer_, 1882, p. 122], a re-extension of the old Rhine estuary’. I
confess that I do not understand how Mr. Reid would reconcile this
suggestion with his belief that the Channel was formed in the earliest
part of the Ice Age.
[51] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34.
[52] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Cromer_,
p. 122; _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 23.
[53] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 577, 683, 685,
697.
[54] See p. 21, n. 5, _supra_, and cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv,
1905, pp. 308, 310.
[55] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxix, 1899, pp. 333-4; _Proc. Liverpool
Geol. Soc._, ix, 1901, pp. 18-19.
[56] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints_, 1879,
p. 68. Cf. S. H. Miller and S. B. J. Skertchly, _The Fenland_, 1878,
pp. 548-51.
[57] _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 568. See, however, _Proc.
Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1887, p. 126.
[58] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 117; liv, 1898, pp.
lxxxvi-lxxxix.
[59] _Ib._, lx, 1904, pp. 132-3.
[60] Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxiii, 1867,
pp. 91-109, and especially pp. 106-9) has argued that the Lower
Brick-Earths in the Thames Valley, under which implements have been
found, were preglacial,--locally, I presume. He observed that not one
of ‘the Post-glacial Arctic mammalia’, namely, the glutton, lemming,
marmot, musk-sheep, elk, and reindeer, is represented in this deposit,
and maintains that, on the other hand, the presence of _Elephas
priscus_ and the big-nosed rhinoceros (_Rhinoceros megarhinus_)
‘indicates the affinity of the [Brick-Earth] group to the Praeglacial
deposits of Norfolk’, &c. Prestwich, however (_ib._, xxviii, 1872,
p. 445), differed from the professor; and Sir John Evans (_ib._, p.
446) remarked that if the brick-earth were preglacial ‘there would be
a great difficulty in accounting for the presence of the high beds
at Shackleton and Highbury, as these, though in a valley confessedly
excavated by the river, and regarded as of more recent age than the
lower beds, would yet be at a far higher level’.
[61] Prof. P. F. Kendall maintains (_ib._, lx, 1904, p. 132) that even
the Hoxne implements ‘were of very late Glacial, perhaps the very
latest Glacial Age,’--not, as I understand, of the Hoxne district, but
of Britain as a whole. Cf. _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 31, p. 59.
[62] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix. 1887, p. 129; J. Prestwich.
_Controverted Questions_, p. 45.
[63] See _Geol. Mag._, 1894, p. 79.
[64] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 580.
[65] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, p. 435; xxxv, 1879, pp.
142-3.
[66] _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country around
Bournemouth_, 1898, p. 10; C. Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, pp.
44-5; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 35; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_,
i, 22.
[67] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, 1894, pp. 170,
173, 191, 217-8. Cf. H. B. Woodward, _Geol. of England and Wales_,
1887, pp. 510-12, and Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p.
698.
[68] The descriptions, based upon the remains of fauna in caves, that
have been given of the climate of Southern Gaul in successive periods
of the Palaeolithic Age, however true they may be, do not apply in
Britain. The little that is known of our climate suggests to Mr.
Clement Reid ‘extremes with sharp alternations of cold, drought, and
sudden floods’ (_Man_, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56, with which cf. _Proc.
Roy. Soc._, lxi, 1897, p. 46).
[69] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 275; B. Harrison, _Outline
of the Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements_, 1904, pp. 9-10.
[70] _Nineteenth Century_, April, 1895, p. 623.
[71] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxi, 1892, p. 272.
[72] _Controverted Questions_, p. 77.
[73] _Ib._, p. 78. See also _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, p.
298.
[74] The Rev. R. Ashington Bullen (_Nat. Science_, xii, 1898, p. 107)
says that he has found ‘worked flints of the plateau types’ in ‘valley
gravels’, but that they were ‘derived specimens’. See also _ib._, pp.
111-16. On the other hand, see p. 27, _infra_.
[75] _Nat. Science_, v, 1894, pp. 269, 271-2; _Nineteenth Century_,
April, 1895, p. 626.
[76] J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, 1895, p. 54. Cf. _Quart.
Journ. Geol. Soc._, xlv, 1889, p. 295, and _Journ. Vict. Inst._,
xxxiii, 1901, p. 223.
[77] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, pp. 39-40; Sir J. Evans,
_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 632; _Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The
Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, 1902, pp. 36, 39.
[78] As Mr. Clement Reid points out (ib., pp. 36-7), Prestwich’s
implement ‘was not found in place, but picked up among fallen
material.... The Alderbury gravel,’ he remarks, ‘judging from its
less elevation above the river, is probably newer than the supposed
Palaeolithic gravel north of Redlynch; yet it yields implements of
more ancient type.’ See also _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p.
354, where Mr. H. Warren affirms that eoliths are associated with
palaeolithic implements in the drift of High Down, Isle of Wight; and
cf. _Man_, v, 1905, No. 80, p. 146.
[79] _Geol. Mag._, 1903, pp. 105-6. Mr. Reid thinks that the beds in
which these flints have been found are not necessarily of Pliocene
date, as they may have been _remaniés_. Eoliths are said to have been
unearthed from gravels at Dewlish in Dorsetshire side by side with
the bones of the extinct elephant known as _Elephas meridionalis_,
whose remains have never yet been met with in this island except in
preglacial beds (_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xliv, 1888, pp. 318-24;
lxi, 1905, pp. 35-8; _Journ. Vict. Inst._, xxxiii, 1901, pp. 212-3);
but these flints were so battered that Mr. Reid, who accepts many
eoliths as genuine tools and regards them as ‘bad palaeoliths’, was
obliged to reject them (_Memoirs Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the
Country around Ringwood_, p. 36).
[80] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, liv, 1898, pp. 291, 293-4.
[81] _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1903, 1^{re}
partie, pp. 246-7; _Nature_, lxxii, 1905, pp. 438-9; _Journ. Anthr.
Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 261. Are any of these flints identical in form
with the characteristic Kentish specimens?
Sir John Evans, who is unable to accept the authenticity of any
eoliths, nevertheless believes, or did believe in 1897 (_Anc. Stone
Implements_, pp. 608-9), that the palaeolithic implements which have
been found on the plateau belonged to a time when the ‘continuous slope
now extending from the neighbourhood of the Thames to the summit of the
chalk escarpment’ was ‘continued southward ... over a part of what is
now the Lower Greensand area, if not, indeed, into that of the Weald’.
In other words he believed that the palaeoliths were as old as the
eoliths, and therefore that the question of the authenticity of the
latter was unimportant. It is, however, now generally recognized that
this view was based upon a misconception. Mr. Harrison (_Outline of the
Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements_, p. 17) states that ‘_palaeoliths
and eoliths have been found together only on the surface and never in
the drifts in situ_’. Cf. J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, p. 64.
Mr. Clement Reid (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34) sees no
reason for believing that any of the Kentish eoliths are older than
palaeolithic implements in general. In a conversation which I had with
him on April 11, 1906, he remarked that the patches of drift in which
the eoliths had been found were generally dominated by higher ground,
and that he could find no evidence that the flints had been washed
down from the Weald. Eoliths have, however, been found in a pit at
Terry’s Lodge ‘on the summit of the escarpment at a height of 770 feet’
(_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 300. Cf. _Essex Naturalist_,
xiii, 1904, p. 332).
[82] _L’Anthropologie_, xvi, 1905, pp. 257-67.
[83] _Man_, v, 1905, No. 102, p. 179. Cf. No. 92, p. 165.
[84] _Ib._, No. 91, p. 165.
[85] _Ib._, No. 103, pp. 180-83. Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905,
p. 363, fig. 7.
[86] _Ib._, p. 361.
[87] Mr, Hazzledine Warren (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 358)
goes so far as to affirm that the mineral condition of some of Mr.
Harrison’s eoliths ‘shows that they ... are ... clearly as late as the
neolithic age’. There is a bibliography of eoliths in _Geol. Mag._,
1903, pp. 108-10, to which may be added, besides the works quoted in
this chapter, _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 240-6.
[88] See p. 32, _infra_. It must of course be remembered that this
description applies only to one part of the Palaeolithic Age:
palaeolithic man was still here when the Thames had cut out its valley
to its present depth.
[89] See p. 40, n. 2, _infra_.
[90] M. Boule (_L’Anthr._ xiv, 1903, p. 533) regards the question
of the existence of a palaeolithic age in Egypt as unsettled; but,
as Mr. H. R. Hall observes (_Man_, v, 1905, No. 19, p. 34), ‘German
investigators ... have no doubt whatever that the Pitt-Rivers flints
from Thebes and those of palaeolithic type from the Wâdî esh-Shêkh
and elsewhere are in reality palaeolithic.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers,
_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv. 9-11 (preface), and _Association
franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1903, 2^{e} partie, p. 860.
Palaeolithic implements are also said to have been found in Patagonia
(_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 255).
[91] Sir John Evans in _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1897
(1898), p. 14. Cf. _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 528-30, 650-54.
In regard to palaeolithic remains in America see also _Congrès
internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 191.
[92] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 147. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers,
_Evolution of Culture_, 1906, p. xvi.
[93] _Climate and Time_, 1885, pp. 327-8.
[94] _Geol. Mag._, 1868, pp. 249-54.
[95] J. Prestwich, _Controverted Questions_, pp. 22, 42; Sir J. Evans,
_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 705-7.
[96] _Geol. Mag._, 1895, pp. 3-13, 55-65; A. Geikie, _Text-book of
Geology_, 1903, pp. 1326-7. See also _Nature_, lii, 1895, p. 594; liii,
1895-6, pp. 29, 196, 220, 269, 295, 317, 340, 388, 460; and _Quart.
Journ. Geol. Soc._, lviii, 1902, pp. 37-45.
[97] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 592, 708-9.
[98] Clement Reid in _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34;
_Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1906, p. 286, and _Memoirs Geol.
Survey,--The Geology of the Country around Ringwood_, pp. 31-2.
Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 634-5, 690-93)
has argued that the implementiferous gravel which caps the cliff at
Bournemouth was deposited by the Solent river; but Mr. Clement Reid
thinks it ‘very doubtful whether it was a deposit formed by ordinary
river action’ (_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 34); and (_ib._, pp.
27-8, 34) he is inclined to believe that the continuity of the Isle
of Wight with Hampshire and Dorsetshire was already interrupted in
late Pliocene times, though the Solent may perhaps have been merely an
estuary and not a strait even in the time of the so-called interglacial
estuarine deposits. See p. 20, _supra_.
[99] Dr. A. J. Evans (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904
[1906], p. 721) calculates that the earliest settlement at Knossos in
Crete (which was _neolithic_) is about 12,000 years old; but he assumes
that in the western court of the palace ‘the average rate of deposit
was fairly continuous’. Prof. Montelius (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p.
137) argues from the stratigraphy of finds at Susa that the beginning
of the Neolithic Age in the East may be dated about 18,000 B.C. But
even if these calculations could be established, it would still remain
doubtful whether our Palaeolithic Age was not partly contemporary with
a neolithic civilization in more genial climates. Probably it was
(_ib._, p. 164). Against the theory which would minimize the antiquity
of the Palaeolithic Age, see _ib._, xv, 1904, p. 66, and _Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc._, xliii, 1887, p. 410, and in favour of it _L’Anthr._, xvii,
1906, p. 27, n. 1.
[100] _Trans. Devon. Association_, xix, 1887, pp. 419-37. Neither of
the skulls could be removed intact, but one was photographed (_ib._, p.
433). The forehead recedes, but not excessively: the supraciliary ridge
is strong, but not abnormally developed.
[101] See p. 380, _infra_.
[102] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 70-3. See pp. 380-1, _infra_.
[103] See pp. 380-1, _infra_.
[104] See p. 381, _infra_.
[105] See pp. 382-3, _infra_.
[106] See pp. 382-3, _infra_.
[107] Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ [Brit.
Museum], pl. 1 and p. 49) has no doubt that they were dagger-handles;
but the abbé Breuil (_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 632) affirms that it is
‘démontré qu’aucune des sculptures dont on a voulu faire des manches de
poignard n’ont eu ce rôle’.
[108] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae, passim_;
_L’Anthr._, v, 1894, pp. 129-46; vi, 1895, p. 143; xiv, 1903, pp.
295-315; xv, 1904, pp. 129-76, 625-44. Among the palaeolithic
artists were not only carvers and engravers but also draughtsmen and
even painters. On the walls of caves in the Spanish Pyrenees are
many-coloured frescoes, depicting animals as well as objects the
meaning of which is still unknown. See _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 629;
xvi, 1905, pp. 437, 442; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp.
320-5; xv, 1905, pp. 150-5; and _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96.
[109] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxiii, 1877, p. 582.
[110] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 581; _Guide to
the Ant. of the Stone-Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 6. Mr. Clement Reid
(_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, pp. 106-12), has described
‘a probable Palaeolithic Floor [or old land surface] at Prah Sands,
Cornwall’; but in the discussion which followed the reading of the
paper he admitted that he ‘would not like to speak confidently as to
any one of the stones being an implement’.
[111] See _Nat. Science_, iii, 1893, p. 369; _Vict. Hist. of ...
Hampshire_, i, 35; _Mem. Geol. Survey,--The Geology of the Country
around Ringwood_, 1902, p. 48; _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56; and
_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, p. 130.
Mr. Clement Reid, as those who are familiar with his writings must have
seen, does not believe that many of the deposits classed as river-drift
(see Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 662-709, especially
679) deserve that title. In a conversation which I had with him on
April 11, 1906, he remarked that he could see no reason to suppose that
palaeolithic man ‘was an aquatic animal’; that much of the so-called
river-drift would probably be found, under minute examination, not to
be due to fluviatile action; and that the geology of the Thames Valley,
which in the Glacial Epoch was on the edge of the ice, presented great
difficulties. See, however, Mr. H. B. Woodward’s article in _Vict.
Hist. of ... Buckingham_, i, 22.
[112] See, however, _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit.
Museum), p. 3.
[113] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 613-7.
[114] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 479, 488-525;
_Phil. Trans._, clxiii, 1874, pp. 553-70; _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._,
xxxii, 1876, pp. 240-58; xxxiii, 1877, pp. 579-612; xxxv, 1879, pp.
724-35.
[115] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 485.
[116] _Ib._, pp. 474-5.
[117] See pp. 383-5, _infra_.
[118] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 475, 483-5,
528, 530, 575-6: _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, lx, 1904, p. 132. In de
Mortillet’s classification the oldest type was the Chellean (called
after Chelles in the department of Seine-et-Marne): then followed
successively the types represented in the cave of Le Moustier, at
Solutré, and in the cave of La Madelaine. Dr. M. Hoernes (_Der
diluviale Mensch in Europa_, 1903, pp. 21, 63, 185-6, &c.) combines the
Chellean and Mousterian periods. (See also _Rev. mensuelle de l’École
d’anthr._, v, 1895, p. 407, and _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, pp. 27, 196-8).
[119] _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxxii, 1876, pp. 252-3; Sir J. Evans,
_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 522-3.
[120] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 215, 220.
[121] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 60-89,
96-175. Cf. _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 27.
[122] Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 192) says that,
except at Pont Newydd, ‘the association of traces of man with the
remains of hippopotamus has, as yet, not been observed in any bone
caves either in this country or on the Continent’. Sir John Evans,
who does not mention such remains in his notice of Pont Newydd (_Anc.
Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 521), records their discovery, without
associated implements, in the ‘mid-terrace gravels’ near Acton (_ib._,
p. 591), and in gravels of the same character as those which yield
implements, near Bedford (p. 533) and at Folkestone (p. 621). Evidently
(pp. 699-700, with which cf. Boyd Dawkins and W. Ayshford, _Brit.
Pleistocene Mammalia_, 1866, p. xxviii) he has no doubt that the
hippopotamus was contemporary in Britain with palaeolithic man; but
Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I had with him on April 11,
1906, questioned whether its bones had ever been found together with
implements.
[123] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 528, 533, 536,
591; M. Hoernes, _Der diluviale Mensch in Europa_. 1903, p. 13. Readers
who are interested in the question which is raised by the discoveries
of Arctic in association with tropical mammalian remains should consult
_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._, xxviii, 1872, pp. 426-43; xxxv, 1879, p.
142; W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, pp. 113-14; E. Piette,
_La France préhist. par M. Cartailhac_, 1890, pp. 5-6; _Nat. Science_,
i, 1892, p. 432; iii, 1893, pp. 262-3; Lord Avebury, _Prehist. Times_,
6th ed., 1900, p. 290; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit.
Museum), pp. 36-7; and R. Lydekker, _Mostly Mammals_, p. 269. See also,
in regard to the contrast between the intermingling of tropical and
Arctic animals in Britain and Northern Gaul and their succession in
South-Western Gaul, M. Hoernes, _op. cit._, p. 193, and _L’Anthr._,
xiii, 1902, pp. 305, 317.
[124] _Ib._, xv, 1904, pp. 57-8; xvi, 1905, p. 67.
[125] See p. 384, _infra_.
[126] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 94. Chellean implements have been
found at Le Moustier, evidently _in situ_, in the second layer from the
top, among those of the Madelaine period.
[127] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903, pp. 804-5.
[128] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1904 (1905), p. 726;
_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 308.
[129] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 504-7, 512-7,
523, 565-6, 581, 640-9, 655-6; Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval
Savage_, pp. 110-11, 121, 248-9.
[130] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 294-9.
[131] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 113-4, 116,
142-3, 165.
[132] _Ib._, pp. 262-7; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 224; Sir
J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 274. Cf. J. Prestwich,
_Controverted Questions_, pp. 76-7.
[133] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 145.
[134] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 645, 656;
Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 222; _Vict.
Hist of ... Hertford_, i. 224. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in
Britain_, pp. 183-4) affirms that certain implements found in the
upper cave-earth of Church Hole and the Robin Hood Cave at Creswell
Crags ‘had obviously been let into a handle ... by which the edge of
one side had been protected, while the other was worn away by use’;
and in _Nature_ (May 22, 1902, p. 77) it is stated that a palaeolithic
implement, recently discovered near Ipswich, ‘shows signs of having
been worked for hafting.’
[135] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 645, 655.
[136] _Prehist. Times_, 1900, p. 332.
[137] See _Journ. Roy. United Service Inst._, xii, 1868, pp. 408-9.
[138] _Antiquity of Man_, 4th ed., 1873, p. 422.
[139] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 486, 657-8.
Traces of corn have been found in French palaeolithic caves, though
there is no evidence that it was cultivated. See _Congrès internal.
d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 408.
[140] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae_, B. 1, pl.
ii, fig. 5. Prof. Boyd Hawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 214) has
no doubt about the subject of the drawing: I confess that I am not so
certain.
[141] ‘It is doubtful,’ says H. E. Schoolcraft (_Indian Tribes of the
United States_, i, 1851, p. 433), ‘whether an area of fifty thousand
acres, left in the forest state, is more than sufficient to sustain by
the chase a single hunter.’ One may be allowed, however, to suspect an
exaggeration in this estimate; otherwise how could the communities who
dwelled at Caddington and Crayford (see pp. 39, 42-4, _supra_) have
escaped starvation? See also A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, 1905,
pp. 6-7, 88-9, 151-2.
[142] See Mr. Lewis Abbott’s paper in J. Salmon’s _Guide to Sevenoaks_,
1905, pp. 120-1. Cf. _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 17.
[143] _Life of Sir J. Prestwich_, 1899, p. 376.
[144] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, p. 501.
[145] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, p. 211. I must
admit that I feel doubtful whether the illustration in _Reliquiae
Aquitanicae_ which Professor Dawkins reproduces really represents
gloves.
[146] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 657.
[147] _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 258, 263-5; _Comptes rendus ... de
l’Acad. des Sciences_, 1903, pp. 1536-7.
[148] E. Lartet and H. Christy, _Reliquiae Aquitanicae_, p. 209.
[149] _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, p. 174.
[150] _Ib._, v, 1894, p. 146.
[151] _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér. iii, 1902, p. 771.
It is remarkable that Ezekiel (viii. 10-11), speaking of seventy of
‘the ancients of the house of Israel’ who were worshipping in a court,
says that he saw therein ‘every form of creeping things, and abominable
beasts ... pourtrayed upon the wall round about’. These were ‘unclean’
animals, which were _not_ to be eaten. Cf. A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_,
2nd ed., 1885, p. 115.
M. Reinach also insists (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 264-5) that
the so-called sceptres, or _bátons de commandement_--engraved and
perforated instruments of reindeer-horn--which have been found in
French palaeolithic caves, were used in magical ceremonies; whereas it
has been proved by Dr. O. Schoetensack (_ib._, xii, 1901, pp. 140-4)
that they were merely dress-fasteners similar to those which are used
by the Eskimos.
[152] See A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 294, 296.
[153] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 293.
[154] See p. 34, _supra_.
[155] _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 395. Cf. p. 321 of the same volume, and
vol. iv, 1893, p. 550.
[156] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxi, 1892, p. 297; xxiii, 1894, pp. 147,
151.
[157] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 293-4. The Tasmanians ‘placed weapons
near the grave for the dead friend’s soul to use’ (E. B. Tylor in
_Ency. Brit._, xxv, 1902, p. 467). Cf. pp. 200-2, _infra_.
[158] See pp. 262-3, 464, _infra_.
[159] Mr. Andrew Lang (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37), remarking that
in the cave of Mas d’Azil, in the department of the Ariège, there has
been found a pendeloque of bone which exactly resembles some Australian
‘bull-roarers’ (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 655-60), infers that
‘palaeolithic and neolithic man ... probably had such religious ideas
as among savages are attached to bull-roarers’. There is an interesting
chapter on bull-roarers (which in this country are more familiar to
schoolboys than to scholars) in Mr. Lang’s _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp.
29-44.
[160] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 4th ed., 1903, i, 417-24.
[161] _Ib._, p. 424.
[162] See pp. 461-3, _infra_.
[163] It is said that totemism exists in New Guinea (_Man_, v, 1905,
No. 2) and on the Gold Coast (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxvi, 1906, pp.
178-88).
[164] See A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 2, 66.
[165] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p.
355.
[166] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 237.
[167] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, p. 146.
[168] _Ib._, p. 147.
[169] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 22-3. I confess that I
cannot understand why descent should have been reckoned in the female
line if, as Mr. Lang apparently holds, the master of each little
primitive group was the only sire in that group. [I am glad to find
that Dr. W. H. D. Rouse (_Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, p. 25) has argued in
the same sense.]
[170] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 236; B. Spencer and
F. J. Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, 1899, pp. 73, 121;
_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 93, p. 143. See also No. 98, p. 150.
[171] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 665-7.
[172] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 59-89, especially 66, 68,
70, 72-4, 89. See also pp. 7-8 in regard to the complex organization of
Australian tribes. The Aruntas (_ib._, pp. 17-18) do not inherit their
totems, which are ‘determined by _local_ accident’.
[173] _Ib._, p. 29. Mr. Lang conjectures (p. 114) that the master of a
small group, actuated by sexual jealousy, ‘expelled all his adult sons
as they came to puberty.’ Such a group, he remarks, would have been
‘necessarily exogamous in practice’, and then (_ib._, p. 143) would
have come the rule, ‘No marriage within the local group.’ But would it
have been to the interest of the master to expel sons who were useful?
What would have become of them? Would not the same sexual jealousy
that _ex hypothesi_ prompted their expulsion have prevented the master
of any other group from receiving them? And if the master was killed
in hunting after he had expelled his sons, what became of the other
members of the group?
In connexion with Mr. Lang’s book, see _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 17, pp.
27-8, No. 34, pp. 51-4, No. 87, p. 131, and No. 112, p. 182.
[174] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, pp. 116, 127-8, 153. Cf. Lord
Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 275.
[175] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, p. 125.
[176] _Archaeol. Rev._, iii, 1889, p. 220.
[177] _Ib._, p. 227.
[178] _Notes and Queries_, 3rd ser., iv, 1863, pp. 82, 158. These
passages, which are referred to by Mr. Gomme in vol. iii of _Archaeol.
Rev._, do not support the statement in the text about the geese of
Great Crosby, for which he is responsible.
[179] _Archaeol. Rev._, iii, 1889, p. 355.
[180] _B. G._, v, 12, § 6.
[181] M. S. Reinach’s explanation of this passage (_Rev. celt._, xxi,
1900, p. 275) was anticipated by Elton (_Origins of English Hist._, 2nd
ed., 1890, p. 288).
[182] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, pp. 141, 143-4, 148. M.
Reinach seems to make this assumption when he says (see preceding note)
that we are justified in affirming that ‘chez certaines tribus au
moins de la Bretagne, le lièvre, l’oie et la poule étaient des animaux
sacrés, c’est-à-dire, des totems’. I am glad to find that M. Camille
Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 274) also rejects M.
Reinach’s guess; but he continues, ‘Je suis, du reste, convaincu, avec
M. Reinach, que les Celtes ont connu le totémisme ... par exemple, si
_bran(n)os_ signifie ... “le corbeau”, une tribu gauloise avait pris
cet oiseau pour totem ... _Aulerci Brannovices_,’ &c. On the much
surer evidence of such names as Bull, Lamb, Herring, Roach, and many
others, M. Jullian might conclude that ‘les Anglais du vingtième siècle
connaissent le totémisme’. It is perhaps reasonable to conjecture that
the name _Brannovices_ may point to a remote age when the ancestors of
the historic Celts had totems: but it is quite certain that the Celts
of whom M. Jullian is thinking knew nothing about totemism; and the
superstitions which forbade the Britons to eat hares, geese, and fowls,
may have been absolutely unconnected with totemism. See Lord Avebury’s
_Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 19. Miss Eleanor Hull (_Folk-Lore_,
xii, 1901, p. 49) observes that ‘there is one example of what appears
to be a true totemistic idea in those [Irish] stories.... It is in
Cúchulainn’s prohibition to eat the flesh of a hound because it was his
namesake.’
[183] W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave-Hunting_, p. 165.
[184] Notably Dr. F. B. Jevons (_Folk-Lore_, x, 1899, pp. 374-5) and M.
S. Reinach (_Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 283, 299, 305).
[185] See W. Ridgeway, _Origin ... of the Thoroughbred Horse_, 1905,
pp. 90-1, 479, and _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 27-53, especially 27,
29, and figs. 1 and 1_a_. If these illustrations, which purport to
reproduce late palaeolithic engravings of horses, are accurate, they
unquestionably depict halters, though M. Zaborowski (_Association
franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 32^e sess., 1903, 2^{e} partie, p.
849) thinks that they only represent lassoes.
[186] See a very interesting review [by Mr. Andrew Lang?] in the
_Athenæum_, April 22, 1905, pp. 502-3, of M. Reinach’s _Cultes, mythes
et religions_, and also papers on the domestication of animals in the
numbers for April 29 (p. 533), May 6 (p. 565), and May 13 (p. 597).
[187] It is impossible to tell whether in Ancient Britain oxen were
at any time regarded as sacred, as they apparently were among the
early Phoenicians, the Libyans, the ancestors of the Greeks, and other
primitive peoples, their flesh being never eaten except in sacrificial
feasts, partaken of by the whole clan. See W. Robertson Smith, _The
Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 296-311.
[188] _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 355-7. Cf. _Congrès internat. d’anthr.
et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 408-9.
[189] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxviii, 1899, p. 148. Cf. _Man_, v, 1905,
No. 2, p. 6.
[190] _Chambers’s Ency._, vi, 1901, p. 795. M. S. Reinach (_L’Anthr._
xvi, 1905, p. 660) regards magic as ‘la mère de toutes les vraies
sciences’.
[191] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, 1905, pp. 37-9,
43-4, 77-8, &c.
[192] See _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 40, p. 62, No. 112, p. 189 (for
a criticism of Dr. Frazer’s ‘oil-and-water theory’ of magic and
religion), and Mr. Sidney Hartland’s most interesting presidential
address to the Anthropological Section of the British Association
(_Times_, Aug. 7, 1906, p. 11, cols. 4-6).
[193] _Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, pp. 159-60.
[194] _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, pp. 574-5.
[195] _Ib._, p. 660.
[196] _Man_, v, 1905, No. 10, pp. 18-19.
[197] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, _passim_.
[198] See _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 29, p. 46.
[199] See A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 237.
[200] _Ib._, p. 242; J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp.
2, 3, 36-7.
[201] See pp. 387-8, _infra_.
[202] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 704.
[203] See p. 20, _supra_.
[204] See p. 398, _infra_.
[205] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 178.
[206] See pp. 382, 389, n. 6, _infra_.
[207] See p. 389, _infra_. M. L. Siret (_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 127)
says the same for Spain.
[208] See pp. 385-90, _infra_. ‘The ... transition,’ says Mr. Clement
Reid (_Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 45), ‘from the Palaeolithic to
the Neolithic is, unfortunately, one of the most obscure, and I can
only suggest that the break is more apparent than real, and that one
follows the other in close succession.’ See also p. 93 of the same book.
[209] See Mr. Clement Reid’s chapter in _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i,
35-6.
[210] See A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit. Isles_, p.
300. Mr. Clement Reid (_Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46) states that
in the early part of the Neolithic Age ‘the land stood ... some 60 or
70 feet above its present level’. Cf. p. 20, _supra_.
[211] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 141-5; J. Prestwich,
_Geology_, ii, 523-4; A. J. Jukes-Browne, _The Building of the Brit.
Isles_, pp. 300-2; Clement Reid, _Origin of the Brit. Flora_, p. 46.
[212] _Nature_, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, p.
271.
[213] _Ib._, p. 272.
[214] _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, p. 270; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
xxix, 1895, pp. 223-7, 431-2, 438; R. Munro, _Prehist. Problems_, 1897,
p. 72.
[215] See _L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 319-24, and M. Hoernes, _Der
diluviale Mensch in Europa_, p. 185.
[216] _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xvii, 1896, pp.
67-75.
[217] See pp. 395-7, _infra_.
[218] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 256.
[219] _Ib._, p. 37; _Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex_, i, 25.
[220] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 229, and _Archaeol.
Journal_, lv, 1898, p. 285. Dr. A. H. Keane’s extravagant estimates
of the length of the Neolithic Age in Europe, which vary between the
limits of ‘scarcely less than 60,000 years’ (_Ethnology_, 2nd ed.,
1896, p. 55) and ‘over 100,000 years’ (_ib._, p. 116), are based upon
obsolete calculations of the chronology of the Glacial Period. See pp.
31-2, _supra_.
[221] See pp. 126-7, _infra_.
[222] See _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 408-14, especially
p. 412.
[223] See pp. 398-407, _infra_.
[224] See pp. 427-8, 433, 443, _infra_.