[1928] The statement in the text is of course perfectly consistent with
the fact that some of the earlier Brythonic invaders buried their dead
in small round barrows. See p. 435, n. 1, _infra_.
I am astonished to find that even such a well-informed writer as Mr. H.
J. Mackinder (_Britain and the British Seas_, 1902, p, 185) suggests
that the Belgae ‘may well have been the broad-skulled “bronze” men
of the round barrows’; and that, according to Mr. C. H. Read (_Guide
to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 15), ‘the Gaels
and Brythons ... are the people of the Round-barrows.’ It is rather
puzzling to find that he fixes ‘the close of the Barrow period about
900 B.C.’ (ib., p. 23), and yet assigns the first Brythonic invasion to
the fourth century B.C. He appears to think that the earliest invaders
of the Round Barrow period belonged to a non-Aryan race (_ib._, pp.
24-5); and he rightly distinguishes both the Goidels and the Brythons
from the brachycephalic neolithic population of Gaul (_ib._, p. 22),
whom he nevertheless erroneously calls ‘the true Kelts’. See pp.
433-40, _infra_. I am still more puzzled when I read in the _Guide to
the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (p. 2), for which Mr. Read has made
himself responsible, that ‘the Bronze Age inhabitants of this country
seem to have been the most closely connected with the true Kelts’,
whereas in the _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (p. 15) they are
sharply distinguished from them.
[1929] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1900 (1901), p. 894.
[1930] See p. 127, _supra_.
[1931] M. Déchelette’s remarks in _Rev. de synthèse hist._, iii, 1901,
pp. 32-3, are worth reading.
[1932] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 482-3, 486-8. See also _Brit.
Barrows_, pp. 639-41, and J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, p. 253, n.
*.
[1933] _Mém. d’anthr._, ii, 1874, p. 126.
[1934] _L’Anthr._, v, 1894, p. 516.
[1935] See _Crania Britannica_, pl. 1, 53, 41, 11, 32, 43, 42, and the
descriptions of these skulls in vol. ii; also the illustrations facing
pp. 571, 579, 583, 587, 591, and 599 of Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_.
The description which Dr. Collignon gives of the brachycephalic race
of France will show how totally unlike it is to the characteristic
Round Barrow type. He speaks (_Ann. de Géogr._, v, 1896, p. 164) of
‘les caractères bien connus de la race brachycéphale, à savoir, taille
plutôt petite, cheveux foncés, tête globuleuse, face ronde, courte,
large, plate, nez large et court’, &c.
[1936] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, iv, 1894, pp. 396, 400.
The ‘maximum of frequency’, according to M. Hervé (_ib._, vi, 1896, p.
105), lies between 1 m. 50 (just over 4 ft. 11 in.) and 1 m. 59 (just
over 5 ft. 2½ in.).
I was glad to find, after I had finished the rough draft of this
article, that Prof. A. C. Haddon (_Proc. Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser.,
iv, 1896-8, pp. 583-4) distinguishes ‘the short, swarthy, black- [or
rather dark-brown] haired brachycephalic race of Central Europe (the
“Celtae” ... or the “Type de Grenelle” ...)’ from ‘the tall, fair,
brachycephalic race that may have come from Denmark (the “Celts” of
some authors ... the “Round Barrow Race” of all authors)’. To identify
the Grenelle race with the Celtae is, however, misleading. The
Celtae (see pp. 438-9, _infra_) were a mixed population, comprising
descendants of various neolithic dolichocephalic tribes and of the
Grenelle race and also real Celts--the introducers of the Celtic
language--who invaded Gaul about the eighth century B.C.
[1937] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, p. 203.
[1938] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 25.
[1939] See Greenwell’s _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 10, 15-6.
[1940] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 682.
[1941] _Ib._, p. 746; L. Rütimeyer and W. His, _Crania Helvetica_,
1864, p. 12. The average cephalic index of 29 skulls of the Sion type
described in _Crania Helvetica_ is 77·2, the highest being 81·9, and
the lowest 73. Not one of the 22 illustrations has the slightest
resemblance to the more strongly marked brachycephalic Round Barrow
type. The Sion type, moreover, is orthognathous, whereas the tall Round
Barrow men were often extremely prognathous.
Taking into account the skulls of the Sion type which have been
measured since the publication of the work of His and Rütimeyer, the
average cephalic index is 76. See _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._,
v, 1895, p. 153.
[1942] Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 308.
[1943] _Ib._, p. 296, and n. 3.
[1944] See J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, p. 16; _Scottish Review_,
xxi, 1893, p. 361; W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, p. 310: and cf.
Sir W. R. Wilde, _The Beauties of the Boyne_, 2nd ed., 1850, p. 40; W.
C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 1006-12; and _Proc. Roy. Irish
Acad._, xxiv, 1902-4, sect. C, pp. 1-6. Professor A. C. Haddon (_ib._,
3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, p. 584) suggests that the brachycephalic people
who did invade Ireland were ‘the Neolithic brachycephals of Central
Europe’, and that ‘the Round Barrow race had comparatively little to
say to Irish ethnology’.
[1945] See pp. 126-7, _supra_.
[1946] See K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, ii, 1887, pp.
236-8, and cf. H. d’A. de Jubainville, _Les premiers habitants de
l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 262, and _Report of ... the Brit. Association_,
1900, p. 894.
[1947] See p. 494, _infra_.
[1948] _Les Celtes_, pp. 19-20.
[1949] Professor Rhys, who a few years ago (_Report of ... the Brit.
Association_, 1900, p. 893) assigned the Goidelic invasion to ‘the
seventh and the sixth centuries B.C.’, has recently (_Celtic Britain_,
1904, p. 2) dated it back to ‘more than a millennium before the
Christian era’, but without giving any reasons.
[1950] See _L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, p. 344. The Aryans, before their
dispersion, were acquainted with the use of copper (O. Schrader,
_Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, pp. 187-91; _L’Anthr._, iv, 1893,
p. 547; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xiv, 1904, pp. 163, 207-19; _Bull.
et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 5^e sér., v, 1904, p. 88).
[1951] _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, p. 407.
[1952] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 281-319.
[1953] _Ib._, p. 305.
[1954] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, p. 514.
[1955] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 636, 683, 711. See also
_Crania Britannica_, ii, pl. 6, pp. 7-8; _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser.,
vol. xvii, 1897-9, p. 126, n. *; and p. 435, n. 1, _infra_.
[1956] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 129, 213.
[1957] The skulls which have been found in the fort of Worlebury,
near Weston-super-Mare, belong, according to Prof. Macalister (C. W.
Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, _Worlebury_, 1886, pp. vii, 102-4), ‘to the
so-called Iberian type’; but they have ‘strong brow ridges’, and ‘the
men were of strong muscular build’. They appear to me to show signs of
crossing with individuals of the ‘characteristic’ Round Barrow type;
but it is impossible to determine whether they were of Gallo-Brythonic
descent or not. Prof. Macalister computed the stature of five males,
whose bones, except in one instance, did not belong to the skulls, at
5 ft. 3 in., 5 ft. 5½ in., 5 ft. 8 in., 5 ft. 10 in., and 6 ft. 4 in.,
the overage being 5 ft. 8½ in.
[1958] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 683. It appears, however, highly probable
that the ‘Iberian’ and North-European dolichocephalic types, to the
latter of which the type which I call Celtic belongs, are traceable to
the same origin. See _Geogr. Journal_, xxviii, 1906, pp. 538, 541.
[1959] Partly because during the latter part of the period the custom
of cremation was prevalent in South-Eastern Britain. See p. 286,
_supra_.
A considerable number of skeletons has been discovered in the
so-called ‘Danes’ Graves’ in the parish of Driffield, Yorkshire, which
undoubtedly belong to the Early Iron Age, and were earlier than the
time of Agricola (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 257), by
Dr. Thurnam (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxii, 1865, pp. 109 n. 8, 264), Canon
Greenwell (_ib._, pp. 108-11, 264), and Mr. J. R. Mortimer (_Proc. Soc.
Ant._, 2nd ser., xvii, 1897-9, pp. 119-28). The cephalic indices of
those male skulls which were found by Thurnam and Canon Greenwell are
75, 76, 70, 75, and 71: the mean index of those in the collection of
Mr. Mortimer, who does not give the individual measurements, is 75·5;
and the indices of fourteen, which have lately been measured by Dr.
Wright (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 67, 70-1), and which,
for aught that I know, may have included the others, ranges from 68
to 79. Neither Thurnam, nor Canon Greenwell, nor Mr. Mortimer says
anything about stature; but the average height of the men whose bones
Dr. Wright measured would only have been 5 ft. 3½ in. This is so low as
to suggest that they were not Celts; and the question of their origin
has caused much discussion. The remains of a chariot were found in one
of the graves which Mr. Mortimer opened; but chariots may of course
have been used by non-Celtic Britons. According to Thurnam, the skulls
‘appear to be distinguished from the ... long-barrow type’, and might
pass for those of modern inhabitants of Scandinavia; but the pottery
found in the graves by Canon Greenwell was not only unlike any which
he had discovered in other parts of Yorkshire, but also different from
Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon ware. Moreover, he describes the mode of
interment as ‘unlike any which has been found in Denmark, Norway, or
Sweden’. Therefore I cannot agree with Dr. Wright, who thinks that the
people in question came from Scandinavia. All that is certain is that,
like most of our Late Celtic skeletons, they did not belong to the
familiar tall Celtic type.
In Scorborough Park, near Beverley, there is a group of small mounds,
similar to the ‘Danes’ Graves’. Mr. Mortimer opened six of them in
1895, and found two skulls ‘of a decidedly long type’.
Fourteen skulls at least have been found in and just outside the
Glastonbury marsh-village (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_,
1895, p. 519; 1896, p. 658; 1898 [1900], p. 695; 1899 [1901], p. 594;
_Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc._, l, 1904, p. 80;
li, 1905, pp. 88, 99-100); but no detailed description of them has
yet been published, though Prof. Boyd Dawkins (_Vict. Hist. of ...
Somerset_, i, 200) affirms that they ‘belong to the small dark Iberic
inhabitants’, and argues that as some of them belonged to men who had
been decapitated, they do not represent inhabitants of the village,
but their enemies. Some, however, belonged to young children, and were
found in the hut-circles. There is the same dearth of information about
skeletons which have been found near Birdlip, on the Cotswold Hills
(_Trans. Bristol and Gloster Archaeol. Soc._, v, 1880-1, pp. 137-41),
and in the parish of St. Keverne, Cornwall (_Archaeol. Journal_, xxx,
1873, pp. 267-72).
In the only interment of the Early Iron Age that has yet been
discovered in Scotland--a cist on the estate of Moredun in Midlothian
(_Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 427-38)--which was
probably not earlier than the second century of our era (_ib._, p.
438), two skeletons, apparently of females, were found. It was only
possible to calculate the stature of one, which, estimated from the
_femur_ alone, by what method I do not know, was about 5 ft. 5½ in.
This, for a woman, would be comparatively tall. The cephalic index was
75; and, according to Dr. T. H. Bryce, who measured the skull (_ib._,
pp. 439-45), ‘all the measurements and the indices deduced from them
are such as might belong to a [neolithic] skull from the chambered
cairns,’ but ‘the general characters are markedly different. It
resembles in general proportions certain of the skulls from the “Danes’
Graves” ... described by Dr. W. Wright ... but in form it does not fall
in with any of his types ... the skull shows rather closer affinities
with the modern than with any ancient type,’ &c. Has Dr. Bryce seen any
of the skulls from the Gallic tumuli of the Early Iron Age?
For further information about skeletons of this period see _Crania
Britannica_, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 2, 7 (Arras), pl. 43, p. 3
(Roundway Hill); _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., iv, 1867-70, pp. 275-6
(Grimthorpe); _Brit. Barrows_, p. 683; _Archaeologia_, lii, 1890, pp.
325-6; and _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum),
pp. 124-5, 130. The Arras and Grimthorpe specimens at least were
probably Brythonic.
[1960] _Rev. d’anthr._, ii, 1873, pp. 605, 607, 611. Unhappily Broca
does not give the indices of all the skulls, but only the average.
[1961] _Bull. du Muséum d’hist. nat._, &c., 1902, p. 178.
[1962] _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 7, 10, 16-7, 25. See also _Crania
Ethnica_, p. 498; _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 171; A. Bertrand and
S. Reinach, _Les Celtes_, &c., pp. 122-34; _Rev. mensuelle de l’École
d’anthr._, vii, 1897, pp. 65-87; _Bull. et mém. de la Soc. d’anthr._,
v^e sér., ii, 1901, pp. 721-2; and _Archiv für Anthr._, xxviii, 1902,
pp. 185-6.
[1963] _The Races of Europe_, p. 126. ‘The philologers,’ says Professor
Ripley, ‘properly insist upon calling all those who speak the Celtic
language, Celts ... while the physical anthropologists, finding the
Celtic language spoken by people of divers physical types, with equal
propriety hold that the term Celt, if used at all, should be applied to
that physical group or type of men which includes the greatest number
of those who use the Celtic language.’ I, on the contrary, hold that in
an ethnological inquiry the term should be applied to ‘that physical
group’ (if we can discover it) among whom the Celtic language came into
being and who imposed it upon those whom they subdued; and I would
remind the philologers that if all who speak the Celtic language are
Celts, all who speak the English language, including the inhabitants of
the United States and the negroes of Jamaica, are Englishmen.
[1964] See _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, p. 748. We shall see that MM.
Collignon, Hervé, and Wilser are also dissentients. So too is Dr. Laloz
(_L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 776).
[1965] _The Races of Britain_, p. 29. See also _L’Anthr._, v. 1894, p.
517.
[1966] _B. G._, i, 1, § 1.--Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres,
quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua
Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
[1967] _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, 2^e sér., xii, 1877. p. 511.
[1968] _Ib._, p. 514.
[1969] _Mém. d’anthr._, ii, 1874, p. 126.
[1970] ‘La race celtique,’ he says (_Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._,
2^e sér., ix, 1874, p. 713), ‘est le résultat du mélange des races
indigènes avec les immigrants.’
[1971] _Mém. d’anthr._, i, 1871, p. 395.
[1972] A. Kuhn’s _Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung_, &c., v,
1868, p. 98. Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 291. The remark
of Professor Rhys (_ib._, p. 2) that ‘Recent writers are of opinion
that the terms Galli and Celtae argue an ancient distinction of race’,
and that ‘the latter first applied exclusively to the aborigines’, is
apparently based upon an entire misconception of the writings of Broca
and M. Alexandre Bertrand. Does the professor mean by ‘the aborigines’
the dolichocephalic neolithic Baumes-Chaudes race, or the totally
different brachycephalic neolithic Grenelle race? No French ethnologist
holds the opinion which Professor Rhys attributes to ‘recent writers’;
and even M. Bertrand, who distinguished ‘les Celtes’ from ‘les
Galates’, was careful to point out (_Les Celtes dans les vallées du
Pô et du Danube_, p. 36) that between them there was no ‘distinction
of race’. The reader should note that, according to M. Bertrand, ‘les
Galates,’ who conquered Gaul in the Iron Age, belonged to ‘la race
celtique’; that his tall fair ‘Celtes’, who had invaded Gaul before,
were not identical with, but only part of the mixed population whom
Caesar called _Celtae_; and that his ‘Galates’ were to be found among
the Celtae as well as among the Belgae. Professor Rhys, in a recent
paper (_Celtae and Galli_, pp. 57-9, 62), assumes that as (according
to his view) both Goidelic and Gallo-Brythonic were spoken in the
country of the Celtae, the names _Celtae_ and _Galli_ correspond to
the peoples who spoke the two dialects: he argues that the Celtae were
conquered by the Galli; and he concludes that the two peoples were
ethnologically distinct. Probably Goidelic Celts were conquered by
Gallo-Brythonic Celts; but what then? It remains certain that conquered
and conquerors were by themselves called collectively Celtae. Why did
the name of the conquered prevail over that of the conquerors if it
was essentially different? And does not Caesar expressly say that the
two names denoted one and the same people? As a matter of fact, the
terms _Celtae_ and _Galli_, as used by the ancient writers, including
Polybius, were, generally speaking, synonymous. Diodorus Siculus (v,
23, § 1) distinguished between them; but as his Γαλαται included the
Cimbri and other Germans, his testimony, which implicitly contradicts
that of Caesar, is worthless. Even if it could be accepted it would
only show that the Celtae, as a whole, differed from the Γαλάται, not
that the Galatic conquerors of the people who, after the conquest and
including the conquerors, were called Celtae, differed in race from
earlier Celtic conquerors. Moreover, as I have remarked in _Caesar’s
Conquest of Gaul_ (p. 290), ‘anybody who carefully reads through the
chapters in which he [Diodorus] describes the inhabitants of Gaul, will
see that he habitually uses the word Γαλάται not in the restricted but
in the general sense, including both Γαλάται and Κελτοί.... In fact,
though he thinks it necessary to warn his readers that the Celtae
were geographically distinct from the Galli, he draws no physical
distinction between them; and, in conformity with ancient usage, he as
a rule uses the two terms indifferently.’ See my _Caesar’s Conquest
of Gaul_, 1899, p. 300; M. Déchelette’s article in _Rev. de synthèse
hist._, iii, 1901, pp. 32-3; _Rev. de l’École d’anthr._, xv, 1905, pp.
216-30; and _Rev. celt._, xxvii, 1906, pp. 109-10.
[1973] I am glad to find that I have the support of Dr. Collignon
(_Annales de géogr._, v, 1896, p. 159), who speaks of ‘la population
pré-gauloise que Broca nommait à tort les Celtes’. Similarly M. G.
Hervé (_Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vi, 1896, p. 99) says
that ‘_la race brachycéphale néolithique_ ou _race de Grenelle_ est
devenue à l’âge de bronze ... celle des _Celtes_, au sens que les
anthropologistes ont accoutumé d’attacher depuis Broca à ce dernier
terme’; and, as he remarks (_ib._, p. 104), the Celtic language was
imposed on this people, long before they and their conquerors were
called by Caesar _Celtae_, by invading Gauls. MM. Collignon and Hervé
do not perhaps make it sufficiently clear that the people whom Broca
called ‘les Celtes’ were not the brachycephalic neolithic race alone,
but that race _plus_ mesaticephalic people also of neolithic origin
_plus_ the conquerors of both.
[1974] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 291. See also pp. 245-8,
281-301 of the same book.
[1975] _Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr._, ii, 1861, pp. 508-9.
[1976] ... ‘les Kimris s’étaient établis en grand nombre dans cette
région [the neighbourhood of Paris], au milieu des populations
celtiques; que celles-ci, enfin, étaient déjà mélangées avant
l’arrivée des Kimris, puisque le nom sous lequel elles ont pour la
première fois paru dans l’histoire leur avait été imposé par ... la
race conquérante,’ &c. ‘Cette première opinion,’ says Dr. L. Wilser
(_L’Anthr._, xiv, 1903, pp. 496-7), ‘oubliée plus tard par son auteur
et par ses disciples, était juste.’
[1977] _Der Mensch_, ii, 1887, pp. 261-7.
[1978] Cf. _Scottish Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 368; _Proc. Roy. Irish
Acad._, 3rd ser., iii, 1893-5, pp. 323, 369; v, 1898-1900, pp. 43, 45,
71, 227-8; vi, 1900-2, p. 506; _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvii, 1898, pp.
104-30, and especially p. 117; _Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xl, part
iii, 1903, pp. 547-614; and Rice Holmes, _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_,
1899, pp. 281-320.
[1979] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxvi, 1897, p. 124. Cf. my _Caesar’s
Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 301-5.
[1980] _The Mediterranean Race_, pp. 74-5.
[1981] See p. 418, n. 1, _supra_.
[1982] _The Races of Britain_, pp. 270-1.
[1983] An Italian anthropologist, Dr. V. Barteletti (_Archivio por
l’antropologia e la etnologia_, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 277-85) affirms
that red hair is an anomaly due to the crossing of blond with dark
people. On this theory it seems inexplicable that in certain parts of
the Highlands of Scotland and Wales red hair is very much more common
than anywhere in England or in those parts of the Continent in which
blonds and brunets have long been intermixed, and much more common
in the department of Finistère than elsewhere in France. See _Crania
Britannica_, i, 210; my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 315-6;
and Dr. Beddoe’s article in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxv, 1905, p. 223.
[1984] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 162.
[1985] Vol. i, p. 85. Probably Mr. Elton intended to refer to vol. ii,
p. 85; but neither there nor on any other page of the book is there a
single sentence which bears out his statement.
[1986] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vi, 1877, p. 505. In a more recent paper
(_ib._, xi, 1882, pp. 467-8), after remarking that ‘the defenders
of the earth-work used flint, and consequently the work itself is
not later than the bronze period’, and that the people who buried
their dead on the Yorkshire wolds ‘were in the early bronze phase of
civilisation’, General Pitt-Rivers goes on to say, ‘the archaeologists
of Denmark have shown that the Early Bronze Age did not exist in
Denmark; the art of working in bronze was full-blown when it first
entered Denmark. If the invaders of Flamborough came from Denmark,
and were, as we suppose ... a bronze-using people, they would have
brought with them weapons of a more advanced type than those found in
the tumuli of the wolds.... We are narrowed, therefore, to the opinion
that the invaders of Flamborough, if invaders they were, were the same
people who landed on the south and south-east coasts of England [the
extreme improbability of which he has already shown], or else that
these dykes belong to the people of the country, who ... were driven to
the coast by another ... people who occupied the interior,’ &c. But why
should the general assume that ‘the invaders of Flamborough’ were ‘a
bronze-using people’? See pp. 119, 129, 131-2, 408-9, _supra_.
[1987] _Mem. Anthr. Soc._, i, 1865, pp. 130, n. *, 508-10.
[1988] _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 588-9, 680. Rolleston also mentions ‘the
discovery in Yorkshire of monoxylic coffins with similar contents and
fashion to those found in South Jutland’, &c. (_ib._, p. 631, n. 2).
[1989] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xix, 1890, pp. 482-3. Cf. _Scottish
Review_, xxi, 1893, p. 162, and W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, p.
309.
[1990] _Man, Past and Present_, p. 528.
[1991] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), pp. 24-5.
[1992] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 79, p. 110.
[1993] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxx, 1900, No. 84, pp. 86-8.
[1994] Cf. _Scottish Review_, xx, 1892, p. 378, and _Journ. Anthr.
Inst._, xxxiv, 1904, pp. 203-4.
[1995] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 24.
[1996] See pp. 408-9, _supra_.
[1997] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxxii, 1902, pp. 373-97.
[1998] _Ib._, p. 374.
[1999] _Ib._, pp. 388, 393.
[2000] _Ib._, pp. 394-5. Dr. T. H. Bryce, who has made a special study
of the chambered cairns of South-Western Scotland, and has found no
bronze in any of them, tells us (_Man_, iv, 1904, No. 110, p. 176) that
in one at Glecknabae, Bute, ‘fragments of four vessels were recovered,
of the “beaker” or “drinking-cup” class.’ ‘If,’ he says (_Proc. Soc.
Ant. Scot._, xxxviii, 1904, p. 78), ‘we accept Mr. Abercromby’s
conclusions that this class of ceramic was introduced at the end of
the Neolithic period, and that the type named α is earlier than ... β
and υ, we are obliged to conclude that the culture of the Stone Age
prevailed in the Western Islands for the whole period corresponding to
type α in South Britain.’
[2001] Some of the skulls examined by Dr. Wright (see p. 427, _supra_)
resembled the ‘Row Grave’ (_Reihengraber_) skulls of Germany, and he
suspects that they belonged to immigrants from the valley of the Rhine
(_Journ. Anat. and Physiol._, xxxix, 1905, p. 441).
[2002] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, viii, 1898, p. 207; _Proc.
Roy. Irish Acad._, 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, p. 584.
[2003] _Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr._, vi, 1896, p. 105.
[2004] Does not the radical difference between British and Gallic
pottery of the Bronze Age (see _L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 325, fig. 2;
337, fig. 8; 338-9, figs. 9 and 10; 340, fig. 11) tell against the view
that many immigrants from Gaul entered Britain in the earlier periods?
[2005] Moreover, it must be remembered that only one interment of the
Early Iron Age has been found in Scotland (see p. 435, n. 1, _supra_),
although the culture of the same period is represented by ‘finds’ that
range from Dumfriesshire to the Orkneys.
[2006] _The Geologist_, v, 1862, p. 204. Cf. _Archaeologia_, liv, 1895,
pp. 110-1.
[2007] See pp. 396-7, _supra_.
[2008] See p. 448, _infra_.
[2009] iv, 5, § 2.--οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες εὐμηκέστεροι τῶν Κελτῶν εἰσι καὶ ἧσσον
ξανθότριχες, &c.
[2010] _Ib._,--σημεῖον δὲ τὸν μεγέθους· ἀντίπαιδας γὰρ εἴδομεν ἡμεῖς ἐν
Ῥώμῃ τῶν ὑψηλοτάτων αὐτόθι ὑπερέχοντας καὶ ἡμιποδίῳ, &c.
[2011] See p. 425, n. 4, _supra_.
[2012] _Phars._, iii, 77-8.--
celsos ut Gallia currus
Nobilis et flavis sequeretur mixta Britannis.
[2013] _The Races of Britain_, pp. 26, 249, 258.
[2014] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, pp. 302-5.
[2015] In regard to the ethnology of the Belgae, sec _ib._, pp. 301-25,
with which cf. J. Rhys, _Celtae and Galli_, p. 60.
[2016] pp. 17, 35.
[2017] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 12. When that book appeared he
was disposed to apply the word ‘Goidel’ to the mixed population of
‘Celticans’ and aborigines, who, he holds, became more closely fused
under pressure from the Brythons. [For ‘Celticans’ he is now (?)
inclined to substitute ‘Kelts’ of the ‘Celtic’ (not ‘Keltic’) family.
Unlearned readers who scoff at subtle distinctions will find an
explanation in the professor’s _Celtae and Galli_, p. 56. Is not the
word Celtican unfortunate? The Celtici (Strabo, iii, 1, § 6) were in
N.W. Spain.]
[2018] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 75.
[2019] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 4.
[2020] See p. 499, _infra_.
[2021] F. Vogel, in his edition of 1888, adopts the reading Βρεττανικῶν
νήσων in i, 4, § 7; but everywhere else he prints the word with Π,
following the codex _Vindobonensis_. See p. 459, _infra_.
[2022] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 399-400.
[2023] _The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 3-4.
[2024] I am of course aware that Professor Kuno Meyer disregards this
argument; but he makes no attempt to answer it.
[2025] pp. 218-63 (216-60 of the older edition).
[2026] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 8; _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp.
216-8. When the second edition of _Celtic Britain_ was published,
Professor Rhys held (p. 216) that the inscriptions were the monuments
of Goidels retreating before Brythonic invaders, ‘and not those of
Goidelic invaders from Ireland.’ In the new edition (p. 218) he says
that ‘it is partly the monuments of these retreating Goidels of Britain
that we have in the old inscriptions, but partly perhaps those also of
Goidelic invaders from Ireland’.
[2027] _Ib._, pp. 229-31.
[2028] See the map facing the title page of _Celtic Britain_.
[2029] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 214-5) denies
that Brittany was colonized ‘by Brythons from here’: but one of his
arguments is simply that the Dumnonii were not Brythons, which I deal
with in the text; and the other is equally unsatisfactory. Remarking
that Procopius ‘gives a very fabulous account of an island called
Brittia’, he says that ‘Brittia must have been a real name, as it is
exactly the form which would result in that which is the actual Breton
name of Brittany--namely Breiz: this last,’ he continues, ‘cannot be
derived from any known form of the kindred name of our country and
its people, and thus tells not a little against the tradition that
Brittany was first colonised by Brythons from here,’ &c. But who ever
heard of ‘the tradition that Brittany was _first_ colonised by Brythons
from here’? And what if Brittany received the name which would have
resulted in ‘Breiz’ _before_ the British immigration? See my _Caesar’s
Conquest of Gaul_, 1899, p. 416, and J. Loth, _L’Émigration bretonne en
Armorique_, 1883, pp. 21, 50-1, 75-82.
[2030] _Celtic Britain_, 1884, p. 221.
[2031] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 223-4.
[2032] _Rev. celt._, vii, 1886, pp. 379-80.
[2033] _Ib._, xxii, 1901, p. 124.
[2034] _Ib._
[2035] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 222.
[2036] _Ib._, p. 233.
[2037] _Ib._, p. 234.
[2038] _Ib._
[2039] _Ib._, pp. 164-6.
[2040] _Ib._, 2nd ed., 1884, p. 221.
[2041] _Ib._, 1904, pp. 223-4.
[2042] _Ib._, p. 222.
[2043] _Ib._, p. 223.
[2044] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, p. 69.
[2045] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 383.
[2046] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, pp. 65-6.
[2047] _The Races of Britain_, p. 29.
[2048] _Incerti Pan. Constantio Caesari_, c. 11 (published in XII
_Panegyrici Latini_ recensuit Aemilius Baehrens, 1874).--Britannia
natio etiam tunc rudis, et solis Pictis modo et Hibernis assueta
hostibus adhuc seminudis, facile Romanis armis signisque cessit. Prof.
Haverfield (_The Romanization of Roman Britain_, p. 28) apparently
disbelieves that there was any Irish invasion of Britain as early as
the third century; but see _Y Cymmrodor_, xiv, 1901, p. 102.
[2049] _Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, pp. 70-1.
[2050] See pp. 411-2, _supra_; also M. d’Arbois’s _Principaux auteurs
de l’ant. à consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, p. 69.
[2051] _Les Celtes_, p. 17.
[2052] I say ‘substantially’ because M. d’Arbois, unlike Professor
Rhys, holds that at the time of the Goidelic invasion the Celtic
language was everywhere one and the same.
[2053] See p. 445, _supra_.
[2054] _Les Celtes_, p. 31.
[2055] See p. 410, _supra_. M. d’Arbois rejects the analogy; but of
course he would admit that the people of Gaul who remained behind
belonged ethnologically to the same stock as those who, on his theory,
invaded Britain and became the ancestors of British Goidels.
[2056] _Keltic Researches_, p. 110.
[2057] _Ib._, p. 111.
[2058] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 110-1.
[2059] _Ib._, pp. 30, 37, 5, 63-5, 78, 175.
[2060] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 229-31.
[2061] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 19-20, 27, 16-7.
[2062] Mr. Nicholson himself (_ib._, p. 151) calls attention to the
fact that the Gallic tribes whose Goidelic character he believes
himself to have proved belonged, for the most part, to the west of Gaul.
[2063] See pp. 410 and 449, _supra_.
[2064] See Rhys’s _Celtae and Galli_, p. 60.
[2065] _Keltic Researches_, p. 9.
[2066] Cf. J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 231.
[2067] _B. G._, i, 10, § 4; v, 39, § 1. Mr. Nicholson contends (_Keltic
Researches_, pp. 9-13) that the Belgae also colonized Anglesey, where
he finds various place-names of which _Bol_ forms a part; South
Wales, where St. David’s was formerly called Meneu; both banks of the
estuary of the Forth, where he believes that he can find traces of
the Irish stem _Manann_; and Galway, Mayo, and other remote parts of
Ireland, where the name _Mannin_ is of frequent occurrence. The Belgae,
or rather the Menapii, would certainly seem to have been not less
enterprising as colonists than Mr. Nicholson as an etymologist. Without
straining the elasticity of the words _Menapii_ and _Belgae_ more than
he has already done, he could easily, with a little diligence and a
good gazetteer, find traces of them all over the world. Surely they
must have settled in _Bul_garia. But, seriously, I would ask the reader
to consider whether it is likely that they would have taken the trouble
to go all the way to Connemara when there was plenty of good land open
to them in this country. And, considering that they introduced the use
of coins into Britain, is it not significant that no British coins have
been found in Ireland, and hardly any in Scotland or Wales?
Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, pp. 11, 98-100) of course maintains
that the Fir-Bolg of Ireland were Belgae, and that there is an
etymological connexion between the two words. Professor Rhys, in a
note to the second edition of his _Celtic Britain_ (p. 280), which in
the third is absent, affirmed that ‘one thing is certain: neither the
people [Belgae] nor its name had anything whatever to do with the Irish
Fir-bolg’. At all events, MacFirbis and other Irish writers regarded
the Fir-Bolg as having been found in Ireland and conquered by the
Celtic invaders (J. Rhys, _Celtic Heathendom_, p. 120; W. C. Borlase,
_Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 1027-8).
[2068] _Keltic Researches_, p. 151, n. 1.
[2069] _Ib._, p. 15.
[2070] _Ib._, p. 16.
[2071] Cf. _B. G._, i, 1, § 2, with ii, 1-4. See also J. Rhys, _Celtae
and Galli_, 1905, p. 61.
[2072] _Keltic Researches_, p. 16.
[2073] I find that, in the judgement of Prof. Haverfield (_The
Romanization of Roman Britain_, p. 29), ‘the inscription ... may be
best explained as the work of some Western Celt who reached Silchester
before its British citizens abandoned it in despair.’
[2074] Chambers’s _Encyclopaedia_, 1901, vol. i, p. 279.
[2075] ‘In case,’ says Mr. Nicholson (_Keltic Researches_, p. 16,
n. 2), ‘any one should quote against me Eppillus, the name of a son
of Commius the Atrebat, as derived from _epos_ for _equos_, let me
say that in that case it ought to have only one _p_.’ No doubt it is
remarkable that the _p_ should be double (Rhys, _Celtic Britain_, 1904,
p. 302); but _Epillos_, which is certainly the same word (A. Holder,
_Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_, i, 1445), occurs on Gallic coins of the
Lemovices and on coins from Poitiers and the neighbourhood of Arles
(E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, _Cat. des monnaies gaul. de la Bibl.
nat._, 4578, 4579, 4580). See also _Rev. celt._, xxvi, 1905, p. 189.
[2076] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 17-8.
[2077] Tacitus, _Ann._, xiv, 31.
[2078] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11.
[2079] _Keltic Researches_, pp. 25, 149. On page 26 (n. 1) Mr.
Nicholson makes the curious suggestion that ‘the Britons, strictly
speaking, were the Kymric branch who painted themselves, as
distinguished from the Goidelic who tattooed’. Is he prepared to argue
that the Belgae, who, on his theory, were Goidels, and with whom (p.
110) he apparently identifies ‘the original Brittones or Brittani’,
were not included among ‘the Britons, strictly speaking’? Will he
maintain, in the face of Caesar, from whom we learn that the Britons
all ‘painted themselves (_Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt_)’,
that ‘the great majority’ (p. 110) of the inhabitants of Britain did
not paint? And, since Caesar undoubtedly included among the painted
Britons the maritime tribes of the south-east, and also included them
among the Belgae, does he not see the inconsistency into which he has
fallen?
_Bratuspantium_, the name of a Belgic town mentioned by Caesar (_B.
G._, ii, 13, § 2), would to most minds prove that the Belgae spoke a
Gallo-Brythonic dialect, not only by the _p_ which it contains, but
also by the _nt_, a non-Goidelic combination. Mr. Nicholson, however
(_Keltic Researches_, p. 16, with which cf. A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer
Sprachschatz_, i, 515), of course explains the _p_ as Indo-European.
[2080] It may be worth mentioning that Professor Rhys has affirmed
(_The Welsh People_, p. 13) that the language of the British Goidels
shows more traces of having been influenced by contact with the
language of the non-Aryan aborigines than that of the Brythons. This
fact, if it were a fact, would obviously be a further argument, if such
were needed, against the view that the Goidels were the latest Celtic
invaders of Britain. One expects, of course, to find that the professor
changed this view, which was published in 1900; and accordingly we
read in the address which he delivered in the same year to the British
Association (_Report_, &c., p. 896) that ‘the syntax of insular
Brythonic is no less non-Aryan than that of Goidelic’. Naturally in
1902 (_The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., p. 13) he repeated the former
statement.
[2081] See p. 494, _infra_.
[2082] Philologists who have a sense of humour should read a truly
delicious story told by M. H. Gaidoz (_Esquisse de la religion des
Gaulois_, pp. 22-4) about a ‘celtiste de premier ordre’, who sent him
for publication in the _Revue celtique_ an elaborate study on the word
_encina_, which he had discovered on the pedestal of a statuette and
taken for a Celtic inscription, but which, as M. Gaidoz mercifully
warned him, was simply the name of the engraver, M. Encina, 56,
boulevard Montparnasse, Paris. ‘Nous croyons utile,’ M. Gaidoz gravely
concludes, ‘de protester par un exemple irréfutable contre l’abus qu’on
semble faire actuellement de l’étymologie.’
[2083] _B. G._, v, 12, § 2.--maritima pars [Britanniae incolitur]
ab iis qui praedae ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgis transierunt,
qui omnes fere isdem nominibus civitatum appellantur quibus orti ex
civitatibus eo pervenerunt, &c.
[2084] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 11. Cf. my _Caesar’s Conquest of
Gaul_, 1899, pp. 450, 476-7.
[2085] _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 13.
[2086] Not to mention Iscalis, the site of which is unknown.
[2087] Professor Rhys (_The Welsh People_, 1902, pp. 88-9), observing
that, according to Caesar (_B. G._, ii, 4, §§ 6-7), Diviciacus, King
of the Belgic Suessiones, had established his hegemony in (Southern)
Britain, and (_ib._, 3, § 5) that the territories of the Suessiones and
the Remi were practically one, argues that ‘we should expect to find
both of them represented in Britain, though their names have not been
detected. Now,’ he continues, ‘we know from ... inscriptions that a god
of the Remi was Camulos’; and he points out that the name of this god
is preserved in _Camulodunum_, or _Colchester_, the name of the chief
town of the Trinovantes. The argument is not decisive, because Camulos
was worshipped by other Gallic tribes as well as the Remi, and his
name appears also in that of Camulogenus, a chief of the Aulerci (_B.
G._, vii, 57, § 3), who were not Belgae: nevertheless the Professor’s
conclusion may be right.
[2088] p. 43.
[2089] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 6. On the next page the professor
adds that ‘the Belgae probably occupied the whole of the coast on the
east and south ... from the Isle of Wight to the Firth of Forth’. It
is clear therefore that in 1902 the Cantii were ‘considered Belgic’,
although in 1884 and in 1904 there was ‘no evidence’ for this view.
[2090] See pp. 459-60, _infra_.
[2091] _Proc. Cambridge Ant. Soc._, N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 478-9.
[2092] It has indeed been conjectured, as we have seen (p. 400, n. 3,
_supra_), that the Basques were a distinct race.
[2093] The late Professor F. W. Maitland (_Domesday Book and Beyond_,
p. 222) argues that post-Saxon British survivors could not have been
very numerous, as the Celtic language left ‘few traces of itself’; but
the same argument might be used to show that when the Romans came to
Britain the Celts were few. See F. J. Haverfield, _The Romanization of
Roman Britain_, pp. 9-12.
[2094] _An Inaugural Lecture_, 1903, pp. 39-40.
[2095] Although Matthew Arnold was almost absolutely ignorant of
ethnology, I do not know any book which ethnologists would find more
suggestive than his _Lectures on Celtic Literature_.
[2096] It has been truly said (_Journ. Anthr. Soc._, 1870, p. xxxvi)
that ‘between even the Welshman and the Irishman there is a want of
sympathy ... fully equal to that which exists between either ... and
the most Teutonic Briton’.
[2097] Mr. Alfred Nutt (_Folk-Lore_, xv, 1904, p. 234), commenting
on a statement in Mr. Nicholson’s _Keltic Researches_ (p. iv) that
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire are as Celtic (I should say as
pre-Celtic) as South Wales and Ulster, asks whether it does not
‘demonstrate the absolute futility of statistics of “relative
nigrescence”, or ... size of skulls. The Bucks peasant,’ he continues,
‘may be physiologically akin to the man from Kerry or Glamorganshire;
psychically he differs profoundly.’ Yes, but this does not discredit
the methods of physical anthropology: it only illustrates what I
have said in the text. Between a certain number of individuals in
Glamorganshire and a certain number in Buckinghamshire there is,
let us assume, physical kinship: if we could isolate those two sets
of individuals and compare them, instead of hastily comparing the
populations of Glamorganshire and Buckinghamshire as wholes, we might
find that the psychical difference was not as profound as Mr. Nutt
supposes. Probably it would still be noticeable. But why? Partly
because the physical resemblance is combined with a physical difference
due to cross-breeding, the degree and nature of which it would be
impossible to ascertain; partly because the environment, social,
geographical, and climatic, of the peasants of Glamorganshire has for
many centuries been very different from that of Buckinghamshire. Let
two plum-puddings be made of identical sets of ingredients, but in
slightly different quantities, in different kitchens, and by different
cooks. The results will be very different. Or suppose that a thousand
Spanish immigrants settled in Britain, and intermarried only among
themselves. At the end of a century their physical and psychical types
would have been modified. Nevertheless, handled with due skill and
judgement, statistics of nigrescence and of cranial measurements retain
their value.
[2098] See pp. 411-21, _supra_.
[2099] _Geogr._, ed. C. Müller and F. Dübner, 1853, p. 948, note to p.
97, line 22.
[2100] See F. Vogel’s ed. of 1888.
[2101] See p. 499, n. 2, _infra_.
[2102] _Geogr._, ed. C. Müller, i, 1883, p. 74, note.
[2103] i, 8 (_Geogr. Graec. min._, vol. i, 1855, ed. C. Müller). Cf.
_Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, p. 399.
[2104] Ed. A. Meineke, 1849, pp. 186, 534. Cf. Pauly’s
_Real-Encyclopädie_, vol. iii, part i, 1897, p. 860.
[2105] _Scottish Review_, xviii, 1891, p. 137.
[2106] _Rev. celt._, xiii, 1892, pp. 398-403.
[2107] _The Welsh People_, 1902, p. 76.
[2108] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 241-2.
[2109] _The Welsh People_, 3rd ed., p. 6.
[2110] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 17 (31), § 106.
[2111] _Celtic Britain_, 3rd ed., p. 4.
[2112] _Ib._, pp. 211-4.
[2113] _Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften_, &c., 35. Theil,
1884, p. 141.
[2114] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 384.
[2115] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 208-9.
[2116] W. F. Skene, _The Highlanders of Scotland_, 1902, p. 384.
[2117] _Keltic Researches_, p. 25, n. 1.
[2118] iii, 57, § 3.
[2119] _Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 540-51; _Origin of Civilisation_,
1902, pp. 220-4, 340-5.
[2120] _Ib._, p. 537.
[2121] _Ib._, p. 219.
[2122] _Golden Bough_, 1900, i, 73, n. 2.
[2123] _Golden Bough_, 1900, i, 70.
[2124] See Sir A. Lyall’s _Asiatic Studies_, ii, 1899, p. 236.
[2125] See p. 58, _supra_.
[2126] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 534.
[2127] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, xxiii, 1894, p. 151.
[2128] _Origin of Civilisation_, 1902, p. 391.
[2129] _L’Anthr._, xiii, 1902, p. 533.
[2130] _Ib._, xvi, 1905, p. 658.
[2131] _The Religion of the Semites_, 1901, pp. 54-5.
[2132] _Fortnightly Rev._, July, 1905, pp. 162-73.
[2133] _Ib._, p. 162.
[2134] _Ib._, p. 171.
[2135] _Man_, vi, 1906, No. 49, p. 78.
[2136] _Archaeol. Journal_, lx, 1903, pp. 209-10.
[2137] _The Clyde Mystery_, pp. 138-9.
[2138] See p. 199, _supra_.
[2139] _Archaeology and False Antiquities_, pp. 170, 259-60.
[2140] _Ib._, p. 245.
[2141] See p. 435, _supra_.
[2142] _The Clyde Mystery_, p. 141.
[2143] See _Archaeology and False Antiquities_, pp. 255-6, and cf. pp.
229-30 with _The Clyde Mystery_, pp. 132-4.
[2144] _Prehist. Scotland_, p. 474.
[2145] See pp. 110, 185-6, _supra_.
[2146] _Dolmens of Ireland_, iii, 743.
[2147] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 366.
[2148] _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 476-80.
[2149] See pp. 429-40, _supra_.
[2150] _Brit. Barrows_, p. 409.
[2151] _Ib._, pp. 19-20, 22.
[2152] _Prehist. Scotland_, pp. 478-9.
[2153] W. C. Borlase, _Dolmens of Ireland_, ii, 445.
[2154] See p. 110, _supra_, and W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp.
448-51.
[2155] _Ib._, p. 536.
[2156] See p. 204, _supra_.
[2157] _Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset_, i, 189.
[2158] _Ib._, p. 187.
[2159] _Early Age of Greece_, i, 502.
[2160] See p. 188, n. 2, _supra_.
[2161] _Early Age of Greece_, i, 503.
[2162] _Ib._, p. 504.
[2163] See p. 110, n. 1, _supra_.
[2164] _Archaeol. Cambr._, 3rd ser., xiv, 1868, p. 291; _Archaeol.
Journal_, xxvii, 1870, p. 156; W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 103-6.
[2165] _Ib._, pp. 103-8.
[2166] _Forty Years’ Researches_, pp. lxvii-lxviii.
[2167] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 338; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._,
xxxviii, 1904, pp. 335-6.
[2168] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iv, 30.
[2169] _Ib._, pp. 4-5.
[2170] _Ib._, p. 189.
[2171] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 84.
[2172] _Ib._, xxviii, 1840, pp. 399-419.
[2173] _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 8, 82-3. Of this famous book the
Rev. W. C. Lukis (_Archaeol. Review_, i, 1888, p. 353) says that ‘every
copy should be committed to the flames’.
[2174] See Lord Avebury’s _Prehist. Times_, 6th ed., 1900, pp.
112-4, 122, and _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxiii, 1887,
pp. 245-54. The theory of Mr. Edgar Barclay (_Stonehenge and its
Earthworks_, 1895, pp. 40-1, 127-30), which ascribes the construction
of Stonehenge to the time of Agricola, has been confuted by Professor
Haverfield (_Classical Review_, x, 1896, pp. 74-5). The argument which
Mr. Barclay (_op. cit._, pp. 50-1) directs against the received view
that it was pre-Roman, is based upon the fanciful assumption that it
was designed in accordance with ‘an ancient astrological figure’, which
rests upon the further assumption that ‘all the salient measurements
of Stonehenge may truly be said to result from an observation’ of the
sun. His argument (_ib._, p. 88) that ‘we have the testimony of an
eye-witness, John Webb, that an iron spike was dug up near one of the
trilithons from a depth of 3 feet’, and that the circle must therefore
have been erected after the close of the Bronze Age, would hardly
impose upon a beginner. There is no evidence that this ‘spike’ (John
Webb, _A Vindication of Stone Heng Restored_, 1665, p. 128) was made of
iron: the circumstances in which it was found are not known; and, as we
shall presently see (p. 477, n. 5, _infra_), an object manufactured in
the nineteenth century has recently been unearthed within the precincts
of Stonehenge at a depth much greater than three feet.
[2175] See pp. 215-6, _supra_.
[2176] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp. 320-2.
[2177] Cf. p. 183, _supra_.
[2178] The Hallstatt period is now believed to have ended about 400
B.C. See p. 229, _supra_.
[2179] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, pp. 322-3, 324-5.
[2180] _Ib._, p. 321.
[2181] Pottery was unearthed in 1802 close to the ‘Altar Stone’ from
a depth of 5 feet or more by Sir R. C. Hoare’s collaborator, W.
Cunnington, who described it as ‘similar to the rude urns found in the
barrows’ (W. Long, _Stonehenge and its Barrows_, 1876, p. 86).
[2182] _Folk-Lore_, vi, 1895, pp. 6-51, and especially 14-6.
[2183] See p. 232, _supra_.
[2184] _Ancient Wilts_, i, 127.
[2185] _Ib._
[2186] _Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 291.
[2187] _Ib._, p. 301. One of the two barrows in which chippings of the
Stonehenge stones were found contained a bronze ‘spear-head’ or dagger,
and a bronze pin.
[2188] See _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 6, pp. 7-11, and _Archaeologia_, lviii,
1902, pp. 37-118.
[2189] _Ib._, pp. 51, 53, 55, 57, 62, 65-6, 71-2, and fig. 24.
[2190] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 16, p. 25.
[2191] _Ib._, p. 24; _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 84.
[2192] _Man_, ii, 1902, No. 6, p. 9.
[2193] See p. 215, _supra_, and _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_
(Brit. Museum), pp. 46-7.
[2194] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902. pp. 63-5.
[2195] Dr. Evans, however, insists (_Man_, ii, 1902, No. 16, p. 22)
that ‘amongst all the stone implements discovered [by Prof. Gowland]
there was nothing distinctly neolithic’.
[2196] See pp. 71-2, 129, 131, _supra_.
[2197] _Man_, ii, 1902, p. 10.
[2198] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 86.
[2199] W. Greenwell, _Brit. Barrows_, pp. 37, n. 1, 258, 304, 329, 432;
_Archaeologia_, liv, 1895, p. 89.
[2200] A. Pitt Rivers, _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, iii, 135.
[2201] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 55.
[2202] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1003.
[2203] _Ib._, p. 1002.
[2204] _Stonehenge_, 1880, p. 18.
[2205] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, pp. 55-6.
[2206] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1008.
[2207] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 57.
[2208] _Ib._
[2209] This phenomenon is explained in Sir N. Lockyer’s _Elementary
Lessons in Astronomy_, 1889, §§ 549-54.
[2210] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 57.
[2211] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1009. See also _Nature_,
lxviii, 1903, p. 180. (On the 22nd of June, 1903, a correspondent of
the _Times_ wrote from Salisbury, ‘For the first time for nearly ten
years visitors at Stonehenge yesterday morning saw the sun rise.’)
[2212] _Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1009. I cannot deny myself
the pleasure of quoting Mr. Hinks’s criticism of Sir Norman Lockyer’s
argument. ‘The authors [Sir Norman and Mr. Penrose] are trying,’ he
says, ‘to find the place of a prehistoric sunrise by assuming that the
avenue pointed to it. They measured the direction of the avenue, and
found that the measures agreed so very nearly with the Ordnance Survey
measure of the direction of their mark--presumably on the highest
point--at Sidbury camp, that they adopted the latter measure rather
than their own; in other words, they agreed that the avenue is directed
very exactly to Sidbury. Henceforward one cannot leave Sidbury out of
the argument.... There are two courses open to us. On the one hand we
may suppose that the avenue was drawn to lead over the down to Sidbury
camp, and had no intentional relation to the place of sunrise. On the
other hand we may suppose that Sidbury is in the sunrise line not by
accident but by design; that it forms an integral part of the solar
temple of Stonehenge. And since the camp occupies the summit of a steep
and isolated hill, while Stonehenge lies on a wide and gently sloping
down, it is plain that the camp end of the Stonehenge-Sidbury line
must have been fixed first, and the site of the temple determined by
prolonging the line sunrise-Sidbury till it struck a suitable place on
the down. There is nothing impossible in this; the question is, Can
it be said to be so probable that one is justified in fixing a date
for Stonehenge from the direction of the line so drawn? Which is the
greater improbability, that the Stonehenge-sunrise line was laid out so
that it passed over the peak of Sidbury hill ... so nearly invisible
from Stonehenge by reason of an intervening down that Sir Norman
Lockyer thought that the latter formed the local horizon, and makes no
mention of having seen Sidbury over its top ... or that the line of an
avenue setting out from Stonehenge happens to point to the place where
the sun rose at a date which is perhaps as likely as any other for the
foundation of the building...?
‘If preference be given to the first alternative, and we assume that
Stonehenge really was so placed that Sidbury marked the point where the
sun rose on midsummer morning, the question still remains, Was it done
so accurately that it is worth measuring accurately now, and drawing
from the measures an exact statement of date? It _may_ well be objected
that in our climate Sidbury is probably not visible from Stonehenge at
sunrise once in twenty years, and that the likelihood of a long delay
in drawing out the plan of so great a work would very soon have induced
the builders to adopt a line near enough for their purposes though not
for ours.... And lastly there is the grave difficulty that everything
depends upon guessing right what is to be considered the critical phase
of the sunrise or sunset,’ &c.
[2213] _Journal of Philology_, xxix, 1903, pp. 94, 113.
[2214] This article is mentioned _honoris causa_ by Mr. Hinks
(_Nineteenth Century_, June, 1903, p. 1005).
[2215] _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1901, p. 55.
[2216] See p. 290, _supra_.
[2217] Professor Montelius accepts and endorses Sir Norman Lockyer’s
conclusions. Most of the barrows near Stonehenge belong, he says
(_Archiv für Anthr._, N. F., ii, 1904, p. 140) to the earliest period
of the Bronze Age, which, in the south of England, began, in his
opinion, about 2000 B.C. He goes on to speak of the chippings of the
Stonehenge stones which have been found in two of the surrounding
barrows, and affirms that to those who know the epoch to which
Stonehenge belongs it is evident that it was a temple, for sepulchral
monuments ‘have a different appearance’ (_sahen nicht so aus_); and
finally he mentions the results at which ‘some of England’s greatest
astronomers have arrived’.
Alas that a great archaeologist should meddle with what he does not
understand! ‘Some of England’s greatest astronomers’ is presumably a
rhetorical synonym for Sir Norman Lockyer: at all events the results
which so appeal to Professor Montelius’s and Sir Norman’s imagination
stand to Sir Norman’s credit alone. Let me recommend the professor
to read the article in the _Nineteenth Century_ of June, 1903, in
which another astronomer has demolished them. The only novelty in the
professor’s article is the implied statement that the barrows in which
the chippings were found are not much later than 2000 B.C. On this
point he is of course entitled to a respectful hearing: but the mere
amateur who remembers that the two barrows in question are assigned
by one of England’s greatest archaeologists to about 300 B.C. will, I
fear, shrug his shoulders; and Mr. Abercromby (see p. 183, _supra_)
has proved that many of the Wiltshire barrows were later than 800 B.C.
The remark that sepulchral monuments have a different appearance from
Stonehenge is not helpful, seeing that Stonehenge is unique among
megalithic circles. I can only repeat that many such circles have been
proved to be sepulchral monuments; and, as I shall show presently,
there is evidence that Stonehenge was a scene of sepulchral rites.
[2218] Sir R. C. Hoare, _Anc. Wilts_, i, 144-5; W. Long, _Stonehenge
and its Barrows_, p. 86.
[2219] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 197. See also xxxv,
1901, pp. 194, 219; xxxvi, 1902, pp. 131, 579; and Joseph Anderson,
_Scotland in Pagan Times: the Bronze and Stone Ages_, p. 118. As I
have already remarked (p. 207, _supra_), the date of many English
circles remains uncertain; and I admit that some may be of locally
late neolithic age, though I doubt whether any were erected before
the oldest bronze implement was introduced into Southern Britain. Mr.
H. St. George Gray (_Archaeologia_, lviii, 1903, pp. 461-98) regards
the well-known monument of Arbor Low, near Bakewell in Derbyshire,
as belonging to ‘the period of transition from stone to bronze’.
This circle has been excavated to a considerable extent. No metal
was discovered, nor any pottery that could be assigned to the period
of construction; but a barbed and tanged arrow-head was found on the
bottom of the ditch. Arrow-heads of this kind were probably first
manufactured later than the non-barbed varieties (see p. 81, _supra_),
although many specimens of the latter were contemporary with the
former. As I have already pointed out, the mere absence of bronze in a
circle is not sufficient to prove that it did not belong to the Bronze
Age: the excavation of Arbor Low was necessarily incomplete; and all
that can be said with certainty is that it is not older than the period
to which Mr. Gray ascribes it. The reasons which he gives (_Man_,
vi, 1906, No. 101, p. 159) for presuming that the Stripple Stones in
Cornwall were of the same date appear to me equally inconclusive.
[I find that Mr. Gray (_Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1902
[1904], p. 465) admits that ‘Arbor Low has not been disproved to be
of Early Bronze Age date’, and that his conclusion rests ‘on somewhat
meagre evidence’. It has, however, been pointed out (_ib._, p. 466)
that ‘a Bronze Age tumulus was certainly constructed out of material
_derived from a portion of the original structure_ of the earthwork
enclosing the stone circle’, and therefore that ‘it is reasonable to
assign the date of construction of the circle to a period _not later_
than the _early_ Bronze Age’.]
[2220] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 313. See pp. 211-2, _supra_.
[2221] _Ib._, pp. 313-4.
[2222] _Journ. Ethn. Soc._, ii, 1870, p. 2.
[2223] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 322.
[2224] Professor Gowland (_Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 85) holds
that the discovery of the ‘incense-cup’ proves nothing, ‘as the nature
of the ground and the conditions under which it was found are not
given.... In Excavation VI’, he dryly remarks, ‘I dug up a modern
preserved meat tin from a much lower layer than the stone implements
in the neighbouring undisturbed ground.’ Dr. Evans, however, who
apparently anticipated this objection, holds (_Archaeol. Review_, ii,
1889, p. 322), that if the cup had not been originally deposited in
the place where it was found, it would have been broken. I cannot find
any proof that the so-called incense-cup was an incense-cup, in the
sense in which archaeologists use the term, at all. It is described by
John Webb (_A Vindication of Stone Heng Restored_, 1665, pp. 127-8) as
‘the _Cover_ highly probable of a _Thuribulum_.... It was of Stone,
light in comparison, the more by being hollow, and extream hard.’ Now
incense-cups were not made of stone (though fragments of stone were
often mixed with the clay of which they were baked), and they hardly
ever had covers (_Archaeologia_, xliii, 1871, p. 383; W. Greenwell,
_Brit. Barrows_, p. 164, note; _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze
Age_ [Brit. Museum], pp. 61-3). The word ‘Stone’ may have been used
incorrectly; but if the ‘Thuribulum’ was really stone, it was perhaps
of late date. Cf. Sir J. Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_, 1897, p. 471.
[2225] W. Long, _Stonehenge and its Barrows_, p. 86; _Archaeol.
Review_, ii, 1889, p. 318. See p. 469, n. 7, _supra_.
[2226] See pp. 202, 212, n. 2, _supra_.
[2227] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 315.
[2228] _Ib._, p. 318.
[2229] _Ib._, pp. 315-6. See also _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, iv, 1866, pp.
251-3.
[2230] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, p. 88.
[2231] See pp. 210-2, _supra_.
[2232] _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._, xxxiv, 1900, p. 196.
[2233] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., ix, 1881-3, p. 348.
[2234] _Trans. Ethn. Soc._, iv, 1866, pp. 244-63.
[2235] _Stonehenge_, pp. 21, 32-3.
[2236] _Archaeol. Review_, ii, 1889, p. 319.
[2237] _Archaeologia_, lviii, 1902, pp. 83-4.
[2238] _Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag._, xxi, 1884, p. 146.
[2239] vol. lxxi, 1904-5, pp. 297-300, 345-8, 367-8, 391-3, 535-8.
[2240] _Ib._, p. 298.
[2241] Ed. T. Arnold, 1879, p. 12 (lib. i, c. 7). Sir Norman Lockyer
(_Stonehenge_, 1906, p. 51), quoting the well-known passage in which
Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Pytheas, describes a circular
temple in the island of the Hyperboreans (Diodorus Siculus, ii, 47, §
1), says that ‘Stonehenge alone can by any probability be referred to’.
Is it not possible that if the romancer was serious, he was referring
to the far larger circle of Avebury?
[2242] In a work entitled _Choir Gaur ... commonly called Stonehenge
... astronomically explained_, &c.
[2243] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, p. 391.
[2244] See W. W. Rouse Ball, _Short Account of the Hist. of Math._, 3rd
ed., 1901, pp. 2, 6, 14.
[2245] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, p. 535. Sir Norman Lockyer has
discovered new uses for dolmens and barrows. ‘The dolmens,’ he says
(_ib._, p. 298), ‘have, I am convinced, been in many cases not
graves originally, but darkened observing places to observe along a
sight-line’; and, he adds (_ib._, lxxii, 1905, p. 272), ‘I have always
held that ... long and chambered barrows were for the living and not
for the dead.’
[2246] _Nature_, lxxi, 1904-5, pp. 536-8.
[2247] _Ib._, p. 536.
[2248] _Stonehenge_, p. 137.
[2249] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 178, n. 1. In a more recent
article (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 119) Professor
Haverfield refers to ‘the tin-trade of N.W. Spain, where we must place
the famous and fabulous Cassiterides’. The word ‘fabulous’ seems to
suggest that he here withdraws his former view that the Cassiterides
were islands ‘off’ N.W. Spain.
[2250] _Academy_, xlviii, Oct. 5, 1895, p. 273.
[2251] W. C. Borlase, _Tin Mining in Spain_, 1898, p. 21.--‘In the
island of Ons alone, near the mouth of the river Pontevedra ... some
indications of tin-quartz were found, so Cornide tells us,’ &c. Ons is
not one of the group of islands with which the Cassiterides have been
identified.
[2252] _Ib._, pp. 24, 28, &c. Mr. Borlase’s investigations only confirm
the statements of Diodorus (v, 38, § 4), of Strabo (iii, 2, § 9), and
of Pliny (_Nat. Hist._, xxxiv, 16 [47], § 156), who all agree in saying
that Spain produced tin.
[2253] See p. 490, n. 5, _infra_.
[2254] De Mortillet’s identification of the Cassiterides with the
islands off the coast of Brittany is not worth discussing. Tin was
apparently worked in the Morbihan in the Bronze Age (W. Boyd Dawkins,
_Early Man in Britain_, pp. 403-4), but not in any of the Breton
islands; nor is there any evidence that Gallic tin was ever an object
of foreign commerce.
[2255] _Bibl. hist._, v, 21, § 2; 22, §§ 1-2; 38, § 4.
[2256] _Ib._, 38, § 4.--ὑπεράνω γὰρ τῆς τῶν Λυσιτανῶν χώρας ἔστι
μέταλλα πολλὰ τοῦ καττιτέρου, κατὰ τὰς προκειμένας τῆς Ἰβηρίας ἐν τῷ
ὠκεανῷ νησῖδας τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος Καττιτερίδας ὠνομασμένας.
[2257] _Geogr._, ii, 5, § 15.--τούτοις δὲ [i.e. the extremity of
the Pyrenees] τὰ ἑσπέρια τῆς Βρεττανικῆς ἀντίκεινται, πρὸς ἄρκτον,
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ταῖς Ἀρτάβροις ἀντίκεινται πρὸς ἄρκτον αἱ Καττιτερίδες
καλούμεναι νῆσοι πελάγιαι, κατὰ τὸ Βρεταννικόν πως κλίμα ἱδρυμέναι.
[2258] _Ib._, ii, 5, § 30.--πρόκεινται δὲ νῆσοι τῆς Εὐρώπης, ἃς ἔφαμεν,
ἔξω μὲν Στηλῶν Γάδειρά τε καὶ Καττιτερίδες, καὶ Βρεττανικαί, &c.
[2259] _Ib._, iii, 2, § 9.--τὸν δὲ καττίτερον οὐκ ἐπιπολῆς εὑρίσκεσθαί
φησιν [Ποσειδώνιος] ... ἀλλ’ ὀρύττεσθαι· γεννᾶσθαι δ’ ἔν τε τοῖς ὑπὲρ
τοὺς Λυσιτανοὺς βαρβάροις καὶ ἐν ταῖς Καττιτερίσι νήσοις, καὶ ἐκ τῶν
Βρεττανικῶν δὲ εἰς τὴν Μασσαλίαν κομίζεσθαι. ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἀρτάβροις, οἳ
τῆς Λυσιτανίας ὕστατοι πρὸς ἄρκτον καὶ δύσιν εἰσίν, ἐξανθεῖν φησιν τὴν
γῆν ἀργυρίῳ, καττιτέρῳ, χρυσίῳ λευκῷ.
[2260] _Ib._, iii, 5, § 11.--Αἱ δὲ Καττιτερίδες δέκα μὲν εἰσί, κεῖνται
δ’ ἔγγυς ἀλλήλων, πρὸς ἄρκτον ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν Ἀρτάβρων λιμένος πελάγιαι·
μία δ’ αὐτῶν ἔρημός ἐστι, τὰς δ’ ἄλλας οἰκοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι μελάγχλαινοι,
ποδήρεις ἐνδεδυκότες τοὺς χιτῶνας, ἐζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ στέρνα, μετὰ
ῥάβδων περιπατοῦντες, ὅμοιοι ταῖς τραγικαῖς Ποιναῖς· ζῶσι δ’ ἀπὸ
βοσκημάτων νομαδικῶς τὸ πλέον. μέταλλα δὲ ἔχοντες καττιτέρου καὶ
μολύβδου κέραμον ἀντὶ τούτων καὶ τῶν δερμάτων διαλλάττονται καὶ ἅλας
καὶ χαλκώματα πρὸς τοὺς ἐμπόρους. πρότερον μὲν οὖν Φοίνικες μόνοι τὴν
ἐμπορίαν ἔστελλον ταύτην ἐκ τῶν Γαδείρων, κρύπτοντες ἅπασι τὸν πλοῦν·
τῶν δὲ Ῥωμαίων ἐπακολουθούντων ναυκλήρῳ τινί, ὅπως καὶ αὐτοὶ γνοῖεν
τὰ ἐμπόρια, φθόνῳ ὁ ναύκληρος ἑκὼν εἰς τέναγος ἐξέβαλε τὴν ναῦν,
ἐπαγαγὼν δ’ εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν ὄλεθρον καὶ τοὺς ἑπομένους, αὐτὸς ἐσώθη διὰ
ναυαγίου.... οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ ὅμως πειρώμενοι πολλάκις ἐξέμαθον τὸν πλοῦν·
ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ Πόπλιος Κράσσος, διαβὰς ἐπ’ αὐτούς, ἔγνω τὰ μέταλλα ἐκ
μικροῦ βάθους ὀρυττομένα ... ἐκ περιουσίας ἤδη τὴν θάλατταν ἐργάζεσθαι
ταύτην τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐπέδειξε, καίπερ οὖσαν πλείω τῆς διειργούσης εἰς
τὴν Βρεττανικήν.
[2261] _Ib._, iii, 3, § 5.--Ὕστατοι δ’ οἰκοῦσιν Ἄρταβροι περὶ τὴν
ἄκραν, ἣ καλεῖται Νέριον, ἣ καὶ τῆς ἑσπερίου πλευρᾶς καὶ τῆς βορείου
πέρας ἐστί.
[2262] _Ib._, iii, 1, § 3.--τρίτον ἐστὶ τὸ ἑσπέριον πλευρὸν ... μέχρι
τῆς πρὸς Ἀρτάβροις ἄκρας, ἣν καλοῦσι Νέριον.
[2263] _Chorographia_, iii, 6, § 47.--in Celticis aliquot sunt
[insulae], quas quia plumbo abundant uno omnes Cassiteridas appellant.
[2264] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 22 (36), § 119.--Ex adverso Celtiberiae
complures sunt insulae Cassiterides dictae Graecis a fertilitate
plumbi, et e regione Arrotrebarum promunturi Deorum VI, quas aliqui
Fortunatas appellavere. G. F. Unger (_Rheinisches Museum_, xxxviii,
1883, p. 167) holds that both Pliny and Mela, in locating the
Cassiterides, followed Roman, and therefore recent authorities.
[2265] _Ib._, vii, 56 (57), § 197.--plumbum ex Cassiteride insula
primus adportavit Midacritus.
[2266] _Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, p. 196, n. 2. Cf.
K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 211.
[2267] See p. 514, _infra_.
[2268] _Nat. Hist._, xxxiv, 16 (47), § 156.--Pretiosissimum hoc,
Graecis appellatum cassiterum fabuloseque narratum in insulas Atlantici
maris peti vitilibusque navigiis et circumsutis corio advehi. Nunc
certum est in Lusitania gigni et in Gallaecia, &c.
[2269] _Academy_, xlviii, Dec. 14, 1895, p. 524.
[2270] _Nat. Hist._, iii, 1 (2), § 6; iv, 19 (33), § 109; 22 (35), §
114.
[2271] _Geogr._, ii, 6, § 73.--Ἐν δὲ τῷ Δυτικῷ Ὠκεανῷ αἱ Καττιτερίδες
δέκα τὸν ἀριθμόν, ὧν τὸ μεταξὺ ἐπέχει μοίρας δʹ μεʹ 𐅵ʹʹ (4° 45° 30′)
καὶ αἱ τῶν θεῶν νῆσοι δύο τὸν ἀριθμὸν δʹ γοʹʹ μγʹ γʹʹ (4° 40′ 43° 30″).
[2272] _Orbis Descriptio_, 561-4.--αὐτὰρ ὑπ’ ἄκρην | Ἱρήν, ἣν ἐνίπουσι
κάρην ἔμεν Εὐρωπείης, | Νήσους Ἑσπερίδας, τόθι κασσιτέροιο γενέθλη, |
Ἀφνειοὶ ναίουσιν ἀγαυῶν παῖδες Ἰβήρων.
[2273] _Rheinisches Museum_, xxxviii, 1883, p. 166.
[2274] _Ib._, pp. 166-7.
[2275] _Ib._, p. 170.
[2276] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 5.--Ἔχουσι δὲ οἱ Ἄρταβροι πόλεις συχνὰς ἐν
κόλπῳ συνοικουμένας, ὃν οἱ πλέοντες καὶ χρώμενοι τοῖς τόποις Ἀρτάβρων
λιμένα προσαγορεύουσιν.
[2277] _Chorographia_, iii, 1, § 13.--In Artabris sinus ore angusto
admissum mare non angusto ambitu excipiens Adrobricam urbem et quattuor
amnium ostia incingit, &c.
[2278] _Geogr._, ii, 6, § 2.--Ἀρτάβρων λιμὴν εʹ γʹʹ μεʹ (5° 20′, 45°) Νέριον ἀκρωτήριον
εʹ δʹʹ μεʹ ϛʹʹ (5° 15′, 45° 10′); § 4--ἐν τῷ Μεγάλῳ λιμένι Φλαούιοι Βριγάντιον
ϛʹ 𐅵ʹʹ δʹʹ μεʹ (6° 45′, 45°).
[2279] _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 165, n. 2.
[2280] _Ib._, p. 168.
[2281] _Ib._
[2282] See p. 484, n. 6, _supra_.
[2283] _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 170.
[2284] _Academy_, xlviii, Nov. 23, 1895, p. 438.
[2285] _Ib._, Dec. 21, p. 547.
[2286] See p. 483, n. 3, _supra_. Unger (_Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883,
p. 171) says that after the discovery made by Crassus the mines on the
islands must have been speedily worked out. But this is pure fancy: the
mines on these islands were never worked out, for they never existed.
[2287] _Geogr._, iii, 3, § 7.--Μελανείμονες ἅπαντες.
[2288] _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, pp. 275-6. See also K. Müllenhoff,
_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 92, n. *, and Unger in _Rhein.
Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 163.
[2289] _Congrès internat. d’anthr. et d’archéol. préhist._, 1874, i,
579-84.
[2290] _Ib._, p. 579.
[2291] The theory of Mr. Cecil Torr, who holds that the Cassiterides
never existed, is virtually identical with that of M. Hildebrand. ‘In
the Phoenician language’, he remarks, ‘the word for island is the same
as in the Hebrew ... and this word אי is used repeatedly in the Bible
for places beyond the sea, as well as ... islands. Most probably the
Phoenicians used this word when speaking of the Cassiterides, meaning
thereby that these were places beyond the sea [which he identifies with
‘the north-west corner of Spain’]: but the Greeks understood it in
another sense, and thus turned these places into islands’ (_Academy_,
xlviii, Oct. 26, 1895, pp. 342-3). To the objection that Publius
Crassus reached the Cassiterides by sea, Mr. Torr replies that ‘there
is nothing to show that his destination was an island’ (_ib._, Nov. 9,
p. 390); but Mr. Talfourd Ely (_ib._, Nov. 16, p. 414) pertinently asks
whether the word διαβάς, which Strabo uses in describing the voyage
of Crassus, can be used of coasting from one point to another on the
same shore. Moreover, it is absurd to contend that ‘there is nothing
to show’ that Crassus sailed to an island; for Strabo says that the
Cassiterides were ten islands; and Mr. Torr is therefore forced, as we
have seen (p. 488), to make the incredible assumption that Strabo’s
account of the voyage of Crassus is pure fiction.
[2292] _Ency. Brit._, xviii, 1885, p. 806; _Lit. Centralblatt_, 1871,
p. 528.
[2293] Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii, part i, 1897, pp. 860, 863.
[2294] _Hist. of Rome_, v, 1894, p. 63 (_Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, p.
269).
[2295] ‘The ancient workings for Tin, in the Scilly Islands, are
neither deep, nor many, nor large’ (Wm. Borlase, _Observations on the
Ant. ... of ... Cornwall_, 1754, p. 30). [In St. Nicholas Island] ‘we
found a row of shallow Tin-pits.... These are the only Tin Pits which
we saw, or are any where to be seen, as we were informed, in these
Islands’ (_ib._, _Observations on the ... Islands of Scilly_, 1756, p.
45). ‘Some Tin might have been found in the low grounds washed down
from the Hills.... There may be also Tin-veins in those Cliffs which we
did not visit ... as the _Guêl-Hill_ of BREHAR, _Guêl_ Island, the name
_Guêl_ (or _Huêl_) in Cornish signifying a Working for Tin’ (_ib._, pp.
73-4). ‘I have been lately informed that, under one of the Cliffs of
ANNET, there is a Load, in which there is the appearance of Tin, and
that it looks as if it had been work’d’ (_ib._, p. 73, note m). ‘Tin is
found in several of the islands ... but there are now no mines in work’
(D. and S. Lysons, _Magna Britannia_, iii, 1814, p. 337). See Addenda,
p. 740.
[2296] See H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à
consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes_, &c., p. 42.
[2297] See F. Marx’s article in _Rhein. Mus._, 1, 1895, pp. 321-47.
[2298] _Ora maritima_, 90-8.--
Et prominentis his iugi surgit caput,
(Oestrymnin istud dixit aevum antiquius,)
Molesque celsa saxei fastigii
Tota in tepentem maxime vergit Notum.
Sub huius autem prominentis vertice
Sinus dehiscit incolis Oestrymnicus,
In quo insulae sese exserunt Oestrymnides,
Laxe iacentes, et metallo divites
Stanni atque plumbi.
[2299] See K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 91.
[2300] _Ora maritima_, 108-9.
[2301] _Ib._, 110-6.--
Haec inter undas multa caespitum iacet,
Eamque late gens Hibernorum colit.
Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet.
Tartesiisque in terminos Oestrymnidum
Negotiandi mos erat: Carthaginis
Etiam coloni, et vulgus, inter Herculis
Agitans columnas, haec adibant aequora, &c.
[2302] _Rhein. Mus._, 1, 1895, p. 335.
[2303] _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, pp. 139-40, n. 5.
[2304] _Ora maritima_, 94.
[2305] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 37.
[2306] Similarly Appian (_De rebus Hisp._, 1) says that the voyage from
Spain to the British Isles occupied half a day!
[2307] This page was written before I had read the relevant passage
in Kiepert’s _Formae orbis antiqui_, quoted on p. 493, _infra_. Dr.
H. Berger maintains (_Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der
Griechen_, iv, 1893, pp. 24-5) that Strabo’s error was due to a
misunderstanding of statements about islands situated on the route
which the ships engaged in the tin trade followed; but I cannot
conceive how such a misunderstanding could have been suggested by the
narrative of Crassus.
[2308] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 92 and note *; ii, 1887,
p. 317.
[2309] _Lit. Centralblatt_, 1871, pp. 528-9; _Ency. Brit._, xviii,
1885, p. 806.
[2310] See pp. 500-7, _infra_.
[2311] See also _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401, n. 2.
[2312] _Formae orbis antiqui,--insulae Britannicae_, 1893.
[2313] _The Cassiterides_, pp. 52-3. See also p. 80, n. *, and pp.
107-8, where Smith makes an ingenious but hardly successful attempt
to account for the statement of Strabo, repeated by Ptolemy, that the
Cassiterides were ten in number.
[2314] See p. 490, n. 1, _supra_.
[2315] See pp. 489-90, _supra_.
[2316] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 91-2.
[2317] _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, pp. 275-6.
[2318] Σαλύβη, ὅθεν ἀργύρου ἐστὶ γενέθλη. Homer, _Il._, ii, 857.
[2319] _L’Anthr._, iii, 1892, pp. 277-80. For unfavourable criticisms
of M. Reinach’s view see O. Schrader, _Reallexicon der indogermanischen
Altertumskunde_, p. 993, and _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, p. 140.
[2320] _Rhein. Mus._, xxxviii, 1883, p. 164.
[2321] _Hist. of Rome_, v, 1894, p. 63 (_Röm. Gesch._, iii, 1889, p.
269).
[2322] George Smith (_The Cassiterides_, p. 80) remarks that if Crassus
was Caesar’s lieutenant, his discovery of the Cassiterides ‘must have
taken place after the time of Julius Caesar’. But Smith forgets that
this Crassus died in 53 B.C.
[2323] _B. G._, v, 12, § 5.
[2324] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 91-2.
[2325] Strabo, iii, 2, § 11.
[2326] Groskurd (_Strabonis Erdbeschreibung_, i, 1831, p. 249)
translates the passage: ‘dass Iberiens nördliche Küsten gegen Keltike
leichtere Vorbeifahrt haben, als wenn man dem Ocean entgegeneschiffe.’
C. Müller, however, in his edition of Strabo (p. 953), rejects
Groskurd’s attempt to defend the common text, and holds that we
should read τὰ προσαρκτικὰ μέρη τῆς Ἰβηρίας εὐπαροδώτερα εἶναι τοῖς
πρὸς τὴν Κελτικὴν κατὰ τὸν ὠκεανὸν πλέουσι,, mentally supplying after
εὐπαροδώτερα the words τῶν νοτίων, if indeed they were not in Strabo’s
manuscript; and he gives good reasons for believing that Pytheas meant
to say what I have stated in the text.
[2327] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 370.
[2328] _B. G._, iii, 27, § 2.
[2329] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 38-9.
[2330] Unless a child born in 1888 could have been called Mr.
Gladstone’s contemporary. Strabo was born about 63, and Crassus died in
53 B.C.
[2331] As Sir George Cornewall Lewis pointed out (_Hist. Survey of the
Astronomy of the Ancients_, 1862, p. 452), ‘the Romans ... were not
likely to attempt voyages beyond the Pillars of Hercules before ...
146 B.C., whereas after that time the Carthaginians had no ships or
factories; Gades had been sixty years in the hands of the Romans; and
ever since the end of the Second Punic War the Romans had been able
to extort the secrets of the Carthaginians.... The story doubtless
originated in the known commercial jealousy of the Carthaginians,’ &c.
M. Salomon Reinach (_L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 400) holds that the Romans
were anxious to ascertain the maritime route to the Cassiterides
because it was cheaper than the overland route. But is it certain that
a voyage of more than 2,000 miles would have been cheaper than a land
journey of 600?
[2332] _B. G._, ii, 34; iii, 7, § 2.
[2333] Cf. H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der
Griechen_, iii, 1891, pp. 29, 34.
[2334] See pp. 500-7, _infra_.
[2335] H. Berger (_op. cit._, p. 29) affirms that, according to Strabo
(iii, 5, § 11), Crassus saw ‘with his own eyes’ the tin-mining actually
going on; but Strabo does not say this.
[2336] Berger (_op. cit._, pp. 34-5) points out that Crassus’s
description [was it his?], reproduced by Strabo, puts us in mind of
that of Diodorus (pp. 499, 506, _infra_), and may have been suggested
to Crassus by a perusal of Diodorus’s authority. R. Zimmermann, on the
contrary, argues (_Hermes_, xxiii, 1888, pp. 121-3) that the passage in
Strabo is based upon Posidonius. Obviously not the part which relates
to Crassus.
[2337] Ἴσως γὰρ δή τινες ἐπιζητήσουσι, πῶς ... οὐδὲν ἐπὶ πλεῖον
εἰρήκαμεν ... περὶ τῶν Βρεττανικῶν νήσων, καὶ τῆς τοῦ καττιτέρου
κατασκευῆς, ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἀργυρείων καὶ χρυσείων τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν,,
&c. (iii, 57, §§ 3-4).
[2338] See E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 1879, p. 12.
[2339] _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, p. 38.
[2340] _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401. Cf. H. d’Arbois de Jubainville,
_Les premiers habitants de l’Europe_, i, 1889, pp. 45-6.
[2341] _Engl. Hist. Review_, xix, 1904, p. 140, note.
[2342] _Bibl. Hist._, v. 22, § 2.--Κομίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον
προκειμένην τῆς Πρεττανικῆς, ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Ἴκτιν· κατὰ γὰρ τὰς
ἀμπώτεις ἀναξηραμένου τοῦ μεταξὺ τόπου, ταῖς ἁμάξαις εἰς ταύτην
κομίζουσι δαψιλῆ τὸν καττίτερον. Ἐντεῦθεν δ’ οἱ ἔμποροι παρὰ τῶν
ἐγχωρίων ὠνοῦνται καὶ διακομίζουσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλατίαν· τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον
πεζῇ διὰ τῆς Γαλατίας πορευθέντες ἡμέρας ὡς τριάκοντα κατάγουσιν ἐπὶ
τῶν ἵππων τὰ φορτία πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ ποταμοῦ.
[2343] See K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp.
471-2; H. Berger, _Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der
Griechen_, iii, 1891, pp. 34-5; and Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, iii,
part i, 1897, p. 860. Müllenhoff justly remarks that the account
which Diodorus gives in v, 22 of the mode in which the tin trade was
conducted must have been derived from an eye-witness; and that of all
the ancient writers Pytheas was the only one who saw with his own eyes
what went on at Ictis. Professor Ridgeway assumes that Diodorus’s
account of Ictis was borrowed from Posidonius; but the descriptions
which Elton (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, pp. 30-1, 34-5, 92) and
Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 45-6) have published of
the visit of Posidonius to Britain are purely imaginary; for there
is absolutely no evidence that he ever crossed the Channel. Elton
refers to a passage in the _Solutiones_ of Priscian of Lydia, a writer
of the sixth century (_quaest._ vi, p. 571 of F. Dübner’s edition),
which proves nothing about Posidonius. See J. Bake, _Posidonii Rhodii
reliquiae doctrinae_, 1810; _Fragm. hist. Graec._, ed. C. Müller,
iii, 1849, pp. 245-96; R. Scheppig, _De Posidonio_, 1869, p. 7; _Rev.
celt._, vii, 1886, p. 378; and M. Dubois, _Examen de la géogr. de
Strabon_, 1891, p. 327.
[2344] Professor Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 45) says that,
according to Diodorus, the tin was brought ‘to the outlet of the Rhone,
that is to say, to the meeting of the Rhone and the Saone’, &c. But
πρὸς τὴν ἐκβολὴν τοῦ Ῥοδανοῦ ποταμοῦ can only mean ‘to the mouth of the
Rhône’. Ἐκβολή sometimes means the issue of a river from a mountainous
country: it cannot mean that part of a river where it is joined by an
affluent; and I doubt whether the professor would seriously maintain
that ‘the outlet of the Rhône’ is at Lyons.
[2345] v, 38, § 5.--Πολὺς δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Πρεττανικῆς νήσου διακομίζεται
πρὸς τὴν κατ’ ἀντικρὺ κειμένην Γαλατίαν, καὶ διὰ τῆς μεσογείου Κελτικῆς
ἐφ’ ἵππων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμπόρων ἄγεται παρά τε τοὺς Μασσαλιώτας καὶ εἰς τὴν
ὀνομαζομένην πόλιν Ναρβῶνα.
[2346] _Nat. Hist._, iv, 16(30), § 104.--Timaeus historicus a Britannia
introrsum sex dierum navigatione abesse dicit insulam Mictim in qua
candidum plumbum proveniat; ad eam Britannos vitilibus navigiis corio
circumsutis navigare. E. H. Bunbury (_Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 1879,
p. 603, n. 9) remarks that ‘it is impossible to say what sense we are
to attach to the word “introrsus”, upon which the interpretation of
the whole passage, in a geographical sense, depends’. I shall show
presently (p. 505, _infra_) that only one sense which is not nonsense
can be attributed to _introrsum_.
Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471) holds that
Pliny confused the distance of Ictis from Britain with that of Thule,
which, as he says in an earlier passage (_Nat. Hist._, ii, 75 [77],
§ 187), was ‘six days’ sail northward from Britain’ (_sex dierum
navigatione in septentrionem a Britannia_). See p. 505, _infra_.
[2347] The geographical position of Corbilo cannot be fixed. Desjardins
(_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 1876, p. 288) was originally inclined
to place it near Beslon in the peninsula of Guérande, because the
neighbourhood is ‘rempli de souvenirs celtiques’. Beslon is no more
on the Loire than Margate is on the Thames; and if the tin had been
landed there, it would have been necessary either to tranship it and
carry it across the Loire, or to take the pack-horses by a roundabout
route up the valley of that river. Afterwards (_ib._, ii, 1878, pp.
139, 484-5, 485, n. 1) Desjardins changed his mind, and identified
Corbilo with St.-Nazaire: ‘cet emplacement’, he remarked, anticipating
one of the objections which I have just made against his former view,
‘cet emplacement s’accorde-t-il beaucoup mieux que celui de Beslon avec
le texte de Strabon, qui porte cet ancien port sur la Loire, et non
sur la mer.’ He relied mainly upon the investigations of an engineer,
M. René Kerviler, who, ‘ayant eu l’occasion de faire des travaux
d’approfondissement à Saint-Nazaire, y a découvert des substructions
qui avaient fait vraisemblablement partie de l’ancien port de
_Corbilon_.’ See _Rev. arch._, nouv. sér., xxxiii, 1877, pp. 145-53,
230-9, 342-53. M. Kerviler himself identified the remains with those of
the _Brivates portus_ of Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 8, § 1.
[2348] _Geogr._, iv, 2, § 1.--πρότερον δὲ Κορβιλὼν ὑπῆρχεν ἐμπόριον
ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ ποταμῷ, περὶ ἧς εἴρηκε Πολύβιος, μνησθεὶς τῶν ὑπὸ Πυθέου
μυθολογηθέντων, ὅτι Μασσαλιωτῶν μὲν τῶν συμμιξάντων Σκιπίωνι οὐδεὶς
εἶχε λέγειν οὐδὲν μνήμης ἄξιον ἐρωτηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Σκιπίωνος περὶ τῆς
Βρεττανικῆς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Νάρβωνος οὐδὲ τῶν ἐκ Κορβιλῶνος, αἵπερ ἦσαν
ἄρισται πόλεις τῶν ταύτῃ.
[2349] Cf. _Folk-lore_, i, 1890, pp. 85-6, and H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of
Anc. Geogr._, p. 36.
[2350] Cf. K. Müllenhoff, _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 471,
and D. Detlefsen in W. Sieglin’s _Quellen und Forschungen_, &c., Heft
9, p. 77.
[2351] _Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 34.
[2352] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, p. 46.
[2353] Mr. Alfred Tylor blunders even more hopelessly than Elton. ‘The
transhipment of tin’, he says (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233),
‘was described by ancient writers as taking place at Vectis, six days’
sail from Cornwall.’
[2354] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 95-7.
[2355] _Ib._, pp. 98-101.
[2356] See pp. 250, 359-60, _supra_.
[2357] Mr. Alfred Tylor (_Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 233) argues,
in favour of the identification of Ictis with the Isle of Wight, that
‘Stans Ore Point is said to be named from Stannum (tin)’; and Elton
(_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 230) thinks that ‘the course of the
metal-trade may be indicated by the names of places on the coast-road
leading eastward from the Exe, as ... Stans Ore Point’. Now, as O.
Schrader points out (_Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples_, 1890, p.
217), _stannum_ probably did not get the meaning of ‘tin’ before the
fourth century A.D.; and even if the derivation in question could be
established, it would not prove that Ictis was the Isle of Wight. Tin
was doubtless conveyed eastward from Cornwall; but not for the supply
of the Mediterranean markets.
[2358] _Archaeologia_, xlviii, 1885, p. 236.
[2359] vi, 2, § 6.--ᾬκουν δὲ καὶ Φοίνικες περὶ πᾶσαν μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν
ἄκρας τε ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἀπολαβόντες καὶ τὰ ἐπικείμενα νησίδια ἐμπορίας
ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Σικελούς.
[2360] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 409.
[2361] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.
[2362] _Trans. Roy. Geol. Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, pp. 91-4.
[2363] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 546-7.
[2364] The italics are mine. Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_,
i, 1890, pp. 471-2) asserts that ‘Ictis can only be looked for at the
promontory of Belerium’ [the Land’s End], and that ‘it is undoubtedly
one of the small islands off the Land’s End, which are marked on the
Ordnance Map (sheets 32 and 33)’. It must be presumed that Müllenhoff
came to this singular conclusion because Pytheas landed at Belerium.
But there is no reason to suppose that he landed at the precise spot
which we call the Land’s End; and if he did he certainly went on to
visit the tin mines. If Müllenhoff had known the Cornish coast, or
even studied the map carefully, he would have seen that tin could not
have been conveyed in carts down the cliffs opposite the small islands
to which he refers, and that, as Dr. Barham says (_Trans. Roy. Geol.
Soc. Cornwall_, iii, 1828, p. 91), ‘there is not ... any other island
[besides St. Michael’s Mount] on the Cornish, or any neighbouring
shores to which carts can pass at low water; there is no other spot, at
all answering to the description of Diodorus, which becomes alternately
an island and a peninsula with the changes of the tide.’
George Smith (_The Cassiterides_, p. 114) points out that ‘twelve
miles to the west of St. Michael’s Mount, and eighteen miles to the
east of it, comprehend almost the whole of the ancient tin mining
district’. Professor Rhys, on the other hand, states (_Celtic Britain_,
1904, p. 44) that the tin districts ‘in ancient times were chiefly
Dartmoor, with the country around Tavistock, and that around St.
Austell, including several valleys looking towards the southern coast
of Cornwall’; and he adds that ‘in most of the other districts where
tin existed it is supposed to have lain too deep to have been worked
in early times’. I do not know whether among these ‘other districts’
he includes the one near St. Michael’s Mount; but it is certain
that the tin in this district was worked in early times. It was the
district of Belerium, where the tin-workers mentioned by Diodorus
lived; and he says that there were veins of tin in the hard rock near
the surface (αὕτη δὲ πετρώδης οὖσα διαφυὰς ἔχει γεώδεις, ἐν αἷς τὸν
πόρον κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τήξαντες καθαίρουσιν [v, 22, § 2]. Cf. Strabo,
iii, 5, § 11, and _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed., vi, 425). Mr. P. W. Flower
(_Hist. of the Trade in Tin_, 1880, p. 26) tells us that from pre-Roman
days ‘Cornish men have been sinking deeper and deeper in their search
for cheaper metal’; while Prof. Haverfield (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd
ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122), after remarking that ‘the tin districts of
Dartmoor [were] worked largely in the middle ages’, says, ‘The Dartmoor
tin is, I believe, far more difficult to work than the Cornish, and
this fact may explain the Roman neglect of it.’ See also, for evidence
that Cornish tin was won in the Bronze Age, _Archaeologia_, xvi, 1812,
p. 137, pl. 10; xlix, 1885, p. 181; and _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxi,
1874, pp. 53, 60. I am astonished to find that M. Salomon Reinach
(_L’Anthr._, xvii, 1906, pp. 235-6), noticing a paper the writer of
which maintains that no tin was worked in Britain until after the date
of Domesday Book, says, ‘Cette manière de voir, bien que contredite par
les textes, mérite réflexion.’
[2365] _Archaeologia_, lix, part ii, 1905, pp. 281-8.
[2366] _Principles of Geology_, i, 1875, pp. 543-4.
[2367] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1865 (1866), p. 71.
[2368] _Geol. Mag._, 1879, pp. 74-5.
[2369] _Chips from a German Workshop_, iii, 1870, pp. 330-57. Elton,
even in his second edition (_Origins of Eng. Hist._, 1890, p. 37),
repeated the obsolete argument alluded to in the text.
[2370] See p. 31, _supra_.
[2371] See p. 222, _supra_.
[2372] iv, 16 (30), §§ 103-4. Prof. Ridgeway (_Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd
ser., xx, 1904, p. 343) affirms, Prof. Rhys (_Celtic Britain_, 1904,
p. 304) apparently denies that _Ictis_ and _Vectis_ were phonetically
connected. See Addenda, p. 740.
[2373] See p. 499, n. 5, _supra_.
[2374] _Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 85.
[2375] See p. 221, _supra_.
[2376] _Dicuili liber de mensura orbis terrae_, ed. G. Parthey, 1870,
pp. 42-4 (7, 11-4). Dicuil was an Irish monk, who wrote A.D. 825.
[2377] _Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age_ (Brit. Museum), p. 146.
[2378] Φιλόξενοί τε διαφερόντως εἰσὶ καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν ξένων ἐμπόρων
ἐπιμιξίαν ἐξημερωμένοι τὰς ἀγωγάς.
[2379] This is admitted, or rather maintained, by Prof. Ridgeway.
[2380] See p. 499, nn. 2 and 5, _supra_.
[2381] _Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, p. 223.
[2382] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, p. 105.
[2383] See p. 501, _supra_.
[2384] _B. G._, iii, 8, § 1. Cf. Strabo, iv, 4, § 1.
[2385] _Geogr._, iv, 5, § 1.
[2386] I cannot see how Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the Ant. of the
Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 85) reconciles his theory, that the
route in ‘the opening years of the first century B.C.’ passed through
Kent with his previous assertion (p. 84) that ‘about 90 B.C.’ it left
the British coast at the Isle of Wight.
[2387] As Professor Ridgeway assumes that Posidonius was the authority
whom Diodorus followed both in v, 22 and in v, 38, he would be
compelled to maintain that in the passage which served as the basis of
the former chapter Posidonius was describing only the route which the
tin trade followed in the time of Pytheas, in the other that which it
followed in his own time. How can the professor prove this?
[2388] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 119.
[2389] _Celtic Britain_, 1904, pp. 47-50.
[2390] _Folk-Lore_, i, 1890, pp. 83-4.
[2391] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlix, 1892, p. 178.
[2392] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.
[2393] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 122.
[2394] Numerous Roman inscribed objects of lead have been discovered in
Spain (_Corpus Inscr. Lat._, ii, 4964, and Suppl., 6243, 6247-8); but
so far as I can ascertain, none of tin.
[2395] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, p. 232.
[2396] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, pp. 119-20.
[2397] _Archaeol. Journal_, xlvii, 1890, pp. 230-3; xlix, 1892, p. 178;
_Corpus Inscr. Lat._, vii, 13.
[2398] _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xviii, 1900, p. 120.
[2399] _Ib._, p. 122.
[2400] _Ib._, p. 118.
[2401] _Ib._ What puzzles me is how Professor Haverfield reconciles his
view that in the third century ‘Cornish tin began to take its place as
an article of commerce in Roman Britain’ (_Mélanges Boissier_, 1903, p.
251) with his own suggestion (_ib._, p. 250) that ‘either the tin ores
had never been so rich as fancy painted, or the accessible deposits had
been worked out [two centuries earlier], or ... Spanish competition had
ousted British tin’. Evidently the accessible deposits had not been
worked out; and British tin must have had superabundant vitality if it
reasserted itself two centuries after it had been ousted.
[2402] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, pp. 451-5.
[2403] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.
[2404] _Anc. Bronze Implements_, p. 419. Cf. F. J. Haverfield in
_Mélanges Boissier_, p. 249, n. 1. Mr. Reginald Smith (_Guide to the
Ant. of the Early Iron Age_ [Brit. Museum], p. 137) suggests, with
the approval of Mr. C. H. Read, that a bronze statuette, found near
Aust-on-Severn, may have been deposited ‘by Phoenician traders to our
shores’. Cf. _Proc. Soc. Ant._, 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 192.
[2405] See G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, p. 54.
[2406] G. Smith, _The Cassiterides_, pp. 47-9. See also pp. 56-7, and
E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, i, 12.
[2407] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 329.
[2408] See pp. 484-6, _supra_.
[2409] _Tin Mining in Spain_, p. 28.
[2410] _Ora Maritima_, 113-6.--
Tartesiisque in terminos Oestrymnidum
Negotiandi mos erat: Carthaginis
Etiam coloni, et vulgus, inter Herculis
Agitans columnas, haec adibant aequora.
See also H. F. Tozer, _Hist. of Anc. Geogr._, pp. 110-1.
[2411] Prof. Haverfield (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xix, 1904, p. 746) thinks
that ‘the “Periplus” of Avienus cannot safely be attributed to
Himilco’; but M. Camille Jullian (_Ann. de la Faculté des lettres de
Bordeaux,--Bull. hisp._, v. 1903, p. 109; _Journal des Savants_, nouv.
sér., No. 2, 1905, pp. 95-8) supports my view. I am not sure, however,
that Prof. Haverfield means to express a doubt whether the Periplus was
_ultimately_ based upon Himilco’s report. Cf. _Rhein. Mus._, l, 1895,
p. 336.
[2412] _Hist. Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, p. 455.
[2413] E. Hübner, _Monumenta linguae Ibericae_, 1893, p. xxvi; H.
d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Principaux auteurs de l’ant. à consulter sur
l’hist. des Celtes_, &c., p. 42.
[2414] _Nat. Hist._, ii, 67, § 169.--Hanno Carthaginis potentia
florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae navigationem eam
prodidit scripto, sicut ad extera Europae noscenda eodem tempore
Himilco. I find that Müllenhoff (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890,
pp. 93-5) has anticipated a remark which I was about to make, namely,
that the object of Himilco’s voyage was undoubtedly to open up new
markets for trade, and not merely to explore. See also Lord Avebury’s
_Prehist. Times_, 1900, pp. 57-67, though I think that his argument
might have been more valuable if he had taken note of Mr. Borlase’s
_Tin Mining in Spain_.
[2415] Mr. W. C. Borlase (_Tin Mining in Spain_, pp. 24-6), remarking
that ‘there is an extremely rare form of [the palstave], namely with
two loops, and that has been found exclusively in Cornwall and Devon
(in the mining districts especially), in Ireland, and in the western
and north-western portion of the Iberian Peninsula’, and that ‘bronze
celts of this class belong ... to ... 1250 to 1050 B.C.’, concludes
that ‘at that period then--the very period to which has been assigned
the foundation of Gades--Cornwall and the west coast of Spain were
already in communication’. Perhaps; but not necessarily Cornwall and
Gades. Similar celts have also been found in France (J. Evans, _Anc.
Bronze Implements_, pp. 96-7).
Müllenhoff also argues (_Deutsche Altertumskunde_, i, 1890, pp. 5-8)
that the passage in the _Odyssey_ (x, 81-6) which describes the
country of the Laestrygones, where the days in summer were very long
and the nights very short, would seem to be based upon stories told
by Phoenician mariners; but, as I have already remarked (p. 218), if
Homer’s lines were founded upon fact, it is more probable that the
stories came to him from Scandinavia.
[2416] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1896, p. 910.
[2417] _The Builder_, Aug. 26, 1865, p. 604.
[2418] C. F. Wiberg (_Der Einfluss der klassischen Völker_, &c., 1867,
p. 13) thinks that ‘the promontory of Herakles’, or Hartland Point
(Ptolemy, _Geogr._, ii, 3, § 2), may owe its name to the Phoenician
worship of Hercules; but I do not know that any one except Prof. Boyd
Dawkins (_Early Man in Britain_, p. 461) attaches any importance to
this suggestion.
[2419] _L’Anthr._, x, 1899, p. 401.
[2420] i, 13, § 5.--οἰκοῦντες γὰρ τὴν πόλιν οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰσθμοῦ
ἀεὶ δή ποτε ἐμπόριον εἶχον, τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸ πάλαι κατὰ γῆν τὰ πλείω ἢ
κατὰ θάλασσαν, τῶν τε ἐντὸς Πελοποννήσου καὶ τῶν ἔξω, διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων
παρ’ ἀλλήλους ἐπιμισγόντων, &c.
[2421] B. Jowett, _Thucydides translated into English_, i, 1881, p. 10.
[2422] See p. 126, _supra_.
[2423] See p. 485, n. 5, _supra_.
[2424] _Nat. Hist._, vii, 56 (57), § 194.
[2425] _Fabulae_, ed. M. Schmidt, 1872, CCLXXIV (p. 149).
[2426] _Variarum_ iii, 51 (J. P. Migne, _Patrologiae cursus completus_,
lxix, 1848, col. 594).
[2427] See C. Müller’s edition of Diodorus, i, 1842, p. 316 (Reliquiae
libri vii, 13). The commencement of the maritime supremacy of the
Phoenicians is here dated 58 years after the commencement of that of
the Phrygians, and 279 years after the Trojan War.
[2428] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 18; _Essex Naturalist_, i,
1887, pp. 266-76.
[2429] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 252.
[2430] See pp. 151, n. 4, 253, 256, _supra_.
[2431] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 252.
[2432] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc._, N. S., vii, 253-4.
[2433] _Nat. Hist._, xvii, 8 (4), § 45. Cf. _Essex Naturalist_, i, 249.
[2434] _Ib._, pp. 249-50.
[2435] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, pp. 98-101.
[2436] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250.
[2437] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxix, 1882, p. 19.
[2438] _Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association_, N. S., x, 1904, p. 98. Cf.
_Times_, Sept. 30, 1905, p. 3, cols. 3-4.
[2439] _Essex Naturalist_, i, 250-1.
[2440] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.
[2441] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 453.
[2442] Worthington G. Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, pp. 326-7.
[2443] J. A. H. Murray, _New Eng. Dict._, iii, 192-3.
[2444] _Geol. Mag._, 1898, p. 457.
[2445] _Trans. Essex Archaeol. Association_, N. S., vii, 1900, p. 253.
[2446] _Vict. Hist. of ... Essex_, i, 310-1.
[2447] _Excavations in Cranborne Chase_, i, 4.
[2448] A. Joanne, _Dict. géogr. ... de la France_, 1869, p. xli.
[2449] _Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 349 and n. 3, 391.
[2450] In particular C. de Laroière in _Annales du comité flamand de
France_, x, 1868-9 (1870), pp. 249-322.
[2451] See _Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique_, 3^e sér., viii,
1884, pp. 681-9. Desjardins (_Géogr. de la Gaule rom._, i, 391) admits
that it is only ‘probable’ that it existed at that time. Cf. R.
Blanchard, _La Flamande_, 1906, pp. 134-46.
[2452] _Rev. sc._, 2^e sér., xv, 1878-9 (1879), pp. 90-3. According
to M. V. J. Vaillant (_Classis Britannica_, 1888, pp. 66-7), an
inscription (_SALINATORES CIVITATIS MORINORVM_), ‘cité par I. Gruter,
nous rapporte à une époque où la mer pénétrait librement jusqu’au delà
de Saint-Omer et où les marais salants étaient exploités sur les rives
de ce large golfe par les Morins et les Ménapiens.’ M. Vaillant gives
neither the reference nor the date of the inscription: it was found at
Ariminum in Cisalpine Gaul, and makes mention of the emperor Vespasian;
and it is reproduced in Gruter’s _Inscr. ant. totius orbis Romani_, ii,
1707, p. MXCVI, 4. Needless to say, it does not prove that the ‘gulf’
existed in Vespasian’s time, but only that there were salt-works in the
territory of the Morini.
[2453] See pp. 565-7, 572, 586-7, _infra_.
[2454] _Boulogne-sur-mer et la région boulonnaise_, i, 359-61.
[2455] A. Joanne, _Dict. géog. ... de la France_, p. xlii.
[2456] _Hist. eccl._, i, 25. Cf. Solinus, ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 114.
[2457] _Archaeol. Cant._, xii, 1878, p. 3. See also _Twenty-third
Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc._, 1881, p. 48.
[2458] _Ant. of Richborough_, &c., 1774, pp. 137-9; _Archaeologia_, i,
1770, pp. 79-83.
[2459] _Hist. of Sandwich_, 1792, p. 865.
[2460] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.
[2461] _Itin. Ant._, ed. P. Wesseling, 1735, p. 472.
[2462] The reference is incorrect. For ‘30’ read ‘230’.
[2463] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 207.
[2464] Sheet 290.
[2465] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, pp. 212-3.
[2466] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 110.
[2467] _Ant. of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne_, 1850, pp. 53-4. See
also _Archaeol. Cant._, xiv, 1882, pp. 368-9; xxiv, 1900, p. 108; and
_Archaeologia_, li, 1888, p. 465. Beale Poste (_Britannia antiqua_,
1857, p. 282) states that in one of the sand-hills, half a mile north
of Sandown Castle, a large number of coins of Victorinus, Probus,
Tetricus, ‘and others of the lower empire’ were found in 1839.
[2468] See _Archaeol. Cant._, viii, 1872, pp. 13-4. Boys, quoted by
Roach Smith (_Ant. of Richborough_, &c., p. 53) remarks that, ‘in
digging to lay the foundation of Richborough sluice, the workmen, after
penetrating through what was once the bed of the river that runs close
by ... came to a seashore that had been suddenly covered with silt.’
[2469] ‘Just north of the Isle of Richborough’, says Dowker (_Journ.
Brit. Archaeol. Association_, xl, 1884, p. 272), ‘is a large artificial
excavation in the hill. I gave a description of this when I wrote the
account of the ... excavation at the Castrum; and I drew attention to
its being a Roman harbour. It is just opposite a farm that goes by the
name of “Fleet”.’
[2470] _Archaeol. Journal_, liii, 1896, p. 356.
[2471] _Ib._, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.
[2472] _Ib._, facing page 64.
[2473] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxiv, 1900, p. 108.
[2474] _Dict. Nat. Biogr._, xlviii, 15.
[2475] _Archaeologia_, xxi, 1827, p. 505.
[2476] _The Cinque Ports_, 1888, p. 229.
[2477] I am glad to find that this remark has been anticipated by Mr.
C. R. S. Elvin (_Records of Walmer_, 1890, p. 30).
[2478] _Itinerary_, 2nd ed., vii, 1744, fol. 127 (p. 116). Professor
Burrows may perhaps have followed Hasted, who says (_Hist. of Kent_,
iv, 1799, p. 163) that ‘_Upper Deal_ was composed of the habitations
of a few poor fishermen only, though at a less distance from the sea
than at present, owing to the great increase of beach thrown on this
shore afterwards’; and in note _e_ he observes that ‘Leland ... seems
to confirm this’. Leland, as I show in the text, does no such thing.
Hasted goes on to say that ‘Even so late as the year 1624, a house
... on the _west_ side of the _Lower Street_ (the farthest at this
time from the sea shore) is described in a deed of that date to abut
_ad le sea bank versus orientem_’. Very likely: but the fact does not
prove that the west side of Lower Street was an inch nearer the sea in
1624 than it is now; for the breadth of ‘_le sea bank_’ is not stated.
Anyhow Deal Castle has not moved since 1624: therefore, if Hasted is
right, the sea must then have made a sudden bend landward immediately
north of Deal Castle, and formed a bay; which is absurd. The west side
of Lower Street is now about 550 feet from the high-water mark of
ordinary tides (_Six-Inch Ordnance Survey_, Sheets 58 and 58A).
[2479] The distance from the ‘high-water mark of ordinary tides’ to the
nearest point of Upper Deal appears to be about 3,900 feet (_Six-Inch
Ordnance Survey_, Sheet 58).
[2480] _Archaeol. Journal_, xxxiii, 1876, p. 71.
[2481] _Ib._, p. 58.
[2482] _Ib._, p. 59.
[2483] _Proc. Geologists’ Association_, ix, 1885-6 (1887), pp. 174-5.
[2484] ‘It is certain,’ wrote Dowker in 1876 (_Archaeol. Journal_,
xxxiii, 59), ‘that when the sea swept the Stonar beach, Deal had no
existence.’ Even men of science sometimes use the word ‘certain’ a
little rashly. At that time Dowker asserted that the Stonar beach ‘must
have travelled from the cliff between Dover and Deal’. In 1887 (_Proc.
Geologists’ Association_, ix, 174-5) he ‘pointed to the stones of which
it is composed as evincing their origin from the cliff at Pegwell....
To imagine it to have travelled from the south, we must,’ he said,
‘have a shore-line cutting far back beyond the Deal beach, of which at
present there was no evidence.’
[2485] _Itin. curiosum_, 2nd ed., 1776, pp. 126-7.
[2486] It must be borne in mind that Stukeley wrote before the great
increase of shingle in the neighbourhood of Walmer.
[2487] _Ib._; C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of Walmer_, pp. 2-3, 5.
[2488] _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series_, of James I, 1611-8,
p. 324 (vol. lxxxii, 129), under date 1615; _ib._, Charles I, 1625-6,
p. 321 (vol. xxv, 82), under date 1626; _ib._, 1627-8, p. 200 (vol.
lxv. 62), under date 1627. In the British Museum is a print, called
‘N.W. View of Deal Castle’, published in 1735, from which it would
appear that at that time the castle was as close to the sea as it is
now,--neither more nor less.
[2489] _Records of Walmer_, p. 5.
[2490] _Coast Erosion_, p. 3.
[2491] _Report of ... the Brit. Association_, 1888 (1889), p. 910. The
following table, compiled by Major A. C. Hepper, R.E. (_ib._, 1885,
p. 440), illustrates the movements of the shingle during the period
between 1741 and 1884:--
_Increase_ _Decrease_
_Place_ _From_ _To_ _Feet_ _Feet_
Walmer Castle 1741 1841 308 --
” ” 1841 1859 34 --
” ” 1859 1872 33 --
” ” 1872 1884 10 --
Deal Castle 1741 1859 85 --
” ” 1859 1872 -- 40
” ” 1872 1884 35 --
Sandown Castle 1741 1859 -- 145
” ” 1859 1872 -- 50
” ” 1872 1884 -- 5
No. 2 Battery 1859 1884 140 --
The encroachment of the sea north of Deal between 1848 and 1856 was due
to the extraordinary prevalence of north-easterly winds.
[2492] _Britannia antiqua_, 1857, p. 282.
[2493] In regard to this statement, and also that of Roach Smith,
recording the discovery of coins at Stonar (see p. 520, _supra_), Sir
John Evans has written to me, ‘I have no personal knowledge of either
of the finds of Roman coins that you mention. Roach Smith, however,
and Beale Poste are competent authorities in such a case, and I see no
reason why you should not accept their statements.’
[2494] _Archaeol. Cant._, xxv, 1902, p. 1.
[2495] _Ib._, pp. 4-5. This discovery stultifies Hasted’s remark
(_Hist. of Kent_, iv, 1779, p. 173), that ‘towards the village of
Walmer [as one comes from Deal] is a flat, many feet lower than the
high-water mark, which the beach thrown up along the shore has fenced
from the sea, and which probably when _Caesar_ landed on this coast
might be all covered with water’. Cf. C. R. S. Elvin, _Records of
Walmer_, p. 3.
[2496] See also _Archaeol. Cant._, xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2.
[2497] Part i, 9th ed., 1900, p. 339.
[2498] _Britannia antiqua_, pp. 288-9.
[2499] _The Channel Pilot_, part i, 1900, p. 338.
[2500] _Geogr. Journal_, ix, 1897, p. 655.
[2501] G. B. Gattie, _Memorials of the Goodwin Sands_, 1890, pp. 3, 5-6.
[2502] _Principles of Geology_, 1875, i, 530-1.
[2503] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861, p. 203.--An.
M.XCIX.