[1273] The question may be asked, If there were Druids in South-Eastern

Britain, why does Caesar not tell us what part they took, or whether

they took any part, in the campaign of Cassivellaunus? As all readers

of his memoirs have remarked, he is equally silent in regard to the

political activity or the political apathy of the Druids of Gaul. ‘A

singularly powerful priesthood,’ says Prof. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist.

Rev._, xviii, 1903, p. 336), ‘numbering political leaders, like

Divitiacus, among its ranks, might be expected in a national crisis

to take some definite line, requiring notice in the _Commentaries_.

Yet omit two chapters, and so far as the _Commentaries_ go, the Druids

might never have existed.’ M. Camille Jullian (_Vercingétorix_, 1902,

pp. 107-11) argues that they did take an active part in the rebellion

of Vercingetorix, but that Caesar chose to ignore the fact: Caesar

‘_a laïcisé à outrance l’esprit et l’histoire de la Gaule.... Nul ne

croira que la Gaule n’ait pas appelé prêtres et dieux à son secours_’.

Prof. Haverfield, who naturally asks ‘What motive had Caesar for this?’

suggests that an analogy ‘to these powerful non-political priests ...

is provided by various priestly _collegia_ at Rome, which include

political leaders, but which in their augural or other capacity take

no political action’, and maintains that the Druids, ‘as Druids,

uttered no word against Caesar or for him’. But if so, why, at a time

when their power had certainly diminished, did they aid and abet the

insurrection of Civilis (Tacitus, _Hist._, iv, 54)? I would suggest

that Caesar may have bought over the Arch-Druid (_B. G._, vi, 13, §

8)--and his use of secret-service money is one of the matters which

he did not mention--and that if individual Druids did take part in a

crusade, he may not have thought their action sufficiently important

(if he was aware of it) to be worth recording.

[1274] _B. G._, v, 14, § 1.

[1275] _Archaeol. Oxon._, 1892-5 (1895), p. 159.

[1276] The word _Britanniae_ (_B. G._, ii, 4, § 7) is of course used

loosely.

[1277] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, p. 83; Suppl., p. 483.

See also pp. 51, 63, 65, 90, and 94 of the earlier volume.

[1278] Professor Rhys (_The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 88-90) remarks

that ‘since no hint as to a revolution is vouchsafed [in Caesar’s

narrative (_B. G._, ii, 4, § 7)], the probability is that the empire of

Diviciacos in this country subsisted under his successors in Caesar’s

time. But,’ he continues, ‘Diviciacos’s people were the Suessiones

and the Remi; so we should expect to find both of them represented in

Britain, though their names have not been detected. Now we know from

a couple of inscriptions that a god of the Remi was Camulos.’ The

professor goes on to observe that Camulodunum ‘was near Colchester, in

the country of the Trinovantes, in whom we are accordingly prepared

to find the Remi we are seeking’; and, he says, ‘The next neighbours

of the Trinovantes were the Catuvellauni, in whom we probably have

our insular Suessiones. At any rate the name of the Catuvellauni was

also that which, shortened into _Catelauni_ ... eventually became

... Chalons, the name of a town ... in a district usually assigned

to the Remi ... the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes between them

may be regarded as the upholders of the empire of Diviciacos,’ &c.

But in Caesar’s time the Catuvellauni were the bitter enemies of the

Trinovantes: Camulos was worshipped by many other tribes besides the

Remi; and although it is probable that the Gallic Catuvellauni were

clients of the Remi in the time of Caesar (Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s

Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 476-7), it is not unlikely that they were

one of the tribes which placed themselves under the protection of the

Remi in consequence of the favour shown to the latter by Caesar (_B.

G._, vi, 12, § 7). The passage in which Caesar mentions Diviciacus

leaves upon my mind the impression that his empire, like that of

Celtillus, the father of Vercingetorix, was short-lived. At all events

there is no evidence for asserting its continuance.

[1279] Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis, quod

omnis Gallia ad septentriones vergit, maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in

Britanniam proficisci contendit, quod omnibus fere Gallicis bellis

hostibus nostris inde subministrata auxilia intellegebat, &c. _B. G._,

iv, 20, § 1.

[1280] ... Οὐενετοὶ μὲν εἰσιν οἱ ναυμαχήσαντες πρὸς Καίσαρα· ἕτοιμοι

γὰρ ἦσαν κωλύειν τὸν εἰς τὴν Βρεττανικὴν πλοῦν, χρώμενοι τῷ ἐμπορίῳ

(_Geogr._, iv, 4, § 1)

[1281] The estuary of the Loire was the nearest considerable harbour to

the scene of the naval battle. It is not likely that Caesar would have

sent his fleet to any of the smaller ports in the country of the Veneti

(see my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 665); but supposing that

he did so, my argument would hardly be affected.

[1282] See pp. 494-7, _infra_.

[1283] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 663-74.

[1284] Except perhaps sweeps, which they may have used occasionally to

help them in tacking.

[1285] Reliquum erat certamen positum in virtute, qua nostri milites

facile superabant. _B. G._, iii, 14, § 8.

[1286] ius legatorum. _Ib._, 16, § 4.

[1287] quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. _B. G._, iv,

21, § 3.

[1288] See pp. 552-95, _infra_.

[1289] See A. E. E. Desjardins, _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 1876, pl.

xv (p. 352), pl. xvii (p. 384), and cf. _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région

boulonnaise_, i, 1899, p. 30.

[1290] tamen magno sibi usui fore arbitrabatur si modo insulam adisset,

genus hominum perspexisset, loca, portus, aditus cognovisset. _B. G._,

iv, 20, § 2.

[1291] See p. 329, _infra_.

[1292] Dion Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4. See p. 509, _infra_.

[1293] neque his ipsis quicquam praeter oram maritimam atque eas

regiones quae sunt contra Gallias notum est. _B. G._, iv, 20, § 3.

[1294] See _Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 26.

[1295] C. Volusenus, tribunus militum, vir et consilii magni et

virtutis. _B. G._, iii, 5, § 2.

[1296] See p. 300, _supra_.

[1297] See _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxxvii, 1881, p. 272.

[1298] See pp. 532-52, _infra_.

[1299] See pp. 629, 635-6, _infra_.

[1300] See pp. 547-8, 632-3, _infra_.

[1301] See pp. 530-1, _infra_.

[1302] See pp. 595-6, 651, 664-5, _infra_.

[1303] See pp. 525-8, 657-9, _infra_.

[1304] See pp. 600-3, _infra_.

[1305] _B. G._, iii, 14, § 4. Cf. C. Torr, _Ancient Ships_, 1894, p. 59.

[1306] M. le Contre-Amiral Serre, _Les marines de guerre de l’ant._,

1885, p. 36. _Naves longae_ were not necessarily even decked (_B. C._,

i, 56, § 1; iii, 7, § 2).

[1307] See pp. 587-8, _infra_.

[1308] See pp. 600-3, _infra_.

[1309] E. A. Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, iii, 1875, p. 399. The minute

details which Mr. F. H. Appach (_C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions_,

1868, pp. 57-8, 99, 107-8) gives as to Caesar’s order of sailing both

in 55 and 54 B.C. are imaginary: in saying this I have the support of

Capt. Iron, the harbour-master of Dover. Moreover, if, as Mr. Appach

conjectures, the transports had been drawn up for the disembarkation in

55 B.C. in two lines, one behind the other, the men, in attempting to

disembark from the rear line, would have been drowned. See _B. G._, iv,

24, § 2, 25, § 3, and p. 673, _infra_.

[1310] In regard to Caesar’s expression--(III. fere vigilia) _solvit_

(_B. G._, iv, 23, § 1), see Prof. R. Y. Tyrrell’s _Correspondence of

Cicero_, i, 1885, p. 193, with which cf. _B. C._, iii, 102, § 7.

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

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

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

[1314] See p. 615, _infra_.

[1315] Cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus angustis mare

continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum adigi posset.

_B. G._, iv, 23, § 3.

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

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

[1318] See pp. 610-1, 647-9, _infra_. Strictly speaking, the true (not

magnetic) direction of the stream, west of the South Foreland, would

have lain between about ENE. and NE. by E. See _Archaeologia_, xxxix,

1863, pp. 291-3.

[1319] Cf. _B. G._, v, 14, § 2, with _Journ. Brit. Archaeol.

Association_, N. S., ix, 1903, pp. 95-6.

[1320] _B. G._, iv, 25, § 5. See the notes in Kraner--Dittenberger’s

edition and in that of C. E. C. Schneider.

[1321] _B. G._, v, 37, § 3.

[1322] Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 3; J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc.

Britons_, pp. 192, 232, _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 363.

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

[1324] aliae eodem unde erant profectae referrentur, aliae ad

inferiorem partem insulae, quae est propius solis occasum, magno suo

cum periculo deicerentur; quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus

complerentur, necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem

petierunt. _B. G._, iv, 28, §§ 2-3. See p. 598, n. 2, _infra_.

[1325] A gale blowing from the north-east on the eastern coast of Kent

would be diverted on the south coast to ENE. This, or possibly NE. by

E., may be assumed to have been the direction of the wind when the

transports were scudding before it. If it had blown from a point nearer

north they would have found shelter under the lee of the southern

cliffs. See p. 582, _infra_.

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

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

[1328] _B. G._, i, 50, §§ 4-5.

[1329] My view, which is based upon _B. G._, iv, 32--not § 5 only--is

supported by Turpin de Crissé (_Comm. de César_, i, 1785, p. 294), but

differs from that of von Göler (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 136, n. 3).

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

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

[1332] It is impossible to decide whether the cohort or half-cohort

which reported to Caesar (_B. G._, iv, 32, § 1) was an outlying piquet,

as von Göler thinks (_Gall. Krieg_, 1880, p. 136, n. 2), or a guard

stationed just outside one of the gates. The latter appears to have

been the usual position. (_B. G._, vi, 37, §§ 3-4; _B. C._, i, 75, § 3;

iii, 94, § 6). Von Göler’s opinion is based upon a mistranslation of

the word _longius_ (_B. G._, iv, 32, § 3).

[1333] C. Schneider (_Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris_, i, 407) in a

note on _B. G._, iv, 32, § 1, infers from vi, 37, §§ 3-4, that one

cohort was on guard in front of each of the four gates of the camp. But

there is no proof that in _B. G._, vi, 37, § 3, the word _cohors_ means

an entire cohort, and not details thereof, or even if it does, that any

hard-and-fast rule prescribed that, without regard to circumstances,

one entire cohort, no more and no less, should invariably guard each of

the four gates.

[1334] ... nostri se ex timore receperunt. Quo facto ad lacessendum

hostem et committendum proelium alienum esse tempus arbitratus, suo se

loco continuit, &c. _B. G._, iv, 34, §§ 1-2.

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

[1336] Eo duae omnino civitates ex Britannia obsides miserunt, reliquae

neglexerunt. _B. G._, iv, 38, § 4.

[1337] Cf. _B. G._, v, 8, § 4.

[1338] Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. des ant. grecques et rom._, i,

59-60 (ACTUARIAE NAVES).

[1339] I infer from Caesar’s narrative (see p. 334, _infra_) that his

vessels were not provided with lee-boards, in regard to which see E. F.

Knight, _Sailing_, 1900, pp. 16, 25.

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

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

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

[1343] _Mescinium Rufum_, quem mihi commendas regem Galliae faciam....

Tu ad me alium mitte quem ornem.... Mitto igitur ad te Trebatium, &c.

_Fam._, vii, 5, § 2. See R. Y. Tyrrell, _Correspondence of Cicero_, ii,

1886, p. 112, note.

[1344] In Britannia nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti. Id si

ita est, essedum aliquod capias suadeo et ad nos quam primum recurras.

_Ib._, vii, 7, § 1.

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

[1346] Sed ille scripsit ad Balbum fasciculum illum epistolarum in

quo fuerat mea et Balbi totum sibi aqua madidum redditum esse, ut

ne illud quidem sciat, meam fuisse aliquam epistolam. Sed ex Balbi

epistola pauca verba intellexerat, ad quae rescripsit his verbis: ‘De

Cicerone te video quiddam scripsisse, quod ego non intellexi: quantum

autem coniectura consequebar, id erat eius modi ut magis optandum

quam sperandum putarem’. _Q. fr._, ii, 10, § 4. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell,

_Correspondence of Cicero_, ii, 1886, p. 110, note.

[1347] Modo mihi date Britanniam, quam pingam coloribus tuis, penicillo

meo. _Q. fr._, ii, 13, § 2.

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

[1349] Britannici belli exitus exspectatur. Constat enim aditus insulae

esse muratos mirificis molibus. Etiam illud iam cognitum est, neque

argenti scripulum esse ullum in illa insula neque ullam spem praedae

nisi ex mancipiis, ex quibus nullos puto te litteris aut musicis

eruditos exspectare. _Att._, iv, 16, § 7. See pp. 666-7, _infra_.

[1350] See p. 727, _infra_.

[1351] singulari militum studio in summa omnium rerum inopia circiter

DC eius generis cuius supra demonstravimus naves et longas XXVIII

invenit instructas neque multum abesse ab eo quin paucis diebus deduci

possint. _B. G._, v, 2, §2.

[1352] See C. E. C. Schneider’s note (_Comm. de bellis C. Iulii

Caesaris_, ii, 1849, pp. 43-4).

[1353] See my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 453-6, and H. J.

Heller’s remarks in _Zeitschr. für allgemeine Erdkunde_, xviii, 1865,

pp. 185-6.

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

[1355] Ex Quinti fratris litteris suspicor iam eum esse in Britannia.

Suspenso animo exspecto quid agat. _Att._, iv, 15, § 10.

[1356] nihil hunc se absente pro sano facturum arbitratus qui

praesentis imperium neglexisset. _B. G._, v, 7, § 7.

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

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

[1359] Cicero, _ad Fam._, xii, 16, §§ 2-3, xv, 21; _ad Q. fr._, iii, 1,

§ 9. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, _Correspondence of Cicero_,

iv, 1894, pp. lvii-lviii.

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

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

[1362] See p. 658, _infra_.

[1363] Polybius, i, 50, §§ 7-8, 51, § 1. Cf. x, 43-7, and _Ency.

Brit._, xxii, 1887, p. 49.

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

[1365] See p. 348, _infra_.

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

[1367] eo minus veritus navibus quod in litore molli atque aperto

deligatas ad ancoras relinquebat. _B. G._, v, 9, § 1.

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

[1369] See p. 253, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[1374] _B. G._, v, 11, § 8. Cf. i, 30, § 4; ii, 4, § 4; iii, 8, § 3;

vii, 63, §§ 6-7; and my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1903, p. 12.

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

[1376] ... repente ex omnibus partibus ad pabulatores advolaverunt, sic

uti ab signis legionibusque non absisterent. _B. G._, v, 17, § 2. See

p. 692, _infra_.

[1377] ... neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes

contenderunt. _B. G._, v, 17, § 5.

[1378] See p. 675, _infra_.

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

p. 197.

[1380] See p. 676, _infra_.

[1381] _B. G._, iv, 2, § 2.

[1382] W. Ridgeway, _Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse_,

pp. 94-5, 102-3.

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

[1384] See p. 676, _infra_.

[1385] Livy, x, 28-30.

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

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

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

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

[1390] See p. 697, _infra_.

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

[1392] Sed ea celeritate atque eo impetu milites ierunt, cum capite

solo ex aqua extarent, ut hostes impetum legionum atque equitum

sustinere non possent ripasque dimitterent ac se fugae mandarent. _B.

G._, v, 18, § 5.

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

[1394] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 284-5. I am inclined to

think that the Bibroci, whether their name is connected with that of

Berkshire or not, and the other two may have lived on the south of

the Thames. Otherwise would they not have been clans either of the

Trinovantes or the Catuvellauni? It seems unlikely that any group

included in the latter would have dared in spite of Cassivellaunus to

surrender. Dr. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_,

1896, xv,--‘Roman Britain’) suggests that the Bibroci may have been in

Berkshire, and that they and the Segontiaci were clans of the Atrebates.

[1395] See J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp. 41, 225, 272-5,

Suppl., pp. 534, 539-40; and _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 273.

Sir J. Evans says that the word SEGO on coins of Tasciovanus ‘seems

plainly to point to the tribe of the Segontiaci’; and as VER. on coins

stands for Verulam, so SEGO, may stand for Segontium, the site of which

is, however, unknown.

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

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

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

[1399] O iucundas mihi tuas de Britannia litteras! Timebam Oceanum,

timebam litus insulae. Reliqua non equidem contemno, sed plus habent

tamen spei quam timoris, &c. _Q. fr._ ii, 15 (16), § 4.

[1400] De Britannicis rebus cognovi ex tuis litteris nihil esse nec

quod metuamus nec quod gaudeamus. _Ib._, iii, 1, § 10.

[1401] Ex Britannia Caesar ad me Kal. Sept. dedit litteras, quas ego

accepi A.D. IIII. Kal. Octobr., satis commodas de Britannicis rebus,

quibus, ne admirer quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te

fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit. _Ib._, § 25.

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

[1403] Such is Caesar’s statement (_B. G._, v, 22, § 3): but only his

perfervid admirers deny that in certain passages of his memoirs he

was guilty of misrepresentation; and there are critics who argue that

he employed Commius to induce Cassivellaunus for a consideration to

negotiate. See pp. 669-71, _infra_.

[1404] A Quinto fratre et a Caesare accepi A.D. IX. Kal. Nov. litteras,

datas a litoribus Britanniae proximis A.D. VI. Kal. Octobr. Confecta

Britannia, obsidibus acceptis, nulla praeda, imperata tamen pecunia,

exercitum _e_ Britannia reportabant. _Att._, iv, 18, § 5. See pp.

712-3, 726, _infra_. Strabo (iv, 5, § 3) says that Caesar got much

booty besides slaves.

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

i, 1897, p. 863.

[1406] Hominum est infinita multitudo creberrimaque aedificia fere

Gallicis consimilia, pecoris magnus numerus. _B. G._, v, 12, § 3.

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

[1408] Nos nihil de eo percontationibus reperiebamus, nisi certis ex

aqua mensuris breviores esse quam in continenti noctes videbamus.

_Ib._, 13, § 4.

[1409] _Ib._, 14, §§ 4-5.

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

[1411] See p. 223, _supra_.

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

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

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

§ 6.

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

412-7.

[1416] _Phars._, ii, 572.

[1417] See the passages quoted on pp. 329, 348, 350, _supra_, and also

Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 2; Strabo, iv, 5, § 3; Plutarch, _Caesar_,

23; Appian, _De rebus Gall._, i, 5, _B. C._, ii, 17; Dion Cassius,

lxii, 4, § 1; Tacitus, _Agricola_, 13; and Suetonius, _Divus Iulius_,

25.

[1418] ... divus Iulius cum exercitu Britanniam ingressus, quamquam

prospera pugna terruerit incolas ac litore potitus sit, potest videri

ostendisse posteris, non tradidisse (_Agricola_, 13).

[1419] Th. Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, v, 1894, p. 66 (_Röm. Gesch._,

iii, 1889, p. 272). Mommsen is, I think, nearer the truth when he says

(_The Provinces of the Roman Empire_, i, 1886, p. 171 [_Röm. Gesch._,

v, 155]) that ‘the Britons ... certainly did not long pay--perhaps

never paid at all--the tribute,’ &c.

[1420] _Bibl. Hist._, v, 21, § 2.

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

[1422] ... φέρει δὲ σῖτον καὶ βοσκήματα καὶ χρυσὸν καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ

σίδηρον· ταῦτα δὴ κομίζεται ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ δέρματα καὶ ἀνδράποδα, &c.

_Geogr._, iv, 5, §§ 2-3.

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

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

[1425] _Ann._, xiv, 31.

[1426] See p. 510, _infra_.

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

[1428] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxvi, 1870, p. 198;

_Archaeologia_, liii, 1892, pp. 247-8. Silver coins of two values

have been found in Sussex (J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, pp.

109-10).

[1429] _Ib._, p. 44.

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

ser., xvi, 1896, pp. 183-4.

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

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

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

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

[1435] _Ib._, p. 38.

[1436] _Ib._, p. 406.

[1437] _Ib._, p. 131.

[1438] _Ib._, pp. 40, 129; Suppl., pp. 433, 549, map facing p. viii,

and indices of both vols.

[1439] _Ib._, p. 41.

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

[1441] 22, 7 (9). Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., p. 36) says that Solinus

made the statement quoted in the text about the Silures of South Wales;

but he speaks of the inhabitants of the island of Silura, which, he

says, is separated from the country of the Dumnonii (Cornwall) by a

stormy strait (_Siluram insulam ab ora quam gens Brittana Dumnonii

tenent turbidum fretum distinguit_). Mommsen, in his edition of

Solinus (p. 113), remarks that as there is no island called Silura, we

must either accept the reading of the ‘interpolated’ MSS., _insulae

Sillinae_ (Scilly islands), or assume that Solinus based his statement

upon a careless perusal of the passage in which Pliny (_Nat. Hist._,

iv, 16 [30], § 103) mentions the Silures (_super eam_ [Britanniam]

_haec_ [Hibernia] _sita abest brevissimo transitu a Silurum gente

xxx_). Considering what Solinus says about the Dumnonii, I would adopt

the former alternative.

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

488 and map facing p. viii.

[1443] J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 29, 62. Professor

Rhys (_ib._, pp. 40-1) remarks further that on coins of the Parisi

‘one Volisios styles himself sometimes Domnocoveros and sometimes

Domnoveros, which may possibly have meant the guardian of the state,

or the man of the people. At any rate ... the same term occurs on a

coin of Dumnorix, the Æduan, whose great popularity with the common

people Caesar dwells upon more than once.... On another of these

northern coins the person who issued it gives himself a title, which,

if correctly read Senotigirnios, would literally mean the old lord or

monarch, whatever the exact official signification of that may have

been among the Parisi. Unfortunately, the relation of these two kinds

of coins to one another in point of time is not known; should they

turn out to be of the same date, they might be taken to prove the

state to have been divided into two parties, the one clinging to the

representative of a dynasty, and the other rallying round one who gave

himself out as the friend of the people.’

The professor’s ‘proof’, resting as it does upon possibilities and

uncertainties, is hardly conclusive. Moreover the reading DOMNOVEROS

does not occur at all, and must be replaced by DVMNOVELLAVNOS (J.

Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., p. 591)--the same name as

that of the prince who sought the aid of Augustus (p. 363, _infra_);

while the reading SENOTIGIRNIOS is hopelessly uncertain (J. Evans,

_Coins_, &c., pp. 405, 410-1). The term which occurs on the coins

of Dumnorix (assuming that Dumnorix and Dubnorex are identical) is

DVBNOCOV (E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, _Cat. des monnaies gaul. de

la Bibl. Nat._, 1889, Nos. 5026-48).

It is impossible to decide whether the coins to which Professor Rhys

alludes belong to the Parisi or to the Brigantes (J. Evans, _Coins_,

&c., Suppl., p. 589).

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

[1445] According to Xiphilinus, the continuator and epitomator of Dion

Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 2), the Caledonians had democratic government

(δημοκρατοῦνται δὲ ὡς πλήθει): but Dion wrote in the third century;

and he also says (_ib._, § 1) that they did not till the soil, which,

considering that bronze sickles have been found in Perthshire,

Aberdeenshire, and Sutherlandshire (J. Evans, _Anc. Bronze Implements_,

pp. 199-200), and that ancient Scottish querns are numerous (_Anc.

Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 259), is hardly credible.

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

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

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

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

Northampton_, i, 154.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1456] _Ib._, pp. 137-8. Sir John Evans is mistaken in identifying the

Dobuni with the Boduni, whom Aulus Plautius subdued (Dion Cassius,

lx, 20, § 2), and who were certainly a south-eastern tribe. See Th.

Mommsen, _Provinces_, i, 175, n. 1 (_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 160,

n. 1) and F. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_,

xv,--‘Roman Britain’).

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

[1458] _C. Caligula_, 44.

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

[1460] _Ib._ p. 139.

[1461] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 200-2; Suppl, p. 527. According to

Mommsen (_Provinces_, i, 171 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 156]), Dubnovellaunus

was ‘probably the successor of the prince of the Trinovantes confirmed

by Caesar’. The only ground for this conjecture is that Dubnovellaunus

appears to have had temporary dominion over the country of the

Trinovantes, which had previously been annexed by Tasciovanus. But the

fragmentary numismatic evidence which is all that we have to go upon

seems to show that Dubnovellaunus was originally King of Kent.

[1462] Gold coins have been found, struck by a king named Addedomaros,

which appear to show that he began to reign earlier than Cunobeline,

and that his dominions were in the eastern counties, their centre

being Essex; but there is no evidence for defining his relations with

Cunobeline or Dubnovellaunus (_Numism. Chron._, 4th ser., ii, 1902, pp.

12, 16).

[1463] ‘primas tres’ [litteras], says Mommsen, ‘in Latino exemplo

TIM fuisse Chishullius auctor est, qui unus eas servavit, in Graecis

non superest nisi prima T. Comparavit Evansius (l. c. p. 159) nummos

inscriptos _Tinc... Commi f(ilius)_ repertos praesertim in regione

Sussex, potestque fortasse defendi in lapide Ancyrano superfuisse TIN

et postremam litteram fractam errore pro M acceptam esse.’

[1464] J. Evans, _Coins of the Anc. Britons_, Suppl., pp. 499, 515. In

his earlier volume (pp. 159-60) Sir John Evans remarks that ‘possibly

it is his [Tincommius’s] name which is preserved in the form of TIM, in

company with that of Dubnovellaunus, in the inscription at Ancyra....

I should, however,’ he adds, ‘regard Tinc[ommius] as belonging to a

rather earlier period than Dubnovellaunus, though both must have been

contemporaries of Augustus,’ &c.

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

[1466] Huius opera Commii, ut antea demonstravimus, fideli atque utili

superioribus annis erat usus in Britannia Caesar; pro quibus meritis

civitatem eius immunem esse iusserat, iura legesque reddiderat atque

ipsi Morinos attribuerat. Tanta tamen universae Galliae consensio fuit

libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae ut neque

beneficiis neque amicitiae memoria moverentur omnesque et animo et

opibus in id bellum incumberent. _B. G._, vii, 76, §§ 1-2.

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

[1468] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., p. 156. Cf. pp. 83, 157-8; Suppl., p.

499; and _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xxvi, 1870, p. 196.

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

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

[1471] _Ib._, p. 155.

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

Suppl., p. 521.

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

[1474] _Ib._, pp. 523-4. Is it permissible to suppose that Verica may

have ruled the Gallic, and Eppillus the British Atrebates?

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

[1476] _Ib._, p. 172.

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

[1478] See p. 363, _supra_.

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

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

[1481] As far as I know, I am alone responsible for the conjecture

which I have made in the text.

[1482] Dion Cassius, xlix, 38, § 2.

[1483] _Georg._, i, 30.

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

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

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

[1487] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 32), apparently

forgetting the dates (which I have given in the text) of Augustus’s

preparations for invading Britain, suggests that ‘it may be that it was

the representations of the [fugitive British princes] ... that led him

thereto.’

[1488] ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 3.

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

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

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

[1492] xi, 53.

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

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

[1495] νυνὶ μέντοι τῶν δυναστῶν τινες τῶν αὐτόθι πρεσβεύσεσι καὶ

θεραπείαις κατασκευσάμενοι τὴν πρὸς Καίσαρα τὸν Σεβαστὸν φιλίαν,

ἀναθήματά τε ἀνέθηκαν ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ, καὶ οἰκείαν σχεδόν τι

παρεσκεύασαν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ὅλην τὴν νῆσον (_Geogr._, iv, 5, § 3).

[1496] J. Evans, _Coins_, &c., pp. 226, 289-90. Sir John observes that

Jupiter Ammon, Hercules, Apollo, Diana, Cybele, and other deities are

figured on silver and copper coins of Cunobeline, which proves ‘how

completely Roman mythology had taken root ... unless we are to suppose

that the types were ... left to the mere fancies of the engravers’, who

either were Roman or had been trained in Roman workshops.

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

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

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

[1500] Sir J. Evans (_Coins_, &c., pp. 208-9) gives good reasons for

not identifying Adminius with the Amminus whose name appears on coins.

Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 34, 280.

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

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

[1503] See p. 330, _supra_.

[1504] This is the theory of Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904,

pp. 36-8) and apparently also of Sir John Evans (_Coins of the Anc.

Britons_,--Suppl., pp. 489-93, with which cf. p. 584 and pp. 358,

366-7, 381-5, 387-9 of the earlier volume); but it will not bear

examination. Bericus was one of the fugitives whose retention at Rome

was resented by the two sons of Cunobeline who remained in Britain. It

is admitted, or rather maintained, by Professor Rhys that the Iceni

were hostile to the dynasty of Cunobeline. It would seem therefore that

if, as the professor suggests, Antedrigus was forced to flee from the

Iceni when they joined the Romans, he belonged to a party among the

Iceni which was not opposed to the sons of Cunobeline and was perhaps

even in sympathy with them. But if he had prevailed over Bericus and

forced him to flee, his party was evidently the stronger. Why then

should he have been forced to quit the Icenian territory? Are we to

assume that the anti-Catuvellaunian party among the Iceni, to which

Bericus _ex hypothesi_ belonged, was originally the weaker, but on

the return of Bericus suddenly became the stronger? May we not rather

suppose that Bericus was one of the sons of Cunobeline and was for some

reason at variance with his brothers, Caratacus and Togodumnus; that

the Iceni, with whom he was in sympathy, were for the most part or as

a whole opposed to them; and that Antedrigus was not the leader of a

faction but the king of the Iceni, who, like Gallic kings mentioned by

Caesar, was unpopular with his nobles and his subjects generally, and

was by them forced to flee?

[1505] Dion Cassius, lx, 19, § 1.

[1506] Suetonius, _Claudius_, 17.

[1507] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk_, i, 284-5. Professor Haverfield

(R. L. Poole’s _Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe_, xv,--‘Roman Britain’)

thinks that Claudius’s pretext, as stated by Dion Cassius--the appeal

of Bericus--‘may well be the real reason for the undertaking’. Mommsen

(_Provinces_, i, 174, n. 1 [_Röm. Gesch._, v, 1885, p. 158, n. 1]) says

‘The war was certainly not waged on account of Bericus (Dio, lx, 19)’.

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

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

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

[1511] See _Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 268-9, and cf. F. W.

Maitland, _Domesday Book and Beyond_, 1897, pp. 222, 327-40.

[1512] A few years ago Professor Macalister (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxiii, 1894, pp. 407-8) propounded a set of questions which, he

suggested, might be answered by the help of an ‘ethnographic

census’:--‘Have we’, he asked, ‘any representatives of the pre-Celtic

inhabitants? ... if so, are such people of a pre-Aryan stock, and are

they of the same type as the long-headed people in the long barrows?

... Are these the Silures? ... Were the Celtic immigrants homogeneous?

... What relation subsisted between the Cymric and Gaidhelic-speaking

peoples?’ &c. It will be apparent to any one who reads this article

that most of these questions can be answered without the aid of

an ‘ethnographic census’; and that, if they could not be answered

independently, such aid would be insufficient unless it could be

supplemented by new archaeological and linguistic information. The

unofficial census which has been carried out by Dr. Beddoe, M. H.

Muffang, Sir William Turner, and, perhaps in consequence of Professor

Macalister’s suggestion, by Dr. C. R. Browne, Messrs. Gray and

Tocher, and other anthropologists, is of course incomplete; but it

may be doubted whether the evidence which they have collected would

be seriously modified by further investigation. When Dr. Collignon

undertook a similar informal census in France, he compared in each

department the mean cephalic index of the whole number of the heads

which he had measured with that of the ten which he had measured first;

and in every instance the difference was less than 1 per cent. (Rice

Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 320).

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

[1514] Professor W. Z. Ripley thinks that the difference is nearer

1·5 than 2 (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 516-9); while Mr. Gray (_Man_,

ii, 1902, No. 41, pp. 50-1) regards the method of subtracting 2 as

‘illogical’, and would subtract 8 mm. from the breadth and 10 mm. from

the length.

Certain minute differences between Broca’s system of measuring the

skull, which is followed everywhere except in Germany, and that adopted

by the German anthropologist, von Ihering, are lucidly explained by

Otto Ammon (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 676-82) and Professor Ripley

(_The Races of Europe_, 1900, p. 593), but may, for the purpose of the

present inquiry, be safely disregarded.

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

[1516] For instance, Prof. Ripley (_The Races of Europe_, p. 37),

Dr. Beddoe (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, No. 93), Sir W. Turner

(_Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part iii, 1903, pp. 547-614), and

Prof. Symington (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903, p. 796).

See also _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, pp. 105-6, and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxxiv, 1904, pp. 181-206.

[1517] See Prof. C. S. Myers’s article (_ib._, xxxiii, 1903, pp.

36-40) and _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 13, pp. 28-32. I confess that I do

not believe that for the present inquiry any valuable result would

be attained by revising, on what are called ‘biometric’ lines, the

craniological work which has already been done for ancient Britain. See

_Nature_, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458, and _Biometrika passim_.

[1518] _The Mediterranean Race_, 1901, p. 102. See also _L’Anthr._, x,

1899, pp. 105-6; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1901, p. 778;

_Man_, ii, 1902, No. 41, p. 50; and _Nature_, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458.

[1519] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 104.

[1520] _Ib._, p. 195.

[1521] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iii. 1864-7, p. 284. Cf. G.

Rolleston (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 646, n. 1).

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

For evidence that ‘the mesaticephals’, Sergi’s opinion notwithstanding,

are the result of intermarriage between ‘dolichocephals’ and

‘brachycephals’, see _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, iv, 1894, p.

399; v, 1895, p. 413.

[1523] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 199-200. Professor Rolleston

(_Brit. Barrows_, 1877, p. 568) so far supports Sergi’s view that he

regards a skull as brachycephalic, even though its index be less than

80, if it has what he regards as the distinguishing characteristic

of brachycephaly, which he proceeds to explain in terms that are too

technical for the general reader. Ethnological students will remember

the passage.

[1524] Even Sergi, as Mr. Myers observes (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxxiii, 1903, p. 37), ‘shows signs of yielding the isolated position

which he originally took up as to the utter worthlessness of

indices.’ He has recently affirmed (_Archiv für Anthr._, N. F.,

iii, 1904, p. 120) that the long and the short types of European

skulls are specifically different,--that the ‘Eurafrican’ species

is dolichocephalic and the ‘Eurasiatic’ brachycephalic. See also

_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 587-8.

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

[1526] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 105.

[1527] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 568.

[1528] See A. de Quatrefages and E. T. Hamy, _Crania Ethnica_, 1876-82,

pl. lv, and _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 150.

[1529] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 621. For some valuable remarks on the

permanence of cranial types notwithstanding changes of environment, see

Mr. J. L. Myres’s paper in _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, p. 559, with

which cf. pp. 555-6.

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

[1531] A. H. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 1888,

pp. 205-6. See also Dr. Beddoe’s remarks in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xvii, 1888, pp. 202-9.

[1532] I say ‘for our purpose’ because of many of the skeletons

with which we are here concerned the only relevant measurement that

exists is that of the thigh-bone. Dr. Garson (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxii, 1893, p. 9) thinks that the ‘most reliable estimate of stature

is obtained from the length of the femur and tibia added together’

according to the formula (Femur + Tibia x 100) / 49·4

[1533] _Ib._, xvii, 1888, p. 204. Dr. Beddoe’s arguments are very

strong; and his method appears to me better, on the whole, than that

of Dr. Topinard, expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·1 (_ib._,

xxii, 1893, p. 9), or than that of M. Rollet (_ib._, p. 19, note),

expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·3. So far as I know, the

most exhaustive discussion of the question is that of M. L. Manouvrier

(_Mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 2^e sér., iv, 1892, pp. 347-402), who

points out defects in the methods of Dr. Beddoe and MM. Topinard and

Rollet; but although he has perhaps shown how greater accuracy can be

achieved, the more or less approximate results that have been already

obtained are sufficient for our purpose: we should not be in a better

position for solving the problems of the ethnology of Ancient Britain

even if the Britons whose skeletons have been preserved had been

measured in their lifetime, and the measurements recorded.

[Since the foregoing note was written I have read a most interesting

paper by Dr. Beddoe (_Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall_, xv, 1902, pp.

161-78), which confirms my conviction that his is the best method

of measurement, although he confesses (p. 165) that it ‘probably

errs by excess in the higher statures’. Remarking (p. 163) that

prehistoric bones ‘have lost much of their original substance, and

are probably from 1 to 3 millimetres short of their original length’,

he says, ‘Manouvrier does not seem to have made any provision for

this reduction; and I apprehend that his computed statures must on an

average be a little too low’. See Addenda.]

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

[1535] See p. 35, _supra_.

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

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

[1538] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 217, 221. See also _Quart.

Journ. Geol. Soc._, li, 1895, pp. 505-27, and especially 516 and 526.

[1539] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, pp. 51-5. Cf. Sir J. Evans,

_Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 542, 656, 703.

[1540] See p. 33, _supra_.

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

[1542] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, p. 51, pl. iv-vi; _Nature_,

Nov. 15, 1894, p. 68. A skeleton of palaeolithic age was found two

years ago near Luton in Bedfordshire, but has not been preserved

(_Man_, vi, 1906, No. 6, pp. 10-1).

[1543] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1; Ph. Salmon, _L’Age de la

Pierre_, 1889, p. 62; J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, 1900, pp. 310-2.

[1544] The reader will remember that the age of the Neanderthal skull

is uncertain. See p. 34, _supra_. The _norma verticalis_ of the Galley

Hill skull is different from that of ‘the continental forms’ (_Quart.

Journ. Geol. Soc._, li, 1895, p. 526); and the profile is not brutal.

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

[1546] Der Neanderthalschädel (_Bonner Jahrbücher_, Heft 106, 1901,

pp. 1-72). See also _Globus_, lxxx, 1901, pp. 217-22; lxxxi, 1902, pp.

165-74; the notices of Schwalbe’s article in _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 129,

pp. 186-9; and _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, pp. 356-8, xvii, 1906, pp. 67-72.

[1547] Mr. J. Gray (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 17, pp. 28-9) summarizes

Schwalbe’s most recent views (_Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen_).

[1548] Professor Johnson Symington (_Report of ... the Brit.

Association_, 1903, p. 798) holds that Schwalbe ‘has not sufficiently

recognised the significance of the large cranial capacity of the

Neanderthal skull ... or made sufficient allowance for the great

variations in form which skulls undoubtedly human may present’; and

he affirms that the Neanderthal skull ‘was capable of lodging a brain

fully equal in volume to that of many existing savage races’.

[1549] See p. 40, _supra_.

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

[1551] _Ib._, p. 395.

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

[1553] See p. 35, _supra_.

[1554] See J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, pp. 311-2 and fig. 87.

Dr. J. G. Garson (_Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1) implies, if I

do not misunderstand him, that the Laugerie-Basse skeletons belonged

to the Neanderthal race. I can only invite the reader to compare the

illustrations of the two types, and refer to Deniker, Philippe Salmon,

and the French anthropologists generally in support of my view. But

when Salmon (_L’Age de la Pierre_, p. 64) remarks that ‘le crâne de

Laugerie-Basse ... présente une forme manifeste de transition entre le

type des premiers temps quaternaires et ceux de Cro-Magnon’ [the oldest

of the French neolithic skulls], I am unable to follow him. See _Geogr.

Journ._ xxviii, 1906, p. 546. The known skulls of Neanderthal type do

not belong to ‘les premiers temps quaternaires’, and the age of the

Neanderthal skull is unknown. See p. 34, _supra_.

[1555] See p. 35, _supra_.

[1556] I find that Sir John Evans (_Report of ... the Brit.

Association_, 1897 [1899], p. 12) has argued in the same sense.

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

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

[1559] _Ib._, pp. 110, 292, 297. M. Verneau holds that the skeletons

of Laugerie-Basse and Chancelade are the ‘arrière-petits-fils’ of this

inhabitant of the Mentone cave.

[1560] _Ib._, p. 299.

[1561] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 292-3. Cf. vol. xvi, 1905, pp.

503-6. M. E. Piette (_Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér.,

iii, 1902, pp. 773-4), if I do not misunderstand him, attributes

negroid characters to the Neanderthal race.

[1562] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 308-9. It has been maintained

that another--the so-called steatopygous--race existed in Gaul in

late palaeolithic times. If any reader does not know the meaning of

‘steatopygous’, let him use his dictionary, and he will pardon me for

not having translated the word into plain English. The existence of

this people is inferred from the discovery of certain ‘statuettes’ at

Brassempouy in the department of the Landes (_L’Anthr._, vi, 1895,

pp. 129-51) and near Mentone. I have not seen them; but when I saw

the woodcut of one which was selected for illustration (_Bull. et

mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., iii, 1902, p. 775, fig. 4), it

seemed to me that the carving was so villainous that no scientific

conclusion could be drawn from it; and I am glad to find (p. 778) that

this was the opinion of M. Manouvrier. M. Piette, however, assures

us (_L’Anthr._, vi, 1895, p. 143) that the ‘Venus of Brassempouy’

is ‘l’œuvre d’art la plus parfaite qui soit sortie des mains des

sculpteurs éburnéens’. Anyhow, though it would not be difficult for a

sculptor to make statuettes of steatopygous individuals in the England

of to-day, there is no evidence that the ‘race’ in question, if it

existed in palaeolithic Gaul, ever penetrated into this country.

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

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

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

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

[1567] See p. 435, _infra_.

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

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

[1570] See p. 40, _supra_.

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

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

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

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

[1575] _Ib._ p. 243.

[1576] Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, pp. 475, 499-500,

522, 641; _Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 62.

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

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

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

[1580] See _Quart. Journ. of Science_, 1864, p. 96; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._,

i, 1865, pp. 288-90; _Anthr. Review_, iii, 1865, pp. 372-3; S. Laing,

_Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 114, 125, and fig. 44-7, 60-61;

Worthington Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 37-9; J. Deniker,

_The Races of Man_, p. 312; and _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_,

xxxix, 1905, pp. 423-4. Dr. Wright (_Ib._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 120) has

described two skulls of Chancelade type, found in a round barrow near

Garton-on-the-Wolds of the late Stone Age or Early Bronze Age.

[1581] J. Deniker, _The Races of Man_, p. 312, n. 1; _Scottish Review_,

xx, 1892, pp. 148, 152-3; _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, xv, 1899, p.

261; _Nature_, March 7, 1901, p. 457.

[1582] See p. 59, _supra_.

[1583] _Ethnology_, 1896, p. 113.

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

[1585] _Trans. Internal. Congr. Prehist. Arch._, 1868 (1869), p. 278.

Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell indeed affirms (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_,

xi, 1891, pp. 226-7) that remains of some of the extinct mammals,

including the elephant, ‘are found high up in the’ alluvium, and that

mammoths’ teeth, not ‘derived’, have frequently been met with in peat

in the valley of the Thames.

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

[1587] _Ib._

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

[1589] _Ib._, p. 248.

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

_supra_.

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

[1592] _Ib._, p. 255. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne

Chase_, iv, 10 (pref.), note.

[1593] See Mr. W. J. Knowles’s valuable article in _Journ. Roy. Soc.

Ant. Ireland_, 5th ser., vii, 1897, pp. 1-18.

[1594] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p. 98. See pl. iii and iv,

facing p. 98. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (_Proc. Geologists’ Association_,

xi, 1891, pp. 225-6, note) and Mr. Worthington Smith (_Man, the

Primeval Savage_, p. 299) also regard certain British implements as

mesolithic; and Mr. Spurrell (_op. cit._, p. 226) gives reasons for

believing that the Tilbury skull belonged to a period of transition.

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

[1596] To quote Mr. Allen Brown (_Journ. Anthr. Inst_., xxii, 1893,

p. 93), ‘Sir J. Evans says, “It is almost demonstrable that some of

the chipped celts which have hitherto been classed as Neolithic must

be among the earliest of the Neolithic implements,” and “must in all

probability date back to a very distant period”. It is to these forms,

which appear to be of transition age, that I would apply the term

Mesolithic.... At present some flint implements, which from their form

would be ranged under one of the later Palaeolithic groups by the

French geologists, would be included in the ... Neolithic in England.’

Mr. Brown’s quotation from Sir John Evans (_Anc. Stone Implements_, pp.

85-6) is substantially but not verbally accurate.

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

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

[1599] See p. 49, _supra_.

[1600] See _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiv, 1885, pp. 387-8; _L’Anthr._,

xvi, 1905, pp. 707-9; xvii, 1906, pp. 180-2.

[1601] _Cave Hunting_, p. 243.

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

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

[1604] _L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, pp. 1-17, 388-9; R. Munro, _Prehist.

Problems_, pp. 66-81; _Archaeol. Journal_, lv, 1898, pp. 277-84;

_Athenaeum_, Jan. 14, 1899, p. 53; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, ix,

1899, p. 275, xiv, 1904, pp. 160, 378; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc.

d’anthr._, 5^e sér., v, 1904, p. 614; _Association franç. pour

l’avancement des sc._, 33^e sess., 1904 (1905), p. 1035.

[1605] See p. 61, _supra_. Dr. A. J. Evans, who in 1893 was ‘so

overpowered by the vision of the yawning hiatus’ between the

Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Age that he regarded the skeletons of

the Baoussé Roussé caves as neolithic, has of course since recanted

(_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 908).

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

[1607] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11.

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

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

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

[1611] In _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 288, Professor Rhys suggested

that _Coritani_ might be a pre-Celtic word; and as the suggestion

is repeated on p. 293 of the 3rd edition, which has just appeared

(November, 1904), it would seem that he does not set great store by his

intermediate conjecture,--that _Coritani_ is derived from the Celtic

word _cor_.

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

[1613] _The Welsh People_, 1900, and 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-2. The

references which Prof. Rhys gives to Ripley’s _Races of Europe_

(pp. 322, 328, 521) do not prove that the country of the Coritani

was inhabited by dwarfs, but only by descendants of the neolithic

population.

[1614] _Fians, Fairies and Picts_, 1893, pp. 44-53; _Antiquary_,

xxxvi, 1900, pp. 53-6, 70-4; _Scottish Notes and Queries_, 2nd ser.,

i, 1900, pp. 137-9; _The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist_, N.

S., vii, 1901, pp. 89-97; _Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901, pp. 131-48;

_Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1902, pp. 179-94. See also

_Archaeol. Journal_, x, 1853, pp. 212-23; xx, 1863, pp. 32-7; Sir A.

Mitchell, _The Past in the Present_, 1880, pp. 59-72; _Journ. Brit.

Archaeol. Association_, xxxvii, 1881, pp. 254-61; _Report of ... the

Brit. Association_, 1902 (1903), p. 755; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,

xxxvii, 1903, pp. 352-9.

[1615] _Scottish Notes and Queries_, 2nd ser., i, 1900, pp. 137-8.

‘Mound-dwellings’ and other ‘earth-houses’ are commonly assigned to the

Early Iron Age. See R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_, 1899, pp. 345-81.

[1616] He tells us (_Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901, pp. 139-40) that

‘the early Gaelic chroniclers assert that the Gaels were preceded in

Scotland and Ireland by two races’ [the Picts and the Dananns]. ‘Of

them too,’ he adds, ‘it is said that they lived in hidden habitations,

that they also persecuted the newer race.’ In other words, the

‘mound-folk’ who, according to Professor Rhys, were ‘slaves and

drudges’ of the neolithic race, were themselves persecutors of the

Celts. That the Picts, or some of them, lived in ‘hidden habitations’ I

am not concerned to deny; as for the ‘Dananns’ of Irish legend, I would

ask Mr. MacRitchie to read what Professor Rhys (_Celtic Heathendom_, p.

119) has written about them. ‘The earliest Scottish writer, so far as

I am aware,’ continues Mr. MacRitchie (_Monthly Review_, Jan., 1901,

p. 141), ‘who speaks of the Picts as a small race living underground

was a fifteenth-century Bishop of Orkney, Thomas Tulloch.... Tulloch

compiled a Latin account of Orkney (_De Orcadibus Insulis_) ... and

therein he states that the Picts inhabiting those islands ... in the

ninth century were “not much bigger than pigmies in stature”, and that

... they occasionally took refuge “in little houses underground”’. The

work of Tulloch, or rather Tullock, is not mentioned in the catalogue

of the British Museum; and I cannot verify Mr. MacRitchie’s quotation.

But is the statement of a fifteenth-century compiler about the stature

of a people who lived in the ninth century to be taken seriously as

evidence? And if so, what does it prove about the Picts as a whole?

What more does it prove than this,--that in a remote group of islands

there were dwarfish people who were included under the name ‘Picts’,--a

name which of course denoted not a race but a heterogeneous population,

comprising people whom the physical anthropologist would classify under

several heads?

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

[1618] Cf. _Archaeol. Journal_, xx, 1863, pp. 33-4. Some

‘mound-dwellings’, the chambers in which were of habitable though very

small size, have, I am of course aware, been proved to have been really

dwellings.

[1619] _Antiquary_, xxxvi, 1900, p. 73. See also _Proc. Soc. Ant.

Scot._, vii, 1870, pp. 519-23.

[1620] I find that this suggestion is supported by Mr. W. C. Mackenzie

(_ib._, xxxix, 1905, p. 257), who truly says that tradition ‘measures

its low-statured people by inches, just as it measures its tall peoples

by yards’.

[1621] See W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 552-3, 687, iii,

801, 805, 810, &c. Canon Greenwell (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 344) tells

us that he has examined many mounds in Westmorland, locally called

‘Giants’ Graves’, without finding anything in them. In regard to the

danger of trusting to legend and folk-lore as evidences of the former

existence of giants and dwarfs, see E. B. Tylor, _Prim. Culture_, i,

1903, pp. 385-8.

[1622] _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, xxvi, 1894, pp. 189-254;

_Die Pygmäen und ihre systematische Stellung innerhalb des

Menschengeschlechts_, 1902, reviewed in _Man_, iii, 1903, No. 62, p.

112. See also _L’Anthr._, xv, 1904, pp. 37-9.

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

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

[1625] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 41. Mr. J. R. Mortimer

(_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 333) has, however, affirmed that

‘the few explored long barrows’ of the district between Driffield and

Aldro’ in Yorkshire have yielded skulls whose cephalic indices exceeded

80; and one of the skulls found in the cave of Perthi-Chwareu in

Denbighshire had a cephalic index of 80. See p. 396, n. 17, _infra_.

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

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

(pref.).

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

[1629] Based on Dr. Humphry’s estimate of the relation of the

thigh-bone to the height, viz. 27·5:100.

[1630] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, pp. 71-3. According to the method

recommended by Thurnam in _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 42, p. 3, n. ‡,

the average, deduced from the data which he furnishes in _Mem. Anthr.

Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 72, n. 1, would have been exactly 5 feet 8 inches,

or 1 metre 727!

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

[1632] According to the method of M. Rollet, recommended by Dr. Garson

(see p. 379, n. 3, _supra_), the average height of the fourteen Long

Barrow skeletons the measurements of which are given in Tables I and II

of _Crania Britannica_, would have been just under 5 feet 6⅙ inches, or

about 1 metre 680.

[1633] The skeletons from the Wor Barrow, referred to on p. 111, n. 3,

_supra_, measured by M. Rollet’s method, gave the following results:--5

ft. 9·4 in., 5 ft. 7·2 in., 5 ft. 1·9 in., 5 ft. 0·7 in., 4 ft. 11 in.,

and 4 ft. 10·2 in., or an average of 5ft. 2·4 in. (A. Pitt-Rivers,

_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, vol. iv, one of unnumbered pages

following p. 122).

[1634] _Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxix,

1895, pp. 412-3, 425, 430; xxxvi, 1902, p. 142; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._,

xxxii, 1902, p. 402.

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

[1636] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, pp. 147, 154-5, 161. The

cephalic indices of such of these skulls as could be measured were

75·2, 70, and 66·6 (male), and 75 (female).

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

[1638] _Nature_, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. Mr. C. S. Myers (_Journ. Anthr.

Inst._, xxvi, 1897, p. 123) makes some interesting remarks on ‘the

two [types of Long Barrow skulls] which Dr. Garson has been able to

differentiate’ (cf. _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxiii,

1887, p. 296): but for the purposes of ethnological investigation the

doctor nevertheless places the two types in one group (_Journ. Anthr.

Inst._, xxii, 1893, pp. 13, 15-6).

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

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

[1641] _Ib._, pl. 5.

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

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

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

[1645] See p. 394, _supra_.

[1646] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 654.

[1647] _Crania Britannica_, ii, Table II. See also _Anthr. Rev._, iii,

1865 (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, p. lxvii).

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

inches.

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

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

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

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

[1653] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, N. S., i, 1861, p. 268; S. Laing and T. H.

Huxley, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, p. 123, and figs. 48-51.

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

of Ireland_, iii, 944.

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

83-103.

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

pp. 223-8.

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

114-5.

[1658] It is very doubtful whether the Caithness skulls were neolithic

(_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi, 1902, p. 160, n. 1).

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

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

[1661] _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 128-30. Cf. _Mem. Anthr.

Soc._, iii, 1869, p. 63. Huxley argued that these skulls were also

virtually identical with those of the Australian aborigines; but on

another occasion, as we have seen already (p. 377, _supra_), when his

combative instincts were aroused, he affirmed the contrary.

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

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

[1664] _Ib._, p. 444. Cf. _Fortnightly Rev._, N. S., xvi, 1874, p. 336;

and W. Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, pp. 155, 159, 164, 185, 187.

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

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

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

[1668] Boyd Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_, p. 171. The figures are 76, 75,

80, 79·7, 74·6, 79·4, 74·3 (Perthi-Chwareu); 77 (Cefn cave); and 76·5

(Tyddyn Bleiddyn).

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

444-5, 460.

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

[1671] See the illustrations of the Perthi-Chwareu skulls in _Cave

Hunting_, pp. 168-9.

[1672] No. 7 (figs. 1-4, p. 84 of _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_); no.

2 (figs. 17-20, p. 90); no. 3 (figs. 34-8, p. 98); and no. 5 (figs.

39-43, p. 96).

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

[1674] _Ib._, p. 115.

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

[1676] _Nature_, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; R. Munro, _Prehist. Scotland_,

pp. 58-9, 71. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Archaeol. Journal_, liv, 1897,

p. 338), speaking of the famous Cro-Magnon skeleton and of the gigantic

skeleton without a skull, the discovery of which in the Paviland cave,

Glamorganshire, was recorded in 1824 by Dean Buckland (_Reliquiae

Diluvianae_, p. 82), says:--‘In this group of remains so widely spread

over Europe, we are on the track of a very early Prehistoric people,

belonging to a tall, long-headed race, without the knowledge of pottery

and without polished axes, if negative evidence be accepted.... They

are probably the advance-guard of the Neolithic migration.... Further

evidence is needed before we can define their precise relation to the

Neolithic culture ordinarily so called.’ Further evidence is also

needed before we can affirm that the Paviland skeleton was neolithic at

all (Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone Implements_, &c., 1897, p. 487).

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

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

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

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

[1681] _Proc. Royal Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, pp. 570-85; vi,

1900-2, pp. 334-5; _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1901, pp.

795-7.

[1682] M. J. Deniker (_The Races of Man_, p. 313) even goes so far

as to say that it is not yet certain whether the Long Barrow race

immigrated from the Continent or were descended from the palaeolithic

inhabitants of Britain!

[1683] This definition may be accepted as true in a general sense,

though it leaves out of account the Celtic inhabitants of the

peninsula, whom Strabo loosely called Iberians; but see my _Caesar’s

Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 255-62, and cf. _Rev. des études anc._, v,

1903, pp. 383-4.

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

[1685] _Agricola_, 11. Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines,

et posita contra Hispania Iberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes

occupasse fidem faciunt.

[1686] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville formerly pointed out, in support

of Tacitus’s conclusion, that, according to Festus Avienus (_Ora

maritima_, 433), there was a mountain in the Spanish peninsula called

_Silurus_ (_Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 44). But,

since the origin of the name _Silures_ is unknown, it seems rash to

found an ethnological argument on its resemblance to _Silurus_. In

Mexico there is a river called Tamesi: would M. d’Arbois infer from the

name which Caesar latinized into _Tamesis_ that the people who named

this river were akin to the prehistoric inhabitants of Britain? M.

d’Arbois has since argued that the Silures could not have been Iberian

(_Les Celtes_, p. 30); but his recantation is hardly more reasonable

than his original theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1694] See p. 376, _supra_.

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

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

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

[1698] _Ib._, pp. 267-8. Professor Boyd Dawkins (_Early Man in

Britain_, p. 334) argues that ‘the identification of the Neolithic

aborigines with ... the modern Basques, is confirmed by’ the fact

that _aizcora_, the Basque word for an axe, means ‘stone mounted in

a handle’: but how does this tend to establish the identity of the

British neolithic aborigines with the Basques? It only shows that the

ancestors of the Basques used stone tools.

Since I wrote the paragraph to which this note relates I have read M.

G. Hervé’s interesting article ‘La race basque’ (_Rev. mensuelle de

l’École d’anthr._, x, 1900, pp. 213-37), which confirms my conclusions.

He holds (p. 220) that the Spanish Basques represent ‘une race croisée,

à la constitution de laquelle a pris part, en tant que facteur

principal, la _race ibérique_, la vieille race de Baumes-Chaudes’.

‘Il est clair’, he adds (pp. 221-2), ‘que les Hispano-Basques se

différenciant des Gallo-Basques par tous leurs points de ressemblance

avec les Ibères, les Gallo Basques ne peuvent à aucun titre être

rattachés à ces derniers ... les Ibères, en tout cas, n’ont joué qu’un

rôle médiocre dans leur ethnogénie’. On pp. 235-7 M. Hervé offers

certain tentative suggestions as to the origin of the Basques, whose

purest representatives are the French Basques, and whose physical

characters raise them, he considers, ‘sans conteste au rang de

quatrième race européenne’.

[1699] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 206-7, 210. See also pp. 159-60,

182, 211-3 218-9, 269, 275.

[1700] _Ib._, p. 212.

[1701] _Ib._, p. 269.

[1702] _Ib._, p. 286.

[1703] See p. 110, _supra_. In France also incineration was common in

the Neolithic Age (_Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_, xxii, 1888,

pp. 1-2, 4, 6-7).

[1704] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 182.

[1705] J. B. Davis and J. T. Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 59,

p. 3. See also _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 127, 713-4.

[1706] See Dr. Beddoe’s article in _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 515; _Rev.

mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, p. 171; Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s

Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 251; and _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxvi,

1902, pp. 161-2. Still, Rolleston points out (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 710)

that ‘the orbital index [the relation between the length and breadth of

the socket of the eye], which does put ... the Caverne de l’Homme Mort

into a position of similarity to skulls such as those of the Tasmanian,

Australian, and Melanesian races, puts the neolithic skulls of British

Barrows into a position of superiority’, &c.

The average height of the people of l’Homme Mort was, according to

M. Rollet, 1 m. 578, or nearly 5 ft. 1-9/10 in.; according to M.

Manouvrier, 1 m. 620, or nearly 5 ft. 2-9/10 in. (_Mém. de la Soc.

d’anthr. de Paris_, 2^e sér., iv, 1892, p. 388). See, however, p. 379,

n. 3, _supra_.

[1707] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, pp. 163-4. The

cephalic indices of 35 Baumes-Chaudes skulls varied from 64·3 to 76·1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1714] _Ib._

[1715] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 70.

[1716] _Man_, i, 1901, No. 88, p. 110. Cf. _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873,

p. 113, and A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, p. 173, _La

religion des Gaulois_, p. 4.

[1717] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiv, 1895, pp. 316-30; A. H. Keane,

_Ethnology_, 1896, p. 133; E. Cartailhac, _La France préhist._, 1889,

p. 186; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 476-566, 698-712, iii,

726-55.

[1718] It is remarkable, however, that in Prussia there are no dolmens

east of the Vistula, although stone is as abundant there as in West

Prussia, where there are many. _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, p. 485.

[1719] _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, map facing p. 631; A. Bertrand, _La

Gaule avant les Gaulois_, 1891, map facing p. 128.

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

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

[1722] It would seem that there was also a dolmen in a round barrow in

Lancashire. See _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 240.

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

[1724] Of dolmens in the narrower sense of the word (see p. 65,

_supra_) only two, so far as I know, exist in Scotland. See _Proc.

Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix, 1885, p. 373, and W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of

Ireland_, ii, 424-9, 468.

[1725] _Dict. des sc. anthr._, 1883, p. 1079; E. Cartailhac, _La France

préhist._, 1889, p. 197; B.C. A. Windle, _Remains of the Prehist. Age_,

pp. 195-7; W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 449, 468, 610-2,

632-4, and the maps facing pp. 1, 102, 200, and 305 of vol. i.

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

670; iii, 723, 962.

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

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

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

[1730] _Ib._, p. 701.

[1731] _Ib._, iii, 723; A. Bertrand, _Arch. celt. et gaul._, 1889, pp.

139, 141, 177. Cf. the remarks of M. Salomon Reinach _La République

Française_, 26 Sept., 1892.

[1732] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 661-2; E. Cartailhac,

_La France préhist._, 1889, pp. 246-7.

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

[1734] It has been argued that there must have been a particular

dolmen-building race, because certain countries, for instance Austria,

which have been continuously inhabited from palaeolithic times, contain

no dolmens. But this only proves that certain peoples did not build

dolmens.

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

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

199.

[1737] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 714-5. See also Gen.

Faidherbe’s _Collection ... des inscr. numidiques_, 1870, p. 13;

_Matériaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme_, xxi, 1887, p. 190, pl. vi; and

A. Bertrand, _Archéol. celt. et gaul._, 1889, pp. 167-72.

[1738] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 482, 646, n. 1; _Man_, ii,

1902, No. 41, p. 51. According to Sergi (_The Mediterranean Race_,

pp. 225, 249, 254, 259), the primitive Scandinavian dolichocephali

were only one of the numerous branches of his ubiquitous ‘Eurafrican

species’. He insists that the modern Scandinavian ‘cranial and skeletal

facial forms’ are identical with those of the Mediterranean race; and

the tallness and fairness of the Scandinavians do not in the least

shake his faith. ‘Northern Europe,’ he says (p. 254), ‘has given

origin to the white skin, blond hair, and blue or grey eyes’ of the

Scandinavians. Then why did it not produce the same phenomena among the

Lapps and the ‘Iberians’ of the British Isles? See also _Rev. arch._,

4^e sér., iii, 1904, p. 153. I am of course willing to admit that the

‘Iberian’ and North European races were branches of the same primitive

stock. See p. 434, n. 7, _infra_.

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

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

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

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

731.

[1743] _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, i, 1874

(1876), p. 253; E. Cartailhac, _Les âges préhist. de l’Espagne_, p. 328.

[1744] See _ib._, pp. 144-90, 316, 318, 325; _Crania Ethinica_, pp.

493-4; and _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, v, 1895, pp. 155-81,

184, 407-13, ix, 1899, p. 278.

[1745] M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 485, 558) has

expressed the opinion that of all European dolmens the most ancient are

those of Northern Germany; but the only reason which he gives, namely,

that this region is on the limit of the last moraines of the northern

ice-sheet, and that the dolmens were constructed of ‘erratic’ rocks,

does not seem worth discussing.

[1746] Professor Zimmer (_Zeitschriftder Savigny-Stiftung für

Rechtsgeschte_, xv, 1894, pp. 217-8), while he denies that we are yet

justified in saying that the language of the pre-Celtic [or, as I

would say (see pp. 428-44, _infra_), the dolichocephalic pre-Celtic]

inhabitants of the British Isles was Iberian, affirms that the

linguistic evidence is sufficient to show that it was non-Aryan.

Similarly Professor Rhys remarked at the meeting of the British

Association in 1900 (_Report_, &c., p. 889) that there was ‘probably

no county in the kingdom that would be too small to supply a dozen

or two [of names of streams] which would baffle the cleverest Aryan

etymologist ... and why? Because they belong in all probability to a

non-Celtic, non-Aryan language.’

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

[1748] May it not also have been modified, before it was introduced

into Britain, by the non-Aryan language or languages which it

presumably encountered on the Continent?

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

279.

[1750] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 42-4. Cf. _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p.

686, and _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 19, p. 28.

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

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

[1753] After I had written these words, I was glad to learn that they

had the support of Dr. Arthur Evans, who, speaking of the discoveries

in the Mentone caves, says (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxii, 1893, p.

301) that ‘it will no longer be allowable to say that these supposed

immigrants from Asia brought with them at their first coming certain

domestic animals, and had already attained a knowledge of the potter’s

art, and of the polishing of stone weapons’. And, as M. Salomon Reinach

has justly remarked (_L’Anthr._, vii, 1896, p. 687), in a criticism

of the address which Dr. Evans delivered in 1896 at the meeting of

the British Association, ‘La race méditerranéenne s’offre d’abord à

nos yeux dans une région [Mentone] d’où elle a pu fort bien gagner

l’Afrique avant les modifications géologiques.’

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

[1755] _Ib._, p. 302.

[1756] _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893, pp. 551-4; xvi, 1905, p. 187; _La Grande

Encyclopédie_, xiv, 856; _Association franç. pour l’avancement des

sc._, 33^{e} sess^{n}., 1904 (1905), pp. 1034-49.

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

[1758] See p. 400, _supra_.

[1759] The late Mr. Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, pp. 149-50)

affirmed that certain customs, of which the couvade was one, had ‘left

distinct traces in the usages which still prevail in the region of the

Pyrenees. But,’ he continued, ‘at present there seems to be no point of

connection between them and anything which was ever observed in this

country’; and he insisted that this ‘should be taken into account by

those who assert the identity of the Iberians with the Britons of the

Silurian type’. I have not asserted that identity in the narrower sense

in which Mr. Elton used the word ‘Iberian’: nevertheless his objection

has no force. The answer to it is, first, that the couvade did survive

in historical times, or leave traces of its former existence, in

Ireland, Scotland, and Yorkshire (pp. 94-5, _supra_); secondly, that

the custom prevails, or has prevailed, among peoples of every continent

except Australia, who could never have influenced one another (_ib._);

and lastly, that it cannot be expected that widely scattered peoples

who originally sprang from one stock should continue to preserve all

the customs of their ancestors.

The other ‘customs’ of which Mr. Elton spoke are not worth mentioning.

He simply affirmed that certain tribes who inhabited the Iberian

peninsula in ancient times had different customs. Naturally. The fact

in no way tends to prove that they did not belong to the same stock.

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

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

[1762] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 276-7. See

also _Rev. arch._, 4^{e} sér., i, 1903, pp. 65-6; _Rev. celt._, xxx,

1904, p. 372; and p. 296, n. 4, _supra_.

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

[1764] See pp. 426 and 434, _infra_; A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in

Cranborne Chase_, i, p. xv; _Archaeol. Journal_, lviii, 1901, p. 337;

and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, pp. 122-3, xxxiii, 1903, pp.

66-73.

[1765] _Anthr. Rev._, iv, 1866, p. 14; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_,

pp. 630, 711; J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, ch. v; A. Pitt-Rivers,

_Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 64; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi,

1897, pp. 88, 113; W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, pp. 321-2, 326.

Dr. Beddoe (_op. cit._, p. 270) emphasizes ‘the undoubted fact that the

Gaelic and Iberian races of the west ... are tending to swamp the blond

Teuton of England by a reflux migration’. Cf. his paper in _Journ.

Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 235, and Addenda, p. 740.

[1766] See, for example, Prof. Boyd Dawkins’s article in _Archaeol.

Cambr._, 5th ser., viii, 1891, p. 72; and cf. p. 129, n. 2, _supra_.

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

[1768] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xiii, 1884, pp. 83-4. See also _Anthr.

Rev._, iv, 1866, p. 99.

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

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

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

[1772] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 131, 450, 480, note; _Journ. Roy. United

Service Inst._, xiii, 1870, pp. 522-3; Sir J. Evans, _Anc. Stone

Implements_, 1897, p. 148.

[1773] _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 263.

[1774] See p. 110, _supra_.

[1775] ‘The most tenable hypothesis may be said to be that the Picts

were non-Aryans, whom the first Celtic migrations found already settled

here ... the Picts were the descendants of the Aborigines’ (_The Welsh

People_, 1902, pp. 13-4).

[1776] _Incerti Pan. Constantio Caesari_, c. 11 (XII _Panegyrici

Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens, 1874).

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

[1778] See J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 215-6. Similarly the

Latins retained _qu_, as in _equus_, while the Greeks, as in ἵππος,

changed it into _p_.

[1779] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 299, note; E.

W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, 1904, pp. 6-7.

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

[1781] _Rev. celt._, xi, 1890, p. 377; xx, 1899, pp. 108-9. In

the latest volume of his review (xxvii, 1906, p. 107) M. d’Arbois

reiterates his dissent, asking whether _Britain_, _Thames_, and

_London_ are words of Anglo Saxon origin.

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

[1783] _Celtae and Galli_, 1905. See especially pp. 1-2, 46, 55-64.

Professor Rhys (_ib._, pp. 48-50) somewhat doubtfully regards two other

inscriptions, which have been found near Bourges and near Evreux, as

akin to Goidelic.

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

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

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

[1787] _Celtae and Galli_, p. 62.

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

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

Celtes_, pp. 17-9.

[1790] _Keltic Researches_, p. 127.

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

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

[1793] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 13. Cf. Zimmer in _Zeitschrift der

Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv, 1894, pp. 214, 215, n. 1.

[1794] _Ib._, pp. 215-6; J. Rhys, _Celtic Folk-Lore, Welsh and Manx_,

p. 281; _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville,

_Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, pp.

69-70.

[1795] The forms _Cruithni_ and _Cruithnig_ were also used. See Dr.

Whitley Stokes’s article in A. Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge zur Kunde der

indogermanischen Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-5, and J. Rhys, _Celtic

Britain_, 1904, pp. 241-2.

[1796] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76. Cf. _Scottish Review_, xviii,

1891, pp. 133-8.

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

[1798] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 45, n. 2; ii.

1894, pp. 282-3; _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 399-400; _Les Celtes_,

p. 25.

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

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

[1801] See pp. 418-9, _infra_. M. d’Arbois’s latest pronouncement

(_Les Druides_, pp. 35-6, n. 5) is that ‘_Cruithne_ est le même mot

que Πριτανία, le nom que prit la Grande-Bretagne avant de s’appeler’

Πρεττανία, &c.

[1802] Prof. Rhys’s suggestion (_The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 114) that

‘the word Dumnonii [which (see p. 447, _infra_) was the name of a

Brythonic tribe] was a collective name of the Goidels of Britain when

the Brythons arrived’ may be taken for what it is worth.

[1803] See p. 234, _supra_.

[1804] p. 239.

[1805] p. 243.

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

[1807] _Ib._, p. 124.

[1808] pp. 78-9.

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

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

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

[1812] pp. 311-3.

[1813] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv,

1894, pp. 213-4.

[1814] E. Windisch in _Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften_,

&c., 35. Theil, 1884, p. 136; A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_,

ii, 993; E. W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, p. 5.

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

[1816] See the remarks of M. d’A. de Jubainville (_Les Celtes_, p. 22),

who regards the _p_ in _Picti_ as a trace of the Belgic invasion, and

Prof. Rhys’s _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 311-2.

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

[1818] _B. G._, v, 14, §§ 4-5.

[1819] See p. 267, _supra_.

[1820] _B. G._, v, 14, § 1.--Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui

Cantium incolunt ... neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine.

[1821] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv,

1894, pp. 224-5.

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

Britain_, 1904, pp. 55-6.

[1823] Dr. F. B. Jevons (_Journal of Philology_, xvi, 1888, p. 104),

remarking that ‘the Joint Undivided Family persisted in Sparta long

after it had disappeared in the rest of Greece’, and that ‘Polybius,

misunderstanding the practice, was led to imagine, where brothers lived

on the joint estate, and one alone had a wife, that the wife was common

to all the brothers’, says (_ib._, n. 1) that ‘precisely the same

mistake, due to the same cause ... is made by Caesar when he ascribes

polyandry to the ancient Britons’. M. d’Arbois Jubainville, however

(_Rev. celt._, xxv, 1904, pp. 188-9), referring to _Ancient Laws of

Ireland_ (_Senchus Mor_), ed. W. N. Hancock, i, 122, 1. 19, 126, 1.

4, 142, 1. 30, concludes that ‘en Irlande, à une époque reculée, la

communauté des femmes entre frères a existé d’une façon générale’. The

editor (p. 143) does not share this view.

[1824] pp. 369-80.

[1825] _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte_, xv,

1894, p. 234.

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

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

[1828] I find that M. J. Loth (_Annales de Bretagne_, vi, 1890-1, p.

113) has made a suggestion which is substantially the same.

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

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

[1831] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 45-7. Cf. _Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxii, 1898, pp. 324-98, and especially 324-30; also

_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., viii, 1891, pp. 29-32.

[1832] J. Rhys, _The Welsh People_, pp. 640-1. Professor Jones refers

to A. Hanoteau, _Essai de grammaire de la langue tamachek_, 1860, p. xv.

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

[1834] See p. 422, _infra_.

[1835] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 59. Cf. J. G. Frazer,

_Early Hist. of the Kingship_, pp. 229-46.

[1836] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, xxii, 1901, p.

122) gives various instances from history to show that the ‘Pictish

succession’ did not imply matriarchy. ‘Julius Caesar,’ he says, ‘chose

as his heir Octavius, his sister’s grandson: was this matriarchy?

Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus: was this matriarchy? When a king

had to be chosen among the Picts, the son of the late king’s sister may

sometimes have been preferred to his own son; but the sister’s son must

often have been the elder and more experienced of the two.’ And so on

(see also vol. xxiii, 1902, p. 359, vol. xxv, 1904, p. 206, and _Rev.

arch._, 4^e sér., v, 1905, p. 447). But the point is that during the

time for which the history of the Picts is known to us a Pictish king

was never once succeeded by his own son. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s

arguments are not required for the purpose of demonstrating that the

‘Pictish succession’ does not prove the Picts to have been _the_

representatives of the neolithic aborigines.

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

[1838] _Ib._, p. 896.

[1839] Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, pp. 144, 174) offers one

explanation of _Vipoig_, and Dr. Macbain (W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders

of Scotland_, 1902, pp. 394-5) another.

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

[1841] p. 224.

[1842] _Incerti Pan. Constantino Augusto_, c. 7 (published in XII

_Panegyrici Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens).--Caledonum aliorumque

Pictorum silvas, &c. For the manuscript reading Baehrens, following

Eyssenhardt, needlessly substitutes (Caledonum,) _Pictorum aliorumque_.

[1843] The view, advocated by W. C. Borlase (_Dolmens of Ireland_, iii,

1042-3) and others, that the Caledonians were Germans is hardly worth

discussing. There is absolutely no evidence for it, except the remark

of Tacitus (_Agricola_, 11) that ‘the red hair and large limbs of the

inhabitants of Caledonia indicate a German origin’; and everybody

knows that the physical characters of the Germans and the Celts, as

described by the ancient writers, were virtually identical (see my

_Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 309-10, and _Rev. mensuelle de

l’École d’anthr._, vii, 1897, pp. 74, 89). It is possible that some of

the Caledonians may have been descended from immigrants who came from

Germany; but this, I need hardly say, would be quite consistent with

the view that they were a Celtic-speaking people.

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

Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis,

Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas

Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.

[1845] iii, 14, § 7.--τὰ δὲ σώματα στίζονται γραφαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ζῴων

παντοδαπῶν εἰκόσιν· ὅθεν οὐδ’ ἀμφιέννυνται ἵνα μὴ σκέπωσι τοῦ σώματος

τὰς γραφάς.

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

rejects this derivation.

[1847] Those who are familiar with Professor Rhys’s writings will not

be surprised to find that his notion of the meaning of these words is

unstable. In 1884 he wrote (_Celtic Britain_, p. 240), ‘These words

Cruithni and Prydyn are derived from _cruth_ and _pryd_ respectively,

which mean form’; and he added that ‘Duald MacFirbis, quoted by Todd

in a note on the Irish version of Nennius, p. vi,’ ‘has rightly

explained the former [Cruithni] as meaning a people who painted the

forms (crotha) of beasts, birds, and fishes on their faces, and ...

on the whole of the body. This,’ he observed, ‘agrees well enough

with Claudian’s vivid description of Stilicho’s soldiery, scanning

the figures punctured with iron on the body of the fallen Pict,’ &c.

In 1891 he threw both MacFirbis and Claudian overboard: ‘We are not

warranted,’ he said (_Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, p. 124), ‘in

supposing that he [Claudian] drew his inspiration from any deeper

source than the popular etymology of the name Pictus, interpreted as

a Latin word.’ He went on to say (p. 131) that the silence of Gildas,

who hated the Picts, ‘is proof positive that neither Picts nor Scots

were in the habit of discolouring their skins to any greater extent

than his own people’; and he insisted that there was a grave objection

to the explanation given by MacFirbis, ‘namely, that it accounts for

too few of the elements of the word Cruithne.’ In 1900 (_Report of ...

the Brit. Association_, p. 895) he brushed aside the ‘proof positive’,

and proclaimed his conviction that, after all, the Picts really had

tattooed themselves. In 1902 (_The Welsh People_, pp. 79-80, n. 2) he

observed that if _Cruithni_ and _Prydyn_ had been really derived from

_cruth_ and _pryd_, ‘one could scarcely avoid treating _Cruithni_ and

_Prydyn_ as translations ... of the word _Pict_ regarded as the Latin

_pictus_, ‘painted’’; and that ‘the supposition here suggested as to

_Pretani_ being merely a sort of translation of ... _pictus_ would

compel us to regard the first use of _Pretani_ as dating no earlier

than Caesar’s time’, which, as he truly remarks, chronology will hardly

allow us to do. In the 3rd edition of _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 242,

he reverts to his view of 1884.

Candour is a virtue; but how are we to follow a guide who is for ever

changing his mind?

[1848] See p. 413, _supra_.

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

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

Bibl. Nat._, 4439.

[1851] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900, pp. 889-90. Cf.

Rhys’s _Celtic Folk-lore, Welsh and Manx_, pp. 681-2.

[1852] A. H. Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, 1899, pp. 138, 198-9;

_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 255; xxxv, 1905, pp. 283-94;

_L’Anthr._, xvi, 1905, p. 129; _Man_, v, 1905, No. 53, pp. 86-7; vi,

1906, No. 4, pp. 6-9. Needless to say, tattooing is practised by many

other peoples besides those mentioned in the text.

[1853] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 94-5, 162, 184, &c. On the

last-named page, for instance, among the ‘nations of Pictland’ are

included ‘the Verturian Brythons’.

[1854] _Ib._, p. 275.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1862] _Ib._, p. 361.

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

[1864] _Les Celtes_, p. 30.

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

[1866] _Keltic Researches_, p. 24.

[1867] _Ib._, p. 21.

[1868] A. Bezzenberger, _Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen

Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115, and especially 113-4.

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

[1870] _Hist. eccl._, i, 12.--Incipit autem duorum ferme milium spatio

a monasterio Aebbercurnig ad occidentem, in loco qui sermone Pictorum

Peanfahel, lingua autem Anglorum Penneltun appellatur, &c.

[1871] E. W. B. Nicholson, _Keltic Researches_, pp. 4, 21. Cf. A.

Bezzenberger, _Beiträge_, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 98, 108.

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

[1873] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 153-4. Referring to p. 24 of Mr. Nicholson’s

book, Professor Rhys says (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 153) that

_Peanfahel_ ‘points back to a Latin term _penna(e)_ or _pinna(e)

valli_, “wing of the vallum,” that is, the pinnacle or turret at the

end of the wall’. Now ‘pinnacle or’ appears to have been inserted

in order to save the face of _pinna_. Does the professor mean ‘a

pinnacle’, or does he mean a ‘turret’? And if he means ‘a turret’, in

what sense does he use the word? A pinnacle would have been a feature

far too insignificant to give rise to a place-name; and a turret would

have been equally insignificant unless it was a defensive tower,

in which case it would have been called not _pinna_ but _turris_.

Professor Haverfield (_Archaeologia_, lv, 1897, p. 196) speaks of ‘the

corner turret’ of the fort of Aesica on the Roman wall about midway

between Newcastle and Carlisle. Read his description of it, and you

will appreciate the absurdity of calling it a _pinna_, and the still

greater absurdity of the supposition that even a ‘corner turret’ could

beget a geographical name. There is no authority for the use of the

word _pinna_ in connexion with a defensive wall, except in the sense of

‘pinnacle’, in which sense it is used twice by Caesar (_B. G._, v, 40,

§ 6; vii, 72, § 4). The _pinnae_ which he describes were merely small

pinnacles rising from a breastwork on an earthen rampart, breastwork

and pinnacles forming a battlement, and both being made of wattlework

(_pinnae loricaeque ex cratibus contexuntur_ [_B. G._, v, 40, § 6]. See

also C. E. C. Schneider’s note in his edition of Caesar, vol. ii, p.

565). The notion that the geographical name _Peanfahel_ ‘points back’

to a _pinna_ is too ridiculous to be discussed. Why not be content with

Dr. Stokes’s etymology in Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge_, xviii, 1902, pp.

98, 108?

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

398.

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

[1876] A. Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen

Sprachen_, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115.

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

[1878] Bezzenberger’s _Beiträge_, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 113-4. M. J.

Loth (_Annales de Bretagne_, vi, 1890-1, p. 115) is substantially in

agreement with Dr. Stokes.

[1879] I find that my criticism has been anticipated by M. J. Loth

(_ib._, p. 114).

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

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

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

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

[1884] _Ib._, p. 165.

[1885] I am glad to find that I have been anticipated by M. d’A. de

Jubainville (_Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, p. 381). Replying to Professor

Rhys’s argument, which appeared also in the earlier edition of _Celtic

Britain_, he remarked that ‘l’usage des vaincus est de copier les noms

propres des vainqueurs’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe_, p. 309.

[1892] D. Wilson, _Prehist. Annals of Scotland_, i, 1863, pp. 268-75;

_Anthr. Rev._, iii, 1865, p. 76; _Crania Britannica_, ii, Tables i and

ii; _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, p. 52; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xix,

1885, pp. 39-41; xxxvi, 1902, pp. 157-9; xxxviii, 1904, p. 81; _Journ.

Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, pp. 96-7; xxxii, 1902, pp. 402-3; _Nature_,

Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; _Archaeol. Journal_, lviii, 1901, pp. 330-8;

_Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 31.

[1893] Thirty years ago, however, Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Journ. Anthr.

Inst._, vi, 1877, pp. 328-34) said, ‘My computation of the stature of

these two types of men--the brachycephalic and the dolichocephalic--is

the very reverse of’ Thurnam’s; and he stated that of ten skeletons

found in round barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds between Driffield and

Aldeborough, five, of which the cephalic indices ranged from 70 to

75, averaged 5 ft. 9⅖ in. in height, while five others, the indices

of which ranged from 79 to 94, averaged only 5 ft. 5 in. The barrows,

however, although no bronze was found in them, contained not only

‘drinking-cups’ but also ‘food-vessels’ (_Anthropologia_, i, 1873-5,

pp. x-xi); and it may be concluded that they belonged to the Bronze

Age. Rolleston (_Brit. Barrows_, p. 654, n. 2) was therefore justified

in presuming that the tall dolichocephali who were buried in them

belonged to ‘a mixed race’; and, he said, ‘the effect of crossing ...

is very usually to increase the size of the mixed races.’ Still, the

low stature of Mr. Mortimer’s brachycephali is remarkable; and we shall

see that they belonged to a distinct race, of which other examples have

since been exhumed.

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

[1895] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xvii, 1888, p. 209. Dr. Beddoe’s

figures are not absolutely correct. The measurements of the thigh

bones of the twenty-seven skeletons to which he refers are given in

Tables I and II of _Crania Britannica_. They do not include the Arras

skeleton, mentioned in Table I, which belonged to the Early Iron Age.

The average height of the seventeen brachycephali, calculated by Dr.

Beddoe’s method, would have been just over 5 ft. 9⅕ in. (1 m. 758); of

the twenty-seven mixed skeletons, 5 ft. 9⅗ in. (within a very minute

fraction), or approximately 1 m. 768. Calculated by M. Rollet’s method

(see p. 379, n. 2, _supra_), the figures would have been just under 5

ft. 8½ in. and just over 5 ft. 9⅖ in. respectively.

[1896] A. Pitt-Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, ii, 6-7,

50-62; iii, 225.

[1897] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 6th ser., v, 1905, pp. 222, 235-6. The

average length of the thigh-bones was 446 millimetres, or rather more

than 17·55 inches.

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

11-20, 31.

[1899] Dr. Beddoe (_L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 522) assigns all the

skeletons in question to the Bronze Age; but I suspect that some are

older.

[1900] _Ib._ Thurnam’s figures are much about the same. He found that

out of 70 skulls from round barrows 44 had indices ranging from 80 to

89 (_Memoirs Anthr. Soc._, iii, 1870, pp. 48-50; _Archaeologia_, xliii,

1871, pp. 543-4). There is reason to believe that some of the round

skulls found in round barrows had been artificially flattened on the

occiput in infancy; but Thurnam (_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 45, p.

6) shows that their brachycephaly was only due in a minor degree to

this cause. I presume that Dr. Beddoe, in his article in _L’Anthr._ (v,

1894, p. 522), did not take account of 15 skulls which were found in

1885-7, in association with bronze and remains of the _urus_, during

the excavation of the Ribble Docks at Preston. Their cephalic indices

range between 70·41 and 81·76. See _Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs_, i, 250.

[1901] _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, xxxviii, 1904, p. 127;

xxxix, 1905, pp. 438-9; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p. 426.

Apparently Dr. Beddoe’s list did not include Scottish skulls.

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

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

pl. 45, p. 4.

[1904] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 154. In Scotland, however, of

12 skulls from short cists, the mean cephalic index of which was 81·4,

only one, says Sir W. Turner (_Nature_, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258), was

prognathous.

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

[1906] _Ib._, p. 154.

[1907] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 681. Cf. _Crania Britannica_, pl. 11;

_Reliquary_, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 240-2; _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat.

Hist. Mag._, xxxiii, 1904, pp. 18-9; and _Journal of Anatomy and

Physiology_, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 120-4, xxxix, 1905, pp. 418-21, 423-4,

429-30.

[1908] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1903 (1904), pp. 801-2.

Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 333, and _Journal of Anatomy

and Physiology_, xxxix, 1905, pp. 417-21.

[1909] _Ib._, p. 442.

[1910] Six of the skeletons were associated with drinking-cups (_Proc.

Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, p. 431); and no bronze was found with

any of them, only flint and bone implements (_Proc. Aberdeen Univ.

Anatom. and Anthr. Soc._, 1902-4, p. 33).

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

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

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

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

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

p. 26.

[1916] _Ib._, p. 34. A skeleton has been found with a drinking-cup in a

short cist in Caithness, which belonged to the same type (_Proc. Soc.

Ant. Scot._, xxxix, 1905, pp. 421-4).

[1917] This view, stated independently, would leave it an open question

whether they were Celts or not.

[1918] See for instance A. Pitt-Rivers (_Archaeol. Journal_, liv, 1897,

p. 390); A. H. Keane, _Man, Past and Present_, p. 527; Romilly Allen

(_Archaeol. Cambr._, 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 225); W. Boyd Dawkins

(_Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire_, i, 261); B.C. A. Windle (_Vict. Hist.

of ... Worcester_, i, 179); G. Sergi, _The Mediterranean Race_, p. 243;

and H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les Druides_, pp. 15-6. It is useless to

multiply references.

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

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

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

[1922] _Ib._, p. 128.

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

[1924] _Ib._, p. 79; _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 304. Huxley (S.

Laing, _Prehist. Remains of Caithness_, pp. 117-9) agreed with Thurnam.

[1925] _Scottish Review_, xv, 251.

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