found sitting the posture was perhaps due to some accident in filling
up the grave (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 318-20; _Journ. Brit.
Archaeol. Association_, xxxviii, 1882, pp. 109-10). Two skeletons,
however, were found sitting, back to back, in a barrow in Denbighshire
(_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 23, p. 1).
[791] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 12. In a round barrow on the
south of the road between Rochester and Gravesend, and about midway
between Chalk Church and the Crown Inn, five skeletons were found in
the trench near the bottom (_Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, pp. 86-90).
[792] C. Warne, _Celtic Tumuli of Dorset_, pp. 46-9. Cf. pp. 36-7. In
Derbyshire ‘secondary interments are found in any position, central or
otherwise’ (_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 176).
[793] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 12-3.
[794] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 321-3. Cunnington, however,
remarks (_ib._ xv, 1806, p. 343) that ‘on the top of barrows we find
the skeletons in every direction’.
[795] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 25-6; _Archaeologia_, lii,
1890, pp. 25, 38, 64; _Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxxiii,
1904, pp. 412-3; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xxxvii;
_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 173. All the kistvaens of Dartmoor lie
at one end between north and west, at the other between south and east
of the corrected compass (_Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiii, 1901,
pp. 121-2; xxxiv, 1902, p. 164); and the cairns near the Land’s End
have ‘an aspect ranging from south-east to south-west’ (_Archaeologia_,
xlix, 1885, p. 182). Cf. _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., v, 1905, p. 307.
[796] _Archaeologia_, xxxiv, 1862, p. 255; xliii, 1871, pp. 314-5; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 31-2; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan
Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 74-5; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
xxxix, 1905, p. 552; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. xli.
[797] _Anc. Wilts_, i, 124.
[798] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. xxxiii, 15-6, 63,
66, 77; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 66.
[799] _Ib._, ii, 1-2; E. T. Stevens, _Flint Chips_, 1870, p. 410;
_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 324-5; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_,
p. 14; _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 108.
[800] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 294, 310, 325-6.
[801] _Ib._, p. 326. Cf. W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 445;
_Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 236; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_,
N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-9; and _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902,
pp. 108-9.
[802] _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N.
S., i, 1901, pp. 295-9. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p.
547.
[803] _Ib._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 644.
[804] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 326. On the other hand the urns
which Canon Greenwell found in Yorkshire were usually placed upright
(_Brit. Barrows_, p. 14).
[805] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 49.
[806] _Iliad_, xxiii, 254. Cf. xxiv, 795-6.
[807] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 326.
[808] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, pp. 43-7. An urn only ⅞ inch high, which of course could not
have been used for containing ashes, has been found in a cairn of the
Bronze Age in Fifeshire (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 641).
[809] J. Anderson, _op. cit._, pp. 51-2, 74-5; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 62, 72-3, 139, 277, 291, 297.
[810] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 29. Canon
Greenwell (_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 63-4) has described in an
interesting paragraph ‘the infinite variety, within certain limits,
which is found in connection with the burials of the Bronze Age’.
[811] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 331; _Brit. Barrows_, p. 74; J.
R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. lv, lix.
[812] See pp. 442-3, _infra_.
[813] Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, 1880, p. 28;
_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 334.
[814] See p. 159, n. 1, _supra_.
[815] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 63. See, however,
_Archaeologia_, xlix, 1885, p. 184.
[816] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 391, 396; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._,
xxxii, 1902, pp. 373-97; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904,
pp. 323-410; xxxix, 1905, pp. 326-44; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’
Researches_, pp. lxv-lxvii.
Mr. J. P. Gibson, in a paper on a recent find of drinking-cups in
Dilston Park, Northumberland (_Archaeol. Aeliana_, 3rd ser., ii, 1906,
pp. 126-49) says (pp. 146-7), ‘There appears nothing in the Dilston
Park discovery to confirm this suggested [chronological] arrangement.
Mr. Abercromby tells me that evidence received since the paper [in
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, xxxviii, 1904] was published has convinced him that
“the whole question requires a fresh investigation” ... The Dilston
Park find ... furnishes two instances in which in the same cist ...
vessels are found varying widely both in form and decoration. It also
proves the great difficulty of attempting to fix any relative dates of
Bronze Age beakers by a comparison either of their shape or ornament.’
Mr. Abercromby, however, in his third paper (_ib._, xxxix, 1905),
adheres to his chronological arrangement. See also _ib._, xl, 1906, pp.
32-3, 371.
Handles are occasionally found not only on drinking-cups, but also on
the other kinds of sepulchral pottery.
[817] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 378-83; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 83-93; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp.
lxii-lxv.
[818] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 343-57; xlix, 1885, p. 195; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 66-74; J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’
Researches_, pp. lviii-lix; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp.
415-6.
[819] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 74-83; _Archaeol. Journal_,
xxiv, 1867, pp. 22-5; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 357-77; J. R.
Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. lix-lxii.
[820] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 61; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th
ser., ii, 1902, p. 197. The counties in which drinking-cups have been
found are Kent, Sussex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Berkshire, Buckingham,
Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Oxford, Cambridge,
Lincoln, Derby, Stafford, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Durham,
Northumberland, Westmorland, Cumberland, Monmouth, Anglesey, Carnarvon,
Denbigh, Glamorgan, Berwick, Roxburgh, Ayr, Argyll, Stirling, Lanark,
Haddington, Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Kinross, Fife, Forfar, Perth,
Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, and the
island of Mull (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, p. 386 and map
facing p. 396; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 329). Their
rarity in South-Eastern Britain is doubtless due largely to the
destruction of barrows in a highly cultivated region; while their
absence from many of the Midland counties may be ascribed partly to
the same cause and partly to the fact that the population of those
parts in the Bronze Age was probably small. In Cornwall vessels of a
peculiar kind appear to have served the same purposes as drinking-cups
and food-vessels (_Archaeologia_, xlix, 1885, pp. 186-8). From the
frequency with which drinking-cups occur in the east of Scotland it may
perhaps be inferred that they were introduced into that country, at
least in part, by immigrants from Scandinavia or Denmark.
A gold cup, which in form resembles certain drinking-cups and is
ornamented on the bottom with concentric circles, has been found with a
bronze dagger at Rillaton in Cornwall (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxiv, 1867,
p. 189).
[821] See pp. 408-9, 442-3, _infra_.
[822] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, pp. 376-85.
[823] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 346-7; W. Greenwell,
_Brit. Barrows_, p. 94.
[824] _Ib._, pp. 93-4, 101; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 386; lii,
1890, pp. 24-5. Cf. J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze
and Stone Ages_, p. 76, and E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp.
30-43. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. lxvi-lxvii)
says, ‘If food was essential [to the dead], so would liquid be ... and
I do not know of an instance of the remains of animal matter having
ever been found in any vase of the true drinking-cup type. That they
served the purpose of holding liquid, there can be little doubt’.
Mr. Mortimer is more logical than the people of the Bronze Age. His
argument would lead to the conclusion that only food or only drink
was considered necessary for the dead according as food-vessels or
drinking-cups were placed with them. Very likely liquid was sometimes
poured into drinking-cups: but for obvious reasons evidence is wanting;
whereas evidence exists that they sometimes held food. By ‘the true
drinking-cup type’ Mr. Mortimer apparently means the low-brimmed type
which Thurnam called γ (see W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 95, fig.
82), and which, as we have seen, is confined to Northern Britain; but
he is alone in calling this type ‘true’ to the exclusion of the others.
[825] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 44-5.
[826] _Ib._, p. 45; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 378.
[827] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 44.
[828] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 362-3.
[829] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 46.
[830] _Ib._; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 358; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, p. 80. The orthodox view is that incense-cups have never been
found with interments by inhumation; but see J. R. Mortimer, _Forty
Years’ Researches_, pp. liv-lv, lx, 256 (fig. 724), 259.
[831] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 357; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, p. 80.
[832] The suggestions that they may have been lamps or even small
urns intended to receive the ashes of infants have been refuted. See
on the whole question _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 374-7; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 81-3; _Nature_, Jan. 13 (with which cf.
_Archaeologia_, xliii, 374-5); E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903,
pp. 383-5; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum),
pp. 45-6.
[833] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 388-400; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 65-7, 71, 76-7, 92-102; _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_,
5th ser., iv, 1894, pp. 378-9; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in
Cranborne Chase_, iv, 164, 169, 216-39; J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic
Art in Pagan and Christian Times_, 1904, pp. 26-39; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 333, 536-7. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Forty Years’
Researches_, p. lv) says that he has found vessels of all four kinds
which were quite plain.
[834] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 235-8.
[835] _Ib._, pp. 218-34. ‘General resemblance of ornamental patterns.’
says Pitt-Rivers (_ib._, p. 216), ‘is not enough to prove that
they were copied from one another ... when, however, the points
of resemblance are very minute, and the distribution limited and
continuous, it may be fairly argued that the different kinds of
earthworks in which they are found, in the same district, were of the
same period’. Mr. Andrew Lang’s remarks on decorative motives (_Custom
and Myth_, 1885, pp. 286-9) contain much, but not the whole truth. ‘The
conviction becomes irresistible,’ he writes, ‘that all these objects,
in shape, in purpose, in character of decoration, are the same,
because the mind and the materials of men, in their early stages of
civilisation especially, are the same everywhere. You might introduce
old Greek bits of clay-work, figures or vases, into a Peruvian
collection, or might foist Mexican objects among the clay treasures of
Hissarlik, and the wisest archaeologist would be deceived.’ A socketed
celt, almost identical in form with some Italian celts and ornamented
with the chevron, has been found in Chili (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze
Implements_, p. 145).
[836] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 216, 227;
_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, pp. 346-8; xxxix, 1905, p. 333;
_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 489; xvi, 1905, p. 2.
[837] Sir A. Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, p. 28.
[838] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 238-9.
Mr. Coffey (_Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, p.
195) thinks that ‘herring-bone, chevron, and triangle ornament’ may be
native in Europe, and (_ib._, vi, 1896, p. 42) that lozenge, chequer,
and saltire patterns ‘may be original in Britain’. He holds, however
(_ib._), that ‘we have no reason to believe that geometrical forms
have ever been spontaneously invented’, and adds that ‘they appear to
have been invariably derived by a process of conventionalisation from
realistic prototypes’: he cites examples (_ib._, iv, 1894, pp. 364-6)
from the pottery of Cyprus to show how ‘the body of the lotus flower is
simplified to a triangular form, and the central sepal to an enlarged
lozenge, enriched by cross-hatching and chequer patterns’; and he
argues (_ib._, v, 1895, pp. 210-1) that ‘the occurrence of chequers of
lozenges on Early Bronze Age remains from Scotland, in some instances
identical with Cyprian forms, and the close association of lozenge,
chequer, and × [saltire] patterns with the spiral in the Bronze Age
ornament of Ireland is ... strong evidence that lozenge and chequer
patterns travelled northward across Europe on the path of the spiral’.
That geometrical forms were in certain cases derived from ‘realistic
prototypes’ may be granted, but does not exclude the possibility that
in others the same forms were ‘spontaneously invented’. Moreover,
certain geometrical forms occur, as we have seen (pp. 197-8), on
neolithic and even on palaeolithic objects, to which they could not
have found their way by the route and from the source to which Mr.
Coffey refers. Others again are of such a kind that it is difficult
to conceive of any ‘realistic prototype’ from which they could have
been derived; and there are lozenge, chequer, and saltire patterns on
pottery of the Bronze Age in parts of England to which, according to
Mr. Coffey, the spiral did not penetrate until the Bronze Age was at
an end. Mr. Coffey (_ib._, iv, 1894, p. 356) is himself disposed to
except ‘some zigzag, chevron, and triangle ornaments’ from the list of
geometric patterns which, as he insists, ‘have been invariably derived
from naturalistic forms’; but the truth is that, as Mr. Romilly Allen
has shown (_Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_, pp. 27-37), all
the patterns of the Bronze Age, except spirals, circles and other
curves, and mere dots, punch marks, and straight lines, are simply
combinations of diagonal straight lines based upon the chevron.
Another theory of Mr. Coffey’s (_op. cit._, v, 1895, p. 202) is that
‘as far as the ornament of primitive peoples has been studied, it
appears to be generally associated with religious ideas’, and that the
‘naturalistic objects’ to the conventionalization of which he would
trace the geometric patterns of the Bronze Age had ‘a religious and
talismanic meaning’. I am not concerned to deny that certain geometric
patterns, for instance the swastika and the circle, may sometimes
have had such a meaning; but Mr. Coffey’s theory is too sweeping. It
would be difficult to prove that oblong punch-marks or impressions
of finger-nails and finger-tips, or the herring-bone pattern were
connected with religion. [See A. Lang, _Magic and Religion_, 1901, p.
248.]
[839] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 51, 79.
[840] A. Lang, _The Clyde Mystery_, p. 80, fig. 5.
[841] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 53; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in
Cranborne Chase_, iv, 164; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp.
336-7.
[842] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 25-7; E. Cartailhac, _La France
préhist._, pp. 241-3; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol.
préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 338; _Rév. de l’École d’anthr._, 1904, p.
135; _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 135.
[843] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 54-6, 59; _Archaeologia_,
xliii, 1871, p. 401; xlix, 1885, pp. 188-9; _Journ. Brit. Archaeol.
Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-10; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_,
i, 175; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, pp. 56, 67-9, 86-7, 94; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, _passim_.
Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 8), speaking of
twenty-two round barrows near Rushmore, remarks that ‘Here, as in other
places, the smaller barrows have, as a rule, been found to contain the
larger number of relics’.
[844] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 39.
[845] _Ib._, p. 60.
[846] See Lord Avebury, _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 133, 135, 144,
and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 57.
Seventy-nine flint saws were found by Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_,
p. 262) in one barrow in the parish of Rudstone, East Riding of
Yorkshire. They could hardly have been intended for the use of the
deceased, unless, indeed, he was a dealer in implements, and his
relatives wished to provide him with the means of plying his trade in
a future state. ‘On ensevelit le guerrier,’ says M. Salomon Reinach
(_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 354), ‘avec ses armes, la femme avec ses
objets de parure, parce qu’ils sont _tabous_ et, à ce titre, retirés de
la circulation et du commerce’, &c. Very likely this motive sometimes
operated; but it will not account for many of the deposits which I have
mentioned.
[847] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 483-5.
[848] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.
[849] _Germ._, 27.
[850] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, 1903, i, 477-90.
[851] A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, p. 11, n. 2. See also W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 59-60, 121.
[852] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, pp. 536-8; lii, 1890, p. 24; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 10. Pitt-Rivers, however (_Excavations
in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 2), found that only one of the twenty-two
barrows which he opened at Rushmore contained animal bones. Mr. J. R.
Mortimer (_Forty Years’ Researches_, p. lxx) believes that ‘many of
the small dish-shaped cavities containing burnt matter that are found
scooped into the old turf-line under the barrows were probably made to
serve as cooking ovens for roasting the funeral feasts’. Some of these
cavities contained pieces of animal and human bones, charcoal, and
potsherds; but Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 9) observes that
‘there is no appearance of a fire having ever been kindled within them,
the burnt matter, when they contain any, having evidently been placed
there in that condition’. Their object remains unexplained.
[853] _Iliad_, xxiii, 171-4.
[854] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.
[855] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., iii, 1865, p. 320; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, vii, 1870, p. 375; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 15-6;
_Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, p. 217.
[856] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, pp. 126, 129; _Archaeologia_,
xliii, 1871, pp. 539-40. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_,
p. 355.
[857] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 180.
[858] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, p. 25; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, vi, 1867, p. 343, n. 2. The works of Canon Greenwell and Mr.
Mortimer abound with instances of this practice.
[859] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 50; T.
Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, p. 135; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871,
p. 540. See also _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., iii, 1865, pp. 317-8, and
_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, pp. 424-5. Prof. Robertson
Smith (_The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 293) remarks that ‘the
mouse appears as an abominable sacrifice in Isa. lxvi, 17’; and Sir A.
Mitchell (_The Past in the Present_, p. 145) states, as a fact within
his own experience, that in the last century cocks were buried alive
in Scotland by church-going people in order to cure epilepsy by the
propitiation of some supernatural power.
[860] T. Bateman, _Ten Years’ Diggings_, pp. 78-9; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 120, 164-5, 177, 243-4. Cf. O. Schrader, _Prehist. Ant.
of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 390-1. Mr. E. Sidney Hartland (_Folk-Lore_,
xi, 1900, p. 91), criticizing Sir A. Lyall’s remark (_Asiatic Studies_,
2nd ser., 1899, p. 247) that ‘a Calabar chief explained to Miss
Kingsley that the custom [of sacrificing wives at their husbands’
funerals] was also a salutary check upon husband-poisoning’, says
that this does not explain the origin of the custom. Sir Alfred did
not quote it in this sense; but it may explain the persistence of the
custom even among certain ancient tribes. Cf. Caesar, _B. G._, vi, 19,
§ 3.
[861] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 10-1; A. Pitt-Rivers,
_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii. 4, 34, 42, 252, 258.
[862] Act v, scene i, 218-9.
[863] W. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i, 1901, pp. 507, 509-10,
512, 520, 524, &c.
[864] See pp. 110, 185-6, _supra_.
[865] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, p. 293.
[866] See p. 286, _infra_.
[867] See pp. 177, 183, _supra_.
[868] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 55-65, 145;
_Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 39, 134; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser.,
iii, 1903, pp. 224-38 (especially 235-8).
[869] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xvi, 1860, p. 120; xxxv,
1879, pp. 16-8, 21-5; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, ii, 1866, pp. 277-9; Sir
J. Y. Simpson, _Archaic Sculpturings_, &c., 1867, pl. xiii, figs. 3
and 5; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 7; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
xvi, 1882, pp. 79-80, 85, 101, 104, 121-43, 300-401; xviii, 1884,
pp. 109-28; xix, 1885, pp. 394-5; xx, 1886, pp. 41-6, 135, 358-60;
xxi, 1887, pp. 143-51; xxiii, 1889, pp. 125-37, 140; xxix, 1895, pp.
68-71, 73, 91, 193; xxxiii, 1899, pp. 363-4, 368, 371; xxxvii, 1903,
p. 22; xxxviii, 1904, p. 148; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._,
1889, pp. 246-7; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 39; A. Bertrand, _La
religion des Gaulois_, 1897, pp. 62-3; _Congrès internat. d’anthr.
et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 269-70; _Rev. mensuelle de
l’École d’anthr._, xi, 1901, p. 55; _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 696,
701, 710-1; xiv, 1903, pp. 536-7; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland
Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 381-2; B.C. A. Windle,
_Remains of the Prehist. Age_, p. 127. It would seem that certain
cup-markings, at all events in the British Isles, France, Spain, and
Scandinavia, belong to the Neolithic Age (Sir J. Y. Simpson, _Archaic
Sculpturings_, &c., p. 29; E. Cartailhac, _Age préhist. de l’Espagne_,
1886, pp. 174-5; _La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 246-7.)
[870] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 437. Mr. W. Frazer
(_Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, pp. 69-70)
affirms that ‘almost without exception the simple “cupules” ... on our
rude stone monuments are to be attributed to ... _Echinus lividus_’
(a sea-urchin). In many cases, however, the marks of tools are
unmistakable (W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 342-3, 433).
[871] They have been found on the porches of churches at Quimperlé,
on the north porch of the cathedral at Quimper, and (with crosses) on
the thresholds of houses of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth
centuries, near Carnac (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xvii, 1897-9, pp.
328-9).
[872] _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 59.
Concentric circles with rays appear to belong to the later period of
the Bronze Age (_ib._, pp. 59, 65-6). Rays are also found on a spiral
carved on a megalith in New Caledonia (_L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 697,
fig. 9).
[873] A. Lang, _Magic and Religion_, pp. 245-6, 253-4. Mr. Lang (_The
Clyde Mystery_, pp. 66, 79) observes that similar markings on rocks,
&c., in different countries may have different meanings.
[874] Rectilinear figures like those which are common on pottery of the
Bronze Age have also been found on these stones (_Archaeol. Cambr._,
6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 209, 226-7). It seems probable that the famous
‘Cerne Giant’--a colossal human figure wielding a club--which is cut
in the chalk on the hill-side east of Cerne Abbas in Dorsetshire,
may belong to the Bronze Age and be connected with phallus-worship.
See _Vict. Hist. of ... Buckingham_, i, 189. It has been pointed out
(_Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club_, xxii, 1901, pp. 107-9)
that it is petrographic, colossal, nude, ithyphallic, and clavigerous;
and that ‘forms which possess these five characteristics have been
found in the rock carvings of Scandinavia ... and belong only to the
Bronze Age and to its overlap with the Early Age of Iron’. See J. J.
Worsaee, _Industrial Arts of Denmark_, 1883, pp. 112-3.
[875] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, part i, 1903-4, pp. 6-13, part
ii, 1904-5, pp. 254-5; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit.
Museum), pp. 151-2.
[876] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 564, 721; _Report of ... the Brit.
Association_, 1904 (1905), p. 723. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix,
1885, p. 391.
[877] See p. 105, _supra_.
[878] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, pp. 122-3.
[879] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, pp. 122-3; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 224.
[880] I do not mean to suggest that all stone circles were derived
from peristaliths; but I do not think that we should be justified in
differentiating from the peristaliths by a hard and fast line those
larger circles in which no traces of interment have been found. Mr.
John Ward (_Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 169), remarking that most of
the round barrows, or rather cairns, of Derbyshire consist merely of
stones ‘thrown together anyhow’, says that ‘a slight advance is the
introduction of a kerb of larger stones laid upon the ground to confine
the proposed mound’; and he goes on to observe that in those cases in
which the stones of the mound itself have been removed, the kerb ‘may
remain as a ring of stones easily mistaken for a circle’. He evidently
believes that the kerb was merely a structural improvement. Perhaps in
Derbyshire, though even this is not certain. The object of the stone
rings which have been found within cairns, and of those which stood
upon barrows in Northern Germany, was certainly not utilitarian; and
the kerb may have had a religious or mystical meaning. Nor is there any
evidence that it was an ‘advance’ upon the structureless cairn.
[881] _Archaeologia_, xxxv, 1853, pp. 232-58; lii, 1890, p. 39; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan
Times,--the Bronze and Stone Ages_, pp. 111, 113-4, 119-23, 300-1;
_Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 11-2;
_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 60, 67, 70; B. C. A. Windle,
_Remains of the Prehist. Age_, pp. 197-204; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_,
i, 181-4; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 282.
[882] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xviii, 1862, p. 50; W.
Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 402; W. C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone
Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. 16. The extreme rarity of
stone rows in Cornwall, contrasted with their abundance on Dartmoor,
suggests to Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 402)
‘a difference in cult’.
[883] See _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._,
N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2.
[884] For instance in Cornwall (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 379),
Inverurie (_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7), and Lewis
(_ib._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 190).
[885] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., ix, 1881-3, p. 151; _Proc. Soc. Ant.
Scot._, xxxv, 1901, p. 246; xxxviii, 1904, p. 190; _Journ. Roy. Inst.
Cornwall_, xiv, 1901, p. 378.
[886] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, i, 1872, p. cxi. Roger Gale (whose
testimony is accepted by Mr. W. C. Lukis (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser.,
vii, 1876-8, pp. 270-1), writing in 1740 to Stukeley, said that he
remembered having seen the holes in which the stones of the Stonehenge
avenue had been placed.
[887] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 320.
[888] _Ib._, ix, 1881-3, pp. 150-1; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv,
1901, p. 246; _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol.
Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2.
[889] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, pp. 143, 196-7; xxxv, 1901,
p. 246; xxxvii, 1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4.
[890] _Ib._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7.
[891] _Ib._; _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 7, 12. See also _Vict. Hist. of
... Cumberland_, i, 245, 247.
[892] Caesar, _B. G._, vi, 13, § 4; 16, § 2; 21, § 1.
[893] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 194. Demeter was worshipped in stone
circles in the city of Hermion (Pausanias, ii, 34, § 10).
[894] Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland_, i, 245, 247, with _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 312. Mr. A. L. Lewis (_Journ.
Anthr. Inst._, xv, 1886, p. 479) assumes that in some cases the
external object by which the orientation was determined was a mountain.
[895] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xi, 1882, pp. 3-7, 117-22; xv, 1886,
pp. 471-81; xx, 1891, p. 285; xxx, 1900, p. 70; _Archaeol. Journal_,
xlix, 1892, pp. 139, 146; _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xiii, 1895,
pp. 111-2; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 196. Mr. A. L.
Lewis, the principal advocate of the solar temple theory, seems to be
satisfied with almost any kind of orientation. Thus he tells us that
of twenty-one circles which he observed in Southern Britain nineteen
‘had a special reference to the north-east’, that is to the midsummer
sunrise: but he maintains that a ‘line due east through the Stannon and
Fernacre circles to Brown Willy evidently was meant to indicate the
equinoctial sunrise’; and in another case he insists that the object
pointed at was the pole star.
Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 404-5), after
making careful investigations with his compass in Cornwall, has
arrived at results ‘mainly negative’, and concludes that ‘there is not
apparently such evidence of orientation as would satisfy a critical
observer’.
Mr. W. C. Lukis, on the other hand (_Prehist. Stone Monuments of the
Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p. vi), remarking that circles sometimes occur
in groups, asks, ‘if they were temples ... why should the worshippers
have been divided into so many different congregations?’ As it is not
contended that all circles were solar temples, this argument would
obviously apply only to those particular instances; and even with this
limitation it is inconclusive. Each circle was probably erected in
honour of some one chieftain; and it remains possible that sun-worship
may have been practised by his clan. We can hardly suppose that the
erection of circles was supervised by a central hierarchy who aimed at
economizing labour! See p. 479, _infra_.
[896] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, vi, 1867, pp. 337-9; xviii, 1884, pp.
319-23; xxix, 1895, p. 302; xxxiii, 1899, p. 363; xxxiv, 1900, pp. 151,
186, 197; xxxv, 1901, pp. 194, 219, 247; xxxvi, 1902, p. 579; xxxvii,
1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4; xxxix, 1905, pp. 192-5; _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 291-2, 389-92, 471-2; x,
1884-5, p. 312; J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and
Stone Ages_, pp. 111, 113-4, 116-8; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp.
313-5; _Trans. Devon. Association_, xxvii, 1895, p. 442; xxx, 1898, p.
107; xxxv, 1903, p. 142; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 67;
_Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii,
1902, pp. 60-1; _Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland_, i, 236 n. 5, 245, 247,
249; _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 183; _Vict. Hist. of Cornwall_, i,
401; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 286-92.
[897] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, p. 124; _Matériaux pour l’hist ... de l’homme_, 3^e sér., ii,
1885, pp. 368-70; A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les
vallées du Pô et du Danube_, 1894, pp. 80-5; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens
of Ireland_, ii, 507, 644; iii, 720, 728, 753; _Comptes rendus ... de
l’Acad. des inscr._, 1904, pp. 560-4.
[898] See _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 139; _Proc. Soc. Ant._,
2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98; and _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant.
and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., ii, 1902, p. 60, §§ 5-6.
[899] Mr. G. F. Tregelles (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 404)
remarks that ‘the principal English [as distinguished from most
Cumbrian and Scottish] circles have never been proved to be’
sepulchral; but neither have they been proved to be non-sepulchral.
It is said (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98) that the
circle of Sunken Kirk in Westmorland has been subjected to a ‘searching
exploration’. Was the whole area excavated? Pitt-Rivers (_Excavations
in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 148), speaking of the fifty two secondary
interments which he discovered just outside a barrow at Rushmore (see
p. 178, _supra_) says, ‘They showed no trace whatever on the surface
... and would never have been discovered had it not been for the
practice I have established of trenching down to the undisturbed chalk
the entire surface of the ground contained within the area of the
contoured plan of the Barrow’.
Mr. R. Burnard (_Vict. Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 359-60) observes that
‘fires seem to have been kindled all over the [Fernworthy] circle,
for every scoop of the pick and shovel ... displayed charcoal’, and,
remarking that this monument is the ‘predominant feature of a group of
sepulchral remains’, conjectures that it was ‘the crematorium or the
site of the funeral feasts or both’.
[900] A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt, et gaul._, 1889, p. 103. Cf. _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, p. 288, and _L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905,
p. 530.
[901] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, i, 1872, pp. cxi, cxiii-cxvi; _Trans....
Devon. Association_, xxxiv, 1902, p. 117; xxxv, 1903, p. 429; _Vict.
Hist. of ... Devon_, i, 370.
[902] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 288, 292, 471-4.
[903] See Dr. A. J. Evans’s interesting account of the folk-lore of the
Rollright Stones in _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 21-3, 30-2, and cf. Lord
Avebury’s _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 388.
[904] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, i, 1869, p. 59; _Archaeol. Review_, ii,
1889, p. 325.
[905] _Ib._, p. 316.
[906] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 15, 20, 40, 42, 115.
[907] See _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318.
[908] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 73-5, 80-2.
[909] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318.
[910] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 83.
[911] Some geologists have suggested that they may have come from Wales
or even Cumberland!
[912] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 115-6.
[913] Cf. p. 156, _supra_.
[914] The circle at Callernish, which belonged to the Scottish Stone
Age, and within which an interment was made, may have been contemporary
with the Bronze Age of England.
[915] See pp. 468-77, _infra_. In a case containing a model of
Stonehenge in the Prehistoric Room of the British Museum it is actually
stated that ‘on the supposition that Stonehenge was a Sun-temple, its
date has been astronomically determined’! I would ask the Keeper to
consult Mr. Hinks’s paper in the _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903.
[916] See Polybius, iii, 38, §§ 1-2; 58-9; xxxiv, 10, § 7; Dion
Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4.
[917] See p. 494 _infra_.
[918] See p. 513, note, _infra_.
[919] See p. pp. 490-1, 512, _infra_.
[920] See pp. 499-513, _infra_.
[921] See H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, 1897, pp. 15-6.
[922] Strabo, ii, 4, § 2. Cf. A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes
dans les vallées du Pô et du Danube_, 1894, p. 15.
[923] Strabo, ii, 1, § 12; 5, § 8. Cf. V. de St. Martin, _Hist. de la
géogr._, 1873, p. 101.
[924] Plutarch (_De placitis philosophorum_, iii, 17, § 2), who
evidently knew nothing about the tides, ascribed to Pytheas the absurd
statement that high tide occurs at full moon, and low tide at new moon
(Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης τῇ πληρώσει τῆς σελήνης τὰς πλημμύρας γίνεσθαι,
τῇ δὲ μειώσει τὰς ἀμπώτιδας), a blunder which, as Müllenhoff (_Deutsche
Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 365) remarks, nobody could have made who
had spent twenty-four hours on the Atlantic coast. I agree with him
that Pytheas had anticipated the discovery of Posidonius (Strabo, iii,
5, § 8), which, needless to say, must have been made long before by
Phoenician mariners, but that he was unfortunate in his reporter. Cf.
H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 155.
[925] See p. 221, _infra_, and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp.
155-7.
[926] See _ib._, p. 160, and _Geogr. Journal_, i, 1893, p. 520.
[927] Geminus, _Elem. astron._, ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, §
9); K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 311.
[928] _Ib._, p. 367.
[929] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3; ii, 3, § 5; iv, 5, § 5; vii, 3, § 1, &c. Cf.
M. Dubois, _Examen de la géogr. de Strabon_, 1891, pp. 253-4, 264-5.
In regard to the scientific eminence of Pytheas see V. de St. Martin,
_Hist. de la géogr._, p. 107; K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_,
i, 1890, pp. 311-3; _Geogr. Journal_, i, 1893, pp. 520-1; and H. F.
Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 47-50.
[930] H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_,
iii, 1891, p. 27.
[931] Strabo, ii, 4, § 2.
[932] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter
sur l’hist. des Celtes_, 1902, p. 65.
[933] K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 311.
[934] See pp. 495-6, _infra_.
[935] Strabo, i, 4, §§ 3, 5; iii, 2, §§ 1, 11; iv, 4, § 1; Diodorus
Siculus, v, 21, § 3; K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i,
1890, pp. 368-70, 375-7; Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, part i,
1897, p. 863; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs à consulter
sur l’hist. des Celtes_, pp. 66-71. Sir Clements Markham (_Geogr.
Journal_, i, 1893, p. 516) holds that Pytheas sailed from Uxisama to
Kent, ‘because he reported that the coast of Gaul, where he left it,
was some days’ sail from Cantion’. But what he reported was simply that
Cantium was some days’ sail from Gaul (καὶ τὸ Κάντιον ἡμερῶν τινων
πλοῦν ἀπέχειν τῆς Κελτικῆς φησι [Strabo, _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3]); and
this estimate may have been based upon his homeward voyage. Professor
Ridgeway (_Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 97) referring to the same passage
in Strabo, argues that he sailed from Brittany to the Isle of Wight.
Müllenhoff gives satisfactory reasons for the view adopted in the text.
[936] Except by Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 46),
who, however, may perhaps have changed his mind since the appearance of
Mr. Clement Reid’s article in _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1905, pp.
281-8.
[937] See p. 359, _infra_.
[938] See _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._, 1902, 1^{re}
part., p. 268; 1903, 2^e part., p. 911.
[939] See pp. 499-507, _infra_.
[940] Strabo, i, 4, § 3; ii, 4, § 1. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche
Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 379-81) makes an ingenious attempt
to explain Pytheas’s exaggeration. Cf. H. Berger, _Geschichte der
wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_, iii, 1891, p. 37.
[941] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 4; ii, 1, §§ 13, 17; iv, 5, § 4.
[942] Strabo, iv, 5, § 5; Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Cf. K.
Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 394-6.
[943] _Nat. Hist._, ii, 97 (99), § 217.
[944] _Mém. de l’Acad. des inscr._, xxxvii, 1724, p. 437; H. F. Tozer,
_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 159.
[945] _Whitaker’s Almanack_, 1897, p. 71. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche
Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 367, and _Geogr. Journal_, xix, 1902, p.
53.
[946] Strabo, ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 5. Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche
Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 392.
[947] I have come independently to the same conclusion as M. V. de St.
Martin (_Hist. de la géogr._, p. 103) and Mr. H. F. Tozer (_Hist. of
Anc. Geogr._, pp. 158-9).
[948] Strabo, i, 4, § 2.
[949] H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen_,
iii, 1891, p. 37.
[950] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 5. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i,
1890, p. 393) insists that Strabo’s description must include Thule;
for, he says, it compares the observations made by Pytheas in Thule
with others, made in more southerly tracts, where wheat was grown and
beer brewed. But, as I observe in the text, it is questionable whether
Pytheas was ever in Thule.
[951] _Geogr._, i, 4, § 3.
[952] _Ib._, ii, 5, § 8. See H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p.
159.
[953] K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 389. Cf.
_Mém. de l’Acad. des inscr._, xxxvii, 1724, pp. 436-42.
[954] Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 386, 401)
gives sufficient reasons for rejecting the statement of Cleomedes that
there was continuous night in Thule for one month. The statement of
Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, iv, 16 [30], § 104) that the winter night lasted
six months needs no refutation.
[955] Strabo, i, 4, § 2.
[956] _Elem. astron._, ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, § 9).--ἐπὶ
δὲ τοὺς τόπους τούτους δοκεῖ καὶ Πυθέας ... παρεῖναι. φησὶ γοῦν ...
ὅτι ‘ἑδείκνυον ἡμῖν οἱ βάρβαροι ὅπου ὁ ἥλιος κοιμᾶται. συνέβαινε γὰρ
περὶ τούτους τοὺς τόπους τὴν μὲν νύκτα παντελῶς μικρὸν γίνεσθαι, ὡρῶν
οἷς μὲν δύο, οἷς δὲ τριῶν, ὥστε μετὰ τὴν δύσιν μικροῦ διαλείμματος
γινομένου ἐπανατέλλειν εἰθέως τὸν ἥλιον.’
[957] See H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde_, &c.,
iii, 1891, pp. 16-7.
[958] Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 388,
392.
[959] Strabo (ii, 4, § 1) seems to imply that Pytheas avowed that he
described Thule from hearsay. He tells us on the authority of Polybius
that Pytheas wrote an account of τὰ περὶ τῆς Θούλης καὶ τῶν τόπων
ἐκείνων, ἐν οἷς οὔτε γῆ καθ’ αὑτὴν ὑπῆρχεν ἔτι οὔτε θάλαττα, οὔτ’ ἀήρ,
ἀλλὰ σύγκριμά τι ἐκ τούτων πλεύμονι θαλαττίῳ ἐοικός, ἐν ᾧ φησι τὴν γῆν
καὶ τὴν θάλατταν αἰωρεῖσθαι καὶ τὰ σύμπαντα, καὶ τοῦτον ὡς ἂν δεσμὸν
εἶναι τῶν ὅλων, μήτε πορευτὸν μήτε πλωτὸν ὑπάρχοντα· τὸ μὲν οὖν τῷ
πλεύμονι ἐοικὸς αὐτος ἑωρακέναι, τἆλλα δὲ λέγειν ἐξ ἀκοῆς.
[960] My view coincides, in regard to the identification of Thule, with
that of G. Hergt (_Die Nordlandfahrt des Pytheas_, 1894), and also with
that of M. Camille Jullian (_Journ. des Savants_, 1905, pp. 95, n. 1,
101, n. 2). Hergt’s work is not in the British Museum, and I have not
been able to procure a copy; but his conclusions are summarized in
_Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft_, 1895, iii, 167. He and M.
Jullian (_op. cit._, p. 101) hold that Pytheas landed in Norway, and
that the Norwegians with whom he conversed pointed out to him in the
distance ‘le lieu mystérieux où le soleil repose durant les longues
nuits du cercle polaire’. On this theory I cannot conceive how Pytheas
came to regard Thule as one of the British Isles.
Müllenhoff, who identifies Thule with Mainland, argues, first
(_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 387-8) that Pytheas would
hardly have succeeded in sailing to Norway in six days on account
of difficulties, which he points out, in navigation; secondly (p.
393), that Pytheas, who distinguished between the Celtic and the
Germanic populations of Northern Europe and must have been accompanied
by an interpreter, would not have confounded Norway--a non-Celtic
country--with Thule; thirdly (pp. 398-9), that agriculture was
introduced into Norway by the Germans, that Pytheas, in his description
of Britain and of Thule, did not say that corn was not cultivated
there, and that, if he had visited Norway, he would have mentioned
the Lapps and the reindeer; and lastly (pp. 399-400), that the place
where ‘the barbarians’ showed him ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’ was
evidently the most northerly land which he reached, and was not in the
Arctic Circle.
Every one of these arguments rests upon the assumption that Pytheas
visited Thule, for which, as we have seen, there is no evidence.
Neither is there any that Thule was inhabited by a Celtic-speaking
people: it is, as we have seen (p. 152, n. 2), absolutely certain that
corn was cultivated in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age; and even if
Pytheas did visit Thule, there is no reason to suppose that he went
sufficiently far northward to come in contact with Lapps.
Mr. Tozer (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 159-60), who does not believe
that Pytheas travelled further northward than ‘the extremity of
Britain’, nevertheless holds with Müllenhoff that Thule was Mainland.
He points out that ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’, which he of course
locates in Thule, was in the Arctic Circle. ‘This of course,’ he
continues, ‘would not apply to Shetland ... but on such a question the
report of “barbarians” could hardly be expected to be accurate.’ Is
not this a weak argument for identifying Thule with Mainland, where,
even at the winter solstice, the sun is above the horizon five hours
out of the twenty-four? The ‘barbarians’ had not themselves penetrated
within the Arctic Circle; and that darkness was anywhere continuous
for twenty-four hours would not have occurred to them if they had not
learned the fact from Scandinavian sailors who had seen the phenomenon
or had been informed of it by eye-witnesses. Moreover, Pytheas, who
so accurately determined the latitude of Massilia, would hardly have
allowed himself to be persuaded that Mainland was on the Arctic Circle.
[961] See, however, pp. 410, 449, _infra_.
[962] See pp. 232-3, _infra_.
[963] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 87,
and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_, p. xii. Hallstattian
objects are also very rare in Northern Gaul (_Rev. de synthèse hist._,
iii, 1901, p. 38, n. 1).
[964] See pp. 411-2, 445-6, 449, _infra_.
[965] See A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 163, ii,
179-87, iv, 11, 13, 61, and _Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist.
Soc._, li, 1905, p. 26.
[966] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 262.
[967] See _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, pp. 930-1, and
W. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, i, 407-52, 594-630. Cf. _Class.
Rev._, xvi, 1902, pp. 74-5, 88-90.
[968] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 208-12. Cf. _Guide to the Ant.
of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 109-11.
[969] Mr. Romilly Allen (_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xiii, 1896, p.
223) argues from the fewness of the known Late Celtic burials that the
period between the introduction of iron and the Roman conquest ‘cannot
have been very long’. So also thought Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_,
p. 212), apparently forgetting what he had very judiciously said on
p. 50. The argument would lead to the conclusion that in Scotland the
Late Celtic Period was almost non-existent; for only one interment of
the Early Iron Age has been found there (p. 435, _infra_). Many such
interments, unmarked by any tumulus, have doubtless escaped notice; and
in many French departments they are unknown (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, p.
386; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp. 218-26).
[970] Sir J. Evans (_Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 39) remarks that,
according to Ptolemy (_Geogr._, ii, 3, § 13), the territory of the
Belgae included Ischalis (Ilchester), Aquae Calidae (Bath), and Venta
(Winchester), and must therefore have comprised nearly all the area
corresponding with Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire; but that in
each of these counties we find a distinct coinage. Probably, he argues,
when the inscribed coins of Somersetshire were struck, the Belgae
only occupied the east of Hampshire and the west of Sussex. Without
disputing this conclusion, I would suggest that since no one Gallic
tribe was called the Belgae, the British Belgae, in the narrower sense
of the term, may have been a loose confederation or aggregate of tribes
or of _pagi_, each of which perhaps had its own coinage.
All scholars are, however, aware that it is generally impossible to
determine the frontiers of the British tribes, even for the period
of the Roman conquest, with any approach to the comparative accuracy
which has been attained in the case of those of Gaul (see my _Caesar’s
Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 330-2). The delimitation of the tribal
areas of independent Gaul depends mainly upon the reasonable assumption
that they correspond for the most part exactly or nearly with those
of the Gallo-Roman cantons (_civitates_). But in Britain we are not
only baffled by the political changes which took place in the restless
century that intervened between the invasions of Caesar and the
Claudian conquest: we also find that although a recently discovered
inscription (_Archaeologia_, lix, 1904, pp. 121-2) has shown that at
all events in the case of the Ordovices the cantonal organization
was preserved or adopted by the Roman Empire, yet, as Mommsen says
(_Provinces_, i, 191 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 174]), ‘the Britannic
tribes, taken in the strict sense, [apparently] disappear as soon
as they fall under Roman rule, and of the individual cantons after
their annexation there is virtually no mention at all.’ Moreover, the
boundaries of the Gallo-Roman _civitates_ served, in principle, to
define the areas of episcopal jurisdiction; and the areas of the Gallic
dioceses are known. In Britain this source of information is wanting.
[971] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 387-8.
[972] _Archaeol. Rev._, ii, 1889, p. 324.
[973] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), pp. 159-60.
[974] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.
83, 98, and p. 240, _infra_. It has been pointed out (_Archaeologia_,
lii, 1890, pp. 385-7) that the interments by inhumation which have been
discovered at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire correspond with
the Gallic interments of the fourth century before Christ. Since the
Belgae appear to have practised cremation, these interments very likely
indicate, what we know already, that there was a pre-Belgic Brythonic
invasion of Britain: but it does not follow that they were contemporary
with those of Gaul, and belonged to the time that immediately followed
the close of the British Bronze Age; for, as we shall see (p. 286),
inhumation persisted in Britain long after it had become obsolete on
the other side of the Channel.
[975] See my article on the ethnology of Britain (pp. 428-45, _infra_).
[976] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-3.
[977] See pp. 459-60, _infra_.
[978] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, 1883, pp.
172-3; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 360-4; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp.
573-4; vii, 1896, p. 693; _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1895, p. 160; _Scotsman_,
Dec. 14, 1895, p. 7, col. 6, Dec. 17, p. 7, col. 3, Dec. 19, p. 6,
col. 5; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 921; _Rev. de
synthèse hist._, iii, 1901, pp. 40-1; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early
Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 12, 16-23, 29-30, 103; _Rev. des études
anc._, viii, 1906, p. 119.
[979] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 60, 143-4, 159.
[980] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 371-3.
[981] _Ib._, pp. 360-70, 374-5.
[982] A. W. Franks, _Horae ferales_, 1863, pl. xiv, fig. 1; _Guide to
the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 93.
[983] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 144-51.
[984] _Rev. celt._, xx, 1899, pp. 13-29, 117-31; _Congrès internat.
d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), p. 417; _Rev. arch._,
4^e sér., ii, 1903, p. 368; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p.
214; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 87,
105, 108.
[985] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.
90-2; J. G. Bulliot, _Fouilles du mont Beuvray_, 1899, i, 123-6,
129-46; ii, 3-44.
[986] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, pp. 342-4; _Guide to
the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 88-95. Cf. Diodorus
Siculus, v, 30, § 2; Herodian, iii, 14, § 7; J. Evans, _Coins of the
Anc. Britons_, p. 330; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 236.
Helmets, as Sir J. Evans says, ‘could never have been in general use in
Britain’; and the only two British specimens that have come to light
are not earlier than the first century of our era.
[987] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, p. 125;
_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 88, 90.
[988] _Reports Architect. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p.
58; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 761-2.
[989] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.
95-6.
[990] Sometimes the bronze covered some other material,--probably wood
(_Archaeologia_, xlv, 1880, p. 263).
[991] _Agricola_, 36.
[992] _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 498.
[993] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.
98. See also, in regard to swords, _Archaeologia_, xviii, 1817, p.
341; xlv, 1880, pp. 251-66; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p.
275; _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 442; and _Vict. Hist. of ...
Essex_, i, 268.
[994] _Archaeologia_, xl, 1866, pp. 502, 510; W. Greenwell, _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 454-5; J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 115-6; _Proc.
Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 214; _Guide to the Ant. of the
Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 57, 127.
[995] _Ib._, pp. 100, 127; _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp.
3-4; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 382; _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5
(1895), p. 163; _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._,
1900 (1902), p. 423.
[996] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 99.
Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 117-8.
[997] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 344-7.
[998] _Ib._, xvii, 1897-9, p. 120.
[999] _Archaeol. Journal_, iii, 1846, pp. 27-38; J. Anderson, _Scotland
in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, pp. 131, 135-6; _Archaeologia_, liv,
1895, pp. 495-6; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit.
Museum), pp. 55-6, 137-8. A plain bronze torque was found on the neck
of a skeleton in a grave at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire
(_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-2) and a plain iron one on
another (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p.
138).
[1000] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 3-4; W. Greenwell,
_Brit. Barrows_, p. 210. Cf. _Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant.
and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 80-4.
[1001] _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, pp.
97-8.
[1002] _Hist. Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club_, 1856-62 (1863), p. 307.
[1003] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 3; _Archaeologia_,
xliii, 1871, pp. 475, 497; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, p. 208; J.
Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, pp. 134-5; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol.
and Nat. Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, p. 102.
[1004] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.
[1005] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96; _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 130,
137.
[1006] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 358-9.
[1007] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 213-6.
[1008] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 126, 147, 160.
[1009] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xlv, 1889, p. 81;
_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 328-31, 333-4, 340-1, 343, 344-6, 350-5;
_Essex Naturalist_, xiii, 1903, pp. 110-2; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser.,
xvi, 1895-7, pp. 258-60; xx, 1901-5, p. 212; _Guide to the Ant. of the
Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 49, 66-8, 117-8, 122, 140; _Journ.
Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 393. An urn figured in _26th ann. report
Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, 1844 (1845), p. 22, appears to me to be of the
Aylesford type.
[1010] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), p. 163; _Archaeol. Cambr._,
6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 11; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_,
1904 (1905), p. 329; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._,
li, 1905, pp. 100-1; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit.
Museum), pp. 67, 141-2.
[1011] A. W. Franks, _Horae ferales_, pl. xv, fig. 1; J. Romilly Allen,
_Celtic Art_, pp. 93-4. Although the known Late Celtic shields were
oblong, long double-pointed shields and even round ones, which may have
resembled those of the Late Bronze Age (p. 146, _supra_), are figured
on gold coins belonging to the period between the invasions of Caesar
and the Roman conquest (Tacitus, Agricola, 36; J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze
Implements_, p. 354; _Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford_, i, 239).
[1012] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 376-7, 380.
[1013] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), pp. 160-2.
[1014] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 373; _Guide to the Ant. of the
Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 29.
[1015] See p. 357 _infra_.
[1016] _B. C._, i, 54, §§ 1-2.
[1017] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, iv, 1875, p. 425.
[1018] See G. Payne, _Collectanea Cantiana_, p. 129; _Archaeol.
Journal_, lix, 1902, p. 217; lx, 1903, pp. 209-10; lxiv, 1904, pp. 309,
313, 318; _Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey_, i, 249; and J. R. Mortimer,
_Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. 381-5. Ancient ‘corduroy’ roads, made
of ‘cross timbers laid side by side on three lines of supporting logs
parallel to the direction of the road’, have been discovered near
Gilpin Bridge in Cumberland (_Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant.
and Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 207-10); but their date
cannot yet be fixed. It has been said that trackways were made (1) by
digging two parallel ditches and throwing up the earth so as to form a
bank between them, and (2) by digging one ditch and building the bank
on one or on both sides. See _Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field
Club_, xxi, 1900, pp. 105-6; _Trans. Birmingham and Midland Inst._,
xxv, 1900, p. 41; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Berks_, i, 192.
[1019] _The Past in the Present_, p. 97 and figs. 70, 71, and 72. See
also A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 78-9.
[1020] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, 1864, pp. 25-6, 47-8.
See, however, A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, 1905, pp. 478-9.
Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., Suppl., p. 424) admits that the Macedonian
stater may not have been the sole progenitor of British coins. His
son, Dr. A. J. Evans (_Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 [1896]) affirms that
‘Massalia, Rhoda, and Emporiae ... each contributed their part’, and
that he has ‘succeeded in tracing back ... certain scrolls and outlines
that appear on a class of late British coin-types that extend from
Tewkesbury and Oxford, through Armoric and Iberic Gaul, and the Greek
colonies beyond, still further ... to the head of Persephonê on the
medallions of Syracuse’.
[1021] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 26-8.
[1022] _Num. Chron._, 3rd ser., xvi, 1896, p. 184. M. A. Blanchet
(_Traité des monn. gaul._ p. 75) believes that the inscribed coinage of
Gaul dates from about 150 B.C.
[1023] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 25-6, 31, 38; _ib._,
Suppl., p. 423.
[1024] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 49-50, 69-70, 79, 81,
&c.
[1025] _Geogr._, iv. 5, § 2.
[1026] _Agricola_, 12.
[1027] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 33; Suppl, pp. 473,
484-6.
[1028] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 99, 116-7, 123, 133.
[1029] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 36-7.
[1030] _Ib._, pp. 35-6, 41.
[1031] _Ib._, Suppl., p. 434.
[1032] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 50-2, 62, 81, 94.
[1033] _Ib._, p. 40.
[1034] _Ib._, pp. 38, 51, 95-7.
[1035] _Ib._, pp. 62-5, 81-3; Suppl., pp. 442, 481-3; _Archeologia_,
lii, 1890, p. 327; A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, p. 515.
[1036] _B. G._, v, 12, § 4.--_utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut
anulis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo._ So runs the
passage in the British Museum Add. MS. 10084; but the Paris MS. 5764
has _taleis_ (bars) instead of _anulis_ (rings). ‘The phrase _aut
aere_,’ says Dr. Haverfield (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5,
p. 186), ‘must be wrong, and the conjecture _anulis_ in Add. MS.
10084 is plainly an attempt to explain _aliis_. As _aliis_ is the
reading of A and part of B [the two principal families of the MSS. of
Caesar’s _Commentaries_, generally quoted as α and β], and _taleis_ of
the rest of B, and _aut aliis_ can hardly be other than a misreading
of _aut taleis_, this latter may be accepted.’ E. Hübner (Pauly’s
_Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, 1897, p. 864) accepts _aut aere_.
[1037] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 179-91; _Class.
Rev._, xix, 1905, pp. 206-7. Iron bars were also used as currency by
the Spartans, and are still so used by the natives of West Africa near
Sierra Leone.
[1038] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5; _Trans. Internat. Congress of Prehist.
Archaeol._, 1868 (1869), pp. 185-90.
[1039] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 194.
[1040] See p. 260, _infra_.
[1041] See p. 499, _infra_.
[1042] See p. 267, _infra_. Caesar’s statement, that the Britons
imported copper or bronze (_aere utuntur importato_ [_B. G._, v, 12,
§ 4]), has always been a puzzle. I doubt whether any scholar would
now infer from it that the cakes of copper which have been found
in bronze-founders’ hoards were of foreign origin; but it has been
suggested (_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p.
86) that Caesar may have referred to articles of foreign manufacture
such as the bronze flagon mentioned on p. 246, _supra_. See also J.
Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419.
M. S. Reinach (_Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, p. 173) infers from Caesar’s
observation that ‘the industrial activity to which the relics of the
Bronze Age testify had long ceased’, and that there was an arrest,
or rather a recoil of civilization. But, as we shall see hereafter
(p. 267), the culture of the Bronze Age persisted in certain parts of
Britain until the Roman conquest. Were the bronze implements that were
used in those parts imported? If so, how could they have been paid
for without industrial activity; and what conceivable reason can be
suggested for the assumed paralysis? The industrial activity of the
Early Iron Age in Britain is unquestionable; and I doubt whether any
theory could be framed to account for a cessation, contemporaneous with
the manufacture of iron, of the trade of the bronze-founder.
[1043] See p. 148, _supra_.
[1044] See J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., p. 492; F. J.
Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, 1906, pp. 20-1; and
_Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.
[1045] I have nothing to add to what I have already written on this
question (_Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 521-3) except to
refer, in support of my conclusion, to _Rev. crit. d’hist. et de
litt._, nouv. sér., xxx, 1890, pp. 441-2, and E. Lavisse, _Hist. de
France_, i, 1900 (by G. Bloch), p. 61, n. 2; and, for a very clear but
hardly complete summary of the controversy, to M. G. Dottin’s _Manuel
pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, 1906, pp. 184-6. Pasture land
was not improbably common property both in Gaul and Britain. See W.
Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, p. 95.
[1046] See pp. 339, 346, _infra_.
[1047] _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6.
[1048] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 422. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers,
_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 4-6.
[1049] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 451; _Reports Archit. Soc. of ...
Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 61; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins,
_Worlebury_, 1886, pp. 69, 78.
[1050] _Nat. Hist._, xvii, 6 (4), § 42; 8, § 45. Cf. Varro, _Rerum
rust._, i, 7, § 8. See pp. 515-7, _infra_.
[1051] _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, pp. 438-9; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th
ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 238-9; _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6;
_Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 60.
[1052] W. Holloway, _Hist. of Romney Marsh_, 1849, pp. 10-1; C. H.
Pearson, _Hist. Maps of England_, 1870, pp. 4-5; R. Furley, _Hist. of
the Weald of Kent_, i, 1871, p. 387, and map facing p. 26; _Journ.
Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 36; _Archaeol.
Journal_, lx, 1903, p. 157. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in
Cranborne Chase_, i, 27, ii, 56, iii, 3.
[1053] _Vict. Hist. of ... Hants_, i, 268-9; _ib._, _Somerset_, i,
213-4.
[1054] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 291, 338. See pp.
358-9, _infra_.
[1055] _Archaeol. Journal_, lxii, 1905, p. 265.
[1056] _Ib._, li, 1894, p. 338.
[1057] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 12. Cf. _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, map
facing p. 380.
[1058] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick_, i, 227, and pp. 704-5, _infra_.
[1059] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlii, 1885, pp. 274, 300-2. See also pp.
272 n. 1, 275-6, 297.
[1060] _Ib._, lx, 1903, pp. 155-6, 174.
[1061] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxi, 1875, pp. 266-75;
C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, pp. 8 n. 3, 19-23,
29 n. 19, 50 § 4, 67 § 45, 69, 78; _Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat.
Hist. Soc._, li, 1905, pp. 17-28.
[1062] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 233-46.
[1063] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, p. 46.
[1064] A few pits like those of Mount Caburn, and containing similar
relics, were found at Cissbury and Winkelbury (_Archaeol. Journal_,
xli, 1884, p. 76).
[1065] _Archaeologia_, xlii, 1869, pp. 39, 48-50; xlvi, 1881, pp.
450-1, 456-8.
[1066] Oppidum autem Britanni vocant, cum silvas impeditas vallo atque
fossa munierunt, quo incursionis hostium vitandae causa convenire
consuerunt. _B. G._, v, 21, § 3.
[1067] See p. 136, _supra_, and _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 458.
[1068] _B. G._, vii, 30, § 4.
[1069] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 266-7. Two forts
with defences of this kind are known in Peebles-shire.
[1070] _B. G._, ii, 29, § 2; vi, 32, § 4. Cf. _Mém. de la Soc. nat. des
ant. de France_, 4^e sér., ii, 1871, pp. 141-2.
[1071] See p. 70, _supra_.
[1072] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiii, 1899, pp. 29-30
[1073] See p. 138, _supra_, and also _Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, pp.
438-9, 467; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii,
238-9; _Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvi, 1899, pp. 106-8, 130; xvii,
1900, pp. 189, 195, 206, 209; _Archaeol. Journal_, lvii, 1900, pp.
52-6, 60-3, 66-7; _Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xvi, 1904, pp. 73-83;
and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 122-4.
[1074] See p. 134, _supra_.
[1075] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1898-9 (1900), p. 20.
[1076] See _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxix, 1895, pp. 131, 149-50.
[1077] _B. G._, vii, 22.
[1078] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxv, 1891, pp. 428, 438, 440, 444-5.
[1079] _Ib._, xxxiii, 1899, pp. 15, 20-3, 26-32; xxxiv, 1900, p. 74. A
similar method of fortification was practised by the Dacians (_Congrès
archéol. de France_, 1874 [1876], p. 444), ‘in the Danne-werk at
Korborg, near Schleswig’ (A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne
Chase_, iii, 254), and in Nassau (_Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901,
p. 45).
The well-known camp on Herefordshire Beacon is interesting because,
like Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum), it contains a citadel. Though it
is locally described as a ‘British camp’, its date is at present
uncertain. While most of the objects which have been found in it are
comparatively late, Pitt-Rivers (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, x, 1881, p.
331) pointed out that the pottery seemed to indicate its Celtic origin;
but the citadel presents a difficulty. Was it a later addition? See
also F. J. Haverfield, _Archaeol. Survey of Herefordshire_, 1896, pp.
3-4.
The ‘vitrified’ stone forts of the British Isles demand a brief notice.
There are none in England, but many in the northern and western
counties of Scotland and some in France. It is very doubtful whether
any exist in Wales or Ireland (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp.
227, 234; D. Christison, _Early Fortifications in Scotland_, pp. 187,
190). The question is whether the vitrifaction, which was due to fire,
was accidental or designed; and in some cases the only way of settling
this is to ascertain by excavation the extent of the vitrifaction
(_ib._, p. 192). The best authorities have concluded that when the
vitrified part of the fort is small the phenomenon may be safely
ascribed to accident,--perhaps to a beacon fire; but that when it may
be traced almost all round the rampart it was intentional (_ib._,
pp. 186-7; _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 240-1; R. Munro,
_Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 382-3). Probably the builders intended to give
cohesion to the walls and make it impossible for assailants to demolish
them (_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 330-1); or when the vitrifaction was
confined to the upper surface the defenders would have secured firm
foothold while the assailants would have stumbled over loose stones (D.
Christison, _op. cit._, pp, 186-7). [See Addenda]
[1080] _Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln_, &c., xviii, 1885-6,
pp. 53-61; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 382-4; _Vict. Hist. of
... Northampton_, i, 147-9, 151-2. At Beansale and Claverdon in
Warwickshire there are camps which in many respects resemble that of
Hunsbury, but have not been excavated (_Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick_, i,
350).
Professor T. McKenny Hughes (_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, p. 484)
suggests that Offa’s Dyke may have ‘belonged to the defensive system
of the Britons’. All we know is that those dykes which have been
excavated--Bokerly Dyke and Wansdyke--were Roman or post-Roman (A.
Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, p. xiii); and it
is in the last degree improbable that earthworks which extend over
territory that belonged to several tribes should have been constructed
at a time when tribes only combined for brief periods and in the
presence of urgent and common peril. Cf. F. J. Haverfield, _Archaeol.
Survey of Herefordshire_, 1896, p. 7, and _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvii,
1902, pp. 628-9.
[1081] See p. 93, _supra_.
[1082] _Journ. Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xiii, 1891,
pp. 194-9; xiv, 1892, pp. 247-8; xvii, 1895, p. 76; _Vict. Hist. of ...
Derby_, i, 231-42. Cf. _Association franç. pour l’avancement des sc._,
32^e sess., 1903, 2^e partie, p. 890.
[1083] _Vict. Hist. of ... Bedford_, i, 172. See also p. 84, n. 1,
_supra_.
[1084] _Geogr._, iv, 4, § 3. Cf. Caesar, _B. G._, v, 12, § 3, 43, § 1,
and Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Woodcuts, one of the Romano-British
villages explored by Pitt-Rivers, was constructed and chiefly occupied
by Britons (_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 65, iii, 3); but, as
Prof. Haverfield has pointed out (_The Romanization of Roman Britain_,
pp. 18-9), ‘the material life was Roman’.
[1085] _B. G._, v, 12, § 3.
[1086] Athenaeus, iv, 36. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, v, 28, §§ 4-5 and
Strabo, iv, 4, § 3.
[1087] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iv, 1867-70, pp. 164-70; _Journ.
Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxvi, 1880, pp. 254-61; J. Anderson,
_Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Iron Age_, p. 207; R. Munro, _Prehist.
Scotland_, pp. 348-9; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_,
p. 266; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 541-7. It must
be admitted that conclusive evidence is wanting to prove that any
of the Cornish subterranean dwellings were inhabited before the
Roman occupation (see _Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 367-9). The
‘hut-clusters’ of Cornwall, of which Chrysoister is a good example (W.
C. Lukis, _Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,--Cornwall_, p.
19) were probably later than the hut-circles of the same county. Some
may have been built before the Christian era, but they were certainly
inhabited in Roman times (_Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall_, i, 370).
[1088] _Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, pp. 212, 215-9, 221-2; xviii,
1861, pp. 39-46; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, iii, 1863, pp. 128, 134-8,
141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 102-22, 173-89, 548-58; Sir A. Mitchell, _The
Past in the Present_, p. 58; _Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc._, N. S.,
iv, 1902, pp. 189-90.
[1089] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 116-7, 119, 147;
xxxviii, 1904, p. 558.
[1090] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxv, 1901, pp. 146-8; _Guide to the
Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 35-6; A. Lang, _The Clyde
Mystery_, p. 41.
[1091] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xv, 1886, pp. 463-5; xxviii, 1899, pp.
150-4; R. Munro, _The Lake-Dwellings of Europe_, pp. 454, 459, 461,
475, 493. Dr. Munro (_ib._, pp. 490-2) observes that ‘in the early
centuries of the Christian era the distribution of crannogs in Scotland
and Ireland closely coincides with a well-defined area in which the
Celtic language was spoken’, though he admits that ‘they have not been
found in the south-eastern provinces of Scotland’. ‘In this wider area’
[including Southern Britain], he continues, ‘on the supposition that
the Celts were the introducers or founders of the system, we ought to
find some vestiges of these dwellings.... This is precisely what the
general researches into British lake-dwellings have shown in the stray
remnants of them that have been found in Llangorse, Holderness, the
_meres_ of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cold Ash Common, etc. All these, with
perhaps the exception of the pile-structures at London Wall, appear to
be older than the majority of the crannogs of Scotland and Ireland....
Taking all these facts into account ... I am inclined to believe that
we have here evidence of a widely distributed custom which underlies
the subsequent [to Caesar] great development which the lake-dwellings
assumed in Scotland and Ireland. Moreover, I believe it probable
that the early Celts had got this knowledge from contact with the
inhabitants of the pile-dwellings of Central Europe.’
Llangorse is the only Welsh site at which a lake-dwelling has been
found (_ib._, p. 464). I venture to ask the doctor why lake-dwellings
are so rare in England and Wales, where, on his theory, they ought
to abound; why the Scottish and Irish Celts did not apply their
‘knowledge’ for some centuries after they reached the British Isles;
and why lake-dwellings are non-existent (_ib._, p. 493) in Spain and
Portugal, where Celts were numerous (G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir
à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp. 324, 329-31, 349)? And, seeing that
there are pile-dwellings in New Guinea and Central Africa, is it not
conceivable that those of the British Isles had no connexion with
Central Europe?
[1092] Cf. Tacitus, _Germania_, 24, and _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871,
pp. 439-40.
[1093] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 198.
[1094] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1893 (1894), p. 903;
1894, pp. 431-4; 1898, pp. 694-5; 1904 (1905), pp. 324-30; _Proc.
Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, xlix, 1903, pp. 103, 107-8,
114-5, 120-1; 1, 1904, pp. 68-93; li, 1905, pp. 77-104; _Journ. Anthr.
Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 395; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_
(Brit. Museum), pp. 126-7.
[1095] _Ib._, p. 127; _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 4.
[1096] Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 1; Strabo, iv, 4, § 3; C. Elton,
_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 110; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest
of Gaul_, 1903, p. 10; _Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., i, 1903, pp. 337-42; H.
d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 337-42.
[1097] J. O. Westwood, _Lapidarium Walliae_, 1876-9, p. 37, and pl.
xxv, fig. 3; J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 567.
[1098] _B. G._, v, 14, § 3.
[1099] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 345-6; _Guide to
the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 50, 135.
[1100] _B. G._, vi, 14, § 3.
[1101] _Bibl. Hist._, v, 28, § 6.
[1102] _B. G._, i, 29, § 1.
[1103] _Ib._, v, 48, §§ 3-4. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899,
p. 715.
[1104] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 171. Cf. p. 368,
_infra_, and F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_,
1906, p. 9.
[1105] Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 2; Strabo, iv, 4, § 4; Athenaeus, iv,
37, vi, 49; Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8.
[1106] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.
144. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1901, p. 373.
[1107] _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 246. Only one has come to light
in Durham (_Vict. Hist. of ... Durham_, i. 209).
[1108] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 11, 59-61. A bronze
socketed celt has been found at Cann, near Shaftesbury, in association
with British silver coins (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p.
102).
[1109] _Archaeologia_, xvi, 1812, pp. 348-9; _Guide to the Ant. of the
Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 83, 103-4. If it is true that coins
formed part of the Hagbourne Hill deposit, bronze implements must have
continued in use in Berkshire to a very late date.
[1110] May the rarity of British iron weapons be partly accounted for
by supposing that during the greater part of the Late Celtic Period
swords and spear-heads were still in many cases made of bronze? In the
Homeric Age implements were of iron, but the weapons which the poet
mentions were all of bronze, doubtless because the armourers had not
yet learned to temper iron (_Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., vii, 1906, pp. 284,
290-1, 294).
[1111] _B. G._, v, 14, § 2.
[1112] See pp. 161, 189, _supra_.
[1113] F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_, pp. 7-9.
Cf. _Vict. Hist. of ... Derby_, i, 191-2, and see also Solinus, 22, 12
(ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 234).
I hardly know whether it is worth while to notice the statements
of Diodorus (v, 32, § 3) and Strabo (iv, 5, § 4) in regard to the
prevalence of cannibalism in certain parts of the British Isles. If
there is any truth in them, the cannibals had doubtless inherited the
custom from neolithic times (p. 113, _supra_). Strabo’s remark, which,
as he himself warns us, does not rest upon good authority, refers only
to Ireland. Diodorus says that some of the Britons were cannibals;
but this observation may also refer to the Irish. A mound-dwelling
near Kirkwall (_Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, p. 217) is said to have
contained broken human bones mingled with those of sheep, which may or
may not be evidence of cannibalism; and every scholar knows the speech
that Caesar puts into the mouth of Critognatus, one of the Arvernian
chiefs who was blockaded in Alesia (_B. G_., vii, 77, § 12). As for the
unnatural vices with which Diodorus (v, 32, § 7), Strabo (iv, 4, § 6),
and others charge the Celts, they are rife among the civilized nations
of modern Europe.
[1114] See H. J. Mackinder, _Britain and the British Seas_, pp. 177-9.
[1115] See p. 288, _infra_.
[1116] _B. G._, v, 9, § 4; 11, § 9.
[1117] _Agricola_, 12.
[1118] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxviii, 1872, p. 42;
_Archaeologia_, xlvi, 1881, p. 467; lii, 1890, pp. 761-2; _Trans.
Epping forest ... Field Club_, ii, 1882, p. 65; C. W. Dymond and
H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, p. 78; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone
Implements_, 1897, pp. 419-20; _Archaeol. Journal_, lix, 1902, pp.
213-6.
[1119] See _Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xli, 1902, p. 428, and my _Caesar’s
Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, p. 12, n. 1.
[1120] See _B. G._, i, 18, §§ 6-7.
[1121] Tacitus, _Ann._, xii, 36.
[1122] See p. 296, _infra_.
[1123] _B. G._, vi, 19, §§ 1-2. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_,
1899, pp. 521-2.
[1124] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 3. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Études sur le
droit celt._, i, 1895, p. 241) holds that if _uxores_ means ‘wives’,
Caesar’s statement is inconsistent with the custom which regulated the
administration of dowries, and accordingly gives the word the sense of
‘concubines’. It seems to me equally rash to assume that Caesar was
mistaken, and that _uxores_ means ‘wives’ in § 1 and ‘concubines’ in §
3. May we not suppose that the husband’s power was checked by public
opinion?
[1125] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 3.
[1126] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, pp. 12-5.
[1127] _Ib._, 1899, pp. 525-7.
[1128] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp.
31-2, 38-9.
[1129] Ausonius, _Clarae urbes_, xiv, 31-2; Gildas, _Hist._, 2. Cf.
J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, 1888, p. 106; Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic
Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 12, 20-2; and E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii,
1903, pp. 212-4.
[1130] See J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, p. 154.
[1131] _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, vii, 507; J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p.
104.
[1132] See _Rev. celt._, ii, 1873-5, p. 1; iv, 1879-80, pp. 57-8;
xviii, 1897, p. 259; E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 221,
228.
[1133] Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 106, with G. Dottin, _La
rel. des Celtes_, 1904, p. 60.
[1134] M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 101) points out
that the texts fall into two groups, one of which, all posterior to 100
B.C., deals with the Transalpine Celts, and the other, mostly earlier,
with all the others, except the Britons.
[1135] _Rev. celt._, xii, 1891, p. 316; _Rev. num._, 3^e sér., ii,
1884, pp. 179-202; _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 279, n. 2.
[1136] ‘On se tromperait beaucoup,’ says M. Dottin (_La rel. des
Celtes_, pp. 7-8), ‘si l’on croyait que tous les anciens _Mercuriacus_
de France, devenus aujourd’hui Mercuray, Mercurey, Mercoirey,
Mercury, sont dérivés du nom de dieu Mercurius. Ils proviennent plus
vraisemblablement du gentilice romain Mercurius, assez fréquent dans
les inscriptions, et dénomment simplement le _fundus_, la propriété
d’un Gallo-Romain du nom de Mercurius.’
[1137] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 235. See also _Rev. celt._,
iv, 1879-80, p. 45; x, 1889, pp. 485, 487, 489; H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse
de la rel. des Gaulois_, 1879, p. 11, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le
dieu gaul. du soleil_, 1886, pp. 90-1, 93; _Rev. num._, 3^e sér., ii,
1884, p. 201, n. 1; _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 124; _Journ. Brit.
Archaeol. Association_, 1, 1894, pp. 105-9; and G. Dottin, _La rel. des
Celtes_, pp. 5-16, 56-7, 60.
[1138] Caesar does not say that Mercury was actually the supreme deity
of the Gauls, but only the most fervently worshipped: he expressly
says that they regarded their Jupiter as the lord of the celestials.
‘It must not be supposed,’ says Sir Alfred Lyall (_Asiatic Studies_,
i, 1899, p. 121), ‘that even the uppermost gods of Hinduism have
retired behind mere ceremonial altars, like constitutional monarchs....
But there seem to be many grades of accessibility among them, from
Brahma--who, since he created the world, has taken no further trouble
about it, and is naturally rewarded by possessing only one or two of
the million temples to Hindu gods,’ &c.
[1139] _B. G._, vi, 17.
[1140] _De divin._, i, 41, § 90. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_,
1899, p. 532, n. 13.
[1141] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythol. gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du soleil_,
p. 91. Cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 252, 254.
[1142] De his eandem fere quam reliquae gentes habent opinionem. _B.
G._, vi, 17, § 2.
[1143] See _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 329. Cf. Sir A. Lyall,
_Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 2-3, 6.
[1144] See W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp.
16-8, 29, 253-6, 263.
[1145] See pp. 273 n. 7, 284, _infra_, and G. Boissier, _La rel. des
Romains_, i, 1892, pp. 335, 340-1.
[1146] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 32, 324. See Mr. A. B. Cook’s
series of articles in the same volume and in the first number of vol.
xviii.
[1147] W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, 1899, p. 333.
[1148] _Ib._, p. 347. Cf. W. Robertson Smith, _The Religion of the
Semites_, 1901, p. 64.
[1149] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 49; G. Dottin, _La rel. des
Celtes_, p. 12. Mercury was also reverenced more than any other god by
the Germans of whom Tacitus wrote (_Germ._, 9).
[1150] _B. G._, v, 22, § 3.
[1151] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 39-40, 44. Cf. J.
Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 220.
[1152] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 39, 41-2.
[1153] M. Camille Jullian _(Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 109,
n. 1) points out that in vol. vii [p. 331] of the _Corpus inscr.
Lat._ there are sixty-one inscriptions in honour of Mars [of which,
however, eight are uncertain], and only eight in honour of Mercury;
and the greater popularity of Mars is also apparent in the supplements
published in _Ephemeris epigraphica_ (iii, 1877, pp. 125, 128; iv,
1881, p. 196; vii, 1892, pp. 289, 299, 313, 324, 332, 334, 352). But
no account should be taken of those inscriptions in which the name of
Mars is not coupled with that of a Celtic deity, though even with this
reservation the ascendancy of Mars remains unaffected.
[1154] See _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 109, n. 1. Even in
Gaul the cult of Mars appears to have preponderated among the Aquitani
(_ib._, pp. 106-7, and _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 87, 108-17, 209-13).
[1155] _B. G._, vi, 17, §§ 3-5. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp.
49-50.
[1156] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 84.
[1157] _Pharsalia_, i, 445-6.
[1158] There is no trace of the worship of Esus in the British Isles,
unless M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Les Celtes_, p. 63) is right in
thinking that Esus was a god whose surname was Smertullos, and that
Smertullos, the Celtic Pollux, is to be identified with the Irish
Cuchulainn (see also _Fragm. hist. Graec._, ed. Didot, i, 1841, p.
194, fr. 6; Diodorus Siculus, iv, 56, § 4; _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii,
3026 _c_; and H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs à consulter
sur l’hist. des Celtes_, p. 88). Esus is depicted as a woodman in the
act of felling a tree on No. 2 of four altars which were discovered
at Paris in 1710; while Smertullos appears on the right of No. 3,
threatening a serpent with a club. M. d’Arbois is a little rash in
concluding (_La civilisation des Celtes_, 1899, p. 173) that because
there was a Briton called Esunectus, who may have been an immigrant
from Gaul, Esus was worshipped in Britain. The name AESV occurs on a
coin of the Iceni; but its meaning is uncertain (J. Evans, _Coins of
the Anc. Britons_, p. 386). The scholiasts of Lucan identified Esus
with Mercury; but their authority on such a matter is worthless (see
_Rev. celt._, xviii, 1897, p. 117). Prof. Rhys, however, has recently
examined an inscription (_Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_, 1907, p.
56), which leads him to give a qualified support to the identification.
[1159] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 747, 1114_d_; H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse de
la rel. des Gaulois_, p. 12; W. H. Roscher, _Lex. der griech. und röm.
Mythol._, i, 1884-6, col. 1286-93; _Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xxvi, 1895,
pp. 309, 317; 4^e sér., ii, 1903, pp. 348-50; _Rev. des études anc._,
vii, 1905, pp. 234-8.
[1160] _Rev. celt._, xviii, 1897, pp. 140-1.
[1161] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 168.
[1162] My criticism of M. S. Reinach’s theory is supported, I am glad
to see, by M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, pp. 217-9).
[1163] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du
soleil_, &c., pp. 96-7.
[1164] H. Gaidoz, _Études de mythologie gaul.,--Le dieu gaul. du
soleil_, &c., pp. 7, 61-3, 66, 92, 96; _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 879,
882; J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 55-6; _Class. Rev._, xvii, 1903,
p. 420; _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum),
pp. 60, 136, 152; _Rev. des études anc._, vii, 1905, pp. 156-7;
_Folk-Lore_, xvi, 1905, p. 272, n. 9. The supposition that the wheels
were money is no longer admitted by competent antiquaries (A. Blanchet,
_Traité des monn. gaul._, pp. 27-8).
[1165] J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, p. 326.
[1166] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, pp. 74-5.
[1167] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 200, 203, 875, 1062. Cf. W. H.
Roscher, _Lex. der griech. und röm. Myth._, i, 1884-6, col. 819, and H.
d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, p. 35.
[1168] _Ib._, p. 33. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_,
p. 11.
[1169] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 1345; _Trans. Cumberland and
Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc._, xv, 1899, p. 463.
[1170] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 1082. ‘On se tromperait grandement,’
says M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Les Druides_, 1906, p. 68), ‘si l’on
croyait qu’il y eut entre le dieu gaulois _Belenus_ ... et les dieux
gaulois _Grannos_ et _Borvo_ [all of whom were assimilated to Apollo]
... une analogie quelconque ... Le dieu _Maponus_, “jeune fils”,
n’avait probablement de commun avec Apollon que la jeunesse éternelle.’
[1171] Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Heathendom_, p. 126) says that ‘most of
the remains of antiquity connected with his temple make him a sort of
Jupiter’, but adds (_ib._, p. 130) that he ‘was not simply a Neptune
... he was also a Mars, as the inscriptions at Lydney testify’. But
the testimony of the inscriptions (_Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 138-40)
consists simply in the letter M; and Hübner, to whom the professor
appeals, queries his own suggestion that M stands for _Marti_. [I learn
from one of Mr. A. B. Cook’s articles in _Folk-Lore_ (xvii, 1906, p.
39, n. 1) that Hübner (_Jahrbuch des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im
Rheinlande_, Heft lxvi, 1879, pp. 29-46) corrected and supplemented the
account of Nodons which he had given in the _Corpus_, and interpreted
_D. M. NODONTI_ as d(eo) m(_agno_)--‘the great god’--a reading which
would authorize us to regard him, with Mr. Cook, as ‘a Jupiter and a
Neptune rolled into one’.]
[1172] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 30, 39.
[1173] H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Celtes_, pp. 33-5.
[1174] _Ib._, pp. 54-6.
[1175] J. Rhys, _Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy_, p. 14.
[1176] _B. G._, vi, 18, § 1. Cf. Tacitus, _Germ._, 2.
[1177] C. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et
rom._, ii, 1892, p. 280. Cf. _Bull. de l’Acad. des inscr._, 1887, p.
443, and _Rev. arch._, xx, 1892, pp. 208, 213.
[1178] _Rev. celt._, xvii, 1896, pp. 45-59. Cf. G. Dottin, _La rel.
des Celtes_, pp. 21-2. The Celtic name of the god on the altar at
Sarrebourg was Sucellos.
[1179] C. de Clarac, _Musée de sculpture ant. et mod._,--Planches, t.
iii, 1832-4, pl. 398 [670]; _Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des inscr._,
4^e sér., xv, 1887, p. 444.
[1180] S. Reinach, _Antiquités nat.,--Descr. raisonnée du musée de St.
Germain-en-Laye_, pp. 137, 156-68; H. Gaidoz, _Le grand dieu gaul.
chez les Allobroges_, 1902, p. vi. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_,
p. 81, and _Folk-Lore_, xvi, 1905, p. 273. Dis Pater is identified by
Professor Rhys and M. G. Bloch (E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_, i, 51-2)
with Cernunnos (see p. 284, _infra_). Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman
Festivals_, p. 286.
M. H. Gaidoz (_Rev. arch._, 3^e sér., xx, 1892, p. 213) says that
the worship of Dis Pater in Britain is attested--it hardly needs
attestation--by two inscriptions (_Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 154, 250).
The former is not worth quoting. The latter--one of many inscriptions
addressed to the _Di Manes_ which are contained in the _Corpus_ and
in _Ephemeris epigraphica_, (vols. iii and vii) contains the words
_Secreti Manes qui regna Acherusia Ditis incolitis_.
[1181] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 2.
[1182] _Germ._, 9.
[1183] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 228; v, 1903, p. 106.
[1184] See G. Boissier, _La rel. rom._, i, 6.
[1185] _Class. Rev._, xviii, 1904, pp. 361, 367-72, 375; _Folk-Lore_,
xv, 1904, p. 264; xvi, 1905, p. 321; xvii, 1906, p. 30.
[1186] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 221.
[1187] _Ib._, v, 1903, p. 110.
[1188] _Ib._, vi, 1904, pp. 111 n. 1, 134 n. 4; A. Holder,
_Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, ii, 1805-6.
[1189] _Folk-Lore_, xvii, 1906, pp. 59, 71.
[1190] _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 110-4.
[1191] G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp.
234-5.
[1192] See _Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 130-1.
[1193] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, vii, 168a, 221, 348, 559; _Ephemeris
epigr._, iii, 1877, p. 120; iv, 1881, p. 198a; _Rev. des études anc._,
viii, 1906, pp. 53-8.
[1194] _Rev. celt._, i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19.
[1195] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, pars i, fasc. i, p. 249.
[1196] J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 99.
[1197] _Rev. celt._, i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19.
[1198] Diodorus Siculus, v, 29, § 4; _Rev. celt._, viii, 1887, pp. 47,
59, n. 13; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _La civilisation des Celtes_, pp.
374-5; _Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 252.
[1199] See E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 229-34.
[1200] J. Evans, _Coins of the Ancient Britons_, p. 121, Suppl., p.
477; Cf. _Rev. celt._, xxi, 1900, pp. 297-9.
[1201] _B. G._, vii, 88, § 4; E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._,
iii, 1890, pl. xii; S. Reinach, _Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et
rom._, ii, 746-7; H. d’A. de Jubainville, _La civilisation des Celtes_,
1899, pp. 390-1; _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 48.
[1202] _Corpus inscr. Lat._, xiii, 3026 _b_, _c_. Cf. G. Dottin, _La
rel. des Celtes_, pp. 20-1, 28, and _Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 199.
M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_ib._, p. 195) thinks that the original
Epona was the mare deified, and that the woman in the statues was a
Greek addition. Cf. A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 1885, pp. 118-20, and
Sir A. Lyall’s _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, p. 18.
[1203] xxii, 57, § 10; xxiii, 24, § 11.
[1204] ii, 32, § 6.
[1205] _B. G._, vi, 13, § 10, 17, § 5; Tac., _Ann._, xiv, 30; Dion
Cassius, lxii, 7, § 3. Cf. G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, p. 30.
Strabo (iv, 4, § 6), Diodorus Siculus (v, 27, § 4), Plutarch (_Caesar_,
26), and Suetonius (_Divus Iulius_, 54) speak of temples in Transalpine
Gaul; but all archaeologists would admit that the words which they
used--τέμενος, ἱερόν, fanum, and templum--did not denote roofed
edifices. I think, however, that Livy (xxii, 57, § 10, xxiii, 24, § 11)
had such buildings in mind. Whether he was well informed is another
question. Cf. _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 279-80.
[1206] Tacitus, _Germ._, 9.
[1207] Livy, i, 31, § 3. Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_,
pp. 338-9, and J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 210-1.
[1208] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 190-3. Cf. vol. xi, 1890, p. 225.
M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Rev. arch._, 4^e sér., viii, 1906, p. 146)
says that ‘la vie de Saint Samson désigne par le mot _simulacrum_
une pierre levée, _lapis stans_, qui était l’objet d’un culte en
Grande-Bretagne au milieu du vi^{e} siècle’, &c.
[1209] Pausanias, vii, 22, § 4.
[1210] M. Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 284 n. 6, 285
n. 1), referring to the passage in which Lucan (iii, 412-3) describes
the Druids’ grove near Massilia,--
_simulacraque maesta deorum
Arte carent caesisque exstant informia truncis_,
and interpreting it differently from M. Reinach, argues that Caesar’s
_simulacra_ ‘ne peut signifier que des objets ayant déjà vaguement
l’aspect de forme humaine’. In regard to the ‘statues--menhirs’, which
the abbé Hermet (_Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._,
1900 [1903], pp. 335-8) regards as figures of divinities, see p. 200,
_supra_, and cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, p. 168.
[1211] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 199.
[1212] M. d’A. de Jubainville (_ib._, xxvii, 1906, p. 122) argues
that the absence of pre-Roman Gallic statues is due not to Druidical
influence but to the fact that the Gauls built their houses not of
stone but of wood, and were therefore ignorant of the art of sculpture!
But houses built of stone have been found at Bibracte. See _Congrès
internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1900 (1902), pp. 418-9.
[1213] Augustine, _De civ. Dei_, iv, 31.
[1214] _Germ._, 9.
[1215] G. Boissier, _La rel. rom._, 1892, pp. 8, 35. Cf. Ovid, _Fasti_,
vi, 295.
[1216] See _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p.
115.
M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 251, n. 1)
maintains that Caesar (_B. G._, vi, 19, § 4) does not say that the rich
were cremated, but only their slaves. M. Jullian’s interpretation of
this well-known passage is, I believe, unique; anyhow, the statement in
the text rests upon certain archaeological evidence. See _Rev. celt._,
xx, 1899, pp. 119-20; _Rev. de synthèse hist._, 1901, p. 50; and _Guide
to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 84.
[1217] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 320, 322, 325.
[1218] J. R. Mortimer, _Forty Years’ Researches_, p. 357.
[1219] J. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times,--the Bronze and Stone
Ages_, p. 229.
[1220] _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-3; _Archaeol.
Journal_, xliv, 1887, p. 271; _Archaeol. Cant._, xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2;
_Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 109.
[1221] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp.
106-7, 110-1. Cf. _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 6. Mr.
Reginald Smith (_Guide_, &c., p. 112) remarks, in regard to the ‘Danes’
Graves’ near Driffield, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, that ‘the
bodies lay indifferently on the right or left side, though the majority
had the head at the north end of the grave: there was thus’, he adds,
‘no tendency to face the sun, as in the Bronze period’. Since the
bodies, on whichever side they lay, would have faced either the morning
or the afternoon sun, Mr. Smith’s observation apparently assumes that
in the Bronze period corpses were laid so as to face the morning sun,
which was far from being an invariable rule. See pp. 188-9, _supra_,
and the authorities there cited; also _Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist.
Mag._, x, 1866, p. 101. Unhappily Sir R. C. Hoare, from whom we learn
that in Wiltshire corpses were generally laid with their heads pointing
northward, omits to say whether they were laid on the right or the left
side. [See Addenda.]
[1222] J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art_, pp. 63-71; _Guide to the Ant. of
the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 104-20.
[1223] _Ib._, p. 112.
[1224] _Ib._, p. 122; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 208-12.
[1225] _B. G._, vi, 19, § 4.
[1226] Or, as Dr. Evans, who mentions both alternatives, suggests
(_Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, p. 326), for the introduction of food. See
pp. 115-6, _supra_.
[1227] _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp. 324-7. Cf. _Guide to the Ant.
of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 82-3, and see also W. C.
Borlase, _Nenia Cornubiae_, pp. 247-51.
[1228] _Vitae phil._, ed. Didot, p. 2, ll. 22-3.
[1229] _B. G._, vi, 13, § 11.
[1230] Diogenes Laertius, ed. Didot, p. 1, l. 11.
[1231] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 1.
[1232] _Ib._, 16, § 1.
[1233] See _Rev. des études anc._, iv, 1902, p. 102.
[1234] _B. G._, vi, 21, § 1.
[1235] Arrian, _De venatione_, 34, §§ 1-3.
[1236] See _Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, pp. 47-8, 53, 55, 59-60.
[1237] See p. 291, n. 2, _infra_.
[1238] ‘The political condition of the people of Brythonic Britain,’
says Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 57, 61), ‘towards
the end of the Early Iron Age and the close of their independence,
is best studied in connection with that of Gaul as described by
Caesar.... The state of things, politically speaking, which existed in
Gaul, existed also most likely among the Belgic tribes in Britain.’
That is to say, the professor accepts the political part of Caesar’s
description as applying to the Belgic and the other Brythonic tribes
of both Gaul and Britain. Yet he insists that that part of the same
description which deals with Druidism, and which is indissolubly
connected with the political part, has nothing to do either with the
Belgae or the other Brythons.
[1239] Professor Rhys virtually admits this when he says that the
Brythonic dialect was largely influenced by the language of the
aborigines. See p. 452, n. 8, _infra_.
[1240] The problem of the origin of Druidism is interesting as
an example of the divergence which exists among Celtic scholars
upon almost every important question of Celtic religion, and also
because it once more illustrates the working of that powerful but
erratic engine,--the mind of Professor Rhys. The first known mention
of Druidism, the substance of which is reproduced in Diogenes
Laertius’s _Lives of the Philosophers_, occurred in a work by Sotion
of Alexandria, who lived about 200 B.C. From this, M. d’Arbois de
Jubainville (_Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des
Celtes_, 1902, pp. 187-8) infers that the Belgic invaders of Britain
found Druidism flourishing there about that date, and transplanted
it into the country which they had left, but with which they kept
up a constant intercourse. M. d’Arbois has consistently maintained
this view for many years; and under his influence Professor Rhys
affirmed in 1879 (_Lectures on Welsh Philology_, 2nd ed., pp. 83-4)
that Druidism reached Gaul ‘undoubtedly through the Belgae who had
settled in Britain’. Now, however, the professor rightly holds that the
Belgae were preceded in Britain by other Brythons (_Celtic Britain_,
1904, p. 4); and it would seem therefore that the date of the first
mention of Druidism gives no clue as to the place where it originated.
Moreover, Professor Rhys has long been of opinion that there is ‘no
proof that any Belgic or Brythonic people ever had Druids’ (_ib._,
2nd ed., 1884, p. 69; 3rd ed., 1904, p. 69; _Report of ... the Brit.
Association_, 1900, p. 894). In 1901, accordingly, he argued (_Celtic
Folk-lore_, ii, 623, 685) that the Goidelic invaders of Britain (whose
existence, I must remind the reader, is denied by some Celtic scholars)
‘got their magic and druidism’ from ‘the [imaginary] dwarf race of
the _sids_’ (see p. 391, _infra_). But in 1900 (_The Welsh People_,
p. 83) and again in 1902 (_ib._, 3rd ed.) he affirmed that Druidism
had been ‘evolved by the Continental Goidels, or rather accepted by
them from the Aborigines’. Presumably, then, they already had Druids
when they invaded Britain, and had no need to borrow them from the
_sids_. By 1904, however, the professor appears to have concluded
that Druidism originated independently among the aborigines both
of Gaul and of Britain, and that with both it was an inheritance
from common ancestors; for, after telling us (_Celtic Britain_, 3rd
ed., p. 69) that Druidism ‘may be surmised to have had its origin’
among ‘the non-Celtic natives’ of Britain, he goes on to say that it
‘possessed certain characteristics which enabled it to make terms
with the Celtic conqueror, both in Gaul and in the British islands’;
while on page 73 he remarks that ‘it is hard to accept the belief ...
that druidism originated here’, and concludes that ‘the Celts found
it both here and there [in Gaul] the common religion of some of the
aboriginal inhabitants’. But the weary student who hopes to be allowed
to acquiesce in this conclusion is distracted by finding that on page
4 of this very book, in which the professor insists that ‘there is no
proof that any ... Brythonic people ever had Druids’, he affirms that
‘traces of [the Goidels] are difficult to discover on the Continent’
(_Celtic Britain_, p. 4). This time the conclusion would seem to be
that the Gauls, whose Druids Caesar described, were neither Goidels nor
Brythons! It is hardly necessary to add that the professor has since
satisfied himself (see p. 410, _infra_) that traces of Continental
Goidels are abundant.
As we have already seen (p. 114, _supra_), M. S. Reinach (_Acad. des
inscr. et belles-lettres_,--comptes-rendus de l’année 1892, 4^e sér.,
xx, 6-7) attributes the megalithic monuments of Gaul to Druidical
influence, arguing that their construction is inexplicable except on
the hypothesis of ‘une aristocratie religieuse exerçant un empire
presque absolu sur une nombreuse population’ (_Rev. celt._, xiii,
1892, p. 194). Certainly: but if it is a fair conclusion that this
hierarchy was composed of Druids, might it not be argued that Druidism
was a world-wide institution, or at least co-extensive with rude stone
monuments? On the other hand, Professor J. von Pflugk-Harttung (_Trans.
Roy. Hist. Soc._, N. S., vii, 1893, p. 57) can see no reason for
supposing that Druidism was originally non-Aryan.
M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 260) seems
inclined to believe that the priests (_sacerdotes_) of the Cisalpine
Boii (Livy, xxiii, 24, § 12) were Druids; and I admit that it is
impossible to prove that they were not.
[M. d’A. de Jubainville, in his latest volume (_Les Druides_, p. 13),
infers from Caesar’s statement, that Druidism originated in Britain,
that it was of Goidelic [why not pre-Goidelic?] origin, and holds (pp.
22-3) that it was imposed by the Goidels upon their Gallo-Brythonic
conquerors.]
[1241] _Ann._, xiv, 30. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xxx, 1 (4), § 13.
[1242] _B. G._, vi, 13-4, 16.
[1243] Hoc maxime ad virtutem excitari putant metu mortis neglecto
(_ib._, 14, § 5). See p. 295, _infra_.
[1244] This statement is, I admit, open to dispute. Caesar (_B. G._,
vii, 33, § 4) does not expressly say that Druids exercised the right in
question, but priests (_sacerdotes_); and it has been argued that those
priests may not have been Druids (see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_,
1899, p. 534, n. 3, and G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, p. 41). But,
so far as we know, the only other name that designated a priest in Gaul
was _gutuater_, which occurs in two Gallo-Roman inscriptions (_ib._,
and _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 818); and I doubt whether it
is possible to prove that in pre-Roman times the _gutuater_ was not
a Druid. Anyhow, considering the terms in which Caesar describes the
Druids, considering what he says of their power, political and legal as
well as spiritual (_fere de omnibus controversiis publicis privatisque
constituunt_), I find it difficult to believe that they would have
permitted any priest who was not one of themselves to exercise the
very important function which he describes in _B. G._, vii, 33. [For
confirmation of the statement in the text see H. d’A. de Jubainville,
_Les Druides_, p. 159, who, however (pp. 2-6), insists that _gutuatri_
were distinct from Druids.]
[1245] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 30; Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 3.
[1246] _Chronica minora_, ed. Th. Mommsen, iii, 1898, p. 182, 11, 14-7.
Cf. E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i, 1903, pp. 104-8; _Rev. celt._,
xxvi, 1905, p. 289; and Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, ii, 1899, pp.
312-3. In regard to the Druidical practice of human sacrifice see N.
Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796, pp. 264-72; _Nouvelle rev.
hist. du droit français et étranger_, 1898, pp. 289-300; Rice Holmes,
_Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 533; and J. G. Frazer, _The
Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, pp. 319-23, 326.
[1247] M. G. Bloch (_Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895,
p. 151), referring to Caesar (_B. G._, vi, 13, § 5), argues that the
suitors who appealed to Druids probably all belonged to the upper class
(_equites_), who, having unlimited rights over their dependents (_ib._,
§ 3), doubtless decided their disputes.
The meaning of the ‘awards and penalties’ (_praemia poenasque_) which
the Druidical judges fixed is uncertain. See H. d’A. de Jubainville,
_Études sur le droit celt._, i, 80-1; G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir
à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, p. 190; and Sir H. Maine, _Early Hist. of
Inst._, 1875, p. 136.
[1248] _Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895, pp. 149-50.
[1249] _B. G._, v, 55, § 3. Cf. viii, 30, § 1.
[1250] _Ib._, vi, 13, § 10.
[1251] _Bibl. hist._, v, 28, § 6.
[1252] Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8.
[1253] _E.g._ by Fustel de Coulanges (_Rev. celt._, iv, 1879-80, p. 53).
[1254] H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois_, p. 18.
[1255] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 98. The pentagram,
which, says Professor Tylor (_Ency. Brit._, xv, 1883, p. 203), is ‘an
interesting proof of tradition from the Pythagoreans’, has also been
found on a more recently discovered British coin (J. Evans, _Coins_,
&c.,--Suppl., p. 573); on a bucket in Carnarvonshire (_Archaeol.
Cambr._, 6th ser., v, 1905, p. 256); on a pebble in a broch at
Burrian, Orkney (_ib._); and on Gallic coins of the Carnutes, Senones,
Suessiones, and Remi (A. Blanchet, _Traité des monn. gaul._, pp. 331,
360, 378, 385-6).
M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Études sur le droit celt._, i, 1895, p.
5), referring to Mela, iii, 2, § 19 (_unum ex his quae praecipiunt
in vulgus effluxit, videlicet ut forent ad bella meliores, aeternas
esse animas vitamque alteram ad manes. Itaque cum mortuis cremant
ac defodiunt apta viventibus_), asserts that the teaching of the
Druids differed from that of Pythagoras: they did not inculcate
metempsychosis, but merely the immortality of the soul. He also
insists, quoting Valerius Maximus, ii, 6, § 10, that, in the belief
of the Gauls, the life to come was analogous to life upon earth (cf.
N. Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796, pp. 182-8). But it is not
proved that Caesar, whose authority is higher than that of Mela, and
whose testimony is not really contradicted by him, was misinformed when
he said that the Druids taught _non interire animas, sed ab aliis post
mortem transire ad alios_; and Valerius Maximus himself remarks that
the belief of the Gauls was identical with that of Pythagoras. Many
Christians, who believe in the immortality of the soul, also believe,
or fancy that they believe, in the transmigration of souls. Still, as I
have suggested in the text, it is quite possible that even the Druids
did not preach the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis, and that
Caesar did not intend to convey that they did.
[1256] E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, ii, 1903, pp. 75-83.
[1257] _Ib._, pp. 63-5, 77; _Rev. de l’hist. des rel._, xiv, 1886, p.
61; G. Dottin, _La rel. des Celtes_, pp. 35-7.
[1258] _B. G._, vi, 14, § 6.
[1259] See _Rev. celt._, iv, 1879-80, pp. 51-2.
[1260] _B. G._, vi, 18, § 2; Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xvi, 43 (95), §
250. The Germans had the same notion as the Gauls about night and day
(Tacitus, _Germ._, 11). Cf. N. Fréret, _Œuvres complètes_, xviii, 1796,
p. 222, and _Rev. internat. de l’enseignement_, Août, 1895, p. 159.
[1261] See _Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 127; _Rev. celt._, xxv,
1904, pp. 115, 118, 121, 131-2, 160; and J. Rhys, _Celtae and Galli_,
1905, pp. 1-4, 8, 21, 35, 46. Of course we have no right to assume that
the calendar of Coligny, which was not earlier than the first century
of our era, was identical with that of the Britons; but this caution
does not invalidate the statements in the text.
The language of the calendar is a subject of dispute. Prof. Rhys
and M. Camille Jullian (_Rev. des études anc._, v, 1903, p. 127)
unhesitatingly treat it as Celtic: M. d’Arbois de Jubainville regards
the association of _qu_ with _p_ (see pp. 227-8, _supra_) as proof
of its being Ligurian. [Prof. Rhys’s latest view (_Celtic Inscr. of
France and Italy_, p. 99) is that ‘it becomes more and more a question
of names, whether it is to be called Celtic or Ligurian’. But the fact
remains that history and physical anthropology tend to show that the
Ligurians were utterly different from the people among whom the Celtic
language came into being. See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp.
275-81.]
[1262] Cf. W. Warde Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, p. 3.
[1263] Lampridius, _Alexander Severus_, 60; Vopiscus, _Aurelianus_, 44,
_Numerianus, Rev. des études anc._, vi, 1904, p. 258, n. 6; and J. G.
Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, p. 224, note.
M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 359) holds
that Lampridius and Vopiscus were mistaken in designating as _dryades_
women who were mere fortune-tellers, and who should be classed among
the μάντεις or soothsayers, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (v, 31, § 3)
or the οὐάτεις who, according to Strabo (iv, 4, § 4), were specially
concerned with sacrifices. Μάντεις and οὐάτεις, however, who were
doubtless identical, would seem to have been merely Druids of inferior
rank (G. Dottin, _Manuel pour servir à l’étude de l’ant. celt._, pp.
263-4, 267). M. Toutain (_Mélanges Boissier_, 1903, pp. 439-42), who
also regards the _dryades_ as fortune-tellers, denies that there is any
authority for translating the word by ‘Druidesses’, and insists that
if Druidesses had existed, they would not have been mentioned for the
first time by writers of the 3rd century. A. Holder (_Alt-celtischer
Sprachschatz_, i, 1326, 1329), who prints the quotations from
Lampridius and Vopiscus under the heading _Druida_, remarks that
in Lucan, i, 451, instead of _druidae_ there is a various reading
_dryadae_.
[1264] Dion Cassius, lxii, 6, § 1; 7, §§ 2-3. Cf. _Rev. des études
anc._, iv, 1902, pp. 224-5.
[1265] _Ib._, vi, 1904, pp. 261-2. Cf. J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of
the Kingship_, p. 31.
[1266] _De div._, i, 15, § 26; ii, 36, § 76. Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xvi,
43 [95], § 249) says that the Gallic Druids of his time were _magi_,
which is commonly translated by ‘magicians’ (cf. H. Gaidoz, _Esquisse_,
&c., pp. 15-6). But might not the word have been applied to any one who
practised augury and divination (Cicero, _de div._, i, 41, § 90)?
[1267] Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, i, 1899, pp. 2, 26, 135, 161.
[1268] See J. G. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii, 1900, pp. 328 note, 343-4.
[1269] Pliny, _Nat. Hist._, xvi, 44 (95), § 250.
[1270] J. G. Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 212-3.
[1271] M. G. Dottin (_La rel. des Celtes_, p. 41), remarking that
Druids were also politicians, and that the Druid, Diviciacus, led a
life which differed little from that of his brother Dumnorix, who
was not a Druid, concludes that ‘il ne s’agit donc pas d’une classe
sacerdotale, à plus forte raison, comme on l’a dit, d’un clergé
gaulois’. Were there then no clergy in England in the days of Becket,
or of Wolsey, or in France when Richelieu and Mazarin were supreme?
[1272] See H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Druides_, pp. 60, 64, which has
come into my hands since I wrote this chapter.