  [Only such references to authors are included as seemed likely to be useful.] 36@57336-h@57336-h-31.htm.html#Page_695" class="pginternal">695;Oxford: Printed at the Clarendon Press by Horace Hart, M.A. 1 Dr. Joseph Anderson (Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, 1886, p. 135) has pointed out that the subject of stone circles was first treated in a scientific spirit in 1692—long before Stukeley wrote—by Prof. Garden of Aberdeen (Archaeologia, i, 1770, pp. 312-9). 2 See A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 1898, p. 18 (preface), and cf. Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 72. 3 xiii, 1800, pp. 204-5. 4 Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, 1880, pp. 155-7; Sir J. Evans, Ancient Stone Implements ... of Great Britain, 2nd ed., 1897, pp. 56-61, 65, 362-8; Rev. arch., 4e sÉr. 1, vii, 1906, pp. 239-59. 5 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 363. 6 None of these excavators, however, was so thorough as Pitt-Rivers; and Bateman was often careless (see H. St. G. Gray’s Index to ‘Excavations in Cranborne Chase’, 1905, p. xvi). But it must be remembered that to do such work properly, not only skill and perseverance are needed, but also money. 7 Pitt-Rivers remarks (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, 1892, pp. x, 254) that a rampart almost always yields something, for example, pottery, which throws light on the period of its construction; while his experience shows the importance of ‘digging the whole of a camp over, down to the undisturbed soil’ (ib., iv, 14 [preface]). He tells us (ib., p. 4) that when he was excavating the earthwork called South Lodge Camp, ‘in the first three sections little or nothing was found, which shows what very false conceptions are liable to be formed by merely digging one or two sections in a camp.’ See also vol. iii, pp. xi, 13; vol. iv, pp. 46-8, 138, 144, 187; Trans. Epping Forest ... Naturalists’ Field Club, ii, 1882, pp. 59-60; and Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1904, pp. 691-700. 8 The Past in the Present, 1880. 9 The following passage from Sir John Evans’s Ancient Bronze Implements ... of Great Britain and Ireland, 1880, pp. 25-6, is instructive:—‘In company with Sir John Lubbock I was engaged in opening a grave [at Hallstatt] in which we had come to an interment of the Early Iron Age, accompanied by a socketed celt and spear-heads of iron, when amidst the bones I caught sight of a thin metallic disc of a yellowish colour which looked like a coin. Up to that time no coin had ever been found in any one of the many hundred graves which had been examined, and I eagerly picked up this disc. It proved to be a “sechser”, or six-kreutzer piece, with the date 1826, which by some means had worked its way down among the crevices in the stony ground.... Had this coin been of Roman date it might have afforded an argument for bringing down the date of the Hallstatt cemetery some centuries in the chronological scale. As it is, it affords a wholesome caution against drawing important inferences from the mere collocation of objects when there is any possibility of the apparent association being only due to accident.’ 10 See Mr. H. Balfour’s interesting introduction to Pitt-Rivers’s Evolution of Culture, 1906, p. xiv. 11 Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), 1902, p. 76. See also Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, p. 18. 12 Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 1905, p. 22. 13 Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Field Club, xxi, 1900, p. 75. 14 See A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, p. xii; iv, p. 28. 15 Ib., iii, p. xiii. 16 Mr. N. W. Thomas (Man, v, 1905, No. 25, pp. 47-8) points out that ‘some five years ago the Berlin collections [of ethnographical objects] from British possessions were seven times as large as those in our national museum, and since then this disproportion has not been decreased’, the reason being that ‘the men whom the nation pays to perform certain duties [in national expeditions] are permitted to retain the objects collected in the performance of those duties’. But the nation is to blame as much as the Government. 17 See pp. 61, 385-90, infra. 18 Lafcadio Hearn, Kokoro, p. 290. 19 ‘Comme palÉontologiste,’ says M. Marcellin Boule, ‘je crois fermement À l’existence de l’Homme tertiaire: je ne doute pas qu’on trouvera un jour ses traces’ (L’Anthropologie, xvi, 1905, p. 267). 20 Sir A. Geikie, Text-book of Geology, 4th ed., ii, 1903, pp. 1224-5, 1231. 21 Sir A. Ramsay’s theory (Physical Geol. and Geogr. of Great Britain, 6th ed., 1894, p. 269), that the basins of the Scottish and Cumbrian lakes were scooped out of the rocks by glaciers, was held by no British geologist a few years ago, except in a modified form. See A. J. Jukes-Browne, Student’s Handbook of Phys. Geol., 2nd ed., 1892, pp. 159, 624, 629-30; T. G. Bonney, Ice-Work, Present and Past, 1896, pp. 80-94; and Sir A. Geikie, Text-book of Geol., 1903, i, 552; ii, 1323-4, 1385-6. Prof. W. M. Davis of Harvard has, however, recently produced fresh evidence ‘in favour of the excavating power of glaciers’ (Trans. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh, xl, part ii, 1902, p. 457); and Ramsay’s theory is ‘in no wise extinct’ (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxii, 1906, p. 166); but Prof. E. J. Garwood has recently investigated the Alpine lakes near Airolo, and holds (ib., p. 190) that, with a few possible exceptions, they ‘do not seem to be due to ice-erosion’. 22 For instance, H. B. Woodward, Geol. of England and Wales, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 475-512; J. Prestwich, Geology, ii, 1888, pp. 453-4, 469; A. J. Jukes-Browne, The Building of the Brit. Isles, 1888, pp. 281, 289, 294-6; Sir A. C. Ramsay, Phys. Geol. and Geogr. of Great Britain, 6th ed., 1894, pp. 229, 238, 242-3, 246-8, 252, 259, 263, 276; T. G. Bonney, Ice-Work, Present and Past, 1896, pp. 121, 277; and Sir A. Geikie, Text-book of Geology, 1903, i, 169; ii, 1302-32. 23 Mr. T. Mellard Reade, in an interesting paper (Nat. Science, iii, 1893, pp. 423-35) has argued against the view that these shells were carried up the hill of Moel Tryfaen by a glacier. See also, in support of the theory of a period of extensive submergence, Geol. Mag., 1893, pp. 35-7, 104-7; 1896, pp. 488-92; 1897, pp. 229-33. 24 H. Carvill Lewis, Papers and Notes, &c., 1894, pp. 375-6; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1893 (1894), pp. 483-514; Nature, Aug. 16, 1906, p. 399; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxii, 1906, pp. 33, 39. Mr. T. F. Jamieson, the author of the last-named paper, suggests that the submergence may have been confined to the northern part of Scotland. 25 Nat. Science, iv, 1894, p. 472. Cf. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xl, part i, 1904, p. 82. 26 Clement Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, 1899, pp. 39-40. 27 Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 253; Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 176. 28 Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 25-6. See p. 19, infra. 29 Geol. Mag., 1895, pp. 63-4. 30 C. Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 38. 31 See Sir A. Geikie’s Text-book of Geology, ii, 1903, p. 1313. Cf. Nature, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 388-9, 399. 32 See Sir A. Geikie’s Text-book of Geology, ii, 1903, p. 1313. 33 Proc. Geologists’ Association, ix, 1887, pp. 111-2. 34 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., liv, 1898, pp. 197-227, especially p. 209; Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xl, part i, 1904, p. 83; Vict. Hist. of ... Durham, i, 24. Professor Bonney, however (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxii, 1906, pp. 491-2, 498), remains unconvinced. 35 See Mr. G. W. Lamplugh’s opening address, delivered in Section C of the British Association (Nature, Aug. 16, 1906, pp. 387-400). Mr. T. F. Jamieson, in a valuable and interesting paper (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxii, 1906, p. 23), observes that ‘although we have some evidence of more than one recurrence of an ice-sheet in [Aberdeenshire] ... no evidence has hitherto been obtained of warm intervals, further than that which may be inferred from the melting away of the vast mass of ice which preceded and followed the deposition of the Red Clay and the shell-bed at Clava and elsewhere. It must have taken a great deal of heat to melt these enormous masses.’ 36 Is it certain that an elevation of seventy feet would not have been enough to unite Britain with the Continent? For thousands of years the scour of the tides must have been deepening the Channel. [On April 11, 1906, I submitted to Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I had with him at the Geological Museum, the gist of the argument by which I endeavour to show (pp. 20-2, infra) that during some part of the Palaeolithic Age Britain must have been continental. He virtually admitted its force, remarking that an elevation of seventy feet would have enabled animals to cross from Gaul to Britain, as the scour of the tides had doubtless deepened the Channel.] 37 Origin of the Brit. Flora, pp. 37, 38. 38 Ib., p. 41; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xlviii, 1892, pp. 344-61. Cf. Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 32. 39 Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 39. See also Memoirs Geol. Survey—The Geology of the Country around Cromer, 1882, p. 90. 40 Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 33; Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 22. 41 Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 33-4; Origin of the Brit. Flora, pp. 42-3. 42 Report of the Brit. Association, 1896, pp. 410-11. Cf. Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 25-6. Mr. Reid has, however, concluded, from an examination of the palaeolithic deposits at Hitchin (Proc. Roy. Soc., lxi, 1897, pp. 40-9, and especially p. 46), as well as at Hoxne, that before the time of the palaeolithic inhabitants of those districts the land had again sunk. 43 Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 46. Cf. A. J. Jukes-Browne, The Building of the Brit. Isles, pp. 291-2, 302. 44 A. R. Wallace, Island Life, 1880, pp. 315-17; J. Prestwich, Geology, ii, 1888, pp. 523-5. See p. 62, infra. 45 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave-Hunting, 1874, p. 124; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxxv, 1879, pp. 139-42; liv, 1898, pp. xcv-xcvi. 46 Mr. Reid tells us that there was no vegetation except dwarf birches and willows and other Arctic plants. See Nat. Science, i, 1892, pp. 430, 432; C. Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, pp. 40, 42; Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 32-3. 47 This fact seems to have escaped the notice of a writer who argues (Nat. Science, iii, 1893, pp. 261-6) that ‘England was not restocked by a land connexion from the Continent after glaciation’, and affirms (p. 266) that ‘almost the only evidence of a post-glacial connexion with the Continent is the supposed necessity of such to account for our present fauna and flora’. The mammoth fed upon coniferous trees, fragments of the wood of which have been found in the crevices of its teeth (A. S. Woodward, Outlines of Vertebrate Palaeontology, 1898, p. 306). 48 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxxv, 1879, pp. 142-3. 49 Sir Henry Howorth has written a series of articles (Geol. Mag., 1892, pp. 250-8, 396-405; Nat. Science, xii, 1898, pp. 261-70), in which he claims to have proved that ‘in no instance, so far as we know, does the drift actually underlie any land surface containing the remains of the mammoth and of its contemporaries.’ Translated into the language of geologists to whom the glacial period is not a nightmare, this is tantamount to an assertion that the mammoth was neither postglacial, nor interglacial, nor glacial, but preglacial. Mr. A. J. Jukes-Browne (Geol. Mag., 1892, p. 575) replies that ‘gravels containing mammoth remains occur in many other valleys [besides that of the Great Ouse], which are generally considered to have been eroded out of a widespread mantle of Glacial Drift’, and that ‘this conclusion is not shaken by anything which Sir H. Howorth has written’; while Sir John Evans (Anc. Stone Implements, 1879, p. 701) remarks that ‘in some cases, as at Fisherton, the worked flints have been found below the remains of mammoth’. Since the gravel at Hoxne, in which bones of the mammoth and of extinct animals contemporary with the mammoth were found (Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 573-5; C. Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 77; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age [Brit. Museum], p. 20), was shown by the committee who excavated it (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, pp. 400-11) to be later than the latest glaciation of the district, Sir Henry naturally discredited their report; and he did so by declaring (Nat. Science, xii, 1898, p 266) that the members of the committee were ‘already committed ... to the view that the implement-bearing deposit at Hoxne was newer than the Drift. This,’ he continued, ‘was not very promising.... It was, in fact, indecent.’ 50 Cf. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxiii, 1867, p. 107, with Geol. Mag., 1878, p. 98, and Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, 1880, p. 149; and see also the same writer’s Cave-Hunting, 1874, p. 362. Mr. H. B. Woodward states (Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk, i, 23) that ‘the Dogger Bank is a remnant of old Pleistocene deposits; as Mr. Reid suggests [Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Cromer, 1882, p. 122], a re-extension of the old Rhine estuary’. I confess that I do not understand how Mr. Reid would reconcile this suggestion with his belief that the Channel was formed in the earliest part of the Ice Age. 51 Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 34. 52 Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Cromer, p. 122; Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk, i, 23. 53 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 577, 683, 685, 697. 54 See p. 21, n. 5, supra, and cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, pp. 308, 310. 55 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 333-4; Proc. Liverpool Geol. Soc., ix, 1901, pp. 18-19. 56 Memoirs Geol. Survey,—On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints, 1879, p. 68. Cf. S. H. Miller and S. B. J. Skertchly, The Fenland, 1878, pp. 548-51. 57 Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 568. See, however, Proc. Geologists’ Association, ix, 1887, p. 126. 58 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xliii, 1887, p. 117; liv, 1898, pp. lxxxvi-lxxxix. 59 Ib., lx, 1904, pp. 132-3. 60 Professor Boyd Dawkins (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxiii, 1867, pp. 91-109, and especially pp. 106-9) has argued that the Lower Brick-Earths in the Thames Valley, under which implements have been found, were preglacial,—locally, I presume. He observed that not one of ‘the Post-glacial Arctic mammalia’, namely, the glutton, lemming, marmot, musk-sheep, elk, and reindeer, is represented in this deposit, and maintains that, on the other hand, the presence of Elephas priscus and the big-nosed rhinoceros (Rhinoceros megarhinus) ‘indicates the affinity of the [Brick-Earth] group to the Praeglacial deposits of Norfolk’, &c. Prestwich, however (ib., xxviii, 1872, p. 445), differed from the professor; and Sir John Evans (ib., p. 446) remarked that if the brick-earth were preglacial ‘there would be a great difficulty in accounting for the presence of the high beds at Shackleton and Highbury, as these, though in a valley confessedly excavated by the river, and regarded as of more recent age than the lower beds, would yet be at a far higher level’. 61 Prof. P. F. Kendall maintains (ib., lx, 1904, p. 132) that even the Hoxne implements ‘were of very late Glacial, perhaps the very latest Glacial Age,’—not, as I understand, of the Hoxne district, but of Britain as a whole. Cf. Man, iii, 1903, No. 31, p. 59. 62 Proc. Geologists’ Association, ix. 1887, p. 129; J. Prestwich. Controverted Questions, p. 45. 63 See Geol. Mag., 1894, p. 79. 64 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 580. 65 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxviii, 1872, p. 435; xxxv, 1879, pp. 142-3. 66 Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Bournemouth, 1898, p. 10; C. Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, pp. 44-5; Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 35; Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 22. 67 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, 1894, pp. 170, 173, 191, 217-8. Cf. H. B. Woodward, Geol. of England and Wales, 1887, pp. 510-12, and Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 698. 68 The descriptions, based upon the remains of fauna in caves, that have been given of the climate of Southern Gaul in successive periods of the Palaeolithic Age, however true they may be, do not apply in Britain. The little that is known of our climate suggests to Mr. Clement Reid ‘extremes with sharp alternations of cold, drought, and sudden floods’ (Man, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56, with which cf. Proc. Roy. Soc., lxi, 1897, p. 46). 69 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 275; B. Harrison, Outline of the Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements, 1904, pp. 9-10. 70 Nineteenth Century, April, 1895, p. 623. 71 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxi, 1892, p. 272. 72 Controverted Questions, p. 77. 73 Ib., p. 78. See also Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., liv, 1898, p. 298. 74 The Rev. R. Ashington Bullen (Nat. Science, xii, 1898, p. 107) says that he has found ‘worked flints of the plateau types’ in ‘valley gravels’, but that they were ‘derived specimens’. See also ib., pp. 111-16. On the other hand, see p. 27, infra. 75 Nat. Science, v, 1894, pp. 269, 271-2; Nineteenth Century, April, 1895, p. 626. 76 J. Prestwich, Controverted Questions, 1895, p. 54. Cf. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xlv, 1889, p. 295, and Journ. Vict. Inst., xxxiii, 1901, p. 223. 77 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxviii, 1872, pp. 39-40; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 632; Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Ringwood, 1902, pp. 36, 39. 78 As Mr. Clement Reid points out (ib., pp. 36-7), Prestwich’s implement ‘was not found in place, but picked up among fallen material.... The Alderbury gravel,’ he remarks, ‘judging from its less elevation above the river, is probably newer than the supposed Palaeolithic gravel north of Redlynch; yet it yields implements of more ancient type.’ See also Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 354, where Mr. H. Warren affirms that eoliths are associated with palaeolithic implements in the drift of High Down, Isle of Wight; and cf. Man, v, 1905, No. 80, p. 146. 79 Geol. Mag., 1903, pp. 105-6. Mr. Reid thinks that the beds in which these flints have been found are not necessarily of Pliocene date, as they may have been remaniÉs. Eoliths are said to have been unearthed from gravels at Dewlish in Dorsetshire side by side with the bones of the extinct elephant known as Elephas meridionalis, whose remains have never yet been met with in this island except in preglacial beds (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xliv, 1888, pp. 318-24; lxi, 1905, pp. 35-8; Journ. Vict. Inst., xxxiii, 1901, pp. 212-3); but these flints were so battered that Mr. Reid, who accepts many eoliths as genuine tools and regards them as ‘bad palaeoliths’, was obliged to reject them (Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Ringwood, p. 36). 80 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., liv, 1898, pp. 291, 293-4. 81 Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 1903, 1re partie, pp. 246-7; Nature, lxxii, 1905, pp. 438-9; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 261. Are any of these flints identical in form with the characteristic Kentish specimens? Sir John Evans, who is unable to accept the authenticity of any eoliths, nevertheless believes, or did believe in 1897 (Anc. Stone Implements, pp. 608-9), that the palaeolithic implements which have been found on the plateau belonged to a time when the ‘continuous slope now extending from the neighbourhood of the Thames to the summit of the chalk escarpment’ was ‘continued southward ... over a part of what is now the Lower Greensand area, if not, indeed, into that of the Weald’. In other words he believed that the palaeoliths were as old as the eoliths, and therefore that the question of the authenticity of the latter was unimportant. It is, however, now generally recognized that this view was based upon a misconception. Mr. Harrison (Outline of the Hist. of the Eol. Flint Implements, p. 17) states that ‘palaeoliths and eoliths have been found together only on the surface and never in the drifts in situ’. Cf. J. Prestwich, Controverted Questions, p. 64. Mr. Clement Reid (Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 34) sees no reason for believing that any of the Kentish eoliths are older than palaeolithic implements in general. In a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, he remarked that the patches of drift in which the eoliths had been found were generally dominated by higher ground, and that he could find no evidence that the flints had been washed down from the Weald. Eoliths have, however, been found in a pit at Terry’s Lodge ‘on the summit of the escarpment at a height of 770 feet’ (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 300. Cf. Essex Naturalist, xiii, 1904, p. 332). 82 L’Anthropologie, xvi, 1905, pp. 257-67. 83 Man, v, 1905, No. 102, p. 179. Cf. No. 92, p. 165. 84 Ib., No. 91, p. 165. 85 Ib., No. 103, pp. 180-83. Cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 363, fig. 7. 86 Ib., p. 361. 87 Mr, Hazzledine Warren (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 358) goes so far as to affirm that the mineral condition of some of Mr. Harrison’s eoliths ‘shows that they ... are ... clearly as late as the neolithic age’. There is a bibliography of eoliths in Geol. Mag., 1903, pp. 108-10, to which may be added, besides the works quoted in this chapter, Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xiv, 1904, pp. 240-6. 88 See p. 32, infra. It must of course be remembered that this description applies only to one part of the Palaeolithic Age: palaeolithic man was still here when the Thames had cut out its valley to its present depth. 89 See p. 40, n. 2, infra. 90 M. Boule (L’Anthr. xiv, 1903, p. 533) regards the question of the existence of a palaeolithic age in Egypt as unsettled; but, as Mr. H. R. Hall observes (Man, v, 1905, No. 19, p. 34), ‘German investigators ... have no doubt whatever that the Pitt-Rivers flints from Thebes and those of palaeolithic type from the WÂdÎ esh-ShÊkh and elsewhere are in reality palaeolithic.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv. 9-11 (preface), and Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 1903, 2e partie, p. 860. Palaeolithic implements are also said to have been found in Patagonia (L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 255). 91 Sir John Evans in Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1897 (1898), p. 14. Cf. Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 528-30, 650-54. In regard to palaeolithic remains in America see also CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 191. 92 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 147. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, Evolution of Culture, 1906, p. xvi. 93 Climate and Time, 1885, pp. 327-8. 94 Geol. Mag., 1868, pp. 249-54. 95 J. Prestwich, Controverted Questions, pp. 22, 42; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 705-7. 96 Geol. Mag., 1895, pp. 3-13, 55-65; A. Geikie, Text-book of Geology, 1903, pp. 1326-7. See also Nature, lii, 1895, p. 594; liii, 1895-6, pp. 29, 196, 220, 269, 295, 317, 340, 388, 460; and Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lviii, 1902, pp. 37-45. 97 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 592, 708-9. 98 Clement Reid in Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 34; Archaeologia, lix, part ii, 1906, p. 286, and Memoirs Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Ringwood, pp. 31-2. Sir John Evans (Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 634-5, 690-93) has argued that the implementiferous gravel which caps the cliff at Bournemouth was deposited by the Solent river; but Mr. Clement Reid thinks it ‘very doubtful whether it was a deposit formed by ordinary river action’ (Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 34); and (ib., pp. 27-8, 34) he is inclined to believe that the continuity of the Isle of Wight with Hampshire and Dorsetshire was already interrupted in late Pliocene times, though the Solent may perhaps have been merely an estuary and not a strait even in the time of the so-called interglacial estuarine deposits. See p. 20, supra. 99 Dr. A. J. Evans (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1904 1906, p. 721) calculates that the earliest settlement at Knossos in Crete (which was neolithic) is about 12,000 years old; but he assumes that in the western court of the palace ‘the average rate of deposit was fairly continuous’. Prof. Montelius (L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 137) argues from the stratigraphy of finds at Susa that the beginning of the Neolithic Age in the East may be dated about 18,000 B.C. But even if these calculations could be established, it would still remain doubtful whether our Palaeolithic Age was not partly contemporary with a neolithic civilization in more genial climates. Probably it was (ib., p. 164). Against the theory which would minimize the antiquity of the Palaeolithic Age, see ib., xv, 1904, p. 66, and Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xliii, 1887, p. 410, and in favour of it L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 27, n. 1. 100 Trans. Devon. Association, xix, 1887, pp. 419-37. Neither of the skulls could be removed intact, but one was photographed (ib., p. 433). The forehead recedes, but not excessively: the supraciliary ridge is strong, but not abnormally developed. 101 See p. 380, infra. 102 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 70-3. See pp. 380-1, infra. 103 See pp. 380-1, infra. 104 See p. 381, infra. 105 See pp. 382-3, infra. 106 See pp. 382-3, infra. 107 Mr. C. H. Read (Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age [Brit. Museum], pl. 1 and p. 49) has no doubt that they were dagger-handles; but the abbÉ Breuil (L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 632) affirms that it is ‘dÉmontrÉ qu’aucune des sculptures dont on a voulu faire des manches de poignard n’ont eu ce rÔle’. 108 E. Lartet and H. Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae, passim; L’Anthr., v, 1894, pp. 129-46; vi, 1895, p. 143; xiv, 1903, pp. 295-315; xv, 1904, pp. 129-76, 625-44. Among the palaeolithic artists were not only carvers and engravers but also draughtsmen and even painters. On the walls of caves in the Spanish Pyrenees are many-coloured frescoes, depicting animals as well as objects the meaning of which is still unknown. See L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 629; xvi, 1905, pp. 437, 442; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xiv, 1904, pp. 320-5; xv, 1905, pp. 150-5; and Man, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96. 109 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxxiii, 1877, p. 582. 110 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 581; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone-Age (Brit. Museum), p. 6. Mr. Clement Reid (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lx, 1904, pp. 106-12), has described ‘a probable Palaeolithic Floor [or old land surface] at Prah Sands, Cornwall’; but in the discussion which followed the reading of the paper he admitted that he ‘would not like to speak confidently as to any one of the stones being an implement’. 111 See Nat. Science, iii, 1893, p. 369; Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 35; Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country around Ringwood, 1902, p. 48; Man, iii, 1903, No. 29, p. 56; and Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lx, 1904, p. 130. Mr. Clement Reid, as those who are familiar with his writings must have seen, does not believe that many of the deposits classed as river-drift (see Evans’s Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 662-709, especially 679) deserve that title. In a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, he remarked that he could see no reason to suppose that palaeolithic man ‘was an aquatic animal’; that much of the so-called river-drift would probably be found, under minute examination, not to be due to fluviatile action; and that the geology of the Thames Valley, which in the Glacial Epoch was on the edge of the ice, presented great difficulties. See, however, Mr. H. B. Woodward’s article in Vict. Hist. of ... Buckingham, i, 22. 112 See, however, Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 3. 113 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 613-7. 114 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 479, 488-525; Phil. Trans., clxiii, 1874, pp. 553-70; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxxii, 1876, pp. 240-58; xxxiii, 1877, pp. 579-612; xxxv, 1879, pp. 724-35. 115 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 485. 116 Ib., pp. 474-5. 117 See pp. 383-5, infra. 118 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 475, 483-5, 528, 530, 575-6: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lx, 1904, p. 132. In de Mortillet’s classification the oldest type was the Chellean (called after Chelles in the department of Seine-et-Marne): then followed successively the types represented in the cave of Le Moustier, at SolutrÉ, and in the cave of La Madelaine. Dr. M. Hoernes (Der diluviale Mensch in Europa, 1903, pp. 21, 63, 185-6, &c.) combines the Chellean and Mousterian periods. (See also Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., v, 1895, p. 407, and L’Anthr., xv, 1904, pp. 27, 196-8). 119 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxxii, 1876, pp. 252-3; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 522-3. 120 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 215, 220. 121 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 60-89, 96-175. Cf. L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 27. 122 Prof. Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, p. 192) says that, except at Pont Newydd, ‘the association of traces of man with the remains of hippopotamus has, as yet, not been observed in any bone caves either in this country or on the Continent’. Sir John Evans, who does not mention such remains in his notice of Pont Newydd (Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 521), records their discovery, without associated implements, in the ‘mid-terrace gravels’ near Acton (ib., p. 591), and in gravels of the same character as those which yield implements, near Bedford (p. 533) and at Folkestone (p. 621). Evidently (pp. 699-700, with which cf. Boyd Dawkins and W. Ayshford, Brit. Pleistocene Mammalia, 1866, p. xxviii) he has no doubt that the hippopotamus was contemporary in Britain with palaeolithic man; but Mr. Clement Reid, in a conversation which I had with him on April 11, 1906, questioned whether its bones had ever been found together with implements. 123 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 528, 533, 536, 591; M. Hoernes, Der diluviale Mensch in Europa. 1903, p. 13. Readers who are interested in the question which is raised by the discoveries of Arctic in association with tropical mammalian remains should consult Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xxviii, 1872, pp. 426-43; xxxv, 1879, p. 142; W. Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, pp. 113-14; E. Piette, La France prÉhist. par M. Cartailhac, 1890, pp. 5-6; Nat. Science, i, 1892, p. 432; iii, 1893, pp. 262-3; Lord Avebury, Prehist. Times, 6th ed., 1900, p. 290; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 36-7; and R. Lydekker, Mostly Mammals, p. 269. See also, in regard to the contrast between the intermingling of tropical and Arctic animals in Britain and Northern Gaul and their succession in South-Western Gaul, M. Hoernes, op. cit., p. 193, and L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, pp. 305, 317. 124 Ib., xv, 1904, pp. 57-8; xvi, 1905, p. 67. 125 See p. 384, infra. 126 Man, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 94. Chellean implements have been found at Le Moustier, evidently in situ, in the second layer from the top, among those of the Madelaine period. 127 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1903, pp. 804-5. 128 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1904 (1905), p. 726; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, p. 308. 129 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 504-7, 512-7, 523, 565-6, 581, 640-9, 655-6; Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 110-11, 121, 248-9. 130 Archaeol. Journal, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 294-9. 131 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 113-4, 116, 142-3, 165. 132 Ib., pp. 262-7; Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford, i, 224; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 274. Cf. J. Prestwich, Controverted Questions, pp. 76-7. 133 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 145. 134 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 645, 656; Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, p. 222; Vict. Hist of ... Hertford, i. 224. Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, pp. 183-4) affirms that certain implements found in the upper cave-earth of Church Hole and the Robin Hood Cave at Creswell Crags ‘had obviously been let into a handle ... by which the edge of one side had been protected, while the other was worn away by use’; and in Nature (May 22, 1902, p. 77) it is stated that a palaeolithic implement, recently discovered near Ipswich, ‘shows signs of having been worked for hafting.’ 135 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 645, 655. 136 Prehist. Times, 1900, p. 332. 137 See Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xii, 1868, pp. 408-9. 138 Antiquity of Man, 4th ed., 1873, p. 422. 139 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 486, 657-8. Traces of corn have been found in French palaeolithic caves, though there is no evidence that it was cultivated. See CongrÈs internal. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 408. 140 E. Lartet and H. Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae, B. 1, pl. ii, fig. 5. Prof. Boyd Hawkins (Early Man in Britain, p. 214) has no doubt about the subject of the drawing: I confess that I am not so certain. 141 ‘It is doubtful,’ says H. E. Schoolcraft (Indian Tribes of the United States, i, 1851, p. 433), ‘whether an area of fifty thousand acres, left in the forest state, is more than sufficient to sustain by the chase a single hunter.’ One may be allowed, however, to suspect an exaggeration in this estimate; otherwise how could the communities who dwelled at Caddington and Crayford (see pp. 39, 42-4, supra) have escaped starvation? See also A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, 1905, pp. 6-7, 88-9, 151-2. 142 See Mr. Lewis Abbott’s paper in J. Salmon’s Guide to Sevenoaks, 1905, pp. 120-1. Cf. Archaeol. Journal, xxxix, 1882, p. 17. 143 Life of Sir J. Prestwich, 1899, p. 376. 144 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, p. 501. 145 W. Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, p. 211. I must admit that I feel doubtful whether the illustration in Reliquiae Aquitanicae which Professor Dawkins reproduces really represents gloves. 146 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 657. 147 L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 258, 263-5; Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des Sciences, 1903, pp. 1536-7. 148 E. Lartet and H. Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae, p. 209. 149 L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 174. 150 Ib., v, 1894, p. 146. 151 Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 5e sÉr. iii, 1902, p. 771. It is remarkable that Ezekiel (viii. 10-11), speaking of seventy of ‘the ancients of the house of Israel’ who were worshipping in a court, says that he saw therein ‘every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts ... pourtrayed upon the wall round about’. These were ‘unclean’ animals, which were not to be eaten. Cf. A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 2nd ed., 1885, p. 115. M. Reinach also insists (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 264-5) that the so-called sceptres, or bÁtons de commandement—engraved and perforated instruments of reindeer-horn—which have been found in French palaeolithic caves, were used in magical ceremonies; whereas it has been proved by Dr. O. Schoetensack (ib., xii, 1901, pp. 140-4) that they were merely dress-fasteners similar to those which are used by the Eskimos. 152 See A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, pp. 294, 296. 153 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 293. 154 See p. 34, supra. 155 L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 395. Cf. p. 321 of the same volume, and vol. iv, 1893, p. 550. 156 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxi, 1892, p. 297; xxiii, 1894, pp. 147, 151. 157 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 293-4. The Tasmanians ‘placed weapons near the grave for the dead friend’s soul to use’ (E. B. Tylor in Ency. Brit., xxv, 1902, p. 467). Cf. pp. 200-2, infra. 158 See pp. 262-3, 464, infra. 159 Mr. Andrew Lang (Man, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37), remarking that in the cave of Mas d’Azil, in the department of the AriÈge, there has been found a pendeloque of bone which exactly resembles some Australian ‘bull-roarers’ (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 655-60), infers that ‘palaeolithic and neolithic man ... probably had such religious ideas as among savages are attached to bull-roarers’. There is an interesting chapter on bull-roarers (which in this country are more familiar to schoolboys than to scholars) in Mr. Lang’s Custom and Myth, 1885, pp. 29-44. 160 See E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, 4th ed., 1903, i, 417-24. 161 Ib., p. 424. 162 See pp. 461-3, infra. 163 It is said that totemism exists in New Guinea (Man, v, 1905, No. 2) and on the Gold Coast (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxvi, 1906, pp. 178-88). 164 See A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, pp. 2, 66. 165 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 355. 166 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 237. 167 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxviii, 1899, p. 146. 168 Ib., p. 147. 169 A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, pp. 22-3. I confess that I cannot understand why descent should have been reckoned in the female line if, as Mr. Lang apparently holds, the master of each little primitive group was the only sire in that group. [I am glad to find that Dr. W. H. D. Rouse (Folk-Lore, xvii, 1906, p. 25) has argued in the same sense.] 170 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 236; B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia, 1899, pp. 73, 121; Man, iv, 1904, No. 93, p. 143. See also No. 98, p. 150. 171 L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, pp. 665-7. 172 A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, pp. 59-89, especially 66, 68, 70, 72-4, 89. See also pp. 7-8 in regard to the complex organization of Australian tribes. The Aruntas (ib., pp. 17-18) do not inherit their totems, which are ‘determined by local accident’. 173 Ib., p. 29. Mr. Lang conjectures (p. 114) that the master of a small group, actuated by sexual jealousy, ‘expelled all his adult sons as they came to puberty.’ Such a group, he remarks, would have been ‘necessarily exogamous in practice’, and then (ib., p. 143) would have come the rule, ‘No marriage within the local group.’ But would it have been to the interest of the master to expel sons who were useful? What would have become of them? Would not the same sexual jealousy that ex hypothesi prompted their expulsion have prevented the master of any other group from receiving them? And if the master was killed in hunting after he had expelled his sons, what became of the other members of the group? In connexion with Mr. Lang’s book, see Man, vi, 1906, No. 17, pp. 27-8, No. 34, pp. 51-4, No. 87, p. 131, and No. 112, p. 182. 174 A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, pp. 116, 127-8, 153. Cf. Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, p. 275. 175 A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, p. 125. 176 Archaeol. Rev., iii, 1889, p. 220. 177 Ib., p. 227. 178 Notes and Queries, 3rd ser., iv, 1863, pp. 82, 158. These passages, which are referred to by Mr. Gomme in vol. iii of Archaeol. Rev., do not support the statement in the text about the geese of Great Crosby, for which he is responsible. 179 Archaeol. Rev., iii, 1889, p. 355. 180 B. G., v, 12, § 6. 181 M. S. Reinach’s explanation of this passage (Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, p. 275) was anticipated by Elton (Origins of English Hist., 2nd ed., 1890, p. 288). 182 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxviii, 1899, pp. 141, 143-4, 148. M. Reinach seems to make this assumption when he says (see preceding note) that we are justified in affirming that ‘chez certaines tribus au moins de la Bretagne, le liÈvre, l’oie et la poule Étaient des animaux sacrÉs, c’est-À-dire, des totems’. I am glad to find that M. Camille Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 274) also rejects M. Reinach’s guess; but he continues, ‘Je suis, du reste, convaincu, avec M. Reinach, que les Celtes ont connu le totÉmisme ... par exemple, si bran(n)os signifie ... “le corbeau”, une tribu gauloise avait pris cet oiseau pour totem ... Aulerci Brannovices,’ &c. On the much surer evidence of such names as Bull, Lamb, Herring, Roach, and many others, M. Jullian might conclude that ‘les Anglais du vingtiÈme siÈcle connaissent le totÉmisme’. It is perhaps reasonable to conjecture that the name Brannovices may point to a remote age when the ancestors of the historic Celts had totems: but it is quite certain that the Celts of whom M. Jullian is thinking knew nothing about totemism; and the superstitions which forbade the Britons to eat hares, geese, and fowls, may have been absolutely unconnected with totemism. See Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, p. 19. Miss Eleanor Hull (Folk-Lore, xii, 1901, p. 49) observes that ‘there is one example of what appears to be a true totemistic idea in those [Irish] stories.... It is in CÚchulainn’s prohibition to eat the flesh of a hound because it was his namesake.’ 183 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave-Hunting, p. 165. 184 Notably Dr. F. B. Jevons (Folk-Lore, x, 1899, pp. 374-5) and M. S. Reinach (Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, pp. 283, 299, 305). 185 See W. Ridgeway, Origin ... of the Thoroughbred Horse, 1905, pp. 90-1, 479, and L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 27-53, especially 27, 29, and figs. 1 and 1a. If these illustrations, which purport to reproduce late palaeolithic engravings of horses, are accurate, they unquestionably depict halters, though M. Zaborowski (Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 32e sess., 1903, 2e partie, p. 849) thinks that they only represent lassoes. 186 See a very interesting review [by Mr. Andrew Lang?] in the AthenÆum, April 22, 1905, pp. 502-3, of M. Reinach’s Cultes, mythes et religions, and also papers on the domestication of animals in the numbers for April 29 (p. 533), May 6 (p. 565), and May 13 (p. 597). 187 It is impossible to tell whether in Ancient Britain oxen were at any time regarded as sacred, as they apparently were among the early Phoenicians, the Libyans, the ancestors of the Greeks, and other primitive peoples, their flesh being never eaten except in sacrificial feasts, partaken of by the whole clan. See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, pp. 296-311. 188 L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 355-7. Cf. CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), pp. 408-9. 189 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxviii, 1899, p. 148. Cf. Man, v, 1905, No. 2, p. 6. 190 Chambers’s Ency., vi, 1901, p. 795. M. S. Reinach (L’Anthr. xvi, 1905, p. 660) regards magic as ‘la mÈre de toutes les vraies sciences’. 191 J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, 1905, pp. 37-9, 43-4, 77-8, &c. 192 See Man, vi, 1906, No. 40, p. 62, No. 112, p. 189 (for a criticism of Dr. Frazer’s ‘oil-and-water theory’ of magic and religion), and Mr. Sidney Hartland’s most interesting presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the British Association (Times, Aug. 7, 1906, p. 11, cols. 4-6). 193 Folk-Lore, xv, 1904, pp. 159-60. 194 L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, pp. 574-5. 195 Ib., p. 660. 196 Man, v, 1905, No. 10, pp. 18-19. 197 J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, passim. 198 See Man, vi, 1906, No. 29, p. 46. 199 See A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, p. 237. 200 Ib., p. 242; J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 2, 3, 36-7. 201 See pp. 387-8, infra. 202 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 704. 203 See p. 20, supra. 204 See p. 398, infra. 205 Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 178. 206 See pp. 382, 389, n. 6, infra. 207 See p. 389, infra. M. L. Siret (L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 127) says the same for Spain. 208 See pp. 385-90, infra. ‘The ... transition,’ says Mr. Clement Reid (Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 45), ‘from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic is, unfortunately, one of the most obscure, and I can only suggest that the break is more apparent than real, and that one follows the other in close succession.’ See also p. 93 of the same book. 209 See Mr. Clement Reid’s chapter in Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 35-6. 210 See A. J. Jukes-Browne, The Building of the Brit. Isles, p. 300. Mr. Clement Reid (Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 46) states that in the early part of the Neolithic Age ‘the land stood ... some 60 or 70 feet above its present level’. Cf. p. 20, supra. 211 Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 141-5; J. Prestwich, Geology, ii, 523-4; A. J. Jukes-Browne, The Building of the Brit. Isles, pp. 300-2; Clement Reid, Origin of the Brit. Flora, p. 46. 212 Nature, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; Archaeol. Journal, lv, 1898, p. 271. 213 Ib., p. 272. 214 Archaeol. Journal, lv, 1898, p. 270; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxix, 1895, pp. 223-7, 431-2, 438; R. Munro, Prehist. Problems, 1897, p. 72. 215 See L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 319-24, and M. Hoernes, Der diluviale Mensch in Europa, p. 185. 216 Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xvii, 1896, pp. 67-75. 217 See pp. 395-7, infra. 218 See Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 256. 219 Ib., p. 37; Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 25. 220 See Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford, i, 229, and Archaeol. Journal, lv, 1898, p. 285. Dr. A. H. Keane’s extravagant estimates of the length of the Neolithic Age in Europe, which vary between the limits of ‘scarcely less than 60,000 years’ (Ethnology, 2nd ed., 1896, p. 55) and ‘over 100,000 years’ (ib., p. 116), are based upon obsolete calculations of the chronology of the Glacial Period. See pp. 31-2, supra. 221 See pp. 126-7, infra. 222 See Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, pp. 408-14, especially p. 412. 223 See pp. 398-407, infra. 224 See pp. 427-8, 433, 443, infra. 225 This use of the word ‘dolmen’, which obtains in France, although megalithic chambers enclosed in tumuli are there sometimes called by the same name (Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221), is becoming common in this country; but in Wales dolmens are still known as cromlechs, a name which in France is applied only to stone circles. 226 See Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 214. The kistvaens of Dartmoor are really small dolmens. 227 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, 1886, p. 232; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 1897, pp. 461-2. 228 Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 222; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 446. 229 Ib., p. 426; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., v, 1870-3, pp. 367-70; viii, 1879-81, pp. 287-9; Dict. des sc. anthr., 1883, pp. 388, 1078; Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 221; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, pp. 174-7; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xiv, 1904, pp. 259-62. In the eighteenth century the famous Kentish dolmen called Kit’s Coty House was still partly enclosed within a sepulchral mound. The Rev. W. C. Lukis, in a letter to Mr. George Payne (Collectanea Cantiana, 1893, p. 127), says, ‘I have a letter written ... in 1723 by one Hercules Ayleway [in which] ... Kit’s Coty is represented as being partly in a long barrow.’ See also Borlase, op. cit., iii, 752-3. Mr. A. L. Lewis (Man, vii, 1907, No. 26, p. 38) says that a dolmen on Great Orme’s Head shows ‘that there certainly were dolmens that were never buried, but were intended to be “free-standing”’. 230 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 424-6, 612-3. 231 In Pembrokeshire, Glamorganshire, Merionethshire, Carnarvonshire, and Anglesey. Elsewhere they are almost entirely wanting, perhaps owing to the lack of suitable stones (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., iv, 1904, p. 199). 232 See pp. 402-5, infra. 233 See pp. 405-6, infra. 234 See p. 382, infra. 235 See pp. 101-2, infra. 236 B. G., vi, 28. 237 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxiv, 1878, p. 351; W. Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, pp. 257-62, 484; R. Munro, The Lake-Dwellings of Europe, 1890, p. 488; Archaeologia, lv, 1897, pp. 130-1, 158. 238 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, p. 359; the topographical index in Sir J. Evans’s Anc. Stone Implements, 1897; and the Victoria County Histories of Berks. (i, 276), Hants (i, 257), Lancs. (i, 212), Northampton (i, 139), Sussex (i, 311, 313, 470), and Worcester (i, 180). 239 Sir J. Evans, Ancient Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 65-6, 104-6, 107-9, 129-30, 213, &c. Implements of jade and jadeite, which are common in the lake-dwellings (F. Keller, Lake Dwellings of Switzerland [trans. J. E. Lee], i, 1878, pp. 72, 195-6, 215-6), are very rare in Britain (Evans, op. cit., p. 109), and were doubtless imported, as jade apparently does not exist in situ in Europe, except in Silesia and Styria (Journ. Anthr. Inst., x, 1881, p. 359; xx, 1890-1, pp. 332-42, especially 334 and 338; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1890, p. 971; L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 555). 240 Similar lamps have been found in neolithic caves in France (Ass. franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 32e session, 1903, 2e partie, pp. 896-900), and are still used in China (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxii, 1888, p. 81). Cf. p. 258, infra. 241 Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, p. 430. 242 Ib., p. 427. 243 Ib., pp. 419-39; S. B. J. Skertchly, Memoirs of the Geol. Survey,—On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints, pp. 39-41, 71, 74. 244 Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, p. 439. 245 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 368-74. See p. 98, infra. 246 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 80, 85-6; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 79. 247 See p. 214, infra. 248 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 357-62, 382, 479; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 59-60, 66, 68-9, 73-4; xlv, 1880, pp. 337-8, 340-7; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 69-70; Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 315. 249 See J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 306. 250 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 395. 251 See pp. 131-2, 230, infra; E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 194; A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, p. 11; O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, 1890, p. 234; and Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, pp. 246-58. 252 pp. 78-81, infra. 253 Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, pp. 257-8. 254 Traces of polishing are said to have been found on French implements of late palaeolithic age (Ass. franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 13e sess., 1884, 1re part., p. 212; L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 550). 255 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 73, 85-6, and Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 69-70. Much depended upon the nature of the material. Certain hard stones, for instance granite and diorite, were necessarily ground and polished. See L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 550, and Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 69. 256 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 276. 257 Ib., pp. 28-9, 31. 258 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 14-37, 43. Cf. 15th Ann. Report American Bureau of Ethn., 1893-4 (1897), p. 25. 259 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 37-43, 412, 414-6; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, p. 47. 260 J. A. H. Murray, New Eng. Dict., ii, 215. Cf. Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 55. 261 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 66, 107. 262 Ib., pp. 71, 172, 205; Proc. Suffolk Inst. of Archaeology, xi, 1903, p. 329. 263 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 129, 235. See also E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, 1870, pp. 205-6; Prim. Culture, 1903, i, 65. 264 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 136, 171. 265 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—The Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 353-4. 266 Archaeologia, xliv, 1873, pp. 281-3. 267 F. Keller, The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland, i, 1878, pp. 21-2, 38, 57, 90, &c. 268 An axe-hammer has, however, been found in the Liverpool Docks, scored with a groove, along which a withy was perhaps twisted to serve as a handle (Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 168-9; Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 218). 269 M. Hippolyte MÜller (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 424-6) has cut down numerous trees with flint axes, which were uninjured by the experiments. Two of the trees were felled in thirteen and fourteen minutes respectively. 270 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 79, 171-2, 195-6. 271 Ib., pp. 175-6. 272 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 178. 273 Journ. Anthr. Inst., iv, 1875, p. 403. 274 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 183-4. 275 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 215; L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 489. 276 See Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 409. 277 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 246; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 234; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 355. 278 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 183-4, 195, 215, 231. 279 Ib., pp. 238-9, 245, 247-8, 250-2. 280 Ib., pp. 275-6, 289. See pp. 92-3, infra. 281 See Anthr. Rev., iii, 1865 (Journ. Anthr. Soc., p. lxvi); Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 229-30; and Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 294. Dr. R. Munro. (Prehist. Problems, pp. 325-30, 359) would refer all the British flint saws to the Bronze Age, on the ground that ‘bronze saws have never yet been found in the British Isles’: but this statement is inaccurate (see p. 132, infra); and, as we have seen (p. 41, supra), serrated palaeolithic flints have been unearthed in a gravel-pit at Swanscombe. 282 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 299-300, 311-2. 283 Ib., pp. 312-9; Mem. Geol. Survey,—On the Manufacture of Gun Flints, p. 39. 284 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 321. 285 Ib., pp. 326-32, 356-7. 286 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 360-1, 369-98; Man, vii, 1907, No. 25, p. 37; No. 37, p. 56. 287 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, p. 54. 288 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, p. 377. 289 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 272. 290 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 131. 291 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xi, 1876, p. 509. 292 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 361. 293 Ib., pp. 428-30; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 355, 361. 294 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, pp. 431, 433-4. 295 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, p. 304. Messrs. W. Johnson and W. Wright (Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey, 1903, pp. 49, 169), who have been diligent in collecting tools from North-Eastern Surrey, remark that ‘some were fitted for use in the right hand, and others for the left’, and conclude that the people who used them were ambidextrous. But surely the more natural conclusion would be that some were left-handed! 296 On the moors near Sheffield and in East Lancashire, in Staffordshire and Lincolnshire, and at Hastings. 297 Donegal. 298 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 324-5; Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 3rd ser., vi, 1900-2, pp. 362-3; Reliquary, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 123-6; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 98-101; Man, ii, 1902, No. 15, pp. 18-22. 299 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 136. 300 See L’Anthr., v, 1894, pp. 20-1, 146, and Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 77-8. M. Salomon Reinach (Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, pp. 193-9) attributes the absence of such artistic remains in France to the influence of Druids. 301 Carm., ii, 15, 10-20. 302 Professor B. C. A. Windle (Remains of the Prehist. Age, p. 257) affirms that excavations in the stronghold of Eggardun in Dorsetshire have proved that ‘pit-dwellings were in use in the Pre-metallic period’; and he remarks (ib., p. 258) that there was ‘no trace of any metallic object in the pits examined by Stevens at Hurstbourne or in those at Standlake’ in Oxfordshire. It is shown on p. 97, infra, that there is no sufficient reason for referring Eggardun to the Neolithic Age: bronze was discovered at Standlake (Archaeologia, xxxvii, 1857, p. 368), which, according to Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 20-1), bore such an ‘exact resemblance to the [Romano-British] Woodcuts village’, that, in his judgement, ‘further excavations would have proved it to have been of the Roman or Late-Celtic period’: Romano-British pottery was found in the pits at Hurstbourne; and Dr. Stevens himself (Parochial Hist. of St. Mary Bourne, 1888, p. 34) only claimed that ‘the flint implements ... establish that the site, if not the dwellings, was occupied by the people of the Neolithic Age’. Professor Boyd Dawkins (Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 262) rightly refers the dwellings to the Iron Age. Bone weaving-combs, which were found in pit-dwellings at Highfield, near Fisherton in Wiltshire, evidently belonged, like the querns with which they were associated (J. Stevens, Parochial Hist. of St. Mary Bourne, p. 25), to the Early Iron Age (cf. Sir J. Evans, Ancient Stone Implements, 1897, p. 251, and Reliquary, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 115); and although Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man, &c., p. 268) pleads that the pottery, which was ‘ornamented with incised curves’, was ‘not turned in the lathe’, that does not prove that it was made in the Neolithic or even the Bronze Age (see p. 244, infra); while the ‘curves’ suggest that it was Late Celtic. 303 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xi, 1882, pp. 472-3. 304 Archaeol. Cant., xiii, 1880, pp. 122-6. 305 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 128; Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 237. 306 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xii, 1887-9, pp. 258-63; xvii, 1897-9, pp. 216-21; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 124, 127, 134. 307 Norfolk Archaeology, iii, 1852, pp. 232-6; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 127; Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 236. Cf. Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., iv, 1904, p. 200. 308 Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 258-9. 309 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 127, 139. 310 Ib., p. 140. Stone mounds have been discovered in South Wales by Messrs. T. C. Cantrill and O. T. Jones, who regard them as ‘probably the remains of prehistoric hearths or cooking-places’ (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 17); but, as they ‘range in diameter from 6 feet or so to as much as 50 feet’ (ib., p. 19), I would suggest that the cooks must have been of Brobdingnagian stature. For descriptions of other pit-dwellings which may perhaps be of neolithic age, see G. Young, Hist. of Whitby, ii, 1817, pp. 666-83; T. Bateman, Vestiges of the Ant. of Derbyshire, 1848, p. 126; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xi, 1855, pp. 305-13; Anthr. Rev., v, 1867, p. 253; and Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 223-4. 311 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvii, 1903, pp. 370-415. 312 A chambered mound in Stromness, Orkney, which was not a sepulchre but a dwelling, has also been recently excavated, and contained a stone implement (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvii, 1903, pp. 352-9). Mr. Christison (ib., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 5-6) tentatively refers it to the Neolithic Age, while the discoverer more cautiously says that it must have been built in ‘a remote period, not ... because the implement is made of stone, but because the type is an ancient one’. 313 Mr. George Clinch. See his article in Surrey Archaeol. Collections, xvii, 1902, pp. 181-3. 314 MatÉriaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme, 3e sÉr., ii, 1885, pp. 1-18. 315 R. Munro, The Lake-Dwellings of Europe, 1890, pp. 470-1, 489. Cf. Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., x, 1900 (1901), pp. 208, 235, and Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 142-3. See p. 154, infra. 316 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 76; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, 1877, p. 742. 317 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Ass., N. S., v, 1899, p. 285. 318 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 742. 319 Journ. Ethn. Soc., ii, 1870, p. 431. 320 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 740-1. Cf. p. 151, infra. 321 Archaeologia, lv, 1897, pp. 132-3, 150; Archaeol. Journal, liv, 1897, p. 379; R. Lydekker, Mostly Mammals, pp. 52, 299. 322 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 743-4; F. Keller, Lake Dwellings of Switzerland, i, 1878, p. 479. 323 Journ. Ethn. Soc., ii, 1870, p. 431. 324 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 135-6; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. lxx. Cf. E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, 1870, pp. 262-70, and Ency. Brit., xxv, 1902, p. 467. 325 Archaeol. Review, i, 1888, p. 6. 326 CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’arch. prehist., 1900 (1902), p. 407. 327 F. Keller, Lake Dwellings, &c., i, 1878, pp. 518-36. 328 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 257. 329 A stone which appears to have been used as a grain-crusher was found in the neolithic village at West Wickham (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 133). 330 See p. 76, supra. 331 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 744-5. 332 Archaeologia, xix, 1821, p. 48; Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 144; Anthr. Rev., iii, 1865 (Journ. Anthr. Soc., p. lxvii); W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 701-5; Brit. Med. Journal, 1903, pp. 809-10; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 168. It must be admitted that in some cases the teeth of neolithic skulls are as much worn as those of the Bronze Age. Messrs. W. Johnson and W. Wright (Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey, 1903, pp. 53-4), referring to Science Gossip, July, 1901, p. 36, affirm that under the tartar which covered the teeth of a skeleton in a neolithic barrow on Warminster Downs were found particles of quartzite,—‘apparently the rubbings from the mortar in which the corn was ground.’ But the writer of the article in Science Gossip states that bronze was found in the barrow. 333 See O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, p. 286, and Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xiii, 1870, p. 518. 334 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., iii, 1874, pp. 35-6, and Mr. Clement Reid’s article in Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 9-10. 335 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 121, 478. See also p. 152, infra. 336 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 659-60, 704. 337 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 338 F. Keller, Lake Dwellings of Switzerland, i, 1878, pp. 44, 46, 56, 63-4, 67, 69, 505-17, &c. 339 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 744-5. 340 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 436-9. 341 Ib., p. 465. 342 See p. 80, supra, and Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 312. 343 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 240. 344 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 519-20, 543. 345 ‘The fact is,’ says Professor Ridgeway (Man, iii, 1903, No. 97, pp. 171-2), ‘that mankind was led to wear such objects by magic rather than by aesthetic considerations ... the use of all the objects still employed in modern jewellery has primarily arisen from the magical powers attributed to them, by which they were thought to protect the wearer.’ M. Salomon Reinach’s review (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 711-12) of Professor Ridgeway’s article is worth reading. 346 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 179; Folk-Lore, xii, 1901, p. 175. 347 See Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, pp. 54-8. 348 The primitive method was apparently scraping (L’Anthr., viii, 1897, p. 204). M. Hippolyte MÜller (ib., xiv, 1903, pp. 430-4) has performed the operation on four skulls by scraping with a flint implement; and he concludes that this method was adopted in the case of living patients. It appears (ib., p. 434) that the distinguished anthropologist, M. Capitan, has been impelled by scientific ardour to experiment ‘sur plusieurs chiens vivants’. What will happen if the Anti-Vivisection Society hears of this? 349 Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris, 3e sÉr., iv, 1881, p. 107; vi, 1883, pp. 318-9; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xi, 1882, pp. 9, 12-4, 16; xvii, 1888, pp. 101, 106; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxvi, 1892, pp. 5, 8, 14-5, 17-8, 21, 28, 30-2; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 289; R. Munro, Prehist. Problems, pp. 191-232; E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, p. 295; Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 5e sÉr., v, 1904, pp. 67-73; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 58. See also Man, v, 1905, No. 27, p. 49. A perforated skull which was found in an interment in Bute may perhaps show that the practice of trepanning existed in this country as early as the Bronze Age; but a physician who has examined the perforation believes that it was not produced by trepanning (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 67-8). Artificially perforated skulls were found just outside the Late Celtic fortified village of Hunsbury near Northampton. See A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, vol. iii, unnumbered page following pl. ccxxviii. 350 Diodorus Siculus, v, 14, § 2. 351 Apollonius Rhodius, ii, 1011-4. 352 Strabo, iii, 4, § 17. 353 See Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, pp. 25, 157-68, and L’Anthr., v, 1894, pp. 352-7. According to Dr. G. A. Wilken (ib., p. 356), certain communities in the Indian archipelago who practised the couvade in 1894 were in a state of transition from matriarchy to father-right. Cf. Man, vi, 1906, No. 74, p. 112. 354 Rev. celt., vii, 1886, p. 227. 355 Academy, xxv, 1884, p. 112. 356 E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, 1870, pp. 293-304; Prim. Culture, 1903, i, 84. 357 See, however, pp. 117-8, infra. 358 See Trans. Epping Forest ... Field Club, ii, 1882, p. 60; iii, 1884, p. 228. 359 Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris, i, 1900, p. 53. 360 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Ass., N. S., vii, 1901, p. 17. 361 See p. 156, infra. 362 Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xxii, 1901, pp. 28-42; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xviii, 1901, pp. 258-62. 363 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 195, 232. 364 It should be noted that pottery of the types that characterized the Bronze Age was still manufactured in the Early Iron Age. See p. 244, infra. Fragments of pottery were found in the long barrow of West Kennet in Wiltshire; but Thurnam (Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 231) regards it as ‘very doubtful whether they belong to the people by whom the chamber was erected’. They seem to have been portions of ‘food-vessels’, which belong to the Bronze Age (see p. 191, infra); and Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 1898, pp. 100, 163) says that they ‘must probably have got in subsequently to the construction of the barrow’. See also ib., pp. 147 and 162 (fig. 8); and, for examples of round-bottomed domestic pottery which have been found both in long barrows and in certain round barrows that may have been erected in the Stone Age, see Brit. Barrows, pp. 488-9, 509, and J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. lxviii. The Scottish chambered cairns have yielded more pottery than the English barrows. Most of the vessels lacked decoration; but some were ornamented either with cord patterns or by impressions of the potter’s finger-tips and nails, or with vertical flutings; while a chambered cairn at Unstan, in Orkney, contained a vessel with triangular ornament of a kind which, as we shall see (pp. 197-8, infra), was characteristic of the Bronze Age. It may, however, have been manufactured at a time when bronze was coming into use in Southern Britain. See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, pp. 346-8, and J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 240, 248-9, 252, 272-3, 294-7. Some of the ‘drinking-cups’ which have been exhumed from round barrows doubtless belong to the end of the Neolithic Age (see pp. 192-3, infra); and a curious vessel, which Bateman (Vestiges of the Ant. of Derbyshire, 1848, p. 43) described as ‘a small drinking or incense cup of novel and unprecedented shape’, was found in a round barrow the neolithic age of which is certain. See Man, vi, 1906, No. 44, pp. 70-1. 365 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 44. 366 Ib., pp. 32-3. See also Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 458, 461, 463. 367 Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 319-20; Vict. Hist. of ... Bedford, i, 160. 368 Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 237-8. 369 Gen. Pitt-Rivers (Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, pp. 359-60), after remarking that in the region between Seaford and Beachy Head ‘the dÉbris of flint manufacture is so far abundant on the surface ... that the fact of finding flint flakes in the interior of these entrenchments [Seaford and Beltout] is no proof whatever of their being of the age of these entrenchments’, goes on to say that ‘this does not apply to other parts of the Downs of Sussex and elsewhere. There, worked flints are found in patches here and there; but considerable distances may be traversed without coming to these patches, and the fact of finding them in unusual numbers in the insides of these earthworks remains to testify to the probability of their having been used by the inhabitants of them.’ 370 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 383-4. Mr. George Clinch (Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 316), referring to certain implements which he found himself at Cissbury, says, ‘The position of the flint flakes and chips upon [the side of one of the mounds] proves that the earthworks were completed during the Neolithic Age’. 371 L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 444-62, and especially 450-2. See also A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt. et gaul., 1889, p. 105, n. 1, and CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’arch. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), pp. 430-1. 372 Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 469-70. The authors of an interesting article in the Cornhill Magazine (May, 1906, pp. 611-2), which, however, contains some unverifiable statements, assert that earthworks of a peculiar form, ‘usually at the base of a hill on the edge of a plain,’ were designed as a protection against wolves. 373 L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 159. 374 Ib., pp. 162, 165; Man, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37; Fort. Rev., Oct., 1904, pp. 635-9. M. Piette, however (L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, pp. 6-7), holds that certain symbols which he himself discovered in the cave of Gourdan form a real inscription. 375 L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 162. 376 Gongora y Martinez, AntiguËdades prehist. de Andalucia, 1868, p. 40, fig. 24. Cf. Fort. Rev., Oct., 1904, p. 643. See also in regard to primitive writing Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 204-6, Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., i, 1903, pp. 231-2, and Man, iv, 1904, No. 22, p. 37. 377 Archaeol. Cambr., 4th ser., iii, 1872, p. 25; W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, pp. 155-9; Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lx, 1904, pp. 335-48. 378 See Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 133, and W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 1-2. 379 See p. 58, supra. 380 See Folk-Lore, xii, 1901, pp. 28-9. 381 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 109. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, &c., 1905, p. lxxxi) is ‘slightly inclined to consider that the long barrows [of the Yorkshire Wolds] ... are more recent than the greater number of the round ones’; but the only reason which he gives for this singular opinion, namely, that he has frequently found both long and round skulls in the round barrows of the same district, has no weight against the facts which have led all other investigators to regard the long as earlier than the round barrows. See p. 393, infra. Not only has no metal ever been found with a primary interment in a long barrow, but sepulchral pottery is also wanting. See Man, v, 1905, No. 86, p. 159. If the contents of certain long barrows ‘do not show any features of interest differing from those found in [some] round barrows’ (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xix), that only suggests that long barrows were still made for some time after the first interment in a round barrow took place. See W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 509, 556. 382 J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, 1865, pl. 33, p. 2; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 170, 176, 202, 206-7; Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 41; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 479, 484-511, 550-6; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, pp. 155, 157, 159-63, 166-71; Vict. Hist. of ... Durham, i, 200, 207. A few long barrows are said to exist in Lancashire, but it is doubtful whether they can really be classed as such (Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs., i, 211). 383 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, p. 162; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 232-67; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 39-42. 384 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 206-7; W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, 1885, p. 13; J. Anderson, op. cit., pp. 268-303; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 7; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 404. 385 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 206-7; Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 41. 386 See S. Nilsson, Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, 1868, pp. 124-58; Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, p. 448; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 536; Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, p. 314; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, p. 195; and A. H. Keane, Ethnology, 1896, p. 126, note. The ‘Picts’ houses’, whose resemblance to chambered tumuli, according to Thurnam (Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 223-4), is such that ‘in particular instances it has been doubted whether the structure ... was a dwelling or a tomb’, belong to a much later period than that of the tumuli. See pp. 261 and 391, infra. 387 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 130-1; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 536, n. 2. 388 Canon Greenwell (ib., p. 485, n. 1) says that in North Gloucestershire ‘the rule of the primary interment having been made at the larger end of the mound by no means holds good in all cases’. See also p. 504. In the Wor Barrow on Cranborne Chase the primary interments lay south of the centre of an oblong enclosure, which is described on p. 106, infra (A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 20-1 [preface]). 389 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 181, 208-9; Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 41; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 484, 487-8, 491, 497, 501, 505, 509, 511, 513, 515, 521, 524; Dict. des. sc. anthr., 1883, p. 387; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 264-5; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, p. 183; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, p. 404; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 489-90. 390 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 172, 208; J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 50, pp. 1-2. 391 J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 5, p. 2; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 212, pl. xiv. 392 Ib., pp. 172-3, 209; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 544. See p. 177, infra. 393 See p. 65, supra. 394 Oval neolithic barrows, which were not only fenced by peristaliths, but also had ellipses of stone on the surface, and which, like the West Kennet barrow, were each surmounted by a dolmen, exist in Northern Germany, west of the Vistula (L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 487), in Denmark (A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt. et gaul., 1889, pp. 163-4), and in France (ib., p. 166). Cf. Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 165 (pl. xii, figs. 3 and 4), 211, note b. 395 J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 24, pp. 2-3, pl. 5, p. 2; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 209-21; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 544; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 232. 396 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, pp. 20-1 (preface). 397 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, p. 153, fig. 1, 165, fig. 1. 398 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 536; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 232, 266-7; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 39-42. 399 J. Anderson, op. cit., p. 300. 400 See, however, p. 108, and p. 109, n. 2, infra. According to Dr. R. Munro (Prehist. Scotland, 1899, p. 325), ‘Although many [Scottish] graves have been examined which contained ... stone and nothing of bronze, it does not follow that they were earlier than others in which bronze articles were found. It seems to me’, he continues, ‘that the vast majority of the sepulchral memorials hitherto explored within the Scottish area date from the introduction of bronze’. The evidence that the Scottish chambered tombs belonged to the Scottish Stone Age is precisely the same as that which is almost unanimously accepted for the English long barrows. Since we find that not a single article of bronze has ever been found with a primary interment in a Scottish chambered cairn, while bronze is abundant in the short cists and unchambered cairns of the same country; that the skeletons in chambered cairns belong to the same stock as the people who built the long barrows (see pp. 393-4, infra); and that the chambered cairns and the chambered long barrows are structurally akin, we may infer that the former, like the latter, belonged to the Stone Age. That, however, some of them may have been built after bronze had been introduced into Southern Britain is not improbable. 401 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 249-50, 258, 264, 272, 274. 402 Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 416-9. 403 Archaeol. Journal, xxviii, 1871, pp. 85-96. 404 An oval cairn, however, at Pawton in East Cornwall (W. C. Lukis, The Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, 1885, p. 11) contains a cist, apparently contemporary with its erection, and is therefore presumably later than the chambered round barrows. It has been suggested (Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 175-6) that the oval form of some barrows may be due to the addition, following secondary interments, of new material. 405 Ib., pp. 166-9. 406 T. Bateman, Ten Years’ Diggings, &c., 1861, pp. 253-4. The Derwent Moor barrow was opened in 1780, when the art of excavation was in its infancy; and the urn in question may have belonged to a secondary interment. 407 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1888 (1889), pp. 289-316. In regard to the chambered round barrows of Derbyshire, see also Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 7, and cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 447-52. 408 Archaeologia, xlix, 1885, pp. 189-92, 194-7; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, i, 145, 149, ii, 418, 441-2, 445-6, 448, 451, 462. See also Borlase’s Nenia Cornubiae, 1872, p. 3, and Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 358. 409 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 74-181: xxxvii, 1903, pp. 36-67; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 17-81; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, pp. 398-406. These cairns have no passages of entrance. Their outline was commonly rectangular, the ground-plan being defined by flagstones, arranged at one end in a semi-circle, the space within which led to a low portal that gave access to the chamber. The latter consisted of two sections, one above the other, of which the lower was built of large lateral slabs, covered by flagstones, and divided by other slabs into compartments, while the upper was formed of small flags laid horizontally. A chambered cairn of abnormal form in the island of Ronsay, Orkney, which has been described by Sir William Turner (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvii, 1903, pp. 73-82), ‘consisted of a central part and four recesses’ (ib., pp. 74-5, fig. 1); and on its roof were cremation cists ‘quite different in character from the short cists so frequently found in Scotland’ (ib., p. 79). 410 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, pp. 398, 405; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 78. 411 Ib., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 154-5. The chronology of the peculiar chambered cairns of South-Western Scotland is somewhat perplexing. On the one hand the structure of the cairns is presumptive evidence that they were built in neolithic times (J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 271-2; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 136); the successive interments which were made in them were characteristic of the same period (ib., p. 134); the pottery which they contained is almost all of neolithic type (ib., pp. 165-7; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 78-9); and the presence of drinking-cups does not necessarily point to a later date (p. 193, infra). On the other hand a perforated stone hammer, which was found in one of the chambers (ib., xxxvi, 1902, p. 100), belongs to a class of implements which in this country were generally post-neolithic (p. 78, supra); an elegant bowl which was obtained by Canon Greenwell in a cairn on Largie Farm, near Crinan (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 165-7), although neolithic in form, is somewhat similar to a food-vessel figured in Brit. Barrows, p. 88, fig. 73, which, like it, is ornamented with vertical flutings; and one of the drinking-cups deposited in the same cairn is ‘almost identical in size, shape, and ornamentation’ with a specimen that was associated with a bronze dagger in a barrow on Roundway Hill, Wiltshire (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vi, 1867, pp. 345, n. 1, 347). I conclude that these cairns were locally of neolithic age, but that the influence of the later culture had made itself felt in the district,—in short, that they belonged to a period of transition. 412 M. de Baye exaggerates when he says (L’archÉol. prÉhist., 1888, p. 108) that in France inhumation in the Neolithic Age was almost universal. M. E. Cartailhac (MatÉriaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme, xxii, 1888, pp. 1-2, 4, 6-7; La France prÉhist., 1889, pp. 270-6) gives numerous instances of incineration in neolithic tombs in the departments of the Aisne, the Marne, the Morbihan, &c. 413 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 520. 414 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 191-2, 224-6; Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, p. 129. 415 Ib.; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 53. 416 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 81. Cremation was common in the Neolithic Age in Derbyshire (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1888 1890, p. 316). 417 See, however, p. 187, infra. 418 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 130-1. 419 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 690-1; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 244-5, 250, 274, 293, 300; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 42. 420 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 506; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 72. 421 In a long barrow at Upper Swell in Gloucestershire (W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 524, 526, 536) the primary interment was in a true grave. No similar interment, so far as I know, has been found in any long barrow. 422 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 189, 224-5. Sir J. Evans (Archaeol. Journal, xxxv, 1878, p. 266) gives an instance of a skeleton of neolithic age found in the extended position near Daventry in Northamptonshire. 423 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 189; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 23-4. 424 Archaeologia, xv, 1806, p. 339; xix, 1821, pp. 43-4; xlii, 1869, pp. 184-5. 425 Ib., pp. 190-1; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 504; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 20-1 (preface); Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 72-3. In the Wor Barrow on Cranborne Chase (see p. 105, supra) Pitt-Rivers discovered six skeletons ‘huddled together beneath a small mound’, which was within and distinct from the monument itself. Three of them were crouched, and the rest ‘put in with them as bones, with the long-bones laid out by the side of the skull’. Referring to a discovery made in Egypt by Professor Flinders Petrie, Pitt-Rivers observes that the bones of a skeleton of the Fifth Dynasty (about 3500 B.C.) ‘had been cut up and put in a box, with an effigy of the deceased by the side of it. Something of this sort’, he continues, ‘may have occurred here’. 426 v, 18, § 2. 427 Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 73. 428 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 184-5; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 500-1. 429 Journ. Anthr. Inst., v, 1876, pp. 134-8. Even in cremation deposits the bones are often imperfect and disconnected; and, previous to cremation, the bodies must have been stored in an ossuary (W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 547). 430 Ib., pp. 527, 533-4, 547-8 431 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 185, 191-2, 222, 227; Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 76. 432 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 686-93. See also Canon Greenwell’s remarks on pp. 544-5. Although he agrees in the main with Rolleston, he admits the probability that Thurnam ‘found signs of violent breakage upon a few skulls’. 433 Archaeologia, xxxviii, 1860, p. 421. 434 Gen. Pothier, Les tumulus du plateau de Ger, 1900, pp. 30-1. 435 See the references in Greenwell’s Brit. Barrows, p. 685. 436 See E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, pp. 458-67. 437 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 188, 222. Cf. Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris, 2e sÉr., ii, 1867, pp. 326-32; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxiv, and W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 15; and, for a valuable caution against forming hasty inferences as to cannibalism, Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xv, 1893, p. 162. 438 See p. 268, n. 1, infra. 439 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 486, 499, 544. 440 ‘Remains of the horse,’ says Lord Avebury (Prehist. Times, 6th ed., 1900, p. 160, with which cf. p. 152, n. 5, infra), ‘are very rare in English barrows, and I know no well authenticated case of their occurrence in a long barrow’. See, however, Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 228-9. In Gaul at all events in the Neolithic Age horses abounded (Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 32e sess., 1903, 2e part., p. 851). 441 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 182-3, 227-8, 237-8, 241. 442 See E. B. Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, 1870, p. 131. 443 Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., iii, 1865, p. 317. 444 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 735. 445 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 183. 446 B. G., v, 12, § 6. 447 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 350. 448 Primus in orbe deos fecit timor (Statius, Theb., iii, 661). Cf. E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 230. 449 Ib., pp. 28, 111, 113. 450 Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres,—comptes-rendus des sÉances de l’annÉe 1892, 4e sÉr., xx, 6-7. 451 See pp. 289-98, infra. 452 L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 488; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 232. 453 Ib., pp. 193, 229, 232; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 543. 454 See Trans. Ethn. Soc., iii, 1865, p. 316, and cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 57-60, 120-1, whose remarks, though they apply to the round barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds, are relevant. 455 Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, p. 500 (with which cf. p. 293); W. Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, p. 287. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. 1. 456 See pp. 201-2, infra. 457 See Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, pp. 35, 301. Professor Boyd Dawkins misunderstands the custom. 458 See pp. 288, 403, infra; Archaeol. Cambr., 3rd ser., x, 1864, pp. 292, 296, 298; Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 216-7; and W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, i, 68, 75, 95, 174. Numerous holed stones exist in the vicinity of barrows and stone circles, which were probably erected in the Bronze Age, in Cornwall, Ross-shire, Inverness-shire, the Orkneys, and the island of Arran; but their significance is unknown. There are holed megaliths in Britain (one of which has in recent times been used for curing weakly children, whose mothers passed them through it) that do not belong to dolmens (W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, p. 17). 459 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, p. 454. Cf. Rev. des Études anc., vii, 1905, pp. 31-2, and p. 288, infra. 460 See E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, 1903, i, 477, ii, 144-5, 159, 242-3. 461 Ib., i, 120. 462 Ib., ii, 209-14; G. L. Gomme, Ethnology in Folk-lore, 1892, pp. 78-9; Lord Avebury, Prehist. Times, 1900, pp. 207-8. See also W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 182. 463 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, pp. 108-10; ii, 209. 464 Ib., i, 357-8. Cf. A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, pp. 124, 131, 137, 142. 465 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 186, 248-9, 255. 466 Ib., p. 364. Cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, p. 264, and Mr. R. R. Marett’s interesting article, ‘From Spell to Prayer’ (Folk-Lore, xv, 1904, pp. 132-65). 467 L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 120; A. Lang, The Clyde Mystery, 1905, pp. 82, 89, 99. 468 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 22. 469 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 185. 470 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 152; Lord Avebury, Origin of Civilisation, 1902, pp. 466-70; L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 660; and A. Lang, The Secret of the Totem, p. 2. 471 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, pp. 38, 41, 92, 119, &c. 472 Ib., pp. 253-6, 263. 473 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxviii, 1899, p. 145; E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 370. 474 ‘... die Phantasie, welche wie aller Poesie so auch aller Historie Mutter ist’ (Th. Mommsen, RÖm. Gesch., v, 1885, p. 5). 475 See pp. 408-9, infra. 476 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 516-7, 549, 563; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, pp. 213-4. The rarity of long barrows may partly be explained by supposing that a certain proportion of the others belonged to the late Neolithic Age. That some did is certain. See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 159, 171, and pp. 408-9, infra. 477 M. Salomon Reinach (L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 659) characteristically remarks in regard to the discovery of metals that ‘On l’explique ordinairement par une succession de hasards heureux, en oubliant que l’humanitÉ primitive, n’ayant aucune idÉe de l’utilisation industrielle des mÉtaux, ne pouvait en arriver lÀ du premier coup.... Aujourd’hui toute la mÉtallurgie primitive me semble un chapitre de l’histoire des religions.... On a soumis ces mÉtaux [gold and tin] À l’action du feu, au cours d’opÉrations magiques; ainsi naquit l’idÉe de traiter de mÊme les minerais de cuivre ... et d’en dÉgager le mÉtal brillant qui ressemble À l’or.... L’alchimie primitive, absolument ÉtrangÈre À toute application industrielle, chercha À manier des substances divines par l’action du feu, À opÉrer ... des hiÉrogamies analogues À celle qui conduisit les agriculteurs À la dÉcouverte de la griffe. L’alliage du bronze fut un des rÉsultats de leurs efforts.’ That smiths were sometimes regarded with superstitious awe by those who did not share their secrets (O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, pp. 165-8); that metallurgy was connected at various points with religion;—so much may be granted. But to say that ‘primitive alchemy’ (if it existed) had no industrial application is simply to make an unverifiable and improbable assertion. The discovery that ores could be smelted must have been accidental. Why should not the ‘alchemist’, however superstitious he may have been, have thereupon conceived the idea of turning gold to account for the manufacture of ornaments, or copper for that of axes? 478 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 333. 479 See Man, ii, 1902, No. 19, p. 29. 480 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxi, 1901, pp. 278-9; Man, iv, 1904, No. 5, pp. 13-4. 481 Rev. mens. de l’École d’anthr., iii, 1893, pp. 227-9; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, p. 911. 482 See L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 559; xvi, 1905, p. 198. 483 CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 340; Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford, i, 232; C. H. Read, Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), 1904, pp. 5-6, 27, 101, 111, 130. M. P. du Chatellier (Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xiii, 1903, pp. 169-72) thinks that there was a copper age in Brittany, but admits that he cannot settle the question. Professor O. Montelius affirms (Man, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13) that ‘copper had been used there [in Britain] for a long time’ before bronze; but British archaeologists do not bow to his authority. Pitt-Rivers (Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xiii, 1870, p. 520) remarked that ‘it is not surprising that on the first discovery of the advantages of [adding tin to copper] ... all the old implements of copper, wherever procurable, should have been taken to the melting-pot for conversion into bronze, and we should thus be left with such scanty evidence of the existence of an age of copper’. Still we have sufficient evidence for Ireland, and not for Britain. Professor Gowland (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxvi, 1906, p. 23) attributes the scarcity of copper celts in England to ‘the occurrence of mixed copper and tin ores in Cornwall.’ 484 Man, iii, 1903, No. 8, pp. 147-9. Professor Montelius (ib., v, 1905, No. 7, pp. 13-4) denies that iron was used by the Egyptians before the fifteenth century B.C., and insists that the lump of iron oxide which was found at Abydos in association with copper implements of the Sixth Dynasty, or about 3200 B.C., ‘does not prove the use of iron, only the existence of that metal’. The professor doubtless wrote ‘existence’ by a slip for ‘knowledge’. But, as Mr. H. R. Hall points out (ib., No. 40, pp. 69-71), he ignores the discovery in the Great Pyramid of a piece of worked iron, which is now in the Third Egyptian Room of the British Museum (Case K 29, No. 2433), and to which a date about 300 years older ‘is assigned on good prima facie grounds’; and Mr. Hall reasonably asks whether the discovery of the lump of iron oxide does not corroborate the other. It is unlikely that an unworked lump of iron would have been deposited along with copper tools; and we may fairly suppose that the lump is the remains of an iron tool. 485 Archaeologia, lvi, 1899, pp. 302-3; L. Beck, Die Gesch. des Eisens, i, 1884, pp. 593-6. As far as I can see, all that is proved by the instances which Beck has collected is—what we know already—that stone implements continued in use after the Iron Age had begun. In regard to the discovery, mentioned on p. 595, which Worsaee made in a stone chamber, may not graves of this kind have been built here and there after the Neolithic Age? See pp. 108, 109, n. 2, supra. 486 See Man, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13. 487 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxx, 1900, p. 16. 488 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, &c., p. 25. See also p. 95. 489 Ib., p. 23. 490 See O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, pp. 194, 203-4, 242; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 3-4; Rev. mens. de l’École d’anthr., iii, 1893, pp. 105-6, 118, 120-2; Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. des ant. grecques et rom., ii, 1075; and Pauly’s Real-EncyclopÄdie, v, 1905, col. 2143. Classical scholars will remember that Lucretius (v, 1286), in his powerful description of prehistoric times, affirmed that bronze was used before iron. 491 See O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, pp. 192-3, Reallexicon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, 1901, pp. 200-1; and Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 9-11. Dr. Schrader argues that as there are no special names for bronze in the languages of any of the ancient bronze-using peoples except the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, in whose tongue bronze, as distinct from copper (urudu), was designated by the word zabar, they must have been the inventors of bronze. See p. 494, infra. 492 Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, pp. 408-9) has compiled tables which show that the percentage of tin in British bronze implements varies between 5.09 and 18.31, and in French between 1.50 and 21.5. He concludes (ib., p. 410) that ‘the uniformity of the composition of the cutting implements of the Bronze Age implies that the art of compounding tin with copper was discovered in one place, from which the knowledge of it spread over ... Europe and Asia, and the greater part of the Americas. Had it spread from separate centres, this uniformity would have been impossible.’ The uniformity which subsists between 5.09 and 18.31, and between 1.50 and 21.5 is remarkable. 493 See Sir John Evans’s Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 420; Rev. d’anthr., 3e sÉr., iii. 1888, pp. 209-10; and Lord Avebury’s Prehist. Times, 1900, pp. 53-7. 494 L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 548, 561-2, 566. M. Salomon Reinach (ib., iii, 1892, p. 280) has gone so far as to suggest that ‘les origines mÊmes de la mÉtallurgie du bronze’ should be sought in Western Europe. 495 See Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xiii, 1870, p. 539, and J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 419. 496 Ib., p. 476. 497 Ib., pp. 476-7. See p. 144, n. 5, infra. 498 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 420, 477; Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 2e partie, 1903, p. 931; L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 168. 499 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 470-2. See pp. 231-4, infra. 500 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 472-3. 501 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, pp. 308-10; Man, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13. 502 See pp. 33-4, supra. 503 See pp. 424-44, infra. 504 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 111-2. 505 Ib., pp. 118-20. 506 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 313; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1888 (1889), p. 316. Cf. O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, p. 389. 507 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 127, 711-2; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 180, 190, n. 1. See pp. 427-8, infra. 508 See pp. 131-2, infra. Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, p. 342) asserts that ‘bronze weapons ensured victory [to the brachycephalic immigrants] over enemies armed with the old weapons of stone’. On page 344 he remarks that ‘while the chiefs and the rich possessed bronze implements and weapons, the poorer classes would naturally continue to use those of stone’, &c. How could bronze weapons have decided battles if only ‘the chiefs and the rich’ wielded them? 509 Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 212, 239. 510 Since the publication of Sir John Evans’s work, bronze weapons have been found in the Orkney and Shetland Islands (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxi, 1887, pp. 340-2). 511 See p. 133, n. 1, infra. 512 See the Topographical Index in Sir J. Evans’s Anc. Bronze Implements; Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 142; Vict. Hist. of ... Nottingham, i, 289; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 386; and Archaeol. Journal, lxiv, 1904, pp. 310-2. It must not, however, be supposed that mere statistics of finds are necessarily valid evidence. See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 496-7. 513 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 118, 133-5. 514 Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester, i, 183-4. Cf. J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 81, 88, 129, 368. 515 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 159-60; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 318, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 195; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 409-12; lii, 1890, pp. 60-1; liv, 1895, p. 105; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 60-1. Flint arrow-heads are also found with burials of the Bronze Age in France (J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 171, n. 1); and Sir J. Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 318) says that ‘many of the bronze arrow-heads found on the Continent appear to belong to the Early Iron Age’. He admits, however, that some very small spear-heads, so called, ‘may possibly have served to point arrows’. Bronze battle-axes are unknown in Northern France as well as in Britain (ib., pp. 161-2). 516 Ib., pp. 19-20, 41, 51, 165, 189-90, 224-5, 256, 480, 487; Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 143; Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., iii, 1865, p. 313; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 412-3, 435-6, 438; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 38, 43, 360; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 11, 17; Trans. Devon Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 128; Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 218. 517 No British bronze saws are mentioned in Sir J. Evans’s work, which was published in 1880; but see Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xi, 1885-7, p. 12; The Naturalist, 1903, pp. 206-7; and J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. 182. 518 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 173. 519 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 78. 520 See B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, &c., pp. 232-47. Durham, strange to say, has hardly any, though they abound in Northumberland (W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 378, 440; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., xi, 1905, p. 168). In highly cultivated districts many have of course been destroyed. 521 Archaeol. Journal, xxix, 1872, p. 160, n. 1; xxxii, 1875, p. 292. 522 See A. Pitt Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, 5, 7-8. 523 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 250. 524 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxi, 1899, pp. 146-55; Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion, 1898-9 (1900), p. 19. 525 Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 252-60. 526 Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., 1, 1905, part ii, pp. 32-49. 527 42nd Annual Report Roy. Inst. Cornwall, 1860, pp. 17-43; Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xiii, 1895 (1896), pp. 98-9; Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion, 1898-9 (1900), p. 19; Trans. Roy. Irish Acad., xxxi, 1896-1902, p. 633. 528 Ib., pp. 618-9, 623; Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, xxxv, 1905, pp. 244-5. 529 Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester, i, 182. 530 G. Payne, Collectanea Cantiana, 1893, pp. 176-7. 531 Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 471. 532 Vict. Hist. of ... Berks, i, 261. 533 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxviii, 1872, pp. 40, 42; Man, iv, 1904, No. 105, pp. 161-2. Mr. Cunnington (Proc. Dorset. Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xxiv, 1903, pp. xxxiv-xxxviii) has wasted much labour in endeavouring to prove that the Maiden Castle was constructed by the Romans. In 1882 and following years he excavated in the eastern division of the fort and found remains of a Roman building, which proves merely that the fort was occupied in Roman times. 534 I am glad to find that I have the support of Mr. C. H. Read (Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age, p. 78) and Mr. Reginald Smith (Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age, 1905, p. 122), who unhesitatingly refer the Dorsetshire hill-forts in general to ‘the Bronze, and possibly, in some cases, the Neolithic period’. Mr. H. St. G. Gray strains Pitt-Rivers’s doctrine when he argues (Index to Excavations in Cranborne Chase, 1905, p. xix; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., 3rd ser., ix, 1903 1905, p. 28) that, without excavation, it is idle to express any opinion as to the age of a camp. He says that ‘Caesar’s Camp’ at Folkestone ‘was always considered to be pre-Roman before Lane-Fox excavated it and proved it to be of Norman construction’ This remark is incorrect (see Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, p. xi), and, even if it were true, would only prove that less was known about the principles of construction of prehistoric British camps in former days than now. I cannot conceive how anybody could on a priori grounds suppose ‘Caesar’s Camp’ to be pre-Roman, even if he had only seen the plan on the 25-inch O. S. map. Of course I freely admit that, without excavation, it would be generally (though not always) idle to express any opinion as to the particular prehistoric epoch to which a fort belonged. Dr. Joseph Anderson (Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 139, with which cf. D. Christison, Early Fortifications in Scotland, 1898, pp. 350-3, 380-1) observes that no one Scottish fort ‘can be assigned with certainty to the Bronze Age’; but it is nevertheless morally certain that many did then exist. Mr. R. Burnard (Vict. Hist. of ... Devon, i, 366) remarks that it is unsafe to infer from the fact that Cranbrook Castle, in the valley of the Teign, contained pottery of Bronze Age type, that it belonged to that period; for such pottery was also used in the Early Iron Age. Certainly it was; and so also were bronze implements (see pp. 266-7, infra); but, as a rule, the discovery of Bronze Age pottery, or bronze implements, unaccompanied by objects of the Early Iron Age, is enough to raise a presumption, which in most instances would be correct, that the site was occupied in the Bronze Age. 535 Scheme for recording Ancient Defensive Earthworks and Fortified Enclosures, 1903, pp. 2-3, 6 (published by the Congress of Archaeological Societies). My classification differs slightly in form, but not in substance, from that adopted by the Congress. 536 Journ. Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xxv, 1903, pp. 175-80. 537 Archaeologia, xliv, 1873, p. 424; xlix, 1885, p. 181; Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, xxxv, 1905, p. 244; Archaeol. Cambr., 3rd ser., xi, 1865, pp. 77-81. Many of the ‘cliff-castles’ probably do not belong to the Bronze Age (see Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 451-2, 458-9). 538 Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, pp. 288-9. See also Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, p. 458. 539 Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, pp. 288-9. The same feature exists in the camp at Seaford. 540 See p. 98, supra. 541 See Archaeol. Journal, xxii, 1865, p. 354. 542 E.g. Ambresbury Banks in Essex, Yarnbury on Salisbury Plain, and Hunsbury near Northampton. See R. C. Hoare, Anc. Wilts, i, 1812, pp. 89-90; Trans. Epping Forest ... Field Club, ii, 1882, pp. 55-68; and Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 23. 543 See pp. 259-60, infra. 544 Mr. I. Chalkley Gould (Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc., N. S., viii, 1903, p. 139, with which cf. Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xxiv, 1902, p. 29) says that ‘the early constructors fixed on the highest points, and ... adopted a system of tortuous and involved entrances’; and that in later times engineers ‘no longer depended on involved tortuous entrances’. There is some truth in this; but forts which were at all events occupied in the Early Iron Age stood ‘on the highest points’, and the entrances of Cissbury (Archaeologia, xlv, 1880, p. 338, pl. xxvi), which was probably erected in the Neolithic Age (pp. 97-8, supra), and of many other hill-forts were not tortuous. 545 See, for instance, Trans. Devon. Association, xxxi, 1899, p. 151, xxxiii, 1901, pp. 129-38; and Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 252-60. 546 See Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 364, and pp. 257-8, infra. 547 Proc. Geologists’ Association, 1887-8 (1889), pp. 376-7; Papers Hants Field Club, iii, 1896, part ii, p. 175; W. Johnson and W. Wright, Neol. Man in N.-E. Surrey, 1903, p. 47; Cornhill Mag., May, 1906, p. 612. 548 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 19-20. 549 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1903, pp. 51, 160-1. 550 See Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 51; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 238; and Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xxiii, 1901, pp. 112-3. 551 Prof. F. J. Haverfield (Eng. Hist. Rev., xix, 1904, p. 746) says that ‘the scanty archaeological evidence hardly seems to justify ... Cornish mining so early as B.C. 800’. But it does prove that bronze implements were made in Britain in the earlier part of the Bronze Age,—considerably earlier than 800 B.C.; and the tin must have been obtained either from Cornwall, or from Dartmoor, or from both. There is no evidence of prehistoric mining in Dartmoor, and there is in Cornwall (pp. 502-3, n. 8, infra). 552 See Prof. Gowland’s interesting paper in Archaeologia, lvi, 1892, pp. 267-322, especially 268, 284-5, 287, 296. 553 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 425. I do not know what the results of later analyses have been. See also Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 97, and Addenda, p. 739. 554 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 39, 188, 204-5, 222, 487. 555 Ib., pp. 48, 69-70, 74, 76, 153. 556 Ib., pp. 70-3, 160. 557 Ib., p. 468. 558 Ib., pp. 107-8. 559 Ib., pp. 160, 162-3. 560 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 98. 561 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 167. Cf. Archaeol. Journal, xxvi, 1869, pp. 346-50. 562 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 173, 175-6. 563 Ib., pp. 207-8. 564 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 480. 565 Ib., p. 479; Papers Hants Field Club, iii, 1895, pp. 56-7. 566 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 106. 567 Sir J. Evans (ib., p. 483) observes that ‘our socketed celts appear to have had the cradle of their family in Western Germany’. See also ib., pp. 107-8. 568 Ib., pp. 84, 108, 483. 569 Ib., pp. 108, 135. 570 Ib., pp. 114-5. 571 Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xiii, 1870, p. 531; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 75, 133. 572 Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 106-7), referring to Ancient Bronze Implements, p. 72, remarks that a palstave found on the bottom of the Angle Ditch on Handley Down was probably used in excavating the ditch, the sides of the lower part of which are ‘scored all along by vertical grooves’, some of which ‘coincide with the width of the flat side of the palstave’. 573 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 194, 197-200, 202; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 202; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, pp. 358-60. 574 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 204, 222-4. 575 Ib., pp. 257-60, 473, 480; Archaeologia, xxxvi, 1855, pp. 326-31. 576 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 261-2, 265, 269-70. 577 Ib., pp. 248-9, 256, 273, 342-3, 354-5. 578 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 343-8, 354-5, 481; Archaeologia, xxvii, 1838, pp. 298-300, liv, 1895, p. 112; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 227. 579 Ib., pp. 171, 173; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 250-1, 278-81, 297, 301-2, 308, 481; Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 112. 580 Ib., xliii, 1871, pp. 455-6; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 310. 581 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xix, No. ii, 1902, pp. 287-9. 582 ‘The openings’ [in one specimen], says Sir J. Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 332), ‘are about 17 inches from the point. An Irish friend has suggested that they were for the reception of poison, but after the blade had penetrated seventeen inches into the human body such an use of poison would probably be superfluous.’ 583 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 341-2; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 68-9, 81. 584 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 337-8, 341-2. 585 Ib., p. 315. 586 Ib., p. 311. 587 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 107, 427-8, 430, 438, 440-1, 445; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, pp. 328-30; xx, 1904-5, p. 259; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 487-505; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 72-3. 588 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 186, 451-2. See p. 71, supra. 589 Ib., pp. 67-8, 177, 179, 181, 451-3. 590 Daggers with chevron ornament are very rare in the British Isles except in Ireland (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 221). One or two English specimens are noticed by Sir John Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 232, 238). 591 Ib., pp. 108, 320, 330. Mr. Romilly Allen is mistaken when he says (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 220) that winged, looped, and socketed celts never have chevron ornament. Several instances are given in Anc. Bronze Implements (pp. 74, 84, 90, 126, 128, 132). 592 See pp. 181-4, infra. 593 Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 457-70. For details of hoards which have been found since the publication of Sir John Evans’s book, see Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., i, 1884, pp. 225-7; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xi, 1885-7, pp. 12, 42-51; xv, 1893-5, p. 138; xvi, 1895-7, pp. 96-8, 327-30; xviii, 1900, pp. 285-7; Archaeologia, xlviii, 1888, pp. 106-14; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxvi, 1892, pp. 182-8; xxxv, 1901, pp. 266-75; Papers Hants Field Club, iii, 1895, pp. 53-66; and Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 241. 594 Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 457-8; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 504. 595 Some hoards of damaged and broken implements, unaccompanied by copper cakes, may have been formed for barter with a bronze-founder (Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 240). 596 See p. 126, supra. 597 Cf. Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 536, with Greenwell’s Brit. Barrows, p. 740, and Pitt-Rivers’s Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 132. 598 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 110-1; Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 110-1; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 19. 599 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 192, 236. 600 J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, &c., pp. 111-2. See also Brit. Barrows, p. 114; and Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, pp. 392, 396. 601 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, pp. 260-1. 602 See p. 90, supra. 603 Oxen drawing a plough are depicted on rock-carvings in Scandinavia (CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., i, 1874 1877, pp. 454 [fig. 1], 473 [fig. 31]). 604 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 220, 262; Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 110; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 127-8. 605 O. Montelius, Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times, 1888, pp. 71-6; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 141. 606 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 399-400, 404. Harness rings have been found, according to Dr. J. Anderson (Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 168), in Scottish hoards. Professor W. Ridgeway (The Thoroughbred Horse, p. 92) argues that ‘the use of the horse by man in the British Isles cannot be placed before the end’ of the Bronze Age. 607 See p. 221, infra. 608 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 656-7. 609 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 610 O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, p. 379. 611 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 139, 591-2, 599. 612 See pp. 85-6, supra. 613 See Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 52-3; and p. 467, infra. 614 D. Wilson, Prehist. Annals of Scotland, 2nd ed., i, 1863, p. 107. 615 See p. 87, supra. 616 See B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, &c., p. 279. 617 Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 486. Bronze spear-heads were associated with objects of the Early Iron Age in a hoard found on Hagbourne Hill in Berkshire, which belonged to a period of transition. See p. 267, infra. 618 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 143. The argument is no doubt generally sound, and no find, as far as I know, refutes it; but I do not think that it is absolutely conclusive. Stone implements were undoubtedly used in the Early Iron Age; and bronze and iron implements have been found together. 619 Archaeol. Journal, xxiv, 1867, pp. 229-35; xxvi, 1869, pp. 301-5, 317; xxvii, 1870, pp. 158-9. The workshops may have been used in the Bronze Age; but one, in which iron slag was found, contained Roman coins. Huts similar to those of Ty Mawr have been explored in Brittany (ib., p. 148). 620 Archaeologia, xlv, 1880, pp. 356-8. See p. 86, supra. 621 W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, pp. 18-9. 622 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 402; Reliquary, viii, 1902, p. 92. 623 Vict. Hist. of ... Devon, i, 350, 352. 624 Ib., p. 349; Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 161. 625 Ib., p. 163. 626 Ib., pp. 161-3. 627 Vict. Hist. of ... Devon, i, 354. 628 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxi, 1899, p. 148. 629 Ib., xxxiv, 1902, p. 160. Cf. Archaeologia, xlv, 1880, pp. 362-3. 630 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 160. 631 Reliquary, N. S., viii, 1902, p. 91. 632 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 163. Bronze has been found, though rarely, in graves on Dartmoor (Ib., p. 130; Reliquary, N. S., vii, 1901. p. 95). 633 Ib., p. 92. 634 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 46-8. 635 Ib., pp. 14, 15-6, 20 (preface), 185-90, and pl. 306. See also Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, pp. 387-97. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, pp. 365, 369) describes an ‘extensive labyrinth of entrenchments’, which ‘traversed the high grounds of the [Yorkshire] Wolds in every direction, forming a network ... connecting hill to hill and valley to valley’. He states (p. 379) that several round barrows have been mutilated by these entrenchments ‘in a manner which shows that the latter are the more recent’ [but does not show that they are later than the Bronze Age], but that they are ‘at least for the most part pre-Roman, being in several instances crossed by what are believed to be portions of ... Roman roads’; and he concludes, disagreeing with Pitt-Rivers (see p. 441, n. 2, infra), that they were intended to protect cattle against robbers. In regard to the entrenchments near Flamborough Head which Pitt Rivers excavated, I prefer his guidance. 636 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 107-8; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 179, 185; Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 87-114. Canon Greenwell (ib., p. 103) conjectures that the disks, which have analogues in France, Switzerland, and Italy, may have been worn as ornaments upon the breast; but their use is uncertain. Cf. Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 401-3. 637 Ib., pp. 408-14; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 205; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 28-30, 84. Cauldrons with ring-handles and rounded bottoms have been found in Ireland and in various parts of Scotland, but, according to Dr. J. Anderson (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, pp. 313-5; xxxix, 1905, pp. 14-20) and Mr. C. H. Read (Guide, &c., p. 30), not on the Continent. Dr. R. Munro, however (Lake Dwellings of Europe, 1890, p. 290), affirms that they have been found in the famous settlement of La TÈne. They belonged indeed to the very latest period of the Bronze Age, if not to the Early Iron Age (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 410). Only one cauldron of the flat-bottomed type has been found in Scotland (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxii, 1888, p. 36). The British cauldrons of this kind differ in details from continental examples, especially in their handles, which are rings, and may be of native manufacture. Anyhow, the Heathery Burn Cave cauldron had been mended with a degree of skill which shows that British workmen knew how to rivet plates together. 638 Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, pp. 360-2) remarks that if a well-known amber cup, which was found at Hove, was of British workmanship, it proves that the use of the lathe was known in Britain in the Bronze Age. Sir John Evans (Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 445-50), like the professor, thinks that the cup may have been imported; but he points out that cups made of shale, which were certainly turned in a lathe, and were most probably of British manufacture, have been found in round barrows on Broad Down near Honiton. Sir R. C. Hoare (Anc. Wilts, i, 122-3) found in the trunk of a tree inside a bowl barrow along with a skeleton an urn which he described as ‘different both in shape and colour to any we have ever found in the British sepulchres’, and which appeared to him to have been turned in a lathe. Still the statement in the text is, generally speaking, true both of the British Isles and of Northern and Western Europe. 639 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 125. See also p. 467, infra. 640 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 338-43, and pl. xxix; liv, 1895, p. 110; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 11, 106-8; Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 125; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., 1, 1905, part ii, p. 42; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lxvii, 9, 82. 641 See pp. 395-7, infra. 642 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 112-4. 643 Ib., pp. 94, 108. 644 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 438-9; Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 383. 645 Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, pp. 5-6, 12. 646 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 108-9. 647 Ib., xliii, 1871, p. 440; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 191-2; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 162-3. 648 ‘So called’, says Pitt-Rivers (ib., i, 66), ‘because some of them are found with an edge as sharp as a penknife’. The thought of shaving with a bronze razor is not pleasant; but the negroes of Tanganyika still use razors of this metal (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 667-75; xv, 1904, p. 116); and everybody knows that the Flamen Dialis might only shave with a bronze knife. See J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, i, 1900, p. 242. 649 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 451; liv, 1895, p. 99; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 217-21, 480. 650 See p. 156, supra. Cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 118, 142. 651 Ib., p. 411. 652 See p. 189, infra. 653 Germania, 17. 654 Archaeol. Journal, ix, 1852, p. 8; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 432-4; liv, 1895, pp. 101, 107; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 15, 31, 33; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 366-73; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 168. 655 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 32-3, 54-6; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 510-2, 519-22; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xli. 656 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 452-5; Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 400-1; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 473-4, 477, 480-5. One button with a V-shaped perforation, found in a barrow at Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire, was associated with glass beads (ib., p. 474), which (p. 183, infra) appear to have belonged to a comparatively advanced period of the Bronze Age. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 481. 657 R. C. Hoare, Anc. Wilts, i. 99, pl. x; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 524-5. 658 Ib., pp. 490-1, 502-3; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. li, 92. 659 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 492. 660 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 55, n. 1. 661 Trans. Devon. Association, v, 1872, pp. 554-5 and pl. ii. 662 Anc. Wilts, i, 202, pl. xxvii, 2. See also Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 459, and Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 51, 232. 663 Archaeologia, xxvi, 1836, pp. 422-31; Archaeol. Journal, lviii, 1901, p. 324; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xviii, 1899-1901, pp. 223-4. 664 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 501. Cf. p. 502, note c. 665 See Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 395, 481, 487. 666 Ib., p. 481. 667 Ib., p. 395. 668 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 102. Sir John Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 402) does not accept them as armlets; but cf. Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 85. 669 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 76, 90, 96, 375-9. Cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 55, n. 1, 436. Bronze torques of all these patterns have also been collected. Funicular torques are unknown in Scotland. 670 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 283, 381-7; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 489-90, 528; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 94-5, 168, 217; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 6. 671 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., ii, 1861-4, pp. 247-8; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 224, n. 1; Mr. G. Clinch (Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 320) thinks that the Mountfield hoard probably belonged to the Late Celtic period. 672 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 217, 220-1. 673 Archaeol. Journal, xxiv, 1867, pp. 197, 201; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 42; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 222; Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, pp. 166-73; Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 356. Cf. L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 135. 674 See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, p. 263. 675 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 470; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 390-1. 676 Ib., pp. 391-3; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 471, 531; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 117, 223, 324; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. xlvi, 218. A pair of ornaments, which may have been ear-rings, have been found in a barrow in Wiltshire. Cf. Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 94, with Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 393. Ear-rings of the Bronze Age are equally rare in France (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 267, 273). 677 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 392-3 678 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 514-5, 522; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 51-2; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 270-1; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 209. 679 See p. 469, infra. 680 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 494-5, 500, 504, 526-7. 681 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxvi, 1892, p. 183. 682 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 394, 485; L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, pp. 173-5. Mr. L. McLellan (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xl, 1906, pp. 396-402), unlike Mr. Abercromby (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxix, 1905, p. 262), argues that the paste beads were made in Britain. 683 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 492-4. 684 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 485. 685 Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xvi, 1904, p. 103. 686 Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant., Ireland, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 23; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, pp. 912-4; L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 688-9; Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, pp. 166-75; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 29, 145-6; Man, v, 1905, No. 7, p. 13. For evidences of intercourse between Scotland and Ireland see Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vi, 1867, pp. 350-1; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 62; and R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland, p. 290. 687 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 508-9; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 484; Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 37, n. 1. 688 This conjecture, I find, has the support of Mr. Coffey (ib., p. 39). 689 See p. 357, infra. 690 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., iii, 1860, pp. 183, 195. 691 Ib., xxvi, 1892, pp. 186-7; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 55. 692 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 261. 693 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 54-6; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 492, 494-5, 507, 530; lii, 1890, pp. 58-9. A glass bead has been found in one Derbyshire barrow (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, p. 425). Gold has only once been found in a barrow on the Yorkshire Wolds (Archaeologia, lii, 58-9); and of 379 interments only 10, of which 2 were Late Celtic, were found there accompanied by ornaments (Brit. Barrows, pp. 51-2); whereas in Wiltshire 64 were found out of 354 (Archaeologia, xliii, 488). 694 The absence of gold and amber which distinguishes the group of barrows round the great stone circle at Avebury from those associated with Stonehenge (Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 11, p. 5, n. 11) is remarkable. Perhaps it may be due partly to the greater antiquity of the Avebury barrows. 695 In regard to the poverty of the people who, probably in the Early Iron Age, used the stronghold of Winkelbury Hill, 13 miles WSW. of Salisbury, see A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 236. 696 Dr. Joseph Anderson assigns these balls, which have been found only in Scotland, to the Iron Age; but Mr. George Coffey (Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 42) thinks that ‘the general character of these spirals appears to be distinctly Bronze Age, not Late Celtic’. It has been pointed out (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, pp. 408-9) that Mr. Coffey’s theory is ‘strengthened by the fact that stone balls of this class have been found associated with cist burials [of the Bronze Age] ... near Ballater, and ... [in] Elginshire’. 697 Meath, Louth, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and Donegal. 698 See Mr. G. Coffey’s articles in Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., iv. 1894, pp. 349-79; v, 1895, pp. 16-29, 195-211; vi, 1896, pp. 34-69, and especially 40-2, 65; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxi, 1887, p. 144; xxiii, 1889, p. 133; xxix, 1895, pp. 191-4; xxxiii, 1899, pp. 363-4, 368; L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 688-9; xvii, 1906, p. 332, fig. 6; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 381-2; Romilly Allen, Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times, 1904, pp. 50-3; C. H. Read, Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 96; and Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 240. Mr. Read observes (op. cit., p. 103) that some of the Scandinavian bronzes have been shown by analysis to have been imported from Britain. 699 M. Salomon Reinach (L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 688-90), if I do not misunderstand him, although he admits that the British Isles in the Bronze Age were connected by trade with Scandinavia, thinks it probable that the spiral reached the former by way of Spain. He observes that among Scandinavian rock-sculptures there are no spirals; that certain designs—for example the boat—are common to sepulchral monuments in Brittany and in Ireland; that there are striking points of resemblance between the bronze culture of Ireland and Spain; and that designs which have been found in the East Riding of Yorkshire represent Aegean types which also appear in the departments of the Marne and the Gard (see p. 200, infra). These arguments seem unavailing against those stated in the text, and especially against the almost complete absence of the spiral from Spain, Gaul, and Southern England. If the figure does not appear on Scandinavian rocks, it abounds on Scandinavian weapons and ornaments; and on rocks boats are frequently represented (O. Montelius, Civilisation of Sweden in Heathen Times, 1888, pp. 46, 73-6). Nor is M. Reinach’s reasoning sound when he goes on to argue that we have no right to trace the Bronze Age spiral of Western Europe to an Egyptian source because the same design has been found engraved on mammoths’ tusks in the Pyrenaean cave of EspÉlungues at Arudy (L’Anthr., xv, 1904, p. 146, fig. 24; xvi, 1905, p. 5, fig. 4). As Dr. Arthur Evans remarks (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, p. 913), ‘the earliest cultural strata of Europe, from the Neolithic period onwards, betray an entire absence of the recurring spiral motive. When we find it later propagating itself as a definite ornamental system in a regular chronological succession throughout an otherwise inter-related European zone, we have every right to trace it to a common source. 700 See pp. 499-500 and 511-4, infra. 701 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxx, 1900, p. 94, and the Hon. John Abercromby’s article in the same periodical, xxxv, 1905, pp. 256-64, especially 262. Mr. George Coffey (Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 40), remarking that Britain and Gaul were on a lower plane of civilization in the Bronze Age than Scandinavia, argues that one cause may have been that ‘the sea-way south of the Elbe was possibly closed to Scandinavian enterprise in the Bronze Age’. But the North Sea was not; and apparently there was nothing to prevent Scandinavian traders from landing on our eastern coasts if they had thought it worth while. 702 See p. 119, supra. Prof. B. C. A. Windle (Remains of the Prehist. Age, pp. 153-73) gives a fairly complete list. It would be superfluous to print references for barrows belonging to counties not mentioned in my text; for full lists are being given in the Victoria County History. 703 Long barrows may possibly have been erected in remote districts after bronze had been introduced into Southern Britain. See Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., viii, 1891, pp. 33-7. 704 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 58-9. Cf. Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 196. 705 See p. 108, supra. 706 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 13, 451; Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 111. 707 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 309, 314, 326; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 12-3. 708 Ib., pp. 31-2; R. C. Hoare, Anc. Wilts, i, 52, 122-5; J. Hutchins, Hist. and Ant. of Dorset, 3rd ed., i, 1861, p. 100; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 314-5; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 4; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 179-81; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxvii. 709 J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxv. 710 The same degeneration took place in Gaul (A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt. et gaul., 1889, p. 104; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, pp. 213-4). 711 Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxv) believes that on the Yorkshire Wolds barrows were occasionally erected over the dwellings in which the dead had lived; but the evidence which he adduces, except in one instance (pp. 182-3), appears to me weak. See pp. 155, 328-9, 336-7. 712 Stonehenge, 1740, p. 45. 713 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 63. 714 Ib., xlix, 1885, p. 183. 715 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 3-4; Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc., N. S., iii, part ii, 1899, p. 499. 716 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxvii, 1902, p. 106. 717 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 309; lii, 1890, p. 63; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, p. 289. 718 J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxi. 719 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 291-2; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 4-5. 720 Ib., p. 3; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 290-1, 301-4; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 7-8, 64. 721 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 291. It has often been assumed that barrows had no ditches because none were visible; but Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 4) showed that several barrows on his estate were surrounded by ditches ‘of which no trace was seen before excavating’. See also ib., ii, 7-8. 722 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 302-4; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 3-4. Composite bowl barrows and bell barrows are described in Archaeologia, xliii, 297-300. 723 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 293-5, 303-4; Folk-Lore, vi, 1895, pp. 14-5. Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 145) suggests that the common form of disk barrows ‘may have arisen through a failure to carry out the original intention’. ‘The first idea,’ he continues, ‘of the mourners ... may probably have been to erect a large monument ... and the ditch in such a case would contain a large area. In the course of a few days, however, the grief may have abated, and laziness supervened, in which case the arrested tumulus would assume the form described. The habit of all primitive peoples ... of lashing themselves up into a frenzy on the occasion of a death, and general excitability upon any uncommon occurrence, followed by a speedy relapse, favours this hypothesis. When, however, a vallum is seen to follow the line of the ditch, this cause cannot be assigned to the particular structure. It may, however, be a form that has become persistent and conventionalized through the cause already mentioned.’ This ingenious theory seems to imply that the motive of laziness only began to operate when disk barrows came into fashion. The few disk barrows of Derbyshire have no apparent ditches (Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 169). That county also contains barrows constructed differently and of different materials from those which undoubtedly belong to the Bronze Age: their date is uncertain, but may be Romano-British (ib., pp. 186-9; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, p. 427). Mr. G. F. Tregelles (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 358) thinks that in Cornwall the distinctions between conical, bowl, bell, flat, and ring barrows ‘may be little more than differences in height’. 724 Journal Brit. Archaeol. Association, xviii, 1862, p. 39; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 289, 291-2; x, 1884-5, pp. 305-6; W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, p. 6; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 63; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., i, 1901, pp. 295-9. 725 Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i. 169. 726 The ditches of the Cranborne Chase barrows in Dorsetshire, just outside the frontier of Wiltshire, are sometimes incomplete (A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 138). 727 See p. 104, supra. 728 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 6-8; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xi, 1885-7, p. 434. Canon Greenwell (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vi, 1867, p. 339), speaking of a cairn near Crinan in Argyllshire, surrounded by ‘a double circle of stones’, which ‘stood from 3 feet to 5 feet apart, except for a space ... where, in both circles, four stones were found placed close together’, says, ‘This is not an unusual feature in circles which enclose burials; in fact it is, in one shape or another, almost universal.... The object seems to be to make the circle incomplete.... When the circle is made of stones placed close together, or is formed of earth, then one or more openings occur in it.’ On the other hand, Mr. W. C. Borlase (Archaeologia, xlix, 1885, p. 183) found that in Cornwall the stone rings enclosing barrows were almost always continuous. 729 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 8. 730 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 138. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxii), referring to the incomplete stone rings or trenches which are found within barrows, suggests that they were intended ‘to mark off ... the sacred spot in which the ceremony and interment were afterwards to be conducted, and that the break in the circle had no other significance than to serve as a place of ingress and egress’. 731 Ib., p. lxxi; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 112. 732 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 169-71. 733 Archaeol. Journal, lviii, 1901, pp. 328-31. 734 Journ. Derby. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xi, 1889, pp. 39-44; xiv, 1892, pp. 244-7, 250; xv, 1893, pp. 161-2. 735 In certain cases, however, the mound may have been so worn down by denudation as to escape notice. 736 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 148. 737 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 28, 37-8; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xx, 1886, pp. 114, 240-1; xxix, 1895, pp. 46-8; xxxv, 1901, pp. 258-66; xxxix, 1905, pp. 189, 528-32. 738 Anthr. Rev., v, 1867, p. 255. 739 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 112-3. 740 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 38, 48-50, 63-4. 741 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 22-3 (preface). ‘There is no knowing,’ says Pitt-Rivers, ‘how many of these graves without mounds or ditches may exist in the soil; as they show no mark on the surface, they can only be found accidentally’. 742 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 113. 743 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 111. 744 Brit. Barrows, p. 402. For other instances of moundless graves see Anthr. Rev., iii, 1865 (Journ. Anthr. Soc., p. lxvii); Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xlv, 1889, pp. 112-22; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 335; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, iii, 1013; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 28; Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., xxxiii, 1904, pp. 410-1; Archeol. Aeliana, 3rd ser., ii, 1906, p. 132; and Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 245. Mr. J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. lxxii, suggests that ‘the great number of small cairns which even yet exist on the uncultivated moors of Yorkshire’ may have ‘belonged to the masses’. 745 See pp. 105-6, supra. 746 Trans. Lancs. and Cheshire Ant. Soc., xviii, 1900 (1901), pp. 114-24. 747 These cists are assigned by the excavators, Dr. W. A. Herdman and Mr. P. M. C. Kermode (Proc. Liverpool Biol. Soc., viii, 1894, pp. 159-72), to the Neolithic Age; but the evidence which they adduce is purely negative. Perhaps the people who built them only had stone tools; but the fact that the interments were in cists and accompanied by cinerary urns proves that they were made after bronze had come into use. 748 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 4; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 24-7, 41, 60; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 634; GÉnÉral Pothier, Les tumulus du plateau de Ger, 1900, pp. 28-9. See also Journ. Anthr. Inst., xv, 1886, pp. 95-7. 749 J. H. F. Brabner, Gazetteer of England and Wales, vi, 31. 750 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 2, n. 2. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xviii, n. "") remarks that ‘it could hardly be expected that these two small openings would be more likely to find the primary grave ... than two rat holes would be likely to come upon the ashes of a mouse placed under a mound ten feet in diameter’. 751 Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., xxiii, 1887, pp. 245-52. At the foot of Garrow by Hill, on the Yorkshire Wolds, there is another gigantic mound, 50 feet high and 250 feet in diameter, which has not been opened (J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xx). 752 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 134, 273-4, 277, 342; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 44, 48-9; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 442-6. See also Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, x, 1855, p. 8. Dr. Thurnam (Archaeologia, xliii, 447 and note b) quotes one instance of the discovery in a round barrow of a socketed celt, which, notwithstanding the doubts expressed by Sir John Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 134), appears to have been contemporaneous with the interment; and another is mentioned in Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 114. On the other hand, Pitt-Rivers, referring to the spear-head mentioned in Archaeologia, xliii, 447, says, ‘I am informed by Mr. William Cunnington ... that ... it was found by his grandfather ... immediately under the turf near Stonehenge, and not in a barrow’. The reference given by Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 20) to Archaeologia is incorrect. 753 See J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 169-70. Canon Greenwell (Brit. Barrows, pp. 48-50) asserts that knife-daggers and flat axes—the only bronze implements found in Yorkshire barrows—never accompany swords and spear-heads in hoards, and argues that this proves the early date of round barrows in general. If the assertion were true, the fact would prove the early date of those Yorkshire barrows in which daggers and flat axes were found; but the question is whether many other barrows do not belong to later periods of the Bronze Age. Moreover, flat axes have been found twice in hoards,—one with palstaves (J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 464), another with swords (ib., p. 466). 754 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 463. 755 The Hon. John Abercromby (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 262) affirms that ‘the few bronze swords, spear-heads, etc., of the Bronze Age and Hallstatt Period, that first filtered in driblets into this country, and were then reproduced with variations by native smiths, were too precious to be laid by for ever in a grave, even at the end of the Bronze Age in Britain’. Is not this begging the question? If small bronze weapons were ‘laid by for ever’ in graves in the earlier period, when bronze was scarce, why should not large ones have been laid by when it was common? And if gold ornaments were not too costly to be sacrificed, why should bronze swords have been deemed so precious? 756 Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 473-4. 757 See p. 288, infra, and Addenda. 758 See p. 181, n. 2, supra; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 447-8; and Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 93. Sir John Evans (Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 310), referring to the tanged weapons of Arreton Down type and to certain blades found in the Wiltshire barrows, which (see pp. 145, 147, supra) he thinks ‘may have been the heads of spears rather than the blades of daggers’, remarks that ‘at the period to which they belong the art of making cores must have been known, as the ferrule found at Arreton Down will testify’. This is significant; but on p. 473 he refers the ‘tanged spear-heads or daggers’ to the second period of the Bronze Age,—earlier than that of palstaves and socketed celts. Mr. C. H. Read (Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age, p. 24) observes that cinerary urns ‘possibly represent the period during which swords and spear-heads of bronze were manufactured ... by our population’. It is true that certain urns of overhanging rim type were contemporary with socketed weapons (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, pp. 262-4); but the oldest urns were much earlier. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xviii, 1899-1901, pp. 251-3. 759 Archaeol. Rev., ii, 1889, p. 323. Cf. Folk-Lore, vi, 1895, pp. 15-7. Dr. Evans remarks in this article that ‘the characteristic form presented by a spiral ring of bronze found in one urn leads one indeed to believe that these flat disk-barrows of Standlake [in Oxfordshire] belong to a time when iron was coming into use’. 760 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, pp. 256-64. 761 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 366, 369. 762 See p. 149, supra. 763 See pp. 205-6, infra. 764 Flat bronze celts were found by Canon Greenwell in two only of the multitudes of barrows which he has explored not only in the northern counties but also in Wiltshire and Berkshire (Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 3); while Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xlvi) never found one with any of the 893 interments which he examined on the Yorkshire Wolds. The canon opened four Late Celtic barrows in the parish of Cowlam, of which he says (Brit. Barrows, p. 212), ‘Had the bodies occurred without the necklace, fibula, or armlets, I should not have hesitated the least about classing these four barrows with the other barrows in the immediate vicinity, which were of the time of stone, or more probably of bronze.’ Is it unreasonable to conclude that a few other barrows which contain no relics of the late Bronze Age may nevertheless belong to that time? 765 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 321-42. Cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 44, n. 2, and Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, pp. 213, 215. 766 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 21, 333. 767 Ib., p. 21, n. 1. 768 Ib. See p. 185, n. 3, infra. 769 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 19-20; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxxiv. Canon Greenwell remarks, however (pp. 28-30), that charcoal was almost always found in contact with unburnt bodies; and he was doubtful whether it was merely the ashes of the fire at which the funeral feast had been cooked, or might be regarded as a sign that the corpses had been passed through fire, just as in baptism aspersion was substituted for immersion. But this would of course imply that cremation on the Wolds was earlier than inhumation. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. lxxvii. 770 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 21 n. l, 445; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 310; xliv, 1873, p. 426; lii, 1890, pp. 37-8, 43; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1888 (1889), p. 315; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 386. In regard to the few interments by inhumation that have been found in Cornwall see Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 362-3, 366. 771 Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 119. 772 Archaeol. Scotica, ii, 1822, pp. 76-102; iii, 1831, pp. 40-50; Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 236. 773 O. Montelius, Sur la chronologie de l’Âge du bronze, 1885, p. 3. 774 Mr. Abercromby in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 364, denies that any drinking-cups were contemporary with cinerary urns; but in Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 385, he affirms that some were. 775 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 390; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 6; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, pp. 375, 381; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 364. Five more drinking-cups have lately been found with burnt bones in two cists in Dilston Park, Northumberland (Archaeol. Aeliana, 3rd ser., ii, 1906, pp. 142-6, 148). Mr. John Ward (Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 177-8) shows from an examination of the sepulchral pottery of Derbyshire (cf. pp. 191-6, infra) that in those districts in which interments of both kinds are found cremation was, generally speaking, later than inhumation. This conclusion is supported by the fact that in Wiltshire, where cremation on the whole greatly predominates, it occurs only about as often as inhumation in bowl and bell barrows (Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 293). 776 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 326. 777 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 78. Canon Greenwell (Ib., vi, 1867, p. 343, n. 2), speaking of a cairn near Crinan in Argyllshire, which he explored, remarks that ‘in this part of Scotland at all events the earliest interments in the large megalithic chambers are of burnt bodies’. 778 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vii, 1870, pp. 268-70; xx, 1886, p. 252; xxix, 1895, pp. 191-4; Archaeologia, xxx, 1844, p. 335; xliii, 1871, pp. 450-1; lii, 1890, pp. 25, 64; J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 1, p. 1; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 20-1; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 90; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 2, 29; iii, 17; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 10. Secondary interments by inhumation sometimes succeeded primary interments by cremation (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 173; Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xvi, 1895, p. 50). 779 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 650-1. 780 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 312, 450-1; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, p. 10; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 16. The two latter authorities only suggest that in cases like that mentioned in the text the unburnt body was that of the chief. 781 Archaeologia, xv, 1806, pp. 340-1. The nine skeletons may have belonged to a secondary interment, but Cunnington inferred from the careless manner in which they had been buried that they were ‘slaves or dependents of the great personage below’. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxxii), remarking that ‘in several instances where the body of the chief burial was reduced to ashes the attendants [?] were inhumed’, argues that in some cases cremation, in others inhumation, was considered the more honourable mode of sepulture. Perhaps. 782 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 20-1. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. xxxii, 60, 318. 783 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, p. 304. 784 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 313-4. 785 Ib., lii, 58-9; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxxviii. Cf. Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 90. 786 Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 237; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 17, 74-5. 787 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 48. 788 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 309; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 12. 789 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 22-3; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 315-8. Cf. Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-9. 790 C. Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, 1866 (‘Tumuli opened at Various Periods’, pp. 10-1, 72, 76). The instance mentioned on p. 72 is, in my opinion, doubtful, and no certain pre-Roman instances are recorded in the sections entitled ‘Personal Researches’ and ‘Communications from Personal Friends’. Prof. Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, i, 1901, p. 502), referring to Greenwell’s Brit. Barrows, p. 22, states that ‘in Dorsetshire ... the extended position seems to be the prevalent one’, a remark which illustrates the danger of relying on second-hand evidence. In a few cases in Derbyshire and elsewhere in which the body has been found sitting the posture was perhaps due to some accident in filling up the grave (Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 318-20; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxviii, 1882, pp. 109-10). Two skeletons, however, were found sitting, back to back, in a barrow in Denbighshire (Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 23, p. 1). 791 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 12. In a round barrow on the south of the road between Rochester and Gravesend, and about midway between Chalk Church and the Crown Inn, five skeletons were found in the trench near the bottom (Archaeol. Cant., xxiv, 1900, pp. 86-90). 792 C. Warne, Celtic Tumuli of Dorset, pp. 46-9. Cf. pp. 36-7. In Derbyshire ‘secondary interments are found in any position, central or otherwise’ (Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 176). 793 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 12-3. 794 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 321-3. Cunnington, however, remarks (ib. xv, 1806, p. 343) that ‘on the top of barrows we find the skeletons in every direction’. 795 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 25-6; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 25, 38, 64; Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., xxxiii, 1904, pp. 412-3; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xxxvii; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 173. All the kistvaens of Dartmoor lie at one end between north and west, at the other between south and east of the corrected compass (Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiii, 1901, pp. 121-2; xxxiv, 1902, p. 164); and the cairns near the Land’s End have ‘an aspect ranging from south-east to south-west’ (Archaeologia, xlix, 1885, p. 182). Cf. Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., v, 1905, p. 307. 796 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1862, p. 255; xliii, 1871, pp. 314-5; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 31-2; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 74-5; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, p. 552; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. xli. 797 Anc. Wilts, i, 124. 798 J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. xxxiii, 15-6, 63, 66, 77; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 66. 799 Ib., ii, 1-2; E. T. Stevens, Flint Chips, 1870, p. 410; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 324-5; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 14; Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 108. 800 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 294, 310, 325-6. 801 Ib., p. 326. Cf. W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 445; Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 236; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-9; and Trans. Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, pp. 108-9. 802 Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., i, 1901, pp. 295-9. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, p. 547. 803 Ib., xxxvi, 1902, p. 644. 804 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 326. On the other hand the urns which Canon Greenwell found in Yorkshire were usually placed upright (Brit. Barrows, p. 14). 805 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 49. 806 Iliad, xxiii, 254. Cf. xxiv, 795-6. 807 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 326. 808 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 43-7. An urn only ? inch high, which of course could not have been used for containing ashes, has been found in a cairn of the Bronze Age in Fifeshire (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 641). 809 J. Anderson, op. cit., pp. 51-2, 74-5; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 62, 72-3, 139, 277, 291, 297. 810 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 29. Canon Greenwell (Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 63-4) has described in an interesting paragraph ‘the infinite variety, within certain limits, which is found in connection with the burials of the Bronze Age’. 811 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 331; Brit. Barrows, p. 74; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lv, lix. 812 See pp. 442-3, infra. 813 Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, 1880, p. 28; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 334. 814 See p. 159, n. 1, supra. 815 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 63. See, however, Archaeologia, xlix, 1885, p. 184. 816 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 391, 396; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, pp. 373-97; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 323-410; xxxix, 1905, pp. 326-44; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lxv-lxvii. Mr. J. P. Gibson, in a paper on a recent find of drinking-cups in Dilston Park, Northumberland (Archaeol. Aeliana, 3rd ser., ii, 1906, pp. 126-49) says (pp. 146-7), ‘There appears nothing in the Dilston Park discovery to confirm this suggested [chronological] arrangement. Mr. Abercromby tells me that evidence received since the paper [in Proc. Soc. Ant., xxxviii, 1904] was published has convinced him that “the whole question requires a fresh investigation” ... The Dilston Park find ... furnishes two instances in which in the same cist ... vessels are found varying widely both in form and decoration. It also proves the great difficulty of attempting to fix any relative dates of Bronze Age beakers by a comparison either of their shape or ornament.’ Mr. Abercromby, however, in his third paper (ib., xxxix, 1905), adheres to his chronological arrangement. See also ib., xl, 1906, pp. 32-3, 371. Handles are occasionally found not only on drinking-cups, but also on the other kinds of sepulchral pottery. 817 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 378-83; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 83-93; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lxii-lxv. 818 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 343-57; xlix, 1885, p. 195; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 66-74; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lviii-lix; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 415-6. 819 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 74-83; Archaeol. Journal, xxiv, 1867, pp. 22-5; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 357-77; J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lix-lxii. 820 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 61; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 197. The counties in which drinking-cups have been found are Kent, Sussex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Berkshire, Buckingham, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Oxford, Cambridge, Lincoln, Derby, Stafford, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Westmorland, Cumberland, Monmouth, Anglesey, Carnarvon, Denbigh, Glamorgan, Berwick, Roxburgh, Ayr, Argyll, Stirling, Lanark, Haddington, Edinburgh, Linlithgow, Kinross, Fife, Forfar, Perth, Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, and the island of Mull (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 386 and map facing p. 396; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, p. 329). Their rarity in South-Eastern Britain is doubtless due largely to the destruction of barrows in a highly cultivated region; while their absence from many of the Midland counties may be ascribed partly to the same cause and partly to the fact that the population of those parts in the Bronze Age was probably small. In Cornwall vessels of a peculiar kind appear to have served the same purposes as drinking-cups and food-vessels (Archaeologia, xlix, 1885, pp. 186-8). From the frequency with which drinking-cups occur in the east of Scotland it may perhaps be inferred that they were introduced into that country, at least in part, by immigrants from Scandinavia or Denmark. A gold cup, which in form resembles certain drinking-cups and is ornamented on the bottom with concentric circles, has been found with a bronze dagger at Rillaton in Cornwall (Archaeol. Journal, xxiv, 1867, p. 189). 821 See pp. 408-9, 442-3, infra. 822 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, pp. 376-85. 823 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 346-7; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 94. 824 Ib., pp. 93-4, 101; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 386; lii, 1890, pp. 24-5. Cf. J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 76, and E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 30-43. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, pp. lxvi-lxvii) says, ‘If food was essential [to the dead], so would liquid be ... and I do not know of an instance of the remains of animal matter having ever been found in any vase of the true drinking-cup type. That they served the purpose of holding liquid, there can be little doubt’. Mr. Mortimer is more logical than the people of the Bronze Age. His argument would lead to the conclusion that only food or only drink was considered necessary for the dead according as food-vessels or drinking-cups were placed with them. Very likely liquid was sometimes poured into drinking-cups: but for obvious reasons evidence is wanting; whereas evidence exists that they sometimes held food. By ‘the true drinking-cup type’ Mr. Mortimer apparently means the low-brimmed type which Thurnam called ? (see W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 95, fig. 82), and which, as we have seen, is confined to Northern Britain; but he is alone in calling this type ‘true’ to the exclusion of the others. 825 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 44-5. 826 Ib., p. 45; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 378. 827 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 44. 828 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 362-3. 829 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 46. 830 Ib.; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 358; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 80. The orthodox view is that incense-cups have never been found with interments by inhumation; but see J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. liv-lv, lx, 256 (fig. 724), 259. 831 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 357; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 80. 832 The suggestions that they may have been lamps or even small urns intended to receive the ashes of infants have been refuted. See on the whole question Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 374-7; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 81-3; Nature, Jan. 13 (with which cf. Archaeologia, xliii, 374-5); E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 383-5; and Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 45-6. 833 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 388-400; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 65-7, 71, 76-7, 92-102; Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., iv, 1894, pp. 378-9; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 164, 169, 216-39; J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times, 1904, pp. 26-39; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 333, 536-7. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. lv) says that he has found vessels of all four kinds which were quite plain. 834 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 235-8. 835 Ib., pp. 218-34. ‘General resemblance of ornamental patterns.’ says Pitt-Rivers (ib., p. 216), ‘is not enough to prove that they were copied from one another ... when, however, the points of resemblance are very minute, and the distribution limited and continuous, it may be fairly argued that the different kinds of earthworks in which they are found, in the same district, were of the same period’. Mr. Andrew Lang’s remarks on decorative motives (Custom and Myth, 1885, pp. 286-9) contain much, but not the whole truth. ‘The conviction becomes irresistible,’ he writes, ‘that all these objects, in shape, in purpose, in character of decoration, are the same, because the mind and the materials of men, in their early stages of civilisation especially, are the same everywhere. You might introduce old Greek bits of clay-work, figures or vases, into a Peruvian collection, or might foist Mexican objects among the clay treasures of Hissarlik, and the wisest archaeologist would be deceived.’ A socketed celt, almost identical in form with some Italian celts and ornamented with the chevron, has been found in Chili (J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 145). 836 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 216, 227; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, pp. 346-8; xxxix, 1905, p. 333; L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 489; xvi, 1905, p. 2. 837 Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, p. 28. 838 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 238-9. Mr. Coffey (Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 195) thinks that ‘herring-bone, chevron, and triangle ornament’ may be native in Europe, and (ib., vi, 1896, p. 42) that lozenge, chequer, and saltire patterns ‘may be original in Britain’. He holds, however (ib.), that ‘we have no reason to believe that geometrical forms have ever been spontaneously invented’, and adds that ‘they appear to have been invariably derived by a process of conventionalisation from realistic prototypes’: he cites examples (ib., iv, 1894, pp. 364-6) from the pottery of Cyprus to show how ‘the body of the lotus flower is simplified to a triangular form, and the central sepal to an enlarged lozenge, enriched by cross-hatching and chequer patterns’; and he argues (ib., v, 1895, pp. 210-1) that ‘the occurrence of chequers of lozenges on Early Bronze Age remains from Scotland, in some instances identical with Cyprian forms, and the close association of lozenge, chequer, and × [saltire] patterns with the spiral in the Bronze Age ornament of Ireland is ... strong evidence that lozenge and chequer patterns travelled northward across Europe on the path of the spiral’. That geometrical forms were in certain cases derived from ‘realistic prototypes’ may be granted, but does not exclude the possibility that in others the same forms were ‘spontaneously invented’. Moreover, certain geometrical forms occur, as we have seen (pp. 197-8), on neolithic and even on palaeolithic objects, to which they could not have found their way by the route and from the source to which Mr. Coffey refers. Others again are of such a kind that it is difficult to conceive of any ‘realistic prototype’ from which they could have been derived; and there are lozenge, chequer, and saltire patterns on pottery of the Bronze Age in parts of England to which, according to Mr. Coffey, the spiral did not penetrate until the Bronze Age was at an end. Mr. Coffey (ib., iv, 1894, p. 356) is himself disposed to except ‘some zigzag, chevron, and triangle ornaments’ from the list of geometric patterns which, as he insists, ‘have been invariably derived from naturalistic forms’; but the truth is that, as Mr. Romilly Allen has shown (Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times, pp. 27-37), all the patterns of the Bronze Age, except spirals, circles and other curves, and mere dots, punch marks, and straight lines, are simply combinations of diagonal straight lines based upon the chevron. Another theory of Mr. Coffey’s (op. cit., v, 1895, p. 202) is that ‘as far as the ornament of primitive peoples has been studied, it appears to be generally associated with religious ideas’, and that the ‘naturalistic objects’ to the conventionalization of which he would trace the geometric patterns of the Bronze Age had ‘a religious and talismanic meaning’. I am not concerned to deny that certain geometric patterns, for instance the swastika and the circle, may sometimes have had such a meaning; but Mr. Coffey’s theory is too sweeping. It would be difficult to prove that oblong punch-marks or impressions of finger-nails and finger-tips, or the herring-bone pattern were connected with religion. [See A. Lang, Magic and Religion, 1901, p. 248.] 839 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 51, 79. 840 A. Lang, The Clyde Mystery, p. 80, fig. 5. 841 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 53; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 164; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 336-7. 842 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 25-7; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., pp. 241-3; CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 338; RÉv. de l’École d’anthr., 1904, p. 135; L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 135. 843 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 54-6, 59; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 401; xlix, 1885, pp. 188-9; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 8-10; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 175; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 56, 67-9, 86-7, 94; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., passim. Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 8), speaking of twenty-two round barrows near Rushmore, remarks that ‘Here, as in other places, the smaller barrows have, as a rule, been found to contain the larger number of relics’. 844 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 39. 845 Ib., p. 60. 846 See Lord Avebury, Prehist. Times, 1900, pp. 133, 135, 144, and Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 57. Seventy-nine flint saws were found by Canon Greenwell (Brit. Barrows, p. 262) in one barrow in the parish of Rudstone, East Riding of Yorkshire. They could hardly have been intended for the use of the deceased, unless, indeed, he was a dealer in implements, and his relatives wished to provide him with the means of plying his trade in a future state. ‘On ensevelit le guerrier,’ says M. Salomon Reinach (L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 354), ‘avec ses armes, la femme avec ses objets de parure, parce qu’ils sont tabous et, À ce titre, retirÉs de la circulation et du commerce’, &c. Very likely this motive sometimes operated; but it will not account for many of the deposits which I have mentioned. 847 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, 1903, i, 483-5. 848 B. G., vi, 19, § 4. 849 Germ., 27. 850 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, 1903, i, 477-90. 851 A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, p. 11, n. 2. See also W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 59-60, 121. 852 Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 536-8; lii, 1890, p. 24; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 10. Pitt-Rivers, however (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 2), found that only one of the twenty-two barrows which he opened at Rushmore contained animal bones. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Forty Years’ Researches, p. lxx) believes that ‘many of the small dish-shaped cavities containing burnt matter that are found scooped into the old turf-line under the barrows were probably made to serve as cooking ovens for roasting the funeral feasts’. Some of these cavities contained pieces of animal and human bones, charcoal, and potsherds; but Canon Greenwell (Brit. Barrows, p. 9) observes that ‘there is no appearance of a fire having ever been kindled within them, the burnt matter, when they contain any, having evidently been placed there in that condition’. Their object remains unexplained. 853 Iliad, xxiii, 171-4. 854 B. G., vi, 19, § 4. 855 Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., iii, 1865, p. 320; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vii, 1870, p. 375; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 15-6; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, p. 217. 856 T. Bateman, Ten Years’ Diggings, pp. 126, 129; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 539-40. Cf. J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. 355. 857 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 180. 858 T. Bateman, Ten Years’ Diggings, p. 25; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vi, 1867, p. 343, n. 2. The works of Canon Greenwell and Mr. Mortimer abound with instances of this practice. 859 Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 50; T. Bateman, Ten Years’ Diggings, p. 135; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 540. See also Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., iii, 1865, pp. 317-8, and Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xv, 1893-5, pp. 424-5. Prof. Robertson Smith (The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 293) remarks that ‘the mouse appears as an abominable sacrifice in Isa. lxvi, 17’; and Sir A. Mitchell (The Past in the Present, p. 145) states, as a fact within his own experience, that in the last century cocks were buried alive in Scotland by church-going people in order to cure epilepsy by the propitiation of some supernatural power. 860 T. Bateman, Ten Years’ Diggings, pp. 78-9; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 120, 164-5, 177, 243-4. Cf. O. Schrader, Prehist. Ant. of the Aryan Peoples, pp. 390-1. Mr. E. Sidney Hartland (Folk-Lore, xi, 1900, p. 91), criticizing Sir A. Lyall’s remark (Asiatic Studies, 2nd ser., 1899, p. 247) that ‘a Calabar chief explained to Miss Kingsley that the custom [of sacrificing wives at their husbands’ funerals] was also a salutary check upon husband-poisoning’, says that this does not explain the origin of the custom. Sir Alfred did not quote it in this sense; but it may explain the persistence of the custom even among certain ancient tribes. Cf. Caesar, B. G., vi, 19, § 3. 861 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 10-1; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii. 4, 34, 42, 252, 258. 862 Act v, scene i, 218-9. 863 W. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, i, 1901, pp. 507, 509-10, 512, 520, 524, &c. 864 See pp. 110, 185-6, supra. 865 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 293. 866 See p. 286, infra. 867 See pp. 177, 183, supra. 868 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 55-65, 145; Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 39, 134; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., iii, 1903, pp. 224-38 (especially 235-8). 869 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xvi, 1860, p. 120; xxxv, 1879, pp. 16-8, 21-5; Mem. Anthr. Soc., ii, 1866, pp. 277-9; Sir J. Y. Simpson, Archaic Sculpturings, &c., 1867, pl. xiii, figs. 3 and 5; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 7; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xvi, 1882, pp. 79-80, 85, 101, 104, 121-43, 300-401; xviii, 1884, pp. 109-28; xix, 1885, pp. 394-5; xx, 1886, pp. 41-6, 135, 358-60; xxi, 1887, pp. 143-51; xxiii, 1889, pp. 125-37, 140; xxix, 1895, pp. 68-71, 73, 91, 193; xxxiii, 1899, pp. 363-4, 368, 371; xxxvii, 1903, p. 22; xxxviii, 1904, p. 148; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, pp. 246-7; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 39; A. Bertrand, La religion des Gaulois, 1897, pp. 62-3; CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), pp. 269-70; Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., xi, 1901, p. 55; L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, pp. 696, 701, 710-1; xiv, 1903, pp. 536-7; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 381-2; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, p. 127. It would seem that certain cup-markings, at all events in the British Isles, France, Spain, and Scandinavia, belong to the Neolithic Age (Sir J. Y. Simpson, Archaic Sculpturings, &c., p. 29; E. Cartailhac, Age prÉhist. de l’Espagne, 1886, pp. 174-5; La France prÉhist., 1889, pp. 246-7.) 870 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 437. Mr. W. Frazer (Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., v, 1895, pp. 69-70) affirms that ‘almost without exception the simple “cupules” ... on our rude stone monuments are to be attributed to ... Echinus lividus’ (a sea-urchin). In many cases, however, the marks of tools are unmistakable (W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 342-3, 433). 871 They have been found on the porches of churches at QuimperlÉ, on the north porch of the cathedral at Quimper, and (with crosses) on the thresholds of houses of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, near Carnac (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvii, 1897-9, pp. 328-9). 872 Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., vi, 1896, p. 59. Concentric circles with rays appear to belong to the later period of the Bronze Age (ib., pp. 59, 65-6). Rays are also found on a spiral carved on a megalith in New Caledonia (L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, p. 697, fig. 9). 873 A. Lang, Magic and Religion, pp. 245-6, 253-4. Mr. Lang (The Clyde Mystery, pp. 66, 79) observes that similar markings on rocks, &c., in different countries may have different meanings. 874 Rectilinear figures like those which are common on pottery of the Bronze Age have also been found on these stones (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 209, 226-7). It seems probable that the famous ‘Cerne Giant’—a colossal human figure wielding a club—which is cut in the chalk on the hill-side east of Cerne Abbas in Dorsetshire, may belong to the Bronze Age and be connected with phallus-worship. See Vict. Hist. of ... Buckingham, i, 189. It has been pointed out (Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xxii, 1901, pp. 107-9) that it is petrographic, colossal, nude, ithyphallic, and clavigerous; and that ‘forms which possess these five characteristics have been found in the rock carvings of Scandinavia ... and belong only to the Bronze Age and to its overlap with the Early Age of Iron’. See J. J. Worsaee, Industrial Arts of Denmark, 1883, pp. 112-3. 875 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, part i, 1903-4, pp. 6-13, part ii, 1904-5, pp. 254-5; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 151-2. 876 L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 564, 721; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1904 (1905), p. 723. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, p. 391. 877 See p. 105, supra. 878 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 122-3. 879 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 122-3; Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 224. 880 I do not mean to suggest that all stone circles were derived from peristaliths; but I do not think that we should be justified in differentiating from the peristaliths by a hard and fast line those larger circles in which no traces of interment have been found. Mr. John Ward (Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 169), remarking that most of the round barrows, or rather cairns, of Derbyshire consist merely of stones ‘thrown together anyhow’, says that ‘a slight advance is the introduction of a kerb of larger stones laid upon the ground to confine the proposed mound’; and he goes on to observe that in those cases in which the stones of the mound itself have been removed, the kerb ‘may remain as a ring of stones easily mistaken for a circle’. He evidently believes that the kerb was merely a structural improvement. Perhaps in Derbyshire, though even this is not certain. The object of the stone rings which have been found within cairns, and of those which stood upon barrows in Northern Germany, was certainly not utilitarian; and the kerb may have had a religious or mystical meaning. Nor is there any evidence that it was an ‘advance’ upon the structureless cairn. 881 Archaeologia, xxxv, 1853, pp. 232-58; lii, 1890, p. 39; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 402; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 111, 113-4, 119-23, 300-1; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., vi, 1900, pp. 11-2; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 60, 67, 70; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, pp. 197-204; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 181-4; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., vi, 1906, p. 282. 882 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xviii, 1862, p. 50; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 402; W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, p. 16. The extreme rarity of stone rows in Cornwall, contrasted with their abundance on Dartmoor, suggests to Mr. G. F. Tregelles (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 402) ‘a difference in cult’. 883 See Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2. 884 For instance in Cornwall (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 379), Inverurie (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7), and Lewis (ib., xxxviii, 1904, p. 190). 885 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., ix, 1881-3, p. 151; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, p. 246; xxxviii, 1904, p. 190; Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xiv, 1901, p. 378. 886 Journ. Anthr. Inst., i, 1872, p. cxi. Roger Gale (whose testimony is accepted by Mr. W. C. Lukis (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., vii, 1876-8, pp. 270-1), writing in 1740 to Stukeley, said that he remembered having seen the holes in which the stones of the Stonehenge avenue had been placed. 887 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 320. 888 Ib., ix, 1881-3, pp. 150-1; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, p. 246; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-2. 889 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxiv, 1900, pp. 143, 196-7; xxxv, 1901, p. 246; xxxvii, 1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4. 890 Ib., xxxv, 1901, pp. 246-7. 891 Ib.; Folk-Lore, vi, 1895, pp. 7, 12. See also Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland, i, 245, 247. 892 Caesar, B. G., vi, 13, § 4; 16, § 2; 21, § 1. 893 Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, p. 194. Demeter was worshipped in stone circles in the city of Hermion (Pausanias, ii, 34, § 10). 894 Cf. Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland, i, 245, 247, with Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., x, 1884-5, p. 312. Mr. A. L. Lewis (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xv, 1886, p. 479) assumes that in some cases the external object by which the orientation was determined was a mountain. 895 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xi, 1882, pp. 3-7, 117-22; xv, 1886, pp. 471-81; xx, 1891, p. 285; xxx, 1900, p. 70; Archaeol. Journal, xlix, 1892, pp. 139, 146; Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xiii, 1895, pp. 111-2; and Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxiv, 1900, p. 196. Mr. A. L. Lewis, the principal advocate of the solar temple theory, seems to be satisfied with almost any kind of orientation. Thus he tells us that of twenty-one circles which he observed in Southern Britain nineteen ‘had a special reference to the north-east’, that is to the midsummer sunrise: but he maintains that a ‘line due east through the Stannon and Fernacre circles to Brown Willy evidently was meant to indicate the equinoctial sunrise’; and in another case he insists that the object pointed at was the pole star. Mr. G. F. Tregelles (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 404-5), after making careful investigations with his compass in Cornwall, has arrived at results ‘mainly negative’, and concludes that ‘there is not apparently such evidence of orientation as would satisfy a critical observer’. Mr. W. C. Lukis, on the other hand (Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, p. vi), remarking that circles sometimes occur in groups, asks, ‘if they were temples ... why should the worshippers have been divided into so many different congregations?’ As it is not contended that all circles were solar temples, this argument would obviously apply only to those particular instances; and even with this limitation it is inconclusive. Each circle was probably erected in honour of some one chieftain; and it remains possible that sun-worship may have been practised by his clan. We can hardly suppose that the erection of circles was supervised by a central hierarchy who aimed at economizing labour! See p. 479, infra. 896 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vi, 1867, pp. 337-9; xviii, 1884, pp. 319-23; xxix, 1895, p. 302; xxxiii, 1899, p. 363; xxxiv, 1900, pp. 151, 186, 197; xxxv, 1901, pp. 194, 219, 247; xxxvi, 1902, p. 579; xxxvii, 1903, p. 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 293-4; xxxix, 1905, pp. 192-5; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 291-2, 389-92, 471-2; x, 1884-5, p. 312; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, pp. 111, 113-4, 116-8; Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, pp. 313-5; Trans. Devon. Association, xxvii, 1895, p. 442; xxx, 1898, p. 107; xxxv, 1903, p. 142; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxx, 1900, pp. 57, 67; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, pp. 60-1; Vict. Hist. of ... Cumberland, i, 236 n. 5, 245, 247, 249; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 183; Vict. Hist. of Cornwall, i, 401; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 286-92. 897 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 124; MatÉriaux pour l’hist ... de l’homme, 3e sÉr., ii, 1885, pp. 368-70; A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, Les Celtes dans les vallÉes du PÔ et du Danube, 1894, pp. 80-5; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 507, 644; iii, 720, 728, 753; Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des inscr., 1904, pp. 560-4. 898 See Archaeol. Journal, xlix, 1892, p. 139; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98; and Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., ii, 1902, p. 60, §§ 5-6. 899 Mr. G. F. Tregelles (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 404) remarks that ‘the principal English [as distinguished from most Cumbrian and Scottish] circles have never been proved to be’ sepulchral; but neither have they been proved to be non-sepulchral. It is said (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xix, 1902, p. 98) that the circle of Sunken Kirk in Westmorland has been subjected to a ‘searching exploration’. Was the whole area excavated? Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 148), speaking of the fifty two secondary interments which he discovered just outside a barrow at Rushmore (see p. 178, supra) says, ‘They showed no trace whatever on the surface ... and would never have been discovered had it not been for the practice I have established of trenching down to the undisturbed chalk the entire surface of the ground contained within the area of the contoured plan of the Barrow’. Mr. R. Burnard (Vict. Hist. of ... Devon, i, 359-60) observes that ‘fires seem to have been kindled all over the [Fernworthy] circle, for every scoop of the pick and shovel ... displayed charcoal’, and, remarking that this monument is the ‘predominant feature of a group of sepulchral remains’, conjectures that it was ‘the crematorium or the site of the funeral feasts or both’. 900 A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt, et gaul., 1889, p. 103. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, p. 288, and L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 530. 901 Journ. Anthr. Inst., i, 1872, pp. cxi, cxiii-cxvi; Trans.... Devon. Association, xxxiv, 1902, p. 117; xxxv, 1903, p. 429; Vict. Hist. of ... Devon, i, 370. 902 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., viii, 1879-81, pp. 288, 292, 471-4. 903 See Dr. A. J. Evans’s interesting account of the folk-lore of the Rollright Stones in Folk-Lore, vi, 1895, pp. 21-3, 30-2, and cf. Lord Avebury’s Origin of Civilisation, 1902, p. 388. 904 Journ. Ethn. Soc., i, 1869, p. 59; Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, p. 325. 905 Ib., p. 316. 906 Archaeologia, lviii, 1902, pp. 15, 20, 40, 42, 115. 907 See Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, p. 318. 908 Archaeologia, lviii, 1902, pp. 73-5, 80-2. 909 Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, p. 318. 910 Archaeologia, lviii, 1902, p. 83. 911 Some geologists have suggested that they may have come from Wales or even Cumberland! 912 Archaeologia, lviii, 1902, pp. 115-6. 913 Cf. p. 156, supra. 914 The circle at Callernish, which belonged to the Scottish Stone Age, and within which an interment was made, may have been contemporary with the Bronze Age of England. 915 See pp. 468-77, infra. In a case containing a model of Stonehenge in the Prehistoric Room of the British Museum it is actually stated that ‘on the supposition that Stonehenge was a Sun-temple, its date has been astronomically determined’! I would ask the Keeper to consult Mr. Hinks’s paper in the Nineteenth Century, June, 1903. 916 See Polybius, iii, 38, §§ 1-2; 58-9; xxxiv, 10, § 7; Dion Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4. 917 See p. 494 infra. 918 See p. 513, note, infra. 919 See p. pp. 490-1, 512, infra. 920 See pp. 499-513, infra. 921 See H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., 1897, pp. 15-6. 922 Strabo, ii, 4, § 2. Cf. A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, Les Celtes dans les vallÉes du PÔ et du Danube, 1894, p. 15. 923 Strabo, ii, 1, § 12; 5, § 8. Cf. V. de St. Martin, Hist. de la gÉogr., 1873, p. 101. 924 Plutarch (De placitis philosophorum, iii, 17, § 2), who evidently knew nothing about the tides, ascribed to Pytheas the absurd statement that high tide occurs at full moon, and low tide at new moon (????a? ? ?assa???t?? t? p????se? t?? se????? t?? p????a? ???es?a?, t? d? e??se? t?? ?p?t?da?), a blunder which, as MÜllenhoff (Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 365) remarks, nobody could have made who had spent twenty-four hours on the Atlantic coast. I agree with him that Pytheas had anticipated the discovery of Posidonius (Strabo, iii, 5, § 8), which, needless to say, must have been made long before by Phoenician mariners, but that he was unfortunate in his reporter. Cf. H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., p. 155. 925 See p. 221, infra, and H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 155-7. 926 See ib., p. 160, and Geogr. Journal, i, 1893, p. 520. 927 Geminus, Elem. astron., ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, § 9); K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 311. 928 Ib., p. 367. 929 Geogr., i, 4, § 3; ii, 3, § 5; iv, 5, § 5; vii, 3, § 1, &c. Cf. M. Dubois, Examen de la gÉogr. de Strabon, 1891, pp. 253-4, 264-5. In regard to the scientific eminence of Pytheas see V. de St. Martin, Hist. de la gÉogr., p. 107; K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 311-3; Geogr. Journal, i, 1893, pp. 520-1; and H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 47-50. 930 H. Berger, Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen, iii, 1891, p. 27. 931 Strabo, ii, 4, § 2. 932 H. d’A. de Jubainville, Principaux auteurs de l’ant. À consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes, 1902, p. 65. 933 K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 311. 934 See pp. 495-6, infra. 935 Strabo, i, 4, §§ 3, 5; iii, 2, §§ 1, 11; iv, 4, § 1; Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 3; K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 368-70, 375-7; Pauly’s Real-EncyclopÄdie, iii, part i, 1897, p. 863; H. d’A. de Jubainville, Principaux auteurs À consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes, pp. 66-71. Sir Clements Markham (Geogr. Journal, i, 1893, p. 516) holds that Pytheas sailed from Uxisama to Kent, ‘because he reported that the coast of Gaul, where he left it, was some days’ sail from Cantion’. But what he reported was simply that Cantium was some days’ sail from Gaul (?a? t? ???t??? ?e??? t???? p???? ?p??e?? t?? ?e?t???? f?s? [Strabo, Geogr., i, 4, § 3]); and this estimate may have been based upon his homeward voyage. Professor Ridgeway (Folk-Lore, i, 1890, p. 97) referring to the same passage in Strabo, argues that he sailed from Brittany to the Isle of Wight. MÜllenhoff gives satisfactory reasons for the view adopted in the text. 936 Except by Prof. Rhys (Celtic Britain, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 46), who, however, may perhaps have changed his mind since the appearance of Mr. Clement Reid’s article in Archaeologia, lix, part ii, 1905, pp. 281-8. 937 See p. 359, infra. 938 See Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 1902, 1re part., p. 268; 1903, 2e part., p. 911. 939 See pp. 499-507, infra. 940 Strabo, i, 4, § 3; ii, 4, § 1. MÜllenhoff (Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 379-81) makes an ingenious attempt to explain Pytheas’s exaggeration. Cf. H. Berger, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen, iii, 1891, p. 37. 941 Geogr., i, 4, § 4; ii, 1, §§ 13, 17; iv, 5, § 4. 942 Strabo, iv, 5, § 5; Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Cf. K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 394-6. 943 Nat. Hist., ii, 97 (99), § 217. 944 MÉm. de l’Acad. des inscr., xxxvii, 1724, p. 437; H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., p. 159. 945 Whitaker’s Almanack, 1897, p. 71. Cf. K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 367, and Geogr. Journal, xix, 1902, p. 53. 946 Strabo, ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 5. Cf. K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 392. 947 I have come independently to the same conclusion as M. V. de St. Martin (Hist. de la gÉogr., p. 103) and Mr. H. F. Tozer (Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 158-9). 948 Strabo, i, 4, § 2. 949 H. Berger, Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen, iii, 1891, p. 37. 950 Geogr., iv, 5, § 5. MÜllenhoff (Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 393) insists that Strabo’s description must include Thule; for, he says, it compares the observations made by Pytheas in Thule with others, made in more southerly tracts, where wheat was grown and beer brewed. But, as I observe in the text, it is questionable whether Pytheas was ever in Thule. 951 Geogr., i, 4, § 3. 952 Ib., ii, 5, § 8. See H. F. Tozer, Hist. of Anc. Geogr., p. 159. 953 K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, p. 389. Cf. MÉm. de l’Acad. des inscr., xxxvii, 1724, pp. 436-42. 954 MÜllenhoff (Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 386, 401) gives sufficient reasons for rejecting the statement of Cleomedes that there was continuous night in Thule for one month. The statement of Pliny (Nat. Hist., iv, 16 [30], § 104) that the winter night lasted six months needs no refutation. 955 Strabo, i, 4, § 2. 956 Elem. astron., ed. C. Manitius, 1898, p. 70 (c. vi, § 9).—?p? d? t??? t?p??? t??t??? d??e? ?a? ????a? ... pa?e??a?. f?s? ???? ... ?t? ‘?de?????? ??? ?? ??a??? ?p?? ? ????? ????ta?. s???a??e ??? pe?? t??t??? t??? t?p??? t?? ?? ???ta pa?te??? ????? ???es?a?, ???? ??? ?? d??, ??? d? t????, ?ste et? t?? d?s?? ????? d?a?e?at?? ???????? ?pa?at???e?? e????? t?? ?????.’ 957 See H. Berger, Gesch. der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde, &c., iii, 1891, pp. 16-7. 958 Cf. K. MÜllenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 388, 392. 959 Strabo (ii, 4, § 1) seems to imply that Pytheas avowed that he described Thule from hearsay. He tells us on the authority of Polybius that Pytheas wrote an account of t? pe?? t?? T????? ?a? t?? t?p?? ??e????, ?? ??? ??te ?? ?a?’ a?t?? ?p???e? ?t? ??te ???atta, ??t’ ???, ???? s?????? t? ?? t??t?? p?e???? ?a?att?? ??????, ?? ? f?s? t?? ??? ?a? t?? ???atta? a???e?s?a? ?a? t? s?pa?ta, ?a? t??t?? ?? ?? des?? e??a? t?? ????, ?te p??e?t?? ?te p??t?? ?p?????ta? t? ?? ??? t? p?e???? ?????? a?t?? ???a???a?, t???a d? ???e?? ?? ?????. 960 My view coincides, in regard to the identification of Thule, with that of G. Hergt (Die Nordlandfahrt des Pytheas, 1894), and also with that of M. Camille Jullian (Journ. des Savants, 1905, pp. 95, n. 1, 101, n. 2). Hergt’s work is not in the British Museum, and I have not been able to procure a copy; but his conclusions are summarized in Jahresberichte der Geschichtswissenschaft, 1895, iii, 167. He and M. Jullian (op. cit., p. 101) hold that Pytheas landed in Norway, and that the Norwegians with whom he conversed pointed out to him in the distance ‘le lieu mystÉrieux oÙ le soleil repose durant les longues nuits du cercle polaire’. On this theory I cannot conceive how Pytheas came to regard Thule as one of the British Isles. MÜllenhoff, who identifies Thule with Mainland, argues, first (Deutsche Altertumskunde, i, 1890, pp. 387-8) that Pytheas would hardly have succeeded in sailing to Norway in six days on account of difficulties, which he points out, in navigation; secondly (p. 393), that Pytheas, who distinguished between the Celtic and the Germanic populations of Northern Europe and must have been accompanied by an interpreter, would not have confounded Norway—a non-Celtic country—with Thule; thirdly (pp. 398-9), that agriculture was introduced into Norway by the Germans, that Pytheas, in his description of Britain and of Thule, did not say that corn was not cultivated there, and that, if he had visited Norway, he would have mentioned the Lapps and the reindeer; and lastly (pp. 399-400), that the place where ‘the barbarians’ showed him ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’ was evidently the most northerly land which he reached, and was not in the Arctic Circle. Every one of these arguments rests upon the assumption that Pytheas visited Thule, for which, as we have seen, there is no evidence. Neither is there any that Thule was inhabited by a Celtic-speaking people: it is, as we have seen (p. 152, n. 2), absolutely certain that corn was cultivated in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age; and even if Pytheas did visit Thule, there is no reason to suppose that he went sufficiently far northward to come in contact with Lapps. Mr. Tozer (Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 159-60), who does not believe that Pytheas travelled further northward than ‘the extremity of Britain’, nevertheless holds with MÜllenhoff that Thule was Mainland. He points out that ‘the sleeping-place of the sun’, which he of course locates in Thule, was in the Arctic Circle. ‘This of course,’ he continues, ‘would not apply to Shetland ... but on such a question the report of “barbarians” could hardly be expected to be accurate.’ Is not this a weak argument for identifying Thule with Mainland, where, even at the winter solstice, the sun is above the horizon five hours out of the twenty-four? The ‘barbarians’ had not themselves penetrated within the Arctic Circle; and that darkness was anywhere continuous for twenty-four hours would not have occurred to them if they had not learned the fact from Scandinavian sailors who had seen the phenomenon or had been informed of it by eye-witnesses. Moreover, Pytheas, who so accurately determined the latitude of Massilia, would hardly have allowed himself to be persuaded that Mainland was on the Arctic Circle. 961 See, however, pp. 410, 449, infra. 962 See pp. 232-3, infra. 963 See Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), p. 87, and Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age, p. xii. Hallstattian objects are also very rare in Northern Gaul (Rev. de synthÈse hist., iii, 1901, p. 38, n. 1). 964 See pp. 411-2, 445-6, 449, infra. 965 See A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 163, ii, 179-87, iv, 11, 13, 61, and Proc. Somerset Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., li, 1905, p. 26. 966 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 262. 967 See Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, pp. 930-1, and W. Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, i, 407-52, 594-630. Cf. Class. Rev., xvi, 1902, pp. 74-5, 88-90. 968 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 208-12. Cf. Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 109-11. 969 Mr. Romilly Allen (Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xiii, 1896, p. 223) argues from the fewness of the known Late Celtic burials that the period between the introduction of iron and the Roman conquest ‘cannot have been very long’. So also thought Canon Greenwell (Brit. Barrows, p. 212), apparently forgetting what he had very judiciously said on p. 50. The argument would lead to the conclusion that in Scotland the Late Celtic Period was almost non-existent; for only one interment of the Early Iron Age has been found there (p. 435, infra). Many such interments, unmarked by any tumulus, have doubtless escaped notice; and in many French departments they are unknown (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, p. 386; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., xv, 1905, pp. 218-26). 970 Sir J. Evans (Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 39) remarks that, according to Ptolemy (Geogr., ii, 3, § 13), the territory of the Belgae included Ischalis (Ilchester), Aquae Calidae (Bath), and Venta (Winchester), and must therefore have comprised nearly all the area corresponding with Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire; but that in each of these counties we find a distinct coinage. Probably, he argues, when the inscribed coins of Somersetshire were struck, the Belgae only occupied the east of Hampshire and the west of Sussex. Without disputing this conclusion, I would suggest that since no one Gallic tribe was called the Belgae, the British Belgae, in the narrower sense of the term, may have been a loose confederation or aggregate of tribes or of pagi, each of which perhaps had its own coinage. All scholars are, however, aware that it is generally impossible to determine the frontiers of the British tribes, even for the period of the Roman conquest, with any approach to the comparative accuracy which has been attained in the case of those of Gaul (see my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 330-2). The delimitation of the tribal areas of independent Gaul depends mainly upon the reasonable assumption that they correspond for the most part exactly or nearly with those of the Gallo-Roman cantons (civitates). But in Britain we are not only baffled by the political changes which took place in the restless century that intervened between the invasions of Caesar and the Claudian conquest: we also find that although a recently discovered inscription (Archaeologia, lix, 1904, pp. 121-2) has shown that at all events in the case of the Ordovices the cantonal organization was preserved or adopted by the Roman Empire, yet, as Mommsen says (Provinces, i, 191 [RÖm. Gesch., v, 1885, p. 174]), ‘the Britannic tribes, taken in the strict sense, [apparently] disappear as soon as they fall under Roman rule, and of the individual cantons after their annexation there is virtually no mention at all.’ Moreover, the boundaries of the Gallo-Roman civitates served, in principle, to define the areas of episcopal jurisdiction; and the areas of the Gallic dioceses are known. In Britain this source of information is wanting. 971 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 387-8. 972 Archaeol. Rev., ii, 1889, p. 324. 973 Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 (1895), pp. 159-60. 974 See Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 83, 98, and p. 240, infra. It has been pointed out (Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 385-7) that the interments by inhumation which have been discovered at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire correspond with the Gallic interments of the fourth century before Christ. Since the Belgae appear to have practised cremation, these interments very likely indicate, what we know already, that there was a pre-Belgic Brythonic invasion of Britain: but it does not follow that they were contemporary with those of Gaul, and belonged to the time that immediately followed the close of the British Bronze Age; for, as we shall see (p. 286), inhumation persisted in Britain long after it had become obsolete on the other side of the Channel. 975 See my article on the ethnology of Britain (pp. 428-45, infra). 976 J. Rhys, The Welsh People, 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-3. 977 See pp. 459-60, infra. 978 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Iron Age, 1883, pp. 172-3; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 360-4; L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 573-4; vii, 1896, p. 693; Archaeol. Oxon., 1895, p. 160; Scotsman, Dec. 14, 1895, p. 7, col. 6, Dec. 17, p. 7, col. 3, Dec. 19, p. 6, col. 5; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, p. 921; Rev. de synthÈse hist., iii, 1901, pp. 40-1; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 12, 16-23, 29-30, 103; Rev. des Études anc., viii, 1906, p. 119. 979 J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 60, 143-4, 159. 980 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 371-3. 981 Ib., pp. 360-70, 374-5. 982 A. W. Franks, Horae ferales, 1863, pl. xiv, fig. 1; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 93. 983 J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 144-51. 984 Rev. celt., xx, 1899, pp. 13-29, 117-31; CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 417; Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., ii, 1903, p. 368; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 214; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 87, 105, 108. 985 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 90-2; J. G. Bulliot, Fouilles du mont Beuvray, 1899, i, 123-6, 129-46; ii, 3-44. 986 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, pp. 342-4; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 88-95. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 2; Herodian, iii, 14, § 7; J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 330; and Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford, i, 236. Helmets, as Sir J. Evans says, ‘could never have been in general use in Britain’; and the only two British specimens that have come to light are not earlier than the first century of our era. 987 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Iron Age, p. 125; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 88, 90. 988 Reports Architect. Soc. of ... Lincoln, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 58; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 761-2. 989 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 95-6. 990 Sometimes the bronze covered some other material,—probably wood (Archaeologia, xlv, 1880, p. 263). 991 Agricola, 36. 992 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, p. 498. 993 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 98. See also, in regard to swords, Archaeologia, xviii, 1817, p. 341; xlv, 1880, pp. 251-66; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 275; Archaeol. Journal, xxxix, 1882, p. 442; and Vict. Hist. of ... Essex, i, 268. 994 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 502, 510; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 454-5; J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 115-6; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 214; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 57, 127. 995 Ib., pp. 100, 127; Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 3-4; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 382; Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 (1895), p. 163; CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), p. 423. 996 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 99. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 117-8. 997 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 344-7. 998 Ib., xvii, 1897-9, p. 120. 999 Archaeol. Journal, iii, 1846, pp. 27-38; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Iron Age, pp. 131, 135-6; Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 495-6; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 55-6, 137-8. A plain bronze torque was found on the neck of a skeleton in a grave at Arras in the East Riding of Yorkshire (Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-2) and a plain iron one on another (Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age [Brit. Museum], p. 138). 1000 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 3-4; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 210. Cf. Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 80-4. 1001 Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., li, 1905, pp. 97-8. 1002 Hist. Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club, 1856-62 (1863), p. 307. 1003 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 3; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 475, 497; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 208; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 134-5; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., li, 1905, p. 102. 1004 Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 198. 1005 Man, vi, 1906, No. 63, p. 96; L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 130, 137. 1006 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 358-9. 1007 Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 213-6. 1008 J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 126, 147, 160. 1009 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xlv, 1889, p. 81; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 328-31, 333-4, 340-1, 343, 344-6, 350-5; Essex Naturalist, xiii, 1903, pp. 110-2; Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xvi, 1895-7, pp. 258-60; xx, 1901-5, p. 212; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 49, 66-8, 117-8, 122, 140; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 393. An urn figured in 26th ann. report Roy. Inst. Cornwall, 1844 (1845), p. 22, appears to me to be of the Aylesford type. 1010 Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 (1895), p. 163; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., iii, 1903, p. 11; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1904 (1905), p. 329; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., li, 1905, pp. 100-1; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 67, 141-2. 1011 A. W. Franks, Horae ferales, pl. xv, fig. 1; J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 93-4. Although the known Late Celtic shields were oblong, long double-pointed shields and even round ones, which may have resembled those of the Late Bronze Age (p. 146, supra), are figured on gold coins belonging to the period between the invasions of Caesar and the Roman conquest (Tacitus, Agricola, 36; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 354; Vict. Hist. of ... Hertford, i, 239). 1012 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 376-7, 380. 1013 Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 (1895), pp. 160-2. 1014 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 373; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 29. 1015 See p. 357 infra. 1016 B. C., i, 54, §§ 1-2. 1017 Journ. Anthr. Inst., iv, 1875, p. 425. 1018 See G. Payne, Collectanea Cantiana, p. 129; Archaeol. Journal, lix, 1902, p. 217; lx, 1903, pp. 209-10; lxiv, 1904, pp. 309, 313, 318; Vict. Hist. of ... Surrey, i, 249; and J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, pp. 381-5. Ancient ‘corduroy’ roads, made of ‘cross timbers laid side by side on three lines of supporting logs parallel to the direction of the road’, have been discovered near Gilpin Bridge in Cumberland (Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., N. S., iv, 1904, pp. 207-10); but their date cannot yet be fixed. It has been said that trackways were made (1) by digging two parallel ditches and throwing up the earth so as to form a bank between them, and (2) by digging one ditch and building the bank on one or on both sides. See Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. and Ant. Field Club, xxi, 1900, pp. 105-6; Trans. Birmingham and Midland Inst., xxv, 1900, p. 41; and Vict. Hist. of ... Berks, i, 192. 1019 The Past in the Present, p. 97 and figs. 70, 71, and 72. See also A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 78-9. 1020 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, 1864, pp. 25-6, 47-8. See, however, A. Blanchet, TraitÉ des monn. gaul., 1905, pp. 478-9. Sir J. Evans (Coins, &c., Suppl., p. 424) admits that the Macedonian stater may not have been the sole progenitor of British coins. His son, Dr. A. J. Evans (Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 1896) affirms that ‘Massalia, Rhoda, and Emporiae ... each contributed their part’, and that he has ‘succeeded in tracing back ... certain scrolls and outlines that appear on a class of late British coin-types that extend from Tewkesbury and Oxford, through Armoric and Iberic Gaul, and the Greek colonies beyond, still further ... to the head of PersephonÊ on the medallions of Syracuse’. 1021 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 26-8. 1022 Num. Chron., 3rd ser., xvi, 1896, p. 184. M. A. Blanchet (TraitÉ des monn. gaul. p. 75) believes that the inscribed coinage of Gaul dates from about 150 B.C. 1023 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 25-6, 31, 38; ib., Suppl., p. 423. 1024 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 49-50, 69-70, 79, 81, &c. 1025 Geogr., iv. 5, § 2. 1026 Agricola, 12. 1027 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 33; Suppl, pp. 473, 484-6. 1028 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 99, 116-7, 123, 133. 1029 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 36-7. 1030 Ib., pp. 35-6, 41. 1031 Ib., Suppl., p. 434. 1032 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 50-2, 62, 81, 94. 1033 Ib., p. 40. 1034 Ib., pp. 38, 51, 95-7. 1035 Ib., pp. 62-5, 81-3; Suppl., pp. 442, 481-3; Archeologia, lii, 1890, p. 327; A. Blanchet, TraitÉ des monn. gaul., p. 515. 1036 B. G., v, 12, § 4.—utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut anulis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo. So runs the passage in the British Museum Add. MS. 10084; but the Paris MS. 5764 has taleis (bars) instead of anulis (rings). ‘The phrase aut aere,’ says Dr. Haverfield (Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 186), ‘must be wrong, and the conjecture anulis in Add. MS. 10084 is plainly an attempt to explain aliis. As aliis is the reading of A and part of B [the two principal families of the MSS. of Caesar’s Commentaries, generally quoted as a and ], and taleis of the rest of B, and aut aliis can hardly be other than a misreading of aut taleis, this latter may be accepted.’ E. HÜbner (Pauly’s Real-EncyclopÄdie, iii, 1897, p. 864) accepts aut aere. 1037 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 179-91; Class. Rev., xix, 1905, pp. 206-7. Iron bars were also used as currency by the Spartans, and are still so used by the natives of West Africa near Sierra Leone. 1038 B. G., v, 12, § 5; Trans. Internat. Congress of Prehist. Archaeol., 1868 (1869), pp. 185-90. 1039 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, p. 194. 1040 See p. 260, infra. 1041 See p. 499, infra. 1042 See p. 267, infra. Caesar’s statement, that the Britons imported copper or bronze (aere utuntur importato [B. G., v, 12, § 4]), has always been a puzzle. I doubt whether any scholar would now infer from it that the cakes of copper which have been found in bronze-founders’ hoards were of foreign origin; but it has been suggested (Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age [Brit. Museum], p. 86) that Caesar may have referred to articles of foreign manufacture such as the bronze flagon mentioned on p. 246, supra. See also J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 419. M. S. Reinach (Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, p. 173) infers from Caesar’s observation that ‘the industrial activity to which the relics of the Bronze Age testify had long ceased’, and that there was an arrest, or rather a recoil of civilization. But, as we shall see hereafter (p. 267), the culture of the Bronze Age persisted in certain parts of Britain until the Roman conquest. Were the bronze implements that were used in those parts imported? If so, how could they have been paid for without industrial activity; and what conceivable reason can be suggested for the assumed paralysis? The industrial activity of the Early Iron Age in Britain is unquestionable; and I doubt whether any theory could be framed to account for a cessation, contemporaneous with the manufacture of iron, of the trade of the bronze-founder. 1043 See p. 148, supra. 1044 See J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, Suppl., p. 492; F. J. Haverfield, The Romanization of Roman Britain, 1906, pp. 20-1; and Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 198. 1045 I have nothing to add to what I have already written on this question (Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 521-3) except to refer, in support of my conclusion, to Rev. crit. d’hist. et de litt., nouv. sÉr., xxx, 1890, pp. 441-2, and E. Lavisse, Hist. de France, i, 1900 (by G. Bloch), p. 61, n. 2; and, for a very clear but hardly complete summary of the controversy, to M. G. Dottin’s Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., 1906, pp. 184-6. Pasture land was not improbably common property both in Gaul and Britain. See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 95. 1046 See pp. 339, 346, infra. 1047 Archaeol. Journal, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6. 1048 Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, p. 422. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, 4-6. 1049 Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, p. 451; Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 61; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, Worlebury, 1886, pp. 69, 78. 1050 Nat. Hist., xvii, 6 (4), § 42; 8, § 45. Cf. Varro, Rerum rust., i, 7, § 8. See pp. 515-7, infra. 1051 Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, pp. 438-9; Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xiii, 1896, pp. 238-9; Archaeol. Journal, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6; Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln, &c., xviii, 1885-6, p. 60. 1052 W. Holloway, Hist. of Romney Marsh, 1849, pp. 10-1; C. H. Pearson, Hist. Maps of England, 1870, pp. 4-5; R. Furley, Hist. of the Weald of Kent, i, 1871, p. 387, and map facing p. 26; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 36; Archaeol. Journal, lx, 1903, p. 157. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, 27, ii, 56, iii, 3. 1053 Vict. Hist. of ... Hants, i, 268-9; ib., Somerset, i, 213-4. 1054 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 291, 338. See pp. 358-9, infra. 1055 Archaeol. Journal, lxii, 1905, p. 265. 1056 Ib., li, 1894, p. 338. 1057 Geogr., ii, 3, § 12. Cf. Archaeologia, xlviii, 1885, map facing p. 380. 1058 See Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick, i, 227, and pp. 704-5, infra. 1059 Archaeol. Journal, xlii, 1885, pp. 274, 300-2. See also pp. 272 n. 1, 275-6, 297. 1060 Ib., lx, 1903, pp. 155-6, 174. 1061 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxi, 1875, pp. 266-75; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, Worlebury, 1886, pp. 8 n. 3, 19-23, 29 n. 19, 50 § 4, 67 § 45, 69, 78; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., li, 1905, pp. 17-28. 1062 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 233-46. 1063 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 46. 1064 A few pits like those of Mount Caburn, and containing similar relics, were found at Cissbury and Winkelbury (Archaeol. Journal, xli, 1884, p. 76). 1065 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, pp. 39, 48-50; xlvi, 1881, pp. 450-1, 456-8. 1066 Oppidum autem Britanni vocant, cum silvas impeditas vallo atque fossa munierunt, quo incursionis hostium vitandae causa convenire consuerunt. B. G., v, 21, § 3. 1067 See p. 136, supra, and Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, p. 458. 1068 B. G., vii, 30, § 4. 1069 Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., vi, 1906, pp. 266-7. Two forts with defences of this kind are known in Peebles-shire. 1070 B. G., ii, 29, § 2; vi, 32, § 4. Cf. MÉm. de la Soc. nat. des ant. de France, 4e sÉr., ii, 1871, pp. 141-2. 1071 See p. 70, supra. 1072 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxiii, 1899, pp. 29-30 1073 See p. 138, supra, and also Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, pp. 438-9, 467; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 238-9; Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvi, 1899, pp. 106-8, 130; xvii, 1900, pp. 189, 195, 206, 209; Archaeol. Journal, lvii, 1900, pp. 52-6, 60-3, 66-7; Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xvi, 1904, pp. 73-83; and Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 122-4. 1074 See p. 134, supra. 1075 Trans. Hon. Soc. Cymmrodorion, 1898-9 (1900), p. 20. 1076 See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxix, 1895, pp. 131, 149-50. 1077 B. G., vii, 22. 1078 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxv, 1891, pp. 428, 438, 440, 444-5. 1079 Ib., xxxiii, 1899, pp. 15, 20-3, 26-32; xxxiv, 1900, p. 74. A similar method of fortification was practised by the Dacians (CongrÈs archÉol. de France, 1874 1876, p. 444), ‘in the Danne-werk at Korborg, near Schleswig’ (A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, 254), and in Nassau (Rev. de synthÈse hist., iii, 1901, p. 45). The well-known camp on Herefordshire Beacon is interesting because, like Old Sarum (Sorbiodunum), it contains a citadel. Though it is locally described as a ‘British camp’, its date is at present uncertain. While most of the objects which have been found in it are comparatively late, Pitt-Rivers (Journ. Anthr. Inst., x, 1881, p. 331) pointed out that the pottery seemed to indicate its Celtic origin; but the citadel presents a difficulty. Was it a later addition? See also F. J. Haverfield, Archaeol. Survey of Herefordshire, 1896, pp. 3-4. The ‘vitrified’ stone forts of the British Isles demand a brief notice. There are none in England, but many in the northern and western counties of Scotland and some in France. It is very doubtful whether any exist in Wales or Ireland (Archaeol. Journal, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 227, 234; D. Christison, Early Fortifications in Scotland, pp. 187, 190). The question is whether the vitrifaction, which was due to fire, was accidental or designed; and in some cases the only way of settling this is to ascertain by excavation the extent of the vitrifaction (ib., p. 192). The best authorities have concluded that when the vitrified part of the fort is small the phenomenon may be safely ascribed to accident,—perhaps to a beacon fire; but that when it may be traced almost all round the rampart it was intentional (ib., pp. 186-7; Archaeol. Journal, xxxvii, 1880, pp. 240-1; R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland, pp. 382-3). Probably the builders intended to give cohesion to the walls and make it impossible for assailants to demolish them (L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 330-1); or when the vitrifaction was confined to the upper surface the defenders would have secured firm foothold while the assailants would have stumbled over loose stones (D. Christison, op. cit., pp, 186-7). [See Addenda] 1080 Reports Archit. Soc. of ... Lincoln, &c., xviii, 1885-6, pp. 53-61; Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 382-4; Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 147-9, 151-2. At Beansale and Claverdon in Warwickshire there are camps which in many respects resemble that of Hunsbury, but have not been excavated (Vict. Hist. of ... Warwick, i, 350). Professor T. McKenny Hughes (Archaeologia, liii, 1892, p. 484) suggests that Offa’s Dyke may have ‘belonged to the defensive system of the Britons’. All we know is that those dykes which have been excavated—Bokerly Dyke and Wansdyke—were Roman or post-Roman (A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, p. xiii); and it is in the last degree improbable that earthworks which extend over territory that belonged to several tribes should have been constructed at a time when tribes only combined for brief periods and in the presence of urgent and common peril. Cf. F. J. Haverfield, Archaeol. Survey of Herefordshire, 1896, p. 7, and Eng. Hist. Rev., xvii, 1902, pp. 628-9. 1081 See p. 93, supra. 1082 Journ. Derbyshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xiii, 1891, pp. 194-9; xiv, 1892, pp. 247-8; xvii, 1895, p. 76; Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 231-42. Cf. Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 32e sess., 1903, 2e partie, p. 890. 1083 Vict. Hist. of ... Bedford, i, 172. See also p. 84, n. 1, supra. 1084 Geogr., iv, 4, § 3. Cf. Caesar, B. G., v, 12, § 3, 43, § 1, and Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 5. Woodcuts, one of the Romano-British villages explored by Pitt-Rivers, was constructed and chiefly occupied by Britons (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 65, iii, 3); but, as Prof. Haverfield has pointed out (The Romanization of Roman Britain, pp. 18-9), ‘the material life was Roman’. 1085 B. G., v, 12, § 3. 1086 Athenaeus, iv, 36. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, v, 28, §§ 4-5 and Strabo, iv, 4, § 3. 1087 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., iv, 1867-70, pp. 164-70; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxvi, 1880, pp. 254-61; J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Iron Age, p. 207; R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland, pp. 348-9; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, p. 266; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 541-7. It must be admitted that conclusive evidence is wanting to prove that any of the Cornish subterranean dwellings were inhabited before the Roman occupation (see Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 367-9). The ‘hut-clusters’ of Cornwall, of which Chrysoister is a good example (W. C. Lukis, Prehist. Stone Monuments of the Brit. Isles,—Cornwall, p. 19) were probably later than the hut-circles of the same county. Some may have been built before the Christian era, but they were certainly inhabited in Roman times (Vict. Hist. of ... Cornwall, i, 370). 1088 Archaeol. Journal, x, 1853, pp. 212, 215-9, 221-2; xviii, 1861, pp. 39-46; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., iii, 1863, pp. 128, 134-8, 141; xxxviii, 1904, pp. 102-22, 173-89, 548-58; Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, p. 58; Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc., N. S., iv, 1902, pp. 189-90. 1089 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 116-7, 119, 147; xxxviii, 1904, p. 558. 1090 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxv, 1901, pp. 146-8; Guide to the Ant. of the Bronze Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 35-6; A. Lang, The Clyde Mystery, p. 41. 1091 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xv, 1886, pp. 463-5; xxviii, 1899, pp. 150-4; R. Munro, The Lake-Dwellings of Europe, pp. 454, 459, 461, 475, 493. Dr. Munro (ib., pp. 490-2) observes that ‘in the early centuries of the Christian era the distribution of crannogs in Scotland and Ireland closely coincides with a well-defined area in which the Celtic language was spoken’, though he admits that ‘they have not been found in the south-eastern provinces of Scotland’. ‘In this wider area’ [including Southern Britain], he continues, ‘on the supposition that the Celts were the introducers or founders of the system, we ought to find some vestiges of these dwellings.... This is precisely what the general researches into British lake-dwellings have shown in the stray remnants of them that have been found in Llangorse, Holderness, the meres of Norfolk and Suffolk, Cold Ash Common, etc. All these, with perhaps the exception of the pile-structures at London Wall, appear to be older than the majority of the crannogs of Scotland and Ireland.... Taking all these facts into account ... I am inclined to believe that we have here evidence of a widely distributed custom which underlies the subsequent [to Caesar] great development which the lake-dwellings assumed in Scotland and Ireland. Moreover, I believe it probable that the early Celts had got this knowledge from contact with the inhabitants of the pile-dwellings of Central Europe.’ Llangorse is the only Welsh site at which a lake-dwelling has been found (ib., p. 464). I venture to ask the doctor why lake-dwellings are so rare in England and Wales, where, on his theory, they ought to abound; why the Scottish and Irish Celts did not apply their ‘knowledge’ for some centuries after they reached the British Isles; and why lake-dwellings are non-existent (ib., p. 493) in Spain and Portugal, where Celts were numerous (G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., pp. 324, 329-31, 349)? And, seeing that there are pile-dwellings in New Guinea and Central Africa, is it not conceivable that those of the British Isles had no connexion with Central Europe? 1092 Cf. Tacitus, Germania, 24, and Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 439-40. 1093 Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 198. 1094 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1893 (1894), p. 903; 1894, pp. 431-4; 1898, pp. 694-5; 1904 (1905), pp. 324-30; Proc. Somerset. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., xlix, 1903, pp. 103, 107-8, 114-5, 120-1; 1, 1904, pp. 68-93; li, 1905, pp. 77-104; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 395; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 126-7. 1095 Ib., p. 127; Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 4. 1096 Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 1; Strabo, iv, 4, § 3; C. Elton, Origins of Eng. Hist., 1890, p. 110; Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1903, p. 10; Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., i, 1903, pp. 337-42; H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Celtes, pp. 337-42. 1097 J. O. Westwood, Lapidarium Walliae, 1876-9, p. 37, and pl. xxv, fig. 3; J. Rhys, The Welsh People, 1902, p. 567. 1098 B. G., v, 14, § 3. 1099 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xx, 1904-5, pp. 345-6; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 50, 135. 1100 B. G., vi, 14, § 3. 1101 Bibl. Hist., v, 28, § 6. 1102 B. G., i, 29, § 1. 1103 Ib., v, 48, §§ 3-4. Cf. my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 715. 1104 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 171. Cf. p. 368, infra, and F. J. Haverfield, The Romanization of Roman Britain, 1906, p. 9. 1105 Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 2; Strabo, iv, 4, § 4; Athenaeus, iv, 37, vi, 49; Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8. 1106 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 144. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., xviii, 1901, p. 373. 1107 Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 246. Only one has come to light in Durham (Vict. Hist. of ... Durham, i. 209). 1108 Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 11, 59-61. A bronze socketed celt has been found at Cann, near Shaftesbury, in association with British silver coins (J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 102). 1109 Archaeologia, xvi, 1812, pp. 348-9; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 83, 103-4. If it is true that coins formed part of the Hagbourne Hill deposit, bronze implements must have continued in use in Berkshire to a very late date. 1110 May the rarity of British iron weapons be partly accounted for by supposing that during the greater part of the Late Celtic Period swords and spear-heads were still in many cases made of bronze? In the Homeric Age implements were of iron, but the weapons which the poet mentions were all of bronze, doubtless because the armourers had not yet learned to temper iron (Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., vii, 1906, pp. 284, 290-1, 294). 1111 B. G., v, 14, § 2. 1112 See pp. 161, 189, supra. 1113 F. J. Haverfield, The Romanization of Roman Britain, pp. 7-9. Cf. Vict. Hist. of ... Derby, i, 191-2, and see also Solinus, 22, 12 (ed. Th. Mommsen, p. 234). I hardly know whether it is worth while to notice the statements of Diodorus (v, 32, § 3) and Strabo (iv, 5, § 4) in regard to the prevalence of cannibalism in certain parts of the British Isles. If there is any truth in them, the cannibals had doubtless inherited the custom from neolithic times (p. 113, supra). Strabo’s remark, which, as he himself warns us, does not rest upon good authority, refers only to Ireland. Diodorus says that some of the Britons were cannibals; but this observation may also refer to the Irish. A mound-dwelling near Kirkwall (Archaeol. Journal, x, 1853, p. 217) is said to have contained broken human bones mingled with those of sheep, which may or may not be evidence of cannibalism; and every scholar knows the speech that Caesar puts into the mouth of Critognatus, one of the Arvernian chiefs who was blockaded in Alesia (B. G., vii, 77, § 12). As for the unnatural vices with which Diodorus (v, 32, § 7), Strabo (iv, 4, § 6), and others charge the Celts, they are rife among the civilized nations of modern Europe. 1114 See H. J. Mackinder, Britain and the British Seas, pp. 177-9. 1115 See p. 288, infra. 1116 B. G., v, 9, § 4; 11, § 9. 1117 Agricola, 12. 1118 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxviii, 1872, p. 42; Archaeologia, xlvi, 1881, p. 467; lii, 1890, pp. 761-2; Trans. Epping forest ... Field Club, ii, 1882, p. 65; C. W. Dymond and H. G. Tomkins, Worlebury, 1886, p. 78; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 419-20; Archaeol. Journal, lix, 1902, pp. 213-6. 1119 See Rev. arch., 3e sÉr., xli, 1902, p. 428, and my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1903, p. 12, n. 1. 1120 See B. G., i, 18, §§ 6-7. 1121 Tacitus, Ann., xii, 36. 1122 See p. 296, infra. 1123 B. G., vi, 19, §§ 1-2. Cf. my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 521-2. 1124 B. G., vi, 19, § 3. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Études sur le droit celt., i, 1895, p. 241) holds that if uxores means ‘wives’, Caesar’s statement is inconsistent with the custom which regulated the administration of dowries, and accordingly gives the word the sense of ‘concubines’. It seems to me equally rash to assume that Caesar was mistaken, and that uxores means ‘wives’ in § 1 and ‘concubines’ in § 3. May we not suppose that the husband’s power was checked by public opinion? 1125 B. G., vi, 19, § 3. 1126 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1903, pp. 12-5. 1127 Ib., 1899, pp. 525-7. 1128 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, pp. 31-2, 38-9. 1129 Ausonius, Clarae urbes, xiv, 31-2; Gildas, Hist., 2. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, 1888, p. 106; Sir A. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, i, 1899, pp. 12, 20-2; and E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 212-4. 1130 See J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, p. 154. 1131 Corpus Inscr. Lat., vii, 507; J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 104. 1132 See Rev. celt., ii, 1873-5, p. 1; iv, 1879-80, pp. 57-8; xviii, 1897, p. 259; E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 221, 228. 1133 Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 106, with G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, 1904, p. 60. 1134 M. Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 101) points out that the texts fall into two groups, one of which, all posterior to 100 B.C., deals with the Transalpine Celts, and the other, mostly earlier, with all the others, except the Britons. 1135 Rev. celt., xii, 1891, p. 316; Rev. num., 3e sÉr., ii, 1884, pp. 179-202; Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 279, n. 2. 1136 ‘On se tromperait beaucoup,’ says M. Dottin (La rel. des Celtes, pp. 7-8), ‘si l’on croyait que tous les anciens Mercuriacus de France, devenus aujourd’hui Mercuray, Mercurey, Mercoirey, Mercury, sont dÉrivÉs du nom de dieu Mercurius. Ils proviennent plus vraisemblablement du gentilice romain Mercurius, assez frÉquent dans les inscriptions, et dÉnomment simplement le fundus, la propriÉtÉ d’un Gallo-Romain du nom de Mercurius.’ 1137 J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 235. See also Rev. celt., iv, 1879-80, p. 45; x, 1889, pp. 485, 487, 489; H. Gaidoz, Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois, 1879, p. 11, Études de mythologie gaul.,—Le dieu gaul. du soleil, 1886, pp. 90-1, 93; Rev. num., 3e sÉr., ii, 1884, p. 201, n. 1; Archaeol. Review, ii, 1889, p. 124; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, 1, 1894, pp. 105-9; and G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, pp. 5-16, 56-7, 60. 1138 Caesar does not say that Mercury was actually the supreme deity of the Gauls, but only the most fervently worshipped: he expressly says that they regarded their Jupiter as the lord of the celestials. ‘It must not be supposed,’ says Sir Alfred Lyall (Asiatic Studies, i, 1899, p. 121), ‘that even the uppermost gods of Hinduism have retired behind mere ceremonial altars, like constitutional monarchs.... But there seem to be many grades of accessibility among them, from Brahma—who, since he created the world, has taken no further trouble about it, and is naturally rewarded by possessing only one or two of the million temples to Hindu gods,’ &c. 1139 B. G., vi, 17. 1140 De divin., i, 41, § 90. Cf. my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 532, n. 13. 1141 H. Gaidoz, Études de mythol. gaul.,—Le dieu gaul. du soleil, p. 91. Cf. E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 252, 254. 1142 De his eandem fere quam reliquae gentes habent opinionem. B. G., vi, 17, § 2. 1143 See Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, p. 329. Cf. Sir A. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, i, 1899, pp. 2-3, 6. 1144 See W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, pp. 16-8, 29, 253-6, 263. 1145 See pp. 273 n. 7, 284, infra, and G. Boissier, La rel. des Romains, i, 1892, pp. 335, 340-1. 1146 Folk-Lore, xvii, 1906, pp. 32, 324. See Mr. A. B. Cook’s series of articles in the same volume and in the first number of vol. xviii. 1147 W. Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals, 1899, p. 333. 1148 Ib., p. 347. Cf. W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 1901, p. 64. 1149 J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 49; G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, p. 12. Mercury was also reverenced more than any other god by the Germans of whom Tacitus wrote (Germ., 9). 1150 B. G., v, 22, § 3. 1151 H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Celtes, pp. 39-40, 44. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 220. 1152 J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, pp. 39, 41-2. 1153 M. Camille Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 109, n. 1) points out that in vol. vii [p. 331] of the Corpus inscr. Lat. there are sixty-one inscriptions in honour of Mars [of which, however, eight are uncertain], and only eight in honour of Mercury; and the greater popularity of Mars is also apparent in the supplements published in Ephemeris epigraphica (iii, 1877, pp. 125, 128; iv, 1881, p. 196; vii, 1892, pp. 289, 299, 313, 324, 332, 334, 352). But no account should be taken of those inscriptions in which the name of Mars is not coupled with that of a Celtic deity, though even with this reservation the ascendancy of Mars remains unaffected. 1154 See Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 109, n. 1. Even in Gaul the cult of Mars appears to have preponderated among the Aquitani (ib., pp. 106-7, and Corpus inscr. Lat., xiii, 87, 108-17, 209-13). 1155 B. G., vi, 17, §§ 3-5. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, pp. 49-50. 1156 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 84. 1157 Pharsalia, i, 445-6. 1158 There is no trace of the worship of Esus in the British Isles, unless M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Les Celtes, p. 63) is right in thinking that Esus was a god whose surname was Smertullos, and that Smertullos, the Celtic Pollux, is to be identified with the Irish Cuchulainn (see also Fragm. hist. Graec., ed. Didot, i, 1841, p. 194, fr. 6; Diodorus Siculus, iv, 56, § 4; Corpus inscr. Lat., xiii, 3026 c; and H. d’A. de Jubainville, Principaux auteurs À consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes, p. 88). Esus is depicted as a woodman in the act of felling a tree on No. 2 of four altars which were discovered at Paris in 1710; while Smertullos appears on the right of No. 3, threatening a serpent with a club. M. d’Arbois is a little rash in concluding (La civilisation des Celtes, 1899, p. 173) that because there was a Briton called Esunectus, who may have been an immigrant from Gaul, Esus was worshipped in Britain. The name AESV occurs on a coin of the Iceni; but its meaning is uncertain (J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 386). The scholiasts of Lucan identified Esus with Mercury; but their authority on such a matter is worthless (see Rev. celt., xviii, 1897, p. 117). Prof. Rhys, however, has recently examined an inscription (Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy, 1907, p. 56), which leads him to give a qualified support to the identification. 1159 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 747, 1114d; H. Gaidoz, Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois, p. 12; W. H. Roscher, Lex. der griech. und rÖm. Mythol., i, 1884-6, col. 1286-93; Rev. arch., 3e sÉr., xxvi, 1895, pp. 309, 317; 4e sÉr., ii, 1903, pp. 348-50; Rev. des Études anc., vii, 1905, pp. 234-8. 1160 Rev. celt., xviii, 1897, pp. 140-1. 1161 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 168. 1162 My criticism of M. S. Reinach’s theory is supported, I am glad to see, by M. Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, pp. 217-9). 1163 H. Gaidoz, Études de mythologie gaul.,—Le dieu gaul. du soleil, &c., pp. 96-7. 1164 H. Gaidoz, Études de mythologie gaul.,—Le dieu gaul. du soleil, &c., pp. 7, 61-3, 66, 92, 96; Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 879, 882; J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, pp. 55-6; Class. Rev., xvii, 1903, p. 420; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 60, 136, 152; Rev. des Études anc., vii, 1905, pp. 156-7; Folk-Lore, xvi, 1905, p. 272, n. 9. The supposition that the wheels were money is no longer admitted by competent antiquaries (A. Blanchet, TraitÉ des monn. gaul., pp. 27-8). 1165 J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, iii, 1900, p. 326. 1166 J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, pp. 74-5. 1167 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 200, 203, 875, 1062. Cf. W. H. Roscher, Lex. der griech. und rÖm. Myth., i, 1884-6, col. 819, and H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Celtes, p. 35. 1168 Ib., p. 33. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy, p. 11. 1169 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 1345; Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Ant. and Archaeol. Soc., xv, 1899, p. 463. 1170 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 1082. ‘On se tromperait grandement,’ says M. d’A. de Jubainville (Les Druides, 1906, p. 68), ‘si l’on croyait qu’il y eut entre le dieu gaulois Belenus ... et les dieux gaulois Grannos et Borvo [all of whom were assimilated to Apollo] ... une analogie quelconque ... Le dieu Maponus, “jeune fils”, n’avait probablement de commun avec Apollon que la jeunesse Éternelle.’ 1171 Prof. Rhys (Celtic Heathendom, p. 126) says that ‘most of the remains of antiquity connected with his temple make him a sort of Jupiter’, but adds (ib., p. 130) that he ‘was not simply a Neptune ... he was also a Mars, as the inscriptions at Lydney testify’. But the testimony of the inscriptions (Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 138-40) consists simply in the letter M; and HÜbner, to whom the professor appeals, queries his own suggestion that M stands for Marti. [I learn from one of Mr. A. B. Cook’s articles in Folk-Lore (xvii, 1906, p. 39, n. 1) that HÜbner (Jahrbuch des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Rheinlande, Heft lxvi, 1879, pp. 29-46) corrected and supplemented the account of Nodons which he had given in the Corpus, and interpreted D. M. NODONTI as d(eo) m(agno)—‘the great god’—a reading which would authorize us to regard him, with Mr. Cook, as ‘a Jupiter and a Neptune rolled into one’.] 1172 Folk-Lore, xvii, 1906, pp. 30, 39. 1173 H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Celtes, pp. 33-5. 1174 Ib., pp. 54-6. 1175 J. Rhys, Celtic Inscr. in France and Italy, p. 14. 1176 B. G., vi, 18, § 1. Cf. Tacitus, Germ., 2. 1177 C. Jullian in Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. des ant. grecques et rom., ii, 1892, p. 280. Cf. Bull. de l’Acad. des inscr., 1887, p. 443, and Rev. arch., xx, 1892, pp. 208, 213. 1178 Rev. celt., xvii, 1896, pp. 45-59. Cf. G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, pp. 21-2. The Celtic name of the god on the altar at Sarrebourg was Sucellos. 1179 C. de Clarac, MusÉe de sculpture ant. et mod.,—Planches, t. iii, 1832-4, pl. 398 [670]; Comptes rendus ... de l’Acad. des inscr., 4e sÉr., xv, 1887, p. 444. 1180 S. Reinach, AntiquitÉs nat.,—Descr. raisonnÉe du musÉe de St. Germain-en-Laye, pp. 137, 156-68; H. Gaidoz, Le grand dieu gaul. chez les Allobroges, 1902, p. vi. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 81, and Folk-Lore, xvi, 1905, p. 273. Dis Pater is identified by Professor Rhys and M. G. Bloch (E. Lavisse, Hist. de France, i, 51-2) with Cernunnos (see p. 284, infra). Cf. W. Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals, p. 286. M. H. Gaidoz (Rev. arch., 3e sÉr., xx, 1892, p. 213) says that the worship of Dis Pater in Britain is attested—it hardly needs attestation—by two inscriptions (Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 154, 250). The former is not worth quoting. The latter—one of many inscriptions addressed to the Di Manes which are contained in the Corpus and in Ephemeris epigraphica, (vols. iii and vii) contains the words Secreti Manes qui regna Acherusia Ditis incolitis. 1181 B. G., vi, 21, § 2. 1182 Germ., 9. 1183 Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 228; v, 1903, p. 106. 1184 See G. Boissier, La rel. rom., i, 6. 1185 Class. Rev., xviii, 1904, pp. 361, 367-72, 375; Folk-Lore, xv, 1904, p. 264; xvi, 1905, p. 321; xvii, 1906, p. 30. 1186 Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 221. 1187 Ib., v, 1903, p. 110. 1188 Ib., vi, 1904, pp. 111 n. 1, 134 n. 4; A. Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, ii, 1805-6. 1189 Folk-Lore, xvii, 1906, pp. 59, 71. 1190 Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, pp. 110-4. 1191 G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., pp. 234-5. 1192 See Rev. celt., xxv, 1904, pp. 130-1. 1193 Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 168a, 221, 348, 559; Ephemeris epigr., iii, 1877, p. 120; iv, 1881, p. 198a; Rev. des Études anc., viii, 1906, pp. 53-8. 1194 Rev. celt., i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19. 1195 Corpus inscr. Lat., xiii, pars i, fasc. i, p. 249. 1196 J. Rhys, Celtic Heathendom, p. 99. 1197 Rev. celt., i, 1870-2, pp. 306-19. 1198 Diodorus Siculus, v, 29, § 4; Rev. celt., viii, 1887, pp. 47, 59, n. 13; H. d’A. de Jubainville, La civilisation des Celtes, pp. 374-5; Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, p. 252. 1199 See E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 229-34. 1200 J. Evans, Coins of the Ancient Britons, p. 121, Suppl., p. 477; Cf. Rev. celt., xxi, 1900, pp. 297-9. 1201 B. G., vii, 88, § 4; E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., iii, 1890, pl. xii; S. Reinach, RÉpertoire de la statuaire grecque et rom., ii, 746-7; H. d’A. de Jubainville, La civilisation des Celtes, 1899, pp. 390-1; Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, p. 48. 1202 Corpus inscr. Lat., xiii, 3026 b, c. Cf. G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, pp. 20-1, 28, and Rev. celt., xxvi, 1905, p. 199. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (ib., p. 195) thinks that the original Epona was the mare deified, and that the woman in the statues was a Greek addition. Cf. A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, pp. 118-20, and Sir A. Lyall’s Asiatic Studies, i, 1899, p. 18. 1203 xxii, 57, § 10; xxiii, 24, § 11. 1204 ii, 32, § 6. 1205 B. G., vi, 13, § 10, 17, § 5; Tac., Ann., xiv, 30; Dion Cassius, lxii, 7, § 3. Cf. G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, p. 30. Strabo (iv, 4, § 6), Diodorus Siculus (v, 27, § 4), Plutarch (Caesar, 26), and Suetonius (Divus Iulius, 54) speak of temples in Transalpine Gaul; but all archaeologists would admit that the words which they used—t?e???, ?e???, fanum, and templum—did not denote roofed edifices. I think, however, that Livy (xxii, 57, § 10, xxiii, 24, § 11) had such buildings in mind. Whether he was well informed is another question. Cf. Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, pp. 279-80. 1206 Tacitus, Germ., 9. 1207 Livy, i, 31, § 3. Cf. W. Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals, pp. 338-9, and J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 210-1. 1208 Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, pp. 190-3. Cf. vol. xi, 1890, p. 225. M. d’A. de Jubainville (Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., viii, 1906, p. 146) says that ‘la vie de Saint Samson dÉsigne par le mot simulacrum une pierre levÉe, lapis stans, qui Était l’objet d’un culte en Grande-Bretagne au milieu du vie siÈcle’, &c. 1209 Pausanias, vii, 22, § 4. 1210 M. Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, pp. 284 n. 6, 285 n. 1), referring to the passage in which Lucan (iii, 412-3) describes the Druids’ grove near Massilia,— simulacraque maesta deorum Arte carent caesisque exstant informia truncis, and interpreting it differently from M. Reinach, argues that Caesar’s simulacra ‘ne peut signifier que des objets ayant dÉjÀ vaguement l’aspect de forme humaine’. In regard to the ‘statues—menhirs’, which the abbÉ Hermet (CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 1903, pp. 335-8) regards as figures of divinities, see p. 200, supra, and cf. E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, p. 168. 1211 Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, p. 199. 1212 M. d’A. de Jubainville (ib., xxvii, 1906, p. 122) argues that the absence of pre-Roman Gallic statues is due not to Druidical influence but to the fact that the Gauls built their houses not of stone but of wood, and were therefore ignorant of the art of sculpture! But houses built of stone have been found at Bibracte. See CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., 1900 (1902), pp. 418-9. 1213 Augustine, De civ. Dei, iv, 31. 1214 Germ., 9. 1215 G. Boissier, La rel. rom., 1892, pp. 8, 35. Cf. Ovid, Fasti, vi, 295. 1216 See Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 115. M. Camille Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, p. 251, n. 1) maintains that Caesar (B. G., vi, 19, § 4) does not say that the rich were cremated, but only their slaves. M. Jullian’s interpretation of this well-known passage is, I believe, unique; anyhow, the statement in the text rests upon certain archaeological evidence. See Rev. celt., xx, 1899, pp. 119-20; Rev. de synthÈse hist., 1901, p. 50; and Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 84. 1217 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 320, 322, 325. 1218 J. R. Mortimer, Forty Years’ Researches, p. 357. 1219 J. Anderson, Scotland in Pagan Times,—the Bronze and Stone Ages, p. 229. 1220 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 1-3; Archaeol. Journal, xliv, 1887, p. 271; Archaeol. Cant., xxvi, 1904, pp. 11-2; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 109. 1221 Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 106-7, 110-1. Cf. Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, p. 6. Mr. Reginald Smith (Guide, &c., p. 112) remarks, in regard to the ‘Danes’ Graves’ near Driffield, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, that ‘the bodies lay indifferently on the right or left side, though the majority had the head at the north end of the grave: there was thus’, he adds, ‘no tendency to face the sun, as in the Bronze period’. Since the bodies, on whichever side they lay, would have faced either the morning or the afternoon sun, Mr. Smith’s observation apparently assumes that in the Bronze period corpses were laid so as to face the morning sun, which was far from being an invariable rule. See pp. 188-9, supra, and the authorities there cited; also Wilts Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., x, 1866, p. 101. Unhappily Sir R. C. Hoare, from whom we learn that in Wiltshire corpses were generally laid with their heads pointing northward, omits to say whether they were laid on the right or the left side. [See Addenda.] 1222 J. Romilly Allen, Celtic Art, pp. 63-71; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 104-20. 1223 Ib., p. 112. 1224 Ib., p. 122; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 208-12. 1225 B. G., vi, 19, § 4. 1226 Or, as Dr. Evans, who mentions both alternatives, suggests (Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 326), for the introduction of food. See pp. 115-6, supra. 1227 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, pp. 324-7. Cf. Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), pp. 82-3, and see also W. C. Borlase, Nenia Cornubiae, pp. 247-51. 1228 Vitae phil., ed. Didot, p. 2, ll. 22-3. 1229 B. G., vi, 13, § 11. 1230 Diogenes Laertius, ed. Didot, p. 1, l. 11. 1231 B. G., vi, 21, § 1. 1232 Ib., 16, § 1. 1233 See Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, p. 102. 1234 B. G., vi, 21, § 1. 1235 Arrian, De venatione, 34, §§ 1-3. 1236 See Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, pp. 47-8, 53, 55, 59-60. 1237 See p. 291, n. 2, infra. 1238 ‘The political condition of the people of Brythonic Britain,’ says Prof. Rhys (Celtic Britain, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 57, 61), ‘towards the end of the Early Iron Age and the close of their independence, is best studied in connection with that of Gaul as described by Caesar.... The state of things, politically speaking, which existed in Gaul, existed also most likely among the Belgic tribes in Britain.’ That is to say, the professor accepts the political part of Caesar’s description as applying to the Belgic and the other Brythonic tribes of both Gaul and Britain. Yet he insists that that part of the same description which deals with Druidism, and which is indissolubly connected with the political part, has nothing to do either with the Belgae or the other Brythons. 1239 Professor Rhys virtually admits this when he says that the Brythonic dialect was largely influenced by the language of the aborigines. See p. 452, n. 8, infra. 1240 The problem of the origin of Druidism is interesting as an example of the divergence which exists among Celtic scholars upon almost every important question of Celtic religion, and also because it once more illustrates the working of that powerful but erratic engine,—the mind of Professor Rhys. The first known mention of Druidism, the substance of which is reproduced in Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers, occurred in a work by Sotion of Alexandria, who lived about 200 B.C. From this, M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Principaux auteurs de l’ant. À consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes, 1902, pp. 187-8) infers that the Belgic invaders of Britain found Druidism flourishing there about that date, and transplanted it into the country which they had left, but with which they kept up a constant intercourse. M. d’Arbois has consistently maintained this view for many years; and under his influence Professor Rhys affirmed in 1879 (Lectures on Welsh Philology, 2nd ed., pp. 83-4) that Druidism reached Gaul ‘undoubtedly through the Belgae who had settled in Britain’. Now, however, the professor rightly holds that the Belgae were preceded in Britain by other Brythons (Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 4); and it would seem therefore that the date of the first mention of Druidism gives no clue as to the place where it originated. Moreover, Professor Rhys has long been of opinion that there is ‘no proof that any Belgic or Brythonic people ever had Druids’ (ib., 2nd ed., 1884, p. 69; 3rd ed., 1904, p. 69; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 894). In 1901, accordingly, he argued (Celtic Folk-lore, ii, 623, 685) that the Goidelic invaders of Britain (whose existence, I must remind the reader, is denied by some Celtic scholars) ‘got their magic and druidism’ from ‘the [imaginary] dwarf race of the sids’ (see p. 391, infra). But in 1900 (The Welsh People, p. 83) and again in 1902 (ib., 3rd ed.) he affirmed that Druidism had been ‘evolved by the Continental Goidels, or rather accepted by them from the Aborigines’. Presumably, then, they already had Druids when they invaded Britain, and had no need to borrow them from the sids. By 1904, however, the professor appears to have concluded that Druidism originated independently among the aborigines both of Gaul and of Britain, and that with both it was an inheritance from common ancestors; for, after telling us (Celtic Britain, 3rd ed., p. 69) that Druidism ‘may be surmised to have had its origin’ among ‘the non-Celtic natives’ of Britain, he goes on to say that it ‘possessed certain characteristics which enabled it to make terms with the Celtic conqueror, both in Gaul and in the British islands’; while on page 73 he remarks that ‘it is hard to accept the belief ... that druidism originated here’, and concludes that ‘the Celts found it both here and there [in Gaul] the common religion of some of the aboriginal inhabitants’. But the weary student who hopes to be allowed to acquiesce in this conclusion is distracted by finding that on page 4 of this very book, in which the professor insists that ‘there is no proof that any ... Brythonic people ever had Druids’, he affirms that ‘traces of [the Goidels] are difficult to discover on the Continent’ (Celtic Britain, p. 4). This time the conclusion would seem to be that the Gauls, whose Druids Caesar described, were neither Goidels nor Brythons! It is hardly necessary to add that the professor has since satisfied himself (see p. 410, infra) that traces of Continental Goidels are abundant. As we have already seen (p. 114, supra), M. S. Reinach (Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres,—comptes-rendus de l’annÉe 1892, 4e sÉr., xx, 6-7) attributes the megalithic monuments of Gaul to Druidical influence, arguing that their construction is inexplicable except on the hypothesis of ‘une aristocratie religieuse exerÇant un empire presque absolu sur une nombreuse population’ (Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, p. 194). Certainly: but if it is a fair conclusion that this hierarchy was composed of Druids, might it not be argued that Druidism was a world-wide institution, or at least co-extensive with rude stone monuments? On the other hand, Professor J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., N. S., vii, 1893, p. 57) can see no reason for supposing that Druidism was originally non-Aryan. M. Camille Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, p. 260) seems inclined to believe that the priests (sacerdotes) of the Cisalpine Boii (Livy, xxiii, 24, § 12) were Druids; and I admit that it is impossible to prove that they were not. [M. d’A. de Jubainville, in his latest volume (Les Druides, p. 13), infers from Caesar’s statement, that Druidism originated in Britain, that it was of Goidelic [why not pre-Goidelic?] origin, and holds (pp. 22-3) that it was imposed by the Goidels upon their Gallo-Brythonic conquerors. 1241 Ann., xiv, 30. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., xxx, 1 (4), § 13. 1242 B. G., vi, 13-4, 16. 1243 Hoc maxime ad virtutem excitari putant metu mortis neglecto (ib., 14, § 5). See p. 295, infra. 1244 This statement is, I admit, open to dispute. Caesar (B. G., vii, 33, § 4) does not expressly say that Druids exercised the right in question, but priests (sacerdotes); and it has been argued that those priests may not have been Druids (see my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 534, n. 3, and G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, p. 41). But, so far as we know, the only other name that designated a priest in Gaul was gutuater, which occurs in two Gallo-Roman inscriptions (ib., and Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 818); and I doubt whether it is possible to prove that in pre-Roman times the gutuater was not a Druid. Anyhow, considering the terms in which Caesar describes the Druids, considering what he says of their power, political and legal as well as spiritual (fere de omnibus controversiis publicis privatisque constituunt), I find it difficult to believe that they would have permitted any priest who was not one of themselves to exercise the very important function which he describes in B. G., vii, 33. [For confirmation of the statement in the text see H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Druides, p. 159, who, however (pp. 2-6), insists that gutuatri were distinct from Druids.] 1245 Tacitus, Ann., xiv, 30; Diodorus Siculus, v, 31, § 3. 1246 Chronica minora, ed. Th. Mommsen, iii, 1898, p. 182, 11, 14-7. Cf. E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, pp. 104-8; Rev. celt., xxvi, 1905, p. 289; and Sir A. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, ii, 1899, pp. 312-3. In regard to the Druidical practice of human sacrifice see N. FrÉret, Œuvres complÈtes, xviii, 1796, pp. 264-72; Nouvelle rev. hist. du droit franÇais et Étranger, 1898, pp. 289-300; Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 533; and J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, iii, 1900, pp. 319-23, 326. 1247 M. G. Bloch (Rev. internat. de l’enseignement, AoÛt, 1895, p. 151), referring to Caesar (B. G., vi, 13, § 5), argues that the suitors who appealed to Druids probably all belonged to the upper class (equites), who, having unlimited rights over their dependents (ib., § 3), doubtless decided their disputes. The meaning of the ‘awards and penalties’ (praemia poenasque) which the Druidical judges fixed is uncertain. See H. d’A. de Jubainville, Études sur le droit celt., i, 80-1; G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., p. 190; and Sir H. Maine, Early Hist. of Inst., 1875, p. 136. 1248 Rev. internat. de l’enseignement, AoÛt, 1895, pp. 149-50. 1249 B. G., v, 55, § 3. Cf. viii, 30, § 1. 1250 Ib., vi, 13, § 10. 1251 Bibl. hist., v, 28, § 6. 1252 Ammianus Marcellinus, xv, 9, § 8. 1253 E.g. by Fustel de Coulanges (Rev. celt., iv, 1879-80, p. 53). 1254 H. Gaidoz, Esquisse de la rel. des Gaulois, p. 18. 1255 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 98. The pentagram, which, says Professor Tylor (Ency. Brit., xv, 1883, p. 203), is ‘an interesting proof of tradition from the Pythagoreans’, has also been found on a more recently discovered British coin (J. Evans, Coins, &c.,—Suppl., p. 573); on a bucket in Carnarvonshire (Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., v, 1905, p. 256); on a pebble in a broch at Burrian, Orkney (ib.); and on Gallic coins of the Carnutes, Senones, Suessiones, and Remi (A. Blanchet, TraitÉ des monn. gaul., pp. 331, 360, 378, 385-6). M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Études sur le droit celt., i, 1895, p. 5), referring to Mela, iii, 2, § 19 (unum ex his quae praecipiunt in vulgus effluxit, videlicet ut forent ad bella meliores, aeternas esse animas vitamque alteram ad manes. Itaque cum mortuis cremant ac defodiunt apta viventibus), asserts that the teaching of the Druids differed from that of Pythagoras: they did not inculcate metempsychosis, but merely the immortality of the soul. He also insists, quoting Valerius Maximus, ii, 6, § 10, that, in the belief of the Gauls, the life to come was analogous to life upon earth (cf. N. FrÉret, Œuvres complÈtes, xviii, 1796, pp. 182-8). But it is not proved that Caesar, whose authority is higher than that of Mela, and whose testimony is not really contradicted by him, was misinformed when he said that the Druids taught non interire animas, sed ab aliis post mortem transire ad alios; and Valerius Maximus himself remarks that the belief of the Gauls was identical with that of Pythagoras. Many Christians, who believe in the immortality of the soul, also believe, or fancy that they believe, in the transmigration of souls. Still, as I have suggested in the text, it is quite possible that even the Druids did not preach the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis, and that Caesar did not intend to convey that they did. 1256 E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii, 1903, pp. 75-83. 1257 Ib., pp. 63-5, 77; Rev. de l’hist. des rel., xiv, 1886, p. 61; G. Dottin, La rel. des Celtes, pp. 35-7. 1258 B. G., vi, 14, § 6. 1259 See Rev. celt., iv, 1879-80, pp. 51-2. 1260 B. G., vi, 18, § 2; Pliny, Nat. Hist., xvi, 43 (95), § 250. The Germans had the same notion as the Gauls about night and day (Tacitus, Germ., 11). Cf. N. FrÉret, Œuvres complÈtes, xviii, 1796, p. 222, and Rev. internat. de l’enseignement, AoÛt, 1895, p. 159. 1261 See Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, p. 127; Rev. celt., xxv, 1904, pp. 115, 118, 121, 131-2, 160; and J. Rhys, Celtae and Galli, 1905, pp. 1-4, 8, 21, 35, 46. Of course we have no right to assume that the calendar of Coligny, which was not earlier than the first century of our era, was identical with that of the Britons; but this caution does not invalidate the statements in the text. The language of the calendar is a subject of dispute. Prof. Rhys and M. Camille Jullian (Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, p. 127) unhesitatingly treat it as Celtic: M. d’Arbois de Jubainville regards the association of qu with p (see pp. 227-8, supra) as proof of its being Ligurian. [Prof. Rhys’s latest view (Celtic Inscr. of France and Italy, p. 99) is that ‘it becomes more and more a question of names, whether it is to be called Celtic or Ligurian’. But the fact remains that history and physical anthropology tend to show that the Ligurians were utterly different from the people among whom the Celtic language came into being. See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 275-81.] 1262 Cf. W. Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals, p. 3. 1263 Lampridius, Alexander Severus, 60; Vopiscus, Aurelianus, 44, Numerianus, Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, p. 258, n. 6; and J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, p. 224, note. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Rev. celt., xxvi, 1905, p. 359) holds that Lampridius and Vopiscus were mistaken in designating as dryades women who were mere fortune-tellers, and who should be classed among the ??te?? or soothsayers, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (v, 31, § 3) or the ???te?? who, according to Strabo (iv, 4, § 4), were specially concerned with sacrifices. ???te?? and ???te??, however, who were doubtless identical, would seem to have been merely Druids of inferior rank (G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., pp. 263-4, 267). M. Toutain (MÉlanges Boissier, 1903, pp. 439-42), who also regards the dryades as fortune-tellers, denies that there is any authority for translating the word by ‘Druidesses’, and insists that if Druidesses had existed, they would not have been mentioned for the first time by writers of the 3rd century. A. Holder (Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, i, 1326, 1329), who prints the quotations from Lampridius and Vopiscus under the heading Druida, remarks that in Lucan, i, 451, instead of druidae there is a various reading dryadae. 1264 Dion Cassius, lxii, 6, § 1; 7, §§ 2-3. Cf. Rev. des Études anc., iv, 1902, pp. 224-5. 1265 Ib., vi, 1904, pp. 261-2. Cf. J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, p. 31. 1266 De div., i, 15, § 26; ii, 36, § 76. Pliny (Nat. Hist., xvi, 43 [95], § 249) says that the Gallic Druids of his time were magi, which is commonly translated by ‘magicians’ (cf. H. Gaidoz, Esquisse, &c., pp. 15-6). But might not the word have been applied to any one who practised augury and divination (Cicero, de div., i, 41, § 90)? 1267 Sir A. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, i, 1899, pp. 2, 26, 135, 161. 1268 See J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, iii, 1900, pp. 328 note, 343-4. 1269 Pliny, Nat. Hist., xvi, 44 (95), § 250. 1270 J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 212-3. 1271 M. G. Dottin (La rel. des Celtes, p. 41), remarking that Druids were also politicians, and that the Druid, Diviciacus, led a life which differed little from that of his brother Dumnorix, who was not a Druid, concludes that ‘il ne s’agit donc pas d’une classe sacerdotale, À plus forte raison, comme on l’a dit, d’un clergÉ gaulois’. Were there then no clergy in England in the days of Becket, or of Wolsey, or in France when Richelieu and Mazarin were supreme? 1272 See H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Druides, pp. 60, 64, which has come into my hands since I wrote this chapter. 1273 The question may be asked, If there were Druids in South-Eastern Britain, why does Caesar not tell us what part they took, or whether they took any part, in the campaign of Cassivellaunus? As all readers of his memoirs have remarked, he is equally silent in regard to the political activity or the political apathy of the Druids of Gaul. ‘A singularly powerful priesthood,’ says Prof. Haverfield (Eng. Hist. Rev., xviii, 1903, p. 336), ‘numbering political leaders, like Divitiacus, among its ranks, might be expected in a national crisis to take some definite line, requiring notice in the Commentaries. Yet omit two chapters, and so far as the Commentaries go, the Druids might never have existed.’ M. Camille Jullian (VercingÉtorix, 1902, pp. 107-11) argues that they did take an active part in the rebellion of Vercingetorix, but that Caesar chose to ignore the fact: Caesar ‘a laÏcisÉ À outrance l’esprit et l’histoire de la Gaule.... Nul ne croira que la Gaule n’ait pas appelÉ prÊtres et dieux À son secours’. Prof. Haverfield, who naturally asks ‘What motive had Caesar for this?’ suggests that an analogy ‘to these powerful non-political priests ... is provided by various priestly collegia at Rome, which include political leaders, but which in their augural or other capacity take no political action’, and maintains that the Druids, ‘as Druids, uttered no word against Caesar or for him’. But if so, why, at a time when their power had certainly diminished, did they aid and abet the insurrection of Civilis (Tacitus, Hist., iv, 54)? I would suggest that Caesar may have bought over the Arch-Druid (B. G., vi, 13, § 8)—and his use of secret-service money is one of the matters which he did not mention—and that if individual Druids did take part in a crusade, he may not have thought their action sufficiently important (if he was aware of it) to be worth recording. 1274 B. G., v, 14, § 1. 1275 Archaeol. Oxon., 1892-5 (1895), p. 159. 1276 The word Britanniae (B. G., ii, 4, § 7) is of course used loosely. 1277 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 83; Suppl., p. 483. See also pp. 51, 63, 65, 90, and 94 of the earlier volume. 1278 Professor Rhys (The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 88-90) remarks that ‘since no hint as to a revolution is vouchsafed [in Caesar’s narrative (B. G., ii, 4, § 7)], the probability is that the empire of Diviciacos in this country subsisted under his successors in Caesar’s time. But,’ he continues, ‘Diviciacos’s people were the Suessiones and the Remi; so we should expect to find both of them represented in Britain, though their names have not been detected. Now we know from a couple of inscriptions that a god of the Remi was Camulos.’ The professor goes on to observe that Camulodunum ‘was near Colchester, in the country of the Trinovantes, in whom we are accordingly prepared to find the Remi we are seeking’; and, he says, ‘The next neighbours of the Trinovantes were the Catuvellauni, in whom we probably have our insular Suessiones. At any rate the name of the Catuvellauni was also that which, shortened into Catelauni ... eventually became ... Chalons, the name of a town ... in a district usually assigned to the Remi ... the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes between them may be regarded as the upholders of the empire of Diviciacos,’ &c. But in Caesar’s time the Catuvellauni were the bitter enemies of the Trinovantes: Camulos was worshipped by many other tribes besides the Remi; and although it is probable that the Gallic Catuvellauni were clients of the Remi in the time of Caesar (Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 476-7), it is not unlikely that they were one of the tribes which placed themselves under the protection of the Remi in consequence of the favour shown to the latter by Caesar (B. G., vi, 12, § 7). The passage in which Caesar mentions Diviciacus leaves upon my mind the impression that his empire, like that of Celtillus, the father of Vercingetorix, was short-lived. At all events there is no evidence for asserting its continuance. 1279 Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis, quod omnis Gallia ad septentriones vergit, maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in Britanniam proficisci contendit, quod omnibus fere Gallicis bellis hostibus nostris inde subministrata auxilia intellegebat, &c. B. G., iv, 20, § 1. 1280 ... ??e?et?? ?? e?s?? ?? ?a?a??sa?te? p??? ?a?sa?a? ?t???? ??? ?sa? ????e?? t?? e?? t?? ??etta????? p????, ???e??? t? ?p???? (Geogr., iv, 4, § 1) 1281 The estuary of the Loire was the nearest considerable harbour to the scene of the naval battle. It is not likely that Caesar would have sent his fleet to any of the smaller ports in the country of the Veneti (see my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 665); but supposing that he did so, my argument would hardly be affected. 1282 See pp. 494-7, infra. 1283 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 663-74. 1284 Except perhaps sweeps, which they may have used occasionally to help them in tacking. 1285 Reliquum erat certamen positum in virtute, qua nostri milites facile superabant. B. G., iii, 14, § 8. 1286 ius legatorum. Ib., 16, § 4. 1287 quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. B. G., iv, 21, § 3. 1288 See pp. 552-95, infra. 1289 See A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 1876, pl. xv (p. 352), pl. xvii (p. 384), and cf. Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise, i, 1899, p. 30. 1290 tamen magno sibi usui fore arbitrabatur si modo insulam adisset, genus hominum perspexisset, loca, portus, aditus cognovisset. B. G., iv, 20, § 2. 1291 See p. 329, infra. 1292 Dion Cassius, xxxix, 50, §§ 3-4. See p. 509, infra. 1293 neque his ipsis quicquam praeter oram maritimam atque eas regiones quae sunt contra Gallias notum est. B. G., iv, 20, § 3. 1294 See Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., v, 1895, p. 26. 1295 C. Volusenus, tribunus militum, vir et consilii magni et virtutis. B. G., iii, 5, § 2. 1296 See p. 300, supra. 1297 See Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxvii, 1881, p. 272. 1298 See pp. 532-52, infra. 1299 See pp. 629, 635-6, infra. 1300 See pp. 547-8, 632-3, infra. 1301 See pp. 530-1, infra. 1302 See pp. 595-6, 651, 664-5, infra. 1303 See pp. 525-8, 657-9, infra. 1304 See pp. 600-3, infra. 1305 B. G., iii, 14, § 4. Cf. C. Torr, Ancient Ships, 1894, p. 59. 1306 M. le Contre-Amiral Serre, Les marines de guerre de l’ant., 1885, p. 36. Naves longae were not necessarily even decked (B. C., i, 56, § 1; iii, 7, § 2). 1307 See pp. 587-8, infra. 1308 See pp. 600-3, infra. 1309 E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, iii, 1875, p. 399. The minute details which Mr. F. H. Appach (C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, 1868, pp. 57-8, 99, 107-8) gives as to Caesar’s order of sailing both in 55 and 54 B.C. are imaginary: in saying this I have the support of Capt. Iron, the harbour-master of Dover. Moreover, if, as Mr. Appach conjectures, the transports had been drawn up for the disembarkation in 55 B.C. in two lines, one behind the other, the men, in attempting to disembark from the rear line, would have been drowned. See B. G., iv, 24, § 2, 25, § 3, and p. 673, infra. 1310 In regard to Caesar’s expression—(III. fere vigilia) solvit (B. G., iv, 23, § 1), see Prof. R. Y. Tyrrell’s Correspondence of Cicero, i, 1885, p. 193, with which cf. B. C., iii, 102, § 7. 1311 See Tidal Streams,—English and Irish Channels. 1312 See pp. 634-5, 644-6, infra. 1313 See pp. 615-6, infra. 1314 See p. 615, infra. 1315 Cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus angustis mare continebatur, uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum adigi posset. B. G., iv, 23, § 3. 1316 See pp. 652-3, infra. 1317 See pp. 648-9, infra. 1318 See pp. 610-1, 647-9, infra. Strictly speaking, the true (not magnetic) direction of the stream, west of the South Foreland, would have lain between about ENE. and NE. by E. See Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, pp. 291-3. 1319 Cf. B. G., v, 14, § 2, with Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., ix, 1903, pp. 95-6. 1320 B. G., iv, 25, § 5. See the notes in Kraner—Dittenberger’s edition and in that of C. E. C. Schneider. 1321 B. G., v, 37, § 3. 1322 Diodorus Siculus, v, 30, § 3; J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 192, 232, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 363. 1323 Rev. des Études anc., vi, 1904, pp. 53, n. 6, 54. 1324 aliae eodem unde erant profectae referrentur, aliae ad inferiorem partem insulae, quae est propius solis occasum, magno suo cum periculo deicerentur; quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus complerentur, necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem petierunt. B. G., iv, 28, §§ 2-3. See p. 598, n. 2, infra. 1325 A gale blowing from the north-east on the eastern coast of Kent would be diverted on the south coast to ENE. This, or possibly NE. by E., may be assumed to have been the direction of the wind when the transports were scudding before it. If it had blown from a point nearer north they would have found shelter under the lee of the southern cliffs. See p. 582, infra. 1326 See pp. 582, 651, infra. 1327 See p. 219, n. 4, supra. 1328 B. G., i, 50, §§ 4-5. 1329 My view, which is based upon B. G., iv, 32—not § 5 only—is supported by Turpin de CrissÉ (Comm. de CÉsar, i, 1785, p. 294), but differs from that of von GÖler (Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 136, n. 3). 1330 See Rev. celt., xxv, 1904, pp. 229-31. 1331 See pp. 676-7, infra. 1332 It is impossible to decide whether the cohort or half-cohort which reported to Caesar (B. G., iv, 32, § 1) was an outlying piquet, as von GÖler thinks (Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 136, n. 2), or a guard stationed just outside one of the gates. The latter appears to have been the usual position. (B. G., vi, 37, §§ 3-4; B. C., i, 75, § 3; iii, 94, § 6). Von GÖler’s opinion is based upon a mistranslation of the word longius (B. G., iv, 32, § 3). 1333 C. Schneider (Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, i, 407) in a note on B. G., iv, 32, § 1, infers from vi, 37, §§ 3-4, that one cohort was on guard in front of each of the four gates of the camp. But there is no proof that in B. G., vi, 37, § 3, the word cohors means an entire cohort, and not details thereof, or even if it does, that any hard-and-fast rule prescribed that, without regard to circumstances, one entire cohort, no more and no less, should invariably guard each of the four gates. 1334 ... nostri se ex timore receperunt. Quo facto ad lacessendum hostem et committendum proelium alienum esse tempus arbitratus, suo se loco continuit, &c. B. G., iv, 34, §§ 1-2. 1335 See pp. 311-2, supra. 1336 Eo duae omnino civitates ex Britannia obsides miserunt, reliquae neglexerunt. B. G., iv, 38, § 4. 1337 Cf. B. G., v, 8, § 4. 1338 Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. des ant. grecques et rom., i, 59-60 (ACTUARIAE NAVES). 1339 I infer from Caesar’s narrative (see p. 334, infra) that his vessels were not provided with lee-boards, in regard to which see E. F. Knight, Sailing, 1900, pp. 16, 25. 1340 See p. 331, n. 2, infra. 1341 See Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 47, and also p. 350, infra. 1342 Cf. B. G., v, 1, § 1 with p. 726, infra. 1343 Mescinium Rufum, quem mihi commendas regem Galliae faciam.... Tu ad me alium mitte quem ornem.... Mitto igitur ad te Trebatium, &c. Fam., vii, 5, § 2. See R. Y. Tyrrell, Correspondence of Cicero, ii, 1886, p. 112, note. 1344 In Britannia nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti. Id si ita est, essedum aliquod capias suadeo et ad nos quam primum recurras. Ib., vii, 7, § 1. 1345 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 568-9. 1346 Sed ille scripsit ad Balbum fasciculum illum epistolarum in quo fuerat mea et Balbi totum sibi aqua madidum redditum esse, ut ne illud quidem sciat, meam fuisse aliquam epistolam. Sed ex Balbi epistola pauca verba intellexerat, ad quae rescripsit his verbis: ‘De Cicerone te video quiddam scripsisse, quod ego non intellexi: quantum autem coniectura consequebar, id erat eius modi ut magis optandum quam sperandum putarem’. Q. fr., ii, 10, § 4. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell, Correspondence of Cicero, ii, 1886, p. 110, note. 1347 Modo mihi date Britanniam, quam pingam coloribus tuis, penicillo meo. Q. fr., ii, 13, § 2. 1348 See p. 667, infra, and Hermes, xl., 1905, pp. 17-8. 1349 Britannici belli exitus exspectatur. Constat enim aditus insulae esse muratos mirificis molibus. Etiam illud iam cognitum est, neque argenti scripulum esse ullum in illa insula neque ullam spem praedae nisi ex mancipiis, ex quibus nullos puto te litteris aut musicis eruditos exspectare. Att., iv, 16, § 7. See pp. 666-7, infra. 1350 See p. 727, infra. 1351 singulari militum studio in summa omnium rerum inopia circiter DC eius generis cuius supra demonstravimus naves et longas XXVIII invenit instructas neque multum abesse ab eo quin paucis diebus deduci possint. B. G., v, 2, §2. 1352 See C. E. C. Schneider’s note (Comm. de bellis C. Iulii Caesaris, ii, 1849, pp. 43-4). 1353 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 453-6, and H. J. Heller’s remarks in Zeitschr. fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 185-6. 1354 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 816. 1355 Ex Quinti fratris litteris suspicor iam eum esse in Britannia. Suspenso animo exspecto quid agat. Att., iv, 15, § 10. 1356 nihil hunc se absente pro sano facturum arbitratus qui praesentis imperium neglexisset. B. G., v, 7, § 7. 1357 See pp. 728-30, infra. 1358 See pp. 349, 355, 670, infra. 1359 Cicero, ad Fam., xii, 16, §§ 2-3, xv, 21; ad Q. fr., iii, 1, § 9. Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, Correspondence of Cicero, iv, 1894, pp. lvii-lviii. 1360 See p. 314, n. 3, supra. 1361 See p. 729-30, infra. 1362 See p. 658, infra. 1363 Polybius, i, 50, §§ 7-8, 51, § 1. Cf. x, 43-7, and Ency. Brit., xxii, 1887, p. 49. 1364 See pp. 655-9, infra. 1365 See p. 348, infra. 1366 See pp. 664-5, and 673-4, infra. 1367 eo minus veritus navibus quod in litore molli atque aperto deligatas ad ancoras relinquebat. B. G., v, 9, § 1. 1368 See pp. 682-5, infra. 1369 See p. 253, supra. 1370 See A. von GÖler, Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 149, n. 5. 1371 See pp. 686-7, infra. 1372 See pp. 685-8, infra. 1373 Forcellini, Totius latinitatis lex., iv, 1868, p. 651. 1374 B. G., v, 11, § 8. Cf. i, 30, § 4; ii, 4, § 4; iii, 8, § 3; vii, 63, §§ 6-7; and my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1903, p. 12. 1375 See pp. 688-91, infra. 1376 ... repente ex omnibus partibus ad pabulatores advolaverunt, sic uti ab signis legionibusque non absisterent. B. G., v, 17, § 2. See p. 692, infra. 1377 ... neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes contenderunt. B. G., v, 17, § 5. 1378 See p. 675, infra. 1379 See G. Dottin, Manuel pour servir À l’Étude de l’ant. celt., p. 197. 1380 See p. 676, infra. 1381 B. G., iv, 2, § 2. 1382 W. Ridgeway, Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse, pp. 94-5, 102-3. 1383 B. G., i, 48, §§ 4-7; iv, 2, §§ 2-3; vii, 65, § 5. 1384 See p. 676, infra. 1385 Livy, x, 28-30. 1386 See pp. 692-8, infra. 1387 Archaeologia, li, 1888, map facing p. 446. 1388 See A. von GÖler, Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 157, n. 1. 1389 See pp. 692-6, infra. 1390 See p. 697, infra. 1391 See pp. 698-9, infra. 1392 Sed ea celeritate atque eo impetu milites ierunt, cum capite solo ex aqua extarent, ut hostes impetum legionum atque equitum sustinere non possent ripasque dimitterent ac se fugae mandarent. B. G., v, 18, § 5. 1393 See Archaeologia, ii, 1773, p. 166. 1394 See Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk, i, 284-5. I am inclined to think that the Bibroci, whether their name is connected with that of Berkshire or not, and the other two may have lived on the south of the Thames. Otherwise would they not have been clans either of the Trinovantes or the Catuvellauni? It seems unlikely that any group included in the latter would have dared in spite of Cassivellaunus to surrender. Dr. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe, 1896, xv,—‘Roman Britain’) suggests that the Bibroci may have been in Berkshire, and that they and the Segontiaci were clans of the Atrebates. 1395 See J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 41, 225, 272-5, Suppl., pp. 534, 539-40; and Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 273. Sir J. Evans says that the word SEGO on coins of Tasciovanus ‘seems plainly to point to the tribe of the Segontiaci’; and as VER. on coins stands for Verulam, so SEGO, may stand for Segontium, the site of which is, however, unknown. 1396 Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 273-4. 1397 Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk, i, 284-5. 1398 See pp. 699-702, infra. 1399 O iucundas mihi tuas de Britannia litteras! Timebam Oceanum, timebam litus insulae. Reliqua non equidem contemno, sed plus habent tamen spei quam timoris, &c. Q. fr. ii, 15 (16), § 4. 1400 De Britannicis rebus cognovi ex tuis litteris nihil esse nec quod metuamus nec quod gaudeamus. Ib., iii, 1, § 10. 1401 Ex Britannia Caesar ad me Kal. Sept. dedit litteras, quas ego accepi A.D. IIII. Kal. Octobr., satis commodas de Britannicis rebus, quibus, ne admirer quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit. Ib., § 25. 1402 See pp. 672, 731-3, infra. 1403 Such is Caesar’s statement (B. G., v, 22, § 3): but only his perfervid admirers deny that in certain passages of his memoirs he was guilty of misrepresentation; and there are critics who argue that he employed Commius to induce Cassivellaunus for a consideration to negotiate. See pp. 669-71, infra. 1404 A Quinto fratre et a Caesare accepi A.D. IX. Kal. Nov. litteras, datas a litoribus Britanniae proximis A.D. VI. Kal. Octobr. Confecta Britannia, obsidibus acceptis, nulla praeda, imperata tamen pecunia, exercitum e Britannia reportabant. Att., iv, 18, § 5. See pp. 712-3, 726, infra. Strabo (iv, 5, § 3) says that Caesar got much booty besides slaves. 1405 See p. 499, infra and Pauly’s Real-EncyclopÄdie, iii, part i, 1897, p. 863. 1406 Hominum est infinita multitudo creberrimaque aedificia fere Gallicis consimilia, pecoris magnus numerus. B. G., v, 12, § 3. 1407 See pp. 225-6, supra. 1408 Nos nihil de eo percontationibus reperiebamus, nisi certis ex aqua mensuris breviores esse quam in continenti noctes videbamus. Ib., 13, § 4. 1409 Ib., 14, §§ 4-5. 1410 See pp. 414-7, infra. 1411 See p. 223, supra. 1412 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 480. 1413 Cf. Caesar, B. C., i, 44, § 4. 1414 Quae prima signa conspexit, ad haec constitit. B. G., ii, 21, § 6. 1415 Lord Wolseley, The Soldiers’ Pocket-Book, 5th ed., pp. 286, 412-7. 1416 Phars., ii, 572. 1417 See the passages quoted on pp. 329, 348, 350, supra, and also Diodorus Siculus, v, 21, § 2; Strabo, iv, 5, § 3; Plutarch, Caesar, 23; Appian, De rebus Gall., i, 5, B. C., ii, 17; Dion Cassius, lxii, 4, § 1; Tacitus, Agricola, 13; and Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 25. 1418 ... divus Iulius cum exercitu Britanniam ingressus, quamquam prospera pugna terruerit incolas ac litore potitus sit, potest videri ostendisse posteris, non tradidisse (Agricola, 13). 1419 Th. Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, v, 1894, p. 66 (RÖm. Gesch., iii, 1889, p. 272). Mommsen is, I think, nearer the truth when he says (The Provinces of the Roman Empire, i, 1886, p. 171 [RÖm. Gesch., v, 155]) that ‘the Britons ... certainly did not long pay—perhaps never paid at all—the tribute,’ &c. 1420 Bibl. Hist., v, 21, § 2. 1421 Strabo, ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 3. 1422 ... f??e? d? s?t?? ?a? ?s??ata ?a? ???s?? ?a? ??????? ?a? s?d????? ta?ta d? ????eta? ?? a?t?? ?a? d??ata ?a? ??d??p?da, &c. Geogr., iv, 5, §§ 2-3. 1423 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 241, 265-6. 1424 Ib., pp. 297-305, 347, 352-3. 1425 Ann., xiv, 31. 1426 See p. 510, infra. 1427 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 99, 116, 126. 1428 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxvi, 1870, p. 198; Archaeologia, liii, 1892, pp. 247-8. Silver coins of two values have been found in Sussex (J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 109-10). 1429 Ib., p. 44. 1430 Ib., pp. 106, 131, 148, 361, 379-80; Numism. Chron., 3rd ser., xvi, 1896, pp. 183-4. 1431 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 240-1. 1432 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 246-7, 291. 1433 See Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 161. 1434 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 215. 1435 Ib., p. 38. 1436 Ib., p. 406. 1437 Ib., p. 131. 1438 Ib., pp. 40, 129; Suppl., pp. 433, 549, map facing p. viii, and indices of both vols. 1439 Ib., p. 41. 1440 See pp. 250-1, supra. 1441 22, 7 (9). Sir J. Evans (Coins, &c., p. 36) says that Solinus made the statement quoted in the text about the Silures of South Wales; but he speaks of the inhabitants of the island of Silura, which, he says, is separated from the country of the Dumnonii (Cornwall) by a stormy strait (Siluram insulam ab ora quam gens Brittana Dumnonii tenent turbidum fretum distinguit). Mommsen, in his edition of Solinus (p. 113), remarks that as there is no island called Silura, we must either accept the reading of the ‘interpolated’ MSS., insulae Sillinae (Scilly islands), or assume that Solinus based his statement upon a careless perusal of the passage in which Pliny (Nat. Hist., iv, 16 [30], § 103) mentions the Silures (super eam [Britanniam] haec [Hibernia] sita abest brevissimo transitu a Silurum gente xxx). Considering what Solinus says about the Dumnonii, I would adopt the former alternative. 1442 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 39, 140-1; Suppl., p. 488 and map facing p. viii. 1443 J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 3rd ed., 1904, pp. 29, 62. Professor Rhys (ib., pp. 40-1) remarks further that on coins of the Parisi ‘one Volisios styles himself sometimes Domnocoveros and sometimes Domnoveros, which may possibly have meant the guardian of the state, or the man of the people. At any rate ... the same term occurs on a coin of Dumnorix, the Æduan, whose great popularity with the common people Caesar dwells upon more than once.... On another of these northern coins the person who issued it gives himself a title, which, if correctly read Senotigirnios, would literally mean the old lord or monarch, whatever the exact official signification of that may have been among the Parisi. Unfortunately, the relation of these two kinds of coins to one another in point of time is not known; should they turn out to be of the same date, they might be taken to prove the state to have been divided into two parties, the one clinging to the representative of a dynasty, and the other rallying round one who gave himself out as the friend of the people.’ The professor’s ‘proof’, resting as it does upon possibilities and uncertainties, is hardly conclusive. Moreover the reading DOMNOVEROS does not occur at all, and must be replaced by DVMNOVELLAVNOS (J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, Suppl., p. 591)—the same name as that of the prince who sought the aid of Augustus (p. 363, infra); while the reading SENOTIGIRNIOS is hopelessly uncertain (J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 405, 410-1). The term which occurs on the coins of Dumnorix (assuming that Dumnorix and Dubnorex are identical) is DVBNOCOV (E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, Cat. des monnaies gaul. de la Bibl. Nat., 1889, Nos. 5026-48). It is impossible to decide whether the coins to which Professor Rhys alludes belong to the Parisi or to the Brigantes (J. Evans, Coins, &c., Suppl., p. 589). 1444 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 141; Suppl., p. 488. 1445 According to Xiphilinus, the continuator and epitomator of Dion Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 2), the Caledonians had democratic government (d????at???ta? d? ?? p???e?): but Dion wrote in the third century; and he also says (ib., § 1) that they did not till the soil, which, considering that bronze sickles have been found in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire, and Sutherlandshire (J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 199-200), and that ancient Scottish querns are numerous (Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 259), is hardly credible. 1446 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 223-4. 1447 Ib., pp. 223-6, 239-40. 1448 Ib., pp. 222-3. 1449 Ib., pp. 200, 216, 226, 238-9, 274; Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 154. 1450 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 200, 226, 279-80. 1451 Hist. Brit., iv, 11. Cf. J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 288-9. 1452 Ib., pp. 289-90; Suppl., pp. 479, 565. 1453 J. Evans, Coins, &c., p. 283. See p. 369, n. 3, infra. 1454 Ib., pp. 200-2, 226, 287, 291. 1455 Ib., pp. 226, 287-9. 1456 Ib., pp. 137-8. Sir John Evans is mistaken in identifying the Dobuni with the Boduni, whom Aulus Plautius subdued (Dion Cassius, lx, 20, § 2), and who were certainly a south-eastern tribe. See Th. Mommsen, Provinces, i, 175, n. 1 (RÖm. Gesch., v, 1885, p. 160, n. 1) and F. Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe, xv,—‘Roman Britain’). 1457 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, p. 287. 1458 C. Caligula, 44. 1459 Res gestae divi Augusti ed. Th. Mommsen, 1883. 1460 Ib. p. 139. 1461 J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 200-2; Suppl, p. 527. According to Mommsen (Provinces, i, 171 [RÖm. Gesch., v, 156]), Dubnovellaunus was ‘probably the successor of the prince of the Trinovantes confirmed by Caesar’. The only ground for this conjecture is that Dubnovellaunus appears to have had temporary dominion over the country of the Trinovantes, which had previously been annexed by Tasciovanus. But the fragmentary numismatic evidence which is all that we have to go upon seems to show that Dubnovellaunus was originally King of Kent. 1462 Gold coins have been found, struck by a king named Addedomaros, which appear to show that he began to reign earlier than Cunobeline, and that his dominions were in the eastern counties, their centre being Essex; but there is no evidence for defining his relations with Cunobeline or Dubnovellaunus (Numism. Chron., 4th ser., ii, 1902, pp. 12, 16). 1463 ‘primas tres’ [litteras], says Mommsen, ‘in Latino exemplo TIM fuisse Chishullius auctor est, qui unus eas servavit, in Graecis non superest nisi prima T. Comparavit Evansius (l. c. p. 159) nummos inscriptos Tinc.... Commi f(ilius) repertos praesertim in regione Sussex, potestque fortasse defendi in lapide Ancyrano superfuisse TIN et postremam litteram fractam errore pro M acceptam esse.’ 1464 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, Suppl., pp. 499, 515. In his earlier volume (pp. 159-60) Sir John Evans remarks that ‘possibly it is his [Tincommius’s] name which is preserved in the form of TIM, in company with that of Dubnovellaunus, in the inscription at Ancyra.... I should, however,’ he adds, ‘regard Tinc[ommius] as belonging to a rather earlier period than Dubnovellaunus, though both must have been contemporaries of Augustus,’ &c. 1465 Ib., pp. 153-4. 1466 Huius opera Commii, ut antea demonstravimus, fideli atque utili superioribus annis erat usus in Britannia Caesar; pro quibus meritis civitatem eius immunem esse iusserat, iura legesque reddiderat atque ipsi Morinos attribuerat. Tanta tamen universae Galliae consensio fuit libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae ut neque beneficiis neque amicitiae memoria moverentur omnesque et animo et opibus in id bellum incumberent. B. G., vii, 76, §§ 1-2. 1467 J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 30-1. 1468 J. Evans, Coins, &c., p. 156. Cf. pp. 83, 157-8; Suppl., p. 499; and Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxvi, 1870, p. 196. 1469 J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 154-5. 1470 Ib., pp. 153, 155-6. 1471 Ib., p. 155. 1472 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 155, 158, 171; Suppl., p. 521. 1473 J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 170-2; Suppl., pp. 508-9. 1474 Ib., pp. 523-4. Is it permissible to suppose that Verica may have ruled the Gallic, and Eppillus the British Atrebates? 1475 See J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 159, 172. 1476 Ib., p. 172. 1477 Ib., pp. 172-3, 183. 1478 See p. 363, supra. 1479 J. Evans, Coins, &c., p. 161 and pl. I, no. 12. 1480 Ib., p. 194 and pl. III, no. 14. 1481 As far as I know, I am alone responsible for the conjecture which I have made in the text. 1482 Dion Cassius, xlix, 38, § 2. 1483 Georg., i, 30. 1484 Carm., i, 35, 29. 1485 Ib., iii. 5, 2-4. 1486 Dion Cassius, liii, 22, § 5; 25, § 2. 1487 Professor Rhys (Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 32), apparently forgetting the dates (which I have given in the text) of Augustus’s preparations for invading Britain, suggests that ‘it may be that it was the representations of the [fugitive British princes] ... that led him thereto.’ 1488 ii, 5, § 8; iv, 5, § 3. 1489 Archaeologia, lii, 1890, p. 384. 1490 Velleius Paterculus, ii, 110, § 5. 1491 Archaeologia, liv, 1895, pp. 489-94. 1492 xi, 53. 1493 J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 151, 156. 1494 See J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 25-6. 1495 ???? ??t?? t?? d??ast?? t??e? t?? a?t??? p?ese?ses? ?a? ?e?ape?a?? ?atas?e?s?e??? t?? p??? ?a?sa?a t?? Seast?? f???a?, ??a??at? te ??????a? ?? t? ?apet????, ?a? ???e?a? s?ed?? t? pa?es?e?asa? t??? ??a???? ???? t?? ??s?? (Geogr., iv, 5, § 3). 1496 J. Evans, Coins, &c., pp. 226, 289-90. Sir John observes that Jupiter Ammon, Hercules, Apollo, Diana, Cybele, and other deities are figured on silver and copper coins of Cunobeline, which proves ‘how completely Roman mythology had taken root ... unless we are to suppose that the types were ... left to the mere fancies of the engravers’, who either were Roman or had been trained in Roman workshops. 1497 Hist. Brit., iv, 11. 1498 Tacitus, Ann., ii, 24. 1499 See Mommsen’s Provinces, i, 173-4 (RÖm. Gesch., v, 157-8). 1500 Sir J. Evans (Coins, &c., pp. 208-9) gives good reasons for not identifying Adminius with the Amminus whose name appears on coins. Cf. J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 34, 280. 1501 Suetonius, C. Caligula, 44. Cf. J. Evans, Coins, &c., p. 285. 1502 Ib., pp. 286-7. See also Tacitus, Ann., xii, 35. 1503 See p. 330, supra. 1504 This is the theory of Professor Rhys (Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 36-8) and apparently also of Sir John Evans (Coins of the Anc. Britons,—Suppl., pp. 489-93, with which cf. p. 584 and pp. 358, 366-7, 381-5, 387-9 of the earlier volume); but it will not bear examination. Bericus was one of the fugitives whose retention at Rome was resented by the two sons of Cunobeline who remained in Britain. It is admitted, or rather maintained, by Professor Rhys that the Iceni were hostile to the dynasty of Cunobeline. It would seem therefore that if, as the professor suggests, Antedrigus was forced to flee from the Iceni when they joined the Romans, he belonged to a party among the Iceni which was not opposed to the sons of Cunobeline and was perhaps even in sympathy with them. But if he had prevailed over Bericus and forced him to flee, his party was evidently the stronger. Why then should he have been forced to quit the Icenian territory? Are we to assume that the anti-Catuvellaunian party among the Iceni, to which Bericus ex hypothesi belonged, was originally the weaker, but on the return of Bericus suddenly became the stronger? May we not rather suppose that Bericus was one of the sons of Cunobeline and was for some reason at variance with his brothers, Caratacus and Togodumnus; that the Iceni, with whom he was in sympathy, were for the most part or as a whole opposed to them; and that Antedrigus was not the leader of a faction but the king of the Iceni, who, like Gallic kings mentioned by Caesar, was unpopular with his nobles and his subjects generally, and was by them forced to flee? 1505 Dion Cassius, lx, 19, § 1. 1506 Suetonius, Claudius, 17. 1507 See Vict. Hist. of ... Norfolk, i, 284-5. Professor Haverfield (R. L. Poole’s Hist. Atlas of Mod. Europe, xv,—‘Roman Britain’) thinks that Claudius’s pretext, as stated by Dion Cassius—the appeal of Bericus—‘may well be the real reason for the undertaking’. Mommsen (Provinces, i, 174, n. 1 [RÖm. Gesch., v, 1885, p. 158, n. 1]) says ‘The war was certainly not waged on account of Bericus (Dio, lx, 19)’. 1508 F. J. Haverfield, The Romanization of Roman Britain, pp. 9-12. 1509 Ib., pp. 14-5; Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 159-62. 1510 Eng. Hist. Rev., xi, 1896, pp. 417-30. 1511 See Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 268-9, and cf. F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, 1897, pp. 222, 327-40. 1512 A few years ago Professor Macalister (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, pp. 407-8) propounded a set of questions which, he suggested, might be answered by the help of an ‘ethnographic census’:—‘Have we’, he asked, ‘any representatives of the pre-Celtic inhabitants? ... if so, are such people of a pre-Aryan stock, and are they of the same type as the long-headed people in the long barrows? ... Are these the Silures? ... Were the Celtic immigrants homogeneous? ... What relation subsisted between the Cymric and Gaidhelic-speaking peoples?’ &c. It will be apparent to any one who reads this article that most of these questions can be answered without the aid of an ‘ethnographic census’; and that, if they could not be answered independently, such aid would be insufficient unless it could be supplemented by new archaeological and linguistic information. The unofficial census which has been carried out by Dr. Beddoe, M. H. Muffang, Sir William Turner, and, perhaps in consequence of Professor Macalister’s suggestion, by Dr. C. R. Browne, Messrs. Gray and Tocher, and other anthropologists, is of course incomplete; but it may be doubted whether the evidence which they have collected would be seriously modified by further investigation. When Dr. Collignon undertook a similar informal census in France, he compared in each department the mean cephalic index of the whole number of the heads which he had measured with that of the ten which he had measured first; and in every instance the difference was less than 1 per cent. (Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 320). 1513 MÉm. d’anthr., iv, 1883, p. 243. 1514 Professor W. Z. Ripley thinks that the difference is nearer 1·5 than 2 (L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 516-9); while Mr. Gray (Man, ii, 1902, No. 41, pp. 50-1) regards the method of subtracting 2 as ‘illogical’, and would subtract 8 mm. from the breadth and 10 mm. from the length. Certain minute differences between Broca’s system of measuring the skull, which is followed everywhere except in Germany, and that adopted by the German anthropologist, von Ihering, are lucidly explained by Otto Ammon (L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 676-82) and Professor Ripley (The Races of Europe, 1900, p. 593), but may, for the purpose of the present inquiry, be safely disregarded. 1515 Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 249-50. 1516 For instance, Prof. Ripley (The Races of Europe, p. 37), Dr. Beddoe (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxx, 1900, No. 93), Sir W. Turner (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xl, part iii, 1903, pp. 547-614), and Prof. Symington (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1903, p. 796). See also L’Anthr., x, 1899, pp. 105-6, and Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, pp. 181-206. 1517 See Prof. C. S. Myers’s article (ib., xxxiii, 1903, pp. 36-40) and Man, iii, 1903, No. 13, pp. 28-32. I confess that I do not believe that for the present inquiry any valuable result would be attained by revising, on what are called ‘biometric’ lines, the craniological work which has already been done for ancient Britain. See Nature, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458, and Biometrika passim. 1518 The Mediterranean Race, 1901, p. 102. See also L’Anthr., x, 1899, pp. 105-6; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1901, p. 778; Man, ii, 1902, No. 41, p. 50; and Nature, Aug. 30, 1906, p. 458. 1519 The Mediterranean Race, p. 104. 1520 Ib., p. 195. 1521 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., iii. 1864-7, p. 284. Cf. G. Rolleston (Brit. Barrows, p. 646, n. 1). 1522 For instance, on pages 136, 138, 143, 160-2, 189-92, and 238. For evidence that ‘the mesaticephals’, Sergi’s opinion notwithstanding, are the result of intermarriage between ‘dolichocephals’ and ‘brachycephals’, see Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., iv, 1894, p. 399; v, 1895, p. 413. 1523 The Mediterranean Race, pp. 199-200. Professor Rolleston (Brit. Barrows, 1877, p. 568) so far supports Sergi’s view that he regards a skull as brachycephalic, even though its index be less than 80, if it has what he regards as the distinguishing characteristic of brachycephaly, which he proceeds to explain in terms that are too technical for the general reader. Ethnological students will remember the passage. 1524 Even Sergi, as Mr. Myers observes (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, p. 37), ‘shows signs of yielding the isolated position which he originally took up as to the utter worthlessness of indices.’ He has recently affirmed (Archiv fÜr Anthr., N. F., iii, 1904, p. 120) that the long and the short types of European skulls are specifically different,—that the ‘Eurafrican’ species is dolichocephalic and the ‘Eurasiatic’ brachycephalic. See also L’Anthr., xiv, 1903, pp. 587-8. 1525 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiii, 1903, pp. 38, 40. 1526 The Mediterranean Race, p. 105. 1527 Brit. Barrows, p. 568. 1528 See A. de Quatrefages and E. T. Hamy, Crania Ethnica, 1876-82, pl. lv, and Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 150. 1529 Brit. Barrows, p. 621. For some valuable remarks on the permanence of cranial types notwithstanding changes of environment, see Mr. J. L. Myres’s paper in Geogr. Journal, xxviii, 1906, p. 559, with which cf. pp. 555-6. 1530 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 246, n. 1. 1531 A. H. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 1888, pp. 205-6. See also Dr. Beddoe’s remarks in Journ. Anthr. Inst., xvii, 1888, pp. 202-9. 1532 I say ‘for our purpose’ because of many of the skeletons with which we are here concerned the only relevant measurement that exists is that of the thigh-bone. Dr. Garson (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, p. 9) thinks that the ‘most reliable estimate of stature is obtained from the length of the femur and tibia added together’ according to the formula (Femur + Tibia x 100) / 49.4 1533 Ib., xvii, 1888, p. 204. Dr. Beddoe’s arguments are very strong; and his method appears to me better, on the whole, than that of Dr. Topinard, expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·1 (ib., xxii, 1893, p. 9), or than that of M. Rollet (ib., p. 19, note), expressed by the formula (Femur x 100) / 27·3. So far as I know, the most exhaustive discussion of the question is that of M. L. Manouvrier (MÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 2e sÉr., iv, 1892, pp. 347-402), who points out defects in the methods of Dr. Beddoe and MM. Topinard and Rollet; but although he has perhaps shown how greater accuracy can be achieved, the more or less approximate results that have been already obtained are sufficient for our purpose: we should not be in a better position for solving the problems of the ethnology of Ancient Britain even if the Britons whose skeletons have been preserved had been measured in their lifetime, and the measurements recorded. [Since the foregoing note was written I have read a most interesting paper by Dr. Beddoe (Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, xv, 1902, pp. 161-78), which confirms my conviction that his is the best method of measurement, although he confesses (p. 165) that it ‘probably errs by excess in the higher statures’. Remarking (p. 163) that prehistoric bones ‘have lost much of their original substance, and are probably from 1 to 3 millimetres short of their original length’, he says, ‘Manouvrier does not seem to have made any provision for this reduction; and I apprehend that his computed statures must on an average be a little too low’. See Addenda.] 1534 See pp. 25-30, supra. 1535 See p. 35, supra. 1536 Proc. Philosoph. Soc. Glasgow, xxx, 1899, pp. 30-8. 1537 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 42. 1538 Archaeol. Journal, liii, 1896, pp. 217, 221. See also Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., li, 1895, pp. 505-27, and especially 516 and 526. 1539 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xiv, 1885, pp. 51-5. Cf. Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 542, 656, 703. 1540 See p. 33, supra. 1541 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 607. 1542 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xiv, 1885, p. 51, pl. iv-vi; Nature, Nov. 15, 1894, p. 68. A skeleton of palaeolithic age was found two years ago near Luton in Bedfordshire, but has not been preserved (Man, vi, 1906, No. 6, pp. 10-1). 1543 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1; Ph. Salmon, L’Age de la Pierre, 1889, p. 62; J. Deniker, The Races of Man, 1900, pp. 310-2. 1544 The reader will remember that the age of the Neanderthal skull is uncertain. See p. 34, supra. The norma verticalis of the Galley Hill skull is different from that of ‘the continental forms’ (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., li, 1895, p. 526); and the profile is not brutal. 1545 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 90. 1546 Der NeanderthalschÄdel (Bonner JahrbÜcher, Heft 106, 1901, pp. 1-72). See also Globus, lxxx, 1901, pp. 217-22; lxxxi, 1902, pp. 165-74; the notices of Schwalbe’s article in Man, ii, 1902, No. 129, pp. 186-9; and L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, pp. 356-8, xvii, 1906, pp. 67-72. 1547 Mr. J. Gray (Man, iv, 1904, No. 17, pp. 28-9) summarizes Schwalbe’s most recent views (Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen). 1548 Professor Johnson Symington (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1903, p. 798) holds that Schwalbe ‘has not sufficiently recognised the significance of the large cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull ... or made sufficient allowance for the great variations in form which skulls undoubtedly human may present’; and he affirms that the Neanderthal skull ‘was capable of lodging a brain fully equal in volume to that of many existing savage races’. 1549 See p. 40, supra. 1550 L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, pp. 17-8. 1551 Ib., p. 395. 1552 Ib., pp. 396-7. 1553 See p. 35, supra. 1554 See J. Deniker, The Races of Man, pp. 311-2 and fig. 87. Dr. J. G. Garson (Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, pp. 90-1) implies, if I do not misunderstand him, that the Laugerie-Basse skeletons belonged to the Neanderthal race. I can only invite the reader to compare the illustrations of the two types, and refer to Deniker, Philippe Salmon, and the French anthropologists generally in support of my view. But when Salmon (L’Age de la Pierre, p. 64) remarks that ‘le crÂne de Laugerie-Basse ... prÉsente une forme manifeste de transition entre le type des premiers temps quaternaires et ceux de Cro-Magnon’ [the oldest of the French neolithic skulls], I am unable to follow him. See Geogr. Journ. xxviii, 1906, p. 546. The known skulls of Neanderthal type do not belong to ‘les premiers temps quaternaires’, and the age of the Neanderthal skull is unknown. See p. 34, supra. 1555 See p. 35, supra. 1556 I find that Sir John Evans (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1897 1899, p. 12) has argued in the same sense. 1557 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, p. 292. 1558 Ib., and p. 111. 1559 Ib., pp. 110, 292, 297. M. Verneau holds that the skeletons of Laugerie-Basse and Chancelade are the ‘arriÈre-petits-fils’ of this inhabitant of the Mentone cave. 1560 Ib., p. 299. 1561 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 292-3. Cf. vol. xvi, 1905, pp. 503-6. M. E. Piette (Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 5e sÉr., iii, 1902, pp. 773-4), if I do not misunderstand him, attributes negroid characters to the Neanderthal race. 1562 L’Anthr., xvii, 1906, pp. 308-9. It has been maintained that another—the so-called steatopygous—race existed in Gaul in late palaeolithic times. If any reader does not know the meaning of ‘steatopygous’, let him use his dictionary, and he will pardon me for not having translated the word into plain English. The existence of this people is inferred from the discovery of certain ‘statuettes’ at Brassempouy in the department of the Landes (L’Anthr., vi, 1895, pp. 129-51) and near Mentone. I have not seen them; but when I saw the woodcut of one which was selected for illustration (Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 5e sÉr., iii, 1902, p. 775, fig. 4), it seemed to me that the carving was so villainous that no scientific conclusion could be drawn from it; and I am glad to find (p. 778) that this was the opinion of M. Manouvrier. M. Piette, however, assures us (L’Anthr., vi, 1895, p. 143) that the ‘Venus of Brassempouy’ is ‘l’oeuvre d’art la plus parfaite qui soit sortie des mains des sculpteurs ÉburnÉens’. Anyhow, though it would not be difficult for a sculptor to make statuettes of steatopygous individuals in the England of to-day, there is no evidence that the ‘race’ in question, if it existed in palaeolithic Gaul, ever penetrated into this country. 1563 Early Man in Britain, p. 207. 1564 Ib., pp. 230, 243. 1565 Ib., pp. 204-5. 1566 Ib., p. 111, fig. 24. 1567 See p. 435, infra. 1568 Early Man in Britain, pp. 230-1. 1569 Ib., pp. 202-3. 1570 See p. 40, supra. 1571 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 475, 641-3. 1572 Early Man in Britain, p. 230. 1573 Ib., and p. 243. 1574 Early Man in Britain, p. 230. 1575 Ib. p. 243. 1576 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, pp. 475, 499-500, 522, 641; Guide to the Ant. of the Stone Age (Brit. Museum), p. 62. 1577 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 90. 1578 The Races of Britain, 1885, pp. 8-9. 1579 Crania Ethnica, pp. 28-9. 1580 See Quart. Journ. of Science, 1864, p. 96; Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, pp. 288-90; Anthr. Review, iii, 1865, pp. 372-3; S. Laing, Prehist. Remains of Caithness, pp. 114, 125, and fig. 44-7, 60-61; Worthington Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 37-9; J. Deniker, The Races of Man, p. 312; and Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, xxxix, 1905, pp. 423-4. Dr. Wright (Ib., xxxviii, 1904, p. 120) has described two skulls of Chancelade type, found in a round barrow near Garton-on-the-Wolds of the late Stone Age or Early Bronze Age. 1581 J. Deniker, The Races of Man, p. 312, n. 1; Scottish Review, xx, 1892, pp. 148, 152-3; Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1899, p. 261; Nature, March 7, 1901, p. 457. 1582 See p. 59, supra. 1583 Ethnology, 1896, p. 113. 1584 See pp. 19-22, 59-60, 62, supra. 1585 Trans. Internal. Congr. Prehist. Arch., 1868 (1869), p. 278. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell indeed affirms (Proc. Geologists’ Association, xi, 1891, pp. 226-7) that remains of some of the extinct mammals, including the elephant, ‘are found high up in the’ alluvium, and that mammoths’ teeth, not ‘derived’, have frequently been met with in peat in the valley of the Thames. 1586 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 246. 1587 Ib. 1588 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 246. 1589 Ib., p. 248. 1590 Even this, however, is not absolutely certain. See p. 62, supra. 1591 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 250. 1592 Ib., p. 255. Cf. A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 10 (pref.), note. 1593 See Mr. W. J. Knowles’s valuable article in Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, 5th ser., vii, 1897, pp. 1-18. 1594 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, p. 98. See pl. iii and iv, facing p. 98. Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (Proc. Geologists’ Association, xi, 1891, pp. 225-6, note) and Mr. Worthington Smith (Man, the Primeval Savage, p. 299) also regard certain British implements as mesolithic; and Mr. Spurrell (op. cit., p. 226) gives reasons for believing that the Tilbury skull belonged to a period of transition. 1595 Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 501. 1596 To quote Mr. Allen Brown (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, p. 93), ‘Sir J. Evans says, “It is almost demonstrable that some of the chipped celts which have hitherto been classed as Neolithic must be among the earliest of the Neolithic implements,” and “must in all probability date back to a very distant period”. It is to these forms, which appear to be of transition age, that I would apply the term Mesolithic.... At present some flint implements, which from their form would be ranged under one of the later Palaeolithic groups by the French geologists, would be included in the ... Neolithic in England.’ Mr. Brown’s quotation from Sir John Evans (Anc. Stone Implements, pp. 85-6) is substantially but not verbally accurate. 1597 Cave Hunting, pp. 353-9; Early Man in Britain, pp. 233-42. 1598 See A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 1885, p. 310. 1599 See p. 49, supra. 1600 See Journ. Anthr. Inst., xiv, 1885, pp. 387-8; L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, pp. 707-9; xvii, 1906, pp. 180-2. 1601 Cave Hunting, p. 243. 1602 Vict. Hist. of ... Somerset, i, 179. 1603 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiii, 1894, p. 257. 1604 L’Anthr., vii, 1896, pp. 1-17, 388-9; R. Munro, Prehist. Problems, pp. 66-81; Archaeol. Journal, lv, 1898, pp. 277-84; Athenaeum, Jan. 14, 1899, p. 53; Rev. de l’École d’anthr., ix, 1899, p. 275, xiv, 1904, pp. 160, 378; Bull. et mÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr., 5e sÉr., v, 1904, p. 614; Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 33e sess., 1904 (1905), p. 1035. 1605 See p. 61, supra. Dr. A. J. Evans, who in 1893 was ‘so overpowered by the vision of the yawning hiatus’ between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Age that he regarded the skeletons of the BaoussÉ RoussÉ caves as neolithic, has of course since recanted (Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1896, p. 908). 1606 Celtic Folk-Lore, 1901, pp. 675-6. 1607 Geogr., ii, 3, § 11. 1608 Celtic Folk Lore, pp. 679-80. 1609 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 888. 1610 Celtic Folk Lore, pp. 683-6. 1611 In Celtic Britain, 1884, p. 288, Professor Rhys suggested that Coritani might be a pre-Celtic word; and as the suggestion is repeated on p. 293 of the 3rd edition, which has just appeared (November, 1904), it would seem that he does not set great store by his intermediate conjecture,—that Coritani is derived from the Celtic word cor. 1612 Vol. ii, pp. 675-6. 1613 The Welsh People, 1900, and 3rd ed., 1902, pp. 111-2. The references which Prof. Rhys gives to Ripley’s Races of Europe (pp. 322, 328, 521) do not prove that the country of the Coritani was inhabited by dwarfs, but only by descendants of the neolithic population. 1614 Fians, Fairies and Picts, 1893, pp. 44-53; Antiquary, xxxvi, 1900, pp. 53-6, 70-4; Scottish Notes and Queries, 2nd ser., i, 1900, pp. 137-9; The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 89-97; Monthly Review, Jan., 1901, pp. 131-48; Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc., N. S., iv, 1902, pp. 179-94. See also Archaeol. Journal, x, 1853, pp. 212-23; xx, 1863, pp. 32-7; Sir A. Mitchell, The Past in the Present, 1880, pp. 59-72; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xxxvii, 1881, pp. 254-61; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1902 (1903), p. 755; and Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvii, 1903, pp. 352-9. 1615 Scottish Notes and Queries, 2nd ser., i, 1900, pp. 137-8. ‘Mound-dwellings’ and other ‘earth-houses’ are commonly assigned to the Early Iron Age. See R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland, 1899, pp. 345-81. 1616 He tells us (Monthly Review, Jan., 1901, pp. 139-40) that ‘the early Gaelic chroniclers assert that the Gaels were preceded in Scotland and Ireland by two races’ [the Picts and the Dananns]. ‘Of them too,’ he adds, ‘it is said that they lived in hidden habitations, that they also persecuted the newer race.’ In other words, the ‘mound-folk’ who, according to Professor Rhys, were ‘slaves and drudges’ of the neolithic race, were themselves persecutors of the Celts. That the Picts, or some of them, lived in ‘hidden habitations’ I am not concerned to deny; as for the ‘Dananns’ of Irish legend, I would ask Mr. MacRitchie to read what Professor Rhys (Celtic Heathendom, p. 119) has written about them. ‘The earliest Scottish writer, so far as I am aware,’ continues Mr. MacRitchie (Monthly Review, Jan., 1901, p. 141), ‘who speaks of the Picts as a small race living underground was a fifteenth-century Bishop of Orkney, Thomas Tulloch.... Tulloch compiled a Latin account of Orkney (De Orcadibus Insulis) ... and therein he states that the Picts inhabiting those islands ... in the ninth century were “not much bigger than pigmies in stature”, and that ... they occasionally took refuge “in little houses underground”’. The work of Tulloch, or rather Tullock, is not mentioned in the catalogue of the British Museum; and I cannot verify Mr. MacRitchie’s quotation. But is the statement of a fifteenth-century compiler about the stature of a people who lived in the ninth century to be taken seriously as evidence? And if so, what does it prove about the Picts as a whole? What more does it prove than this,—that in a remote group of islands there were dwarfish people who were included under the name ‘Picts’,—a name which of course denoted not a race but a heterogeneous population, comprising people whom the physical anthropologist would classify under several heads? 1617 Antiquary, xxxvi, 1900, pp. 54-5. 1618 Cf. Archaeol. Journal, xx, 1863, pp. 33-4. Some ‘mound-dwellings’, the chambers in which were of habitable though very small size, have, I am of course aware, been proved to have been really dwellings. 1619 Antiquary, xxxvi, 1900, p. 73. See also Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vii, 1870, pp. 519-23. 1620 I find that this suggestion is supported by Mr. W. C. Mackenzie (ib., xxxix, 1905, p. 257), who truly says that tradition ‘measures its low-statured people by inches, just as it measures its tall peoples by yards’. 1621 See W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 552-3, 687, iii, 801, 805, 810, &c. Canon Greenwell (Brit. Barrows, p. 344) tells us that he has examined many mounds in Westmorland, locally called ‘Giants’ Graves’, without finding anything in them. In regard to the danger of trusting to legend and folk-lore as evidences of the former existence of giants and dwarfs, see E. B. Tylor, Prim. Culture, i, 1903, pp. 385-8. 1622 Zeitschrift fÜr Ethnologie, xxvi, 1894, pp. 189-254; Die PygmÄen und ihre systematische Stellung innerhalb des Menschengeschlechts, 1902, reviewed in Man, iii, 1903, No. 62, p. 112. See also L’Anthr., xv, 1904, pp. 37-9. 1623 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 51. 1624 J. Beddoe, The Races of Britain, p. 13. 1625 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 41. Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, p. 333) has, however, affirmed that ‘the few explored long barrows’ of the district between Driffield and Aldro’ in Yorkshire have yielded skulls whose cephalic indices exceeded 80; and one of the skulls found in the cave of Perthi-Chwareu in Denbighshire had a cephalic index of 80. See p. 396, n. 17, infra. 1626 L’Anthr., v, 1894, p. 522. See also p. 517, n. 1. 1627 See A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iv, 30 (pref.). 1628 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 59. 1629 Based on Dr. Humphry’s estimate of the relation of the thigh-bone to the height, viz. 27·5:100. 1630 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, pp. 71-3. According to the method recommended by Thurnam in Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 42, p. 3, n. ‡, the average, deduced from the data which he furnishes in Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 72, n. 1, would have been exactly 5 feet 8 inches, or 1 metre 727! 1631 See p. 379, n. 3, supra. 1632 According to the method of M. Rollet, recommended by Dr. Garson (see p. 379, n. 3, supra), the average height of the fourteen Long Barrow skeletons the measurements of which are given in Tables I and II of Crania Britannica, would have been just under 5 feet 6? inches, or about 1 metre 680. 1633 The skeletons from the Wor Barrow, referred to on p. 111, n. 3, supra, measured by M. Rollet’s method, gave the following results:—5 ft. 9.4 in., 5 ft. 7.2 in., 5 ft. 1.9 in., 5 ft. 0.7 in., 4 ft. 11 in., and 4 ft. 10.2 in., or an average of 5ft. 2.4 in. (A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, vol. iv, one of unnumbered pages following p. 122). 1634 Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxix, 1895, pp. 412-3, 425, 430; xxxvi, 1902, p. 142; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxii, 1902, p. 402. 1635 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 1636 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 147, 154-5, 161. The cephalic indices of such of these skulls as could be measured were 75.2, 70, and 66.6 (male), and 75 (female). 1637 Ib., xxix, 1895, p. 436; Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258. 1638 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. Mr. C. S. Myers (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxvi, 1897, p. 123) makes some interesting remarks on ‘the two [types of Long Barrow skulls] which Dr. Garson has been able to differentiate’ (cf. Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., xxiii, 1887, p. 296): but for the purposes of ethnological investigation the doctor nevertheless places the two types in one group (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, pp. 13, 15-6). 1639 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 154. 1640 Crania Britannica, ii, 1865, pl. 33, p. 6. 1641 Ib., pl. 5. 1642 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 5, p. 2. 1643 Ib., pl. 24, p. 4 1644 Ib., pl. 50, p. 5. 1645 See p. 394, supra. 1646 Brit. Barrows, p. 654. 1647 Crania Britannica, ii, Table II. See also Anthr. Rev., iii, 1865 (Journ. Anthr. Soc., p. lxvii). 1648 The length of its thigh bone was 508 millimetres, or almost 20 inches. 1649 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, p. 9. See pp. 408-9, infra. 1650 Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 222. 1651 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, pp. 155-87. 1652 The Geologist, v, 1862, pp. 213-4. 1653 Trans. Ethn. Soc., N. S., i, 1861, p. 268; S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, Prehist. Remains of Caithness, p. 123, and figs. 48-51. 1654 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, p. 186; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, iii, 944. 1655 S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, Prehist. Remains of Caithness, pp. 83-103. 1656 Ib., p. 120, and figs. 52-5; Archaeol. Journal, iii, 1846, pp. 223-8. 1657 S. Laing and T. H. Huxley, Prehist. Remains of Caithness, pp. 114-5. 1658 It is very doubtful whether the Caithness skulls were neolithic (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 160, n. 1). 1659 See pp. 408-9, infra. 1660 The Races of Europe, p. 306. 1661 Prehist. Remains of Caithness, pp. 128-30. Cf. Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1869, p. 63. Huxley argued that these skulls were also virtually identical with those of the Australian aborigines; but on another occasion, as we have seen already (p. 377, supra), when his combative instincts were aroused, he affirmed the contrary. 1662 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 1663 Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, p. 449. 1664 Ib., p. 444. Cf. Fortnightly Rev., N. S., xvi, 1874, p. 336; and W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, pp. 155, 159, 164, 185, 187. 1665 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., iii, 1864 7, p. 282. 1666 The Races of Britain, p. 13. See also p. 360. 1667 L’Anthr., v, 1894, pp. 515-6. 1668 Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, p. 171. The figures are 76, 75, 80, 79·7, 74·6, 79·4, 74·3 (Perthi-Chwareu); 77 (Cefn cave); and 76·5 (Tyddyn Bleiddyn). 1669 Ib., pp. 179, 187; Journ. Ethn. Soc., N. S., ii, 1870, pp. 444-5, 460. 1670 W. Boyd Dawkins, Cave Hunting, p. 186. 1671 See the illustrations of the Perthi-Chwareu skulls in Cave Hunting, pp. 168-9. 1672 No. 7 (figs. 1-4, p. 84 of Prehist. Remains of Caithness); no. 2 (figs. 17-20, p. 90); no. 3 (figs. 34-8, p. 98); and no. 5 (figs. 39-43, p. 96). 1673 No. 8 (figs. 9-12, p. 88); and no. 1 (figs. 25-8, p. 92). 1674 Ib., p. 115. 1675 See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 162. 1676 Nature, Jan. 6, 1898, p. 235; R. Munro, Prehist. Scotland, pp. 58-9, 71. Professor Boyd Dawkins (Archaeol. Journal, liv, 1897, p. 338), speaking of the famous Cro-Magnon skeleton and of the gigantic skeleton without a skull, the discovery of which in the Paviland cave, Glamorganshire, was recorded in 1824 by Dean Buckland (Reliquiae Diluvianae, p. 82), says:—‘In this group of remains so widely spread over Europe, we are on the track of a very early Prehistoric people, belonging to a tall, long-headed race, without the knowledge of pottery and without polished axes, if negative evidence be accepted.... They are probably the advance-guard of the Neolithic migration.... Further evidence is needed before we can define their precise relation to the Neolithic culture ordinarily so called.’ Further evidence is also needed before we can affirm that the Paviland skeleton was neolithic at all (Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, &c., 1897, p. 487). 1677 Trans. Devon. Association, xxiii, 1891, pp. 119-24. 1678 Ib., facing p. 121. 1679 Trans. Devon. Association, xxiii, 1891, p. 120. 1680 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 1681 Proc. Royal Irish Acad., 3rd ser., iv, 1896-8, pp. 570-85; vi, 1900-2, pp. 334-5; Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1901, pp. 795-7. 1682 M. J. Deniker (The Races of Man, p. 313) even goes so far as to say that it is not yet certain whether the Long Barrow race immigrated from the Continent or were descended from the palaeolithic inhabitants of Britain! 1683 This definition may be accepted as true in a general sense, though it leaves out of account the Celtic inhabitants of the peninsula, whom Strabo loosely called Iberians; but see my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 255-62, and cf. Rev. des Études anc., v, 1903, pp. 383-4. 1684 The Mediterranean Race, pp. 213-21, 225, 230, 244, 249, &c. 1685 Agricola, 11. Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania Iberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt. 1686 M. d’Arbois de Jubainville formerly pointed out, in support of Tacitus’s conclusion, that, according to Festus Avienus (Ora maritima, 433), there was a mountain in the Spanish peninsula called Silurus (Les premiers habitants de l’Europe, i, 1889, p. 44). But, since the origin of the name Silures is unknown, it seems rash to found an ethnological argument on its resemblance to Silurus. In Mexico there is a river called Tamesi: would M. d’Arbois infer from the name which Caesar latinized into Tamesis that the people who named this river were akin to the prehistoric inhabitants of Britain? M. d’Arbois has since argued that the Silures could not have been Iberian (Les Celtes, p. 30); but his recantation is hardly more reasonable than his original theory. 1687 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 480. 1688 Nature, Nov. 22, 1894, p. 92. 1689 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 59, p. 5, note. 1690 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 160. 1691 The Races of Britain, p. 26. 1692 Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 270-3. 1693 L’Anthr., v, 1894, pp. 276-87. 1694 See p. 376, supra. 1695 See Bull. de la Soc. d’anthr., 4e sÉr., vii, 1896, pp. 666-71. 1696 See also Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., x, 1900, p. 214. 1697 Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 271. 1698 Ib., pp. 267-8. Professor Boyd Dawkins (Early Man in Britain, p. 334) argues that ‘the identification of the Neolithic aborigines with ... the modern Basques, is confirmed by’ the fact that aizcora, the Basque word for an axe, means ‘stone mounted in a handle’: but how does this tend to establish the identity of the British neolithic aborigines with the Basques? It only shows that the ancestors of the Basques used stone tools. Since I wrote the paragraph to which this note relates I have read M. G. HervÉ’s interesting article ‘La race basque’ (Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., x, 1900, pp. 213-37), which confirms my conclusions. He holds (p. 220) that the Spanish Basques represent ‘une race croisÉe, À la constitution de laquelle a pris part, en tant que facteur principal, la race ibÉrique, la vieille race de Baumes-Chaudes’. ‘Il est clair’, he adds (pp. 221-2), ‘que les Hispano-Basques se diffÉrenciant des Gallo-Basques par tous leurs points de ressemblance avec les IbÈres, les Gallo Basques ne peuvent À aucun titre Être rattachÉs À ces derniers ... les IbÈres, en tout cas, n’ont jouÉ qu’un rÔle mÉdiocre dans leur ethnogÉnie’. On pp. 235-7 M. HervÉ offers certain tentative suggestions as to the origin of the Basques, whose purest representatives are the French Basques, and whose physical characters raise them, he considers, ‘sans conteste au rang de quatriÈme race europÉenne’. 1699 The Mediterranean Race, pp. 206-7, 210. See also pp. 159-60, 182, 211-3 218-9, 269, 275. 1700 Ib., p. 212. 1701 Ib., p. 269. 1702 Ib., p. 286. 1703 See p. 110, supra. In France also incineration was common in the Neolithic Age (MatÉriaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme, xxii, 1888, pp. 1-2, 4, 6-7). 1704 The Mediterranean Race, p. 182. 1705 J. B. Davis and J. T. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 59, p. 3. See also Brit. Barrows, pp. 127, 713-4. 1706 See Dr. Beddoe’s article in L’Anthr., v, 1894, p. 515; Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., v, 1895, p. 171; Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 251; and Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, pp. 161-2. Still, Rolleston points out (Brit. Barrows, p. 710) that ‘the orbital index [the relation between the length and breadth of the socket of the eye], which does put ... the Caverne de l’Homme Mort into a position of similarity to skulls such as those of the Tasmanian, Australian, and Melanesian races, puts the neolithic skulls of British Barrows into a position of superiority’, &c. The average height of the people of l’Homme Mort was, according to M. Rollet, 1 m. 578, or nearly 5 ft. 1-9/10 in.; according to M. Manouvrier, 1 m. 620, or nearly 5 ft. 2-9/10 in. (MÉm. de la Soc. d’anthr. de Paris, 2e sÉr., iv, 1892, p. 388). See, however, p. 379, n. 3, supra. 1707 Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., v, 1895, pp. 163-4. The cephalic indices of 35 Baumes-Chaudes skulls varied from 64·3 to 76·1. 1708 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 160. 1709 See pp. 393-4, supra. 1710 Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, pp. 72-3. 1711 Ethnology, 2nd ed., 1896, pp. 135-6. 1712 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxix, 1899, p. 308. 1713 Man, i, 1901, No. 88, p. 110. 1714 Ib. 1715 The Mediterranean Race, p. 70. 1716 Man, i, 1901, No. 88, p. 110. Cf. Rev. d’anthr., ii, 1873, p. 113, and A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt. et gaul., 1889, p. 173, La religion des Gaulois, p. 4. 1717 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxiv, 1895, pp. 316-30; A. H. Keane, Ethnology, 1896, p. 133; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, p. 186; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 476-566, 698-712, iii, 726-55. 1718 It is remarkable, however, that in Prussia there are no dolmens east of the Vistula, although stone is as abundant there as in West Prussia, where there are many. L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 485. 1719 Rev. d’anthr., ii, 1873, map facing p. 631; A. Bertrand, La Gaule avant les Gaulois, 1891, map facing p. 128. 1720 Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., xi, 1901, pp. 36-9. 1721 Ib., pp. 36-7, 43. 1722 It would seem that there was also a dolmen in a round barrow in Lancashire. See Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 240. 1723 See p. 66, n. 5, supra. 1724 Of dolmens in the narrower sense of the word (see p. 65, supra) only two, so far as I know, exist in Scotland. See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, p. 373, and W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 424-9, 468. 1725 Dict. des sc. anthr., 1883, p. 1079; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, p. 197; B. C. A. Windle, Remains of the Prehist. Age, pp. 195-7; W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 449, 468, 610-2, 632-4, and the maps facing pp. 1, 102, 200, and 305 of vol. i. 1726 Ib., ii, 445, 460, 463, 493, 501, 557, 567-8, 585, 612-3, 634, 670; iii, 723, 962. 1727 Ib., ii, 489-90; iii, 974, n. §. 1728 Ib., ii, 450-1. 1729 Ib., pp. 495-6. 1730 Ib., p. 701. 1731 Ib., iii, 723; A. Bertrand, Arch. celt. et gaul., 1889, pp. 139, 141, 177. Cf. the remarks of M. Salomon Reinach La RÉpublique FranÇaise, 26 Sept., 1892. 1732 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 661-2; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, pp. 246-7. 1733 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 164. 1734 It has been argued that there must have been a particular dolmen-building race, because certain countries, for instance Austria, which have been continuously inhabited from palaeolithic times, contain no dolmens. But this only proves that certain peoples did not build dolmens. 1735 Dict. des sc. anthr., p. 388. 1736 Ib., pp. 387-8; E. Cartailhac, La France prÉhist., 1889, p. 199. 1737 W. C. Borlase, Dolmens of Ireland, iii, 714-5. See also Gen. Faidherbe’s Collection ... des inscr. numidiques, 1870, p. 13; MatÉriaux pour l’hist. ... de l’homme, xxi, 1887, p. 190, pl. vi; and A. Bertrand, ArchÉol. celt. et gaul., 1889, pp. 167-72. 1738 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 482, 646, n. 1; Man, ii, 1902, No. 41, p. 51. According to Sergi (The Mediterranean Race, pp. 225, 249, 254, 259), the primitive Scandinavian dolichocephali were only one of the numerous branches of his ubiquitous ‘Eurafrican species’. He insists that the modern Scandinavian ‘cranial and skeletal facial forms’ are identical with those of the Mediterranean race; and the tallness and fairness of the Scandinavians do not in the least shake his faith. ‘Northern Europe,’ he says (p. 254), ‘has given origin to the white skin, blond hair, and blue or grey eyes’ of the Scandinavians. Then why did it not produce the same phenomena among the Lapps and the ‘Iberians’ of the British Isles? See also Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., iii, 1904, p. 153. I am of course willing to admit that the ‘Iberian’ and North European races were branches of the same primitive stock. See p. 434, n. 7, infra. 1739 See Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi, 1902, p. 162. 1740 Ib., pp. 163-4. 1741 Rev. d’anthr., ii, 1873, p. 113. 1742 Dolmens of Ireland, ii, 610-2. Cf. L’Anthr., iv, 1893, p. 731. 1743 CongrÈs internat. d’anthr. et d’archÉol. prÉhist., i, 1874 (1876), p. 253; E. Cartailhac, Les Âges prÉhist. de l’Espagne, p. 328. 1744 See ib., pp. 144-90, 316, 318, 325; Crania Ethinica, pp. 493-4; and Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., v, 1895, pp. 155-81, 184, 407-13, ix, 1899, p. 278. 1745 M. Salomon Reinach (L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 485, 558) has expressed the opinion that of all European dolmens the most ancient are those of Northern Germany; but the only reason which he gives, namely, that this region is on the limit of the last moraines of the northern ice-sheet, and that the dolmens were constructed of ‘erratic’ rocks, does not seem worth discussing. 1746 Professor Zimmer (Zeitschriftder Savigny-Stiftung fÜr Rechtsgeschte, xv, 1894, pp. 217-8), while he denies that we are yet justified in saying that the language of the pre-Celtic [or, as I would say (see pp. 428-44, infra), the dolichocephalic pre-Celtic] inhabitants of the British Isles was Iberian, affirms that the linguistic evidence is sufficient to show that it was non-Aryan. Similarly Professor Rhys remarked at the meeting of the British Association in 1900 (Report, &c., p. 889) that there was ‘probably no county in the kingdom that would be too small to supply a dozen or two [of names of streams] which would baffle the cleverest Aryan etymologist ... and why? Because they belong in all probability to a non-Celtic, non-Aryan language.’ 1747 J. Rhys and Brynmor Jones, The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 617-41. 1748 May it not also have been modified, before it was introduced into Britain, by the non-Aryan language or languages which it presumably encountered on the Continent? 1749 The Welsh People, 1902, p. 618; Celtic Review, i, 1905, p. 279. 1750 The Mediterranean Race, pp. 42-4. Cf. L’Anthr., v, 1894, p. 686, and Man, ii, 1902, No. 19, p. 28. 1751 Fortnightly Rev., N. S., xvi, 1874, p. 336. 1752 Brit. Barrows, p. 741, note. 1753 After I had written these words, I was glad to learn that they had the support of Dr. Arthur Evans, who, speaking of the discoveries in the Mentone caves, says (Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, p. 301) that ‘it will no longer be allowable to say that these supposed immigrants from Asia brought with them at their first coming certain domestic animals, and had already attained a knowledge of the potter’s art, and of the polishing of stone weapons’. And, as M. Salomon Reinach has justly remarked (L’Anthr., vii, 1896, p. 687), in a criticism of the address which Dr. Evans delivered in 1896 at the meeting of the British Association, ‘La race mÉditerranÉenne s’offre d’abord À nos yeux dans une rÉgion [Mentone] d’oÙ elle a pu fort bien gagner l’Afrique avant les modifications gÉologiques.’ 1754 Early Man in Britain, pp. 296-7. 1755 Ib., p. 302. 1756 L’Anthr., iv, 1893, pp. 551-4; xvi, 1905, p. 187; La Grande EncyclopÉdie, xiv, 856; Association franÇ. pour l’avancement des sc., 33e sessn., 1904 (1905), pp. 1034-49. 1757 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 257-73. 1758 See p. 400, supra. 1759 The late Mr. Elton (Origins of Eng. Hist., 1890, pp. 149-50) affirmed that certain customs, of which the couvade was one, had ‘left distinct traces in the usages which still prevail in the region of the Pyrenees. But,’ he continued, ‘at present there seems to be no point of connection between them and anything which was ever observed in this country’; and he insisted that this ‘should be taken into account by those who assert the identity of the Iberians with the Britons of the Silurian type’. I have not asserted that identity in the narrower sense in which Mr. Elton used the word ‘Iberian’: nevertheless his objection has no force. The answer to it is, first, that the couvade did survive in historical times, or leave traces of its former existence, in Ireland, Scotland, and Yorkshire (pp. 94-5, supra); secondly, that the custom prevails, or has prevailed, among peoples of every continent except Australia, who could never have influenced one another (ib.); and lastly, that it cannot be expected that widely scattered peoples who originally sprang from one stock should continue to preserve all the customs of their ancestors. The other ‘customs’ of which Mr. Elton spoke are not worth mentioning. He simply affirmed that certain tribes who inhabited the Iberian peninsula in ancient times had different customs. Naturally. The fact in no way tends to prove that they did not belong to the same stock. 1760 Cf. Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., x, 1900, p. 230. 1761 Les premiers habitants de l’Europe, ii, 1894, p. 213. 1762 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 276-7. See also Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., i, 1903, pp. 65-6; Rev. celt., xxx, 1904, p. 372; and p. 296, n. 4, supra. 1763 Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 280-1, 318. 1764 See pp. 426 and 434, infra; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, i, p. xv; Archaeol. Journal, lviii, 1901, p. 337; and Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxvi, 1897, pp. 122-3, xxxiii, 1903, pp. 66-73. 1765 Anthr. Rev., iv, 1866, p. 14; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 630, 711; J. Beddoe, The Races of Britain, ch. v; A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 64; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxvi, 1897, pp. 88, 113; W. Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe, pp. 321-2, 326. Dr. Beddoe (op. cit., p. 270) emphasizes ‘the undoubted fact that the Gaelic and Iberian races of the west ... are tending to swamp the blond Teuton of England by a reflux migration’. Cf. his paper in Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxv, 1905, p. 235, and Addenda, p. 740. 1766 See, for example, Prof. Boyd Dawkins’s article in Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., viii, 1891, p. 72; and cf. p. 129, n. 2, supra. 1767 See pp. 107-8, supra. 1768 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xiii, 1884, pp. 83-4. See also Anthr. Rev., iv, 1866, p. 99. 1769 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxii, 1893, pp. 11, 15-6, 18. 1770 Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 2, pp. 1-2. 1771 Ib., pl. 3 and 4, p. 1. 1772 Brit. Barrows, pp. 131, 450, 480, note; Journ. Roy. United Service Inst., xiii, 1870, pp. 522-3; Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 148. 1773 The Mediterranean Race, p. 263. 1774 See p. 110, supra. 1775 ‘The most tenable hypothesis may be said to be that the Picts were non-Aryans, whom the first Celtic migrations found already settled here ... the Picts were the descendants of the Aborigines’ (The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 13-4). 1776 Incerti Pan. Constantio Caesari, c. 11 (XII Panegyrici Latini recensuit Aemilius Baehrens, 1874). 1777 See pp. 410, 438, n. 3, infra. 1778 See J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 215-6. Similarly the Latins retained qu, as in equus, while the Greeks, as in ?pp??, changed it into p. 1779 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 299, note; E. W. B. Nicholson, Keltic Researches, 1904, pp. 6-7. 1780 Ib., pp. 6, 128, 149, 167. 1781 Rev. celt., xi, 1890, p. 377; xx, 1899, pp. 108-9. In the latest volume of his review (xxvii, 1906, p. 107) M. d’Arbois reiterates his dissent, asking whether Britain, Thames, and London are words of Anglo Saxon origin. 1782 Ib., xxv, 1904, pp. 351-3; xxvii, 1906, pp. 107-8. 1783 Celtae and Galli, 1905. See especially pp. 1-2, 46, 55-64. Professor Rhys (ib., pp. 48-50) somewhat doubtfully regards two other inscriptions, which have been found near Bourges and near Evreux, as akin to Goidelic. 1784 Keltic Researches, pp. 116-53. 1785 Rev. celt., xxv, 1904, pp. 351-3; xxvii, 1906, p. 107. 1786 Corpus inscr. Lat., xiii, 2494. 1787 Celtae and Galli, p. 62. 1788 See pp. 451-2, infra. 1789 Les premiers habitants de l’Europe, ii, 1894, pp. 255-82; Les Celtes, pp. 17-9. 1790 Keltic Researches, p. 127. 1791 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 895. 1792 Rev. celt., xxvii, 1906, pp. 107-8. 1793 The Welsh People, 1902, p. 13. Cf. Zimmer in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fÜr Rechtsgeschichte, xv, 1894, pp. 214, 215, n. 1. 1794 Ib., pp. 215-6; J. Rhys, Celtic Folk-Lore, Welsh and Manx, p. 281; The Welsh People, 1902, p. 76; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Principaux auteurs de l’ant. À consulter sur l’hist. des Celtes, pp. 69-70. 1795 The forms Cruithni and Cruithnig were also used. See Dr. Whitley Stokes’s article in A. Bezzenberger’s BeitrÄge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-5, and J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 241-2. 1796 The Welsh People, 1902, p. 76. Cf. Scottish Review, xviii, 1891, pp. 133-8. 1797 See pp. 459-61, infra. 1798 Les premiers habitants de l’Europe, i, 1889, p. 45, n. 2; ii. 1894, pp. 282-3; Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, pp. 399-400; Les Celtes, p. 25. 1799 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 4. 1800 Scottish Review, xviii, 1891, pp. 134-5. 1801 See pp. 418-9, infra. M. d’Arbois’s latest pronouncement (Les Druides, pp. 35-6, n. 5) is that ‘Cruithne est le mÊme mot que ???ta??a, le nom que prit la Grande-Bretagne avant de s’appeler’ ??etta??a,, &c. 1802 Prof. Rhys’s suggestion (The Welsh People, 1902, p. 114) that ‘the word Dumnonii [which (see p. 447, infra) was the name of a Brythonic tribe] was a collective name of the Goidels of Britain when the Brythons arrived’ may be taken for what it is worth. 1803 See p. 234, supra. 1804 p. 239. 1805 p. 243. 1806 Scottish Review, xviii, 1891, p. 142. 1807 Ib., p. 124. 1808 pp. 78-9. 1809 See pp. 499-507, infra. 1810 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 895. 1811 The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 78-9. 1812 pp. 311-3. 1813 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fÜr Rechtsgeschichte, xv, 1894, pp. 213-4. 1814 E. Windisch in Allgemeine EncyklopÄdie der Wissenschaften, &c., 35. Theil, 1884, p. 136; A. Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, ii, 993; E. W. B. Nicholson, Keltic Researches, p. 5. 1815 Cormac’s Glossary, ed. Whitley Stokes, 1868, p. 40. 1816 See the remarks of M. d’A. de Jubainville (Les Celtes, p. 22), who regards the p in Picti as a trace of the Belgic invasion, and Prof. Rhys’s Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 311-2. 1817 Keltic Researches, pp. 32, 147-50. 1818 B. G., v, 14, §§ 4-5. 1819 See p. 267, supra. 1820 B. G., v, 14, § 1.—Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt ... neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine. 1821 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fÜr Rechtsgeschichte, xv, 1894, pp. 224-5. 1822 J. Rhys, The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 36-7. Cf. Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 55-6. 1823 Dr. F. B. Jevons (Journal of Philology, xvi, 1888, p. 104), remarking that ‘the Joint Undivided Family persisted in Sparta long after it had disappeared in the rest of Greece’, and that ‘Polybius, misunderstanding the practice, was led to imagine, where brothers lived on the joint estate, and one alone had a wife, that the wife was common to all the brothers’, says (ib., n. 1) that ‘precisely the same mistake, due to the same cause ... is made by Caesar when he ascribes polyandry to the ancient Britons’. M. d’Arbois Jubainville, however (Rev. celt., xxv, 1904, pp. 188-9), referring to Ancient Laws of Ireland (Senchus Mor), ed. W. N. Hancock, i, 122, l. 19, 126, 1. 4, 142, 1. 30, concludes that ‘en Irlande, À une Époque reculÉe, la communautÉ des femmes entre frÈres a existÉ d’une faÇon gÉnÉrale’. The editor (p. 143) does not share this view. 1824 pp. 369-80. 1825 Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fÜr Rechtsgeschichte, xv, 1894, p. 234. 1826 The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 61-2. 1827 I quote from the translation of Messrs. Church and Brodribb. 1828 I find that M. J. Loth (Annales de Bretagne, vi, 1890-1, p. 113) has made a suggestion which is substantially the same. 1829 The Welsh People, 1902, p. 14. 1830 Ib., pp. 14-5. 1831 J. Rhys, The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 45-7. Cf. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxii, 1898, pp. 324-98, and especially 324-30; also Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., viii, 1891, pp. 29-32. 1832 J. Rhys, The Welsh People, pp. 640-1. Professor Jones refers to A. Hanoteau, Essai de grammaire de la langue tamachek, 1860, p. xv. 1833 The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 61-2. 1834 See p. 422, infra. 1835 Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 59. Cf. J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 229-46. 1836 M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Rev. celt., xxii, 1901, p. 122) gives various instances from history to show that the ‘Pictish succession’ did not imply matriarchy. ‘Julius Caesar,’ he says, ‘chose as his heir Octavius, his sister’s grandson: was this matriarchy? Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus: was this matriarchy? When a king had to be chosen among the Picts, the son of the late king’s sister may sometimes have been preferred to his own son; but the sister’s son must often have been the elder and more experienced of the two.’ And so on (see also vol. xxiii, 1902, p. 359, vol. xxv, 1904, p. 206, and Rev. arch., 4e sÉr., v, 1905, p. 447). But the point is that during the time for which the history of the Picts is known to us a Pictish king was never once succeeded by his own son. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s arguments are not required for the purpose of demonstrating that the ‘Pictish succession’ does not prove the Picts to have been the representatives of the neolithic aborigines. 1837 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 895. 1838 Ib., p. 896. 1839 Mr. Nicholson (Keltic Researches, pp. 144, 174) offers one explanation of Vipoig, and Dr. Macbain (W. F. Skene, The Highlanders of Scotland, 1902, pp. 394-5) another. 1840 Celtic Britain, 1884, p. 222. See also p. 153. 1841 p. 224. 1842 Incerti Pan. Constantino Augusto, c. 7 (published in XII Panegyrici Latini recensuit Aemilius Baehrens).—Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas, &c. For the manuscript reading Baehrens, following Eyssenhardt, needlessly substitutes (Caledonum,) Pictorum aliorumque. 1843 The view, advocated by W. C. Borlase (Dolmens of Ireland, iii, 1042-3) and others, that the Caledonians were Germans is hardly worth discussing. There is absolutely no evidence for it, except the remark of Tacitus (Agricola, 11) that ‘the red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia indicate a German origin’; and everybody knows that the physical characters of the Germans and the Celts, as described by the ancient writers, were virtually identical (see my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 309-10, and Rev. mensuelle de l’École d’anthr., vii, 1897, pp. 74, 89). It is possible that some of the Caledonians may have been descended from immigrants who came from Germany; but this, I need hardly say, would be quite consistent with the view that they were a Celtic-speaking people. 1844 De bello Gothico, 416-8.— Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras. 1845 iii, 14, § 7.—t? d? s?ata st????ta? ??afa?? p?????a?? ?a? ???? pa?t?dap?? e???s??? ??e? ??d’ ?f??????ta? ??a ? s??p?s? t?? s?at?? t?? ??af??. 1846 M. d’A. de Jubainville (Rev. celt., xiii, 1892, p. 401, n. 1) rejects this derivation. 1847 Those who are familiar with Professor Rhys’s writings will not be surprised to find that his notion of the meaning of these words is unstable. In 1884 he wrote (Celtic Britain, p. 240), ‘These words Cruithni and Prydyn are derived from cruth and pryd respectively, which mean form’; and he added that ‘Duald MacFirbis, quoted by Todd in a note on the Irish version of Nennius, p. vi,’ ‘has rightly explained the former [Cruithni] as meaning a people who painted the forms (crotha) of beasts, birds, and fishes on their faces, and ... on the whole of the body. This,’ he observed, ‘agrees well enough with Claudian’s vivid description of Stilicho’s soldiery, scanning the figures punctured with iron on the body of the fallen Pict,’ &c. In 1891 he threw both MacFirbis and Claudian overboard: ‘We are not warranted,’ he said (Scottish Review, xviii, 1891, p. 124), ‘in supposing that he [Claudian] drew his inspiration from any deeper source than the popular etymology of the name Pictus, interpreted as a Latin word.’ He went on to say (p. 131) that the silence of Gildas, who hated the Picts, ‘is proof positive that neither Picts nor Scots were in the habit of discolouring their skins to any greater extent than his own people’; and he insisted that there was a grave objection to the explanation given by MacFirbis, ‘namely, that it accounts for too few of the elements of the word Cruithne.’ In 1900 (Report of ... the Brit. Association, p. 895) he brushed aside the ‘proof positive’, and proclaimed his conviction that, after all, the Picts really had tattooed themselves. In 1902 (The Welsh People, pp. 79-80, n. 2) he observed that if Cruithni and Prydyn had been really derived from cruth and pryd, ‘one could scarcely avoid treating Cruithni and Prydyn as translations ... of the word Pict regarded as the Latin pictus, ‘painted’’; and that ‘the supposition here suggested as to Pretani being merely a sort of translation of ... pictus would compel us to regard the first use of Pretani as dating no earlier than Caesar’s time’, which, as he truly remarks, chronology will hardly allow us to do. In the 3rd edition of Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 242, he reverts to his view of 1884. Candour is a virtue; but how are we to follow a guide who is for ever changing his mind? 1848 See p. 413, supra. 1849 The Language of the Continental Picts, 1900, pp. 22, 26. 1850 E. Muret and M. A. Chabouillet, Cat. des monn. gaul. de la Bibl. Nat., 4439. 1851 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, pp. 889-90. Cf. Rhys’s Celtic Folk-lore, Welsh and Manx, pp. 681-2. 1852 A. H. Keane, Man, Past and Present, 1899, pp. 138, 198-9; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxxiv, 1904, p. 255; xxxv, 1905, pp. 283-94; L’Anthr., xvi, 1905, p. 129; Man, v, 1905, No. 53, pp. 86-7; vi, 1906, No. 4, pp. 6-9. Needless to say, tattooing is practised by many other peoples besides those mentioned in the text. 1853 Celtic Britain, 1904, pp. 94-5, 162, 184, &c. On the last-named page, for instance, among the ‘nations of Pictland’ are included ‘the Verturian Brythons’. 1854 Ib., p. 275. 1855 Ib., pp. 241, 245. 1856 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxvi, 1892, pp. 263-351. 1857 Ib., xxxii, 1898, p. 324. 1858 Ib. See also The Welsh People, 1902, p. 16. 1859 W. F. Skene, The Highlanders of Scotland, 1902, p. 398. 1860 Keltic Researches, pp. 71-3. 1861 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxii, 1898, p. 374. 1862 Ib., p. 361. 1863 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 272. 1864 Les Celtes, p. 30. 1865 Rev. celt., vii, 1886, p. 181. 1866 Keltic Researches, p. 24. 1867 Ib., p. 21. 1868 A. Bezzenberger, BeitrÄge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115, and especially 113-4. 1869 W. F. Skene, The Highlanders of Scotland, 1902, pp. 381-401. 1870 Hist. eccl., i, 12.—Incipit autem duorum ferme milium spatio a monasterio Aebbercurnig ad occidentem, in loco qui sermone Pictorum Peanfahel, lingua autem Anglorum Penneltun appellatur, &c. 1871 E. W. B. Nicholson, Keltic Researches, pp. 4, 21. Cf. A. Bezzenberger, BeitrÄge, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 98, 108. 1872 Celtic Britain, 1884, p. 153. 1873 Ib., 1904, pp. 153-4. Referring to p. 24 of Mr. Nicholson’s book, Professor Rhys says (Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 153) that Peanfahel ‘points back to a Latin term penna(e) or pinna(e) valli, “wing of the vallum,” that is, the pinnacle or turret at the end of the wall’. Now ‘pinnacle or’ appears to have been inserted in order to save the face of pinna. Does the professor mean ‘a pinnacle’, or does he mean a ‘turret’? And if he means ‘a turret’, in what sense does he use the word? A pinnacle would have been a feature far too insignificant to give rise to a place-name; and a turret would have been equally insignificant unless it was a defensive tower, in which case it would have been called not pinna but turris. Professor Haverfield (Archaeologia, lv, 1897, p. 196) speaks of ‘the corner turret’ of the fort of Aesica on the Roman wall about midway between Newcastle and Carlisle. Read his description of it, and you will appreciate the absurdity of calling it a pinna, and the still greater absurdity of the supposition that even a ‘corner turret’ could beget a geographical name. There is no authority for the use of the word pinna in connexion with a defensive wall, except in the sense of ‘pinnacle’, in which sense it is used twice by Caesar (B. G., v, 40, § 6; vii, 72, § 4). The pinnae which he describes were merely small pinnacles rising from a breastwork on an earthen rampart, breastwork and pinnacles forming a battlement, and both being made of wattlework (pinnae loricaeque ex cratibus contexuntur [B. G., v, 40, § 6]. See also C. E. C. Schneider’s note in his edition of Caesar, vol. ii, p. 565). The notion that the geographical name Peanfahel ‘points back’ to a pinna is too ridiculous to be discussed. Why not be content with Dr. Stokes’s etymology in Bezzenberger’s BeitrÄge, xviii, 1902, pp. 98, 108? 1874 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 154. Cf. Rev. celt., vi, 1883-5, p. 398. 1875 Keltic Researches, pp. 33-80. 1876 A. Bezzenberger’s BeitrÄge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, xviii, 1892, pp. 84-115. 1877 W. F. Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, 1902, pp. 387-401. 1878 Bezzenberger’s BeitrÄge, &c., xviii, 1892, pp. 113-4. M. J. Loth (Annales de Bretagne, vi, 1890-1, p. 115) is substantially in agreement with Dr. Stokes. 1879 I find that my criticism has been anticipated by M. J. Loth (ib., p. 114). 1880 The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 15-6. 1881 Rev. celt., xx, 1899, p. 390. 1882 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxii, 1898, p. 398. 1883 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 275. 1884 Ib., p. 165. 1885 I am glad to find that I have been anticipated by M. d’A. de Jubainville (Rev. celt., vii, 1886, p. 381). Replying to Professor Rhys’s argument, which appeared also in the earlier edition of Celtic Britain, he remarked that ‘l’usage des vaincus est de copier les noms propres des vainqueurs’. 1886 See pp. 429-40, infra. 1887 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 160. 1888 See, for instance, The Welsh People, 1902, p. 19. 1889 See pp. 408-9, supra. 1890 W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, p. 713. 1891 Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; W. Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe, p. 309. 1892 D. Wilson, Prehist. Annals of Scotland, i, 1863, pp. 268-75; Anthr. Rev., iii, 1865, p. 76; Crania Britannica, ii, Tables i and ii; Mem. Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, p. 52; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xix, 1885, pp. 39-41; xxxvi, 1902, pp. 157-9; xxxviii, 1904, p. 81; Journ. Anthr. Inst., xxvi, 1897, pp. 96-7; xxxii, 1902, pp. 402-3; Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258; Archaeol. Journal, lviii, 1901, pp. 330-8; Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 31. 1893 Thirty years ago, however, Mr. J. R. Mortimer (Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, pp. 328-34) said, ‘My computation of the stature of these two types of men—the brachycephalic and the dolichocephalic—is the very reverse of’ Thurnam’s; and he stated that of ten skeletons found in round barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds between Driffield and Aldeborough, five, of which the cephalic indices ranged from 70 to 75, averaged 5 ft. 9? in. in height, while five others, the indices of which ranged from 79 to 94, averaged only 5 ft. 5 in. The barrows, however, although no bronze was found in them, contained not only ‘drinking-cups’ but also ‘food-vessels’ (Anthropologia, i, 1873-5, pp. x-xi); and it may be concluded that they belonged to the Bronze Age. Rolleston (Brit. Barrows, p. 654, n. 2) was therefore justified in presuming that the tall dolichocephali who were buried in them belonged to ‘a mixed race’; and, he said, ‘the effect of crossing ... is very usually to increase the size of the mixed races.’ Still, the low stature of Mr. Mortimer’s brachycephali is remarkable; and we shall see that they belonged to a distinct race, of which other examples have since been exhumed. 1894 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 437-8. 1895 Journ. Anthr. Inst., xvii, 1888, p. 209. Dr. Beddoe’s figures are not absolutely correct. The measurements of the thigh bones of the twenty-seven skeletons to which he refers are given in Tables I and II of Crania Britannica. They do not include the Arras skeleton, mentioned in Table I, which belonged to the Early Iron Age. The average height of the seventeen brachycephali, calculated by Dr. Beddoe’s method, would have been just over 5 ft. 9? in. (1 m. 758); of the twenty-seven mixed skeletons, 5 ft. 9? in. (within a very minute fraction), or approximately 1 m. 768. Calculated by M. Rollet’s method (see p. 379, n. 2, supra), the figures would have been just under 5 ft. 8½ in. and just over 5 ft. 9? in. respectively. 1896 A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 6-7, 50-62; iii, 225. 1897 Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., v, 1905, pp. 222, 235-6. The average length of the thigh-bones was 446 millimetres, or rather more than 17·55 inches. 1898 Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Anthr. Soc., 1902-4, pp. 11-20, 31. 1899 Dr. Beddoe (L’Anthr., v, 1894, p. 522) assigns all the skeletons in question to the Bronze Age; but I suspect that some are older. 1900 Ib. Thurnam’s figures are much about the same. He found that out of 70 skulls from round barrows 44 had indices ranging from 80 to 89 (Memoirs Anthr. Soc., iii, 1870, pp. 48-50; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, pp. 543-4). There is reason to believe that some of the round skulls found in round barrows had been artificially flattened on the occiput in infancy; but Thurnam (Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 45, p. 6) shows that their brachycephaly was only due in a minor degree to this cause. I presume that Dr. Beddoe, in his article in L’Anthr. (v, 1894, p. 522), did not take account of 15 skulls which were found in 1885-7, in association with bronze and remains of the urus, during the excavation of the Ribble Docks at Preston. Their cephalic indices range between 70·41 and 81·76. See Vict. Hist. of ... Lancs, i, 250. 1901 Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, xxxviii, 1904, p. 127; xxxix, 1905, pp. 438-9; Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, p. 426. Apparently Dr. Beddoe’s list did not include Scottish skulls. 1902 Brit. Barrows, pp. 639-40, 642. 1903 Brit. Barrows, pp. 644-5. See also Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 45, p. 4. 1904 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 154. In Scotland, however, of 12 skulls from short cists, the mean cephalic index of which was 81·4, only one, says Sir W. Turner (Nature, Jan. 13, 1898, p. 258), was prognathous. 1905 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, pp. 151-2. 1906 Ib., p. 154. 1907 Brit. Barrows, p. 681. Cf. Crania Britannica, pl. 11; Reliquary, N. S., vii, 1901, pp. 240-2; Wilts. Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Mag., xxxiii, 1904, pp. 18-9; and Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, xxxviii, 1904, pp. 120-4, xxxix, 1905, pp. 418-21, 423-4, 429-30. 1908 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1903 (1904), pp. 801-2. Cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst., vi, 1877, p. 333, and Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, xxxix, 1905, pp. 417-21. 1909 Ib., p. 442. 1910 Six of the skeletons were associated with drinking-cups (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, p. 431); and no bronze was found with any of them, only flint and bone implements (Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Anthr. Soc., 1902-4, p. 33). 1911 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, p. 431. 1912 Journ. Anat. and Physiol., xxxviii, 1904, pp. 127-9. 1913 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 426, 437. 1914 Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., v, 1905, p. 219. 1915 Ib.; Proc. Aberdeen Univ. Anatom. and Physiol. Soc., 1902-4, p. 26. 1916 Ib., p. 34. A skeleton has been found with a drinking-cup in a short cist in Caithness, which belonged to the same type (Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxix, 1905, pp. 421-4). 1917 This view, stated independently, would leave it an open question whether they were Celts or not. 1918 See for instance A. Pitt-Rivers (Archaeol. Journal, liv, 1897, p. 390); A. H. Keane, Man, Past and Present, p. 527; Romilly Allen (Archaeol. Cambr., 5th ser., xvii, 1900, p. 225); W. Boyd Dawkins (Vict. Hist. of ... Hampshire, i, 261); B. C. A. Windle (Vict. Hist. of ... Worcester, i, 179); G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race, p. 243; and H. d’A. de Jubainville, Les Druides, pp. 15-6. It is useless to multiply references. 1919 Mem. Anthr. Soc., i, 1865, p. 135. 1920 Ib., pp. 484-5. 1921 Ib., pp. 482-3. 1922 Ib., p. 128. 1923 Ib., iii, 1870, p. 76. 1924 Ib., p. 79; Archaeologia, xliii, 1871, p. 304. Huxley (S. Laing, Prehist. Remains of Caithness, pp. 117-9) agreed with Thurnam. 1925 Scottish Review, xv, 251. 1926 Fortnightly Rev., xvi, 1874, p. 337. 1927 Origin of the Aryans, pp. 86, 88. 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., 5e 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., ve 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., 2e 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., 2e 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 Ga??ta? 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 Ga??ta?, 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 Ga??ta? not in the restricted but in the general sense, including both Ga??ta? and ?e?t??.... 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 a is earlier than ... and ?, we are obliged to conclude that the culture of the Stone Age prevailed in the Western Islands for the whole period corresponding to type a 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.—?? d? ??d?e? e????ste??? t?? ?e?t?? e?s? ?a? ?ss?? ?a???t???e?, &c. 2010 Ib.,—s?e??? d? t?? e??????? ??t?pa?da? ??? e?d?e? ?e?? ?? ??? t?? ?????t?t?? a?t??? ?pe?????ta? ?a? ??p?d??, &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 ??etta????? ??s?? in i, 4, § 7; but everywhere else he prints the word with ?, 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 Bulgaria. 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.—?pe???? ??? t?? t?? ??s?ta??? ???a? ?st? ?ta??a p???? t?? ?att?t????, ?at? t?? p???e???a? t?? ????a? ?? t? ??ea?? ??s?da? t?? ?p? t?? s?e???t?? ?att?te??da? ???as??a?. 2257 Geogr., ii, 5, § 15.—t??t??? d? [i.e. the extremity of the Pyrenees] t? ?sp???a t?? ??etta????? ??t??e??ta?, p??? ???t??, ????? d? ?a? ta?? ??t????? ??t??e??ta? p??? ???t?? a? ?att?te??de? ?a???e?a? ??s?? pe????a?, ?at? t? ??eta?????? p?? ???a ?d????a?. 2258 Ib., ii, 5, § 30.—p???e??ta? d? ??s?? t?? ????p??, ?? ?fae?, ??? ?? St???? G?de??? te ?a? ?att?te??de?, ?a? ??etta???a?, &c. 2259 Ib., iii, 2, § 9.—t?? d? ?att?te??? ??? ?p?p???? e???s?es?a? f?s?? [??se?d?????] ... ???’ ???ttes?a?? ?e???s?a? d’ ?? te t??? ?p?? t??? ??s?ta???? a?????? ?a? ?? ta?? ?att?te??s? ??s???, ?a? ?? t?? ??etta????? d? e?? t?? ?assa??a? ????es?a?. ?? d? t??? ??t?????, ?? t?? ??s?ta??a? ?stat?? p??? ???t?? ?a? d?s?? e?s??, ??a??e?? f?s?? t?? ??? ???????, ?att?t???, ???s?? ?e???. 2260 Ib., iii, 5, § 11.—?? d? ?att?te??de? d??a ?? e?s?, ?e??ta? d’ ????? ???????, p??? ???t?? ?p? t?? t?? ??t???? ?????? pe????a?? ?a d’ a?t?? ????? ?st?, t?? d’ ???a? ?????s?? ?????p?? e?????a????, p?d??e?? ??ded???te? t??? ??t??a?, ???s???? pe?? t? st???a, et? ??d?? pe??pat???te?, ????? ta?? t?a???a?? ????a??? ??s? d’ ?p? ?s???t?? ??ad???? t? p????. ?ta??a d? ????te? ?att?t???? ?a? ???d?? ???a?? ??t? t??t?? ?a? t?? de??t?? d?a???tt??ta? ?a? ??a? ?a? ?a???ata p??? t??? ?p?????. p??te??? ?? ??? F?????e? ???? t?? ?p???a? ?ste???? ta?t?? ?? t?? Gade????, ???pt??te? ?pas? t?? p????? t?? d? ??a??? ?pa?????????t?? ?a?????? t???, ?p?? ?a? a?t?? ????e? t? ?p???a, f???? ? ?a??????? ???? e?? t??a??? ???a?e t?? ?a??, ?pa?a??? d’ e?? t?? a?t?? ??e???? ?a? t??? ?p??????, a?t?? ?s??? d?? ?a?a????.... ?? ??a??? d? ??? pe???e??? p??????? ???a??? t?? p????? ?pe?d? d? ?a? ??p???? ???ss??, d?a?? ?p’ a?t???, ???? t? ?ta??a ?? ????? ????? ???tt???a ... ?? pe????s?a? ?d? t?? ???atta? ?????es?a? ta?t?? t??? ??????s?? ?p?de??e, ?a?pe? ??sa? p?e?? t?? d?e?????s?? e?? t?? ??etta?????. 2261 Ib., iii, 3, § 5.—?stat?? d’ ?????s?? ??ta??? pe?? t?? ???a?, ? ?a?e?ta? ??????, ? ?a? t?? ?spe???? p?e???? ?a? t?? ??e??? p??a? ?st?. 2262 Ib., iii, 1, § 3.—t??t?? ?st? t? ?sp????? p?e???? ... ???? t?? p??? ??t????? ???a?, ?? ?a???s? ??????. 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.—?? de t? ??t??? O?ea?? ?? ?att?te??de? de?a t?? a?????, ?? t? eta?? epe?e? ???a? d' e' ?? (4° 45° 30') ?a? ?? t?? ?e?? ??s?? d?? t?? arithmon d' ?? ?' ? (4° 40' 43° 30). 2272 Orbis Descriptio, 561-4.—a?t?? ?p’ ????? " ????, ?? ???p??s? ????? ?e? ????pe???, " ??s??? ?spe??da?, t??? ?ass?t????? ?e?????, " ?f?e??? ?a???s?? ??a??? pa?de? ?????. 2273 Rheinisches Museum, xxxviii, 1883, p. 166. 2274 Ib., pp. 166-7. 2275 Ib., p. 170. 2276 Geogr., iii, 3, § 5.—????s? d? ?? ??ta??? p??e?? s????? ?? ???p? s?????????a?, ?? ?? p????te? ?a? ???e??? t??? t?p??? ??t???? ????a p??sa???e???s??. 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.—??t???? ???? e? ??? e? (5° 20', 45°) ?????? ????t????? e? d?? e? ??? (5° 15', 45° 10'); § 4—?? t? ?e???? ????? F?a????? ??????t??? ?? ???? d?? e? (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.—?e?a?e???e? ?pa?te? 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 ?? 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 d?a??, 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 Sa???, ??e? ??????? ?st? ?e?????. 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 t? p??sa??t??? ??? t?? ????a? e?pa??d?te?a e??a? t??? p??? t?? ?e?t???? ?at? t?? ??ea??? p????s?, mentally supplying after e?pa??d?te?a the words t?? ??t???, 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 ?s?? ??? d? t??e? ?p???t?s??s?, p?? ... ??d?? ?p? p?e??? e????ae? ... pe?? t?? ??etta????? ??s??, ?a? t?? t?? ?att?t???? ?atas?e???, ?t? d? t?? ?????e??? ?a? ???se??? t?? ?at? t?? ????a?, &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.—??????s?? e?? t??a ??s?? p???e????? t?? ??etta?????, ???a?????? d? ??t??? ?at? ??? t?? ?p?te?? ??a???a???? t?? eta?? t?p??, ta?? ???a?? e?? ta?t?? ??????s? da???? t?? ?att?te???. ??te??e? d’ ?? ?p???? pa?? t?? ???????? ?????ta? ?a? d?a??????s?? e?? t?? Ga?at?a?? t? d? te?e?ta??? pe?? d?? t?? Ga?at?a? p??e????te? ???a? ?? t??????ta ?at????s?? ?p? t?? ?pp?? t? f??t?a p??? t?? ?????? t?? ??da??? p?ta??. 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 p??? t?? ?????? t?? ??da??? p?ta?? can only mean ‘to the mouth of the RhÔne’. ????? 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.—????? d? ?a? ?? t?? ??etta????? ??s?? d?a????eta? p??? t?? ?at’ ??t???? ?e????? Ga?at?a?, ?a? d?? t?? es??e??? ?e?t???? ?f’ ?pp?? ?p? t?? ?p???? ??eta? pa?? te t??? ?assa???ta? ?a? e?? t?? ???a?????? p???? ?a???a. 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.—p??te??? d? ??????? ?p???e? ?p????? ?p? t??t? t? p?ta?, pe?? ?? e????e ???????, ??s?e?? t?? ?p? ?????? ??????????t??, ?t? ?assa???t?? ?? t?? s?????t?? S??p???? ??de?? e??e ???e?? ??d?? ???? ????? ???t??e?? ?p? t?? S??p????? pe?? t?? ??etta?????, ??d? t?? ?? ??????? ??d? t?? ?? ?????????, a?pe? ?sa? ???sta? p??e?? t?? ta?t?. 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.—????? d? ?a? F?????e? pe?? p?sa? ?? t?? S??e??a? ???a? te ?p? t? ?a??ss? ?p??a??te? ?a? t? ?p??e?e?a ??s?d?a ?p???a? ??e?e? t?? p??? t??? S??e????. 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 (a?t? d? pet??d?? ??sa d?af??? ??e? ?e?de??, ?? a?? t?? p???? ?ate??a??e??? ?a? t??a?te? ?a?a????s?? [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 F????e??? te d?afe???t?? e?s? ?a? d?? t?? t?? ????? ?p???? ?p????a? ???e?????? t?? ??????. 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.—??????te? ??? t?? p???? ?? ????????? ?p? t?? ?s??? ?e? d? p?te ?p????? e????, t?? ??????? t? p??a? ?at? ??? t? p?e?? ? ?at? ???assa?, t?? te ??t?? ?e??p????s?? ?a? t?? ???, d?? t?? ??e???? pa?’ ???????? ?p??s???t??, &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, 3e 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., 2e 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:—
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. 2504 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, pp. 235-6. 2505 Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent, 1693, p. 24. 2506 Itin., 1744, vii, 113. 2507 Villare Cantianum, 1669, map facing p. 1. 2508 See the fantastic map inserted between pages 330 and 331 of Guest’s Origines Celticae, vol. ii, in which ‘Lomea’ is placed N.W. of the Goodwins. 2509 Report of ... the Brit. Archaeol. Association, ... Sept., 1844, p. 371. 2510 De rebus Albionicis, 1590, pp. 24, 27-8. 2511 According to Chambers’s Ency., v, 1901, p. 296, Lomea has been identified with ‘Infera insula of the Romans’. The writer does not inform us by whom infera insula was mentioned. 2512 Part i, 1900, p. 337. 2513 Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts of Kent, pp. 20-1. 2514 Hist. Maps of England, p. 2. 2515 Richard Lilburne (Topographie ... of ... Kent, 1659, pp. 262-3), alluding to the well-known legend as to the origin of the Goodwin Sands, says, ‘the most probable relation of the rise of the same is thus. Goodwin ... was ... owner of a great quantity of flat Lands in the County (neer the Isle of Thanet) defended from the sea by a great wall, which lands afterwards (in the year 1099) was parcell of the possessions of the Abbot of St. Augustine (but reteyned the name of Goodwin ...), and that Abbot, being then also owner of the Rectory of Tenterden, and having begun the building of this steeple ... the thoughts, and actions, of him, and his agents were so set upon the finishing of that work, that they neglected the care of watching, and preserving the aforesaid wall, and (3. of November in that year) the sea broke over, and ... drowned the aforesaid lands (overwhelming the same) with a light sand ... and the place thereby obteyned the name of Goodwin Sands ... and thus (accidentially) this Tenterden steeple is said to be the cause of Goodwin Sands.’ 2516 Hist. of Deal, 1864, p. 106. 2517 See p. 524, supra. 2518 Coast Erosion, 1899, p. 12. 2519 Archaeol. Journal, xlii, 1885, pp. 284-5. According to Mr. Clement Reid (Archaeologia, part ii, 1906, p. 285) ‘the relative level of sea and land in the south of England appears to have remained unchanged’ since ‘late Neolithic times’. See, however, Addenda, p. 740. 2520 There is not much force in Professor Boyd Dawkins’s argument (Early Man in Britain, p. 483), that an island on the site of the Goodwin Sands would not have escaped the notice of Ptolemy. Ptolemy does not mention Sheppey (or else Thanet) and other islands. 2521 See pp. 657-9, infra, and cf. R. Blanchard, La Flamande, pp. 128, 133. 2522 The Cinque Ports, p. 8. 2523 Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc., 1881, p. 57. 2524 Nouveau Dict. de GÉogr. univ., ii, 1884, p. 542. 2525 According to M. LÉon Lejeal, the author of an interesting article on ‘Le littoral’ in Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise (i, 365), ‘certains hydrographes affirment qu’au Grisnez, la falaise s’entame de 0,25 centimÈtres par an.’ I presume that this was the authority upon which M. de St.-Martin relied. 2526 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, p. 60. 2527 Naut. Mag., 1850, p. 216. 2528 In Capt. McDakin’s Coast Erosion,—Dover Cliffs, 1899, pp. 7-9, a list is given of the notable falls which have been recorded. In 1853 there was a heavy fall near Holy Trinity Church, Dover; in 1872 at the East Cliff; in 1896 at the South Foreland; and (Times, Jan. 11, 1905, p. 7, col. 1, Jan. 13, p. 7, col. 2) in 1905 there were landslips at St. Margaret’s Bay, near Hope Point, and at Fan Bay. 2529 Dowker (Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc., 1881, p. 63) attributed this loss of shingle to the Admiralty Pier at Dover. ‘The formation of the Dover Harbour,’ he says, ‘has favoured the accumulation of beach west of that point; the current, moreover, after passing the obstacle, is deflected inland, and thus, at St. Margaret’s Bay, a former collection of beach is being removed towards Deal.’ On the other hand, Sir John Coode, who is described in the Dictionary of National Biography (Suppl., ii, 52) as ‘probably the most distinguished harbour engineer of the nineteenth century’, states (Parl. Papers, lviii, 1873, p. 455[3]) that ‘so far from the pier having acted as a check to the passage of the shingle, there has been a considerable loss to the westward of it within the last 20 years’. ‘I have no hesitation,’ he adds (ib., p. 456[4]), ‘in stating, in the most distinct and positive terms, that this decrease [of shingle on various parts of the coast south-west of St. Margaret’s Bay] has not been caused by “the extension of the Admiralty Pier at Dover”, inasmuch as the various facts that have been brought out in the course of my recent investigation lead distinctly and unmistakably to the opposite conclusion ... having regard to the facts previously stated, as to the diminution of shingle to the westward of Folkestone, near Sandgate and Hythe, &c. ... I have arrived at the conclusion that this [decrease of shingle between Dover and St. Margaret’s Bay] is due to the remarkable accumulation of shingle, and consequent projection towards the south-east of Dungeness’ (ib., p. 457[5]). About the year 1721 the supply of shingle was temporarily cut off by the fall of part of the Castle Cliff. See Capt. John Perry, Account of the Stopping of Daggenham Breach, &c., 1721, p. 119. 2530 Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1885 (1886), p. 439. See also pp. 406-7. According to J. B. Redman (Proc. Inst. Civ. Engineers, xi, 1851-2 [1853], p. 164) ‘it appears that at an early period there was no shingle at all at Dover ... which there is historical evidence to prove was the case; its gradual advance from the westward eventually blocked up the entrance’, &c. Where the ‘historical evidence’ is to be found Redman omits to say; and I cannot find it; but it is certain that the movement of shingle along the coast began long before the historic period (Geogr. Journal, xxviii, 1906, p. 489). Capt. McDakin (Coast Erosion,—Dover Cliffs, p. 5) remarks that ‘the Roman Pharos on the Castle Cliffs and the foundations of a similar building in the Redoubt on the Western Heights, give us no indication that the edge of the cliff has receded since those earliest of Roman buildings occupied their present site’. 2531 Clement Reid in Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 25, and Geogr. Journal, xxviii, 1906, pp. 488-9. 2532 Vict. Hist. of ... Sussex, i, 469. 2533 See Geogr. Journal, xxviii, 1906, p. 490. 2534 Ib., p. 489. Cf. A. J. Jukes-Browne, Handbook of Phys. Geol., 1892, p. 171. 2535 Angusti montes (B. G., iv, 23, § 3). 2536 See p. 329, supra. 2537 Experiments recently conducted by Captain McDakin (Coast Erosion,—Dover Cliffs, pp. 3-4, 12) showed that ‘the average erosion of four years was unexpectedly small, only amounting to half an inch in a year’. He admits, indeed, that the average rate, since erosion began, ‘has probably been much more rapid.’ His general conclusions are, ‘that the heaviest falls ... take place after long continued rain.... That the springs issuing from the base of the cliffs play an important part in undermining and bringing down the cliffs; and that the sea charged with a small amount of shingle [which it discharges like a gun] attacks the undercliff and removes it, but where the shingle accumulates in large quantities, it defends and supports the base of the cliffs,’ &c. 2538 Ed. Wesseling, p. 473. See also Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 1228. 2539 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 157, note. 2540 Domesday Book of Kent, ed. L. B. Larking, 1869, p. 93, and Extension, p. 2. 2541 I need hardly say that Digges’s statement, which refers only to the inlet where the port of Dover had been, does not support Redman’s assertion (p. 529, n. 4, supra). 2542 Archaeologia, xi, 1792, p. 212, note a. Archcliff Fort is about 400 yards west of the first groyne on the western side of the Lord Warden Hotel. 2543 Naut. Mag., 1850, p. 269. See also John Leland, Itin., vii, 1744, fol. 128, p. 117. 2544 About 1 mile 4,100 feet in a straight line from the present high-water mark of ordinary tides (Six-inch Ordnance Survey, Sheet 68). 2545 Nearly 2 miles beyond Crabble (ib., Sheets 67-8). 2546 Archaeol. Cant., xx, 1893, p. 129. 2547 Archaeologia, v, 1779, p. 325; John Lyon, Hist. of ... Dover, i, 1813, p. 9; Archaeol. Cant., xx, 1893, p. 131. 2548 Ib., xviii, 1889, p. 202. 2549 See also T. Hyde Page, Considerations upon the State of Dover Harbour, &c., 1784, p. 6. 2550 See Phil. Trans., xxix, 1716, p. 469; lxxvi, 1786, p. 220; W. Lambarde, Perambulation of Kent, ed. 1826, p. 154; Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, 1875, pp. 302, 315-6; Proc. Geologists’ Association, xiii, 1895, pp. 40-7; Capt. McDakin, Coast Erosion,—Dover Cliffs, pp. 7-9; Pall Mall Gazette, Jan. 18, 1906, p. 12, col. 2. 2551 Trans. Geol. Soc., v, 1821, p. 17. 2552 The quotation is from T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, 2nd ed., 1862, p. lvii. 2553 Romney Marsh Proper extends eastward of the Rhee Wall, which runs from Appledore to New Romney. 2554 Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, p. 251. 2555 Phil. Trans., xxxv, 1727, pp. 551-2. 2556 The Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, 1862, p. lii. We learn from the late F. Drew (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, p. 206) that ‘whatever the soil may be near the surface, it is almost invariably the case that, at a depth of 10 or 20 feet, there is loose sand, often containing recent marine shells’, &c. See note 8, infra. 2557 AthenÆum, Aug. 5, 1865, pp. 184-5. 2558 See Geol. Mag., 1869, p. 128. The writer, ‘W. T.,’ was evidently the late geologist, William Topley. 2559 See Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, pp. 212-3, 222. As far as I can discover, the only absolutely trustworthy boring which has been made (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., xliii, 1887, p. 204) shows that at Holmestone, near Lydd, which is outside the limits of Romney Marsh Proper, the recent strata, overlying Hastings beds, were as follows:—Shingle, 15 feet; Boulders, 4 feet; Brown Sand, 13 feet; Clay, 4 feet; Black and Grey Sand, 20 feet; Pebbles, 1 foot. ‘Mr. Elliott,’ says Drew (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye, 1864, p. 16), ‘tells me that he bored 70 feet in the Marsh, of which the last 50 were in sand.’ ‘I contend, however,’ replies Dowker (Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 212), ‘that this does not prove anything, since the sand probably belonged to the Hastings Beds.’ 2560 Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, p. 304. Topley goes on to point out that F. H. Appach, in C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, &c., p. 16, adopted a theory which had been originally put forward by James Elliott, but had been discovered by Elliott himself to be erroneous, attributing ‘the silting up of the area’ to ‘the presence of some supposed islands of Hastings Sand near Romney’. 2561 Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye, pp. 19-20. 2562 See p. 543, n. 1, infra. 2563 See p. 62, supra. 2564 See p. 543, infra. 2565 See Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, xl, 1875, pp. 69-70. 2566 Ib., pp. 109, 111. Lord Avebury, who refers to this paper in The Scenery of England, 3rd ed., 1904, p. 152, reports Sir Joseph Prestwich’s views as to the movement of shingle incorrectly. Prestwich considered it ‘well established’ that the general movement of the shingle along our south coast was eastward, although in the west bay of Portland it travels in the opposite direction. 2567 C. Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne, 1852, p. 41. 2568 Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, vi, 1847, p. 467. 2569 T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lxviii-lxix. See also p. lvi. 2570 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 361-74. 2571 Lewin observes (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lvii-lviii) that as far eastward as West Hythe Oaks the shingle ‘fulls’ all curve westward, having been bent in that direction by the inrush of the tides; while from West Hythe Oaks to Sandgate they all curve towards the east. This, he says, proves that when they were formed, the mouth of the estuary near Hythe had already been closed. Appach, on the other hand (C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 21, § 9), does not believe that the shingle spit reached West Hythe Oaks. Referring to the change of curvature in the shingle fulls, he says that it was ‘evidently due to the cessation of the indraught’, which was ‘obviously caused by the erection of the ancient wall at West Hythe’. Hence, he concludes, ‘the fulls to the north of the point [where the change of curvature takes place] ... were not formed until after the wall at West Hythe was built; and as this is part of the north-eastern boundary of Romney Marsh, it follows that the fulls in question were formed after the formation of Romney Marsh.’ Lewin also mentions ‘the ancient wall at West Hythe’; but his final theory is that the erection of this dam became necessary because the shingle spit, after it had reached West Hythe Oaks, was burst by the waters, fed by the streams mentioned above (p. 532), which accumulated in the space between West Hythe Oaks and Hythe (see p. 547, infra). Appach holds that Romney Marsh was not formed until after the Romans had abandoned Britain; and he is therefore constrained to argue that Hythe Haven did not exist during the Roman occupation, and that the Portus Lemanis was at Lympne. Both of these theories will be refuted in this article (pp. 543-8, infra). 2572 It is hardly necessary to point out that Dungeness is of recent formation. Various theories have been advanced as to its origin (see Mr. F. P. Gulliver’s paper in the Geogr. Journal, ix, 1897, pp. 536-46, and Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, xi, 1852, pp. 212-21); and attempts have been made to determine the time at which the oldest of the shingle ‘fulls’ which constitute the ‘ness’ was formed, by calculating the rate at which the point has advanced seaward since observations began to be recorded. Elliott remarks (ib., vi, 1847, p. 476) that ‘from the best existing data’ Dungeness would appear to extend annually about two yards further out to sea; and that, as the rate of increase was probably more rapid at first, we may conclude that about nineteen hundred years have elapsed ‘since the sea first left the original “full” at Lydd’. According to Redman (ib., xi, 1852, p. 174), the increase has not been regular, and ‘during certain periods the Ness has even been stationary’: from the middle of the seventeenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, he adds, the average annual increase was nearly six yards. This is probably an exaggeration. Sir John Coode (Parl. Papers, lviii, 1873, p. 457) ascertained, from particulars recorded at the Trinity House, that ‘from the year 1792 to 1850 the point advanced seaward 530 feet, or say, at the rate of 9 feet per annum; whilst from 1850 to 1871, the advance was 280 feet, or at the rate of from 13 to 14 feet per annum’. Topley (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, p. 314) thinks that ‘the oldest fulls are 1,000 years or more old’. Similarly Drew (ib., p. 308) says that the shingle which forms Dungeness ‘must have been ... collected since the Rother first came to Romney’. See also H. J. Mackinder, Britain and the British Seas, 1902, pp. 42-3. ‘In early Roman times,’ he remarks, ‘Dungeness appears not to have existed’; and he suggests that its formation was due to ‘the diversion of the Rother mouth for the purpose of reclaiming Romney Marsh’. 2573 Cot., Aug. I, i, 24-5. 2574 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lvii-lx, cxx; Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, xi, 1852, p. 169. Cf. Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, p. 312. Dowker (Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc., 1881, p. 66) suggests that the Hythe beach may have come from the east! 2575 Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, pp. 211-23. 2576 It would be a waste of time to catalogue these blunders, which will be obvious to any one who knows the literature of the subject: but I may remark that Dowker devotes several pages to a refutation of Elliott’s earlier theory, which Elliott himself corrected in the notes with which he furnished Lewin; and that he ignored or was ignorant of Elliott’s matured conclusions. He says (p. 214) that Elliott’s ‘first paper was written to assist Mr. Lewin ... and his theory was printed with Mr. Roach Smith’s “History of Further Excavations and History of the Roman Castrum at Lympne”’. Elliott’s first paper (Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, vi, 1847) was not written to assist Lewin; nor was his second, which was printed, not in a book which neither Roach Smith nor any one else ever published, but as an appendix to Roach Smith’s Report on Excavations made on the site of the Roman Castrum at Lymne, 1852. The notes which Elliott wrote to assist Lewin were printed in the second edition of Lewin’s Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, which appeared in 1862, and which Dowker never mentions. The unhappy man cannot even refer correctly to his own works. In his bibliographical note (p. 223) he quotes under his own name a paper ‘On the River Limen’, in Archaeol. Cant., vol. xviii, in which no such paper is to be found. 2577 Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, p. 219. 2578 Ib. 2579 Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, p. 222. 2580 Ib., p. 214. 2581 Ib. 2582 Ib., p. 221. See p. 527, supra. 2583 See A. H. Jukes-Browne, Handbook of Phys. Geology, 1892, pp. 138-9, 219. The lower course of the Great Stour is a good example. 2584 See p. 543, infra. 2585 Archaeol. Cant., xiii, 1880, pp. 271-2. 2586 Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, pp. 221-2. 2587 Hist. of Kent, iii, 1790, p. 532. 2588 Britannia antiqua, pp. 262-3. 2589 Hist. of Romney Marsh, 1849, pp. 16, 20. 2590 Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye, pp. 19-20. 2591 Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia, ed. M. Pinder and G. Parthey, 1860, v, 31 (p. 438, 19). 2592 Geogr. Journal, ix, 1897, p. 545. Mr. H. E. Malden, who believes that Caesar landed somewhere near Hurst, which is in Romney Marsh, about two miles and a half west of Lympne, affirms (Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, pp. 176-7, n. 1) that, in A.D. 893, ‘Hastings the pirate came here with his fleet ... and sailed four miles up the Rother to the Weald.’ There is not the slightest evidence that ‘Hastings’ came ‘here’ with his fleet. The record of his expedition is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. B. Thorpe, ii, 1861, p. 69). ‘In this year’ [893], says the chronicler, ‘the great army, of which we long before spoke ... came up to the mouth of the Limen with two hundred and fifty ships. The mouth is in the east of Kent, at the east end of the great wood which we call Andred.... The river, of which we before spoke, flows out from the weald. On the river they towed up their ships as far as the weald, four miles from the outward mouth, and there stormed a work.’ Mr. Malden (op. cit., p. 176, note) avows his belief that ‘the Romans embanked the marsh’, and immediately afterwards says that ‘the Portus Lemanis after that became accessible only from the east, inside the shingle spit opposite Hythe’. It would appear, then, that, according to Mr. Malden, the mouth of the Limen, up which the Danes sailed, was ‘opposite Hythe’. But, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, to which he refers, it was at Appledore (see p. 542, n. 4, infra); and doubtless the Danes reached it by sailing up the channel, formed by the Rhee wall (see p. 538, supra), which then connected the Limen with the sea. 2593 C. Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne, pp. 39-40. 2594 Proc. Geologists’ Association, viii, 1883, p. 93. Topley, indeed, frankly admits that one argument may be adduced in support of the theory that the Rother flowed out opposite Lympne. This argument is identical with that of Drew, which I have quoted in the text; but, as Topley’s exposition is the more lucid, I give it here. He observes (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Weald, pp. 303-4) that on Romney Marsh the shingle ‘has chiefly accumulated to the windward of tidal harbours, whilst the blown sand has accumulated to leeward of those harbours’; and then, remarking that, on the south of West Hythe, the ‘fulls’, or ridges of shingle, ‘curve well round to the north-west, as though to a harbour here,’ and that ‘on the north of this there is again a little blown-sand’, he admits that these facts lend some support to the popular view: but, he adds, ‘no trace of the ancient channel is to be found along the northern side of the marsh.’ But Topley seems not to know his own mind; for he afterwards says (ib., p. 304) that ‘it is by no means unlikely that the ancient Rother had more than one mouth. There may have been one at Lympne, one at Romney, and one near Rye.’ However, in his final utterance on the subject (Proc. Geologists’ Association, viii, 1883, p. 93) he says, ‘there is no evidence of any old river along the northern side of the Marsh.’ 2595 Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc., 1881, p. 66. See also Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, pp. 216-7. 2596 Cf. John Harris, Hist. of Kent. 1719, p. 366. 2597 C. Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne. p. 42. 2598 Itin. Ant., ed. Wesseling, p. 473. 2599 A Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent, p. 42. 2600 Rerum angl. script., &c., ed. H. Savile, 1601, p. 846 (Chronicle of Ethelwerd, lib. iv, cap. iii, s.a. 893, line 57 ff.). 2601 Perambulation of Kent (written in 1570), 1826, p. 165. 2602 The Itin. of John Leland, iii, 1744, p. 158. 2603 Mr. G. R. Wright (Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xl, 1884, p. 247) suggests that ‘Shepway’ may have been derived from the Saxon word, sceap, ‘a sheep’, and may have ‘meant a sheep-way’. 2604 See p. 542, n. 4, infra. 2605 The Itin. of John Leland, vii, 1744, p. 132. 2606 J. M. Kemble, Codex dipl. aevi Saxonici, i, 1839, pp. 92-3, LXXVII; pp. 308-9, CCXXXIV. 2607 in loco qui dicitur sandtun. et in eodem loco sali coquenda, &c. 2608 termini vero terrae illius hec sunt. ab oriente terra regis. ab austro fluvius qui dicitur limenaee. ab occidente et in septentrione hudan fleot. 2609 Lewin (Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 373-4) admits that the earlier of the two charters mentioned in the text ‘appeared at first sight to negative the hypothesis that the marsh was under cultivation in the time of the Romans’: but he adds that he consulted Elliott, who removed his doubts in the following letter:—‘The grant refers to Romney and not to Lymne. The boundaries will do for Romney, but not for Lymne. If at Lymne, the salt-pans must have been in the marsh, and then on the east, south, and west would have been the sea, and on the north Lymne Hill. At Romney ... the description agrees. Sandtun would be the Sand hills, called the Warren, to the east of Romney, and the boundaries of the land would be as stated, viz.:—the King’s land on the east would be the territory to the east, about 100 acres, which was vested in the Crown until the reign of Elizabeth, when it was granted to Romney Corporation; the river on the south would be the Limen.... Hudanfleot, referred to as on the north and west, would be the fleet which may still be traced there, though it has lost its name,’ &c. Lewin (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lvi) remarks that in the neighbourhood of Romney ‘are still pools of stagnant water ... called Fleets’. As, however, the mouth of the Limen, in A.D. 893, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (see p. 541, supra) was at Appledore, we must assume that the Limen mentioned in the charter was simply the body of water conducted into the channel enclosed within the embankments of the Rhee Wall. That ‘the marsh was under cultivation [or, at all events, occupation] in the time of the Romans’, is not a ‘hypothesis’ at all: it is a fact attested by the discovery of numerous Roman remains. See p. 551, infra. Professor Montagu Burrows (The Cinque Ports, p. 12) speaks of ‘Hudanfleot, afterwards called West Hythe’, and says (ib., p. 50) that ‘Hudanfleot’ means ‘the haven of the estuary’. Needless to say, he gives no authority; and how ‘the haven of the estuary’ could have been both ‘on the west and on the north’ of ‘the piece of land’ referred to in the charters he does not explain. 2610 See pp. 545-6, infra. 2611 See Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne, pp. 39-40. 2612 Ant. of Richborough, &c., pp. 236, 239. See also J. M. Kemble, Codex diplo. aevi Saxonici, i, 103, No. LXXXVI. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ed. Thorpe, ii, 71, s.a. DCCC.XCIV) mentions ‘the great army ... which had before sat at the mouth of the Limen, at Appledore’. 2613 Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne, p. 41. 2614 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxiii; Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 369. I have remarked elsewhere (pp. 609, and 622-3) on Lewin’s inconsistencies. In his final utterance on the subject of Romney Marsh (Archaeologia, xl) he outdoes himself. On page 369 he says that the mouth of the Limen was at Appledore: on page 370 he says that ‘the river Limen must have flowed along the foot of the hills, and have discharged itself at Lymne’. 2615 Drew (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye, pp. 19-20), on the other hand, says that ‘Forest trees flourished on this surface, for the moor-logs in the peat have all the appearance of having grown on the spot. If this be so, it follows that since that time there has been a depression of the land, because the peat that occurs at Appledore, and along the shore between Rye and Dungeness ... is at too low a level for the plants to have grown at these places while the sea had access there.... There is no reason to believe that any of the depression of land took place ... from the time of the Romans downwards, for no human remains nor works of art have been found deep in the Alluvium.’ Dowker (Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, p. 221) argues, in support of Drew’s opinion, that if the trees had been carried down by the Rother, ‘we should expect them to have been covered with mud or silt, which does not occur to any extent.’ 2616 See p. 535, supra. 2617 See M. Burrows, The Cinque Ports, p. 11; Archaeol. Journal, liii, 1896, pp. 364-5: F. Haverfield (Hist. Atlas of Modern Europe, ed. R. L. Poole, 1896, pl. 15), &c. [Prof. Haverfield calls the harbour Portus Lemanae, not Portus Lemanis. Stukeley, however (Itin. curiosum, 1776, p. 133), believed that the Portus Lemanis was ‘about West Hithe’; and Somner (Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent, p. 37) says that some of ‘our English Chorographers’ were of the same opinion. So also was the famous geographer, Konrad Mannert (Geogr. der Griechen und RÖmer, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795, p. 161). Somner (p. 38) argued that the port was at New Romney; but in order to sustain this opinion he was forced to read XXI instead of XVI (Roman miles),—the distance, according to the Itinerary of Antonine (ed. Wesseling, p. 473) from Durovernum (Canterbury) to Portus Lemanis.] 2618 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, &c., pp. 43-5, §§ 3-10. 2619 26,080, according to Appach; but he assumed that a Roman mile was equal to 1,630 yards, whereas it was really 1,617. Cf. Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant., 3rd ed., ii, 159-60. 2620 According to Appach, whose arithmetic was a little shaky, 25,840. 2621 Itin., vii, 1744, p. 132. 2622 Perambulation of Kent, p. 165. 2623 Ordnance Survey of England, Sheet 289. 2624 C. Roach Smith, Ant. of Richborough, &c., p. 255, n. 1. 2625 AthenÆum, Sept. 22, 1894, p. 394. 2626 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 377. 2627 See p. 542, n. 4, supra. 2628 C. Roach Smith, Report on Excavations ... at Lymne, pp. 39-45. 2629 T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. cviii. 2630 This Theodosius was not Theodosius the Younger, as Elliott says, but the father of Theodosius the Great. 2631 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lvi-lvii. 2632 Archaeol. Journal, liii, 1896, p. 370. 2633 Proc. Roy. Inst. of Great Britain, xvi, 1900, pp. 36-7. Cf. C. Roach Smith, Collectanea Antiqua, vii, 1880, pp. 158-9, and Corpus inscr. Lat., vii, 18. 2634 Itin. curiosum, 1776, pp. 132-3. 2635 See also T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxvii. In his article in Archaeologia (xl, 1866, pp. 364-5) Lewin argues that if the Portus Lemanis had been at the foot of Lympne Hill, ‘we should expect to find at least some vestiges, however faint, of the port itself’; but, he adds, ‘I have never heard or read (though I have often inquired) that any remnant of a pier or sunken vessel, or even any anchor or other part of a ship’s tackle was ever discovered in this part.’ 2636 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 361-74. 2637 See p. 536, supra. 2638 Both these maps are reproduced, in part, in the map which faces p. 531, of this book. 2639 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 371-2. 2640 Ib., pp. 360-7. I omit those arguments by which Lewin endeavours to prove that the Portus Lemanis was not at Lympne. 2641 Cf. E. Guest, Origines Celticae, ii, 116-7, 358. 2642 As far as I can see, if the western end of the port had been at West Hythe, the ‘deluged’ area would have been that between West Hythe Oaks and Hythe, which in the map prepared by Elliott for Lewin’s book (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. liii) is depicted as the western arm of the harbour, but which in the map that accompanies Lewin’s article on the Portus Lemanis (Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 369) is represented as covered partly by the ‘Duck Marsh’ and partly by shingle. 2643 Ogilby (Britannia, 1675, p. 40) speaks of ‘Hith alias Hide or East-Hith’. 2644 Lewin refers, in support of his statement, to Harris’s Hist. of Kent, p. 367; but what Harris says is simply this:—‘that the present Hythe was used as a Port, even before the Departure of the Romans.... Dr. Plott thinks reasonable to conclude; from the paved Way made after the Roman Fashion all along up the Hill, not only to Saltwood Castle ... but a Mile farther onwards, and leading into the Stonestreetway.’ 2645 Does Portus Lemanis mean ‘the port at the lagoons’ (E. Guest, Origines Celticae, ii, 117), the plural having been used because, while on the east of Hythe Oaks extended the pool harbour, the marsh was still flooded on the west before the erection of the Rhee Wall? That Lemanis or Lemannis is not a nominative, but a locative plural, seems to be shown by the Notitia dignitatum (ed. O. Seeck, 1876, Oc. xxviii, 5), where Lemannis castellum is mentioned side by side with Regulbi castellum. 2646 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxii, note. 2647 Lives of the Engineers, i, 1861, p. 7. 2648 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 369, note b. 2649 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 13, § 6. 2650 Ib., p. 12, § 6. 2651 Kentish Archaeology, iv, 1880, p. 13. 2652 Perambulation of Kent, p. 208. 2653 Geogr., ii, 3, § 3. 2654 See Mr. H. Bradley’s article in Archaeologia, xlviii, 1885, pp. 379-82, 389. 2655 Hist. of Imbanking and Drayning, &c., 1662, pp. 16-7. 2656 Agricola, 31,—corpora ipsa ac manus silvis ac paludibus emuniendis inter verbera ac contumelias conteruntur. 2657 R. Furley, Hist. of the Weald of Kent, i, 29. 2658 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, pp. 42-3. 2659 Ib., pp. 137-8, § 11. 2660 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 367-8. 2661 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 60, 63. Cf. Roach Smith, Ant. of Richborough, &c., p. 245; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, i, 1845, pp. 40-2; and A. J. Dunkin, Report of the ... Brit. Archaeol. Association, Sept., 1844, pp. 116-9. Besides pottery, many human skeletons, and also tusks of boars and horses’ teeth were discovered. Roach Smith (Retrospections, i, 1883, p. 207) concludes from these discoveries that the marsh ‘could not possibly have been submerged in the time of the Romans’. Not, certainly, at the time when the articles in question were deposited there: but why not before? ‘The time of the Romans’ amounted to nearly four centuries. 2662 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 136, § 9. 2663 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 372. According to Elliott (ib., p. 365), a coin of Carausius, who ruled in Britain from A.D. 287 to 293, was found near Dymchurch. 2664 R. Furley, Hist. of the Weald of Kent, i, 29. Against these facts Appach’s argument (C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 134, § 3) that if Romney Marsh had existed ‘in the earlier period of the Roman settlement’ Stone Street, assuming that it existed, ‘would have been carried onward to Romney, the seaport,’ is of no avail. There is no evidence that Romney was ‘the seaport’ until long after the departure of the Romans. 2665 See A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 348-50, and footnotes. 2666 Veterum Galliae locorum ... descriptio (printed in C. Iulii Caesaris ... comm., Lutetiae, 1544), s.v. Itius portus. 2667 Thesaurus geogr., 1596, s.v. Iccius. 2668 Portus Iccius Iulii Caesaris demonstratus, 1627. 2669 See pp. 517-8, supra. 2670 Notitia Galliarum, 1675, p. 249. 2671 Britannia, ed. R. Gough, 1789, i, 221. 2672 Dissertatio de Portu Iccio, 1694. 2673 MÉm. de litt. tirÉs des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, xxviii. 1761, pp. 397-409. 2674 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, 1810. 2675 GÉogr. des Gaules, i, 448-57. 2676 Giraldus de Barri, The Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin, 1806, i, lxxix. 2677 Germania antiqua, 1631, lib. ii, cap. xxviii, pp. 440-7. 2678 Notitia Galliae, 1651, p. 856. 2679 Norman Conquest, i, 1870. p. 486, n. 1. 2680 Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, pp. 163-78; xix, 1891, pp. 138-45, 193-9, 200-10; xx, 1892, pp. 63-4. 2681 Pauly’s Real-EncyclopÄdie, iii, 1897, p. 864. 2682 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 693. 2683 Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 230-1. 2684 RÖm. Gesch., iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note). 2685 See p. 602, n. 5, infra. 2686 It has been argued that commodissimum in this passage means not ‘most convenient’, but simply ‘very convenient’. I have not the slightest doubt that the former is the right interpretation, just as in B. G., iv, 21, § 3, brevissimus (in Britanniam traiectus) unquestionably means ‘the shortest’, and not ‘a very short’ (passage to Britain): but if I were wrong my mistake would be unimportant. It will hardly be denied that if Caesar had found a port from which the passage was more convenient than from the Portus Itius, he would have chosen it. See p. 574, infra. 2687 Caignart de Saulcy (Les campagnes de Jules CÉsar dans les Gaules, 1862, p. 181) infers from this that the Portus Itius must have been so situated that vessels sailing thence for Dover would have had the north-west wind right in their teeth; and he remarks that, if Wissant was the Portus Itius, this condition was fulfilled. But it is hardly necessary to say that the condition is imaginary. The Portus Itius must have been so situated that while the north-west wind (or rather the wind called Corus, which may have blown from any quarter between N.W. and W. by N. ? N.) was blowing, Caesar’s vessels could not have sailed thence to that part of the Kentish coast which he wished to reach; and it is certain that they could not sail closer than within about seven points of the wind. See The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, by James Smith, 4th ed., 1880, p. 215; and, on the winds as described by various ancient writers, Vitruvius, De Architectura, i, 6, §§ 5, 9-10, P. F. J. Gossellin, Recherches sur la gÉogr., iv, 1813, p. 410, and diagram facing p. 416, and J. Vars, L’art nautique dans l’ant., 1887, pp. 31-4. 2688 B. G., iv, 21, §§ 1-4; 22, §§ 3-4; 23, § 1; 28; 36, § 4; v, 2, §§ 2-3; 5; 7, § 3; 8, §§ 1-2, 6; 23, § 4. 2689 Geogr., iv, 5, § 2.—t? ?t???, ? ????sat? ?a?st??? ?a?sa? ? Te??, d?a???? e?? t?? ??s??? ???t?? d’ ??????, ?a? t? ?ste?a?? ?at??e pe?? tet??t?? ??a?, t??a??s???? ?a? e???s? stad???? t?? d??p??? te??sa?. 2690 Geogr., ii, 9, § 1. 2691 Gesch. Roms, 1837, iii, 294, n. 13. 2692 C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G., ed. 1880, p. 277. 2693 See pp. 662, 664-5, infra. 2694 Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, p. 164. 2695 Portus Itius, p. 5. 2696 J. F. Henry argues (Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, 1810, pp. 54-5) that Caesar could only have estimated the distance from the Portus Itius to Britain by making the voyage; that, as he was carried out of his course on the second voyage, the one by which he estimated the distance must have been the first; and consequently that in 55 as in 54 B.C. he must have sailed from the Portus Itius. But Henry forgot that Volusenus, whom Caesar sent in 55 B.C. to reconnoitre the British coast, may have made the estimate. Or Caesar may have accepted the estimate of merchants, of seamen, or of Commius: it is useless to guess. 2697 Portus Itius, p. 9. 2698 In support of the view that Caesar reckoned the distance to the nearest port of Britain, Heller (Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 172-3) argues (1) that if he had intended to indicate the distance to his landing-place, he would probably have written, not (quo ex portu commodissimum) in Britanniam (traiectum esse cognoverat, &c.) but ad eum locum quo est descensum (‘to the spot where the disembarkation took place’); (2) that when Strabo estimated the length of Caesar’s voyage at 320 stades, or 40 Roman miles, he must either have found (milium passuum) XXXX, which is not in any extant MS., in his copy of the Commentaries, or have concluded, from other information, that Caesar had underestimated the distance; and in either case the fact that he expressly mentions the time which Caesar took to reach his anchorage shows that he did not take into account the additional 7 miles which separated the anchorage from the landing-place. It will be seen, however, that, although I agree with Heller’s conclusion, the proofs by which I shall establish the identity of the Portus Itius are wholly independent of it. 2699 See pp. 592-3, infra. 2700 See p. 619, infra. 2701 Cf. Mommsen, RÖm. Gesch., iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note). 2702 Nat. Hist., iv, 16 (30), § 103. 2703 B. G., v, 13, § 2. 2704 See pp. 561-3, infra. 2705 See pp. 554-5, supra. 2706 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 235. 2707 Speaking of Druidism, Caesar says (B. G., vi, 13, §§ 11-2) disciplina in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata existimatur, et nunc qui diligentius eam rem cognoscere volunt plerumque illo discendi causa proficiscuntur. With this word the chapter ends; but it is undeniable that those who wished to study the tenets of Druidism did go to Britain. 2708 Ib., iv, 21, §§ 3-4.—Ipse cum omnibus copiis in Morinos proficiscitur, quod inde erat brevissimus in Britanniam traiectus. Huc naves undique ex finitimis regionibus et quam superiore aestate ad Veneticum bellum fecerat classem iubet convenire. 2709 C. J. Caesaris comm., &c., p. 278, note. 2710 Lewin (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. v-vi), justly ridicules Airy’s desperate contention (AthenÆum, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 337) that in his locis is ‘a studiously indefinite expression’. 2711 B. G., iv, 22, § 1. 2712 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 235. 2713 B. G., vi, 9, § 6. 2714 Ib., iv, 22, §§ 1, 5.—Dum in his locis Caesar navium parandarum causa moratur, ex magna parte Morinorum ad eum legati venerunt ... reliquum exercitum Titurio Sabino et Aurunculeio Cottae legatis in Menapios atque in eos pagos Morinorum a quibus ad eum legati non venerant ducendum dedit. 2715 Ib., v, 24, § 2. 2716 The italics are mine. 2717 Essays on the Invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar (privately printed), 1865, p. 27. 2718 B. G., v, 24, §§ 1-2.—Subductis navibus concilioque Gallorum Samarobrivae peracto, quod eo anno frumentum in Gallia propter siccitates angustius provenerat, coactus est aliter ac superioribus annis exercitum in hibernis conlocare legionesque in plures civitates distribuere. Ex quibus unam in Morinos ducendam C. Fabio legato dedit, alteram in Nervios Q. Ciceroni, tertiam in Esuvios L. Roscio, quartam in Remis cum T. Labieno in confinio Treverorum hiemare iussit, tres in Belgio conlocavit, &c. 2719 Ib., vi, 44, §§ 1, 3. 2720 Geogr., iv, 5, § 2.—t?? ??????t?? t??? ?e?ap???? ???????, pa?’ ??? ?st? ?a? t? ?t???, &c. 2721 AthenÆum, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 302. 2722 Origines Celticae, ii, 1883, p. 358. 2723 e.g., iv, 2, § 2.—pa?? ?? ??? t??? ?et????????? s?d??????e?? ?st?? ?ste?a ?a? t??? ?????? ??t??????, pa?? d? t??? ?ad??????? ????????a?; and iv. 3, § 3,—t?? d’ ?p? t? ???? p??t?? t?? ?p??t?? ?????s?? ?????tt???, pa?’ ??? e?s?? a? p??a? t?? p?ta?? ?? t? ?d???? ??e?. See also viii, 3, § 11. 2724 B. G., iv, 36, § 4. 2725 General Creuly (Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 310) agrees with Airy. 2726 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 237. 2727 See H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., i, 843. 2728 Ib., ii, 167. 2729 ‘They crossed the Rhine ... 30 miles below the place where the bridge had been built.’ 2730 ‘It was announced ... that a large column was moving up the river, and that the sound of oars was audible in the same direction; and that troops were being ferried across the river in barges below.’ 2731 ‘He led out the remaining legions in light marching order; stationed a large number of baggage-cattle in the river on the upper and the lower side [of the ford]; and made the army cross over.’ Cf. Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 163-4. 2732 B. G., v, 2, § 3. 2733 Sometimes Airy makes Caesar anchor off St. Leonards; sometimes off Bexhill. We may give him his choice. 2734 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 237-8. I find, to my amazement, that Desjardins agrees with Airy. ‘The text,’ he argues (GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 360-1), ‘does not say precisely that the Portus Itius is 30 miles from Britain; it only says (1) that Caesar had ascertained that it was a very convenient port; and (2) that Britain was about 30 miles from the continent. Here we have two distinct statements.’ It is worth mentioning that Airy, in quoting the passage, omits transmissum, while Desjardins retains it. It was originally deleted by FaËrn, who has been followed by various editors, in defiance of the MSS. See C. E. C. Schneider, Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, 1849, p. 11. 2735 Airy seems to have felt the necessity of bolstering up his argument; for he remarks (Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 27) that ‘before the Triangulation of the year 1787, it was a fair and an insoluble question, whether the distance from the Continent to Britain was less than twenty or greater than forty miles’. Perhaps; but long before the aforesaid Triangulation sailors used to make wonderfully good guesses about this ‘insoluble question’. Cluver tells us that while staying with Sir Thomas Waller, Warden of the Cinque Ports, he questioned all who could give him trustworthy information, and particularly seamen, as to the passages between England and France. The unanimous reply was that the distance between Dover and Calais was 28 English miles, and that the most convenient passage was between Dover and Boulogne, and was 32 English miles (Germania antiqua, 1631, lib. ii, cap. xxviii, p. 445). Similarly, the Arab geographer, Edrisi, who died about 1180, affirmed that the distance between Wissant and England was 25 Roman miles (Geogr. Nubiensis ..., 1619, pp. 253-4). 2736 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 27. 2737 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xii-xiii. 2738 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236. 2739 See E. A. Freeman’s Norman Conquest, iii, 386-99. 2740 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xi-xiii, xvii. 2741 Dict. arch. de la Gaule, ii, 45-7. 2742 RÖm. Gesch., iii, 1889, p. 270, note (Eng. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note). 2743 Geogr., iv, 5, § 2. 2744 See pp. 577-9, infra. 2745 Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, pp. 307-8. 2746 ... the spirits of the dead ‘stretched out their hands in longing for the further shore’ (Aen., vi, 314). 2747 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 164. 2748 (They also wear the skins of wild beasts), ‘the riparian tribes in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance’ (c. 17). 2749 As a matter of fact, if the Portus Itius was the estuary of the Liane, there was an ‘objet disjonctif’ between it and Ambleteuse, namely, the headland north of Boulogne harbour. 2750 Creuly also observes (Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 307) that, while Ambleteuse was 31 Roman miles from Fort Sutherland on Romney Marsh, Boulogne was 36. But Caesar, as I shall prove (pp. 622-44), did not land on Romney Marsh; and the futility of arguments of this kind has been already pointed out (pp. 557-8). 2751 It is worth noting that while Creuly pins his faith to Ambleteuse, he is not so foolish as to ask us to believe that Caesar’s 800 ships found room there. They anchored, he tells us (p. 310), in the roadstead. But Caesar says expressly (B. G., v, 2, § 3; 5. § 2) that they assembled in the Portus Itius. 2752 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 143. 2753 See J. F. Henry, Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 123. 2754 In order to counteract the effect of the flood, it would of course have been necessary to keep the ships’ heads much closer to the wind than within seven points and a half, which would have been impossible. 2755 See MÉm. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie, i, 1833 (1834), p. 253; A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 349-50, n. 3; J. J. Chifflet, Portus Iccius, pp. 25-6; and V. de St. Martin, Nouv. Dict. de GÉogr. univ., i, 1879, p. 568. 2756 MÉm. couronnÉs par l’Acad. Roy. ... de Bruxelles, vi, 1827, pp. 149-50; Allent, Appendice À l’essai sur les reconnaissances militaires, pp. 667-8 (in tome i [1830] of MÉmorial du DÉpÔt GÉn. de la Guerre); V. de St. Martin, Nouv. Dict. de GÉogr. univ., ii, 542. 2757 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 223. This suggestion, which was hailed by Freeman (see p. 553, supra) as a brilliant and conclusive discovery, was by no means new. Guest had been anticipated by Du Fresne (D. HaignerÉ, Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, ii, 1897, p. 431, n. 1) and by the AbbÉ de Fontenu (MÉm. de litt. tirez des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, xiii, 1734-7 [1741], plan between pages 416 and 417). 2758 According to de Saulcy (Les campagnes de Jules CÉsar dans les Gaules, p. 172, n. 1), the inhabitants of the country believe that it extended only from the mouth of the ‘ruisseau du Phare’ to that of the ‘ruisseau d’Herlan’,—a distance of less than a mile and a quarter. 2759 Lettre À M. Bouillet ... sur l’article Boulogne de son Dictionnaire, 1827, p. 20, n. 30. Cf. Annales de gÉogr., ii, 1893, p. 313. I have not been able to discover any historical evidence which would show that no dunes, small or great, existed at Wissant before the time of Edward III; but it is certain that immense quantities of sand were accumulated there in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. See Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise, i, 372. 2760 Annales de la Soc. gÉol du Nord, xxviii, 1899, pp. 85-7. 2761 Annales de gÉogr., ii, 1893, p. 312; Annales de la Soc. gÉol. du Nord, viii, 1882, p. 1; xxviii, 1899, pp. 86, 88; J. Gosselet, Esquisse gÉol., &c., 4e fasc., 1903, p. 406. 2762 Ib., pp. 411, 416. 2763 Étude sur le Portus Itius, p. 89. 2764 Annales de gÉogr., ii, 1893, p. 314; Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise, i, 372; R. Blanchard, La Flamande, p. 314. 2765 Geol. Mag., iii, 1866, pp. 113-4. 2766 Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise, i, 372-3. 2767 It must have been very narrow when the coast extended further seaward, if indeed it existed. 2768 MÉm. de l’Acad. d’Arras, xxxv, 1863, p. 273. HaignerÉ (Étude sur le Portus Itius, pp. 87-8) very properly warns his readers not to place any reliance upon a certain ‘Vue du port de Wissant’, a copy of which exists in the Museum at Boulogne. ‘C’est une oeuvre de fantaisie.’ 2769 Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Riquier, 1894, p. 241 (lib. iv, cap. xxiii). 2770 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 55. 2771 C. J. Caesaris comm., &c., pp. 278, 285. 2772 P. Ferrarius, Lexicon geogr., 1670, i, 370. 2773 ‘The fact,’ says a writer in the Edinburgh Review (Oct., 1900, p. 442), ‘that it was in mediaeval times a “frequented port” is, strictly speaking, not a fact at all ... the contemporary references to it which have been collected by French scholars show that it was neither a town nor a harbour, but an open beach, which travellers in a hurry could use with a favourable wind.’ These remarks are inaccurate: see p. 580, infra. The mediaeval port, or portlet, if local tradition is to be trusted, was, however, simply the mouth of the rivulet, variously called the Rieu de Sombre, Rieu d’Herlan, and Ruisseau du Moulin, which flows through the modern town of Wissant, enlarged and deepened (F. A. F. Mariette, Lettre À M. Bouillet, &c., p. 30, n. 20; D. HaignerÉ, Étude sur le Portus Itius, p. 91); and the tradition has been confirmed by the explorations of M. Rigaux (Annales de la Soc. gÉol. du Nord, xxviii, 1899, p. 88). In the dunes which border on the creek formed by the rivulet there have been found certain old balks of oak, mentioned by HaignerÉ (op. cit.) and C. de Saulcy (Les campagnes de Jules CÉsar dans les Gaules, p. 172), which may have belonged to the quays of the mediaeval harbour. According to Le Quien, the inhabitants of Wissant in his time (early in the eighteenth century) affirmed that the entrance of the harbour had been at the mouth of the Rieu de Ghibelen,—the rivulet nearest to Cape Grisnez (MÉm. de litt. tirÉz des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, xiii, 1734-7 [1741], p. 417). I agree with HaignerÉ that the harbour, such as it was, was at the mouth of the Rieu d’Herlan. As he says (Étude, &c., p. 91),‘Pour s’assurer de l’endroit oÙ Était le port, il n’y avait qu’À se demander oÙ Était le village. Or, le village a toujours occupÉ l’emplacement sur lequel il est encore bÂti de nos jours, savoir: partie À l’est du ruisseau d’Herlan ... oÙ les maisons se reconstruisent avec les dÉbris des prÉcÉdentes,’ &c. See also Bull. de la Soc. de gÉogr. de Lille, xix, 1893, p. 199. 2774 C. de Saulcy, in an article in which he endeavours to prove that the Portus Itius was Wissant (Les campagnes de Jules CÉsar dans les Gaules, p. 161), frankly admits that not one of the natives of Wissant whom he interrogated had ever heard that there was such a name as ‘Esseu’, or that the Flemings called Wissant ‘Itzen’ (or ‘Isten’). A. Wauters, indeed, referring to B. E. C. GuÉrard’s Cartulaire de Folcuin, p. 161, a work which I have failed to procure, affirms (Bull. de l’Acad. Roy ... de Belgique, 2e sÉr., xlvii, 1879, p. 114) that in a charter of the ninth century property in a place called Istem was granted to the abbey of St. Bertin: but he fails to prove the identity of Istem with Wissant; and even if that identity could be established, no competent etymologist would admit that it supplied an argument for identifying Wissant with the Portus Itius. 2775 This derivation, which is now generally accepted, is mentioned by Lambert of Ardres, a chronicler of the thirteenth century, who speaks of Britannicum secus portum, qui ab albedine arenae vulgari nomine appellatur Witsant (J. P. von Ludewig, Reliquiae manuscriptorum, &c., viii, 1728, p. 383. Cf. J. F. Pommeraye, Hist. de l’abbaye royale de S. Ouen de Rouen, 1662, p. 457), but is disputed by Le Quien (Dissertation sur le Port Iccius, pp. 342-3, printed in MÉm. de litt. et d’hist., viii, 1749, by P. Desmolets). Remarking that Flodoard, a writer of the tenth century, calls Wissant Guicsum, he maintains that Guicsum is identical with Vvicsum, which would mean ‘the port of Sum’, just as Quantovic (Étaples) means ‘the port of the river Canche’. I agree, however, with Desjardins (GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 352, note) that it is not certain that by Guicsum Flodoard meant Wissant. 2776 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 83. 2777 J. Malbrancq, De Morinis, i, 1639, p. 27; MÉm. de la Soc. des ant. de Picardie, iii, 1856, pp. 469-70; A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i. 356-7, note. 2778 Origines Celticae, ii, 362-4. 2779 Origines Celticae, ii, 363. Guest apparently forgot that if Wissant was the Portus Itius, Caesar’s ships, when they returned from the second expedition, must have been hauled up on the beach (B. G., v. 24, § 1). 2780 The Reader, Oct. 10, 1863, p. 414. 2781 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 181. 2782 Cf. Livy. xxxvi, 45, § 8,—ad Canas classis venit; et, cum iam hiems appeteret, fossa valloque circumdatis naves subductae; B. C. iii, 23, § 3,—(Libo) adeo loci opportunitate profecit uti ad Pompeium litteras mitteret, naves reliquas, si vellet, subduci et refici iuberet; and Horace, Carm., i, 4, 1-2,— Solvitur acris hiems grata vice veris et Favoni, Trahuntque siccas machinae carinas. 2783 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 141-2. 2784 Geogr., iv, 5, § 2. 2785 Geogr., iii, 3, § 5. 2786 Ib., ii, 6, § 2. 2787 iii. 6. 2788 See p. 556, supra. 2789 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, p. 142. 2790 Geogr., ix, 1, § 15.—t? ?? ??? pa?a??? ?tete???st? ?a? s?????st? ? ???????a pa?ap??s??? ?spe? ? t?? ??d??? p????, p??se???f??a t? pe????? t?? te ?e??a?? ?a? t??? ????a? p???e?? ?e????? ... ????? te ?? ?a?st???? ta?? tet?a??s?a?? ?a?s??, &c. 2791 Descr. Graeciae, ii, 38, § 2. 2792 Geogr., viii, 6, § 2. 2793 Evidently ?a?sta??? had a wider range of meaning than statio navium. Plutarch (Aristides, 23) implies that a ?a?sta??? could be burned, from which HaignerÉ (Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, iii, 1897, p. 455) infers that ‘un ?a?sta??? n’est pas une rade foraine, ni une anse, mais un lieu fermÉ, oÙ se trouvent des arsenaux maritimes’. This was sometimes the meaning of the word, but only rarely. Pliny (Nat. Hist., iii, 8 [14], § 89) mentions a harbour in Sicily, called Portus Naustathmus. See also Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae linguae, v, 1842-6, col. 1383-4. Professor Haverfield (Eng. Hist. Rev., xviii, 1903, p. 335) insists that Strabo (iv, 5, § 2) meant by ?a?sta??? ‘the whole region of the Itian highland in which Caesar had his portus Itius and his ulterior portus’. 2794 B. G., v, 2, § 3; 5, § 2. 2795 It is quite true, as General Creuly observes (Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 306) that the author of Bellum Africum (c. 10, § 1) applies the name of portus to a mere anchorage (cf. Col. Stoffel, Hist. de Jules CÉsar,—Guerre civile, ii, 110-1, and pl. 20). But Bellum Africum was not written by Caesar; and the question is, what Caesar meant by the word portus. Now there are certainly two instances in which he applies that word to a harbour very different from the estuary of a river. The harbour of Nymphaeum (now the bay of Medua) on the eastern coast of the Adriatic has a comparatively wide entrance, and is exposed to the full force of the south wind; but against all other winds it is perfectly safe, and it might fairly be called a portus and not a statio (B. C., iii, 26, § 4. Cf. Col. Stoffel, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, &c. pl. 14 bis). The harbour of Alexandria was formed, as Caesar says (B. C., iii, 112, § 2. Cf. Stoffel, pl. 19), by the island which extended opposite the city, and was divided into two portions by the mole which connected the island with the mainland: the western portion must have been exposed to south westerly winds, but the other offered complete shelter. The conclusion is that the word portus had a somewhat elastic signification, but would not have been applied by Caesar to Wissant unless the anchorage there had been protected, as Dr. Guest imagined, by sand-dunes. 2796 The Reader, Sept, 19, 1863, p. 317. 2797 M. Bouquet, Recueil des hist. des Gaules, xi, 1767, pp. 40C, 75C. 2798 This is undeniable. See J. F. Henry, Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, pp. 66-71; D. HaignerÉ, Etude sur le Portus Itius, p. 85, n. 1; and Dict. arch. de la Gaule, ii, 45. Henry calculated from the loss known to have been suffered by Cap d’Alprech and the promontory on which the Tour d’Odre stood during the two centuries and a half that preceded the year 1810, that in Caesar’s time they must have extended from 700 to 800 metres further seaward than in 1810. This, however, I believe to be an exaggeration. 2799 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, pp. 227-8. 2800 Le Roman de Brut, ed. Le Roux de Lincy, 1836, vv. 3937-40. Similarly Geoffrey of Monmouth (Hist. Britonum, iv, § 3) and Matthew Paris (Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, i, 1872, p. 73) supposed that Caesar, after his second expediion, had returned to Boulogne. 2801 Nouv. Biogr. gÉn., xxiii, 1858, p. 802. 2802 See my Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, pp. 387-94. 2803 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 227. 2804 Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, p. 192. Gosselin (Recherches sur la gÉogr., iv, 87-90) attempts to prove that Ptolemy confused two itineraries, and accordingly located the promontory between the Somme and Gesoriacum instead of on the north of the latter. Henry (Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, pp. 3-6, 33), referring to Pomponius Mela (iii, 7, §§ 59, 68), maintains that by the word promontorium the ancients sometimes designated not merely a cape but also all its ‘collateral dependencies’; and accordingly he argues that the ?t??? ????? comprised Capes Grisnez and Blancnez, and Cap d’Alprech! Desjardins (GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 371-2) remarks that not only was Cap d’Alprech a more prominent headland 2000 years ago than to-day, but it is actually 9 metres, or about 30 feet, higher than Cape Grisnez; and he insists that the ancients, being unable to form an exact idea of the outline of a coast, took note of those geographical features which appeared to them remarkable, and would therefore have been more inclined to mention Cap d’Alprech than Cape Grisnez. I cannot help thinking that Desjardins would not have resorted to this argument if he had not persuaded himself that the identification of the Portus Itius with Boulogne depended upon the identification of Cap d’Alprech with the Itian promontory. The ancients did not know how to make accurate maps; but they had sufficient powers of observation to be able to see that Cape Grisnez marked the great bend in the coast of North-Eastern Gaul. It is amusing to find that, whereas Desjardins in his first volume (p. 371) affirmed that the identification of the Itian promontory with Cape Grisnez, if it were admitted, would necessarily involve the identification of the Portus Itius with Wissant, in his third volume (p. 355) he queries his own identification of the promontory with Cap d’Alprech. 2805 Celtic Britain, 1904, p. 303. 2806 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, pp. 224-5. 2807 Ib., pp. 221-2. 2808 Norman Conquest, i, xv. 2809 Longius delatus aestu (B. G., v, 8, § 2). According to Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 1872, p. 204), ‘the expression “too far” (longius) means that he was carried too far north and past the place where he had landed the year before.’ But as the direction of the current was ENE. (magnetic), the smallest drift would have been too far. 2810 B. G., v, 8, § 2. 2811 See pp. 728-30, infra. 2812 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 122-3. There is an obvious objection to this argument, to which Heller replies by anticipation. One of the three sides of Britain, says Caesar, looks southward towards Gaul; and one of the ‘angles’ (alter angulus) of this side is by Kent (B. G., v, 13, § 1). If Caesar landed, as Heller believes, between the South Foreland and the North Foreland, he had himself seen this angle, which is formed by the South Foreland; and if he believed that the coast, at the North Foreland, turned sharply towards the west, and had no knowledge of that part of the coast which trends northward beyond the mouth of the Thames, it is clear that he must have regarded the North Foreland and not the South Foreland, as marking the commencement of the northern side, in which case one might think that he would have described the coast between the South Foreland and the North Foreland as a separate side, and would have represented Britain not as triangular but as irregularly quadrilateral. But Heller argues that the word angulus, as used by Caesar, does not mean an ‘angle’ in the geometrical sense of the word, but only a strip of coast between two angles; and he compares a passage in Livy’s description of the siege of Saguntum (xxi, 7, § 5),—Angulus muri erat in planiorem patentioremque quam cetera circa vallem vergens. 2813 Caesar started ‘about sunset’ (ad solis occasum): the wind dropped ‘about midnight’ (media circiter nocte); and the drift ceased at daybreak (orta luce). The sun set at 8.16 p.m.; and day broke about 3.20 a.m. It would be absurd to suppose that the voyage must have begun at the moment when the sun dipped under the horizon: we may fairly assume that it began at any time between 7 and 8. Similarly the drift may be assumed to have begun at any time between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. Let us suppose that the wind lasted 5 hours, and the drift 3 hours. For some time before the wind dropped it must have been gradually dying down; but, as the vessels kept steerage way, it may be assumed, so Captain Iron, the harbour-master at Dover assures me, that, even during the drift, there was not a dead calm. Major Rennell, indeed, affirms (Archaeologia, xxi, 1827, p. 503) that when the wind dropped the ships were ‘left to the resources of their oars’: but Caesar does not confirm this; and if the oars had been used, why should the ships have drifted out of their course? Captain Iron says that with a light south-westerly wind the ships could easily have sailed 6 knots an hour. The voyage took place about the time of new moon (see pp. 728-30, infra), that is to say, a day or two before spring tide. For the first two hours the ships had to encounter the ebb tide, the rate of which, however, was not more than one knot an hour; and the flood, the rate of which increased from about three-quarters of a knot to nearly 3 knots, helped them from about 9 or 9.30 p.m. We may estimate, then, that in the 5 hours they sailed not less than 25 knots; while in 3 hours, aided by a faint breeze, they would have drifted about 6 knots (see p. 656, infra). I think, then, that the entire distance which Caesar sailed up to the moment when he ‘saw Britain lying behind on the port quarter’, may be estimated at not less than 31 knots, or about 57½ kilometres. After making this calculation, which must be taken for what it is worth, I find that, according to Napoleon’s map (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, Atlas, pl. 16), the distance was 57 kilometres. The reader may check my estimate by referring to the Admiralty Tide Tables, pp. 112-9, and Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels. 2814 See Tide Tables for the British and Irish Ports, p. 119. 2815 For this reason I attach no importance to Heller’s remark (Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 692), that, if Caesar had only drifted as far northward as the latitude of Deal, he would have written, not sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit, but longius se a Britannia recessisse animum advertit. 2816 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 176; Philologus, xlix, 1890, pp. 691-2. 2817 Origines Celticae, ii, 362. 2818 Geogr., iv, 5, § 2. 2819 The Reader, Sept. 19, 1863, p. 317. ‘What Strabo says,’ writes Long (ib., p. 414), ‘is quite irrelevant to the matter in discussion, which must be decided by Caesar’s text.’ After which Long proceeds to devote a column and a half to arguing for his own view of what Strabo said. 2820 Origines Celticae, ii, 368-70. 2821 The Reader, Oct. 10, 1863, p. 414. 2822 Long forgets that Strabo does not expressly say that ‘the Itius’ was a usual point of transit; he only says that Caesar used it as his naval station. If ‘the Itius’ was identical with the port used by the passengers who ‘cross from the country near the Rhine’, it was ‘a usual point of transit’; but it is precisely this identity which is the subject of dispute. 2823 Geogr., v, 3, § 6. 2824 Ib., iv, 6, § 9. 2825 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 176. Heller puts the matter very clearly,—‘aber diese Ausdrucksweise ist auf gewisse leicht erkennbare Wendungen beschrÄnkt. Jedesmal jedoch, wo ?a? weder die intendirende Kraft (in der Bedeutung “sogar”) besitzen kann, noch eine HinzufÜgung begleitender UmstÄnde vermittelt (“zugleich auch”, “denn auch”) noch auch verallgemeinernde Bedeutung hat (“auch immer”), kann es, wie hier, nur das Hinzutreten einer neuen Person oder Sache einleiten ... es darf deshalb gar kein Zweifel darÜber aufkommen, dass Strabo in der That den portus Itius von dem gewÖhnlichen Hafen der Moriner hat unterscheiden wollen.’ 2826 Portus Itius, p. 13. Schneider, like myself, accepts Heller’s interpretation of Strabo’s meaning. 2827 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, pp. 46, 48. 2828 Les campagnes de Jules CÉsar dans les Gaules, pp. 183-4. 2829 D. HaignerÉ, Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, i, 96. 2830 NapolÉon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 1866, p. 168. 2831 CongrÈs arch. de France, xxviie session, 1860 (1861), pp. 69-70. 2832 Étude sur le Portus Itius, pp. 72-7; Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, i, 96-8. 2833 On the day of Caesar’s first landing in Britain high water at Dover was about 6.21 a.m. (see pp. 610-1, infra); and when he was approaching the British coast in 54 B.C., the tide turned south-westward about ten miles east of Deal soon after daybreak, which was about 3.15 a.m. See pp. 655-9, infra. Supposing that Caesar landed in Britain in 55 B.C. on the 27th, not, as I believe (see p. 601, infra), on the 26th of August, it still remains true that the latter part of the voyage was made on the flood. 2834 Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique, 2e sÉr., xlvii, 1879, pp. 134-61. 2835 Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, ii, 439-40. 2836 Étude sur le Portus Itius, p. 32. 2837 See Œuvres de Froissart,—Chroniques, ii, 1867, p. 109 (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove). 2838 Bull. de L’Acad. Roy.... de Belgique, 2e sÉr., xlvii, 1879, pp. 144-5. 2839 Const. Hist. of England, i, 1880, p. 540. 2840 Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs, i, 1867, p. 60. 2841 Radulfi de Diceto ... opera hist., ed. W. Stubbs, i, 1876, p. 377. 2842 B. G., iv, 23, § 1. 2843 ‘It has no port, nor is it easy to see how it ever could have had one.... Possibly Cape Blanc-Nez may have projected further seawards two thousand years ago than at present, and so have afforded it something like a shelter from the south-west wind.’ Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 221, note. But Cape Grisnez would equally have afforded Wissant ‘something like a shelter from the south-west wind’; yet Dr. Guest implies that at Wissant there could have been no harbour unless it had been protected by sand-dunes. And what about the north-west, the north, and the north-east wind? 2844 Gentleman’s Magazine, xxvi, 1846, p. 256. 2845 Origines Celticae, ii, 363. 2846 This assumption, with the condition that the ships could work to windward, is approved by Captain Iron and by Commander Boxer, R.N., the harbour-master of Folkestone. 2847 I assume what I shall afterwards prove (see pp. 595-665, infra), that Caesar landed in 55 B.C. between Walmer and Deal. If he had landed near Hythe or Lympne, the force of my argument would of course be increased. 2848 B. G., iv, 28, § 2. 2849 See James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed., 1880, p. 113, and Adm. W. H. Smyth, The Sailor’s Word-Book, 1867, p. 598. 2850 A wind blowing from the north-east off Walmer or Kingsdown would be diverted a point or two southward off the south coast. 2851 The statement in the text, which will commend itself to every one who reflects that the heights between Folkestone and Hythe would have afforded protection from the wind, is made with the approval of a Deal boatman and an ex-warrant officer who knows every inch of the Kentish coast. 2852 Marine Dictionary, 1815, p. 220. 2853 See Addenda, p. 740. 2854 GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 356-7, 388. 2855 Itin. Ant., ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63, 376-7; La Table de Peutinger, ed. Desjardins, p. 12, col. 3, p. 13, col. 1-3, p. 22, col. 1-3. The advocates of Wissant have pointed to two roads which connected Wissant with ThÉrouanne. One of these, known as the voie de Leulene, leads from ThÉrouanne to Sangatte, and, near Guines, throws out a branch, which terminates at Wissant; the other, called the chemin vert, leads to Wissant direct. Roman remains have been found on the voie de Leulene, but none on the branch; while both on the chemin vert and on the branch road excavations have been made which proved that neither was a Roman road. See D. HaignerÉ, Étude sur le Portus Itius, pp. 100-1, 103; and MÉm. de l’Acad. d’Arras, xxxv, 1863, pp. 272-3. 2856 C. du Fresne, Dissertatio de portu Iccio, p. 95. See also A. Wauters (Bull. de. l’Acad. Roy. ... de Belgique, 2e sÉr., xlvii, 1879, p. 130). 2857 B. G., v, 5, §3; 7, §3; 8, §§1-2. 2858 I say ‘at least’ advisedly. In order to understate my case, I have assumed that the legions were of the exceptionally low average strength of 3,500 men (B. G., v, 49, §7; Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, pp. 563-7), and have not counted auxiliaries, although there were certainly both slingers and archers (B. G., iv, 25, §1). Probably we should be within the mark if we estimated the force at 40,000 infantry and auxiliaries, besides the 4,000 cavalry. 2859 See E. B. Hamley’s Operations of War, 4th ed., 1878, pp. 34, 37. 2860 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, pp. 224-5. 2861 B. G., v, 23, § 4. 2862 See A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 362. 2863 I am aware that, according to Froissart (Chroniques, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, v, 1868, pp. 182-3), timber was conveyed after the battle of Crecy from the forests of the Boulonnais to Wissant by men and horses. But Wissant was then connected with the interior by roads. 2864 The very earliest mention of Wissant to which its advocates can point refers to the year 566. But the anonymous life of St. Vulgan, in which the reference is to be found, is a work of no authority. See MÉm. de l’Acad. d’Arras, xxxv, 1863, p. 253, and A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 351-2, note. 2865 Bull. de l’Acad. Roy. de Belgique, 3e sÉr., xviii, 1889, pp. 415, 421. 2866 Cf. E. Lavisse, Hist. de France (tome i, by G. Bloch, 1901, pp. 197-8). 2867 Lettre À M. Bouillet, &c., pp. 26-7. HaignerÉ (Étude sur le Portus Itius, p. 122) argues that if Caesar started on his first voyage from Wissant, it is impossible to account for the fact that, on the return voyage, two of his ships failed to make the same harbours as the rest, that is to say, Sangatte and Wissant. Those two ships could not, he insists, have drifted further down the coast, that is to say, southward of Cape Grisnez, unless the wind had been unfavourable; and if the wind was unfavourable, how was it that the remaining ships succeeded in making the harbours? Captain Iron, however, attaches no importance to this objection. 2868 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 130. 2869 Bull. de la Soc. acad. de ... Boulogne-sur-mer, i, 1873, pp. 132-3. 2870 I mean, of course, on any part of the coast which can be regarded as lying within the limits required by Caesar’s narrative. The estuary of the Authie is about 11 miles further south than that of the Canche; and the estuary of the Somme is, as we have seen (pp. 558-63, supra) inadmissible. 2871 GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 376-80, and pl. xv. See also T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. c-ci, and Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÉgion boulonnaise, i, 1899, p. 708. ‘Au xive siÈcle,’ says M. Lejeal (ib., p. 369), ‘la mer pÉnÉtrait encore jusqu’À Isques.’ 2872 D. HaignerÉ, Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, ii, 416, 420-4. 2873 Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 63. 2874 See a map in the British Museum, called Plan gÉnÉral du port de Boulogne, avec les dispositions proposÉes ... pour sortir du port dans une marÉe 300 batimens portant une armÉe de 60,000 hommes, 1822. This from the small modern port. 2875 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236. 2876 E. Reclus, Nouv. GÉogr. Univ.,—La France, 1877, p. 792. 2877 For the second expedition the vessels were specially constructed of light draught (B. G., v, 1, § 2); and those which Napoleon built for the flotilla of 1804 did not draw more than 3 feet of water (Nap. III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 172). Even in Caesar’s first expedition the draught of the transports could not have been great, as the men were able to jump off them into the sea and wade ashore. 2878 A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 378, 380. 2879 CapÉcure is on the left bank, about two miles from the mouth of the river. 2880 Bull. de la Soc. acad. ... de Boulogne-sur-mer, i, 1873, p. 278, n. 1; D. HaignerÉ, Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, i, 328-32, ii, 422. The latter passage is worth quoting:—‘On travaillait en 1861 au creusement du sas-ÉclusÉ dont la munificence du gouvernement ... a dotÉ le port de Boulogne ... les ouvriers arrivÈrent dans la couche la plus basse des sables qu’ils dÉblayaient dans la fouille! Nous y trouvions le radier de l’ancien port semÉ d’antiquitÉs gauloises et de dÉbris romains, portant, sur sa surface, de tuf glaiseux, la trace visible du roulis des vagues, avec une dÉpression marquÉe, formant une sorte de chenal qui se dirigeait vers l’ouest,’ &c. Airy, who insists (Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236) that Boulogne harbour would have been too small for Caesar’s purpose, neglected to inform himself that there was much more space in the estuary in Caesar’s time than there is now. Henry’s objection (Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, pp. 58-9), that there would not have been enough water in the harbour at sunset, when Caesar set sail on his second voyage, therefore collapses; but even if his statement were true, the inference which he draws from it would be refuted by himself: for he tells us (p. 52) that in 55 B.C. the ships ‘ont dÛ partir du mouillage’. If so, why not in 54 B.C. also? 2881 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 28. 2882 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xiii-xvi. 2883 The distance by the new military road is, as Lewin warns his readers, much less. Mariette (Lettre À M. Bouillet, &c., pp. 16, 51) actually holds that the ulterior portus was the harbour of Bononia (see p. 591, n. 1, infra), as distinguished from that of Gesoriacum! The ulterior portus, he says, is generally assumed to have been eight Roman miles from the Portus Itius, simply because the eighteen ships which carried Caesar’s cavalry were detained eight miles from the Portus Itius by contrary winds. But, he insists, Caesar does not say that the place where the eighteen ships were detained was a harbour: he merely indicates the harbour where the cavalry embarked, without saying where it was; it was not the same place as that at which the vessels had been detained some days before. I only notice this theory because Mariette was a really eminent man. If it were necessary to refute it, it would be sufficient to say, first, that, as Caesar tells us (B. G., iv, 22, § 4) that the eighteen ships (which he reserved for his cavalry) were detained by contrary winds at a place eight miles from the harbour which sheltered the rest of the fleet, and in the next sentence but two says that he ordered the cavalry to advance to the ulterior portus (which he had not mentioned before), and embark, the inevitable conclusion is that the place where the eighteen ships had been detained was the ulterior portus; secondly, that if the ulterior portus had been virtually in juxta-position with the port from which Caesar sailed, he would certainly have taken care that they sailed along with him. 2884 See pp. 558, 581-2, supra. 2885 See pp. 616, 651, infra. 2886 B. G., v, 8, § 2. 2887 Nat. Hist., iv, 23 (37), § 122. Wauters (Bull. de l’Acad. Roy ... de Belgique, 2e sÉr., xlvii, 1879, pp. 125-6) actually argues that because Lambert of Ardres, who wrote in the thirteenth century, called Wissant the portus Britannicus, therefore Wissant was the portus Morinorum Britannicus of Pliny! He forgets that Lambert was not referring to the time of the Roman Empire: he simply meant that in his own time Wissant was a frequented port of departure for England. Courtois insists (Bull. de la Soc. des ant. de la Morinie, iii, 1862, p. 391) that Pliny distinguishes the portus Morinorum Britannicus from Gesoriacum. As well might a modern leader-writer be said to distinguish London from ‘the metropolis’. 2888 See A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 363-8, 371-2, 383-8. Roman tiles, bearing the inscription CL. BR., have been found at BrÉquerecque, east of Boulogne, on the banks of the Liane; and inscriptions found at Tintelleries and BrÉquerecque prove that CL. BR. stands for classis Britannica (ib., p. 364, and V. J. Vaillant, Classis Britannica, 1888, pp. 16-7). 2889 A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 367-8. 2890 Divus Claudius, 17. 2891 Itin. Ant., ed. Wesseling, pp. 356-63; A. E. E. Desjardins, GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 387. 2892 Zosimus (Hist. Nov., ed. L. Mendelssohn, 1887, vi, 2, § 2) says that Bononia was the first port to be met with in Germania (Inferior), that is to say, by a traveller coming from the east; and much stress has been laid upon this passage by the advocates of Boulogne: but it only proves what we knew already, namely, that if Wissant had ever been a Gallic port, it fell into complete disuse under the empire. 2893 GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 383. 2894 Portus Itius, p. 12. 2895 Chorographia, iii, 2, § 23. 2896 Nat. Hist., iv, 16 (30), § 102; 23 (37), § 122. 2897 Napoleon III (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 171-2) maintains that the fact of the great Napoleon’s having selected Boulogne for the embarkation of the troops with which he intended to invade England is a strong argument in favour of Caesar’s having done the same. I lay no stress upon this argument because it is superfluous if it can be shown that Wissant would not have served Caesar’s purpose equally well; and that this has been shown those who have read so far will not deny. It is hardly necessary to add that Boulogne was only one, though the principal, of several ports selected by Napoleon. 2898 Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 432. ‘If,’ says Long, ‘it was named Gesoriacum in Caesar’s time, why did he name it Itium?’ The obvious answer is that he did not name it ‘Itium’. He named it, or rather its harbour, portus Itius,—‘the Itian harbour,’ or, as Professor Rhys expresses it, ‘the Channel harbour.’ 2899 GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 383-4, 473. 2900 Dict. arch. de la Gaule, ii, 45-7. 2901 Portus Itius, p. 19. 2902 Desjardins also finds it necessary to explain why the name Gesoriacum was succeeded by Bononia. His explanation (GÉogr. de la Gaule rom., i, 373) is that the port of Gesoriacum was different from the port of Bononia. Remarking that, according to Eumenius (Paneg. Constantii, c. vi), the port of Gesoriacum was blocked by the emperor Constantius Chlorus, in order to prevent the escape of Carausias, he says that ‘sans doute’ this port was then abandoned for the new (and hypothetical) port of Bononia, ‘aux Tintelleries,’ further down the Liane. This, he says, explains why the name Bononia was alone used (except in the itineraries) after the time of Constantine. I have noticed that Desjardins uses the words ‘sans doute’ when there is a doubt which he is unable to remove. As he insists that the ports of Bononia and Gesoriacum were different, he must, I think, have been off his guard when he quoted, in support of his contention, an anonymous writer, who mentions the arrival of Constantine at ‘Bononia, which the Gauls originally called Gesoriacum’ (Bononiam, quam Galli prius Gesoriacum vocabant [M. Bouquet, Recueil des hist. des Gaules, i, 1738, p. 563B]). And in his own edition of the Peutinger Table (p. 13, col. 2) I find the words Gesogiaco quod nunc Bononia. 2903 The Reader, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254. 2904 Nat. Hist., iv, 16 (30), §102. 2905 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 50, §2. 2906 Ed. Wesseling, p. 463. 2907 The Reader, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254. 2908 The arguments of d’Anville, intended to prove that ten maritime stades were equivalent to one Roman mile, may be found in his TraitÉ des mesures anciennes, 1769, pp. 71-6. Everybody knows that there were stades of various lengths, one of which was one-tenth of a Roman mile (Itin. Hierosol., ed. Wesseling, p. 609); but the stade by which Strabo usually reckoned was one-eighth of a mile (Geogr., vii, 7, § 4.—?????????, ?? ?? ?? p?????, t? ????? ??tast?d???. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii, 23 [21], § 85.—Stadium centum viginti quinque nostros efficit passus). See J. Wex, MÉtrologie grecque et rom. (trans. P. Mouat), 1886, p. 16; F. Hultsch, Griech. und rÖm. Metrologie, 1882, pp. 49, 59-60; and Ideler in Abhandlungen der KÖniglichen Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1826 (1829), p. 15; 1827 (1830), p. 127. 2909 The Reader, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 254. 2910 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 174-5. 2911 Cf. R. Schneider, Portus Itius, p. 10. No doubt the ancients did commonly overestimate distances; but any one who had time to go through Strabo could pick out exceptions. Thus he tells us (i, 4, §4) that the distance from Massilia to ‘the middle of Britain’ (e?? ?s?? t?? ??etta?????) is 5,000 stades, and (ii, 1, §40) that the distance from Carthage to Massilia is not more than 9,000. The latter, in a straight line, is about 10,500: the former, measured only as far as Portsmouth Harbour, about 5,200. 2912 See p. 558, supra. 2913 Gentleman’s Magazine, xxvi, 1846, p. 252. 2914 D. HaignerÉ, Étude sur le Portus Itius, p. 108. 2915 See also J. F. Henry, Essai ... sur l’arrondissement communal de Boulogne-sur-mer, p. 190, and Boulogne-sur-mer et la rÈgion boulonnaise, i, 369. 2916 HaignerÉ (Recueil hist. du Boulonnais, i, 377) questions whether there is any mention of Ambleteuse as a port earlier than the sixteenth century; but it is certain that a charter was granted to the town in the year 1209. See Bull. de la Soc. acad. de Boulogne-sur-mer, i, 1864-72 (1873) pp. 139-46. 2917 Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 309. 2918 B. G., iv, 37. 2919 B. G., iv, 38, §§1-2. 2920 See p. 561, supra. 2921 B. G., ii, 31-3; v, 39, §3. 2922 Ib., ii, 28; v, 38-9. 2923 Ib., iv, 21, §5; 27; 30. 2924 Ib., iv, 37, §1.—‘About 300 soldiers had landed from these two vessels and were making the best of their way to camp, when the Morini, who had been quite submissive when Caesar left them on his departure for Britain, surrounded them,’ &c. (Quibus ex navibus cum essent expositi milites circiter CCC atque in castra contenderent, Morini, quos Caesar in Britanniam proficiscens pacatos reliquerat, spe praedae adducti ... circumsteterunt &c.) 2925 See T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xlii. 2926 See pp. 574-7, supra. 2927 B. G., v, 8, §2. 2928 B. G., v, 23, §6; 24, §1. 2929 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 438-9. 2930 RÖm. Gesch., iii, 1889, pp. 269-70, note (Engl. trans., v, 1894, p. 63, note). 2931 Julius Caesar, 1892, p. 196. 2932 Hist. of Anc. Geogr., pp. 230-1. 2933 Pol. Hist. of England, i, 1906, pp. 23-4. 2934 Formae orbis antiqui, 1894, xxvi. 2935 B. G., iv, 20, § 4. I agree with Meusel in adopting the reading (ad) maiorem (navium multitudinem idonei portus), not maiorum. A moment’s reflection will show that we ought to read maiorem, even though there is no better MS. authority for it than the codex Vratislaviensis I. Caesar was not anxious to find out what harbours would accommodate a flotilla of large ships, but what harbours would accommodate a large flotilla. The draught of his ships was so small that when they were aground the men could jump overboard and wade ashore. See Classical Review, xv, 1901, p. 176. 2936 See p. 554, supra. 2937 Mr. H. E. Malden (Journal of Philology, xxii, 1894, p. 168) remarks that the words cuius loci haec erat natura atque ita montibus angustis mare continebatur uti ex locis superioribus in litus telum adigi posset have been ‘taken as applying to old Dover harbour’. It is true that they have been taken in this sense by commentators who were ignorant of the meaning of angustis; but even if they could be interpreted as meaning a creek or inlet hemmed in by precipitous heights, they could not apply to ‘old Dover harbour’, which occupied part of the Priory Valley, and was never hemmed in by ‘precipitous heights’. Hoffmann unnecessarily conjectures that Caesar wrote not angustis but anguste. 2938 See pp. 653-4, infra. 2939 See p. 602, n. 5, infra. 2940 quae tamen ancoris iactis cum fluctibus complerentur, necessario adversa nocte in altum provectae continentem petierunt (B. G., iv, 28, §3). The meaning of adversa nocte has been much discussed. According to C. Schneider (Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, i, 397), who refers to a passage in the Civil War, ii, 31, §7—Vnamque huius modi res aut pudore aut metu tenentur, quibus rebus nox maxime adversaria est—the word adversa is equivalent to obstante, that is to say, ‘being unfavourable to them’: but, assuming that this is the meaning, did Caesar intend to convey that the ships stood out to sea though night was unfavourable to the voyage, or because night was unfavourable to their remaining where they were? I unhesitatingly reject the former alternative, for all Caesar’s voyages between Gaul and Britain were made by night, and, moreover, on this particular night there was a full moon: on the other hand, it would not have been more dangerous to remain at anchor in the night than in the daytime. I agree with Kraner-Dittenberger (C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1890, p. 85), who hold that, just as adverso colle (B. G., ii, 19, §3) means ‘up the hill’, and adverso flumine (ib., vii, 60, § 3) ‘up the river’, so adversa nocte means ‘in the face of night’ (‘der Nacht entgegen’, ‘in die Nacht hinein’), a translation which reminds one of Browning’s famous line ‘And into the midnight we galloped abreast’. 2941 See p. 331, supra. 2942 The meaning of mollis is discussed on p. 630, infra. 2943 See p. 680, infra. 2944 See pp. 661-2, infra. 2945 B. G., iv, 20-6, 28-9, 31-6; v, 1, §§ 1-3; 2, §§ 2-3; 5, §§ 1-2; 8-11; 12, § 5; 13; 23. 2946 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 51, § 2. 2947 See NapolÉon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 174. 2948 The time of the full moon was kindly calculated for me by Messrs. John A. Sprigge, William Frazer Doak, M.A., F.R.A.S., and T. Charlton Hudson, B.A., F.R.A.S., all of the Nautical Almanac Office. 2949 B. G., iv, 28; 29, § 1. 2950 Geogr., iv, 3, § 4.—d?a?a d’ ?st?? e?? t?? ??etta????? ?p? t?? p?ta?? t?? ?e?t???? e???s? ?a? t??a??s??? st?d???? ?p? ??? t?? ?p?t?? ?f’ ?sp??a? ??a????te? t? ?ste?a?? pe?? ??d??? ??a? ?ata????s?? e?? t?? ??s??. 2951 See T. Bergk’s article in JahrbÜcher fÜr class. Phil., 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 613. 2952 S. H. Brown, Diagrams and Tables of Tidal Streams, &c., 1895, p. 51. 2953 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240. 2954 xliv, 37, §§ 5-6.—C. Sulpicius Gallus ... pronuntiavit nocte proxima, ne quis id pro portento acciperet, ab hora secunda usque ad quartam horam noctis lunam defecturam esse. 2955 At Sheerness on December 30, 1904, six days before new moon, ‘the tide rose to an extraordinary height [owing to a severe gale], at least 5 ft. above the natural level’ (Times, Dec. 31, 1904, p. 4, col. 2). ‘Them tides,’ said an old seaman to me at Dover, ‘is the queerest tides in the world; I’ve seen myself more flow of water at nips than at springs. It all depends on the wind.’ 2956 Napoleon III (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 175), after citing two irrelevant passages, asserts that ‘le post diem quartum de CÉsar doit se comprendre dans le sens de quatre jours rÉvolus, sans compter le jour du dÉbarquement’; and then, remarking that the storm broke out on the 30th of August, he concludes that ‘quatre jours pleins s’Étaient ÉcoulÉs depuis le dÉbarquement; cela nous conduit au 26. CÉsar prit donc terre le 25 aoÛt.’ To make things perfectly clear, let us put the matter in this way:—the orthodox view is that, according to the common Roman method of reckoning, the fourth day after Monday would be Thursday; Napoleon’s view is that it would be Saturday! It is neither profitable nor exciting to slay the slain. I will therefore only remark that Napoleon’s interpretation of the words post diem quartum is peculiar to himself, and that it has been demolished by Merivale (Contemporary Review, iii, 1866, pp. 125-6) and, still more effectively, by Heller (Philologus, xxvi, 1867, pp. 674-6). Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 169), remarking that ‘the Romans sometimes reckoned inclusively and sometimes not’, concludes that ‘the expression “on the fourth day” is ambiguous’. The famous jurist, F. C. von Savigny (System des heutigen rÖmischen, Rechts, iv, 1841, pp. 602-16), collected a large number of examples of both methods, which both Merivale and Heller have overlooked; and L. Holzapfel (see p. 719, n. 1, infra) shows that Cicero often used the exclusive method, which, for numbers from ten upwards, appears to have been invariable (Th. Mommsen, Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 2nd ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 17, and L. Holzapfel, RÖm. Chron., 1885, p. 353). Those, however, who are familiar with the language of the Commentaries will have no difficulty in concluding that Caesar himself, in that work, used the inclusive method. In B. G., vi, 33, § 4, he writes, discedens post diem VII sese reversurum confirmat; and in vi, 35, § 1, diesque adpetebat VII quem ad diem Caesar ... reverti constituerat. Therefore, as Merivale observes, ‘dies VII = post diem VII.’ See also Th. Mommsen, Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 2nd ed., 1859, p. 163, n. 317; L. Holzapfel, RÖm. Chron., pp. 353-6; Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 74; and Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 723-5. 2957 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 186, n. 2. 2958 Gall. Krieg, 1880, i, 147, n. 8. 2959 xl, 1, § 3. 2960 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 270. 2961 B. G., v, 8, § 3. 2962 See p. 599, supra. 2963 S. F. Surtees, Julius Caesar: did he cross the Channel? 1866; Julius Caesar: showing beyond reasonable doubt, that he never crossed the Channel, but sailed from Zeeland, and landed in Norfolk, 1868. 2964 J. Wainwright, Julius Caesar; did he cross the Channel. Reviewed, 1869. 2965 Geogr. der Griechen und RÖmer, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795, p. 29. 2966 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, 1865, p. 100. 2967 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, &c., 1868. By F. H. Appach. 2968 Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 441. 2969 Julius Caesar, 1892, p. 196, note. 2970 H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History, 1895, p. 257. 2971 Julius Caesar, p. 196. 2972 See pp. 518-52, supra. 2973 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, pp. 235, 237; Origines Celticae, ii, 366. Dr. Guest’s notions about the Thames were perhaps incorrect. See p. 696, infra. 2974 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 61, 63-4. 2975 Twenty-third Report East Kent Nat. Hist. Soc., 1881, p. 57. 2976 This, as I have shown, is an assumption which we have no right to make. 2977 The Cinque Ports, p. 8. 2978 I have already shown (pp. 528-30, supra) that this estimate is enormously exaggerated. 2979 AthenÆum, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 303. 2980 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 241. 2981 See pp. 601-2, supra. 2982 Archaeologia, xli, 1867, p. 272. 2983 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lxxxi-lxxxiii. 2984 Ib., p. lxxxvi. 2985 Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, p. 172. 2986 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, p. 289. 2987 Ib., pp. 300-2. 2988 ‘Winds,’ says Beechey (ib., xxxiv, 1852, p. 239), ‘greatly affect the time of turn of the stream.’ ‘Strong winds,’ says Mr. S. H. Brown, Trinity House Pilot (Diagrams and Tables of Tidal Streams, &c., 1895, p. 4), accelerate and prolong the stream running in the same direction, retard the opposing stream,’ &c. See also The Channel Pilot, part i, 1900, p. 541, from which we learn that ‘on some occasions ... 8 hours north-eastern and only 4 hours south-western streams have been found’. 2989 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, p. 290. 2990 Ib., pp. 290, 294, 301. 2991 According to Admiral Smyth (ib., p. 301), 6 hours and 5¾ hours respectively. 2992 Part i, 1900, p. 354. 2993 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lxxxiv, lxxxvi. 2994 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, pp. 290, 294. 2995 It is remarkable that most of the writers who have dealt with the question of Caesar’s landing-place should have taken so little pains to inform themselves about the tides. Thus Cardwell, who was in 1860 Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, says that ‘If you know what was the time of high-water at Folkestone at any full moon during the present year, you know the time of high-water at the same place whenever the moon was full a hundred or a thousand years ago. It is also a fact that each successive tide is later by twenty-five minutes than the one which had preceded it’ (Archaeol. Cant., iii, 1860, p. 7). Both these statements are grossly inaccurate, as the professor might have seen if he had taken the trouble to devote half an hour to the study of the Admiralty Tide Tables. Thus, taking the August full moon of the years 1883-1900, the time of high tide at Folkestone varied between 11.5 a.m. in 1896 and 10.17 a.m. in 1900; while the time of high tide of the fifth day before the full moon varied between 6.21 a.m. in 1893 and 4.46 a.m. in 1898; and high tide on the morning of August 19, 1896, was 90 minutes later than high tide on the morning of August 18, not 50 minutes, as it should have been according to Cardwell. If he had said that ‘on the average each successive tide is later by twenty-five minutes than the one which had preceded it’, he would have told the truth. 2996 See p. 666, infra. 2997 On the day when the stream turned westward soonest—only 3 hours 40 minutes after high water—the force of the wind was all but imperceptible (Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, p. 290). 2998 See p. 608, n. 3, supra. 2999 See p. 608, n. 3, supra. 3000 See pp. 600-1, supra. 3001 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 236. 3002 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 141-2. 3003 See the note at the end of Airy’s article in Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852; Sir C. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 1875, p. 534; and Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, clix, 1905, p. 129. 3004 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 239, 242. 3005 B. G., iv, 23, § 2. 3006 Viscount Wolseley, The Soldier’s Pocket-Book, 1886, p. 491.—‘Good eye-sight can distinguish bodies of troops at 2,000 yards; at that distance a man or horse appears like a dot; at 1,200 yards cavalry is distinguished from infantry,’ &c. I am aware that in certain primitive districts, for instance the islands of Inishbofin and Inishshank off the coast of Galway, the average range of vision is abnormally great (Proc. Roy. Irish Acad., 3rd ser., iii, 1893-5, p. 324); but we may reasonably assume that Caesar could not see eight or nine times as far as a modern Englishman. 3007 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxxiv. 3008 See p. 610, supra, and Tide Tables for the British and Irish Ports, p. 225. 3009 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 239.—‘At full and change of the moon,’ says Admiral Beechey, ‘close in shore off Hastings the stream turns to the west at 11h; but the turn becomes later as the distance off shore increases, and at 5 miles distance the stream turns to the west at 1h.... The stream runs to the west about 6½ hours,’ &c. 3010 Airy himself, as we have seen, makes no allowance for any variation which may have been produced by wind or other causes from the normal hour of the turn of the stream. I am willing to make any reasonable allowance; but the intelligent reader will have seen that no such allowance would disturb the conclusion which I have reached in the text. 3011 See pp. 648-9, infra. 3012 B. G., iv, 28, § 2. 3013 Ib. 3014 According to Falconer’s Marine Dictionary, 1815, p. 220, the lee-way of a ship in a gale varies from 5½ to 6½ points. The amount of course depends upon the force of the gale, the build of the ship, and other circumstances. 3015 See Addenda, p. 740. 3016 I need hardly say that if Caesar’s transports had been anchored off Pevensey on the night of the full moon a north-north-easterly gale could not have driven them ashore unless they had been inside the harbour, which Caesar would have mentioned. 3017 Instead of ‘eight’ Airy should of course have written ‘seven’. 3018 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 239, 241-2. 3019 Lewin (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xxxii-xxxiii) points out that if Caesar approached the British coast anywhere near Pevensey, ‘he must have anchored, in the first instance, somewhere off the high cliffs between Hastings and Cliff’s End,’ because at no point between Hastings and Pevensey are the ‘precipitous heights’ off which he anchored to be found. But, continues Lewin, if he anchored at any point between Hastings and Cliff’s End, ‘eight Roman miles would not carry him so far as Pevensey Marsh.’ [For ‘eight’ read ‘seven’.] 3020 AthenÆum, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338. 3021 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xxiv-xxv. 3022 AthenÆum, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338. 3023 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxvi. 3024 E. A. Freeman’s Norman Conquest, iii, 532-4; Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, pp. 63-4. 3025 See p. 571, supra. 3026 When Professor Ridgeway resuscitated Airy’s theory, he found himself called upon to meet the objection which we have just considered. Mr. Malden (Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 197-8) told him that Caesar would never have landed ‘opposite the Great Wealden Forest, where resistance would be easy and supplies scarce’. The professor replied (ib., p. 206) that a passage in Caesar’s narrative proves that he did land opposite the Wealden Forest. The passage will be found in the ninth chapter of Caesar’s Fifth Book, in which he describes the combat which took place on the banks of a stream, about 12 miles from his camp, the day after his second landing. The Britons, on being driven from the banks, withdrew into woods (repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt). Mr. Malden (Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, p. 63) makes the obvious reply:—‘All that Caesar tells us is that there were woods in which the Britons took refuge ... but Caesar does not lead us to believe that he landed in a place where his march inland was barred by an all but impenetrable forest 30 to 40 miles wide.’ 3027 AthenÆum, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 302. 3028 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240. 3029 Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 553. 3030 Ib., p. 553. 3031 Journal of Philology, xx, 1892, p. 197. 3032 The late arrival of some of Caesar’s ships (B. G., iv, 23, § 4) can only be accounted for on the assumption that during the voyage the wind shifted to an unfavourable quarter,—an assumption which is verified by Caesar’s express statement (iv, 26, § 5) that the cavalry transports were unable ‘to make the island’, and had to put back. 3033 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., pp. 35-6. 3034 B. G., v, 9, §§ 2-4. 3035 Ib., vii, 57, § 4; 58, §§ 1-2. 3036 Ib., v, 8, § 2. 3037 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 33. 3038 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xxvii-xxviii. 3039 See Tidal Streams, &c., and Admiralty Tide Tables, pp. 112-3, 119. 3040 B. G., v, 22, §§ 1-2. 3041 AthenÆum, Sept. 10, 1859, p. 338. 3042 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxvii. 3043 B. G., v, 11, §§ 8-9. 3044 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, p. 240. 3045 B. G., v, 2, § 3. 3046 Ib., 23, §§ 5-6. 3047 Att., vi, 8, § 4. 3048 Aen., v, 763-4. 3049 Ib., vii, 6-7. 3050 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., pp. 31, 34-5. 3051 Cf. R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, Correspondence of Cicero, iii, 1890, p. 246, note. 3052 Att., x, 18, § 1. 3053 B. G., iii, 15, § 3. 3054 Tranquillitas, in the singular, does of course sometimes mean ‘fine weather’: but in such cases the context makes the meaning clear; and if Caesar had intended to express this meaning, he would, as his usus loquendi shows, have written nactus idoneam ad navigandum tempestatem. Cf. H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., ii, 689. 3055 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, p. 205. 3056 According to Jean Brant of Antwerp, who published an edition of the Commentaries in 1606, some scholars affirmed that XXXX was to be found in ‘good MSS.’ (C. I. Caesaris quae exstant, ed. G. Jungermann, 1606, p. 501 of notes): but this vague statement, which C. Schneider (Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, p. 10) naturally discredits, is incapable of confirmation. The reading XXXX is not attested in any critical edition. 3057 See p. 558, supra. 3058 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 205-6. 3059 Ib., xx, 1892, p. 63. 3060 Ib., xix, 1891, pp. 197-8. 3061 See B. G., v, 8, § 2. 3062 See pp. 574-7, 616, supra. 3063 Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 210-1. 3064 Caesar’s men certainly did not begin to row at 3 a.m. Daybreak did not occur before 3.15; and, as Mr. Peskett remarks (ib., xx, 1892, p. 198), ‘the starting on the right course with the turn of the tide of a large and probably somewhat scattered fleet is not a momentary act which you can assign to a particular minute of the day.’ 3065 B. G., v, 8, § 5. 3066 Ib., iv, 23, § 2. 3067 Ib., v, 8, § 3. 3068 See Journal of Philology, xix, 1891, pp. 206-10. 3069 As a matter of fact it would have been against them much longer. See Admiralty Tide Tables, pp. 112, 115, 118, and S. H. Brown, Diagrams and Tables, &c., 1895. 3070 The professor denies that Caesar’s men could have taken all the time from daybreak to noon to row with the tide from a point off the South Foreland to Romney Marsh; and, on the assumption that they landed on the eastern end of the marsh, he is unquestionably right. But there is no evidence that they began to row at daybreak (see p. 620, n. 3, supra): we are not obliged to assume that because all the ships, including stragglers, had reached Britain by about noon, rowing went on in all till twelve o’clock; and the professor would have done better to conclude, not that they rowed to Pevensey, but that they drifted as far as the latitude of Deal, and rowed to a point on the eastern coast of Kent. 3071 The theory that Caesar landed between St. Leonards and Bulverhythe, which was advocated by R. C. Hussey (Archaeol. Cant., i, 1858, pp. 94-110), requires no comment; for the same arguments that are fatal to Airy’s theory are fatal also to it. 3072 See p. 609, supra. 3073 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. ciii. 3074 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 364-5. 3075 I have reproduced the relevant part of Lewin’s map on the map facing p. 531. 3076 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxxv. 3077 Ib., pp. lxxiii-lxxiv. 3078 B. G., iv, 26, § 5. 3079 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxxiv. 3080 Ib., p. xciii. 3081 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxxiv. 3082 B. G., v, 11, § 5. 3083 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 87. 3084 B. G., v, 9, § 1. 3085 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. cxxiii. If the reader will consult Lewin’s map in Archaeologia, xl, 1866, p. 369, or my reproduction of it, he will see that even if Lewin’s final view of the topography of Hythe harbour could be accepted (see pp. 547-8, supra), the absurdities involved in his theory of Caesar’s disembarkation would still remain. 3086 I mean of course that this would have been their true course. 3087 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 59-60. 3088 Information supplied by Commander Boxer, R.N., Harbour-Master at Folkestone. 3089 See Falconer’s Marine Dictionary, 1815, p. 220. 3090 The harbour-master of Dover, who fully endorses my argument, thinks that four points would be a fair estimate. 3091 See p. 613, supra. 3092 See pp. 606-11, supra. 3093 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, pp. 309-11. 3094 See p. 611, supra. 3095 Philologus, xxii, 1865, p. 307. 3096 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. lxxxix. 3097 Ib., p. 31 3098 Ib., p. xlviii. 3099 See p. 632, infra. 3100 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 39-40. 3101 This statement, as Caesar’s narrative (B. G., iv, 26, § 5) shows, is incorrect; and Lewin himself corrects it when he says (p. xlvii) that on the day of Caesar’s first voyage ‘the eighteen transports ... set sail, according to orders, but had been forced to put back by stress of weather’. 3102 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. xlvi-xlvii. 3103 In regard to Caesar’s use of the word nanciscor, see H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., ii, 688-9. Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 434), commenting on the inference which Lewin draws from the word nactus, says that ‘this is not a certain conclusion’, and quotes B. G., v, 9, § 4 (repulsi ab equitatu se in silvas abdiderunt, locum nacti egregie et natura et opere munitum, quem domestici belli, ut videbatur, causa iam ante praeparaverant). I doubt whether this passage is relevant. 3104 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 39-40. 3105 Lewin afterwards saw that if Caesar landed at Hythe, he could not have anchored off Dover, and accordingly transferred his anchorage to a point off Folkestone. See p. 635, infra. 3106 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 33-4. 3107 Ib., p. xc. 3108 I am glad to find that Heller (Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 111) has anticipated my argument. 3109 Obviously it would have been invisible if Caesar had anchored off Dover. See n. 1, supra. 3110 B. G., iv, 23, § 5. 3111 p. 629, infra. 3112 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 44. 3113 Pharsalia, ii, 571-2. 3114 Caesar, 16. 3115 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 51, § 2. 3116 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. cxxi. 3117 iii, 2, § 23. 3118 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 43-4. 3119 Ib., Preface (p. vi), p. lxxiii; Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, p. 313. 3120 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 64-5. 3121 Caesar, 16. 3122 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 239. 3123 Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 166. 3124 B. G., v, 9, § 1. 3125 For the meaning of molli see p. 630, infra. 3126 Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, 45-6. 3127 On the meaning of apertus, as used by Caesar, cf. H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., i, 283-4. In B. G., i, 41, § 4, loca aperta means a country free from woods and other features which would have made marching difficult: in B. G., ii, 18, § 2, and vii, 18, § 3, collis apertus means a hill free from woods. 3128 See B. G., ii, 10, § 4; 23, § 2; 27, § 5; v, 32, § 2; 49, § 6; 51, § 1; vi, 8, §§ 1, 3; vii, 45, § 9; 49, § 1; 52, § 2; 53, § 1; 83, § 2; 85, § 4; and numerous passages in the Civil War (cf. H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., ii, 170-2, s.v. iniquitas, iniquus). 3129 See pp. 546, 622, supra. 3130 See p. 655, n. 3, infra. 3131 Schneider maintains (Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, 45-6) that ‘molle idem esse quod leniter acclive, imprimis apto exemplo demonstravit Heldius, 7, 46, ad molliendum clivum non aliter dictum docens’. I do not think that Schneider is right in arguing that mollis should be translated by ‘gently sloping’, though that meaning is doubtless implied. My friend, Professor Postgate, who agrees with me, has kindly referred me to a passage in Ovid (Ep. ex Ponto, i, 2, 61-2)— Cum subit Augusti quae sit clementia, credo Mollia naufragiis litora posse dari— which seems to justify my explanation. Professor Postgate has also written me a most interesting letter, in which he remarks that while aperto describes the approach to the shore, which was not blocked by rocks, molli connotes both a gentle slope and a soft surface: he refers to a passage in Pomponius Mela (i, 19, § 102), where the Black Sea is described as non molli neque harenoso circumdatus litore. 3132 See Pharsalia, ed. C. E. Haskins, 1887, p. 67, note to line 571, and cf. Ovid, Fasti, iv, 278. The word incerti apparently refers to the tides. 3133 See C. Kempf’s edition of Valerius Maximus, 1854, pp. 26-33, and Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 96. 3134 The statements of Plutarch, Dion Cassius, and Valerius Maximus, to which Lewin refers, are as follows:—‘?? d? ??etta??? t?? p??e??? e?? t?p?? ???d? ?a? est?? ?d?t?? ?pes??s? t??? p??t??? ta???????? ?p??e???? st?at??t??, ?a?sa??? a?t?? t?? ???? ?f????t??, ?s?e??? e?? ?s??? ?a? p???? ?a? pe???pta t???? ?p?de???e??? ???a, t??? ?? ta???????? ?s?se, t?? a????? f????t??, a?t?? d? ?a?ep?? ?p? p?s? d?aa???? ?????e? ?a?t?? e?? ?e?ata te?at?d? ?a? ???? ??e? t?? ???e??, t? ?? ????e???, t? d? ad????, d?ep??ase. Plutarch, Caesar, 16. ???ta??a [i.e. at the landing-place in 55 B.C.] t??? p??s??a?t?? ?? ?? t? te???? ?p?a????t? ????sa? ?f?? t?? ??? ??at?sa?, &c. Dion Cassius, xxxix, 51, § 2. Bello quo C. Caesar ... Britannicae insulae caelestis iniecit manus, cum quattuor commilitonibus rate transvectus in scopulum vicinae insulae, quam hostium ingentes copiae obtinebant, postquam aestus regressu suo spatium, quo scopulus et insula dividebantur, in vadum transitu facile redegit, ingenti multitudine barbarorum affluente, ceteris rate ad litus regressis solus immobilem stationis gradum retinens, undique ruentibus telis et ab omni parte acri studio ad te invadendum nitentibus, quinque militum diurno proelio suffectura pila, una dextera hostium corporibus adegisti. Ad ultimum destricto gladio audacissimum quemque modo umbonis impulsu, modo mucronis ictu depellens hinc Romanis, illinc Britannicis oculis incredibili, nisi cernereris, spectaculo fuisti. Postquam deinde ira ac pudor cuncta conari fessos coegit, tragula femur traiectus saxique pondere ora contusus, galea iam ictibus discussa et scuto crebris foraminibus absumpto, profundo te credidisti ac duabus loricis onustus inter undas, quas hostili cruore infeceras, enatasti, visoque imperatore armis non amissis, sed bene impensis, cum laudem merereris veniam petiisti quod sine scuto rediisses &c. Factorum et dictorum memorabilium, iii, 2, § 23. 3135 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 65, n. 1. 3136 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 96-7. 3137 Cf. Herodotus, viii, 129, § 1,—??ta??? d? ?pe?d? p?????????t? ??e???esa? t?e?? ??e?, ???eta? ?p?t?? t?? ?a??ss?? e???? ... ?d??te? d? ?? ??a??? t??a??? ?e??e??? &c. (‘while Artabazos was besieging the town, there came to be a great ebb of the sea backwards ... and the barbarians, seeing that shallow water had been produced’, &c. [G. C. Macaulay, The Hist. of Herodotus, ii, 1890, p. 285]). See also Strabo, iii, 5, § 11,—? ?a??????? ???? e?? t??a??? ???a?e t?? ?a??. 3138 See p. 654, infra. 3139 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 60, lxx-lxxi, lxxiii, lxxv, xc, cxxi. 3140 B. G., iv, 24, § 3. 3141 Ib., 33, § 3. 3142 It should be noted by the way that Caesar’s remark about ‘steep places’ (B. G., iv, 33, § 3) is purely general, and does not necessarily refer to any combat which took place between his troops and the Britons. 3143 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 59-60. 3144 According to the map facing p. liii of Lewin’s book, Hythe haven was about 3 miles long, and in many places more than a quarter of a mile broad. 3145 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 27. 3146 Ib., pp. 87-8, 90. 3147 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 36. 3148 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxix. 3149 Ordnance Survey (25 inches to one mile), Sheet LV, 11; personal observation. 3150 B. G., vii, 69, § 1. 3151 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xxx. 3152 B. G., v, 9, §§ 2-6. 3153 MÉm. de litt. tirÉs des registres de l’Acad. Roy. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, xxviii, 1761, p. 408. 3154 B. G., v, 9, §§ 1-2. 3155 Ib., v, 8, § 2. 3156 Ib., v, 1, § 2. 3157 See p. 576, n. 1, supra. 3158 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xcviii. Cf. Philologus, xxii. 1865, pp. 305-6. 3159 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 33, 39-40, xlviii. 3160 Ordnance Survey (one inch), Sheets 289, 306. 3161 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xlviii. 3162 Ib., p. 52. 3163 Ib., p. xlviii. 3164 B. G., iv, 20, § 4; 21, § 1. 3165 Ib., 26, § 5. 3166 Ib., 35, § 1. 3167 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 62. 3168 See pp. 549-52, supra. 3169 Lewin himself remarks (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. lxiv-lxv) that when the marsh was enclosed, it ‘was at the same time intersected by sluices’. 3170 See p. 623, supra. 3171 Lympne Hill rises 288 feet in 1823, and between Hythe and Seabrook the hill rises 282.2 feet in 1723. See Ordnance Survey of England (6 inches to 1 mile), Sheet LXXIV, SW. and SE. The angles are 9° 5' 25 and 9° 25' 7 respectively. 3172 B. G., v, 9, § 8. Cf. ii, 11, §§ 2-3. 3173 Philologus, xxii, 1865, pp. 305-6. 3174 B. G., iv, 28, § 2. 3175 ‘A little lower down and more towards the west.’ 3176 ... ‘one side is opposite Gaul. One corner of this side, by Kent—the point which almost all ships from Gaul make for—has an easterly, and the lower one a southerly outlook.’ 3177 B. G., iv, 32. 3178 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 56, 62-4. 3179 See pp. 546, 622, supra. 3180 See pp. 622-3, supra. 3181 Julius Caesar, 1892, p. 196. 3182 Outlines of Roman History, 3rd ed., 1900, p. 257, n. 2. 3183 See pp. 605-11, supra. 3184 Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, pp. 167-78. 3185 See pp. 622-4, supra. 3186 See pp. 535-7, 545-9, supra. 3187 B. G., vii, 83, § 2. Cf. 85, § 4,—exiguum [v.l. iniquum] loci ad declivitatem fastigium magnum habet momentum (‘a slight downward inclination of the ground has a great effect’). 3188 Ib., v, 9, § 1. 3189 See p. 539, n. 7, supra. 3190 See p. 640, n. 4, infra. 3191 See p. 629, supra. 3192 Six-inch Ordnance Survey,—Kent, Sheet LXXIII, SE. 3193 C. J. Caesars Brit. Expeditions, pp. 72-3, § 6. 3194 See pp. 543-5, 551-2, supra. 3195 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 138, § 1 3196 Ib., p. 49, §§ 4-5. 3197 See W. Topley, Geology of the Weald, pp. 402-3, and R. Furley, Hist. of the Weald of Kent, i, 12, and map facing p. 26. The strip of country extending two or three miles northward from Hurst to Kennardington is still thickly covered by woods: no less than eleven are named on the One-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheet 305). 3198 Furley (ib., p. 13, n. *) has noted this objection. Lewin would perhaps have argued that the buildings were in Romney Marsh, as he finally concluded that the marsh had perhaps been enclosed by the Britons in pre-Roman times; but the absurdity of this theory has been already demonstrated. See pp. 549-52, supra. 3199 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, pp. 48, 65, § 14. Appach (op. cit., pp. 56, § 5, 71, §§ 3-4) assumed that Caesar in 55 B.C. steered for Hythe, intending to land there if the Britons were friendly, and otherwise to sail either to Deal or Bonnington; that he was ‘of course completely ignorant of the turn of the stream in the Channel’; that while he was at anchor he gave orders for a landing at Deal; but that when the stream turned westward he changed his mind and issued new orders for a landing at Bonnington! Appach failed to see that since Caesar, when he was at anchor, saw how the stream was running, Volusenus could have done the same. To say that Caesar was ‘completely ignorant’ is to assume that Volusenus was a fool. Besides, did not Caesar’s Gallic seamen know the Channel by heart? 3200 B. G., v, 13, § 1. 3201 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, pp. 69-70, § 1. 3202 B. G., iv, 23, § 3. 3203 In B. G., vii, 36, § 2, Caesar describes the various elevated points of the mountain mass of Gergovia by the words omnibus eius iugi collibus, though they could not be called separate hills; and Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 438, note), referring to B. G., iii, 18, § 8, remarks that ‘“fossae” often signifies every part of a “fossa” which surrounds a camp’. 3204 Viewed from the sea about half a mile off the Foreland, there are eight. See p. 736, infra. 3205 The steepest rises 282.2 feet in 1723, forming an angle of 9° 25' 7 (p. 636, n. 1, supra). 3206 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, pp. 77-8, § 6. 3207 Ib., pp. 75, note a, 78-9, § 7. 3208 See G. Dowker in Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, p. 58, and his Coast Erosion, p. 3. 3209 B. G., iv, 24, § 2. 3210 C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 102, § 5. 3211 I am glad to find that Heller (Philologus, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10) has anticipated my argument. If, he remarks, the Romans had already known where Caesar’s landing-place was, the expression sub sinistra, coupled with Britanniam relictam, might have been superfluous; but it was precisely from these words that they first learned whereabouts to look for it. 3212 ????a? d? pa?ad????, t??? ?? ???as? pe?sa? t?? ?e?t??, t??? d? ?as?e???, ??e et? t?? d???e??, de???? ???? t? Sa?d????? p??a???, ?p? t?? t?? ??da??? d??as??. Polybius, iii, 41, § 7. Even the best modern historians, in trying to bring a scene vividly before the imagination, sometimes mention geographical facts which are known to everybody. 3213 See p. 656, infra. 3214 See p. 616, supra. 3215 See Th. Mommsen, Chronica minora, iii, 1898, p. 114, and La Grande EncyclopÉdie, xxiv, 927. 3216 Iulius Caesar ... venit ad Brittanniam cum sexaginta ciulis, et tenuit in ostium Tamesis, in quo naufragium perpessae sunt naves illius dum ipse pugnabat apud Dolobellum, qui erat proconsul regi Brittannico &c. (Chronica minora, ed. Th. Mommsen, iii, 1898, p. 162). Besides apud there is another reading, contra; and one MS. has Dorobellum instead of Dolobellum. Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his fabulous account of Caesar’s first invasion (Hist. Brittonum, iv, 3), says that ‘Cassibellaunus’ came ad Dorobellum oppidum. It is not surprising that an uneducated writer like S. Pritchard (Hist. of Deal, pp. 1, 10, 39) should assure his readers that Caesar called his landing-place Dola; but when a scholar like Dr. Guest (Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 242) gravely points to ‘the use of the phrase “apud dolo”’ in the Vatican MS. of Nennius, and argues that dolo means Deal, I am amazed. The reading dolo is not so much as mentioned in Mommsen’s apparatus criticus; but let us provisionally accept it, and then consider how Dr. Guest would have construed the passage:—Iulius Caesar ... pugnabat apud Dolo, qui erat proconsul regi Brittannico &c. Dolo, says Dr. Guest, means Deal; Dolo, says Nennius, was proconsul, or commander-in-chief, under the British king. Whatever Nennius may have written, it is clear that he believed Caesar to have landed somewhere on the north of the South Foreland, and probably on the coast of East Kent; for, as Battely pointed out (Antiquitates Rutupinae, 1711, p. 46), the mouth of the Thames, in which Nennius places the landing, had a wider signification in the Middle Ages than it has now; and William of Malmesbury (De gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, 1870, lib. ii, § 73 [p. 140]) actually made it extend as far as Dover. 3217 Le Roman de Brut, ed. Le Roux de Lincy, 1836, vv. 4651-3. 3218 Itin., vii, 1744, p. 127 (116-7). See also Camden’s Britannia, ed. R. Gough, i, 218. 3219 According to Geoffrey of Monmouth (Hist. Brittonum, iv, 3, 9) and Matthew Paris (Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, pp. 72-4), who seems to have copied Geoffrey’s amusing fable, Caesar landed in ostium Tamensis fluminis on the occasion of his first expedition, and, when he invaded Britain for the third time (!), in the harbour of Richborough (in Rutupi portu). 3220 B. G., iv, 20, § 4; 21, §§ 1-2, 5-8. 3221 See p. 635, supra, and F. H. Appach, C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, p. 47, §§ 4, 6. Appach observes that at Dover ‘there was a very fine harbour’, but that it was ‘probably dangerous to enter in bad weather’. But the fact remains that it was continually entered; and when Caesar sailed to Britain the weather was good. 3222 It is possible that the reason why Caesar approached Britain a little eastward of Dover harbour was that he intended to run into the harbour on the ebb, or westerly-going stream. Long (Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 438), like Appach, fatuously remarks that Caesar ‘was ignorant of the turn of the stream in the Channel’. See p. 641, n. 1, supra. 3223 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, p. 29. 3224 Hist. of the War in the Peninsula, i, 1851, pp. 120-1. 3225 See E. B. Hamley, Operations of War, 1878, p. 221, and C. Oman, Hist. of the Peninsular War, i, 1902, pp. 228-9. 3226 This appears to have been Kiepert’s view (see his large wall-map of Gaul). But even if Caesar had anchored off Kingsdown, he would have first reached Britain (attigit Britanniam) off the South Foreland. 3227 B. G., iv, 23, § 4. 3228 Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, p. 174. 3229 See pp. 638-9, supra. 3230 See pp. 605-11, supra. Heller (Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 116-25), after an elaborate argument, which, if his premisses are correct, is unanswerable, arrives at the conclusion that, assuming high water to have occurred at Dover on the 27th of August, 55 B.C., at 7.31 a.m., the stream off Dover turned between 4.26 and 5.21 p.m.; and that, as the turn must have been accelerated by the favourable wind which Caesar mentions (B. G., iv, 23, § 6), ‘one may say, without fear of error, that the stream turned at 4.26 p.m.’: but it is unnecessary to examine his argument, because he was not acquainted with the results of the observations which, as we have seen, were made in 1862 by Surveyor Calver. Neither have I taken any notice of the argument by which the late Professor Cardwell (Archaeol. Cant., iii, 1860, pp. 14-7) endeavoured to prove that if high tide had occurred at Dover on the day of Caesar’s landing at 7.31 a.m., he must at 3 p.m. ‘have gone up Channel on the first of the flood and proceeded to the eastward’; for the evidence upon which the professor relied has been shown by Airy (Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, pp. 304-6) to have been misleading. 3231 See pp. 600-3, supra. 3232 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, p. 290. 3233 See p. 608, supra. 3234 Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 553. In the latitude of Paris the ninth hour lasted on the 26th of August till 3.27 p.m. 3235 See pp. 610-1, supra. 3236 See H. Houssaye, Waterloo, 38th ed., 1902, pp. 195, n. 4, 275, n. 2, 277, n. 2, 313, n. 1, 366, n. 1, 413, n. 1. These discrepancies arose, I presume, from lapses of memory. 3237 Cf. B. G., v, 13, § 4. 3238 Cf. Varro, De lingua Latina, vi, 89. 3239 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 127. Heller’s argument may be summarized as follows:—Caesar does not say that he weighed anchor in the ninth hour; had he done so, he would not have used the words ‘weighing anchor’ (sublatis ancoris) in the later passage in which he describes how he quitted his anchorage: he only says that he waited at anchor till the ninth hour for the overdue ships. Meanwhile, as he tells us, he issued his orders to the officers of the vessels which had already arrived; and, as orders had also to be given to the captains who were late in arriving, and they were obliged, after receiving their orders, to get back to their ships, delay was inevitable. That the turn of the stream did not take place until after the ninth hour is to be inferred from Caesar’s having used the words (His dimissis et ventum et aestum) uno tempore (nactus secundum), which refer only to et ventum et aestum (Philologus, xxii, 1865, p. 308). Dr. Guest (Origines Celticae, ii, 347, note) puts the matter well. ‘In anchoris exspectare dum can only,’ he observes, ‘mean, to wait at anchor for the happening of the event. If we add the words ad horam nonam, surely we make the ninth hour the limit, not of lying at anchor, but of waiting for the event.... Caesar probably steered for Dover with the view of landing his men as the vessels came in, but finding his landing opposed, he awaited the arrival of his other vessels in anchoris, i.e. in the roadstead. The emphasis [laid on in anchoris] marks the change of plan occasioned by the unexpected opposition he met with.’ 3240 Lewin, indeed, objects (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xci) that ‘had another interval of two hours occurred [after the ninth hour] Caesar could not fail to have mentioned it’. But, in the first place, as the reader will have seen, it is unnecessary to assume that the interval lasted as long as two hours, or even one; and, in the second place, there was no reason why Caesar should mention it, except for the benefit of stupid readers, whom he invariably left to their own devices. Some interval there must have been unless the captains of the laggard ships were left without the instructions which had been given to the rest. 3241 See pp. 610-1, supra. 3242 If, then, he really did weigh anchor in the ninth hour, and if in the ninth hour the stream was running down the Channel on the 26th of August, he must have landed on the 25th; and it has been shown (p. 600-3, supra) that he may have done so. 3243 George Long, who was a very able man, was nevertheless capable, if hard pressed in controversy, of writing sheer nonsense. Having only the most superficial knowledge of the tides, he submissively accepted the assertion that, at the time when Caesar weighed anchor off the Kentish cliffs, the stream was running westward; yet he insisted that Caesar landed at Deal! Let him speak for himself. ‘When Caesar says that the tide (aestus) was favourable, he means that he had water sufficient to keep near the shore. There is only one meaning of aestus in Caesar.... Caesar says that he went with wind and tide favourable. If “tide” means stream, his statement is not true. If he means by “tide” what I have said—and there is not the least doubt of that—I should like some sufficient reason to be given why he could not go to Deal, though the stream was against him’ (The Reader, Sept. 5, 1863, pp. 254-5). This singular argument was demolished with somewhat needless vigour by Dr. Guest (Origines Celticae, ii, 1883, pp. 364-5). If in the often quoted passage, longius delatus aestu orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit, the word aestus does not mean ‘the tidal stream’, it means nothing. That it does mean what I have said Long virtually admits when, in his edition of the Commentaries (p. 225), commenting on this very passage, he observes that Caesar ‘was carried out of his course by the flood tide’. 3244 B. G., iv, 23, § 6. 3245 Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 434. 3246 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 129. See also Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 238. 3247 See H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., ii, 1245-7. 3248 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 51, § 2.—???a? ??? t??a p??????sa? pe??p?e?sa?, &c. 3249 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 52. 3250 See pp. 558, 582-3, 613, 618-9, 624-5, 639, 643, supra. 3251 This statement has been approved by Commander Boxer, R.N., Harbour-Master of Folkestone, to whom I submitted it. See Addenda, p. 740. 3252 In March, 1898, a north-easterly gale sent the waves rushing over the sea-wall at Deal and across the road. W. H. Wheeler, The Sea-Coast, 1902, p. 301. Cf. C. Seymour; New Topographical ... Survey of Kent, 1776, p. 410. 3253 See p. 329, supra. 3254 See p. 614, supra. 3255 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, &c., p. 29. 3256 See pp. 644-7, supra. 3257 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 240-1. 3258 See pp. 309, 645, supra. 3259 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xc. 3260 B. G., iv, 23, § 5. On p. lxxv Lewin himself maintains that Caesar, before he sailed from Gaul, ‘was well enough informed of the smaller havens on the British coast,’ &c. 3261 B. G., iv, 23, § 6. 3262 See One-Inch Ordnance Survey, Sheet 290. 3263 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xciii; Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863, pp. 312-3. 3264 Ib., p. 313. 3265 Ib.; The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 50. Dr. Guest, on the other hand, maintains (Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 239) that ‘the marshy lands off Deal’ correspond exactly with Caesar’s description. Caesar does not describe any marshy lands. 3266 Archaeologia, xxxix, 1863. p. 313. 3267 See pp. 523-5, supra. 3268 B. G., iv, 24, § 3. 3269 Ib., § 2. 3270 See p. 629, supra. 3271 ‘PLANUS proprie est aequus ... in quo nihil eminet,’ &c. (Forcellini, Totius latinitatis lexicon, iv, 1868, p. 695). That the shore where Caesar landed was only relatively planum is proved by the existence of the ‘shallow places’ (vada), the situation of which was known to the Britons but not to the Romans (B. G., iv, 26, § 2). 3272 See pp. 630-1, supra. 3273 iii, 2, § 23. 3274 T. Lewin, The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. li, 87. 3275 G. B. Gattie, Memorials of the Goodwin Sands, 1890, p. 297, note. 3276 Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 302. 3277 B. G., iv, 28. 3278 See p. 536, n. 1, supra. 3279 See pp. 600-1, supra. 3280 Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, pp. 302-3. 3281 See p. 643, supra. 3282 See p. 616, supra. 3283 Admiralty Tide Tables, p. 119. 3284 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 82, xcii. Lewin also remarks that ‘had he been making for Deal, he would in drifting up channel have been advancing in the right direction’. This remark is only worth noticing as an instance of Lewin’s ignorance. Any one who has the most rudimentary knowledge of the tidal streams will see that once Caesar had drifted past the Foreland, the stream would have carried him further and further away from Deal. 3285 Archaeologia, xxxiii, 1851, p. 242. 3286 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xcii. 3287 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xcii. 3288 Tidal Streams, English and Irish Channels. 3289 Not more than about three-quarters of the whole drift, according to the harbour-master of Dover. 3290 See p. 576, n. 1, supra. 3291 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xcii. 3292 See pp. 728-30, infra. 3293 Admiralty Tide Tables, p. 119; Tidal Streams, &c. Lewin tells us, in another passage (The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 82-3) that, according to the captain of one of the steamers running between Folkestone and Boulogne, ‘the maximum drift for a single tide, i.e. for the six hours that the stream runs in the same direction, is eighteen miles, and the minimum nine miles.’ ‘The fleet,’ he adds, ‘was heavily freighted, and therefore, sinking deep into the water, would receive the full shock of the tide ... the expedition was on the very day of the full moon [which he wrongly assigns to the 18th instead of the 21st of July], when, of course, it was a spring tide. The drift, therefore, would be the maximum or near it. Now, if we draw a straight line from Boulogne to Limne, and then a line of sixteen miles, or thereabouts, at right angles to it up the channel, it will take us to a point off the South Foreland.’ It will be observed that Lewin here assumes that Caesar was steering not for Hythe but for Lympne, and accordingly he is forced to make the length of the drift sixteen instead of twelve miles! Facts, from his point of view, were rather elastic than stubborn things. The expedition did not take place ‘on the very day of the full moon’, but about the time of new moon (see p. 729, infra). This mistake, indeed, is immaterial; but the estimate of eighteen miles is, as we have seen, greatly exaggerated; and, moreover, Lewin forgets that Caesar’s ships did not drift for the whole of one tide, but only from ‘about midnight’ till ‘daybreak’. In a footnote to p. 82 he says that, according to ‘an experienced pilot’, a loaded vessel ‘would drift about 12 or 14 miles in the six hours, when the tide is at its greatest velocity’. Yes,—‘in the six hours’; but not in four hours. And even 12 miles is an excessive estimate. ‘As a rough general rule,’ says Admiral Sir Frederick Bedford (The Sailor’s Pocket-Book, 8th ed., 1898, pp. 232-3), ‘in the fair way of both the Irish and English Channels a vessel will be carried nine miles by the stream in a whole tide at Springs.’ 3294 Comm. de C. I. Caesaris bellis, vol. ii, p. 41; C. I. Caesaris b. G., libri VII, ed. A. Doberenz and B. Dinter, vol. ii, p. 40. 3295 The direction of the ebb stream between the Goodwins and the shore varies between SW. and SW. ½ W. magnetic, or, approximately, between SW. by S. ½ S. and SSW. true; and its rate at springs varies from 1½ to 3 knots. Admiralty Tide Tables, p. 113. 3296 The late George Dowker (Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 67-8, 70) maintained that Caesar drifted ‘at the back of the Goodwin beyond the North Foreland’, and that he ‘returned on the other side of the Goodwin’, and anchored off Stonar. On this theory it is impossible to account for the efforts which the rowers were obliged to make; and, as I have shown (pp. 575-6, supra), it is impossible that Caesar should have drifted beyond the North Foreland. 3297 See pp. 525-8, supra. 3298 See pp. 574-7, supra. 3299 Admiralty Tide Tables, p. 119. 3300 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, p. 124; Philologus, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10. 3301 See p. 576, n. 1, supra. 3302 Ib. 3303 I have not thought it necessary to have a calculation made of the hour of high tide at Dover on the 7th of July. Whether the stream turned a little earlier or later than 4.30 a.m. is unimportant. Every one admits that it turned not very long after daybreak. 3304 Admiralty Tide Tables, p. 119. 3305 See p. 657, supra. 3306 General von GÖler apparently thought that Caesar had gone through the channel, between the North and the South Goodwins, which is known as ‘the Swash’ (see his map,—Gall. Krieg, 1880, Taf. 1). It is extremely doubtful whether this channel existed in 54 B.C. 3307 See S. T. S. Lecky, Wrinkles in Practical Navigation, 1884, p. 414. 3308 See the caution in the Atlas entitled Tidal Streams. 3309 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4, 246. 3310 B. G., v, 18, § 1. 3311 The Reader, Sept. 5, 1863, p. 255. 3312 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 241. 3313 In 1905 in the parish of Walmer alone three fields were planted with wheat, one of which, as I was informed by Mr. J. W. Minter of the Railway Hotel, covered eighteen acres. Moreover, as Mr. H. E. Malden observes (Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, pp. 170-1), ‘marks of ancient cultivation on the sides of downs, where no farmer would think of ploughing now, are common enough everywhere.’ See also A. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations in Cranborne Chase, ii, 235, and p. 90, supra. 3314 Ordnance Survey of England, 6 inches to 1 mile, Sheet LVIII. 3315 B. G., iv, 32, §§ 3-4. 3316 See pp. 697-8, infra. 3317 B. G., v, 22, §§ 1-2. 3318 Rev. arch., nouv. sÉr., viii, 1863, p. 303. 3319 Philologus, xxii, 1865, pp. 309-10. 3320 B. G., vi, 34, 43. 3321 AthenÆum, Feb. 27, 1869, p. 317. 3322 B. G., v, 12, § 5. 3323 Origines Celticae, ii, 370-2. 3324 Britain and the British Seas, 1902, p. 315. 3325 J. Prestwich, Geology, ii, 1888, p. 502; Clement Reid, The Origin of the Brit. Flora, 1899, pp. 69, 146. Cf. J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, p. 339, and Reliquary, N. S., vii, 1901, p. 92. 3326 The late Professor Rolleston (Sc. Papers, ii, 1884, p. 780) argued that by praeter Caesar meant ‘besides’. It is true that he used the word several times in this sense (H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., ii, 1186-7): but when he did so the meaning was always unmistakable; and, as Mr. Colbeck remarks, in his school edition (p. 49), ‘to say “there is timber of all sorts besides the beech and the fir” is hardly a natural expression, unless these two trees were the commonest form of timber [or were non-existent in Gaul], which they were not.’ 3327 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 186, n. 2. Napoleon’s map (pl. 16) contradicts his text. 3328 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 65-6, 71. 3329 B. G., iv, 25, § 1. 3330 B. G., iv, 24, § 3; 26, § 2. 3331 Mr. H. E. Malden (Journal of Philology, xvii, 1888, p. 167) says that ‘the distance is given at seven or eight Roman miles in different MSS. of the Commentaries’. Why did he not specify the MSS. which have VIII or octo? No such MS. is mentioned in any critical edition. 3332 Antiquitates Rutupinae, 1711, pp. 23-4, 44-6, 49-50. 3333 Similarly, John Harris (Hist. of Kent, 1719, p. 274) says that ‘Caesar himself saith of his Men that they could not firmiter insistere, which implies the Ground was not Hard, Solid, and Good’. But Caesar only says that his men could not firmiter insistere while they were struggling in the water with the enemy; and in these circumstances a man could not firmiter insistere in a swimming bath, the floor of which is ‘hard, solid, and good’. 3334 B. G., v, 13, § 1. If, as I believe, quo means ad quem, referring to angulus and not to Cantium, if, that is to say, Caesar intended to convey that almost all ships from Gaul steered for the ‘corner’, Battely is demanding from Caesar a nicety and precision of geographical statement which it would be idle to expect from an ancient writer. Dover is quite close to the angulus, even if we must rigidly limit the latter to the coast between the South and the North Foreland. 3335 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 51, §2.—???a? ??? t??a p??????sa? pe??p?e?sa? pa?e???s??? ???ta??a t??? p??s??a?t?? ?? ?? t? te???? ?p?a????t? ????sa? ?f?? t?? ??? ??at?sa?, &c. ?e????, as we have seen (p. 631, supra) is simply Dion’s translation of Caesar’s vada. 3336 See pp. 628-31, supra. 3337 Ed. Wesseling, p. 473. 3338 V. J. Vaillant, Classis Britannica, pp. 41-2 and illustration facing p. 48. 3339 See A. Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, ii, 1257-8. 3340 See pp. 678-82, infra. 3341 It may be argued that if Caesar had landed near Sandwich he would have landed in Richborough harbour. This objection, such as it is, would apply equally to Hythe and Pevensey; but it might have been dangerous to land in a harbour with a narrow entrance in the presence of an enemy; and Caesar may have had other reasons (see Lord Wolseley’s Soldier’s Pocket-Book, 1886, p. 240). Moreover, the shore of the harbour must have been very marshy. 3342 B. G., v, 9, § 1. 3343 p. 630, supra. 3344 ‘The anchorage in the Small Downs is much more secure than in the Downs, being more sheltered, with better holding ground, and shoaler water,’ &c. The Channel Pilot, 9th ed., 1900, part i, p. 344. I am informed by Mr. Jordan, one of the Deal boatmen, that ships driven ashore between Sandown Castle and Sandwich would suffer far less damage than off Walmer or Deal; and they would probably have suffered somewhat less even when the Deal shingle was much less steep. 3345 Prof. B. Niese devotes the greater part of his valuable review (Hist. Zeitschrift, xciii, 97-101) to a criticism of this section of my book. 3346 Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 179-80. 3347 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c. cliii, 1896, pp. 269-71. Cf. Rev. celt., xxii, 1901, p. 87. 3348 iv, 16, § 7. 3349 The MS. reading is miratos, which is obviously absurd. The emendation generally accepted is munitos. Professor Tyrrell in an admirable note (The Correspondence of Cicero, ii, 1896, p. 134) remarks that it is incredible ‘that any copyist found the obvious munitos, and wrote the inexplicable miratos. But if he found the ?pa? e??????? muratos, he would be nearly certain to write ?pa? e??????? a common word very near it in form, and that without at all troubling himself as to the sense of the passage; just as a compositor will set up “serious effusion” if one writes “serous effusion”’. And, anticipating the objection that muratos is a post-classical word, he says, ‘We must remember that we have in these letters a unique department of literature. A man might easily write in a letter that the approach to Britain was “absolutely ramparted with masses of cliff”, though he would not use that word in a formal composition.’ See also pp. vii-x of the preface to Professor Tyrrell’s second volume. 3350 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 277. Dr. Vogel actually takes molibus to mean not ‘masses of cliff’ but ‘defensive works’! 3351 See § 5 of the letter in question—Drusus reus est factus a Lucretio. Iudicibus reiciendis a. d. V. Non. Quinct. See also Hermes, xl, 1905, pp. 17-9. 3352 Q. fr., ii, 14, §§ 3-4. 3353 B. G., v, 4, § 1. 3354 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 278-80. 3355 See Jahresberichte d. philol. Vereins, pp. 240-1 (in Zeitschrift f. d. Gymnasialwesen, 1897). 3356 The Correspondence of Cicero, ii, 1886, p. 126. 3357 Q. fr., iii, 3, § 1.—Sed me illa cura sollicitat angitque vehementer, quod dierum iam amplius L intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare, nihil ex istis locis non modo litterarum, sed ne rumoris quidem adfluxit. 3358 Ib., iii, 1, §§ 17, 25. 3359 Att., iv, 18, § 5. 3360 B. G., v, 22, § 1. 3361 Ib. 3362 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 282. 3363 See pp. 731-3, infra. 3364 Cf. H. Meusel, Lex. Caes., i, 967. 3365 B. G., v, 22, §§ 3-5. 3366 Att., iv, 18, § 5. Cicero does not mention that a large number of prisoners had also been taken; but Dr. Vogel admits this to have been the fact. Cf. Q. fr., iii, 9, § 4, and B. G., v, 23, § 2. 3367 Ib., v, 22, §§ 3-5. 3368 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 288. 3369 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 66. 3370 B. G., iv, 36, §§ 1-3. 3371 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 52, §§ 2-3. 3372 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. 66. 3373 Hist. Rom., xxxix, 51, § 3. 3374 B. G., iv, 38, § 4. A. J. Dunkin, an antiquary whom Sir Leslie Stephen thought worthy of a place in the Dictionary of National Biography, devoted a large portion of the second volume of his History of the County of Kent to an impeachment of Caesar’s veracity; but his charges are based upon sheer inability to construe easy Latin, general lack of scholarship, or, in some cases, pure invention. Cf. The Gentleman’s Magazine Library, ed. G. L. Gomme,—Romano-British Remains, part ii, 1887, pp. 520-2. 3375 See O. E. Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero, 1893, pp. 377-92, and Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, p. 243. 3376 See pp. 731-3, infra. 3377 p. 319. 3378 B. G., iv, 24, § 2. 3379 From a foot and a half to two feet, so Commander Boxer, R.N., the harbour-master of Folkestone, tells me. 3380 See pp. 595-665, supra. 3381 Britannia, ed. R. Gough, i, 219. Cf. E. Hasted, Hist. of Kent, iv, 1799, p. 163, note d. 3382 Ib., p. 162 and note c. 3383 Archaeol. Cant., xiii, 1880, pp. 8-16. 3384 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, pp. 66, 68. 3385 See pp. 736-7, infra. 3386 B. G., iv, 33. 3387 Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. des ant. grecques et rom., ii, 815-7. 3388 See E. Babelon, Descr. des monn. de la rÉpublique rom., i, 1885, pp. 243, 435-6, 462-4, 552. 3389 B. G., v, 19, § 1. 3390 In the one passage (ib., iv, 33, § 2) in which he calls the drivers aurigae he is obliged to do so in order to distinguish them from the warriors. 3391 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 192. 3392 v, 29, § 1. Cf. 1 Kings, xxii, 34. 3393 E. Babelon, Descr ... des monnaies de la rÉpublique rom., i, 549, 552. 3394 Journ. Anthr. Inst., x, 1881, p. 128. 3395 Chorographia, iii, 6, § 52—[Britanni] dimicant non equitatu modo aut pedite, verum et bigis et curribus Gallice armatis: covinnos vocant, quorum falcatis axibus utuntur. 3396 Pharsalia, i, 426—et docilis rector rostrati Belga covinni. Rostrati is a conjecture, the MSS. having monstrati. 3397 Punica, xvii, 416-7.—Caerulus haud aliter, cum dimicat incola Thyles " Agmina falcigero circumvenit arta covinno. 3398 Agricola, 35-6. 3399 See W. Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant., 3rd ed., i, 560. 3400 Monumenta Germaniae Hist.—Iordanis Getica, ed. Th. Mommsen, 1882, ii, 15—bellum inter se ... saepius gerunt, non tantum equitatu vel pedite, verum etiam bigis curribusque falcatis, &c. 3401 M. ThÉodore Reinach (Rev. celt., x, 1899, pp. 123-30) points out that the testimony of Frontinus (C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque [Strat., ii, 3, § 18]), if it is genuine, is negatived by Caesar’s silence, and that it is probably an interpolation; that it may be inferred from a passage in Martial (O iucunda, covinne, solitudo, " Carruca magis essedoque gratum " Facundi mihi munus Aeliani, &c. [xii, 24]) that a covinnus was simply ‘un cabriolet attelant À deux’; that Arrian (Ars tactica, 19) expressly distinguished British war-chariots from scythed chariots; and that neither Polybius, nor Livy, nor Diodorus Siculus, nor Dion Cassius ever describe the war-chariots of the Celts as scythed, although they often mention them. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (La civilisation des Celtes, pp. 339-41) quaintly argues that the silence of Caesar can be explained by the assumption that scythed chariots, being as dangerous to friends as to foes, were only used exceptionally. 3402 A. Nicaise, L’Époque gaul. dans le dÉpt de la Marne, 1884, pp. 23-4. Cf. Rev. celt., x, 1889, pp. 233-6, and L’Anthr., xiii, 1902, p. 66. 3403 Pitt-Rivers (Excavations in Cranborne Chase, iii, 109) is ‘almost tempted to suggest’ that a scythe blade, which he found at Woodyates, ‘may be one of the war scythes which were attached to the [British] chariots, as mentioned by Strabo.’ But Strabo (xvii, 3, § 7) does not say that the Britons had scythed chariots, but the Pharusii and Nigretes of Mauritania. 3404 p. 342. 3405 The diameters of the British chariot-wheels that have been found vary between 2 ft. 11 in., and 2 ft. 4 ½ in. 3406 J. B. Davis and J. Thurnam, Crania Britannica, ii, pl. 6 and 7, pp. 2-3, 6; J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 134-5. 3407 This discovery proves that Arrian (Ars tactica, 19) and Dion Cassius (lxxvi, 12, § 3) were right in saying that British chariot-horses were small. Cf. p. 152, supra. For further details of the discoveries of British chariot-wheels, axles, &c. (by which various quaint conjectures in von GÖler’s Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 156, n. 3, are stultified), see Archaeologia, xxi, 1827, pp. 41-2; W. Greenwell, Brit. Barrows, pp. 454-7; and a valuable article by Canon Greenwell, a proof of which he has kindly sent to me, and which, I presume, will be published in vol. lx of Archaeologia. 3408 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 137, n. 1. 3409 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 153, n. 7. 3410 B. G., iv, 34, § 3. 3411 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 138, n. 4. 3412 See p. 680, infra. 3413 B. G., v, 9, §§ 1-5. 3414 See pp. 595-665, supra. 3415 Essays on the Invasion of Britain, pp. 35-6. 3416 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, pp. 87-8, 90. 3417 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 186, note 4. 3418 The Invasion of Britain, &c., 1862, p. xciv. 3419 B. G., vii, 69, § 2. 3420 Inventorium Sepulchrale, ed. C. Roach Smith, 1856, p. 35. Faussett goes on to say (p. 36) that, ‘as a proof of this Aylesbourne [the Little Stour at Kingston] having been much deeper and broader than it ever now is, I myself saw the shells of muscles (sic) turned plentifully out of the ground in digging a hole for a post, at the distance of at least ten rods from the present channel, and at the perpendicular height of at least three feet above its usual level.’ But this argument is irrelevant. No geologist would deny that the Little Stour, when it was cutting out its channel, was ‘broader than it ever now is’. But when? Perhaps at the inconceivably remote epoch when the Thames was depositing gravel at a height of 100 feet above its present level. 3421 Villare Cantianum, 1776, p. 62. 3422 B. G., iv, 38, §2; v, 24, §1. 3423 Ib., 9, §3. 3424 See Addenda, p. 742. 3425 Caesar in Kent, 2nd ed., 1887, pp. 165-8. I should not notice this work if it had not been quoted even by antiquaries of repute, and included by Mr. Gross in his generally valuable bibliography. 3426 Caesar in Kent, p. 163. 3427 Bryan Faussett, Inventorium Sepulchrale, p. 39, n. 2. See also pp. 36, n. 1, 37, 144-59. ‘That these tumuli,’ says Roach Smith (ib., p. 37), ‘were not cast up in consequence of any battle fought on the spot, is evident from ... their containing the remains not only of men ... but also of women and children.’ Hasted (Hist. of Kent, iii, 1790, p. 752, note a) says that ‘all the learned agree that Barham down was his [Caesar’s] main camp, to which from his landing in the Downs by Mongeham, Sutton, Eythorne, Barston, and Snowdown, there is a continual course of military works’, &c. (see also vol. iv, 1799, p. 163). But in the time of the ‘learned’ contemporaries and predecessors of Hasted, it was not yet understood that the question whether this or that mound was a ‘military work’, and the further question whether it had been constructed by Romans, should be settled not by imagination, but by pick and shovel. Professor Flinders Petrie (Archaeol. Cant., xiii, 1880, p. 12) remarks that ‘the works on Barham Down, half a mile NE. of Kingston, appear to be ancient’; but, being a competent archaeologist, he does not suggest that they were made by Caesar. 3428 Caesar in Kent, p. 186. When Mr. Vine (ib., p. 185) gravely appeals to ‘the direct statement recorded on the chart found in Dover Castle, that “Caesar, having landed at Deal, afterwards conquered the Britons on Barham Down”’, one can only wonder why he does not also cite a ‘direct statement’ more ancient even than Camden’s ‘chart’,—the statement of Nennius, that Caesar’s second invasion took place three years after the first. 3429 Vol. ii, 1814, p. 9. 3430 Mr. George Payne (Collectanea Cantiana, p. 172) speaks of ‘a great oppidum in Pine Wood, Littlebourne’; but no trace of an entrenchment in this wood is to be found in the 6-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheet 47). 3431 See pp. 664-5, supra. 3432 Proc. Soc. Ant., 2nd ser., iii, 1864-7, p. 506. 3433 Archaeol. Cant., vii, 1868, pp. li-lii. 3434 See p. 674, supra. 3435 Ib. 3436 ‘Night marches,’ says Lord Wolseley (The Soldier’s Pocket Book, 1886, p. 325), ‘require at least half as much time again as the same distance would require by daylight.’ 3437 No military earthworks exist at Chilham. See Archaeol. Cant., xiii, 1880, pp. 11-2. 3438 It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to mention the argument which various writers, from Camden to Lewin, have based upon the name of the tumulus near Chilham, called ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’. ‘I am almost persuaded,’ wrote Camden, ‘that Laberius Durus ... was buried here’ (Britannia, ed. R. Gough, i, 215). Laberius Durus, as the reader will remember, was the name of the tribune who was killed in the action fought on the day on which Caesar, after he had constructed his naval camp, returned to the neighbourhood of the place where he had defeated the Britons on the day after his second landing (B. G., v, 15, § 5). ‘Julliberrie’s Grave’ is a neolithic long barrow (Archaeologia, xlii, 1869, p. 176, note b), and was erected more than a millennium before Laberius Durus was born. 3439 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiii, 1876, p. 69. Canon Isaac Taylor (Words and Places, 3rd ed., 1873, p. 237) says that ‘the name of FORDWICK, the “bay on the arm of the sea”, proves that in the time of the Danes the estuary must have extended nearly as far as Canterbury’. Canon Taylor’s etymologies are not to be taken upon trust; but, granting his conclusion, it does not follow that the estuary was not fordable at Fordwich, just as the estuary of the Somme was forded near its mouth by the English army before the battle of Crecy. 3440 Archaeologia, xxi, 1827, p. 505. 3441 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 148. 3442 Archaeol. Journal, xxi, 1864, p. 240. Mr. Malden (Journal of Philology, xvii, 1890, p. 168) speaks of Caesar’s narrative as ‘excluding the mile broad estuary of the greater Stour at Grove Ferry where Dr. Guest placed the battle’. Dr. Guest did no such thing. George Long (C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1880, p. 226), in a note on Caesar’s account of the battle, says of Grove Ferry that ‘the locality fits the description’; and Dr. Guest, commenting on Long’s note, says (Origines Celticae, ii, 1883, pp. 366-7), ‘I know of no reason for his fixing it at this place, which appears to me to have hardly one of the necessary requisites.’ 3443 Zeitschrift fÜr allgemeine Erdkunde, xviii, 1865, pp. 129-30. 3444 Retrospections, ii, 15. 3445 No oppidum is marked anywhere near Sturry, either on the One-Inch Ordnance Map (Sheets 273 and 289) or on the map which illustrates Mr. George Payne’s ‘Archaeological Survey of Kent’ (Archaeologia, li, 1888, facing p. 446). 3446 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 186, n. 4. 3447 Ib., n. 2. 3448 See pp. 664-5, supra. 3449 Archaeologia, xxxiv, 1852, pp. 243-4. See p. 660, supra. 3450 Read Clausewitz, On War (translated by Col. J. J. Graham, iii, 1873, p. 9); Sir E. B. Hamley, Operations of War, 1878, pp. 233-76; Lord Wolseley, The Soldier’s Pocket-Book, 1886, pp. 393-7; and Gen. Clery, Minor Tactics, 12th ed., 1893, pp. 230-5. 3451 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xliv, 1888, pp. 290-1. See also Archaeol. Cant., ix, 1874, pp. 13-5, and Archaeol. Journal, lix, 1902, pp. 213-7. 3452 See p. 337, supra. 3453 B. G., v, 9, § 8; 10; 11, §§ 1, 5-7. 3454 Ib., 9, § 1. 3455 Ib., 9, §§ 2-7. 3456 Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, pp. 48-9. 3457 C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1880, p. 228. 3458 Ib., p. 227. 3459 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 150, n. 2. 3460 Philologus, xxxi, 1872, pp. 536-7. 3461 Or ‘exposed the Romans to the same danger, whether they retreated or pursued’. See pp. 690-1, infra. 3462 B. G., v, 16, §§ 1-3. 3463 C. J. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1880, pp. 234-5. 3464 B. G., iv, 32, § 5. 3465 J. Evans, Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 234, 239, 271-2; ib., Suppl., pp. 520, 535-6. 3466 Dion Cassius, lxii, 12, § 3. 3467 Tacitus, Agricola, 36. 3468 See p. 677, supra. 3469 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 154, note. 3470 Ib., p. 153. 3471 C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1890, p. 205. 3472 C. I. Caesaris b. G. libri VII, II. Heft, 1890, p. 48. 3473 Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm., iv, v, 1887, p. 90. 3474 B. G., i, 48, §§ 4-7. 3475 Quoted by von GÖler (Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 154). He does not give the reference, and I have failed to discover it. 3476 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 188. 3477 B. G., v, 17, § 2. 3478 C. I. Caesaris comm. de b. G., 1890, p. 205. 3479 B. G., v, 11, § 8. 3480 Ib., v, 18. 3481 Philologus, xxii, 1865, p. 310. ‘Es wird Öfter behauptet, dass er selbst durch seinen marsch vom landungsplatz bis zur Themse die breite des landes gemessen habe; zu einer solchen voraussetzung geben seine worte keine veranlassung [naturally! he would not have taken the trouble to indicate the grounds upon which he based his estimate]: er berichtet hier, wie an andern orten, nur was er von andern erfahren hat.’ Heller seems to forget that this conclusion also is not authorized by Caesar’s words. If Caesar had formed his estimate from hearsay, he, or his interpreter, would have had to reduce the terms in which the estimate of his native informant was expressed to Roman miles. 3482 O. Manning and W. Bray, Hist. and Ant. of ... Surrey, ii, 1809, p. 759. 3483 Britannia, ed. R. Gough, 1789, i, 168. 3484 Hist. eccl., lib. i, cap. ii (ed. C. Plummer, 1896).—In huius ulteriore ripa Cassobellauno duce inmensa hostium multitudo consederat, ripamque fluminis ac pene totum sub aqua uadum acutissimis sudibus praestruxerat; quarum uestigia sudium ibidem usque hodie uisuntur, et uidetur inspectantibus, quod singulae earum ad modum humani femoris grossae, et circumfusae plumbo in-mobiliter erant in profundum fluminis infixae, &c. 3485 Archaeologia, i, 1770, p. 188. 3486 One Inch Ordnance Survey, Sheet 269. 3487 Archaeologia, ii, 1773, pp. 143-53. 3488 E. W. Brayley, Topographical Hist. of Surrey, ii, 1841, p. 344, n. 29. 3489 The Soldier’s Pocket-Book, 1886, p. 312. 3490 Origines Celticae, ii, 384-5, 388, 391-2. 3491 Origines Celticae, ii, 384. 3492 Ib., pp. 384-5. 3493 Origines Celticae, ii, 391-2. 3494 Hurleyford is about 2½ miles west of Great Marlow. 3495 Origines Celticae, ii, 388. 3496 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 191, n. 2. 3497 Origines Celticae, ii, 386-7. 3498 Ib., p. 387. 3499 Archaeol. Journal, xlii, 1885, pp. 269-302; xlvi, 1889, pp. 75-6; xlvii, 1890, pp. 43-7, 170; Proc. Geologists’ Association, xi, 1891, p. 224. 3500 Caesars gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 155, n. 2. 3501 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2. 3502 Gentleman’s Magazine, xxvi, 1846, pp. 256-7. 3503 W. Maitland, Hist. of London, i, 1756, p. 8; Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, N. S., iii, 1897, p. 102. 3504 Ib., xvi, 1860, p. 135; Camden’s Britannia, ed. Edmund Gibson, i, 1772, p. 329. 3505 Manning’s Surrey, ii, 760. 3506 Origines Celticae, ii, 388. 3507 Ib., pp. 404-5. 3508 Bregant-forda and the Hanweal, 1904, pp. 1, 22-7. Mr. Sharpe reasonably suggests that Bede referred not to the Coway but to the Brentford stakes. 3509 B. G., v, 18. 3510 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 155. 3511 Ib., n. 2. 3512 Comm. de CÉsar, i, 1785, p. 334. 3513 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 191-2. 3514 Gai Iuli Caesaris de b. G. comm., iv, v, 1887, p. 92. 3515 Comm. de bellis C. I. Caesaris, ii, 1849, p. 80. 3516 Tum nostri cohortati inter se, ne tantum dedecus admitteretur, universi ex navi desiluerunt. Hos item ex proximis navibus cum conspexissent, subsecuti hostibus adpropinquaverunt. 3517 See B. G., v, 17, § 5. 3518 B. G., v, 19-21. 3519 See Archaeol. Journal, xxii, 1865, pp. 299-301. 3520 Archeaologia, i, 1770, p. 189. 3521 B. G., v, 21, § 1. The habitat of the Cassi is unknown; and it is very doubtful whether Cassiobury preserves their name. Sir John Evans (Archaeologia, liii, 1892, p. 247) remarks that ‘at the time of the invasion of Julius Caesar this [Hertfordshire] ... appears to have been occupied by the Cassi, who not improbably were the same tribe as ... the Catyeuchlani’, or Catuvellauni. With all due deference to so high an authority. I take leave to say, first, that is no evidence that the Cassi occupied Hertfordshire; secondly, that there is no evidence for identifying them with the Catuvellauni; and lastly, that the Cassi, who surrendered before the capture of Cassivellaunus’s stronghold, cannot have been identical with the people who were under the immediate control of Cassivellaunus. 3522 Gall. Krieg, 1880, p. 157, n. 2. 3523 Archaeologia, xl, 1866. pp. 65-6. 3524 There is no evidence that Cassivellaunus had conquered the Trinovantes, though he had killed their king, the father of Mandubracius. 3525 See pp. 703-5, infra. 3526 Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 51-2. 3527 Journ. Brit. Archaeol. Association, xvi, 1860, pp. 136-7, 142. 3528 At Redbourn in Hertfordshire is ‘an oval encampment probably pre-Roman’ (Archaeologia, liii, 1892, p. 259); and near Therfield in the same county there is a British camp ‘on right of road from Baldock’ (ib., p. 261; J. E. Cussans, Hist. of Herts [Hundred of Osney], i, 116). It is perhaps just possible that if these camps were excavated, some light might be thrown upon the question. 3529 xiv, 33, § 1.—Suetonius ... Londinium perrexit, cognomento quidem coloniae non insigne, sed copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre. 3530 E.g. by W. H. Black in Archaeologia, xl, 1866, pp. 50-2. 3531 Ib., pp. 59-66. 3532 Tacitus, Ann., xiv, 33. ‘The chief commercial town,’ says Professor Haverfield (Vict. Hist. of ... Northampton, i, 164), ‘was from the earliest times, Londinium.’ 3533 Hist. Rom., lx, 21, §§ 3-4. Lewin would have found more conclusive proof of the pre-eminence of Camulodunum in Sir John Evans’s Coins of the Ancient Britons. 3534 See W. J. Loftie’s Hist. of London, i, 1883, map facing p. 1; and Historic Towns,—London, 1887, map facing p. 16. See also Archaeol. Journal, lx, 1903, pp. 137-204, and particularly 155-6. 3535 Historic Towns,—London, p. 2. 3536 Vol. i, p. 16. 3537 Words and Places, p. 185. 3538 Archaeol. Journal, lx, 1903, p. 174. 3539 Origines Celticae, ii, 405-6. 3540 London is commonly derived from two Celtic words—llyn, din—meaning ‘the lake fort’ (see Geogr. Journal, xiii, 1899, p. 299). One objection to this etymology is that Mr. F. C. J. Spurrell (Archaeol. Journal, xlii, 1885, pp. 300-2) has proved that the lake, which was described so picturesquely by J. R. Green (The Making of England, i, 1897, p. 113) did not exist. Moreover, Dr. Henry Bradley (Morning Post, Jan. 8, 1907, p. 4, col. 3) tells us that ‘the only explanation which is philologically possible is that it [Londinium] denoted a plot of ground belonging to a person named Londinos, which means “fierce”’. 3541 I say ‘a purely Celtic name’ in contradistinction to such hybrid names as Augusto-dunum (Autun), &c. 3542 See pp. 664-5, supra. 3543 The Making of England, i, 1897, p. 117, n. 1. 3544 Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. Churchill Babington, vol. ii, 1869, pp. 44-6.—Secunda via principalis dicitur Watlingstrete.... Incipit enim a Dovoria, transiens per medium Cantiae ultra Thamisiam juxta Londoniam ad occidentem Westmonasterii, &c. 3545 Archaeol. Journal, xxxiv, 1877, p. 166. 3546 Sir J. Evans, Anc. Stone Implements, 1897, p. 586; Worthington G. Smith, Man, the Primeval Savage, pp. 190, 214. 3547 J. Evans, Anc. Bronze Implements, pp. 95, 158, 174-5, 245, 248-9, 272, 278-81, 303, 312, 321, 327-8, 330, 339, 351, 356, 400-1, 411, 424, 450, 467; Coins of the Anc. Britons, pp. 70, 83, 122, 125, 232; ib., Suppl., p. 559; Guide to the Ant. of the Early Iron Age (Brit. Museum), p. 98. Mr. F. W. Reader (Archaeol. Journal, lx, 1903, p. 213) argues that ‘it is difficult to conceive that if any considerable British town preceded [the Roman] Londinium, all traces of it in the shape of pottery fragments, &c., should ... have been so entirely obliterated’, &c. But the same argument would apply to Calleva, Camulodunum, and other towns which were certainly British. 3548 See p. 359, supra. 3549 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii, 8, § 7,—Lundinum, vetus oppidum quod Augustam posteritas appellavit; ib., xxviii, 3, § 7,—Augusta, quam veteres appellavere Lundinum. 3550 See pp. 600-3, supra. 3551 B. G., iv, 29-36. 3552 Le Verrier apud Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 522. See the next footnote. 3553 T. Bergk (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618, n. 2) remarks that Caesar himself regarded the 24th, not the 26th, of September as the date of the equinox. His authority is, I suppose, Vegetius, iv, 39, who says that the autumnal equinox occurred VIII Kal. Oct.: but, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist., xviii, 25 [59], §§ 220-1), it fell on the 28th of September, and according to Varro (Rerum rust., i, 28, §§ 1-2), on the 27th. Columella (De re rust., ix, 14) places it about the 24th of September (circa VIII calend. Octobris); and the 24th was, according to Mommsen (Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, p. 301), the date adopted in the Julian calendar. But that date was fixed by the calculations of Sosigenes: what right, then, has Bergk to assume that Caesar regarded it as the date of the equinox in 54 B.C., nine years before his reform of the calendar took effect? 3554 Napoleon’s reasoning is based upon assumptions, one of which is certainly incorrect, while all are doubtful. We know that Caesar started on his return voyage soon after midnight (B. G., iv, 36, § 3). ‘If,’ says Napoleon (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 180, note), ‘we assume that he had a favourable wind, as he had on his return from the second expedition, and that his voyage lasted nine hours, Caesar would have reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could only enter the harbour on a rising tide, all that we need do in order to ascertain approximately the date of his return, is to find out on what day of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Boulogne. Now in that harbour there is always a high tide about nine o’clock in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon. Therefore, as the full moon of September, 699, took place on the 14th of the month, Caesar must have returned to Gaul about the 11th or 12th of September.’ There is no fault to be found with the conclusion (except that it is uncertain), but much with the argument. To begin with, as there had been a full moon on the 31st of August, it is obvious that not the full moon but the new moon of September took place on the 14th of the month. This error, indeed, is immaterial; but Napoleon has no right to assume that Caesar reached Boulogne about nine o’clock in the morning, for the circumstances of his return voyage in the second expedition were totally different from those of the preceding year. In 54 B.C. there was a dead calm (summa tranquillitate, B. G., v, 23, § 6), and the ships were rowed: in 55 they sailed. Moreover, it is untrue that the fleet could only enter the harbour of Boulogne at high tide (see p. 586, supra). 3555 Vol. i (3rd ed.), p. 343. See also J. P. Postgate, M. Annaei Lucani de bello civili liber VII, 1900, p. xiv, n. 3; A. G. Peskett, C. I. Caesaris comm. de bello civili liber tertius, 1900, p. 68; and H. Meusel, C. I. Caesaris comm. de b.c., pp. xiv, 367 ff. 3556 Sat., i, 13, §§ 12-3.—sed octavo quoque anno intercalares octo affluebant dies ex singulis, quibus vertentis anni numerum apud Romanos super Graecum abundasse iam diximus. Hoc quoque errore iam cognito haec species emendationis inducta est. Tertio quoque octennio ita intercalandos dispensabant dies, ut non nonaginta sed sexaginta sex intercalarent, compensatis viginti et quattuor diebus pro illis qui per totidem annos supra Graecorum numerum creverant. 3557 See Th. Mommsen, Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, pp. 45-6, and Rev. hist., xlii, 1890, p. 401. 3558 Censorinus, De die natali, xx, 4, § 6.—Quod delictum ut corrigeretur, pontificibus datum negotium eorumque arbitrio intercalandi ratio permissa. 3559 Ib., § 7.—Sed horum [pontificum] plerique ob odium vel gratiam, quo quis magistratu citius abiret diutiusve fungeretur aut publici redemtor ex anni magnitudine in lucro damnove esset, plus minusve ex libidine intercalando rem sibi ad corrigendum mandatam ultro quod depravarunt &c. See also Plutarch, Caesar, 59; Ammianus Marcellinus. xxvi, 1, § 12; and Macrobius, Sat., i, 14, § 1. 3560 Asconius, in Milonianam, p. 35 (M. Tullii Ciceronis opera, ed. J. C. Orelli and J. G. Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833). 3561 It may be well to give the proof. Cicero (Att., v, 13, § 1) tells us that the period from the 18th of January, 702, the day on which Clodius was murdered, to the 22nd of July, 703, reckoning inclusively, comprised 560 days; and the reader may satisfy himself that this statement is untrue if there was an intercalary month in 703, and true if there was not. From these data and from the further statement made by Cicero in his speech Pro Milone, 98, that the day on which he delivered the speech, namely the 8th of April, 702, was the 101st day since the murder of Clodius, it follows that the intercalary month in 702 amounted to 23 days. It is stated by Curio in a letter to Cicero (Fam., viii, 6, § 5) and by Dion Cassius (xl, 62, §§ 1-2) that there was no intercalary month in 704. It can be proved from the chronological statements which have come down to us regarding the movements of Caesar and Pompey in 705 that there was no intercalary month in that year. Plutarch (Caesar, 35, § 1) tells us that Caesar made himself master of Italy in 60 days. Shortly before the 17th of January, 705, the day on which Pompey fled from Rome, Caesar crossed the Rubicon (Att., ix, 10, § 4; Caesar, B. C., i, 14, § 3); and it has been proved (Stoffel, Guerre civile, i, 202-3; O. E. Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero, 1893, p. 104, n. 2) that the exact date was either January 10 or January 11. On the 18th of March he took Brundisium (Att., ix, 15, § 6),—65 days, reckoning inclusively, after his passage of the Rubicon, if there was no intercalary month, but 87 or 88 if there was one. Again, he took Corfinium on the 21st of February, quitted it the same day (ib., viii, 14, § 1), and marched direct to Brundisium, where he arrived on the 9th of March (ib., ix, 13, § 13A). The distance between the two places, measured along the route which Colonel Stoffel believes Caesar to have followed, is 465 kilometres, or about 289 miles. O. E. Schmidt (Der Briefwechsel des M. T. Cicero, pp. 385-9) decides for another route; but the difference of opinion between him and Colonel Stoffel does not affect my argument. If there was an intercalary month in 705, Caesar occupied 39 or 40 days on the march, which, considering the notorious rapidity of his movements, is incredible: if there was not, he occupied 17 days (see Stoffel, Guerre civile, i, 196-7). That there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707 is evident from a statement in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus (x, 17, § 3), written on the 16th of May, 705,—‘At present the equinox is delaying us, which has been very stormy’ (Nunc quidem aequinoctium nos moratur, quod valde perturbatum erat). The equinox actually occurred on the 24th of March. If there was no intercalary month either in 706 or in 707, the 16th of May, 705, fell on the 24th or the 25th of March, 49 B.C. of the Julian calendar. If there was an intercalary month in either of those years, it fell on the 2nd or the 3rd of March. [Le Verrier, who also holds that there was no intercalation in 706 or 707, says that May 16, 705, fell on April 16, 49 B.C.; but Le Verrier assumed, wrongly, as we shall see, that ‘the year of confusion’ contained only 422, not 445 days.] 3562 De die natali, xx, 4, §§ 8-10.—[adeo aberratum est] ut C. Caesar ... duos menses intercalarios dierum LXVII in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, cum iam mense Februario dies III et XX intercalasset, faceretque eum annum dierum CCCCXLV, &c. 3563 Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 521-3; or Stoffel, Hist. de Jules CÉsar,—Guerre civile, ii, 387-9. 3564 B. G., v, 23, § 5. 3565 Cicero, Att., iv, 18, § 5. 3566 On the theory of Ideler the sixth day before the Kalends of October, 700, corresponded with the 29th of August, 54 B.C. See his Handbuch der ... Chron., ii, 1826, pp. 115-7, &c. 3567 Divus Iulius, 40. 3568 De die natali, xx, 4, § 8. According to Macrobius (Sat., i, 14, § 3), the year 708 contained 443 days; according to Solinus (i, 45) 344. These figures are obviously incorrect. 3569 xliii, 26, §§ 1-2.—??? ???a? t?? ?t?? ?? p??t? ???????sa? sf?s? ... ?atest?sat? ?? t?? ??? t??p?? ?pt? ?a? ??????ta ???a? ?a???, ?sa?pe? ?? t?? ?pa?t?????a? pa??fe???. ?d? ?? ??? t??e? ?a? p?e???? ?fasa? ??????a?, t? d’ ?????? ??t?? ??e?. 3570 Colonel Stoffel (Guerre civile, ii, 299-304), while agreeing with Le Verrier’s conclusion, argues that the statement of Suetonius is in perfect accord with that of Dion; for, he remarks, Suetonius tells us that three months were intercalated in 708, namely, the ordinary month which should have been intercalated in that year, and two others between November and December; and, says Colonel Stoffel, three intercalary, months of 22, 23, and 22 days respectively would have amounted to 67 days. 3571 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 588. 3572 CÄsars gall. Krieg und Theile seines BÜrgerkriegs, ii, 1880, p. 199. See also A. W. Zumpt (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, vii. Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 556), who, in my opinion, proves his point. Mommsen (Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, p. 277) maintains that the mere fact that the two extraordinary intercalary months were called prior and posterior respectively, not secundus and tertius, proves that the intercalary month inserted before March, 708, was not regarded as belonging to the calendar year 708 at all, but only to the consular year; in other words, that the calendar year began on the 1st of January in 709 for the first time. This view is severely, and I think justly, criticized by Bergk (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 631-5). 3573 Att., x, 17, § 3. 3574 Le Verrier should of course have written ‘23 jours’. 3575 Col. Stoffel, Guerre civile, ii, 389. 3576 Le Verrier overlooks or ignores the fact that in his very next letter (x, 18, § 1), also written at Cumae, Cicero described the weather as ‘an absolutely dead calm’ (mirificae tranquillitates). 3577 Mr. Shuckburgh (The Letters of Cicero, i, 1899, p. 327) says by mistake, ‘the 26th of September,’ forgetting that in the unreformed Roman calendar there were not 30, but only 29 days in September. 3578 Att., iv, 18, § 5. The MS. reading is (a litoribus Britanniae) proximo, which is nonsense. Dr. Vogel, however, attempts to translate the untranslatable. ‘What other meaning,’ he asks (Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 283), ‘can the somewhat extraordinary expression datas a litoribus Britanniae proximo have than that the letter was written in the neighbourhood of the coast of Britain, and therefore not quite at the sea?’ The words will not bear this or any other meaning; and it is obvious that Caesar would have gained nothing by writing when he was ‘not quite at the sea’; unless, indeed, in order to save a few hours’ delay in the transmission of an unimportant private letter, he had sent on a messenger to the coast with orders to embark on a special galley! For proximo Boot substituted proximis, a conjecture which is generally accepted. Whatever Cicero may have written, it is certain that the letters which he received from his brother and from Caesar were written in Britain; but T. Bergk, to whom the conclusions which commend themselves to plain men are generally distasteful, insists (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 616) that litoribus Britanniae proximo means ‘the coasts nearest to Britain, that is to say, Boulogne’; and he defends this interpretation by the argument that Caesar had a rooted dislike of mentioning unknown names. But, as Bergk himself maintains, Boulogne was the Portus Itius; and, as Caesar twice mentioned the Portus Itius in his Commentaries (B. G., v, 2, § 3; 5, § 1), it is difficult to see why he should have shrunk from doing so in a letter. Bergk’s theory leads him to the absurd conclusion that Caesar quitted Britain for Gaul on the day before he wrote this letter, that is to say, on the 29th (or 30th) of August of the Julian calendar. Absurd, because, as I show in the text (p. 713), Cicero would in that case have written, not (exercitum e Britannia) reportabant, but reportaverant; and because Caesar, who had not quitted Britain in the preceding year until, at the earliest, September 11, would not have felt obliged to sail four weeks before the equinox ‘because the equinox was at hand’, and would certainly have thought it perfectly safe to wait several days longer for the return of the ships which carried the first detachment of his army back to Gaul, and which he could ill spare. 3579 B. G., v, 23, § 5. 3580 Cicero, Att., iv, 18, § 5; B. G., v, 23. 3581 Cicero, Q. fr., iii, 3, § 1. 3582 Cf. Unger (Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 586), and Zumpt (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, vii Supplementband, 1873-5, p. 564). Bergk (ib., 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 618), remarking that Napoleon admits that Caesar quitted Britain in 55 B.C. as early as the 12th of September, says that the rise of Arcturus, which, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist., xviii, 31 [74], § 310), took place on that day, marked the commencement of the stormy season, and that it is therefore inconceivable that Caesar would have postponed his departure until the middle of the month. I do not attach the least importance to this argument. Caesar went by the equinox, not by the rise of Arcturus, and he waited as long as he thought safe. Moreover, Bergk apparently forgets that the date fixed by Pliny for the rise of Arcturus was borrowed from the Julian calendar, the astronomical calculations for which were not made until 46 B.C. [It should be noted that, according to Columella (De re rust., xi, 2), whom Bergk also quotes, the rise of Arcturus took place on the 17th of September, but the 13th presaged the approach of stormy weather (tempestatem significat).] 3583 Vol. ii (3rd ed.), pp. 251-2. See also Varro, Rerum rust., ii, 1, and W. Soltau, RÖm. Chron., 1889, p. 38, n. 1. 3584 Hist. Rom., xl, 47, § 1. 3585 Ib., xlviii, 33, § 4. 3586 Nat. Hist., xviii, 25 (57), § 211.—ea ipsa ratio postea comperto errore correcta est, ita ut duodecim annis continuis non intercalaretur. 3587 Collect. rerum memorabilium, i, 45-6.—vitium admissum est per sacerdotes. Nam cum praeceptum esset, anno quarto ut intercalarent unum diem, et oporteret confecto quarto anno id observari, antequam quintus auspicaretur, illi incipiente quarto intercalarunt, non desinente. Sic per annos sex et triginta cum novem dies tantummodo sufficere debuissent, duodecim sunt intercalati. 3588 Divus Augustus, 31.—Annum a Divo Iulio ordinatum, sed postea neglegentia conturbatum atque confusum, rursus ad pristinam rationem redegit. 3589 Ib., 40.—annumque ad cursum solis accommodavit, ut trecentorum sexaginta quinque dierum esset, et intercalario mense sublato unus dies quarto quoquo anno intercalaretur. 3590 De die natali, xx, 4, § 10.—Praeterea pro quadrante diei, qui annum verum suppleturus videbatur, instituit, ut peracto quadrienni circuitu dies unus, ubi mensis quondam solebat, post Terminalia intercalaretur. 3591 Sat., i, 14, §§ 6, 13.—[Caesar] statuit ut quarto quoque anno sacerdotes ... unum intercalarent diem ... sic annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit et [error] huc usque stare potuisset, ni sacerdotes sibi errorem novum ex ipsa emendatione fecissent. Nam cum oporteret diem qui ex quadrantibus confit quarto quoque anno confecto antequam quintus inciperet intercalare, illi quarto non peracto sed incipiente intercalabant. Hic error sex et triginta annos permansit ... sed hunc quoque errorem ... correxit Augustus, qui annos duodecim sine intercalari die transigi iussit, ut illi tres dies ... sequentibus annis duodecim nullo die intercalato devorarentur. 3592 See W. Soltau, RÖm. Chron., p. 171, and L. Holzapfel in Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 67. 3593 See p. 713, supra. 3594 xl, 47, § 1.—?a? ? ????? ? d?? t?? ????a ?e? ?e??? ?????? ?? a?t? t? t?? ?a???a???? ??????? ????. 3595 xlviii, 33, § 4.—???a ?????? pa?? t? ?a?est???ta ??e????, ??a ? ? ??????a t?? ??????? ?t??? t?? ?????? t?? d?? t?? ????a ?e??? ??????? ??? &c. 3596 Mommsen, falling into an inexplicable confusion of thought, insists (Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, pp. 283-6) that the extraordinary intercalation mentioned by Dion took place not in 713 but in 714. Dion’s words, he says (ib., p. 283, n. 5), belong to a passage which immediately follows his description of the events of 714; which deals with the events of 713 and 714; which begins with the words ?? te t? p?? t??t?? ?te? (713); and which ends with the words ta?ta ?? ?? t??? d?? ?tes?? (713-4) ????et?. He says that Dion’s words, taken by themselves, allow us to refer the extraordinary intercalation either to 713 or to 714; but he maintains that it must be referred to 714, because otherwise the sequence of the nundinal letters would be inexplicable. But the truth is, as the simple arithmetical calculation which I have given on pp. 713-4 shows, that the sequence is perfectly explicable if the extraordinary intercalation took place in 713, hopelessly inexplicable if it took place in 714. Except Unger, all recent chronologists (see, for instance, Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 51 and n. 1) have recognized Mommsen’s blunder. Dion says that the extraordinary intercalation took place ?? t? p?? t??t?? ?te?: Mommsen himself affirms that t? p?? t??t?? ?t?? was the year 713; yet he will have it that the extraordinary intercalation took place in 714! 3597 The year 702, as we have already seen, contained 378 days; each of the five years 703, 704, 705, 706, and 707 contained 355 days; the year 708 contained 445 days; one of the four years 709, 710, 711, and 712 contained ex hypothesi 366 days, and the other three 365; and if there had been no intercalation in 713, that year would have contained 365 days. Then the number of days from the Kalends of January, 702, to the last day of December, 713, would have been 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 366 + 365 × 4 = 4,424 days, which is a multiple of 8. 3598 RÖm. Chron., pp. 171-3. 3599 Holzapfel, A. Mommsen, and Unger. 3600 See Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 88. 3601 See p. 715, supra. 3602 ?a? d???? ?t? [???a ??????] ????f????? a????, ?p?? ? ?????? ?at? t? t? ?a?sa?? t? p??t??? d??a?ta s?? (Hist. Rom., xlviii, 33, § 4). 3603 RÖm. Chron., i, 1883, pp. 11-8. 3604 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 56, note. 3605 See p. 716, supra. 3606 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 85. 3607 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 72. 3608 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 50. 3609 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 48. 3610 Assuming that the pontiffs misunderstood Caesar’s regulation, and did not simply set it aside, is it possible to explain their mistake? It is often taken for granted that the Romans only used the inclusive method of reckoning. This, however, is an error: Holzapfel shows that our method was generally adopted by Cicero, except of course in the case of dates. Generally, however, in ordinary speech, when the number in question was less than ten, the tendency was to employ the inclusive method; and, as the same tendency prevailed in official phraseology, Holzapfel argues (Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 74) that it would not have been unnatural for the pontiffs to interpret Caesar’s regulations in this sense. See also Th. Mommsen, Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, pp. 162-3, 317; L. Holzapfel, RÖm. Chron., pp. 353-4; and p. 602, n. 5, supra. But, apart from the question of Roman methods of reckoning, is it likely that the pontiffs should have been ignorant of the astronomical reason which led Caesar to enact that one year in every four must contain an intercalary day? Holzapfel thinks that it is. ‘We shall hardly do the pontiffs an injustice,’ he says (Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 74), ‘if we assume that they knew about as much of the actual duration of the [solar] year as Censorinus, who treats the matter as not yet thoroughly ascertained.’ The passage in Censorinus (De die natali, xix, 2), to which Holzapfel refers, runs as follows:—Hoc tempus quot dierum esset, ad certum nondum astrologi reperire potuerunt. He then quotes various astronomers, all of whom agreed of course that the number of days was 365, but differed in regard to the fraction of a day by which the duration of the year exceeded 365 days. Perhaps the pontiffs did not know that Sosigenes, upon whose calculations Caesar relied, estimated that fraction at one quarter (see p. 725, infra). If they set aside Caesar’s regulation not from ignorance but deliberately, their motive must have been to avoid the coincidence of the Kalends of January in every third year with a nundinal day. 3611 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 72 and n. 1. 3612 Sat., i, 13, § 17.—quotiens incipiente anno dies coepit qui addictus est nundinis, omnis ille annus infaustis casibus luctuosus fuit, maximeque Lepidiano tumultu opinio ista firmata est. 3613 To spare the reader the trouble of doing a sum, I give the proof. The 1st of January, 702, fell, as we have already seen (p. 713), on a market-day; therefore, if the 1st of January, 711, did the same, the number of days that elapsed from the 1st of January, 702, to the last day of December, 710, inclusive, must have been divisible by 8. The year 702 contained 378 days; each of the years 703-7 contained 355 days; 708 contained 445; and ex hypothesi 709 and 710 each contained 365. Now 378 + 355 × 5 + 445 + 365 × 2 = 3,328, which is exactly divisible by 8. 3614 Cf. Th. Mommsen, Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, pp. 25, 286. Unger remarks (Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760) that the outburst of 676 [or rather 677] was too insignificant to have been selected by Macrobius as an illustration. Moreover, says Holzapfel, the particular tumultus owing to which the superstitious dread of the coincidence of nundinae with the Kalends of January was intensified must have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence. In the earlier part of 702, when the Kalends of January fell on a market-day, there were no consuls, which might well awaken apprehensions. In 705, when the same coincidence occurred, the Civil War broke out. The Lepidianus tumultus of 711 was accompanied by proscriptions; therefore the superstition would have been confirmed, as Macrobius says, by that tumultus. Undoubtedly,—if, as Holzapfel maintains, it is true that in 711 the Kalends of January fell upon a market-day. But this is the very point at issue; and Holzapfel seems to ignore the possibility that the Lepidianus tumultus of 677 may also ‘have been preceded by other calamities associated with the same coincidence’. Moreover, Matzat objects that of the events of 711 the outbreak of Lepidus was the least important, and that if Macrobius had intended to refer to that year, he would have said tumultus Antonianus. Holzapfel replies that when Lepidus joined Antony, the war which the latter had begun assumed a new phase, and Lepidus became commander-in-chief of the united armies (Velleius Paterculus, ii, 63, § 1; Appian, B. C., iii, 84), a fact which justifies the phrase, Lepidianus tumultus. Further, to show how flagitious the conduct of Lepidus appeared to contemporaries, he refers to Cicero, Fam., xii, 8, § 1 (Scelus adfinis tui Lepidi ... cognosse te arbitror), 9, § 2 (Nos, confectum bellum quom putaremus, repente a Lepido tuo in summam sollicitudinem sumus adducti), and 10, § 3 (Praeclare viceramus, nisi spoliatum, inermem, fugientem Lepidus recepisset Antonium. Itaque numquam tanto odio civitati Antonius fuit quanto est Lepidus; ille enim ex turbulenta re p., hic ex pace et victoria bellum excitavit). 3615 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cxxix, 1884, p. 760. 3616 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, pp. 60-1. 3617 Pharsalia, viii, 808. 3618 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 69. 3619 Matzat’s theory, Holzapfel insists (Philologus, xlix, 1890, pp. 71-2), forces him to contradict himself. First, he argues (RÖm. Chron., i, 1883, p. 17) that Caesar fixed the time of his first intercalation simply with the object of preventing the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; in other words, he holds that the intercalary day contemplated by Caesar was a movable one. But if so, we must disregard the testimony of Dion, who says that the intercalation of 713 was ‘contrary to the regulations’ (pa?? t? ?a?est???ta). Accordingly in Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 51, Matzat silently abandons his earlier view, and assumes that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c. But if this cycle had been observed, the 1st of January, 714, 717, 720, and so on, would have fallen on a market-day; and therefore Matzat’s revised theory is obviously irreconcilable with his original view, that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day. Matzat has not, so far as I can discover, made any rejoinder to Holzapfel’s article; but it is not impossible to answer this argument. Supposing that Caesar intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day, why should we disregard the testimony of Dion? Caesar’s regulation was that the intercalation should take place every four years. If, no matter for what reason, the first intercalation took place in 710, the second would fall due in 714. By transferring it to 713, Caesar’s regulation would be contravened. Nor is the theory that Caesar intended to intercalate in 714, 718, 722, &c., necessarily inconsistent with the view that he intercalated in 710 in order to prevent the Kalends of January, 711, from falling on a market-day; for, as I have remarked in the text, he may perhaps have failed to look ahead. 3620 RÖm. Chron., pp. 328-9; Philologus, xlix, 1890, pp. 77-8. 3621 The writers of the article CALENDARIUM in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (i, 344), who assume that Caesar’s calendar came into operation on the 1st of January, 45 B.C., argue that his motive for making the year begin on that day ‘was probably the desire to gratify the superstition of the Romans by causing the first year (sic) of the reformed calendar to fall on the day of the new moon ... the mean new moon occurred at Rome on the 1st of January, 45 B.C., at 6h 16' p.m. In this way alone can be explained the phrase used by Macrobius (Sat., i, 14, 13): annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutum edicto palam posito publicavit.’ Holzapfel, on the other hand, shows (Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 87) that ‘Macrobius’s words, if one considers the context, only imply that Caesar made no alteration in the place of Kalends, Nones, and Ides, which originally had reference to the lunar phases’. See also Th. Mommsen (Die rÖm. Chron. bis auf Caesar, 1859, p. 277, n. 2) and Matzat (Hermes, xxiii, 1888, pp. 61-3). Matzat’s arguments were directed against A. Mommsen, who assumed (Philologus, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38) that the new moon had occurred on the 2nd of January 45 B.C., and accordingly argued that Caesar’s calendar began on that day. Mr. J. K. Fotheringham (Journal of Philology, No. 57, 1903, pp. 98-9) affirms that ‘there was a new moon on the 2nd of January, 45 B.C., which Caesar may have calculated for the 1st, and there was another new moon on the 1st of March’. I have myself calculated the date of the new moon in question, first by reckoning back the number of lunations from the new moon of January 6, 1856, which occurred at 11.17 p.m., taking the length of a lunation to be 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2·84 seconds, and allowing 2 hours for the secular acceleration of the moon’s mean motion; and, secondly, by the method explained in Augustus De Morgan’s Book of Almanacs, 1851, pp. xiv-xv. Both methods have led me to the same result, namely, that there was a new moon on January 2, 45 B.C. 3622 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, pp. 57-8. 3623 Sat., i, 13, § 19.—dies ille quo abundare annum diximus eorum est permissus arbitrio qui fastis praeerant, uti, cum vellent, intercalaretur, dum modo eam in medio Terminaliorum vel mensis intercalaris ita locarent ut a suspecto die celebritatem averteret nundinarum. Atque hoc est quod quidam veterum retulerunt non solum mensem apud Romanos verum etiam diem intercalarem fuisse. 3624 Ueber die vierjÄhrigen Sonnenkreise der Alten, 1863, p. 1. 3625 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 56. 3626 RÖm. Chron., p. 328; Philologus, xlix, 1890, pp. 66-7, 72, 77. 3627 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 57. 3628 Hist. Rom., xlviii, 33, § 4. 3629 Philologus, xlix, 1890, p. 76. 3630 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, p. 57. 3631 See p. 714, supra. 3632 See pp. 719-21, supra. 3633 Sat., i, 14, § 15.—post hoc unum diem secundum ordinationem Caesaris quinto quoque anno incipiente intercalari iussit, &c. 3634 Hermes, xxiii, 1888, pp. 52-3. 3635 See p. 719, supra. 3636 A. Mommsen, a brother of the great historian, has devised a singular theory of the working of the Julian calendar (Philologus, xlv, 1886, pp. 411-38), which Holzapfel (ib., xlix, 1890, pp. 85-7) as well as Matzat (Hermes, xxiii, 1888, pp. 61 ff.) has conclusively refuted. 3637 See p. 327, supra. 3638 Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, 1899, pp. 490-1. 3639 B. G., v, 1-8. 3640 Q. fr., ii, 13, § 1. 3641 Napoleon (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 195, n. 4) arbitrarily identifies Blandeno with Lodi. 3642 Q. fr., ii, 13, § 1. 3643 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 199. 3644 JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615, 620. 3645 See O. E. Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero, pp. 201-5, 378-9. The distance from Placentia to Rome via Luca was 378 miles, via Ariminum 403. See Itin. Ant., ed. Wesseling, pp. 124-7, 284, 287-8. 3646 JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 615-20; Napoleon III, Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 199. 3647 See O. E. Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero, pp. 378-80. Caesar did occasionally, as Schmidt admits, travel at the rate of 100 Roman miles a day (Plutarch, Caesar, 17; Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 57. Cf. Caesar, B. C., i, 3, § 6). In 1852, Lord Dalhousie rode and drove from Benares to Barrackpore, a distance of 400 miles, in 80 hours, including stoppages; and in the same year General Godwin travelled from Meerut to Calcutta—over 950 miles—in 11 days (Sir W. Lee-Warner’s Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie, i, 1904, pp. 403, 422). 3648 See p. 730, infra. 3649 Att., iv, 15, § 10. 3650 Q. fr., ii, 15, § 4. 3651 Att., iv, 15, § 9. 3652 Q. fr., ii, 15, § 3. 3653 Asconius, in Scaurianum, p. 18 (M. Tullii Ciceronis opera, ed. Orelli and Baiter, vol. v, pars ii, 1833).—Summus iudicii dies fuit a. d. IIII Non. Septembr. 3654 ‘Caesar,’ writes Cicero, ‘wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September, which reached me on the 27th’ (Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras, quas ego accepi a. d. IIII K. Octobr. [Q. fr., iii, 1, § 25]). ‘Your fourth letter,’ he tells Quintus, ‘reached me on the 13th of September, dated on the 10th of August from Britain’ (Quarta epistola mihi reddita est Idibus Sept., quam a.d. IIII Idus Sext. ex Britannia dederas [ib., 1, § 13]). And, as we have already seen, letters from Caesar and Quintus, written on the British coast on the 25th of September, reached Cicero on the 24th of October. The extraordinarily long time—33 days—which Quintus’s ‘fourth letter’ took to reach his brother may easily be accounted for: Cicero was not at Rome when he received it, but at Laterium, near Arpinum, about 70 Roman miles E. by S. of Rome (ib., in, 1, § 4). Napoleon insists (Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 196, n, 3) that, in favourable circumstances, letters only required 20 days for transmission from Britain to Rome. This view is based upon a passage in one of Cicero’s letters (Q. fr. iii, 1, § 17) which, in the MSS., runs as follows:—tabellarii a vobis venerunt a. d. XI K. Septembr. vicesimo die (‘letter-carriers arrived from you and Caesar on the 22nd of August after a journey of 20 days’). It is obvious, and is universally admitted, that (unless Cicero made a slip) Septembr. is wrong, and that Cicero meant ‘the eleventh day before the Kalends of October’, that is to say, September 20. It is equally obvious that he did not write vicesimo, or that, if he did, he made a mistake. For, at the end of the letter, he says (as we have already seen), ‘Caesar wrote me a letter from Britain on the 1st of September’; and, as the letter from Quintus reached him on the 20th of September, it must have been dispatched, if it really arrived vicesimo die, on the 1st of September, that is to say, on the same day as the letter from Caesar. But this, as Dr. Vogel remarks (Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, pp. 273-4), is disproved by the fact that Caesar, in this very letter, begged Cicero not to be alarmed at not having received a letter from Quintus by the same messenger, as Quintus was not with him when he reached the coast (Ex Britannia Caesar ad me K. Septembr. dedit litteras ... quibus, ne admirer, quod a te nullas acceperim, scribit se sine te fuisse, cum ad mare accesserit). As it is clear, therefore, that vicesimo is wrong, various attempts have been made to amend the MS. reading. Bergk (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, p. 622) arbitrarily changes vicesimo to tricesimo. The most satisfactory conjecture, in my opinion, is that of C. Bardt (Quaest. Tullianae, 1866, p. 32). He believes that what Cicero wrote was a. d. XI Kal., septimo vicesimo die; that a copyist abbreviated this into a. d. XI Kal., sept. vicesimo die; and that this was corrupted into a. d. XI Kal. Sept., vicesimo die. If Professor Tyrrell, who reads a. d. XI Kal. [Sept.] vicensimo die (Correspondence, ii, 1886, p. 150), reads this note, I am confident that he will allow his text to be emended in the next edition of his and Dr. Purser’s great work. 3655 There can, I think, be little doubt that Quintus wrote and dispatched this letter on the very day of his arrival, or, at the latest, before the storm which totally wrecked 40 of Caesar’s ships on the next night but one after his arrival. If the storm had occurred when he wrote, he would surely have mentioned it; and there is not a word in Marcus Cicero’s reply which would lead us to suppose that he had done so. Moreover, Quintus knew that Marcus was waiting impatiently for news; and Caesar would naturally have desired to communicate at once with Labienus whom he had left in command in Gaul. 3656 B. G., v, 8, § 2.—longius delatus aestu orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit. Tum rursus aestus commutationem secutus, &c. 3657 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 198. 3658 Decline of the Roman Republic, iv, 205. 3659 See pp. 600-3, supra. 3660 See pp. 706-7, supra. 3661 Norman Conquest, iii, 399. 3662 Dr. F. Vogel, who rightly concludes that Caesar could not have sailed on the 20th of July, has recourse to an unsatisfactory argument to prove his case. We know, he says (Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 275), what misfortunes Caesar had met with in the preceding year owing to the high tide which was raised by the full moon: how then can we believe that he would have chosen the day of full moon for his second expedition? But Dr. Vogel himself argues that Caesar sailed about the 8th of July, the day after new moon. Did not the doctor forget that the tidal phenomena at full and new moon are nearly identical, and that the 8th of July was the very day on which a springtide occurred? If Caesar was himself unaware of these facts, his Gallic seamen could have enlightened him. Moreover, he must have known that at least one full moon would occur while he remained in Britain. 3663 B. G., v, 9-10; 11, §§ 1-7. 3664 Q. fr., iii, i, § 25. 3665 See pp. 712-3, 726, supra. 3666 B. G., v. 22, §§ 3-4. 3667 Ib., 23, § 1. 3668 Ib., 23, § 2. 3669 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 280. 3670 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 194, 199. 3671 Ib., pp. 198-9. 3672 Trebonius defeated Cassivellaunus about the 20th of July of the Julian calendar; and we may assume that Caesar did not begin to march towards the territories of Cassivellaunus until the following day. By the 5th of August he had returned to his naval camp. In those 17 days he marched to the Thames; crossed it at or near Brentford; marched on through the territory of Cassivellaunus into that of the Trinovantes (Essex); marched thence to the stronghold of Cassivellaunus, which was not far off; captured it in a single day; and marched back to the coast. Altogether the distance that he marched cannot have been less than about 200 miles. Evidently, therefore, he would not have had time enough to negotiate with Cassivellaunus and to receive the hostages whom he demanded before he returned to the coast. Bergk insists (JahrbÜcher fÜr classische Philologie, 13 Supplementband, 1884, pp. 616-8) that the campaign must have been finished at the beginning of August of the Julian calendar, because Caesar (B. G., v, 22, § 4) tells us that when it was finished the summer was nearly at an end, and, according to Caesar himself, autumn began on the 11th of August. But when Bergk says that, according to Caesar, autumn began on the 11th of August he seems to forget that this date was fixed in the Julian calendar, eight years after the invasion of Britain. He also forgets that the word aestas, in the Commentaries, denotes, not a season which ended on a fixed date, but the period during which campaigning was practicable; and two passages prove that it extended at least as far as the middle of September. In the last chapter of his First Book Caesar remarks that in a single ‘summer’ he had finished two important campaigns (una aestate duobus maximis bellis confectis); and it has been proved that the decisive battle of the second campaign was fought about the 14th of September (Rice Holmes, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, p. 642). In the 20th chapter of the Fourth Book he says that he determined to invade Britain (in 55 B.C.), although only a small part of the ‘summer’ remained, and in this part of the world ‘winter’ set in early (Exigua parte aestatis reliqua Caesar, etsi in his locis ... maturae sunt hiemes, tamen in Britanniam proficisci contendit); and we know that he did not land in Britain until the 26th of August (see pp. 600-3, supra). The second passage, moreover, is one of many which prove that Caesar generally took no account of spring and autumn, but (like Thucydides) divided the year into two seasons,—aestas, the season in which campaigning was practicable, and hiems. He only once uses the word ver (spring), namely, in B. G., vi, 3, § 4; and only three times—once only in the Gallic War (vii, 35, § 1), twice in the Civil War (iii, 2, § 3; 87, § 3)—uses the word autumnus; and in none of these four passages is there any reference to campaigning. The Latin word for ‘winter’, properly so called, is not hiems but bruma. 3673 B. G., v, 17, § 5—18, § 1.—Ex hac fuga protinus quae undique convenerant auxilia discesserunt, neque post id tempus umquam summis nobiscum copiis hostes contenderunt. Caesar cognito consilio eorum ad flumen Tamesim in fines Cassivellauni exercitum duxit. 3674 About the 20th of October Cicero wrote to his brother (Q. fr., iii, 3, § 1), ‘for more than fifty days I have heard nothing from you or from Caesar’ (dierum iam amplius quinquaginta intervallo nihil a te, nihil a Caesare ... adfluxit). The last letter which he had received was the one written by Caesar on the 1st of September. 3675 Hist. de Jules CÉsar, ii, 194. 3676 B. G., v, 22, §§ 1-3. 3677 See p. 726, supra. 3678 Neue JahrbÜcher fÜr Philologie, &c., cliii, 1896, p. 284. 3679 Ib., pp. 284-5. 3680 Q. fr., iii, 8, § 1.—Superiori epistolae quod respondeam, nihil est; quae plena stomachi et querelarum est, quo in genere alteram quoque te scribis pridie Labieno dedisse, qui adhuc non venerat. Delevit enim mihi omnem molestiam recentior epistola. 3681 B. G., v, 8, § 1; 23, § 4. 3682 Q. fr., iii, 8, § 2. 3683 B. G., v, 24, § 2. 3684 Ib., 24, § 1; 46; 47, § 1. 3685 Q. fr., iii, 3, § 4. 3686 See p. 728, n. 6, supra. 3687 Of course I do not mean that he would not have attempted to do so in any conceivable circumstances; but that Volusenus would never have advised him to undertake such an operation when there was the alternative of landing between Walmer and Sandwich. 5.10.06. 3688 See pp. 613-4, supra. Page 389, Extra footnote “See p. 61, supra.” combined with duplicate number (FN 1605). Page 568, Footnote anchor 2773 added at the end of first paragraph. Obvious printer errors corrected silently. Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original. |
|
